Wednesday, October 31, 2012

What Happened in Benghazi? (Part 1)

*******
Benghazi explained: Interview with an “Intelligence Insider”
(Part 1)
Administration is engaged in a massive cover-up
Doug Hagmann
Thursday, November 29, 2012
This is part one of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. In this part, he provides important background, and explains this administration is engaged in a massive cover-up.
DH: It’s been a while since we’ve discussed Benghazi. What have you heard lately?
II: Before I answer that, I want to get a few things off my chest. Every politician, whether it’s a congressman senator, diplomat, or their spokespeople and the media are lying to the American public every time they call the location of the attack a consulate. It was not. There was absolutely no diplomatic consulate in Benghazi. None. Words are important here. They can create a wrong image, an incorrect picture of what was really going on. The property where our Ambassador and other Americans were murdered was a rented villa consisting of a primary residence with a couple of outbuildings behind the actual house. The reason they’re still calling it a consulate is to subtly divert any questions about our activities there.
DH: Let’s go over this again; exactly what was taking place at Benghazi?
II: As I said, the place where the attack happened is one of the largest, one of the most active CIA operation centers in North Africa, if not in the entire Middle East. It was not a diplomatic station. It was a planning and operations center, a logistics hub for weapons and arms being funneled out of Libya. Unlike the embassy in Tripoli, there was limited security in Benghazi. Why? So the operation did not draw attention to what was going on there.
DH: So in reality there were no actual security issues?
II: Oh yes, there were, in Tripoli. Diplomatic cables show that. But it was for the embassy in Tripoli, the Ambassador and the diplomatic staff in general, not specifically for the Benghazi location for two reasons. First, the Benghazi location was a CIA operation, not a diplomatic one. Visible security at that location would draw unwanted attention there. They had to blend in. Remember, the villa was located in a somewhat residential area, sort of like the suburbs. Secondly, additional manpower was not needed there, at this CIA center, as the operation was already winding down.
DH: I know you’ve gone over this before, but let’s get into the specifics of the operation at Benghazi.
II: Good, I want to be clear. After Gaddafi was taken out, there was the matter of his weapons and arms that were hidden all over Libya, including chemical weapons - gas weapons. According to Obama and Hillary Clinton, we were in Libya to collect and destroy these weapons to make for a ‘safer’ Libya. That’s what they were telling the American public. That’s not really what was going on, though, and it seems like all of the other nations except the average American knew it. Anyway, you can find pictures and videos of weapons caches being destroyed, but that is strictly for the public’s consumption.
What was really happening, before Gaddafi’s body was even cold, is that we had people locating caches of weapons, separating the working from those that weren’t, and making a big show of destroying the weapons, but only the weapons that were useless. The working weapons were being given to Islamic terrorists. They were being funneled through Libya, crisscrossing Libya on a Muslim Brotherhood managed strategic supply route. In fact, Michael Reagan called it the modern day equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in a recent article he wrote, and he is correct.
The entire arms and weapons running operation was headquartered in Benghazi, The weapons were actually being shipped out of Libya from the port city of Dernah, located about a hundred miles east of Benghazi. That was the ‘choke point’ of the weapons being shipped out. Remember the Lusitania? Think in those terms, ships carrying weapons hid among ‘humanitarian aid.’ By the time of the attacks, an estimated 30-40 million pounds of arms were already transported out of Libya.
From there, the weapons were being sent to staging areas in Turkey near the Syrian border, for use by the Free Syrian Army and other ragtag terrorist groups to fight against Assad. The objective was and still is to destabilize the Assad government.
Why Syria, why not Iran?
II: It’s both, but Syria is the primary target here for this operation. First, look at the bigger picture, look at the so-called “Arab Spring.” Who benefits and by default, who doesn’t? Who is the architect for what’s going on throughout the Middle East and North Africa? Whose agenda is being implemented? To specifically address Benghazi, though, look at the bigger picture here and what is trying to be accomplished.
The Obama administration is playing the role of Saudi Arabia’s private army. I think if Americans knew this, they would be outraged. Our service men and women are being sold out as mercenaries for the wants and desires of the Royal family, for the Saudi’s interests. It’s about religious dominance and oil. Who is really benefitting from, say, what’s going on in Egypt? Mubarek is out, and the Muslim Brotherhood is in. Who does that benefit? Saudi Arabia.
Look at what we see happening in Egypt. Destabilization. Do you think the Russians want that? Hell no. Syria is Russia’s red line in the sand, as you earlier wrote. If Syria is lost to the Muslim Brotherhood by the actions of Obama, Hillary Clinton and others in this administration, what happens? Well, it will have an adverse impact on Russia from a military standpoint. They will likely lose access to their Mediterranean deep water port in Syria, which is Tartus.
But think further - three dimensionally. Russia is still the world’s largest oil producer, and that’s Russia’s primary source of income. Then there’s Turkey, adjacent to Syria. A large amount of Russian oil and gas, consumed by the West, flows through Turkey, which is also a player in this operation.
So, the destabilization of Syria which is exactly what Obama and Clinton are trying to do, presents a direct military and economic threat to Russia. Assad at least has kept things in check in Syria. Can you imagine Assad being replaced by someone like Morsi? That would strike at the very heart of Russia’s economic health and military capabilities. Think of what’s at stake here. Do Americans want a regional war? World War III? Has Obama or Clinton asked the American people if this is what they want?
Make no mistake, we are doing the bidding for Saudi Arabia. The U.S., NATO and other allies are engaged in a proxy war with Iran and Russia.
What about Assad’s war crimes?
Assad is no angel, but don’t be fooled by the death toll attributed to him. Now this is important. Remember the first Gulf War? In the run up to Desert Storm, a young woman testified before the Human Rights Caucus - she only testified under her first name, which was Nayirah. Remember that she testified that Iraqi soldiers were taking infants from incubators in Kuwait, leaving them to die? Her testimony was supposedly confirmed by Amnesty International. Her testimony went viral, and every war hawk in the U.S. government cited her testimony, saying we needed to right the wrongs, the inhumanity. It was all one big lie!
After Desert Storm, it was revealed that Nayirah’s last name was Al-Sabah, and she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Her testimony was part of a publicity campaign organized by Citizens for a Free Kuwait, which was run by Hill & Knowlton, a PR firm out of New York. People must learn the back story.
So we see a body count attributed to Assad. Who’s doing the killing, Assad’s people? Maybe at times, but the Free Syrian Army and other groups are doing most of the slaughter. It’s one huge ‘false flag’ operation and the media is selling it hard. And Americans are buying it, just like the testimony of the girl from Kuwait.
It’s one big lie being told by Obama, Clinton, Rice, and others. Many Americans are buying the lie, and the media is selling the lie. The people behind this are laughing at us. Don’t you get it? They’re laughing at us.
And do you want to know what’s at stake? Four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Forty thousand have been killed so far in Syria. Tens of thousands of Syrian people have become refugees. Why? For what? To advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia. For oil.
You know, the so-called right wing establishment were all up in arms about Obama’s submissive bow to the Saudi King. Where are they now? Where’s the outrage that the body count will be much greater than Forty thousand? It is anticipated that if the Obama plan succeeds, not only will America be committed to yet another war, but the body count could be as high as FOUR MILLION. Christians, among others, will be slaughtered. This could trigger a third world war, it’s that serious.
What are Russia and Iran doing? Certainly, they must be fighting back.
Benghazi was a strike against us, the Obama-Clinton agenda. A visible strike, and I’ll explain more about this shortly, because there are events I will point out that will put it all into perspective. But think of it this way. How did we successfully collapse the Soviet Union? I mean, what was the last straw? We attacked their currency - the Ruble. They’re still stinging from that, and Putin was in the KGB at the time. Do you think he forgot about that?
So, how do, or will Russia and Iran strike back if Obama and Clinton continue this insanity? Militarily? Possibly in regional conflicts, but to take us out, to stop us, what is the one area where we are very vulnerable? It’s our economy - our dollar. What’s our dollar tied to? Not gold or silver anymore, and some say it’s not tied to anything. Well, that’s not quite correct. It’s tied to OIL. The free-flow of oil.
Oil transactions everywhere in the world, including Russia and China, are made with U.S. dollars. We buy their oil with our dollars, and they return with those same paper dollars and employ Americans by buying our goods and services. As Michael Reagan wrote: “[t]his system is also crucial to the security of our diplomatic and legal infrastructure, which is ultimately backed by our military. It’s the core of our foreign policy.” He also wrote that “any attack on the free flow of oil is an attack on the dollar. Any attack on the dollar is an attack on our ability to project power and protect Western democracies, economies, and ideals. God have mercy on us all if that attack is successful!”
Also See:
Benghazi: Behind the scenes
(Part II)
Obama does not want the American people to know the truth about what is going on, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM
Doug Hagmann
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Author’s note: This is part two of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. It is important to note that the information contained in this series was developed from interviews that spanned over 100 hours. In this part, the insider provides information about the events of the attack and the continuation of the cover-up at the highest levels of our government.
We’ve heard different accounts and different timelines concerning the attack at Benghazi. What exactly happened?
First, people must understand that the compound that was attacked was situated in a somewhat rural area and was not a consulate, but a rented villa, or a residential structure. The residence was the primary building, and what has been referred to as the annex was located about 1800 feet away as the crow flies, but just over a mile to travel by road. And again, visible security was not present as the compound was the headquarters for a covert operation. No one wanted to draw attention to what was taking place at this location.
The first indications of problems there began at least twelve-(12) hours before the first shot was even fired. One of the men at the compound observed a policeman or Libyan security officer taking photographs outside of the villa. Keep in mind that Ambassador Stevens, the point man in this Obama-sanctioned weapons running operation, was hastily scheduled to meet with the Turkish consul general at this location. The meeting was deliberately planned for dinner time, toward evening, when the events that happened next could be performed under the cover of darkness.
It’s also important to consider the location of this meeting. Tripoli is the seat of power in Libya, and a genuine diplomatic meeting could more safely have been conducted there, at the embassy. Also, what most people don’t know is that Libya is split, much like East and West Germany before the wall. The eastern part is more closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, the same group that controls Egypt. The Turkish consul general had to meet there, not just with Stevens but with other factions involved in this covert operation.
Now I’ll digress for a moment. It is reasonable to ask whether the Turkish consul general was setting Stevens up for a hit, like a classic mob-style hit. First, there is no dispute that there was surveillance done at 6:30 a.m. and intermittently throughout the day. Next, consider that three hours before the first shot was fired, about 6:30 p.m. local time, some strange things were observed taking place near the compound. Military type vehicles began closing of the streets with trucks that had 50 caliber guns mounted on them. Checkpoints on the streets and at intersections were being quietly closed off around the compound. Nearby residents began going inside their homes. Anyone walking in the area got off the streets, like a scene from a movie in the Godfather series. It was obvious that the stage was being set for a strike against the compound. This alone reveals preplanning and coordination.
It’s also noteworthy to point out that the Turkish counsel general most likely passed through one or more of these checkpoints, or at least would have noticed that things were not right in the area. You must remember that just as Stevens was previously CIA working under diplomatic cover, the Turkish counsel general was his counterpart. It’s typical spy versus spy stuff.
Also consider this. One of the men stationed at the compound, a British national, left the compound at about 9:20 p.m., reportedly to get more phone cards. That’s right, phone cards, like you would buy at Walmart. Why? Because the men at the compound ran out of minutes. Just who do you think they were talking to that day to burn through the minutes, and why do you think they needed them at that exact time?
They were using the phones as a last and perhaps only line of communications to provide assessments of the strange things going on earlier. They knew that something was being planned and they were conveying that information - their observations to those who could assist them, in Tripoli and DC.
Based on these activities, it is clear that the men at the compound suspected that they were in trouble long before the first shot was ever fired. They were calling anyone who would listen, or who should have listened. We knew trouble was brewing and no one responded in any meaningful way.
Could the man who left to buy more phone cards have known what was about to take place?
Well, it’s possible, but there is no indication of that.
Was the Turkish counsel general in on this, to set Stevens up?
Well, what have we heard from our government? Has anyone even bothered to interview him? What did he say? Don’t forget, this administration decided to handle this attack as a crime and not a terrorist attack. How long did it take for the FBI to be able to access the ‘crime scene’ after the attack? More importantly, what was left at the ‘crime scene’ to examine by the FBI due to this delay? Do you think the delay was accidental?
Do you know what was discussed, or the reason for the meeting between Stevens and the Turkish consul general?
Yes, I know some key points. First, keep in mind what this arms running operation was all about. It was to topple Assad and replace him with a Muslim Brotherhood leader. It was to destabilize Syria to advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia. They were using U.S. and NATO forces to do exactly that.
However, Assad is no Gaddafi, and there is no comparison between Assad’s army and the Libyan army. It would take much more than rebels inside Syria to topple Assad. There is no way on earth that the Syrian rebels, or Free Syrian Army, has the capability to accomplish this objective alone. It required U.S. assistance, arms and training.
Now, Turkey is a NATO ally. They were assisting the Obama-Clinton-Saudi plan to funnel weapons ultimately to Syria, but the primary staging areas for these weapons were in Turkey near the Syrian border. Visual surveillance by Russia, using satellites and other means amassed photographic documentation of the U.S. assisting the ‘anti-Assad rebels’ inside Turkey. They developed evidence of the U.S. training these rebels and assisting them into Syria to fight against Assad.
Think about this. What if surveillance images observed anti-Assad rebels being trained to handle and mount chemical weapons - gas shells - onto rockets? The process would be apparent and would obviously be detected by a number of visual indicators. Obviously, Syria wanted this to stop. By extension, so did Russia.
One aspect of the weapons plan was to set up a false flag operation to make it appear that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Imagine the outcry from the civilized world to the news that Assad ‘gassed’ his own people. That would be an invitation to NATO and the West to openly intervene. Don’t forget about the timing of all of this. Two months before the elections, and time was running out. The job of taking out Assad was not yet complete. Such an event would quickly advance this agenda. By this time, however, being caught and placed in a rather unenviable position between Russia and the U.S., the Turkish consul general was in a ‘CYA, clean-up’ mode, assuring that none of the chemical weapons that might have still been in Libya were headed for Turkey.
It is also important to understand that the covert weapons running operation was just about finished. An estimated 40 million pounds of weapons were already shipped from Libya, and things were winding down.
There was another issue as well, a very important and telling one. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent had been kidnapped or snatched from the streets of Benghazi on or about July 31, 2012. Again you must understand that virtually anyone walking on the streets of Benghazi not indigenous to the area are spies. Covert operatives, operating under various covers. From all nations.
Along with the message that the weapons running operation was compromised, the Iranians had good reason to suspect that the ‘Red Crescent workers’ were snatched by the CIA or with their assistance. Iran wanted them back. They were spies, and countries want their spies back! So part of the meeting was to address this, as there was pressure by Russia against a wavering Turkey to switch sides. Anyway, you’ll see how this ties in to the way the actual attack was executed.
Please continue.
So at 9:30 pm local time, the compound began to take on small arms fire. Based on all reports I’ve reviewed, there were three twelve-man attack teams armed with small arms, RPGs, and other sophisticated military style weapons. These were not run-of-the-mill street weapons, but military issued type weapons. The types of weapons alone scream that this was a preplanned attack.
Eyes on the area [author’s note: satellites, surveillance drones] confirmed that two of these teams surrounded the villa and the annex. The third team was elsewhere, lying in wait. The two teams began their assault on the compound where Stevens was inside about an hour after the Turkish counsel general left. Remember, he had to pass the checkpoints after the meeting. Just keep that in mind.
Anyway, we all know now that there was an intense firefight that lasted nearly nine hours during which four Americans, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were killed. And of course that attack was not over a video and there were no protests before the attack.
Now there are questions that are not being asked. The two well-armed ‘hit teams’ had the capability to reduce the compound and annex to rubble quickly. Why a protracted firefight? There are a couple of reasons.
First, what was the makeup of the ‘hit teams,’ or who were the attackers? We have verified that the attackers were a combination of members of Ansar al Sharia and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), but they were operating under the flag of Ansar al Sharia. Who is Ansar al Sharia? Iranian terrorists. They are a terrorist group that receives their training by and funding from Iran. Now think about this. Carefully consider the implications here. IRAN. It’s the elephant in the room no one wants to mention or talk about.
The attack on our ambassador and our people - Americans - was an attack by Iran. It was an attack at a nation-state level.
AQIM also assisted. They are indigenous to Africa and are extremely dangerous. AQIM is a very ‘elite’ and extremely well-funded group, and very limited in number. Our last assessment suggests that there are only 400 or so members, but they are very influential across Africa and into South and Central America and Western Europe. Their importance and relevance will become evident shortly.
The reason that they did not just take out the compound and everything and everyone in it is that they were looking for their spies. Remember the Red Crescent workers? The Iranian spies? They suspected that they might be held at the annex. As such, they wanted to free them and did not want to risk killing them.
Oh, and there were others ‘missing’ as well. AQIM members. These were terrorists involved in drug running operations from the Tri-border (TBA) areas of South America through North Africa and into Western Europe. By the way, this is the way they made their money. Drugs sell at higher profits in Western Europe than elsewhere, so there is money to be made. The problem is that some of them got caught—snatched up in Benghazi and northeastern Libya.
Now regarding AQIM, this has a direct connection not only to South America, but also to Mexico and Mexican drug gangs. You think that what’s going on in Libya is just ‘over there,’ and far away from the U.S. and has nothing to do with our safety and security? Think again, but more on this in a bit.
There’s also another reason. The hit teams fully expected rescue teams from the U.S. to be dispatched to the compound. Certainly, calls for help went out. By waiting for the back-up or rescue forces, a surprise assault by the other ‘hit team’ team would have exposed our forces to possible causalities and turned the event into a much bigger event where the actual nature of the operation could be exposed to the world. Instead of being a cover-up for which they have yet to be held accountable, it would have been an international incident that would have exposed the entire affair.
So the Ansar al Sharia attack groups deliberately conducted a protracted assault on the compound. Just imagine, our men and even the bad guys never expected team Obama would leave our people twisting in the wind, fighting for their lives. That alone should speak volumes to every American.
As daylight approached, they had to wrap things up so they could disappear under the cover of darkness. Oh, and the crowds that are often cited by this administration, did form in the area as the attack progressed, much like a growing mob in riot. They provided the fog, or the cover, that permitted the attackers to escape amid the crowd.
You mentioned the missing Iranian Red Crescent workers and members of AQIM. Were they ever released or found?
Yes, and this is an extremely important part of this entire story. This reaches into the highest levels of our government. This is so very important that it must be addressed separately.
So the attack was first and the crowd came later. I noted that the administration said that there were protests going on at the Embassy in Cairo at the same time and they compared it to Benghazi.
Yes, that’s their cover story and they know that there is absolutely no comparison. This is one huge lie that is easily addressed and put out of its misery.
How soon did U.S. intelligence officials know who was responsible for the attack?
Almost immediately, if not concurrent with the attack. Every part of that area is under active aerial surveillance by the U.S. There was SIGINT or communication intercepts at the time of the attack. Then, there was even an admission by the attackers. Obama knew. Hillary knew. Clapper knew. Everyone knew, expect the American people. And you know what? The American media knew as well.
I heard a statement that they did not admit knowledge to avoid alerting the perpetrators.
Yes, it was said that Rice and others did not want to alert the ‘bad guys’ or tip their hand or some such nonsense, but did that mean that Susan Rice, for example, had to appear on national television and lie to every one of us, to the country? In my opinion, Rice took on the temporary job of propaganda minister for a day in exchange for a shot at Secretary of State in the future.
You are painting quite a dire picture.
It gets worse, much worse, and it involves real threats across the globe and even to us here in the United States. But it’s all because of our actions, the covert weapons running from Libya to Syria by way of Turkey at the direction of Barack Obama and his Saudi ‘handlers.’
FORTY THOUSAND men, women and children are dead in Syria as a direct result of this attempt at nation building, or tearing down Assad. There are four dead Americans. We are arming some of the very people who are killing our troops. Not only are we on the wrong side of this, we are actively pushing the world to the precipice of World War III.
We are engaged in a real war here with Iran and Syria and by extension, with Russia and China. And we are being lied to about it every step of the way. And the lies are getting worse, but so are the attempts to stop the truth from getting out.
What do you mean?
What do you think the recent directive issued by Obama, the one you wrote about ‘insider threats,’ is all about? Obama does not want the American people to know the truth about what is going on. He’s doubled down to stop leaks, like this. But you know what? He just might be too late, because we’re not done here. I’m not done talking, and there’s much more that needs to be exposed.
Also See:
Benghazi explained: Interview with an “Intelligence Insider”
(Part III)
Advancing the agenda of Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in North Africa, Middle East. We're doing their work, pitting ourselves against Syria, Iran and ultimately Russia and China
Doug Hagmann
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Author’s note:
This is part three of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. As previously stated, the information contained in this series was developed from interviews that spanned over 100 hours. Included in this update is the most current information following a more recent interview with this insider.
Events seem to be changing rapidly in Syria, and we know that the operations in Benghazi played a very important role in Syria. Please update the readers on the current situation, but first give a brief recap for context.Okay, but we’re running out of time. The world is running out of time. Remember when we first began this lengthy interview process? It was in response to your report on September 15, 2012, just four days after the attack in Libya. You wrote that the fuse for WW III has been lit. It is now burning rapidly down, although people are still not understanding what’s taking place right in front of them.
I’ll give a brief, perhaps somewhat oversimplified recap going back to the beginning, giving context for what’s taking place at this very moment. I suppose I cannot overstate this or say this enough. The so-called “Arab Spring” is an initiative by Obama and his foreign policy advisers, Clinton in her capacity of Secretary of State, and others including some of the most powerful people in the world. International bankers, the power brokers and string pullers. It is a plan to reshape the Middle East and North Africa, and change the geopolitical balance of power. It’s not about some feel good mission to free the oppressed. Never was. It’s about the U.S., through the CIA, using groups ideologically aligned to al Qaeda aligned to overthrow various Middle East nations to install regimes controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.
It’s a globalist agenda, using the blueprints and agenda created by Saudi Arabia for the North African and Middle East portions of the globe, to shape that area geopolitically. They are using the United States as their surrogate and their military muscle, and the Obama led U.S. “regime” is all too willing to comply.
With regard to Libya, it was in March of 2011 when the Clinton State Department, under orders of
Obama, appointed Ambassador Stevens as the point man to the al Qaeda linked Libyan opposition forces to topple Qaddafi. Remember, Osama bin Laden was reportedly killed two months later and al Qaeda was supposedly out of existence, according to Obama. But think about this. Under direct orders of Obama, Clinton appointed Stevens to work with the very same people who reportedly killed 3000-plus Americans on September 11, 2001 for the purposes of overthrowing Qaddafi. It worked, and Qaddafi was deposed and murdered in October of 2011.
Look at what happened next. Clinton announced that the U.S. was throwing $40 million into Libya to “secure” Qaddafi’s weapon arsenals. Oh, really? That’s what was being told to the public and to congress, but it’s not reality, certainly not from the inside. As I’ve already explained, that money and our personnel were being used to collect the weapons to send them to Syria to topple Assad. Before getting to Syria, they were placed in staging areas in Turkey near the Syrian border, and other places, including Jordan. They were being collected and sent through northern Libya, and the CIA operations center was the headquarters for this operation. As I’ve said many times, there was no embassy or consulate in Benghazi. It was a covert CIA operations center.
Wait, why do people continue to call it a consulate? Why is it identified on Google maps as a consulate.
First, it continues to be called a consulate because this is part of the cover-up. The government is STILL lying to the American people. The media is assisting in the cover-up, and so are some in congress in both parties. For goodness sakes, anyone looking at Google maps on September 10, 2012 will never find the Benghazi location named a consulate. It’s a LIE!
Sorry, please go on.So every American understands, it is OUR tax money in part that was used to arm Islamic groups ideologically aligned with al Qaeda. Imagine that. Eleven years after 9/11, we’re funding and assisting the very same terrorists who attacked our country to topple another country. And other countries are in this up to their necks as well. The Brits for one. The very country or empire that created some of the post-war borders, many knowingly unmanageable from the outset, is now in part responsible for changing them.
Anyway, the weapons everyone in government said that were “collected” and destroyed were pieces of junk that never worked. The working weapons, including an estimated 10-15,000 shoulder fired missiles were shipped out of Libya. Stevens was the head of logistics, coordinating this operation. He was working with the Turkish consul general as well, the guy who met with him on the night of his death. We already went over this in detail.
The attack was perpetuated by Ansar al-Shariah, an Islamic terrorist group backed by Iran. Also present were members of the terror group AQIM, or al Qaeda in Northern Africa. It was a coordinated attack for a purpose, and never, ever had anythig remotely to do with any internet video.
Please touch on the nature of the attack again for those just catching upAs I explained before, I have information that three “hit teams” were dispatched to Benghazi[iii]. Stevens was lured to the CIA compound to talk about Russia’s knowledge of what the U.S. was doing - running weapons to be used against Assad in Syria, which is Russia’s “red line.” They needed to talk and not at the embassy, but at this out of the way location. The weapons running operation, although it was winding down anyway, was compromised. Over. Done. It is likely that the Turkish consul general told Sevens that the Russians had evidence - proof, of weapons in Turkey, including chemical weapons. Turkey, a NATO ally being squeezed by Russia, wanted the weapons gone from their turf. We also had people up there training the “rebels” on how to use the weapons as well. You heard about training exercises in that area on or about September 11, 2012? Who do you think we were training? Right after the Turkish counsel general left, the attack against the CIA compound began.
What was the reason for the attack?Remember the story of the Iranian Red Crescent workers being “snatched” from the streets of Benghazi late on July 31 or the early morning of August 1, 2012? This happened at the same time the CIA compound wall was hit by a mortar. These Red Crescent workers were spies. At the same time, some members of the terror group AQIM were also picked up in Benghazi. It was a mystery! Where did they go? Who had them?
The belief was that they were being held at the CIA compound. Iran wanted them back. So, in addition to everything else, Ansar al Shariah was looking for their people. AQIM were looking for their people too. This is the reason the compound was not immediately leveled by the weapons they had on sight. They were trying to find and free their people, who were not being held there, but elsewhere. They were trying to ‘smoke” the people out of the compound and rescue the “hostages.”
Plus, a message had to be sent to Obama, Clinton and others that the weapons operation had to stop. The groups leading the attack, primarily Ansar al Sharia with an AQIM presence as well, were tools of Iran, Syria and of course, Russia.
So there were two reasons for the attack: get their spies back, and expose this operation for what it was. Again, we went over this.
The snatched Red Crescent Workers play prominently into exposing this operation.Yes, and here is where it gets interesting. They were released exactly 65 days after they were snatched. They were in good health and dropped off on the streets of Tripoli. But why then? This is where it get’s damning to Obama, Clinton, and Valerie Jarrett.
What is not widely known to Americans is that Obama sent Iranian born Valerie Jarrett to Qatar for high level talks with the Iranians about coming to an agreement before the November elections. This, despite Jarrett not having the capacity as official of the U.S. government. She had no business doing what she was doing. That aside, the plan was that Jarrett would broker a deal, and Obama would announce to the world that he had succeeded in diplomatic negotiations with the Iranians where they would halt their nuclear weapons ambitions and Obama would officially live up to his title as savior of the world.
But before the talks kicked into high gear, the Iranians told Jarrett that the Red Crescent workers had to be released before any talks could be done in earnest. Jarrett relayed that to Obama and Clinton, and then, out of nowhere, the missing workers were suddenly released.
If there were talks and the “spies” were released, then why was there no agreement?Because Jarrett, Obama and Clinton were being played by the Iranians. It was to buy time, especially since the Obama agenda of arming the anti-Assad rebels was continuing. The Iranians are not stupid. They understood that Obama and Clinton were continuing to support the anti-Assad rebels, and with bipartisan support, STILL ARE!
So now we are hearing reports of chemical weapons planned for use by Assad. What’s the real story?The world is being set up for a false flag operation. Obama, Clinton and every supporter of the anti-Assad initiative are either lying to the American people or are “dupes.” The objective remains taking out Assad and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-backed regime.
There have been reports out of the U.S. and the UK that Assad is preparing to use chemical weapons against the rebels. Assad denies that he would ever use them, and there is a reason we should believe him in this case. The condemnation that would result is unnecessary and certainly unwarranted. There reports are to condition people to immediately suspect Assad when a chemical incident occurs. In this case, it’s the U.S., the UK and other Western backed countries constantly asserting that Assad will launch a chemical attack, and we’re getting ready just for that case.
But if you look at the evidence, it’s the anti-Assad, Western backed forces that have taken possession of chemical storage areas. There was a recently released video, very graphic in nature of anti-Assad rebels conducting the test of a nerve agent on two rabbits. The video displayed chemicals bottles with the name of a Turkish country on them. I’m not going to give the name or video channel, but people can find the video for themselves on YouTube. It’s a set-up to topple Assad and put a Muslim brotherhood leader in his place.
I told you before, and you printed what I said, that a chemical weapon attack would justify U.S. and NATO intervention, supported by the outcry of the world against Assad. It’s Iraq all over again, except Syria is a hundred times more dangerous. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan or even Libya, Syria will not implode. It will EXPLODE, and we will be fighting Iranians as well. Russia has “advisers” in Syria as well. Are the American people ready and willing to square off against Iran AND Russia in a regional conflict that will likely turn into a global, full scale war?
What’s going on with Turkey, Syria and Russia now?It was announced that Turkey will receive patriot Missiles to protect them from the spillover. Actually, these missiles over the northern territory of Syria will create a de-facto no fly zone that will allow the consolidation of anti-Assad rebels to perhaps install a new Western-backed government in the northern part of Syria[vii].
Well, Russia deployed Iskander missiles into Syria, rendering the Patriot missiles ineffective. This move shows exactly how serious Russia is. They are not backing down.
And you know what else? Sunburn missiles are at Iran’s disposal and can be used in that theater. Regardless of what is written or talked about by talking heads, these missiles poses a grave threat to our aircraft carriers. Want to see how fast we can lose an aircraft carrier and the several thousand crew members on board? This is what we face.
Russia is doubling down, Iran is doubling down. Assad is doubling down. Meanwhile, Obama and the U.S. State Department continue to lie to the American people. The lie continues, and the fuse to WW III is burning down while the Obama regime is heading full steam ahead toward regional and global war.
Why haven’t we heard any truth about Benghazi, even from congressional investigators?Because the lie continues, and we are still supporting the overthrow of Assad, despite Putin’s warnings. Obama, Clinton, the global leaders and their financiers are continuing to lead us into World War III. The lies continue, and to continue operations, the truth must be kept from the American public. We are continuing our operations to overthrow Assad at full throttle right in front of all Americans. And there will be fallout.
In addition to four dead Americans and over 40 thousand dead Syrians, the consequences of our actions will cause the death of an estimated FOUR MILLION in Syria alone, many Christians. When, not if the “conflict” escalates, we’ll see many millions dead. And for what?
Okay, what’s the objective here?
Behind the smoke and mirrors is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It’s their agenda. We’re just providing the army, the training, performing the logistics and doing the heavy lifting. It’s the Saudi agenda, and it’s about power, control and oil. Who do you think controls the Muslim brotherhood? Has anyone asked why Obama, raised in a Muslim culture, is tied at the hip with the Muslim Brotherhood?
Why aren’t Americans angry that we are using our assets, our men and women to advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia under the orders of Barack Hussein Obama?
Why are members of congress so quick to commit our forces to oust Assad when it benefits Saudi Arabia, not the U.S?
The agenda of Obama is so overt, so “in your face” yet not one member of congress, not one media outlet is calling him out on this. Some might call this mere conspiracy theory. There’s a conspiracy alright, but it involves the government and the media. They are laughing in our faces.
In addition to the obvious regional consequences, there will be blowback from the Obama-Clinton agenda.
What type of blowback?Well, let’s first look at what’s happened already as this insane Obama agenda has been going on for some time. Remember the plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S? On October 11, 2011, the FBI announced that a plot, identified by the FBI as “Operation Red Coalition,” was foiled to kill Saudi ambassador Adel al-Jubeir in the United States. It was alleged that Iranian nationals were working with a Mexican drug gang to kill al-Jubeir with a bomb while he was dining at a DC restaurant. Do you think he would have been the only one to die there if that plan succeeded? No, innocent men, women and children would have died as well.
Many in the media and the talking heads were having trouble understanding why Iran or Iranian nationals would want the Saudi Ambassador dead. Well, in the context of what you know now, does this make a bit more sense? These events do not happen in a vacuum.
But I’m sure people will question why members of a Mexican drug cartel would be enlisted to assist in this operation? This gets a bit complex, but it goes back to AQIM. Remember them? That’s al Qaeda in Northern Africa. They are an elite Muslim terror group of perhaps 400 or so members. They carefully screen their members, and do a lot of subcontracting. Despite being Muslim, they are running drugs from South America, specifically the Tri-Border Area (TBA) into North Africa for ultimate distribution into Europe. Why Europe instead of North America? Because the drugs are worth more there, and the profit difference is worth it.
While drugs are being funneled from South America, terror groups are also funneling al Qaeda terrorists or terrorists of similar ideology into South America and into Mexico, where they are entering the United States. Think of it as a two-lane highway. Some of these terrorists have been caught at the southern border of the U.S., some with tattoos on their arms of mullahs and Islamic phrases of jihad. Why? Because when the Syria-Iran situation goes hot, there will be terrorists already inside the United States. But we created them and gave them the reason to be here. A few AQIM members, running the drugs east, were caught in Benghazi, which explains their presence and getting picked up there as well.
So Ansar al Shariah and AQIM, both present at Benghazi, were looking for their people.
But back to the blowback, or the consequences of the Obama foreign policy agenda. There is more, and it much more serious.
Attacks in the U.S?For all intents and purposes, the United States, Russia and China are at war. Although the situation in Syria is being described as a civil war, it is the direct result of U.S. involvement by Obama and Clinton at the behest of Saudi Arabia. While real bullets are flying in Syria, an asymmetrical war exists beyond the confines of Syria’s borders.
Remember, Putin has drawn a hard line in the sand at Syria. The stability of Syria is of extreme strategic economic and military importance to Russia as well as China. Although no hot war exists between Russia, China and the U.S. at the moment, that does not mean things are not taking place behind the scenes in ways that are not readily apparent.
One of the biggest threats to the United States right now is an attack on the U.S. Dollar. At this moment, the fate of the U.S. dollar hangs in the balance. What is the U.S. dollar backed by? Gold? Silver? Neither. Some say the dollar is not backed by anything, and although they might be technically accurate, it’s not entirely true. At this moment, the dollar is backed by one important thing, which is oil. The stability of the dollar rests on the free and unimpeded flow of oil. Once that is interrupted or even threatened, there is a high degree of risk that the dollar will collapse.
The “string pullers” are pulling us into a situation where our actions result in the disruption or the threat of disruption of the free flow of oil. Given the current state of our economy, how fast might this bring down the United States without a shot having to be fired?
Now I know I’m stepping out into some areas that people might consider to be fringe, but think about what is taking place in the U.S. and across the globe. People talk about global governance, or a one order under a single currency. What’s the quickest way to destroy a country from within? What was the major reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union? Remember the Ruble? I can tell you this, Putin does.
So at this point, what’s an expeditious way to strike at the very heart of America while also accomplishing other larger global objectives? Take out the U.S. dollar.
We are in a period of heightened risk and maximum vulnerability, put here by Obama, his foreign policy advisers, czars, and of course Hillary Clinton. What are their objectives, and those of his closest advisers, especially in terms of the fate of the U.S? Fundamental change in ways that can be hardly imagined.
Are you saying that the larger objective is to destroy America?I’m saying that we are advancing the agenda of Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood in North Africa and the Middle East. We’re doing their work, pitting ourselves against Syria, Iran and ultimately Russia and China. Syria and Iran are firewalls for Russia and China. Russia and China understand the monster created and used by the United States, they understand the Muslim Brotherhood backed terrorists. They will not stop at Syria. They will continue to push into the Federation of Russian States, disrupt oil flow, overthrow nations and threaten the security and sovereignty of Russia and threaten China. We’re playing with fire, and to expect no consequences is ridiculous.
The path that Obama continues to take, without any objection from congress or others in the U.S., will lead us on a path to self destruction. Perhaps the ultimate question is whether it is by incompetence or by design.
Copyright © Douglas Hagmann
Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the
Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com

*******



Benghazi explained: Behind the lie
Benghazi is a moving target of little lies that serve as cover for the big lie
Doug Hagmann
Author’s note:
This is a special supplement of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. It is important to note that the information contained in this series was developed from interviews that spanned over 100 hours. My source requested that the following information be written separately due to its importance.
DH: You told me that you wanted to talk about the lies behind Benghazi, said it is critical for everyone to understand the reason for the lies. and asked that we do this separately. Go ahead.
II: It’s about the lie, and once you understand it, it becomes extremely revealing. It’s about what the public has been told from the very beginning. Do you realize that a lot of people, especially Obama’s associates and supporters do not believe that they’ve been lied to? Do you understand that much of the public does not believe that they were lied to? Like a lot of us, you’re in this thing so deep that we forget not everyone even believes they’ve been lied to. They’re certainly not going to hear about it in the media. To understand how deep this goes, how important it is, and why it is so important, we’ve got to go back to the very beginning.
Think back to when we were first told that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty, Tyrone Woods were killed in Benghazi. The media reported that Stevens and the others were killed in an attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Every major media outlet identified the location of the attack as an American consulate, much like this Reuters report and this from The Washington Times. But there was no U.S. consulate in Benghazi, so where did this information originate?
DH: Didn’t the administration call it a consulate?
II: Exactly. Our embassies and consulate offices are directly under the control of the U.S. State Department. They are areas of sovereign territory. Consulate offices are like satellite offices to each embassy, and they are located in convenient geographic locations in other countries to assist people with routine or minor matters, saving them a trip to the actual embassy. Consulates are easily identifiable and all have U.S. flags flying prominently for easy identification. A listing of U.S. embassies and consulate offices in other countries can be found on the State Department web site. Just about everyone working at State knows the locations of the embassies and consulates, as do most of our leaders in the executive branch.
So from the outset, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama certainly knew, without any doubt, that there was no consulate or diplomatic mission in Benghazi. None. In fact, on August 27, 2012, just 15 days before the attack in Benghazi, Ambassador Chris Stevens ceremoniously opened the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli with the U.S. State Department issuing press releases and official statements. Tripoli was the only diplomatic mission in Libya - period. And it was just established.
So one of the very first lies was to deliberate misidentify or improperly characterize the compound in Benghazi as a consulate. Was there an American flag flying outside of this compound? No. Was any diplomatic legitimate business being conducted at this compound? No. But they called it a consulate to draw attention away from the fact this was a CIA base of operations.
It was located in a relatively rural area, and it consisted of a residence and a separate “annex” located about 1800 feet away. By car, the annex was just over a mile away. It was difficult to find, too. People coming from Tripoli to this compound often got turned around, even with the help of a GPS.
So the very first thing everyone must understand is that the administration, including Barack Obama and others in the executive branch, and the State Department, including Hillary Clinton (her official statement identified the compound as a mission, suggesting a ‘diplomatic mission’) knew that this compound served no legitimate diplomatic purpose. That’s the first lie.




DH: We now know that it was a CIA compound located in a somewhat rural area and not identifiable as U.S. owned or operated.
II: Correct. So think about this. The compound was unmarked, operationally discreet, located in a rural area and difficult to find. How did a few hundred protesters suddenly gather at this location on the evening of 9/11? How did they know where to go, if this was not an embassy or consulate? More to the point, how is it possible that anyone in any official capacity in this administration could realistically describe the attack in terms of a protest gone bad, even at the first reports of trouble? They could not. This was a deliberate lie to the American people.So how is it that U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, five days after the attack and after much of the initial dust settled, appeared on five national news shows and still attributed the murders of Americans as a result of protests? Who told her to do that? And, she continued to blame the murders on an obscure internet video. Why?
DH: They have since publicly reclassified the description of the location.
II: They had to because they could not continue to call the CIA operations center an embassy or consulate. But they have yet to offer any reasonable explanation for what happened there. Barack Obama has yet to look the family members of Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, or Glen Dougherty in the eyes and tell the truth. He has yet to tell Americans the truth about the events of 9/11, and the reason for the lies, which continue through today. No one has stepped up to tell the truth. We have only seen denials reinforced by distractions. They continue to lie to this day. Who are they lying to and what is the logical reason for the lies?
They are only lying to the American people. All other governments know what’s going on. And most importantly, the reason they are continuing to lie is to cover up their plans as they are moving forward with their agenda. Everyone must understand how important this is. The Obama plan continues. No one is stopping them or this agenda. And in case you have any questions about what this agenda is, let me explain it clearly and concisely.
Obama, Clinton, their foreign policy advisors and the people involved in this agenda intend to start a war that will make Afghanistan and Iraq look like a small police action by comparison. They are going to start a war that will likely grow from a regional war to a global war, or WW III. Afghanistan ‘imploded’ when attacked, as did Iraq. Syria will not, it will explode. Do the American people understand this?
Until now, everyone has been focused on the ‘little lies.’ The security, the misidentification of the CIA compound, the timeline, and on and on. They want us to focus on the little lies so they can pull off the BIG LIE. The big lie being told is that the U.S. is merely providing minimal support, including humanitarian aid to the Syrians so they can defend themselves from Assad. That’s the big lie that covers up what they are really doing in the region.
The CIA compound in Benghazi was a logistics hub for weapons, but not only weapons from Libya. Weapons ordered by and destined for other countries, like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other countries, knowing the plan, were allowing the weapons to be diverted, with Libya acting as the central shipping hub. When Assad falls and U.S. troops are called in for ground support, who will they be fighting? The Syrian army? No, they will be fighting the Iranian army, the Russian army and the Chinese army. Why? Because Iran, Russia and China all have a stake in the region. Putin called Syria his red line in the sand, and stated that WW III will start in Syria, not Iran.
Benghazi is a moving target of little lies that serve as cover for the big lie. Are Americans onboard?
*******



Is Obama hiding the truth about Benghazi because the truth would impeach him?

Executive order-wielding dictator

Judi McLeod
Thursday, November 15, 2012
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51083?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=6d7655e98a-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=emailEven with his own reelection soundly in the bag, President Barack Obama is keeping the truth about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi as secret as his own locked-from-public-knowledge credentials.With four more years in his pocket to complete his destructive Fundamental Transformation of America, Obama is refusing outright to inform Americans why calls for help from American Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans to save their lives were ignored until their own violent deaths silenced them.
*******
 *******
This was Obama’s non-answer to Fox News reporter Ed Henry’s simple question at the White House yesterday:
“I wanted to ask about the families of these four Americans who were killed. Sean Smith’s father Ray said he believes his son basically called 911 for help and they didn’t get it. And I know you said you grieve for these four Americans, that it is being investigated, but the families have been waiting for more than two months. So I would like for you to address the families, if you can. On 9/11, as Commander-in-Chief, did you issue any orders to try to protect their lives?”
“Ed, I’ll address the families not through the press. I’ll address the families directly, as I already have,” Obama replied. “And we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day. That’s what the investigation is for.”
“Without providing a yes or no answer, the president went after his critics who question whether the U.S. government did everything it could to save the Americans under attack in Benghazi. (Fox News, Nov. 14, 2012).
“If people don’t think that we did everything we can to make sure that we saved the lives of folks who I sent there, and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don’t know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department thinks or our CIA thinks,” Obama said. “Their number one priority is obviously to protect American lives.”
“As Henry raised his hand to follow up, Obama interrupted him and continued with his answer.
“I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they’re safe. And that’s the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger — whether they’re civilian or military — because that’s our number one priority.”
But even in the outrageous coverup and the smokescreen set up to shroud it, the truth of Benghazi can be seen through the shadows.
As 50% of the American voting population were recoiling in bitter disappointment with the news of Obama’s reelection on Nov. 6, a soap opera-like smokescreen had already been been put in place to cover up a coming post-election Benghazi investigation. While the Obama Election Team was gleefully counting up votes, the investigation was heading down a tawdry road cheapened by a sex scandal ruining the careers of America’s Obama’s appointed CIA director and the US Commander of Forces in Afghanistan.
During the presidential election campaign, Benghazi had gone buxom bosom with a media feeding frenzy chasing down soap opera players that include Petraeus ‘spy’ mistress Paula Broadwell and Tampa self-made socialite Jill Kelley.
Giddy with the sex angle that jumps down bosoms, the mainstream media won’t be back from play anytime soon.
Former CIA Director David Petraeus, who has already blamed Benghazi on an obscure YouTube in September 13 testimony before a Congressional Hearing, and who has agreed to testify before a House Committee again on Friday, was already under FBI investigation for his alleged affair with Broadwell when he testified back in September.
Susan Rice, erroneously identified by Obama yesterday as UN Ambassador rather than U.S. Ambassador to the UN (Mark Levin) had been sent pre-presidential election to five television networks to spread the disinformation that a YouTube was to blame for the death of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans—a message approved even yesterday by Obama.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defence Secretary Leon Panetta were dispatched to Australia for an “annual” Security Summit in Australia.
That leaves only Petraeus, whose testimony is not likely to change on Friday and whose character remains in tatters, as the left man standing.
Barack Hussein Obama, who now has four years as an executive order-wielding dictator, has no reason not to tell the truth to the loved ones of the slain Americans in Benghazi and to America at large, other than this one: the truth would impeach him.
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.
Judi can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com
*******
Sex, lies and Obama Ben Ghazi
A Shakespearian tragedy
Doug Hagmann
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Sex, trysts and indiscretions. Nothing more effectively diverts the public’s attention away from emerging critical truths better than the time-tested template of salacious headlines. It hijacks people’s attention away from far more critical matters that threaten the positions and agendas of the most powerful people engaged in even more immoral acts. It must be recognized for what it is: a tactic of diversion.
The alleged trysts of powerbrokers are a component to the story of Benghazi, but they are not the story. They provide convenient cover for emerging revelations. Like arrows in a quiver of those in positions of power, they exist as leverage to be used to neutralize existing or potential threats at the precise moment they are needed, without the untidiness and inconvenient inquiries that tend to accompany dead bodies. They are also powerful weapons that control the perception of a voyeuristic public, which is dutifully fed the salacious details by a complicit media.
Longing for the days of Watergate
America has never been in greater need of a “Woodward and Bernstein” effort than today. We are witnessing a cover-up of monumental proportions, with all roads leading directly to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We’ve already seen the modern day equivalent of the infamous Saturday night massacre in the form of resignations of senior officers and officials, with more to certainly follow. It’s all about the cover-up, and always about the cover-up. Yet, such an effort will not be made by a media compromised by years of infiltration, having evolved into its present incarnation as a ministry of propaganda.
When one begins pulling on the thread of Benghazi, the entire fabric covering Barack Hussein Obama, from his earliest political activities to the current operations in play begin to unravel. By pulling on this one thread, his associates and associations, compatriots and coconspirators, alliances, plans and agendas become exposed for all to see in the proper context.
Benghazi, by a thread
The reason full disclosure about Benghazi is needed is that it will expose an agenda much larger, much deeper, and much more nefarious than any extra-judicial operation we have seen in recent history. It will reveal Obama’s contempt for the United States Congress and the rule of law. It will also reveal Obama’s ugly contempt for human life, as there are not only four Americans dead from his operational objectives, but forty thousand dead in Syria - and counting.
Consistent with his modus operandi, Barack Hussein Obama has made congress and the oversight it provides irrelevant, and committed America to a proxy war without the approval of its citizens. If this were a play, North Africa, the Middle East and that entire region would be Obama’s theater. If allowed to continue on this path, the proxy war being directed by Obama will turn into another military engagement in Syria, with American troops and equipment, in costumes supplied by NATO at the forefront of a war to which Americans never agreed.
Pulling the thread of Benghazi will reveal that yes, the CIA under the direction of Barack Hussein Obama, was engaged in an arms running operation from Libya to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. It was and continues to be the Obama plan to overthrow Syrian President Assad and install a regime backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Why? For humanitarian reasons? The families of forty thousand dead in Syria would likely disagree, as most were killed at the hands of U.S. backed, trained and armed “rebels.”
The western headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the location of the casting couch for this Shakespearian tragedy, has a prominent address of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The visitor logs show an interesting flow of representatives into the house once owned by the people, as do the various appointments made by Obama over the years. No one should be surprised at this casting call, as Obama’s past reveals an association that far preceded the plans we see being implemented. That is, as much of his past as we have been permitted to know, or have fought to see.
Pulling on the Benghazi thread will expose the money trail from Saudi Arabia. It will show that the Royal family has their own personal army and intelligence agency. It’s the U.S. military and Obama’s CIA. We’re doing the heavy lifting and dirty work for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by a captured operative we know as Barack Hussein Obama.
We are in a proxy war with Iran and by extension, with Russia, with Saudi Arabia picking up much of the tab for the venue and props. Syria is just the theater, and Libya was the opening act. The attack at Benghazi was an unscheduled act in the play, but one that provided us with the program.
When the frenzy of headlines about sex and lies gradually abates, will we refocus on the events obscured by our thirst for salaciousness, or will it be too late? Perhaps we can do so now by understanding that the headlines are being written by the operatives themselves. Let’s not be derailed. Let’s look at the program, and understand the plot of the play before the final curtain call.
Copyright © Douglas Hagmann
Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com
*******
Cover-up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Barack Hussein Obama was aware of the CIA director's indiscretions "long before" the November 6, 2012 elections, and knew about the FBI's investigative findings weeks before the election
Doug Hagmann
Saturday, November 10, 2012
According to two well-vetted sources with intimate knowledge of the CIA operations and events in Benghazi, the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus is directly related to the testimony he was expected to provide before a closed-door hearing next week before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sources close to the controversy, citing the need for anonymity due to their positions, stated that Barack Hussein Obama was aware of the CIA director’s indiscretions “long before” the November 6, 2012 elections, and knew about the FBI’s investigative findings weeks before the election, but “erected a firewall” to prevent any disclosure before November 6th.
“What I do know is that an integral part of that firewall involved having information on Petraeus that would potentially damage his career, legacy and marriage. A sort of political blackmail, if you will. What I don’t know, but suspect, is that Petraeus was placed in the unenviable but self-inflicted position of having to choose between providing truthful testimony under oath and having his professional and personal life destroyed while systematically being impeached due to this incident, or keeping quiet before the Senate Intelligence Committee,” stated one source.
A second intelligence source stated that “the announcement [of Petraeus’ resignation] was carefully timed. It was announced in a Friday afternoon news dump three days after the election, and days before the Senate Intelligence Committee was to hear his testimony, despite the President having knowledge of these events weeks ago. Friday’s announcement served two purposes; it kept controversy from emerging before the election, while allowing the administration to buy time regarding testimony by a federal official about CIA’s involvement in Benghazi.”
The resignation of David Petraeus is merely one, albeit a very high-profile one, of several coordinated moves to push any meaningful investigation into the events of Benghazi well into the future. “Obama and other high ranking officials learned many valuable lessons from Fast & Furious,” a fact agreed upon by both sources. Fast & Furious is the name given to the gun running operation from the U.S. into Mexico. “They understand that the longer they can delay and obstruct the truth, reassign key personnel with important information to positions and locations that hinder any meaningful investigation, the more the public interest wanes. As the public loses interest, it also takes the pressure off Congress from getting to the bottom of things.”
Both sources agreed that it is difficult to speculate whether Petraeus decided to extract himself from the leverage that the controversy had over him by the Obama regime on his terms, or whether his resignation was conducted solely by the terms of the Obama regime. Otherwise, both sources agreed that his resignation would buy the administration some valuable time, and the change in status of Petraeus as the active CIA director would also have an effect on the manner in which he is required to provide testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The change of status, from an active CIA official and government employee, to a citizen bound by far reaching confidentiality agreements, would change his ability to testify before the committee. “He can also lawyer-up,” added one source.
According to another CIA source, the resignation of Christopher Kubasik, president and CEO-elect of defense and aerospace company Lockheed Martin, announced on the same day as Petraeus, might have ties to the events at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. “There is a relationship between Lockheed Martin and the defense department, as well as the CIA, that ties into current events in Turkey and Syria. This is particularly relevant in the operation taking place in Benghazi and when investigation into where the ‘black-ops’ money went. Don’t forget, Congress appropriated money, at the behest of Obama, for humanitarian aid, not weapons.”
Like Petraeus, Kubasik cited an “inappropriate relationship” for his resignation. “The timing is beyond coincidental, and the operation much too big for this to be merely coincidental.”
Both intelligence sources interviewed for this report agree that there is an exceptional cover-up campaign taking place. “All roads lead to Benghazi, and this cover-up is exponentially bigger than anything we’ve seen in Watergate and the Iran-Contra Affair combined. The American people are being lied to at every turn, and the Obama administration has become emboldened by the election results and a disinterested media.”
Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com
*******
Obama’s real world game of Risk
Real world game of Risk as Benghazi burned, Americans died, and Obama and his spokespeople lied
Doug Hagmann
Monday, November 5, 2012
Most thinking Americans are outraged about the cover-up pertaining to Benghazi. Questions about the deaths of four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador, posed to Obama and his spokespeople have been met with vague, carefully worded, well parsed and deliberately misleading responses. Why? To cover up incompetence and intelligence failures? No, because there were no intelligence failures!
To say that the lack of response or calls for assistance was due to a communications breakdown is like calling a five alarm fire that completely destroys an important structure and everything in it, deliberately set to cover up a crime, an accident. And in this case, the fire department dispatchers are co-conspirators in the arson! In addition to not sending the fire company, they are now busy making sure that the fire investigators they are now sending to investigate what happened are maintaining their cover.
While the public is aghast at the damage caused by the fire, they are not paying attention to the crime it covered, hoping that it will all be relegated to the ash heap of history. We must look through the smoke from the burnt embers and pick through the ashes to see what was covered up by the fire. When we do, we will find the singed blueprints of activities so nefarious that they will explain the cover-up. To best understand the cover-up, it helps to identify and understand the crime.
Full disclosure of the Benghazi situation would expose an agenda that would surprise many Americans and answer a lot of questions about what’s really going on in the world, even offering explanations for such issues as Obama’s low-bow to the Saudi Royals to the exposure of a plan for the global power structure. It’s that big and that revealing, and that important.
To say that the lack of response or calls for assistance was due to a communications breakdown is like calling a five alarm fire that completely destroys an important structure and everything in it, deliberately set to cover up a crime, an accident. And in this case, the fire department dispatchers are co-conspirators in the arson! In addition to not sending the fire company, they are now busy making sure that the fire investigators they are now sending to investigate what happened are maintaining their cover.
While the public is aghast at the damage caused by the fire, they are not paying attention to the crime it covered, hoping that it will all be relegated to the ash heap of  history. We must look through the smoke from the burnt embers and pick through the ashes to see what was covered up by the fire. When we do, we will find the singed blueprints of activities so nefarious that they will explain the cover-up. To best understand the cover-up, it helps to identify and understand the crime.
Full disclosure of the Benghazi situation would expose an agenda that would surprise many Americans and answer a lot of questions about what’s really going on in the world, even offering explanations for such issues as Obama’s low-bow to the Saudi Royals to the exposure of a plan for the global power structure. It’s that big and that revealing, and that important.
There’s a real-life game of Risk being played by Obama and the major powers of the world, and Americans are involved in the game by default. Much like the actual Parker Brothers game of military strategy and world domination, Benghazi acts like a snapshot in time of the players, exposing the armies and their positions on the board. In those terms, it shows that Benghazi was a skirmish of significant import, and reveals the agenda and strategy of a number of players.
As Americans, however, you were not asked whether you wanted to play. Your role was predetermined for you. The color of your army, that of the Muslim Brotherhood, was picked by Obama for you. Unlike the game of Risk, the real life version produces real causalities. Obviously, four Americans are dead, but no one seems to be talking about forty thousand more men, women and children who have been killed in Syria as a result of the real world actions caused, in large part, by Obama’s actions in Libya. Or the tens of thousands refugees created. This is the real world version of Risk.
And therein lies the rub. It is this agenda, this plan, this foreign policy in action that is at the very heart of the events in Benghazi. It is this deliberate course of action that has led us to the brink of a regional conflict in the Middle East that could further ignite World War III. As Fellow Americans, do we really want to be part of another war? Is taking us to the brink of World War III and beyond in our best national interest? If it’s not in our best national interest, then for whom are we doing the dirty work? Let’s look at the players, game board and the game pieces to see if we might find answers.
Motive
In this real world game of Risk, Obama appears to be following the instructions of a super secret mission card. The “Benghazi mission” was to facilitate the destabilization of Syria at the hands of “freedom fighters,” overthrowing Assad and the installation of a sympathetic Muslim Brotherhood backed regime. The installation of such a regime is of critical importance here for reasons that will become obvious later.
At this point, however, it is no secret that the rag-tag groups of rebels or freedom fighters are no match for Assad’s military. They are disorganized and ill equipped to depose Assad. Also, Assad, under the guidance and support of Russia, had so far escaped the full wrath of NATO for his part in putting down the various attempts to oust him from power. And the game clock was running out.
Means & Opportunity
The anti-Assad rebels were in need of assistance in the form of weapons, training, military coordination and discipline. At the behest of Saudi Arabia (a player with no army pieces in this game), Mr. Obama agreed to step in to provide material and manpower, but he had a dilemma; he could not do so openly, with the full knowledge and consent of the U.S. Congress as they would never approve of such an operation (think Iran-Contra in terms of strategy, but with a much different intent).
The operation, therefore, had to be conducted under the radar. Mr. Obama could not be directly linked to this agenda, so the exports of weapons had to have some cover and provide some distance between Obama and the boots on the ground in Syria. This is where alliances were formed, and obfuscation reigned supreme.
As we were in Libya under the pretext of securing caches of weapons and arms left after Qadafi, Obama sent U.S. Ambassador Stevens to take charge of the logistics. Stevens was selected as he had vast experience and contacts on all sides in the Middle East. He was the perfect “go-to” guy for all sides.
Under the cover of securing and “destroying” arms as publicized, Obama’s covert operation diverted the functional weapons to Syria, while destroying the non-functional weapons and broadcasting their destruction in the media as eye-candy. From the time Qaddafi was deposed and killed through the attack of September 11, 2012, reasonable estimates suggest that between 30-40 million pounds of missiles, guns and even chemical weapons (gas) had been confiscated from Libya and shipped to various prepositioning locations in Turkey and directly into Syria for use by anti-Assad “rebels.”
In addition to arming the anti-Assad rebels with conventional weapons, there was a concurrent plan that would have been the icing on the cake, so to speak. An event that would have put the objective on a fast track to completion.
Imagine the outcry from the civilized world that wakes up one morning to the news that Assad had “gassed” his own people. Except it would be a false flag event that would set-up Assad. That would be an invitation to NATO and the West to intervene, using the same or a similar template we have seen Mr. Obama use. Again, the game clock was running out on Mr. Obama and his handlers, and there is no guarantee that he will see another term to get the job done. Such an event would usher in the forces of NATO and expedite plans.
Alliances and Co-conspirators
As we begin to remove the layers of obfuscation, we can see that Obama is actually doing the “heavy lifting” for Saudi Arabia and the advancement of the Muslim Brotherhood agenda. For anyone doubting this assertion, simply follow the money. Where did the money originate for the boat shipments of arms? At its most basic level, who filled the gas tanks?
More visible is the able assistance to this operation provided by Turkey. Somewhat of a fair weather friend, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan looked the other way as weapons were being secreted into staging areas in Turkey near the Syrian border, for their ultimate transfer to the rebels in Syria.
Turkey was not the only country used for this operation. Jordan and Lebanon also received their fair share of arms, where Muslim Brotherhood backed rebels were (and continue to be) materially supported by the CIA under Obama’s orders.
Meanwhile, Assad was being schooled and assisted by Putin and the Russians, and had a working relationship with Iran.
Putin’s line in the Sand
It is admittedly difficult to “side” with Russia on a worldview level, but in this case it’s at least understandable. Putin, seated at the game board across from Obama, was aware of this gun running operation and Obama’s attempts to meddle in his backyard. On a number of occasions during this operation, Putin warned Obama and the West to stop. Undeterred, the covert arms running operation continued.
This is where the Turkish counsel general comes into the picture, and the entire operation begins to unravel. Turkey knows which side is buttering their bread, and realizes that they are caught in the middle between Obama and Putin and have much to lose. Perhaps Russia had evidence, possibly satellite images of the anti-Assad freedom fighters being trained on how to load the gas canisters onto missiles. The clock continues to run down, yet the operation is continuing. Turkey gets a call from Russia; they’ve been caught in this plot of international intrigue and Putin is not at all happy.
Spy vs. Spy
What happens next is stuff of spy novels, double agents, film noir mafia movie scenes. Imagine this: the Turkish counsel general calls Stevens, the point man in this Obama-sanctioned operation, and tells Stevens that he’s got to meet with him right away, it’s most urgent. Perhaps Stevens tells the Turk that he’ll meet him in Tripoli later in the week. The Turk says no, we’ve got to meet in Benghazi, at the CIA operations center right away.
Despite concerns for his own safety, Stevens ultimately agrees and the meeting is scheduled for dinner time. Now think about the timing. The meeting was not scheduled for breakfast or lunch, but dinner - at the end of the day, when the cover of darkness is about to engulf the area. It was a set-up.
As Stevens meets the Turk, the stage is being set for a classic “mob” hit, but not just your run-of-the-mill hit. It’s an international “mob hit” with two purposes. First, stop the flow of arms to Syria, and also send a message to Obama and others that Syria and Russia is not to be trifled with, and in so doing, expose the operation to the world as well.
It’s been reported that during the meeting, the “hit teams” were closing off the streets and other access points around the CIA operations center. They were getting ready to assault the compound. It is interesting that the Turk is able to leave unmolested from the compound, by now surrounded by those dispatched to carry out the hit.
After the Turk’s departure, it is likely and even customary that Stevens sent a cable to Washington, perhaps letting Clinton and Obama know that there is a problem - the operation has been compromised. Obama and his cohorts know the operation has been compromised, and they enter into a full cover mode. Difficult to believe? Then why has no one yet questioned the Turk who met Obama?
Gates of hell
Shortly after the departure of the Turkish counsel general, the attack began. Again, after the Turkish counsel general left. Who was behind the attack? Ultimately, it would certainly be reasonable to suspect Russia as the “mob boss,” but like a mob boss, Russia would not carry out the hit. Furthermore, there are enough willing participants in the area that the actors could be pulled from any number of “rebel” groups.
As the attack began, calls for assistance were made. Using the fire department analogy, no fire trucks or firemen were dispatched. Why not? It is here we need to look at the dispatchers and not the firemen for answers.
Sending the full military to respond to Benghazi would have exposed them to other teams in the area that they knew were there and caused the Libyans and the world to see exactly what was going on. Instead of being a cover-up for which they have yet to be held accountable, it would have been an international incident that would have exposed the entire affair. Many Americans still remember Iran-Contra, and this is much worse. So, what were the “dispatchers” doing while the fire raged?
They were engaged in a real world game of Risk as Benghazi burned, Americans died, and Obama and his spokespeople lied.
Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com
*******



*******
Benghazi’s Tough Questions
Countless American soldiers and civilians have died because diplomacy was thought to be a surer way of avoiding war than an aggressive posture
Daniel Greenfield
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50676?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=f16a4a2c82-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email
The story of how the Obama Administration failed to secure a US consulate and then failed to send in support while it was under attack may turn out to be the biggest scandal of this administration. But that will only happen if Benghazigate is the subject of a thorough and rigorous investigation. And that means basing stories on facts or on reliable reports, rather than on speculation and internet rumors that no one would take seriously in any other context.
I have received dozens of emails in the last few days claiming that General Ham was fired for trying to go ahead with a rescue operation. The story appeared in the Washington Times. The source for the Times’ story was an anonymous comment on Tiger Droppings, a forum for LSU football fans, from someone in Louisiana working in “Self Employed/Restaurants/Catering” who claimed that the story came “from someone inside the military”.
Now for all I know this story is true, but an anonymous comment on a football fan forum is not enough to run with a major story. It’s certainly not enough to start treating it as an established fact.
That comment has gone beyond the Washington Times and is being sourced in various outlets all of whom are reporting a story based on an anonymous comment on an internet forum.
On October 20th, Clare Lopez wrote a column raising various questions about Benghazi and suggesting that Ambassador Stevens may have been involved in a weapons smuggling operation moving Libyan weapons into Syria. Lopez’s column raised some questions, a lot of them, but provided no proof and no truly credible connection between Stevens and the transfer of Libyan weapons to Syrian Jihadists. Nor did that theory come with a motive for why the consulate was attacked.
Nevertheless large numbers of people have now taken it as a fact that Stevens was involved in running Libyan guns to Syria without any actual evidence to verify that as a fact. Many repeat Lopez’s suggestion that the warehouses behind the consulate stored guns meant for Syria as a statement of fact. To many people, it seems “right” and it may be true, it may not be true. The difference between the two is actual evidence.
I am not attacking Lopez, she was doing what many of us were doing in the days and weeks after the attack. I have run plenty of speculative pieces, some that were right, some that were wrong, it’s in the nature of the business to do that. The problem only begins when a speculative piece is treated as fact and when speculations begin to be used as evidence when they are only questions, not answers.
Was Stevens being set up to be used in a prisoner exchange for the Blind Sheik? It’s an interesting theory, but if Obama had really wanted to release the Blind Sheik, he would extradited him to Egypt and after waiting two months, the Egyptian government would have released him. Furthermore if the goal was to take an American hostage, then there were easier and safer ways to take Stevens than an armed attack on a consulate.
Obama might have personally benefited from a hostage crisis involving a US ambassador, but it’s more likely that he would taken a hit and his entire policy on Libya would have become subject to the same scrutiny that the entire Benghazi cover-up has sought to avoid. It would have been a desperate move at a time when he didn’t see any reason for desperation and believed that he would easily win the election.
That doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for all this to have taken place. Logic only takes you so far and often events are the result of bad and stupid decisions. So nothing can really be ruled out, but its plausibility can be challenged. And should be challenged because through those questions and counter-questions we can come closer to the truth.
Was Stevens involved in running guns to Libya? It’s possible, but almost somewhat unnecessary. The Saudis, Turks and Qataris had taken the lead in running guns to the groups of Jihadists that they were linked to. They really didn’t Stevens to “help” them out in their own backyard. A similar story that claims Stevens was acting as a representative for the Saudis does not make a great deal of sense. The Saudis really didn’t need an American ambassador to act as their agent in the Arab world.
The American role in the weapons pipeline was a wink and a nod to the shipments. The diplomats would pretend to see to it that the weapons were going to “moderate” rebels and that nothing too heavy was being shipped to them. Then when it turned out that the Jihadists were getting heavy weapons, there would be some plausible deniability on the table.
To what extent was Stevens playing a role in this remains an open question. But it is unlikely that even the Obama Administration would have approved of weapons transfers to groups that had not, at least formally, repudiated Al Qaeda, the way that the LIFG had. Giving weapons to Al Qaeda would contradict the entire purpose of the Arab Spring which was to weaken Al Qaeda by empowering political Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Such weapons transfers would lead to terrorist attacks and suggesting that such attacks were calculated takes us into a whole other territory.
If weapons smuggling were taking place, then Al Qaeda linked militias were not likely in the same weapons pipeline as Islamist militias linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Or weren’t supposed to be. Which is to say that there might have been two weapons smuggling pipelines, one that was supposed to go to the Brotherhood’s militias and another going to Al Qaeda linked militias and that the mission was supposed to keep an eye on both pipelines only to discover that they were one and the same.
Then I could further speculate that reports from the Benghazi mission about the transfer of weapons to Al Qaeda linked militias were intercepted and passed along by a State Department Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer back to the militias which led to a coordinated attack on the mission to blind the American eye in Benghazi.
But all this is still speculation. It’s questions piled on questions, rather than answers. It’s a series of assumptions linked to other assumptions with too much distance between known facts and the final narrative. It might be true and it might not be.
The various Benghazi conspiracy theories may be true, in part or in whole, but we have to first look at the fact that the attack was not an isolated event, but part of a series of Islamist attacks on US diplomatic facilities coinciding with September 11. The only reason that Benghazi is unique is because it was in a city run by Islamist militias with little police or military support available making it a soft target.
Claiming that the Benghazi attack was timed to go specifically after Stevens ignores the fact that there was a series of international attacks linked to a defining date. Stevens may have been a target, or he may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Again, we don’t really know and we can’t know until more actual facts come out.
There might have been both a local and a global motive, but for the moment the global motive is fact, the local motive is speculation.
Al Qaeda views American embassies as a natural target. It has been carrying out such attacks since 1998 without the need for extraordinary motives to justify them. That doesn’t mean that such motives can’t exist, but it means they aren’t strictly necessary to explain what happened.
Nor is a coverup of specific wrongdoing involving the Benghazi consulate required to explain the Obama Administration’s refusal to intervene in the attack. This is not an administration that is willing to offend Muslims to save American lives. For it to have taken action in Benghazi would have been more extraordinary than not taking action.
Let’s go back to the Battle of Ganjgal in 2009.where 5 Americans were killed because they were denied artillery support under the Rules of Engagement. That battle led to Dakota Meyer, a United States Marine, receiving a Medal of Honor. The Battle of Ganjgal in multiple reprimands for the officers who denied support, but it led to no changes in the way that things were done.
Here is a statement from the father of Lance Corporal Hunter Hogan, “The policies of this current administration and the rules of engagement are a huge factor with these casualty reports. The limited air and artillery support our men receive. The limited company level support such as motors, as well as the approval to return fire are hampering and adding to the danger they are in daily.”
Here is yet a third letter from a soldier serving in Afghanistan. “The soldiers of the U.S. never engage the enemy unless we know that we have will always have the tactical advantage in defending ourselves, that advantage is the use of close air support and air weapons team. To take those weapons away from us is to level the playing field for the enemy and thus exposing our soldiers to more danger… The very presence of aircraft over our foot patrols has also saved lives and now our chain of command is being told by our political leadership that this is now not allowed.”
If this is how our soldiers in a legitimate war zone have been treated, then what reason was there to expect any other outcome in Benghazi?
When all is said and done, we will likely find that the Battle of Benghazi had more in common with the Battle of Ganjgal than it did with any of the conspiracies. And that is one of the most important points that can be made.
The four Americans killed in Benghazi were not the first Americans to die because of a policy of appeasing Muslims. They will not be the last until the entire worldview of the decision makers is forced to change. It is important not to lose sight of that in debating just what happened in Benghazi, because this is much bigger than Benghazi.
Benghazi is one spot of blood in a stain that marks the map of the globe. Countless American soldiers and civilians have died because diplomacy was thought to be a surer way of avoiding war than an aggressive posture. And if we don’t learn the lessons of Benghazi, then we will be forced to repeat them.
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com
*******
Time to Out Sinister Valerie Jarrett
Opening the Benghazi Window
Judi McLeod
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
The deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, demand the outing of President Barack Obama’s Iranian-born, chief advisor Valerie Jarrett.
Three times Stevens and his staff were denied help to save their lives on the day of their death.
While the courageous serving America were denied help, private citizen Valerie Jarrett seems to have a 24-hour, around-the-clock security detail, with five or six Secret Service agents at her disposal at home and abroad. (former Democratic pollster Patrick Caddell, Breitbart News interview. )
“At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission.” (Richard Miniter, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him.)
Valerie Jarrett gave the order for the bin Laden kill. Was it Jarrett who advised Obama to refuse help to Americans under sustained terrorist attack in Benghazi?
The ‘Happy Gang’ membership of the Two-Obamas-Plus-Valerie is one of the most peculiar relationships to ever make a home of the White House.
Jarrett never lets either Obama out of her sight and reportedly even follows them home to the White House at the end of each day.
Why is this private citizen afforded full security at taxpayer expense while heroes die in Benghazi?
It was Jarrett more than any other who made a manchurian candidate out of radical community organizer Barack Hussein Obama, having first hired his fiance Michelle Robinson back in 1991 when she was still Deputy Chief of Staff to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.
Jarrett took Michelle, now Mrs. Barack Obama, with her when she left the mayor’s office to head Chicago’s Department of Planning & Development.
Until joining the Obama administration, Jarrett was CEO of the Habitat Co, a real estate development and management company, where she found notoriety as a slum landlady.
It was Jarrett who secured the contacts and money essential to Mr. Obama’s long-shot Senate victory. (U.S. News &World Report post, “10 Things You Didn’t Know About Valerie Jarrett”.?
‘Valerie Jarrett ’74’ recounts that “after the historic election, President Obama named Jarrett his senior advisor, assistant to the president for intergovernment relations and public liaison, and head of a new panel on women and girls.
One could easily ponder how a mostly municipal realm employee could rise to the power of intergovernment relations, public liaison and women and girls issues.
These positions of power fade in comparison to what Valerie Jarrett has been up to during the lead in to the November 6 election:
While the magician on stage activated the theatrical fog and diverted everyone’s attention elsewhere, the activities behind the scenes were in full swing.” (Doug Hagmann, Canada Free Press, Oct. 29, 2012). “Concurrent with the appointment of (Thomas) Pickering to throttle the outflow of information about Benghazi, Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Iranian-born Senior Advisor, jetted to the nation of Qatar. Although her activities were concealed by the magician’s accomplice—the dutiful Western media—it was reported by the Asia Times last week that Jarrett met with senior Iranian officials to negotiate a deal pertaining to Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions.
Talks about any such meetings or potential deal were quickly denied by the White House. What else would one expect, as premature disclosure would certainly ruin the outcome of the magic trick being performed right before our eyes.
A break in the magician’s fog
While the creation of an October surprise of this nature could be relegated to the historical dustbin of speculation, it is here that a seemingly random series of dots - or events - come into view and the magic trick becomes exposed to those looking for the clues.
It was on July 31, 2012, about a month before the September 11 attack in Benghazi that a mortar ripped into the wall of the CIA occupied military intelligence building (research into ownership suggests a possible UK connection), now apparently designated as “the consulate in Benghazi.” The explosion did not cause any deaths or injuries and consequently, it did not make many headlines.
It is here that I rely on my well-placed intelligence source to help me understand the magic trick onstage. According to my source, our intelligence operatives noticed something unusual near that building. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent were milling about, almost like they were inspecting the damage. It was as if they were looking to see if the walls were reinforced, and assessing the response to that facility. The next instant, they were gone.
It was reported that the seven member contingent of the Red Crescent were inexplicably kidnapped by “armed men.”
Fast forward to October 6, 2012, about the time when Valerie Jarrett was reportedly meeting with Iranian officials in Qatar. The kidnapped Red Crescent delegation was suddenly, inexplicably and unceremoniously released unharmed in Libya after 65 days in captivity.
Rumors inside the intelligence community suggest that the Jarrett “October surprise” meetings with Iran were contingent on the release of the Iranian Red Crescent workers.”
Tuesday’s election is the reason why the Obama regime works feverishly to close the window on the tragedy in Benghazi.
Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, should wedge the window wide open.
It is time to out the Secret Service protected, private citizen Valerie Jarrett.
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.
Judi can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com
*******
Obama’s October surprise - exposed by Benghazi?
Iran, Valarie Jarrett, Nuclear Weapons, Iranian "Red Crescent" team
Doug Hagmann
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
As a veteran investigator, I’ve learned long ago to shed my blinders and look at the larger picture, or look at all of the dots to see if any might connect. In the realm of politics, it also seems reasonable to consider the quote attributed to Joseph Kennedy in 1960: “There are no accidents in politics.” Furthermore, it is important to reconstruct the actions of all suspects, or in this case, elected officials, to determine “motives and means” amid a hefty dose of theatrical diversions that would make an accomplished magician envious.
October surprise
The concept of an “October surprise,” or a news event with significant potential to influence the presidential election arose exactly forty years ago, when former National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger under then President Richard Nixon announced that an end of the Vietnam War was at hand.
Applied to the present day, what one comparable announcement could be made that would have the same impact in scope and influence favoring the incumbent Obama. Given all that we know, let’s postulate that it would be an agreement hammered out between Obama and Iran where Iran would agree to halt its nuclear ambitions. That certainly would appear to be an accomplishment worthy of domestic and international praise, in spite of any inherent fragility.
In the shadow of the events in Benghazi, let’s connect a few dots to see where they take us.
The Earl Warren of 2012
Barack Obama promised Americans that he is committed to investigate any intelligence and security failures in Libya. To this end, it was announced in the Federal by Register on October 4, 2012, that Thomas Pickering would be the chairman of the U.S. State Department’s Accountability Review Board, a commission charged with investigating the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi. But who is Thomas Pickering and why was he selected to head the investigation?
Summoning the ghost of Earl Warren, Pickering appears to be a logical choice to select if one were to have an interest in controlling the public disclosure. Pickering, it appears, has quite a cozy history with Iran as extensively documented by Matthew Vadum in his October 24, 2012 report.
The magic act continues
While the magician on stage activated the theatrical fog and diverted everyone’s attention elsewhere, the activities behind the scenes were in full swing. Concurrent with the appointment of Pickering to throttle the outflow of information about Benghazi, Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Iranian-born Senior Advisor, jetted to the nation of Qatar. Although her activities were concealed by the magician’s accomplice - the dutiful Western media - it was reported by the Asia Times last week that Jarrett met with senior Iranian officials to negotiate a deal pertaining to Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions.
Talks about any such meetings or potential deal were quickly denied by the White House. What else would one expect, as premature disclosure would certainly ruin the outcome of the magic trick being performed right before our eyes.
A break in the magician’s fog
While the creation of an October surprise of this nature could be relegated to the historical dustbin of speculation, it is here that a seemingly random series of dots - or events - come into by view and the magic trick becomes exposed to those looking for the clues.
It was on July 31, 2012, about a month before the September 11 attack in Benghazi that a mortar ripped into the wall of the CIA occupied military intelligence building (research into ownership suggests a possible UK connection), now apparently designated as “the consulate in Benghazi.” The explosion did not cause any deaths or injuries and consequently, it did not make many headlines.
It is here that I rely on my well-placed intelligence source to help me understand the magic trick onstage. According to my source, our intelligence operatives noticed something unusual near that building. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent were milling about, almost like they were inspecting the damage. It was as if they were looking to see if the walls were reinforced, and assessing the response to that facility. The next instant, they were gone.
It was reported that the seven member contingent of the Red Crescent were inexplicably kidnapped by “armed men.”
Fast forward to October 6, 2012, about the time when Valerie Jarrett was reportedly meeting with Iranian officials in Qatar. The kidnapped Red Crescent delegation was suddenly, inexplicably and unceremoniously released unharmed in Libya after 65 days in captivity.
Rumors inside the intelligence community suggest that the Jarrett “October surprise” meetings with Iran were contingent on the release of the Iranian Red Crescent workers.
Connecting the dots - exposing the magic trick
It is here that I needed to rely on my intelligence source to assist me in seeing through the clouded world stage. Do the dots connect?
Could it be that Obama’s “October surprise” was to announce that an agreement had been reached with Iran, that they would halt their nuclear ambitions much like the Kissinger “peace is at hand” announcement? If so, and if Iran had any involvement on a nation-state level in Benghazi, wouldn’t it seem logical that the truth about the attacks needed to be managed without any such mention of Iran? Who would be the best person to head such an investigation? And if Iran was behind the pre-planned and sophisticated 9/11 murderous attacks in Benghazi, could it be that the July 31, 2012 mortar attack was a probe of that facility’s defenses in advance of a future attack? That would explain the curious disappearance of the 7 member Iranian “Red Crescent” team, and their equally mysterious reappearance, unharmed, 65 days later.
Has the magic trick been revealed?
Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com
*******
Benghazigate: What Are They Covering-Up?
The Obama Administration has chosen to tell the world a bald-faced lie about what happened in Benghazi
J.D. Longstreet
Monday, October 29, 2012
Four Americans are dead and the American people are being lied to as to how and why they got that way.
Either the President is lying - and needs to be impeached, or he’s NOT lying—and needs to be impeached—because he DIDN’T know what was happening!
Repeat: Four Americans are DEAD. And as much as it pains me to say it—it doesn’t look as if our government made a genuine effort to save them.
I have watched, listened, and read as much as we have been allowed to know—plus—information gleaned by non-mainstream media sources, and I have concluded there is a major cover-up at the top levels of the US government over the incident in Benghazi.
Now, let me be clear: I am not an investigative reporter. That is not what I do. I am a commentator—an opinion writer ... nothing more. I have deliberately “hung back” on any in-depth comments on the Benghazi affair simply because there always seemed to me to be more THERE there. In other words, it was obvious, at least to me, that we were only getting drips and drabs of what really happened and, I felt (and still do) that we have been told nothing of WHY it happened. But, dear reader, even Helen Keller could see there is a major cover-up surrounding the incident in Benghazi!
That CIA “safe-house” has troubled me from the very beginning of this horrible story. What was the CIA doing there? There was no embassy in Benghazi. In fact, the building attacked was not even a consulate. If anything, it was a “mission.” Had it been an embassy, I’d not question a CIA presence. They are practically a part of the furniture in any US Embassy. But, as I said, this was NOT an embassy.
Remember too, the last person our ambassador met with the evening of the attack was a Turkish diplomat. What was a Turkish diplomat doing in Benghazi, Libya, meeting with Ambassador Stevens at an unprotected site. Why not meet in the embassy in Tripoli?
It now seems that the ex-SEALS were not attached to the consulate, but were assigned to the CIA “safe-house.” They (laudably) went against orders and made a rescue attempt of the US officials and staff at the consulate—and lost their lives in the attempt.
There is now a fog of misinformation spewed up and out by the Obama Administration in what—in my opinion—is an attempt to cover-up an on-going scheme/operation to smuggle weapons into Syria through Turkey.
A few weeks ago, there was a report that Libyan militia members had been ordered to turn-in the weapons that had been supplied them in their struggle to overthrow Qaddafi. That report confirmed that many of those weapons had been turned in. Where did those weapons go? Perhaps, to the Syrian rebels?
It has been suspected for some time now that the US has been supplying small arms to the rebels in Syria for a while—even though the Obama Administration denies it.
It is the kind of operation the CIA would be up-to-their-necks in and it would explain their presence on the ground in Libya in a safe-house a mile away from the consulate/mission.
For the sake of argument, suppose the guns gathered from the Libyan militia were being covertly sent to Turkey and then smuggled across the Turkey/Syrian border to the Syrian rebels.
I continue to cycle back to the question—why was the Ambassador THERE , alone, without a security detail, at that particular time, meeting with a high Turkish diplomat. Remember, this was on September 11th. If there was going to be an attack by terrorists—September 11th would be the day for it.
Now, I’m just hypothesizing here. I have no idea, at this point, what was really going on. But, I have confidence in my opinion that there was a covert operation underway—one so black that sacrificing the lives of four Americans was deemed “worth it” by our leaders in Washington.
For whatever reason, the Obama Administration has chosen to tell the world a bald-faced lie about what happened in Benghazi.
So politicians lie, right? Yeah, they do. But this time—four Americans are dead and the country wants to know why that happened and why the Obama Administration chose to lie to us about it.
It is clear now, that all the warnings from the political right about the penchant of this President and his administration for lies was absolutely correct. If they are lying about the “Incident in Benghazi,” what else are they lying about?
Americans have a week to decide if they trust Obama enough to vote for him to lead the country for another four years. It is clear the Mainstream Media is NOT going to cover this story. They are NOT going to investigate what happened for fear that it will drive down support for Obama at the polls. They seem to have taken the attitude: the truth, the welfare of the country, be damned. Getting their man, Obama, reelected is the most important thing, bar none.
Look. The cover-up of “Benghazigate” is far more important that Watergate ever was!
We need a “Congressional Investigation” of the incident at Benghazi and we need it post haste! I understand there is no way that is possible before election day, but—if ever an incident deserved investigating by the Congress, this horrible event in Benghazi is it. It is looking more and more as if grounds for impeachment proceedings are present.
Yes, if only Obama was a Republican, there would be no need for commentators to beg the Congress to investigate—or—for commentators to opine at the reluctance of the MsM to investigate.
It is what it is.
The Mainstream Media in America is an organ of the political left—as is President Obama. There is simply no way we are going to get anything approaching impartial reporting or a REAL investigation of Benghazigate from the MsM.
It behooves every voter to weigh what little we know about Benghazigate and decide if we want to have Obama continue to lead this country after January 20th, 2013.
For me, it is not just a matter of trust, it is a matter of honor—NATIONAL HONOR.
America deserves better than we have gotten, or, are likely to get from Obama.
As you enter the voting booth ask yourself, what else has Obama lied to you about. What else is Obama lying to you about today? Then for the sake of our country—do what’s right.
J. D. Longstreet
Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in “America First”.
He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an “in the field” and “on-air” news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.
Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to “old Lutheranism” to express and exercise his faith.
Other articles by Longstreet are posted at: “INSIGHT on Freedom” and at “Omega Dispatch”
*******
*******
Was Ambassador Stevens’ death a hit?
Obama’s duplicity and ruthlessness
Erik Rush
Thursday, October 4, 2012
It certainly is a challenging time for President Barack Obama. He is in a desperate fight to hold his ill-gotten office against a capable opponent, and there is nothing whatsoever in his record to which he can point as redeeming. Some of his criminal activities are coming to light outside the sphere of his direct influence in the form of a recent exposé on the Fast and Furious scandal aired by the Spanish-language television network Univision.
On the heels of this, another border agent was killed on Tuesday (while the administration will probably spin this as “workplace violence,” that’s not likely to stick). Two days ago, more condemning video surfaced, underscoring Obama’s radicalism and race-baiting tendencies.
Finally, Obama’s political opponents are loudly calling for a clear explanation with regard to events surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
Even the liberal press has reported that the administration knew within 24 hours of its occurrence that the attack had been carried out by a terrorist cell. More recently, it became known that U.S. diplomats in Libya were repeatedly denied enhanced security precautions by the Obama administration prior to the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate.
All of which reveals the swill we have heard from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and their spokesmouths regarding the attack as utter lies. Yet the administration and certain news sources continue to carp about the Mideast uprisings having been the byproduct of an inane anti-Muslim film that no one has seen.
Widespread anti-US uprisings in the Muslim world (which Obama helped to foment) and Benghazigate are certainly embarrassments from a foreign policy standpoint, but there are other nuances attendant to the affair which might be examined, particularly in light of this President’s inclination toward political sleight-of-hand.
For example, the murder of Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, and two former Navy SEALs were tragedies that never should have occurred. It is also clear that the abysmal security provided by the State Department contributed in no small measure to these deaths. Obviously, this makes for further embarrassment, and could impact Obama’s re-electability.
But why would Stevens and his staff have been consigned to such a dangerous detail with horribly substandard protection, and repeatedly denied augmented security? In my view, this is the pertinent question, because it speaks far more to Obama’s duplicity and ruthlessness.
I contend that Obama’s laxity vis-à-vis intelligence briefings leading up to the 9/11 anniversary was intended to establish plausible deniability with regard to events that he knew were coming down the pipe. In short, I believe he was aware that mass uprisings were planned for the anniversary of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on America, and may have had a hand in orchestrating them.
Outrageous? It gets better…
More than a few news outlets have reported on the likelihood that Ambassador Stevens was homosexual. Most of the coverage questions the prudence of Obama having sent such an individual into a cultural setting that holds a marked antipathy toward homosexuals. Commentators and reporters (myself included) have discussed the possibility that Barack Obama is a closeted homosexual. This is, in fact, supposedly common knowledge in Chicago’s “gay community.”
On Tuesday, columnist and author Jerome Corsi reported on the claims of congregants from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (Obama’s former Church), who assert that embattled former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright provided matchmaking and “counseling” services for career-conscious gay black men at Trinity – including Barack Obama.
There’s also been widespread suspicion around the murders of homosexual men with whom Obama was acquainted and may have had relationships. In a column on Sept. 14, Chicago journalist Kevin Dujan (whom Corsi interviewed for an earlier piece on this subject) cited two Chicago area sources from diplomatic circles who claimed that Ambassador Stevens was homosexual as well.
So there’s a Chicago connection there. We also know that Obama lived more or less the bachelor’s life in Washington D.C. – where Stevens was also working – from 2005 to 2008, commuting between Chicago and D.C. while Michelle and the girls remained home. Would it be outside the realm of possibility to postulate that either there had been a relationship between the closeted gay Senator and the gay diplomat (who later wound up working for the former), or that said diplomat was simply more well-apprised of the Senator’s sexual proclivities than the rest of us?
Why, this line of reasoning would almost suggest that Obama, knowing of the imminent unrest in the Middle East, capitalized on this in order to carry out a hit on the intentionally ill-protected diplomat. Did Stevens know something that someone preferred he carry to his grave without disclosing? Did it involve embarrassing personal matters, or other chicanery performed in his official capacity?
For the sake of this exercise, I suppose it could have been both…
To the average network news viewer, unaware of the odious worldview and extreme treachery of which this party is capable, all of this will appear preposterous – as preposterous as Obama being a dedicated Marxist and Islamist sympathizer who wishes to punish America for its centuries of living off the backs of “the workers” and the little brown people of the world.
I’ll let the reader decide however, since it’s unlikely that these questions will ever see the light of the U.S. House or Senate chambers. Am I barking up the wrong tree – or might I have just accurately surmised under which cup the magician has really hidden the ball?
Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who writes sociopolitical commentary for numerous online and print publications. In February of 2007, Erik was the first to break the story of President (then Senator) Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level, which ignited a media firestorm that smolders to this day. His latest book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal ~ America’s Racial Obsession,” examines the racist policies by which the political left keeps black Americans in thralldom, white Americans guilt-ridden and yielding, and maintains the fallacy that America remains an institutionally racist nation. Links to his work are available at Erikrush.com.
*******