Monday’s first Palestinian missiles spread over four Israeli districts

By mid-morning Monday, five Qassam rockets had been fired against Sderot, Hof Ashkelon, Shear Hanegev and the Eshkol district, exploding on open ground. Before dawn, 20 missiles struck four kibbutzim in the Eshkol District. The firing continued after the Israeli Air Forces struck Hamas targets across the Gaza Strip. Residents were advised to stay close to fortified shelters. DEBKAfile: Veteran dwellers say Palestinian rocket fire is more intensely concentrated on multiple targets than ever before indicating their use of improved weapons.

Iran develops Ababil-T – a 2,000-km range stealth attack drone

Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi warned Sunday, Oct. 28, in Tehran: “The drone was definitely not the latest Iranian technology.” DEBKAfile: He was talking about the drone which Iran and Hizballah sent over Israeli airspace on Oct. 6 and stressing that it was not the last word in their UAV armory - or even the last to invade Israel’s skies.
According to our military sources, in mid-September, Tehran secretly shipped to Lebanon a batch of dismantled Ababil-T UAVs although the Iranians could not be sure that Israel would not discover their location and its air force bomb them before they were launched. The Syrian war is also making it hard to maintain permanent Iranian launching teams in Lebanon.
However, Iran is making great strides in producing drones with more capabilities and longer ranges. During the 2006 Lebanon War, Hizballah launched an earlier model of the Ababil to bomb Tel Aviv. It was shot down by the Israeli Air Force.  Since then, the Iranians have produced the more advanced Ababil-T for short and medium range attack and Ababils-B and –S.
Our military sources identify Ababil-T as Iran’s most advanced drone in operational service. It has electronic warfare, military intelligence-gathering and online transmission capabilities suited to conditions of front-line battle. It is designed to disable enemy electronic systems in combat, especially those of the United States and Israel.
Ababil means “swallow,” after the story in the Koran of an enemy sending a herd of elephants to attack the Qaaba in Mecca and the swallows released by Allah for defeating them.

Its prototype had a maximum flying range of 150 kilometers, an altitude 4.2 kilometers and it could stay aloft for 10 hours at a stretch. Iranian engineers have rapidly improved its velocity and range. But until recently, they were not known to have figured out how to produce a drone able to cover the distance to Israel in direct flight without a staging-post in Lebanon. They dared not let their prize Ababil-T cut through Iraq or Turkey because it risked interception by the American or NATO forces stationed in those countries.

This obstacle appears to have been overcome by the last upgraded Ababil, according to Gen. Vahidi.
Indeed, a week before he spoke, on Oct. 17, Manouchehr Manteqi, head of Iran’s aerospace industry, announced that Tehran now had drones capable of flying a distance of 2,000 kilometers – and therefore reaching Israel.
Iran plans to store a supply of those advanced models to Lebanon for the use of Hizballah – and not only against Israel but  to extend its range against a whole array of Tehran’s enemies – before flying them back to home base in Iran.
Iranian sources claim that the latest drone was tested in combat conditions In November 2011. A UAV was sent secretly over US Fifth Fleet vessels in the Persian Gulf, collected data and gained valuable experience for its further development.
They have now advanced to the planning stages of a spy drone with stealth qualities and a large UAV bomber, cannibalizing technology pirated from the American RQ-170 Sentinel drone they downed on Dec. 4, 2011, buying it from Russia and China and stealing it from the West.
Most of their UAV development program budget is being spent on upgrading their drones’ navigation, transmission and cyber warfare systems.
The great progress Iran has made in the past five years in all these fields has been helped along by Iranian students returning home from studies at MIT and other universities in the United States, Britain and Germany.  They are offered attractive salaries to work hard on the goals set before them.

Benghazi, Libya—Biopsy From a Malignant, Failed Presidency

Leading From Behind: Dazed & Confused Barack Dragging USA Into Swirl of Chaos

Whatever happened to Barack the world’s smartest leader and incomparable statesman? Those days are gone forever. Instead, it would be impossible to catalog the staggering list of ill-advised, mistaken, foolish, naive and utterly inane decisions by Obama and his administration. So, instead—let us use a single Obama catastrophe, the events of Libya—to critique and symbolize his failed tenure. This is reasonable because every bad Barack habit and evil instinct is represented in this new American disaster.

In the November 2012 presidential election, America is given an opportunity almost no other country suffering under tyranny is offered—the chance to wake-up and toss out a despot before he fatally damages our noble Republic. Let us pray Americans will cast aside sentimentality and act as true patriots and save America from a crafty and utterly immoral, power-mad demagogue. For if Libya is not a wake up call for the average American, we may not be able to stop the implosion. But we must believe we can halt the rot if we act now.

I. Benghazi

It is obvious now that a tremendous and sadly avoidable tragedy struck Americans in Benghazi, Libya on the anniversary of 9/11. Has such a deadly lack of leadership ever emanated from the White House? Further, what impact will such brutal official indifference make upon the American psyche if this event is not harshly sanctioned at the voting booth?

A. Benghazi 9/11 Overview

Here is a brief description of what we know: US Ambassador Christopher Stevens traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi, Libya. Nervous over rising unrest in this Muslim African Mediterranean nation, Stevens asked repeatedly for more security but was refused. On the day of the attack he’d asked again. He was attacked after dark, and seven hours later he was dead, along with three others. And it now appears the US had notice of the event, time to respond, and resources within reach to mount a counter-assault. What is not clear is why the American military was not sent in to save our Ambassador. (The time-line of the attack is well laid out at Powerline. (Benghazigate: The state of the story)

B. Benghazi Obama Problems

But let’s recall some of the more unsavory elements of the Benghazi charade. The killing of Stevens occurred on September 11, 2012 after 9 pm. As we now know, the attack was prep-planned terrorism, not the result of any video protest, as the White House (WH) initially claimed. The assault pitted a large group of terrorists against a few Americans and some Libyan security guards, who fled almost immediately. Four Americans were killed.

After much WH disinformation, we now know a great deal of damning information about what actually happened (key video): The fight raged for 7 hours; the WH knew there was no video protest; Ambassador Stevens asked repeatedly for more security, including the day of the attack; the WH had a live feed for 5 hours of the firefight; there was a CIA safe house 1 mile down the road; A nearby US base was 480 miles away—Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily, Italy; Former Navy SEALS at the nearby (1 mile) CIA annex asked three times if they could help Stevens and were told repeatedly to “stand down”; several agents finally volunteered to aid Stevens and ended up dying; that a Delta ForceTeam, designated a secret tier-one counter-terrorism team, was at Sigonella, at most 2 hours away; a US Military AC-130h-Specter Gunship was already in Benghazi but not sent to rescue Stevens (gunships mission: “close air support, air interdiction and armed reconnaissance”); that a strike was organized, the terrorists located, but the mission canceled when Barack did not have the nerve to pull the trigger.

It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.

II. Libya: Muslim Spring

Without Obama’s Muslim Spring policy, Benghazi probably never would have happened (Muslim Spring being the new American approach to using foreign rebels to wage war for liberty against dictators with American backing). So how did Barack’s Muslim Spring conversion take place? Actually, and against all of Barack’s claims of being a guileless freedom fighter—it was originally all about money, oil and power. Europeans wanted Obama to join anti-Gaddafi forces during the rebel uprising to help defend their oil interests, as Libya is Europe’s biggest supplier of petroleum. Barack did not want to be left out, seemingly standing for nothing again while mouthing empty cliches, as he had been before in Iran.

Typically, after what Barack felt was a successful campaign to oust Gaddafi, he took credit for the strategy. This is a longstanding habit (noted when he rode other legislator’s bills in the Illinois senate, despite having nothing to do with them). Writes one journalist in June 2011:

From Washington, the enthusiasm of the French for intervention in Libya is seen with a mixture of relief and puzzlement. The Americans do not want the job and are happy that someone else does. Indeed, President Nicolas Sarkozy’s willingness to intervene helped close a dangerous gap between the world of “values,” which would call for direct American intervention against Muammar al-Qaddafi, and the world of “interest,” which impelled President Barack Obama to restraint.
While Americans are relieved by France’s display of determination, they cannot refrain from expressing a sense of bemusement: Do the French really know what they are up against? What has happened to them? We know what war means, but they seem to have forgotten! Indeed, France and the United States seem to have switched roles from just a few years ago.

Sadly, Barack takes his own brand of “leadership” so seriously, and with the novelist’s joy for embellishment, that soon Europe’s Libyan intervention became another seed of his genius. Obama’s fiction of Libyan leadership was glorified in Vanity Fair in a silly panegyric called Obama’s Way. One weirdly effusive excerpt notes how Barack decided how the Libyan war would unfold:

A decision Barack Obama had made, more or less on his own. The president’s decision reached forward into the impersonal future—Qaddafi would be killed, Libya would hold its first free elections—but it also reached back into the personal past, to the things that had made Obama capable of walking alone into a room with a pencil and walking out a bit later with a conviction….He was especially alive to the power of a story to influence the American public. He believed he had been elected chiefly because he had told a story. Now the United States had forged a broad international coalition to help people who claimed to share our values rid themselves of a tyrant.

III. Bad Habits & Evil Intentions

A. Lessons of Barack—Leaderless

What can we learn about Barack just from his Libya fiasco? There are many lessons, actually. And they all lead to the realization that Obama is a typical Marxist—dishonest, unethical, and utterly ruthless. First, when it comes to crises—Obama is a reactor, not a true leader. For example, it took France to push him into action against Gaddafi, which he then characteristically claimed showed him to be the majordomo. Yet—if he really was a principled leader, unafraid to stand up to a bully—then why no action when Iran’s people protested the faked elections, rioted and were murdered?

The Obama’s Way article went so far as to claim the profound Barack deferred to philosophers and statesmen in framing his response:

Obama asked his speechwriters to dig up for him writings about war by people he admired: Saint Augustine, Churchill, Niebuhr, Gandhi, King. He wanted to reconcile the non-violent doctrines of two of his heroes, King and Gandhi, with his new role in the violent world. These writings came back to the speechwriters with key passages underlined and notes by the president to himself scrawled in the margin.

But instead, fraudulent Barack was again simply Leading From Behind. This is the only type of “leadership” with which Barack feels an affinity.

B. Cowering & Heartless

Second, as Libya has now come apart, Barack reveals his real persona. This is the uncaring, craftily ambitious, inexperienced yet know-it-all poseur. But, when storm clouds mount he is so unnerved by making big decisions he sprints to the sand to bury his head. This can be seen the way Obama reacted to the Gulf Oil Spill. His most memorable maneuver, after lecturing oil companies on safety, was golf. Bill Clinton offered more leadership suggesting we nuke the offending undersea oil gusher.

C. Hypocritical & Soulless Politician

Third, Obama’s loss of nerve and decision to call off a military strike that could have taken out the Benghazi insurgents, and instead—just letting Americans die an agonizing, lonely death—is the most quintessential aspect of the story. This is because it reveals Barack as he truly is inside—an immoral, gutless, unfeeling, selfish, hypocritical, overly ambitious and hideously uncaring person. Obama ONLY cares about what he personally finds valuable, which obviously does not include individual Americans, or any random human beings.

D. Bizarre Shrunken Adolescent POTUS

We must admit in passing how weird it is to watch Barack devolve from his 2008 pseudo-statesman routine into his new disrespectful, perverted and immature persona. Undoubtedly this suits him better as it cuts closer to the bone.

IV. Why Obama Bailed on Benghazi

How about a few suggestions as to Obama’s motivations in Benghazi? Why would Barack not give his ambassador Chris Stevens security when he repeatedly asked for more and apparently danger grew daily? Because this would go against Barack’s adolescent king-of-the-world fantasy which claimed he came in peace to heal the earth.

But when the WH and Pentagon could see live video that our ambassador in Libya was getting murdered, why wouldn’t Barack go in with military when he had the means easily within reach? And why would he cancel the military response after it was organized? Most probably because he believed it could escalate into something huge which would go against his peace-maker narrative. This would imperil his upcoming election. Instead, Obama decided to sentence 4 men to execution, betting he could cover up the small murder by blaming it on another—Barack’s MO—with a hack video. He expected the media would undoubtedly help him with the coverup—as they subsequently tried—and sweep him back into power. But since this failed, all bets are off.

A. Moral Caner of Pragmatism

Ultimately, Benghazi is a triumph of Barack’s famed pragmatism, where only the outcome matters, and anything that helps achieve the goal—like murder by abandonment, in this case—is considered ethical.

Conclusion—Obama’s Choices: Lose or Be Impeached

Barack is a self-centered, utterly unfeeling, revolution-seeking drone who cannot be bothered with the hard work of genuine leadership. And as terrifying as it sounds, he is a typical Marxist leader who wants to “save humanity,” but finds individuals not important enough to consider. It’s no wonder Barack’s White House loves Mao, a possible role model for crazy, unthinking and ideologically-driven tyranny from the man who murdered 77 million of his own countrymen. Or perhaps Vlad Lenin, first dictator of the USSR is his example, who said—“Any cook should be able to run the country.” Marxists have no respect for democracy, republicanism or capitalism.

Whatever the purpose of Barack’s presidency, he must face the decision of getting beaten at the ballot box in November 2012 or being impeached. Yes America, it has finally come to that after Barack’s murderous high treason!

Michelle Obama Worried Liberals Too Stupid, Too Dependent To Vote?

t’s a hard life being a liberal.  You apparently don’t know how to do anything.  Worse, not knowing how to do anything prohibits you from voting for your fellow liberals.  Don’t take my word for it.  Just ask Michelle Obama.

In an impassioned plea to her husband’s base, Michelle laid out all the reason why liberal loyalists had to get out early to vote:

“You wake up on Election Day – you might have a cold, babysitter gets sick, it’s raining, car broke down, I mean I could go on – toilet overflowing.  There are so many ways to mess up a day when you don’t have a lot of time.”

Gee, it almost sounds like Michelle Obama is worried that God has it in for her husband.  What with all these potential calamities she envisions befalling his minions.  Damn that evil God person ... Michelle always knew He was an evil Republican!

Seriously though?  An overflowing toilet prevents you from voting on Election Day?  Ok, how about this?  You shut off the water and stop the toilet from overflowing.  Well GOLLY!  Gee, never thunk about that ... a-yup!

Then, after turning off the water, get your butt down to the polls, vote, then come home and deal with the toilet.  Or are Obama’s core supporters unable to figure this out?  It’s a rhetorical question.  The answer is obvious.

Babysitter calls off sick?  Uh ... just a thought here, but how about getting neighbors or family to watch the kids?  Heck, you could just take them with you.  Kids are allowed to go to the polls, in case you didn’t know.

You have a cold?  A cold?  Gee, I’d be more worried about something more serious, like cancer, sidelining me.  Because a “cold” is hardly going to stop someone, who wants to vote, from getting to the polls.

It’s raining?  Hmmm ... how about grabbing an umbrella?  No, apparently that’s too difficult for the average Obama voter.

Car breaks down?  Well, isn’t that what your “Obama Phone” is for?  Call someone to come pick you up!  Or, perish the thought, you could just walk.

Like I said, it sure is tough being an incompetent liberal who doesn’t know how to do anything.  If I had to rely on these sorts of sorry souls to do something for me, I’d be worried too.

IT WAS TREASON – Arrest Obama

Last Thursday, I wrote an article titled, “Obama & Libya – A Case Study in Treason” and in that article I stated, “When a president fails to lift a finger to protect Americans, at home or abroad, in the face of overwhelming intelligence and evidence, by ignoring obvious warning signs and the advice of those entrusted to offer such protection…”

“It is treason.”

I meant every word and yes, I am well aware of the weight of the word, “treason.”

I do not nor have I ever used it lightly. I see that word bandied about on social media and while I understand full well the passion of those who use it, I rarely, if ever, believe that the issues to which it is applied, truly rise to that level.

This situation, in Libya, I am convinced…Does.

To explain, let’s first look at the legal definition and it’s context within our Constitution.

Definition of Treason in the Constitution:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

Legal Definition of Treason:

The betrayal of one’s own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution:

Any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

Day by day…Nearly hour by hour, we learn more about what transpired in Benghazi on 9-11-12.

Yesterday, we learned a truly horrific truth.

As the first shots rang out at our Consulate, the calls for help, coming from the “safe” annex were sent to Washington.

Not once.

Not twice.

Three times, Tyrone Woods and a CIA operative, at the annex, called for help and asked permission to go TO the Consulate to offer assistance…To fight.

Washington denied them.

Not once.

Not twice.

Three times, Washington denied them help or permission to join the fight.

After the third denial, Ex Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods, went against the direct order to stand down and, he stood up.

Tyrone Woods went to the Consulate defying a direct order and he got as many of our personnel out of there as he could…Including the body of State Department officer Sean Smith.

Tyrone Woods could not find Ambassador Stevens.

Tyrone Woods took those he rescued and the body of Mr. Smith back to the annex where he was joined shortly after by Glen Doherty, another Ex Navy Seal who had just arrived from Tripoli.

A few hours later, that annex came under fire from terrorists now believed to be Ansar al-Sharia, a well known affiliate of al Qaeda.

We also learned yesterday that Woods and Doherty were on the roof of the annex and from their vantage point, could see the position of the mortars being fired at them. They “painted” that position with a laser used to guide weapons from military aircraft.

Military aircraft that were not coming to help.

Those aircraft, from Italy, which could have included Blackhawk helicopters and a C-130 gun ship, had also been ordered, from Washington, to stand down.

For those unfamiliar with a C-130 gunship, it is one of the most feared weapons in our military. The C-130 is specifically designed for close air support roles include supporting ground troops, escorting convoys, and flying urban operations. Air interdiction missions are conducted against planned targets and targets of opportunity. Force protection missions include defending bases and other facilities.

As far as the enemy is concerned…When a C-130 gunship comes into the picture…Hell comes with it.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke on Thursday and, as a reason for NOT sending help, stated: “The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information…[we] felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

The problem is this.

We DID have real-time information. Those in the State Department were literally watching the terrorist attack happen live via video link AND we had what we now know were 2 unmanned drones over the attack site in Benghazi. If that’s not enough, at the annex, less than a mile away, we had a Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods AND a CIA operative.

By the time the second wave of the attack began, at the annex, we had the CIA operative and 2 Navy Seals, Woods and Doherty and THEY were “painting” the position of the mortar launches with a laser used to guide the very weapons that a Blackhawk or C-130 could have brought to bear.

If that’s not enough, our military is the most highly trained military on earth. Those who fly those ships of war train each and every day for exactly the sort of eventually that was transpiring that night in Benghazi. Their very job is to go into harm’s way.

Combined…all of this lays waist to Panetta’s explanation and reduces it to nothing but a bald faced, unadulterated lie.

Back to treason.

For an act of treason to occur, a state of war must exist.

We are indeed at war. In Afghanistan, we are currently engaged in war against al Qaeda.  Ansar al-Sharia IS a well-known al Qaeda affiliate and Ansar al-Sharia was attacking our consulate and annex, both considered American soil.

For an act of treason to be committed, one must manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

There are some 20,000 shoulder fired rockets, RPG’s and other heavy weapons MISSING that were provided to Libyan rebels in the attempt to oust Gaddafi from power. We didn’t know WHO those rebels were at the time we armed them and, in fact, within hours of Gaddafi’s death, the flags of al Qaeda were flying in Benghazi.

Furthermore, in cables from security personnel in the months leading up TO the fatal attack, it was clearly stated that those al Qaeda flags were still flying over several government buildings in Benghazi.

Also, regarding an act of treason, If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

The order for Navy Seal Tyrone Wood to stand down, the orders to our military in Italy to stand down and the repeated…not once…Not twice but…Three denials of help from Washington does, by any definition, equate to a “weakening of the power to resist its enemies.”

During the 2^nd debate, when a question regarding Libya was posed, Obama responded:

“Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job  but, she works for Me. I’m the president. I’m always responsible.”

The State Department was watching the attack live, in real-time.

Emails were sent to some 400 people in Washington DURING the attack, in real-time.

Among the recipients of those emails was the White House Situation room.

At the time those emails arrived at the White House Situation Room, Obama was meeting with his Security Team.

Obama says that HE is the president and HE is responsible.

I am sensing a very, very…VERY short chain of command here.

The calls for help from the CIA operative and Tyrone Woods were NOT ignored and did NOT go unanswered. The requests to enter the fight from bases in Italy were NOT ignored and did NOT go unanswered.

All were DENIED.

That shows a purposeful action.

All of those calls for help and requests for deployment were DENIED purposefully.

The result was that our enemy, those conducting the operation against our Consulate, our annex, our assets and our personnel in Benghazi, was aided…AIDED…by a purposeful lack of response…DIRECTED FROM THE HIGHEST LEVELS IN WASHINGTON.

Our Consulate in Benghazi was destroyed while Washington officials watched, received emails and denied calls for help in real-time.

4 Americans were killed while Washington officials watched, received emails and denied calls for help in real-time.

Whatever confidential papers or records contained in that Consulate were either destroyed or went missing while Washington officials watched, received emails and denied calls for help in real-time.

“…such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or CLASSIFIED INFORMATION…”

Who?

Who gave the willful and purposeful order to deny help when Navy Seal Tyrone Woods called?

Who?

Who gave the willful and purposeful order for Tyrone Woods and the CIA Operative to Stand Down?

Who?

Who gave the willful and purposeful order for our highly trained, apt and heavily armed military in Italy to stand down?

Who?

“Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job but, she works for ME. I’m the president. I’m always responsible.”

For the very life of me, I cannot conjure a single conclusion other than treason, brought about by political cowardice, for denying help not once, not twice but, three times in the midst of a terrorist attack and not one reason but treason, brought about by political cowardice, for the willful and purposeful order to those in a position to offer needed help in the midst of a terrorist attack, to stand down.

2 quotes come to mind. The first, from Marcus Tullius Cicero, describes the sort of man who would issue orders not to send help and for Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty to stand down in the face of the attack.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

And the second, from John15:13, is the precise description of the last hours and minutes of the lives of Woods and Doherty.

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Ultimately, only one person could have issued the orders not to help and for the military not to deploy.

Only one. Barack Obama.

Will ANY Member of Congress show the moral clarity and courage of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty? Will ANY Member of Congress stand AGAINST political cowardice and call this what it was?

An Act of Treason.

Craig Andresen

The National Patriot

Weekend Edition 10/27/12

The hidden real truth about Benghazi

Most people know that we’ve been lied to about the attacks in Benghazi, but few realize the extent of those lies or the hidden secrets they cover. After all, the lie is different at every level. Thanks to a well placed source with extensive knowledge about the attack, the disturbing truth is slowly beginning to emerge and is lining up with information contained in my previous articles published here weeks ago (Here, Here and Here). The truth reveals the most serious situation in the world today as it involves the interests and destinies of us all.

A mosaic of lies

According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.

Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon.  Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”

First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.

Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.

The Turkish warning

According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?

It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups.  If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.

The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?

A Nation/State sponsored attack?

While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?

Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “...the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?

Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, one considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.

Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.

As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?

As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.

Fallout

From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombing and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.

Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.

It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.

To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”

Obama’s Feet of Clay

A lot of Americans who supported Barack Obama in 2008 regret having supported him, sufficiently so that they will not be voting for him this time around – and they’ve said as much. Should Obama be voted out of office on November 6, it is quite probable that so much dirt pertaining to him will subsequently emerge that millions more supporters will be so ashamed they won’t wish to admit ever having supported him.

Obama’s curriculum vitae didn’t merit his being elected to the office of President of the United States. His past, associations, and attendant political baggage should have precluded it. We can add to that the draconian and unconstitutional policies, executive orders, and other actions he has taken during his presidency. Then, there are the criminal acts, such as the Fast and Furious gun running fiasco. Of course, since no formal charges have been made relative to F&F (and may never be) this assertion remains wild supposition by Obama supporters.

Now, it appears as though this president may have been supplying America’s Islamist enemies abroad with weapons under the guise of aiding Libyan and Syrian rebels. Charges have been made that the administration’s apparent failure to provide appropriate security for its foreign service personnel in Benghazi, Libya, or to act to save them during the September 11, 2012 attack had their genesis in Obama’s desire to cover up this out-of-control operation.

While many Americans may not be ready to accept such a conspiracy or evil of this magnitude on the part of their First Black President, I’ll stop short of making a wager that the aforementioned scenario is precisely what occurred. Earlier in CFP (in a column that was widely reprinted sans permission or a byline), I postulated that Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador to Libya, had essentially been “hit” at Obama’s behest due to “embarrassing personal matters, or other chicanery performed in his official capacity.” Certainly, another clandestine gun running operation that threatened Obama’s re-election bid (not to mention his continued freedom) would fall into one of those categories.

Benghazigate: Thomas R. Pickering, chief investigator, Islamist sympathizer

The mutability of official accounts relating to “Benghazigate” have already challenged thinking Americans’ ability to suspend their disbelief beyond limits. The ongoing willingness of the American press to collude with the Obama administration in their deceptions is likely to irreparably damage its credibility, although there are some even among liberal journalists who’ve demonstrated that their journalistic credentials matter more to them than their affinity for Obama.

Obama’s questionable activities have become quite overt in many cases, given his knowledge that the press at large can be counted on to suppress stories that might reflect badly. On October 24, The Blaze reported that Thomas R. Pickering, whom Obama appointed as the chief investigator for the terror attacks in Benghazi, is an Islamist sympathizer with documented ties to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history. He is also is also co-chairman of the board of pro-Obama financier and Nazi collaborator George Soros’ pro-Islamist International Crisis Group.

A lot of folks who watched the final Presidential debate on Monday bemoaned the fact that Mitt Romney wasn’t more aggressive toward Obama with regard to Libya and the Middle East. Inasmuch as a lot of us wanted a firebreathing conservative at the beginning of the Republican primaries (someone who would sear Obama’s proverbial flesh at every opportunity), we figured the least Romney could have done was point out that the administration having telegraphed a weak foreign policy led to the “Arab Spring” to start with.

Unfortunately at this juncture, most Americans aren’t yet able to wrap their brains around the conspiracies that do exist and in which this administration plays a part – and there is an election to win. This is a fact, and things are going too well for our side right now for me to criticize that about which I may not have all the facts. 

Regarding Obama, we have all the facts we need. Those who continue to support him appear increasingly deluded, stupid, and/or evil. Even a cursory appraisal of Obama’s deportment compared to that which he exhibited in 2008 has engendered everything from curiosity to deep concern among observers. Obama looks like a loser, a runner up, someone who’s been found out or who can’t keep it together. What’s worse is that Obama knows it, and this will continue to make him dangerous for the duration of his tenure – particularly between now and the upcoming election.

FORMER BIDEN AIDE: OBAMA 'FINANCIALLY ILLITERATE'

Don’t bother saying it ain’t so, Joe.

According to a former staffer for Joe Biden, the Vice President is selfish, disloyal and concerned about his own manhood. Jeff Connaughton, the author of “The Payoff,” a book that came out in September which indicts Democrats for being controlled by the big banks, tells anecdotes about Biden that reveal Biden to be less of a good guy than he portrays himself.

Story #1. After Biden gaffed during the 2008 campaign and said Obama would be tested as president, Obama waited until a few days after the election to chide him. Biden met with Connaughton and some other advisors:

“Biden told us that Obama had called him and told him sharply that he didn’t need public tutoring: ‘I don’t need you acting like you’re my Henry Higgins.’ Biden said his private reaction was, ‘Whoa. Where did this come from? This is clearly a guy who could restrict my role to attending state funerals or just put me in a closet for four years. I’m going to have to earn his trust, but I’m not going to grovel to this guy. My manhood is not negotiable.’”

Keep shouting that, Joe.

Story #2.  Connaughton says he raised money for Biden, but never even got a thank you note until he hinted that it might be nice.

Story #3. In the lead-up to Biden’s failed run for a 2008 presidency, Connaughton recalled:

“Later in the campaign, a twenty-three-year-old fundraising staffer got into a car with Biden with a list of names and phone numbers: ‘Okay, Senator, time to do some fundraising calls.” Biden looked at him and said, ‘Get the f**k out of the car.’”

Story #4. After working for Biden as a junior aide in 1988, Connaughton went to law school. He later wanted to work in the White House, but when he asked Biden’s chief of staff if Biden could call Abner Mikva, Bill Clinton’s White House Counsel, Biden refused. The chief of staff told Connaughton, “Jeff, don’t take this personally. Biden disappoints everyone. He’s an equal-opportunity disappointer.”

Connaughton summed up Biden this way: “His ambitions, I was coming to understand, were mainly about himself.”

After Connaughton finaslly got out of politics and moved to Georgia, he spoke to his father about Biden.  His father said, “I can’t believe after all those years of blood and sweat for Biden he never even gave you a crumb.”

All about himself and no room for anyone else. If you watched Biden’s debate with Paul Ryan, Connaughton’s account sounds pretty accurate.