BENGHAZI UPDATE

This Brietbart story reveals that retired General Jack Ham, the man who was in command in Libya on the day of the Benghazi massacre on September 11, 2012 will testify before a Congressional Committee on June 26th.

General Carter Ham, US Army (Retired)

Gen. Ham was the Commander of the Africom command that should have responded to the attack at the consulate in Benghazi. He was or was not relieved of his command that day, after making preparations for an immediate rescue mission and retired from the military almost immediately thereafter. Gen, Ham was one of two theater commanders who were disciplined or retired in the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attack. Rear Admiral   Gaouette is the other commander. He was relieved of his command and rumored to have been in “mutiny” against the President. Neither of these men has spoken since that day. With Gen. Ham’s scheduled testimony on the 26th that all may be changing, at last!

Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, US Navy

Admiral Gaouette has been the subject of numerous rumors and psuedo allegations about his conduct of his command. He was finally “reprimanded” for his alleged actions and speech after being summarily relieved of his command on that fateful day. The Russians have even run a story that he “mutinied”. We have reported in detail all known facts and events. Here is a complete list of what we have reported to date. Read for yourself the details known thus far about the actions of Gen. Ham and Adm. Gaouette.

The President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America is our highest authority, with one exception: the American people for whom President Obama works and who elected him President. His authority is also limited by the rule of law. No one is above the law and all Americans, even the President, are subject to the law.

The truth about what did and did not happen at Benghazi; the truth about what President Obama did and did not do, say and order; the truth about the actions of those in the Obama Administration and the military both on September 11, 2012 and the ten months that have elapsed since; all are too little known and very little that is reliable and truthful has been revealed. Now, it is time for that to end. With the testimony of Gen. Ham, the American people can learn what took place that day. Hopefully, that will lead to a full inquiry into the actions of all those responsible, including our President.

The American people do not know the truth; the families of those slain do not know what happened or why their son’s died; the diplomatic and military communities do not know what their fate will be if they are ever put in harms way by our government. Let us all pray that this sad chapter in American military and diplomatic history will finally come to an end.

Those we elect; those we appoint and those to whom we delegate military and diplomatic authority are all subject to two ultimate authorities: the rule of law and the American people. The Commander in Chief is the highest authority in civil and military matters. Nevertheless, the President is subject to the rule of law and to the people of the United States who elected him. With the hearings on June 26th and any thereafter, those authorities will finally, for the first time, be in possession of facts and have the ability to judge the actions and inactions of those in charge that day and the days since then. It is about time!

Stay tuned. When there is more, we will bring it to you.

Benghazi Hearings Preview

On September 14, 2012, An Excellent Spirit began our coverage of the events that took place in that Libyan diplomatic outpost with the murders of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Former US Navy Seals Glen Doherty and, Tyrone Woods and USAF Officer Sean Smith. Since that time we have filed fourteen stories covering facts and issues raised by the Obama Administration’s bungled handling of this attack on US soil in Libya, whether the deaths were necessary, the stories and cover up immediately begun by the Obama Administration, including the relieving of two line battle field commanders that were on duty that day and who were allegedly relieved to prevent them from coming to rescue the four dead Americans. Here is a complete round up of all our stories, chronologically.

Today, May 8, 2013, nearly nine months after that fateful day, Americans are no nearer to getting a truthful reckoning of what took place in Benghazi, what America was doing there and what was done to secure the persons before the attack and during the over 7 hours of fighting that led to the four deaths. There were approximately 30 survivors of the Benghazi attacks and most of these people have never been interviewed or reported on by our lamestream media. The almost total silence to date about any of these survivors leads one to conclude that they have been silenced by our government so the American people cannot know what they have to say took place.

Then there is the matter of the central actors in the American government, from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mike Mullen and the literally hundreds of state department, CIA, Army and Navy personnel that were on duty, deployed or available for deployment on that day. We know too little about what, if anything, almost all of these high officials did on that day. There have been few reports and almost nothing, save the State Department’s review of the events, a whitewash of epic proportions, as are most such covers up.

Finally, there is the truth. The unvarnished facts and statements that some or all of these actors made; the actions that they took or did not take and the activities they and others acting upon their behalves took to cover up their failures and dereliction of duty on that fateful day when four Americans sent into harm’s way by the President and Secretary of State died at the hands of murderers in Libya.

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Chaired by Representative Darrel Issa of California will hold hearings aimed at getting the truth out for the American people to see. Some are predicting a train wreck for the Obama Administration, for Hillary Clinton, even President Obama. Read more  At least three “whistleblowers”, people who were either in Libya or worked for the government agencies on that day and thereafter are expected to testify and the preliminary indications (witnesses are always questioned, under oath, prior to actual testimony, so a good deal of what they will say is known or expected) are that there will be much that contradicts the President’s statements, actions and handling of the issue as well as Sec. Clinton, Sec. Panetta and others. Hold onto your hats.

These hearings are never easy. There are always demands for a “smoking gun” and questions of motive, both of those investigated and those doing the investigation. Since the “I” word, Impeachment has already been variously written about, the matter of “high crimes and misdemeanors” will be bandied about, as that is the standard for any successful impeachment of any Federal Official. We will also most probably hear words like “gross negligence”, dereliction of duty, lying to the American people and it’s criminal counterpart, perjury. We already know that official statements given by one or more individuals, departments or agencies were “scrubbed” or cleansed by people to clean up the language and make it less newsworthy or more palatable for the press. We also know that September 11, 2012 was 56 days prior to the November 5th Presidential Election. What impact did that fact have on the decisions that were taken on September 11th? And, especially what impact did the Election have on those made between September 12th and November 5th and after Election Day?

There have been literally hundreds of reports, stories and accusations flying around for nine months. It is now time to land the squadrons of approbation and, hopefully, also land the air-wing of truth, so the American people can first know what happened to their four sons and what to expect of the hundreds of thousands of sons and daughters deployed around the world at this writing. Next, Americans are entitled to the truth: the whole truth and nothing but the truth, under oath, so help them God! That is the only reasonable standard of a Republic of truth telling men and women and the only way America can remain a free, brave nation!

There are two articles that An Excellent Spirit deems worthy of interest for those who want to prepare for the hearings, to have some context by which to understand better what will be said. The first is by Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard. It is a comprehensive timeline and review of what is known to date and will be most helpful to anyone interested in the truth. Here it is in three parts.  An Excellent Spirit highly recommends reading the article and paying close attention to the talking points memo that was scrubbed or changed materially to deny the American people even a modicum of truth about what happened.

The second article is by Brian Preston of PJ Tatler, a part of Roger L. Simon’s PJ Media group. This article is part speculation and part attempt to fit the results into a pattern of what is known about the actions taken by the key actors and come to some reasonable conclusion as to what actually took place on September 11th, 2012 and in the months following. It is quite good and less speculation than inference and deduction. Read the whole thing here.  For those who want more information, we recommend they go to Brietbart, PJ Media, PJTV, The Daily Caller, Drudge, The National Review Online and The Weekly Standard online. The lamestream media has, wonder of wonders, abdicated its duty to report the news to Americans if that news does Obama or his narrative harm. These organizations have proven themselves to be faithful and true information sources that are dependable.

Finally, we have a few questions that we are looking to have answered, based upon our research and previous coverage of the Benghazi Scandal and Cover Up. Two current stories assist us in formulating those questions. First by Roger L. Simon the boss man at the PJ Media group and this, by Michael Walsh. We recommend our readers go through each carefully. There are hundreds of stories that apply. Many from the blogs listed above.

For our part, An Excellent Spirit will be paying close attention to testimony dealing with what President Obama was doing that day and night. We know he was briefed at the White House that day by his National Security team and others. He was informed of the attack on Benghazi, real time. We also know that Panetta said he never spoke to the President again that day or night! Where was Obama? What was he doing after being told Americans in a foreign land were under attack and at risk? Who did he speak with and when? Echoes of Tennessee Senator Howard Baker “What did the President know and when did he know it” are beginning to reverberate in our heads.

Again, we know some irrefutable things. President Obama said, in a television interview, a few days after September 11th, “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, 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. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And 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. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.” Here is one of but a few videos of President Obama responding to questions about what he did following the Benghazi attack. These videos of the President clearly saying that he gave instructions (orders?) about the Benghazi attack upon learning of it are irrefutable evidence that President Obama’s as President and Commander in Chief of US military forces, gave “very clear directives” to secure our people. “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, 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. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And 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. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.” Here is one of but a few videos of President Obama responding to questions about what he did following the Benghazi attack. These videos of the President clearly saying that he gave instructions (orders?) about the Benghazi attack upon learning of it are irrefutable evidence that President Obama’s as President and Commander in Chief of US military forces, gave “very clear directives” to secure our people.”  In another post, we even have a video of Obama saying the same thing. He gave orders to secure our people! That same post, “Benghazi – Did It Ever Happen also deals with three other questions we pray will be answered at tomorrow’s hearings. First there is the question of Cross Border Authority. As former Seal, Matt Bracken clearly set forth, anytime US Forces are ordered by their Commander into another nation, they must get, in advance, Cross Border Authority from the President of the United States! We can be pretty sure that it was never given with respect to Benghazi on September 11-12, 2012. Why? How does that square with Obama’s quote that he “ordered” our men be secured? The more recent speculation about what could have been done and that it might or might not have saved those lives does not change the fact. When your troops are under fire, you go get them. Whether you get there in time or not, that is for after battle review. No man left behind is and must be our Rules of Engagement (ROI)!

Finally there are the cases of two line commanders, in theater that night, both of whom were apparently relieved of duty in the field, during the fight! Gen Jack Ham and Admiral John Gaouette were both relieved of duty that night. Gen Ham has been permitted to retire and we have no current information about the current status of Admiral Gaouette. An Excellent Spirit covered all this in this post 

That is a lot to ask for in one hearing. Let us hope this first one goes on long enough to unearth answers to these and other questions. Let us hope and pray that the Obama Administration has answers and facts that lead away from dereliction of duty and impeachment. That President Obama is one of the least prepared men in our history to be President is established. The whole world, our friends and our enemies know his failings. It would be tragic if there were more to it than plain negligence and lack of understanding. That said, America, in this dangerous world had better begin to get to the bottom of all this and fast! We have been terrorized and threatened with more and increased terror. And we have been threatened with nuclear attack by North Korea and others (IRAN).

It is time America knew the whole truth. How else can America remain the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?  Stay tuned.

Benghazi Eruption Next Week

Wow! An Excellent Spirit has not posted in over three months due to our health issues. As promised, we have kept current on all topics and issues beleaguering America and our posts on Benghazi now seem to be coming true. Here is a round up of those previous posts. The last post we did was on our see no evil, hear no evil, know nothing about Benghazi President, the Appeaser in Chief. Today with this WAPO story by the indefatigable Jennifer Rubin, on her WAPO blog, The Right Turn, the bloom is off that rose! Here This one is a must read! Put simply, the blue ribbon panel headed by former Asst US Sec. State Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chief of Staff General Mike Mullen has come in for more than a little public criticism in how they did not do their job to investigate the US government’s role in the Benghazi murders, the resulting cover up and the roles of President Obama, Sec. State Hillary Clinton and others.

According to Rubin’s blog, “Fox News, which broke the story, reports: “The IG’s office is said by well-placed sources to be seeking to determine whether the Accountability Review Board, or ARB — led by former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen — failed to interview key witnesses who had asked to provide their accounts of the Benghazi attacks to the panel.” The report observes, “This disclosure marks a significant turn in the ongoing Benghazi case, as it calls into question the reliability of the blue-ribbon panel that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convened to review the entire matter. Until the report was concluded, she and all other senior Obama administration officials regularly refused to answer questions about what happened in Benghazi. Now the methodology and final product of the ARB are themselves coming under the scrutiny of the department’s own top auditor.”

As one observer, the veteran, credible John Bolton put it, “This is unprecedented. Or, as a former national security figure critical of the president put it, “Zowie!” Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton wrote in an email to me, “I’ve never heard of anything like it!” He emphasized, “I’ve never heard of an IG investigating an ARB. I don’t think there have been that many ARB’s which is what makes it unusual.”

There is more, “Some Republican lawmakers allege that the review board, led by retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, was rigged to protect Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential contender who wasn’t interviewed as part of the probe. Doug Welty, a spokesman for the IG’s office, said the office is responsive to lawmakers’ concerns; he said this is the first time the office will review an ARB process, although it has in the past reviewed how well the State Department has followed through on the recommendations of other review boards formed after security breaches.”

Rubin concludes her post “We will see if the mainstream media cover “the cover-up of the cover-up,” which is what the headlines would surely blast in a Republican administration. I doubt it. Jay Carney had the gall this week to brush off questions about Benghazi, saying it happened a long time ago. That’s akin to the man who kills his parents and throws himself upon the mercy of the court as an orphan. If the administration, including the White House, had come clean on precisely what happened, what Obama and Clinton were up to on the night of the attack, how they missed the threat of al-Qaeda in Libya (now we hear three al-Qaeda operatives ran the attack) and why a false narrative was perpetrated for so long, we wouldn’t, seven months later, still not have answers to basic questions. And if the press had done its job, we would have gotten to the root of this mess before the presidential election.

What difference does it make? Well, that’s a question that no reporter or pol would dare ask about a Republican national security failure and scandal of this magnitude. As with the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, the mainstream media have tried to avert their eyes, label it non-news and blame it all on partisan politics; but, as with Gosnell, that trick won’t last forever. All Emphasis ours!

For your information, here are a few recent articles on Benghazi and the upcoming hearings next week.

A review of previous post on An Excellent Spirit will make us look good, but we are reminded of a time past in 1973, when we were at dinner in Jimmy’s Restaurant in Manhattan on 52nd St. For you really old timers, Jimmy’s was the successor to Toot’s Shore’s Restaurant and fabled watering hole in NYC. At that dinner were four nationally known reporters. Three are alive and cannot be named. One has passed, Jack Newfield, of the Village Voice, a man I was privileged to call friend. The other three were a national reporter for Newsweek, a New York Times political reporter/editor and a WAPO political reporter. We were having dinner and the subject was Watergate, which was just starting to heat up. It would be at least a year before it mushroomed into the nuclear devastation that ended Richard Nixon’s Presidency. At that dinner the Newsweek and WAPO reporters told us, “We have got him!” “We know enough to know that he is toast and we will drag this out, revelation by revelation until impeachment. If Nixon does not quit, he will go to jail. Whether he quits or makes a deal, we have Dean spilling his guts and Colson, H.R. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Stans and Mitchell and many more are going to jail. It is a done deal!” This was months before any of this was known publically, before the Watergate impeachment hearings in Congress, Grand Juries and the like. The media knew then and the media knows now.

The media, now known as our “lamestream media for its obvious, tragic and treasonous desertion of its own guiding principles (which includes our national press) knows what they know and those who know the media are clued in variously. The times however have changed. Today, they do not uncover and unearth the scandalous, illegal behavior of the High and Mighty. Today they cover it up because the leftist, anti-American narrative they have totally bought into demands it. Their editors, unlike Ben Bradley and publishers, unlike Martha Graham, are more interested in their political bona fides than in their journalistic integrity.

And that is the whole truth, America as best as we can determine and bring it to our readers. Stay tuned, health permitting, An Excellent Spirit feels obligated to bring the truth to an America choking on the awful lies told by a gaggle of liars who are supposed to lead America and tell us only truth.

Benghazi Update – New Shocker: President Obama Knew Nothing!

The See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak Nothing About Evil Trio

Know Nothing About Any Evil President Obama

Say No Evil – “What Difference Does It Make” Clinton

Testify About No Evil Secretary of Defense Panetta today in Congress

For months, ever since the Benghazi murders on September 11th, 2012, the American people have been fed a steady diet of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” by the three highest officials of our government. Today, soon to be former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified before Congress and raised more questions than he answered. The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin has this story today.  An Excellent Spirit will follow up at length, but for now, the shocking points (not talking points) are:

1. “Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified today that the president was absent during the Benghazi, Libya, attack(s) and neither he nor Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to anyone in the White House after briefly telling the president an attack was underway.” This is shocking because of the stories we have previously reported about the President’s orders given to his people upon learning of the attack. Here , Here  and here. It seems the new narrative, thanks to Panetta’s testimony today, will have to include some excuse or explanation of the President’s clear words, ““Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, 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. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And 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. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.” Here is one of but a few videos of President Obama responding to questions about what he did following the Benghazi attack. These videos of the President clearly saying that he gave instructions (orders?) about the Benghazi attack upon learning of it are irrefutable evidence that President Obama’s as President and Commander in Chief of US military forces, gave “very clear directives” to secure our people.”  This excerpt, taken from from An Excellent Spirit’s comprehensive coverage (here) of what the lamestream media still refuses to cover, will be quite troublesome to the President.

4 Dead Americans in Benghazi. No story of what, if anything President Obama knew or said or did about their safety.

Either President Obama was told of the attack that threatened the lives of our Ambassador and his security detail immediately or not. That must be established by sworn testimony from his advisors and, ultimately, from his own Presidential lips. Whenever that happened is crucial because of his words above that he gave three orders as a result. The video we linked is also quite in need of clarification based on Panetta’s testimony. We will see.

2. Next, we see that the role of the lamestream media has been key in this cover up the largest scandal in our history. Rubin’s article makes that point well: “The last item is stunning, in part, because no reporter or debate moderator asked the very simple question many conservative critics were asking (Where was the president?) and because no senior official came forward before the election to say, “Ya know the president wasn’t around.” It is almost like the press and the administration together helped conceal gross irresponsibility by the president until after the election.

The President as Commander in Chief of American Forces

Ms. Rubin then asks the question most thinking people (not in the media- they don’t think, they help their man) ask: “Isn’t it time someone not under the thumb of the White House or the Justice Department investigate exactly what the president was up to, what knowledge he had before the incident of the deteriorating situation in Libya, whether he was receiving briefings leading up to Sept. 11, 2012, on Libya and security precautions and why he and his staff kept telling the American people a false narrative about the incident?” Rubin, really the only conservative voice on the nation’s second most far left newspaper, goes on to mention a few other pertinent questions and subjects that are apparently taboo: “And maybe outside eyes should look at the leaking of national security secrets. It is one thing to say that the president’s appointees missed cables or got their talking points mixed up. It is quite another to say the president was AWOL during the entire episode and then went to Las Vegas the next day for a campaign event. At some point — is it now? — events, negligence and plain old incompetence do have a way of catching up.” An Excellent Spirit could not agree more.

America has been inured to parsing, dissembling and even out right lying for years. It has come to the point that the boldness with which our leaders lie to the people is not even a little shocking, so frequent and constant that it is. Four Americans were murdered on September 11, 2012. The President, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Panetta, former CIA Director Patraeus all have made statements or testified under oath or both. We still do not know the truth, much less what the facts were. The worst thing is, that with each additional witness statement or revelation, we have more questions leading to more prevarication and dissembling, leading to less confidence in our government, our President, his Cabinet and our security. We have a President more at home on the golf course, on vacation on our dime or hob nobbing with Hollywood royalty. We deserve better. Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods deserved much better. As Obama’s favorite President, Abraham Lincoln said, those who are serving America deserve and are entitled to “our last full measure of devotion”. In the time that has passed since September 11th, 2012, about the only thing that is certain is that those four men received much less than that.

The President commanding his troops: Beyonce and Jay Z.

Wherever our President was that night, we know he went to Las Vegas early the following morning, September 13th for a campaign fund raiser with his adoring devotees. That is what he does best. Sadly, he does not lead nearly as well or respond to the needs of our patriotic men and women whose lives are at risk every day. Four dead is the toll this time. What will it be next time?

This circus of mis-information, prevarication and just plain lying and intentional confusion must end, but no one has any confidence that it will. An Excellent Spirit will not let it simply pass into the fog of memory. We will either get answers or keep asking questions. That is all we can do. That is all every American should do! Stay tuned.

More on Benghazi Gate

Libyan military guards check one of the U.S. Consulate’s burnt out buildings during a visit by Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif, not shown, to the U.S. Consulate to express sympathy for the death of the American ambassador, Chris Stevens and his colleagues in the deadly attack on the Consulate, September 11, in Benghazi, Libya, Friday, Sept. 14, 2012. The American ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed when a mob of protesters and gunmen overwhelmed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, setting fire to it. Ambassador Chris Stevens, 52, died as he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff as a crowd of hundreds attacked the consulate, many of them firing machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades. The Arabic on the building reads, “God is Great, and there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger.” (AP Photo/Mohammad Hannon)

An Excellent Spirit has followed the terrible events of September 11th 2012, the scandal and cover up of the actions (and inactions) of our President and his White House advisors), the promises of investigations by Congress and the sometimes wild and crazy theories about what happened in Benghazi. Here The only thing we can be sure of is that we do not know what happened and it is beginning to look like we may never find out. Recall the Warren Commission? It was supposed to be the most authoritative, complete investigating body ever assembled. It’s assignment was to investigate and report to the American people what actually took place in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22nd 1963. It is now almost 50 years later and no one in his or her right mind can say we know what happened. After several dozen Congressional Committees and investigations, hundreds of books and more have brought one theory, fact and speculation after another before the American people, all the intervening 50 years have produced is greater confusion and a growing certainty that we were never supposed to know in the first place.

Benghazi has almost 50 years to go before it catches up to JFK’s assassination, but it has made a good start. This Washington Examiner story is an example. A retired Four Star US Navy Admiral, James Lyons is suggesting that Benghazi was a bungled abduction by Islamic forces in connection with a plan to barter for the release of the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdul Rahman, the convicted leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that left six dead and more that a thousand injured. Admiral Lyons is no mere right wing conspiratorist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lyons_(admiral) His 36 year career in the Navy was capped with command of the US Pacific Fleet and he is a well-regarded expert on military and security affairs. According to Lyons, the bungled kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens was only the first act of a macabre drama that would have led to the release of the Blind Sheik in a trade.  “(T)his kidnapping was planned to be the first stage of an international prisoner exchange. This transfer of prisoners would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheik” convicted of orchestrating the World Trade Center Bombing in 1993.”

Admiral James A. Lyons, US Navy, Ret.

An Excellent Spirit has reported on the Blind Sheik. Here. We have also had much to say about Benghazi and what really happened that resulted in four American deaths, the almost complete inaction by the President of the United States, the US Secretary of State and the President’s national security staff at the White House. Here Whether a Congressional Investigation is ever begun; whether anyone is ever made to account for their actions or inactions as United States officials of whatever rank, Benghazi stinks. There is an old Italian proverb that, like many Italian proverbs, deals with the stench of evil: “Il pesce puzza dalla testa” – “the fish stinks from the head down”. It should be noted that the origin was probably Turkish, Arabic or perhaps Jewish. Nevertheless, Benghazi stinketh and only the Truth can make the stench go away. Lyons suggested that “the Obama administration intentionally lessened the levels of security at the consulate compound in Benghazi in the weeks leading up to the attack. This plan should have worked to reduce the possibility of resistance as the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist organization captured Chris Stevens, the American Ambassador to Libya.” This would account for the silence of Secretary of State Clinton, even in the wake of the report that her State Department bungled the security leading to the massacre. Lyon’s theory is that the attack was encouraged by the White House as part of a convoluted plan to set up the ultimate release of the Blind Sheik. The lessened security encouraged the attack; the attack would not be defensible and the Ambassador taken hostage. The rest would be history.

Omar Abdul Rahman – The Blind Sheik

The 7-8 hour battle over the consulate (or whatever it truly was in Benghazi) threw all that into a tizzy. Despite being told by their “superiors” to stand down and let events take their course, “Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, both former U.S. Navy Seals, ignored orders to “stand down” and fought vigorously for hours in their attempt to defend the compound from the impending attack. Ultimately, these armed assaults on the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex claimed the life of four Americans–Ambassador Chris Stevens, former U.S. Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and State Department information manager Sean Smith.”

The Cloud over the White House. Four Dead in Benghazi: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods (USN Seal Ret.), Glen Doherty (USN Seal Ret.) and Sean Smith US State Department (USAF Ret.)

That is starting to sound a little more like what really happened. Two heroic Americans who just happened to be US Navy Seals with a code that cannot be broken by duplicity and cowardice, gummed up the works and paid for it with their lives and the lives of Ambassador Stevens and his former USAF State Department “manager”. That is what happened. Everything else is later, part of the largest cover up and obfuscation exercise since 1963. Resignations of US Secretary of State Clinton, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, relief of two four star flag commanders in the field (Gen. Carter Ham and Adm. Gaouette as we reported here and here), lost drone tapes and much more are all the result of a mad, “wag the dog” operation gone sour.

The reactions of the two Seals led to the attacking mob being augmented and going out of control. This led to their deaths, the capture and killing of Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith and the loss of untold numbers of weapons being stored at the “consulate” for distribution to those chosen by the Administration for this largesse. It also led to the utter failure of the Obama/Morsi attempt to set up the release of Rahman and that is where we are now. In the midst of the biggest damage control exercise in American History.

The American people have almost no information. First, CIA Director, retired General David Patreaus resigned in the midst of a scandal involving his conduct with a woman while he was director. His testimony before a closed Congressional Committee was delayed, but it is just about the only testimony we have of the major players. Hillary Clinton has never testified. Neither have General Ham or Admiral Gaouette. Leon Panetta has resigned after making all sorts of conflicting statements. No member of the President’s National Security team has come forward with information. The President, himself, has made several comments that do not inspire confidence, and perhaps indicate he should be asked questions under oath.

An Excellent Spirit has watched and read Michelle Malkin. She is a right wing commentator who at times fails to inspire confidence in her viewpoints. Malkin’s recent Townhall column on the Blind Sheik gives us more information about Omar Abdul Rahman. “Lest you need reminding, the wily blind sheik has used his visitation privileges to wreak more terror from behind bars. His radical left-wing lawyer Lynne Stewart was convicted in 2005 of helping her client smuggle coded messages of Islamic violence from the imprisoned sheik to outside followers in violation of an explicit pledge to abide by her client’s court-ordered isolation. This “old man” is a virulent anti-American propagandist who condemned Americans as “descendants of apes and pigs who have been feeding from the dining tables of the Zionists, Communists and colonialists,” called on Muslims to “destroy” the West, “burn their companies, eliminate their interests, sink their ships, shoot down their planes, kill them on the sea, air or land,” and issued bloody fatwas against U.S. “infidels” that inspired the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1997 massacre of Western tourists in Luxor, Egypt, and the 9/11 attacks.” Clearly the kindly, sickly old man that we should release for “humanitarian” reasons. Malkin’s column is hereTownhall’s Bob Beauprez weighs in with yet more information. Here  “The Associated Press is reporting that Ali Harzi, a 26 year old Tunisian linked to the assassination attack in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, has been released “due to lack of evidence.”   After the attacks Obama said, “My biggest priority is bringing those folks (the terrorists) to justice and I think the American people have seen that’s a commitment I’ll always keep.” In 2005, Ali Harzi and a brother were sentenced to 30 months in prison.  Another brother fought against U.S. led coalition forces in Iraq.  Their father acknowledged in an interview that he had encouraged his sons to take up “jihad in the cause of God.” Despite video showing faces of the attackers, “most suspects remained free” and witnesses have yet to be questioned, according to the AP. In a separate report, Reuters noted the same lack of progress in the investigation, citing “no real desire to dig too deep (by Libyan officials) for fear of setting off reprisals” from the Islamic militias.  Even the commander overseeing the security reaction on the night of the attacks had yet to even be questioned as of late last month.   FBI agents sent to Benghazi in October to investigate retreated to Tripoli “because of security concerns” according to Reuters, and simply “put out a poster asking for information.” Ahmed Abu Khattala, about whom “witnesses have said they saw him directing other fighters” during the Benghazi attack reportedly is walking the streets with impunity.  Abu Khattala is said to be the leader of a wing of Ansar al-Sharia, the al-Qaeda linked group said to be responsible for the 9/11/2012 assault. But, if he’s one of the most wanted men in the world right now, Abu Khattala doesn’t seem all that concerned. He sat down with the New York Times and “spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.” Abu Khattala told the NYT that, “no authority has even questioned him about the attack…and he has no plans to go into hiding.”

Back to The Washington Examiner. They reported on the US State Department’s recent Accountability Review Board Report. That internal State Department review has been hardly and haphazardly covered by the lamestream media. The Examiner said, in part “the Accountability Review Board convened by Clinton has issued a report. And this is what it found. “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 … “Board members found a pervasive realization among personnel who served in Benghazi that the Special Mission was not a high priority for Washington when it came to security-related requests, especially those relating to staffing … “The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.” No specific “senior” officials were named by the Accountability Review Board, but the same day its report was issued, three State Department employees, including two who oversaw security decisions at the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, resigned. Finally, it seemed as though somebody was going to be held accountable for the security failures in Benghazi. Except no one was. It turns out that none of the State Department officials who supposedly resigned after the Accountability Review Board report has actually left the agency. All of them are either still working for the State Department today, or are on administrative leave and expected back soon. So much for accountability.” You can read the whole thing here.

It is looking more and more like a cover up. There is one more fact to report at this time. Back in September 2012, less than two weeks after the Benghazi attack, Michael Mukasey, former United States Attorney General (under George W. Bush) and former U.S. District Court Judge penned an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal.

Judge Mukasey was the U.S, Federal Court trial judge at Omar Abdul Rahman’s trial upon the charges of which he is convicted and incarcerated. As such, Mukasey probably has more information on Rahman, what he did and what he thinks and would do if released than anyone but the Blind Sheik himself. Most interesting in the article is this tidbit of information. “(I)n June, when Hani Nour Eldin, a member of the terrorist group that carried out the Luxor slaughter and who had himself spent 11 years in Egyptian jail on terrorism charges, was granted a visa to come to the United States, where he visited the White House and urged that Abdel Rahman be transferred to Egypt. Members of Congress immediately raised questions about how such allowances were made for a member of a designated terrorist organization. The assistant secretary of homeland security for legislative affairs, Nelson Peacock, responded in a July letter. It suggested that no warning flags had been raised during the processing of the Eldin visa, but the letter acknowledged that, as a member of a designated terrorist organization, Hani Nour Eldin would have needed a waiver from someone in authority to get a visa.” An Excellent Spirit has reported on the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in the US State Department. Here  With Huma Abedin in the inside of every issue at State, it is no wonder that a terrorist with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood got a visa to enter the US and meet to negotiate the release of the Blind Sheik. It is easier yet to understand how the Benghazi consulate attack fit right in with the preposterous scenario that resulted in four deaths on September 11th of last year. Still no one investigates.

There are so many questions that cry out for answers. Answers under oath. Answers that are subject to the penalties of perjury. Why were General Ham and Admiral Gaouette relieved of their commands summarily in the hours after Benghazi? What was the United States really doing in Benghazi? Were we engaged in some kind of gunrunning of Ghadafi’s weapons? Why were Woods and Doherty told to “stand down” in the face of rioters with weapons attacking them? How did Hani Nour Eldin get a visa to enter the United States and who arranged it and signed off on it? Why did General Patreaus resign and delay his testimony? Was there any connection to Benghazi? What was the President and his National Security team doing during the 7-8 hours that led to the death of the four Americans in Benghazi? As Matt Bracken reported, was Cross Border Authority ever given by the President? If not, why not? What did the President know and when did he know it? Where is the tickler of the President’s time that night and the next day? Did the President ever order that those under fire in Benghazi on September 11th 2012 be rescued or assisted in any specific way?

Let all Americans pray that we get answers to these and many other questions about Benghazi. John F. Kennedy was killed almost 50 years ago and we do not know who did it or why it was done. Four Americans died in Benghazi five months ago and we can get little or no information in this age of information. It is time that we stopped sticking our collective heads in the sand and stood up and demand answers. If we do not, no one will. If we do not, we will not remain free for much longer. Stay tuned. We will be back when we have more. God bless America.

Benghazi Gate: Just Getting Started

An Excellent Spirit has reported on the Benghazi Gate scandal to the best of our ability utilizing our considerable resources. Here We saw this great and cogent PJ Media story by Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen. They ask some really good questions and provide some answers that An Excellent Spirit has speculated about. “Most of the questions related to the Benghazi debacle are about the mechanics, both offensive and defensive. What did the White House know and when? What assets were available to the military? Did someone order a stand down, and if so, who? Why was “the video” blamed long after the administration knew the truth — and didn’t the administration know the truth from the beginning? If it didn’t, why didn’t it? All reasonable questions, but a generally unasked one deserves attention: “Why did al-Qaeda want to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens?”  The ambassador had good relations with some of the most extreme Libyan militias, including those with al-Qaeda ties. Did he upset them with something he did, or didn’t do? Was the White House fully apprised of his connections and dealings with the militias? Was he killed because of something the administration told him to start doing or to stop doing? There are things we know and things upon which we must speculate, including the entry of surface-to-air missiles to the Levant. Emerging from the chaos is a dim understanding that the U.S. was operating a clandestine arms operation from the CIA post that was loosely — and incorrectly — described as a “consulate.” Before and during the revolution, Ambassador Stevens had helped arm the anti-Gaddafi militias, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIF), whose leader Abdulhakim Belhadj later became the head of the Tripoli Military Council.”

That something like this was going on in Benghazi and almost certainly led to the death of 4 Americans on September 11th, is now inescapable. What is now known is why the Obama Administration from top to bottom misled the American people. To be sure there was an Election less than two months away. There were also four people dead. There was enough there that President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, CIA Chief Patreaus and others could have slowly and steadily released the truth, in parts, to the American people. This would have taken all the time that was left before the Election, but they chose not to do that. Instead, it appears that, with the full complicity of the lamestream media, the Obama Administration intentionally lied, over and over again! An Excellent Spirit asks, “WHY??”

The PJ Media article may give us some indications. At least, it provides facts that heretofore were unknown. “In 2011, it was reported that the Libyan rebels had acquired surface-to-air missiles from Gaddafi’s arsenal, and smuggled them into their own. They were not used in the revolution because the skies were filled with allies of the militias, but American sources worried that as many as 15,000 MANPADs (man-portable air defense systems — or mobile surface-to-air missiles) might have “gone missing.” Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro told USA Today: The frank answer is we don’t know (how many are missing) and probably never will. He added that the Obama administration took “immediate steps” to secure the weapons, launching an effort to recover them even before collapse of the regime. Which is interesting, because the U.S. claimed to have no “boots on the ground.” So who was looking for them? And if they found them, what did they do with them?”

The article continues: “Some, at least, appear to have emerged in Syria — in August there was a report of a Syrian government plane downed by the rebels. In October, the Russians claimed the rebels had U.S.-origin Stinger missiles. (Stingers are designed to hit helicopters and low-flying planes — they wreaked havoc with Russian aircraft during the war in Afghanistan.) The BBC reported that the Syrians had old Soviet SA-7 missiles that can destroy an airplane flying at higher altitudes. Whether Russian or American, the introduction of MANPADS into the region would be cause for alarm. The Levant is not isolated to Afghanistan, and the multinational nature of the Syrian rebels puts a number of countries and their interests in harm’s way. A stray shot — or a deliberate diversion — could be used against Israeli commercial or military aviation. Or American aviation. Turkey would have to worry that the Kurdish part of the anti-Assad revolution might divert its energies to assist in the Kurdish guerrilla movement against Turkey; Turkey’s war against the PKK is largely conducted with helicopters. Jordan would have to worry that the Muslim Brotherhood part of the Syrian rebellion could divert its energies to assist the MB in Jordan against U.S. ally King Abdullah II. Russia would worry that missiles could be diverted to the anti-Russian Sunni jihadists of the Caucasus or Central Asia.”

Then, the Bryens throw in an informed speculation: “In October, the IDF confirmed that a surface-to-air missile, said to be an SA-7, was fired at a helicopter from Gaza. Iran had not provided such weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, perhaps understanding that such an escalation would produce Israeli retaliation. The fact that Israel struck the Sudanese Yarmouk rocket/missile factory at the end of October may have been a reminder of the consequences of escalation. So far, only the last bit is speculation. Emphasis ours.

Overhead of Benghazi “consulate” and Libyan cities.

“But what if Turkish, Jordanian, Russian, or Israeli concerns about the appearance of MANPADS close to their borders made the administration decide that it had to exercise more control over weapons shipments to the Syrian rebels? What if the State Department told Ambassador Stevens to clamp down on the shipments or to stop them all together? If Stevens had told his militia allies that he was cutting back or cutting off the CIA-organized shipments to Syria, could they have been angry enough to kill him?” Now, we are getting to some of the questions the American people have.

The end of the article is even more fascinating and ominous, if true, to the Obama Administration. “Al-Qaeda operatives knew of the ambassador’s presence in Benghazi — either because they had operatives in Tripoli or because they had them in Benghazi. They knew where he was and they attacked after the Turkish ambassador left the compound. This raises the question of why Stevens and the Turkish ambassador were meeting in Benghazi at all, when both are stationed in Tripoli. Another “what if” involves the administration response to the attack, both initially and when senior members — including the secretary of State, the president’s press secretary, and the U.S. ambassador to the UN — all insisted that the attack was the result of “the video.” Two full weeks later, President Obama pounded the lectern at the United Nations and denounced “the video.” What if they needed for Ambassador Stevens’ death to be part of a larger event, unrelated to the specifics of arms, militias, al-Qaeda, and Syria? Remember, we’re speculating here. But if the truth of an arms relationship came out, the administration would have been caught in a major falsehood right before the election — that’s not speculation. Mrs. Clinton had flatly told CBS News in February that the U.S. would not arm Syrian rebels, specifically because of the potential for arming radicals with which the U.S. would not be associated: What are we going to arm them with and against what? We’re not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. … We know [al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri] is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al-Qaeda in Syria? It may still fall into the realm of speculation, but it seems we were, and if we were there would be a price to pay. In what appears to be a related event, in early November Secretary Clinton withdrew U.S. support from the Syrian National Council and proposed a differently comprised coalition that would reduce the SNC’s influence. She said it was needed in part because: We need an opposition that will be on record strongly resisting the efforts by extremists to hijack the Syrian revolution. There are disturbing reports of extremists going into Syria and attempting to take over what has been a legitimate revolution against a repressive regime for their own purposes. She didn’t mention their American interlocutors. That appears to be the final backing-away from an American relationship with al-Qaeda-related militias in Libya that ultimately resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty, and State Department computer specialist Sean Smith.

An Excellent Spirit has said that Benghazi Gate may be more lethal to the Obama Administration than Watergate was to the Nixon Presidency. Hearings are just beginning today and they are taking place behind closed doors due to the obvious security issues we have discussed. That will not last. With a scandal that is this big; with a President an active player in the underlying actions from the start (Nixon was passive and only became involved in the cover up) and the State Department at the very center of the failure in Libya, Benghazi Gate is certain to grow bigger until it, like a humongous infection, is lanced, the blood and gore coming out and a strong astringent and antibiotic applied. Difficult times are here and the pain and suffering is just beginning. Stay tuned America. We will bring it to you.

Dr. Stephen Bryen has served as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense and headed the Defense Technology Security Administration. Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center. They have years of experience as defense policy analysts.

The Obama Administration Middle East Policy – A Colossal Failure

US Middle East Policy in Flames

An Excellent Spirit has agonized over the Obama Administration’s horrible excuse for a Middle East policy and the gross mis-management of US interests in that region of the world by the President. We have been horrified over Benghazi and beyond anger at the inept and cover up.

The Election has taken all of the air in the past two weeks, or more and no one seems to be paying attention. Not so Barry Rubin of The Rubin Report. In this PJ Media story, Rubin unleashes a scathing and completely deserved attack on the President and his failed foreign policy. “At last, a perfect description of the Obama Administration’s Middle East policy which—unintentionally—shows why it is heading for disaster. Now what place would be so simultaneously uncomprehending and over-confident to give us that image? The New York Times, of course, in the person of Middle East correspondent and reliable apologist for revolutionary Islamist groups, Robert Worth. First, let me repeat what I’ve been saying for almost four years: The problem is that the Obama Administration and its numerous supporters in academia and the mass media keep saying the following: –Only al-Qaida is a real threat because only al-Qaida wants to attack the United States directly right now. –Al-Qaida has been defeated due to the great policies of the Obama Administration. –The remaining revolutionary Islamist groups are potential friends. After all, [sarcasm warning] they only want to seize state power, overthrow all existing relatively moderate regimes, create Sharia dictatorships, suppress women’s rights, persecute Christians, wipe Israel off the map, and drive U.S. influence out of the region. War over; we won. Who needs security in Benghazi? Who’s afraid of the big and not-so-bad Muslim Brotherhood?”

That question answers itself, tragically. Next, Rubin gets “us” to the central point of the Obama Administration’s utter sham of a policy. “Then why couldn’t the Obama administration have said that the consulate was attacked by evil al-Qaeda for no reason other than its lust to murder Americans, with the perfect symbolism of the attack having been staged on September 11? There was a dual problem. First, the group involved was one the U.S. government had worked with during the Libyan civil war so it could not admit they were close to al-Qaeda. Second, the official line was that al-Qaeda had been defeated so it could not still be a threat. Therefore, an alternative narrative and a cover-up were needed. Yet the cover-up of the Benghazi killings is only a small portion of a cover-up that incorporates the Obama Administration’s entire Middle East policy and all the lands from Morocco to the borders of India. The problem with all this is that respected institutions are spouting what can easily be deciphered as pure nonsense just by analyzing their own words. Such corruption of key American institutions is frightening and must be reversed. Any man who cannot or will not distinguish between his country’s worst enemies—groups that hate America, wage a real war on women and Christians, and are the world’s leading antisemites—and “potential allies” should not be president.

Now that is straight shooting and a clear reason for the potentially treasonous and criminal Benghazi cover up. Obama challenger Mitt Romney has cautiously but firmly criticized the failure of this Administration. If there is a change on November 6th, America will get a new policy. Stay tuned America. The Election is almost over and the tragic aftermath is just about to begin. God bless America!

Retired SEALs and Officers Want Benghazi Investigation. Now!

An Excellent Spirit in keeping with its promise to inform our readers about the Benghazi scandal, the murders of four heroes, the government complicity with the lamestream media to keep “us” in the dark, the high level military firings and the outright lies that the Obama Administration has been telling all of “us”, has seen this website of retired “special operations” officers that is calling for the immediate investigation of the President and his administration. The site, Special Operations Speaks, was first noticed back in June by Townhall’s Austin Bay in connection with the Obama Administration’s leaking of documents and details of the bin Laden raid that killed the terrorist in Pakistan. “Which brings us to SOS. A Vietnam vet friend tipped me to its unfinished website, Special Operations Speaks.com. The message: A cadre of retired U.S. special operations personnel is fed up with leaks that compromise covert U.S. operations and imprison pro-American sympathizers. Their mission: stop the leaks by firing the leaker-in-chief. A former SEAL and commandant of the SEAL training center, retired U.S. Navy Capt. Larry Bailey, organized the group. I asked him, over the phone, why he formed it. He replied: “I’m pissed.” Bailey knows the leaks put U.S. security and the lives of American spies and SEALS at risk, so he’s fighting a political fight, seeded with his own money. He’ll take donations, you bet. Yes, he expects dirty personal attacks impugning his motives. Bailey and his shoestring SOS are Obama’s worst election year nightmare — special ops guys who publicly question his leadership and judgment. Obama’s most potent campaign tout is “I got bin Laden.” With SOS in the mix, the potent tout suddenly sounds just a tad pathetic.”

Retired Navy Seal Bailey

That was June. Now, in November, the updated site is calling for a full investigation and, if warranted, prosecution and even impeachment. “Special Operations Speaks Demands An Investigation To Uncover Potential High Crimes And Misdemeanors In Benghazigate” The statement by Larry Bailey, Captain (SEAL), USN (Retired), the Co-Founder, Special Operations Speaks and Joe Stringham, BG, USA (Ret), Special Forces/Ranger and Chairman of Special Operations Speaks PAC says, in part that “The President and his administration told outrageous lie after outrageous lie to the American people and at the United Nations for weeks after the 9-11-12 attacks. He will never be trusted again to speak the truth. That is why it is essential to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the scope of Obama and his administration’s culpability and total incompetence if not complicity with regard to these grave losses,” said Dick Brauer, Col, USAF (Ret), Air Commando. The statement concludes, “The question remains, do these actions constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors? SOS PAC believes that an independent investigation with a special prosecutor is the only way Americans will learn the truth. If Obama is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors we implore Congress to take every action in their power to hold this President and his administration accountable – up to impeachment and/or indictments. “No matter how November 6th plays out, Obama must be held responsible for his actions as a failed Commander in Chief,” said Joe Stringham, BG, USA (Ret), Special Forces/Ranger and Chairman of Special Operations Speaks PAC.”

Retired Gen. Joe Stringham

An Excellent Spirit recalls “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” in 2004 when John Kerry was lambasted by a group of retired “truth tellers” as he ran for President. This is vastly different. This group is apparently much deeper and better funded. That group was led by a few former veterans of Viet Nam and Cambodia who served with Kerry. The SOS group lists over 50 retired officers of high rank (Colonels and Majors). Other information on their site refers to retired Generals. These men and women are asking for investigation into “high crimes and misdemeanors”. That is the legal standard for the impeachment of a President.

The Special Operations Speaks has posted on the story that President Obama may not have given Cross Border Authority as we detailed for our readers. “As more information comes to the light about the Obama administration’s Benghazi cover-up, a former Navy SEAL officer who once took a military detachment to Libya suggests President Barack Obama was either AWOL — essentially an “empty chair” — or deliberately denied Americans under siege in Benghazi the aid they needed by not authorizing “cross-border authority,” without which rescue operations could have taken place. Matt Bracken, the former SEAL, writes “only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission.” He notes that Obama granted “cross-border authority” for Americans to enter Pakistani airspace to take out Osama bin Laden but, “in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi,” all Obama had to do was not grant the authority and any rescue missions would not have been able to go forward without the CBA. As soon as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Libya, dozens of headquarters — including AFRICOM  and EUROCOM — are notified so they can begin their planning for rescue operations, but, as Braken writes, “there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.”

An Excellent Spirit has reported many other extraordinary details of the Benghazi mess and we believe that this scandal may well be as bad or worse than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined. The timeline, the relief (arrest?) of front line commanders on the battlefield is unprecedented and demands full disclosure and accountability. The fact that there is an Election in the midst of all this is about to be removed on November 6th. The Obama Administration’s failure or refusal (or both) to recount a true, cogent explanation for all events in Benghazi is the principal reason that the fire is building from the ashes of the murders in Libya to a conflagration of massive size and destruction in the aftermath of tragedy. Stay tuned for more. And more. And more.

The Unmaking of President Obama

An Excellent Spirit has just read this new revelation on what happened on September 11th when our consulate in Benghazi was attacked that augers even more badly for the President. This PJ Media story raises a new issue: “Cross-Border Authority”.  The story “Benghazi’s Smoking Gun? Only President Can Give ‘Cross-Border Authority’ by Matt Bracken begins “Sending additional forces into a foreign country always requires the president’s approval. He was either absent, or refused “CBA”.” Bracken, a former Navy Seal officer details protocols that have heretofore been withheld from the reports. “The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut. Once the alarm is sent  – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission. That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation. No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace. On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the POTUS has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks. Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already “in country” in Libya — such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already “in country,” so CBA rules do not apply to them.”

An Excellent Spirit has detailed how two front line military commanders of flag rank were relieved of their commands in conjunction with the Benghazi debacle. Here  Could this information further inform those two delicate and astonishing situations?  We all will have to await the Congressional Investigations that will follow the Election. Meanwhile, as Bracken states “Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his “standing orders” not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella. Perhaps the president left “no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority” standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don’t yet know where the president was hour by hour. But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders

And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives. The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur’s Sword for understanding Benghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.”  There are numerous reports that US forces were ordered to “stand down” at least three times that fateful night as Americans waited in vain for support that never came. Four of them died. Go Here and here for videos of that night. President Obama has said that he “ordered that everything possible be done to help our people”. This You Tube video shows the President saying he ordered those in Benghazi be helped.

An Excellent Spirit finds it hard to reconcile the President’s comments with the lack of a clear Cross border authority. Either that order was given and exists or it was not given and the President is lying to the American people. There is no other possible explanation and Americans will find out, even if it after the Election. When “we” do find out, there will be consequences!

Benghazi Finally Makes It To Lamestream Media

Benghazi Scandal Grows – President at the Center of Cover Up

An Excellent Spirit has been bringing the news on Benghazi to our readers for weeks. Now, with less than five days until Election Day, the lamestream media is finally bringing “us” some news. We guess that they think “we” can now be trusted with some information. These Brietbart stories are running tonight. “AFTER STATE DEPT. DENIAL, ALL EVIDENCE POINTS TO OBAMA IN BENGHAZI SCANDAL” The truth is beginning to be told and it is not pretty: “The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake–who deserves a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on Benghazi–reported today that the State Department did not ask for military backup while the U.S. consulate was under attack on 9/11. That, together with other denials collected already, suggests that President Barack Obama decided, early on, there would be no intervention as long as the attack did not spread beyond the consulate or safe house. Lake recounts what is known about the afternoon’s events: By 11 p.m. Benghazi time [5 p.m. EDT], 90 minutes after the assault began on the U.S. mission, Obama met with the National Security Council to discuss the attack. NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor said the president “ordered Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey to begin moving assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies” at that meeting. We also know that the CIA has denied turning down requests for help, though such requests were reportedly made from within the agency. So, too, has the White House. Now the State Department has denied making any such requests, despite the fact that Secretary of State took responsibility last month for the security of diplomatic personnel. Only Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta–who also met with President Obama that afternoon–has acknowledged being part of any kind of decision not to send military assistance. What seems likely, therefore, is that Obama made a decision, after consulting with the NSC and the Secretary of Defense, to move military forces into place but to refrain from intervening unless “contingencies” arose–contingencies evidently not including the death of personnel already under attack. The goal was likely to limit casualties, and both diplomatic and political fallout, by containing the attack, not repulsing it. Obama said that one of his directives, upon finding out about the attack, was to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” But “securing” does not necessarily mean “providing security for.” In military parlance, “securing” personnel can mean effectively grounding them. That is likely why former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were reportedly told to “stand down”: the primary concern of the White House was not to take risks, even those that could save lives. The reason that CIA chief David Petraeus could say, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need,” is that the decision was likely made beforehand, by President Obama. And the reason the State Department never requested military assistance is that the president’s decision had likely foreclosed that possibility. The president’s directive was aimed at damage control–not protecting Americans.” Emphasis ours.

WAPO: ‘MULTIPLE ERRORS THAT LED TO FINAL TRAGEDY’ IN BENGHAZI

Brietbart also has this story about The Washington Post’s finally getting Americans some news. David Ignatius, Post reporter is quoted at length by Brietbart “In a report leaked to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, a liberal reporter at the Obama administration’s favorite newspaper, a “senior intelligence official” laid out the supposed timeline of events during the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. The timeline presents more questions than it answers.

●9:40 p.m.: A senior State Department security officer at the consulate in Benghazi called the CIA base, at an annex about a mile away, and requested assistance. “The compound is under attack. People are moving through the gates.” CIA officers at the base can hear the alarm, and a team immediately begins gathering weapons and preparing to leave.

●10:04 p.m.: A seven-person rescue squad from the agency’s Global Response Staff (GRS) leaves in two vehicles. The team leader is a career CIA officer and includes a contractor named Tyrone Woods, who later died. During the previous 24-minute interval, the CIA base chief calls the February 17 Brigade, other militias and the Libyan intelligence service seeking vehicles with 50-caliber machine guns. Nobody responds. The team leader and the base chief agree at 10:04 that they can’t wait any longer and head for the consulate.

The senior intelligence official said that he doesn’t know whether Woods or any of the other team members agitated to go sooner but that he wouldn’t be surprised. “I want them to have a sense of urgency,” he said. There is something fishy here. Why would the CIA base chief receive no response from local Libyan authorities? Furthermore, why didn’t the call go out for further backup once the consulate came under attack, and once it became clear that the Libyans weren’t going to do anything to help? This report obviously conflicts with Fox News’ source, who said that the CIA team asked repeatedly for permission to go in and was told to stand down.” The Posts timeline continues:

●10:10 p.m.: The rescue team reached a chaotic intersection a few blocks from the consulate. Militias gathered there have several 50-caliber machine guns, which the CIA team tries unsuccessfully to commandeer; three militiamen offer to help. The rescue party now includes 10 people: six GRS officers, a CIA translator and the three Libyan volunteers.

●10:20 p.m.: A reconnaissance party of two GRS officers heads to the consulate; at 10:25, three more GRS officers enter the main gate and begin engaging the attackers. The firefight lasts about 15 minutes.

●10:40 p.m.: Members of the CIA team enter the burning inferno of “Villa C,” where Ambassador Christopher Stevens is believed to be hiding. CIA officers try numerous times to reach the “safe room” but are driven back by the intense smoke and fire. Small-arms fire continues from the Libyan attackers.

●11:11 p.m.: An unarmed military Predator drone arrives over the compound to provide aerial reconnaissance. The drone had been diverted from a mission over Darnah, about 90 minutes away. But without weapons, it can’t help much.

This is a problematic moment in the timeline. Why was the drone diverted if it had no weapons capacity? Where was its live feed being directed? And why weren’t reinforcements called once the initial assault began at 9:40? More timeline:

●11:15 p.m.: The CIA team puts the State Department group into a vehicle and sends them to the agency base; at 11:30, the CIA officers depart under fire and reach the annex six minutes later.

●11:56 p.m.: CIA officers at the annex are attacked by a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms. Sporadic attacks continue for about another hour. The attacks stop at 1:01 a.m., and some assume the fight is over. Who assumed the fight was over? Certainly not the members of the CIA who stayed on site, and who ended up dying there. The timeline continues:

●1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they’ve hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They don’t leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport; obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack.

This is insanity. If an emergency flight with backup arrived at the Benghazi airport at 1:15 a.m., there is no rational excuse for them not leaving the airport until 4:30 a.m. absent orders. Why was the initial plan to head to the hospital if they suspected Stevens was dead, rather than to the CIA annex where the attack was still going on?

●5:04 a.m.: The team from Tripoli arrives at the CIA base. Glen Doherty, one of the GRS men from Tripoli, goes to the roof and joins Woods in firing positions.

●5:15 a.m.: A new Libyan assault begins, this time with mortars. Two rounds miss and the next three hit the roof. The rooftop defenders never “laser the mortars,” as has been reported. They don’t know they’re in place until the indirect fire begins, nor are they observed by the drone overhead. The defenders have focused their laser sites earlier on several Libyan attackers, as warnings not to fire. At 5:26 the attack is over. Woods and Doherty are dead and two others are wounded. Why did the defenders focus their lasers as a warning not to fire? Is this standard procedure? They had clearly lasered terrorists, and were not provided with supporting fire. Again, how does this source know what the drone footage showed?

●6 a.m.: Libyan forces from the military intelligence service finally arrive, now with 50 vehicles. They escort the Americans to the airport. A first group of 18, including two wounded, depart at 7 a.m. A second group of 12, plus the four dead, leave at 10 a.m. for Tripoli and then the long flight back to America.

Where were these Libyan forces all along – and what forced them now, just half an hour after the end of the attack, to get involved? This source is anonymous. That means that his or her account is no more or less reliable than the sources quoted by Fox News. The only way that this will be resolved is with a full and open disclosure of material by the Obama administration. And each branch of the Obama administration, from State to CIA to Defense, has seemed less than inclined to open up. “We” will see about that. More is coming out that defies belief or even explanation.

The Rubin Report on Benghazi

An Excellent Spirit has extolled The Rubin Report as a reliable source on all matters Middle Eastern. Now, Barry Rubin has this on Benghazi. “The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the murder of four Americans there has become a huge issue. There are many stories and rumors that are still being debated and more information is coming out.” Rubin begins by an analysis of the pertinent facts and background. Beginning with “why do they hate us”, he details what the Obama Administration has contributed to the current disasters around the Middle East, Africa and the rest of the world. “Diagnosing the problem tells one what the cure is: sensitivity; respect; tightening rules against such insults; bowing and scraping; refusing to identify radicals and terrorists with Islam in any way; giving large amounts of money; helping the Muslim Brotherhood so it will be grateful later; telling the NASA director to make up stuff about Muslim contributions to space travel, etc. That is the path the Obama Administration, with major support from the intellectual-cultural establishment, has followed.”

Barry Rubin of The Rubin Report

Having established what does not work, Rubin continues. “In the Benghazi case, however, it is hard to come up with more than a video, according to the dominant view. After all, didn’t the United States “liberate” Libya from a terrible dictator? Of course, the problem is that from the standpoint of the radicals, the United States merely became Libya’s new master, blocking the revolutionary Islamist, Sharia state they wanted, producing a “puppet” (who cares if it was elected?) government. America is thus the prime enemy not because it did something evil but because it did something which the U.S. government regarded as good. If they hate us in Libya for sinful policies, then President Barack Obama, not the Egyptian-born video producer, is the chief sinner.” Mr. Rubin continues, “(T)he establishment view today is that America has been a bully in the past, acting unilaterally and not respecting the views of others. Obama has said this directly when speaking to foreign—including Middle Eastern—audiences. But how does one stop being a bully? By showing that one isn’t tough, doesn’t protect one’s interests fiercely. Thus, in the Benghazi case, the U.S. government didn’t send the ambassador to Benghazi with Americans to guard him, nor did the consulate have Americans to provide security. To do so would be to show disrespect for the Libyans, to act in a way that might be perceived of as imperialistic. Similarly, the president would not call in an airstrike against the attackers or send an armed rescue team to the consulate because to do so would have signaled an arrogance and aggressiveness, putting Americans first and not acting as a citizen of the world.”

4 Dead Americans in Benghazi On September 11, 2012

Next, Rubin asks Who is the Enemy? “If the enemy is defined as solely al-Qaida this allows a policy of treating all other Islamists—even the Afghan Taliban!—as a potential friend. Both Vice-President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, explained that leading elements of the Taliban, a group complicit in the September 11 attacks, could be won over. Certainly, the Muslim Brotherhood—the world’s largest and most powerful international anti-American organization—was helped and treated as a potential ally. Al-Qaida, however, is a relatively weak organization, capable of staging only sporadic terror attacks, with the exception perhaps of remote Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan. It cannot take over whole countries. The fact that Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Turkey, and perhaps soon Syria are governed by Islamists is a far greater strategic threat. Then why couldn’t the Obama Administration have said that the consulate was attacked by evil al-Qaida for no reason other than its lust to murder Americans, with the perfect symbolism of the attack having been staged on September 11? There was a dual problem. First, the group involved was one the U.S. government had worked with during the Libyan civil war so it could not admit they were close to al-Qaida. Second, the official line was that al-Qaida had been defeated so it could not still be a threat. Therefore, an alternative narrative and a cover-up were needed.”

Rubin then recalls a Hillary Clinton commercial from 2008. “Competence and Courage Once upon a time a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination warned that if Obama was elected president he would not be reliable in a crisis, answering a 3 AM phone call requiring instant response. That claim, of course, came from Hillary Clinton. Benghazi was that phone call. That conclusion is reinforced by the killing of al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin. Notice something of huge importance that has been neglected. Obama and his supporters bragged about his indecision on the no-brainer of getting the architect of the September 11 attacks. If he would hesitate on an obvious call like that one, how would he deal with a consulate under attack in Benghazi? There is, or should be, a sacred trust between the U.S. government and those who put themselves in harm’s way for the sake of America. Everything should be done to protect and save them. In this case, however, the country’s leaders let those people down both before and during the crisis. Note, too, how unintentionally revealingly Obama responded to this issue in the presidential debate. Once the crisis was over, Obama said, he swung into action, securing those who still survived, investigating who was responsible, and promising to punish them. What about before and during the multi-hour assault? Silence. The details–for example, whether or not there was a drone overhead–obscure the fact that no proper preparations were made for the ambassador and consulate being unprotected and that passivity prevailed during the battle. If the U.S. government didn’t trust the Libyans wouldn’t that show that America thought itself superior and its interests to override those of others? And isn’t that racist? One could say that the Obama Administration’s failure to act denotes incompetence, and there is truth there. But the larger picture is that it was a failure due to its concept of America and the world. The real danger is not from totalitarian enemies grown bolder in the fact of American weakness and a loss of self-confidence. No, according to the prevailing view, it was rather excessive American self-confidence and strength in the past. The effort to change those bad old ways, to open a new era with completely different behavior, the failure to perceive the real enemies and to understand America’s rights and duties were the causes of the incident in Benghazi, and many other setbacks as well. The chickens have come back to roost and have roosted in the White House. And the vultures are gathering.”

As usual, Barry Rubin has provided facts and analysis that the lamestream media absolutely refuses to publish. An Excellent Spirit highly recommends that our readers support The Rubin Report by giving financial support. To do so, here is the information:

To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: <https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=ET6RUW2JGHGGWBy credit card: <http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com> and click Donate button. Checks: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003. For tax-deductible donations in Canada and the UK, write info@gloria-center.org

 

The Obama Confidence Scam on Benghazi

Thomas Sowell is perhaps our best and clearest thinker. He has debated and deflated the best academicians and politicians of the left for a half century. Professor Sowell has this Townhall article today, “Cooling Out” The Voters. It is on the coming Election and Benghazi. Sowell begins by letting us in on the inside baseball of confidence game methods. “Confidence men know that their victim — “the mark” as he has been called — is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone. So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called “cooling out the mark.”

In case An Excellent Spirit’s readers are wondering, the confidence game is the Election and the events that could cost the Obama team defeat. The mark is “us”. “We” have been treated as the mark and nothing will change that. And, by “cooling” “us” out, the good Professor is referring to the systematic distortions, lies and liars who have been speaking to the public for the past 6+ weeks about what actually happened in Benghazi Libya when Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

After discussing the example of the Clinton White House’s skillful avoidance of Impeachment over his lies about Monica Lewinsky, Thomas Sowell gets down to it: “We are currently seeing another “cooling out” process, growing out of the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11th this year. The belated release of State Department e-mails shows that the Obama administration knew, while the attack on the American consulate was still underway, that it was a coordinated, armed terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the consulate who were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures from a camera on an American drone overhead. About an hour before the attack, the scene outside was calm enough for the American ambassador to accompany a Turkish official to the gates of the consulate to say goodbye. This could hardly have happened if there were protesting mobs there. Why then did both President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice keep repeating the story that this was a spontaneous protest riot against an anti-Islamic video in America? The White House knew the facts — but they knew that the voting public did not. And it mattered hugely whether the facts became known to the public before or after the election. What the White House needed was a process of “cooling out” the voters, keeping them distracted or in uncertainty as long as possible.”

The good Professor even gives us motive and reason for our government playing this cynical, mendacious game with “us”. “The White House had to know that it was only a matter of time before the truth would come out. But time was what mattered, with an election close at hand. The longer they could stretch out the period of distraction and uncertainty — “cooling out” the voters — the better. Once the confidence man in the White House was reelected, it would be politically irrelevant what facts came out.”

Exposing the scam played upon “us”, Professor Sowell concludes, “From the time it took office, the Obama administration has sought to suppress the very concept of a “war on terror” or the terrorists’ war on us. The painful farce of calling the Fort Hood murders “workplace violence,” instead of a terrorist attack in our midst, shows how far the Obama administration would go to downplay the dangers of Islamic extremist terrorism. The killing of Osama bin Laden fed the pretense that the terrorism threat had been beaten. But the terrorists’ attack in Libya exposed that fraud — and required another fraud to try to “cool out” the voters until after election day.”

Thank you, Thomas Sowell, “we” needed that! Read the whole thing here.

Benghazi Follow Up : Stevens Killed Over Weapons US Supplied to Terrorists

An Excellent Spirit reported yesterday that Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11th in connection with huge amounts of weapons that the United States was supplying to Islamist Terrorists.

We reported that sources developed by Frank J. Gaffney had revealed that the Obama Administration had engaged in “gunwalking” weapons captured or discovered after the death of dictator Gadaffi. Apparently, Chris Stevens and four Americans were murdered because Islamists wanted weapons that were stored on the Benghazi site by Americans for transfer to terrorists we deemed worthy and the whole thing came undone, tragically. Now, comes this confirmation from The Rubin Report. “The official story of what led up to the attack is just plain weird. Supposedly, the U.S. ambassador arrived back in the country and immediately ran off to Benghazi virtually by himself allegedly to investigate building a new school and a hospital there yet without any real security. His protection was to be provided by relatively untrained Libyans who a few months earlier had been rebels in the civil war. It is quite true that the State Department and ultimately Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible for the ambassador being in Benghazi and for ensuring his protection. The president would not be consulted on such a “minor” event. But the story hinges on why the ambassador was in Benghazi that day. If he was, as accounts by sources in the U.S. intelligence community suggested, negotiating with a terrorist, anti-American group to obtain the return of U.S. weapons provided during the civil war that would have been a much higher-priority matter. I have been asked by sources not to reveal the specific weapons’ system that was Washington’s highest priority to buy back but the details make sense. The fact that the ambassador was not accompanied by a delegation of foreign aid experts to evaluate these alleged projects shows that the reason for the ambassador’s presence in Benghazi is being covered up. This situation transcends State Department jurisdiction and brings in the CIA and higher-level national security officials. The plan would have been in the presidential briefing and it is quite conceivable he would have been called on to approve of it.”

Barry Rubin is a veteran observer of the Middle East that An Excellent Spirit has referenced many times. For a round up of previous posts, go here.  Rubin continues, “Obama said he did three things but in fact he did four: he and his administration immediately lied to the American people about the cause of the attack, what happened, and who appeared to have done it. –They said the attack was due to the video rather than a revolutionary Islamist attempt to hit at the United States and subvert the regime in Libya. –They said the attack was a spontaneous act in the context of a peaceful demonstration when it was a planned assault. –They said that there was no idea who was responsible when it was almost certainly al-Qaida.”

In the final Presidential Debate on foreign policy, Obama charged: “While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening. Yet, as Rubin reports, “all three of the above lies were precisely a matter of turning “national security into a political issue,” and that is what Obama has done throughout his term. Emphasis ours. 

Barry Rubin correctly observes what the lamestream media should know, but will never tell the American people: Obama could not acknowledge the real cause of the attack because that “would have been to acknowledge the real threat in the Middle East and the embarrassing fact that American weapons had been given to terrorist, anti-American groups. Incidentally, far from learning anything in Libya, Obama is now doing precisely the same thing in Syria. To acknowledge the nature of the attack would be to show the depth of the security failure—on September 11 of all days—in not recognizing the danger in Benghazi. This includes the fact that the guards were untrained; that they had—according to one of them—been aware of the danger and not told any Americans; that they had fled; that Libyan regime sources had apparently tipped off the attackers to where Americans were hiding; and that there had been no U.S.-provided security. Was that last shortcoming due to an attempt not to “offend” the Libyans by showing they weren’t trusted? If so, that arises directly from the themes Obama has set in his foreign policy.”

President Obama is clearly over his head in foreign policy issues. He had no real experience organizing communities and representing slumlords in Chicago when he came into the Presidency and events and the incompetence of his own Administration are overwhelming the United States today, all over the world. So the President’s narrative that bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is too was being exploded and he was helpless. Rubin continues, “To admit that al-Qaida is still very much in business would show that Obama’s claim the group had been defeated was false and demonstrate the limited value of killing Usama bin Ladin. Al-Qaida is, of course, still strong in Yemen and Somalia as well as having active groups in the Gaza Strip, Iraq, Syria, and other places.” So, at the debate, the President dissembled and accused Romney of lying and politicizing Benghazi. 

To his credit, Mitt Romney stuck to his guns. As Rubin observed, “The real questions, however, were raised by Romney in his response: “There were other issues associated with this—with this tragedy. There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, I think you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations [Susan Rice, acting of course on administration directives] went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could of we not known?” “In other words, the Obama Administration deliberately lied to the American people.”  Emphasis ours.

Romney continued at the debate, “But I find more troubling than this that on…day following the assassination of the United States ambassador — the first time that’s happened since 1979 — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn’t know what happened, that the president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event.” Emphasis ours.

Update: “It has now come out that the State Department hired a small, relatively unknown British firm (how’s that for outsourcing jobs?) which in turn hired 20 untrained, unarmed Libyans who were told to sound the alarm and run away if there was an attack. That’s what they did, leaving the ambassador defenseless.  So according to the official U.S. plan, the ambassador had no protection whatsoever.  Two brave Americans sacrificed their lives in the ensuing battle. The Obama Administration sacrificed all three and then misrepresented what had happened not for any national security interest but purely for their own partisan political and personal benefit.” 

In 1973-74, it took months of leaks, testimony, indictments and more that led to a Presidential resignation. Partly, that is because President Nixon was re-elected in November of 1972. By that timetable, if Barack Obama is re-elected, his resignation should come in 2014 after another period of national shame and disgust. Stay tuned.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.