US State Dept Running Scared – Scrubbing Documents, Denying the Undeniable

To truly understand the perspective of our research, and how it lends to the analysis of the unfolding events, please reference one of our very first reports on Libya and how Egypt is the fundamental connection to their future.   CLICK HERE 

The US Media want you to believe Egypt and Libya are two completely divergent ideological entities, apples and oranges, separate.  This is a lie.   This is their primary lie.  This foundational lie is what helps them frame the house of lies.  It is important to firstly dispatch that untrue talking point (media lie) from your psyche – Then you can better understand.  Once you comprehend the manipulative agenda within Libya then find out who stimulated it – Click here  

THEY ARE TRYING TO HIDE THE SUN WITH TWO FINGERS AGAIN

REPORTS: State Department Chaos – Now Hiding documents and Scrubbing Website to avoid the TRUTH.  The US Government was specifically warned of an attack – on 9-11 in Benghazi yet claimed exactly the opposite, and told people there was no known actionable threat…...  (more below)

CNN Reporting -  3 Days Warning:  Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.  He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn’t good for international business.

“The situation is frightening, it scares us,” Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.  (more)

To fully comprehend how utterly inept the Obama Administration’s foreign policy is it is always better to reference prior behavior. Think back to the beginning of the Arab Spring – Think back to Hillary Clinton saying one thing, and President Obama stating the complete opposite (Egypt/Mubarak). Think back to 11 days of AWOL Obama in Libya when Gaddafi was pushing back against his countries uprising and Obama was silent. Think back to Hillary Clinton saying the state department does not know “who the rebels actually are” in Benghazi.
Think back to UN Ambassador Susan Rice travelling to South Africa for a global warming weekend class/discussion while the United Nations Security Council met to discuss Libya during the crisis. Yeah, that’s right we had no-one there representing us, or our opinion, AT THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING to discuss how to deal with Gaddafi and Libya.   Instead, at the president’s specific instructions, Ambassador Rice was discussing “Cow Farts”, true, no joke. Bovine flatulence and how it can impact climate change – Conference Topic. [February 23, 24, 25th 2011 - look it up].

From this 2011 UN Security Council Meeting came the International Criminal Court (ICC) charges against Gadaffi. Those short-sighted charges essentially insured the rebellion in Libya would be a fight to the death – Because Ghadaffi now had nothing to lose. If he quit the fight, he would be arrested, tried at the Hague and spend the rest of his life in jail. So why not fight to the death – he did.
But the example is about how short-sighted, inept, detached, and complacent the President Obama outlook is.
It really is *that* bad.
It is horribly weak, bordering on cowardice, for the extreme lengths Obama and Clinton will go to avoid dealing with issues.
Quite simply, they both are terrible – they talk two divergent narratives simultaneously – they are both horribly lazy – they obviously dislike each other - they are not often selling the same story – they are both extremely horrible managers of people and processes – However, they both possess one striking commonality, that, in the world of diplomacy is toxically dangerous; they are both extremely unprofessional and sloppy.

First Powerline Blog outlines the Chaos at the State Dept – I spoke with a well-placed journalist last night whose sources describe the situation at the State Department in one word: “Chaos.” The working assumption is that several American embassies may have been penetrated, or are vulnerable to attack, because so many of them rely on local residents for staff needs at the embassy, and as such may be in a position to breach security if they have been recruited by Al Qaida. Moreover, the full story of the attack on the Benghazi consulate is much worse than we have been told (except by the Independent newspaper report John and I linked to here on Thursday).

The consulate in Benghazi was an interim facility, with only a standard door lock for security, and worse, Ambassador Stevens was traveling with only a light security detail, rather than in the heavily armed convoys our diplomats in the region usually employ. The attack on the Benghazi was no mere target of opportunity spurred by reaction to the “Innocence of Muslims” film; the film is just a pretext. The killing of Amb. Stevens was a premeditated hit, planned and carried out as retaliation for the recent drone strike that killed the number two Al Qaida operative in Afghanistan recently. The vulnerability of Stevens at the Benghazi compound was scouted out carefully. All the other embassy protest activity is just covering theater. (read more)

Jim Hoft at GatewayPundit has the story:  On Wednesday September 12, 2012 blogger Speak With Authority discovered that five days before 9-11, the US State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11.
The Overseas Security Advisory Council, who posted the memo, is part of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the U.S. Department of State.
Here is a screen grab of the memo at the OSAC website:

But now it’s gone.   The State Department scrubbed the letter from its OSAC website.

The damning memo is gone.  How convenient. They flushed the damning memo down the internet memory hole.  (read more)

A History Lesson:

In the rush to curtail Muammar al-Qaddafi’s military capacity to attack civilians in Libya, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on February 26,2011 to impose a comprehensive arms embargo on Libya. But the measure also unwittingly impeded the effort of the Western-backed rebels to fight Qaddafi’s forces.
Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1970 required all U.N. members to “immediately take the necessary measures” to bar the sale, supply or transfer of weapons, mercenaries, or other supplies to Libya. The arms embargo, which was adopted before the rebels had emerged as a potential threat to the regime, included no exemptions for Qaddafi’s foes.
Perhaps the reason both Ambassador Rice and President Obama were unaware of the arms embargo is because they were both detached from Libyan decisions at the time the UN met in emergency session to make the resolution:   Which included #1.  Asset Freeze.  #2. ICC referral.  #3. Arms Embargo.   This was on February 23, 24, 25, 26, 2011 in UN emergency session.  
UN Ambassador Susan Rice chose not to attend, and Obama was hosting a Motown review in the White House East Room.   They were disinterested !!  
It was not until the press began poking Obama over the optics of his golf bag whilst Libyans were strafed in the streets that Obama decided to take a look at Libya.   11 days after the entire flipping thing started.   Hello?  People?  Can you see how flipping incompetent this administration is yet?   Anyone ?…

ODS - Sédoc

Official Documents System of the United Nations		Système de diffusion électronique des documents de l'ONU

There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link,
- Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow cookies or
- Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked or
- You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with this application.
Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means.


Si vous êtes arrivé à cette page à partir d’un lien hypertexte,
- Paramétrez Internet Explorer de façon à autoriser les cookies. Pour cela, cliquez sur Outils (Tools), puis sur Options Internet (Internet Options), puis sur l’onglet Confidentialité et choisissez le niveau de confidentialité requis;
- Si cela ne suffit pas, vérifiez les paramètres d’Internet Explorer en matière de sécurité pour vous assurer que le site n’a pas été bloqué.
Pour cela, cliquez sur Outils, puis sur Options Internet, puis sur l’onglet Sécurité, puis sur la liste des sites sensibles.
Si ces réglages restent sans effet, c’est que votre connexion est trop lente pour vous permettre d’utiliser cette application.
Dans les autres cas de figure, vous êtes parvenu à ce site par des moyens non autorisés.

Busted!… State Department Scrubs Damning Memo From Website Following Deadly 9-11 Consulate Attacks

 

On Wednesday September 12, 2012 blogger Speak With Authority discovered that five days before 9-11, the US State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11.
The Overseas Security Advisory Council, who posted the memo, is part of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the U.S. Department of State.
Here is a screengrab of the memo at the OSAC website:

The OSAC memo said:

Terrorism and Important Dates
Global
9/6/2012
OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.

But now it’s gone.
The State Department scrubbed the letter from its OSAC website.

The damning memo is gone.
How convenient. They flushed the damning memo down the internet memory hole.
Dan Riehl has more.
We heard the reports about the chaos at the State Department.
But we had no idea they were scrubbing documents.

 

Chaos at the State Dept?

I spoke with a well-placed journalist last night whose sources describe the situation at the State Department in one word: “Chaos.”  The working assumption is that several American embassies may have been penetrated, or are vulnerable to attack, because so many of them rely on local residents for staff needs at the embassy, and as such may be in a position to breach security if they have been recruited by Al Qaida.  Moreover, the full story of the attack on the Benghazi consulate is much worse than we have been told (except by the Independent newspaper report John and I linked to here on Thursday).
The consulate in Benghazi was an interim facility, with only a standard door lock for security, and worse, Ambassador Stevens was traveling with only a light security detail, rather than in the heavily armed convoys our diplomats in the region usually employ.  The attack on the Benghazi was no mere target of opportunity spurred by reaction to the “Innocence of Muslims” film; the film is just a pretext.  The killing of Amb. Stevens was a premeditated hit, planned and carried out as retaliation for the recent drone strike that killed the number two Al Qaida operative in Afghanistan recently.  The vulnerability of Stevens at the Benghazi compound was scouted out carefully.  All the other embassy protest activity is just covering theater.
As Drudge would say, developing. . .

The Libyan Scandal Deepens

The Independent is reporting that the State Department had intelligence that American diplomatic facilities in the Middle East were being targeted, but did nothing to enhance security:

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

It is difficult to get a clear understanding of what happened in Benghazi. Chris Stevens had been traveling in other countries and only recently returned to Libya. There has been no explanation of why he was in Benghazi (as opposed to the capital, Tripoli) or how many other Americans were also there. Apparently the terrorists first attacked the consulate, which was virtually undefended:

According to security sources the consulate had been given a “health check” in preparation for any violence connected to the 9/11 anniversary. In the event, the perimeter was breached within 15 minutes of an angry crowd starting to attack it at around 10pm on Tuesday night. There was, according to witnesses, little defence put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: “The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs.”

So where were the Marines? Stevens and others went to a supposed “safe house,” but the location of the house apparently had been betrayed to the terrorists. The explanation of how Stevens died from smoke inhalation is curious at best:

Mr Stevens, it is believed, was left in the building by the rest of the staff after they failed to find him in dense smoke caused by a blaze which had engulfed the building.

So they fled the building without the Ambassador? And where were the terrorists at that point? They had attacked the building with RPGs, as I understand it, and the building evidently was on fire. Did the terrorists just evaporate and allow the other staff members to leave?
Supposedly, a group of friendly Libyans found Ambassador Stevens lying unconscious in the burned-out safe house and took him to a hospital. This apparently is when the photos we have seen were taken. The crowd doesn’t look particularly friendly to me. But where were the terrorists while that was going on?
Some hours later, apparently, a large group of Americans was rescued from the “safe house.” How can that be? The safe house was on fire. Did they arrive after an earlier group had departed from the safe house, and the friendly Libyans had removed Ambassador Stevens’s body? Apparently, but that makes no sense. In any event, a force was sent from Tripoli to rescue them:

An eight-strong American rescue team was sent from Tripoli and taken by troops under Captain Fathi al- Obeidi, of the February 17 Brigade, to the secret safe house to extract around 40 US staff. The building then came under fire from heavy weapons. “I don’t know how they found the place to carry out the attack. It was planned, the accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries,” said Captain Obeidi. “It began to rain down on us, about six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa.”

So now apparently the terrorists are back, this time with mortars! This isn’t a mob, it’s a military force. Despite the mortar attack, the eight Americans were able to resuce the 40 US staff from the supposedly burned-out safe house. It was somewhere in this time period when they learned what had happened to Stevens, apparently some hours earlier:

Libyan reinforcements eventually arrived, and the attack ended. News had arrived of Mr Stevens, and his body was picked up from the hospital and taken back to Tripoli with the other dead and the survivors.

This narrative does not make a lot of sense; the time sequence is confused, to say the least, and the story of what happened to Stevens doesn’t appear to add up. A Congressional investigation should be undertaken to find out what happened and why adequate security precautions were not taken. A Congressional committee will also want to inquire into how secret documents fell into the terrorists’ hands, compromising American intelligence assets in Libya:

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.
Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

There is a great deal more to be learned about what happened in Libya, and why. The Obama administration will carry out its usual cover-up, so it is up to Congress to try to dig out the real story.

these ads