Dave Emory’s entire lifetime of work is available on a flash drive that can be obtained here. (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books available on this site.)
COMMENT: The ginned-up non-scandal surrounding the Benghazi attack is beginning to clarify, and our ruminations concerning the Petraeus affair and the succession of Michael J. Morell to the position of acting CIA director are becoming increasingly prescient.
It seemed apparent that Petraeus was set up to fall. (This is not to say he wasn’t a damn fool to take the bait–i.e. former counter-terrorism investigator Paula Broadwell.)
Some of the bullet points that we made in the context of the Petraeus affair:
- Petraeus was going to be questioned about the Benghazi affair behind closed doors. Does this impinge on the Benghazi situation? Might this be connected to the “October Surprise II” that the GOP was crowing about last fall?
- Petraeus was also seen by the Obama administration as an element of stability going into the second term. Might this affair be an effort at de-stabilizing Obama?
- In the above context, note that negative headlines are dominating in the wake of Obama’s re-election.
- The acting head of the CIA is Michael J. Morell, who gave Dubya his intelligence briefings and was actually with him on 9/11. Some observers were critical of Morell as being too much of an insider to effectively counteract abuses at the agency. Is this the agency “re-righting itself”–i.e. cleaning out an outsider? (The agency was initially reported to be leery of Petraeus, only coming to accept him when he adopted a “hands-off” approach to intelligence matters and CIA.)
- On a highly speculative note, we’ve read of Nazi generals named Morell during our research into the Third Reich. I wondered if Morell might be an Underground Reich insert when I heard he was acting head of CIA and being considered as director. A legend would have been created to obscure his Nazi/German/Underground Reich background. This suspicion grew more profound when I saw Morell’s picture. Again, this is admittedly highly speculative. Look at Morell’s picture at right and see what you think.
- Will Morrell work with the GOP and Underground Reich against Obama?
Since that analysis was posted, we have learned that Morell is of German-American extraction. One wonders if his ancestors might have been part of the large German-American Fifth Column in the United States, encompassing such organizations as the Steuben Society and the German American Bund. (Under Cover by John Roy Carlson, available for download on this website, details that milieu.)
The thrust of the GOP charges in the Benghazi incident are allegations that the Obama administration denied that the attack was a terrorist incident and deleted references to CIA warnings in their report.
It has now become clear that it was none other than Michael J. Morell who deleted the references to the terrorist warnings! He was opposed by David Petraeus in this attempt!
Do not fail to note that Petraeus was then sacked, leaving Morell in charge of the CIA! (Again, it was Morell who gave George W. Bush his intelligence briefings and was actually with him at the time of the 9/11 attacks.)
As the destabilization of the Obama administration takes form, do not fail to note that the head of the IRS when the Tea Party fronts were targeted was a George W. Bush appointee!
At the same time, the whored-out American media are up in arms over the Justice Department’s seizing of reporters’ phone records. The phone records concern a story that contained leaked material about a counter-terrorism sting in Yemen.
Who leaked that material? Might it have been Michael J. Morell, or someone else linked to the Bush administration/GOP/Underground Reich?
We note that that seizure of phone records could be precisely calculated to inflame the media.
The suspicion in these quarters centers on the 2012 leak as part of the pre-calculated destabilization of Obama.
EXCERPT: E‑mails released by the White House on Wednesday revealed a fierce internal jostling over the government’s official talking points in the aftermath of last September’s attack in Benghazi, Libya, not only between the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, but at the highest levels of the C.I.A.
The 100 pages of e‑mails showed a disagreement between David H. Petraeus, then the director of the C.I.A., and his deputy, Michael J. Morell, over how much to disclose in the talking points, which were used by Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, in television appearances days after the attack.
Mr. Morell, administration officials said, deleted a reference in the draft version of the talking points to C.I.A. warnings of extremist threats in Libya, which State Department officials objected to because they feared it would reflect badly on them.
Mr. Morell, officials said, acted on his own and not in response to pressure from the State Department. But when the final draft of the talking points was sent to Mr. Petraeus, he dismissed them, saying “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” adding that the heavily scrubbed account would not satisfy the House Democrat who had requested it.
“This is certainly not what Vice Chairman Ruppersberger was hoping to get,” Mr. Petraeus wrote, referring to Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which had asked Mr. Petraeus for talking points to use with reporters in discussing the attack on Benghazi.
The White House released the e‑mails to reporters after Republicans seized on snippets of the correspondence that became public on Friday to suggest that President Obama’s national security staff had been complicit in trying to alter the talking points for political reasons.
While the e‑mails portrayed White House officials as being sensitive to the concerns of the State Department, they suggest that Mr. Obama’s aides mostly mediated a bureaucratic tug of war between the State Department and the C.I.A. over how much to disclose — all under heavy time constraints because of the demands from Capitol Hill. The e‑mails revealed no new details about the administration’s evolving account of the Sept. 11 attack, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. . . .
And now we learn that key passages from hundreds of emails released by the White House relating to Benghazi reported by ABC last week were inaccurate quotes peddled by by Republicans and misreported by ABC:
What an unfortunate journalistic ‘mistake’.
Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson recently released a cellphone video that she allegedly took during a government hacking incident. The video shows text getting deleted from a Microsoft Word document open on her computer in real-time. She’s saying it’s evidence that the Obama administration has been hacking her in order to thwart her, ummm, super awesome reporting on Benghazi. As one might expect, the video is creating quite a media stir. A fraudulent media stir:
“The House Intelligence Committee report was released with little fanfare on the Friday before Thanksgiving week. Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel. The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.” Eighth time’s a charm?
A fraud on Fox News? Woah. You don’t say...:
So in addition to being a Fox News regular and apparently conning other Fox News commentators like retired General Paul Vallely, Simmons was also hired as the “Human Terrain System Team Leader” for an unnamed government contractor in 2008 and was later allegedly hired by another government subcontractor where he was deployed overseas as an adviser to senior US military personnel. And he apparently was able to pull all this off solely through the power of just repeating the same “I’m such a secret agent I can’t possibly prove it” shtick!
You have to wonder how many other “super secret agents” are out there quietly getting hired by government contractors and advising government officials. You also have to wonder if Simmons’s dozens of Fox News appearances, starting back in 2004, had anything to do with those hirings. After all, dozens of TV appearance where you’re portrayed as a former CIA operative is one hell of an addition to your con artist resume:
“Simmons Once Appeared On Fox News To Criticize A Former CIA Agent For Committing Fraud.”
That must have been a fun one for him. Not as fun as it could have been, but still fun.
The following information suggests that Benghazi was used by propagandists to discredit Obama and Hillary Clinton. Not that Obama administration did not use their best PR efforts to minimize the political damage before the election. The administration politicized and delayed revealing their knowledge of what happened in order to minimize the damage on election day.
Here is the Washington Post interview with “Bob”, the local CIA Annex chief in Benghazi.
We’ve heard several versions (FOX NEWS) of the supposed CIA stand-down order at around 10 PM Benghazi time September 11, 2012.
One alleged stand-down order came from CIA HQ in Langley. Another from CIA or State Dept. Security chiefs at the S Embassy in Tripoli. A third from “Bob” the local Annex chief in Benghazi
In each case, security contractor’s eager to rescue Ambassador Stevens reportedly complained that superiors initially refused to let them rush immediately to the consulate that was under fire. Reasons offered: Ambush expected, need to first arrange for heavy weapons and armored vehicles from friendly Libyans before rushing to the rescue, friendly Libyan militias in the area would do the rescue on their own and US contractors would only get in the way and be mistakenly targeted themselves (the friendly Libyans did get to the consulate and retrieve Ambassador Steven’s body).
Why so many stories of stand-downs in Washington, Tripoli and Benghazi? Sources of these stories were always groups of security contractors on the scene. None of the stories blames Petraeus, Clinton or Obama for issuing any kind of stand-down order.
The State Department Administrative Review Board (accepted as neutral by intelligence committee Republicans and Democrats alike) found no stand-down orders. The ARB supposedly held three mid-level State Department Diplomatic Security managers to be negligent in sending enough security to Tripoli or Benghazi long before the attack.
Where are the bodies of the dead and wounded attackers in the 9:45 pm to 5 am firefights? No enemy rifles, bullet shells with fingerprints or DNA to compare to suspects apprehended by Libyan authorities afterward? No video tapes retrieved from the nearby hospital where wounded attackers were reportedly taken for treatment (same hospital where Ambassador. Steven’s body was taken).
On the other side, the Obama Administration did politicize the event by delaying the reporting that it was a Terrorist attack by using carefully chosen words like “act of terror” rather than labelling a terrorist incident and taking an excessively long time, until after the election to report it clearly as such. They did this because they feared the ramifications of the attack on the election results. The Jan. 15, 2016 Washington Post article “Former CIA chief in Benghazi challenges the story line of the new movie ‘13 Hours” stated:
“The other major controversy surrounding Benghazi has focused on how the attack on the diplomatic compound was initially portrayed by the White House as a violent protest rather than a terrorist attack.”
“Bob said there was “some reporting” even in the midst of the attacks that a terror group known as Ansar al-Sharia was involved, but he said he played no role in shaping White House talking points about the attacks that came under harsh criticism.”
See: Former CIA chief in Benghazi challenges film’s claim of ‘stand-down’ order
EXCLUSIVE | It is the most fateful moment in the movie “13 Hours,” which purports to present a searingly accurate account of the 2012 attacks. Speaking publicly for the first time, the officer in charge that night said it was entirely untrue.
¥ By Adam Goldman and Greg Miller