- Alternate History
- Nanny State
- National Debt
- Non Fiction
- Occupy Wallstreet
- Rock 'n Roll
- Short Story
- Tea Party
- World News
GoodreadsNo data found
From Benghazi to Boston
There exists a Saudi agenda that involves shielding the truth to the american public. It’s about an agenda to shape the world power structure. The Obama regime is in power to finish what was started a long time ago. Now, under Obama and a complicit media they are shielding the truth from the American people. We are being lied to about nearly everything from Benghazi to Boston, and the common player in all of this is Saudi Arabia.
Our close relationship with Saudi Arabia began to blossom under George Herbert Walker Bush, and was further expanded by George W. Bush, a/k/a ‘Bandar Bush,’ a name earned for his intimate relationship with Prince Sultan bin Bandar of Saudi Arabia. It should be clear that the continuity of this globalist, Pan-Islamic agenda that existed under Bush was further solidified and even expanded by the Obama administration. It is not a political agenda, but a globalist one.
We do not have elected leaders who favor the U.S., but internationalists that favor the globalist agenda. Knowing this should reveal the right-left political struggle that is a historical artifact, and provide prospective in terms of how the government is pushing this globalist agenda towards completion. We’ve been overtaken and captured from within by this invisible cabal.
We’ve learned ever since the 9/11 attacks that the Saudis are the largest exporters of terrorism, yet we continue to work for them, providing our military assets and our troops to do their dirty work. They have infiltrated key levels of our government. This did not begin under Obama, but was expanded by him. And what better presidential candidate was there to accomplish this objective? Now does his meteoric rise from a community organizer to state senator to President make better sense?
We still cannot even have any intelligent conversation about Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy to hold the Office of President without being marginalized by both sides of the political divide. Why then, would we expect the truth about Benghazi? And yet, Americans believe what they see and hear about everything from Benghazi, Boston, and even to matters of our economy? We are a captured nation of sheep.
Discovering the truth from the lies shows just how deep the U.S. cabal is involved with expanding the Saudi Kingdom of power across the Middle East, even at our own national peril. Of critical importance, this relationship is leading us on the path to World War III.
Before the marathon bombings, Russian intelligence officials warned the U.S. about the Islamic terror threat posed by Islamic terrorists in the U.S., including the older brother of the Boston bombing duo. The FBI Knew the identity of the elder Boston bomber a year ago. Yet, the U.S. DHS, deliberately ignored the warnings. We’re spreading and actually sponsoring this radicalization through this Pan-Islamic agenda, yet most people cannot see the bigger picture.
Putin warned us that our policies were the equivalent of playing with dynamite, and continuing to play would result in a direct confrontation with them. During the so-called Arab Spring, Putin also warned the U.S. not to destabilize the Middle East. Syria holds strategic military and economic importance for Russia and China, and is a neighbor to Iran, another country of importance to both superpowers.
Despite these warnings, the U.S. set up the largest weapons running operation in Benghazi, a location from where weapons were shipped under U.S. operational command to the Islamic terrorists in Syria to topple the Assad regime. The Saudis were bankrolling this operation, but are duplicitous. Benghazi was the direct result of this operation, and we now find ourselves in a proxy war with Russia-and soon possibly China-with no peaceful end in sight as we continue to do the dirty work for the Saudis, the globalists, the international bankers, and this global Cabal. The terror attacks in Boston were the latest blowback from our foreign policy, and there will be more.
Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, and the entirety of the Obama regime are refusing to provide Americans with any truths about what is actually taking place, whether it is about a Saudi citizen or the attacks in Benghazi, and complete Saudi agenda. Meanwhile, clueless Americans cheer as the younger bombing suspect is arrested after one of the most unprecedented manhunts in U.S. history, but fail to see all of the entanglements of this Saudi cabal. We are willfully and almost gleefully giving up our rights because of the globalists who are running the foreign and domestic policies.
The path to WW III shows that the
people must be able to see the connections that connect the terrorist attacks in Boston to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. We are emboldening the Muslim terrorists with our foreign policies. We are training them, arming them, and even siding with one faction over another. We are not exporting peace or liberating people from oppression, but being complicit in creating a new world order.
Time and again, from the first World Trade Center Bombing to 9/11, from Benghazi to Boston, we see the same pattern right in front of our eyes and don’t recognize it. We are not dealing with Americans with an American mentality. No, we are dealing with Americans in name only, driven by an internationalist, global mentality.
So when you see the next manhunt that closes a city, understand that this is of our own doing. This is part of a larger agenda that you must step back from and identify. When we surrender our rights domestically, we advance on the path that takes us into WW III. Boston was an indirect blowback from Benghazi, but the truth of the matter will continue to remain hidden unless we demand and receive answers to the proper questions.
(CBS News) “Everybody in the mission” in Benghazi, Libya, thought the attack on a U.S. consulate there last Sept. 11 was an act of terror “from the get-go,” according to excerpts of an interview investigators conducted with the No. 2 official in Libya at the time, obtained exclusively by CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”
“I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens – then the U.S. ambassador to Libya – and three other Americans.
When he appears this week before the committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Hicks is expected to offer testimony at odds with what some American officials were saying in public – and on “Face the Nation” – just five days after the attack. Benghazi whistleblowers have rallied attention to discrepancies among the administration’s reaction to the attack, which The Weekly Standard suggests was frayed by ever-evolving talking points that sought to remove references to al Qaeda.
Biden, Kerry honor fallen U.S. diplomats
FBI posts new pictures of Benghazi suspects
Full coverage: U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi
On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice hit the media circuit, appearing on all five Sunday talk shows to dispel the notion that the strike was a premeditated terrorist act and to perpetuate the case that it began “spontaneously” out of protests in Egypt. Rice’s spot on “Face the Nation” that day was preceded by the new President of Libya Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had “no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”
“For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens’s front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable,” he said. “I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris – Chris’s last report, if you want to say his final report – is, ‘Greg, we are under attack.’
“…I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day,” Hicks continued in his interview with investigators. “The net impact of what has transpired is, [Rice,] the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world, has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar of doesn’t know what he’s talking about. ….My jaw hit the floor as I watched this.”
Though the White House has said it was in contact with officials in Libya the night of the attack, Hicks said in the days following, he was never consulted about the talking points. One day after Rice’s Sunday show blitz, Hicks said he called Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for near eastern affairs at the State Department, and asked, “Why did Amb. Rice say that?” The tone of her answer – “I don’t know,” he said – indicated that “I perhaps asked a question that I should not have asked.”
The net impact of Rice’s statements, Hicks said, was “immeasurable.” In addition to Magariaf having lost face “in front of not only his own people, but the world” at a time of democratic transition in his country, Hicks added, “I firmly believe that the reason it took us so long to get the FBI to Benghazi is because of those Sunday talk shows.”
“Frankly,” Hicks said, “we never, ever had official approval from the Libyan government to send the FBI to Benghazi. We stitched together a series of lower-level agreements to support from relevant groups, and we sat around in the meeting and we said, ‘Well guys, this is as good as it gets in Libya. And we looked at the legal and said… call it in to D.C. and see if they’re ready, if they’re willing to send a team. And that’s how the FBI got to Benghazi.”
© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Lindsey Boerma is senior video producer for CBSNews.com.
A military special ops member who watched as the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi unfolded last September told Fox News the U.S. had highly trained forces just a few hours away, and said he and others feel the government betrayed the four men who died in the attack.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, and appearing in a Fox News Channel interview with his face and voice disguised, the special operator contradicted claims by the Obama administration and a State Department review that said there wasn’t enough time for U.S. military forces to have intervened in the Sept. 11 attack in which U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, an embassy employee and two former Navy SEALs working as private security contractors were killed.
“I know for a fact that C-110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise in … not in the region of North Africa, but in Europe,” the operator told Fox News’ Adam Housley. “And they had the ability to act and to respond.”
“You know, it’s something that’s risky, especially in our line of profession, to say anything about, anything in the realm of politics, or that deals with policy.”
- Special Forces operator
The C-110 is a 40-man Special Ops force capable of rapid response and deployment specifically trained for incidents like last year’s attack in Benghazi. During the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Libya, the C-110 were training in Croatia, just 3 ½ hours away.
“We had the ability to load out, get on birds and fly there, at a minimum stage,” the operator told Fox News. “C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in a matter of about four hours…four to six hours.”
Being so close, C-110s would have been able to respond had there been a second attack, the source added.
“They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that can facilitate their exfil out of the, out of the problem situation. Nobody knew how it was going to develop. And you hear people and a whole bunch of advisers say, ‘We wouldn’t have sent them because the security was a unknown situation.’”
The source says the government could have at least sent the C-110s there as backup.
“If it’s an unknown situation, at a minimum, you send forces there to facilitate the exfil, or, or, um medical injuries,” he said. “We could have sent a C-30 to Benghazi to provide medical evacuation for the injured.”
The source says many people connected to the Benghazi bombing feel threatened and are afraid to talk.
“The problem is, you got guys in my position, you got guys in special operations community who are still active and still involved,” the source said. “And they would be decapitated if they came forward with information that would affect high level commanders,” he said.
Despite the concern, the source who spoke to Fox News says there’s a feeling of betrayal in the community that the government left people on the ground in Benghazi to fend for themselves.
“You know, it’s something that’s risky, especially in our line of profession, to say anything about, anything in the realm of politics, or that deals with policy,” the source said.
In December, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen told lawmakers the U.S. did not have personnel close enough to have responded to the siege at the consulate, even though the State Department had been repeatedly warned by embassy staffers concerned about security in Libya.