Top intel officials ‘struggled to explain’ why early accounts of Benghazi attack ‘minimized the role of militant groups’November 15, 2012, 8:43 pm
Why has President Obama tried so hard to appease and engage with Islamists, people whose stated goal is the destruction of the U.S. and the entire Western World? Today, speaking of the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, we heard some strong and common sense words, truthfully exposing Obama’s coziness with Islamists:
… “This administration has lied to the American people about this tragedy,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said. “The arrogance and dishonesty in all of this is breathtaking. Let’s not stonewall this issue and cover up mistakes, which seems to be what is going on today.” …
Susan Rice, U.N. mouthpiece for the Obama administration, was adamant that, “a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video had evolved into an attack on the American consulate.” Why? In fact, Rice, “repeatedly said the attack was spontaneous on five Sunday shows after the attack.” She, “failed to call the event a terrorist attack.” For too long, President Obama did not call the Benghazi atrocity a “terrorist attack.” Why? Obama ignored the fact that American, “Ambassador Chris Stevens asked the State Department repeatedly for more security in Libya before he was killed in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.” Why? “[A]n urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to ‘stand down’ rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.” Why? Today:
Top intelligence officials struggled to explain to lawmakers Thursday why their initial talking points after the Libya attack minimized the role of militant groups, putting pressure on former CIA Director David Petraeus to set the record straight in another round of closed-door hearings Friday. …
Struggled? In case these “top intelligence officials” and their Obama administration pay-masters forgot, Stevens and three American security guards were killed during an attack which, “may have been planned in advance.” Even more damning, we found yesterday that:
The head of the U.S. military command in Africa said on Wednesday that some of the militants involved in the attack in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya were linked to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). …
Confirming everything written above, today’s hearings:
… delved into the question of whether administration officials denied requests for additional security measures, an issue that has exposed political divisions over the past several months.
Still, the hearing apparently failed to address why it took so long for intelligence reports to reflect the realization that the consulate attack wasn’t preceded by a protest, as was first believed.
“There are still some remaining questions about the course of the intelligence assessment and why certain, better information didn’t reach the fore more quickly,” Mr. Schiff said.
The CIA’s first analysis, prepared on the morning after the attack, said the assault appeared intentional and indicated it didn’t appear to stem from a peaceful protest. That analysis also mentioned the possibility of connections to an al Qaeda affiliate.
By the next day, however, the assessment shifted. When Mr. Petraeus briefed lawmakers on Sept. 13 and 14, his briefing papers showed the CIA believed the attack stemmed from a protest. The CIA began receiving new information on Sept. 15 that casted doubt about the protest, but after vetting the intelligence, the agency maintained the assessment that there had been a protest.
The CIA maintained that assessment until Sept. 20, when intelligence officials told counterparts at the White House that it had changed.
It took two more days for that change to be reflected in the briefing provided to President Barack Obama.”
So the most important question remains: Why is President Obama so reticent to criticize Islamists, the most important security threat to the Western World? Perhaps his past history has something to do with it.
From Obama’s political beginnings, he has associated with terrorists, America-haters, and Islamists wishing to impose Islamic law on the U.S. — “‘politically radioactive’ individuals” and organizations. The list of his relationships with the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, James Meeks, John Lewis, Alcee Hastings, Bill Ayers, Mahdi Bray, and Nihad Awad, and organizations like Trinity United Church of Christ, ACORN, the Muslim American Society’s (MAS) Freedom Foundation, and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is frightening. While the list of Obama’s political blunders as U.S. president are innumerable, several a quite notable.
Obama went, “on a global ‘apology tour’ after assuming office.” The evidence for this escapade of grovelling is indisputable as we have audio-visual evidence of his litany of contrition for what he thinks are America’s faults and failings:
For example, our president said, “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. There’ve been times when America’s shown arrogance, and been dismissive, even derisive…” He was painting with an incredibly broad stroke. The U.K., Germany, and France are Americans’ 2nd, 3rd, and 6th favorite countries, respectively. Obama stated, “I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim World, cannot and will not just be based on opposition to terrorism.” Is it? “…Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, are central to the [U.S.] Navy’s operations,” by invitation. The U.S. does billions of dollars of trade with Muslim nations. Our universities host a large number of students (foreign nationals) from Muslim countries.
Obama has supported the so-called, “Arab Spring,” which is in reality a takeover of the Arab World by radical, Islamist, terrorists and/or terrorist enablers. Obama invited Egypt’s new president, Mohammed Morsi, “a member of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, a group with a violent past,” to meet with him in New York. In Morsi’s first public speech, he promised to free a man who helped plan and execute the bombing of NYC’s World Trade Center in 1993. Abdel-Rahman hoped to kill as many Americans as possible. His actions led to the murder of 6 innocent people. The Obama, “administration is calling the election of Mohammed Morsi on Sunday a milestone in the transition to democracy.” The goal of freeing a convicted terrorist is a democratic milestone? Here’s another disastrous consequence of Morsi’s coming to power:
… To Egypt’s Christian minority, which complains of mounting discrimination, sectarian tensions and periodic outbursts of violence against it, the political atmosphere is ominous as Salafi [ultra-extreme Islamist] parties try to impose their world view on a new constitution that is being drafted. …
When Gallup has surveyed U.S. citizens and asked them the question, “In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israel or with the Arab nations?,” since 1967 Americans by a wide majority favor Israel. Tiny Israel is Americans’ 7th favorite nation. Yet Obama has treated Israel with at best a cold shoulder.
Please explain, Mr. “President.” Good, ordinary Americans would like to know why you have an affinity for the U.S.’s greatest enemy, the Islamists.
Related: Africa, Arab/Muslim World, Counterterrorism, Foreign Policy, History, Islam, Obama, Terrorist Groups