Classified memo cited limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, Libyan support
- Libyans: Al-Qaida handled security at U.S. Embassy
- Emails prove Obama bailed on Benghazi rescue?
Smoking Gun: August Cable to Sec. Clinton “Ten Islamist Militias And Al Qaeda Training Camps” Surround Us
As the information slowly tirckles out on Benghazi, one item can no longer…
By Rebecca Diserio on Oct 24, 2012
Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, came forward to “take responsibility overall” for the attacks at Benghazi, but per Ed Klein we now know behind the scenes Bill Clinton advised his wife to resign over the possible criminal fallout of the Benghazi massacre. Today we learn from sources that not only did Hillary ask for added security, and was denied, but her closest advisers strongly suggested she seek legal counsel just days after the attack. Why? Why did “they” deny Hillary’s requests for added security to Benghazi, and why is this a situation in which a Secretary of State would need personal legal counsel? Could the Benghazi fallout, go beyond what a Public Relations firm can handle? I’d say YES. Could this be a criminal act, negligence, dereliction of duty, which resulted in murder? I’d say YES. And I’d say that Hillary is telling the truth as the “source” of these latest developments come straight from her “legal counsel”. Hillary did prior to September 11th, 2012 order added security for Benghazi, and those requests were denied—but by who?
To fully understand what happened in Benghazi, we need to step back. Ambassador Stevens was located in a CIA safehouse (otherwise known as the building burned down during attack)–that location is where on the night of the attack he dined with the Turkish General Counsel. Why? Why was Stevens meeting with this Turkish official? Apparently, in reports the US was gun running weapons through Turkey to aid the Syrian Rebels, but the real kicker here is that we handed over 400 tons in one shipment, to Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood, who are the leaders of these so called “Syrian Rebels”…
…We now know that this “Brigade” is an affiliate of Al Queda and they fought under the “Black Flag” of Al Queda. Diana West, an expert in Middle East affairs has this to offer:
The Obama administration, however, threw in Uncle Sam’s lot with bad guys – the “rebels,” the “martyrs,” the Muslim Brothers, the whole jihad-happy crew in Libya and the wider Middle East. Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the “other side.” It is this alliance or support for “martyrs” and their sympathizers in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria that is the betrayal from which Benghazi-gate rises, particularly as our veterans’ cemeteries and hospitals are filled with casualties caused by such “martyrs.”
Let’s cut to the chase. Benghazi is shaping up to be the worst cover-up ever in the history of the US. The 12 reports that were filed within the first 24 hours, outlining to the White House exactly what had transpired, never once mention a “protest” or any “video”. They do mention Al Queda linked group called Ansar al-Sharia, claiming the attacks. We know that the drone was feeding live video back to the White house “situation room” and that Obama was in a meeting with Panetta and Biden at the White House—we know they were informed via those emails of the attack in progress. Is there any doubt they also were watching this live in real time?
- Benghazi Biggest Political Scandal in Modern History; Main Stream Media Continues to Set False Narratives
- UPDATE: Clinton assembles legal defense team
- Benghazi “Intell” Excuse Unravels; CIA Reported Immediately to White House “Militants Responsible for Attack”
- SHOCK REPORT: White House Knew 2 Hours After Attack
- The YouTube video & Susan Rice; UN Blasphemy Laws fit the “Narrative”
By: David James November 1, 2012
Last night, radio host Mark Levin told the media they were “so damn corrupt” in their handling of the September 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.