OBAMA SENDS TROOPS TO DEFEND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN EGYPT

Thursday, 27 June 2013 10:35

Obama Sending U.S. Troops to Egypt

As Egyptians prepare for massive protests against the U.S. government-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime of Mohamed Morsi, the Obama administration is set to deploy hundreds of American troops to Egypt. While more than a few analysts have argued that U.S. forces will be used to continue propping up “Islamofascists” in the Middle East, authorities from both governments claim the soldiers are merely being sent as part of a nine-month international “peacekeeping” scheme.

According to official accounts, the so-called “Multinational Force and Observers” (MFO) mission, composed of troops serving 13 governments, is aimed at controlling riots and violence. Another primary purpose, government spokesmen claimed, is enforcing the 1979 peace treaty between Israeli and Egyptian authorities. News reports and official statements suggest the American troops, serving under MFO command, will be operating security checkpoints and responding to threats.

The exact date of deployment has not been announced yet, but U.S. troops spent some six months training at Fort Hood and Fort Irwin for the mission and will reportedly be ready to go in the “near future.” Local U.S. media reports, citing military officials, said American forces had been trained for riot control featuring exercises with Molotov cocktails and other “dangerous items” in anticipation of violent protests. Another possibility would be protecting the border with Israel, according to reports. 

Two soldiers quoted in a KCEN-TV report offered few details as video of U.S. troops wearing police riot gear flashed on the screen. "Just what I've seen over the course of the past week, this unit is already far more ready for this type of threat than we were a week ago," said Lt. Matthew Wilkinson without elaborating on the nature of the threat. Another, PFC Perez Alexander, explained: "We want to be as professional as possible so that, whatever situation we encounter, the opposing force knows that we mean business and we know what we're doing."   

The American soldiers, whose training ended last week, are set to be deployed in the dangerous and volatile Sinai Peninsula. Security has continued to deteriorate throughout the regAMion following the uprising that swept longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak from power, with some analysts suggesting the escalating unrest could spark problems for both Israel and the increasingly hardline Muslim Brotherhood regime in Cairo. 

In a June 19 press release, the U.S. Army 1st Cavalry Division confirmed that a battalion “task force” from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team would indeed be heading to the Sinai this summer to participate in the international “peacekeeping force.” According to the statement, the more than 400 troops will be based on the southern end of the Sinai Peninsula, near Sharm-el-Sheikh, manning “observation posts” and checkpoints along the southeast coast.

Egyptian officials, meanwhile, were quick to downplay the American deployment. "The 400 U.S. soldiers coming to Egypt as mentioned in the media are part of the periodical renewal routine for the U.S. faction of the 13-state multinational force deployed in Sinai since the peace treaty. They are not armed with military operations gear," Egyptian military spokesman Ahmed Ali was quoted as saying. "We are providing this clarification as we respect the right of the great Egyptian people to know the truth from its original sources and to prevent distortion of information by any instigators."

The timing of the news, however, has made analysts and commentators suspicious. An Egyptian group known as “Rebels” or “Rebellion,” described in media reports as “secular” and “liberal,” announced over the weekend that it had gathered some 15 million signatures to impeach Morsi, who was elected after Mubarak was forced out. The petition cites a number of grievances including lack of security, widespread poverty, shortages of basic goods, and more.

“We’ve had enough of Morsi… He has done nothing, he’s only helped his own people,” said Ghada Naguib, a member of the organization’s coordinating committee, in an interview with the Global Post. “We don’t need him to do anything anymore. We just need him to leave… We will finish our revolution.” The group is calling for massive, nation-wide protests against the elected government on June 30, and counter-demonstrations are expected.  

Writing in FrontPage magazine, analyst Arnold Ahlert blasted the deployment of U.S. troops to Egypt as “yet another remarkable display of Obama’s determination to secure the Middle East for Islamofascists.” Ahlert also slammed the “spectacular absurdity” of using American forces to augment Egyptian police and defend Morsi’s “thuggish” Islamist Muslim Brotherhood regime from popular protests calling for its ouster. 

An editorial in Investor’s Business Daily, entitled “Now Obama Using Troops To Prop Up Cairo's Islamofascists,” came to similar conclusions, saying the president was sending U.S. forces to “protect a regime that supports terrorists.” Citing news reports, the editorial said Obama’s effort was meant to help the “Islamofascist regime there repel its own citizens protesting increasing human-rights violations.”

More than a few analysts have also highlighted what they perceive as problems with Morsi’s Islamist rule. Among the most serious: media censorship, increasing attacks on the Coptic Christian minority, packing government organs with Islamic extremists, cracking down on protesters, issuing lawless “decrees” that critics call dictatorial, ramming through an Islamist constitution, prosecuting foreign government-funded “democracy” groups, and more. 

read more at THE NEW AMERICAN

More Jihad at Fort Hood; Obama sends troops to help Egypt’s Mursi

by Shoebat Foundation on June 28, 2013 in Blog, General

BY Walid Shoebat

Former Muslim Brotherhood
Member Now Peace Activist

On November 5, 2009, a Jihadist inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood-inspired Anwar Al Awlaki murdered 14 and injured 32 on post at Fort Hood, TX. Today, 400 troops from Fort Hood are being sent to Egypt on a ‘peacekeeping mission’ and what can only be described as an effort to help Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Mursi, who is currently persecuting protesters who object to Sharia law.

The sick irony is that Mursi’s worldview matches that of the Fort Hood Jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan and Awlaki. By potentially aiding the Mursi regime, these 400 troops will essentially be defending the cause of the jihadist that gunned down their brothers in arms.

Via Investors Business Daily:

In the latest twist in our upside-down war on terror, President Obama withdraws troops fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and sends others to Egypt to protect a regime that supports terrorists.

According to reports, the commander-in-chief is deploying a riot-control unit from Fort Hood to Egypt to help the Islamofascist regime there repel its own citizens protesting increasing human-rights violations.

More than 400 Army soldiers from the Texas base will soon man posts throughout Egypt as part of a nine-month “peacekeeping mission.” They’ve been trained to respond to threats, including protests and riots.

“Soldiers encountered Molotov cocktails and other dangerous items in the training,” according to the local TV news station that broke the story out of Killeen, Texas.

Seem too far-fetched? Well, how about an excerpt from a Fort Hood Press Release?

The 1st Cavalry Division announced today a battalion task force from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team will deploy to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula this summer as part of the Multinational Force and Observers peacekeeping force.

The 6th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, will observe and report violations of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty during its nine-month deployment. The 400-plus Soldier U.S. battalion will be based on the southern end of the Sinai Peninsula, near Sharm-el-Sheikh. The U.S. Soldiers will man observation posts and check points along the southeast coast of the Sinai Peninsula between Eilat, Israel and Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt.

More sick irony?

Since the attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12, evidence has been mounting and is all but unimpeachable, that Mursi was involved in the attacks, which resulted in the murder of four Americans – Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens. As such, that wold make the President of Egypt our Fort Hood troops are being sent to support, complicit in an act of war on the United States.

Here is a video taken from a cell phone outside the U.S. Special Mission Compound during the attack. One gunman can be heard shouting (in Arabic), “Don’t Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi!”

Meanwhile, the supposedly ‘conservative’ congressman whose district includes Fort Hood – Rep. John Carter – is touring the country with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), who was one of 70 members of the 111th Congress registered as a Socialist. Carter and Gutierrez are members of the House’s version of the ‘Gang of 8′ in the immigration debate.

As Obama sends troops from Fort Hood to protect the agenda of a Muslim Brotherhood president (which includes Jihad), the Republican congressman who represents Fort Hood is pushingObama’s immigration agenda.

To contact Rep. John Carter about this despicable use of American troops and, for that matter, his despicable alliance with a registered socialist named Luis Gutierrez, below is a list of addresses for his various offices as well as phone numbers.

Please be civil but firm, outraged but not belligerent.

Washington, D.C. Office
409 C.H.O.B.
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-3864

Round Rock District Office
One Financial Centre
1717 North IH 35
Suite 303
Round Rock, TX 78664
(512) 246-1600

Bell County Office
6544B S. General Bruce Drive
Temple, TX 76502
Located next to the DPS office
(254) 933-1392

SOURCE: http://shoebat.com

12 Revisions On Benghazi Talking Points. Terror Reference Scrubbed. Carney Hit Hard.

As I sit here watching Jay Carney take a beating from ALL kinds of TV news outlets, and his hopping around like a frog on a hot stove, I kinda chuckle because he is trying to hold to the talking points given to him by the White House, that there was only one stylistic change made to the talking points given to Susan Rice following the Benghazi terrorist attack. He also slipped and said that Obama immediately said that it was a terrorist attack. Everyone knows that it was a while before anyone from the State Department said that this was a terrorist attack. We were all waiting for that to happen. What is great about this is that it just builds on the issues that are already surrounding Benghazi and the whistleblowers coming forward.

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

US News | Syria News | More ABC News Videos

White House Benghazi Attack Talking Points Edited

May 10, 2013 6:33am

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before sheappeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

AFP/Getty Images

Related: Read the Full Benghazi Talking Point Revisions

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.  They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012.  “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya.  These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?  Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”  The draft went on to specifically name  the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Related: ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl Answers Your Questions About Benghazi

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”

After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.

In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.  We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Related: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected

After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.

“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

UPDATE:  A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress:  1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”

One other point:  The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows.  Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.

source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

Officials removed terror reference from Benghazi memo - report

10 May 2013 12:09 ET
Republicans such as Congressman Darrell Issa have suggested the Obama administration engaged in a cover-up following the Benghazi attack

Official talking points about an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya were edited by the state department to remove references to terrorism, a US television network has reported.

The revelation by ABC News contradicts earlier White House comments that the memo was mostly developed by the CIA.

Four Americans, including the US envoy, died in the raid on 11 September 2012.

Republicans suggest the Obama administration wanted to downplay terrorism ahead of the November vote.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens died of smoke inhalation when he was trapped in the burning consulate building, after armed men stormed the compound.

State department employee Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty also died in the attack.

The controversy stems in large part from an appearance on Sunday chat shows soon after the attacks by US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, who said the attack had grown out of an anti-US protest.

Other officials have said they knew at the time it was an organised, armed assault, possibly by an Islamist militant group.

'Beat up state department'

According to ABC News, as the dust settled in Libya the state department offered input on the talking points memo to be distributed to Congress and to Ms Rice.

The state department wanted to remove a reference to earlier CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi and excise the mention of Ansar al-Sharia, a group linked to al-Qaeda, ABC News reported.

State department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in an email to intelligence and White House officials obtained by the ABC that the reference should be dropped because it "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the state department for not paying attention to warnings", the network reports.

In November, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the information given to the public in the wake of the attack had been supplied by the intelligence community.

He said at the time: "The White House and the state department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate."

On Wednesday, a US diplomat in Libya during the attacks gave the first public account of the incident, in a Congressional hearing.

Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Tripoli, expressed frustration with the lack of military response to the incident, telling lawmakers he believed a second attack would have been deterred by a swift reaction.

'Systemic failures'

On Capitol Hill in January, Hillary Clinton angrily defended her handling of Benghazi

The Pentagon has said it could not have done anything to assist the besieged Americans.

And Mr Hicks criticised an official review of the attack, saying it focused too much on low-ranking officials.

That probe, led by former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and Adm Mike Mullen, singled out the diplomatic security and near eastern affairs bureaus for criticism.

It said "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels" in those teams led to a "security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place".

In congressional hearings in January, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took responsibility for the security failures at the compound.

Some analysts say that Mrs Clinton, who has been cited as a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, could be haunted by the incident if she chooses to run.

SOURCE:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22486332

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES ON THE BENGHAZI TALKING POINTS ACCORDING TO ABC

Benghazi Talking Points Revisions Pushed By State Department

AP  |  By DONNA CASSATAPosted: 05/10/2013 12:49 pm EDT  |  Updated: 05/10/2013 8:33 pm EDT

By DONNA CASSATA, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senior State Department officials pressed for changes in the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used after the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya last September, expressing concerns that Congress might criticize the Obama administration for ignoring warnings of a growing threat in Benghazi.

An interim report by Republicans on five House committees last month had detailed how the talking points were changed, days after the Sept. 11 attack and in the heat of the 2012 presidential campaign. New details about the political concerns and the names of the administration officials who wrote emails concerning the talking points emerged on Friday.

The White House has insisted that it made only stylistic changes to the intelligence agency talking points in which Rice suggested that protests over an anti-Islamic video set off the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Before the presidential election, the administration said Rice's talking points were based on the best intelligence assessments available in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

But the report and the new details Friday suggest a greater degree of White House and State Department involvement.

The latest developments are certain to add fuel to the politically charged debate over Benghazi. Republicans have suggested that the Obama administration sought to play down the possibility of terrorism during the campaign and has misled the country. A senior administration official reiterated Friday that the talking points were based on intelligence assessments and developed during an interagency process, which included the CIA, officials from the Director of National Intelligence, State Department, FBI and the Justice Department.

The official commented only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation

read more at The Huffington Post

BENGHAZI TALKING POINTS, VERSION 12.0

By: John Hayward

Game, set, and match… if the rest of the media keeps running with this story, now that ABC News has broken it.

As ABC duly acknowledges, it’s not entirely brand-new information, as it builds from the landmark Weekly Standard report on smoking-gun emails related to the politicized editing of the Benghazi talking points, posted online last week.  But ABC News enhanced the story by getting its hands on even more documentation, and the result is a story that can no longer be kept under quarantine in the conservative media “ghetto,” where the rest of the media dismisses accurate, well-documented stories by sneering that only the likes of Fox News care about them. (bold and italics added)

What ABC News brings us is a version history of the Benghazi talking points, in which they passed through 12 versions that began with reasonably accurate and complete information from the intelligence community… and ended with the malarkey peddled by the Administration:

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.  They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012.  “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Carney has said the revisions to the talking points were merely “stylistic.”  Yes, I believe that style is called “lying.”

For the benefit of liberal forum trolls, and a few mainstream media reporters, who can’t figure out why the Administration would orchestrate a cover-up when they supposedly had nothing to hide, the material uncovered by ABC News makes it crystal clear:

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya.  These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?  Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

The genesis of the “spontaneous video protest” fraud is also revealed in these emails, as the CIA’s first draft incorrectly suggested the Benghazi attack was apparently “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo,” an idea whose origin remains unclear, because in reality there was never any reason for anyone knowledgeable about the attack to believe that.  It should also be noted that the Cairo protests themselves only incorporated the infamous YouTube video as an after-the-fact justification; they were originally organized for the purpose of demanding the extradition of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, on the anniversary of 9/11.  At any rate, the CIA analysts continued, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaeda participated in the attack,” and they named the al-Qaeda affiliate called Ansar al-Sharia.

As Wednesday’s testimony made clear, a five-minute phone call to Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks in Tripoli could have cleared up the “protest” nonsense… but instead, at the urging of Victoria Nuland, the Administration went in the opposite direction, scrubbing everything except the nonsense.  Everything about al-Qaeda and the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi leading up to the attack was purged from the talking points.

Obama’s political operatives were right to be concerned.  Can you imagine what the public response would have been, if U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice hit the Sunday talk shows to dispense honest, accurate, complete information?  ”Yes, it’s clear there were mounting security issues in Benghazi, and a disturbing level of terrorist activity, culminating in an organized attack involving crew-served weapons and precision mortar fire that killed our Ambassador and his heroic, outnumbered defenders.  But we made no effort to rescue him, took absolutely no precautions to send special-ops teams or air power to his rescue on the anniversary of 9/11, and in fact we reduced his security over his protests, because… oh, darn, look at the time, I’ve got to go.  Have a great day, everybody!”

read more at http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points-version-12/