Secret Audio Recordings Exposes How Hilary Clinton Distorted Facts To Push For Attack On Libya. This ties into Gun Running to Syrian Rebels through Benghazi.

Secret Audio Recordings Exposes How Hilary Clinton Distorted Facts To Push For Attack On Libya. This ties into Gun Running to Syrian Rebels through Benghazi.

 

 

Secret tapes show the reason for Hillary Clinton  to undermine Gadhafi Regime in Libyan war.

Joint Chiefs, key lawmaker held own talks with Moammar Gadhafi regime and secretly recorded the talks.

January 29, 2015 "ICH" - "Washington Times" - Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.
The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle U.S. officials’ unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns.

LISTEN TO TAPES: CLICK HERE!
http://media.washtimes.com/media/audio/2015/02/01/01-30-15-kucinich-9.mp3

“You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They’re just full of stupid, stupid facts,” an American intermediary specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Gadhafi regime in July 2011, saying the State Department was controlling what intelligence would be reported to U.S. officials.

At the time, the Gadhafi regime was fighting a civil war that grew out of the Arab Spring, battling Islamist-backed rebels who wanted to dethrone the longtime dictator. Mrs. Clinton argued that Gadhafi might engage in genocide and create a humanitarian crisis and ultimately persuaded President Obama, NATO allies and the United Nations to authorize military intervention.

Pentagon intelligence asset tells Libyan official U.S. may use frozen Gadhafi funds to finance Benghazi rebels
Click Here: http://media.washtimes.com/media/audio/2015/02/01/01-30-15-confidental-5.mp3?download=true

Gadhafi’s son and heir apparent, Seif Gadhafi, told American officials in the secret conversations that he was worried Mrs. Clinton was using false pretenses to justify unseating his father and insisted that the regime had no intention of harming a mass of civilians. He compared Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for war to that of the George W. Bush administration’s now debunked weapons of mass destruction accusations, which were used to lobby Congress to invade Iraq, the tapes show.

“It was like the WMDs in Iraq. It was based on a false report,” Gadhafi said in a May 2011 phone call to Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat serving at the time. “Libyan airplanes bombing demonstrators, Libyan airplanes bombing districts in Tripoli, Libyan army killed thousands, etc., etc., and now the whole world found there is no single evidence that such things happened in Libya.”
Seif Gadhafi also warned that many of the U.S.-supported armed rebels were “not freedom fighters” but rather jihadists whom he described as “gangsters and terrorists.”

“And now you have NATO supporting them with ships, with airplanes, helicopters, arms, training, communication,” he said in one recorded conversation with U.S. officials. “We ask the American government send a fact-finding mission to Libya. I want you to see everything with your own eyes.”

The surreptitiously taped conversations reveal an extraordinary departure from traditional policy, in which the U.S. government speaks to foreign governments with one voice coordinated by the State Department.

Instead, the tapes show that the Pentagon’s senior uniformed leadership and a congressman from Mrs. Clinton’s own party conveyed sentiments to the Libyan regime that undercut or conflicted with the secretary of state’s own message at the time.
“If this story is true, it would be highly unusual for the Pentagon to conduct a separate set of diplomatic negotiations, given the way we operated when I was secretary of state,” James A. Baker III, who served under President George H.W. Bush, told The Times. “In our administration, the president made sure that we all sang from the same hymnal.”

Mr. Kucinich, who challenged Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, acknowledged that he undertook his own conversations with the Gadhafi regime. He said he feared Mrs. Clinton was using emotion to sell a war against Libya that wasn’t warranted, and he wanted to get all the information he could to share with his congressional colleagues.
“I had facts that indicated America was headed once again into an intervention that was going to be disastrous,” Mr. Kucinich told The Times. “What was being said at the State Department — if you look at the charge at the time — it wasn’t so much about what happened as it was about what would happen. So there was a distortion of events that were occurring in Libya to justify an intervention which was essentially wrong and illegal.”

Mr. Kucinich wrote a letter to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton in August explaining his communications in a last-ditch effort to stop the war.

“I have been contacted by an intermediary in Libya who has indicated that President Muammar Gadhafi is willing to negotiate an end to the conflict under conditions which would seem to favor Administration policy,” Mr. Kucinich wrote on Aug. 24.
Neither the White House nor the State Department responded to his letter, he said.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton declined to provide any comment about the recordings.

The State Department also declined to answer questions about separate contacts from the Pentagon and Mr. Kucinich with the Gadhafi regime, but said the goal of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama was regime change in Libya.

“U.S. policy during the revolution supported regime change through peaceful means, in line with UNSCR 1973 policy and NATO mission goals,” the State Department said. “We consistently emphasized at the time that Moammar Gadhafi had to step down and leave Libya as an essential component of the transition.”

‘President is not getting accurate information’
Both inside and outside the Obama administration, Mrs. Clinton was among the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to unseat Gadhafi. Joining her in making the case were French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and her successor as secretary of state, John F. Kerry.
Mrs. Clinton’s main argument was that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Mrs. Clinton’s recommendation to use force.
If Mrs. Clinton runs for president next year, her style of leadership as it relates to foreign policy will be viewed through the one war that she personally championed as secretary of state. Among the key questions every candidate faces is how they will assess U.S. intelligence and solicit the advice of the military leadership.
Numerous U.S. officials interviewed by The Times confirmed that Mrs. Clinton, and not Mr. Obama, led the charge to use NATO military force to unseat Gadhafi as Libya’s leader and that she repeatedly dismissed the warnings offered by career military and intelligence officials.
In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya “is all Secretary Clinton’s matter” and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed.
The Pentagon liaison indicated on the tapes that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to Adm. Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it.”
In one conversation to the Libyans, the American intelligence asset said, “I can tell you that the president is not getting accurate information, so at some point someone has to get accurate information to him. I think about a way through former Secretary Gates or maybe to Adm. Mullen to get him information”
The recordings are consistent with what many high-ranking intelligence, military and academic sources told The Times:
Mrs. Clinton was headstrong to enter the Libyan crisis, ignoring the Pentagon’s warnings that no U.S. interests were at stake and regional stability could be threatened. Instead, she relied heavily on the assurances of the Libyan rebels and her own memory of Rwanda, where U.S. inaction may have led to the genocide of at least 500,000 people.

“Neither the intervention decision nor the regime change decision was an intelligence-heavy decision,” said one senior intelligence official directly involved with the administration’s decision-making, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “People weren’t on the edge of their seats, intelligence wasn’t driving the decision one way or another.”

Instead of relying on the Defense Department or the intelligence community for analysis, officials told The Times, the White House trusted Mrs. Clinton’s charge, which was then supported by Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice and National Security Council member Samantha Power, as reason enough for war.

“Susan Rice was involved in the Rwanda crisis in 1994, Samantha Power wrote very moving books about what happened in Rwanda, and Hillary Clinton was also in the background of that crisis as well,” said Allen Lynch, a professor of international relations at the University of Virginia. “I think they have all carried this with them as a kind of guilt complex.”

Humanitarian crisis was not imminent

In 2003, Gadhafi agreed to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction and denounce terrorism to re-establish relations with the West. He later made reparations to the families of those who died in the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

News media frequently described the apparent transformation as Libya “coming in from the cold.”

Still, he ruled Libya with an iron grip, and by February 2011 civil war raged throughout the country. Loyalist forces mobilized tanks and troops toward Benghazi, creating a panicked mass exodus of civilians toward Egypt.

Mrs. Clinton met with Libyan rebel spokesman Mahmoud Jibril in the Paris Westin hotel in mid-March so she could vet the rebel cause to unseat Gadhafi. Forty-five minutes after speaking with Mr. Jibril, Mrs. Clinton was convinced that a military intervention was needed.

“I talked extensively about the dreams of a democratic civil state where all Libyans are equal a political participatory system with no exclusions of any Libyans, even the followers of Gadhafi who did not commit crimes against the Libyan people, and how the international community should protect civilians from a possible genocide like the one [that] took place in Rwanda,” Mr. Jibril told The Times. “I felt by the end of the meeting, I passed the test. Benghazi was saved.”

So on March 17, 2011, the U.S. supported U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 for military intervention in Libya to help protect its people from Gadhafi’s forthcoming march on Benghazi, where he threatened he would “show no mercy” to resisters.

“In this particular country — Libya — at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale,” Mr. Obama declared in an address to the nation on March 28. “We had a unique ability to stop that violence: An international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves.”

Yet Human Rights Watch did not see the humanitarian crisis as imminent.

“At that point, we did not see the imminence of massacres that would rise to genocidelike levels,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division for Human Rights Watch. “Gadhafi’s forces killed hundreds of overwhelmingly unarmed protesters. There were threats of Libyan forces approaching Benghazi, but we didn’t feel that rose to the level of imminent genocidelike atrocities.”

Instead, she said, the U.S. government was trying to be at the forefront of the Arab Spring, when many dictator-led countries were turning to democracy.

“I think the dynamic for the U.S. government was: Things are changing fast, Tunisia has fallen, Egypt has fallen, and we’d better be on the front of this, supporting a new government and not being seen as supporting the old government,” Ms. Whitson said.

Clinton blocks Gadhafi outreach

On the day the U.N. resolution was passed, Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal.

A day later, on March 18, Gadhafi called for a cease-fire, another action the administration dismissed.

Soon, a call was set up between the former U.S. ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, and Gadhafi confidant Mohammed Ismael during which Mr. Ismael confirmed that the regime’s highest-ranking generals were under orders not to fire upon protesters.

“I told him we were not targeting civilians and Seif told him that,” Mr. Ismael told The Times in an telephone interview this month, recounting the fateful conversation.

While Mrs. Clinton urged the Pentagon to cease its communications with the Gadhafi regime, the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs remained in contact for months afterward.

“Everything I am getting from the State Department is that they do not care about being part of this. Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all,” the Pentagon intelligence asset told Seif Gadhafi and his adviser on the recordings.

Communication was so torn between the Libyan regime and the State Department that they had no point of contact within the department to even communicate whether they were willing to accept the U.N.’s mandates, former Libyan officials said.

Mrs. Clinton eventually named Mr. Cretz as the official U.S. point of contact for the Gadhafi regime. Mr. Cretz, the former ambassador to Libya, was removed from the country in 2010 amid Libyan anger over derogatory comments he made regarding Gadhafi released by Wikileaks. As a result, Mr. Cretz was not trusted or liked by the family.

Shutting the Gadhafis out of the conversation allowed Mrs. Clinton to pursue a solitary point of view, said a senior Pentagon official directly involved with the intervention.

“The decision to invade [Libya] had already been made, so everything coming out of the State Department at that time was to reinforce that decision,” the official explained, speaking only on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.

As a result, the Pentagon went its own way and established communications with Seif Gadhafi through one of his friends, a U.S. businessman, who acted as an intermediary. The goal was to identify a clear path and strategy forward in Libya — something that wasn’t articulated by the White House or State Department at the time, officials said.

“Our big thing was: ‘What’s a good way out of this, what’s a bridge to post-Gadhafi conflict once the military stops and the civilians take over, what’s it going to look like?’” said a senior military official involved in the planning, who requested anonymity. “We had a hard time coming up with that because once again nobody knew what the lay of the clans and stuff was going to be.

“The impression we got from both the businessman and from Seif was that the situation is bad, but this [NATO intervention] is even worse,” the official said, confirming the sentiments expressed on the audio recordings. “All of these things don’t have to happen this way, and it will be better for Libya in the long run both economically and politically if they didn’t.”

Pentagon looks for a way out

The Pentagon wasn’t alone in questioning the intervention.

The week the U.N. resolution authorizing military force was passed, Sen. Jim Webb, Virginia Democrat, expressed his own concerns.

“We have a military operation that’s been put to play, but we do not have a clear diplomatic policy or clear statement of foreign policy. We know we don’t like the Gadhafi regime, but we do not have a picture of who the opposition movement really is. We got a vote from the Security Council but we had five key abstentions in that vote.”

Five of the 15 countries on the U.N. Security Council abstained from voting on the decision in Libya because they had concerns that the NATO intervention would make things worse. Mrs. Clinton worked to avoid having them exercise their veto by personally calling representatives from Security Council member states.

Germany and Brazil published statements on March 18, 2011, explaining their reasons for abstention.

“We weighed the risks of a military operation as a whole, not just for Libya but, of course, also with respect to the consequences for the entire region and that is why we abstained,” Germany said.

Brazil wrote, “We are not convinced that the use of force as contemplated in the present resolution will lead to the realization of our most important objective — the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians.

We are also concerned that such measures may have the unintended effect of exacerbating tensions on the ground and causing more harm than good to the very same civilians we are committed to protecting.”

Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., told The Times that history has proved those concerns correct.

“The U.N. Security Council resolution on Libya was meant to create a no-fly zone to prevent bombing of civilians,” said Mr. Kislyak. “NATO countries that participated in this intervention were supposed to patrol the area. However, in a short amount of time the NATO flights — initially meant to stop violence on the ground — went far beyond the scope of the Security Council-mandated task and created even more violence in Libya.”

On March 19, the U.S. military, supported by France and Britain, fired off more than 110 Tomahawk missiles, hitting about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets. Within weeks, a NATO airstrike killed one of Gaddafi’s sons and three grandsons at their the family’s Tripoli compound, sparking debate about whether the colonel and his family were legitimate targets under the U.N. resolution.

Mr. Gates, the defense secretary, said the compound was targeted because it included command-and-control facilities.

Even after the conflict began, U.S. military leaders kept looking for a way out and a way to avoid the power vacuum that would be left in the region if Gadhafi fell.

As the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs kept his contacts going, one U.S. general made an attempt to negotiate directly with his Libyan military counterparts, according to interviews conducted by The Times with officials directly familiar with the overture.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. African Command, sought to set up a 72-hour truce with the regime, according to an intermediary called in to help.

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, who was acting as a business consultant in Libya at the time, said he was approached by senior Libyan military leaders to propose the truce. He took the plan to Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, the U.S. AFRICOM point of contact for Libya. Col. Linvill passed the proposal to Gen. Ham, who agreed to participate.

“The Libyans would stop all combat operations and withdraw all military forces to the outskirts of the cities and assume a defensive posture. Then to insure the credibility with the international community, the Libyans would accept recipients from the African Union to make sure the truce was honored,” Mr. Kubic said, describing the offers.

“[Gadhafi] came back and said he was willing to step down and permit a transition government, but he had two conditions,” Mr. Kubic said. “First was to insure there was a military force left over after he left Libya capable to go after al Qaeda. Secondly, he wanted to have the sanctions against him and his family and those loyal to him lifted and free passage. At that point in time, everybody thought that was reasonable.”

But not the State Department.

Gen. Ham was ordered to stand down two days after the negotiation began, Mr. Kubic said. The orders were given at the behest of the State Department, according to those familiar with the plan in the Pentagon. Gen. Ham declined to comment when questioned by The Times.

“If their goal was to get Gadhafi out of power, then why not give a 72-hour truce a try?” Mr. Kubic asked. “It wasn’t enough to get him out of power; they wanted him dead.”

Libyan officials were willing to negotiate a departure from power but felt the continued NATO bombings were forcing the regime into combat to defend itself, the recordings indicated.

“If they put us in a corner, we have no choice but to fight until the end,” Mr. Ismael said on one of the recordings. “What more can they do? Bomb us with a nuclear bomb? They have done everything.”

Under immense foreign firepower, the Gadhafi regime’s grip on Libya began to slip in early April and the rebels’ resolve was strengthened. Gadhafi pleaded with the U.S. to stop the NATO airstrikes.

Regime change real agenda

Indeed, the U.S. position in Libya had changed. First, it was presented to the public as way to stop an impending humanitarian crisis but evolved into expelling the Gadhafis.

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta says in his book “Worthy Fights” that the goal of the Libyan conflict was for regime change. Mr. Panetta wrote that at the end of his first week as secretary of defense in July 2011, he visited Iraq and Afghanistan “for both substance and symbolism.”

“In Afghanistan I misstated our position on how fast we’d be bringing troops home, and I said what everyone in Washington knew, but we couldn’t officially acknowledge: That our goal in Libya was regime change.”

But that wasn’t the official war cry.

Instead: “It was ‘We’re worried a humanitarian crisis might occur,’” said a senior military official, reflecting on the conflict. “Once you’ve got everybody nodding up and down on that, watch out because you can justify almost anything under the auspices of working to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Gadhafi had enough craziness about him, the rest of the world nodded on.”

But they might not be so quick to approve again, officials say.

“It may be impossible to get the same kind of resolution in similar circumstances, and we already saw that in Syria where the Russians were very suspicious when Western powers went to the U.N.,” said Richard Northern, who served as the British ambassador to Libya during part of the conflict. “Anything the Western powers did in the Middle East is now viewed by the Russians with suspicion, and it will probably reduce the level of authority they’re willing to give in connection to humanitarian crises.”

Mr. Kucinich, who took several steps to end the war in Libya, said he is sickened about what transpired.

He sponsored a June 3 resolution in the House of Representatives to end the Libyan war, but Republican support for the bill was diluted after Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, proposed a softer alternative resolution demanding that the president justify his case for war within 14 days.

“There was a distortion of events that were occurring in Libya to justify an intervention which was essentially wrong and illegal because [the administration] gained the support of the U.N. Security Council through misrepresentation,” said Mr. Kucinich. “The die was cast there for the overthrow of the Gadhafi government. The die was cast. They weren’t looking for any information.

“What’s interesting about all this is, if you listen to Seif Gaddafi’s account, even as they were being bombed they still trusted America, which really says a lot,” said Mr. Kucinich. “It says a lot about how people who are being bombed through the covert involvement or backdoor involvement of the U.S. will still trust the U.S. It’s heart-breaking, really. It really breaks your heart when you see trust that is so cynically manipulated.”

In August, Gadhafi’s compound in Tripoli was overrun, signaling the end of his 42-year reign and forcing him into hiding. Two months later, Gadhafi, 69, was killed in his hometown of Sirte. His son Seif was captured by the Zintan tribe and remains in solitary confinement in a Zintan prison cell.

Since Gadhafi was removed from power, Libya has been in a constant state of chaos, with factional infighting and no uniting leader. On Tuesday, an attack on a luxury hotel in Tripoli killed nine people, including one American. A group calling itself the Islamic State-Tripoli Province took responsibility for the attack, indicating a growing presence of anti-American terrorist groups within the country.

SO NOW THEY GET LIBYA TO FALL AND THE TERRORISTS TAKE OVER. NO W HILLARY CLINTON AND OBAMA CAN MOVE ARMS TO THE SYRIAN REBELS THROUGH BENGHAZI SO THEY SEND THE AMBASSADOR INTO BENGHAZI TO MEET SECRETLY WITH THE TURKISH AMBASSADOR... 

The story picks up from here...

Saturday, May 18, 2013

GUN RUNNING TO SYRIAN REBELS... DO NOT LET THESE FACTS BE HIDDEN... President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus were part of a gun-trafficking program to ARM SYRIAN REBELS...that ended up arming the radical jihadist rebels who stormed the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on that fateful day.

BENGHAZIGATE: 1000 times BIGGER THAN IRAN CONTRA....Obama’s Secret Gun-Running Program is what the State Run Media and Obama do not want you to know about!

THE IRS AND AP STORIES WERE LEAKED TO COVER-UP THIS STORY!! SHARE AND SPREAD THE INFO.

The Obama Cabal was running guns to Syrian Rebels.

But liberals feign ignorance when the rebels they arm end up being criminals who kill innocent Americans like the late U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

Obama was packed off to a safe room so that he could have "plausible deniability"..  if the shit hit the fan. It did!

Hell... this Man who sat in the situation room for photo op pictures ran off to Las Vegas for a find raiser without checking in as to what is happening???

REALLY  How dumb do they think we are?

  UPDATED INFO MAY 2014:

The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

TRANSCRIPTS SHOW THAT OBAMA AND HILLARY AND THEIR NASTY CABAL LIED:

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward. 
Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing -- in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing -- occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief. 
According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham -- who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 -- said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center. 
"My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey's office, to say, 'Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,'" Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. "I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta."
Ham's account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under "Top Secret" clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America's national security apparatus, all the way up to the president. 
Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous "happenstance" that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, "they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House." Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.
Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee's hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.
Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night -- as Obama's hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch -- that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue. 
"In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta," McKeon asked, "was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?" Ham initially testified that there was some "peripheral" discussion of this subject, but added "at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for."
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that "the nature of the conversation" he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that "this was a terrorist attack." 
The transcript reads as follows: 

WENSTRUP: "As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack." 

HAM: "Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack." 

WENSTRUP: "And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?" 

HAM: "Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir." 

Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that "there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi." "Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?" asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. "There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta replied.
Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately -- from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts -- that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive "tick-tock" of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: "What in all of these events that you've described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?" 
"That is a question that you would have to ask others," replied one of the senior officials. "That was not our conclusion."
Ham's declassified testimony further underscores that Obama's earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for Benghazi. 
The day after the attacks, which marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since 1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show "The View," when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been "an act of terrorism," the president hedged, saying: "Well, we're still doing an investigation." 
The declassified transcripts show that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to label the incident a terrorist attack. In a classified session on July 31 of last year, Westrup raised the question with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM's Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region. 
Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to "a considerable event unfolding in Libya." Bristol's next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that "there was a fight going on" at the consulate compound.

WESTRUP: "So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -" 

BRISTOL: "Yes, sir." 

WENSTRUP: "-- on the United States?" 

BRISTOL: "Yes, sir. ... We referred to it as the attack."

Staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, and are close to issuing what they call an "interim" report on the affair. Fox News reported in October their preliminary conclusion that U.S. forces on the night of the Benghazi attacks were postured in such a way as to make military rescue or intervention impossible -- a finding that buttresses the claims of Dempsey and other senior Pentagon officials.
While their investigation continues, staffers say they still want to question Panetta directly. But the former defense secretary, now retired, has resisted such calls for additional testimony. 
"He is in the president's Cabinet," said Rep. Martha Roby R-Ala., chair of the panel that collected the testimony, of Panetta. "The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what's going on, and I honestly think that that's why you have seen -- beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans' lives -- is that  the American people feel misled." 
"Leon Panetta should have spoken up," agreed Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush and now a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have." 
Neither Panetta's office nor the White House responded to Fox News' requests for comment.

 

Why did Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans die in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012? We now know that President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus were likely behind a mishandled gun-trafficking program that ended up arming the radical jihadist rebels who stormed the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on that fateful day.
Our CIA is still playing the role of vetting which Syrian rebel groups will obtain arms including machine guns, ammunition, and rocket-propelled grenades. While Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are directly purchasing the weaponry, the Obama administration is aiding the Arab governments in shopping for these arms and transferring them from Libya, to Turkey, and finally into Syria.
Unfortunately the CIA has “vetted” shady intermediaries (including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood) and shady recipients of thousands of tons worth of military equipment and millions of rounds of ammo. Consequently, weapons have fallen into the wrong hands. In the case of Benghazi, anti-tank weapons appear to have landed in the hands of terrorists.
Now, Clinton is denying even knowing about the program, although the evidence indicates it was largely her idea. Of course everything happened under Obama’s watch and the buck stops with him. The story of Obama’s gun-running program in Benghazi is long and multifarious, so I will break down the timeline for you:
May 26, 2012: Stevens arrives in Tripoli, the capitol city of Libya and sets up camp at the U.S. embassy.
Last summer, Clinton first proposed a plan to then-CIA Director David Petraeus to partner on a gun-trafficking program to arm the Syrian resistance and “vet the rebel groups, and train fighters who would be supplied with weapons,” according to The New York Times.
June of 2012: The New York Times reports that the CIA is operating a secret arms transfer program that sounds exactly like the plan Clinton developed with Petraeus. Suddenly, there is: “…an influx of weapons and ammunition to the rebels.”
September 5, 2012: A Libyan ship called Al Entisar (“The Victory”) docks in the Turkish port of Iskenderun, carrying 400 tons of cargo including many weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) destined for Syrian rebels 35 miles away from Iskenderun. The ship’s captain told the Times of London that the Muslim Brotherhood and the free Syrian Army broke into a fight over the arms.
September 10, 2012: Stevens arrives in Benghazi, Libya, the location of the U.S. consulate. About a mile away from the consulate, is the CIA annex. Stevens planned to stay at the consulate for five days. His visit was supposed to be secret, but Libya-based extremists somehow learned of his arrival.
September 11, 2012: Stevens has an unusual meeting with Turkish diplomat Consul General Ali Sait Akin. Fox News reported that the meeting was “…to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham confirmed on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report with Bret Baier” that Stevens was in Libya to specifically control a situation: “…where the action was regarding the rising Islamic extremists who were trying to get their hands on weapons that were flowing freely in Libya…”
9:40 p.m. (Libya time): Libyan rebels launched and organized an armed attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
10:04 p.m. CIA base chief at the nearby CIA annex calls for help including 50-caliber machine guns and vehicles from the Libyan intelligence, the 17 February Brigade and other Libyan militias. After 24 minutes of calls and no response, the CIA base chief takes a small team of seven people to the consulate. They were too late to save Stevens, but were able to save some State Department personnel.
11:56 p.m. CIA officers and the State Department members are seeking safety back at the CIA annex. There, rebels attack them with rocket-propelled grenades. Fighting continues on until 5:26 a.m.
6:00 a.m. Libyan forces suddenly arrive to “aid” the American team with 50 vehicles.
It is odd that the annex was attacked with same sort of weapons on the Libyan ship and that Stevens was reportedly in Benghazi to manage some sort of arms transfer.
Sen. Rand Paul said on Aaron Klein Radio: “First of all with regard to Benghazi, I think it’s important [to determine more about the apparent gun-running program] because it may have something to do with why the compound was attacked. If we were involved with shipping guns to Turkey, there was a report that a ship left from Libya towards Turkey and that there were arms on it in the week preceding this [attack]; there were reports that our ambassador was meeting with the Turkish attaché, so I think with regards to figuring out what happened at Benghazi, it’s very important to know whether or not the CIA annex had anything to do with facilitating guns being sent to Turkey and ultimately to Syria. With regard to arming the rebels, just this week in the armed services committee, General Dempsey, the [Chairman of the] Joint Chiefs of Staff said that we were no longer able to distinguish who the good guys were from the bad guys and that sounds pretty worrisome if we are actually arming people who in the end may be enemies of America…enemies of Israel… enemies maybe of the Christians who live within Syria...sending arms to a rebel force to that may include Al-Nusra and other radical jihadists.”
Here’s my take: Obama’s gun-running program failed to properly vet the rebels. Clinton most likely launched the gun program, expected Stevens to oversee it and then her weapons likely landed in the hands of al-Qaida affiliates who killed Stevens and three other Americans. This is a tragic failure of foreign policy and diplomacy under Obama’s watch. Obama  is trying desperately to cover it all up!!
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Obama régime has been running guns and armaments and munitions to the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate jihadist groups, including heat-seeking shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles designed to shoot down jetliners. The American Mission in Libya was apparently trying to buy back man-portable anti-aircraft missiles that the Obama Régime sold or gave to the Muslim Brotherhood and then went "missing." The Administration was also trying to buy back weapons previously owned by the Gaddafi Régime that spread everywhere after the "revolution."

Peter Bouckaert, Human Rights Watch emergencies director, told CNN he has seen the same pattern in armories looted elsewhere in Libya, noting that "in every city we arrive, the first thing to disappear are the surface-to-air missiles." He said such missiles can fetch many thousands of dollars on the black market. "We are talking about some 20,000 surface-to-air missiles in all of Libya, and I've seen cars packed with them." he said. [...] The United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to buy them back [...]

“The rebels came from all over the western mountains, and they just took what they wanted,” said Riyad, a supervisor of the ruined arsenal’s small contingent of rebel guards.

A report by the UN Support Mission in Libya (PDF) said that Gaddafi had accumulated a large stockpile of MANPADs, and that although thousands were "destroyed" during the 2011 military intervention in Libya, there were "increasing concerns over the looting and likely proliferation of these portable defence systems, as well as munitions and mines, highlighting the potential risk to local and regional stability." As soon as islamic organizations outside Libya realized that there were Manpads available, they tried to get them.
When the Obama Régime discovered that thousands of MANPADs had "disappeared" and were "on the loose in Libya" it turned around and stuck a LOT of cash in the CIA "annex", or "safehouse" in order to BUY those weapons back. (I wrote about the CIA annex here.)
Fox News Bureau Chief of Intelligence Catherine Herridge said that the role being played by the U.S. Mission in Libya is to control the movement of weapons out of Libya to Syrian rebels fighting to bring down the Bashar Al-Assad régime. The Benghazi mission played a key role in “engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East,” said the president of the Center for Security Policy. From there, we can infer that Ghadaffi was overthrown in order to use Libya as the doorway to get the arms in for distribution to Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt and eventually Saudi Arabia. Especially Syria, for now.
That's the big picture.
The State Department and the CIA were somehow, some way running or heavily involved in this armament pipeline. But what was Stevens' function inside this apparatus? What do we know about it? I suggest that we use this thread to aggregate facts, data and sources in order to help answering that question.
Only when we will get to see more clearly what role Stevens played in the running of this armament pipeline (to the incipient Caliphate) will we begin to learn "Why the Obama régime wanted him dead?," or at least:
a) Why was the security protection for the Benghazi Mission prior to the 9/11 anniversary attack stripped?, and
b) Why did the Obama régime refuse to send (or even permit) local help on the night of the attack.
How did Ambassador Stevens help in the gun and armament running?
We know that Benghazi was staffed by CIA operatives, working for the State Department, whose job was a) to secure and destroy dangerous weapons (like RPGs and SAMs) looted from Gaddafi’s stockpiles during and after the 2011 revolution, and b) to facilitate the onward shipment of those weapons to Syria.
Was Ambassador Stevens' job to cover for all of this?
We know that Obama signed an intelligence finding in early 2012 authorizing U.S. support for the Syrian rebels, and that this summer CIA operatives were on the Turkish-Syrian border helping to steer weapons deliveries to selected Syrian rebel groups, most of them “hard-line Islamic jihadists.”
One of those jihadis was Abdelhakim Belhadj.

Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, "met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey," said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. "Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there. -- Ruth Sherlock in Tripoli, 27 Nov 2011, for the Telegraph

Belhadj’s contact with the Syrian Free Army was part of a Lybian delegation to Turkey offering arms and fighters to the Turkish-backed Syrian jihadis.

The Daily Telegraph on Saturday [November 26 2011] revealed that the new Libyan authorities had offered money and weapons to the growing insurgency against Bashar al-Assad. Mr Belhaj also discussed sending Libyan fighters to train troops, the source said. Having ousted one dictator, triumphant young men, still filled with revolutionary fervour, are keen to topple the next. The commanders of armed gangs still roaming Tripoli's streets said yesterday that "hundreds" of fighters wanted to wage war against the Assad regime.

So we have the United-States, Libya and Turkey working together with and through Al-Qaeda-linked jihadists like Belhadj to get weapons into the hands of Syrian rebels, known to be dominated by Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
We know also that a Libyan-flagged vessel, Al-Entisar, docked at the Turkish port of Iskanderun on September 6, 2012.

A mysterious Libyan ship [the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means "The Victory,"] -- reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels -- [...] was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun -- 35 miles from the Syrian border -- on Sept. 6 [...] On the night of Sept. 11, [Ambassador] 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.
[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.
[...] 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. [...]
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."
[...] 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."
[...] 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." [...]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/

The group accused of moving the weapons is the Foundation for Human Rights, and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH).
U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens’ last meeting in Benghazi the night he was killed was with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, who is reported to have been there to discuss a weapons transfer or a warning about the possible compromise of the Libyan weapons pipeline to Syria. Whatever the topic of Ambassador Stevens’ discussion with Akin, he clearly and knowingly put himself in harm’s way to be there, in Benghazi, on the night of September 11.


NOW YOU KNOW HOW HILLARY AND OBAMA TIE INTO THIS BIG BLOODY MESS!!

NOW YOU ALSO KNOW WHY GENERAL PETRAEUS IS BEING BLACKMAILED INTO SILENCE ...BECAUSE HE KNOW!!

REVOLT PATRIOTS...

THIS IS A  DEEPER BLOOD Y MESS THAN YOU KNOW!!

BREAKING NEWS: OBAMA IRS EXPOSED FOR CORRUPT ANTI CONSERVATIVE PRACTICES. IT MUST BE ABOLISHED.

Obama IRS Obstructs Justice?
NO!!! REALLY !!!

I HAVE BEEN CALLING FOR THE ABOLISHMENT OF THE IRS...YOU CANNOT HAVE A BIASED TAX COLLECTION AGENCY THAT LOOKS THE OTHER WAY FOR OBAMA SUPPORTERS LIKE AL SHARPTON AND JESSE JACKSON..

AND ATTACKS THE POLITICAL OPPOSITION

Well this one doesn't come as a surprise, but it does demonstrate that justice delayed can be justice denied. We have just obtained new internal documents from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that show how the IRS Office of the Chief Counsel worked to delay a meeting between an IRS employee and DOJ and FBI investigators about the Obama IRS abuse and harassment of Tea Party and conservative groups and individuals who were in the way of Barack Obama's reelection effort.

To help you with a timeline, it was in May 2013 that the Treasury Inspector for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released an audit report confirming that the IRS used "inappropriate" criteria to identify, hamstring, and handcuff conservative organizations that stand in opposition to Team Obama. Put simply, the agency violated the First Amendment rights of countless Americans just as Obama sought reelection.  As further confirmation of the criminality of Obama's IRS abuse, in 2014, Lois Lerner, the former Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit that was "suppression central" for the tax agency, was held in contempt of Congress after refusing to testify at a congressional hearing about the agency's witch hunts. (The Holder Justice Department has yet to prosecute this contempt charges.)

This latest batch of emails, which were released in response to just one of our several FOIA lawsuits against the DOJ, provide the first window into the criminal investigation of the alleged IRS abuses.  The emails detail the involvement of the DOJ's Public Integrity Section, which JW was first to expose as being part of a scheme to work with the IRS to prosecute groups and individuals critical of the Obama administration. The documents show the IRS scandal is only getting worse and that the IRS Counsel's office, which is operated by an Obama appointee, has been, once again, stonewalling any serious investigation.

For starters, the emails show that on June 12, 2013, the lawyer for a cooperating IRS employee witness in Cincinnati complained to a Justice Department prosecutor about the IRS Counsel's office delaying approval of a meeting between the IRS employee and Justice Department prosecutors:                     

...we find it amazing that they didn't immediately respond giving us the green light to meet with you.

So, that's not a very encouraging sign.

The DOJ prosecutor wanted to know who the contact in the IRS Counsel's office was and wrote back, "Let's talk in am if they don't get back to you. Thanks." 

Though investigators wanted to meet quickly, the emails show it was nearly a month before the unnamed IRS employee met to proffer evidence to two Justice Department prosecutors, two FBI officials, and an investigator from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. The proffer session seems to have taken place in the IRS's Cincinnati office on July 11, 2013, and included the IRS employee's attorney, who the documents suggests works at the Cincinnati area law firm of Adams, Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing, PLLC.  The documents detail that the proffer took place after a Garrity immunity waiver was secured for the IRS witness. This matters because Garrity immunity assures the right of public employees not to be compelled to incriminate themselves.  

And why is the Obama DOJ is quick to give an Obama IRS employee immunity one of the most significant scandals of the Obama era?   One can't have confidence in this decision-making because the Obama Justice Department has a massive conflict of interest that undermines public confidence in its ability to pursue justice in this matter.

The most obvious conflict is evident in the fact that the DOJ's Public Integrity Section was investigating the IRS scandal only a month after it reached out to Lois Lerner about prosecuting targeted tax-exempt entities!

And then there is Barbara Bosserman, who is an attorney at the Civil Rights Division who has been reported to be leading the IRS investigation at DOJ.  She's not exactly, a detached dispassionate figure here. According to Federal Election Commission records, Bosserman contributed $6,750 to Obama's campaigns and the DNC from 2004 to 2012, including 12 separate contributions to Obama for America between 2008 and 2012.  As I told you last week, the Obama administration is desperately fighting us in federal to cover up even the most basic information about her role in the investigation.

Then there's William J. Wilkins, the chief counsel for the IRS, who is a political appointee of President Obama's.  Wilkins was a former Democratic staffer in the U.S Senate, a donor to Democratic candidates and committees, and was a lobbyist for several years.  Guess which office is key in the ongoing IRS cover-up that Judicial Watch is successfully fighting through multiple federal lawsuits?  The IRS Counsel's office.  And guess whose lawyers are representing and defending the IRS cover-ups in these same federal lawsuits?  The Justice Department!   All with your tax-dollars, of course.

Recall that the May 14, 2013, Treasury Inspector General report that revealed that the IRS had singled out groups with conservative-sounding terms such as "patriot" and "Tea Party" in their titles when applying for tax-exempt status details that the "Chief Counsel" was involved in the IRS's Tea Party and conservative targeting.

In this second "rolling production," the DOJ also released 34 pages of heavily redacted emails, while admitting that it had reviewed 938 pages of responsive records related to its contacts with the IRS concerning the criminal prosecution of targeted tax exempt entities.

The DOJ claimed that 904 pages were exempted from release for one of the following reasons:  a) contains tax return information; b) deliberative process and attorney work-product privilege; and c) unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of third parties. An additional 55 pages are currently being reviewed by the FBI for processing and response.

Despite these redactions, the new documents do provide us with important details and insight into what DOJ officials were examining and the nature of the documents it wanted from the IRS witness in question here.

On July 12, 2013, the DOJ attorney (whose name is blacked out) emails:

We appreciate receiving the time line related to the "TAG spreadsheet" and "BOLO" that [REDACTED-BLACKED OUT] prepared. As we stated, that time line will be covered by the proffer agreement she Executed yesterday.,,,

we would also appreciate obtaining the email communications that you obtained from [REDACTED-BLACKED OUT] pertaining to the 501(c)-application issues we discussed yesterday, i.e., the public allegations that the IRS "targeted" certain groups based on their political viewpoints, in particular groups associated with the 'Tea Party." As I explained yesterday, due to the filter procedures we have in place, could you please divide the communications into two groups, those dated before and those dated on or after March 1, 2012? To the extent practical, the emails dated on or after March 1, 2012, should be placed in a sealed envelope or otherwise clearly separated from the first batch (i.e., if they are scanned and emailed, please do so in separate files). To the extent any of these applications contain taxpayer information, return information, and/or taxpayer return information, the Department of Justice and the FBI have referral authority under 18 U.S.C. 6103(h) to view this information by virtue of our participation in a joint investigation with TIGTA.

We don't know why the emails needed to be filtered. And we don't know what the witnesses shared with investigators. We do know this "investigation" is an ugly mess and it is no surprise that, after nearly two years, the criminal investigation of the Obama IRS by its co-conspirators at the Obama Justice Department is a farce.

From Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch.

ABOLISH THE IRS NOW

Learn About General James Mattis... Legendary Marine General.

17 Brilliant Insights From Legendary Marine General James Mattis.

We Need him to lead our country.

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis is a legend in the military. Revered by Marines and non-Marines alike, Mattis has taken on the persona of a modern-day Patton — having the knowledge and insight to lead his Marines through combat, while standing behind them and taking the heat if things go bad. In short, Mattis is a hell of a leader.
In 2013 while serving as commander of Central Command in Tampa, Fla., Mattis retired after four decades of service. Since then, he’s been teaching at Stanford and Dartmouth, as well as speaking across the country on leadership. He’s also working on a book with author Bing West.
We looked back at some of the best insights he offered, through a great collection of quotes. Most apply strictly to military service, but some can be just as useful in the corporate boardroom.

“You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad.”

The “dream world” Mattis is talking about is one of denial and complacency — a mood in combat that can get you killed. And in corporate America, it can get you wiped out by the competition.

“If in order to kill the enemy you have to kill an innocent, don’t take the shot. Don’t create more enemies than you take out by some immoral act.”

Mattis, who co-wrote the manual for Counterinsurgency with Gen. David Petraeus, knows well that troops cannot win over the population to their side if they are killing the wrong people. His advice here to soldiers and Marines is spot on.

“I don’t lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word.”

Of course he can spell it but that’s not the point. Mattis wants to impress upon his troops that failure should not be an option.

“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

Before his Marines deployed to Iraq in 2003, he told them this (along with many other great pieces of advice in a now-famous letter). His point here is to be a professional warfighter who can be polite with civilians, but always remember that if things go south, the dirty work needs to get done.

“The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some sh–heads in the world that just need to be shot. There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim.”

Recalling the mentality of the wolf, the sheep, and the sheepdog, Mattis understands that there is evil in the world. It’s important for his men to be prepared for whether they will be the hunter or the victim if they ever face it.

“There are some people who think you have to hate them in order to shoot them. I don’t think you do. It’s just business.”

One of his more controversial quotes, to be sure. But in Mattis’ view, to be a professional, you need to have a professional mindset. It’s not really necessary to get emotional about what you have to do. It just needs to get done.

“You can overcome wrong technology. Your people have the initiative, they see the problem, no big deal … you can’t overcome bad culture. You’ve gotta change whoever is in charge.”

In a talk at Stanford, Mattis was relating how toxic culture can bring down an organization that has everything else right. The culture of an organization comes from the top, and if that part is screwed up, there are going to be problems.

“The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.”

Mattis doesn’t want robots just mindlessly following his orders. As a leader, he gives broad guidance and lets his men use their own brains to decide how it gets accomplished.

“Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”

Amen.

“In this age, I don’t care how tactically or operationally brilliant you are, if you cannot create harmony — even vicious harmony — on the battlefield based on trust across service lines, across coalition and national lines, and across civilian/military lines, you need to go home, because your leadership is obsolete. We have got to have officers who can create harmony across all those lines.”

Mattis implores his officers to not get stuck in their own little boxes. Learning how to be brilliant on the battlefield is important, but it’s more important to be able to work with others to get the job done.

“PowerPoint makes us stupid.”

Military officers endure (and have to create) tons of PowerPoint briefings to inform their chain of command what’s going on. Mattis however, is not one of those officers. He actually banned PowerPoint since he saw it as a waste of time.

“You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”

Mattis wants his Marines to always be thinking before they take the shot. It’s advice that has no doubt saved lives.

“An untrained or uneducated Marine … deployed to the combat zone is a bigger threat to mission accomplishment … than the enemy.”

The biggest detriment to mission accomplishment is not from the competition, but from within. Having the right mindset and skills is what results in getting results.

“No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”

Combat doesn’t happen in a vacuum. All the planning, meetings, and briefings on what potentially can happen in a given situation are good, but the bad guys will always react in uncertain ways. The key is to be prepared for anything.

“Be the hunter, not the hunted: Never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down.”

Just because you are at the top of your game doesn’t mean someone won’t come along to knock you down. Units (and individuals) need to be vigilant and make sure that doesn’t happen.

“Ultimately, a real understanding of history means that we face NOTHING new under the sun.”

Mattis is an avid reader. On all his deployments, the general brought along a ton of books that he thought may help him along the way. In an email that went viral (via Business Insider) on the importance of reading, Mattis wrote that it “doesn’t give me all the answers, but it lights what is often a dark path ahead.”

“You’ve been told that you’re broken. That you’re damaged goods … there is also Post-Traumatic Growth. You come back from war stronger and more sure of who you are.”

While giving a speech to veterans in San Francisco, Mattis tried to dispel the mindset that those leaving the service should be pitied. Instead, he told them, use your experiences as a positive that teaches you to be a better person.

Chris Kyle Killer was a Muslim Jihadi Bounty Hunter. How to profile a Islamic Terrorist

The Man Who Murdered Chris Kyle, The American Sniper, Should Be Profiled As A Suspected Muslim Jihadist (AMERICANS NEED TO START LEARNING HOW TO PROFILE MUSLIMS)

  UPDATE 2/8/2015

Jury selection is continuing for a second day in the murder trial of Eddie Ray Routh, the 27-year-old former Marine accused of killing “American Sniper” Chris Kyle at a gun range near Chalk Mountain, Texas, in February 2013.
After four tours of duty in Iraq, Kyle had returned to the United States and tried to help troubled veterans by taking them to shooting ranges where he could work and talk with them as a form of therapy.
It was during one such outing that the Navy SEAL known as America’s deadliest sniper, along with his friend Chad Littlefield, were shot and killed, allegedly by Routh, who suddenly turned on the pair and began firing.

Routh has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, with his legal team indicating it will use a diagnosis of PTSD — Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder — in the accused killer’s defense.
But did the former Marine snap and start shooting, or was there something else behind the killing of one of America’s celebrated military heroes?
Chris Kyle’s widow and others are now questioning whether PTSD actually played a part in Routh’s actions, especially in light of new information dug up by a veterans’ organization.

As Business Insider reports: “‘Someone taking the lives of two people that were there to help them — that’s not PTSD, in my opinion,’ Kyle’s widow, Taya, told ABC News.”

And as Michele Hickford reports on the Allen West website, The Warfighter Foundation, a non-profit veterans group, has obtained information from the military showing that “it is highly unlikely Routh suffered from PTSD because he never served in battle.”
From The Warfighter Foundation:

“Eddie Routh served one tour in Iraq in 2007…with no significant events. No combat experience.
Let me say that again, he NEVER SAW COMBAT or any aspect of traumatic events associated with a combat deployment (i.e. incoming mortar or rocket fire). He never left the base, EVER.”

The post on the Allen West site also notes that Routh reportedly served as a prison guard overseeing Muslim terrorists captured on the battlefield. According to a noted watchdog on Islamist extremism, Walid Shoebat, that interaction could have led to Routh’s becoming sympathetic to the prisoners’ point of view.

Making it clear that there is no proof of Routh’s alignment with or possible conversion to Islam, Shoebat does say:

“During a phone call with his father, Routh expressed sympathy for the detainees and discontent over how the US was conducting the war as well as his reluctance to engage in combat” and “While working as a guard at Balad Air Base, Routh laments his [Muslim] prisoners’ poor living conditions.”

Another interesting fact noted on the West website is what one sees on the booking photo of Eddie Ray Routh when he was charged with killing Chris Kyle.
That picture from the Erath County, Texas, Sheriff’s Department shows the suspect with facial hair similar to that worn by many devout Muslim men.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/photo-chris-kyles-accused-killer-raising-huge-question-motive/#APTVFKb4qP6ye4Az.99

By Shoebat Foundation 

By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Exclusive)
When we evaluate cases for potential Muslim terrorists, we always look for physical signs like a trimmed mustache and a beard that is lesser trimmed. And when it comes to a crime that was committed, we look at who the victims are. In  the story on Eddie Routh who murdered Chris Kyle, there are signs of concern, especially the facial hair, it does match the profile of a convert.

Mugshot of Eddie Routh

Eddie Routh. Notice the trimmed mustache.

Also, Routh was a prison guard over Muslim terrorists at Bilad Airbase in Baghdad in 2007. He never served in battle, but spent most of his time looking and talking to Muslims in jail. He could have likely interacted with the inmates and got converted; prison has a higher conversion rate than any mosque. Also,  why would he kill a Navy seal who was known to have killed so many terrorists?
Although there needs to be more investigations to prove that Routh converted to Islam, the possibilities are there. After all, there could be a motive to kill Kyle who became a wanted man for the Sunni insurgents he was targeting, had a price put on his head and was dubbed the Shaitan – devil – of Ramadi. That plus Kyle was an ‘Islamophobe’ who was open about his rightful hatred for Islam and the Quran. This makes him wanted.
Examining his killer gives also clues.  “During a phone call with his father, Routh expressed sympathy for the detainees and discontent over how the US was conducting the war as well as his reluctance to engage in combat” and “While working as a guard at Balad Air Base, Routh laments his [Muslim] prisoners’ poor living conditions”.
What the media says that Routh had Post Traumatic Disorder is simply untrue. According to The Warfighter Foundation:

“Eddie Routh served one tour in Iraq in 2007, at Balad Air Base (the 2nd largest U.S. installation in Iraq), with no significant events. No combat experience. Let me say that again, he NEVER SAW COMBAT or any aspect of traumatic events associated with a combat deployment (i.e. incoming mortar or rocket fire). He never left the base, EVER.”

The Warfighter Foundation, a nonprofit veterans group, filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain information about Routh’s service record. It was through the information they received that the group discovered Routh had not experienced any type of combat.

“[Routh] held a non-combat arms occupation of 2111 (Small Arms Repairer/ Technician or more commonly referred to as an Armorer),” the group reported. “Balad Air Base had a Pizza Hut, 24 hour Burger King, Subway, Popeye’s, Baskin Robbins, movie theater, and even a miniature golf course. It even had a strictly enforced 10 mile per hour speed limit!”

So what is all this hoopla about him having PTSD?
It is known fact that Routh’s family contacted Kyle about their son’s diminishing mental health. Routh was admitted to inpatient psychiatric treatment prior to the events at Rough Creek Ranch, according to a report from the Daily Mail. But at times even all this is meaningless. My father was diagnosed as bipolar and I warned the rest home who thought I was mad to say he was a dangerous Muslim fundamentalist until they one day had to call the police after he held patients as hostages because a black nurse refused to convert to Islam after his persistant attempts.

Fundamentalist get an excuse bill. My father obtained his papers of all sorts of mental disorders in order to get a retirement and to evade police. “Routh had been taken to a mental hospital twice in the past five months and told authorities that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, police records show,” the report says. One Pakistani terrorist in California used the same excuses after shooting Jews and they usually get away with it.
Further bolstering the rationale for expanded mental health screening and treatment is the case of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Prior to his enlistment in the Army, Bergdahl had been administratively separated from the Coast Guard for mental health reasons. Bergdahl disappeared from his command post in Afghanistan in 2008 and spent 5 years as a supposed Taliban prisoner of war. Yet we have proven beyond a shadow of doubt Bergdahl was a convert to Islam. He is no mental illness case.

ITS TIME WE PROFILE

In America, we profile folks mostly within a psychological framework and at times we miss crucial signs, that being infected with fundamental Islam is not some psychological illness, but that fundamental Islam can kill. Eddie Ray Routh murdered Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield in cold blood and now with the new information revealed that, while the gunman is said to have had serious mental health problems, so they say, PTSD was not among them, especially since he never served a day in combat.
However, major media outlets continue to beat the PTSD drum, adding to the stigma associated with PTSD and mental illness, to the detriment of America’s veterans and mental health care at large. The last thing on the radar of media is that Routh could have been a convert to Islam.
There are usually signs. We have maintained that Americans still need a lesson or two when it comes to the politically incorrect guide in profiling Muslims who could potentially be dangerous, especially now that more than a decade after 9/11 and with the latest terror attacks, Americans who come across anyone who has a turban, most, it was found out, mistake that person of being Muslim. So we decided to shed some light, yes, and we will write it in blunt fashion with no pun intended, on the politically incorrect guide to profiling Muslims. Americans by large are as naive as a kindergartner on his first day in school, who confuses Sikhs from India, who dress up in colorful huge turbans confusing them as Muslim fundamentalists. This is according to a study released this Monday.
Just as we profiled Routh, the simplest method we maintain in profiling a Muslim when it comes to headgear, is that a reversal of your projected image about Muslim headgear makes a better chance for a positive identification of your subject: the bigger the turban, the lesser chance that this man is a Muslim fundamentalist.
Fact is that Muslims dressing up in turbans is rare. It is usually an Imam of a mosque who usually wears a small skimpy turban.

This is NOT a Muslim

This is a Muslim Imam

Americans are lousy profilers since the study shows that a whopping 60% of Americans who participated in the study by the non-profit National Sikh Campaign admitted to knowing nothing about the Sikhs who live, study and work in their midst. The National Sikh Campaign commissioned its study, based on interviews with more than 1,100 Americans, as a starting point to raise public awareness of the Sikh community at the national and local levels.
When shown a photo of a smiling older Sikh male in a red turban, 28% of respondents thought he was Middle Eastern and 20% believed he was Muslim while 35% thought he might be from India, or of Indian descent, yet Only 11% correctly identified him as Sikh.
This is terrible. Americans are trained not to look at race or religion to the point that they become dumb to danger. Sikhs have been very much part of the American fabric and frankly speaking they are just tired of being the target of being mis-profiled and most probably would beg that Americans to get a dose on correct profiling Muslims. In the wake of the 911, Sikhs have found themselves targeted — with sometimes bloody results — by Americans who presume anyone in a turban must be a Muslim.
It is always important to look at certain signs in every crime to analyze if it was Islamic terrorism that is involved. First of all, a Muslim hardly dresses like an Indian Sikh. In fact, a Muslim religious dress code is closer to the dress of Jews rather than Sikhs. While religious Jews at times wear a little skull-cap, a religious Muslim also wears a skull-cap, but it is usually a little larger.
At times its confusing and unless you are a pro and an expert profiler, you could easily get confused. Profiling Muslims is as one profiles spiders and scorpions and the descriptions have to be given bluntly. With scorpions, like the turban size, the larger the claws, the lesser the venom. I once positively identified a Muslim threat from a listing of 300 or so names without even seeing them and the guy was caught and identified by the victim. Looks can be deceptive. Yemenis for example whether Muslim or Jew usually look alike except that the Jew has a custom in certain circles to allow the hair over the ears to grow, and hang down in curls or ringlets.

A Yemeni Muslim. This one is extremely toxic. One sting of this one can kill, it is estimated over one thousand women and children.

A Yemeni Jew. Harmless.

One main key in profiling a Muslim fundamentalist is that they usually trim the mustache and a Sikh is proud to just let it go as you see here:

No need to profile

I know that the next photo I used as a joke, nevertheless, the look is not far off, although the turban is rarely seen in reality.

Profile. Notice the trimmed mustache and the flat circular fashion turban.

A white large looking skullcap like this one is usually worn by Muslims, but with the trimmed mustache to go with it is a dead giveaway.

Always remember, a Muslim fundamentalist is mandated by Islam to trim the mustache. Also, do not get confused because someone looks European, millions of Muslims have a European look, but the rules are the same, so don’t let some baby face fool you; either a shaved or a trimmed mustache with an untrimmed beard and a certain attire or headpiece is a dead giveaway to highly be a Muslim fundamentalist.

Jihadist European Muslim with shaved mustache is a deadly yellow scorpion with a very toxic venom.

And although Routh doesn’t have everything to positively profile him 100%, another dead giveaway is to look at the forehead, if you notice a dark mark on the forehead which is caused by continual prostration on a prayer mat or a prayer rug, this is a clear sign. So a combination of a mark on the forehead, trimmed mustache and untrimmed beard is highly likely this person is a Muslim fundamentalist.

Extremely poisonous. Approach with great caution.

Yet even such signs do not mean its always a poisonous black widow, there is a chance that having such signs could mean that these species with these looks can sting and at times only when provoked. If you still want to find out, all one has to do is to show them a Charlie Hebdo cartoon or offer them to wear a crucifix and see how they react, its sort of like sprinkling holy water to a demon possessed individual, they react violently, but make sure you do it from a distance or while you have plenty of security around, especially at an airport.

But the rule of having a trimmed mustache and elongated beard at times could still be deceivig since this practice is not followed by all Muslim males who are slacking off, but still, this by no means this Muslim is peace-loving and even the mark on the forehead does not necessarily have a usual pattern and at times one could have several spots, sort of like a Mitsubishi logo, as you see this one Jew hater here, who does not even have a long beard but has the mark of an Antichrist Christian Jew hating demon:

A poison spewing Muslim fundamentalist. He is still lethal since he can either bight or spread his poison through the atmosphere and even in the airwaves.

But even if one has all three signs, a forehead mark, a trimmed mustache and an untrimmed beard, this by no mean he is the most dangerous. A Muslim with the forehead mark and with no beard or trimmed mustache is a dead giveaway that this is a stealth Jihadist who got rid of the two markers as to blend in the crowd.
Had Americans followed this simple technique alone, 911 would have been prevented. In the following photo of the 911 mastermind Muhammad Atta, notice his forehead somewhat has a darker pigment than the rest of his skin.

The most lethal. One bight out of this Muslim can kill over 3000 men women and children.

He shaved it all off before the mission. Also, don’t let that smile fool you, in preparation for an attack, they do everything to blend in. You just focus on the forehead. A shaven beard with the mark is code red, get the heck out of that plane and tell security that you have a strange feeling about that passenger’s demeanor. Its either you get accused of the politically incorrect profiling or 3000 more dead Americans are on the way, choose what you do and choose it wisely and stop profiling Sikhs. Here is one terrible story:

Slain soon after 9/11

One of the brothers, Arizona gas station owner Balbir Singh Sodhi, was slain four days after 9/11 by a white American who reportedly bragged that he wanted to go out and “shoot some towelheads” to avenge the attacks.
The gunman, Frank Silva Roque, got a death sentence for his actions that was later reduced to life imprisonment.
A second brother, Sukhpal Sodhi, died in 2012 after he was hit, apparently by a stray bullet from a gang fight, in his San Francisco taxi cab.
This is terrible, be it that these were innocent and even a Muslim who are positively profiled, they do not deserve such fate. When you profile and the signs are there, always call the authorities and never deal with the situation yourself unless it is an obvious emergency.
The bottom line is that Sikhs wear their turbans in a peaked style while Muslim clergy wrap theirs in a flat, circular fashion, but many Americans failed to notice a difference.

American patriotic Sikhs, notice the turbans are different from Muslims in a peaked style.

Jaswant Singh Sachdev, a prominent member of the Sikh community in Arizona, said he remembered a time when Sikhs were viewed as “nobility” in American society.
The mood changed, he said, during the 1979-81 Iranian hostage crisis when supreme leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was cast as a villain in US media.
“When they see it, even the children, it is always the turban that causes suspicion and fear in those who see it for the first time,” he said.
But at times, there is no way one can profile a Muslim and is why some object on Muslim profiling. Muslims can shave their beards and even avoid having a mark on their forehead, yet they can still be identified as a stealth Muslim, but this needs further scruitny.

Such scrutiny demands you ask the right questions and listen to what they say. Ask the Muslim, what do you suppose we do with Shariah laws that calls for killing converts or amputating a hand? If he is unwilling to denounce these Sharia rulings then this is a dead giveaway, especially if he insists that Islam means peace. These days, you should usually reverse what is logical and be like the defensive paranoid driver in order to survive the streets. But even that is not conclusive since a sleeper Muslim, probably the most dangerous type, is the one who can dress himself to look like almost any religion.

Now that you have completed your lesson, here is your first quiz. Try to profile the following individual: