Former Defense & CIA Director Leon Panetta Says … From Beginning, I Thought Benghazi Was a “Terrorist Attack”

Former Defense & CIA Director Leon Panetta in an interview with NBC Today stated that from the beginning, he thought the attack on the Benghazi consulate on September 11, 2012 was a “Terrorist Attack”. But of course that did not go along with Barack Obama’s reelection narrative that Al-Qaeda was on the run. Instead, Obama and his minions would blame the attack on a video. Lately, Panetta has been highly critical of Obama. It is just too bad he did not speak up or resign at the time out of principle. But as Panaetta’s buddy Hillary Clinton says, “What difference does it make?”

“You know, I didn’t have any specific information but, the fact was, when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration there’s something else going on. And, I just from the very beginning sensed that this was an attack. This was a terrorist attack.”

Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement on Ebola In The US … “Really, Another Countries Economy is not the Criteria as to Whether We Put Our Families ar Risk”

I agree with Judge Jeanine 100% …

From ‘Justice’ with Judge Jeanine, this is a much watch VIDEO commentary. Judge Jeanine is at her best. Who at this point really trusts out government to be honest with us? When will this president understand that it is his job to protect Americans, not the world! Who trusts our government when they say the chances of an Ebola outbreak in the United States is low? As Judge Jeanine Pirro aptly states and reminds us, right, and you can keep your doctor and healthcare plan too,  Al-Qaeda is on the run and ISIS is not Islamic.

Ebola, what a mess.

No one, and I mean no one should be allowed to enter the United States from any West African nation ravaged with Ebola. And any American citizen who goes there and wants to come home needs to be quarantined for 21 days until we figure out what we are doing.

WAPO: Out of control – How the world’s health organizations failed to stop the Ebola disaster.

Hmm, pretty amazing that the WAPO failes to mention that Obama was asleep at the switch. How long have we known about Ebola?

Shaken, he flew back to the United States on Aug. 31 and immediately briefed President Obama by phone. The window to act was closing, he told the president in the 15-minute call.

That conversation, nearly six months after the World Health Organization (WHO) learned of an Ebola outbreak in West Africa, was part of a mounting realization among world leaders that the battle against the virus was being lost. As of early September, with more than 1,800 confirmed Ebola deaths in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, there was still no coordinated global response. Alarmed U.S. officials realized they would need to call in the military.

Obama eventually ordered 3,000 military personnel to West Africa; about 200 had arrived by the beginning of this month. They will be joined by health workers from countries such as Britain, China and Cuba. Canada and Japan are sending protective gear and mobile laboratories. Nonprofit organizations such as the Gates Foundation also are contributing. But it’s not at all clear that this belated muscular response will be enough to quell the epidemic before it takes tens of thousands of lives.

Megyn Kelly Leaves State Department Spox Jen Psaki Speechless After Confronting Her with Obama’s Own Words from Debate Tape with Romney on Troop Withdrawal

BARACK OBAMA, THE LIAR IN CHIEF IN HIS OWN WORDS …

State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki at a loss for words when confronted with Obama’s own words in what he stated during the 2012 Presidential debates against Mitt Romney vs. his comments now. Presented with the facts from Megyn Kelly and the comments from or Leon Panetta, former Defense and CIA director, that “those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.”

Mitt Romney: With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe that there should have been a status of forces agreement… Oh, you didn’t want a status of forces agreement.

Barack Obama: No, what I would not have done was left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

VIDEO – Via the Kelly File from The Gateway Pundit

Now we get Barack Obama only blaming Iraq’s  Maliki, claiming it was bit his decision.

Former Defense Secretary & CIA Director Leon Panetta Calls Out Barack Obama’s Lies on Iraq and ISIS

Barack Obama, The Liar in Chief …

After President Barack Obama threw the US intelligences community under the bus and blamed them for his underestimating Iraq and ISIS. However, Former Defense Secretary & CIA Director Leon Panetta is firing back and calling out Obama’s lies.  Panetta says that not only was Obama advised to keep American military forces in Iraq to protect its fragile stability, he also warned that the rise of the Islamic State “greatly increases the risk that Iraq will become al-Qaeda’s next safe haven.”

It would appear that Panetta wants to put forth the truth as to what really took place and create a firewall between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for her 2016 presidential run.

Leon Panetta … warned the rise of the Islamic State “greatly increases the risk that Iraq will become al-Qaeda’s next safe haven.”

In clear and unequivocal terms, former Defense Secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta confirms precisely what conservative critics, lawmakers, former officials, tactical experts and military officials have said about Iraq: President Obama was advised to keep a stay-behind force and warned  about the consequences if he did not. He preferred to keep his campaign pledge to get all the troops out. The White House therefore allowed negotiations to falter for a status of forces agreement and bragged it had gotten all the troops out. Iraq has now collapsed.

In excerpts of his new book printed in TIME, he writes: “When President Obama announced the end of our combat mission in August 2010, he acknowledged that we would maintain troops for a while. Now that the deadline was upon us, however, it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together.” Among others, Panetta and Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy tried to convince the White House this was essential, but the White House refused to take obvious measures to maintain troops:

More from FOX News:

In them, Panetta explained that Iraqi leaders privately wanted some U.S. forces to stay behind after the formal 2011 withdrawal, though they would not say so publicly. The former secretary, though, said the U.S. had “leverage” to strike a deal, and the Defense and State departments tried to do exactly that.

“But,” he wrote, “the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated. … and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.”

He said the negotiations with then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went down to the wire in December 2011, but the White House never stepped up.

“To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them,” Panetta charged. “Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away.”

The account from Panetta challenges the notion that the Obama administration would have left some troops behind – as U.S. military advisers wanted – if only the Iraqi government had been more willing to negotiate. While Panetta lays some blame at the feet of the Iraqis, he also argues that the White House never seized the chance at a deal.

Panetta claims that a residual troop presence like he and others had advocated could have made the difference.  

“To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country,” he wrote.

Panetta also warned that the rise of the Islamic State “greatly increases the risk that Iraq will become al-Qaeda’s next safe haven.”

Barack Obama Blames Intel Officials for ISIS … “Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.”

Barack Obama … The Buck always Stop with somebody else other than me …

It did not take long in last nights CBS ’60 Minutes’ interview for President Barack Obama to blame some one else for his not having a strategy or a clue in how to deal with ISIS. Barack Obama threw Intel officials and James Clapper under the bus and stated they underestimated ISIS. Who underestimated ISIS, or did you just not want to see what they were doing?  I could not have said it any better than Instapundit, When things go well, it’s always “I, me, mine” with this guy. When things go badly, it’s always “they” who screwed up.

But wait a minute, didn’t FOX News report Obama given detailed intelligence for a year about rise of ISIS?

President Obama was given detailed and specific intelligence about the rise of the Islamic State as part of his daily briefing for at least a year before the group seized large swaths of territory over the summer, a former Pentagon official told Fox News.

The official — who asked not to be identified because the President’s Daily Brief is considered the most authoritative, classified intelligence community product analyzing sensitive international events for the president — said the data was strong and “granular” in detail.

60 Minutes – Barack Obama interview

The Hill: Obama – Intel officials underestimated ISIS.

President Obama largely blamed the United States’ intelligence community in an interview broadcast Sunday for giving an incorrect assessment of the capabilities of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” Obama said on CBS’s “”60 Minutes.”

Obama said ISIS, also known as ISIL, went “underground” when United States forces fought al Qaeda in Iraq in the last decade.

That, along with Syria’s civil war, allowed ISIS to regroup and recruit fighters from all over the world, including Europe, the United States, Australia and the Muslim world, Obama said in an excerpt from the interview. The full interview with Steve Kroft will air Sunday night.

“And so this became ground zero for jihadists around the world,” Obama said of Syria.

Jim Geraghty at NRO says, oh contaire … “How Many Times Was Obama Warned About an Islamist Takeover of Iraq?”

Isn’t this what all of those allegedly horrific warmongering Bush administration officials warned about? Didn’t we have an entire 2008 presidential campaign debating the consequences of a “precipitous withdrawal”? Didn’t Obama and his team assure us, over and over again, that they would manage the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq responsibly?

Vice President Cheney, November 21, 2005:

Would the United States and other free nations be better or worse off with terrorists like Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi running Iraq? And would the United States be more or less safe with Iraq ruled by extremists intent on its destruction?

A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further the violence against free nations and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.

President Bush, July 12, 2007:

I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.

Even The Daily Beast is calling Obama on his comments … Why Obama Can’t Say His Spies Underestimated ISIS.

Still, other senior intelligence officials have been warning about ISIS for months. In prepared testimony before the annual House and Senate intelligence committees’ threat hearings in January and February, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the recently departed director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the group would likely make a grab for land before the end of the year. ISIS “probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014.” Of course, the prediction wasn’t exactly hard to make. By then, Flynn noted, ISIS had taken the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, and the demonstrated an “ability to concurrently maintain multiple safe havens in Syria.”

Flynn was not alone. Clapper himself in that hearing warned that the three most effective jihadist groups in Syria—one of which he said was ISIS—presented a threat as a magnet for attracting foreign fighters. John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, said he thought both ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda’s formal franchise in Syria, presented a threat to launch external operations against the West.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said February 4 that because of areas of Syria that are “beyond the regime’s control or that of the moderate opposition,” a “major concern” was “the establishment of a safe haven, and the real prospect that Syria could become a launching point or way station for terrorists seeking to attack the United States or other nations.”