Wednesday, October 31, 2012


Leaked Docs Reveal Obama Hired al-Qaeda-Linked Radical to Run Security at Tripoli Embassy
4-Star General: No Orders Given to Protect Embassy Staff
Obama Hiding Arms Shipments to Syrian Jihadists
WH SOURCE: Libyan Attack was a Botched Kidnapping Attempt Ordered By OBAMA!
Bilderberg Attendee and Ex-General, Petraeus Hip Deep in Benghazi Cover-Up
Jay Leno: "Obama's New Policy for Questions About Libya... Don't Ask, Don't Tell"


Obama’s ‘Soulless’ Responses To Benghazi And Fort Hood

Obama Car Libya Flag SC CC 5914760451 0281079446 z Obamas Soulless Responses to Benghazi and Fort Hood
During times of crisis,Americans rightfully expect their president to be many things,including an Empathizer-in-Chief.
Given that his presidency has been a complete failure when it comes to the economy,foreign policy,transparency,and job creation,one could only hope Obama would have tried a little harder to show us he can feel our pain. But,some things can’t be faked. Empathy is one of them.
Ask Charles Woods,the father of the slain Navy Seal hero Tyrone Woods,who was killed during the September 11,2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi,Libya.
Sure,Obama appeared to be empathetic when standing near the four flag-draped caskets at the highly publicized memorial service at Andrews Air Force Base,but behind-the-scenes — not so much. Mr. Woods went public to say Obama refused to make eye contact with him at the service and said Obama mumbled a “totally insincere,more of a whining type,‘I’m sorry.”‘
Woods said Obama’s handshake was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”
Dead fish. Okay,I get the lack of eye contact,considering certain facts and emails continue to surface pointing toward a full-fledged cover-up,but a “dead fish”handshake? Wow.
According to an interview with Fox News last weekend,retired Intelligence Officer Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer claims,according to his sources,President Obama was watching the attack go down “in real time.”According to the Weekly Standard,Mr. Woods concurs,alleging “the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time.”
We now know the CIA was denied the help they needed,although assistance was not far away. Presumably under the direction of CIA director David Petraeus,the CIA put out a statement on October 26 clarifying that the CIA had nothing to do with the decision to deny help,hence bouncing the blame back in the lap of the one whom the buck is always supposed to stop (the president).
After being told to “stand down”twice,Tyrone (and five others) made the gutsy decision to disobey orders to rescue those in harm’s way. Tyrone’s father told Fox News,“For seven hours the cowards in the White House were watching something they knew that was going to potentially kill those 30 people and potentially kill my son…they had a moral duty to send support and they chose not to…”
Hours later,President Obama hopped on his jet to entertain followers at a campaign rally in Las Vegas. He began his remarks speaking to the “tough day we had today…”How nice it would have been if Tyrone Woods and three others could have lived to talk about theirs.

Video:Obama Hiding Arms Shipments To Syrian Jihadists


We all remember Obama’s Fast and Furious debacle where he was running guns to Mexican drug cartels and then invoked executive privilege to keep all the documents out of the public’s hands.
What if Obama was at it again,except this time instead of arming Mexican drug cartels,he was arming Syrian rebels?
(Or,more correctly,Islamic jihadists?)
That is exactly what he was doing.
The night Ambassador Stevens was murdered,Stevens was negotiating with the Turkish consul general for a shipment of thousands of Libyan shoulder-fired missiles to Syria,Turkey being the middle man for the nefarious enterprise.
Now we know why Obama literally watched Americans get slaughtered in real time. Now we know why the former SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty at the CIA annex a mile away from the Libyan consulate were ordered to “stand down” and not provide help—an order they eventually ignored to save the lives of twenty people—an order that cost them their lives.
Now we know why Obama and Hillary Clinton concocted a ridiculous story of a protest turned violent due to some obscure anti-Muslim video.
The truth is coming out and is slowly closing around one Barack Hussein Obama.



This cover-up, like that in Watergate, goes right to the top. What's being covered up is much worse than a "third rate burglary."

Benghazi Coverup Much Worse Than "Third-rate Burglary"

By Jack Kelly - October 31, 2012
The ride on the Obama bus gets bumpier as more bodies are thrown under it.
The latest to go thumpity thump are journalists who trumpeted the administration's excuse that faulty intelligence is why the president said for so long the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a "spontaneous" protest over a Youtube video.

The heroes on the ground called for help – Obama did nothing.

Sean Hannity on Benghazi Audio Tapes: “I’ve Heard They Are Damning” (Video)

Posted by Jim Hoft 

The heroes on the ground called for help – Obama did nothing.
It Was Dereliction of Duty

Sean Hannity was debating liberal Juan Williams Tuesday on the Benghazi massacre. Hannity revealed this on the audio tapes of Tyrone Woods begging for air support on 9-11,
“My sources tell me they’re pretty damning, Juan. They’re begging for help.”

Tyrone Woods was screaming for air support and Barack Obama did nothing.
Then he lied about it.
Hannity later said there are three tapes the Obama administration is holding onto including audio of Tyrone Woods begging for air support.
Let’s hope the impeachment proceedings begin before Obama leaves office in January.



Bombshell emails could be revealed within the next two days.

On Tuesday night’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on the Fox News Channel, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that major news networks might have secret emails proving that the White House canceled plans to assist the besieged U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.
Gingrich said that the bombshell emails could be revealed within the next two days.
“There is a rumor — I want to be clear, it’s a rumor — that at least two networks have emails from the National Security Adviser’s office telling a counterterrorism group to stand down,” Gingrich said. “But they were a group in real-time trying to mobilize marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action. If that is true, and I’ve been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that is true and comes out, I think it raises enormous questions about the president’s role, and Tom Donilon, the National Security Adviser’s role, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoulders, that he said don’t go. And that is, I think, very dubious, given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to do everything they could to secure American personnel.”
After noting that the rumor, if true, would have a substantial impact on the presidential election, Gingrich pointed to another possible “October surprise” in the coming days.
“The other big story, I think, that is going to break is on corruption and extraordinary waste in the solar power grants and direct involvement by the Obama White House, including the president, in the solar panel grants involving billions of dollars, and I suspect that’s going to break Wednesday and Thursday of this week,” Gingrich added.


Did Obama Write Anti-Semitic Poetry?
Jack Cashill

Readers of "Underground" are left with only two real choices. They can write it off as a silly undergraduate poem about apes that step on figs, as I originally did, or they can interpret it as an allegory. More

The Miscalculation of the American Left
Steve McCann

By unbridled spending and headlong drive to control the day-to-day activities of all Americans, Obama has at last awakened those who chose to sit on the sidelines and merely observe while assuming that the country was too big and rich to fail. More

Obama's Communist Cooperation Campaign Proceeds Apace
Daren Jonescu

Might not a few Republican establishment pundits and statesmen just ask, politely and with the utmost moderation, "What's with all these communists stumping for Obama?" More

It's Not Over
William L. Gensert

Does anyone believe that when Barack Obama loses on November 6, he will go quietly? More

America Discovers the Republicans
J.T. Hatter

How did the evil, conniving, manipulative caricature that was Mitt Romney become so palatable to the American people? More

No Men in The White House
Richard F. Miniter

Isn't the American way to make the decision at the lowest level possible and then back those leaders on the spot, no matter what the outcome, as long as it was evident that they were trying to do the right thing? More

Two Americans: Lance Armstrong and Barack Obama
Jack Curtis

Lance Armstrong's star has fallen; Barack Obama's awaits November 6, 2012. Both Americans have achieved greatly in their fields; one has failed greatly, while the other is poised to succeed or fail as well. More

Why Catholics Will Choose President Romney
Kate Wright

With 134 Catholic "swing state" electoral votes on the line, Catholics are about to head to polls and choose the next president of the United States. More

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

There is a massive cover-up under way in the White House.

JOSEPH CURL: You don’t mess with the CIA
“Make no mistake - there is a massive cover-up under way in the White House.”
Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: libya-white-house-knowledge-lake-tease

You know who doesn’t like getting thrown under the bus? The CIA.
You know what the CIA does when you try to throw it under the bus? They get even — quickly, quietly, and with fatal consequences.
That seems the most logical explanation for the torrent of information pouring out this week (unless Hillary Rodham Clinton — also thrown under the bus by President Obama — is scrapping any chance of ever running for president again and is simply setting the whole administration on fire, along with her legacy as secretary of state).
The main lesson from Watergate (after the no-brainer that you should never hire a guy named “Tricky Dick”) was this:
The Cover-Up Is Worse Than The Crime.
For some reason, Professor Obama seems not to know this crucial lesson. Or he’s just arrogant enough to say, “Well, that doesn’t apply to someone as brilliant as moi.”
Make no mistake, though: There is a massive cover-up under way in the White House.
Nothing else can explain the endless contradictions over the attack that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead. The White House has already had to rewrite the entire narrative once, holding a late night conference call with reporters just before a House hearing two weeks ago in which State Department officials told a whole new tale: There was no “spontaneous” protest over some anti-Islam video posted on YouTube. Instead, there were dozens of heavily armed terrorists who poured over a 9-foot-high fence covered with barbed wire to attack America on 9/11.
Last week, Mr. Obama told another bald-faced lie when he declared at the presidential debate that he had termed the attack “terrorist” in a Rose Garden address the next day. He did no such thing; in fact, the White House and State Department took nearly two weeks to acknowledge it was a terrorist attack (all the while pushing the spontaneous protest and video canards).
This week’s deluge of contradictions, though, is far worse. Communications among top officials — including those in the White House Situation Room — suddenly appeared (thanks CIA!). The first, titled “US Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,” said “approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador [J. Christopher] Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission/embassy] personnel are in the compound safe haven.”
The last of the released emails said: “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” In case you’ve never heard of them, Ansar al-Sharia is an anti-Moamar Gaddafi group made up of former rebels from the February 17 Brigade that demands the imposition of the strict Islamic Shariah law and is willing to murder to achieve its goals — what one might otherwise call a “terrorist group.”
By week’s end, still fuming over the whole thrown-under-the-bus thing, the CIA appeared to strike again, this time by leaking more information heavily damaging to the White House — and the man in charge of the Situation Room, the president. “Sources on the ground in Benghazi” told Fox News that “an urgent request from the CIA annex for military backup 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.”
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods and two others ignored the absurd order — Americans were under attack — swooped into the consulate and evacuated those stranded there. Mr. Woods and another former Navy SEAL would die seven hours later in mortar attacks.
What’s more, the sources told Fox that “at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested backup support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.”
No help was sent, even though quick-strike teams were poised an hour away in Italy.
Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, was incensed. “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help,” he told a radio show. “When I heard, you know, that there’s a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on and obviously someone had to say, don’t go rescue them. Because every person in the military — their first response [would be], ‘We’re going to go rescue them.’ We need to find out who it was that gave that command — do not rescue them.”
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, getting rolled by the CIA, looked the fool with his lame excuses, saying they didn’t have enough “real-time information” to send military forces to respond. “The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.” Wasn’t there a live stream in the Situation Room? He called criticism “Monday morning quarterbacking.”
But the CIA wasn’t finished with him or the White House. In one last flourish at week’s end, CIA spokesman Jennifer Youngblood said, “We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
Game, set, match.
The White House sought to divert blame, set up fantastical red herrings like spontaneous protesters (armed with mortars and RPGs!?) and anti-Islam videos posted on YouTube.
But the CIA doesn’t like taking the fall for mistakes by the president and his top aides, and they get even quickly, quietly, and with fatal consequences.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at

Fox News is told that Petraeus seemed wedded to the narrative that the attack was linked to a demonstration and was spontaneous as opposed to pre-meditated.

New Catherine Herridge Report Suggests Petraeus Involvement in Benghazi Cover-up
“Petraeus seemed wedded to the narrative that the attack was linked to a demonstration and was spontaneous as opposed to pre-meditated”
                                              CIA Director David H. Petraeus
U.S. Army General David Petraeus was commissioned into the infantry as a second lieutenant after graduating from Military Academy at West Point in 1974. He served the military in a number of capacities before being appointed by President Bush in 2007 to lead the American military "surge" in Iraq. He was nominated by President Obama to serve as the Director of the CIA in 2011.
Oct 29, 2012
By Pat Dollard
Catherine Herridge is the reporter who has been busting this whole story wide-open from the beginning.
So far, she has the best inside sources actually willing to talk. She’s the one who first reported that the admin 3 times denied a rescue team for the ambassador
Excerpted from Catherine Herridge’s report today (Oct 29) in Fox News: Two days after the deadly Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said the evidence supported an Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated attack, Fox News has learned.
The description of the attack by those in the Sept. 13 briefings stands in stark contrast to the now controversial briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA Director David Petraeus the following day — and raises even more questions about why Petraeus described the attack as tied to a demonstration.
The Sept. 13 assessment was based on intercepts that included individuals, believed to have participated in the attack, who were celebratory — as well as a claim of responsibility.
FBI and NCTC also briefed that there were a series of Al Qaeda training camps just outside of Benghazi, where the attack occurred and resulted in the deaths of four Americans. The area was described as a hotbed for the militant Ansar al-Sharia as well as Al Qaeda in North Africa.
Fox News is told there was no mention of a demonstration or any significant emphasis on the anti-Islam video that for days was cited by administration officials as a motivating factor.
The FBI and NCTC did not immediately respond to a request from Fox News for comment.
Fox News is told that the Petraeus briefing on Sept. 14 conflicted with that of the FBI and NCTC.
On Capitol Hill, Petraeus characterized the attack as more consistent with a flash mob, where the militants showed up spontaneously with RPGs. Petraeus downplayed to lawmakers the skill needed to fire mortars, which also were used in the attack and to some were seen as evidence of significant pre-planning. As Fox News previously reported, four mortars were fired — two missed the annex, but the mortar team re-calibrated and the next two mortars were direct hits.
Fox News is told that Petraeus seemed wedded to the narrative that the attack was linked to a demonstration and was spontaneous as opposed to pre-meditated.
Fox News is told that Petraeus was “absolute” in his description with few, if any, caveats. As lawmakers learned more about the attack, including through raw intelligence reports, they were “angry, disappointed and frustrated” that the CIA director had not provided a more complete picture of the available intelligence.
Intelligence officials have since given a mixed picture of what happened that day, acknowledging that an investigation is under way. The office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last month acknowledged the strike was a coordinated terror attack, but officials have subsequently said the strike could have been opportunistic — taking their cue from protests over the film in Egypt.
Still, some point to the use of mortars and several other strands of evidence to claim the attack involved some premeditation.





Time to Out Sinister Valerie Jarrett
 Judi McLeod Full Story
The deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, demand the outing of President Barack Obama’s Iranian-born,  chief advisor Valerie Jarrett.
Three times Stevens and his staff were denied help to save their lives on the day of their death.
While the courageous serving America were denied help, private citizen Valerie Jarrett seems to have a 24-hour, around-the-clock security detail, with five or six Secret Service agents at her disposal at home and abroad.  (former Democratic pollster Patrick Caddell, Breitbart News interview. )


Obama and Biden Indicted by Florida Grand Jury - (Ocala, Florida, October 30, 2012). Larry Klayman, the founder and chairman of Freedom Watch today announced that President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have been criminally indicted for having willfully released classified national security information concerning the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, U.S. and Israeli war plans concerning Iran and their cyber-attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The release of this information, among other harm to U.S. national security, resulted in the killing of members of Seal Team Six by terrorists and the arrest and imprisonment of American covert agents by Pakistan, such as the doctor who aided the CIA with regard to the bin Laden assassination. U.S.-Israeli war plans with Iran have also been compromised.
A true bill of indictment was issued by a Citizens’ Grand Jury in Ocala, Florida, who reviewed evidence and voted unanimously to indict Obama and Biden at 6:02 pm on October 29, 2012.
The authority for a Citizens’ Grand Jury can be found at
The criminal defendants, Obama and Biden, will now be given notice of their indictment, arraigned and then tried for their alleged crimes.
Mr. Klayman, the Citizens’ Prosecutor, issued the following statement: “The Citizens’ Grand Jury, after having deliberated, yesterday issued a true bill of indictment.  It did the work that the government should have done, but does not have the integrity to do; that is hold these public officials accountable under the law. For far too long, government prosecutors, who are put in place by politicians, have looked the other way as high public officials like Obama and Biden violate the law to further their political agendas. Now, as a result, the people must therefore exercise the rights given to them by the framers of the Constitution, and themselves take legitimate measures to restore the nation to some semblance of legality. This indictment
(see  of Obama and Biden is just the first step in a legal revolution to reclaim the nation from establishment politicians, government officials and judges who have represented only their own political and other interests at the expense of ‘We the People.’ Obama and Biden will now be tried in a court of law and I am confident that they will be convicted of these alleged crimes.”
For information see   or contact Adrienne Mazzone: 561-750-9800 x210;




New e-mails released today show that both the White House and State Department knew within 2 hours that an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group was behind the attack in Benghazi…but they lied about it anyway, blaming it on a stupid video for TWO WEEKS!
Frighteningly, it may be because Obama didn’t want anyone to know that he was using the Benghazi station to funnel arms to jihadists:


5 Problems With America That Have Given A Mediocrity Like Obama A Chance To Be Reelected

“The American people deserve to know the truth”

Admiral James Lyons – We Need Full Disclosure On Benghazi NOW
by Ulsterman on October 30, 2012
Former commander of the Pacific Fleet Admiral James Lyons was among the most highly regarded and influential members of the American military in a generation. He is now using that reputation to now aggressively push for open and honest disclosure from the Obama White House regarding the Benghazi Massacre scandal.
James Aloysius "Ace" Lyons, Jr. (born September 28, 1927) is a retired admiral in the United States Navy whose 36-year career was capped by serving as Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet from 16 September 1985 to 30 September 1987.
EXCERPT:  (via Washington Times)
LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi
Admiral James Lyons is demanding answers from the Obama administration over the Benghazi Massacre and cover up
“The American people deserve to know the truth”
There is an urgent need for full disclosure of what has become the “Benghazi Betrayal and Cover-up.” The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI and the Pentagon, apparently watched and listened to the assault on the U.S. consulate and cries for help but did nothing. If someone had described a fictional situation with a similar scenario and described our leadership ignoring the pleas for help, I would have said it was not realistic—not in my America – but I would have been proven wrong.
…Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli.  It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered.
…we had very credible military resources within striking distance. At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned.
I know those Special Forces personnel were ready to leap at the opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know.
Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable. According to a CIA spokesperson, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need.”
We also need to know whether the director of CIA and the director of National Intelligence were facilitators in the fabricated video lie and the overall cover-up. Their credibility is on the line.
A congressional committee should be immediately formed to get the facts out to the American people. Nothing less is acceptable.  

Either the Obama administration refused to launch close-air support aircraft from nearby bases that could have eliminated enemy forces attacking Americans trapped on the ground, or we had close air support aircraft overhead that could have taken out the terrorists that had Americans under fire with precision weapons — and the administration refused to let them fire.

Questions for White House Over Benghazi Just Beginning
We have two likely possibilities for what occurred, plus a subplot involving arms to al-Qaeda, which could be treason.”
By Bob Owens
October 29, 2012 - 10:06 am
Incompetence. Abandonment. Treason.
It has been a sickening few days for those of us who have closely followed the revelations coming out about the Benghazi terror attack that killed not only Ambassador Chris Stevens and diplomat Sean Smith, but also CIA operators (and former SEALs) Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who died undertaking a rescue mission — unauthorized — to save the rest of the consulate staff.
We’ve learned about the incredible heroism of a CIA force that repeatedly called for help for as it was being attacked. Disturbingly, we learned that this force had been told to “stand down” twice by their chain of command, and that they violated direct orders to conduct this rescue mission. Our consulate staff was left to die.
Let me say that again: our consulate staff was to be abandoned and left to die.
We’ve also heard claims about why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to begin with: some sources suggest this was part of an Obama administration plot to arm Syrian rebels.
We should tackle each of these related issues separately.
For starters, we now know that not a single American life should have been lost. Trucks with the Islamist cell’s logo and with heavy machine guns mounted on them took up blocking positions around the consulate no later than 8:00 p.m., according to Libyan eyewitnesses. These so-called “technicals” did not let anyone in or out for one hour and 40 minutes, until the attack began at 9:40 p.m. local time.
In that time, air assets based in Italy, Sicily, and the Mediterranean Sea could have easily dispatched the forces preparing for an attack, using precision weapons to destroy these logo-identified blocking vehicles. There is every reason to believe that the timely launch of air assets would have destroyed the attacking force as they prepared for their assault, without the loss of a single American life. For reasons as yet unknown, these easily identifiable enemy assets massing for an attack on the U.S. consulate were met with indifference by U.S. forces.
Our CIA assets, which seem to have been composed of former SEALs and other special operations personnel, conducted an unsupported rescue mission under fire. They saved the lives of the remaining consulate staff and recovered the body of Sean Smith, whom they then escorted back to their safe-house a mile away.
Once there, they came under fire again — including fire from a terrorist team armed with mortars.
Then something truly extraordinary and troubling took place:
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according to those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing, and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. special operations forces to provide support to special operation teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
After reading this, I was simply stunned. According to the article, an American CIA agent had a laser on a target and was attempting to call in close air support — and was denied. While this article never explicitly says so, some have suggested that the “security officer” in the article was Ty Woods, soon to be killed by that same mortar. Let’s unpack this.
In this context, there are two ways to “lase” a target. One is simply using a visible laser designator/laser sight to point out the target’s location. The second is the use of a laser target designator (LTD), which is a far more sophisticated device. An LTD uses coded pulses of a band of light not visible to the human eye, and these pulses communicate and synchronize with an aircraft-mounted module to direct a finite and fairly exclusive family of air-launched guided weapons.
If the CIA officer was lasing a target with the laser designator/laser sight on his weapon, one might argue (and some have) that this was an act of improvisation — a hope that the visible lasing would convince the mortar team to flee their position in fear of being bombed. This position is not without merit but overlooks two salient facts. The first is that these security officers lasing the target were manning a heavy machine gun, which presumably would have the reach and power to eliminate the mortar team, or at least suppress it, without air support. It also overlooks the fact that the article directly states that the target was being lased for a specific asset, a “Spectre.”
Airborne gunships have been around since the Vietnam war, when C-47 transport planes were first equipped with port-side mounted mini-guns for close air support missions, becoming AC-47s.
By 1967, a desire to improve upon the concept involved replacing the aged twin-engine C-47 base aircraft with the four-engine C-130, which had greater speed, more fuel, and a greater capacity for weapons and ammunition. These AC130s carried various nicknames, including “Spooky” (inherited from the AC-47) and “Spectre,” the latter of which has been the most publicly recognizable name of these powerful ground support aircraft.
If the CIA operators were using an LTD, it additionally means that air assets were not in Italy or Sicily on the ground. It means that strike aircraft were overhead, and were denied permission to fire from someone in the chain of command. LTDs must sync with overhead aircraft; they have no deterrent effect since they use a spectrum of light we cannot see and can only communicate with craft overhead.
I will caution that this is highly speculative, but an LTD would presumably not be used for just any variant of the C-130-based gunships. While we did have AC-130 gunships based close to Benghazi, they would not make the best use of targets lit by an LTD. The AC-130 uses guns, not guided weapons.
The same cannot be said of another “Spectre” variant, the MC-130W.
The MC-130W is built to use precision-guided weapons, including the GBU-44/B Viper Strike glide bomb and the AGM-175 Griffin missile. Both are laser-guided weapons that can be directed using a ground-based LTD. Both are weapons designed to be highly accurate, with small warheads to greatly reduce the danger of collateral damage. They are precisely the kind of weapon an experienced CIA operator would call in if they wanted to reduce the threat of collateral damage, like the kind of damage that might be caused by firing an HMG from a rooftop.
If this is what occurred, it seems that even in weapon selection, the primary concern of the HMG operator was saving innocent lives.
But we do not know at this time which actually occurred. Based upon the information we can glean, we’re left with two most probable outcomes.
Either the Obama administration refused to launch close-air support aircraft from nearby bases that could have eliminated enemy forces attacking Americans trapped on the ground, or we had close air support aircraft overhead that could have taken out the terrorists that had Americans under fire with precision weapons — and the administration refused to let them fire.
The moral cowardice of both decisions is unconscionable.
Writing yesterday at the Weekly Standard, William Kristol asked ten questions of the administration, attempting to discover how the White House in general and President Obama in particular responded to the unfolding attacks. It is not a terribly exciting list of questions for the most part, nor was it intended to be. The questions emulate those that might be asked in a criminal indictment:
1.) To whom did the president give the first of his “three very clear directives” — that is, “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to”?
2.) How did he transmit this directive to the military and other agencies?
3.) During the time when Americans were under attack, did the president convene a formal or informal meeting of his national security council? Did the president go to the situation room?
4.) During this time, with which members of the national security team did the president speak directly?
5.) Did Obama speak by phone or teleconference with the combatant commanders who would have sent assistance to the men under attack?
6.) Did he speak with CIA director David Petraeus?
These are questions of leadership and basic competence that must be answered. Did Obama actually lead? If he did, who under his command failed?
Then Kristol asks the more provocative questions.
7.) Was the president made aware of the repeated requests for assistance from the men under attack? When and by whom?
8.) Did he issue any directives in response to these requests?
9.) Did the president refuse to authorize an armed drone strike on the attackers?
10.) Did the president refuse to authorize a AC-130 or MC-130 to enter Libyan airspace during the attack?
These ten questions alone could end a presidency, but they are far from the only questions swirling around Benghazi. As noted earlier, we face the question of what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi without security.
Some are speculating that Stevens was in Benghazi to facilitate the transfer of weapons to rebel forces in Syria fighting the regime of dictator Bashar Assad. This is the position of former CIA operative  Clare Lopez.
The Libyan-flagged Al Entisar may be the smoking gun:
Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means “The Victory,” was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun — 35 miles from the Syrian border — on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.
On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time.
Retired Admiral James Lyons notes various sources claiming”One of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 — portable SAMs — to Islamists and other al-Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria.”
Barack Obama has long had a cozy relationship with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and their alliance with Islamists in Syria battling Bashir Assad has been criticized before.
If Ambassador Stevens was facilitating weapons transfers from Libya to Syrian Islamist forces aligned with al-Qaeda, via his Turkish alliance, then we are at a troubling, perhaps catastrophic point in this republic’s history.
We have been at war with the Islamist hydra of al-Qaeda for more than a decade, and now sources are accusing a sitting president of arming this enemy.
18 USC § 2381 provides us with a legal threshold for treason:
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
Providing munitions to al-Qaeda-aligned Islamist forces would seem to meet that standard.
The Obama administration has the most damaging charge of all to which it must answer, and can be offered no quarter.