Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Benghazi, Shariah, and American Foreign Policy

I returned a little while ago from the heart of Gomorrah, a.k.a. Washington D.C., Our Nation’s Capital. While I was up there, I got the chance to touch base with three good friends, Dr. Andrew Bostom, Major Stephen Coughlin, and Diana West:

Andy Bostom, Steve Coughlin, Diana West

The Center for Security Policy presented a panel discussion this afternoon at Hillsdale College in Washington, DC featuring these same three people as their expert panelists. Below is a video of that discussion:

The program for the event was posted earlier today at the CSP website:

Benghazi: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Featuring nationally-recognized experts and authors:

Update: From today’s CSP press release:

Mr. Gaffney said: “Now that the 2012 election is behind us and Congress is back in town, legislators must drill down not simply on the details of what happened during and following the murderous terrorist attack in Benghazi last September. They must examine that event as a microcosm of — and teachable moment concerning — the Obama administration’s pro-Islamist policies that gave rise to it. Getting answers to the questions our panel has posed will do much to shed light on both.”

Center for Security Policy Benghazigate Panel
Questions for Congressional Investigators

13 November 2012

1.Can the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi be disassociated from the larger failure of American policy towards Libya and the region that has involved engaging Islamists, including the Muslim Brotherhood and even individuals and organizations known to be associated with al Qaeda? For example, hasn’t the U.S. government entered into a relationship with Libya Shield, which fought under the black flag of al Qaeda during the “February 17th revolution.” Libya Shield is led by Wissam bin Hamid, who official sources have identified as a jihadist and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly the leader of al Qaeda in Libya. Yet, this man met with U.S. diplomats on September 9, voiced his support for MB candidate running for PM in Libya and threatened to withdraw security from US if the candidate he said the US backed won. Who authorized this meeting and this relationship? The same should be asked about February 17th Martyrs Brigade, from which Ansar al Sharia is said to have spun off.
2.Were jihad, anti-infidel, pro-shariah factors taken into consideration in formulating U.S. policy on Libya and the so-called Arab Spring more generally? Why not? How would such factors have shaped the policy differently?
3.Who came up with the idea of blaming an anti-Mohammed video for the attack in Benghazi when it was clear from Day 1 at State and the Tripoli CIA station and by Day 3 at the FBI (after it interviewed survivors) that there was no protest, period?
4.Who coordinated the dissemination of this false narrative, notably to the President, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CIA Director Petraeus and White House spokesman Jay Carney?
5.Who drafted the President's September 25th address to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in which he cited the video six times and declared, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”?
6.Who called the deflection operation off, and when? Is it coincidental that that seemed to occur after the UNGA speech, which stands as the closing bookend to the video-narrative that the White House and, as others dropped out, Obama alone pressed for two full weeks after the attack.
7.Meanwhile, why did the CIA and other intelligence agencies ignore a seemingly more significant video — Ayman al-Zawaheri's video exhorting Libyans to take revenge for the U.S. killing of Libyan al Qaeda leader Yahya al Libi that was posted online on September 9 and September 10? Spokesmen such as George Little at Pentagon have explicitly stated there was no prior warning about Benghazi. Doesn't a 9/11 anniversary video from the head of AQ exhorting Libyans to fight Americans count as a warning?
8.Did President Obama order the U.S. military not to come to the aid of Americans under attack on 11 September 2012? Mr. Obama told a local Colorado TV reporter that he made his priorities clear “the minute I found out what was happening.” He continued: “Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” Did Obama issue such a directive, written or oral? If so, was it carried out? If not, why did the president lie to the reporter?
9.According to a November 12th Fox News item, “White House Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan reportedly was aware that there was a relationship [between General David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell] as early as the summer of 2011.” Yet, myriad published reports indicate that only a small number of individuals in the FBI and Department of Justice, including Attorney General Eric Holder, were privy to the investigation into this affair. Which is it? And, either way, was the President actually kept in the dark until after the election?
10.The CIA’s Benghazi station was reportedly engaged in a covert operation aimed at helping an international effort to arm the so-called “Syrian opposition” by shipping weapons recovered from “liberated” Qaddafi-era caches. If, as the New York Times has reported, the bulk of the armaments being sent to the “rebels” in Syria by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are winding up in the hands of the most radical Islamist elements, some supplied by us are likely reaching al Qaeda operatives, as well. Has the Obama administration been secretly arming Syria’s opposition, including al Qaeda and/or other radical Islamists?


Nemesis said...

An excellent post Baron.

Anonymous said...

One question is who sent Steven's down there? Stevens and the spooks knew the place was a death trap. And why was the meeting with the Turkish Ambassador conducted there instead of the Tripoli embassy?

Also who signed off on removing the security forces? Hillary's name comes up a lot but she won't talk and Congress won't ask the hard questions.

And we had no consulate in Benghazi. We have a large CIA annex and the locale Stevens was at. Nobody is actually saying what that complex was for Stevens was in.

Evidently it was on the Muzzie s**t list since they sent the equivalent of the horses head in the bed message several times to Stevens. 'Get out or die'.

Stevens and his superiors didn't listen.

My guess as to why it was targeted was that somebody wanted Stevens alive for some purpose. If they just wanted him dead they'd have put a RPG round into his safe room and be done with it.

His capture and interrogation say by Syrian intelligence would have been a intelligence bonanza. Here was the CIA's chief go to guy in the region. Always traveling with SpecOps types that did all sorts of unsavory deeds. Look the guys he traveled with weren't from the State Dept security teams. These guys were out of Langley.

The whole thing reeks of a dirty CIA op that got exposed and would explain why people are running away from it and why the GOP big dogs are all silent. Sure there are some junior congress critters but they're a joke.

In the end I suspect both parties signed off at whatever was going on in Benghazi.

Lawrence said...

This is an obvious cover up of something, probably many things, further distorted with a sordid trist that get's everyone's imaginations running in high gear.

What is known is that US operatives where there helping the rebels, but once the power shifted, the new Islamist leaders didn't want those operatives there anymore.

Stevens is an eclectic choice as ambassador there anyway, and makes the whole operation look like a bungled James Bond novel.

What we do know for sure is that everyone upon everyone is looking to cover President Obama's buttocks, as well as Clinton and Panetta. Anyone gets in the way of is going under the bus. So what better sacrificial goat for the liberal agenda than one of the top conservatives involved?

That doesn't excuse Petraeus, however. An affair like this does have a bearing on the job. Distractions like this are a conflict of interest at the least, and at most become a dereliction of duty. Not to mention a violation of personal trust with his spouse and bring into question our ability to trust him in other things.

Anonymous said...

The misguided projection of American interests in Europe and further abroad maybe inclusive of the fatal attraction to a can-do islamo proxy with no moral hang ups.

The downside the occasional bloody blowback that exposes the covert and illicit dilly-dalling.

Knowledge is power, how does a nation prevent its secret intelligence services from going rogue.

More and more we are fighting this war neck-deep in their double-dealing sh*t and guess what we are losing.

Jolie Rouge

Lawrence said...

Jolie Rouge,

The problem isn't our secret intelligence services going rogue, our system doesn't work that way. It is the Administration officials sending them on these missions for politically driven reasons rather than true national defense reasons.

Individuals doing dumb things is just that, and only serves to make the greater problems more problematic.

Point is that no evidence exists to reflect Petraeus did anything illegal, immoral maybe, but not illegal. So what exactly is being covered up in all this?

Anonymous said...

Petraeus lied to Congress which, as I understand it, is a felony.

Of course, Petraeus may have 'lied' to Congress about an event that Congressional leaders already knew and approved.

So, the big question is WHAT will Petraeus say before Congress this week?!


babs said...

Excellent discussion Baron. Thanks for posting it.
Oh wait. I missed dancing with the stars!

Lawrence said...

We don't specifically "know" that he lied to congress, but it looks like he might have. I'm guessing that at this juncture whatever he talks about is going to be true, we just may never know about it.

But if Petraeus lied, then so did pretty much every other responsible official associated with this boondoggle. So why is Petraeus the only one currently singled out for conviction?

Anonymous said...

Here's the lie: Petraeus claimed that Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration against a film that pictured Mohammed, whereas Petraeus certainly knew in real time that the demonstration was a coordinated military-type attack against an American ambassador engaged in illicit weapons trade with known terrorists in a 'bad' neighborhood.

Limbaugh: Will Petraeus drop Benghazi bombshell?

As to Obama, he will eliminate any current and future competition for the Democrats one by one. Google Lame Cherry and read down until you see it.


Lawrence said...

Petraeus never specifically claimed it was a spontaneous demonstration against a film that pictured Mohammed.

Susan Rice did.

The CIA story at the time was an attack fueled by demonstrations in response to Egyptian demonstrations that led to some kind of attack that then got out of control.

I'm sure they are covering something up in all this, and we all now know the attack was pre-planned and had little to do with the Egyptian demonstration.

So while Petraeus never claimed the movie started it, he wasn't exactly forthcoming about what all the CIA actually knew.

Rice on the other hand got caught being a puppet mouth-piece for some other story cooked up for her to present. Probably because Clinton and Panetta wouldn't like about something like that, someone made up the story and got a dupe like Rice to present it.

Anonymous said...

"Director Petraeus went to Capitol Hill on September 14 for a closed-door, classified briefing of legislators. During that briefing, it has been reported, he upheld the now-debunked false story that the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi had resulted in response to popular outrage over an anti-Muslim Internet video."

"However, it has also been reported that Petraeus privately stated to one member of Congress, 'Do you want the official line or do you want the real truth?'"

Obama vs. the Brass: Benghazi Cover-up, Agenda to Gut Military?


Lawrence said...

One thing I really like about this blog is the critical thinking efforts of the posters. In this context we must remember the goal of Psi-Ops which is to make the unplausible seem plausible and this is accomplished my making the plausible seem unplausible.

What the CIA reported initially was a demonstration fueled by the Egyptian demonstration and whatever fueled that demonstration. Nothing in the CIA report mentions the silly video in question. This is what Petraeus reported to congress and the truth as far as he knew it.

Somewhere between the CIA and Rice the issue of the video was added and Rice reported that. Or more correctly, parroted it, but it is the truth as she knew it.

What we found out (which the CIA didn't initially believe themselves) is that the attack was orchestrated by a powerful terrorist group for a very specific purpose. Question here is, why did the CIA not know this right from the start? Either they are dumb and misread the warnings, or they faked themselves out with their own Psi-Ops, assuming this kind of terrorist attack so implausible that they couldn't believe it when they saw it.

Now... we have so much implausible arm-chair generalling going on that nobody can tell what is plausible or implausbile, and filling in the details with their imaginations.

Here is the most plausible story:

The CIA didn't know or didn't realize the attack was an orchestrated terrorist attack and that is why they didn't ask for or send in backup.

The cover-up is the government, Administration, Sec.Def., CIA, covering up the fact that they were totally fooled (and incompetent) in mistaking this coordinated attack as a mere political demonstration.

What we don't know is where Rice got the information that this was all caused by the silly video. So, lets look back at what I said about Psi-Ops.

The most logically implausible story is the one Rice told about the video being the cause, but emotionally it is the story everyone wants to accept as plausible.

What is most plausible is the CIA and government intel where simply caught by surprise and failed to properly react. Nobody wants to believe our intel community could be this incompetent so we are taking this simple explanation as implausible, when logically it is the only version of events that makes any logical sense.

Furthermore, Petraeus is an honorable military officer, he would not resign his post over an intel kerfluffle. Nobody asked him to resign or challenged him to resign. His resignation is purely based on getting caught with his pants down, a direct violation of his own personal honor code.

The truth here is so simple that absolutely nobody is going to accept it. And thus fuel the continual Psi-Ops cover-up of the incompetence involved.

Lawrence said...

… and probably the only competent official in this whole debacle will be the one taking the blame for it, and the fall for it. Sorry Petraeus but you’re not the first person that Obama has thrown under the bus.

I absolutely do not belief Petraeus lied to congress such as everyone wants to believe.

With 20-20 hind-sight Petraeus can say he knew (more likely highly suspected on a personal level) the attack was a planned terrorist effort, but that personal belief on his part was not corroborated as official by his organization, nor by Sec.Def or Administration officials.

As a military officer it would have been very inappropriate for him to contradict the official analysis with his personal opinion.

Question is, what is he saying now, with 20-20 hindsight?

Only thing he can say is, sorry, the official CIA analysis got it wrong.

Anonymous said...

Hi Lawrence,

While I appreciate your respectful and thoughtful tone, I strongly disagree with your analysis of the event.