Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts

Saturday, July 20, 2013

JUSTICE FOR CHRISTOPHER: 75% of House Republicans Want Select Committee on Benghazi, Boehner Refuses

Is there a more pathetic, ludicrous, cowardly and failed Speaker of the House in modern American history than John Boehner? That's a rhetorical question, as evidenced by Rep. Frank Wolf's yeoman's work in trying to get the GOP leadership to name a Select Investigative Committee on Benghazi.

Wolf himself explained the other day on the House floor.

I ask my colleagues if the Congress can answer these questions and, if not, why?

· Was there an intelligence failure in vetting the true loyalty of the Libyan security guards for the U.S. consulate? Which agency was responsible for vetting the militias?

· Who provided the terrorists with details of the consulate property? Was it the security guards or someone in the Libyan government who was notified about the ambassador’s visit?

· Why did the guards in the car outside the consulate not warn the U.S. staff of the gathering terrorists as they drove away a minute before the assault began? Were they complicit in the plot?

When the Congress departs for the August recess in two and a half weeks, will the American people know why, after a year of investigations, who provided the terrorists with insider information about the consulate property and the ambassador’s location?

Again, this is why I believe a House Select Committee is the best way forward to ensure that these and other unanswered questions are resolved. To date, 160 House Republicans – nearly three quarters of the entire Republican Conference – have cosponsored H. Res. 36 to create a Select Committee on Benghazi to ensure the American people learn the truth.

And this Boehner refuses to do.


Please read: The Complete Benghazi Timeline in Spreadsheet Format and then call John Boehner at (202) 224-3121 and demand a Select Committe on Benghazi.

Friday, July 19, 2013

JOIN THE JUSTICE FOR CHRISTOPHER RALLY: Meet July 23rd 2013 on the Capitol Steps!

Guest post by Bob McCarty

EDITOR’S NOTE: I received the message below from my friend Capt. Larry W. Bailey, former commander of the U.S. Navy SEALs Training Program, co-founder of Special Operations Speaks and one of the folks who’ve endorsed my latest book, THE CLAPPER MEMO. Please READ and SHARE ASAP!

Dear Benghazi Patriot,

This is short notice for such a major event, but it has to be done.

You see, Special Operations Speaks has just been asked by Congressman Steve Stockman to mount an event to put pressure on the House of Representatives (and especially Speaker Boehner!) to form a select committee to investigate the tragedy that was Benghazi.

As a first step toward causing Congress to get serious about assigning responsibility for what happened at Benghazi, we are organizing a rally at Cong. Stockman’s request that will be held on the steps of the U.S. Capitol at noon, Tuesday, July 23, 2013. That rally will hear words from a number of patriots, including Cong. Stockman and Cong. Louie Gohmert, both of whom have been very supportive of our efforts to answer Hillary Clinton’s heartless answer to a Senator’s question about the men who died at Benghazi: “What difference does it make?”

Be with us next week as we demonstrate to Hillary and others like her “what difference it makes.” Bring yourself, a carload, or a busload, but be there.

Thousands of you showed up to protect the Vietnam Wall in 2007; please help us demonstrate that we will not tolerate the murder-by-neglect of four of America’s finest on September 12, 2012. Please help us send a message to our nation’s leaders that we demand full accountability for this national crime.

Thanks in advance for doing what you can to help make this rally a success!

Related: Special Ops Veterans Demand Answers About Benghazi


Thursday, July 18, 2013

MORE LIES: Despite Pentagon claims, Marine colonel sought in Benghazi scandal is NOT retired

Endemic and systemic: Lying to Congress, lying to the press, lying to the American people.

Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS. Lie upon lie upon lie. The federal scaffolding that is supposed to undergird the civil society is threatened by an administration and its apparatchiks in the federal bureaucracy that have demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth.

And, as it pertains to Benghazi, not even the Pentagon is immune from the dry-rot of lawlessness.

When insurgents attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, last fall, Col. George Bristol held a key post in the region. As commander of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara, he was in a position to know what options the U.S. had to protect Americans under fire.

U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the Sept. 11 attacks, sparking national outcry and a congressional investigation examining the lack of protection. Several U.S. officials have testified before Congress since — but not Bristol, a salty Marine whose task force was responsible for special operations in northern and western Africa.

Defense Department officials have told members of Congress that Bristol cannot be forced to testify because he retired after stepping down during a March change of command ceremony, according to several media reports. The Pentagon reinforced that point of view to Marine Corps Times on Tuesday.

“Col. Bristol was not invited by Congress to testify before he retired,” said Air Force Maj. Robert Firman, a spokesman with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. “The DoD has cooperated fully with Congress and the Accountability Review Board since the beginning of this investigation, and we will continue to do so.”

That isn’t the case, however. While Bristol is preparing for retirement, he is on active duty through the end of July, said Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marine spokeswoman, on Wednesday. He will be placed on the inactive list on Aug. 1, she said. That contradicts statements that Pentagon officials have issued to both Congress and the media.

Pentagon officials said Wednesday that they were looking into the case. The situation will likely frustrate congressional critics, primarily Republicans, who say the Obama administration has not been truthful about the Benghazi attack and the U.S. response to it...

Where is the Select Committee, John Boehner? Where is the Select Committee? What are you doing about all of these outrageous lies?

Oh, that's right: Amnesty for illegals is your top priority. You're a disgrace, John Boehner, an absolute disgrace.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Wednesday, July 03, 2013

Hillary 2016 Super-PAC introduces new branding!

The People's Cube has the exclusive:


It's not just a great logo: Hillary's political action committee appears to have global support!


Tuesday, July 02, 2013

Are you ready for Hillary in 2016?

Because by 2016 an article of the Constitution may yet remain un-shredded by the Democrats, Hillary Clinton's SuperPAC is mobilizing for action. Pictured below: one of her early supporters.


Quals? We don't need no stinkin' quals.


Hat tip: @Slublog.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Afghanistan: Another Spectacular Administration Foreign Policy Success

Dan from New York calls the following a "slow-mo replay of Obama's latest diplomatic meltdown":

US, Taliban to start talks on ending Afghan war - AP, June 18, 2013

The Taliban and the U.S. said Tuesday they will hold talks on finding a political solution to ending nearly 12 years of war in Afghanistan, as the international coalition formally handed over control of the country's security to the Afghan army and police... The Taliban met a key U.S. demand by pledging not to use Afghanistan as a base to threaten other countries...

Afghanistan: Taliban 'Admit' US Troop Attack - Sky News, June 19, 2013

The Taliban has said it was behind an attack that killed four US troops in Afghanistan, just hours after Washington announced planned talks with the insurgents...

Afghan leader backs away from Taliban talks - AP, June 19, 2013

Afghanistan's president said Wednesday he will not pursue peace talks with the Taliban unless the United States steps out of the negotiations... Hamid Karzai's strong response and the Taliban attack deflated hopes for long-stalled talks aimed at ending nearly 12 years of war in Afghanistan...

Karzai, angry about Taliban's Qatar office, suspends peace, security talks - CNN, June 19, 2013

Afghan President Hamid Karzai lashed out Wednesday at the United States over the opening of a Taliban office in Qatar, pulling out of security talks with U.S. officials and refusing to take part in peace talks with the Taliban that he said would only benefit "foreigners' strategies and goals."

Comforting.


Tuesday, June 11, 2013

HILLARY 2016! Clinton's office said to have covered up Pedophilia, Hooker and Drug Scandals in State Department

NBC News reports that a State Department whistleblower has alleged an organized cover-up of a series of scandals inside then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's massive, bloated operation.

A State Department whistleblower has accused high-ranking staff of a massive coverup — including keeping a lid on findings that members of then-Secretary Hillary Clinton’s security detail and the Belgian ambassador solicited prostitutes.

A chief investigator for the agency’s inspector general wrote a memo outlining eight cases that were derailed by senior officials, including one instance of interference by Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.

Any mention of the cases was removed from an IG report about problems within the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which provides protection and investigates crimes involving any State Department workers overseas... “It’s a coverup,” declared Cary Schulman, a lawyer representing the whistleblower, former State Department IG senior investigator Aurelia Fedenisn.“The whole agency is impaired..."

Among the bombshell findings:

* A DS agent was called off a case against US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman over claims that he solicited prostitutes, including minors... Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy ordered the investigation ceased, and the ambassador remains in place, according to the memo... Gutman was a big Democratic donor before taking the post, having raised $500,000 for President Obama’s 2008 campaign and helping finance his inaugural.

* At least seven agents in Clinton’s security detail hired prostitutes while traveling with her in various countries, including Russia and Colombia... Investigators called the use of prostitutes by Clinton’s security agents “endemic.” ... According to the memo, members of the Special Investigations Division (SID) approached the agent who was probing “and reportedly told him to shut down the four investigations...”

* The case in which Clinton enforcer Mills allegedly intervened centered upon Brett McGurk, Obama’s nominee to be US ambassador to Iraq... McGurk’s expected nomination fell apart after a computer hack exposed his racy e-mails and an extramarital affair with Wall Street Journal reporter Gina Chon... According to the memo, the SID “never interviewed McGurk, allegedly because Cheryl Mills from the Secretary’s office interceded...”

* The document states that a security officer stationed in Beirut, Chuck Lisenbee, allegedly engaged in sexual assaults against local guards...

...[The whistleblower], who retired in December, has been threatened by State Department officials with criminal charges.

London's Daily Mail also notes the possibility of an "underground drug ring operating near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad."


One other reaction comes to mind, which must be repeated in a shrill, screechy voice: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Monday, June 03, 2013

Bill Clinton: Barack Obama's Best Frenemy

James Taranto, writing at Best of the Web, refers us back to a New York Post article by Edward Klein. It's adapted from the newly released paperback edition of The Amateur, Klein's behind-the-scenes look at the SCOAMF administration.

In 2011 this column put forward the hypothesis that Bill Clinton was Barack Obama's "frenemy"--a slang term for somebody who actively undermines another while feigning friendship. We figured Clinton didn't really want Obama to eclipse him by becoming the second Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt to win two full terms.

Over the ensuing months Clinton seemed to confirm the theory by making plenty of backhanded remarks about Obama, but when it really mattered--at last year's Democratic National Convention--he delivered what author Edward Klein accurately describes as "a full-throated endorsement."

But in a the new paperback edition of "The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House," excerpted in yesterday's New York Post, Klein revives the frenemy theory. "A deal was struck," Klein claims, the quo for the Clinton's speech quid was an Obama endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president in 2016:

But after his re-election, Obama began to have second thoughts. He would prefer to stay neutral in the next election, as is traditional of outgoing presidents.

Bill Clinton went ballistic and threatened retaliation. Obama backed down. He called his favorite journalist, Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes," and offered an unprecedented "farewell interview" with departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The result was a slobbering televised love-in--and an embarrassment to all concerned.


Assuming Klein is right, recent events in Washington make for an interesting twist on the frenemy theory. With the current scandals and the impending implementation of ObamaCare, it's quite possible an Obama endorsement will be poisonous come 2016. Imagine if Richard Nixon had endorsed and campaigned for Gerald Ford in 1976. Mrs. Clinton may find that the man she seeks to replace is her worst frenemy.

Here are a couple of pages from the introduction to The Amateur.


It's kinda like a horror novel, only real.

Click here if you want to order the new paperback edition from Amazon.


Sunday, May 19, 2013

DAMNING: The Complete Benghazi Timeline Spreadsheet [Updated]

The complete Benghazi timeline, now augmented with information from eyewitness testimony before Congress, various leaks from the warring Obama/Clinton camps, Stephen Hayes, Sharyl Attkisson, and the House Oversight Committee [PDF], leads me to four inescapable conclusions.


It is now clear to me that:

a) Hillary Clinton lied to Congress.
b) Barack Obama went to sleep knowing that a U.S. Ambassador and other Americans were under terrorist attack.
c) Barack Obama awoke refreshed the next day to begin fundraising.
d) The entire Executive Branch lied repeatedly to the American people to save Obama's chances for reelection.

Could someone drag John Boehner out of whatever bar he's in, wake him up, and get him to name a Select Committee on Benghazi?



Related: OBAMA AIDE: It's Now "Offensive" to Ask What President Did for Eight Hours as Four Americans Fought and Died in #Benghazi


Saturday, May 18, 2013

THE TRAP: What did Hillary and Obama discuss at 10pm on the night of the Benghazi attacks?

Thanks to the least transparent administration in history, Americans still don't know what the President did during the night of the terror attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other heroes.

What did he order? What did he do? Did he take any steps to save the diplomats who were systematically slaughtered over the course of a 6-hour terrorist attack?

One little-mentioned aspect of the evening is a 10pm phone call to Hillary Clinton from Barack Obama.

...Benghazi is not a scandal because of Ambassador Susan Rice, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, and “talking points.” The scandal is about Rice and Nuland’s principals, and about what the talking points were intended to accomplish. Benghazi is about derelictions of duty by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton before and during the massacre of our ambassador and three other American officials, as well as Obama and Clinton’s fraud on the public afterward.

...Fraud flows from the top down, not the mid-level up. Mid-level officials in the White House and the State Department do not call the shots — they carry out orders. They also were not running for reelection in 2012 or positioning themselves for a campaign in 2016. The people doing that were, respectively, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.

Obama and Clinton had been the architects of American foreign policy. As Election Day 2012 loomed, each of them had a powerful motive to promote the impressions (a) that al-Qaeda had been decimated; (b) that the administration’s deft handling of the Arab Spring — by empowering Islamists — had been a boon for democracy, regional stability, and American national security; and (c) that our real security problem was “Islamophobia” and the “violent extremism” it allegedly causes — which was why Obama and Clinton had worked for years with Islamists, both overseas and at home, to promote international resolutions that would make it illegal to incite hostility to Islam, the First Amendment be damned.

All of that being the case, I am puzzled why so little attention has been paid to the Obama-Clinton phone call at 10 p.m. on the night of September 11.

...There is good reason to believe that while Americans were still fighting for their lives in Benghazi, while no military efforts were being made to rescue them, and while those desperately trying to rescue them were being told to stand down, the president was busy shaping the “blame the video” narrative to which his administration clung in the aftermath.

We have heard almost nothing about what Obama was doing that night. Back in February, though, CNS News did manage to pry one grudging disclosure out of White House mendacity mogul Jay Carney: “At about 10 p.m., the president called Secretary Clinton to get an update on the situation.”

Obviously, it is not a detail Carney was anxious to share. Indeed, it contradicted an earlier White House account that claimed the president had not spoken with Clinton or other top administration officials that night.

...Carney’s hand was forced by then-secretary Clinton. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, she recounted first learning at about 4 p.m. on September 11 that the State Department facility in Benghazi was under attack. That was very shortly after the siege started. Over the hours that followed, Clinton stated, “we were in continuous meetings and conversations, both within the department, with our team in Tripoli, with the interagency and internationally.” It was in the course of this “constant ongoing discussion and sets of meetings” that Clinton then recalled: “I spoke with President Obama later in the evening to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective.”

The 10pm phone call is a trap waiting to be sprung. It could be the lynchpin that holds together the last vestiges of the most inept and corrupt administration in modern American history.

Congress must demand Clinton testify under oath and send an interrogatory to the President.

The critical questions for both parties:

    a) What were the topics of the 10pm discussion?
    b) Were either a "protest" or an Internet video raised as a cause of the Benghazi attack?
    c) Who raised using a "protest" based upon an "Internet video" as a cover story for that attack?
    d) Who gave the order to use the video/protest pretense?
    e) Who gave the "stand down" order to prevent the rescue of Americans under attack?

Putting both Clinton and Obama under oath will raise an interesting dilemma for both. Which ever party answers first could be contradicted on any of these matters. If Clinton answers under oath to protect herself, Obama could easily throw her under the bus. Conversely, if Obama replies to an interrogatory first, Clinton could contradict any of his answers.

Benghazi is ultimately a conflict between the Clinton Democrats and the Chicago Machine. A wedge can be driven between these two destructive forces with some well thought-out subpoenas. Exploiting that wedge could light the fuse on the time-bomb and detonate the Obama administration once and for all.


Related: DAMNING: The Complete Benghazi Timeline Spreadsheet - Updated With the Latest Testimony and Leaks

Monday, May 13, 2013

MEMO TO SELF: Save This Graphic for 2016

Spotted at Twitchy:


That reminds me of Hillary Clinton's fateful two hours, which very well could have ended her political aspirations. If we're lucky, that is.


Friday, May 10, 2013

Benghazi, Version 12.0

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


Libya: At least a dozen rewrites of the Benghazi talking points were made, with all references to al-Qaida and prior attacks removed at the direction of the secretary of state's office.

The astonishing thing about the administration's Benghazi cover-up is that it actually thought it could get away with it. But each lie has been successfully peeled away, from the protest that never happened, to the irrelevant filmmaker who was blamed, to the intelligence community whose talking points were used as a cover for incompetence and malfeasance.

Now White House and State Department emails obtained by ABC News, some first published by the Weekly Standard, show that the intelligence community, led by the CIA, told the truth about terrorist involvement in the Benghazi attacks and prior warnings in its original talking points draft. It was the White House and the State Department that lied and had them altered.

"Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC's best assessments of what they thought had happened," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters last Nov. 28. "The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate."

What the talking points reflected, after a dozen heavy edits dictated by the State Department, was a sanitized version designed to protect President Obama's re-election chances and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's prospective candidacy in 2016. They were deliberately altered to eliminate references to terrorism so the whole thing could be blamed on an inflammatory video and no one in the administration could be held responsible.

As ABC's Jonathan Karl reported, edits included requests from the State Department that references to the al Qaida-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well as references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

The original CIA talking points contained this paragraph: "The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including a June attack against the British ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals had previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks."

In an email to White House officials and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information, saying it "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?" The paragraph was entirely deleted.

Why would a State Department interested in protecting its secretary and its president want to tell the truth?
The original CIA draft said "we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida participated in the attack." It specifically named the al-Qaida-linked Ansar al-Sharia. Nuland objected, and it was taken out.

In an email dated Sept. 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows — Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department's concerns needed to be addressed.

At a meeting Saturday morning, Sept. 15, at the White House, they were. The CIA drafted a final version of the talking points by deleting all references to al-Qaida and to the security warnings in Benghazi before the attack. In that email, Rhodes used the excuse that "we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation." Ironically, it was Rice's recitation of the censored talking points that impeded the FBI investigation and reduced cooperation by insulting the Libyan president. As Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks said during his recent testimony to Congress, Rice contradicted the Libyan president's Sept. 16 claims that the attack was premeditated.

"President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced," Hicks said. "It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf told CBS News' "Face The Nation" on Sept. 16 after Rice appeared saying exactly the opposite.

So as we've noted, we have Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, trying to intimidate Gregory Hicks from telling the truth that they knew it was a terrorist attack from the "get-go," that there was no "protest" or mention of one from anyone on the ground and that the infamous YouTube video was "a non-event" in Libya.

And we have Clinton spokesman Victoria Nuland censoring CIA talking points that note terrorist involvement in the attacks and mention prior attacks in an environment full of terrorist training camps.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens was aware of the threat and had warned Benghazi could not be defended after what security they had was withdrawn.

In Stevens' name, and the names of Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, the American people deserve to know the truth. Those responsible for this fiasco and its cover-up must be held accountable.


Ted Cruz has 12 Questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton #Benghazi

The masterful Ted Cruz has some questions for the Obama administration:

• Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security to Benghazi?

• Were there really no military assets available to provide relief during the seven hours of the attacks? If so, why not? During the attacks, were any military assets ordered to stand down?

• If the Secretary of Defense thought there was “no question” this was a coordinated terrorist attack, why did Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the American people that the cause was a “spontaneous demonstration” about an Internet video?

• Why did the State Department and/or the White House edit the intelligence talking points to delete the references to “Islamic extremists” and “al Qa’ida”?

• Why did the FBI release pictures of militants taken the day of the attack only eight months after the fact? Why not immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing?

• Why have none of the survivors testified to Congress?

• Why is the administration apparently unaware of the whistle-blowers who have been attempting to tell their stories? Is it true that these career civil servants have been threatened with retaliation?

• Did President Obama sleep the night of September 11, 2012? Did Secretary Clinton?

• When was President Obama told about the murder of our ambassador? About the murder of all four Americans? What did he do in response?

• What role, if any, did the State Department’s own counterterrorism office play during the attacks and in their immediate aftermath?

• Why was Secretary Clinton not interviewed for the ARB report?

• And why, if all relevant questions were answered in the ARB report, has the State Department’s own inspector-general office opened a probe into the methods of that very report?

Oh, and let's add another one: what games were on ESPN the night of 9/11/2012? Just wondering.


ACTION: Call John Boehner Now: We Demand a Select Committee on Benghazi.

Thursday, May 09, 2013

The Fateful Two Hours: Hillary Clinton's Political Undoing #Benghazi

8pm, 9/11/12 - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is informed that the consulate in Benghazi had been overrun by a group of AQ-linked terrorists.

Ambassador Chris Stevens’s deputy Gregory Hicks, who was in Tripoli at the time, testified that he spoke to Hillary Clinton at 2 AM [8pm ET] on the night of the attack and there was no mention of any demonstration or You Tube video. “We saw no demonstrations relating to the video, there was only an attack,” he testified. When asked about military personnel being told to stand down, he replied “They were furious.” Hicks also said he had been told by the State Department not to speak to congressional investigators. He has basically been demoted and now works a desk job.

This is the second indication that the attack in Benghazi is an organized terrorist assault: an earlier email sent by an unnamed State Department official relayed a communication from Tripoli and had the subject heading "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)".

10pm, 9/11/12 - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton releases a statement blaming an Internet video for the death of Ambassador Stevens and three others.

...in the 10:00 p.m. hour Washington, D.C. time on Sept. 11, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a written “Statement on the Attack in Benghazi" that said: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious belief of others.”

....that statement was put out before former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods died in Benghazi. Who specifically told Hillary Clinton that there were some people blaming this on inflammatory response to--inflammatory material on the internet? Where did she get that idea at 10 p.m. on September 11th?

In those fateful two hours, Hillary Clinton invented a way to evade responsibility for the state of security in Benghazi. She had repeatedly denied Ambassador Stevens' requests for security and, worse, stripped virtually all security from him after dispatching him to one of the most dangerous cities on earth.

She needed an out, an alibi. And some obscure videographer -- who is still rotting in prison -- was the perfect scapegoat.

9/12/12 - one of Hillary's senior State Department officials emails associates her conversation with a Libyan diplomat concerning the real reason for the attack.

...an email dated Sept. 12, 2012 to senior State Department officers, from Elizabeth Jones, the acting Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs [described] a conversation she had with then-Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones wrote in the previously undisclosed email that 'I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.'

This represents the third known State Department communication confirming that an Al Qaeda-linked group had successfully attacked a consulate and assassinated a U.S. Ambassador, the first killed in the line of duty in 30 years.

1/23/13 - Yet testifying before a Senate Committee on the Benghazi debacle, Clinton asserted she'd never received any reports that contradicted the talking points that Susan Rice used on the Sunday morning talk shows:

I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows.

LIAR - this woman is a disgrace and a perjurer. She lied under oath to Congress. She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for her contemptible testimony.


Wednesday, May 08, 2013

RED ALERT -- ACTION REQUIRED: #Benghazi Hearings and the Need for a Select Committee–Now [Hugh Hewitt]

Guest post by Hugh Hewitt

Call 202-225-3121 and ask for the Speaker’s office. Tweet him @SpeakerBoehner and @EricCantor as well. Be polite and firm: Set up a Select Committee now to follow up on today's shocking testimony.

Set aside the disgraceful actions of the broadcast MSM today in not covering the riveting testimony of Greg Hicks, and set aside even the shocking conduct of the Administration on the night of 9/11/12 and during the days, weeks and months following.

The MSM is almost exclusive hard left and almost completely committed to the defense of President Obama and former Secretary of State Clinton. With a few, honorable exceptions they will ask no hard questions and conduct no follow-up, and of course the senior levels of the Administration are beyond shame and no “Deep Throat” is likely to emerge from their ranks.

But Speaker Boehner and the GOP control the House and they can almost instantly set-up a Select Committee to follow up on the shocking testimony today. The transcripts of my interviews with Stephen Hayes and Eli Lake will be posted here later, but it is enough to say that there were many extraordinary revelations made today and a great number of serious questions rasied which need to be asked and answered, quickly.



At a minimum the House needs to subpoena the NSA and the Department of State for the recording of the 2:00 AM phone call between Mr. Hicks and Hillary and her senior staff, a recording both I and Eli Lake suspect exists as a matter of routine NSA practice, if it has not already been erased. Subpoenas must also go out to Hillary, everyone on the conference call at 2:00 AM, and of course to Cheryl Mills, the enforcer of the cover-up. Lt. Colonel Gibson must be deposed, and his commander and then that man’s commander etc. until we get to the bottom of the stand down order. The denial of air assets from Aviano is another area of great interest. Investigators need to travel to Libya and speak with the senior officials there as to their response to being embarrassed by the Admiistration.

It must all happen quickly and without fear or favor. Not to establish a Select Committee draws the Speaker and the GOP majority into the very cover-up they are supposed to be investigating.

Call 202-225-3121 and ask for the Speaker’s office. Tweet him @SpeakerBoehner and @EricCantor as well. On my show alone we have heard calls for a Select Committee from Senators Ayotte and McCain and from Congressmen DeSantis, Gowdy and Jordan, all three of whom did extraordinarily fine work today, as did Chairman Issa and Congressman Chaffetz and many others. It is clear the Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee is far ahead of the other four committees “investigating” this scandal, but all must be brought under one roof with one staff and one set of questions and evidence.

Think about this: At 2:00 AM Hillary Clinton spoke with the man in charge in Libya who informed her the consulate had been attacked, the Ambassador was missing, and that his people had to evacuate. An hour later news of the ambassador’s death reached that man, Greg Hicks, and he informed the State Department.

Hillary never called him back that night or the next day.

Think as well about the fact that some of the most extraordinarily moving testimony ever given in the halls of Congress –given by Mr. Hicks about the entire evening but especially about the security forces who climbed the roof of the Annex in Benghazi to recover the dead and the wounded– and that it is not being played on most American media tonight.

Astonishing and disgusting.

There is nothing the Speaker and his colleagues in the House can do about the media or the Administration. But they can do the obvious and right thing, by establishing a Select Committee and thereby build upon the sense of urgency developed today, and they should do it now.


Call 202-225-3121 and ask for the Speaker’s office. Tweet him @SpeakerBoehner and @EricCantor as well. Be polite and firm: Set up a Select Committee now to follow up on today's shocking testimony.


Reprinted without with (thanks, Dr. Hewitt!) the permission of Hugh Hewitt. So I hope he doesn't sue me. But he's absolutely right. We need action now.

For American Foreign Policy, No Good Options [Stratfor]

Guest post by Robert D. Kaplan, Chief Geopolitical Analyst, Stratfor Research


One feels sympathy for U.S. President Barack Obama. Whatever he does in Syria, he is doomed. Had he intervened a year ago, as many pundits demanded, he might presently be in the midst of a quagmire with even more pundits angry at him, and with his approval ratings far lower than they are. If he intervenes now, the results might be even worse. Journalists often demand action for action's sake, seemingly unaware that many international problems have no solution, given the limits of U.S. power. The United States can topple regimes; it cannot even modestly remake societies unless, perhaps, it commits itself to the level of time and expense it did in post-war Germany and Japan.

Indeed, Obama has onerous calculations: If I intervene, which group do I arm? Am I assured the weapons won't fall into the wrong hands? Am I assured the group or groups I choose to help really are acceptable to the West, and even if they are, will they matter in Damascus in the long run? And, by the way, what if toppling Syrian leader Bashar al Assad through the establishment of a no-fly zone leads to even more chaos, and therefore results in an even worse human rights situation? Do I really want to own that mess? And even were I to come out of it successfully, do I want to devote my entire second term to Syria? Because that's what getting more deeply involved militarily there might entail.

In the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, intervention did not provoke other powers in the region such as Russia, because Russia in the first decade after the Cold War was a weak and chaotic state unable to project its usual historical influence in the Balkans. But intervention in Syria could get the United States into a proxy war with a strengthened Russia and with Iran.

15 Stunning Tweets From Today's #Benghazi Whistleblower Testimony

I am speechless not only at the depravity of this administration but also its enablers in both the Democrat Party and the Julius Streicher media. I never thought I'd live to see the day. Have you no shame, sir? Have you no shame?
















Tragic, shocking and utterly emblematic of the sickness of the left.


Related: DAMNING: The Complete Benghazi Timeline in Spreadsheet Format

Tuesday, May 07, 2013

BOOM BOOM HUME: With Benghazi revelations, Hillary's political aspirations are kaput

I paraphrase, of course, but Brit Hume's message is clear. The longtime Beltway insider believes there is no possible way for Hillary Clinton to evade responsibility for her leadership failures and bungled cover-up.

Earlier today, on America Live, Hume had the following to say:

There’s really no way for her to escape responsibility for this if this testimony does what we all expect now that it will do. Of course, over the years in Washington I’ve seen many a hype hearing fail to live up to expectations. But if it does live up, there’s no way I think she can escape this. I think she recognized from the start that this was trouble. I don’t think it was an accident that Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, who was kind of an unusual choice, was the person who went out on the Sunday shows to recite those talking points. I think then-Secretary Clinton knew that the talking points were shaky.


She may have participated in making them shaky. But she did not want any of that mud on her shoes that might be caused. And Susan Rice, of course, has paid a price for being the one who recited them. But we also know, as you suggest, Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman was involved in the crafting of those talking points. She reports directly or indirectly to Hillary Clinton, and she was telling the other people that were crafting the points that ‘my building,’ that means Hillary Clinton’s State Department, had a problem with this or that or the other thing and they were changed at her behest. Secretary Clinton cannot escape responsibility for that.

Let’s assume that she claims that she didn’t have any responsibility for that.” “What does that say about her stewardship of her department at a moment when a terrible thing has happened to an ambassador whom we’re to believe and she’s given every indication she had great faith in and cared a lot about? The murdered ambassador there was her subordinate. The staff there at the embassy were her subordinates. So if she took a walk during this, that doesn’t exactly recommend her for the person that will receive the middle of the night phone calls, does it?

I mean, I don’t think there’s any way for her to escape this even if she succeeds in arguing that she didn’t have her fingerprints on it. If she didn’t, she should have. And when she heard the talking points recited, she had to know they were wrong. If she didn’t, that’s dereliction. And if she didn’t know they were wrong, she should have said something. So she’s — I just don’t think there’s any way out, really. Look, she’ll get a vast amount of forgiveness. She’s an icon of the Democratic Party. A lot of people in the media will want to excuse her if they can, but the facts will prove too heavy.

We’ll have to see how bad it gets, but it’s certainly a weapon in the hands of her potential opponents, both within her party and in a general election if she gets that far. And the other thing, Megyn, is this also contributes to another question, which is — was she really a very successful and special secretary of state? I think the case for that is pretty weak. There was no great Clinton doctrine in foreign policy. Are there any treaties that she forwarded and help negotiate that made a big difference? Is the situation in the Middle East, which has always been a tinderbox that every American secretary of state must deal with — is that markedly improved by virtue of her stewardship of the State Department? I think the answer to all of those questions is probably no. So is this really a great credential for her as the last job she held going into a presidential campaign?

Of course not. Hillary Clinton has been an utter disaster as Secretary of State. Syria is awash in mass murder, chemical weapons, and Iranian missiles. Egypt is under the control of the Nazi-esque Muslim Brotherhood. Libya is a cauldron of terrorist activity. And Iran has -- or is about to -- acquire nuclear weapons. At the same time, North Korea and the People's Republic of China are seemingly at a tipping point.

But she's the greatest Secretary of State ever!


Hat tips: Michael Ramirez Cartoons and Protein Wisdom.

Monday, May 06, 2013

The Washington Post: #Caring

Lee Cary emails:

Special ops halted from responding to Benghazi attacks, U.S. diplomat says


By Ernesto Londoño, Updated: Monday, May 6, 5:39 PM

...If Republicans in Congress succeed in portraying the administration’s response as feckless, the episode could dog any future political aspirations of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was secretary of state when the attacks happened...

###

Gee, ya think maybe the WaPo cares more about protecting Hillary’s political career than the four dead guys?

These leftist media types are scum. And that means you, Londoño -- if that is your real name. You and your editor and anyone else who had a hand in crafting this "news story".


We have a dead American ambassador, three other dead security personnel, a series of lies -- including perjurious testimony to Congress by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- promulgated by the Obama administration, intimidation of witnesses, and a massive cover-up.

And instead of seeking to find the truth and report upon it, the fascist media is more interested in preserving Hillary's tattered legacy and advancing their progressive, Leftist agenda.

Which reminds me of this story: "Washington Post Earnings Fall 85%, Circulation Drops 7.2%."

Keep on doing what you're doing, scum. Keep on doing what you're doing.