Thursday, November 29, 2012

Palestine - The Nation

Palestine to be recognized as a "non-member state"    [Naharnet]

UN Votes to recognize Palestine
It appears the upcoming vote on the United Nations' recognition of Palestine as a "non-member state" could be a Middle East game changer -- it will legitimize Palestine as a political entity -- though not a member of the UN, yet. Support from neighboring Middle East states has enhanced President Mahmoud Abbas' [Fatah Party] prestige and builds his diplomatic credentials while Hamas has played the combatant role.

The violent confrontation between the Palestinian Hamas faction and the Israeli military, complete with videos of the resultant carnage in Gaza, have not served the image of Israel well.

We believe the combination of both Palestinian roles encouraged the UN to look favorably on Abbas' petition for statehood status as an alternative to a continued belligerent status between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

M. Begin - Designated Terrorist [KGB file]
The Palestinian statehood process is reminiscent of Israel's formative days, when Menachem Begin, labeled by the Soviets [NKVD (aka: KGB)] and later by the Brits as a "terrorist"; he led the Irgun faction in a series of attacks on the British colonial government forces which culminated in his bombing ofAra the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 -- killing 91 Brits, Arabs, and Jews.

Much like the political strife between Palestinian factions, Begin's violent Irgun was in direct conflict with the Haganah political faction; but later, they joined forces to fight the Arabs.

In 1947, the UN approved the partition of British-administered Palestine, resulting in the dual Jewish and Arab states. Somewhat later, Begin was elected Prime Minister of the UN-recognized state of Israel, thus he transitioned from Terrorist to Diplomat to an internationally accepted National Leader.  As the old saying goes "One man's terrorist is another's "freedom fighter".

Arafat - in healthier days
The UN vote comes in the midst of the exhumation of, and the investigation into the death of Yasser Arafat, who died mysteriously while under Israeli "house arrest" in 2004.  Israel denied any culpability; but, today's forensic science is tough to beat.  Arafat's widow agreed to the exhumation of his body to be tested for Polonium, which had turned up on some of his personal effects.

It seems that Polonium-210 is a highly effective, and very deadly assassination tool.  Mr Putin used it effectively to eliminate former a KGB agent, Alexander Litvinenko, whom Putin regarded as menacing to his political career.  Although today, Polonium is easily recognized and tracked back to the assassin, eight years ago, Arafat's death was presumed to be of natural causes, and he was quickly buried; unlike Radium, which hangs around for three millennia, Polonium-210 evaporates after about 275 days.

Polonium-210
Size of a grain of salt
Who'd have dreamed that eight years later, his body would be exhumed and the forensic squints would be analyzing skin samples.  Although the Polonium-210 has long since disintegrated, there may be evidence of its presence through identifiable breakdown particles as the cause of death.  It's lethality is gauged at about 250,000 times that of hydrogen cyanide, so a dose the size of a grain of salt would be enough to have destroyed all of Arafat's major organs.




Now, the reason suspicious Palestinians are pointing the finger of suspicion at the Israelis is that Polonium-210 is not produced in high volume; that is, only 100 grams are produced each year under highly restricted environments -- in only the US, Russia, and, oops, Israel as part of the process of creating weapons grade fissionable material.

Creating an analytical environment relatively immune from Israeli accusations of "tainted evidence", Al Jazeera managed the study by taking Arafat's clothing and tissue samples to Switzerland's Lausanne University Institute of Radiation Physics, and to independent laboratories in France, Russia, and Switzerland.

So, the results of this inquiry should be announced in the not-too-distant future, and the UN may be unhappy with the findings.

President Abbas

In the meantime, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, will likely be pleased with the UN vote.  To the consternation of the Israelis, Palestinian "statehood" will give the Palestinians international legal status in declaring national territorial water and airspace rights.  Thus, Israeli violation of those rights will come with diplomatic and economic penalties imposed by UN member states -- and possible economic isolation.

Monday, November 26, 2012

CIA: Spies or Assassins?


CIA Lobby.  They used to conduct "espionage"
Now they kill people with Drones


Click here for related story [Washington Post]
Now that General Petraeus has resigned as Director of CIA, the rush is on to find a politically acceptable hack -- or pro -- to manage it.

Sabotaged by CIA's Law Enforcement Mafia [Fox]


Petraeus resigned to circumvent Mr Obama's potential use of Executive Privilege to prevent Petraeus from testifying before Congress on the Benghazi assault.  Petraeus took over a highly politicized CIA and had to fight the Old Guard there while they attempted to manipulate him -- thus the "leaks" to the FBI.
[Even Porter Goss, a former CIA operative and DCI under Bush, was undercut by the CIA Old Guard who undercut him at every opportunity].



Current candidates range from outrageously unqualified hacks to the acceptable; one is qualified for the position.  Petraeus was an excellent Director, but ran afoul of the  CIA hierarchy which has been intent on converting the CIA into a techno-paramilitary surveillance agency -- without portfolio -- but with Drones, and with an eagerness to play soldier -- even though most Case Officers had never served in the Military.

We don't need another politician heading up the CIA.  We've recently had two there, Panetta and Tenet, both incompetent, insecure, self-serving political hacks whose only background in Intelligence consisted of being spoon-fed by CIA lobbyists while they were on Congressional committees -- which continued once they assumed the leadership role.

Let's keep in mind that the mission of the CIA has traditionally been the conduct of Clandestine [i.e., espionage] and Covert [i.e., paramilitary] operations.  Covert operations were carried out with Military Special Operations support.


I've got a secret    [CIA]
Clandestine operations involve HUMINT, or Human Intelligence, using Case Officers/Agent Handlers and support elements to spot, assess, recruit, and manage foreign humans to commit treason and turn over highly classified and sensitive materials of their governments to the CIA.

Such operations generally take years to establish since they entail lengthy spotting and assessing processes, a number of support personnel in the recruitment and vetting process, followed by complex communications processes, and finally, tasking the agent to actually spy and report.  Thus, the Spook Community grieved when Mr Obama outed the principal agent in the Osama bin Laden assassination - plastering his identity and photo for all the world to see -- and destroying years of clandestine operations and exposing the entire support network.

Special Support Staff
Also supporting these clandestine operations were an extraordinary group of highly qualified and well trained Analysts in addition to Psychologists to assess potential foreign agents, and Documentation Specialists who created false passports, drivers' licenses, birth certificates -- and even Social Security Cards [similar to the documentation created for Mr Obama -- but of much higher quality].  Thus, a recruitment of a single recruited agent might entail more than 100 personnel in a variety of support roles.

Over the past 30 years, however, the CIA has drifted away from its traditional espionage role with the dissolution of the USSR, and has moved into the paramilitary realm, staffed with former law enforcement officers from ATF, DEA, State Police, and even street cops -- to rationalize and justify its existence,  leaving its espionage role to the DOD Clandestine Services [quite a role reversal!].

Today's CIA analysts have been consumed with Middle East military OB [Order of Battle] and trying to connect the dots for terrorist organizations, plus a contingent of target assessment "analysts" directing drone strikes -- all of which should be the mission of the Defense Intelligence Agency -- not the CIA.

In essence, the CIA has become a self-serving organization, borrowing missions from DOD, DIA, and NSA, conducting its own wars, and essentially becoming the President's personal military intelligence/police unit.


The CIA needs to return to its original mission of espionage in order to gain intelligence on the plans and intentions of our actual and potential adversaries.  Petraeus had begun to shift the mission emphasis from video games to espionage, but the senior CIA power structure worked to undercut him in order to preserve their paramilitary and Covert Action role.



The Candidates:

1)  Jane Harman
Served nine terms in Congress [CA-D] on the Armed Services, Intelligence, and the Homeland Security committees.  Married to billionaire Sidney Harman, owner of Newsweek -- a potential media leak mechanism. Her dynamic pro-Israel position and close ties to AIPAC forced her out of her Committee position.

She now heads up the leftist Wilson Center.  She has been schmoozed by CIA lobbyists -- who claim to love her, likely because she allowed them to do whatever they pleased.

[The Director of CIA should be both apolitical, diplomatically neutral, and competent to understand Intelligence processes; serving on Congressional committees is not a substitute for experience - as verified by the buffoonery of Panetta and Tenet].


2)  Michael Morrell
Acting incumbent Director, rose through the ranks as an analyst to Director of Intelligence -- the post Bob Gates held before rising to DCI.  Morrell is an analyst by trade, and not an operator; thus, he knows tradecraft only as an observer and consumer.
A nice guy, but not a good pick for Director.


3) John O Brennan
Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.  He was an analyst who maneuvered himself into a Station Chief [COS] slot in Saudi Arabia in 1996.  On his watch, he was apparently too busy strutting around and mirror-gazing that he failed to detect al-Qaeda operatives planning [and succeeding] to blow up Khobar Towers, killing 19 US Servicemen.  Had Brennan been conducting clandestine operations -- even bilaterally with the Saudis, this operation would likely have been detected and terminated.  Brennan has no operational experience and appears to function by bluster instead.

Brennan later made a name for himself as Bush's Terrorist advisor by grandstanding and holding press conferences on terrorism issues; he was also the advocate of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.  He later criticized Bush for not responding immediately to his expert advice -- which consisted of periodic announcements that the "terrorist threat is imminent!"  Bush should have fired him for incompetence.

Not a nice guy; grandstander; pontificator; he has ticket-punched without producing; and of these candidates, would be the most likely to abuse the position.  And, he holds a much higher opinion of himself than do others.


Vickers: Field experience in SpecOps
4) Michael G Vickers
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence,  previously ASD-SO/LIC&IC [SpecOps/Low Intensity Conflict], served with the Army Special Forces -- attached to the CIA to  advise the Mujahideen resistance forces against Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan. He sports an MBA from the Wharton Business School and a PhD in International Relations from Johns Hopkins - SAIS.
Of the visible candidates, Vickers seems the best choice as an educated, relatively apolitical guy with hands-on expertise.

We believe that Vickers understands the mentality of the CIA and can function very effectively herding the CIA cats [i.e., the law enforcement mafia that has gained control of the CIA].   He should finish what Petraeus started and ditch the "Law Enforcement Mafia" which hasn't a clue as to how to run espionage ops.


RECOMMENDATION:

We highly recommend Vickers' selection and that he weed out the overly political left-overs from the morally bankrupt Tenet/Panetta regimes and reorganize the CIA to accomodate its original mission of Clandestine Services -- the espionage arm.

He should retain Morrell as Deputy Director to coordinate analytical support to the Clandestine Services.  Ultimately, he should divorce the CIA from paramilitary operations and instead, serve as the linkage between the Special Operations Command and DIA for all operations involving military assets and activities.






Sunday, November 25, 2012

Egypt Revolts Again

Anti-Morsi Demonstration   [Mother Jones]
Click here for related story [AP/Washington Post]

Egypt is again erupting in political protests; this time against President Morsi's declaration of his immunity from legal restraints as he assumes dictatorial powers.  As we've noted before, Mr Morsi took power with the full support of the Muslim Brotherhood, and President Obama.

Huma Abedin - Muslim Brotherhood Link [Reuters]
The Egyptian citizens, meanwhile, were unhappy with the Muslim Brotherhood's hijacking of their rebellion against President Mubarek, and protested vehemently against Hillary Clinton when she paid a congratulatory visit to Cairo to welcome Mr Morsi as an ally and close friend of Mr Obama.

The Egyptians were quite unhappy with Mr Obama's linkage to the Muslim Brotherhood, which seemed to be validated by Secretary Clinton's selection of Huma Mahmood Abedin -- whose family is intimately tied to the Muslim Brotherhood -- as her Deputy Chief of Staff and principal advisor on the Middle East.

[Ms Clinton studiously ignores her State Department Middle East desk officers and INR intelligence analysts].

Pharaoh Morsi?                         [inedc]
Mr Morsi, in an act reminiscent of Mr Obama's 140+ Executive Orders, declared immunity from judicial oversight for his Islamist-panel tasked with creating a new Constitution.  The Panel would marginalize women and minority Christians, and severely restrict personal liberties.  He has also announced/decreed that none of his decisions are subject to judicial appeal; and, he has declared that the Supreme Court has no authority to challenge any of his actions.

Notably, some of his decrees are remarkably similar to the content of Mr Obama's Executive Orders; for example,

1) "The President can take any steps necessary to prevent threats to 'the revolution, the life of the nation or national unity and security' or to the functioning of state institutions."

2) "Creation of a new judiciary body of "protection of the revolution" to conduct investigations, prosecutions and trials of former officials."

Parliament has been neutered following the dissolution of the lower house which was dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood; in its absence, Mr Morsi can now rule by decree.

Mohamed ElBaradei           [AP]

The Pro-reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei [former Director of the IAEA] announced via Twitter:
"Morsi today usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt's new Pharaoh - a major blow to the revolution."


Morsi, since taking office, has sought to undercut the military leadership, and has curried favor with the police force commanders, many of whom had been charged with [but acquitted of] corruption charges.  We suspect he will surround himself with carefully selected military leaders whom he can trust to eliminate any potential opposition.


That would follow the pattern established by Hosni Mubarek when he engineered the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981.  Miraculously, Mr Mubarek, sitting next to Sadat, survived the grenades and automatic weapon fire which killed Sadat and others sitting with them.

Miraculously, the pilots survived the fiery crash    


Mubarek, once installed as President, ordered senior officers and officials at the Defense Ministry to fly to the Libyan border to assess a potential threat of conflict.  Oddly, the helicopters crashed, killing all on board -- except the pilots.  The new generals and Defense Ministry officials were supportive of Mr Mubarek -- whose first decree was to maintain the ban on the Muslim Brotherhood.



We suspect that in the near future, a large number of Military Officers and Defense officials will suffer unusual accidental deaths; then again, Mr Morsi may be as efficient as Mubarek was in engineering a mass accident to eliminate all those who might pose a potential threat to his power.

[Mr Obama's purge of the US Military will consume considerably more time though.]



Saturday, November 17, 2012

Will the Electoral College choose Romney?

270 of these Electoral College ballots determine who the US President will be.



How does the Electoral College work?


The Founding Fathers felt that an uneducated electorate might sometimes choose the wrong candidate, so, they created the Electoral College system in which State Electors can over-ride the popular vote.  The system was created in Article II of the Constitution and fine-tuned in the 12th Amendment in 1804. 

Electors are chosen in different ways, depending on the state; ranging from selections by the Legislature or the Governor, to Political Party recommendations.  In recent times, the State popular vote is a "Winner Take All" Electoral Vote proposition.  The exceptions are Nebraska and Maine, where Electors cast their votes according to the popular vote in their Districts.


VP reviews Electoral College Ballot


Electors selected by the States then come to Washington, DC in December to cast their ballots.  Generally, they cast their votes based on the popular vote results of the November election in their state; some have been known to violate that principle.







All the State Electors cast their vote for President.  The President of the Senate [the sitting US Vice President] counts the votes, and the candidate who wins the majority of the Electoral Votes [270 in the 2012 election] is selected as the US President.


 
However, If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the election of President is determined by a simple majority vote in the House of Representatives.



In the 2012 Presidential Election, the candidate with the majority [270] of the 538 Electoral votes wins.  The Election by Electoral Voters takes place in January 2013; so, the Electoral College could vote for Mr Romney, and Mr Obama would no longer be President-elect.



Bottom Line: 

The Presidential candidate who receives 270 electoral votes wins the election.  If neither candidate achieves 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President by a simple majority vote. 


Only two US Presidents have been elected by the House of Representatives in this manner:
1) Thomas Jefferson in 1801
2) John Quincy Adams in 1825







Which Presidents won the election via the Electoral College vs the Popular Vote?

1)  1876:  Rutherford B. Hayes won 185 of the 369 Electoral Votes to Samuel J. Tilden's 184 Electoral Votes; although Tilden won the majority of the popular votes by a margin of nearly 300,00 votes.
2)  1888:  Benjamin Harrison won 233 of the 401 Electoral Votes to Grover Cleveland's 168 Electoral Votes.  Cleveland won the popular vote by a margin of about 500.
3)  2000:  George W. Bush won 271 of the 538 Electoral Votes to Al Gore's 266 Electoral Votes.  Gore won the Popular Vote by about 500,000 votes.


Who are the Electors?


California proposed to have Electors vote by District
The number of electors for each state equals the total number of senators and representatives that state has in Congress.  For example, California, has 53 Congressional Representatives and 2 Senators, thus, a total of 55 Electors -- with a total of 55 Electoral Votes. 

US Senators and Representatives may not serve as  Electors, although State elected officials, Party leaders, or supporters of a Presidential candidate may serve as Electors.

The Political Parties nominate Electors.  In the State general election, the ballots may [or may not] carry the name of the Electors beneath the name of the Presidential candidates; so, a vote for the Candidate will be a vote for the Elector.

With some exceptions, the candidate who receives the most votes receives all the electoral votes in that state. The state then sends its Electors to Washington to cast their votes in the Electoral College.

Laws differ by state; so, some states require electors to follow the popular vote; while other states allow Electors to vote for their Party's candidate.  Thus, it is possible for an elector to vote for a candidate who did not win the popular vote.

-->
Electors in these states may cast their votes for any candidate they choose
Arizona (11)
Indiana (11)
Missouri (10)
Rhode Island (4)
Arkansas (6)
Iowa (6)
New Hampshire (4)
South Dakota (3)
Delaware (3)
Kansas (6)
New Jersey (14)
Tennessee (11)
Georgia (16)
Kentucky (8)
New York (29)
Texas (38)
Idaho (4)
Louisiana (8)
North Dakota (3)
Utah (6)
Illinois (20)
Minnesota (10)
Pennsylvania (20)
West Virginia (5)

There is an interpretation of this process, unconfirmed, that some Electors could WITHHOLD their votes entirely, preventing a clear majority -- which would cause the election to be shifted to the House of Representatives. 

That interpretation is based on Amendment XII which states:

"The person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be the President,
if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed."



Congress could un-elect President Obama



Although there is no precedent for a situation in which some Electors refuse to cast their votes -- thereby reducing the whole number of Electors appointed -- such an action would likely be reviewed by the Supreme Court, which would then refer the matter to the House to conduct the election of the President by simple majority.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Congress investigates FBI




The fires of Benghazi have spread to the Oval Office                        [Reuters]


Click here for related report [Wall Street Journal]
Mr Axelrod, I don't run away from Stalinist blackmailers!

Mr Axelrod's apparent smear campaign against General Petraeus is apparently subject to the Law of Unintended Consequences. 

We suspect he presumed that blackmailing Petraeus over his extramarital affair could force Petraeus' silence; wrong guy to blackmail since Petraeus immediately made the affair public, and made a Media splash by resigning -- drawing global attention to an event that had almost been successfully buried by the Press.


We can't coerce him now,
can the Media smear him?
Now, since Axelrods' apparent threat of exposure backfired, and Petraeus has forced the issue of his testimony under oath, it appears he is pulling in all his Media chits to create a smear campaign to undermine Petraeus' credibility; newspapers are making it front page headline material, and talking heads shake their heads over the horrible morality of this former hero -- now defamed!  The Huffington Post and the Daily Beast are all over it. 

Oh, the horror of it all.


The key to this scenario is that since Mr Obama accepted General Petraeus' resignation, he cannot force Petraeus' silence by imposing Executive Privilege [As he did with the Fast&Furious scandal]

It appears that the Chicago political machine may be disturbing the comfort level of Congress, particularly as some are quite familiar with the Stalinist techniques -- perhaps taught to Axelrod by his grandparents who reportedly worked for Joe Stalin.

Are they worried that the propaganda machine is out of control -- and scaring Congress, which fears it might start targeting select politicians of both Parties if they don't toe the Administration's line.  Do they fear a smear if they try to run their own agendas?  Will they face the ballot box stuffing techniques that just beat the GOP -- and are now coming to light in local expose's?

Astute Democrats recall the smear campaigns against Mr Obama's opponents in Chicago in both his State Legislature and US Senate Campaign in which Mass Media accusations of sexual misconduct that were too egregious for his opponents to easily defend themselves against -- forcing them to drop out, and/or lose the election.

Older pols remember LBJ's absolute power that he wielded using J Edgar Hoover's blackmail machine.  Corrupt as they all are, they're not willing to put that kind of power into the hands of Socialists over whom they have no control.

Mr Holder, don't ever by-pass me!
Senator Dianne Feinstein [D-CA], Chair of the SSCI [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] had summoned General Petraeus to testify before the SSCI this week regarding the Benghazi assault in which Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

She was outraged that she didn't learn from the Attorney General months ago that the FBI was conducting an on-going investigation into the conduct of the top US intelligence manager.  She was especially angered that the news was withheld from her until AFTER the election, and worse, that she learned of it through the Media.  She advises that she may still call Petraeus to testify



Clapper:  FBI, You report to ME![CSMonitor]
Reportedly, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, was told of the investigation on election night and urged Petraeus to resign.  Clapper, who oversees the operations of all US agencies in the Intelligence Community -- to include the FBI, was apoplectic that he had not been informed.  This was clearly a slap in the face for him by the FBI Director Robert Mueller, although it appears Mueller was directed by Attorney General Holder to keep Clapper out of the loop.  That should make for an interesting dust-up -- even though Clapper knows he will lose that battle in the Oval Office.
Then again, if he is called to testify under oath,
he won't perjure himself for Obama.

Is it time for Impeachment?[Politico]
Representative Peter King [NY-R] is denying Feinstein any wiggle room in this conflagration through his announcement that he intends to see General Petraeus testify

He questions the FBI investigation timeline, and now demands to know WHEN/IF the President was informed; and if the President WAS informed, why the President did not inform Congress.



Oops.


Is there a whole new Congressional hearing opening up?
Is the groundwork being laid for Impeachment?

But, let's look at some more conspiracy issues.

We wrote a while back about how resistant the CIA was to Petraeus as Director, particularly since they could not manipulate him as they did Panetta.  Petraeus was in the midst of restructuring the Agency to meet national intelligence requirements as opposed to running their own operations off the radar, informing him via an "...Oh by the way, we're doing X, Y, and Z."  It's an old manipulation scheme that was quite successful -- until Petraeus showed up. 

Keep in mind that the CIA is not the top level intelligence organization it used to be as it is now full of former law enforcement folks from DEA, ATF, the highway patrol, and even local precinct police houses.   Under Clinton, the quality of operational folks deteriorated and we had phonies like Valerie Plame pretending to be Covert Operatives.  Under Bush, the Agency successfully displaced Director Porter Goss -- an intelligence pro -- to protect their turf. 

Former CIA Director         [Global Post]
Under Panetta, the CIA hierarchy had a blast since Panetta was an incompetent klutz whose only familiarity with Intelligence was when the CIA graced him with a watered-down Congressional briefing.  At CIA, they stroked him and made him feel important -- while they did as they pleased.  Petraeus wouldn't play that game, so, they set him up.

So, now, it appears it will be Petraeus versus Obama; even if Obama wins, he loses since so many new controversial issues will be opened that he will likely be crippled for what remains of his term -- before he faces Impeachment.  He may decide to resign.


For a quick recap on Benghazi:


Flash Override = Officer in Distress!
When the Consulate came under attack, FLASH-OVER-RIDE precedence communications went out and were picked up by all military commanders in the region, much the same as a police call calling out "officer needs assistance!"

GEN Ham and ADM Gaouette
1) General Ham, Commander of the African Command, immediately ordered his Deputy for Operations into action, notified the Pentagon, and was immediately relieved of his command.

2) Admiral Gaouette, Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three [CSG3] ordered his fighter and helicopter assets to respond -- notifying the Pentagon, and was immediately relieved of his command. 
[Axelrod Spin: "Admiral Gaouette was relieved because he was a 'coup plotter'!" 
Perhaps he planned to drive his carrier force down Pennsylvania Avenue?]

3) Ex-SEALs, hired by Ambassador Stevens as contractors to investigate the unauthorized exfiltration of the captured Qadafi weapons, were quartered at the nearby CIA Safe House; hearing the sounds of the attack, they prepared to respond, and were repeatedly ordered to "Stand Down" by the CIA Base Chief.  Ex-SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty ignored the orders and headed for the compound to render assistance, and were killed after saving the Consulate staff and engaging the enemy.

4)  The "enemy" assault force was revealed to be al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood, dispatched by Egyptian President Morsi -- installed with the assistance of President Obama and the King of Saudi Arabia following the Arab Spring uprising.  The Muslim Brotherhood successfully hijacked the Egyptian popular election, and took control of Egypt.

5)  The Libyan military protection force, guarding the Consulate was under the ultimate command of a Muslim Brotherhood officer, who ordered the force to "Stand Down" just prior to the assault.

6)  Secretary of Defense defended his "Stand-Down" orders to regional military forces available to respond lest they come in "harms way" since there was insufficient intelligence on the assault force.  Mr Panetta is apparently unaware of the mission of the US Military which calls for it to put itself "in harms way" in conducting the defense of the US and its citizens.  That's why they are issued weapons, and that is what they are trained for.

7)  Secretary of Defense Panetta advised that it would have taken 16 or more hours to have flown in relief forces from Fort Bragg, NC.  A true statement. 

6th Fleet positioned off Libya

8)  But, why send in military response forces from the US Mainland when Europe is populated with US military forces, and there were/are several hundred US Navy ships in attack mode with the Fifth and Sixth Fleets, chock full of aircraft carriers, missile cruisers, and Special Operations Forward Staging Bases such as the USS Ponce.





   a)  The response time for this massive array of US military ranged from 15 minutes to one hour; the assault continued for about nine hours.

  
24th MEU was on station
  b)  US Marines available for immediate response from the two Fleets numbered in the thousands, including the 24th MEU [Marine Expeditionary Unit] with more than 2,000 Marines --
all ready and prepared to enter combat.

   c)  The Quick Response Force [the 173d Airborne Brigade Combat Team], based in Italy, is specifically equipped and was available to launch.

   d)  Also available was Combat Task Force 67 -- a quick response Naval combat force.

   e)  Admiral Gauouette's Carrier Strike Force was complemented by Carrier Strike Forces 8 and 12; the three Strike Forces represented a massive amount of naval air power, plus attack and rescue helicopters, plus amphibious assault forces, plus two AC-130s assigned to Libya for Force Protection.

  e)  Reliable sources report that high resolution video coverage of the entire assault was broadcast from an aerial reconnaissance drone positioned over the Consulate; and the assault was reportedly viewed by the President and Secretary Panetta [and Valerie Jarrett] in the White House Sit Room.

 
AC-130 Gunship
f)  Unconfirmed reporting puts either a drone or a AC-130 Spectre Gunship over the Consulate, leading Tyrone Woods to "paint" the targets in the al Qaeda assault force so the Spectre could fire accurately.  When the Spectre did not engage the targets, the assailants back-tracked the painting to Woods, lobbying a mortar round into his position on the Safe House roof, and killing him.  The drone or Spectre was apparently commanded to "do not engage targets" from Mr Panetta -- likely at the direction of Mr Obama.

The following morning, Mr Obama conducted his Rose Garden brief to inform the Media and the US public that a spontaneous mob had protested an offensive video and attacked the US Consulate in Benghazi, killing the Ambassador.  The Administration repeated this story for two weeks, to include briefing that story to the United Nations.

Why did the assault occur?

Short answer:

Weapons from Qadafi's warehouses, including 20.000 shoulder fired Surface to Air Missiles, were being shipped to the Muslim Brotherhood, ostensibly to Syrian rebels, but more likely to arm the Muslim Brotherhood against Middle East nations -- and possibly against US forces.

Ambassador Stevens' contractors [the former SEALs] tracked the shipments; Stevens flew to Italy to report his findings to the State Department and to the President -- and in doing so, signed his own death warrant from the Oval Office.

Ambassador Stevens was the "Man Who Knew Too Much".