The Benghazi cover story

Posted on November 13, 2013. Filed under: Central Intelligence Agency, Columns, Congress, Crime, Foreign Policy, Homicide, Law, Liberty, People, Philosophy, Politics, War, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Benghazi cover story

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

Transfer_Remains_Ceremony

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speak at transfer of remains ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base for Americans killed in Benghazi.         Credit:www.vosizneias.com

The Benghazi cover story was an awful, offensive, crude and disgusting online video that insulted believers in Islam lead to a spontaneous protest that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

On Sept. 14, 2012 during the transfer of remains ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made remarks to the families of the four Americans killed in Benghazi. She briefly reviewed the careers and lives of the deceased: Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Clinton said, “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

On Sept. 16, 2012, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on all five Sunday morning TV news shows. The interviewers on all five shows asked Rice to provide the Obama administration’s explanation for the murder of the four Americans in Benghazi.

On ABC’s  “This Week,” in response to a question by Jake Tapper,  Rice answered, “But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.”  Rice repeated this explanation on all five shows.

On Sept. 25, 2012, President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York. He also repeated Rice’s explanation for what happened in Benghazi. Obama said, “That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video.”

According to an Associated Press story by Paul Schemm and Michael Maggie: “Within 24 hours of the attack, both the embassy in Tripoli and the CIA station chief sent word to Washington that it was a planned militant attack,” and “there was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.”

The terrorist attackers numbering about 150 are suspected of being members of the powerful militia organization Ansar al-Shariah. Their members espouse a jihadist al-Qaida-like ideology. They fought in the Libyan civil war that overthrew the 42-year dictatorship of Moammar Gadhafi.

Gregory Hicks was deputy chief of mission and charge d’affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya on Sept. 11. He was called to testify before the House Oversight Committee that is investigating Benghazi on May 9. Hicks said, “I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think everybody at the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.”

On Oct. 27 CBS’s 60 Minutes Lara Logan said, “Contrary to the White House’s public statements, which were still being made a full week later, it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by al-Qaida in a well-planned assault.”

Logan’s reporting coup was an interview with a new source, a British security officer, who uses a pseudonym. He said, “On his first drive through Benghazi, he noticed the black flags of al- Qaida flying openly in the streets and he grew concerned about the guard forces as soon as he pulled up to the U.S. compound.”

Also interviewed was Lt. Col. Andy Wood, chief security officer in Libya, and Hicks. Wood said, “Al-Qaida — using a familiar tactic — had stated their intent in an online posting, saying they would attack the Red Cross, the British and then the Americans in Benghazi. They made good on two out of the three promises. It was a matter of time ‘til they captured the third one.”

Wood added, “I made it known in a country team meeting, ‘You are gonna get attacked. You are gonna get attacked in Benghazi. It’s gonna happen. You need to change your security profile.’”

On Oct. 28  Fox News interviewed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). He said, “So I am calling for a joint select committee. … The people who survived the attack in Benghazi, have not been made available to the U.S. Congress for oversight purposes. I’m going to block every appointment in the United States Senate until the survivors are being made available to the Congress.”

The truth was known from the beginning that the terrorist attacks were planned and well-organized by a militia group called Ansar al-Shariah and had absolutely nothing to do with a YouTube video. The Benghazi cover story was a lie repeatedly told to deceive the American people during an election year.

Raymond Thomas Pronk presents the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 4-5 p.m. Monday thru Thursday and from 3-5 p.m. Friday and authors the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Missiles of September

Posted on November 13, 2013. Filed under: Economics, Government, Government Spending, Law, Liberty, People, Philosophy, Politics, War, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Missiles of September

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

abort_launch_button

Did Russian President Vladimir Putin abort President Barack Obama’s plan to launch the missiles of September?

In a surprise move on Sept. 9, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, “We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons.”

Lavrov added, “If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus.”

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Syria was ready for, “full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression.”

Also on Sept. 9 in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Obama said, “It is potentially a positive development. I have to say that it is unlikely that we would have arrived at that point where there are even public statements like that without a credible military threat to deal with the chemical weapons used inside of Syria.”

Diane Sawyer of ABC News asked Obama, “If Bashar Assad yields control of his chemical weapons to an international authority, are we back from the brink? Is the military strike on pause? Obama answered, “Absolutely, if in fact that happened.”

In his televised speech of Sept. 10 on Syria, Obama said, “This initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies. I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue the diplomatic path.”

In response to Obama’s speech, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said, “Twelve years after we were attacked by al-Qaida, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaida, President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaida. Al Qaeda. Americans by a large majority want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. We fail to see a national security interest in a war between a leader who gasses his own citizens and Islamic rebels who are killing Christians.”

Paul added, “Some argue that American credibility is on the line, that because President Obama drew a red line with chemical weapons, America must act or lose credibility. I would argue that America’s credibility does not reside in one man. If our enemies wish to know if America will defend herself, let them look no farther than our response to 9/11. When attacked, we responded with overwhelming force and with the military objective of complete victory over our attackers.”

On Sept. 9 Charlie Rose on “CBS This Morning” interviewed Bashar al-Assad. Assad denied ordering the use of chemical weapons and said his own troops were attacked by Syrian rebels that used chemical weapons.

Rose asked what repercussions the United States could expect in the event of a strike. Assad replied “You should expect everything. Not necessarily through the government. The government is not necessarily the only player in the region . . .  Expect every action.”

Rose asked, “Including chemical warfare?” Assad replied, “If the rebels or the terrorists in this region have it, it could happen. I don’t know . . .  Nobody expected the 11th of September.”

Ryan Crocker, former ambassador to Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and Kuwait, wrote in an article titled “Containing the Fire in Syria” in YaleGlobal Online, “So what are the options? First, to recognize that as bad as the situation is, it could be made much worse. A major western military intervention would do that. And lesser steps, such as a no-fly zone, could force the West to greater involvement if they proved unsuccessful in reducing violence. The hard truth is that the fires in Syria will blaze for some time to come. Like a major forest fire, the most we can hope to do is contain it. And it’s already spreading. Al-Qaida in Iraq and Syria have merged, and car bombs in Iraq are virtually a daily occurrence as these groups seek to reignite a sectarian civil war.”

On Sept. 8, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on “ABC This Week,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said “I think a military attack is a mistake. One, because I think the administration is proceeding with the wrong objective, and two, because they have no viable plan for success.” Cruz added, “They are beginning from the wrong objective because this attack is not based on defending U.S. national security… I don’t think that’s the job of our military to be defending amorphous international norms.

“Just because Assad is a murderous tyrant doesn’t mean his opponents are any better. … Either the strike is really significant, it weakens Assad and the result is the rebels are able to succeed, and if that happened there is al-Qaida taking over, or Al Nusra taking over, and extremist terrorists getting access to those chemical weapons. That hurts U.S. national security,” Cruz added.

In 2007 then Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Biden’s view was that if President George W. Bush ordered an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities without Congressional authorization, it would be unconstitutional and an impeachable offense.

In poll after poll the American people oppose military intervention in and war with Syria.

In a CNN/ORC international poll of 1,022 adult Americans conducted Sept. 6-8 and released Sept. 9, eight in 10 Americans believe the Assad regime gassed the Syrian people. However, 39 percent favor and 59 percent oppose Congress passing a resolution authorizing military action in Syria for 60 days. Should Congress fail to pass a resolution authorizing the president to use U.S. air strikes against military targets in Syria, 27 percent favor and 71 percent oppose the use of air strikes unilaterally by the president.

The reality is the American people, their representatives in Congress and the United State Constitution aborted the president’s plan to launch the missiles of September.

Raymond Thomas Pronk presents the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 4-5 p.m. Monday thru Thursday and from 3-5 p.m. Friday and authors the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...