Hillary Clinton’s abominable national security record

Editor’s Note – Gary Aldrich served in the FBI for 26 years and was assigned to the White House bracketing the Reagan and Clinton Administrations. In his White House post, he was the responsible for background checks for positions including White House Counsel, Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, Attorney General, FBI Director, and other cabinet posts.

Prior to his White House assignment, Aldrich held liaison positions in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. From 1969-1986, he served as FBI Special Agent Investigator in Austin, Los Angeles, Miami, and Washington, D.C. (Read more here.)

ALDRICH: Hillary Clinton’s abominable national security record

History of incompetence and dangerous decisions

By Gary Aldrich – Washington Times

Gary Aldritch

I have extensive experience in national security matters, including years served in the House, the Senate and the White House, where I was detailed as senior FBI special agent liaison and investigator with the Bush and Clinton White House counsel’s office.

There was never a question that national security was a top priority for George H.W. Bush’s executive branch. The security system was ironclad, serious and professional. The rest of the federal agencies followed the lead of the Bush White House.

Our national security group consisted of the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Defense and the Secret Service, all working united in a common mission. I cannot recall a single complaint that the Bush administration ignored warnings or suggestions of those ready to give their all — including their lives — to protect the president and his White House, and our national security. We performed our mission, and it was appreciated by the Bush team.

Contrast that with the mess that occurred when Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton took office. The administration, with few exceptions, did not take national security seriously. National and White House security were not priorities. We were shocked.

Because of an obvious disregard for security-related matters throughout the executive branch, career professionals left the Clinton White House and their respective agencies in droves. I knew many who did, and it was a sad day when another one would greet us in the hallways of the Old Executive Office Building with an announcement of retirement, transfer or outright resignation. I could not blame them. I also approached my FBI managers with my own request for reassignment.

Why did I want to leave one of the most unique assignments an FBI agent could achieve? The bad attitude the Clintons had toward national security made it impossible for us to perform our duties successfully. Their failure to properly assess threat levels, along with their unwillingness to acknowledge that they knew little about national security, was a recipe for disaster. We knew this from experience.

Mrs. Clinton eventually was accused in congressional testimony of ordering the hiring of Craig Livingstone — a former bar bouncer — to head the White House security office. Mr. Livingstone also headed up liaison with the FBI. His was not a serious appointment — he was a joke. Some of my security friends thought that this was Mrs. Clinton’s way of showing us that she held no respect for us.

Lacking respect did not discourage Mrs. Clinton from using security agencies as a hammer to attack and punish those who stood in her way. The FBI, the Secret Service and the Internal Revenue Service hounded and then prosecuted seven innocent men who worked for the White House travel office simply because they were standing in the way of Mrs. Clinton’s political interests and ambitions. She knew federal investigations would destroy those good men, but she wanted her friends in those slots, and that was all that mattered.

No one could understand why Mrs. Clinton would want to insert herself into security matters. She was neither elected nor appointed, and day-to-day security issues were considered dry or boring. Security usually is not micromanaged by the front office. Moreover, a good front office always staffs this important function with the best candidates. One possible reason for Mrs. Clinton’s unusual interest was that she and her husband had much to hide. There was no statutory authority for her to be so involved, but that didn’t seem to matter, either.

The Clintons left a wake of questionable activities behind them. Both had come up from the same crowd — the anti-war left, where Saul Alinsky taught that all truth was relative, a tool to be used to win. Having won the White House, Mr. Clinton had little interest in staffing, as documented in articles and books explaining the chaos, released after the fact.

Mrs. Clinton called on Arkansas Rose Law Firm associates to staff the Clinton White House Counsel’s Office. Most memorable among these was Vince Foster, who died in Fort Marcy Park of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Foster, a seemingly decent man, was deputy counsel in charge of the overall security program in the White House. He possessed no background or education for the job. Foster’s deputy, William Kennedy, also a former co-worker of Mrs. Clinton, supervised Craig Livingstone. FBI and Secret Service agents did their best to work with this trio, but within days it was clear that there was not a dime’s worth of experience between them regarding White House security or national security. That didn’t seem to register in Washington, where perception trumps logic and truth.

Soon the predictable happened, as the Clinton White House became a swamp of scandal and chaos, eventually resulting in Mr. Clinton’s impeachment. We were lucky that nothing worse than the Monica Lewinsky scandal occurred. The Clinton White House — with a security system conceived and overseen by Mrs. Clinton — was an exceptionally soft target for espionage and also for a deadly terrorist attack.

Five House members recently raised questions about Huma Abedin, an aide in Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, whose family has ties with terrorist sympathizers. This aide should not be a candidate for close access. Only those completely above suspicion should ever be given close access to a Cabinet secretary’s daily business or schedule. Such a person would require the highest clearance possible. Agendas, comings, goings, identities, plans, what the president says and thinks — that is a virtual treasure trove of key data if a potential spy can access an inner circle participant. Of course, Mrs. Clinton’s choice for a constant travel companion could be an innocent person, but if the FBI director’s closest aide was the son of a Mafia boss, would that be deemed acceptable?

On the heels of this national security background investigation mystery, now there are four deaths — one of a U.S. ambassador — apparently because of other lapses in national and embassy security procedures at Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. She hired a former bar bouncer for White House security — who runs the State Department’s security office?

Mrs. Clinton has a documented track record of interference and poor judgment as she micromanaged the White House security program, sans credentials. In recent days, she has said that what happened in Libya is her fault, and maybe that’s the truth. The media ought to ask her some tough questions about State Department security, and then seek to get some straight answers.

More important, a preventable horror such as the one that happened in Benghazi, Libya, on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks should require an in-depth congressional hearing. No one should be allowed to hide behind weak, insincere apologies or cover up a national security collapse. Our nation and the families of the victims deserve better, and true accountability can prevent future national security debacles.

Gary Aldrich is president of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty and author of “Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House” (Regnery, 1996).

'Would I want this man with me in combat?'

DISARMED FORCES – OBAMA’S DANGEROUS EMASCULATING OF OUR MILITARY

Ret. Gen. Patrick Brady asks, ‘Would I want this man with me in combat?’

By Patrick Brady, Maj. Gen., U.S. Army (ret.) Originally posted at World Net Daily (WND)

In an election climate that reeks of economic chaos, we may be overlooking a greater threat to our future. Economically, President Obama, all by himself, is a target-rich environment. Voters just need to ask a few simple questions. Would I want this man to invest my family funds or run my family business – for another four years? Or would I trust my family’s money to Mitt Romney? That should do it – but economics pales in the face of Obama’s emasculation, socialization and feminization of our military, which, although related, I believe is a greater threat to our future than economic miseries.

Patrick Brady, Maj. Gen., U.S. Army (ret.)

For veterans and those interested in the security of America, the question is: Would I want this man with me in combat? Could he be trusted to lead a military squad let alone be commander in chief? Can you picture Obama in a duck blind – or even holding a gun? Has he ever held a gun? (Be assured he will assault the Second Amendment if he gets a second term.) Can you see him as a fighter pilot a la the Bushes? Or commanding a PT boat as did John Kennedy? This is not a man I would want with me in combat and neither should America.

For me and many veterans, President Obama’s military priority was initially evident at his Inauguration. One of the inaugural balls honors veterans, including Medal of Honor recipients. For the first time in memory a president, Obama, snubbed that ball. His ignorance and disdain for the military continued when he put victory in the hands of the enemy in Afghanistan by announcing the date we would quit. Weak leaders often try to project an image of toughness by “kicking ass.” Accordingly, he fired a senior commander for a revealing story in that paragon of journalistic integrity – Rolling Stone.

In the meantime, his secretary of defense, Robert Gates, a fellow faculty-lounge lizard and weak ass kicker, fired the surgeon general along with his deputy and the secretary of the Army for a story in the Washington Post on mice and mold at Walter Reed. Gates would then fire another service secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who disagreed with homosexual conduct in military barracks – illegal at the time. Gates’ chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Michael Mullen, would actually boast of covering for homosexuals in the Navy – illegal at the time.

It is easy to see why the leadership of our military is so intimidated and quickly cowered to Obama’s demand for a quad-sexual (LGBT) military. Like lemmings they worried that the terrorist massacre at Fort Hood would hurt diversity and even formed an office to promote diversity in the military – which is already as diverse as any organization in America. (It is reported that those people wounded at Fort Hood and the families of the dead are being denied military benefits in an effort to deny it was a terrorist attack but rather work place violence!) Military leaders actually denounce retired military voices who criticize their boss – except Colin Powell, who supports their boss. They are now busy bowing to Obama on women in combat – they want to teach our sisters, daughters and mothers to kill. I wonder if Obama or Gates would want their daughters in a unit half full of women fighting an enemy unit all full of men?

Under the leadership of the Obama/Gates/Mullen trinity, our military has suffered as never before. Gates supervised the waste and fiscal incompetence at the Pentagon (millions of dollars lost). He instituted an insane op tempo (60 out of 80 months deployed is not unusual), causing unprecedented suicide and PTSD rates among soldiers and depression and anxiety in their families. Military pay cuts are coming, and the administration actually lost graves and urns at Arlington. There is an effort to raise health insurance premiums for retirees. The number of stolen top-secret documents is unmatched in our history. On the silly side, Gates’ Pentagon actually considered giving medals to soldiers for not shooting!

On the battlefield, they have stripped the premier combat life saver, Aeromedical Evacuation, from the medics. This is the first time a medical resource has been so usurped since the Civil War, and I have heard horror stories from the battlefield on delayed reaction times. (I actually had a soldier from Iraq turn his back on me when I told him I was a Dust Off pilot in Vietnam; he said forces had failed to react in time to save his friend’s life.) It may be a surprise to Vietnam veterans that the Congress authorized a program to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War and honor its veterans; but it will be no surprise that Gates drastically cut its funds. We will soon be longing for the “hollow military” of the ’70s.

Just as frightening is the lack of military experience or expertise in Congress. When you mix all this with a population that consists of a significant number of liberals and a media that dislike the military and have never served (nor would they), along with the specter of sequestration budget cuts, the jeopardy of our military is evident.

The recent terrorist attack on American soil in Libya and the murder of four Americans, including our ambassador, should be a forewarning of things to come. It is a culmination of the cataclysmic calamity that is the daily currency of a White House governed only by politics. American corpses were barely cold, and the president was off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. The fundraiser was followed by endless misinformation, distortions and outright lies equaling one of the most scandalous cover-ups in our history. (Obama also went on vacation after committing our military to help liberate Libya. Compare that to President George W. Bush who quit playing golf after we went to war in Iraq.) Watergate pales in comparison with the Benghazi massacre – and a majority of the media are complicit in the cover-up.

Obama’s replacement for Gates, Leon Panetta, had an astonishing response in answer to a query concerning why we ignored the plea for help from the Americans about to be slaughtered in Benghazi: “You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what is going on.” Excuse me. Did we not know that Americans were under attack and pleading for help? What else do you need to know? By his standard you would never go. In combat and chaos you are never sure of what is going on. Is it the standard of this administration that American should never risk lives to save lives? Risking lives to save lives is the essence of our wars! Our firefighters and police do it every day. In Vietnam, my only experience in combat, Dust Off pilots went every day into harm’s way without knowing exactly what was going on – only that some one was hurt and needed help. That should be enough – and refusing to at least give it a shot is scandalous.

America is impotent without a strong military – and so is American policy. Our military strength is the one sure force for peace in the world. It deters the bad guys – not only from attacking us but others as well. Weakness emboldens evil, and ultimately we will be drawn into some disaster whether we like it or not. All the sheep and chickens in the world – and many liberals – would like for everyone to be vegetarians – won’t happen, there are too many wolves out there. Yet how could any objective, informed person not see the deliberate dismantling of our military? Obama personally authored sequestration, which will bench us from the field of world affairs. But why?

I believe that Obama has no knowledge of or interest in military matters. Nor does he have the capacity to deal with crisis – the reason for a military – and he knows it. A feeble military would give him cover. A lack of resources is the perfect excuse for doing nothing, an Obama hallmark. And there are no votes in military spending – this man lives for votes. In a world aflame with uncertainty and violence, watch the president’s campaign media. You will never hear a word about increasing or preserving our military strength, only that the troops are coming home. Ignorance of military matters is one thing and can be overcome, but ignorance of the importance of military might in promoting peace worldwide and protecting America is deadly.

Get the full account of Gen. Brady’s Vietnam rescue operations in his book, “Dead Men Flying,” a riveting tale from America’s most decorated living soldier – autographed!

Storm may impact more than the Northeast – Labor report delay?

Editor’s Note – As America prepares for the storm of the century, it seems that people in Washington, D.C. at the Bureau of Labor Statistics are already planning for eventualities. Not that they are preparing to help the nation in crisis, but rather, whether or not the Labor Report due this Friday will be delayed.

"Franken-storm Sandy" has not even made land fall, but is already flooding NY City and still increasing in strength.

It is likely that many states in the affected region will focus solely on the storm, and likely will close non-essential offices; it will likely cause power outages for lengthy periods, and may delay reporting to the BLS. However, the last report was missing a very large state, most say California, and it was not because of a storm. This does conjure up the thought that this is very convenient. This report could directly affect the election in one direction or another – so let’s hope the report does come out prior to Nov. 6th.

Let’s all hope for the best for the affected, and pray there is no loss of life.

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – Rahm Emanuel

Labor Department Says No Decision Yet on Whether to Delay Jobs Report

By Eric Morath – WSJ Online

The Labor Department said Monday that it has yet to make a decision on whether to delay Friday’s closely-watched October employment report due to the effects from Hurricane Sandy.

Federal government offices in Washington are closed Monday and may be shut again Tuesday due to the storm. It isn’t clear if the closure would cause a delay in processing the data.

“We will assess the situation when the weather emergency is over and notify the press and public of any changes at that time,” said Gary Steinberg, spokesman for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the data arm of the department.

The Labor Department is also scheduled to release its third quarter employment cost index Wednesday, and the third quarter productivity and weekly jobless claims reports Thursday.

The most closely watched is Friday’s jobs report, which will give the final measure the unemployment ahead of next week’s presidential election.

In September, the rate fell to 7.8%, the lowest level since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009. Meanwhile, the economy added 114,000 that month.

The surveys for the October employment report were conducted earlier this month. The unemployment rate comes from a survey of 60,000 households and the jobs figures comes from the establishment survey of 141,000 business and agencies.

However, it isn’t clear that government statisticians and others will be able complete the preparation of the jobs report before scheduled release time due to the weather and associated power outages and transportation disruptions.

A Census official said that agency too has made “no decision” on delaying economic data reports due out later this week. The Census, part of the Department of Commerce, is scheduled to release the construction spending report Thursday and the factory order data Friday.

Hezbollah threatens Galilee if war comes

Editor’s Note – The Levant region is already feeling the conflict in Syria spread, does Hezbollah have designs on using it to fire more upon Israel? This type of attack would be considered a major victory by Hezbollah – even if they are decimated because it would be a deep strike in a fragile area. This threatened action has been forecast for a long time but recent activity may mean a strike is coming soon.

Analyst says stakes high, conflict would be ‘decisive’

By Michael Carl – World Net Daily WND

Mt. Arbel cliffs overlook the Sea of Galilee (The Kenneret)

The next conflict involving Israel will not be another skirmish, according to a terrorism analyst for the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

“They [have] been saying that in the next war, the stakes will be much higher,” says Benedetta Berti. “It will be a decisive war.”

That the stakes are high was affirmed by a statement from Hezbollah on an English-language website that in the case of war, the Galilee region of Israel will be targeted.

Hezbollah has its sights on Galilee because military strategists say it is a key location between the Golan Heights to the east and Lebanon to the north and west.

Berti adds that the rhetoric has become more intense since the 2006 war.

“After 2006 they’ve been talking a lot about the escalation of the next conflict. [Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan] Nasrallah said to me that in the last war, there were limited rockets in the north. In the next war they’ll be aiming for all of Israel.

“He’s giving the idea of rockets in the Golan and trying to create the idea of strategic parity,” Berti said. “Talk of the Galilee in this context, trying to say Hezbollah is much more powerful, and they’re trying to say they can inflict a much greater blow in the next round.”

Middle East Forum Executive Director Daniel Pipes says he believes Hezbollah’s claim is more than an empty threat.

“Hezbollah attacked the Galilee in 2006 and did considerable damage. There is every reason to think that its capabilities have increased since then,” Pipes said. But he said he doesn’t know of any grand strategy.

“If there is a master plan, I would not know it. But this is definitely not hot air; Hezbollah has tens of thousands of rockets and missiles at its disposal,” Pipes said.

The Hezbollah site includes confirmation from Nasrallah of the status.

“It is the second time Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah sets Galilee as an inevitable target for the Resistance’s field operations in case ‘Israel’ attacks Lebanon,” the web page statement said.

Later in his statement he said, “According to the scenario of the likely confrontation, whoever takes over Galilee is automatically able to take over South Lebanon and plains surrounding Tabaria (Tiberias) Lake, and vice-versa; liberating any part of Galilee via the Lebanese territories shall petrify ‘Israel’ since most of its settlements are built nearby the Lebanese borders,” the web page said.

However, Berti says there’s a possibility that the web post is psychological warfare against Israel.

“I think it’s important in this case to separate between psychological warfare, which is something both Israel and Hezbollah have been doing since 2006, and reality,” Berti said. “What I mean by that is that I’m skeptical that Hezbollah can take over the Galilee, given the balance of power and the Israeli’s stronger military.

“I think they’re saying that in the context of propaganda and psychological warfare.”

She says actual military capability and “psy-ops” have to be considered.

“What they can do and have been doing is smaller scale incursions. That’s something that Hezbollah fighters have been training to do since 2006. That’s much more realistic – Hezbollah fighters crossing the border and carrying out a smaller operation,” Berti said.

Berti says another factor that determines Hezbollah’s capacity to carry out the Galilee threat is the Iranian-backed group’s involvement in Syria. However, Berti says that in her analysis, the group doesn’t have the logistical means to capture and occupy a large area of territory like the Galilee.

However, Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth senior military analyst Ronen Bergman disputes those who doubt Hezbollah’s strength.

Bergman writes in an article for Bloomberg News that Hezbollah has more military power than many of the world’s countries.

“Ever since it forced the Israelis’ panicky retreat from Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah has been building up an immense military force, with firepower that 90 percent of the world’s countries don’t possess, according to Meir Dagan, the former director of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency,” Bergman wrote.

Although Berti says she doesn’t believe Hezbollah has the manpower to capture and occupy territory, Bergman said in his article that Hezbollah may have a much wider objective in their sights.

“Hezbollah’s launching of a pilotless spy plane, which was shot down by Israel’s air force in the southern part of the country in early October, has been seen as more evidence that the Lebanese militia is preparing for war,” Bergman wrote.

“No doubt it was collecting information in case of another confrontation with Israel, but whether the terrorist group is seeking a full-blown war is a more complicated question that may depend less on what Hezbollah wants than on the heat it is getting from its patrons,” Bergman wrote.

Bergman adds that whether they have the force numbers to occupy territory, Hezbollah is nonetheless a well-armed force.

“The group’s possession of so sophisticated a craft (which was assembled from Iranian-made parts) is further evidence that Hezbollah is the most advanced and best-equipped militia of its kind the world has ever seen,” Bergman wrote.

Confirmed – The WH knew it was terror – immediately

Editor’s Note – Since last night’s revelations by CBS News and Fox News that hundreds of emails were transmitted between all administrative parties with hours and in real time, the questions are flying across the globe, across the political landscape, across the campaigns,  and the internet sphere. The denials and explanations are now coming out from the administration, but despite these excuses, it is clear that the White House Situation Room was aware – everyone was aware it was not about any silly video.

Why didn’t the President use this as a way to rally the nation around him, especially in the closing weeks of his campaign to ensure a victory? Secondly, why did they offer some excuse instead of doing what they said they did, informed the people as information emerged? Why do they still deny the utterly obvious?

At SUA, we have been reporting that the secret they are trying to keep has to do with arms being shipped from Libya to Syria and beyond. But just who was receiving those arms? The answer comes from the administration: the wrong people, the fanatics.

So the question now comes, if this is the reason for hiding and covering up, what exactly was going on? Did Ambassador Stevens know about it? Were the two SEALs working on the subject, and is this why they just happened to be in the area? Was there an operation underway the administration did not want revealed?

Also: How come the FBI never interviewed the Libyan officials? How come the FBI did not interview the February 17th Brigade?

How come the United States paid $170,000 per month for the mission post in Benghazi which does NOT include the annex and we could not ensure additional Marine support, which does not cost additional dollars since Marines are already on the payroll?

Did Joe Biden or Barack Obama ever attend PDB sessions that spelled out the Jihad ground action in Libya post Qaddafi, such that they would have demanded additional security in the country?

SUA Reports:

Fox News reported:

A series of internal State Department emails obtained by Fox News shows that officials reported within hours of last month’s deadly consulate attack in Libya that Al Qaeda-tied group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility.

The emails provide some of the most detailed information yet about what officials knew in the initial hours after the attack. And it again raises questions about why U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, apparently based on intelligence assessments, would claim five days after the attack that it was a “spontaneous” reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film.

Ansar al-Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be an Al Qaeda-affiliated group. A member of the group suspected of participating in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi has been arrested and is being held in Tunisia.

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence. (Read the rest here from Fox News.)

A report on the time line, documents and cables are below, you decide. Here is the video of the report from CBS on the email dump and selected emails:

%CODE%

The emails:

 

See the originals at CBS News here.

Executive Summary – Brief on U.S. Embassy Massacre in Benghazi, Libya

By J.B. Williams and Tim Harrington

On September 11, 2012, the eleventh anniversary of the 9-11-01 terror attacks on the U.S., the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya was attacked resulting in the death of four U.S. Citizens, including the capture, brutal rape and murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

This Executive Brief is prepared on the basis of official cable communications between the Benghazi Consulate and numerous members of the Obama Administration including Secretary of State Clinton and numerous undersecretaries, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice and the White House.

These cable communications were sent during the time frame – September 2011 through the date of the attacks in September 2012. The cables evidence a yearlong concerted effort by U.S. officials in Benghazi to report increasing terror threats and gain additional security for the Benghazi Embassy and our foreign diplomats. Among other significant items, the documents at the foundation of this summary demonstrate the following in no uncertain terms.

  • In August of 2011 – The Obama Administration acted without congressional oversight or authority to destabilize the Middle East and topple foreign governments, in this report, Libya, interrupting all economic, agricultural and energy supply lines in the entire region and causing widespread civil unrest.
  • The unprovoked deposing of the Gadhafi government in Libya resulted in the closing of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and the establishment of a temporary consulate in Benghazi, which did not at any time, meet standard security protocol.
  • Following the fall of the Gadhafi government, the Obama Administration allowed known foreign terrorists from Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq and other neighboring states to enter Libya, recruit, train and deploy Al Qaeda terrorists within local militia groups, armed with both small and large shoulder-fired weapons, some supplied by the Obama Administration.
  • That the Obama administration placed the Muslim Brotherhood in control of Libya, and known terror Libyan group Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in control of the Libyan Military and militias operating in Tripoli, which had been shut down under Gadhafi as a known affiliate of Al Qaeda.
  • That beginning in September of 2011, approximately one year before the September 2012 terrorist attacks on U.S. Embassies, officials in Benghazi started alerting Obama Administration officials that there was a rising organized terror threat targeting U.S. interests that required additional security at the Benghazi installation.
  • By March of 2012, Benghazi was requesting at least 5 more security agents. That despite numerous reports of increasing terror threats and pleas for additional security at the Benghazi compound, the Obama Administration not only refused any additional security, they reduced security at the Benghazi installation. Warnings of organized terror threats had become critical, supported by U.S. Intelligence by June and July 2012.
  • By June and July of 2012, pleas for additional security under a deteriorating situation on the ground in Libya had become shrill. Yet, the Benghazi compound was left to rely only upon local Libyan militia groups for compound security. The same militia groups that included members of known terror organizations, specifically including Islamic Maghreb and Al Qaeda operatives, as reported to the Obama Administration by consulate officials on numerous occasions
  • By August 2012, the situation had become critical, causing Ambassador Chris Stevens to issue yet another plea for immediate increased security to protect American diplomats in Benghazi, which was once again ignored by the Obama White House and State Department. Benghazi officials started copying numerous Obama agencies in on the cables, in search of someone who would listen.
  • On September 4, 2012, seven days before the deadly attacks on the Benghazi consulate, Ambassador Stevens issued a “MAXIMUM ALERT” to ALL Obama Administration agencies concerning the imminent threat of terror attacks coming from inside the new Libyan government, military, police and the same militia groups they were forced to rely upon for consulate security.
  • The Obama Administration had been warned for twelve months in advance that the situation in Libya was deteriorating to the degree that those officials in Benghazi no longer felt safe and desperately needed additional security. Pleas that Obama officials denied repeatedly all the way up to days before the attacks.
  • The cables demonstrate that the Obama Administration knew that there was an increasing threat, that it was an organized terrorists threat, that it was planned in advance, that it was well funded and armed in part by the U.S. State Department, that the consulate was a “sitting duck” with inadequate security falling well below standard security protocol and that the events of September 2012 had absolutely nothing to do with an obscure YouTube video.
  • That the Obama Administration failed to react to repeated warnings all the way up to the day of the attacks, and that even as those cables were pouring into administration officials begging for help, administration officials were knowingly creating a cover story concerning an obscure YouTube video in an effort to escape responsibility for the deaths of American officials.
  • On the day of the 2012 Embassy attacks, additional warnings were pouring in from installations in Tripoli and other places, while Ambassador Stevens was being beaten, raped, murdered and dragged through the streets of Libya.
  • The cables prove that the Obama Administration is directly and criminally responsible for the events that unfolded on the eleventh anniversary of 9-11-01 – and that they took specific actions to leave the Benghazi consulate vulnerable, and then created a cover story in an effort to escape administrative responsibility.
  • The Administration allowed two weeks to pass following the attacks, along with the degrading of physical evidence before putting the F.B.I. on the ground in Benghazi to investigate, during which time administration officials continued to tell the American people a known lie, that the attacks were “not terror related” – “were not planned” – “were not organized” and “were the result of an obscure YouTube video” when in fact, it was a highly predictable outcome to official administration policies and decisions.
  • 63 DS agents were deployed to cover the Pan American games during the same time frame that Benghazi officials were requesting 5 more agents and denied more than 2 DS agents to protect a 13 acre compound in the middle of Obama’s Middle East meltdown
  • That despite administration claims of limited State Department funding, the State Department was operating with the largest budget in history and resources were simply being used for political purposes rather than the safety and security of our foreign diplomats.
  • On September 4, 2012, a final plea for immediate additional security at Benghazi was sent to State Secretary Clinton, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, Homeland Security, the F.B.I, the C.I.A., Arab Israel Collective, the Department of Commerce, Africom and the African Union Collective. Benghazi officials had become desperate to get help from somewhere. Stevens was killed seven days later.
  • Ambassador Stevens, along with three fellow U.S. officials in Benghazi died a brutal death as a direct result of Obama administration policies and decisions and that the administration continues a cover up effort even today.

The cables used to evidence these facts include more than a hundred pages of cable communications between Benghazi and Obama Administration officials. These cables demonstrate that there was no confusion over what was happening in Libya leading up to and including the attacks of September 2012, and no “fog of war” concerning the nature of the attacks that Benghazi officials had tried for months to warn the Obama administration about.

All Obama officials knew full well that the events of September 2012 were organized and planned, terrorist assaults on U.S. Embassies in Benghazi and beyond, having nothing whatsoever to do with an obscure YouTube video. Still, the bold faced lies continue from Obama administration officials.

The Washington Times is reporting that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the 55-year-old filmmaker responsible for the anti-Muslim video that President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice initially and wrongly blamed for inciting the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, is still being held at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) without bond.

His first court appearance is scheduled for three days after the 2012 election. Despite recent acknowledgements by the Obama administration, that the YouTube film had nothing to do with September 2012 events, the filmmaker remains silenced without bond by Obama administration officials, until after the November 6th election.

Overview and Conclusions

In final analysis of the facts presented in the cables between Benghazi and Obama administration officials, one can safely conclude that the events of September 11, 2012 were entirely predictable and avoidable.

The Obama administration acted beyond its authority, without congressional advice or consent and in violation of the War Powers Act, in unilaterally attacking the foreign sovereign nation of Libya and deposing the Libyan government without any provocation.

In doing so, they destabilized an entire region of the world known as a hotbed of terrorists organizations and anti-Western sentiment, elevating known terror organization the Muslim Brotherhood into control of numerous Middle Eastern states, interrupting economic, energy and agricultural supply lines igniting unrest across the region.

The Obama administration left our foreign embassies unguarded as “sitting ducks” as repeated reports of increasing violence and threat poured in over and over again, from across the Middle East and in particular, Benghazi.

In the end, the Obama administration had become the world’s greatest supporter of Islamic Terror operations, toppling sovereign governments in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon and Pakistan. The region is HOT with numerous terror organizations and Al Qaeda in particular has reconstituted full operations in all of these states and beyond.

Officials in Benghazi had gone out of their way for twelve months, especially during the weeks leading up to the attacks, to advise Obama officials of increased destabilization in the region, resulting in increasing organized terror threats to U.S. interests in Libya and beyond.

Obama officials had advance knowledge that terror attacks were imminent and did nothing to protect American diplomats and employees. Obama administration officials failed to properly respond to those reports of increased threat by increasing location security or removing U.S. officials from danger.

The death and destruction was entirely avoidable. There was no failure of intelligence or on the ground reporting. There was no “fog of war” in trying to understand the events of September 2012, after months of warnings from Benghazi officials.

Further, the administration was fully aware of the true nature of these attacks and chose to mislead the American people by advancing a cover story regarding an obscure YouTube film, while failing to put F.B.I. investigators on the ground for two weeks following the attacks.

The Obama administration has arrested and detained the YouTube filmmaker without just cause and continues to silence the filmmaker until after the 2012 election. Administration officials remain on-record repeating false statements regarding these events as of today.

The cables at the center of this brief provide evidence of massive incompetence at a minimum. They may in fact evidence criminal wrong-doing that could rise to the level of treason against American interests here and abroad.

This summary brief was prepared for the sole purpose of making public, the truth about Obama Foreign Policy and decision making and the deadly consequences that followed in Benghazi.

Readers of this summary are encouraged to read the subject cables and draw their own conclusions. This is not how America should do business around the world. It is certainly no way to protect the men and women of our diplomatic corps, who risk their lives to advance freedom and liberty abroad and provide for a peaceful and stable world.

  • Here are the many documents that support this report. This was all released just prior to the email dump. DEI-to-BHO-10-19-2012-attachments
  • Additionally, here are the cables:

%CODE2%