Bombshell Audio: Whistleblower Attorney; 400 Missiles Stolen In Benghazi; Rips Obama

[bsteadman]

Bombshell Audio: Whistleblower Attorney; 400 Missiles Stolen In Benghazi; Rips Obama

Birther Report
8/12/2013

Excerpt:

Attorney for Whistleblower: 400 Missiles Stolen in Benghazi & “In Hands of Some Very Ugly People” (Audio)

By Jim Hoft @ The Gateway Pundit

Joe DiGenova, an attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, told WMAL today that 400 missiles were stolen in Benghazi and ended up “in the hands of some very ugly people.”

( audio )

Breitbart reported:

On August 12, Joe DiGenova, attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, told Washington D.C.’s WMAL that one of the reasons people have remained tight-lipped about Benghazi is because 400 U.S. missiles were “diverted to Libya” and ended up being stolen and falling into “the hands of some very ugly people.” [...]

- Continued at TheGatewayPundit

View the complete Birther Report presentation at:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...-attorney.html

[bsteadman]

New revelation explains why no Benghazi air support?

Attorney for whistleblowers speaks out

WND
Aaron Klein
8/13/2013

Excerpt:

JERUSALEM – Does a new claim from an attorney representing Benghazi whistleblowers explain why air support was never sent to the doomed Benghazi facility the night of the Sept. 11, 2012 attack?

The claim may also help to explain why it took hours for an American-provided C-130 cargo plane to take off from Tripoli for the short flight to Benghazi to help evacuate survivors.

Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. Attorney who represents Benghazi whistleblowers, stated 400 surface-to-air missiles were “taken from Libya” during the attacks and that the U.S. fears the missiles can be used to down aircraft.

DiGenova told WMAL radio in Washington, D.C., he “does not know whether [the missiles] were at the annex, but it is clear the annex was somehow involved in the distribution of those missiles.”

WND was first to report that in a largely unnoticed speech to a think tank seven months before the Benghazi attack, a top State Department official described an unprecedented multi-million-dollar U.S. effort to secure anti-aircraft weapons in Libya after the fall of Muammar Gadhafi’s regime.

The official, Andrew J. Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, explained that U.S. experts were fully coordinating the collection efforts with the Libyan opposition.

He said the efforts were taking place in Benghazi, where a leading U.S. expert was deployed.

Now diGenova is connecting the missiles to the Benghazi attack

He said his information “comes from a former intelligence official who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community.”

He stated the Obama administration is worried the missile can target airliners.

“They are worried, specifically according to these sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner,” he claimed.

He continued: “And it’s pretty clear that the biggest concern right now are 400 missiles which have been diverted in Libya and have gotten in the hands of some very ugly people.”

Anti-aircraft missiles in the hands of the Libyan rebels or other jihadists would have served as a major threat to any incoming U.S. aircraft sent to aid the American targets during the Benghazi attack.

Such missiles also may have threatened the cargo plane that sat on the tarmac for hours in Tripoli before finally being dispatched in the early morning hours.

The State Department had stated the plane took off only after securing it from the Libyan transitional government.

MANPADS prompted Benghazi attacks?

Shapiro conceded that the Western-backed rebels did not want to give up the weapons, particularly Man-Portable-Air-Defense-Systems, or MANPADS, which were the focus of the weapons collection efforts.

The information may shed light on why the U.S. special mission in Benghazi was attacked Sept. 11, 2012.

According to informed Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND, the Benghazi mission was a planning headquarters for coordinating aid, including weapons distribution, to the jihadist-led rebels.

After the fall of Gadhafi, the arming efforts shifted focus to aiding the insurgency targeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Two weeks after the Benghazi attack, WND broke the story that murdered U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself played a central role in arming rebels and recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

In November 2012, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

Speaking to WND, Middle Eastern security officials further stated that after Gadhafi’s downfall, Stevens was heavily involved in the State Department effort to collect weapons from the Libyan rebels.

The weapons were then transferred in part to the rebels fighting in Syria, the officials stated.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., last March disclosed in an interview with Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to keep weapons caches, particularly MANPADS, from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Fox News host Bret Baier asked Graham why Stevens was in the Benghazi mission amid the many known security threats to the facility.

Graham replied, “Because that’s where the action was regarding the rising Islamic extremists who were trying to get their hands on weapons that are flowing freely in Libya.”

The senator stated, “We were desperately trying to control the anti-aircraft missiles, the MANPADS that were all over Libya, that are now all over the Mideast."
......................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/new-revel...i-air-support/

[bsteadman]

Benghazi and the Banality of Evil

American Thinker
Daren Jonescu
8/13/2013

Excerpt:

Is it just me, or is the string of distractions that seem to pop up right on cue every time new light is about to be shed on the Benghazi story getting a little old?

Months late, CNN has gotten around to "breaking" a story that might help to complete the disturbing puzzle for the mainstream public, namely the allegation that Benghazi was the hub of a CIA weapons-running operation. Within hours, this was washed from the headlines by the "chatter" indicating an imminent terror plot that required the United States to close numerous diplomatic facilities. (Hurray, NSA!) And then, within days, the mainstream media was "breaking" the news that the first charges had been laid in connection with the Benghazi attack. (How convenient.)

True to pattern, a mainstream media outlet will get its "honest journalism" points, lifting the lid on the facts just long enough to release a little pressure before the pot explodes, but guaranteeing that by Sunday morning Benghazi will once again have been buried by supposedly more urgent issues.

As many of us have been observing since the fall of 2012, the Benghazi outrage -- an attack that, due to the Obama administration's aggressive passivity, became a massacre -- is the "scandal" that will never go away. And yet the story never achieves the fever pitch of many past, far lesser abuses of power, because the administration, in cahoots with its propaganda wing in the American news media, always finds a way to tamp down the big questions at the very moment those questions threaten to break loose in the American consciousness.

After their initial issuance of official lies regarding a nonexistent spontaneous protest over a video no one in Libya cared about, the two leads in this drama treated the world to a remarkable performance of "The Pair That Wasn't There." First, we had Hillary Clinton, the incredible disappearing woman, whose opening trick was to concede her first big scene, the sweep of Sunday political shows in the first days of the story, to her understudy, Susan Rice. Rice's scripted litany of lies was subsequently defended by the president on the grounds that poor Ms. Rice didn't know what she was talking about. (So why was she chosen to deliver the administration's first official sit-down interview accounts of the attack?) Clinton followed this auspicious opening by turning down a cordial invite to Congress in favor of an urgent State Department trip to...Australia. And then, to top it all off, she went to bed and bumped her head and couldn't get up for several weeks, or at least not up to Capitol Hill.

When at last she testified before Congress, four months after the attack, and two months after she was asked to testify, her only memorable line was "What difference -- at this point -- does it make?," thus punctuating her disappearing act with a classic "They'll never catch me!" flourish for the audience. As I have previously contended, the key words in Clinton's famous argument for ignorance were "at this point." That was her big "oops" moment, when her words and exasperated intonation revealed far more than was prudent. What she revealed was that her own, and the entire administration's, manner of addressing Benghazi was built on a strategy of delay: say anything, leave the country, maneuver around all direct questions, claim to be conducting one's own internal investigation, all in the hope that the fog of time will obscure the most horrendous details of this affair, or at least prevent those details from gathering into a complete and coherent picture in the public's mind. Her indignant qualification -- "at this point" -- suggested a woman flustered at being pressed on matters she could not answer directly without destroying her own career, and perhaps bringing down an entire corrupt administration, but who genuinely believed that she had stalled long enough to dull such pointed interrogation.

And then there is her partner in "scandal," President Obama, who makes plain old Clintonesque hiding and lying look like a cheap stunt. He has taken obfuscation and dissembling to a whole new, delightfully unforeseen level: he can hide the truth even from himself. For weeks, in a variety of formats, from nationally televised presidential debates to TV interviews, he recited an absurdist script that evoked a man whose essence had become so detached from his existence that we were left to wonder whether he even knew he was the one telling the lies. Obama has become a perfect microcosm of the Western democratic political establishment in its hundred-year leftward trajectory: a one-man kabuki performance which presents its falseness so consistently and committedly that it begins to displace reality in the minds of the enthralled/enslaved public.

On Benghazi, Obama's carefully memorized recitation, from which he never strayed, and which he never dared to embellish, was this:

As soon as we found out the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions: Number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in Libya, but in every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us. ... And number three, we are going to find out who did this and we are going to hunt them down.

We now know that Obama was informed of the attack almost immediately, and that he discussed it at a previously scheduled meeting with Leon Panetta during the early moments, after which he never made a single follow-up phone call to inquire about the status of the violence. And yet his public self-defense was that while American government representatives were under deadly attack, he gave three completely generic instructions, all of them focused on long-term bureaucratic action, and none of them intended to address the murderous assault currently underway. It must never be forgotten that this list of absurdly inappropriate responses was meticulously scripted after the fact by handlers who presumably calculated that it was the best light in which Obama's inaction could be framed.
......................................

View the complete article at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...y_of_evil.html

[bsteadman]

Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'Benghazi Was About 400 Surface-to-Air-Missiles Stolen by 'Some Very Ugly People,' DiGenova Says', which was started 8/13/2013 by 'Jim Robinson'

The thread references a 8/13/2013 CNSNews article written by Susan Jones - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-digenova-says

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3054183/posts

Excerpt:

(CNSNews.com) - Former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, who now represents one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, told a Washington radio station Monday that the real scandal in Benghazi is the theft of 400 surface-to-air missiles by some "very ugly people." The Obama administration fears those missiles will be used to shoot down an airplane or blow up one of our embassies, he said.

Speaking to WMAL on Monday morning, DiGenova blasted President Obama for revealing, at his Friday news conference, the existence of a sealed indictment against a Benghazi suspect or suspects.

Then DiGenova added this bombshell:

"We had troops ready to deploy in Croatia to go (to Benghazi) that night of Sept. 11, 2012 to rescue Americans. We have learned that one of the reasons the administration is so deeply concerned -- we have been told there were 400 surface-to-air missiles stolen, and that they are on or about in the hands of many people, and that the biggest fear in the U.S. intelligence community is that one of these missiles will be used to shoot down an airliner."