Obama Lied To Sway Election - Also Benghazi Attack Announced In Advance

Is anyone else here feeling like the American people have been sold a lemon? Remember how Obama told us back around election time in 2012 that Al Qaeda was one the run? Well, we all knew they weren't, but Joe public believed this. Now the truth has come out that he was aware that Al Qaeda was gearing up for a new wave of attacks. See below for the section on Benghazi.

The report said terrorist attacks carried out “by AQ and its affiliates” actually “increased by 8 percent from 2010 to 2011.”

Many Americans believed when they voted in November that the president was justifiably touting a major national security success of his first term.

Most officials interviewed for this article, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, credited Mr. Obama with publicly correcting his assessment of the evolving threat posed by al Qaeda during a major speech this year.
The problem, they said, is that he did so only after winning a second term.

Top U.S. officials, including the president, were told in the summer and fall of 2012 that the African offshoots were gaining money, lethal knowledge and a mounting determination to strike U.S. and Western interests while keeping in some contact with al Qaeda’s central leadership, said several people directly familiar with the intelligence.

“I completely believe that the candidate Obama was understating the threat,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “To say the core is decimated and therefore we have al Qaeda on the run was not consistent with the overall intelligence assessment at the time.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also on Sept 10, 2012, a video message was sent via cyberspace from al-Zawahri that explicitly called for attacks on Americans in Libya. This attack was to avenge a fatal U.S. drone strike on a Libyan-born senior al Qaeda operative in Pakistan. Immediately that message was identified as a reason for the Benghazi attack. Mr Obama was briefed on this privately. The day after Benghazi, Obama told an audience in Las Vegas that Al Qaeda was on the path to defeat.

The US intelligence agencies were all worried that this embellishment was going to come back and haunt them later. In fact 2 former senior intelligence officers, Former CIA Directors Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden, tried to combat Obama's falsehoods via interviews. But we all know what happens when someone calls Obama a liar.

Asked for his own assessment of al Qaeda, Mr. Goss told Fox News in October that “it’s much stronger” and “it’s spreading out.” “It’s sort of running across the map of northern Africa,” Mr. Goss said. “There are franchise activities springing up with different names and constantly are changing the names. They basically are part of this loosely affiliated network. There’s a lot of money in it. There is a lot of dedication and commitment in it.”

Mr. Hayden openly suggested that the Obama administration may have tried to hide the al Qaeda affiliate’s role in the Benghazi tragedy for political reasons when, in fact, “Benghazi is really a home game for al Qaeda.”

The Washington Times - Intel clashes with Obama’s election-year al Qaeda claims (5 pages)

Oh that's right the Syria distraction... Well, I can see there are more important things in life vs. the truth . And I was basically told by ATS to buggar off without a goodbye. So adios.

reply to post by elouina


Who is running Al-Qaeda? CIA, NSA, FBI, Saudi's, KGB, Zionists,?

Who? could A-Q have been run at different points by different groups?

It seems they are like a muslim merc force for hire.


the Muslim Foreign Legion..

HanzHenry


Who is running Al-Qaeda? CIA, NSA, FBI, Saudi's, KGB, Zionists,?

The CIA is running Al-Qaeda, they have since the British handed them off to us after WW2. Of course they weren't Al-Qaeda then, they were the Muslim Brotherhood. When the CIA put Bin Laden in charge they changed the name to Al-Qaeda, which was the name of a CIA muslim database. The whole thing is a big joke on us. Now if you want to get into who runs the CIA, that's a whole other thread.

reply to post by OMsk3ptic


Yes, i would like to get into who runs the cia.

elouina
Oh that's right the Syria distraction... Well, I can see there are more important things in life vs. the truth . And I was basically told by ATS to buggar off without a goodbye. So adios.

Goodbye?

Where you going?

Don't leave.

OMsk3ptic

HanzHenry


Who is running Al-Qaeda? CIA, NSA, FBI, Saudi's, KGB, Zionists,?

The CIA is running Al-Qaeda, they have since the British handed them off to us after WW2. Of course they weren't Al-Qaeda then, they were the Muslim Brotherhood. When the CIA put Bin Laden in charge they changed the name to Al-Qaeda, which was the name of a CIA muslim database. The whole thing is a big joke on us. Now if you want to get into who runs the CIA, that's a whole other thread.

edit on 10-9-2013 by OMsk3ptic because: (no reason given)

I really think A-Q is like a temp agency.

Anyone and everyone can call up (x) number of bodies to go do (y)..

Obama lying now that's a novel concept. Obama is a lie. Oh wait, that makes me a racist.

reply to post by elouina


I don't know if the information presented is accurate or not, I honestly don't care.

However, claiming an organization is "on the run" doesn't necessarily mean that they are less attacks by them.

In almost all cases, in any conflict, you will have the most attacks/battles towards the end than during the middle. Look at WWII, just because Hitler and Germany were on the run, doesn't mean that there were fewer battles, in fact I believe there were more as the Germans retreated and were pushed back.

One fact does not counter the other, it is just showing different information.

I guess this needs to be posted here as well:

Statists look out at a world full of strangers who have questionable motives and dubious morality, and they are afraid of what some of those people might do. That, in and of itself, is a perfectly reasonable concern. But then, as protection against what some of those people might do, the statists advocate giving some of those same people of questionable virtue a huge amount of power, and societal permission to rule over everyone else, in the vain hope that, by some miracle, those people will happen to decide to use their newfound power only for good. In other words, the statist looks at his fellow man and thinks, “I do not trust you to be my neighbor, but I do trust you to be my master.”

Bizarrely, almost every statist admits that politicians are more dishonest, corrupt, conniving and selfish than most people, but still insists that civilization can exist only if those particularly untrustworthy people are given both the power and the right to forcibly control everyone else. Believers in “government” truly believe that the only thing that can keep them safe from the flaws of human nature is taking some of those flawed humans – some of the most flawed, in fact – and appointing them as gods, with the right to dominate all of mankind, in the absurd hope that, if given such tremendous power, such people will use it only for good, And the fact that that has never happened in the history of the world does not stop statists from insisting that it “needs” to happen to ensure peaceful civilization.

- Larken Rose