Bombshell: White House Knew al-Qaeda Was Rising Threat In Libya Region
by
John Nolte
2 Oct 2012
The information we're learning today about the Obama administration's incompetence and dishonesty surrounding the terrorist attack in Libya that cost four American lives, is breathtaking.
2. The consulate had been attacked twice prior to 9/11/12.
And now the Washington Post reports that…
3. After the ousting of Gaddafi from
Libya, as Obama led from behind, al-Qaeda was able to get their hands on
all kinds of weapons.
4. Prior to the 9/11/12 attack on our
consulate, the Obama White House was so concerned with the growing
al-Qaeda threat in North Africa (where Libya is), plans were considered
for unilateral military action:
The White House has held a series
of secret meetings in recent months to examine the threat posed by
al-Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and consider for the first time
whether to prepare for unilateral strikes, U.S. officials said.
The deliberations reflect concern
that al-Qaeda’s African affiliate has become more dangerous since
gaining control of large pockets of territory in Mali and acquiring
weapons from post-revolution Libya. The discussions predate the Sept. 11
attacks on U.S. compounds in Libya but gained urgency after the
assaults there were linked to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM.
U.S. officials said the
discussions have focused on ways to help regional militaries confront
al-Qaeda but have also explored the possibility of direct U.S.
intervention if the terrorist group continues unchecked. …
White House officials declined to comment.
Two attacks on the consulate, direct
threats made by al-Qaeda in the days leading up to the attacks, and
enough concern over a growing al-Qaeda threat in North Africa that
military action was considered… And yet, we did absolutely nothing to
increase the security around our consulate. Which translates into the
fact that we did nothing to protect our human or intelligence assets in
the region.
This is nothing short of criminal
negligence. And the only question this new information answers is why,
for over a week, the Obama White House lied about the attack being the
result of a spontaneous protest gone bad.
INVEST SAFELY AT BANCO SOCIAL...up to $10K at 12 Mos....15% ROI!!!
Issa: Obama Admin Ignored Requests for Increased Security in Libya
Today, Reps. Issa and Chaffetz sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection at the Benghazi embassy were denied. Rep. Issa is the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee and Rep. Chaffetz is the Chairman of the subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations. The full committee will hold a hearing on October 10, 2012 to assess the security situation preceding the terrorist attack of September 11.
“Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”The letter includes a long list of security concerns that occurred in Libya in the six months preceding the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Of particular concern is an attempt on the life of the British Ambassador that took place on June 10.
June 10, 2012, BENGHAZI – On or about June 10, 2012, a two-car convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya from a conference on reforming Libyan military law was attacked in broad daylight by a militant with an RPG. This attack was an important escalation in the violence against Western targets in Benghazi, as prior attacks had been at night and were often preceded by warnings from the attackers. Photos from the aftermath of the attack are attached.The committee has asked the state department to make the appropriate officials available for the hearing along with answers to the following questions:
1. Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all of the above incidents? If not, why not?A copy of the letter can be found here.
2. If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?
3. Please detail any requests made by Embassy Tripoli to State Department headquarters for additional security, whether in general or in light of specific attacks mentioned above. How did the Department respond to each of those requests?
TRANSLATION OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS...Inn Reach Communications...Fast, Accurate & Reliable
NECESITA ASISTENCIA ECONOMICA TEMPORAL? BANCO SOCIAL $500 a 2 Meses
Estado omnipresente, más clientelismo, menos libertad económica
Las recientes noticias sobre las desinversiones de la administración Obama en AIG y GM (en algunos casos con pérdidas de miles de millones de dólares) son un recordatorio de los privilegios y el clientelismo que inundan nuestra economía.
A medida que el favoritismo crece junto con el tamaño del gobierno, la libertad económica continúa siendo erosionada por normativas como los rescates financieros, las garantías de préstamo y las exenciones fiscales. Los privilegios han reemplazado a las buenas normativas en pro de la libertad en la economía pública. Pues la influencia de un grupo de elegidos está erosionando nuestros valores económicos e introduciendo ineficiencias e incentivos perversos que perjudican nuestra competitividad.
Esto es lo que argumentó Matthew Mitchell, del Centro Mercatus, en una reciente conferencia en la Fundación Heritage. Haciendo uso de una investigación anterior, Mitchell argumenta que el clientelismo (manifestado en las regulaciones, los subsidios, los rescates financieros, los créditos tributarios, los monopolios, las garantías de préstamo, las ofertas no competitivas y el proteccionismo) se está convirtiendo en algo demasiado común en el discurso de nuestra normativa pública:
Los privilegios [económicos] limitan las perspectivas de un intercambio mutuo y beneficioso, es decir, la esencia misma del progreso económico. Estos suben los precios, reducen la calidad y desmotivan la innovación…[llenando] los bolsillos de los ricos y de los que están bien relacionados a expensas de los pobres y desconocidos.Tales privilegios golpean en el corazón de los valores de nuestra sociedad y afectan a todos los americanos. Este reparto de ciertos privilegios a ciertos grupos tiene también funestas consecuencias para nuestra economía, perjudicando al consumidor americano al reducir la competitividad y subir los precios.
El resultado ha sido el descenso de nuestra libertad económica. Según el más reciente Índice de Libertad Económica, publicado por la Fundación Heritage y The Wall Street Journal, la libertad frente a la corrupción ha caído en Estados Unidos 5 puntos porcentuales respecto al año anterior debido al incremento de los niveles de clientelismo y corrupción.
Para devolver a nuestra economía a la senda adecuada, los responsables políticos deberían adoptar la libre empresa y reducir los subsidios y regulaciones que actúan como una protección patrocinada por el gobierno únicamente para un grupo de elegidos. Pues todos deberían tener el derecho a competir dentro del mercado sobre la base de la igualdad.
Los líderes políticos de Estados Unidos tienen que representar a todos los americanos, no sólo a una élite privilegiada. Por tanto, necesitamos normativas que ayuden a todos los americanos, no sólo a los que se pueden permitir el tener cabilderos así como hacer grandes donaciones a las campañas electorales.
