*******Benghazi – Where was the Commander-in-Chief?
Brennan: from Barack to Benghazi
2008 Passport office break-in, 2012: Innocence of Muslims explained
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Benghazi. Few Americans ever heard of the city in Libya until the murder of four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, on September 11, 2012. Fewer still heard of the movie Innocence of Muslims, until it was suddenly blamed for a non-existent protest outside of a non-existent embassy in Benghazi within hours of the attack.
For two weeks in our nation’s history, the obscure and amateurish video was persistently and very publicly cited as the cause for the protests and murders in Benghazi by the highest ranking officials in the Obama administration. Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, and others blamed the little known video for the attack on what was deliberately mischaracterized as a U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Even today, the majority of officials in power don’t seem to want to talk about what happened in
Benghazi, and Obama and Clinton repeatedly stonewalled all legitimate investigation of the incident. Why? Because any honest investigation into the activities taking place there would confirm a secret CIA operation intended to arm anti-Assad rebels, including the Iranian and Syrian backed Ansar al Sharia terror group. The purpose of this operation, the objective of which remains in place, is to topple Assad and replace him with a Saudi-backed leader. Based on research and investigation, it appears that somewhere amid the magician’s fog of this illegal “black op” overthrow is John O. Brennan.
The Arabic-speaking John Brennan, who serves as Obama’s assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and is the choice to head the CIA, has seen his share of exposure in the alternative media lately. Most recently, former FBI agent John Guandolo alleged that Brennan, while working as the CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from 1996 to 1999, converted to Islam. According to agent Guandolo, Brennan visited Mecca and Medina during the Hajj, which are traditionally off limits to non-Muslims during that period. Former agent Guandolo cites Brennan’s presence and his comments about his visits as evidence of his conversion.
Beyond his possible conversion to Islam, however, Brennan’s other actions are much more troubling, particularly as they relate to his past history with Obama, and more recent history related to Benghazi, drone warfare, and his involvement with an administrative “kill list.” It appears possible that, by nominating Brennan to be the nation’s top spy chief, Obama might be tying up loose ends that are shrouded by controversy. One loose end is the Benghazi operation and the manner in which an obscure Internet video was immediately blamed. Yet another loose end relates to Obama’s passport records while he was on the campaign trail in 2008. These two significant incidents involving questions and controversy, lies and murder, are like bookends to a four-year stint in a star chamber.
Based on extensive investigation by this author, the former might well relate to the latter, as determined by the “digital footprints” and historical digital records of both incidents. Investigation of both incidents finds common digital forensic factors that suggest that the same person or persons involved in the 2008 passport office break-in (or at least the same entities) might be involved in the dissemination of the video Innocence of Muslims immediately following the 2012 attacks in Benghazi. Or, it would appear that way.
It is the professional opinion of this author (holding certification in Internet Profiling) that both incidents, despite this four-year span, appear to involve companies associated with corporate entities serving, or otherwise connected to, the U.S. government. This was determined through analysis of the IP addresses used to upload and change certain characteristics of the video, among other investigative indications.
Based on this research and investigation, the one person identified as seeming to have some level of involvement in the midst of both incidents is John O. Brennan.
2008 Passport office break-in
It has been reported and confirmed that computer files maintained and managed by the United States Passport Office were illegally accessed on three separate occasions in 2008 as follows: 9 January 2008, 21 February 2008, and 14 March 2008. Although the initial story broke in The Washington Times on Thursday, 20 March 2008, an
article containing additional information was published two days later, on Saturday, 22 March 2008.
At that time, it was disclosed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack that three (3) employees of two (2) separate government contracting firms were suspected in the “break-in,” and that the files accessed included those of then-Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain. The motives for the accessing of records was unclear, according to investigating officials. The firms that employed the suspects were identified as Stanley, Inc. (a firm that employed two suspects), and The Analysis Corporation (that employed one suspect).
Of note is that, according to published reports, in 2006 the firm identified as Stanley, Inc. was awarded a $164 million government contract to print new U.S. passports. Despite the security breach, Stanley, Inc. (currently a wholly owned subsidiary of CGI Federal, Inc.) announced on 17 March 2008 that they were awarded a five-year, $570 million contract to continue support of the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs/Passport Services Directorate.
The contract services include the production, operational and business process support training, procurement, administration and evaluation of critical supplies, and facilities management support at the four Passport Centers, and 14 Passport Agencies nationwide, along with the Headquarters’ support offices.
The Analysis Corporation (TAC), based in McLean, Virginia is a wholly owned subsidiary and the intelligence division of Global Defense Technology & Systems, Inc. (GTEC), a defense contracting company that is “focused on mission-critical, technology-based U.S. national security solutions.” It has been since renamed Sotera Defense Solutions.
Founded in 1990, the Analysis Corporation has been working on counterterrorism and national security projects, including (but not limited to) maintaining national “watch-listing” activities. According to open source reports, the intelligence part of GTEC is staffed by former senior officials from the intelligence community. They are operationally involved with nearly every branch of the intelligence community, including the U.S. Department of State, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
It is important to note that two employees working for Stanley, Inc. were fired. A third employee of The Analysis Corporation was the primary focus of the ongoing investigation. At the time of the break-in, the Analysis Corporation was owned and operated by John O. Brennan (CEO from November 2005 to January 2009). It is also important to note that during this period, John O. Brennan served as a close advisor to Obama in 2008 on matters of intelligence and foreign policy. Following a 25-year career in the CIA, Brennan also worked with the campaign to elect Obama during his first presidential campaign.
With regard to the breach of the passport office files, revelations regarding the results of the government investigation appear to have fallen into a deep, black hole in terms of any publication of investigative findings. Aside from the termination of two of the three suspects, the legal disposition of their cases (including the employee of Stanley, Inc.) remains unknown.
At the time of the passport office break-in, Barack Hussein Obama was on the campaign trail as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. The news of the breach was made public within a week of the last intrusion. A week later, on 21 March 2008, while Obama was campaigning, he was asked for his reaction by ABC News Jake Tapper. It is obvious that Obama became officially aware that the public had been informed about the level of the breach, and that his personal and confidential biographical information, in addition to his international travels on his diplomatic and personal passport, were apparently “accessed.”
On April 8, 2008, Obama admitted, for the first time in any public venue as a presidential candidate, that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981. It is reasonable to ask whether Obama would have disclosed his Pakistan trip at this time had it not been for his uncertainty about whether or not the information had already been made public.
Even ABC News appeared surprised at this sudden and unexpected revelation, considering all of the talk about Pakistan and U.S. foreign policy during the previous several months. It is critical to understand that Obama never disclosed his Pakistan trip at any time during any policy discussions or debates prior to the passport office breach.
Deeper investigation into the break-in found evidence that, in addition to the passport files, ancillary documentation of Obama, Clinton, McCain and several others was also compromised. Information that would facilitate identity fraud was also breached, as was the credit header information of various individuals. Based on this author’s most recent investigative findings, it is the professional belief of this author that this additional information provides the link between the break-in and an individual known as Lieutenant Quarles Harris, Jr. [Author’s note: “Lieutenant” (and all known spelling variations) is the individual’s given name, and does not represent any “rank” in any military or law enforcement agency.]
It is also important to point out that during the investigation of the breach of the passport office records, The Washington Times reported that “officials do not know whether information was improperly copied, altered or removed from the database during the intrusions” [Emphasis added]. As time progressed, so did the leaks. It was learned that at least one employee at the U.S. Department of State was a co-conspirator in the break-in.
According to published reports, that employee might have shared credit card information obtained during the breach with a man identified as Lieutenant Quarles Harris, Jr.
Based on the continued investigation of this author, it appears that Harris was the intended recipient of stolen credit card information from a State Department employee also involved in the breaches, but he received more than what he bargained for. When he realized the scope of the crime and the explosive nature of the information he possessed, he turned to investigators for protection. He also began to talk with investigators, and ultimately he made a deal with federal prosecutors.
Before he could make good on his deal, Lieutenant Quarles Harris, Jr. was found shot to death in his car on April 17, 2008, just over a month after the last breach. He was found in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in the northeast section of Washington. He had been shot once in the head.
The murder of Harris remains unsolved, and the official account of the murder is that Harris was either a victim of random violence, or his murder was a result of a “street deal gone bad.”
2012: Innocence of Muslims explained
In many ways, the video Innocence of Muslims can be compared to the bloody glove found at Rockingham, a reference to a piece of evidence in the infamous O.J. Simpson murder trial. The video is critical evidence in the murder of four Americans - men who died in a dusty land on the dark continent. Due to the lies perpetuated by those in office, they will be denied earthly justice as Americans continue to passively accept the contemptible hubris of those spinning such tales. In this investigation of multiple murders, felonious and even traitorous activities, however, the video provides important clues in the form of digital bread crumbs. These digital bread crumbs have left a trail directly to the doorstep of agencies involved in playing a supporting role in U.S. counter-terror operations, and those in the government they serve.
The video is the Achilles heel that serves to expose their nefarious cover-up.
Many perplexing questions remain unanswered about the video that Obama, Clinton, Rice, Carney and others blamed on the attack and murders in Benghazi. Although I’ve carefully documented the history of the video that ultimately came to be known as The Innocence of Muslims in a previous report (available here), a few key issues to summarize new and significant findings, however, need to be addressed.
First, it is the professional opinion of this author, based on extensive investigation, that the video was a “made-to-order” production by orders from - and payment by - our own intelligence community. The alleged producer of the video, publicly identified as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was associated with an individual known as Eiad Salameh, the cousin of Walid Shoebat, a man well known in counter-terrorism circles. According to Shoebat, Salameh was the subject of an extensive FBI investigation relating to a large-scale fraud operation several years ago.
According to Mr. Shoebat, his cousin Salameh was in the sights of the FBI for three decades. During this period, he had reportedly committed numerous federal crimes that were known to the FBI, but he was never arrested. This author was able to confirm that Salameh was connected to Nakoula, specifically for the purposes of this video, and that the activities of both men were well known to the FBI at the highest levels. This author also confirmed the facts presented by Mr. Shoebat in his 23-page report titled Anti-Muhammad Film “Innocence of Muslims” has a terrorist financier connection that includes major failures at the FBI. However, this author disputes some of Shoebat’s conclusions based on evidence that was unavailable to him.
To be precise, it is the contention of this author, based on an examination of numerous court documents, and the totality of evidence, that the video was created and produced by individuals who were acting as operational assets for the FBI. If this type of activity sounds familiar, it should, as it is the same template that is commonly and frequently used by our government. It is the same template used in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and numerous “terrorist” operations since.
It appears possible that the FBI had enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Salameh and his associates to send him to jail indefinitely. Because Salameh and his associates had contacts with terrorists in other countries and were communicating with them, the CIA became involved as well. Based on the evidence reviewed, it is the professional opinion of this investigator that the causal conduit between the FBI and the CIA was John Brennan, who was acting at the time as the assistant to President Barack Obama for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism operations. Brennan also had numerous contacts within the burgeoning world of private counter-intelligence companies and operatives.
From my investigative findings, it appears that the “order” for the video was placed in 2011, at the time the Arab Spring was gaining momentum. It was also a time when anti-Muslim sentiment and “hate speech” was gaining worldwide attention in the U.S.
A video to incite and inflame Muslims was desired for the dual purpose of causing violent outbreaks for specific times, and to create a catalyst to stifle any criticism of Islam. However, no legitimate film producer wanted the job nor could be trusted in this “black op” assignment. Accordingly, the FBI appears to have given Nakoula (who was associated with Salameh) a choice between cooperation and prison. It appears that he chose the former option.
Using a combination of willing participants and people duped into cooperating, Nakoula used his connections to involve some more well-known members within the “anti-jihad” movement, many who would sign on to any such project without performing any diligent investigation of the people behind the endeavor. While seeming to serve his handlers within the intelligence community, Nakoula was also working for his own personal gain. Despite its actual low budget, the cost to the intelligence agency funding it was high.
The production of the video began in July of 2011, about 14 months before the Benghazi attack. The initial name of this production was called Desert Warrior, but was changed on 30 June 2012 to The Innocence of Bn [sic] Laden. The following day, it “premiered” at The Vine Theater in Los Angeles under that name in order to provide legitimacy. Promotional flyers, written in Arabic, were provided in advance of (and at) the opening. According to public accounts, however, no one showed up to watch the movie, and it was quickly forgotten.
The roughly 14-minute video later appeared on the YouTube channel of a man known as Sam Bacile under the title The Real Life of Mohammed, on 1 July 2012. Clearly, the video had been digitally manipulated in an obviously amateurish manner from the original filming to the final incarnation. Replacement of the original dialogue with obviously antagonistic and insulting lines was clearly evident in the final video that appeared online.
If Nakoula had an operating budget provided by the CIA, why was the video such an obvious amateurish production? The reason, I was told by sources with knowledge of this video, is that much of the money was used by Nakoula and Salameh, who both had criminal histories involving fraud. Essentially, the FBI and the CIA were “out-conned” by a couple of convicted con artists.
Meanwhile, the U.S. operations in Benghazi were being shut down, as the job had been mostly completed and the U.S. was getting pressure from the Turkish and Russian governments. The operatives in Benghazi needed a diversion to finish their operation. A large-scale anti-American demonstration in Tripoli, Cairo or elsewhere would serve as cover to wind things down in Benghazi, and would divert and otherwise occupy the press.
Despite being poorly done, it is important to understand that the video already had its “legend” established. This explains the curiously odd “premier” at the Vine Theater, which was done, not for public consumption, but to establish its fictitious pedigree. In the spy world, “legends,” or well-prepared synthetic histories of a person (or in this case, a video) is vital.
Although far from perfect, the video Innocence of Muslims, having been virtually dormant on an internet channel for months, was suddenly “discovered” by Egyptian television host Sheikh Khalid Abdulla, who first aired the video on 9 September 2012. Well known in the world of counter-terrorism, Abdullah acted as the Middle East conduit for the otherwise useless video. Due to the persistent promotion of that video, protests broke out in Cairo and, more importantly, at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.
How did Khalid Abdulla even find the obscure video? It is the professional opinion of this author that the answer might be found by identifying the YouTube channel (or channels) on which it was uploaded. Tracing the digital fingerprints of the various incarnations of the video from the first casting call (when it was named Desert Warrior) to its final birthing as Innocence of Muslims, there is an apparent connection to the IP address associated with Stanley, Inc., the company previously referenced in the passport office break-in. From there, the fingerprints get somewhat “smudged,” but a connection is possible to others in the counter-terrorism and defense industry serving the U.S. government. In short, Abdullah was “given” the video by our own intelligence community.
The motive was not only to cause a diversion, but also to facilitate the undermining of First Amendment rights of all Americans, especially as they relate to the criticism of Islam. If this sounds too far out or convenient, take a look at the background of John Brennan, who spent time throughout the Middle East, including Egypt. Furthermore, the U.S. intelligence agencies were heavily influencing the media within Egypt following the toppling of Mubarak and the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood backed regime.
Too much free speech is a bad thing
Even deeper investigation of John Brennan has taken this author to his 1980 graduate thesis titled Human Rights, A Case Study of Egypt, which he wrote while at the University of Texas at Austin. Based on an extensive review of his published thesis, it appears that Obama wants to have, as his top spymaster, someone in favor of government censorship, or media manipulation for government purposes. Brennan’s thesis offers valuable insight into his thinking and logic, especially as it relates to his personal experiences in Egypt. Using such personal experience, he seems readily able to justify government censorship actions, as in the case of Egypt under Anwar Sadat. It is important to consider that in his thesis, Brennan argues that too much uncensored or unchecked freedom could be detrimental to Egypt’s political environment.
Brennan’s overtly pro-Islamic position is evident in the counter-terrorism policies within the U.S. intelligence community. One would be remiss not to note the revisions performed to our internal counter-terrorism training manuals that removed all criticism of Islam under Brennan’s direction.
Given Brennan’s obvious pro-Islamic bias, the views he argued in his graduate thesis (that include favoring government censorship under certain conditions), his history with the CIA, and his close ties to Obama, is it not reasonable to question Brennan’s activities while National Security Advisor to Obama during the Benghazi attack? Even without the evidence described above? Specifically, is it not possible that the blueprint for use of the video not only to cause a necessary diversion, but to create a case against our First Amendment rights, originated with Brennan at the behest of Obama?Putting it all together
John Brennan, Obama’s pick for top U.S. spy, has recently come under fire for his stance on drone killings, secret kill lists, and in some circles, his alleged conversion to Islam. Some will consider Brennan the obvious choice to head the CIA, given his history with the agency. Few see a different side, a side possibly connected to unseemly activities involving crimes and cover-ups.
Those who object to John Brennan’s nomination are doing so on the basis of the obvious. Such examples include his support for enhanced interrogation techniques, drone use, and the maintenance of a secret “kill list” from the star chamber of the White House.
There are many more important questions about Brennan that need to be asked and answered. Reader, do you care enough about the future of your children and grandchildren to meet the challenge of asking these questions?
I believe I’ve identified questions about his role in the 2008 passport office security breach in which the file of Barack Obama, among others, was accessed. In that case alone, it is reasonable to ask, “What information having significant political capital about Obama and others might be known to this spy legend? Has the spirit of J. Edgar Hoover been resurrected in John Brennan?”
How about his role in the murderous attacks in Benghazi, and the subsequent cover-up? Or perhaps greater still, his role in the Saudi intelligence operation known as Arab Spring?
America has a history of creating great spies. America also has a history of turning out some spies who are adept at working all sides of an agenda, including the opposing sides. At this point in our nation’s history, can we afford to be anything except absolutely certain about the loyalty of our appointees to our country, our Constitution, and our future? No one should be appointed until every question is asked, answered, and verified.
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 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: firstname.lastname@example.org*******
The Commander in Chief was AWOL During Benghazi Attack
By NWV News Writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
February 13, 2013
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
February 13, 2013
Following the Senate committee hearings with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate, many observers have arrived at the conclusion that the U.S. Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, was off duty and unavailable to make military decisions within the Chain of Command to rescue Americans under attack, according to Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (U.S. Army- Ret.).
According to Gen. Vallely, who is a frequent Fox News Channel military analyst and reports regularly for television and radio stations across the nation, the cover up "appears to be a White House order to 'Stand Down' and not issue a rescue mission operational order. For over seven hours "Obama did nothing."
"There was no communications with his national security team, and then he flew to Las Vegas for a campaign event," Vallely stated.
”Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better," the general asserts.
The Senate committee testimony revealed that Obama stated to Panetta and Dempsey, “Do what you have to do.”
"Where was the order to execute a rescue mission now, Mr. President? The investigation regarding the 9/11 al-Qaeda raid on Benghazi and the deaths of four brave Americans began, but to date it has no end or acceptable findings, and provides no answers for the families of the four murdered Americans," said Gen. Vallely, who founded the non-partisan
Stand Up America, a military think-tank and public-interest group. (Full disclosure: This reporter is a contributor to Gen. Vallely's group.)
Gen. Vallely is on record promising the father of the slain former Navy SEAL Ty Woods,
Charles Woods, that he and "Stand Up America "will press the investigation to the end."
"My son violated his orders in order to protect the lives of at least 30 people. He risked his life to be a hero. I wish that the leadership in the White House had the same moral courage that my son displayed with his life...," said Mr. Woods.
"Malfeasance and ineptitude borne from a foreign policy steeped in naivete' in the least and complete indifference to the threat conditions provided by the intelligence community has degenerated into a massive cover up of the facts on the ground and is minimized by
political corruption and ineptness by the national security team," the general added.
Vallely claims the Senate hearings were more congratulatory than probative, and a steady parade of the changing of the guard. Facts cannot be disputed, yet access to facts has been impossible. The objective has been to obscure actions to prevent the ability to sift through the events, conjecture, political rhetoric, and the steady attempt to move beyond the elections and to the cabinet changes; especially by those of us without high clearance in ‘fly-over’ country, the general contends.
The cumulative effect of all these facets is that one must suspend all manner of logic and reason to swallow the miasmic trail. This is precisely the point – there has been an obvious attempt to muddy the waters, ‘chill the mark’, and deflect focus. It expected the onlooker to be so confused they have to just look away, feel bad for the losses, and swallow that this is all a learning experience and rest assured that they will all try harder, now under newer administration officials, according to Gen. Vallely.
The most cogent report to date on Benghazi was crafted by Senators Lieberman and Collins but it does not go deep enough into the weeds with regard to dereliction of duty, omissions, waivers, mission, objective, and names to hold responsible, Vallely asserts.
"Most important, where was the President? Was he ‘absent’? Absent, really? No, he just did not want to make himself available and have to make a difficult decision or have his actions traced with any paper trail. He seems to hide or not be available when the going gets tough? What, the President is unavailable during a crisis?" the general sadly asks.
© 2013 NWV - All Rights Reserved
For radio interviews regarding this article
Where was Obama?
Paul E. Vallely
Saturday, February 9, 2013
After the testimonies of Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey, and Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi tragedy, it appears the Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama was off duty and not available to make a hard decision to press the military Chain of Command to rescue Americans under attack. The cover up appears to be a White House order to “Stand Down” and not issue a rescue mission operational order. For over seven hours he did nothing; no communications with his National Security team, and then he flew to Las Vegas for a campaign stop. “Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better.”The testimony revealed that Obama stated to Panetta and Dempsey, “Do what you have to do.” Where was the order to execute a rescue mission NOW Mr. President? The investigation regarding the 9/11 al Qaeda raid on Benghazi and the deaths of four brave Americans began, but to date it has no end or acceptable findings, and provides no answers for the families of the four murdered Americans.
I have promised Charles Woods, Father of Ty Woods, and family, that at Stand up America, we will press this investigation to the end. Malfeasance and ineptitude borne from a foreign policy steeped in naiveté in the least and complete indifference to threat conditions provided by the Intelligence Community has degenerated into a massive cover up of the facts on the ground and is minimized by political corruption and ineptness by the National Security team.What we have had is myriad conflicting and/or changing stories and moving people and parts from all manner of sources, players, and decisions makers. We have internet rumors, official statements, hearings, in camera probes, an ARB report, talking heads ad nauseum, political spin and a very clear ‘circling of the wagons’ where blame encompasses all involved within the Obama circle of influence.
We have witnessed hearings that were more congratulatory than probative, and a steady parade of the changing of the guard. Facts cannot be disputed, yet access to facts has been impossible. The objective has been to obscure actions to prevent the ability to sift through the events, conjecture, political rhetoric, and the steady attempt to move beyond the elections and to the cabinet changes; especially by those of us without high clearance in ‘fly-over’ country.
The cumulative effect of all these facets is that one must suspend all manner of logic and reason to swallow the miasmic trail. This is precisely the point – there has been an obvious attempt to muddy the waters, ‘chill the mark’, and deflect focus. It expected the onlooker to be so confused they have to just look away, feel bad for the losses, and swallow that this is all a learning experience and rest assured that they will all try harder, now under newer administration.The most cogent report to date on Benghazi was crafted Senators Lieberman and Collins but it does not go deep enough into the weeds with regard to dereliction of duty, omissions, waivers, mission, objective, and names to hold responsible. We need to know without varnish, spin, and purposeful evasion what did and did not take place during the events as they unfolded, and an adult, clear minded understanding of what was at stake that prompted people to make poor and deadly decisions. We must first start with how the lines of communication would have unfolded, where decision making nodes occurred, what those decisions were, and why they were made.
Most important, where was the President? Was he ‘absent’? Absent, really? No, he just did not want to make himself available and have to make a difficult decision or have his actions traced with any paper trail. He seems to hide or not be available when the going gets tough? What, the President is unavailable during a crisis?
All citizens must ask the following questions and more, and demand a complete map to understand how our government is supposed to work at the highest levels in times of crisis by those who took the oath of office:
The entire National Security apparatus was well aware of the events leading up to and including the attack(s) on Libya and beyond, so why the indifference and lack of any response?
Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey admitted during their testimony that there is no firehouse mentality, the question is why as this is outside the scope of Rules of Engagement and historical training?
The Benghazi annex was the largest CIA base in North Africa. The primary mission was to chase the illicit and illegal arms stream as well as the Middle East militia members. The question is how far reaching and effective was this mission for the end result to be terror attacks and death and how politically charged was this to the administration’s overall goals in the Magreb and Middle East and beyond?
Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey clearly both revealed that the meeting with Barack Obama on 9-11 was thirty minutes long and only 20 of the thirty minutes centered on Benghazi. Just how deep was the commitment of Obama to re-election versus Foreign Service officers in Libya and beyond as more than 20 locations had demonstrations or attacks against the United States during the week of 9-11?
Did Hillary Clinton sign a waiver to deny Marine security at both locations in Libya to include Tripoli and Benghazi despite Congressional laws against her actions (SECCA) perhaps in favor of government contractors like Blue Mountain or DynCorp and did the administration wave off rescue missions?
While General Ham was in Washington, DC. on 9-11-12, who gave orders for any and all actions or lack of actions in Benghazi including the dispatch and re-dispatch of surveillance drones and in favor of what?
Given that several hundred terror-related incidents occurred in Libya over the previous 24 months in Benghazi, where are the surveillance drone videos, and who assessed the conditions on the ground with regard to weapons and militias?
The members of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) were chosen by Hillary Clinton and with the classified and non-classified publication of the ARB, the matter of the terror attack has been insufficiently addressed. Congress gave Hillary Clinton many questions, both within and without the scope of her testimony. Where are her written responses and those members of the ARB that she promised after her testimony?
Secretary Clinton correctly admitted that Marine detachments are assigned to diplomatic posts to guard classified material from being compromised. So why aren’t our elected Congressmen NOW publicly discussing the “Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999” (SECCA) over her decision not to have Marines at Benghazi? In the absence of a Marine assignment how many government contractors were under contract to assume the same duties of Marines and why would we allow the Libyan government to approve our hires?The functional security budget for Benghazi alone was $ 11 million. Blue Mountain was a ‘no bullet’ contract and the hiring of the February 17th Brigade to provide outside security to the compound was mired in a labor dispute due to the number and time of working hours, working conditions, and pay scale. Many members of the February 17th Brigade were on strike at the time of the attacks and many fled prior.
The administration allowed a well armed, well trained, 16 member security forces to be removed from Libya in August, about a month before the attack. They were to eventually be replaced by a Libya security force who Ambassador Stevens wrote could not be trusted because it was forbidden to vet the personnel under Libyan government rules.
The House Oversight Committee had documentation that the WHSR started receiving emails that the mission was under hostile surveillance as early as 1 PM, on the day of the attack. The WH/DoD/Pentagon ordered the drone to the location to video the actions at the compound. No order or permission was provided to the CIA annex to render assistance to those under attack at the mission as the attack was imminent and later under assault.
Those at the annex, without DC knowledge or approval, later did provide lethal protections and countermeasures as no other military assistance was dispatched. As soon as the attacks began, the mission sounded an audible alarm for the whole compound, alerting Tripoli and the Diplomatic Security in Washington DC. The Diplomatic Security headquarters in DC which resides in the State Department also went to the Department of Defense while DSHQ maintained opened communications with the mission during the whole attack. At this time, the CIA annex was also alerted and told to prepare to aid personnel.
Where was the President? ‘Absent’ yet?The administration refuses to fully describe the nature of the personnel in Tripoli that were dispatched to Benghazi on a chartered aircraft. They were however, not Marines, but likely a hired substitute group FAST team of government contractors. It has been stated under oath that there were no assets within any favorable distance or within time constraints to respond to the attack in Benghazi, why? As Libya was the highest threat and greatest hotspot for attack, no proactive measures were in place for more than two years and no one took any initiative to either offer, or better still, demand rescue and safety measures for Benghazi or other locations including Cairo, Tunis, or any number of other diplomatic posts.
Where was the ‘Fire Station’ set up for any and all contingencies that were more than likely to occur? There were no contingency plans or a ‘firehouse’ set up in one of the most fire prone areas where Americans were in harm’s way. Leadership?
Given the ‘on-hook’ destinations of communications coming from Benghazi pleading for assistance, there were an estimated 300 to 400 personnel in national security positions that were receiving the emails, the encrypted mobile texts, or simply desperate phone calls via secured systems. After the dismissal of the national security officials, all actions were handed off to the NSC and the military command center – ‘nothing else to see here folks back to business as usual.’
Remember, the President of the United States is NEVER, EVER more than a few minutes from secure communications… ‘Absent’? AWOL?
Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said lawmakers viewed the video of the mission showing the post before the attack, the full set of incidents, and the exodus. These videos were a combination of surveillance cameras at the compound and the drone feed. The video(s) included the Ambassador’s body being dragged out of a building. This speaks to and proves that an ‘anti-Muslim’ YouTube video was clearly not the reason for the attack as fabricated by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice. David Petraeus did provide an immediate assessment that the attack was performed by a radical Islamists group known as Ansar al Sharia.They knew immediately, and there never was any question despite what many surrogates have said, even during Thursday’s hearings.
It is an indisputable fact that much of the objective in Benghazi was to restore order from a pre and post Qaddafi regime. Much of the order included identifying lethal weapons smuggling, in and out of Libya, to destinations that include Turkey, Syria, Mali, Iraq, and Algeria to list a few countries. A buyback program was initiated by the CIA in the area for high grade military weapons that included manpads and stinger missiles.
The U.S. government under the Obama administration did in fact provide lethal weaponry to Libyan rebels for the eventual overthrow of Qaddafi and the same is true in Syria. So a high grade weapons pipeline was established, chased, smuggled, and transferred. This now begs additional questions that include who did the State Department and the Department of Defense hire for all parts of all missions in the Middle East? Could it be that the four dead Americans were actually killed with weapons provided by the United States that eventually went to the wrong hands?
Did the United States solicit historically recognized jihadists/Islamists of known and unknown quantity and quality via militias from the start to the finish in overthrowing Libya strongman Qaddafi and beyond? Should attention be placed on a domestic arms security company known as Turi Defense Group out of Las Vegas who was in communication with Benghazi? Marc Turi is/was an authorized GSA arms vendor that held several government contracts for providing arms that included destinations such as Qatar and other Gulf States, all at the core of providing lethal military grade weapons as directed by the Obama administration. Incidentally, Turi lives in Arizona and his home was raided by Federal law enforcement in 2012.
The State Department applied millions of dollars to Libya under the premise of grants and humanitarian aid and to what accounting have these monies been scrutinized to date and/or will be in the near future? Simple searches on open sources have shown that more than $30 million was assigned for various objectives in Libya in a post Qaddafi landscape. Have those funds or unspent funds been accounted for?
What is the status today of the FBI investigation into Benghazi? Hillary Clinton, in her testimony, said many things, one of which was that al Qaeda is a “brand.” This speaks to the matter that there are several associated militias in Libya and MENA that include Ansar al Sharia or any other factions and may also include members of the February 17th Brigade. At the time of the attack, there were only three members of the February 17th Brigade at the compound who were actually deputized by the Libyan government.
The most shocking point spoken by Hillary Clinton was “what difference at this point does it make?” She went on to say, “to be clear, it is from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice.” These two statements are key as they speak to timing, both of which point to pre-election conditions of Barack Obama and post-election conditions as the administration maintains power to ensure the facts on Benghazi remain opaque and oblique.
All deference was paid to Libyan placeholders as they demanded that any official rescue teams had to dress in civilian clothing to keep tensions at a minimum. 300 threats were provided from the intelligence community yet blame is placed back on the intelligence community saying that none of the intelligence was actionable per Panetta’s testimony. General Ham was in constant communications with the Ambassador in Libya for many months. He delivered specific reports to General Dempsey, of which Dempsey admitted he received, and was well aware of conditions, yet never offered or suggested an increase of security or military assets as a safety measure. He also did not set up any contingency plans such as the ‘Fire Station’ to handle any eventuality. This is completely against all military policy throughout the ranks and now sends a very sad message – ‘will they have my back no matter where I am assigned?’
Both Secretary Panetta and Martin Dempsey testified that after the one single meeting for thirty minutes at the White House, there were no further conversations with the President regarding Benghazi and that includes not only Barack Obama, but Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus. The matter for all involved was closed and an Executive Privilege was attached to 9-11-12 Presidential Daily Briefings (PDHs) associated to Libya for public or investigative purposes. The investigation as we are told is in the hands of the FBI and the Department of Justice to determine if there will ever be enough to build a case for future prosecution of the terrorists involved.
Panetta admitted in his testimony that the terrorists are emboldened, regardless of capture or response possibilities now, which in summary, is the most disturbing revelation of all. The threat to American safety and assets across the globe remain at high risk, yet there is no ordered readiness condition to save our brothers and sisters or sovereign locations worldwide.
Where was the President? Our sources tell us, that though he was ‘absent’, he indeed gave the ‘stand-down’ orders. Prior to that, it was his naïve approach, inept preparation and response to obvious needs that set the scene in place – the most obvious day for retaliatory action on the part of al Qaeda. What are we being asked to believe?
Research and contributing to this article are SUA Staff members Denise Simon and Monica Morrill; Edited by Scott W. Winchell.
Paul E. Vallely , MG US Army (Ret), is Chairman of Stand Up America USA, and a writer for American Daily Review. Paul’s latest book is “Operation Sucker Punch – Blood for Our Future”. He is the co-author of “Endgame- A blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror”. Paul can be reached at: email@example.com
What Happened in Benghazi?
31 October 2012
The Saga of the Benghazi Report!
22 December 2012
Hillary Clinton's Testimony on Benghazi!
24 January 2013