Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 24 of 48     «   Prev   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   Next   »

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #576 
Further reflections on Benghazi

rite in haste, repent at leisure.

The article that appeared in this weekend’s TAS under the title “Obama Fiddled While Benghazi burned… and an election approached” was one that I wrote racing against a deadline.

While there is nothing I want to take back from this weekend’s article, there are many things I’d like to add… for the sake of readers who believe, as I do, that this story -- this shameful but instructive story of dereliction of duty in the highest office of the land -- should not be allowed to fade into the dimly remembered past like a bad dream that is soon forgot.

For those who have paid close attention to the debate over Benghazi over the past five months (and it became a debate even before the clock struck midnight on Sept. 11, 2012), U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony before the Senate Armed Forces Committee on Thursday, Feb. 7, marked a real turning point.

In answering “no” to a few simple questions, Panetta blew up the notion that Obama and his team did the right thing on the night of Sept. 11 -- that they stayed awake worrying about the fate of Ambassador Stevens and the others trapped at the consulate… and set about working on some kind of a rescue mission.

  • No, Panetta said, Obama did not call to check on the status of events in Benghazi after being told at 5 p.m. EST of the outset of an all-out armed attack on the consulate;
  • No, he said, there was no other follow-up from White House that night;
  • And no, there was no meeting that night pulling together the president, the secretary of state, and other members of the much photographed group that assembled in the situation room on the night that Osama bin Laden was killed.

Obama left Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey with the barest of instructions: It was “up to them” to decide the proper response.

“You’d think” -- as one reader of this weekend’s article commented -- “this guy (Obama) was average Joe on his bowling night, not my problem.”

Continue reding here . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #577 

Obama knew of IED attacks in run-up to Benghazi strike, lawmaker says

Katherine Herridge is reporting that Barack Obama knew about the IED attacks on the Benghazi consulate in the run-up to the deadly Sept. 11 assault, a top Republican lawmaker claims, suggesting the president was aware of the deteriorating security situation.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Thursday that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told him "the president was informed of the April and June attacks." One of those attacks, in June, blew a hole in the perimeter wall of the Benghazi compound. The two strikes were among dozens of security incidents recorded in the region in the months preceding Sept. 11, and in hindsight have been described as warning signs.
The disclosure about Obama comes after a string of Capitol Hill hearings in which top administration officials downplayed how much they knew about the security situation at the compound in advance of the September attack.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, at a hearing shortly before she left the administration, said she never saw an Aug. 16 State Department cable sent to her office that warned the consulate could not sustain a coordinated attack.
"I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention," she said. The cable was first reported by Fox News.
While Clinton claims her deputies never showed her the cable -- which has been described as the smoking-gun warning -- Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey later said they were in fact apprised of that cable.
Asked whether Obama had wanted anything done about the unraveling security situation in Benghazi, neither Clapper's office nor the National Security Council would address the question.
A DNI spokesman, though, said the administration has been cooperative with Congress on their many Libya questions. "Since the attack on our facility in Benghazi, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, on behalf of the entire Intelligence Community, has worked closely with members of Congress to respond to all requests for information. We have testified before multiple committees, delivered numerous briefs, provided thousands of pages of intelligence data and answered nearly 200 written questions," the spokesman said.
At his confirmation hearing for CIA Director, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan suggested information about what the president knew or what advice he was given falls into the category of "executive privilege" -- which the White House typically claims in order to not disclose information.
Lawmakers have focused sharply in recent weeks on what the White House knew in advance of the attacks and what Obama specifically did on the night of the attacks.
Republicans united on Thursday to stall the nomination of Chuck Hagel to succeed Panetta, largely over outstanding questions on the Libya issue.
The White House on Thursday wrote a letter to key Republican senators disclosing that Obama did not talk to the Libyan president until the evening of Sept. 12, the next day.
In pointed remarks, Graham said Obama talked to the Libyan government "after everybody was dead" and suggested the president could have made a difference had he gotten directly involved earlier.
"You got a commander in chief who is absolutely disengaged," Graham later told Fox News. "You got the secretary of State never talking to the secretary of Defense."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #578 
Where are the Benghazi survivors?

Meredith Jessup says, in my opinion, any good journalist is a bit of a conspiracy theorist at heart. Every story has a bottom, some are deeper to dig through than others and I believe Benghazi to be one of those stories.

Sen. Rand Paul seems to be one person working to get to the bottom of the story and keeping his eye on the bigger picture. Make no mistake, the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi wasn’t just about a protest gone awry or the anniversary of September 11. There’s a larger story that has yet to unfold in all of this, another shoe to drop.

As we reported here, Paul suspects it involves under-the-table arms deals:

I really think part of the cause may have been there was a gun running operation going on in Benghazi, leaving Libya and going to Turkey and distributing arms to the rebels… They’ve interviewed the captain of the ship. A ship from Libya sailed for Turkey a week before the ambassador was killed. It was full of arms and they interviewed the captain and he actually specifically talks about the distribution of the arms to Syrian rebels… And I think the administration needs to answer, “Are they running guns through Turkey to Syria?”

If true, this scenario might help explain why Ambassador Stevens was meeting with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin just before he was killed. Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan vessel Al Entisar arrived in the Turkish port of Iskenderun -- located just 35 miles from the Syrian border -- on Sept. 6, just five days before the attack. The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and shoulder-launched missiles.

Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Following their meeting, Stevens reportedly escorted Akin out the compound’s main gate at 8:35 p.m. local time. But residents in the neighborhood surrounding the consulate reported that bearded Al Qaeda jihadis in pickup trucks mounted with machine guns were setting up checkpoints at about 8:00 p.m. Because of the checkpoints, “it felt like our neighborhood was occupied, no one could get out or in,” one witness told the Associated Press. But somehow, Akin managed to slip out of the area with no problem before the attack commenced at 9:35 p.m. And even if he passed through the terrorists’ checkpoints, there was obviously no attempt on his part to warn the Americans at the consulate of an impending attack.

Obviously there are a lot of questions that remain. One of the biggest questions I have in all of this is where are the survivors? While four Americans were killed in the attack at the consulate and safe house, many others managed to escape. From early reports, we know that there were at least five State Department diplomatic security agents in Benghazi during the attack who were evacuated to Germany and received medical treatment for smoke inhalation; one was seriously wounded.

Further, Brig. Gen. C.K. Hyde has confirmed that Air Force personnel evacuated 32 Americans from Libya to Ramstein AFB in a noncombatant evacuation operation following the attack.

The State Department’s own Accountability Review Board later reported that one of the surviving diplomatic security officers at the Benghazi mission actually saw the attack begin on a security video monitor as dozens of armed terrorists entered the compound’s main gate. At that point, he sounded the alarm and phoned the CIA annex and the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli to alert them that they were under siege. (What? No protest over a YouTube video?)

During her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed that she had spoken to just one of the American survivors evacuated from Libya after the attack. The FBI has likely debriefed the eyewitnesses, but who knows? While the names of the four Americans killed in the attack were released almost immediately, the Obama administration has not publicly named a single one of these survivors.


We need to keep digging…

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #579 

Team Obama leaves Americans stranded in Libya

Jom Hoft is reporting that Team Obama won’t send the military to rescue US citizens trapped in Libya -- they don’t want to look like war-mongers.

An estimated 600 stranded U.S. citizens are stuck on board the Maria Dolores (pictured) in Tripoli.

Team Obama is STILL grappling with whether or not to send the military into Libya to rescue US citizens.

CNN reports, via HotAir:

The senior U.S. official also said the “prudent planning” for military options centers around the president’s priorities of protecting U.S. citizens and interests and stopping the violence against Libyan civilians. He cautioned against thinking the U.S. military “was about to storm the beaches,” but he also declined to specifically rule out the use of military force.

So far, the State Department has not requested the U.S. military to assist in the evacuation of civilians from Libya, which would be required for the military to get involved in that operation.

Several U.S. officials have confirmed to CNN there is a vigorous debate inside the administration about whether to involve the military because of concern it could cause further provocations by the Libyan regime.

Update:  They charted the wrong boat. It was too small!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #580 

Susan Rice continues to lie about Benghazi

Meredith Blake is reporting that on Thursday's "The Daily Show," host Jon Stewart grilled United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice about the Obama administration's response to the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last year.
He began by asking about the explanation she provided for the attacks during appearances on Sunday political talk shows just days after the incident. "I shared the best information that our intelligence community had at the time, and they provided the talking points that I used. And they were wrong in one respect, we learned subsequently, and that is that there wasn't in fact a protest," Rice said.

Stewart pressed her to explain why there was so much back-and-forth between government agencies and why no one seemed to have the straight story.

"There's always confusion when you have a tragedy of that sort," she said. "The bigger tragedy is that we've spent all of these months trying to figure out the origin of some talking points, which were cleared at the highest levels of the intelligence community, and in my opinion not enough time doing the service that we owe to our fallen colleagues."
Agreeing with Rice's assertion, Stewart asked why there seemed to be more effort put into ironing out talking points rather than preventing the attack in the first place. As he put it, "Why is there a bureaucratic system in place that is so tenacious with the explanation, yet seemingly abdicates a little bit of responsibility for the initial thing?"
Rice responded, rather indirectly, that the administration had convened an accountability review board and were implementing its recommendations. "That's what we ought to be focusing on, we ought to be focusing on what went wrong, why it went wrong, and how we get it right," she said.
Not entirely satisfied with Rice's answer, Stewart pressed her: "Do you think the bureaucracy is more tenacious and detail-oriented when it comes to the political aspects of their job and less efficacious when it comes to some of the more brass nuts and bolts thing?"
"Folks were doing their very best with what they had," she replied.
Stewart closed the interview by offering Rice the opportunity to say one thing to "those who still believe there is a secret under this and are pushing for it and are holding things up," even encouraging her to "talk like a sailor."
While she passed on that opportunity, she did end with a clear message. "They're dead wrong. They are in fact doing a disservice to those we lost."

Susan Rice is dispicable.  Team Obama "lost" those four Americans, and she slurs those that are seeking answers -- seeking the truth.

I want to know what Barack Obama was doing while American blood was being spilled -- according to Rice that makes me a bad person.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #581 

Obama fiddled

Andrew B. Wilson says the late Ted Kennedy became known as "the Hero of Chappaquiddick" for leaving a young lady to die after accidentally driving his car off a bridge on the night of July 18, 1969. Kennedy, who swam free, said nothing to police until 10 a.m. the following day.
In the subsequent inquest, John Farrar, a professional diver and the captain of the Edgartown Fire Rescue unit on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts, discovered the body of Mary Jo Kopechne in the well of the backseat of the overturned and submerged car. He said in his testimony:
It looked as if she were holding herself up to get a last breath of air. It was a consciously assumed position.… She didn’t drown. She died of suffocation in her own air void. It took her at least three or four hours to die. I could have had her out of that car twenty-five minutes after I had the call. But he (Ted Kennedy) didn’t call.
President Barack Obama deserves similar obloquy as "the commander-in-chief who went AWOL" on September 12, 2012 -- during the eight-hour siege in which heavily-armed terrorists burnt the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
To be sure, there are major differences between the two events. Unlike Kennedy, the president did not directly endanger the life or lives of others. Like Kennedy, however, he went missing when he could have tried to mount a rescue mission, or at least weighed the options and seriously considered doing so.
If nothing else, Obama is guilty of excessive passivity … indeed, dereliction of duty … on the night of Sept. 11, 2012. And so, too, were others high in the administration, including three outgoing members -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey -- along with the Chief of Naval Operations (responsible for the deployment of FAST anti-terrorist teams), and the head of the Special Operations Command.
Though the details were spare, after months of stonewalling by the Obama administration, the testimony given by Secretary Panetta and Gen. Dempsey late last week was dramatic.
They told how they had spent a half hour meeting with the president on Sept. 11 at 5 p.m. Washington time briefing him on the mass demonstration at the Egyptian embassy and the beginning of an all-out attack (then 90 minutes old) on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
Through their testimony, we learned of the strange indifference of the president to the events that were unfolding on this obviously historic date for America and its sworn enemies (the eleventh anniversary of Nine Eleven 2001). According to Panetta, the president told them that the response to the attack was "up to them." And that was it:  According to Panetta and the general, they had no further contact with the president (or, for that matter, Secretary Clinton) the rest of the evening or night.
Two other important details from the Panetta and Dempsey testimony:  They knew full well that it was a terrorist attack. Despite that, neither the president nor they felt it compelled to reestablish contact over the next several hours. There were no phone calls from the president to the defense secretary to check up on the situation later that evening or night. Nor did he or Dempsey communicate with Clinton.
None of this seemed important enough for any of the principals -- starting with the president -- to think of calling for brainstorming and battle planning in the White House Situation Room.

Continue reading here . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #582 

Obama ignored the events at Benghazi

Stephen Dinan is reporting that Barack Obama didn't attempt to contact anyone the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.
"During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Obama's defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.

Graham said that if Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.
The White House has said Obama was kept up to date on the attack by his staff, though after being alerted to the attack in a pre-scheduled afternoon meeting he never spoke again with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin E. Dempsey or then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Panetta told Congress last week that he knew immediately the attacks were a terrorist assault, though Team Obama lied about that notion for two weeks after the attack.
Republican senators said they will still push for more information on who changed the talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who went on the Sunday talk shows after the attacks and blamed protests against an anti-Islam video.
Graham said he will block Obama's nominee to head the CIA until he hears more details about what Obama was doing.
Sen. John McCain said the White House's reticence in releasing information contrasts poorly with the flood of details the White House put out about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, which has spawned two movies.
"We still don't know what the president of the United States was doing the night of the attack and who he was talking to. We know who he wasn't talking to," McCain said.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #583 

Benghazi was a breakdown of security, failure of leadership, and a president who was virtually disengaged

NiceDeb is reporting that U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) held a press conference, today, to make a statement in response to Obama’s letter acknowledging he did not call anyone in Libya on September 11, 2012 during the 8 hours the U.S. mission was under attack. He didn’t pick up the phone to call any government officials in Libya until Sept. 12, after everyone was dead.

If it were not for the three of us and other colleagues, you would still believe -- the American people would still believe that this was a spontaneous event caused by a hateful video, Graham told reporters. "That’s what was being told by Susan Rice five days after the attack, that’s what was being said by the POTUS for weeks. The reason we know that’s not true, is because we dug, and we pushed, and we prodded. And now we know, that during the entire attack, POTUS never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office into the mix, and there’s no stronger voice in the world than the President of the United States."

Graham noted that during the three and a half hours the rescue team was waiting at the Benghazi airport to get to the annex, "Sec. Clinton said that she was on the phone yelling at the Libyan government to help, and my belief is that if the POTUS had picked up the phone and lent the weight of his office, it could have made a difference because the last two guys died within the last hour of the attack."

And finally, he asked, "who changed the talking points? How could the President and Susan Rice tell the country that there’s no evidence of coordinated, pre-planned terrorist attack when the Sec. of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs described in detail how they knew that night it was a pre-planned coordinated terrorist attack."

"The record needs to be clear," Graham continued, "this was not about a hateful video, it was about a breakdown of national security, it was about an ambassador who was begging the State Dept. to send reinforcements for months, this was about a deteriorating security situation, this is about a attack you could see coming, this is about a complete failure of leadership -- Sec of Defense never talked to the Sec of State, and a President who as far as we know was virtually disengaged."

He concluded, "America needs to learn what happened, and we need to learn from our mistakes." 

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 120
Reply with quote  #584 
Originally Posted by Beckwith

Sudan refuses to allow US Marines to protect embassy

Chana Ya'ar is reporting that Sudan won't allow the United States to send a platoon of Marines to protect its embassy from rioting Muslims.

According to a report released by the SUNA state news agency, the country's government formally rejected the request Saturday. The news agency quoted Sudan's Foreign Minister, Ali Ahmed Karti, as saying, "Sudan is able to protect the diplomatic missions in Khartoum and the state is committed to protecting its guests in the diplomatic corps.”

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confirmed Saturday in a terse statement that the Sudanese government had “recommitted itself both publicly and privately to continue to protect our Mission, as it is obligated to do under the Vienna Convention. We are continuing to monitor the situation closely to ensure we have what we need to protect our people and facility.”

The U.S. decided Friday to send in a group of 50 Marines after rioting Muslim breached security at the embassy in Khartoum and entered the compound, which is located outside the city. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a Washington official said the Marines were already on their way to Khartoum when word was received the request was rejected. They were called back, pending further discussions.

Related:  Yemen parliament rejects US Marines at embassy

Words fail me!

Really? Embassies are supposed to be sovereign soil for the country possessing them. I think it is time we expel every diplomat from Sudan from any embassy on our soil immediately. I also think we should let the marines drop into the embassy via any means possible--they should not have a say in who defends our embassy, especially in light of Bengazi.

Anyone else need proof this Administration is incompetent and completely unable to protect American assets overseas?
Longknife 21

Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #585 
A big problem with Liberals, and the Obamunists in particular, is they foolishly believe their own propaganda and theories, and often disregatd intel and documented facts that dispute them.

Ignorance may be bliss at the White House and MSNBC, but it doesn't work in the real world. They count on control of the Media and the ignorance of the Sheeple to keep up the facade of competence and control. The Islamofascists are running rings around them and it is starting to show. The 'democratic" govt(?) in Iraq is crunmbling, Afghanistan is a disaster in waiting, Iran is going nuclear, Egypt has gone from ally to the Islamists, Libya went from reasonably pro-western dictatorship to "who-knows-what?", along with the rest of North Africa.  There is open war in Syria, central Africa, and the Horn of Africa. Even Turkey is going to the Islamists. All of this is the result of Obama's and Hillary's policies.

And Obozo wants Hagel for SecDef and Brennan for CIA?  Nobody is that stupid or incompetent.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but The Usurper isn't even that good.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #586 

Preview -- Benghazi: The Definitive Report

Spec Ops Forces is reporting that the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, symbolically coinciding with the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, triggered in a confluence of events that spilled into US domestic politics, military covert operations, and a number of classified CIA programs. With the terrorist strike occurring in the run up the US Presidential election, it become a foregone conclusion that the truth of the attacks would be swept up and lost in political squabbling as both major parties jockeyed for position and get some cheap digs in on their opponents. Added to the media circus was the reality that various US government institutions and agencies did engage in a very real cover up: they responsibly tried to keep covert operations secret. But they also sought to limit political liability on the guilty parties whose negligence led to the attack in the first place.

Conservatives claimed that President Obama callously denied military reinforcements to American forces on the ground in Libya who were badly outnumbered and outgunned. The American right sought to portray Obama in the most negative light possible, accusing him of glossing over the attacks to compensate for foreign policy failures. The narrative went, “President Obama: not tough on terrorism and betrayer of US Navy SEALs.”
Liberals decried the Republican persecution, doing damage control by laying blame on forces beyond the administration’s control. According to this narrative, the Benghazi attack happened because of an irresponsible amateur film that defamed the Prophet Muhammad, inflaming the religious fervor of the Islamic world. Soon protests formed outside US embassies across the Middle East, and the series of events rapidly reached its bloody climax in the attack on the US consulate in Libya.
For their part, libertarians announced that the attacks were further proof that America had no business interfering in the affairs of foreign countries. Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists pointed towards a sinister plot by powerful dark forces to liquidate Ambassador Stevens. In fact, every party commenting or involved in the Benghazi affair seemed to refer to their opposition as conspiracy theorists in order to de-legitimize their position at some point.
This e-book intends to cut through the static and white noise generated by the media pundits, the partisan politics, and unfounded conspiracy theories. The truth does involve some conspiracy. After all, the major players were the CIA, Pentagon, Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), and State Department – institutions synonymous with backroom politics, intelligence gathering, and covert operations. But this report points in directions and draws conclusions that have henceforth been completely neglected by both the mainstream and alternative media.

When it comes to the hidden world of terrorists, counter-terrorists, and spies, the truth usually is stranger than fiction. Because of this, many will find the facts unfolded in this e-book to be both uncomfortable and unsatisfying. Obama’s foes will see a picture emerge in which the President is far from a callous evil man. Those passionate supporters of the President will be angry to see Obama as aloof and rather ineffective as a leader. Both political parties will be disappointed to see that this story, the 9/11 Benghazi attack, really doesn’t involve the President all that much one way or the other.

This is the reality of the modern state. The bureaucratic machinery is as extensive and sprawling as it is expensive. Various governmental agencies act under their own authority and make their own decisions. Mid and high level officials make decisions and latch onto the levers of power. With the Department of Defense running highly complex operations all over the globe, twenty four hours a day, there is no other way for American power to be projected effectively if every bureaucrat is waiting for the President to bless off on his actions. The power to act has to be delegated down the chain of command: this is a crucial–and cautionary–aspect of this story.

However, it cannot be overstated that this e-book does not cop-out or shirk away from the truth by placing blame on the dulled mechanics of a faulty bureaucracy. We do not accuse some abstract technical detail, saying that bad intelligence or faulty communications led to the Benghazi debacle. Americans have heard enough of these types of excuses from the original 9/11 attacks to the 2008 housing bubble and subsequent economic crash. We name names and hold accountable those acted cowardly and those who erred and sought to protect their political careers at the expense of human lives.

We also point to the heroes, men of tremendous character who showed exemplary physical and moral courage the night of the attack.

The story, and the aftermath, of the Benghazi attack is a complex series of events involving insider politics between agencies in proverbial smoke filled rooms. It features double-dealing political players in Washington. It involves the interaction between different military units and para-military organizations. To the outsider, to the American public, it is all very complicated and strange. This is another reason why the full story has not yet been articulated to Americans, but we believe that an informed public is necessary in a functioning democracy.

This e-book was written with the consultation of over a dozen experts, former Special Operations personnel (many of them contributing editors of, and others privy to inside information in the halls of power in Washington, DC. For obvious reasons, their identities cannot be revealed. This is likely to be the definitive account of the Benghazi attack for years to come until historians can sift through the archives, get documents declassified, and interview all of the participants.

For now, we hope that this e-book tells it like it is. In these pages the actions of those involved speak for themselves. Let the chips fall where they may.


This is the Prologue to our upcoming book Benghazi: The Definitive Report, available on Feb. 12, 2013. SOFREP Team Room members will enjoy an advance release of the book as we publish it in its entirety over the next two weeks.

Here is the download of Amazon's "free" Kindle reader.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #587 

Don't nobody wake Barack!

Michael Goodwin says the Benghazi terrorist attack was a debacle in three distinct stages. The fatal mistakes occurred in the first two -- the failure to provide adequate security before the attack and the failure to provide help once it started. Those mistakes were tragic, but Team Obama's explanations are coherent, though hardly defensible.

The mystery always has been the third stage -- the aftermath, or more accurately, the coverup. Even before the bodies of the four Americans came home, the White House was eager to tell any story except the real one.

Aides twisted and turned to create the false narrative that a protest over an anti-Muslim video was spontaneously hijacked by radicals. But two problems quickly emerged: There was no video protest in Benghazi, and the attack, which used heavy weaponry, was well planned.

So, why did the White House spin the web of deceit? Don't they know the coverup is worse than the crime?

Finally, we have the answer, thanks to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. In his reluctant Senate testimony, he provided the missing piece of the puzzle: The commander in chief was MIA. The coverup was created to protect his absence.

According to Panetta, Barack Obama checked in with his military team early on during the attack, then checked out for the rest of the night. The next day, we already knew, he blamed the video maker and flew to Las Vegas for a campaign event.

Meanwhile, half a world away, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans had been slaughtered by Islamists. Their murders on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 gave the incident extra gravity and led the White House to conceal the facts. An honest chronology would have revealed Obama's shocking behavior during the most successful attack against Americans by Islamists since 9/11.

Imagine the questions that would have come: What did Obama do through the long, bloody night? Whom did he talk to? When did he learn that Stevens was dead?

There is still much we don't know, but Panetta, under persistent Senate probing, revealed that Obama simply wasn't involved. Did he just go to sleep?

That question, like other good ones, was asked by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs, Martin Dempsey, told Graham they didn't sleep, but said they didn't know if Obama did.

You would think a presidential conscience would keep him awake and engaged until he knew what had happened in Benghazi. You would be wrong.

Instead, the two officials said they had only one, 30-minute conversation with Obama. It began at around 5 p.m. Washington time, 90 minutes after the first attack started, and they never spoke to him again that night.

Obama's only instructions, Panetta said, were, "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."

Obama never asked what military assets could be used, where they were and when they would get to Benghazi. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton never spoke to them at all, Panetta said.

By the time the meeting with Obama ended, one American was dead, Stevens was missing and the survivors had retreated to a nearby villa.

At 2 a.m. in Benghazi (8 p.m. in DC), the villa also came under mortar and gunfire attack in what witnesses called a planned, sophisticated ambush. Two more Americans died there.

About four hours later, at dawn in Libya, officials retrieved Stevens' body from a hospital. He had been alive when he was taken there by Libyans who converged on the burned-out consulate after the first attack; they found him unconscious in an interior room, and a doctor could not revive him.

More than two hours after that, after 8 a.m. in Libya and 2 a.m. in Washington, a State Department plane left with the last group of survivors and four bodies.

It would be nice to know what Obama did during the nearly 11 hours from the start of the first attack until that plane left Libya, but in truth, we know enough to understand the meaning. His detachment during a terrorist attack was a shameful dereliction of duty.

Had he been a military officer, he would face charges. If he were George Bush, he would face ridicule and condemnation, at the least.

But this is Barack Obama  -- it was he who went missing during a terrorist attack against America and escapes without a scratch.

The Benghazi survivors are still sequestered.  If that doesn't stink I don't know what does, but the Obama Media isn't interested in anything they may have to say.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #588 

Graham vows to hold up Obama Defense and CIA nominees

Christopher Santarelli is reporting that a leading Republican senator said Sunday he would hold up Senate confirmation of President Barack Obama’s nominees to head the Defense Department and the CIA until the White House provided more answers about the deadly Sept. 11 attack against a U.S. installation in Benghazi, Libya.

The White House took aim at Sen. Lindsey Graham, a persistent critic of Obama’s response to the terrorist assault, by urging quick approval of the president’s second-term national security team and scolding any lawmakers trying to “play politics” with critical nominations.

Graham accused the White House of “stonewalling” requests to release more information about the attack that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. “We’re going to get to the bottom of Benghazi,” he told CBS.

A Democratic colleague branded Graham’s threat to stall the nominations of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary and John Brennan, Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, to be CIA director as “unprecedented and unwarranted.” Senators should have the chance to vote on the fate of those nominees, said Sen. Jack Reed.

The White House did not address Graham’s demand for more information, but did note that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified Thursday before Congress about the chaotic day of the Sept. 11 attack.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of an election-year cover-up of the attack, and at the hearing several suggested the commander in chief was disengaged as Americans died.

“We know nothing about what the president did on the night of September 11th during a time of national crisis, and the American people need to know what their commander in chief did, if anything, during this eight-hour attack,” Graham said on CBS.

Graham contended that a six-person rescue team was delayed from leaving the Benghazi airport because of problems “with the militias releasing them and a lot of bureaucratic snafus,” and he said he wants to know whether Obama called any Libyan officials to expedite their mission.

“I don’t think we should allow Brennan to go forward for the CIA directorship, Hagel to be confirmed to secretary of defense until the White House gives us an accounting,” Graham said, adding, “What did he do that night? That’s not unfair. The families need to know, the American people need to know.”

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, said, “We believe the Senate should act swiftly to confirm John Brennan and Sen. Hagel. These are critical national security positions and individual members shouldn’t play politics with their nominations.”

Reed said that “to dwell on a tragic incident and use that to block people is not appropriate. To try to find information, to ask legitimate questions, as Senator Graham is doing is completely appropriate. But then to turn around and say, `I’m going to disrupt, essentially, the nomination of two key members of the President’s Cabinet,’ I don’t think that’s appropriate, I don’t think it’s warranted, I think it is an overreaction that is not going to serve the best interest going forward of the national security of the United States.”

Graham would have none of it.

“In a constitutional democracy, we need to know what our commander in chief was doing at a time of great crisis, and this White House has been stonewalling the Congress, and I’m going to do everything I can to get to the bottom of this so we’ll learn from our mistakes and hold this president accountable for what I think is tremendous disengagement at a time of national security crisis,” he said.

At the Senate hearing, Panetta testified that he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible. Graham asked whether Panetta spoke again to Obama after that first meeting. Panetta said no, but that the White House was in touch with military officials and aware of what was happening. At one point, Graham asked Panetta if he knew what time Obama went to sleep that night. The Pentagon chief said he did not.

Watch a clip from Graham’s appearence on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday below:

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #589 

The ultimate Benghazi timeline (click to enlarge) -- what was Barack Obama doing for 8 hours?

Doug Ross says during his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Leon Panetta as much as admitted that Barack Obama lied to reporter Kyle Clark of KUSA-TV about the attack on the Libyan Consulate.

Thanks to Panetta's testimony, we now know that Obama was told immediately of the attack and responded by doing... nothing. He didn't lift a finger to help. Nor did the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

He knew that Ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans were about to be slaughtered and -- for eight hours, highlighted below -- he didn't call, he didn't inquire, he didn't command, he did nothing!

Sen. Lindsey Graham says that he is "not going to stop [investigating] until the American people know what their commander-in-chief did for eight hours."

The president of the United States talking to the secretary of defense for 15 minutes, never talked to the secretary of state until after the attack was over, never made a phone call saying how close are we to help these people?

...Where is Chris Stevens? What did he do when he was told the ambassador was missing? We’ve had one ambassador killed in the last 30 years? The president of the United States has to account for his leadership here and I intend to hold him accountable. Thus far the White House has delayed, denied, deceived and stonewalled and this has to come to an end...

The secretary of State never once talked to the secretary of Defense. The president of the United States never made one phone call to find out how this operation was going?

Well, Mr. President, what did you do for eight hours? Who did you talk to? What kind of leadership did you exhibit? They made two movies about the Bin Laden raid... but you’ve had no accounting for the Benghazi attack and you’re going to have an accounting. I’m not going to stop until the American people know what their commander-in-chief did for eight hours and thus far, all we know is he had a 15 minute conversation.

This is a cover-up. This scandal is 1000 times worse than Watergate.

Call John Boehner now and demand a full investigation. Be polite, but firm. We want every single person related to the president's dereliction of duty subpoenaed. Every. Single. One.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #590 

Panetta siad Obama never called back to check on Benghazi

Note:  Start reading at #592

Ed Morrissey says that he didn’t get to this yesterday, but it’s definitely worth watching -- especially for the skill shown by Lindsey Graham in his examination of Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey.  The headline takeaway will be what is remembered most: the revelation that Barack Obama never bothered to keep in touch with his chair of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense after being informed that an American consulate was under attack from terrorists.
But if that’s all you hear from this, you’re missing the big picture. Graham managed to elicit a number of damaging statements from the two.  Not one aircraft had been deployed during the attack; not one boot left the ground outside of Libya.  As far as the 281 concurrent threat reports that Panetta and Dempsey claimed kept them from considering Benghazi a special threat, Graham asks how many of those cables came from US Ambassadors stating specifically (as Stevens’ did) that an American installation was incapable of defending itself against a sustained attack and that government buildings nearby were flying al-Qaeda flags -- “because I want to know about them, if they do,” Graham adds.  Dempsey tries to push that off to State, at which time Graham informs Dempsey that Hillary Clinton claimed never to have seen that cable, even though Dempsey clearly had, which he admits is “surprising.”

Graham then circles back to the lack of action from the White House once the attack was under way:

SEN. GRAHAM: Are you surprised that the president of the United States never called you, Secretary Panetta, and say, ‘how’s it going?’

SEC. PANETTA: I — you know, normally in these situations –

SEN. GRAHAM: Did he know the level of threat that –

SEC. PANETTA: Let — well, let me finish the answer. We were deploying the forces. He knew we were deploying the forces. He was being kept updated –

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I hate to interrupt you, but I got limited time. We didn’t deploy any forces. Did you call him back — wait a minute –

SEC. PANETTA: No, but the event — the event was over by the time we got –

SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, you didn’t know how long the attack would last. Did you ever call him and say, Mr. President, it looks like we don’t have anything to get there anytime soon?

SEC. PANETTA: The event was over before we could move any assets.

SEN. GRAHAM: It lasted almost eight hours. And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?

SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives.

SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them? We have a second round, and we’ll take it up then.

Graham just demolished the entire White House defense on Benghazi in less than ten minutes of cross-examination.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #591 

Retired Special Forces Commander says the DoD Could have flown a rescue team to Benghazi

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin -- formerly commander of U.S. Special Forces Command and deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence -- told Terrence P. Jeffrey that, if it had been asked, the Defense Department could have sent a plane to Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, to transport a rescue team of U.S. security personnel that instead ended up taking a chartered private plane from Tripoli to Benghazi that night.
"There is no question that we could have moved an airplane in there and we could have also put boots on the ground at the embassy," Gen. Boykin told Jeffrey.
"State should have coordinated with DoD and said: We’ve got to have an airplane," said Gen. Boykin. "The Department of Defense could have provided an airplane in there. All they had to do was ask."

A Defense Department official told CNSNews, however, that the type of aircraft that was used that night and the decision to use it were both determinations made by the State Department. But the Defense Department official also said that DoD would not have been able to get a plane to Tripoli to fly the security team to Benghazi as quickly as the State Department’s chartered plane did.
According to a timeline released by the Office of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the chartered private plane took off from Tripoli and headed to Benghazi with the rescue team about 2 hours and 48 minutes after the terrorist attack in Benghazi started at 9:42 p.m. Libya time.
According to the State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) report, the department’s temporary duty regional security officer (TDY RSO) in charge of the security detail at the department’s Benghazi mission on Sept. 11, 2012 was monitoring a security camera and saw the terrorists swarm through the front gate of the compound at the start of the attack.
Using his cell phone, this security officer notified the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli within three minutes. He also notified the nearby Annex operated by the CIA. Within eight minutes of the start of the attack, Amb. Chris Stevens, who was in the Benghazi compound, used a cell phone given to him by a State Department Diplomatic Security agent to talk to his deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and tell that deputy personally that the Benghazi compound was under attack.
"Upon notification of the attack from the TDY RSO around 2145 local, Embassy Tripoli set up a command center and notified Washington," said the ARB report.
"About 2150 local, the DCM was able to reach Ambassador Stevens, who briefly reported that the SMC [Special Mission Compound] was under attack before the call cut off."
After Amb. Stevens' incomplete we-are-under-attack phone call to his deputy in Tripoli, it took almost three hours for the U.S. government to get a solitary private charter plane on the way to Benghazi -- and almost four hours to get that plane landed at the Benghazi airport.
"Within hours," said the ARB report, "Embassy Tripoli chartered a private airplane and deployed a seven-person security team, which included two U.S. military personnel, to Benghazi."
While not stating that this plane was a private charter, the DoD's timeline specifies that it took off from Tripoli at 12:30 a.m. Libya time -- or 2 hours and 48 minutes after the attack started.
The DoD timeline and the State Department ARB report differ on the number of people included in the security team that traveled on this chartered plane. DoD’s timeline says it was six; State’s ARB report, as quoted above, says it was seven. "12:30 am A six man security team from U.S. Embassy Tripoli, including two DoD personnel, departs for Benghazi," says the DoD timeline.
Neither the DoD timeline nor the ARB report described any of the members of the security team that took that private chartered flight from Tripoli to Benghazi as State Department personnel.
In a Nov. 2 piece in the Washington Post, David Ignatius reported -- in a timeline described to him by a "senior intelligence official" -- that the security team that flew to Benghazi on that chartered plane was in fact comprised of CIA people and military personnel working with the CIA.
In fact, the timeline Ignatius published in the Post seems to indicate the CIA chartered the plane.
"1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they've hastily chartered," reported Ignatius. "The Tripoli team includes four GRS [CIA Global Response Staff] security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They don't leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport; obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. (Also killed was a State Department communication specialist.) But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack."
(Like the State Department's ARB report, Ignatius's timeline indicates there were seven people on the chartered plane that flew from Tripoli to Benghazi -- not the six claimed in the DoD timeline.)
According to descriptions of the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist event published in the State Department ARB report, as well as in a report published by the Senate Homeland Security Committee report, and in a CIA timeline provided by a senior intelligence official, the U.S. personnel in Benghazi were targeted by a series of attacks that occurred at the State Department’s compound, at the CIA Annex, and on the road between the compound and the Annex. This first phase of attacks continued from 9:42 p.m. to about 1:00 a.m. -- a span of almost three hours and twenty minutes.
The timeline published by David Ignatius in the Post says: "The attacks stop at 1:01 a.m., and some assume the fight is over."
But it was not. About 4 hours and 15 minutes later, the terrorists struck again.
"The seven-person response team from Embassy Tripoli arrived in Benghazi to lend support," said the ARB report. "It arrived at the Annex about 0500 local. Less than fifteen minutes later, the Annex came under mortar and RPG attack, with five mortar rounds impacting close together in under 90 seconds. Three rounds hit the roof of an Annex building, killing security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The attack also severely injured one ARSO [State Department regional security officer] and one Annex security team member."
Amb. Stevens and State Department Information Management Officer Sean Smith had died during the first phase of the attacks, at the State Department compound, in a building torched by the terrorists. The State Department security officers and CIA personnel had recovered Smith’s body from that building, but had not found Amb. Stevens before they were forced--by the threat of being overwhelmed by the attacking terrorists--to retreat under fire to the CIA Annex.
At 11:10 p.m. Libya time, which was about 20 minutes before the U.S. personnel were forced to retreat to from the State Department mission to the CIA Annex, an unarmed DoD drone arrived in the skies over Benghazi to monitor the events as they unfolded. U.S. Africa Command had redirected the drone to Benghazi at 9:59 p.m.  About seven hours later, at 5:00 a.m., another drone sent by DoD replaced this first one.
"9:59 pm An unarmed, unmanned, surveillance aircraft is directed to reposition overhead the Benghazi facility," said the DoD timeline.
"11:10 pm The diverted surveillance aircraft arrives on station over the Benghazi facility," said the DoD timeline.
"5:00 am A second, unmanned, unarmed surveillance aircraft is directed to relieve the initial asset still over Benghazi," said the DoD timeline.
These unarmed drones could watch and show administration officials back in Washington what was happening in Benghazi, but they could do no more than that.
"There is no question that we could have moved an airplane in there and we could have also put boots on the ground at the embassy," Gen. Boykin told Terrence P. Jeffrey. "But just dealing with the aircraft issue, we could have moved a military plane in there, picked those people up, moved them to Benghazi. And, in fact, we could’ve gotten people moved by helicopter, launched them out of the Sixth Fleet or the naval base in Rota, Spain."

Video here . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 19
Reply with quote  #592 
So, does this mean they are giving Skeeter cover on the 'stand down' order? The only way they would release a bombshell like this is to cover up something bigger.

When in Hell are impeachment proceedings going to start?

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #593 

More on Obama's dereliction of duty (see previous item)

Joel B. Pollak says Obama did nothing to save American lives at Benghazi -- and then lied about it.

Nothing. That is what Barack Obama did on the night of September 11, 2012, as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans, among them Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Obama’s inaction was revealed in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday by outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

Under direct questioning by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Panetta admitted that he had no communication with Obama after their “pre-scheduled” meeting at 5:00 p.m. EDT. The attack on the consulate had already been under way for 90 minutes at that time. Neither Obama nor anyone else from the White House called afterwards to check what was happening; the Commander-in-Chief had left it "up to us," said Panetta.

Panetta’s testimony directly contradicts Obama’s own claim to have issued "three direectives" as soon as he learned "what was going on" in Benghazi. As he told a Denver reporter in October:

"I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure we are securing our personnel and that we are doing whatever we need to. Number two, we are going to investigate exactly what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice."

That same claim was subsequently repeated by other Democrats, including Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, who came to Obama's defense. But if those directives were indeed given -- and proof has never been produced -- they were given long after the attack, not while the attack was going on, during which time Obama did nothing.

Panetta and Dempsey also admitted, under questioning by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), that they were not in touch with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the attacks, and did not receive a request for help from the State Department. Dempsey also testified that he had been "surprised" at Clinton’s testimony last month that she did not know of an urgent cable from Ambassador Stevens last August about the dire security situation.

To borrow a metaphor from the 2008 Democratic primary campaign: when the 3 a.m. call came (at 5 p.m. in the afternoon), neither Clinton nor Obama were there to respond.

Panetta was also forced to admit, in the face of vigorous questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), that no military action at all had been taken to intervene in Benghazi after the attack had begun, promising only that a similar lapse would not happen again.

Later, on Thursday afternoon, during Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan’s confirmation hearing to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) demanded to know why the administration failed to interview a suspect in the attack.

Brennan’s response was merely that the Tunisian authorities who had arrested him "did not have a basis in their law" for allowing the U.S. to question him about the attack.

In sum: Barack Obama did nothing to save Americans under attack from terrorists. His Secretary of Defense did nothing. His Secretary of State did nothing. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did nothing. His Deputy National Security Adviser defended doing "nothing" to help bring the perpetrators to justice. And the entire administration participated in an effort to cover up the truth. Because there was an election to be won.

Related:  General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the State Department never requested “support” in Benghazi.

Obama did have his priorities -- Viva, Las Vegas!

Benghazi?  "What difference does it make?"

I googled -- Panetta says Obama absent -- Google returned "About 1,510,000 results" -- not one of them from the ObamaMedia.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #594 

Derelection of duty -- American leaders were AWOL during Benghazi

Daniel Halper is reporting that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified this morning on Capitol Hill that Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:

Obama went to bed early.  He had no interest in the ambassador or the SEALs -- after all, he had a campaign event in Las Vegas the next morning.

Michael Warren is reporting that neither the secretary of defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to the secretary of state during the 8-hour attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey, "In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what converations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?"
"We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton," Panetta responded.
"And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?" Cruz asked. Dempsey confirmed this. Watch the video below:

If Obama and Hillary were PFCs, they'd be court martialed.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #595 

What difference does it make?

Hillary Clinton asked "what difference does it make?" in response to questions about the murder of a US Ambassador in Benghazi. Bill Whittle lets you know what difference it makes for our country. From Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State John Kerry hear what Bill Whittle thinks.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #596 
Re: #588

Typical Hillary, and Dems in general.  She thinks she won, at least at that time.  Something, whatever. "What difference does it make now" is her answer to why they overthrew a half-way cooperative and somewhat westernized dictator for a "democratic revolution", but one run by and for Islamofascists.

Old Muhammar may look almost as good as Winston Churchill compared to what they are going to get before the dust settles in that area.

Lib Dems are dreamers, they do not (and probably can't) understand "unintended consequences" because they are so locked into their own propaganda. They can't rationally judge the reality of any situation.  And they can't admit (probably can't believe) that their Dem/Lib/socialist theories fail. No matter how many times they fail, the Dems "solution" is always: more money next time.

Like Jimmy Carter and the Somozas in Nicaragua, and the Shah in Iran. We'll pay a great price for decades.

Will the voters ever learn?  Not with the media and the schools we have.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #597 

Panetta, Dempsey to testify on Libya attack

The AP is reporting that the Senate Armed Services Committee says Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will testify on Thursday about the deadly assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last September.
The Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Republicans have pressed for Obama administration officials to testify on the raid. Hillary Rodham Clinton, then secretary of state, defended the administration in her appearance last month.
The testimony by Panetta, who is stepping down, could be his last on Capitol Hill. President Barack Obama has nominated former two-term Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to replace him, a choice that has faced GOP opposition.

Get out the shovels and wading boots.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #598 

Hillary thinks the death of Ghaddafi is a laugh riot

Speaking between network interviews, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton jokes with reporter on early, unconfirmed reports that deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.

I wonder if Hillary is still laughing -- considering her subsequent negligence led to the tragedy of Benghazi.

This is old, but I never saw it before.

What a callous bitch!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #599 

Panetta makes excuses for Benghazi response time

Erica Ritz is reporting that CNN’s Candy Crowley interviewed outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey on “State of the Union” Sunday, asking the men a number of questions many Americans have been curious about for months.

What were the authorities doing for a reported seven hours, as Americans called for help? Why wasn’t a strike team mobilized sooner? And why does the administration keep citing bad intelligence, when they had people on the ground relaying information?

After Panetta said he will likely have the “opportunity” to testify on Benghazi before leaving office, he said (all subsequent emphasis added):

…Frankly, intelligence did not provide any warning that this, in fact, was going to happen. I mean, we deployed. We knew there were problems there. We moved forces into place where we could deploy them quickly if we had to. They were ready to go.

But very frankly by the time we got the information as to what in fact was taking place there, just distance alone made it very difficult to respond quickly. That’s just the nature of dealing with the Middle East.

After a discussion of where the nearest available assistance was– Crowley noting that they “had an ambassador telling people that it was trouble” before and during the attack– Panetta stated:

This is not 911. You cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time. That’s the nature of it. Our people are there. They are in position to move, but we’ve got to have good intelligence that gives us a heads up that something is going to happen.

After questions about basic security at the consulate and what we should have done differently in retrospect (not much), Crowley finally snapped:

Why isn’t there better intelligence? It’s not like the intelligence community is underfunded. And it seems like any time we come into something where it has been a tragedy, it’s always the intelligence community…So it seems like it’s always the CIA’s fault.”

Crowley did not ask about the infamous YouTube video, however, or reports claiming urgent requests for military backup were denied and that CIA operators were told to “stand down.”

However, the clip is still worth watching:

It's been five months since Benghazi, and no one has answered for the American deaths and injuries at Benghazi.

AS Hillary has observed, "what difference does it make," to this callous bunch, whose only interest is to bury the facts related to the incident and cover their asses.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #600 

Hillary says Benghazi won't affect whether she runs for president

CBS News is reporting that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is leaving office with a slap at critics of the Obama administration's handling of the September attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. She told The Associated Press that critics of the administration's handling of the attack don't live in an "evidence-based world" and their refusal to "accept the facts" is unfortunate and regrettable for the political system.
In her last one-on-one interview before she steps down on Friday, Clinton told the AP that the attack in Benghazi was the low point of her time as America's top diplomat. But she suggested that the furor over the assault would not affect whether she runs for president in 2016.
Although she insisted that she has not decided what her future holds, she said she "absolutely" still plans to make a difference on issues she cares about in speeches and in a sequel to her 2003 memoir, "Living History," that will focus largely on her years as secretary of state.
Clinton spoke to the AP Thursday in her outer office on the seventh floor of the State Department less than 24 hours before she walks out for a final time as boss. She was relaxed but clearly perturbed by allegations from Republican lawmakers and commentators that the administration had intentionally misled the public about whether the attack was a protest gone awry or a terrorist attack, or intentionally withheld additional security for diplomatic personnel in Libya knowing that an attack could happen.
An independent panel she convened to look into the incident was scathing in its criticism of the State Department and singled out four officials for serious management and leadership failures. But it also determined that there was no guarantee that extra personnel could have prevented the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans. Clinton herself was not blamed, although she has said she accepted responsibility for the situation.
"I was so unhappy with the way that some people refused to accept the facts, refused to accept the findings of an independent Accountability Review Board, politicized everything about this terrible attack," she said. "My job is to admit that we have to make improvements and we're going to."

The Accountability Review Board report was an absolute whitewash of the events at Benghazi, contributed to the cover-up and didn't identify who was culpable for the deaths of Americans, and the wounding of a dozen more.

The fact is, Team Obama let those people die.  Obama and Hillary didn't provide adequate security before th event and didn't do a damned thin to hep those people once the attack commenced.

And, Hillary, those are the facts.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved