CONGRESSMAN: HILLARY BUSTED IN MONSTER ‘LIE’


Hillary on Benghazi - 'What difference does it make'

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before he Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 23, 2013 – “What difference does it make?”

Yesterday I cross posted the James Rosen article summarizing what Obama was actually aware of pertaining to the Benghazigate Scandal. To summarize what knowledge Obama had about the Islamic terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Steven with one word – LIAR. Obama lied AND the President told his Administration surrogates to lie (such as Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Jay Carney).

 

Undoubtedly the Mainstream Media will twist some propaganda to make lite of one these so-called Obama phony scandals so below is another perspective based on an interview with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) conducted by WND’s Garth Kant that focuses on the next Dem Party darling in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

 

JRH 1/16/14

 

Please Support NCCR

***************************

CONGRESSMAN: HILLARY BUSTED IN MONSTER ‘LIE’

‘I heard her with my own ears’

By GARTH KANT 

January 14, 2014

WorldNetDaily

 

WASHINGTON — President Obama has problems with credibility, as the world well knows after he disingenuously insisted, “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan” about two dozen times in public.

 

Now, it turns out, the Democrat most political observers believe will try to replace Obama as president apparently also has problems telling the truth.

 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about Benghazi, a congressman who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Libya told WND.

He said she also lied to Congress.

 

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was unequivocal when WND asked him, “What makes you so certain that Hillary Clinton lied?”

 

“Because,” King replied, “I heard her with my own ears.”

 

And, what contradicted her?

 

“The facts.”

 

King also had a blistering response to a famous question posed by Clinton.

 

During a Senate committee hearing Jan. 23, 2013, when asked what caused the death of four Americans in Benghazi, Clinton responded indignantly, “At this point, what difference does it make?”

 

WND asked King if he had an answer for her.

 

“The reason it makes a difference, Hillary Clinton, is because this administration lied to the American people. Her voice was one of those voices that lied to the American people.”

WND VIDEO: Part 1 Kant Interviewing Rep. King

 

The congressman related how Clinton and other administration officials were dishonest when they briefed Congress within a week of the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith and CIA security contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.

 

King said he could not divulge what was said during a classified briefing he attended, but, “I will just tell you that the administration’s officials told the same lies to members of Congress in a classified setting that they told the public five times on Sunday.”

 

He was referring to appearances on five political talk shows by then-Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on Sept. 16, 2012, during which she claimed the attack was a spontaneous protest inspired by anger over an obscure anti-Muslim video on the Internet.

 

“We know that’s false,” King told WND. “On top of that, we know they knew it was false. They knew within three hours that it was a calculated, strategized attack by an organized enemy on that compound and that annex in Benghazi.”

 

Strong confirmation of King’s version of events has just come to light, as newly declassified documents show top defense officials briefed Obama that a terrorist attack was underway in Benghazi not long after it began.

 

During a classified, closed-door hearing last year, Gen. Carter Ham, who was responsible for U.S. forces in North Africa, testified that he very quickly got to the point and told then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that it was a terrorist attack and not a protest.

 

Panetta and Dempsey then met immediately with Obama.

 

Last February, Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he told Obama “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.”

 

Panetta said, “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack.”

 

And yet, for the next few weeks, as the 2012 presidential election reached the crucial home stretch, a number of aides to both Clinton and Obama repeatedly insisted there was no evidence the attack on Benghazi was planned, but it appeared to be protest that turned violent.

 

That was contradicted by testimony on May 8, 2013, by U.S. diplomat Gregory Hicks, who was in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack.

 

He, and two other key witnesses agreed, there was no basis for Rice to claim the attack began as a protest of an anti-Islamic film. And yet, Obama and Clinton repeatedly made that claim in the hours and days after the incident.

 

Hicks pointedly said he was “stunned” by Rice’s response to the Benghazi attack.

 

“My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” he said.

 

Hicks was asked if there was any indication of a protest in Benghazi in response to the Internet video.

 

“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” he said.

 

“We know from the testimony,” King told WND. “We know it wasn’t the movie. It is a fact that it wasn’t the movie.”

 

He also pointed out that people who worked in the intelligence community as well as the State Department have testified under oath that they knew the movie did not trigger the attack.

 

“And they (administration officials) have not retracted them. They were dishonest,” King flatly stated.

 

The congressman made the blunt assertions to WND in his first published remarks following a recent trip he organized to hotspots in North Africa and the Middle East, with Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

WND VIDEO: Part 2 Kant Interviewing Rep. King

 

The Iowan had more answers to Clinton’s question, “What difference does it make?”

 

He said, of course, the loss of Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans “who stood there bravely to defend that compound” was a “significant tragedy.”

 

But, he called the truth an even bigger casualty.

 

“[T]he biggest tragedy of this is this administration came forward within days and began to misinform the American people on what took place in Benghazi.”

 

That’s because, King insisted, “It’s a tragedy when the integrity of the presidency and the administration of President Obama, or any president of the United States, can be sacrificed for a political agenda.”

 

The congressman noted that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates described in his new book how then-senator and presidential candidate Clinton took a position against the surge in Iraq in the presidential primary contests in 2008 for political reasons.

 

“If political decisions are made on war policy in Iraq when you’re campaigning for office, and if political conditions were part of the decision as to whether there would be a surge in Afghanistan, that’s also part of Gate’s book, then those two things all but confirm that the story that the administration promoted coming out of Benghazi was a political story, designed to cover,” charged King.

 

And why did they need cover? Because they were in the peak of the president’s re-election campaign, said the congressman.

 

He said the administration “should have told the American people the straight-up truth as soon as they knew it,” but instead, “they continue to cover-up Benghazi and the only reason they’ve been allowed to do it is a media that is, for a large part, complicit.”

Conceivably, that could derail presidential ambitions Clinton might harbor.

Judge Andrew Napolitano says the former secretary of state could be prosecuted if she did, in fact, lie.

 

“Lying to Congress carries the same criminal liability and the same punishment as lying under oath to Congress. I’m not suggesting that Mrs. Clinton lied, but I’m saying that a case could be made out, either legally in a courtroom if a prosecutor wanted to, and certainly politically in a public sphere should she decide to seek higher office,” Napolitano said, the day after Hicks testified to Congress that the video played absolutely no role in the Benghazi attack.

WMD VIDEO: Judge Andrew Napolitano on Benghazi Lies

 

When WND asked King if those he spoke with in Libya share his observations about the attack on Benghazi, he said it depends on who you talk to.

 

He had nothing but praise for U.S. Ambassador to Libya Deborah Jones, calling her “excellent” and “terrific.”

 

“She’s in a very dangerous place, and she has a very difficult task. She’s upbeat, she’s knowledgeable,” and King said all of their discussions encouraged him that “we’ve got a good State Department operating in Libya.”

 

Follow Garth Kant on Twitter @DCgarth

________________________________

© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest


CIA References Benghazi to al Qaeda

Unclassified documents of recent House investigations of Benghazigate clearly paints a different picture than the Obama Administration PR and also throws mud in the face of a NY Times investigation that vainly attempted to validate the Obama Administration. Obama at the top and a handful of high placed officials on the Military and government were fully aware that the Benghazi attack was an orchestrated Islamic terrorist attack rather than a spontaneous riot due to a sophomoric anti-Mohammed/anti-Islam film.

 

Fox News has an excellent summary of the revelations in the documents exposing Obama, Hillary and the Administration as a bunch of liars to the people of the United States of America. After I cross post the Fox News Story the website Stand Up America has PDF links to some of those documents which still has some redaction involved.

 

JRH 1/15/14 (Hat Tip: Infidels United)

 

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

 

By James Rosen

January 14, 2014

Fox News

 

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

 

Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing — occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.

 

According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham — who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 — said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.

 

“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,'” Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.”

 

Ham’s account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under “Top Secret” clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America’s national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.

 

Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous “happenstance” that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.” Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.

 

Armed Services Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee’s hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.

 

Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night — as Obama’s hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch — that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue.

 

“In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta,” McKeon asked, “was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?” Ham initially testified that there was some “peripheral” discussion of this subject, but added “at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for.”

 

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that “the nature of the conversation” he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that “this was a terrorist attack.”

 

The transcript reads as follows:

 

WENSTRUP: “As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack.”

 

HAM: “Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.”

 

WENSTRUP: “And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?”

 

HAM: “Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”

 

Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.” “Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied.

 

Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately — from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts — that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive “tick-tock” of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: “What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

“That is a question that you would have to ask others,” replied one of the senior officials. “That was not our conclusion.”

 

Ham’s declassified testimony further underscores that Obama’s earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for Benghazi.

 

The day after the attacks, which marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since 1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show “The View,” when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been “an act of terrorism,” the president hedged, saying: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation.”

 

The declassified transcripts show that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to label the incident a terrorist attack. In a classified session on July 31 of last year, Westrup raised the question with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM’s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region.

 

Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to “a considerable event unfolding in Libya.” Bristol’s next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that “there was a fight going on” at the consulate compound.

 

WESTRUP: “So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -“

 

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir.”

 

WENSTRUP: “– on the United States?”

 

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir. … We referred to it as the attack.”

 

Staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, and are close to issuing what they call an “interim” report on the affair. Fox News reported in October their preliminary conclusion that U.S. forces on the night of the Benghazi attacks were postured in such a way as to make military rescue or intervention impossible — a finding that buttresses the claims of Dempsey and other senior Pentagon officials.

 

While their investigation continues, staffers say they still want to question Panetta directly. But the former defense secretary, now retired, has resisted such calls for additional testimony.

 

“He is in the president’s Cabinet,” said Rep. Martha Roby R-Ala., chair of the panel that collected the testimony, of Panetta. “The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what’s going on, and I honestly think that that’s why you have seen — beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans’ lives — is that the American people feel misled.”

 

“Leon Panetta should have spoken up,” agreed Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush and now a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have.”

 

Neither Panetta’s office nor the White House responded to Fox News’ requests for comment.

 

James Rosen joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 1999. He currently serves as the chief Washington correspondent and hosts the online show “The Foxhole.”

_______________________________

Top Secret Transcripts Revealed on Benghazi

 

Posted by SUAadmin

January 13, 2014

Stand Up America

 

Editor’s Note – We have been hearing that much is due to be released on Benghazi that to date has been hidden, lied about, or just plain stonewalled. Below is the official release from the Armed Services Committee, through its Chairmen, Buck McKeon (R-CA 25).

 

It is clearly time for all the facts to come out and for those who have broken the law, or tried to obstruct the committee’s investigation to be held fully accountable.

 

These recently de-classified documents relating to Benghazi, with some redaction, demonstrates an enduring power struggle between the Dept. of Defense and the State Department when it came to protection of U.S. sovereign territory in foreign countries.  Due to the tacit and a non-agreed to agenda of the State Department, Hillary Clinton apparently prevailed at will.

 

Mrs. Clinton mobilized friends for the creation of an Accountability Review Board that performed a shallow and political investigation into the attack on the two U.S. compounds in Benghazi resulting in the death of 4 Americans, but what is most revealing is that the final decision to send military aid to Benghazi rested with Barack Obama.

 

In the end, Hillary Clinton kept her global reputation and Barack Obama never made a rescue call, telling us that politics were more important than saving the lives of the four and endangering up to as many as 40 others in Benghazi. They were left in abject peril for political reasons. Sadly, the lies of Benghazi are now proven.

 

Declassified Transcripts of Benghazi Briefings Released

 

Armed Services Committee Examined Actions Of Military Chain Of Command Before, During, and After Attack

 

WASHINGTON— The House Armed Services Committee today released a series of recently declassified transcripts of briefings on the September 11th 2012 attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya. The briefings were conducted by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations then chaired by Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL), though they were open to all members of the Committee and attended by Members off the Committee.

 

The briefings, which took place over the course of several months, were part of the Committee’s examination of the actions of the military chain of command before, during, and after the attack. A report summarizing the conclusion of the HASC Oversight & Investigations majority Members draw from these briefings is expected to be released later this week.

 

Read the transcripts linked below:

 

o   Transcript #11_Briefing transcript (redacted), “DOD’s preparation for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” (Part I, Session I, DOD), May 21, 2013.pdf (3.7 MBs)

 

o   Transcript #22_Briefing transcript (redacted), “DOD’s preparation for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” (Part I, Session II DOD), May 21, 2013.pdf (642.4 KBs)

 

o   Transcript #33_Briefing transcript (redacted), “DOD’s preparation for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” (Part II, AFRICOM), June 26, 2013.pdf (9.2 MBs)

 

o   Transcript #44_Briefing transcript (redacted), “DOD’s preparation for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” (Part III, Colonel Bristol), July 31, 2013.pdf (10.8 MBs)

 

o   Transcript #55_Hearing transcript, “DOD’s posture for September 11, 2013,” (Part IV, Force Posture), September 19, 2013.pdf (691.9 KBs)

 

o   Transcript #66_Briefing transcript (redacted), “DOD’s force posture in anticipation of September 11, 2012,” (Part V, General Dempsey), October 10, 2013.pdf (2.3 MBs)

_________________________________

The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

 

©2014 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

______________________________

Top Secret Transcripts Revealed on Benghazi

 

Copyright © 2010 – 2014 Stand Up America US. All rights reserved.

 

About SUA

 

The Standard Bearer for the Conservancy of the Constitution

Who We Are:

 

The Stand Up America US Project (SUA) was founded in 2005 by MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret), as a multi-media organization that involves publishing, radio, television, speaking engagements, web site, writing articles for publication as well as books. This site is meant as a resource for education, based upon the values and principles set forth by our founding fathers. It is our goal to inform, clarify, and speak truth to power. We are a network of patriotic Americans from all walks of life including former members of the military, former federal, state, and local employees of government, analysts, writers, world leaders, and our group extends across the globe.

 

SUA is also an intelligence gathering and analyzing group that is and has briefed our government leadership on all manners of international interest, terrorism, and anything that affects the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of our citizenry and way of life. SUA has briefed the FBI, Congress, law enforcement, and many other agencies. All our work is based on the following conservative values, and principals:

 

o   The United States of America’s CONSTITUTION – The intent of our Founding Fathers;

 

o   American Exceptionalism, and the grand experiment of representative republicanism;

 

o   Upholding all our 1st Amendment Rights;

 

o   Upholding all our 2nd Amendment Rights;

 

o   Upholding all our 10th Amendment Rights;

 

o   The Rule-of-Law, not of man or men, nor cult of personality;

 

o   Strong National Defense and Secure Borders;

 

o   National  and State Sovereignty;

 

o   Capitalism and Western economic values;

 

o   A safe and secure Israel;

 

o   Supporting Our Uniformed Services and Veterans;

 

o   Individual Liberties and Personal Responsibility;

 

o   Fiscally-Responsible, Limited Government;

 

o   Reclaiming our Republic and returning to the original intent of the Constitution, and more!

 

Mission Statement

 

Stand Up America US was created to be an educational forum based upon the values and principles that our founding fathers intended for the creation of the greatest form of government ever conceived and implemented. Based upon the convictions set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the creation of the Constitution, and the rights endowed by our creator, basing our future on such things as the Federalist Papers, The Law Of Nations, and the READ THE REST

Flag Draped Coffins


Benghazi Heroes BHO Bumps-Road

As I recall Obama and Clinton meeting flag-draped coffins of four brave Americans in feigned respect, I am ashamed of a people who could reelect such a thing to the Office of the President. A president should always strive for more than “adequate,” because to be merely adequate is meeting only a bare minimum of requirements” (Justin O. Smith; Flag Draped Coffins; 2/25/13)

 

Justin Smith properly castigates President Barack Hussein Obama and his Administration over Benghazigate. The above quote is there to wet the thirst of your curiosity.

 

JRH 2/26/13

Please Support NCCR    

*******************************

Flag Draped Coffins

 

By Justin O. Smith

February 25, 2013 at 2:27pm

Smith Facebook Notes

 

While I understand the current mission of the U.S. African Command to counter, stop and destroy Islamist militants and to fight terrorism without being drawn into a major conflict, the lack of preparation and the ignored warnings prior to the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. facilities at Benghazi are inexcusable and indefensible; repeatedly we have heard Obama and everyone associated with his administration declare that the U.S. response to these attacks was “adequate.” But more than this, as more facts are uncovered, no doubt is left that this administration is incompetent, and it is engaged in a cover-up of mammoth proportions.

 

Many Democrats call any criticism concerning the events surrounding the Benghazi slaughter “GOP political pandering,” but whatever your party affiliation, it is incomprehensible and beyond incompetence that Gen. Carter Ham did not request any additional forces to be on hand on the anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, despite his belief that the intelligence did not indicate an imminent attack. Ham must have been struck deaf, dumb and blind, because nothing else explains such a casual dismissal of, at the very least, ten months of communiqués and memos from the Benghazi Consulate that indicated a dire and increasingly dangerous situation looming on the horizon. And on that same note, one must wonder, as heads of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB), what bribe or coercion influenced retired Admiral Mike Mullen and retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering to find the Obama administration’s response to these attacks “adequate.”

 

I also wonder if Obama himself or Hillary Clinton has explained to the families of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Dogherty just how “adequate” the response really was? I’ll bet Tyrone Woods thought the response was “adequate” as he painted the terrorists’ mortar armed position with a laser and waited for it to be bombed by a drone or jet fighter from Aviano Airbase (Italy)… right up until he cursed Obama with his last dying gasp.

 

In conjunction with Glenn Dogherty’s Libyan mission to recover advanced weapons systems, such as SA-7 missiles from the hands of the Islamists, Ambassador Stevens was negotiating a weapons transfer and removal of SA-7s from the hands of Libyan extremists on the night of 9/11; FoxNews recently reported that the Libyan vessel ‘Al Entisar’ arrived in the Turkish port of Iskenderun, just 35 miles from the Syrian border, on September 6 with a cargo of RPGs, shoulder launched missiles and surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles. Add to this Stevens’ meeting with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin the night Stevens was murdered, and it is not far-fetched, rather highly likely, that the Obama administration has been running weapons through Turkey to the rebels in Syria, mostly comprised of Islamists and Al Qaeda and enemies of the U.S.

 

Although Clinton stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “I am determined to leave the State Dept and our country safer, stronger and more secure,” her determination on 9/11/12 was focused on joining in the spinning of the story, the obfuscation and outright lies originating with Obama. Clinton was actually notified of the attacks around 4PM and about an hour before Obama was notified by Leon Panetta. Apparently they sat on their thumbs and spun afterwards, despite Clinton’s claim that “we kept talking with everyone through the night.” But through a response garnered by Senator Lindsey Graham’s efforts in blocking Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense, we know neither Clinton nor Obama attempted to contact government officials in Libya to help rescue our U.S. citizens that night, if time and logistics really were the problem; however, Obama did call Clinton at 10PM, and it was “about 10PM” when the State Dept released Clinton’s statement (FactCheck.org) entitled ‘Statement on the Attack in Benghazi’, which linked the attacks to an anti-Islamic video.

 

While the attacks were still ongoing, a lot of time was wasted simply doing nothing and fretting about political futures rather than saving American lives. When asked about Panetta’s and Gen. Dempsey’s Senate testimony that they weren’t in touch with the White House after their meeting ended at 5:30PM, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated, “They said they hadn’t spoken with the president. The president has a National Security Advisor… He has a Deputy National Security Advisor and remember he had already spoken with… the Secretary of Defense, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.” And with pin-point accuracy, Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) February 7th questioning of Panetta before the Armed Services Committee exposes Carney’s lie: “Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?” Panetta answered, “No.”

 

After Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc) placed Hillary Clinton on the spot regarding the fact that no protest existed prior to the attack, Clinton angrily retorted, “What difference… does it make?” The difference it makes is this, Mrs Clinton: Your outright lying and collaboration with Obama in this matter created a delay that cost Tyrone Woods and Glenn Dogherty their lives; no good reason can be given for not having ordered an airstrike on the terrorists’ position. And for fear of forced retirement and other curious reasons, some of the upper echelon military ranks have lost their spine, as they support the Democratic Party line, Obama’s position and the delusive findings of the ARB!

 

As I recall Obama and Clinton meeting flag-draped coffins of four brave Americans in feigned respect, I am ashamed of a people who could reelect such a thing to the Office of the President. A president should always strive for more than “adequate,” because to be merely adequate is meeting only a bare minimum of requirements; while Jay Carney quotes page 37 of the ARB report, “the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack… was the result of exceptional… military response…,” an immense number of accomplished military minds such as Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer and Gen. William Boykin, ex-Commander of U.S. Special Forces, have refuted this analysis, which leaves dozens of unanswered questions: Why haven’t Americans heard from the surviving diplomatic security officer, who saw the attack begin and alerted the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli that they were under siege? … Why haven’t we heard the testimony of the thirty-two survivors, who Gen. C.K. Hyde confirms were evacuated to Ramstein Airbase (Germany)? … Why didn’t the Turkish Consul General warn Ambassador Stevens about the Al Qaeda checkpoints after he left at 8:35 PM Benghazi time? It doesn’t matter that protocol and standard operating procedures were followed and the response was “adequate.” Whatever happened to initiative and rising above and beyond the call of duty? No doubt remains that Tyrone Woods and Glenn Dogherty’s deaths were unnecessary, preventable and lay on Obama’s head!

 

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; or close the wall up with our American dead. In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility: But when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage.” -literary license taken with Shakespeare’s ‘Henry the Fifth’

 

Justin O. Smith

__________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Explanatory links are provided by the editor.

© Justin O. Smith