Kerry - We Have "More Important Things" to Worry About Than Benghazi

[red states rule]

OK, 4 US citizens are murdered and the Obama bunch has more important things to worry about?

at the 4:30 mark Kerry makes his insane comment



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mr9JbMwIkZk

[Missileman]

OK, 4 US citizens are murdered and the Obama bunch has more important things to worry about?

at the 4:30 mark Kerry makes his insane comment



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mr9JbMwIkZk

I'm no fan of Kerry or Obama, but there ARE more important things going on than what happened in Bhengazi. The real issue is that the current administration isn't doing much about those more important issues, like NK and Iran, and more than likely events are going to unfold in a manner detrimental to our national security because of their failures.

[Little-Acorn]

More important to liberals.

The deaths of American citizens serving their country in foreign lands, isn't particularly important to them.

Spreading socialism is much more important.

As an Obama administration official said when informed that guns allowed into the hands of drug cartels in Mexico during the "Fast and Furious" operation might result in American citizens being killed:

"You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs."

[jafar00]

Of course they want to make people forget about it. The Benghazi "embassy" was a base for the CIA. They don't need their secrets getting out. It would interfere in their meddling in the politics of Africa.

[jimnyc]

Of course they want to make people forget about it. The Benghazi "embassy" was a base for the CIA. They don't need their secrets getting out. It would interfere in their meddling in the politics of Africa.

And so what if it was, it's US territory, and unless they were breaking laws outside of the embassy, then they did nothing wrong. Just "being CIA" isn't a crime. What crimes did they commit there?

[aboutime]

Of course they want to make people forget about it. The Benghazi "embassy" was a base for the CIA. They don't need their secrets getting out. It would interfere in their meddling in the politics of Africa.


jafar. Keep repeating that to yourself. Since you are the only one here who really believes it.

And. Even if it was true. So what? Last time most of us checked. The CIA was a Legal Arm of the U.S. Government. Even Congress knows about the CIA.
Wanna try another lame excuse? Or will you ignore, and avoid responding to this as well?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm no fan of Kerry or Obama, but there ARE more important things going on than what happened in Bhengazi. The real issue is that the current administration isn't doing much about those more important issues, like NK and Iran, and more than likely events are going to unfold in a manner detrimental to our national security because of their failures.

Dead on accurate and just the way obama likes it. Knock us down a few pegs while allowing our enemies to advance up a few. -Tyr

[jafar00]

And so what if it was, it's US territory, and unless they were breaking laws outside of the embassy, then they did nothing wrong. Just "being CIA" isn't a crime. What crimes did they commit there?

Would it alright if they broke the law outside of the embassy grounds? What if they tried to meddle in the affairs of Libyans, but their meddling backfired resulting in the embassy attacks? Would you admit they were in the wrong then?

Here's a hypothetical for you. If as some claimed that Obama was in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas and that this relationship had resulted in the deaths of many Americans, wouldn't an armed response be justified?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Would it alright if they broke the law outside of the embassy grounds? What if they tried to meddle in the affairs of Libyans, but their meddling backfired resulting in the embassy attacks? Would you admit they were in the wrong then?

Here's a hypothetical for you. If as some claimed that Obama was in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas and that this relationship had resulted in the deaths of many Americans, wouldn't an armed response be justified?

Are you suggesting an armed response against USA, against Obama?

Careful there Jafar, Obama drones can very quietly fly over Australia too.;)

His bots/protectors will be recording your words ..:laugh:

In all of my many criticisms of him I have never suggested any harm by man be made against him!!

In fact, he is not to be touched unless it is by God and a nice little POX PLACED UPON HIS MISERABLE HEAD BY THE ALMIGHTY

I OPENLY AND SINCERELY WISH FOR DIVINE INTERVENTION....;)-Tyr

[jimnyc]

Would it alright if they broke the law outside of the embassy grounds? What if they tried to meddle in the affairs of Libyans, but their meddling backfired resulting in the embassy attacks? Would you admit they were in the wrong then?

Here's a hypothetical for you. If as some claimed that Obama was in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas and that this relationship had resulted in the deaths of many Americans, wouldn't an armed response be justified?

Hypothetical and what if - WHAT DID THEY DO WRONG THERE? You don't even have zilch for proof that they were ever stationed there, and have even less that they acted improperly. IOW, you're just bitching. One would think, based on the specific place we are discussing, that the "bad guys" would be the terrorists who committed cowardly attacks. But your radar goes to who YOU think the enemy is. Odd.

[aboutime]

Are you suggesting an armed response against USA, against Obama?

Careful there Jafar, Obama drones can very quietly fly over Australia too.;)

His bots/protectors will be recording your words ..:laugh:

In all of my many criticisms of him I have never suggested any harm by man be made against him!!

In fact, he is not to be touched unless it is by God and a nice little POX PLACED UPON HIS MISERABLE HEAD BY THE ALMIGHTY

I OPENLY AND SINCERELY WISH FOR DIVINE INTERVENTION....;)-Tyr


Tyr. Jafar isn't afraid of drones. He's more afraid of being corrected for telling lies. Which he does so well. He's nearly as good as Obama.
And, we must not forget. Cowards who hide from everyone take forever to find, and destroy. Like OBL.
Jafar has been lucky enough to keep his head down.

[red states rule]

Of course they want to make people forget about it. The Benghazi "embassy" was a base for the CIA. They don't need their secrets getting out. It would interfere in their meddling in the politics of Africa.

Jafar, everyone has the right to be an asshole but you are starting to abuse the privilege

[red states rule]

I wonder what the families of the murdered Americans think of John Kerry, Obama, and the State department right now?

The Newtown families are used as political props yet these folks are totally ignored and forgotten

[aboutime]

I wonder what the families of the murdered Americans think of John Kerry, Obama, and the State department right now?

The Newtown families are used as political props yet these folks are totally ignored and forgotten


Let us not forget.
WE VIETNAM veterans, who know the family members of 58,000 Americans these two BETRAYED....
4904

[red states rule]

Don't forget, the survivors of the embassy attack have been told to keep silent and have not been allowed to tell what happened that night

Seems this WH has alot to hide

[aboutime]

Don't forget, the survivors of the embassy attack have been told to keep silent and have not been allowed to tell what happened that night

Seems this WH has alot to hide


Now. Today. This is the date, and time all of us should be learning IF there are any Honest Politicians in Washington from EITHER party who has the GONADS, or OVARIES to finally confront...without fear, or worry about future elections...the OBAMA Administration from TOP to BOTTOM.
This stuff has all been permitted to be swept under the Liberal Liar's Bus, and the Boston bombings is just another chapter being swept away to distract from the Commission that should become the SECOND WATERGATE for this nation.

Despite how crooked Joe Biden is. We need to see Obama, and the Mrs. Standing in the door of MARINE ONE...the helo, waving Goodbye to all of the CRYING ILLITERATE AMERICANS he fooled into voting for him.
The sooner, the better.
As for Joe Biden. HE'S SIMPLY.....NEXT!

[red states rule]

Right now the most important thing that can be done regarding Benghazi - and it could be done today - is to come clean, tell the truth, and admit this administration blew it when it came to protecting our people

What doe Obama have to worry about? He will not have to face the voters again

Only his pride and ego would be damaged

But a couple rounds of golf and a few fundraisers would fix that

[aboutime]

Right now the most important thing that can be done regarding Benghazi - and it could be done today - is to come clean, tell the truth, and admit this administration blew it when it came to protecting our people

What doe Obama have to worry about? He will not have to face the voters again

Only his pride and ego would be damaged

But a couple rounds of golf and a few fundraisers would fix that


His Legacy. Don't forget...His Legacy. But then. If I were him, and had such a lousy Legacy to remind the nation.
I seriously would consider moving back to the African Continent...after collecting all of my ACORNS in Hawaii. And settling
in Kenya as their MASTER WITCH DOCTOR of LIES.

[hjmick]

Well, Benghazi was a long time ago...

[aboutime]

Well, Benghazi was a long time ago...


hjmick. I believe we are now supposed to ask "What's a Benghazi?" If we follow the Non-Leader's lead in hoping everyone will just forget, or drop the subject...at least until AFTER the 2014 elections.

[Thunderknuckles]

Of course they want to make people forget about it. The Benghazi "embassy" was a base for the CIA. They don't need their secrets getting out. It would interfere in their meddling in the politics of Africa.

Would it alright if they broke the law outside of the embassy grounds? What if they tried to meddle in the affairs of Libyans, but their meddling backfired resulting in the embassy attacks? Would you admit they were in the wrong then?

Here's a hypothetical for you. If as some claimed that Obama was in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas and that this relationship had resulted in the deaths of many Americans, wouldn't an armed response be justified?
Here's the deal Jafar. We supported Libyan independence from the Italians in '51. Modern US - Libya relations were going fine until the military coup by Gaddafi in '69. After a decade of strained relations a Libyan mob attacks and burns down our embassy in '79 and two years later the Libyan Air Force opens fire on US military aircraft training over international waters. Fast forward to present where we support a civilian uprising to oust Gadaffi and again our embassy is attacked and burned down with 4 Americans dead.

With that said, for the sake of argument I will agree with you. Yes, we used that embassy as a CIA conduit to conduct operations in Libya and possibly elsewhere. Of course we would considering we supported the Libyan people twice in their independence and twice they burned us in return. You know what? None of it matters!! Americans aren't pissed that we were attacked. History has taught that there is something in the water that makes Libyans go ape shit against Americans even after helping them. Kind of like the neighbor that asks you for a cup of sugar and sucker punches you on the way out. We get it.

What has Americans pissed off is why we didn't do anything to prevent the deaths of Americans when we had fast response, special forces stationed nearby that could have helped repel the attack and saved lives. We want to know who knew what and who failed to act. Plain and simple.

[aboutime]

Here's the deal Jafar. We supported Libyan independence from the Italians in '51. Modern US - Libya relations were going fine until the military coup by Gaddafi in '69. After a decade of strained relations a Libyan mob attacks and burns down our embassy in '79 and two years later the Libyan Air Force opens fire on US military aircraft training over international waters. Fast forward to present where we support a civilian uprising to oust Gadaffi and again our embassy is attacked and burned down with 4 Americans dead.

With that said, for the sake of argument I will agree with you. Yes, we used that embassy as a CIA conduit to conduct operations in Libya and possibly elsewhere. Of course we would considering we supported the Libyan people twice in their independence and twice they burned us in return. You know what? None of it matters!! Americans aren't pissed that we were attacked. History has taught that there is something in the water that makes Libyans go ape shit against Americans even after helping them. Kind of like the neighbor that asks you for a cup of sugar and sucker punches you on the way out. We get it.

What has Americans pissed off is why we didn't do anything to prevent the deaths of Americans when we had fast response, special forces stationed nearby that could have helped repel the attack and saved lives. We want to know who knew what and who failed to act. Plain and simple.


Thunder. Ignore jafar. He's so full of Hateful Shit...his eye color is dark brown. If Obama just thinks about farting..jafar feels it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, Benghazi was a long time ago...

So was Bush but that doesnt stop the weasels from crying -Bush's fault about so many things.
One would think Bush served the other term instead of the lying weasel obama.
But hey any excuse is a damn good one when incompetence and corruption needs to be covered up or excused. -Tyr

[aboutime]

So was Bush but that doesnt stop the weasels from crying -Bush's fault about so many things.
One would think Bush served the other term instead of the lying weasel obama.
But hey any excuse is a damn good one when incompetence and corruption needs to be covered up or excused. -Tyr


Tyr. Did you happen to hear Carney..the press idiot, and Obama liar?


http://youtu.be/YujkQbEtR8U

[red states rule]

His Legacy. Don't forget...His Legacy. But then. If I were him, and had such a lousy Legacy to remind the nation.
I seriously would consider moving back to the African Continent...after collecting all of my ACORNS in Hawaii. And settling
in Kenya as their MASTER WITCH DOCTOR of LIES.

It is also the legacy of Hillary who wants to be President

Like with Obama and no background check was done by the liberal media - Benghazi will be a four letter word by Hilliary's biggest supporters

The liberal media

[Kathianne]

I may be overly optimistic, but it seems like Obama's lovefest from much of MSM is waning. I am aware that Atkinsson was one of the few MSM reporters that have been and remain on Benghazi since 9/11:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57544026/sources-key-task-force-not-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/


Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack
CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).


"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."


Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.


The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.


Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.
CBS News has agreed not to quote directly from the emails, and to protect the identities of the sources who hold sensitive counterterrorism posts within the State Department, the U.S. military and the Justice Department.


As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News "From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."

...



This seems to jive with Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes report:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html


The Benghazi Talking Points And how they were changed to obscure the truth May 13, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 33 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES (http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/stephen-f.-hayes)

Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.


As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.


The exchange of emails is laid out in a 43-page report from the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives. Although the investigation was conducted by Republicans, leading some reporters and commentators to dismiss it, the report quotes directly from emails between top administration and intelligence officials, and it includes footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. In some cases, the report did not provide the names of the senders, but The Weekly Standard has confirmed the identities of the authors of two critical emails—one indicating the main reason for the changes and the other announcing that the talking points would receive their final substantive rewrite at a meeting of top administration officials on Saturday, September 15.


The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.

...

[red states rule]

I may be overly optimistic, but it seems like Obama's lovefest from much of MSM is waning. I am aware that Atkinsson was one of the few MSM reporters that have been and remain on Benghazi since 9/11:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57544026/sources-key-task-force-not-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/



This seems to jive with Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes report:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html

I wish you were right Kat but very little is being reported about this. The liberal media are giving as much attention to this as they are the abortion butcher in Philly. If not for Fox News neither story would have any coverage at all

Now think about how the liberal media went nuts over Bush's "16 words". US citizens were murdered but to the liberal media, how this impacts Obama and Hillary are more important

I will be interested to see how the liberal media reacts to the whistle blowers this week. Normally the liberal media give glowing coverage to whistle blowers when are whistle blowing on Republicans

Given what the attorneys say their clients will say, Chris Matthews may have to be talked in off the ledge

[red states rule]

We will soon know if all the hype over these guys is warranted. Obama is leaving town - just a coincidence I'm sure





Fox News on Saturday named three whistleblowers slated to testify during next week’s new congressional hearing on Benghazi, Libya.


Reporter Chad Pergram tweeted their names: Gregory Hicks (https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/330675803815813120), deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the September assault; Mark Thompson (https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/330675969109159936), former Marine and deputy coordinator for operations at the State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom (https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/330676149330001920), the former top security officer in Libya.


Nordstrom previously testified before the House Oversight Committee in October, when he said his superiors opposed his efforts (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/10/real-news-rep-rohrabacher-on-benghazi-attack-and-wednesday-congressional-hearings/) to build up security in Benghazi prior to the attack. Hicks and Thompson have not spoken publicly.


“This administration has offered the American people only a carefully selected and sanitized version of events from before, during, and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said in a statement announcing Wednesday’s hearing. “Not surprisingly, this version of events casts senior officials in the most favorable light possible.”


“Last October, the Oversight Committee exposed State Department denials of security requests made by our diplomats in Libya and forced the Obama administration to concede that there never was a protest of a YouTube video,” the statement said. “Next week’s hearing will expose new facts and details that the Obama administration has tried to suppress.”


Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) last week promised “explosive” Benghazi hearings (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/27/gop-rep-promises-explosive-benghazi-hearings-are-coming/) were coming and said, “direct testimony by eyewitnesses is always the most compelling.”


U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, State Department information management officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs and security specialists Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in the attack.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/04/names-of-3-whistleblowers-set-to-testify-on-benghazi-revealed/

[red states rule]

No wonder Obama is leaving town on a campaign tour. He does not want to be around when these guys talk




Benghazi whistleblower: U.S. special forces were told to stand down during attack

The alleged source: Greg Hicks (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/), the same State Department deputy whose jaw dropped (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/06/diplomat-to-testify-that-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-beginning/) when he heard Susan Rice equivocating about whether the consulate attack was pre-planned or not.


Who told SOCAFRICA they couldn’t go to Benghazi?

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.


According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound “when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”…
“I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them,” Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.
More from Hicks via the Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2528939#.UYfWAjNqn0M.twitter):

“They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it,” Hicks added. “So, anyway, and yeah. I still remember Colonel Gibson, he said, ‘I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.’ A nice compliment.”
He added that “at that time, the third attack, the mortar attack at 5:15, had not yet occurred, if I remember correctly.”…
Hicks is certain that the special forces team was needed. “We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum,” he said in the interview.
No way to know if Gibson’s team would have made it to the scene in time to save Doherty and Woods from the attack on the annex if they had received the order to leave promptly, but that’s beside the point. The point, as Stephen Hayes (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/us-military-tripoli-ordered-not-go-benghazi_720894.html) notes, is that it was unclear at the time if the fighting was over, in which case there’s no obvious reason to have them stand down. On the contrary, if Hicks is right about a threadbare security presence at the consulate — and we know from many, many revelations last fall that he is — then the White House had every reason to err on the side of sending extra military assets. When asked why that didn’t happen, Hicks replied, “I guess they just didn’t have the right authority from the right level.” Any theories as to why that might be (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/06/whistleblower-hillary-cut-states-counter-terrorism-bureau-out-of-benghazi-loop/)? Remember, when Martin Dempsey testified three months ago as to why U.S. troops weren’t sent to the scene, he said (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/07/dempsey-state-department-never-asked-us-to-respond-to-benghazi/), “we never received a request for support from the State Department.” Hicks, who was Stevens’s deputy at State, obviously thought support was needed. Who intervened above him to make sure the request wasn’t sent?


Question: Are we to understand that it’s official Obama administration policy not to intervene in attacks on U.S. diplomats unless intelligence on the ground is perfect, or near perfect? I ask because last year Panetta attempted to wave away all these concerns about troops not being sent to the consulate during the fighting on grounds that (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/26/panetta-we-didnt-defend-consulate-under-attack-because-of-a-lack-of-intel/) “you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.” That logic, as applied to the “bare minimum” security presence at Benghazi, suggests that the White House decided to leave whoever was left on the ground at the consulate to fend for themselves while waiting for “help” from Libyan security so that it didn’t have to take the political risk of another Mogadishu by sending American troops on a chaotic rescue mission. Is that what happened here? And is it uniform policy for diplomats in peril, or just ones who happen to come under attack two months before a presidential election?


http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/06/reports-benghazi-whistleblower-claims-u-s-special-forces-were-told-to-stand-down-during-attack/

[red states rule]

Looks like Hillary may have tried to cover up what happened

Oh well, what difference does it make?





Whistleblower: Hillary cut State’s counter-terrorism bureau out of Benghazi loop

In the previous post, I noted that Darrell Issa’s witnesses in the House Oversight hearings on Benghazi would make life difficult for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/) reported late yesterday that one witness in particular will testify that Hillary purposefully cut out of the loop the State Department’s bureau for counter-terrorism as Benghazi burned — which will prompt all sorts of questions as to why any Secretary of State would make that decision:

On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a “whistle-blower” witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.


That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.


Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau — independently of Thompson — voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.
Thompson considers himself a whistleblower, Fox reports, and wanted to tell this story all along — but the Accountability Review Board suppressed it:

Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.


Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to — and characterize — the Benghazi attacks.


“You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,” the second official in State’s counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson’s forthcoming testimony.
To quote Hillary, what difference at this point would it make? It’s about to rain all over her 2016 parade by painting her as an incompetent, of course, but that’s actually a by-product of her own choices. The bigger issue now is the cover-up. Why would the Obama administration try to keep a counter-terrorism response group on the sidelines during a terrorist attack? Who got to the ARB and made it into a CYA exercise rather than a real investigation?


Who knew what, and when?


Stay tuned, because Issa’s carrying dynamite, and it’s not clear exactly how the explosion will manifest itself. Expect lower-level officials to throw themselves on it to protect both Obama and Clinton, but so far it looks like higher-level officials want to go on the record, and that’s bad news for the White House


http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/06/whistleblower-hillary-cut-states-counter-terrorism-bureau-out-of-benghazi-loop/

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz050713dAPR20130507014519.jpg

[red states rule]

When I read/listen to the liberal media "report" on yesterdays hearing, i wonder if they actually listened to what was said. But I suspect they had their "news story" written before the hearing even started




Whistleblower’s yarn fails to tie Benghazi lapses to politics

They summoned a whistleblower to Capitol Hill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/house-committee-holds-hearing-on-benghazi-attacks/2013/05/08/639da672-b7ea-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html), but instead they got a virtuoso storyteller.


Gregory Hicks (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/witness-opening-statements-at-may-8-hearing-on-benghazi-attacks/138/#hicks), the No. 2 U.S. diplomat in Libya the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was to be the star witness for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the man leading the probe of the Obama administration’s handling of the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.

But despite Issa’s incautious promise that the hearing’s revelations would be “damaging” to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hicks didn’t lay a glove on the former secretary of state Wednesday. Rather, he held lawmakers from both parties rapt as he recounted the events of that terrifying night — revealing a made-for-Hollywood plot with a slow, theatrical delivery and genuine emotion.


He spoke of watching TV at his residence in Tripoli when a security officer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-whistleblowers-yarn-fails-to-tie-benghazi-lapses-to-politics/2013/05/08/fb436cd4-b82e-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html#) “ran into my villa yelling, ‘Greg! Greg! The consulate’s under attack.’ ” He described his brief final phone conversation with Stevens, 600 miles away: “He said, ‘Greg, we’re under attack. . . . And I said, ‘Okay,’ and the line cut.”


He detailed the frantic effort to call in fighter jets from a U.S. base in Italy (“It would take two to three hours for them to get on-site” and there “were no tankers available for them to refuel”). He sipped water to regain his composure after recounting the “saddest phone call I have ever had in my life” — learning (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-whistleblowers-yarn-fails-to-tie-benghazi-lapses-to-politics/2013/05/08/fb436cd4-b82e-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html#) from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens had been killed. And he told of the hasty retreat from the United States’ diplomatic compound in Tripoli, where a similar attack was feared.


His yarn before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee mentioned embassy office manager Amber Pickens carrying ammunition to the getaway vehicles and smashing hard drives with an ax, as well as the rescue-by-ladder of a severely wounded David Ubben from the mortar attack that killed two others.


Hicks went on for 39 minutes — far beyond the customary five-minute allowance — and nobody objected until Issa finally paused the storytelling so lawmakers could pose questions.


Hicks had his grievances with how events in Benghazi were handled, but his gripes were about bureaucratic squabbles rather than political scandal. And this whistleblower spent a good bit of time tooting his own horn. “I earned a reputation for being an innovative policymaker who got the job (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-whistleblowers-yarn-fails-to-tie-benghazi-lapses-to-politics/2013/05/08/fb436cd4-b82e-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html#) done. I was promoted quickly and received numerous awards,” Hicks informed the lawmakers. “I have two master’s degrees. . . . I speak fluent Arabic. . . . I fast became known as the ambassador’s bulldog because of my decisive management styles. . . . Incoming charge Larry Pope told me personally that my performance was near-heroic.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-whistleblowers-yarn-fails-to-tie-benghazi-lapses-to-politics/2013/05/08/fb436cd4-b82e-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html

[CSM]

and thus we have the answer as to how the whistle blowers will be denigrated, dismissed and destroyed. The 5th estate (or, as I perceive it, the liberal lackey) will sneer, belittle and demonize anyone daring to impugn the sitting president or his administration.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I wish you were right Kat but very little is being reported about this. The liberal media are giving as much attention to this as they are the abortion butcher in Philly. If not for Fox News neither story would have any coverage at all

Now think about how the liberal media went nuts over Bush's "16 words". US citizens were murdered but to the liberal media, how this impacts Obama and Hillary are more important

I will be interested to see how the liberal media reacts to the whistle blowers this week. Normally the liberal media give glowing coverage to whistle blowers when are whistle blowing on Republicans

Given what the attorneys say their clients will say, Chris Matthews may have to be talked in off the ledge

Chris doesn't enjoy the protected status that the President does so I can and will say, lets hope the bastard goes onto the ledge and actually jumps. Or even is pushed by somebody that is as fed up with his lying,dumbass bullshit and outright treason as I am. FF-him.....I despise the worthless bastard.-Tyr

[red states rule]

The NY Times has circled the wagons around Hillary and ignored what came out of the hearings - and have begun their defense of the indefensible





WASHINGTON — A veteran diplomat gave a riveting minute-by-minute account on Wednesday of the lethal terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, last Sept. 11 and described its contentious aftermath at a charged Congressional hearing that reflected the weighty political stakes perceived by both parties.

During a chaotic night at the American Embassy in Tripoli, hundreds of miles away, the diplomat, Gregory Hicks, got what he called “the saddest phone call I’ve ever had in my life” informing him that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was dead and that he was now the highest-ranking American in Libya. For his leadership that night when four Americans were killed, Mr. Hicks said in nearly six hours of testimony, he subsequently received calls from both Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama.


But within days, Mr. Hicks said, after raising questions about the account of what had happened in Benghazi offered in television (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/politics/official-offers-account-from-libya-of-benghazi-attack.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all&_r=0#) interviews by Susan E. Rice, the United Nations ambassador, he felt a distinct chill from State Department superiors. “The sense I got was that I needed to stop the line of questioning,” said Mr. Hicks, who has been a Foreign Service officer for 22 years.


He was soon given a scathing review of his management (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/politics/official-offers-account-from-libya-of-benghazi-attack.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all&_r=0#) style, he said, and was later “effectively demoted” to desk officer at headquarters, in what he believes was retaliation for speaking up.


House Republican leaders made the hearing the day’s top priority, postponing floor votes so that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform could continue without interruption. The Obama administration appeared focused on the testimony, with senior officials at the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon responding through the day to Republican accusations of incompetence and cover-up in campaign war room style.


In the balance, in the view of both Democrats and Republicans, is not just the reputation of Mr. Obama but also potentially the prospects for the 2016 presidential election as well, since Mrs. Clinton, who stepped down in February, is the Democratic Party’s leading prospect. If the testimony did not fundamentally challenge the facts and timeline of the Benghazi attack and the administration’s response to it, it vividly illustrated the anxiety of top State Department officials about how the events would be publicly portrayed.


Mr. Hicks offered an unbecoming view of political supervision and intimidation inside the Obama administration. When Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, visited Libya after the attack, Mr. Hicks said his bosses told him not to talk to the congressman. When he did anyway, and a State Department lawyer was excluded from one meeting because he lacked the necessary security clearance (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/politics/official-offers-account-from-libya-of-benghazi-attack.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all&_r=0#), Mr. Hicks said he received an angry phone call from Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.


“So this goes right to the person next (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/politics/official-offers-account-from-libya-of-benghazi-attack.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all&_r=0#) to Secretary of State Clinton. Is that accurate?” asked Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio. Mr. Hicks responded, “Yes, sir.”
A State Department official said Mr. Hicks had been free to talk to Mr. Chaffetz, but that department policy required a department lawyer to be present during interviews for any Congressional investigation.


In a statement late Wednesday, a State Department spokesman, Patrick H. Ventrell, said the department had not and would not retaliate against Mr. Hicks. Mr. Ventrell noted that Mr. Hicks “testified that he decided to shorten his assignment in Libya following the attacks, due to understandable family reasons.” He said that Mr. Hicks’s current job was “a suitable temporary assignment” at the same salary, and that he had submitted his preferences for his next job.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/politics/official-offers-account-from-libya-of-benghazi-attack.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all&_r=0