Obama official: Benghazi was a terrorist attack

It WAS a terrorist attack.

Curious how long it will take to get cleared up in the MSM. Curious if they will reiterate the correction.
At this moment the admission seems to have been done quietly.

_____________________________________________________________________________

The Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was in fact “a terrorist attack” and the U.S. government has indications that members of al Qaeda were directly involved, a top Obama administration official said Wednesday morning.

“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy,” Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, in response to questioning from Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT) about the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

As for who was responsible, Olsen said it appears there were attackers from a number of different militant groups that operate in and around Benghazi, and said there are already signs of al Qaeda involvement.

“We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates; in particular, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” he said.

The U.S. government just isn’t sure yet whether the terrorist attack was pre-planned or whether it was an example of terrorists taking advantage of protests against an anti-Islam film, Olsen said.

“It appears that individuals who were certainly well-armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded that evening and into the morning hours of September 12th. We do know that a number of militants in the area, as I mentioned, are well-armed and maintain those arms. What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack,” he said.

His statements go further than those of the White House Press Secretary Jay Carneywho said last week that the protests in Cairo and Benghazi were a reaction to the video and not a pre-planned attack. Today, Carney didn’t repeat the assertion that the video was solely to blame, but he said again that there is no evidence the Benghazi attack was pre-planned.

“What I can tell you is that, as I said last week, as … our ambassador to the United Nations said on Sunday and as I said the other day, based on what we know now and knew at the time, we have no evidence of a preplanned or premeditated attack,” Carney said Wednesday. “It is a simple fact that there are in post-revolution, post-war Libya armed groups; there are bad actors hostile to the government, hostile to the West, hostile to the United States. And as has been the case in other countries in the region, it is certainly conceivable that these groups take advantage of and exploit situations that develop, when they develop, to protest against or attack either Westerners, Americans, Western sites, or American sites.”

Committee ranking Republican Susan Collins (R-ME) declared at the hearing that she believes the attacks were planned well in advance and she referenced information she had received from U.S. intelligence officials behind closed doors.

“First, I will tell you that based on the briefings I have had, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion and agree with the president of Libya that this was a premeditated, planned attack that was associated with the date of 9/11, the anniversary of 9/11,” she said. “I just don’t think that people come to protests equipped with RPGs and other heavy weapons. And the reports of complicity — and they are many — with the Libyan guards who were assigned to guard the consulate also suggest to me that this was premeditated.”

Collins said she was concerned by the lack of security at the Benghazi consulate, especially since there had been an attack on the mission in June and a more serious attack on the British ambassador’s convoy as well. Olsen said the U.S. government was aware of the danger but not of impending attack that killed the four Americans.

“So there were reports detailing those attacks and detailing generally the threat that was faced to U.S. and Western individuals and interests in Eastern Libya from, again, armed militants as well as elements connected to al Qaeda,” he said. “There was no specific intelligence regarding an imminent attack prior to September 11th on our post in Benghazi.”

Motives – Benghazi, Israel & Obama

Some comments about the events over the past week in the Middle East.

One, it is important to O that the events of Benghazi be interpreted under the guise of the video that has been labeled as anti-Mohammad. Why? Because O had promised during the last presidential election campaign to resolve the anti-America sentiment of Islamists. See he would usher in an era of peace and understanding. Central to this action was his apologetic speech to all Muslims in Cairo during his first year as president. If the events of Benghazi were a planned attack and that even in reference to 9/11 as well as the recent death of another A-Q leader, then clearly O not only failed on this campaign promise it also shows his lack of understanding and ignorance about the whole ideological war.  This is a point that Romney-Ryan need to bang home to the US citizens.

Second, the red line Israel wants from the O administration. O says when the US knows for certain that Iran is going to make a nuclear weapon THEN when will the US act militarily. This obviously is a dangerous position to base one’s actions on and Israel wants to make sure that that is the only red line option O has or if there is room for one prior to that realization. Now what I am going to share will probably not be popular but unless I learn some truth that rebuts I am standing on this position. I am persuaded that O’s desire is to push the nuclear weapon argument against Israel. My way of thinking is this: O punts the heavy reality of his goal to a second term or at worst that it be the next administration’s problem. Let’s say – horror of horrors that O wins a second term as president of the US. I believe his plan is to roll out like: “Iran, what will it take to ensure you will not seek a nuclear weapon?” Response> “when all countries in the Middle East do not have this technology – meaning specifically – Israel.” O to Israel> “this is a fair request > we need Israel to admit to its nuclear weapons and agree to have them destroyed.” This will shift the onus of the nuclear discussion off of Iran and put the pressure and the black hat on Israel.

As you can see this is not a discussion he wants to take place before the election. Such action would likely result in his defeat. The use of drones that he has allowed is not a contradiction ideologically to what I figure his goal is because the drones use is against extreme terrorist Muslims which are sowing discontent during his presidency. I am fully persuaded that a second term would include a drastic reduction if not elimination of drone use to kill terrorists.

We desperately need a regime change in DC and hopefully in November we will receive the news that it is coming soon.

Just “saying”

I opened the Fox News website last night and immediately closed the browser. There is no justification for showing that. Of course considering they have shown the pictures of dead Hussein, Kaddafi and others the precedent was set. Still no need even when it was of those losers. Our country has completed lost – no actually – thrown away the understanding and valuing of modesty and dignity for the human being.

From everything I have read & heard the ambassador was a stand up guy. He really believed he could help and make a difference.

BTW – Romney did nothing wrong in how he handled the whole Cairo, Libya thing. He nailed it on the head both times and the chief empty suit again chose not to be a leader. In fact I thought Hillary did a A+ job with her comments that were about five minutes before Romney’s. And they were only scheduled AFTER Romney announced he would make a statement. She was supposed to speak at 10:30 with the president. Yesterday because of the whole travel thing I was able to watch the whole MSM, press relations and spin unroll in real time. We currently have a vacuum in leadership from the presidential seat. May God have mercy and grace on our nation at the next election and replace him with someone who is a leader.

Failed leadership – again

What is unfolding in Egypt & Libya is proof once again that the current president is absent with American leadership.

A man who is supposed to be president of our nation who does not believe that our nation is exceptional. An ambassador and 3 staff members killed in Libya with the embassy engulfed in flames. Embassy in Cairo overrun and vandalized. Over comments about Mohammad in a film.

Clinton’s remark yesterday that there are no red lines in reference to Iran and its nuclear program again reveals the poor leadership in our executive branch.

No time to meet with Netanyahu which has been revealed what is more important: appearance on Letterman and other campaign stops.

Watch for the spin and continued lack of leadership. Watch for the puffery and arrogance.

 

if you were in charge

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=284682

http://www.debka.com/article/22350/Obama-and-Netanyahu-shadowbox-on-Iran-ahead-of-final-round-Sept-28

“It’s roughly about a year right now. A little more than a year. And so … we think we will have the opportunity once we know that they’ve made that decision, take the action necessary to stop (Iran),” Panetta said on CBS’s “This Morning” program.”

 

2 cents:

If you were the leader of a country or even a group of people who has:

  1. heard repeatedly over the last eight years from another country near your location that they desire to see you wiped off the face of the earth
  2. knew that said country spent millions of dollars if not billions to arm and train terrorists to wreak havoc against your nation
  3. knew that they have a religious practice which advocates lying to get to your ultimate objective
  4. said country then begins a nuclear program which they do their best to be secretive while stating it is for civil/non-military application

 

Would you – the leader of the country put your people’s lives in the hands of someone else who can and does respond to the known 4 points with a comment that is steeped in “if” vocabulary?

 

Another way to think about it – using the same and FACTUAL points – as a career which is based on political philosophy and perception of leadership would you place your career’s future in the hands of such “wavering” precepts? As a political being wouldn’t you own your career and try to get in front of these scary realities so as to not lose points on perceived leadership abilities and strategic thinking misfires?

 

Lets look at it another way. If you were the president of the USA and your nation had just been attacked – lets say in at least four different ways – actually four terrorist attacks – would you try remedy the disagreement and loss of life with going to the UN and asking for them to open diplomatic channels with the terrorists so that we can agree to disagree but stop loss of life? It is 9/11 today and is that what the CES would have done in response to the attacks if he had been president instead of Bush? What kind of leadership would that have been perceived as?

 

Netanyahu has the reality of a 9/11 on a scale that could in one fell swoop eliminate the nation of his people. Just because Ahmadinejad is a leader of a nation does it make him less dangerous the a Bin-Laden was just a few years ago?  After all Ahmadinejad has a large armed military force plus a couple large terrorist organizations in his control.

 

Does the CES disagree with the way Bush handles the terrorist leader? If so – then why did he order the take down of him via military action without Pakistani sovereign support? Why is he using drones to kill terrorists abroad?

 

 

 

Remember CES = chief empty suit = current US president

in the corner

Cutting through the US-Israeli debate over where to put “red lines” for Iran, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Monday night, Sept. 3 that Iran would hit US bases in the Middle East in response to any Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities, even if the Americans were not involved in the attack…Netanyahu called a special cabinet meeting for Tuesday, Sept. 4 with the participation of the heads of Israel’s clandestine services, Military Intelligence, the Mossad, the Shin Bet and the Foreign Office Research Division, to hear their annual report.
It is likely to go on all day with updates on the situation in Syria, Egypt and Jordan – all weighty topics. But the agenda will certainly be topped with a detailed rundown on the current state of Iran’s nuclear program.
After that rundown, the prime minister and defense minister will enter the final decision-making stage on war against Iran.

Nasrallah carried a triple message from Tehran to Washington and Jerusalem:
1.  Iran believes an Israeli attack will take place before the US presidential election on Nov. 6;

2.  Tehran is drawing on a powerful deterrent: Lest anyone expected a low-key Iranian response to an attack on its nuclear facilities, the Hizballah leader put them right when he said, “the response will be very great” and “America bears responsibility.”

3. By putting Nasrallah out front as a leading Iranian spokesman, Khamenei signaled that Hizballah would take an active role in the coming conflict.
DEBKAfile: The chatter about “red lines” in the last few days has therefore had the effect of stirring the Iranians into preempting them by a single sharp stroke.

The full article here

2 cents:

Israel, specifically Netanyahu and the government has made the same mistake many other leaders in Israel’s history have made. A nation brought into existence by God’s calling out of Abram – they have looked solely at a fellow man as a protector for their people. Over the period of time since their recognition as a nation by world governments and the UN, they have again grown entangled in the devices of other governments and took their eyes off God. It ALWAYS has devastating repercussions. In the early days of the modern era of Israel, God delivered them repeatedly from their enemies. But as they have grown, become successful and more secularized they have sought leagues with other nations and allowed themselves to become pawns for other kings. In the current scenario that is unfolding, Netanyahu has placed too much trust and power into the CES’ hands. Now after many days have went passed which have allowed not only continual progress of nuclear technology to be realized in Iran, it has also allowed for strategy and resources to be determined and allocated for a swift and much heavier handed response to a military action in Iran. All because of Netanyahu placing his faith and country’s well-being in the last two administrations of the USA government. Israel is now backed into a corner and the corner man is the CES and he is not known for his ability to lead or make the right decision.

The spiritual dynamic to the Middle East conflicts are being overlooked because society on a whole is secularized. How ignorant of the human race!