, , , , ,

The story is coming out. And guess who’s leaking it?


“This is about the future of our country,” says Glenn Beck.

Others are putting the pieces together too.  I believe we’re getting a clearer picture of what really happened in Benghazi and WHY.  And the resulting picture is nightmarish. for all of us.


The Fleet Defender writes:

Bombshell: Clinton Ordered More Security, Obama Denied Request

Left the title as is because hell how do you improve on that?!?! If this is true the election is over. How can Hillary be arguing against this? If true she will be a very strong runner in 2016 because she got the 3AM call and was prepared to deal with it.

‘Times New Roman’;”Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered additional security for the U.S. mission in Benghazi ahead of the terrorist attack but the orders were never carried out, according to “legal counsel” to Clinton who spoke to best-selling author Ed Klein. Those same sources also say former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

Appearing on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” on Wednesday night, Klein told host Andrew Wilkow that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been having “big fights” for “two or three weeks” about the issue, according to his two sources on Clinton’s legal counsel. While Bill Clinton wishes his wife would “exonerate” herself by releasing the documents that show she wasn’t at fault for the tragic security failure in Libya, the secretary of state refuses to do so because she doesn’t want to be viewed as a traitor to the Democratic party.

via  Bombshell: Clinton Ordered More Security, Obama Denied Request | World of Newsninja2012


From BookwormRoom:

As the Benghazi scandal heats up, evidence that Obama himself denied extra security

How reliable is Edward Klein?  I don’t know.  I don’t believe anyone challenged the facts in his book The Amateur, even if they disagreed with their import.  One thing that was immediately clear from reading The Amateur was that Klein got a lot of his information from Hillary Clinton’s camp.  Klein’s reliability is very important today, because he now claims that he’s gotten some new information from the Hillary camp, and this information, if true, is staggering in its implications:  lawyers close to Hillary claim that Hillary asked for more security in Benghazi and that the Obama White House denied that request.  According to Klein’s sources, Hillary has been keeping mum about this to stay loyal to the Democrat party, while Bill has been urging her to go public with the information to save her reputation.  Here’s what I think happened:

Events played out exactly as Hillary’s leakers claim.  Hillary was silent about the White House’s culpability when it still looked as if Obama could win, because she needed to be on Obama’s good side in the event he won the election.  Now that Obama has the stale smell of failure about him, two things have happened.  First, Hillary doesn’t believe that Obama’s coat tails will be very useful.  And second, the Democrats are launching a preemptive strike against Bill Clinton, claiming that it was his bad advice that led to Obama’s disastrous campaign decisions.  The Obama administration won’t be the first to learn that you don’t mess with Bill Clinton, especially if there’s nothing in it for Bill.  And so the leaks begin.  This way, Hillary still looks loyal, but Bill gets to destroy someone who is trying to destroy him.  Even if it’s not war in the Middle East, there’s going to be a war in Washington, D.C.

This leaked report also makes sense from both a military and a security standpoint, as Wolf Howling explains:

Why should we believe this might be true? I have enough experience in the military and with providing security with weapons loaded to know that the people administratively charged with making decisions on security would not possibly have denied the requests absent a policy decision made at a much higher level. And indeed, I cannot see any careeremployee in the chain of command denying a request for more security in Benghazi, given the availability of assets and all that was known about the deteriorating situation. In other words, I would bet my last dollar that the decision to deny more security was made pursuant to a policy decision in the political chain of command – and that means Clinton and / or Obama. And if there is any truth to the story above, then that person was Obama.

(You can, and should, read the rest of Wolf Howling’s analysis here.)

Assuming that concrete evidence surfaces quickly, the real story is whether the MSM will be able to sit on this story until after the election.  If the media can’t control the narrative, this story should be the last nail in the Obama campaign coffin.


Obama Knew

Posted by Jeffrey Lord on Thursday Oct 25th at 5:11am

Obama knew.

Say again, Obama knew.

So. The question.

If what happened in Benghazi wasn’t incompetence — was it ideology?

Did Sharia kill Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, and two Navy SEALs?

And is Hillary Clinton’s insistence yesterday that the leaked State Department e-mails were “not evidence” yet more evidence that indicates the Obama White House not only knew what was going on but deliberately turned a blind eye to Benghazi because of that ideology?

Specifically, did an ideological soft spot for Sharia — Obama’s name is being used by his step-grandmother to raise funds to educate kids in Sharia — blind the U.S. government to the threat posed by Ansar Al-Sharia? A group whose objective, says its Libyan leader, is to “impose Sharia” on Libya.

A group whose namesake in Yemen is a subsidiary of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (“AQAP” in State Department language). It was, recall, Obama himself who first dismissed the so-called “Underwear Bomber” as an “isolated extremist.” Finally the administration was forced to admit that AQAP was responsible for “the December 25, 2009 attempted attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan.”

First, the e-mails.

In a stunning leak (and as this is written the leaks discussed below are expanding, with more gushing forth), Fox News producer Chad Pergram has discovered one of the biggest stories of the fall campaign:

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.

Catch that phrase? The Obama Administration knew specifically “within hours” that the attack on the Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack and that, per one e-mail, “Ansar Al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” (Note: interestingly, both Reuters and CBS ran this story — standing out from their mainstream media fellows.)

The State Department through its Operations Center quickly copied the “White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.”

What specifically was said in the three e-mails, marked “SBU” for “Sensitive But Unclassified”?

Here’s the text of e-mail Number One:

Subject:U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU).

The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

The operations Center will provide updates as available.

And Number Two:

Subject: Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)

(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.

And next and last:

Subject: Update 2: Ansar Al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)

(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.

The e-mails are time and date stamped respectively at “4:05 PM” “4:54 PM” and “6:07 PM” on September 11, 2012, all Washington time.

For fourteen days after this the Obama Administration insisted this attack was all about an Internet video.

Fox producer Pergram correctly notes that on September 18 — seven days later — White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was saying :

“Based on information that we — our initial information … we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video.” Carney went on to say “that is what we know” based on “concrete evidence, not supposition.”

In short, these e-mails make Carney and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, whom Carney was vociferously defending, into bald-face (or is that red-faced?) liars.

Even more troubling, they make Vice President Joe Biden’s claim in his debate with Congressman Paul Ryan that “we said exactly what the intelligence community told us” to be another outright untruth. The e-mails from that very intelligence community show specifically that the White House was told almost immediately of Ansar Al-Sharia that “the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

The “initial information” (to use Jay Carney’s words) pouring into the State Department — which was then handed on to the White House itself — had no mention whatsoever of an Internet video and a quite specific reference to the Al-Qaeda terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia.

And Ansar al-Sharia in Libya? Who are they?

According to Mohammad Ali al-Zahawi, the self-styled “Commander of Ansar al-Sharia” his group — admirers of Al-Qaeda — is all about doing “battle with the liberals, the secularists and the remnants of Gaddafi.” The terms “liberals” and “secularists” of course mean Americans and Westerners. In June the British ambassador to Libya, Dominic Asquith, was attacked as his convoy moved through the city. The British Ambassador survived but two bodyguards were injured.

Why is Ansar al-Sharia fighting this battle? As its name indicates, and in the words of its leader: “Our brave youths will continue their struggle until they impose Sharia.”

Impose Sharia.

Now. Let’s connect some dots. Facts.

The first two facts:

• The Obama White House, through e-mails from its own State Department, knew for a fact that, in the words of the e-mail, “Ansar Al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU).”

• It knew what Ansar Al-Sharia was all about — to “impose Sharia,” in the words of Ansar Al-Sharia’s “Commander” Mohammad Ali al-Zahawi.

And then this third fact.

Remember the story about Obama’s Granny Sarah? This one? In which we told you about Walid and Theodore Shoebat’s discovery that Granny Sarah, Cousin Musa Obama, and their family were using Western contributions and soliciting others? Through a television interview on Al-Jazeera in which the President’s Cousin Musa happily discussed the ways the President’s name was being used to fund educations in Sharia for poor kids? Getting gobs of favorable publicity from groups as varied as the International Reporting Project (in which New York Times editor Jill Abramson plays a key role), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, Greenpeace and even the Catholic Relief Services?

Remember this exchange between Cousin Musa and the Al Jazeera interviewer? 

Q. So then you open opportunities for other universities? Do all these scholarships involve studying Arabic and Sharia?

A. Uuu…hhh the majority of course is Sharia schools because I have strong connections and relationships with primarily Sharia institutions.

So the obvious question.

Let’s assume for a moment that the reason for this debacle in Benghazi was not incompetence.

For the “intelligence community” (to use Vice President Biden’s words from his debate) to be specifically monitoring Facebook and Twitter for Ansar Al-Sharia means the Obama Administration well knew Ansar Al-Sharia was out and about in Benghazi. Yet somehow it didn’t see a threat coming on, of all dates, September 11?

What other reason could possibly have caused the U.S. government to act the way it did? To be blind as a bat about the intentions of a radical Islamic group openly dedicated to doing “battle with the liberals, the secularists …” (i.e., Americans and Westerners), all in the cause to “impose Sharia.”

This is, after all, a president who has repeatedly gone out of his way to send a signal to Islamic radicals that he would, as he said in his Cairo University address, “consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

This is a president who blithely said just the other week at the United Nations that Arab youths were “rejecting the lie that… some religions… do not desire democracy.” The lie, of course, is that Sharia — the very Sharia promoted by his own family with his silent acquiescence as well as by Ansar Al-Sharia in Libya (not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) does in fact strenuously reject democracy other than as a means of getting power. Once that power is obtained, free elections vanish and, to borrow from Churchill, the Iron Veil descends.

This is the very same president who brushed off the idea that the Detroit Underwear Bomber was part of some Al Qaeda plot but rather was just an “isolated extremist.”

Not to mention that the Obama administration persists to this moment in saying the Fort Hood shootings were nothing more than “work place violence.”

With all of that — and more — characterizing Obama’s approach to Islamic terror, it’s no surprise the mainstream media would not report these e-mails.

With multiples of good reasons. Whether incompetence, simple lying, or ideology, none of this is helpful to a far-left hero struggling mightily to get re-elected. Not to mention that the ideology issue is beyond thorny.

Obama has never held a press conference to disavow Granny Sarah — as he did with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Nor has he publicly asked her to stop using the President of the United States as fund-raising bait to raise money for what is, in effect, the exact same objective as Ansar Al-Sharia as expressed by Mohammad Ali al-Zahawi.

That objective?

Creating more Sharia fanatics whose sole belief is about imposing Sharia — everywhere. For all we know some Granny Obama-funded Sharia acolyte could one day well turn up in yet another attack on Americans just like the attack in Benghazi.

Which is to say that in the world of leftist ideology that Barack Obama is using to run the White House, the State Department, and all the rest of the U.S. government, to consider Ansar Al-Sharia a threat of any kind would be an insult. Divisive. Deliberately egging on what the Obama administration likes to call a “man caused disaster” — formerly known as Islamic terrorism.

What these leaked State Department e-mails are doing is raising the obvious point about Obama and Benghazi.

If Benghazi is not about incompetence or lying — it’s worse.

It’s about a U.S. government that is at its highest levels in some fashion simpatico with a totalitarian ideology.

That ideology is Sharia.

And whether they wish to admit it or not — these e-mails show exactly what Obama is loath to admit.

Who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens?

Sharia killed Ambassador Chris Stevens.