Benghazi Cover-up Revealed

The U.S. Special Forces Colonel who was in charge of security at the American facility in immediately before the attack has completely refuted the White House’s key claims about the 9/11/12 attacks. It appears that the Obama Administration has clearly lied to the American people.
In a startling interview today on the Vernuccio/Allison report, retired Army Special Forces Lt. Colonel Andrew Wood, who was the site security team commander in Libya from Feb. 12 to August 14 2012, just weeks before the 9/11/12 attack that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Stevens, clearly stated that requests for additional security for United States facility in Benghazi before the attack were denied, and that in direct contradiction to repeated White House claims, American military forces could have been used to rescue U.S. personnel there.
Col. Wood requested that he and a group of his men remain at Benghazi prior to the attacks. That request was denied. The colonel’s request for his tour to be extended was also turned down. Without explanation, mobile security elements were also taken away.
According to Wood, “The security system we were given when we first entered the country was working but from the day we entered, though, the State Department seemed to want to alter or cut back on the security formula we had come up with. I was part of the military security that was there to enhance the security for the embassy. As well as other security elements from the state department which were eventually removed. I couldn’t answer fully why…”
Asked why security was weakened, Col Wood replied that “never to his understanding” was “there ever any reason why security was weakened at the facility. It left us defenseless, and I am at a loss to explain why…I could see with time how the [local extremists] were being trained to strike local interests.”
An alkaline diet can help bile return to cialis vs levitra an alkaline state. A relationship is an admixture of some good and bad experiences in life. cialis tadalafil 10mg But due to few problems you may find cialis tablets in india pharmacies which offer no cost shipping. Importantly, repeated heavy use of cialis price robertrobb.com broad-spectrum doxycycline may result in the body flora and make the problem of erectile dysfunction a past affair. The colonel, who with the organization Special Operations Speaks, is calling for a special investigation similar to that which took place during Watergate to fully investigate the matter. He suggested that a joint committee of both House and Senate Members investigate the stonewalling that the White House and the State Department are engaging in.
Asked why the government has prevented Congress and the press from speaking with survivors of the attack. Col. Wood replied that “There are additional details that need to come forth…in classified hearings as well as in public hearings.”
Asked about the White House’s comments that a little-known video was the cause for the attack, Col. Wood replied that the Administration’s month-long insistence on blaming the almost totally unknown video for the assault indicated that “something just isn’t right…something went wrong….[either] its simple ineptness…or something went wrong and somebody is trying to cover it up…somebody may have been doing something they shouldn’t have been trying to do. ..the whole idea of the video as an excuse strikes me as somebody trying to cover something up as well…”
Asked why the U.S. didn’t use its substantial military assets in the region to rescue our Benghazi personnel, Col. Wood replied that “That will remain a mystery until we get more people to come forward and speak as to what happened and answer as to what happened…I know assets where available, I know I was able to access assets should something have gone wrong while I was there. I was told these assets were on standby…why they were not used during this event is just maddening to me…I can’t understand it, it left Americans in harm’ way. It leaves them to be destroyed by their enemies as other Americans stood by and watched, which is totally wrong and totally against anything we have ever done.”

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.