Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday lashed out over the claim that the administration misled Americans about the nature of the Libya terror attack by asserting that it was the result of a protest, raising her voice during a Senate hearing and asking: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
The secretary is now launching into the second round of testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Earlier on the Senate side, she pointedly challenged Republican Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson when he claimed the department could have "easily" determined what happened that night by interviewing staffers who were evacuated.
He was referring to the administration's initial claim that the attack sprung out of a protest. It was later determined there was no protest on the ground in Benghazi. Diplomatic security agents said as much to the FBI during interviews on Sept. 14, despite administration claims to the contrary two days later.
"That was a piece of information that could have been easily -- easily -- ascertained, within hours if not days," Johnson said.
"We were misled that there were supposedly protests and something sprang out of that. ... The American people could have known that (there was no protest) within days, and they didn't know that."
At that point, Clinton began to raise her voice.
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans," she said.
"I understand," Johnson said.
Clinton continued to speak, raising her voice and gesturing: "Was it because of a protest or is it because of guys out for a walk one night and they decide they go kill some Americans?
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Clinton, lowering her voice, then said it is the administration's job to "figure out what happened" and prevent it from happening again.
Later in the testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Clinton acknowledged the administration did not have a "clear picture" of what happened in the immediate aftermath. She said perhaps officials didn't do a good enough job explaining that they "didn't have a clear picture."
But Clinton still said the motivations of the attackers, to this day, is not clear. "Even today there are questions being raised," she said, referring to findings in the classified version of a recent report that she could not describe in detail.
The secretary continued to take heat from Republican senators as the hearing proceeded. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said that if he were president, "I would have relieved you from your post." He suggested lives could have been saved if she were more involved in reviewing security requests.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., after the exchange with Johnson, said he was not satisfied with the secretary's answers, complaining that the public still doesn't have answers on what happened.
Clinton, throughout the hearing, walked a fine line between taking responsibility generally for what went wrong and challenging specific allegations against her department and the administration.
During the opening of the hearing, Clinton said she has "no higher priority" than the security of her department's staff, and that she is committed to making the department "safer, stronger and more secure."
"As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right," Clinton said, later choking up when describing how she greeted the families of the victims when the caskets were returned.
Clinton went on to defend the administration's actions on the night of Sept. 11, when the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi came under fire and four Americans died.
"I directed our response from the State Department and stayed in close contact with officials from across our government and the Libyan government," she said. "No delays in decision-making. No denials of support from Washington or from our military."
Citing the findings of a review panel, she said: "The Board said the response saved American lives in real time -- and it did."
Several accounts relayed to Fox News, though, suggest possible delays in the response.
Fox News has learned from senior U.S. defense officials that a FAST team of Marines out of Spain was asked by State Department officials to change out of their Marine uniforms after being asked to leave for Libya to help -- this required them to deplane and delayed them by about 90 minutes, according to Pentagon officials.
Then there is the decision by Clinton and State Department Undersecretary of Management Patrick Kennedy not to mobilize the Counterterrorism Security Group, which is composed of experts on terrorism from across government agencies and makes recommendations on the response to crises involving terrorism.
Further, there are questions about the perceived delays CIA officials -- stationed in Benghazi -- encountered that night and their frustration that air support was not sent from nearby Sigonella air base. In recent weeks, Fox News has learned that the rescue unit that left Tripoli was told that air support would be above when they landed in Benghazi. It wasn't.
Members of the Special Operations teams sent from Fort Bragg, N.C. and the Commander's In Extremis Force in nearby Croatia also say they were never given permission to enter Libya, even though some were just a short flight away in Europe.
The hearing Wednesday comes amid a broadening threat to U.S. interest across North Africa. There are reports that some of the attackers who took hostages in the deadly raid on an Algeria gas plant may have also participated in the Libya attack.
"Benghazi did not happen in a vacuum," Clinton said Wednesday, while saying later she could not verify that specific claim.She said instability has created an "expanding safe haven for terrorists" who plot into Algeria and other countries.
The Obama administration has also faced scrutiny about security requests that were denied in the months leading up to the attack. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., top Republican on the Senate committee, lamented "the spiking of the ball and the thinking that when Usama bin Laden was gone that was the end of Al Qaeda."
"We know nothing could be further from the truth," he said.
Clinton appeared to agree that the terrorist threat is far from diminished, but said that she never saw the requests from the Libya team for more security.
"I didn't see those requests, they didn't come to me," Clinton said.
Even the Obama Newspeak liberal media reported at the time that there were multiple attacks on other embassies in Benghazi, that all other nations had read the warning signs and moved out of Benghazi.
Even the liberal media reported that security staff knew immediately that the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and would have advised senior White House staff --including Hillary-- that it was clearly a terrorist attack, and that the video of the Benghazi embassy and aerial surveilance clearly showed there was no "protestors that got out of control." In less than 12 hours, 24 hours at most, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the administration had a clear image of what went down. And yet they went out and sold the false narrative of a "protest that got out of hand" for at least 8 days after the clear contradictory facts were known.
Further, there were repeated requests by Bengahzi embassy security staff and the the ambassador himself --right up to the hours of his death-- urgently requesting increased security. For MONTHS, despite the clear threat of other attacks on foreign embassies, and several bombings and other incidents to the U.S. embassy itself. Requests all rejected by state department officials, if not by Hillary Clinton herself.
If Hillary Clinton was unaware and could not anticipate the attack, or own up to the foreseeable threat after the fact, she is incompetent and unfit to hold her position, or to otherwise be trusted with the national security of the United States. She is either stupid or lying. And whatever else one thinks of Hillary, she is not stupid. She and the Obama administration had political/ideological blinders on, that made them refuse to acknowledge the clear threat to our embassy staff in Benghazi, and against the facts and the warning signs, ignored the obvious imminence of a new islamic attack on the embassy.
And she won't even own up to it, not even long after the fact.
By the way, the KNOWN terrorists caught on camera are still walking with impudence on the streets of Libya, five months later. Contrast that with how George W. Bush launched an attack on Afghanistan just weeks after the September 11 2001 attacks, and by this time had liquidated the Al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, and had acquired tons of seized intelligence about Al Qaida's plans, training and inner workings.
Obama and Hillary will never pursue the Benghazi attackers. Now that the election is over, they just want this to go away. And the partisan liberal media that voted 93% for Obama is all too eager to help them MAKE it go away.
In Benghazi hearings, Hillary Clinton storms Capitol Hill By Dana Milbank, Jan 23, 2013 11:46 PM EST
The Washington Post They blamed her mismanagement for the death of Americans in Benghazi, Libya. They accused her of a cover-up. Some even suggested that she faked an illness to avoid testifying about the attack.
On Wednesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton finally had her chance to respond to critics, and the outgoing secretary of state served up a potent brew of righteous outrage.
She began her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with restraint, and even remorse. She choked up as she described receiving flag-draped caskets at Andrews Air Force Base and hugging relatives of those killed.
But her anger boiled over when rookie Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) demanded to know why she and her aides didn’t immediately call those evacuated from Benghazi to find out whether a protest had preceded the attack. Clinton replied that she didn’t want to interfere with the FBI’s investigation — which is almost certainly what Republicans would have accused her of doing.
“That’s a good excuse,” Johnson said, scornfully.
“Well, no, it’s a fact,” Clinton retorted, growing irritated. Waving her index finger, she pointed out that much of what happened in Libya on Sept. 11 remains unknown.
“No, no, no, no,” Johnson rejoined. “We were misled that there were supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that, an assault . . . and the American people could have known that within days.”
Clinton raised her voice. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she shouted at the lawmaker. Waving her arms and then pounding the witness table with her fist, she continued: “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?”
Johnson stopped interrupting as Clinton continued. “It is, from my perspective, less important today looking backward as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice,” she said.
Johnson didn’t attempt a rebuttal. “Okay, thank you, Madam Secretary.”
It never made sense that Republicans focused less on the serious security lapses that allowed the debacle in Libya than on the supposed cover-up surrounding U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s initial claim, since disproved, that the attack had spun out of a protest.
But Clinton’s appearance on the Hill, expected to be her last before she is succeeded by John Kerry, provided a broader vindication of the one-time (and probably future) presidential candidate. There had been concern among Democrats that the Benghazi episode would mar her otherwise successful tenure at State — but in fact she is leaving the post more popular than ever.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that 67 percent of Americans view her favorably, a career high and roughly double the popularity congressional Republicans have. So when Clinton clashed with GOP lawmakers Wednesday, it had the feeling of a Hummer colliding with a Smart Car.
Senators, even Republicans, prefaced remarks with obligatory good wishes.
“You probably traveled more than any secretary of state in history and came at your job in the way we all thought you would, with hard work and diligence,” said Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the panel’s ranking Republican.
Added Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.): “As a doctor, I will tell you, I have seen you work yourself to exhaustion, not for your own benefit but for the benefit of the people of this country, and the country is grateful.”
Clinton, in heavy green jacket, dark pants and thick glasses, disarmed her critics, who sat uncomfortably through the tearful moment in her opening statement. She further preempted their criticism by readily accepting responsibility for the lapse, which occurred at lower levels.
After her dressing-down of Johnson, the questioning became less aggressive. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), although making clear his displeasure with the handling of Libya generally, was relatively subdued. “We are proud of you,” he told Clinton. “All over the world where I travel, you are viewed with admiration and respect.”
Only gadfly Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) still had the stomach to fight with Clinton. “Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi . . . I would have relieved you of your post,” he charged.
“Ohhh!” exclaimed one of Clinton’s aides, appalled.
But Paul, a man of exotic opinions, is never going to be president, and Clinton deflected his provocation with a mild reply: “I believe in taking responsibility, and I have done so.”
That may have been Clinton’s most cutting response to a critic: Letting him know he’s not worth wasting her breath.
Regardless of the liberal-media-centerpiece Washington Post's interpretation of events, this much is clear:
There were multiple attacks on several Benghazi foreign embassies and on the U.S. Benghazi embassy, including one bomb that left a 30-foot hole in the embassy perimiter wall. There were repeated requests by several embassy security staff, INCLUDING REPEATED REQUESTS BY THE BENGHAZI EMBASSADOR HIMSELF, right up until the hours of his death. Even CNN reported these facts, that the Washington Post would apparently like to bury.
The requests for increased security at the Benghazi embassy were sent up the chain in the State Department, and were denied. Hillary Clinton is head of the State Department. Hillary Clinton is responsible. Period. The End.
In addition, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has been done to apprehend and eliminate the terrorists who stormed the Benghazi embassy. Five. Months. Later. And because they can't even acknowledge that there was deliberate misinformation by her State Department and the Obama administration (which Senator Rand Paul rightly called her on) it is likely there NEVER WILL be any any retribution or (if you insist on law-enforcement terms instead of acknowledging the war it truly is) justice.
And I love the over-the-top personal contempt for Rand Paul in this Washington Post "article":
Quote:
Only gadfly Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) still had the stomach to fight with Clinton. “Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi . . . I would have relieved you of your post,” he charged.
“Ohhh!” exclaimed one of Clinton’s aides, appalled.
But Paul, a man of exotic opinions, is never going to be president, and Clinton deflected his provocation with a mild reply: “I believe in taking responsibility, and I have done so.”
No partisan spin. None at all.
If the Washington Post were objective, they would acknowledge the blatant negligence in the months before the 9-11-2012 Benghazi attack, the negligence during the attack (observed in real time by Clinton and other White House heirarchy), and the incredible negligence ongoing for many months long after the attack. More than negligence, uncaring indifference!
They don't want this investigated, they just want it to go away. As does the Washington Post and other liberal media. RAH RAH Hillary Clinton 2016!
The facts I presented that you try to spin as partisan, ARE THE FACTS.
There were multiple attacks on foreign offices in Benghazi. Multiple attacks on foreign embassies in the city. Including the U.S. embassy. All other foreign embassies, and even the Red Cross, moved out of Benghazi for specifically that reason.
The security staff appealed for greater security. Repeatedly. The AMBASSADOR HIMSELF appealed to the State Department for greater security. Repeatedly. All requests denied by Hillary Clinton's State Department. After the incident, Hillary Clinton hid out in Japan for months to avoid answering questions about the incident. After she returned, she coincidentally developed a stomach flu. After that she allegedly had a concussion that delayed her appearace before Congress and Senate hearings for several more weeks.
Beyond that nothing, absolutely NOTHING has been done to investigate the blatant failures before, during and after the 9-11-2012 Benghazi attack. And absolutely nothing has been done to capture those responsible, clearly identifiable on recorded surveilance video during the incident, but still freely walking the streets of Libya.
These are facts.
The negligence before, during and after the Sept 11th Benghazi attack, are undisputable facts.
She was better prepared, and Senators with only a few minutes each were not able to pin Hillary down.
But a superior stage performance doesn't make her right, or any less of a liar regarding virtually every aspect of the Benghazi incident. Before, during, and after the fact.
The Senetors had as much time to prepare as Hillary did and it's a whole lot easier sitting on a panel asking questions than being the one who spends hours answering them.
Bitter partisan republicans accusing her of being liar doesn't make or prove it. What lie did she tell WB?
They have about 6 minutes each. Not a lot of time, and easy for Hillary to evade the questions for six minutes with her deceitful posturing, until the next Senator's turn came up.
If 8 or 10 of them had planned their questions together in advance and worked together to make the complicated case against her (a task that alone would exceed 12 minutes, let alone the 6 given per Senator) then perhaps they could have pinned Frau Hillary down.
But they didn't, and I think that played well for Hillary to the politically uninformed. Despite that they were right, and Hillary was evading the truth, that better interrogation would have not allowed her to hide.
Amazing that she can say something like this, and still remain a viable candidate for 2016.
Just imagine if W.Bush, or any Republican, had made similar callous remarks about the deaths of Americans in uniform. DUE TO HER OWN INACTION denying multiple embassy requests for greater security, no less!
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the days leading up to the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, denied requests for additional security in that region, according to a new Congressional report.
“[A]n April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned,” the report reads.
But here’s the thing: Clinton said in her January 2013 testimony that she was not aware of any security requests for that area.
“They didn’t come to me. I didn’t approve them. I didn’t deny them,” she said, contrary to the report’s findings.
“The report also found that White House and high-ranking officials at the State Department changed CIA talking points following the attacks, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, in order to shield the State Department from ‘criticism for inadequate security levels’ on the ground in Benghazi,” the Washington Examiner’s Susan Ferrechio notes.
She continues:
It was released to all House members and comes after many Republicans in the House and Senate have called for a select committee to examine the Benghazi attacks, which the administration first blamed on demonstrators reacting to an anti-Muslim video.
For those who need a Libya refresher, the 46-page report provides a helpful timeline of the attacks and the subsequent federal investigation.
You can read the full report here: (full report attached)
The previous nonpartisan investigation found that those decisions were being made at lower levels. Seems fairly apparent that this is really about 2016. The RNC should actually be picking the tab up for the expenses here.
The previous nonpartisan investigation found that those decisions were being made at lower levels. Seems fairly apparent that this is really about 2016. The RNC should actually be picking the tab up for the expenses here.
It seems fairly apparent that the RNC are serving the people, by pressing to unveil the facts. Facts that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton have done their best to obstruct.
It's going on 8 months later. There was virtually no investigation of the Benghazi crime scene, and no arrests of the jihadists whose identifiable faces were videotaped the night of the attack. They still roam the streets freely. Eight months later, where is the testimony of the 30 or so survivors of the Benghazi attack, that under justice Dept orders can't even talk to Senators and Congressmen with top-secret intelligence clearance about what they know?
If the Obama administration had its way, there would never be any further investigation, and this story would just disappear.
AGAIN: What would the difference in media coverage be if a Republican had callously said "What difference does it make?" about four dead Americans in a very preventable and forewarned terrorist attack.
"What difference does it make?"
Virtually unreported when said by 2016 candidate Hillary Clinton. And when reported, the DNC-Newspeak media portrays it as "Hillary stood up and looked tough against Republican bullies in Senate hearings". With no mention of the four dead Americans KILLED by poor picked-on Hillary's negligence.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Benghazi Review Panel Member: Fox-Promoted GOP Claims Against Clinton Are "Total Bullshit" Blog ››› April 25, 2013 11:57 AM EDT ››› JOE STRUPP 238 A member of the independent panel that reviewed the September attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya is calling attempts by Fox News and congressional Republicans to blame Hillary Clinton for the deaths of U.S. personnel "total bullshit."
Fox News has been promoting Republican attacks blaming Hillary Clinton for security cutbacks prior to the September 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. But Richard Shinnick, a member of the five-person State Department Accountability Review Board that reviewed the Benghazi attacks last fall, says such claims are unfounded.
"Hillary Clinton was never in the loop for that," said Shinnick, a former 27-year foreign services officer. "It just doesn't make any sense to anybody who understands the State Department. They all know that the Secretary of State was never in that chain of responding to Benghazi, it just wasn't so."
On April 25, the Republican chairmen of five House committees released a report that stated Clinton's congressional testimony that she was unaware of requests for additional security at the Benghazi compound was false, citing a cable signed by Clinton that responded to one such request by calling for security cuts. Fox News, which has frequently harped on the Benghazi attack to criticize the Obama administration, quickly promoted the GOP attacks, calling them a "Benghazi Bombshell."
The Republican report specifically criticized the Accountability Review Board for failing to criticize Clinton:
The Board's finding regarding the security decisions in Benghazi, however, was limited to Diplomatic Security professionals and the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. The Committees' review shows that the leadership failure in relation to security and policy in Benghazi extended to the highest levels of the State Department, including Secretary Clinton.
But Shinnick says the claim that Clinton's signature on the cable indicates her involvement misrepresents how the State Department operates. He said many directives and orders come through that office without the secretary personally reviewing each.
"Every single cable going out is signed 'Clinton,' it is the normal procedure," Shinnick said. "Millions of cables come into the operation center every year, not thousands, millions. And they are all addressed Hillary Clinton."
"So you can make a story that Hillary saw a cable and didn't act on it or sent a cable out; it's all bullshit, it's all total bullshit," Shinnick stressed. "I can't be any clearer than that. I read those stories and fortunately or unfortunately the people on the ARB understood that. If you don't want to believe that, then go chase a story."
Specifically, the ARB report cited four State Department officials for criticism, but did not mention Clinton:
The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability appropriate for the State Department's senior ranks in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection.
However, the Board did not find that any individual U.S. Government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities, and, therefore did not find reasonable cause to believe that an individual breached his or her duty so as to be the subject of a recommendation for disciplinary action.
"I stand by that, I signed the report, the four people, that's where we tracked it through," Shinnick said.
Shinnick's past foreign service has included serving as deputy executive director of the Bureau of European and Canadian Affairs and deputy director for operations of the Foreign Buildings Office, which is now the Overseas Buildings Operations.
He noted that so many directives are issued and decisions made under Clinton that she or any Secretary of State are unable to personally review each.
"She has undersecretaries, there's deputy secretaries, they have assistant secretaries," he said. "The assistant secretaries are presidential appointees specifically responsible for those duties. I am sure there are people who would like to connect the Secretary of State to that. There could be a shortage of drinking water somewhere and [critics would say] 'why doesn't Hilary send water?'
Shinnick's comments are consistent with several media reports finding that all such messages from the State Department to diplomatic facilities abroad are sent out over the secretary's signature.
When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.
This story must be making the DNC and Soros mailing list nervous. MEM had to start a new thread about it, using Jon Stewart, of all things, as his source.
You are (most likely deliberately) obscuring the point, namely, that the Obama regime, unlike the Bush administration, attempted to cover up what happened and why.
As they said about Watergate, the coverup was worse than the crime.
You made a pun out their name. One involving farts. That's hilarious!!!! How do you think of things like that? Seriously, MEM, you should be taking over Doonsbury with that kind of cutting edge incisive politics wit.
Sorry WB but Hillary didn't insert the talking points like you and other partisans had hoped. Your team got caught trying to pass off phoney emails and now it doesn't want the folks who did the original investigation speaking in public. Rove's nonprofit political group might just have to find something else to try to fool decent people with?
And it makes fun of how the liberal media goes out of its way to avoid asking Hillary Clinton the tough questions, and --as with Obama in 2008 and 2012-- act as an auxiliary of her 2016 campaign, and do their best to filter anything that would threaten her candidacy. Despite the elephant in the room that is Benghazi.
You are trying to sell a false narrative that not even anyone among the Democrats is selling. And AS I SAID, even Democrat Senators and Congressmen were asking tough questions in the last round.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
There was a lot of news yesterday on Fox News and other conservative sources (selectively ignored by the mainstream Obama/Hillary-subservient liberal media)
Yesterday, the watchdog group Judicial Watch released a memo which it procured through the Freedom of Information act [i.e., they sued to have the papers released]. A memo by White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes dated September 14 [2012] said that Susan Rice was prepped 'to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not a broader failure of policy.' Again, that despite that CIA people in Libya and perhaps Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, telling the President and the White House the video had little to do with the murders.
This has been termed the 'smoking e-mail" equating to a smoking gun that proves the guilt of the Obama administration, deliberately manufacturing --KNOWINGLY creating-- a fake case for a Youtube video causing the Benghazi attack and killing of four embassy staff, despite clear evidence that it had nothing to do with the video, and was clearly an Ansar Al Islam (branch of Al Qaida) planned military/terrorist attack. That the Youtube video was created as a smokescreen to hide the clear negligence and weakness toward terrorism President and State Secretary Clinton, to get them through the 7 weeks leading up to the 2012 election after the attack.
Beyond that is not only the Obama administration's deception, but the complicity in that deception by the liberal media that is ongoing:
Originally Posted By: O'Reilly's editorial
The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Boston Globe made no mention of the memo today. The Washington Post ran the story on page 17. Only USA Today was responsible, putting the Benghazi e-mail story on the front page. The network news last night didn't cover the Benghazi story. MSNBC didn't cover it, nor did CNN in prime time. And this morning [the following morning] only CBS This Morning mentioned the memo. Proof that the American press [liberal mainstream media] is not honest.
They are covering up a cover-up, that might lead right to the President of the United States. Yet [thanks to selective omission of coverage] few Americans even know what's going on. While nearly everyone knows about a racist comment by a basketball [team] owner. That failure is for one reason only: to protect President Barack Obama.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Obama and his cronies watched the attack in real time for 7 hours, sat on their thumbs, and told TRULY LOYAL AND COURAGEOUS people to stand down. Then Obama neglected his responsibility as commander in chief, went to bed while the battle continued, and flew off to Las Vegas to campaign the next morning, never even asking what happened to the embassy staff the next day. THEN they made up a fake cover story about an anti-Islamic Youtube video causing the attack, on up to then-Defense secretary Robert Gates said EVERYONE knew was absolutely false.
Gregory Hicks, testifying before Congress, said that Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice, and Jay Carney fronting that story a day after he (Hicks) and everyone else knew it was false, made him sick to his stomach. And angry. He was on the edge of tears, testifying about the administration's lies, that killed people he knew personally. And he was demoted to a desk job and stripped of all authority, for simply testifying to what the true facts are.
In August 2013, it was reported by Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston of CNN that dozens of CIA operatives were on the ground in Benghazi on the night of the attack.[29] Their sources say 35 people were on the ground in Benghazi the night of attack, and 21 of those worked in the annex building. They further reported that according to their sources the agency was going to great lengths to keep what they were doing a secret, including polygraphing some of the survivors monthly in order to find out if they were talking to the media or Congress. The actions of the CIA were described as pure intimidation, with any leak risking the loss of a career. Former CIA agent Robert Baer described the frequency of the polygraphs as rare. The report also mentioned speculation on Capitol Hill that the CIA and State Department were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles from Libya, through Turkey, into the hands of Syrian rebels.
A minority of Senators from the Republican Party offered additional views:
15 people in Libya who have tried to help the FBI investigation have been killed
there were no protests prior to the attack
the U.S. State Department was resistant to cooperating with the investigation
terrorists who participated in the attacks included al-Qa'ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and the Mohammad Jamal Network
the Obama administration manipulated facts; its handling of the attacks has been "a source of confusion" and that the "Administration chose to try to frame the story in a way that minimized any connection to terrorism"
Hitlery released her new autobiography, Hard Choices, to propagandize her version of events regarding the Benghazi attack, and her actions while she was secretary of state.
With that title, I was hoping it was an expose of Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs!
It gives a chronological timeline of : (1) events in the months leading up to the 9-11-2012 Benghazi attack, and Hillary Clinton and the State Department's repeated denials of requested increased security to the embassy (2) a chronology of events the night of the attack, (3) a chronology of Obama and White House security staff's reaction to these events, and what they saw in real-time almost from the beginning, and sat on their hands. (4) How Barack Obama, Jay Carney, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton deliberately created a false narrative of "spontaneous protests" for weeks that they knew from the first day was false. and (5) how Obama skipped daily intelligence briefings FOR SIX DAYS immediately prior to the attack.
In the flood of new Obama scandals, this one has been pushed out of the spotlight.
But the second anniversary of the attack is just days away, and --of course-- the Obama administration has done its damnedest to make sure no new information has come forward.
