White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack:emails

A report by Mark Hosenball reporting for Reuters News. All the credit goes to him for writing this story.

By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT

(Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.

Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.

MISSIVES FROM LIBYA

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.

Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.

It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.

Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.

By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda’s faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.

One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials “carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time.”

The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.

“Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely,” the official said.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Mary Milliken and Jim Loney)

p. s. 10/26/2012—-A fourth email has been obtained with proof that that all proper individuals knew of the ongoing firefight at Benghazi. Continued pleas by those in harms way for assistance to combat these evil doers was denied and, hence, the ultimate death of the ambassador and three of his security detail was the result.

President Obama’s refusal to rescue these  four Americans, in my opinion, amounts to treasonous activity. He and others involved let them die. Their denials for help have been made manifest. What I can’t figure out is why.

President Obama needs to leave the White House now. We need an adult at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue White House who cares about others other than his egomanical self.

Advertisements

Webster, Socialism & Language Definition Manipulations

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
This article comes from the website freedompost.com. All the credit goes to the contributing writer. It is an interesting article on how our language has, in many respects, devolved.
This article brought to my thinking, our individual choice to break the habit of “bad English,” and the choice not to pass such a habit down to future generations. It does make a difference if one’s extended family has such a history. It opens many doors or closes them, depending upon the choices made. Enjoy.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
October 16, 2012 by 

 The Socialist toolbox is full of attempts at twisting the meanings of words. I cannot begin to tell you how sick of that game I am. I heard the other day that the original purpose of Webster creating the dictionary was to assure we all knew the meanings of words in order to keep us all on the same page. I decided to look this up and found this little blurb below:

Noah Webster, the Father of American Christian education, wrote the first American dictionary and established a system of rules to govern spelling, grammar, and reading. This master linguist understood the power of words, their definitions, and the need for precise word usage in communication to maintain independence. Webster used the Bible as the foundation for his definitions.

This standard reference tool will greatly assist students of all ages in their studies.

No other dictionary compares with the Webster’s 1828 dictionary. The English language has changed again and again and in many instances has become corrupt. The American Dictionary of the English Language is based upon God’s written word, for Noah Webster used the Bible as the foundation for his definitions. This standard reference tool will greatly assist students of all ages in their studies. From American History to literature, from science to the Word of God, this dictionary is a necessity. For homeschoolers as well as avid Bible students it is easy, fast, and sophisticated.

I also discovered this interesting fact:

Noah Webster claimed to have coined only one word – demoralize, which he defined: “To corrupt or undermine the morals of; to destroy or lessen the effect of moral principles on; to render corrupt in morals.”

That’s interesting. The common usage of “demoralize” today seems to mean “discourage,” or to make someone feel down and frustrated. Obviously, that is not the original intent of the word. Makes me think I need that dictionary. The word also describes what has happened to our entire society; demoralized. It’s a good word with Webster’s meaning intact.

This takes me to what has happened to our laws. When legal isn’t moral, we are definitely working with chains of corruption wrapped around us. It occurred to me today that the Constitution has been under assault from the moment it was signed, sealed, and delivered. It is a very moral document. Immoral people would not like to be held to the standards set in it, or the rules a moral people rely on for civil society. The relentless assault on the Constitution has escalated under Obama.

I can’t help but wonder if we have reached the point of no return, though in my heart of hearts I hope not. Part of the assault is on our language. Hence, a Communist was elected to the Presidency using two words: Hope and Change. Vague and ambiguous, meaning different things to different people, but a clever sales pitch, nonetheless.

Words mean things. The left doesn’t like the meanings, so they abominate the words to their own benefits. Things have become so bad lately that I believe we have become confused beyond ability to communicate. It would be good to get back to the basics with language.

here are just a couple of examples:

“Livability” What the heck does that mean to you? You see, the word is ambiguous. It implies something without actually defining it. There are people who swallow comprehensive municipal plans using that word, and in truth, they have no idea what that means. So when you go diving into the description from the Smart Growth crowd, you find out that “livability” means high density, discouraged use of cars, buildings with green certification, restrictive rules and regulations for everything. Does that sound enticing to you? No. So they use an ambiguous word, i.e. “Livability” to make you think it must be just great to live in a city that uses “Livability” as a goal.

“Connectivity” How does that sound?? Another ambiguous word. Left to interpretation, it implies we should all be so happily connected to everything. What it actually means is no privacy, connecting streets so there are no cul de sac neighborhoods, greenways in your backyard, and light rail at your doorstep. So the facilitators sell the plan as this wonderful idea, but it turns into laws and regulations that undermine private ownership control over your own property. Zoning doesn’t even come close to what “Connectivity” can do. Zoning actually allows for appeals and compromises. “Connectivity” is dogma. You can’t get away from it.

So, here’s to Noah Webster and his valiant effort to make sure we all understood the meanings of words. I vote we don’t fall for ambiguous and vague soundbites, empty promises, and shyster political speak. I vote we all buy Webster’s original dictionary and start using it. Otherwise, we are communicating in foreign languages that no one in America even grasps. You can see how well that is working out lately.

Figures Being Fudged And More 10/06/2012

Let’s think about this together.

The following tweet from Jack Welch is what started the damage control from the White House: “Unbelievable jobs numbers—these Chicago guys will do anything—can’t debate so change numbers.”

Former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch, has raised the question of whether current unemployment numbers recently released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics [during the week of October 2nd] are valid. I believe his suspicions have grounds for discussion here.

The 7.8 % national unemployment figure for the nation has shady implications, even the leftover feeling that these numbers were put out there to lighten the blows Obama took by Romney during the first televised presidential debate.

Mr. Welch made the following points on MSNBC:

1) The economy has been growing at a snails pace of 1.3% annually.

2) To decrease national employment numbers from 8.3% of two months ago to the published numbers of 7.8% today, the economy would necessarily need an annual growth rate between 4-5%. Instead the economy is anemic.

Something is not right. The current unemployment figures given by the administration do not lineup with the growth numbers needed to reduce the unemployment rate by the .5 [five tenths] recorded in the last 2 months.

It’s crystal clear; the numbers are being fudged and the 1.3% annual growth rate is the real growth rate. Unfortunately, the math is pathetically real. These figures are being fudged because the election is weeks away. Don’t doubt that.

When Jack Welch was asked by Chris Matthews if there was proof to back up what he had tweeted about the nation’s current unemployment figures Jack said NO.

In an article written by Reuters, Jack Welch was quoted as saying: “These numbers just don’t go with the economic activity.” Welch said. “You draw your own conclusions.”

Most everyone wants to see economic activity pick up in the nation. Most everyone wants to see the employment rate honestly drop. Most everyone wants the nation to succeed as a whole, recognizing individual success as vital to national economic wealth and health. Most everyone wishes their electricity bill were lower.

Almost any US president would back Israel.  Most everyone recognizes that those who are self-employed or working otherwise, build what they have. Most everyone gives more than lip service to their country. Most everyone understands and recognizes these aspirations except Barack Obama and his socialist and Marxist friends.

Barack Obama wants this sluggish economy to drag on. This sets up many other things he wants to pass through Congress or by executive order. Barack Obama wants regulation upon regulation heaped upon businesses in this country, hence, a national economic recovery will remain weak as long as regulations continue to pile on.

This president thumbs his nose at Israel and its prime minister in their time of need in favor of an appearance on the David Letterman show and a campaign stop to raise money in Las Vegas.  He will not help our ally. He allows those from the Muslim Brotherhood [hostile Muslims to the US] to participate in the highest levels of the United States government. Why is this so?

This president, in my opinion, has violated his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of The United States.”

This president told us long ago, that our electricity bills would “necessarily skyrocket.” They have.

This president prefers to “hang out” with celebrities. He plays excessive golf instead of governing. He takes extended vacations. He is trying to do regular things when, clearly, he doesn’t hold a regular job. He hasn’t grown up enough to govern the United States properly, therefore,”we gotta let em go,” as Clint Eastwood would say.

Because he hasn’t grown up enough, we, the people, have suffered enormously. We have suffered from his lack of understanding regarding the issues we face as a nation. He is very smart but he is arrogant and hauty. Many think of him as “cool.” He is not. He is slick but not cool. Who wants a “cool” president anyway?

If being “cool” becomes the primary focus and is a substitute for understanding the issues or protecting the country, forget it. That kind of approval Obama needs scares me.

I want a president who is grown up and can deal with the problems the United States has instead of hanging out with all those peoople he wants to be.

Barack Obama is ambivalent and aloof.  The nation has suffered not benefited from his personal traits. These traits may cause him to be likable but these traits do not register or measure competency, caring, ability to problem solve, decisiveness, etc.

Competency, caring, problem solving and decisiveness are key to being CEO of the greatest nation in the world. All of these are intangibles that Mitt Romney has, Barack Obama does not.

Who do you want for president? A problem solver or a procrastinator? One who grasps issues with a firm understanding of them or a president who casts them aside? A president who actually loves America or one who leaves “one nation under God” out of his recitation of the pledge of allegiance?  One who hangs out with celebrities like David Letterman or one who cares more about Israel? One who has a 25 year record in the private sector or one who has none?

Do you want a president who gathers all the proper information, weighs the actions which need to be taken and acts with clarity and decisiveness?  Or do you want a president who is more concerned about his public persona, and, therefore, delays solutions because of the consistent foggy cloud he has within him?

Do you want a president who understands the importance of this nation’s moral fiber or do you want one who will continue to weaken that fiber through non-action of his constitutional responsibilities?

What about the loud lady who went viral about voting for Obama because the president gave her a free phone?  Voting intelligently requires much more than just being promised a free phone from your president. Of course, most of us know that.

I want a president with proven accomplishments and clarity of vision. I want a leader I can follow through the darkness into the light. I want Mitt Romney.

OBAMA FIRSTS

this is a freedomoutpost.com  article you should enjoy.      jim valenti

Top Socialists & Communists Would Be Proud Of Obama’s ‘Firsts’

 Barack Hussein Obama has made many “firsts” for a man who has had no training in business. His list of “firsts” will be shown below with questions that must be answered but the Lame Stream Media has no intentions of asking the real questions nor do they have any one bold enough to write stories that belittle this man we have as an acting President! Why should they hold back commentary and question why Obama does not do as he is supposed to do as the President of the United States?

It can be established that this media has been totally incompetent in their handling of the news. News has been created by a man holding the office of President, which has not been exposed, as it needs to be. This list of “firsts” show where Obama has gone and most are “firsts” that only Karl Marx, Leninn, and other top Socialists and Communists would be proud of.

Let us begin with the number one “first” on the list of many.

Obama is the first president to violate the “War Powers Act” as stated in the Huffington Post, “His offense here was when he, (Unilaterally Executing American Operations in Libya Without Informing Congress In The required Time Period!)”

How can this happen without any or very little action taken by Congress to ensure the proper use of Constitutional guidelines as set up by the very act to prevent the abuse of executive power as Obama had done here?

Now since this relates to the action taken to remove the leader of Libya, Gaddafi, and the recent terrorist attack killing four United States citizens can be directly linked to these actions or lack thereof by President Obama! The attack was in direct response and due to the actions taken by Obama when he first had military action taken against Libya forcing the removal of the man who held the terrorists at bay in his country.

The actions taken by Obama through his abuse of power created a vacuum in that nation which led to the terrorists attack upon the United States Embassy in Libya on the anniversary of September 11, 2001. Now this is Obama’s 9/11 and it was the Obama Administration which deceived the nation by making a blatant cover up to hide the very real fact that this was a terrorists attack!

Obama once again abused his power to send the wrong person out to all talk shows five days after the terrorist attack making very False statements that it was due to a video when in FACT the Obama Administration knew within 48 hours that it was indeed a terrorist attack. The ruler of Libya clearly and profoundly stated that it was a terrorist attack the day of the attack, eleven years to the day the World Trade Center buildings were dropped to the ground by the same type of terrorists.

It has to be noted here that Obama did in fact not go to the intelligence meeting four days before and also the day after the attack, finding it much more beneficial to go to a fund raising event than to find out where the body of the Diplomat was. This is, or should be, clear dereliction of duty as president when our nation was once again under attack by terrorists. Yet, Obama found it much more important to go to Las Vegas to raise funds and talk to a crowd of people than it was to meet with the Intelligence Officers that had assessed the problem in Libya!

This brings forth the question of why Obama did not stay in the White House to find out all he could about the terrorist attack upon our nation killing four U.S. citizens. Was this a huge problem for him, considering the fact that it was like the huge black eye we got on September 11, 2001? Did he throw out the story through the ambassador to the United Nations because the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not know anything about this because of her not being in the intelligence meeting on September 12, 2012? So many questions that need to be answered just on this one item that no one in the lame stream media has even considered!

One question stands out more than the rest. Why, on September 11, 2012, was the security in Libya not more than it was, especially since the consulate, and those killed knew and asked for more security for the anniversary of the 9/11 attack upon our nation?

The next “first” to be done by any prior President is below according to the ACLU:

Obama is the first President to triple the number of warrantless Wiretaps of U.S. citizens.

Now here we must ask why do this? Only Obama and his minions could answer that question, but once again the lame stream media, at Obama’s beck and call, does not dig deep enough into this very vague and deceptive issue. It seems that this was done to maybe “prevent” terrorist attacks here in the U.S., but did it prevent the “Terrorists” attack on September 11, 2012? That answer is very clear and not at all ambiguous, NO!

The next “first” by Obama is one that becomes very frightening since it employs the very same tactic as was done by the German maniac, Adolph Hitler!

As shown in the Congressional Digest and the records of Congress, Obama signed into law a bill (National Defense Authorization Act – NDAA) that permits government to “Hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process. No indictment. No judge or jury. No evidence. No trial. Just an indefinite sentence.”

This “first” has not been questioned by any writer and may be because if they did, they would be picked up under the very law, which in some cases could be used to silence any threat to Obama himself in questioning what he has done. Now this is very problematic, since a Democratic Congress and President enacted this and it is in direct and sharp contrast to the very Constitution they were supposed to uphold.

It is very clear that the Constitution does not allow this type of “police” action to be taken and the Constitution itself states this in the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment and the 6th Amendment.

Amendment IV

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall NOT be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Amendment V

“No person shall be held to answer for a capitol or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Amendment VI

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trail, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.”

Barack Hussein Obama has announced that he was a Constitutional scholar, yet he signs a bill that cannot be used according to the Constitution as stated by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments! How could anyone even consider such a law when the Constitution states the opposite? Of course, some will make the statement that this should also apply to those kept in Guantanamo, but those people were caught in acts of war and they are not U.S. citizens so the Constitution does not apply to them or to their trials.

It is because of Obama’s lack of knowledge of the Constitution that he declared this law to be legal. Yet the very Constitution he violated by signing this bill into law has accurately declared it null and void due to the conflict with the above Amendments. This should have been a glaring conflict with what Obama swore to uphold yet he found it to be what he wished, and in that, he did not worry about the very Constitution he took an oath to protect and defend. Obama has stated that:

“I have this thing called the Constitution that gets in the way of what I wish to do.”

Obama is the “first” President to have a sitting Attorney General held in Criminal Contempt of CongressTim Brown wrote,

The U. S. House of Representatives, after 18 months of investigation and stonewalling by the Obama Justice Department have voted 255-67 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress. Holder becomes the first sitting attorney general to be held in contempt. Looks like the Obama administration has a first for everything.

Eric Holder has maintained the cover up of Operation Fast and Furious. This is an operation that is still being investigated, since Eric Holder and Barack Obama do not wish for the people of the United States to see what they were trying to do. Some have suggested that this operation was done with the idea to ban all guns because of them being used to commit crimes, but that is a speculation that cannot be confirmed due to Eric Holder not releasing records.

Those yet unreleased documents may well prove that was the intent. Regardless, once again Obama has used his power of office to usurp the very branch of government which has the oversight to find out why this was done and why Obama through his administration had allowed such and operation to go on.

They only stopped the operation when Border patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed by the very guns the government allowed to be sold to criminals in Mexico. Although nothing has been found that would link the weapons of “Fast and Furious” to the killing and wounding of Border Patrol Agents on October 3, 2012, it would not be a huge surprise to find out that the weapons used to kill and wound those agents are from the “Fast and Furious” operation.

Obama is also the first President to claim Executive Privilege to shield Attorney General from a Contempt of Congress finding for perjury and withholding evidence from lawful subpoenas.

These are but a portion of “firsts.” There are approximately 42 more that must and have to be looked at since most, if not all of them, are direct indications that Barack Obama has no respect for the Constitution or law. He has allegedly been a scholar in Constitutional law, but this begs another question since his college records are sealed from public view. Yet it is less than 35 days before an election that may well define the freedom of this nation and where the people wish to go, to a Socialistic/Communistic way of life or toward a re-affirmation of the Constitution and the freedom that is to be guaranteed under it. It is up to us to make this choice on November 6 and it will be the most critical vote this nation will ever have.

Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series on Obama’s “firsts.”