Accuracy in Media

The nominations of John Brennan for CIA Director and Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense are being held up by Republicans in the Senate largely because of the unwillingness of the Obama administration to come clean on the what the President knew, when he knew it, and what he did during the seven hours that the Temporary Mission and the annex in Benghazi were under attack on September 11th and 12th last year.

AIM recently interviewed Retired Admiral James Lyons. He is the former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific fleet, and a man not afraid to tell it like it is. We need more men like Admiral Lyons to stand up to the lies, hypocrisy and political correctness that so dominates our national dialogue today.

The interview took place the day after outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony to Congress, which Adm. Lyons discussed in our interview. It was before outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey testified before Congress, which raised questions about how in-the-loop Obama was during the terrorist attack, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

I asked Adm. Lyons what he thought of Hillary Clinton’s question to the senators when she was feeling the heat from their questions. “What difference does it make?” she angrily asked, referring to how the men died. The questions asked of Sec. Clinton were trying to get an answer to why the administration had claimed for weeks that the attack was in response to an anti-Islamic video produced in the U.S., when records and testimony made it clear that it was a planned terrorist attack on the 11th anniversary of September 11, 2001, and the intelligence community knew it from the first day.

Adm. Lyons answer to “What difference does it make” was, “Richard Nixon found out what the difference is when you lie to the American public—and in his lie, it was only a bungled burglary attempt; nobody got killed. In this case, we had four Americans murdered. Furthermore, we knew, within a matter of hours, that this was a determined, preplanned terrorist attack. So you have to ask yourself, why perpetuate this lie for almost two weeks?”

During the interview, Adm. Lyons gave his views on what he thinks was going on in Libya at the time; on the “Arab Spring;” on sending F-16s and tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egypt; on President Obama’s new national security team; and on the Law of the Seas Treaty, among other topics. Below are excerpts from the interview. You can listen to the entire interview or read the transcript here. You can read Admiral Lyons’ bio and learn more about his current activities here.

ROGER ARONOFF: You have been a persistent critic of how the [Obama] administration has handled the attack on our special mission compound in Benghazi. We’ve had a couple of reports, including the Accountability Review Board, and then, yesterday, we had Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton’s testimony. Do you feel we’ve gained a more clear picture of what really happened?

ADMIRAL LYONS: Not in the least: You’re still getting the smokescreen. I must say that, quote, “Independent” Accountability Review Board, from my perspective, was like having the Mafia investigate a crime scene.

ARONOFF: Okay. Explain why. That was the one headed by Pickering, Thomas Pickering—

ADMIRAL LYONS: Pickering and—[Admiral Mike] Mullen. Pickering, he’s the chairman of the International Crisis Group—which is a Soros-funded group. Plus, with his long career in the State Department, I wouldn’t consider that to be foremost in getting an independent review. What really needs to happen here—and you could see it yesterday in the testimony of Secretary Clinton—you’re never going to get the true story until you appoint a Special Prosecutor, pull in, put the people under oath to find out what actually went on.

ARONOFF: I want to give you, first, the opportunity to clarify a quote that has been widely attributed to you—it was on numerous websites. You were said to have told The Washington Examiner that Benghazi was actually a bungled kidnapping attempt perpetrated upon Ambassador [Christopher] Stevens, and that it was going to be part of a hostage exchange for the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman, who sits in jail in the U.S. for his role in planning the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. I’m sure you’ve seen that—

ADMIRAL LYONS: Right. First, yes, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify because, first of all, I’ve never talked to The Washington Examiner. Where this came up: I was on Lou Dobbs’s show, and somebody must have copied down from that show, maybe submitted a report or something, to The Washington Examiner. Lou asked me, “What do [you] think went on? What [do you] suspect happened?” I said, “Well, if I had to speculate, I believe this was a bungled, a bungled attack—a kidnapping attack, to kidnap Ambassador Stevens, and hold him in exchange for the Blind Sheikh.” You know there’s been a lot of pressure, certainly from [Egyptian President Mohamed] Morsi; that’s one of his objectives, to get the Blind Sheikh released. Now, again, [Dobbs] asked me what I thought, and I speculated, because nothing else made sense to me. We know that Ambassador Stevens was concerned over his safety there. I mean, why would he stay there—first of all, why was he even there on the night of 9/11? You have the significance of the date of 9/11—most places, people hunker down. Then we had a lot of not only tactical, but strategic warning of this attack. We can get into that now, if you’d like.

ARONOFF: Yes, why don’t you give us some of that?

ADMIRAL LYONS: Let me say, from my viewpoint, there was both strategic and tactical warning. In the previous June, we had both the British Consulate and the International Red Cross close their offices up due to the assassination attempt on the British Consul General, and other assassinations. We had the bombing outside our special mission compound on the 6th of June. On the 16th of August, the cable was put out—“Look, in a determined attack, we cannot defend this compound—” and they requested additional security assistance. They didn’t get any.

The day of the attack, the Blue Mountain Security manager, that afternoon, sensed there was something wrong. He put out an alert on both his radios and cell phones. Prior to that, we know one of the policemen who was assigned to guard the compound was seen taking pictures of the inner layout the compound. We found a memo, later, by Ambassador Stevens, saying he found this to be most troubling. We know, according to reports, reliable reports, that road blocks were set up at least three hours before the attack. We know the [Turkish] Consul General, who was the last person to see Ambassador Stevens, had to go through those road blocks…Then there was a British security team that, through prior arrangements, would drop off or pick up equipment from the compound. So there was more than ample evidence, signals—warnings that something is not right, and knowing that [Stevens] feared for his safety, why would he stay there? It makes no sense to me. That’s why I speculated, “Perhaps this was supposed to be part of a kidnapping, hostage situation, holding him in exchange for the Blind Sheikh”: Because killing Ambassador Stevens made no sense to me, since he was the great facilitator in funneling the arms to the rebels, to other militias—many of which were al-Qaeda-affiliated, who had been fighting our troops in Iraq. So why would you kill the golden goose? It made no sense to me.

ADMIRAL LYONS: There’s one other thing I’d mention—The leader of al-Qaeda, the day before, on 10 September, put out a video calling for revenge on the U.S. for the killing of a key al-Qaeda leader in Libya by the CIA. When we we’re talking about videos, that’s the video that everybody should have focused on. Not the 14-minute string-up, the anti-Islamic string-up that nobody had ever seen!


ADMIRAL LYONS: We had Lieutenant Colonel Wood and his 16-man security force, which was at the Embassy in Tripoli. They were there in August. They had been there for a number of months to beef the security. The ambassador requested they stay, they wanted to stay, yet they were denied and yanked out. The pleas for additional security were ignored, denied.


ADMIRAL LYONS: You have to ask yourself, what was the political agenda they were trying to create here? That the Arab Spring has been such a wonderful, great success in Libya? That we can now stand down, and we can rely on the 17th February Martyrs Brigade to provide the security—which, incidentally, has close affiliation with al-Qaeda in the Maghreb? None of this really, if you step back and analyze it, makes any sense.


ADMIRAL LYONS: And we can get into what resources could have been brought to bear that weren’t.

ARONOFF: Yeah, let’s touch on that, because this is something that I’ve followed and written about, too. Secretary of Defense [Leon] Panetta, early on, when he was asked about this, said, and I quote here, he said “The basic principle”—on why no troops were sent in to attempt to save or rescue Stevens and the others, his answer was this, and this is a quote: “The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, we felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.” But then he later indicated that he actually gave verbal approval to have the Marine teams based in Rota, Spain to come there, to Tripoli and Benghazi. Then there was the Marine unit that you wrote about, stationed in Sigonella, Italy; none of them went. But it looks like Panetta has changed his story on this—

ADMIRAL LYONS: …All those comforting words that “We don’t want to put our forces at risk.” We had people at risk—they were crying for help! In a situation, you go with the resources you have available—and, in this particular case, we did have that 130-man Marine force recon team sitting there at Sigonella. Even if I only got 50 of them over there, that would have been significant in turning the situation around. We may not have been able to save the ambassador, but we certainly could have saved those other two SEALs that were over on the annex.

And there’s another tactic that we’ve used over the years very successfully in dispelling mobs, and scenes like we witnessed there in Benghazi: We had F-16 aircraft that could have been there within a matter of an hour or two. What you have them do is, you have them make a low pass over the scene at full afterburner. It has a telling effect—it really gets their attention. Plus, with the equipment they have in their cockpit, they could have been utilized to take some offensive action—if we had the courage to do so. And there’s another thing here, too.

 The independent Review Board made a statement that they made some request to embassies, but let me tell you this: I know of no request that was made to the Turkish Consul General, the Turkish Consulate, the Italian Consulate, or that British Security Team that was in Benghazi. All have said they received no requests for support.  They went on to say, “If we were requested, we would have provided it.”


ARONOFF: It’s really incredible. I think the sort of smokescreen that you referred to, that Secretary Clinton was throwing out there yesterday, part of it was “Well, look at what all was going on: All of our embassies were under siege that day, in Egypt, in Tunisia and—” I guess—“in Yemen,” so they were looking at dealing with all of those situations and, I think, suggesting they were just kind of overwhelmed by what was going on, and maybe didn’t act right. This sort of also led up to this scenario where Senator Ron Johnson, from Wisconsin, was asking her about why they persisted in telling this story about the anti-Islamic video that you referred to a few minutes ago. Her answer was saying—she said, quote, “What difference [at this point] does it make” whether it was because it was “a protest or because guys were out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans?” So I ask you, Admiral Lyons: What difference does it make?

ADMIRAL LYONS: Well, let me answer it this way: Richard Nixon found out what the difference is when you lie to the American public—and in his lie, it was only a bungled burglary attempt; nobody got killed. In this case, we had four Americans murdered. Furthermore, we knew, within a matter of hours, that this was a determined, preplanned terrorist attack. So you have to ask yourself, why perpetuate this lie for almost two weeks? Why did [Clinton] participate in that video—at taxpayer’s expense, I might add—that was sent all around Pakistan condemning the 14-minute stringer anti-Islamic video that nobody had seen? Certainly, with our embassy in Cairo, they had put out their Great Apology the day before, and, really, there wasn’t anybody in our embassy; the Egyptians were able to quickly restore order there. In Libya, you had no such situation: You had, really, no functioning central government in Libya. It’s really in total disarray. The Arab Spring there has fostered a group of al-Qaeda-affiliated militias that have now made available all [Muammar] Gaddafi’s military equipment, much of which we’re seeing show up in Mali, and certainly may have been a part of equipping the group that did the terrorist attack in Algeria.


ADMIRAL LYONS: In perpetuating this lie, we also had administration officials lying to Congressional committees. That’s a felony. So, “What difference does it make?” It makes all the difference in the world. You cannot flaunt the truth here, just walk away from it and, basically, tell the American public to stuff it. That’s not acceptable.

The point on the organizing the two Marine anti-terrorist teams in Rota, that was good to go ahead and stand ’em up. What I find incomprehensible: The first team, it took them 23 hours to go a few hundred miles from Rota to Tripoli. I could go around the world in 23 hours, so that makes absolutely no sense to me. And the fact that they stood down the second team, which was supposed to go to our special mission compound in Benghazi—the excuse being, “Well, all the Americans are out of there”—makes no sense to me, since this was American territory. That compound should have been immediately secured, and certainly that Marine team was quite capable of doing that. Had they done that, the FBI would have been immediately able to access that scene and gain valuable information. Plus, we would have stopped the looting, and, in this sense, that compound had to have certain classified communications equipment; I can’t believe that they did not have communications equipment—and you have to ask, What happened to that equipment? Who has it today? I know Secretary Clinton made this grand, flowing statement, “There was nothing classified in the compound.”  I find that incomprehensible.

ARONOFF: Yes, I mean, how do they know? Look, CNN, just walking through there, found [Stevens’s] log book!

ADMIRAL LYONS: Yes, of course!

ARONOFF: And then, three weeks later, The Washington Post went in and found other things that no one had even touched or picked up. I mean, it’s incredible.

ADMIRAL LYONS: What was it they wanted to keep our people from seeing there?

ARONOFF: Well, yes, I mean, that’s the question, but they didn’t secure the place to keep reporters from just walking through and picking up whatever they could find.

ADMIRAL LYONS: Yes, well, they couldn’t stop the reporters from going in, but they certainly could stop our military from going in.

ARONOFF: Right. The question, I guess, is where this goes from here. Let me bring up one other aspect: Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and others, have speculated that really what was going on here was that—and you made reference to this—the weapons that we had supplied to the Libyans who were fighting to overthrow Gaddafi, all these weapons, or many of these, were now being supplied to the so-called rebels in Syria—some who were al-Qaeda and all that, so this was sort of a gun-walking—think Fast and Furious—operation into Syria, to other al-Qaeda people, and this is what’s being sort of covered up here. Do you have an opinion on that?

ADMIRAL LYONS: Let me put it to you this way: I agree with Frank’s statement there. We know that it was being funded both by Qatar and the Saudi Arabians. What was going on would make Iran-Contra look like child’s play.

ARONOFF: Hmm. So where is Congress? Why—I mean, look: The Republicans control the House. Do they not have access to this information? Do they lack—the guts? The vision?

ADMIRAL LYONS: I think really what has to happen is, the House has to have the courage to appoint a Special Prosecutor. We still don’t even know how Ambassador Stevens died. You’ve not been able to interview any of the people that were rescued from Benghazi. You’ve got to get these people in, put them under oath, and find out the true story of what went on. Nothing else, to me, is acceptable.

ARONOFF: Yes. Let’s touch on a couple other things sort of related in a way. One thing is the Arab Spring in general: Now we see that we’re about to supply these advanced F-16 fighter planes and these Abrams tanks to Egypt. Egypt is now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood—


ARONOFF: —and Morsi, and we know what he thinks of Israel. The question, the obvious question that hangs over this is, Who are these weapons to be used against? And Why are we doing this? What is your overall opinion of how this Arab Spring is going, and this act in particular?

ADMIRAL LYONS: The Arab Spring is a total disaster. We have uncontrolled militias, certainly throughout Libya, Mali. You’ve got, certainly, the situation in Syria. You look at Iraq: Iraq is far from any streaming success. The major weapons systems, the F-16s and the Abrams tanks—the 200 Abrams tanks that are being transferred—all of that commitment was done with [former Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak. So, to me, since they threw out Mubarak, I would have canceled the deal. Why go forward with it?

ARONOFF: I think the theory goes that Morsi played the role of this great peacemaker when he got Hamas to stop [firing rockets at Israel].

ADMIRAL LYONS: Oh, now wait a minute. “Great peacemaker”—Please, spare me! He’s the guy who endorses Hamas! Hamas is a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza! It is their group! So this “great peacemaker” is just—pure hogwash! We’ve got to take our head out of the sand. The Muslim Brotherhood penetration in this country is really unconscionable: They’ve been able to penetrate almost every one of our government agencies. You see it reflected down in the administration’s directive, where we have to purge all of our training manuals and instructors on anything that purports the truth about Islam. Anything that is considered anti-Islamic must be purged, and our instructors that don’t fall in line find themselves with new orders elsewhere. We have the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, that our great Secretary of State has endorsed, which impinges on our First Amendment right of freedom of expression, and the administration is embracing this, that we leave it up to the—what is it, 57 or 58 Islamic states that make up that organization—to determine what they consider to be insulting to Islam, and, therefore, they can impose sanctions or bring you to trial, or whatever on this. None of this makes any sense to me.

ARONOFF: Mm-hmm. Paper tigers. So today, our posture, in relation to Iran and Israel—first of all, what’s the signal being sent by these arms being shipped to Egypt, as well as the appointments of [John] Kerry, [Chuck] Hagel, and [John] Brennan as President Obama’s national security team? What does this say about our posture toward both Iran and Israel?

ADMIRAL LYONS: Certainly, if I were Iran I’d be thrilled to death with those appointments.

ARONOFF: Why’s that?

ADMIRAL LYONS: Because none of them are for taking any military action against Iran, which is giving them clear sailing for the development of their nuclear weapon capability. And it isn’t just their capability in Iran—you’ve got to look at what they’ve done in Latin America. We have Iranian operational missile bases today in Venezuela—fully up and operational. They’ve been able to accomplish what the Soviet Union tried to do in Cuba in 1962. We have cities in the United States today which are under the threat umbrella of those missiles that are in Venezuela. It needs to be addressed. In fact, they should be forced out of there post-haste—“Either take them out, or we’ll take them out.” I don’t see that happening.

ARONOFF:  What about Israel? What is the message to Israel with these appointments and these actions and—

ADMIRAL LYONS: It certainly cannot be encouraging. I think they’re going to have to look at themselves to become more self-reliant. Regretfully, none of this contributes to maintaining the peace through a strong deterrence. When you show weakness, which we’re doing, it only encourages those who would do us harm. I mean, how many times do we have to go down this path to really come to our senses on this? Here we had four Americans killed in Benghazi—what do we do? Absolutely nothing. There are training camps—we know there are training camps out there that these militias were using; I wanted to destroy them! This idea of “Well, we’ve got to respect the sovereignty of Libya”—not when our people are being murdered—and held under duress.

ARONOFF: Just a couple more things here I’d like you to comment on. The Law of the Sea Treaty keeps lurking right behind the scenes; for years, with Senator [Dick] Lugar there, they were always looking for an opportune moment to get it passed in the Senate and then ratified.  What is your opinion? You’ve obviously been out there on the front lines—

ADMIRAL LYONS: Yeah, the LOST Treaty is something. Why would you turn over your sovereignty to a UN-type committee where you have no veto power and you know you’re going to be outvoted 40 to 1? It makes absolutely no sense to me. You’re seeing this being displayed by China out in the South China Sea, making their illegal claims to, basically, the entire South China Sea, even though, I believe, they have signed up to the Law of the Sea Treaty—but they will not submit. They did it with an exemption: They said anything they consider part of their territory, they will not submit to the Law of the Sea Council for resolution. So you can see where that is leading! Actually, another other case here: We’ve had this Law of the Sea Tribunal, which has impacted—what was it—on Ghana, that involved telling them what they could do or not do in their tributaries—


ADMIRAL LYONS: —which are clearly territorial waters! So why would subject ourselves to such a situation? It makes no sense to me. We enjoy—we must—we enjoy and support the freedom of the high seas. We’ve done it since our founding, it is recognized international law, and there’s no reason for us to submit ourselves to a UN council that clearly is against our interests.

ADMIRAL LYONS: This, again is the atmosphere, the mentality of political correctness. The Muslim Brotherhood has a plan: It is to institute sharia law in the United States in place of our Constitution—they call it the “Stealth Jihad”—and, in their own words, “to destroy us by our own miserable hands.”  And they’re making quite an amount of inroads, as you’re witnessing today.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • spartacus

    this “asshole ‘ in the whitehouse is a “DIRECT” threat to this nation and as such should be tried for treason and hanged of a bridge somwhere in lybia !

  • Obama claims his is a transparent administration as he continues to cover up not only the truth about Banghazi but his true agenda for America. The American people have no clue about what they do not know. We had better wake up before it is too late. America is headed in the WRONG direction. God help us all.

  • Jim Evans

    Terrorists in white house.

  • The fact is Barack Obama was SO DISINTERESTED in the Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans — including the first US ambassador in over thirty years — that he WENT TO BED. Hell, Obama didn’t even pick up the phone to call anyone until the next day… after EVERYONE WAS DEAD.

  • Winston N. Martin

    Ayn Rand would have called Secretary of State Clinton’s tantrum an example of the “argument from intimidation.” I am shocked at the lack of intellectual and moral clarity–not to mention guts–among the committee members who endured her oh-so-compelling argument.



  • Iowa48

    I thought that Obama’s failure to send a rescue effort to Benghazi was simply just because he is a totally inept and cowardly CINC. Otherwise, logic would dictate that some rescue attempt would have been initiated on 9/11. We send rescuers to recover downed pilots all the time, so it was not like we had never before had to attempt to send an unplanned quick reaction force to a fight.

    What if Adm. Lyons is correct about it being a bungled kidnapping attempt on Ambassador Stevens to exchange for the Blind Sheikh? If Obama was complicit in this attempt to get the Blind Sheikh released, that would explain why he did not send a rescue effort. Obama knew what the attack was really about, and wanted it to succeed in order to have an excuse to release the Blind Sheikh.
    That explains why he was out of touch on 9/11, and the phony baloney story about the video was probably what he had agreed on with Morsi beforehand to disguise the pre-planned kidnapping. The joint op by Morsi and Obama fell apart when Stevens was inadvertently killed. That would explain why the FBI investigation went nowhere, why the survivors are all MIA, and why Obama has
    stonewalled so hard on this.

    Maybe I am crazy, but this scenario makes more sense to me than anything I have seen so far regarding Benghazi. Adm. Lyons may have stumbled upon the true motivation behind the attack, and the reason for the bs video story.

  • russhenry

    Note the date this was on the Internet.


    Sent: 11/23/2012 8:33:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time


    Well, “C”, there are a number of much more qualified people on the List than me but here are my thoughts, for whatever they may be worth.

    1. I’ve watched his actions and ignored his words since 2004 when I saw his speech at the Democrat Convention. He scared me then and more now.

    2. He is clearly a megalomaniac (a psychiatric disorder in which the patient experiences delusions of great power and importance). That has been demonstrated time and again with his actions since his days at Harvard. In that sense he is no different than Julius Caesar was when he ignored Roman law and crossed the Rubicon into Roman territory with his Legion to take control of the Roman government. Thus he set in motion the “fundamental transformation” of the Roman Republic into a top down imperial dictatorship, complete with “bread and circuses,” all of which ultimately brought Rome to its knees on the ash
    heap of history.

    3. In that context, it is important to remember that Rome was the major power in the known world. Rome had imposed its “Pax Romana” {the Peace of Rome) across the known world and in so doing improved the culture of those lands and civilizations that it conquered and influenced. The Franks, Celts and Druids in northern Europe and England are but one example of savagery that was civilized under the influence of the Roman Republic. That influence was similar to America’s positive influence in the world from 1789 through about 1990.

    4. The understandably unsourced scenario presented below,
    apparently from a high level military source, is perfectly plausible in this
    case since it is absolutely typical of sociopathic behavior (similar to psychopathic which is “a person affected with a personality disorder marked by aggressive, violent, antisocial thought and behavior and a lack of remorse, or empathy” — i.e. a person with no concept of conscience). Sociopathic behavior is a common denominator of megalomania.

    Examples of megalomaniac national leaders who wrested power through inheritance, ruse or military actions from the past hundred years are Kaiser Wilhelm, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, alatola Khomeini in Iran, certain individuals in Saudi, etc . Consider the ACTIONS, not the WORDS of each of those and compare those actions to those that have occurred in America since 2008.

    5. I’m no psychiatrist so the points made in 2 and 4 are my personal opinions based on many, many years of studying history, governance and the personalities of the hundreds of men I’ve known in a long business career. I’m also an alcoholic, sober for 36 years, who studied the symptoms and causes of that disease from the description of alcoholism in the Book of Proverbs to many books and papers on human psychology and behavior. Despite all that, a learned psychologist or psychiatrist may disagree with my assessment.

    6. There have been so many clearly impeachable actions over the
    past four years that I’ve run out of fingers and toes. Take the volume and intent of Executive Orders and the intentional and unconstitutional bypassing of Congress for just two areas. Unfortunately, even if the House of Representatives would be able to muster the cajones to pass a Bill of Impeachment (indictment) against the president it would be a total waste of time with the Senate in control of the Socialist Democrat Party.

    Therefore, my personal opinion is that there will be so many more totalitarian mandates and actions taken in the next few years that we may possibly see what those of us in this country were convinced that we would never, could never see in our Constitutional Republic. I pray that he can be removed politically — but I thought that last month also.

    My greatest fear is that he and his bureaucratic and senatorial accomplices will do so much more damage that the economy will collapse so badly that the thirties, during which I was born, will look like a cakewalk. Since the political geniuses of both parties in Washington have changed E Pluribus Unum into E Unum Pluribus since 1989, there are so many “minority” groups depending on the unconstitutional government cornucopia that there would be a terrible hell to pay the piper for ALL of us when the “entitlements” cease. From a kind of academic perspective, in that kind of environment, if the economy does collapse, it’s possible, although I hope and pray not, that the phrase “beware the Ides of March” may return to current usage. If so, it will simply increase the chaos and completely destroy what’s left of the country.

    The bottom line is that I don’t know what the hell
    to do while looking at the tidal wave that’s rapidly approaching
    us all.
    Joe Murray

    From: Fr Dick Kim

    Sent: Thursday, November 22,
    2012 3:51 PM


    Subject: THE WORST CASE ON

    This was forwarded to me by a friend and he was curious as to my thoughts. I responded that this goes into a lot more detail but basically is what I’ve thought was the case since it first happened. I’d be curious about any responses any of you might have.


    Begin forwarded 17, 2012 5:43:44 AM EST


    I received this Email from a friend (as I do many of the things I feel interesting enough to share) who I won’t identify but, is very well placed in the upper echelons of the military.

    I received this message yesterday. IF this proves to be true, it is impeachable grounds. It also may help explain why Petreaus was forced out a few days before the Benghazi hearings coming up. It explains a lot of behavior by Obama and his administration – the pulled security, the “stand down” orders, and blaming that stupid video. The fireworks are coming. It will be the first of
    many disasters ahead. Please share with your email list.

    According to sources in the State Department and the CIA, and intercepted communications from the Muslim Brotherhood, The Obama administration “staged” the attack in Benghazi in order to create a monumental “October Surprise” that would guarantee them re-election.

    Yes, you read that right, and no, I’m not making this up. Obama, we now know, is and has been working with the Muslim Brotherhood secretly to engineer the release of the “Blind Sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman, the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

    In Obama’s October Surprise, he intentionally set up the consulate to have no security so that Chris Stevens could be kidnapped, and held for ransom by Al-Qaeda (and the Muslim Brotherhood). Then, several days before the election, the plan was to trade Chris Stevens for the Blind Sheik, making himself look like a hero, and all but guaranteeing re-election.

    This was one of the top reasons why Obama was so insistent on the Muslim Brotherhood getting $1.2 Billion in U.S. Aid. They were to have a primary role in getting Obama re-elected. That is why, even though they knew days before the attack that it was going to occur, no effort was made to bolster security. It was intended to be non-existent. The Libyan security forces were intended to quietly slip into the night when the attack began. And they did, just as planned. That is why, even though 2 C-130U gunships, which were built SPECIFICALLY for this kind of attack, and which could have saved the lives of our people there and were a mere 45 minutes away, were never scrambled at any time during the attack.

    There was to be no resistance whatsoever. That is why there were not one, but TWO armed drones flying over the consulate during the conflagration… our CIA operatives on the ground were painting targets because they knew air cover was available. That is why, even though requesting support and backup three times, their requests were NOT ignored, but were intentionally, specifically DENIED three times, and they were told to “stand down,” which basically means to “surrender.”
    That was part of Obama’s plan.

    They were not to fight back. That would potentially undermine the kidnapping effort and cause unnecessary “complications.” That is why, even though the CIA operatives and ex-Navy Seals were on the ground, providing real-time reports, and even though they were “lighting up” the source of the mortars attacking the compound with lasers, no gunships or support ever came. They weren’t supposed to resist

    That wasn’t “part of the plan.” It also wasn’t part of the plan for one of the CIA operatives to intentionally defy Obama’s orders, and who rescued the body of Sean Smith and then stood up against orders, and engaged the enemy who was attacking American soil. It was supposed to be “clean.” Quick. Efficient.

    Kidnap the Ambassador and get out. Then Save The Day in the “nick of time.” They didn’t factor in a tiny group of highly trained ex-Navy Seals/CIA operatives… American Patriots and heroes. Even though they eventually lost their lives in the firefight, they managed to employ the full measure of their skills, and took out over 80 attackers in the process… which enraged the attackers, who were led to believe that they would encounter no resistance.

    THAT is why Ambassador Stevens was raped (sodomized), murdered, and dragged through the streets. In their warped minds, they believed that they had been betrayed by the U.S. yet again. They believed that Obama was their friend. They believed that they were going to get their beloved Blind Sheik back. And yet, here were 80 of their own… dead by American hands.

    Obama was asked directly in an interview if he denied their request for assistance, he refused to answer, and instead droned on with a canned response promising to “bring those responsible to justice.”

    Former CIA and State Dept. personnel are coming out now with damning evidence that indicts President Obama, and reveals the truth about what is going on. Hillary Clinton, who is now openly laying the blame at the feet of the President, after falling on her sword in a premature show of loyalty for the Administration.

    The “Video” defense was carefully crafted WEEKS in advance, to explain the attack. If this doesn’t outrage you, If true, and if you are not moved enough to contact your congressman about this, you are not worthy of your citizenship.


  • 2ndltusmc

    when will the joint chiefs of staff march into the Oval office and arrest that Tyrant ?

  • Roger Aronoff, I admire you for such a solid piece of journalism! A stark difference to what I have been witnessing the past 5+ years! And I also admire Admiral Lyons – An American Hero who is not afraid to speak the truth! What a fresh breath of air!

  • MHnsn

    This article is fantastic! But I do believe its going to take a cataclysm to restore the Republic to her glory…., she’s too far gone.

  • Robert Quinn

    Re- Comment brought forward by Russ Henry.

    In item #6 the author states in part, — “Unfortunately, even if the House of
    Representatives would be able to muster the cajones to pass a Bill of
    Impeachment (indictment) against the president it would be a total waste of
    time with the Senate in control of the Socialist Democrat Party.”

    Admiral Lyons, in this very article states and I quote, “ I think really what has to happen is, the House has to have the courage to appoint a Special Prosecutor,” but I believe the very best way to get rid of this plague upon our Republic is to rip the Obama Regime out by its roots by assigning this prosecutor the responsibility to investigate and prosecute those involved in the fabrication of Obama’s law enforcement confirmed forged birth certificate, selective service registration card and the fact he is using a social security number that was originally issued to some one else and failed to pass E-verify.

    Show Obama to be the usurper he truly is and it becomes possible not only to get rid of him but his whole damn corrupt regime.
    Robert Quinn

  • roberted

    A Special Prosecutor will work, but so will impeachment….. to get to the truth. It would get rid of Barry and his regime and it doesn’t matter what the Senate does. I get really tired of the “Senate will do nothing” excuse regarding impeachment. Here is why I believe Congress will NEVER impeach Obama. I posted this at another site but it seems appropriate here also:

    Yes, Congress knows Obama is a total fraud, but they will not take action. The number one reason they will not take action is because so many in Congress are complicit in the biggest fraud/hoax in history. Being complicit in helping a known ineligible person become the putative president equals treason. Covering up the crime for over four years equals, as a minimum, misprision of treason. Congress is protecting Obama to protect themselves from the severe penalties associated with treason.

    Prior to the 2008 election Congressional leadership and some other members of Congress took action to get a known ineligible candidate on the ballot. This includes members of BOTH parties.
    There is plenty of evidence to back that up. After the fraud was
    elected Congressional leadership told the rest of Congress not to
    discuss Obama’s ineligibility, and, if pressed, to use the first of several Congressional Research Service reports to Congress to claim that Obama is a natural born citizen. The CRS is the research arm of Congress and they were asked to provide the members of Congress a report which would allow them to tell their constituents the same story. One big problem was this report was not asked for and generated until after Barry was elected. The chances of the CRS telling Congress Obama was not eligible at this point were zero. As the CRS report was destroyed by Constitutional experts the CRS issued two additional ones, changing their stories as required but always maintaining Obama was eligible. The CRS did also say in these same reports, that Obama was never vetted and that no vetting of presidential candidates is required. It was up to the states, the media and the other party to do the vetting. They all failed miserably in vetting Obama, for a variety of reasons; being called racist and derailing America’s first black president are two of them. They did, however, vet Sarah Palin to an extreme never seen before. It has been admitted by the CRS that no background check is required to run for, or assume, the office of president. The result of that is we have a person in charge of America’s military and her nuclear weapons who could not pass the lowest level security check if he had been required to take one.

    Strangely, few seem to care and no action has been taken to change the lack of oversight that allowed Obama to usurp the presidency.

    At least some of Congress knew Obama was not eligible before the election, and various members proposed eight different bills prior to the 2008 election trying to change the meaning of “natural born citizen” to pave the way for Barry. None of the bills went anywhere so they just forged ahead and used Alinsky tactics to shut-up those who saw what was happening and spoke out to demand he be vetted and the truth be known. The term “birther” was created to marginalize those who demanded the truth about Barry. Their plan worked and they have, with massive help from the media, both liberal and “conservative”, managed to keep real discussion of Obama’s hidden past, ineligibility and criminal activities limited to a few websites and out of the mainstream.

    Additional evidence of criminal activity exist in Obama’s use of a fraudulent Connecticut Social Security number, two poorly forged birth
    certificates, and an even more obvious bogus Selective Service
    registration. Through it all the media and Congress cover for Obama and say we the people have “no standing” to demand the truth about who is in the leadership position of our nation and it’s military.

    Those who defend Obama know he is a fraud, but they either don’t care or they have been paid off, threatened of intimidated into the easy and safe path….be quiet and discuss the “issues”….which is a massive waste of time, and the net result is the issues will always go Obama’s way, by executive order if required.

    Is there a way out of this or will we allow the charade be allowed to continue indefinitely?

  • where’s someone like LH Oswald when you need him?

  • Olde Boomer

    Secretary Clinton said that it didn’t matter whether it was an attack or just someone walking by who decided to kill an American. What matters now is finding out what happened and getting those ressponsible. Get your quote right–I watched it live. Also rember a CIA facility using locals and possibly holding prisoners was involved. Lives are still at stake and you will not be told everything.

  • There is treason being committed every day by our own government.

  • Tamara Thompson

    As someone who’s brother was murdered in law enforcement at age 32, and as a girl who honored my father, step-father and brother as Marines who fought in WWII and Viet Nam, I have the highest respect for our soldiers and deepest reverence for their sacrifices, as they lay all on the altar for freedom. Knowing what it’s like to lose my brother to violence, it makes it all the more reprehensible that this sham and thuggery, deceit and outright criminal activity in OUR White House not be allowed to continue! I could tell Hillary Clinton what difference it’s made in my life to not have my brother and best friend in my life anymore. This kind of insensitivity and condescending arrogance has spread throughout our government. I have earnestly prayed to my Heavenly Father that this evil be exposed for what it really is, and ousted out of it’s place. Our WWII Generals would have fought against this tooth and nail. I love the visual of General Patton assembled with his tanks sitting outside the White House, bullhorn in hand, telling Obama he has 15 minutes to get his treasonous, anti-American butt out, or he would receive the same treatment our heroes in Benghazi received, and there would be NOBODY TO HELP HIM. The families of these fallen men deserve answers, the full truth, and a nation that is compassionate and grateful for their heroism. This cover-up is an insult to their survivors and is ultimately cowardly and unAmerican! Their betrayed blood cries from the ground for justice. You can’t hide from God. You don’t mock God. I am SO GRATEFUL for the courage of those coming forward to give us the truth! I can’t even imagine how Generals Doolittle, Marshall, Bradley, Stilwell, MacArthur and Eisenhower would feel about these unbelieveable, vile characters in our government who embrace as friends those of a subversive and destructive ideology such as the Muslim Brotherhood!!! So…all of you who still support the good, ol’ American Way, please don’t hesitate to come forward and give your voice of support with courage and a steadfast determination to do what’s right! May God bless our THOROUGHLY AMERICAN HEROES who have sacrificed their lives and those who still fight on despite this disgusting leadership vacuum and treasonous cancer at our head. Our AMERICAN MILIARY men and women deserve so much better! You are in my thoughts and prayers, always and forever!

  • Douglas Mayfield

    Thank you for this article and your article titled ‘How the Obama doctrine reveals the president’s weakness’.
    Obama is a dedicated socialist and nihilist who is doing everything he can to destroy this country and obliterate freedom and individual rights throughout the world.
    The tragedy is that the American people don’t seem to realize that everything he does brings us closer to war.

  • Leftcoastrocky

    He is 86 years old and obviously is not that right in the head anymore