March 16, 2013
National Review
Dr. Benjamin Carson, the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital who garnered national headlines for his pointed remarks at last month’s National Prayer Breakfast, says that President Obama and his political allies are trying to “destroy the country.”
“Let’s say somebody were [in the White House] and they wanted to destroy this nation,” Carson postulated in remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “I would create division among the people, encourage a culture of ridicule for basic morality and the principles that made and sustained the country, undermine the financial stability of the nation, and weaken and destroy the military. It appears coincidentally that those are the very things that are happening right now.”
Carson, who is 62, said that the blame for the nation’s current state of affairs does not lie with “any one particular person.” His barbs, though, were clearly aimed at President Obama.
Drawing a link between his medical practice and his political beliefs, Carson argued that righting the nation’s course requires governance “of and by the people.” “That’s why we have these complex brains,” he explained, and went on to joke, “the number of interconnections you have [between neurons] rivals the national debt.”
At the National Prayer Breakfast in February, Carson — with President Obama as a captive audience — lodged a full-frontal assault on the president’s agenda, from progressive taxation to Obamacare. Carson’s remarks led to calls, most notably from the Wall Street Journal editorial board, for him to launch a presidential bid come 2016. He will retire from medicine in three months and, though he declined to discuss his particular plans, he indicated that he hopes to become further involved in educational initiatives; Carson founded a scholarship fund in 1996.
In an event billed as “President Obama’s (National Prayer) Breakfast Club,” Carson shared the stage with Eric Metaxas, the author of a biography of the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who used his time on stage at 2012’s breakfast to argue that progressives have distorted Christianity in the service of political ideology.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
‘It Goes Back to the Bin Laden Attack’: Expert Who Said New Benghazi Info Will Leave You ‘Amazed and Shocked’ Gives More Details to TheBlaze
Feb 13, 2013
The Blaze
Brigitte Gabriel, one of the world’s leading experts on Islamic extremism, said over the weekend that there will be new information to come out on the Benghazi attack that will leave people “amazed and shocked” when they finally hear it.
“As someone working with the intelligence community…more information is going to come out regarding the Benghazi attack that will really leave people amazed and shocked how we have been — on how we are defending the country,” Gabriel said on Fox News.
The story exploded on TheBlaze, with 550 comments and over 12,000 “shares” on social media outlets as of this article’s publication. And keep in mind that that’s only a fraction of the people who read the story.
We decided to reach out to Gabriel to see if she’d be willing to elaborate on her comments, and you’ll want to know what she had to say.
During the interview, Gabriel discussed everything from the yet-to-be-released information that will leave people “amazed and shocked” to reports that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was “running guns” to Syrian rebels before he was killed.
Gabriel couldn’t divulge the source of her information or any specifics, but she gave us enough to add significant new pieces to the puzzle the American people are trying to assemble in determining what happened to the 4 brave Americans who were killed overseas.
“There are multiple issues that will come out, I wish I could tell you, but it goes back to the Bin Laden attack,” she said. [Emphasis added].
When asked if she could give readers a general idea of who her sources are, Gabriel replied: “I have connections with some of the highest generals in our military who told me [the information], face to face, by mouth. They looked at me and said, here’s what going on, here’s the thing…”
Weighing in on reports that Ambassador Chris Stevens was “running guns” to Syrian rebels at the behest of the United States government, Gabriel was unequivocally clear.
“There was an operation; they were smuggling weapons to Syria, and he died because he was involved and because something went wrong,” she stated.
Brigitte Gabriel on New Benghazi Info: Connected to Bin Laden, Sources Are Top Generals, Get Those Involved Under Oath | Shocked and Amazed
In this Thursday, Sept. 13, 2012 file photo, bloodstains at the main gate believed to be from one of the American staff members of the U.S. Consulate, after an attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens on the night of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya. (Photo: AP)
But according to Gabriel, more information on the gun-running program is only one aspect of the explosive information that will be released.
So why, roughly five months later, don’t we know this information already? When will it be released? And by whom?
Gabriel was decidedly optimistic and pessimistic at the same time.
In her opinion, it’s possible the information won’t ever come out unless we have a short term special committee to investigate the attack, where those involved are forced to answer legitimate questions under oath by lawmakers who actually want to bring light to the matter.
It can’t be a “slobber fest” like Hillary Clinton’s testimony, Gabriel noted.
The best way to go about this, she said, is to put pressure on lawmakers by supporting legislation introduced by Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) to create the committee, which you can do through her organization ACT! for America.
“We know that unless those responsible, like Panetta and the others, are called into an official hearing under oath, the truth is not going to come out,” she said. “Before the hearing [last Thursday], no one knew that the president that wasn’t in touch with anybody.”
Many of those involved, she said, will speak the truth if subpoenaed and put before Congress, but they’re not going to volunteer any information. They have careers, promotions, and reputations to consider.
“People are afraid to talk, including some of the top generals we have!” she lamented. “They’re trying to cover their behind. And that’s not right by our country.”
She continued:
“It is such a shame that in our country today, we have an administration that is not forthright and truthful, is more concerned with public appearances and elections than protecting America. It is shameful the way this administration has handled national security and foreign policy, to the point where we have become the laughingstock of our enemy…to have an ambassador killed in such a way…”
Gabriel proceeded to note that a country is in a perilous position when you have honorable people leaving the armed forces because they cannot do their jobs the way they know they must be done, or when they stay in but are “shackled” by political correctness.
“How can we conduct a war when we cannot teach them about the enemy?” she asked, noting that references to violent jihad have been purged from some cultural training manuals.
Bottom line, she said, “unless you put [those involved] under oath and before a committee, the American public is not going to get the truth.”
The Blaze
Brigitte Gabriel, one of the world’s leading experts on Islamic extremism, said over the weekend that there will be new information to come out on the Benghazi attack that will leave people “amazed and shocked” when they finally hear it.
“As someone working with the intelligence community…more information is going to come out regarding the Benghazi attack that will really leave people amazed and shocked how we have been — on how we are defending the country,” Gabriel said on Fox News.
The story exploded on TheBlaze, with 550 comments and over 12,000 “shares” on social media outlets as of this article’s publication. And keep in mind that that’s only a fraction of the people who read the story.
We decided to reach out to Gabriel to see if she’d be willing to elaborate on her comments, and you’ll want to know what she had to say.
During the interview, Gabriel discussed everything from the yet-to-be-released information that will leave people “amazed and shocked” to reports that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was “running guns” to Syrian rebels before he was killed.
Gabriel couldn’t divulge the source of her information or any specifics, but she gave us enough to add significant new pieces to the puzzle the American people are trying to assemble in determining what happened to the 4 brave Americans who were killed overseas.
“There are multiple issues that will come out, I wish I could tell you, but it goes back to the Bin Laden attack,” she said. [Emphasis added].
When asked if she could give readers a general idea of who her sources are, Gabriel replied: “I have connections with some of the highest generals in our military who told me [the information], face to face, by mouth. They looked at me and said, here’s what going on, here’s the thing…”
Weighing in on reports that Ambassador Chris Stevens was “running guns” to Syrian rebels at the behest of the United States government, Gabriel was unequivocally clear.
“There was an operation; they were smuggling weapons to Syria, and he died because he was involved and because something went wrong,” she stated.
Brigitte Gabriel on New Benghazi Info: Connected to Bin Laden, Sources Are Top Generals, Get Those Involved Under Oath | Shocked and Amazed
In this Thursday, Sept. 13, 2012 file photo, bloodstains at the main gate believed to be from one of the American staff members of the U.S. Consulate, after an attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens on the night of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya. (Photo: AP)
But according to Gabriel, more information on the gun-running program is only one aspect of the explosive information that will be released.
So why, roughly five months later, don’t we know this information already? When will it be released? And by whom?
Gabriel was decidedly optimistic and pessimistic at the same time.
In her opinion, it’s possible the information won’t ever come out unless we have a short term special committee to investigate the attack, where those involved are forced to answer legitimate questions under oath by lawmakers who actually want to bring light to the matter.
It can’t be a “slobber fest” like Hillary Clinton’s testimony, Gabriel noted.
The best way to go about this, she said, is to put pressure on lawmakers by supporting legislation introduced by Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) to create the committee, which you can do through her organization ACT! for America.
“We know that unless those responsible, like Panetta and the others, are called into an official hearing under oath, the truth is not going to come out,” she said. “Before the hearing [last Thursday], no one knew that the president that wasn’t in touch with anybody.”
Many of those involved, she said, will speak the truth if subpoenaed and put before Congress, but they’re not going to volunteer any information. They have careers, promotions, and reputations to consider.
“People are afraid to talk, including some of the top generals we have!” she lamented. “They’re trying to cover their behind. And that’s not right by our country.”
She continued:
“It is such a shame that in our country today, we have an administration that is not forthright and truthful, is more concerned with public appearances and elections than protecting America. It is shameful the way this administration has handled national security and foreign policy, to the point where we have become the laughingstock of our enemy…to have an ambassador killed in such a way…”
Gabriel proceeded to note that a country is in a perilous position when you have honorable people leaving the armed forces because they cannot do their jobs the way they know they must be done, or when they stay in but are “shackled” by political correctness.
“How can we conduct a war when we cannot teach them about the enemy?” she asked, noting that references to violent jihad have been purged from some cultural training manuals.
Bottom line, she said, “unless you put [those involved] under oath and before a committee, the American public is not going to get the truth.”
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Ben Carson For President
Feb 9, 2013
Wall Street Journal
Whether this weekend finds you blowing two feet of snow off the driveway or counting the hours until "Downton Abbey," make time to watch the video of Dr. Ben Carson speaking to the White House prayer breakfast this week.
Seated in view to his right are Senator Jeff Sessions and President Obama. One doesn't look happy. You know something's coming when Dr. Carson says, "It's not my intention to offend anyone. But it's hard not to. The PC police are out in force everywhere."
Dr. Carson tossed over the PC police years ago. Raised by a single mother in inner-city Detroit, he was as he tells it "a horrible student with a horrible temper." Today he's director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins and probably the most renowned specialist in his field.
Late in his talk he dropped two very un-PC ideas. The first is an unusual case for a flat tax: "What we need to do is come up with something simple. And when I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and he's given us a system. It's called a tithe.
"We don't necessarily have to do 10% but it's the principle. He didn't say if your crops fail, don't give me any tithe or if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithe. So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10 you put in one. Of course you've got to get rid of the loopholes. Some people say, 'Well that's not fair because it doesn't hurt the guy who made $10 billion as much as the guy who made 10.' Where does it say you've got to hurt the guy? He just put a billion dollars in the pot. We don't need to hurt him. It's that kind of thinking that has resulted in 602 banks in the Cayman Islands. That money needs to be back here building our infrastructure and creating jobs."
Not surprisingly, a practicing physician has un-PC thoughts on health care:
"Here's my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed—pretax—from the time you're born 'til the time you die. If you die, you can pass it on to your family members, and there's nobody talking about death panels. We can make contributions for people who are indigent. Instead of sending all this money to some bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care. And very quickly they're gong to learn how to be responsible."
The Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon may not be politically correct, but he's closer to correct than we've heard in years.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Dr. Benjamin Carson Addresses National Prayer Breakfast
Feb 8, 2012
The Blaze
Conservative Doc Reveals Why He Spoke Out Against Obama’s Policies at Prayer Breakfast — Plus, Would He Ever Run for President?
With President Barack Obama sitting just feet away, Dr. Benjamin Carson stood up for conservative principles in his speech at Thursday’s National Prayer Breakfast, discussing the national debt, political correctness and even healthcare. Readers loved his speech so much that TheBlaze’s story on it went viral.
On Friday, Carson appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity” to explain why he felt compelled to speak out against the big government policies endorsed by Obama, in front of Obama.
Carson, a renown neurosurgeon, said the response to his speech has been “overwhelmingly” positive. However, he argued he didn’t make a conservative argument, but rather a “logical” and “common-sense” one.
“I don’t know where we left our brains,” he told host Sean Hannity.
Carson went on to talk about his life story, saying he grew up in a single parent home in a poverty-stricken area. He said his mother “refused to be a victim” and “never felt sorry for herself,” despite only having a third grade education.
Regarding his comments on political correctness, the neurosurgeon emphasized the importance of “freedom of speech and freedom of expression” in the United States.
“And yet, we have imposed upon people restrictions on what they say, on what they can think. The media, I think is the largest proponent of this,” he explained.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Beck’s Emotional Response to Bombshell ‘Stand Down’ Libya Allegations: ‘Today Officially Is the Day That I No Longer Recognize My Country’
October 26, 2012
The Blaze
Aside from showing his personal horror after learning the new details, he repeatedly asked, “What have we turned into?” and proclaimed: “Today officially is the day that I no longer recognize my country.”
The Blaze
Aside from showing his personal horror after learning the new details, he repeatedly asked, “What have we turned into?” and proclaimed: “Today officially is the day that I no longer recognize my country.”
The Blog Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus
October 26, 2012
Weekly Standard
By William Kristol
Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?
Weekly Standard
By William Kristol
Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?
POWERFUL: Father of former SEAL killed in Benghazi says whoever refused to send help murdered his son, but he forgives them
The Right Scoop
"This is a powerful interview with Charlie Woods, father of former Navy SEAL who was killed in Benghazi, who says that those who refused to send ready and available help to his son murdered his son. But he’s not saying that out of malice and hatred. In fact he tells them directly on this phone call that he forgives them, but they need to stand up and change the direction of their lives."
Watch Video
"This is a powerful interview with Charlie Woods, father of former Navy SEAL who was killed in Benghazi, who says that those who refused to send ready and available help to his son murdered his son. But he’s not saying that out of malice and hatred. In fact he tells them directly on this phone call that he forgives them, but they need to stand up and change the direction of their lives."
Watch Video
EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials -- 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 was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQd37QFo
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador’s Benghazi visit?
October 25, 2012
Fox News
A mysterious Libyan ship -- reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels -- may have some link to the Sept. 11 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Fox News has learned.
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.
Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
When asked to comment, a State Department spokeswoman dismissed the idea, saying Stevens was there for diplomatic meetings, and to attend the opening of a cultural center.
A congressional source also cautioned against drawing premature conclusions about the consulate attack and the movement of weapons from Libya to Syria via Turkey -- noting they may in fact be two separate and distinct events. But the source acknowledged the timing and the meeting between the Turkish diplomat and Stevens was "unusual."
According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria's rebels on the frontlines.
"This is the Libyan ship ... which is basically carrying weapons that are found in Libya," said Walid Phares, a Fox News Middle East and terrorism analyst. "So the ship came all the way up to Iskenderun in Turkey. Now from the information that is available, there was aid material, but there were also weapons, a lot of weapons."
The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG's and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.
The ship's Libyan captain told the Times of London that "I can only talk about the medicine and humanitarian aid" for the Syrian rebels. It was reported there was a fight about the weapons and who got what "between the free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood."
"The point is that both of these weapons systems are extremely accurate and very simple to use," Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt explained. He said the passage of weapons from Libya to Syria would escalate the conflict. "With a short amount of instruction, you've got somebody capable of taking down any, any aircraft. Anywhere in the world."
The Foundation for Human Rights, and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) -- the group accused of moving the weapons -- disputed the claims and in published Turkish reports said it "will take legal action against this article which was written without concrete evidence. It is defamatory, includes false and unfair accusations and violates publishing ethics."
Information uncovered in a Fox News investigation raises questions about whether weapons used to arm the Libyan rebels are now surfacing in Syria.
In March 2011, the Reuters news service first reported that President Obama had authorized a "secret order ... (allowing) covert U.S. government support for rebel forces" to push the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi from office.
At a hearing on March 31, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, several lawmakers raised concerns about the finding reported by the Reuters news service and whether the Obama administration knew who constituted the rebel forces and whether Islamists were among their ranks.
"What assurances do we have that they will not pose a threat to the United States if they succeed in toppling Qaddafi?" Republican Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., asked. "There are reports that some opposition figures have links to Al Qaeda and extremist groups that have fought against our forces in Iraq."
While the source of the weapons used to attack the consulate is part of an ongoing investigation, former CIA Director Porter Goss told Fox News there was no question some of the weapons that flooded Libya during the uprising are making their way to Syria -- adding that the U.S. intelligence community must be aware, given their presence in Benghazi.
"Absolutely. I think there's no question that there's a lot of networking going on. And ... of course we know it."
A month after the October 2011 death of Qaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya "secure and recover its weapons stockpiles." Earlier this year, Assistant Secretary of State for Political and Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro expressed concerns that the situation on the ground was far from under control.
Speaking to the Stimson Center in Washington D.C., on Feb. 2, Shapiro said: "This raises the question -- how many are still missing? The frank answer is we don't know and probably never will."
Fox News
A mysterious Libyan ship -- reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels -- may have some link to the Sept. 11 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Fox News has learned.
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.
Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
When asked to comment, a State Department spokeswoman dismissed the idea, saying Stevens was there for diplomatic meetings, and to attend the opening of a cultural center.
A congressional source also cautioned against drawing premature conclusions about the consulate attack and the movement of weapons from Libya to Syria via Turkey -- noting they may in fact be two separate and distinct events. But the source acknowledged the timing and the meeting between the Turkish diplomat and Stevens was "unusual."
According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria's rebels on the frontlines.
"This is the Libyan ship ... which is basically carrying weapons that are found in Libya," said Walid Phares, a Fox News Middle East and terrorism analyst. "So the ship came all the way up to Iskenderun in Turkey. Now from the information that is available, there was aid material, but there were also weapons, a lot of weapons."
The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG's and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.
The ship's Libyan captain told the Times of London that "I can only talk about the medicine and humanitarian aid" for the Syrian rebels. It was reported there was a fight about the weapons and who got what "between the free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood."
"The point is that both of these weapons systems are extremely accurate and very simple to use," Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt explained. He said the passage of weapons from Libya to Syria would escalate the conflict. "With a short amount of instruction, you've got somebody capable of taking down any, any aircraft. Anywhere in the world."
The Foundation for Human Rights, and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) -- the group accused of moving the weapons -- disputed the claims and in published Turkish reports said it "will take legal action against this article which was written without concrete evidence. It is defamatory, includes false and unfair accusations and violates publishing ethics."
Information uncovered in a Fox News investigation raises questions about whether weapons used to arm the Libyan rebels are now surfacing in Syria.
In March 2011, the Reuters news service first reported that President Obama had authorized a "secret order ... (allowing) covert U.S. government support for rebel forces" to push the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi from office.
At a hearing on March 31, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, several lawmakers raised concerns about the finding reported by the Reuters news service and whether the Obama administration knew who constituted the rebel forces and whether Islamists were among their ranks.
"What assurances do we have that they will not pose a threat to the United States if they succeed in toppling Qaddafi?" Republican Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., asked. "There are reports that some opposition figures have links to Al Qaeda and extremist groups that have fought against our forces in Iraq."
While the source of the weapons used to attack the consulate is part of an ongoing investigation, former CIA Director Porter Goss told Fox News there was no question some of the weapons that flooded Libya during the uprising are making their way to Syria -- adding that the U.S. intelligence community must be aware, given their presence in Benghazi.
"Absolutely. I think there's no question that there's a lot of networking going on. And ... of course we know it."
A month after the October 2011 death of Qaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya "secure and recover its weapons stockpiles." Earlier this year, Assistant Secretary of State for Political and Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro expressed concerns that the situation on the ground was far from under control.
Speaking to the Stimson Center in Washington D.C., on Feb. 2, Shapiro said: "This raises the question -- how many are still missing? The frank answer is we don't know and probably never will."
‘People Will Go to Prison’: Beck Breaks Down Obama’s ‘Lying’ on Libya in Fiery Segment
October 25, 2012
The Blaze
“This president is lying to you about Benghazi in such [a] spectacular fashion that I believe people will go to prison. This is impeachable. The president might go to prison for this one,” he said. “What’s happening in Benghazi is so far beyond lying, it is staggering.”
The Blaze
“This president is lying to you about Benghazi in such [a] spectacular fashion that I believe people will go to prison. This is impeachable. The president might go to prison for this one,” he said. “What’s happening in Benghazi is so far beyond lying, it is staggering.”
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Glenn Beck Connects the Dots in Benghazi Attack: ‘This Is Fast and Furious Times 1,000′
October 24, 2012
The Blaze
During his show on TheBlazeTV Wednesday night, Glenn Beck said President Barack Obama has “crossed a line” concerning the “lies” about the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi on Sept. 11. In fact, he claims “Benghazi-gate” is “Fast and Furious times 1,000.”
“I don’t think that we are going to have time to be able to get this out to the American people before the election, because the press is of no help,” Beck said. “You need to try to listen and get your friends to listen next door because this isn’t about politics. This truly is about the future of the country because we are in grave, grave danger.”
Beck explained that America has had three major scandals in the White House: Former President Richard Nixon’s Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal with former President Ronald Reagan and former President Bill Clinton’s sex scandal with Monica Lewinsky.
But in those cases, “as the old catchphrase goes, When Clinton lied, no one died,” Beck said. In Benghazi, four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in a horrific manner.
Speaking from the model Oval Office in his Dallas studio, the host said “when you’re in this office” every lie told matters.
“[President Obama] is putting American lives in dangers and he doesn’t seem to care about the consequence of his own actions,” he added. “The Libya story hasn’t passed the smell test with me from the beginning but it keeps getting worse.”
Beck went on to discuss Tuesday night’s explosive report that revealed 300 to 400 national security officials received emails detailing the Benghazi terrorist attack as it was happening on 9/11, raising fresh questions about the truth behind the Benghazi attack.
The emails show that the Libyan radical Islamic group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack just two hours after it began via social media. White House officials told CBS News that an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Libya, providing Washington with a live feed to the chaos that unfolded.
“Everyone had these emails, everyone,” Beck said, holding a hard copy of the emails in his hands. “These emails were accompanied with video and links to be able see everything live as it was happening. It makes it very, very clear. This was a terrorist attack conducted by a terrorist organization. There’s nothing in here about a YouTube video.”
Beck explained that if the administration was really working off the “facts,” the White House would have never mentioned the anti-Muslim YouTube video.
But one of the most disturbing developments involves the Obama administration’s response to the assault, according to Beck.
“Why would he choose not to send in a quick response force?” he asked. “Why were they not dispatched to Benghazi? Why were people in the situation room standing around watching our people get killed. Help could have been there within the hour.”
A frustrated Beck lamented the fact that there are still more questions than answers regarding the Benghazi attack.
On the most dangerous day of the year, in one of the most dangerous cities in the world, Beck said, four Americans were at a CIA safe house. However, we still don’t know why.
Beck says Americans deserve answers.
He then delved into the distressed message left by U.S. diplomat Sean Smith, who was killed in the attack, on a gaming website, a strange place to post a message like this: “Assuming we don’t die tonight, we saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”
“I believe this is a place where he said ‘listen if I’m in trouble I will let you know on this site.’”, Beck said. Thirty four minutes later, when the Americans in the CIA safe house already knew something was wrong, U.S. Ambassador Stevens took a meeting with the Turkish ambassador.
“What’s bizarre is, he comes in while they are under threat…and here comes the Turkish ambassador.”
The Turkish ambassador leaves with no incident, unharmed. Hours later, the attack began. The fight lasted for seven hours, until the break of dawn. The live feed was streamed to the White House Situation Room.
“The picture is frightening and you need to share it with your friends,” Beck concluded.
Watch Beck’s entire analysis via TheBlazeTV here:
Watch Beck explain his gun-running theory and why he believes the president is lying:
The Blaze
During his show on TheBlazeTV Wednesday night, Glenn Beck said President Barack Obama has “crossed a line” concerning the “lies” about the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi on Sept. 11. In fact, he claims “Benghazi-gate” is “Fast and Furious times 1,000.”
“I don’t think that we are going to have time to be able to get this out to the American people before the election, because the press is of no help,” Beck said. “You need to try to listen and get your friends to listen next door because this isn’t about politics. This truly is about the future of the country because we are in grave, grave danger.”
Beck explained that America has had three major scandals in the White House: Former President Richard Nixon’s Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal with former President Ronald Reagan and former President Bill Clinton’s sex scandal with Monica Lewinsky.
But in those cases, “as the old catchphrase goes, When Clinton lied, no one died,” Beck said. In Benghazi, four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in a horrific manner.
Speaking from the model Oval Office in his Dallas studio, the host said “when you’re in this office” every lie told matters.
“[President Obama] is putting American lives in dangers and he doesn’t seem to care about the consequence of his own actions,” he added. “The Libya story hasn’t passed the smell test with me from the beginning but it keeps getting worse.”
Beck went on to discuss Tuesday night’s explosive report that revealed 300 to 400 national security officials received emails detailing the Benghazi terrorist attack as it was happening on 9/11, raising fresh questions about the truth behind the Benghazi attack.
The emails show that the Libyan radical Islamic group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack just two hours after it began via social media. White House officials told CBS News that an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Libya, providing Washington with a live feed to the chaos that unfolded.
“Everyone had these emails, everyone,” Beck said, holding a hard copy of the emails in his hands. “These emails were accompanied with video and links to be able see everything live as it was happening. It makes it very, very clear. This was a terrorist attack conducted by a terrorist organization. There’s nothing in here about a YouTube video.”
Beck explained that if the administration was really working off the “facts,” the White House would have never mentioned the anti-Muslim YouTube video.
But one of the most disturbing developments involves the Obama administration’s response to the assault, according to Beck.
“Why would he choose not to send in a quick response force?” he asked. “Why were they not dispatched to Benghazi? Why were people in the situation room standing around watching our people get killed. Help could have been there within the hour.”
A frustrated Beck lamented the fact that there are still more questions than answers regarding the Benghazi attack.
On the most dangerous day of the year, in one of the most dangerous cities in the world, Beck said, four Americans were at a CIA safe house. However, we still don’t know why.
Beck says Americans deserve answers.
He then delved into the distressed message left by U.S. diplomat Sean Smith, who was killed in the attack, on a gaming website, a strange place to post a message like this: “Assuming we don’t die tonight, we saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”
“I believe this is a place where he said ‘listen if I’m in trouble I will let you know on this site.’”, Beck said. Thirty four minutes later, when the Americans in the CIA safe house already knew something was wrong, U.S. Ambassador Stevens took a meeting with the Turkish ambassador.
“What’s bizarre is, he comes in while they are under threat…and here comes the Turkish ambassador.”
The Turkish ambassador leaves with no incident, unharmed. Hours later, the attack began. The fight lasted for seven hours, until the break of dawn. The live feed was streamed to the White House Situation Room.
“The picture is frightening and you need to share it with your friends,” Beck concluded.
Watch Beck’s entire analysis via TheBlazeTV here:
Watch Beck explain his gun-running theory and why he believes the president is lying:
Ed Klein: Bill Clinton ‘Urging’ Hillary to Release Benghazi Documents That Would ‘Exonerate’ Her, Destroy Obama’s Re-Election Hopes
October 24, 2012
The Blaze
Ed Klein: Bill Clinton ‘Urging’ Hillary to Release Benghazi Documents That Would ‘Exonerate’ Her, Destroy Obama’s Re-Election Hopes
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.
On Glenn Beck’s radio show earlier on Wednesday, Klein said his information comes from two “very good” sources.
Wilkow pointed out the obvious, that the Obamas and the Clintons have a “very behind the scenes, tense relationship” — to put it lightly.
“I said to you last night, and I think I stand corrected, that it seemed like Obama out-Clintoned the Clintons,” Wilkow said. “But Clinton seems to have gone along with all of this because he knew that Hillary would be exonerated in the end.”
He then asked Klein whether he thought Clinton would resign over the Libya scandal and expose the truth.
“No,” the author said immediately. “I can’t imagine that she would resign. It would bring down the entire administration. [Obama] would lose the election and she would be essentially blamed by the left-wing base of the party.”
“She will not be tarred with the blame for bringing down this administration,” Klein added.
Watch the segment via TheBlazeTV below:
In an exclusive interview with TheBlaze, Klein confirmed that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been engaging in “heated discussions” where the former president has urged his wife to “release the documents that would exonerate her.” He reiterated that Clinton has refused to do so because she fears she would look like a “Judas,” or a traitor, in the administration and it might hurt her chances for a presidential nomination in 2016.
If the claims turn out to be true and Clinton did suggest more security be sent to Benghazi, it is appropriate to ask: why didn’t it happen?
Klein said Clinton’s request for beefed up security would have to go through CIA special ops and or the Pentagon.
“But none of that would happen with the National Security advisor to the president of the United States Tom Donnellan going to the president and saying, ‘We want to send reinforcements to Libya because our ambassador is in jeopardy,’” Klein explained.
Ultimately, he indicated the ultimate authority would have been President Obama.
Wilkow and Klein also discussed what role Obama’s closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, played in the Benghazi cover-up.
By Obama’s own admission, Klein said, the president never makes a big decision without first consulting with Jarrett.
“We have to assume that Valerie Jarrett, who is also by the way hooked into the Chicago campaign…that she was part of this cover-up in the White House.”
He continued: “The CIA got cables, the Department of Defense got cables, the NSA got cables during the attack on Benghazi, in addition to the emails that have since been made public. We know that there are cables that we haven’t seen yet, confirming the State Department cables that this was an al-Qaeda linked attack.”
These new revelations, following Tuesday night’s explosive report that 300 to 400 national security officials received emails detailing the Benghazi terrorist attack as it was happening, raise fresh questions about the truth behind the Benghazi attack.
The emails revealed that the Libyan radical Islamic group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack just two hours after it began. White House officials told CBS News that an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Libya, providing Washington with a live feed to the chaos that unfolded.
The Blaze
Ed Klein: Bill Clinton ‘Urging’ Hillary to Release Benghazi Documents That Would ‘Exonerate’ Her, Destroy Obama’s Re-Election Hopes
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.
On Glenn Beck’s radio show earlier on Wednesday, Klein said his information comes from two “very good” sources.
Wilkow pointed out the obvious, that the Obamas and the Clintons have a “very behind the scenes, tense relationship” — to put it lightly.
“I said to you last night, and I think I stand corrected, that it seemed like Obama out-Clintoned the Clintons,” Wilkow said. “But Clinton seems to have gone along with all of this because he knew that Hillary would be exonerated in the end.”
He then asked Klein whether he thought Clinton would resign over the Libya scandal and expose the truth.
“No,” the author said immediately. “I can’t imagine that she would resign. It would bring down the entire administration. [Obama] would lose the election and she would be essentially blamed by the left-wing base of the party.”
“She will not be tarred with the blame for bringing down this administration,” Klein added.
Watch the segment via TheBlazeTV below:
In an exclusive interview with TheBlaze, Klein confirmed that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been engaging in “heated discussions” where the former president has urged his wife to “release the documents that would exonerate her.” He reiterated that Clinton has refused to do so because she fears she would look like a “Judas,” or a traitor, in the administration and it might hurt her chances for a presidential nomination in 2016.
If the claims turn out to be true and Clinton did suggest more security be sent to Benghazi, it is appropriate to ask: why didn’t it happen?
Klein said Clinton’s request for beefed up security would have to go through CIA special ops and or the Pentagon.
“But none of that would happen with the National Security advisor to the president of the United States Tom Donnellan going to the president and saying, ‘We want to send reinforcements to Libya because our ambassador is in jeopardy,’” Klein explained.
Ultimately, he indicated the ultimate authority would have been President Obama.
Wilkow and Klein also discussed what role Obama’s closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, played in the Benghazi cover-up.
By Obama’s own admission, Klein said, the president never makes a big decision without first consulting with Jarrett.
“We have to assume that Valerie Jarrett, who is also by the way hooked into the Chicago campaign…that she was part of this cover-up in the White House.”
He continued: “The CIA got cables, the Department of Defense got cables, the NSA got cables during the attack on Benghazi, in addition to the emails that have since been made public. We know that there are cables that we haven’t seen yet, confirming the State Department cables that this was an al-Qaeda linked attack.”
These new revelations, following Tuesday night’s explosive report that 300 to 400 national security officials received emails detailing the Benghazi terrorist attack as it was happening, raise fresh questions about the truth behind the Benghazi attack.
The emails revealed that the Libyan radical Islamic group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack just two hours after it began. White House officials told CBS News that an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Libya, providing Washington with a live feed to the chaos that unfolded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)