Is the Obama administration covering up scandalous details in Libya attack?

September 17, 2012

Writer

On tonight’s episode of "Glenn Beck", Glenn laid out a new theory regarding the attacks on American Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya. On the show, Glenn stated that he believes, based on his research and analysis, Stevens was not killed as a result of spontaneous riot spurned by the video spreading around YouTube parodying Muhammad. Instead, Glenn believes he was killed in a targeted attack and that the protests were just used as a distraction.

In the opening minutes of the show, Glenn laid out the timeline for the attacks on Libyan embassy::

- 10:15pm Consulate is engulfed in flames. Many escape, raced by convoy about one mile down the road to a supposed “safe house”. Stevens does not make it.

- 10:45pm Security staff regroup and try to take back the main building but encounter heavy fire and retreat.

- 11:20pm More back-up arrives and a second attempt regains the main building. Fighting erupts at the “secret” safe house and lasts 2 hours. The attack was described as “intense, deadly and accurarte.” It featured automatic weapons, RPG’s and mortar fire. The accuracy was said to be too good for ordinary revolutionaries. Two former SEALs are killed in firefight.

- 1:15 am – Stevens body taken to hospital and unable to be revived

Before the attack, one of the guards who died alongside Stevens, Sean Smith, posted the following on an online gaming message board: “assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures”.

Glenn wondered if all the elements of the timeline above and the message from Smith really match up with the story circulating Washington D.C. and the media – that the attacks were the result of a spontaneous protest spurned on by the YouTube video. He had a different theory.

After a break, Glenn tried to tell the story of what happened in Libya from a different perspective.

He started by putting several questions up on the chalkboard:

- How often was the ambassador in Benghazi?

- What was the consulate like?

- Was there any warning?

- If the attack was really about the film – why didn’t the administration issue a warning based on that?

- Was the embassy put on high alert? Or is the report that nothing was done accurate?

- Who was on the protective detail? What were they doing in the area?

- What did the “spontaneous crowds” have RPG’s and laser accurate mortar fire?

- Why was the most important person there, the ambassador, left for dead while many other made it out?

- Who was the ambassador?

- Why didn’t the white house warn about the movie?

Glenn theorized that the two people who were working the two former SEALs working protective duty for the ambassador were actually CIA agents on an intelligence mission to round up dangerous weapons in the war town nation. Before his death, Glen Doherty, one of the former SEALs who was killed alongside Stevens, told ABC News about that he was looking for weapons in Libya. Also, Glenn said that, although it was not explicitly stated, it could be inferred from the interview that they were rounding up weapons supplied by the United States to Libyan rebels during the uprising last year.

Glenn also pointed out that the media’s portrayal of Stevens seems odd as more information about him emerges. He is said to have a huge love for the Libyan people, which is odd considering several leaders of the Libyan revolt against Gadaffi have stated they fought against the United States, and the rebel leader claimed that many Al-Qaida members were working with him on the front lines.

Reports have also surfaced over the past week that Stevens snuck into the war torn country on a cargo ship, and that he travelled to Morocco, Germany and Sweden. Glenn also found it suspicious that he did not travel in the more protected, but more obvious, armored vehicles.

“That doesn’t like your average pencil pusher diplomat. Sounds a little more like CIA to me,” Glenn theorized.

Glenn theorized that Stevens was in fact the CIA operative who was the CIA weapons dealer in the region, and he believed that Stevens was the one who brokered the deal to give Libyan rebels weapons to fight against Gadaffi.

So what does Glenn think really happened?

- The U.S. government is indeed looking for missiles to recover, so that no one finds out that we supplied them to terrorists

- They find a weapons cache of surface to air missles

- Same missiles we supplied during the revolution to take out aircraft.

- The CIA agents were forced to call in Stevens, our CIA weapons dealer.

- He flies in on short notice and takes an unmarked car to avoid suspicion to meet them

- The meeting goes south, he is taken to the closest safe house, which is why he ends up at the poorly secured consulate building.

- The message Sean Smith sent to the gaming community was really a message to the CIA telling them they needed help.

Glenn asked which scenario was more plausible: 1) The attacks were a result of a protest spurned by a YouTube video or 2) The bad guys in Benghazi staged the protests to cover for the attack.

“I don't know if this is the case,” Glenn said. “But I do know it's more likely than spontaneous rag-tag protesters pulling off a high level power assault.”

Glenn said that the media must press the Obama administration on the mission to recover weapons in Libya, and expose the possible scandal that the administration supplied the very weapons that killed the ambassador.

Watch the opening monologue which deals with the Libyan attack below:

Your browser does not support iframes.

Avenatti arrested: The lawyer now needs a lawyer

David McNew/Getty Images

At this point, I think there are about - oh - four thousand potential Democrats that may try and run for president in 2020. But we can probably take one off the list. "The creepy porn lawyer", also known by some as Michael Avenatti, was arrested yesterday afternoon in Los Angeles. And the reason why he was arrested kind of makes you think there's some kind of invisible force out there that's making sure either irony or maybe even karma is receiving it's daily offering. Michael Avenatti was just arrested for… Domestic Violence.

The alleged victim filed the complaint on Wednesday, but the incidents began on Tuesday. The woman involved is said to have bruising and swelling on her face and was kicked out of Avenatti's Los Angeles area apartment. Avenatti could be heard screaming, "This is BS, this is effing BS! She hit me first!"

Yeah, I don't think the whole "she hit me first" line is going to be a good strategy to use in court. He might want to revise that… I'm just saying.

You know, I wonder if the media - specifically CNN and MSNBC - are going to be doing any mea culpa's over the next 12 to 24 hours? They basically became Avenatti's PR wing over the past 8 months. From March to May, the two networks had Avenatti on the air over 100 times. He gave 147 interviews on both cable and network TV. MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell actually said quote, "Michael Avenatti is becoming my co-host. I've got to say."

And this was actually before he dragged Julie Swetnick into the limelight to attack Kavanaugh. You know I wonder, will this teach networks like CNN and MSNBC to maybe take a step back on over hyping and exposing every crazy, and even salacious, person or claim that comes out simply because it may be anti-Trump or GOP? Could this be a learning moment? Yeah… probably not, but one can dream.

And speaking of Kavanaugh, I've got to read this twitter exchange between one user and Avenatti on October 5th that said:

Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and it's Michael Avenatti's fault. Seriously.

And then Avenatti replied:

You are right. I should have turned my back on my client. Told her to "shut up" and stay quiet because people like you apparently believe assault victims are to blame. This line of thinking is disgusting and offensive to all survivors.

Well that was then and this is today. Here is Avenatti's statement last night.

Michael Avenatti: 'I Have Never Struck A Woman' | NBC News youtu.be

Umm, in the court of Avenatti, #metoo and public opinion now a days - by the standard that he helped create - is this statement not "disgusting and offensive to all survivors" as he tweeted back in October? Is he not immediately guilty as accused? I wonder if all the men and women screaming at Kavanaugh and GOP Senators in elevators can now see the pandora's box that they wanted opened.

The answer is no… he's NOT guilty as accused. Avenatti is innocent of this crime… UNTIL he's found guilty. We have to presume he's innocent until all evidence comes out proving he's not. That's how this works. Let's lead by example and do something radical here… let's actually wait for all the information and evidence to come out before we convict someone of a crime.

And that right there is the real irony here. Avenatti will get the due process that he deserves, but I doubt neither he - nor anyone screaming for Kavanaugh's head - will realize what happened.

Monica Lewinski's new docuseries shows the pain she was in while we made jokes

KENA BETANCUR/AFP/Getty Images

It's been a busy week for former First Ladies, and for current First Lady Melania Trump. It has also been busy for one woman who, twenty-odd years ago, while working at the White House for then-President at the age of 21, shot to fame in the most embarrassing way possible.

Monica Lewinsky has released "The Clinton Affair," a docuseries that premieres this weekend on A&E;, a six-part series examining those cringe-inducing days and months surrounding her affair with Bill Clinton.

In an article for Vanity Fair early this year, she wrote:

Some closest to me asked why would I want to revisit the most painful and traumatic parts of my life — again. Publicly. On-camera. With no control of how it would be used. A bit of a head-scratcher, as my brother is fond of saying. Do I wish I could erase my years in D.C. from memory, 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' style? Well, is the sky blue? But I can't. And in order to move forward in the life I have, I must take risks — both professional and emotional…. An important part of moving forward is excavating, often painfully, what has gone before. When politicians are asked uncomfortable questions, they often duck and dodge by saying, 'That's old news. It's from the past.' Yes. That's exactly where we need to start to heal — with the past. But it's not easy.

She added:

Filming the documentary forced me to acknowledge to myself past behavior that I still regret and feel ashamed of," she explained. "There were many, many moments when I questioned not just the decision to participate, but my sanity itself. Despite all the ways I tried to protect my mental health, it was still challenging. During one therapy session, I told my therapist I was feeling especially depressed. She suggested that sometimes what we experience as depression is actually grief… Yes, it was grief. The process of this docuseries led me to new rooms of shame that I still needed to explore.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton—a man who has been accused of all sorts of terrible things, a close friend of Harvey Weinstein—recently admitted that he didn't feel the need to apologize to Lewinsky. Lewinsky disagrees.

I'm less disappointed by him, and more disappointed for him. He would be a better man for it… and we, in turn, a better society.

The #MeToo movement has been a wrecking ball to so many men, yet Bill Clinton, perhaps the most prolific of them all, has escaped unscathed.

One man undoes shocking climate change study because... math

Pierre Leverrier/Unsplash

The left cries "science" about anything they want to consider a settled matter. Those who disagree with the left's climate change narrative question this "science." So, the climate change crowd are branded hysterical tree-huggers, and the anti-climate change crowd are naïve hicks.

The truth about climate change, like the truth when it comes to many issues, probably falls somewhere between the two extremes. But when it comes to climate change, it's hard to have a conversation about the "science" when the scientists running the show are already convinced they're absolutely correct and they have the unquestioning major media to back them up.

Just two weeks ago, a study published in the scientific journal Nature claimed that the oceans are warming much faster than anyone previously thought. Cue the panic and blame the President! It was a high-profile story splashed across major media outlets who were eager to promote more science that confirms one of the left's fundamental doctrines.

The study claimed ocean temperatures have risen around 60% higher than the estimate by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But Nicholas Lewis, a British mathematician and climate-change critic quickly found a "major problem" with the study's conclusion.

Then yesterday, the two scientists who wrote the study admitted Lewis is right about the mistakes they made in their calculations. Now they say oceans aren't actually warming as fast as they reported. Climate scientist Ralph Keeling, who co-authored the report, says they miscalculated their margin of error – which is 10 to 70% – much larger than they originally thought.

Now they say oceans aren't actually warming as fast as they reported.

A 10 to 70 percent margin of error? I thought this climate change science was absolute. Imagine if your job had a margin of error that generous.

Keeling said:

Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that's going on in the ocean. We really muffed the error margins.

The whole incident is being laughed off as a minor error. But if it wasn't for some British dude poring over this research in his basement and willing to cry foul, this latest climate change "science" would continue to be broadcast as absolute truth. Just like it always is.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Ocean Warming Research “Mistake" youtu.be

WOMAN CARD: Pelosi looks to ride the 'Pink Wave' back into the speakership

Zach Gibson/Getty Images

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, from California, is doing everything she can to make sure she is re-elected in January to her spot as House Speaker.

Reasons Nancy Pelosi could give: Because she led the Democratic caucus for 16 years, and under her the House shifted hands. In fact, she was House Speaker for four years under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Reason she actually gave: Because she's a woman.

During an interview on CBS Sunday, Pelosi said:

You cannot have the four leaders of Congress [and] the president of the United States, these five people, and not have the voice of women. Especially since women were the majority of the voters, the workers in campaigns, and now part of this glorious victory.

The pink wave, they're calling it. A rise in women politicians, supposedly in reaction to Donald Trump.

Here's the general argument, as described by Politico:

Push her out, and men may take over the party at a time when more than 100 women are heading to Capitol Hill and after female voters have been thoroughly alienated by President Donald Trump. Embrace her, and she'll prioritize legislation empowering women on issues ranging from equal pay to anti-harassment legislation.

Of course, she has a reason to use identity politics instead of merit: There's a concerted effort to have her un-seated.

At least nine representatives have come out and said that Pelosi will be out.

At least nine representatives have come out and said that Pelosi will be out. Filemon Vela said:

I am 100% confident we can forge new leadership.

Led by, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), these are the representatives who have openly called for Pelosi's outing: Reps. Bill Foster (D-IL), Seth Moulton (DMA), Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Conor Lamb (D-PA), and Filemon Vela (D-TX). Campaign staff for incoming Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Jason Crow (D-CO) have said they won't vote for Pelosi.

If they have a single ounce of dignity left, they won't, at least not just because she is a woman.

Glenn's Show Prep