Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Report Faults State, Pentagon, White House

Report Faults State, Pentagon, White House
Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomatic employees died in an attack on the U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya.

WASHINGTON (UPI) — A U.S. Senate report says the State Department and the Pentagon did not adequately protect the Americans killed in the U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee report, “Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi,” was released Monday following a critical independent State Department-ordered review and expanded the blame for the attack — in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomatic employees died — to the Pentagon and White House, The Hill reported.

The bipartisan report has several findings and recommendations in it “that we really believe can help save lives in the future,” committee Chairman Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), said during a news conference.

He said in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attack, “there was a rising crescendo of evidence from the U.S. intelligence community and open sources to our government that Benghazi had become dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming more and more likely.”

The report said there were “dozens of intelligence reports and acts of violence” in Benghazi indicating that the danger was growing but there also was a “woefully inadequate response by our government officials,” he said.

Even though the State Department relied on local security guard companies and militia, the department “failed to take adequate steps to fill in… security gaps, failed to adequately support security requests from its own personnel in Benghazi,” Lieberman said, “and failed to make the one remaining decision that cries out to me… which was to simply say, we’ve got to close this facility because we can’t protect American personnel in Benghazi.”

The report said the Defense Department failed to have adequate resources in place in the region in the event of a crisis.

“Although [the Pentagon] attempted to quickly mobilize its resources, it did not have assets or personnel close enough to reach Benghazi in a timely fashion,” Lieberman said.

The report also took to task the President Barack Obama Administration for its handling of the attack, finding the White House’s “inconsistent” statements made in the days “unfortunately created some of the confusion and division in our own country about what had happened in Benghazi more than it really should have,” Lieberman said.

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), the committee’s ranking Republican, said she agreed with Lieberman that while it was important to maintain a strong U.S. presence around the world, “we have an obligation” to provide American personnel security and “make them as safe as possible.”

“The fact is, that Benghazi was awash with dangerous weapons and extremists,” she said. “And yet the State Department either ignored or responded incompletely to repeated pleas for more security, for more assistance from those on the ground in Libya.”

“Senator Collins and I obviously hope that the report assists the administration and Congress in working together to bring about needed reforms that will help prevent anything like this tragedy in Benghazi from happening again,” Lieberman said. “And that is our way to honor the extraordinary service of Ambassador Stevens and the three others who died that day in Libya, and to make sure, in that sense, that they did not die in vain.”

On Sunday, Obama blamed security “sloppiness” in the deadly attack. Obama told the NBC News program “Meet the Press” he agreed with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to carry out all 29 recommendations made Dec. 18 by an independent review board that was highly critical of the State Department for failing to identify and respond to security risks before the four Americans were killed.

“My message to the State Department has been very simple, and that is we’re going to solve this,” Obama said. “We’re not going to be defensive about it. We’re not going to pretend that this was not a problem. This was a huge problem, and we’re going to implement every single recommendation that’s been put forward.”

Obama said a key review board finding — that the State Department relied too heavily on local Libyan militias to safeguard the compound, leaving diplomats and other U.S. personnel highly vulnerable — was similar to a finding in internal Administration reviews.

“It confirms what we had already seen, based on some of our internal reviews. There was just some sloppiness, not intentional, in terms of how we secure embassies in areas where you essentially don’t have governments that have a lot of capacity to protect those embassies,” Obama said.

Four State Department officials were fired a day after the report was released.

UPI - United Press International, Inc.

Since 1907, United Press International (UPI) has been a leading provider of critical information to media outlets, businesses, governments and researchers worldwide.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Report Faults State, Pentagon, White House”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • tgsherman

    It is still a cover-Up!! When will Hillary testify!!

    • wandamurline

      Where is the independent investigation? This is the biggest coverup since Clinton/Monica and Watergate, yet we have NO investigative reporters covering the story…the lame stream is also involved in the coverup and when this comes time to go to jail, they should be included. Where is Kenneth Star? Americans need to know the truth and the one question that no one seems to want to ask “Who gave the stand down order?” It is much easier for these elists to continue to lie like the dogs that they are, than to have a LIVE ambassador sitting in front of a Congressional Panel asking what the heck he was doing there in the first place? COVER UP< COVER UP< COVER UP.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        I agree with you! We need an independent investigation but we’ll never get one!!! How about, our government stop doing dirty deals to overthrow other governments?!? I guess that’ll never happen either! Our government does the dirty work for the globalists who want a one world government!!!

        • Kansas Bright

          Working to turn the USA into a “one world government IS TREASON. Obama, Panetta, and Dempsey have all admitted to treason in front of the senate under video, plus Obama’s letter to Boehner.

          Those who were there in the senate that day committed TREASON against the USA when they did not call for the immediate arrest to be held for prosecution of Dempsey, Panetta, and Obama.

          They have committed Treason, murder, mass murder, war crimes, and various other civil and criminal acts more times then once. Unless we all start DEMANDING of those who take oaths in our state to represent the state in the federal government – require their arrest. Ask them why they are committing treason. Demand it over, and over, and over again.

      • eddie47d

        What you want to arrest Cheney and give him another heart attack?

      • sam1966

        Ah yes! Here is Ed talking about the last administration, when this one is the one at fault at the present time. Cheney, baaaaa! Bush, baaaaa! Iraq, baaaaa! Afghanistan, baaaaa! Sounds like a good little sheeple, doesn’t he? Here is some resolution ideas for Obama bin Laden:

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!

        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.

        “That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the Divine authority of the Old and New Testiments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this state.”

        Article 32
        North Carolina State Constitution

  • s mart pants

    Fired but still on the payroll ? How do I get a gig like that ?

    • Steve E

      They just moved to another desk.

  • Kansas Bright

    First, it was NOT a consulate! Get it straight. The corporate news media wrongly labeled the building a “consulate” to aid in the cover-up, and to distract attention from those in our government committing treason and other criminal acts..

    The document uses phrases and descriptions that is not utilized by corporate media to describe the facility and the role it most likely played in Benghazi. The report calls the facility a “Special U.S. Mission” and it clearly contradicts any claim that the “special mission” was to serve as a liaison office to the local government – that infact the local government was not informed of the existence of the mission.

    The report also relates how U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens first came secretly to Libya to serve as a liaison to the rebels fighting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi. That he played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime, according to Egyptian security officials.

    Middle Eastern security sources described both the U.S. mission and the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as THE intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar – rebel fighters that are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

    The “special” status of the mission explains why there was minimum (and no visible) security presence at what the corporate media says was a “consulate.” Security would have draw unwanted attention to the building that was used for “sensitive” and scretative purposes such as coordinating aid to the opposition. Security officials also said that the building was often used by Stevens – and others – to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments to supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria. Also disclosed was the prominent role Stevens had in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria by the Egyptian security officials.

    The U.S. provided direct assistance, including weapons and finances, to the Libyan rebels, plus has aided rebels fighting Assad’s regime in Syria including al-Qaida jihadists that in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army. Plus rebel leader said that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, the same ones who had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    This is Treason from the highest office and his adminstration. It is also MURDER, mass murder, war crimes, and other criminal and civil offenses.

    • Elda

      All that said, and very well I might add, WHO THE HELL DO WE GET TO ACT ON THIS! It is TREASON and we have so many people that have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution and are not acting it is time for the people to do something. What do we do?

      • Kansas Bright

        Start with your state constituion and the oath required of your state reps. Find out what reps, etc that are supporting and implementing UN”s Agenda 21 takeover of the USA by unconstitutional means – TREASON. Here are some of the laws that apply, including those that apply to treaties – since many try to defend treasonous activities with them:

        Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

        All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war.

        Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, the United States Supreme Court held: There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

        November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, TO PRESERVE THE BALANCE OF POWER ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FROM EXECUTIVE USURPATION, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:

        The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations – whether members of the League or not – under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide. (caps are mine)

        Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, the Supreme Court of the United States held: The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

        Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition.

        The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919.

        Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

        United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192, Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court: There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

        In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated: Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.
        (He presided over the Nuremberg Trials for the USA as Chief Justice)

        In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:

        “No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “to raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

        U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King…” (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)

        On to Treason and other crimes:

        Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

        The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

        Title 18 US code section 2381 – Treason:

        Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

        18 USC § 2382 – Misprision of treason:

        Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

        18 USC § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection:

        Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

        {That would be “change” and using propaganda, lies, misinformation, and a *corporate media cartel}.

        *Almost 100% of the mainstream media is owned by seven companies: Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS, Viacom, NBCUniversal, and Sony. They control everything: movies, television, all the major newspapers and news, and even music record labels.
        When one company dominates an industry, it is a monopoly. When a handful of companies cooperatively dominate an industry, it is a “Cartel.” This is what we have with our mainstream media – an elite group that is cooperatively and covertly controlling everything that comes through our television, radio, newspaper, and theater.

        “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.” Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969}

        {Manipulating public opinion to destroy the US Constitution, our legitimate gov is treason.}

        18 USC § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy:

        If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

        Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof… assassination of any officer of any such government; or

        Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

        Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof…

        Breaking their legally binding Oath means they no longer meet the legal REQUIREMENTS of the office or position they are occupying. Here are the laws applying:

        Clause 2 of Article VI of the ORIGINAL Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

        The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT the federal government.

        The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

        The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

        Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

        The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

        They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

        Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

        Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
        Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

        Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding. Both parties knowingly understand what they are agreeing to is the other requirement to legally establish an agreement or contract.

        Consideration: According to “Black’s Law Dictionary,” consideration in a contract is a bargained for exchange of acts or forbearance of an act.

        Require, Requirement, Required: “to claim or ask for by right and authority; Mandated under a law or by an authoritative entity. That which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory; something demanded or imposed as an obligation.”

        “Blacks Law Dictionary” states that a contract is
        1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law.

        The Framers placed the Oath of Office Clause BETWEEN preceding clauses that set forth the organization of the executive department and succeeding clauses that specify the contours of the President’s executive power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

        The Framers placed “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.

        Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

        Article VI, clause 2, says the Constitution, and the Laws & Treaties authorized by the Constitution, are the “supreme Law of the Land”.

        Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.”

        If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

        Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order that further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.

        5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.

        5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,

        5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

        The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath of office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

        The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.

        One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”

        Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States.
        Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

        President Truman relieved MacArthur because MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties. Precedent.

        Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the oath of office… Another precedent. There are more…

        This shows that the oath is NOT simply an administrative error, it has always been considered legally binding. In fact, the practice at the time was to publish the sentence in a newspaper “to prevent in future the commission of such crimes.”

        Hope this helps you to get started. Please do all you can to get this information out to everyone. It is important.

        Stay Safe and Detention Free!

    • ranger09

      Well what do we have, The DOD The Pentagon, The White House are to Blame, And just think it took smart and overpaid politicians to come to this decision. Now where does the Truth come from. An as for an Independent Investigation with Govt hired people, Do you really think this would bring out the Truth, Heck No, Will anyone get Punished, Heck no. Only punishment was the people that got killed there. Politicians protect ea other.

  • Bob Rice

    FIRED HELL !!! transferred to another desk job,PROBABLY with a substantial pay raise…

  • Randy131

    If they closed the Consulate and CIA Compound in Benghazi, then how was Obama going to funnel arms through Turkey illegally to the Alqueda Operatives fighting against the Assad regime in Syria? Didn’t the Democrats try to prosecute President Reagan and Col. Oliver North for doing the same thing against Iran, known as the Iran/Contra scandal? Does the silence of the Democrats about Obama illegally arming the Alqueda Operatives, fighting in Syria to over-throw the Assad regime, make them ‘HYPOCRITES’? The last meeting Ambassador Stevens took, before he was killed, was with the Turkey Ambassador to Libya, about clandestinely sending even more arms to the Alqueda Operatives in Syria, fighting to over-throw the Assad regime, that was being shipped to Turkey from Benghazi, to be sent from there into Syria, and all being done illegally. The real reason no extra security, that was requested by Ambassasor Stevens, was sent to Benghazi is that Obama didn’t want any more attention to be diverted to that location, that might expose his illegal clandestine shipments of arms, through Turkey and on to the Alqueda Operatives fighting in Syria, to over-throw the Assad regime.

    • Elda

      Who are the Americans Obama is trying to free? Where have they been taken hostage? To what end are both situations the same?

      • Elda

        The first thing was the wrong thing for the right reason the second is the wrong thing for the wrong reason. They were both wrong but there was at least some honor in the first. There is only shame in the second.

  • SJJolly

    There is certainly movement towards a one world government — of and by the international corporations, who cooperate in furthering their power and profits. However, why would they try to form the 100+ national governments into one? Much easier to control events by playing one nation against another than by trying to control a One World Congress.

    Was the US “consulate” in Benghazi a CIA front? Very likely. However, why would US officials knowingly support al-Qaeda forces, in Syria or elsewhere? Such would be certain political poison, and make sense only to those who think our govenment is in secret league with al-Qaeda.

    • Kansas Bright

      The results of an independent investigation probing the Benghazi attack contains information indicating the U.S. mission in Libya was involved in activities outside the diplomatic realm. The report calls the facility a “Special U.S. Mission.” It contains information that contradicts any claim that the special mission was to serve as a liaison office to the local government, that the local government was not even informed of the existence of the mission.

      Ambassador Stevens was involved in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime, according to Egyptian security officials. According to Middle Eastern security sources both the U.S. mission and the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi was the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels. Many rebel fighters Stevens and the CIA recruited were openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

      (From WND) ‘The security officials divulged the building was routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria.
      Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.
      Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.
      The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review…

  • Viv

    Obama simply speaks all the right words so all his sheep will continue to follow. Then any wrong doing on his part has been covered by his elegant words; as well as sheltered by the media. Afterall, the people elected him to govern, or should I say dictate! I think we all know that he’s guilty of this negligence, and is an embarrassment to the office of our Presidency, and all of us as a nation! Some “Nobel Peace Prize” winner he turned out to be!!


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.