Help us fight the
ObamaMedia

click title for home page
  
Be a subscribing
member

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media
Register Calendar Chat
 
 
 


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #576 

The Secretary of State commits perjury on national TV

"The video -- I did not say that it was about the video for Libya..."

Remember, this woman's congressional testimony was given under oath.


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #577 

"The only person that's in jail right now is the filmmaker"

Andrew Kaczynski is reporting that during Hillary Clinton's testimony, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher alluded to the fact that no one involved in the Benghazi terrorist attack has been arrested while the the man who made the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims,” was arrested by California police for a parole violation. The administration originally said the video was the cause of the attack.

The maker of the "Innocence of Muslims," Mark Basseley Youssef, has now been held in jail for more than four months -- on questionable charges.


Revisit this video from September 19, 2012, a week after Benghazi?


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #578 

Place all liquids away from your computer before watching!


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #579 

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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #580 

Hillary's top ten excuses on Benghazi

Keith Koffler says Secretary of State Clinton Wednesday failed to provide a full explanation of why an immediate military response wasn't ordered to try to rescue besieged members of the U.S. mission in Benghazi.
 
Maybe that's because it's inexplicable. But White House Dossier has done some investigative journalism and uncovered the top ten reasons why Hillary didn't ensure that a military response from one of the nearby U.S. bases was immediately begun.

1. She wanted to see if we could first find a diplomatic solution.
 
2. Ouija Board wasn't moving fast enough.
 
3. Beyonce and Jay-Z were using the Situation Room.
 
4. Tummy ache had already begun.
 
5. United Nations hadn't gotten back to her on whether intervention was compliant with international law.
 
6. Libyans said, "We got this."
 
7. Decided George Washington had warned against foreign entanglements.
 
8. Since it was Bush's fault, Bush should be the one doing something about it.
 
9. Tried to call military base in Italy but kept getting the damn answering machine.
 
10. Never could have imagined anyone would attack American interests on anniversary 9/11.


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

Registered:
Posts: 137
Reply with quote  #581 
She is so deep in it - 
 
 
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #582 

State Department dad no money for Benghazi security -- had millions for kindles and art

Daniel Greenfield says according to Hillary Clinton’s long-delayed Benghazigate testimony, the State Department just did not have enough money to provide security for a mission in one of the most dangerous places in the world.

It did however have 16 million dollars to spend on 2,500 kindle book readers at the drastically inflated price of $6,600 per device.

How much security could that 16 million buy?

It had $79,000 to spend on Obama’s books and $20,000 on a portrait of Obama. The US Embassy had $150,000 to spend on a book about the ambassador’s residence. The US Embassy in Austria had $150,000+ for a Chevy Volt and its charging station.

And here is what else Hillary’s State Department did have money for…

7.9 billion dollars for Obama’s Global Health Initiative.

1 billion for global climate change.

2.2 billion to strengthen democratic institutions in Pakistan.

And of course … Mosque renovations.

In 2011 the State Department provided funds to restore the 15th century Gobarau Minaret in Katsina State in Nigeria’s predominantly Muslim north, an area which has become a virtual killing field for Christians at the hands of Muslim militants, led by the al-Qaeda-linked terror group Boko Haram.

And $4.5 million for Art in Embassies

The New York Times reported in 2009 that Art in Embassies spends about $4.5 million a year for permanent art acquisitions; chief curator Virginia Shore said at the time that artists and dealers support the program via favorable pricing; for the embassy in Beijing, an outlay of $800,000 yielded works with an appraised value of $30 million.

How much Benghazi security would 800,000 dollars have bought? If Hillary Clinton had stopped buying paintings, maybe four Americans would still be alive today.

The State Department also has a Chief Diversity Officer, whose job it is to warn that “holding the fort” is a racist phrase.

As far as security goes, 200 million dollars were wasted on Iraqi police training that never went anywhere.

And nothing says State Department waste, like waste management.

The U.S. Department of State and partners from the LAUNCH: Beyond Waste Forum announce a challenge to identify ten game-changing innovations with the potential to transform current waste management systems and practices. LAUNCH: Beyond Waste seeks transformational solutions to the problem of waste through disruptive innovation, behavioral change, systems design, as well as improved policy and stewardship.

The challenge, which will be open from April 1 to May 15, 2012, asks creative minds to formulate innovative ideas for minimizing waste or transforming it into new products.

Nope, no waste to see here.

The State Department just had no money in its $50 billion budget to pay for Benghazi security. None at all.


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #583 

Shouting louder!

Thomas Sowell says an old-time trial lawyer once said, "When your case is weak, shout louder!"

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shouted louder when asked about the Obama administration's story last fall that the September 11th attack on the U.S. ambassador's quarters in Benghazi was due to an anti-Islamic video that someone in the United States had put on the Internet, and thereby provoked a protest that escalated into violence.

She shouted: "We had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Students of propaganda may admire the skill with which she misdirected people's attention. But those of us who are still old-fashioned enough to think that the truth matters cannot applaud her success.

Let's go back to square one.

After the attack on the American ambassador's quarters in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, the Obama administration immediately blamed it on the anti-Islamic video.

Moreover, this version of what happened was not just a passing remark. It was a story that the administration kept repeating insistently. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice repeated that story on five different television talk shows on the same Sunday. President Obama himself repeated the same story at the United Nations. The man who put the anti-Islamic video on the Internet was arrested for a parole violation, creating more media coverage to keep attention on this theme.

"What difference, at this point, does it make?" Secretary Clinton now asks. What difference did it make at the time?

Obviously the Obama administration thought it made a difference, with an election coming up. Prior to the attack, the administration's political theme was that Barack Obama had killed Osama bin Laden (with an assist from the Navy SEALs), vanquished Al Qaeda and was now in the process of putting the terrorist threat behind us.

To have the attack in Benghazi be seen as a terrorist attack -- and a devastating one -- would have ruined this picture, with an election coming up.

The key question that remains unanswered to this day is: What speck of evidence is there that the attack in Benghazi was due to the much-discussed video or that there was ever any protest demonstration outside the ambassador's quarters?

If there is no evidence whatever, then the whole attempt to say that a protest over a video escalated into an attack was a deliberate hoax by people who knew better.

There is no point in the administration saying that they did not have all the facts about the attack immediately. All the facts may never be known. But the real question is: Did you have even a single fact that would substantiate your repeated claims that some video led to a protest in Benghazi that got out of hand and led to the attack?

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton herself was not featured in this campaign, even though as Secretary of State she was a key figure. Hillary was not about to create video footage that could come back to haunt her if she runs for President of the United States in 2016.

In a larger context, the Benghazi attack showed that you cannot unilaterally end the "war on terror" or the terrorists' war on us, by declaring victory.

For years, the Bush administration's phrase "war on terror" was avoided like the plague by the Obama administration, even if that required the Fort Hood massacre to be classified as "workplace violence." But, no matter how clever the rhetoric, reality nevertheless rears its ugly head.

Once the September 11th attack in Benghazi is seen for what it was -- a highly coordinated and highly successful operation by terrorists who were said to have been vanquished -- that calls into question the Obama administration's Middle East foreign policy.

That is why it still matters.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is http://www.tsowell.com.


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #584 

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
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #585 

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
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #586 

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
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #587 

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
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #588 

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
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,124
Reply with quote  #589 
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.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #590 

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
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #591 

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
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #592 

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
Mary

Registered:
Posts: 20
Reply with quote  #593 
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?
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #594 

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
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #595 

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
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #596 

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
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #597 

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
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #598 

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
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #599 

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 SOFREP.com), 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 Amazon.com 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
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,124
Reply with quote  #600 
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.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

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

Be a subscribing
member

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2016
All rights reserved