Careo Boricua
Registrate para comentar.
Register to post.
Buscar
 
 

Resultados por:
 


Rechercher Búsqueda avanzada


Benghazi... El caso contra Obama:

Ver el tema anterior Ver el tema siguiente Ir abajo

Benghazi... El caso contra Obama:

Mensaje por Charlie319 el Miér Sep 11, 2013 1:35 pm

Aaron Klein es un escritor conservador y en este caso expone el caso de manera convincente.

Obama’s Iran-Contra: The real Benghazi scandal
Posted By Aaron Klein On 4:01 PM 08/19/2013 In Opinion | No Comments
One would be hard pressed to find a more significant impeachable offense than aiding and abetting the sworn enemies of the United States, especially when any such support includes sending weapons to our murderous adversaries. A crime on that scale would certainly be made all the more serious if those same enemies turned around and utilized the U.S.-provided arms to kill Americans.

We are not here referring to the so-called “Fast and Furious” scandal in which President Obama’s Justice Department purposely allowed, with deadly consequence, licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers with the intent of tracking the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders. Instead, we document a much less reported gun-walking scandal, one you will soon regard as the “Fast and Furious” of the Middle East, the Iran-Contra of the Obama administration. It could be the White House got away not once but twice with the same misdeed of arming our foes.

In the case presented here, the enemy consists not of drug lords but of al-Qaeda, along with a witches’ brew of anti-American jihadists. The results are not dead U.S. border agents but a murdered U.S. ambassador, along with three other diplomatic staff, in one of the most brazen assaults on an American overseas target in history. To make matters worse, we will show how our president and top administration officials deliberately and repeatedly lied to the American public while taking actions that fomented anti-American sentiment, aided an Islamist revolution currently sweeping the Middle East and North Africa, and possibly helped create, whether wittingly or not, a well-armed al-Qaeda army that is already attacking our interests and fueling conflicts worldwide.

We will also show how the Obama administration engaged in a massive cover-up of the events that transpired during the Benghazi attacks, as well as the shocking reason our ambassador was sent to Benghazi on September 11, despite the many known (and ignored) security threats to the U.S. mission there. You are about to be introduced to the real Benghazi scandal. This chapter alone should result in the immediate impeachment of Obama, as well as topple other administration officials.

The true nature of the ‘consulate’
Information surrounding the September 11 attacks against the U.S. mission in Benghazi has been so distorted by the Obama administration and so misreported by the news media that many Americans still don’t have the most basic of facts straight.

Let’s start with the true nature of the Benghazi facilities. For months after the attacks, the vast majority of all news media coverage worldwide referred 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 officially houses a consul, or an official representative of the government of one state in the territory of another. Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports, and citizen information.

On August 26, about two weeks before he was killed, Ambassador Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the American embassy in Tripoli, meaning the functioning U.S. consulate  was working out of Tripoli. The new U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, was stationed at the embassy in Tripoli. A search of the State Department website could find no consulate listed in Benghazi.

The main role of a consulate is to foster trade with the host govern­ment 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 intergovernmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state.

However, according to a State Department investigative report on the attacks, the U.S. facility in Benghazi did not fit the profile of a diplomatic mission either. The results of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) probe, which we have read carefully, contain information indicating the U.S. mission in Libya was involved in activities outside the diplomatic realm. The thirty-nine-page document uses phraseology and descriptions not previously utilized to describe the facility and the role it may have played in Benghazi. The report, based on an investigation led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a “U.S. Special Mis­sion.” Again, until the report’s release, government descriptions routinely referred to the facility as a “mission,” while the news media largely and wrongly labeled the building a “consulate.”

The report divulges how the mission’s special “non-status” made providing security to the facility difficult. “Special Mission Benghazi’s uncertain future after 2012 and its ‘non-status’ as a temporary, residential facility made allocation of resources for security and personnel more difficult,” it said.

The report contains information that clearly contradicts any claim that the special mission was to serve as a liaison office to the local government. It documents how the local Libyan government was not even informed of the existence of the mission.

To the keen observer, the State Department report raises major unanswered questions about what was going on at the Libyan mission. Specifically, one glaring question is why the host government was not informed of the facility’s existence. Was the facility being used for secretive purposes? What was happening there?

Arms to Jihadis, White House lies
On multiple occasions, Middle Eastern security sources have provided this writer with information indicating that both the U.S. mis­sion and the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi served as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Prior to the establishment of the Libyan mission, the United States also coordinated aid to the rebels who eventually toppled Libya’s Gaddafi. That aid, the sources stated, included weapons shipments coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. The sources described how the weapons were carefully purchased with Arab and Turkish funds to skirt laws about the accountability of U.S. funding for CIA and other intelligence operations.

Days after the Benghazi attacks, I broke the story that Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials. Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate their recruit­ment of Islamic fighters from Libya and other parts of North Africa. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials also said Stevens worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the United States, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials. (Take note of that detail, since it will become relevant again in a few paragraphs.)

Until April 2013, the White House has repeatedly denied it was involved in helping to arm the rebels. Such action at the time was considered highly controversial because of the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaeda members, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups. Besides White House denials, other top U.S. officials and former officials, including Hillary Clinton, have implied in congressional testimony that they didn’t know about any U.S. involvement in procuring weapons for the rebels.

Now, a starkly different picture is emerging, one that threatens the longstanding White House narrative that claims the Obama administration has only supplied nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels. My reporting on U.S. coordinating arms shipments to the rebels has been confirmed by several major news agencies, including the New York Times and Reuters.

Created al-Qaida army?
The possibly illegal transfer of weapons and aid to Middle East rebels is clearly resulting in a newly emboldened al-Qaeda. Even the United Nations is warning that weapons delivered to Libya during the uprising there are being used to fuel conflicts in Mali, Syria, Gaza, and elsewhere.

That Obama administration policy of support for the jihadist Libyan and Syria rebels may have already come back to haunt us in other ways. Besides questions about the arms used in the coordinated assaults against our facilities in Benghazi and the UN report on weapons proliferation, there are also claims of ties between the Benghazi attacks and a brazen assault on an Algerian gas complex where foreigners, including Americans, were employed.

Editor’s Note: The above is an excerpt from Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Officeby Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

avatar
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

http://careoboricua.forumotion.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Benghazi... El caso contra Obama:

Mensaje por Charlie319 el Vie Ene 17, 2014 10:24 am

El mismo periodico que trato de tirarle una toallita tibia a la administracion del Presi en este escandalo, hoy tiene que reportar el reporte oficial del comitee bipartita que investigo la masacre de benghazi. Sin embargo, tiran a Hillary Clinton a los tiburones.:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/opinion/a-preventable-tragedy.html?emc=eta1


The Opinion Pages|Editorial
A ‘Preventable’ Tragedy
By THE EDITORIAL BOARDJAN. 16, 2014


The latest report on the 2012 debacle in Benghazi, Libya, where Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others were killed in an attack on an American diplomatic mission, offers new detail and a chilling bottom line: the tragedy was “preventable.” Released in unclassified form by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the report reflects a bipartisan consensus about the tragedy that is broadly consistent with the findings of previous inquiries. Even so, it contributes to a better understanding of what happened and why and what must be done to mitigate the chances of its happening again.

The committee found that in the months before the attack, the intelligence community produced hundreds of analyses warning that militias and terrorist and affiliated groups had the capability and intent to strike American and Western facilities and personnel in Libya. A week before the attack, the United States Africa Command warned of a growing threat to Americans “particularly in northeast Libya.” The report, parts of which are blacked out, says there is no indication that the C.I.A. and other agencies knew of a time and place of a specific attack. It describes the attack as “opportunistic” and not “a highly coordinated plot.” This dovetails with an investigation by The Times, which found that the attack was triggered in part by spontaneous anger over an anti-Islamic video.

The Senate report sheds some insight into the C.I.A.’s role, about which little has been said. As the situation deteriorated in the months before the attack, the C.I.A. bolstered security at its own facility, about a mile from the diplomatic mission. The State Department did not take similar precautions to protect its compound. Part of the problem was poor communication among security agencies. This is troubling since American officials are supposed to have put a premium on integrated governmentwide intelligence-sharing after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The report says the Africa Command did not even know the C.I.A. had an annex in Benghazi.

The report also addressed a more delicate subject, implicitly criticizing Mr. Stevens. It said that on several occasions he requested more security resources from the State Department, which made few significant improvements. As the warnings mounted in June, he recommended training local Libyan guards as a security team in Tripoli and Benghazi, showing a trust in local support that proved disastrous on the night of the attack. Later, Gen. Carter Ham, leader of the Africa Command, twice asked Mr. Stevens if the diplomatic mission needed more military personnel; the ambassador twice declined.

In the last analysis, however, it is the State Department that must bear most of the blame for failing to provide adequate security and not preventing the preventable. This leaves the department on the same hook that an investigation by former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Adm. Mike Mullen, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it on last year when it faulted the department’s “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies.”

The department says it is correcting weaknesses, creating a new senior position to oversee high-threat diplomatic missions. Congress, often an obstacle, has supported the hiring of 151 new diplomatic security personnel and efforts are underway to find more money for embassy security. This is all very necessary but, as the Senate report makes clear, tragically very late in the game


avatar
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

http://careoboricua.forumotion.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Benghazi... El caso contra Obama:

Mensaje por Charlie319 el Vie Ene 17, 2014 10:25 am

El que quiera leer el reporte lo puede hallar aqui:

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf
avatar
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

http://careoboricua.forumotion.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Benghazi... El caso contra Obama:

Mensaje por Charlie319 el Vie Ene 17, 2014 10:38 am

En lo que solo se puede considerar una execrable muestra de cobardia por parte de las fuerzas de seguridad diplomatica, el Washington Times reporta:


State Department security chose flight over fight in Benghazi, Senate report says



Armed State Department security agents retreated rather than fired on terrorists who were invading the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, according to a report released Wednesday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The Senate report says that as Islamist militants broke through the compound's gate and began setting buildings on fire, diplomatic security agents retrieved their M4 carbine assault rifles. The agents then moved toward Building C to protect U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who had holed up inside.

"They encountered armed attackers and decided to return to Building B to take cover rather than open fire," the 85-page report says. "They eventually regrouped, made their way to a nearby armored vehicle, and then drove over to assist [an] agent on the roof of building C searching for the ambassador."

"The DS agents did not fire a single shot that night during the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility," the report states.

Douglas Frantz, the State Department's assistant secretary for public affairs, said the agents followed protocol.

"We're concerned by the perception the DS agents were not doing their job, when in fact at great risk they tried to save Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith," Mr. Frantz said. "They tried to go back into the building to find them in the smoke. The DS agents were grossly outnumbered at that point and they are trained not to make these situations worse. The thinking was, if they went in there guns ablaze, they would simply draw fire on themselves and reduce any chance they had of finding Sean Smith and Chris Stevens alive inside the building."

Told that the Senate report notes that no DS agent fired a shot during the attack, Mr. Frantz said, "I read the report very carefully. And I saw that. They are trained not to fire a shot unless they feel it can be effective."

Later, a rescue team from a nearby CIA annex that included ex-military personnel arrived and fired on attackers as they collected survivors and searched for Stevens.

Libyans later found that Stevens had succumbed to smoke inhalation in Building C. He was pronounced dead at a hospital.

That the State Department's well-armed personnel never fired a shot that night adds another wrinkle to the Benghazi chronology.

The department's accountability review board, in its report, portrayed the diplomatic security agents as hopelessly outnumbered. It referred to the agents as "ARSO" (assistant regional security officer) and buildings as "Villas."

"At Villa B, ARSO 3 encountered ARSO 4, who was also arming and equipping himself, and the two then attempted to return to Villa C," the accountability review board report said. "They turned back, however, after seeing many armed intruders blocking the alley between Villas B and C. ARSOs 3 and 4, outnumbered and outgunned by the armed intruders in the alley, returned to Villa B and barricaded themselves in a back room."

Five diplomatic security agents — State's personal army assigned to protect ambassadors and other diplomats — were at the Benghazi compound that night. Three worked there; two others arrived with Stevens.

They were backed up by three members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade, three Libyan national police officers and unarmed locals hired by a British security company, Blue Mountain Group.

A few miles away at the CIA annex were six armed, former military personnel hired for security. Some of them left the annex in two armored vehicles for the rescue mission about 25 minutes after the 9:40 p.m. attack.

According to the Senate report, a diplomatic security agent had placed Stevens and State Department aide Sean Smith in a "safe area" inside Building C. Militants used diesel fuel to set the building on fire. The agent attempted to lead the men toward an escape window. The agent crawled out.

"He then realized he had become separated from the Ambassador and Sean Smith in the smoke, so he reentered and searched the building multiple times," the report says. "The DS agent, suffering from severe smoke inhalation, climbed a ladder to the roof where he radioed the other DS agents for assistance and attempted unsuccessfully to ventilate the building by breaking a skylight."

This agent was armed with an M4 carbine but did not fire.

At some point early in the attack, other agents retrieved their M4 assault rifles, which are capable of unleashing a stream of 5.56-caliber automatic fire. But as they approached Building C, they encountered armed militants and "decided to return to Building B to take cover rather than open fire," the Senate report says.

The February Brigade proved almost useless. The annex rescue team asked brigade members to provide cover fire so they could enter the compound, but the militia refused. A few followed the armored vehicles on foot into the complex.

The security team then engaged in a firefight and pushed back the attackers.

After searching in vain for Stevens, the rescue team returned to the annex. It fought through a hail of gunfire at one checkpoint, but all personnel made it back at 11:30 p.m., only to endure a night of militant attacks before a rescue team from the capital, Tripoli, arrived.

Stevens and Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods — both of whom battled militants at the CIA annex — were killed in the Benghazi attack.




Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/15/state-department-chose-flight-over-fight-in-bengha/#ixzz2qfNZuU4d
avatar
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

http://careoboricua.forumotion.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Benghazi... El caso contra Obama:

Mensaje por Charlie319 el Vie Ene 17, 2014 10:55 am

Mas informacion del reporte del Senado:
CURL: For liars like Obama and Clinton, ends justify means on Benghazi


ANALYSIS/OPINION:

In the world of philosophy, there are two prime schools of thought about action and consequence.


One, laid out in detail by Immanuel Kant, is deontology, a theory in which the goodness of an act is judged solely by adherence to a rule or set of rules. There are universal duties and obligations, and it is the motive of the actor that matters.

In the second, teleology, determining whether an act is morally right or wrong depends solely on the results of said act (good results, good act; bad results, bad act). In this sort of pragmatic ethics, the ends justify the means — always.

But unlike utilitarianism — in which all actions are deemed morally acceptable if they are directed toward achieving the greater good for the largest number of people — teleological ethics, with its pure moral objectivism, has a simple tenet: If it’s good for you, then it’s good.

Which brings us to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. And Benghazi.

Something bad happened that night, Sept. 11, 2012. Something terrible. A U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were murdered after a group of up to 150 terrorists descended on the diplomatic compound there, and later a nearby CIA annex. They came to kill, armed with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, machine guns and heavy artillery mounted on trucks. It was a bloodbath.

The White House refused for weeks to call the assault a “terrorist attack.” Instead, the Obama administration dispatched the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice (for some reason), to detail what the White House “knew.” She said on Sept. 16 that the attackers gathered “spontaneously” at the Benghazi consulate and were “spontaneously inspired” by a “hateful video.”



After dodging for days, the president said on Sept. 20 that the attack was the culmination of “natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video” (a 14-minute film posted on YouTube — in July 2012). At the United Nations on Sept. 25, he blamed “a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world,” saying, “There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.”

Meanwhile, on Sept. 12, Mrs. Clinton said the attack was “a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” The next day, ” the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries.” And the next day, at the “Transfer of Remains” ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, ” an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

But that wasn’t true — not even close. They were all lies. And the president and secretary of State knew it.

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a ‘terrorist attack,’ declassified documents show,” Fox News reported Monday.

The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward,” reporter James Rosen wrote.

Indeed. The declassified documents show that Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, knew almost immediately that the attack was not spontaneous and did not stem from the video. “There was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack,” the general said.

And on Wednesday a new report by a bipartisan Senate panel said not only did the administration fail in initially blaming an anti-Islam video, it found the attack could have been averted. The committee said the State Department failed to take action or work with the Pentagon after diplomats in Libya repeatedly warned their superiors about the deteriorating security around Benghazi.

They knew. The president and the secretary of State knew all along. But for Mr. Obama, the revelation would have been disastrous to his re-election campaign — Election Day was less than two months away. And for Mrs. Clinton, her hopes to win the White House would have been greatly compromised if it turned out she had stood idly by while terrorists killed a U.S. ambassador — on Sept. 11, no less.

So they lied. For weeks, the White House refused to call it “terror” — then, in a remarkable turnabout, claimed they had said all along that the attack was terrorism. An investigation into what happened, commissioned by the White House, bottled up facts for months. In the meantime, Mrs. Clinton ran out the clock, refusing to testify to Congress until days before she left her post.

When she finally appeared, she came out with this spectacularly brazen line, one only a true “ends justify the means” devotee could espouse: “What difference at this point does it make?

Now, more than a year later, with still so many unanswered questions, finding the truth seems lost to the wind. So little firsthand knowledge exists: Only a handful of eyewitnesses has testified (although there were dozens at the diplomatic compound), and footage from a U.S. drone that flew over the site that night has never been shown. For the record, the CIA demanded agents who were in Benghazi sign a second nondisclosure agreement, and video surveillance from on-site security cameras reportedly shows no protest before the attack.

As a Christmas present, The New York Times, bent on electing another liberal in 2016, is seeking to rewrite the entire narrative. The paper wrote Dec. 28 that “contrary to claims by some members of Congress, [the attack] was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.” And there weren’t any “terrorists,” The Times says, just some local “fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi” — whatever that means.

So, disciples of the-ends-justify-the-means philosophy are winning, at least for now. But perhaps someone — anyone — in Congress with a desire to get to the truth for truth’s sake, to adhere to the rules that govern not just elected officials but all of humanity, will make a stand. It’s not too late — at least not yet.

• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times and is now editor of the Drudge Report. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter @josephcurl



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/15/curl-for-liars-like-obama-and-clinton-ends-justify/#ixzz2qfQtCfkP
avatar
Charlie319
Admin

Posts : 1615
Join date : 10/08/2012
Location : En el medio del Imperio

http://careoboricua.forumotion.com

Volver arriba Ir abajo

Re: Benghazi... El caso contra Obama:

Mensaje por Contenido patrocinado


Contenido patrocinado


Volver arriba Ir abajo

Ver el tema anterior Ver el tema siguiente Volver arriba

- Temas similares

 
Permisos de este foro:
No puedes responder a temas en este foro.