Archive for the ‘9/11’ Category

Benghazi: On 9/11/12, the White House knew two hours in

Wednesday, October 24th, 2012

The Captain’s Journal first emailed me about this last night,
White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

Specifically, they knew terrorists were claiming credit,

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

Our diplomats fought for seven hours without any aid from outside the country.

A drone was deployed to monitor the attack from above,

The NY Post reported on Oct 21 that the drone that monitored the final hour of the Benghazi battle was a Predator. So it’s very likely that that drone was armed, as the US used armed Predators during the Libyan revolution and uses them to dispatch terrorists as the opportunity arises. But there is no reporting that the drone fired any of its Hellfire missiles during the battle. It was relaying video back the United States where–

“They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.

The Post also reported:

Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network.

Bing West, former assistant secretary of defense

The Obama national-security team had several hours in which to move forces from Sigonella to Benghazi.

Fighter jets could have been at Benghazi in an hour; the commandos inside three hours. If the attackers were a mob, as intelligence reported, then an F18 in afterburner, roaring like a lion, would unnerve them. This procedure was applied often in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Conversely, if the attackers were terrorists, then the U.S. commandos would eliminate them. But no forces were dispatched from Sigonella.

Why Sigonella?

Sigonella, Sicily, was 480 miles away from Benghazi. Stationed at Sigonella were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft, and attack aircraft — a much more formidable force than 22 men from the embassy.

Instead, “The president then nipped off to bed, as he had to fly to an important campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas the next day.” On September 12, Obama went on a CBS interview,

Fourteen hours after the attack, President Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” for a previously scheduled interview and said he did not believe it was simply due to mob violence.

He also gave some lip service to “get[ting] our folks out safe” – watch:

and left for Vegas.

By September 13, Hillary Clinton was talking about the video,

Five days after the attaack, on September 16, Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice went on ABC News’ “This Week“, NBC News’ “Meet the Press”, CBS News’ “Face the Nation”, and “Fox News Sunday“, to say that it was

a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

On September 20, Obama blamed the video during the Univision forum (full video here). Obama later condemned the video on “The View” on September 24, and at the UN on September 25.

Heritage did a video on the misinformation campaign,

[update] Brian Jacoutut is also posting a timeline on White House statements.

Bryan Preston and drillanwr at Babalu speculate on the US gun-walking arms to Libyan rebels. More on that from Frank Gaffney.

What’s Obama doing? Going on MTV on Friday.

What’s in the headlines today? Bottom-feeders Gloria Allred and Donald Trump.


Bret Baier’s report: Death and Deceit in Benghazi

Sunday, October 21st, 2012

The program in full,

Unilateral negotiations with Iran?

Sunday, October 21st, 2012

The NYTimes claims,

The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.

Not so, says National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor… or did he?,

Vietor, however, denied that any such agreement had been reached.

“It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections,” he said. We continue to work with the P5+1 on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that we that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally.”

And now the Christian Science Monitor is saying that

Iran followed the United States on Sunday in denying that the two countries had scheduled direct bilateral negotiations on Iran’s controversial nuclear program.

Meanwhile, one day away from the presidential debate on foreign policy, this reaction’s not unreasonable,

Interestingly, so is the timing of the Zombie Fidel rumors, since both Iran and Cuba would like to influence the outcome of an American presidential election, but I digress.

While the Iran story came out, I was watching Argo, an excellent movie spoiled by Jimmy Carter’s little monologue trying to get some credit for the rescue of the six Americans. The 444-day long Iranian hostage crisis was not the shiniest moment of the Carter administration.

You can’t watch Argo and not think of the September 11 Benghazi attack, particularly during the scenes where we are subjected to the Iranian propaganda and the storming of the embassy. The parallels abound,

In fact, “Argo” may also inadvertently malign the current administration. Once more, the Middle East is on fire, an inept White House is inadvertently fanning the flames with appeasement-style policies and “Death to America” chants are heard across the region.

And now one-on-one negotiations with Iran? Or not?

UPDATE,
Via Ed Driscoll/Instapundit, “Even if the story turns out to be true, I don’t think it will help him. “We’re going to talk to the Iranians!” isn’t a very sexy headline.”

UPDATE 2, Oh, look, Putin flexes muscle in big test of Russia’s nuclear arsenal

And, NEW YORK TIMES CAUGHT EDITING IRAN STORY AFTER WHITE HOUSE DENIALS

The DC‘s Gregg Re writes:
When the New York Times updated its story late Saturday to reflect [National Security Council spokesman Tommy] Vietor’s statement, the paper made no mention of the update or any correction to the story, leaving readers with the impression that the White House’s denial had been in the story all along. In fact, the initial version of the story portrayed the development as a tentative victory for the Obama administration, which has recently been faced with foreign policy crises in the Middle East and Libya. 

The new version of the Times’ story also removed this line about the threat of Iran’s nuclear ambitions: “Even with possible negotiations in the offing, there is no evidence Iran has slowed its fuel production.”

Normally, a pro forma denial by the White House would not send reporters and editors scurrying to cover up their work. With good sources, and reliable information, journalists could be expected to stand by their story.

Now, with the Times carrying out edits that it apparently hoped ho one would notice, the entire story seems like a desperate attempt to set the stage for the Third Presidential Debate in a way that favors the incumbent.

(h/t Judith)


Listen to Lara Logan

Thursday, October 11th, 2012

In her opinion, Obama’s Terror Victory Is A ‘Major Lie’

On the ground, the facts are inconvenient for the Obama victory narrative. That was the message delivered Monday, with all the subtlety of a live grenade, by CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan. Speaking to Chicago’s Better Government Association, she skewered the administration story as a “major lie.”

Al-Qaida is not on the run, Logan noted. The Taliban are not being tamed. Pakistan is not cooperating with us. Our enemies are no less eager to kill Americans than they were before 9/11. They will not stop their war against us just because we stop fighting them.
As Logan put it, “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”

Listen to the speech, read the article.

[Correction: I changed her name in the post title. It is now corrected to Lara.]

The White House Benghazi narrative unravels

Wednesday, October 10th, 2012

It wasn’t about a movie.

Bumps on the road?

State Dept. officials contradict claims on deadly Libya attack

There Was No Protest, Only a Terrorist Attack, in Libya

Ace has questions:

The Administration is trying to claim that the easy investigation is all wrapped up with and inextricably linked to the more difficult one, so they are claiming they can’t answer the easy questions (easily answered in a day or two) until they answer the hard ones (which will take, fortuitously enough, until after the election to resolve).

Now actually I don’t know if Tapper is being snowed by this or understands it perfectly. He seems like a savvy enough guy.

So I guess what I’m asking for is for Tapper to call Carney out on this deliberate conflation, and ever-so-gently remind him that the FBI is not required to find the memos in which US State Department personnel rejected requests for very necessary security.

State could release these at any time. The search, on their computers, would take no more than 1-2 days.

They are pretending mystifaction about something they already know the answers to.

Sure, they don’t know yet who the terrorists were. But they damn well already know who nixed all the security requests. And they damn well know which higher-ups told the underlings to nix the requests.

We don’t need to find out Which unknown twenty foreign terrorists carried out the attack? to answer the much-easier question Which US personnel denied the requests for security? or Who decided to trot out the “spontaneous protest”/”YouTube video” lie when all intelligence indicated this was a planned terrorist attack having nothing to do with a video or protest?

These are separate questions and separate investigations. The fact that one may take weeks doesn’t change the fact that the other takes hours — hours, plus a willingness of State to tell the truth.

House hearing on Benghazi already getting answers


Heritage has the timeline:
(more…)

Pat Caddell: Media Have Become an “Enemy of the American people”

Saturday, September 29th, 2012

The Audacity of Corruption (h/t Babalu)

I want to talk about this Libyan thing, because we crossed some lines here. It’s not about politics. First of all we’ve had nine day of lies over what happened because they can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this. Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, were under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers. If a President of either party—I don’t care whether it was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified! It would have been—it should have been the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment. But nothing was said at all, and nothing will be said.

It is one thing to bias the news, or have a biased view. It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know, and I choose right now, openly, and this is—if I had more time I’d do all the names for it—but The New York Times, The Washington Post, or the most important papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC, and, to a lesser extent—because CBS has actually been on this story, partly because the President of Libya appeared on [Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation] and said, on Sunday, while [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was out—the U.N. Ambassador has no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of the Secretary—you know why, notice the Secretary of State wasn’t out there doing this—was on national television, lying and promoting the White House line while the Libyan President, the very same moment, is saying “This is a premeditated attack.” Nobody has asked that question. This morning—take a look at The New York Times this morning, it’s a minor reference. Oh, now we’ve decided that it was a terrorist incident. But this is—that would have changed, that should change the politics.

This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the [Mitt] Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!—the worst campaign in my lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general’s inability to fight, has allowed these things to happen in part because they don’t do it. But I want to go through two other quick points.

[Mohamed] Morsi and Egypt: The President of Egypt, we find out now, that his whole agenda has been getting the “Blind Sheikh” [Omar Abdel-Rahman], who’s responsible for the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, out of jail. Prison. I’ve been told specifically, by a member of the intelligence community that the White House and State Department are negotiating that now. They have now come out and denied it, but [Morsi] comes out, that they ordered—he’s the head of the Muslim Brotherhood! The American people know what they think of the Muslim Brotherhood: They are against them eleven to one, all right? And he’s the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, giving $2 billion to United States. He tells them—we had advance warning because they had said they were gonna do this, attack our embassy. The President—after the incident, after 48 hours, Mr. Morsi does nothing and says nothing—picks up the phone, calls him, and demands that they call it off. On Friday—last Friday, a week ago today—there was supposed to be a big demonstration. We thought that would be the big day—no, it disappeared, because Morsi called it off. But no press person has investigated this, just as no press person will go and ask the most obvious questions, when there are really good stories here, good media stories, and good news stories. They are in the tank and this is a frightening thing.

Read every word.

White House officials dispute that the press secretary, Jay Carney, cited the anti-Muhammad video as the cause of the attack in Benghazi. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence now says it, not the White House is responsible for the Obama administration’s initial claims that the deadly assault grew from a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam video.

The unusual statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence appeared to have two goals: updating the public on the latest findings of the investigation into the assault, and shielding the White House from a political backlash over its original accounts.

“It’s A Mystery Why Romney Can’t Seize The Moment On This” (h/t Hot Air).

Related,
Kirsten Powers: The media may be complicit in another terrorist attack on America

Related prior post: Insane: “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman to be sent to Egypt??

Cross-posted in The Green Room.

Linked by Pirate’s Cove. Thank you!


Libya, you asked?

Wednesday, September 26th, 2012

Compare and contrast:
State Dept. spokesman won’t answer questions about Libya Fiasco, yet the US knew Stevens assassination was work of terrorists within 24 hours of attack.

Libyan President Tells a Baffled, Befuddled, and In All Ways Bewildered Ann Curry That The YouTube Clip Had Nothing to Do With The Terrorist Attack

Video below (starts right away):
(more…)

Catch Spring Fever

Tuesday, September 18th, 2012

Andrew McCarthy‘s new book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy is out today,

Every human heart does not yearn for freedom. In the Islam of the Middle East, “freedom” means something very nearly the opposite of what the concept connotes to Westerners – it is the freedom that lies in total submission to Allah and His law. That law, sharia, is diametrically opposed to core components of freedom as understood in the West – beginning with the very idea that man is free to make law for himself, irrespective of what Allah has ordained. It is thus delusional to believe, as the West’s Arab Spring fable insists, that the region teems with Jamal al-Madisons holding aloft the lamp of liberty. Do such revolutionary reformers exist? Of course they do . . . but in numbers barely enough to weave a fictional cover story. When push came to shove – and worse – the reformers were overwhelmed, swept away by a tide of Islamic supremacism, the dynamic, consequential mass movement that beckons endless winter.

In it,

…foremost, I did not try to write a history of the “Arab Spring.” Spring Fever is, instead, an attempt to give the reader an alternative way to understand what is happening in the Middle East, an antidote to the delirious “Arab Spring” narrative. Mine is based on understanding that Islam, a culture and civilization distinct from and hostile to the West, is the most significant fact about the region; that far from being a fringe ideology, Islamic supremacism is the dominant interpretation of Islam of the Middle East; and that the most salient precedent for the current revolt, Turkey, is a model for Islamization not democratization.

You can buy the book at Andrew McCarthy‘s website, or through Amazon.

Post re-edited to include omitted paragraph.
Cross-posted in The Green Room.

Insane: “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman to be sent to Egypt?? UPDATED

Monday, September 17th, 2012

Yes, the mastermind of the first attack (in 1993) on the World Trade Center; that Blind Sheik.


I sincerely hope this is not true:
Mastermind of World Trade Center bombing to be “transferred” to Egypt?

Roger Kimball posts:

I thought a line had been crossed when sheriffs showed up at midnight to bundle away a man who had made an anti-Islamic  movie that embarrassed the President. Then there was the murder of our Ambassador and three other Americans in Libya: the administration’ response: blame Romney, apologize for the “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”

Will there ever be a last straw for the MSM that is acting as Obama’s press corps? Is there anything Obama could do that would make them say “Enough!” and stand up for America? What would it take?  How about this: the announcement that the Obama administration is considering transferring the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing, to Egypt “for humanitarian and health reasons.” Incredulous?  Then you underestimate the Islamophilc nature of the Obama administration.

The Blaze has the breaking story: “The U.S. State Department is currently in negotiations with the Egyptian government for the transfer of custody of Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as “the Blind Sheikh,” for humanitarian and health reasons, a source close to the the Obama administration toldThe Blaze.”

This isn’t a “release, the Department of Justice told The Blaze,Oh, no: merely a transfer the the Muslim Brotherhood controlled country where the Sheikh is regarded as a hero.

Here’s more:

 The Blind Sheikh is currently serving a life sentence in American prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but the newly-elected Islamist government in Egypt has been actively petitioning his release.  Many have pinpointed a cause of last week‘s unrest in in the country to be protests over the Blind Sheikh’s release – not an anti-Islam YouTube video.

Andrew McCarthy was the Blind Sheik’s prosecutor. It took years and millions of dollars to put the Blind Sheik behind bars. Read about it in Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.

If the Obama administration releases the Blind Sheik, they must be counting on the electorate’s ignorance, and, as Roger Kimball’s commenter Jeff P put it,

If this is true, then it means that Obama is so confident of victory in November that nothing, not even brazen appeasement, will change the result.

Related:
Today’s the 225th anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution. Obama’s DOJ Can’t Say Criticizing Religion Will Remain Legal. Watch:

UPDATE:
Dan Riehlhas more,

In neighboring Egypt, birthplace of the ‘Blind Sheikh’ of aforementioned “Brigades of the Imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman” fame, similar recent calls for violence on his behalf were the calling card to the storming of the American embassy in Cairo as well. The ‘dots,’ again courtesy of the Washington Times.

  • “There had been a sit-in in support of the “Blind Sheikh” outside the embassy for 18 months.”
  • “On July 27, the sheikh’s son Abdallah Abdel Rahman threatened to organize a blockade of the embassy and to detain the Americans inside unless his father was released.”
  • “Two days later, then-president-elect Mohammed Morsi vowed publicly to work to free the sheikh, and it will be at the top of his agenda in future meetings with President Obama.” (WSJ)
  • “On Aug. 30, Jamaa Islamiya, the terrorist group formerly led by the Blind Sheikh, announced that the embassy sit-in was being turned into an active protest.” (USA Today via Gateway Pundit)
  • “On Sept. 4, the Egyptian General Intelligence Service warned all Egyptian securityagencies of planned attacks against the embassy by a group called Global Jihad, which has been active in the Sinai.” (Jerusalem Post)
  • “On Sept. 7, an Islamist named Nasser Al-Qaeda posted a statement on the Jihadi chat group Shumoukh Al-Islam that the U.S. embassy in Cairo should be burned down and everyone inside killed or taken hostage in order to bring pressure to bear to release the Blind Sheikh.” (MEMRI)
  • “On the day before the embassy assault, several other jihadist groups with ties to al Qaeda – including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group and Jamaa Islamiya – echoed this threat and called for the release of the Blind Sheikh and all detainees in all U.S. detention facilities including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” (PJ Media)

Linked by Phinneas. Thanks!

Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Lebanon, Bangladesh … UPDATE: Iran, too

Friday, September 14th, 2012

Friday afternoon links,
Revealed: inside story of US envoy’s assassination — Exclusive: America ‘was warned of embassy attack but did nothing’

More unfit than incompetent

‘Obama’s Middle East Policy Is in Ruins’

The 10 Most Important Stories of the Embassy Attacks…

Black flag of Islam flies over U.S. embassy in Tunisia as America is targeted by angry mobs across the globe in day of chaos
Mob scales the walls of U.S. embassy compound, sets fire to cars and replaces American flag
Chaos across the globe amid anger at American-made anti-Islam film
Kentucky Fried Chicken ransacked in Lebanon
Protesters burn American flag in London
American embassy stormed in Sudan
10,000 Muslims stage a noisy protest in Bangladeshi capital Dhaka, burning and trampling American flags while chanting anti-US slogans
Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak appeals for calm on live television, a day after Barack Obama issued a veiled warning to the region’s leaders to protect US embassies
It follows unrest after September 11 attack on US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing ambassador and three other Americans

Jay Carney is in denial,

This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.

Pay No Attention to the Burning Flags, Stormed Consulates, and Dead Americans . . .

Note to Mr. Carney: Radical Islamists really do not care whether “we” have judged some crackpot video “reprehensible and disgusting.” They have more important aims than distinguishing the Obama administration or its policies from the moronic Terry Jones.

UPDATE,
Iran: Down, But Not Out