Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- talking about the attack on the Ben Ghazi cut US consulate in Ben Ghazi who were still and now almost a month plus out from that particular event.
Still don't exactly understand how it is the Obama administration was calling it.
Non terrorist a -- a date.
An event that happened in good result to taking a look at 88 carry a movie to something that later gets classified as a terrorism event.
Lieutenant colonel Anthony -- -- -- she's going to be talking a little bit.
About this particular event do you.
See this event as something that.
And other than what it appears to be I mean it appears to abandon.
A calculated move time for 9/11.
You know I mean how is your view on this particular event in regards to how the administration has handled.
Telling America about what happened here.
Well I think the -- after members that they were completely unprepared on a critical -- -- pointed out.
9/11 that's a critical event period every anniversary of the time we're standing too so.
In addition to that as Catherine Herridge reported earlier I think about three weeks ago.
They're classified documents indicating that we knew there was a threat I mean this was a clear threat -- -- -- threat.
And the very people named in that threat assessment from August where the ones who killed our four.
Individuals later so I don't -- the Intel is not get any better than this.
And so that is that's a huge like big question mark like what -- -- thank him.
Daily event let's be very clear on this that as much as the Obama White House was great on bragging.
About the bin Laden assassination.
-- laying it all out everybody's actions that day well every moment every every day at the White House is captured some forming yet here's an ankle and gap here.
Of the day of that event of what happened at the White House regarding decision making.
And lastly to point out the narrative.
-- be very clear here I was eighteen months ago talking about the fact that the policy that we were putting forth regarding Ben Ghazi was bad.
Two people were responsible that party that policy some -- person named Samantha powers part of the president's team and another woman named ambassador Susan Rice.
The -- that the policy is bad by the fact that we knew who was predicted it would fail.
We recognize that Qaddafi was a bad guy but -- come around was helping us on the war on terror.
And more importantly we're recognize his role to be similar to that of Tito in Yugoslavia.
And once -- -- -- there.
Balkanization occurred we predict might think tank predicted others predicted that if we do this wrong we just take away that central authority.
You would see essentially a balkanization of Libya.
That's what we've seen so what's bad -- way around and the administration has yet to actually come up.
With a cohesive narrative putting everything I just laid out together in a way to explain their actions or lack -- -- Is there were -- you game.
And out for the administration in that yes governments have intelligence the governments rarely put forward what it is they actually no because there's an advantage to not.
Telling people everything that you know about things particularly the bad guys.
Well I agree with you I think there's a -- and massive advantage to be had not knowing about their operations.
But it's kinda like what they've attacked here.
You know it's kind of obvious there web sites one of the reasons I was on on this network within 48 hours saying it was an al-Qaeda attack is because we monitor.
There outlets the the al-Qaeda that the the a Q I am the -- three we -- -- through their sites they were taking credit for this and are taking credit situation.
That was clear that they did something.
So yeah out his advantage to be had of not telling the enemy how you know -- -- checking up on them are monitoring them.
There's not much to be said once they picture to us remember back in 2009.
When we had a place called -- Chapman attacked by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
They were so they were very ready to admit that the fact that al-Qaeda was able to get a double agent in a blow them up.
And actually even admitted that they quote unquote gut our best al-Qaeda opera analysts in that attack which I -- in the same.
So the messaging here.
Is bad regarding what had happened who attacked us with that said we've not seen anybody held accountable for these attacks on that -- on that day.
And again we're going almost all were over two months out now -- not a single individual and I know I was actually been held accountable identified.
As being part of the mall -- the group who attacked our embassy and killed those four individuals.
What is the advantage of massaging the word terrorist out of the talking points and what possibly -- the Obama administration gain by.
-- having that done either after direction or where they're approved.
Well to be clear on the facts I don't want to get as speculation regarding why they might have been -- and this is the fact the fact is drew Petraeus has said.
That it was terrorist act now he didn't say that initially which leaves him in danger of at some level of being called a liar I don't know what's gonna happen on that break break then you have the Director of National Intelligence.
Jim clapper saying it wasn't -- -- -- talking points yet yet.
Late last week he said yeah -- was us -- -- lot of inconsistencies occur regarding what was actually said the bottom line is every intelligence.
Report that I know -- said it was terrorism from the moment it happened from that that evening.
So I don't know where this this narrative got started regarding the video being the source that's never any of my -- -- said that.
With that said there's something to be said about not saying who was by the fact that their policy the White House policies put forth.
Libya was a success.
I've argued from day one it was not a success by the fact we did not actually see a transition to democracy we saw Kennedy tradition to chaos so.
I think at the the the the bonus would be if you can say it wasn't a terrorist act and everything is good to go on Libya.
You're putting forth -- premise that everything is good that we picked the right policy.
I would argue based on the facts that that premise is not factual also been -- since -- she was saying that al-Qaeda was on his heels again.
Most analysts I think would agree with me al-Qaeda is not on its heels it's coming back in a different form very very strongly and some of these Arab Spring countries so I think the narrative.
That the White House wanted was not supported by the facts which are coming forth from the -- community and other analysts we're looking at the situation regarding the facts not the politics.
Unfortunately we have seen intelligence breakdowns -- and -- our nation's history in rations recent history on we have.
Couldn't this just be another -- don't.
No not at all that this is this is not intelligently speak as I've talked to a number of line officers.
Members of the community plus the FBI this was not an intelligence failure this was like policy failure.
Intelligence was there indicating that a threat a viable threat was targeting our guys the British actually laughed.
We saw our embassy or consulate there -- -- got the attack several times we did nothing.
And then most importantly the day of 9/11 when the threat was greatest.
We did not have a marine amphibious unit ready to go to attack former US carrier group ready to go to aid and comfort.
And then of course the fast teams we invested regular money in the -- response capabilities we should use them or had them on standby so again prior to the event with credible intelligence we failed.
The day of the credible intelligence continue to come in.
And and after the fact everything is backed up that original -- so this was not.
And intelligence there -- was -- -- policy failure because people didn't like the intelligence and chose to to pretend otherwise.
What should we be looking for when we finally have these congressional English and this is a couple weeks out what shall we be looking for in your opinion.
The truth I think that that did that doesn't specifically do you want to hear from them.
Well I think you need to have from Hillary Clinton you've got to hear from her about laying out her case because she was the one.
All roads lead to regarding do you attack.
The precursors to all that request for security really are laid on on her watch Cheryl and this this woman -- From the State Department says she was one handling the requests ultimately is still Hillary Clinton's response was she says her response what -- to explain -- secondly the intelligence straight.
Who said what when they said it and you've got to get clarification of who said what because Jim clapper is now potentially hurting himself.
Petraeus General Petraeus -- -- -- perjured himself because their their stories don't lineup.
And the most importantly I think you've got to have Leon Panetta command and in the White House staff of some form command and lay out what they did the day of the event because again there's just too many gaps here.
The White House will be best served.
Getting the facts out no matter what they are so big put everything to rest one way or another until we have -- happen I think you'll continue to see this low.
Dribble of information especially the conflicting information which seems to indicate people don't know what the truth is or at least are reluctant to talk about the truth.
And I think it will continue to -- is a factor best way to get rid of it -- -- -- -- and -- the truth let let the chips fall where they may.
Lieutenant colonel Tony Shaffer thank you very much for coming on -- your views those hearings will be very interest -- -- just a couple of weeks thank you all right we'll.
Filter by section