Benghazigate: Hillary Clinton Speaks

© Miri WTPOTUS January 23, 2013

Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_shakes_hands_With_Prince_Mohammed_bin_Naif_bin_Abdulaziz_2013-01-16 - Copy

Today Hillary Clinton is finally going to tell her version of what happened in Benghazi, when four Americans lost their lives to Al Qaeda-associated jihadists.  Will it be more kabuki theater? Will she answer these questions?

What exactly was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11?

What exactly was the function of the “annex” where CIA agents were stationed?

What was their mission in Benghazi?

Were they running guns through Libya, via Turkey, to Al Qaeda-associated “rebels” in Syria?

Where are the dozens of survivors of the attack?

Will we get answers that make sense and explain logically all of the MANY discrepancies in this story?

What was Obama doing while all this went down?

Why didn’t Obama order the military to respond to the attacks and save the lives that might have been saved?

What did Obama know, and when did he know it?

Will the families of the dead ever hear the truth, or will Hillary simply rely upon the alleged fact that she “hugged” them and “cried” along with them?

Text of her opening remarks here:

Update 3:52 p.m.:  Sharyl Attkisson of CBS posted a list of questions she posed to the government, all of which so far have gone unanswered.  It appears they refuse to answer. Will we hear any answers to these questions, EVER?  h/t Bridgette.  Following are excerpts from her article; there are questions within questions, so read at the link for more depth:

What time was Ambassador’s Stevens’ body recovered?

Who made the decision not to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) the night of the Benghazi attacks?

Who is the highest-ranking official who was aware of pre-911 security requests from US personnel in Libya?

Who is/are the official(s) responsible for removing reference to al-Qaeda from the original CIA notes?

What is your response to the President stating that on Sept. 12, he called 911 a terrorist attack, in light of his CBS interview on that date in which he answered that it was too early to know whether it was a terrorist attack?

Why wouldn’t there be [“resources outside Libya that could arrive in Benghazi/N. Africa within 8 hrs on Sept. 11, 2012”] and who would have made that decision to leave the area so open on the anniversary of 9/11?

Is anyone being held accountable for having no resources close enough to reach this high-threat area within 8+ hours on Sept. 11, and has the Administration taken steps to have resources available sooner in case of emergency in the future?

A Benghazi victim’s family member stated that Mrs. Clinton told him she would find and arrest whoever made the anti-Islam video. Is this accurate?

What is the Administration’s criteria in general for requesting removal of a YouTube or other Internet video? [They asked YouTube to take down the alleged anti-Muslim video that they blamed for the Benghazi attack.]


186 responses to “Benghazigate: Hillary Clinton Speaks

  1. which reminds me to think “and what about over there”
    oh, Venezuela and Cuba, too

  2. Hillary is a liar just like all the others in the Obama Administration. She was put on the Judicial Watch’s List of Most Corrupt Politicians! I wonder how the “Intelligence Community” is reacting to her putting them under the bus numerous times. Yet she said, she takes responsibility….for what? I didn’t hear her say anything about the lies about that damn amateur film…and that was a lie that she presented to the families of those who died at their Memorial Service. What has happened to the film maker…still in jail for something other than making the film? Who was paid $70,000 for a USA video that allegedly was sent to the Middle East – the one that she and BHO made saying they weren’t responsible for that video they were blaming for the attacks? Where is that video and who has seen it? Since when would it cost $70,000 to make a video?

    Nothing about the moving of weapons from Libya to Syria? What did she know? Where are those people that were evacuated from the compound – were there any?

    To few questions answered by another confirmed liar in Obama’s regime.

    • there ought to be charges leveled due to Susan Rice’s gall to deliberately delude the American people.

      who trotted her out there? who made the arrangement with the TV news producers for her appearances. who did she speak with during the breaks that morning?

      this is the Crime against America. Collusion with the Press
      yeah, and I have plenty of answers with respect to Hillary’s question “what difference would it make?”

    • Hillary is on Judicial Watch’s 10 Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.

      • Oh, I knew that KC. I wrote it and then forgot to go back to change my words. Thanks for pointing it out. I changed my words above.

        She is on the list and yet wants to run for president! From the gushing of all the demoncRATS in the hearings today, I would think that is her intention. The Left will not under any circumstances hold anyone accountable for not doing their job or working outside the Constitution.

        I read somewhere the Left was thinking of a Hillary/Colin Powell ticket. As soon as Powell changes parties.

        • That would explain Powell’s recent words and behavior. Biden is already jockeying for position, though, believe it or not. And they talk about the Republicans having a lame roster of potential candidates. Retreads all in the DemoncRAT field.

    • couldn’t find the post where ya’ll were talking about Hillary and Huma….but just to show you old Hillary’s love of the Muslim vote and their money…remember early in her Senate career she had to give back money to some Muslim Dudes and they were connected to the Muslim Brothers too, back then. Here’s just a bit on her Muslim help in the N.Y. senate.
      And if you’ve ever covered Hillary’s past you’ll find she’s been before the Honorable Judge Lamberth herself, more than once on some unethical behaviors. If you read her past you’ll see that she’s just OBAMA in a Pantsuit.

    • “She [Hillary] said weapons that disappeared in the fall of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s regime undoubtedly had been smuggled to other countries, including for use in the Syrian uprising turned civil war.”

      DUH! That was their opening to ask: “Smuggled by whom?”

  3. Chokes …. cry….. lies ….. & NOT a concret answer …
    WHY do we PAY $$$$ these JOKERS … by the dozen ?

    • “After the heated exchange, Congressman Johnson said that her emotional answer was just a way to avoid answering the question.

      ‘It was theatrics. Again, she didn’t want to answer questions so she makes a big show of it,’ he told reporters afterwards.

      ‘I’m not trying to be obnoxious here, I’m just trying to get the answers I believe the American people deserve to hear. It’s been four months.'”

      btw, they take pains in all the stories to point out that Johnson is a “Tea Party favorite.” If he wasn’t before, he is now! We need more of his ilk, starting in 2014. Get enough of them and we WILL get answers–to Benghazi and maybe to the mystery of Barry Soetoro.

  4. 100%….PUKE FEST 4 SURE….& where is CLINT when we NEED HIM ?
    HILL… you screwed the pooch….you have 2 GO! forget the 3AM CALL


  6. I wouldn’t be so tired of seeing the clip of Hillary asking what difference it makes why four Americans are dead as she throws her little tantrum if the damned talking heads at the tv news stations that have it in loop would say something about the why of their deaths being the reason for the congressional hearing that’s brought them there to start with. Instead, they give her the last word with that, leaving lesser informed viewers with the impression that the mean ol’ Republicans are picking on poor lil’ ol’ Hillary.

    By the way, I don’t know how Johnson managed to keep himself from barking back at her, “Bitch, that’s the reason we’re all here today: to find out WHY four Americans are dead. That’s what g**damned difference it makes. Now, answer the f*****g question.” But I suppose that’s why he’s a congressman and I’m not. That I might have already yanked that hag from her seat in the stand and started trying to kick the truth out of her is probably another.

  7. Hillary vs. Rand Paul
    Bill Schanefelt
    January 24, 2013

    I was unavailable to watch most of the farcical testimony given today by Mrs. Clinton, but I did catch the exchange with Sen. Rand Paul near the end, and it is fascinating, not only for the content of the exchange, but primarily for the look on her face her tone of voice as she reacts to the question:

    Sen. Paul: Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?
    Mrs. Clinton: To Turkey? I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.
    Sen. Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons and what I’d like to know is the Annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?
    Mrs. Clinton: Well, Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the Annex. I will see what information is available.
    Sen. Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?
    Mrs. Clinton: I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.

    I have written extensively on these pages here, here, here, here, and here about the gunrunning operation, and it is inconceivable that Mrs. Clinton would be unaware, at least, that the issue exists let alone that that is what this whole fiasco is all about.

    I suppose there are some Low Information Voters out there who may believe that she is unaware of the operations that were being carried out in Benghazi by the people at the Annex in coordination with the people working at the compound, but this testimony would appear to be perjurious on its face—not that that matters to Team Obama and the legacy media.

  8. Hillary Clinton’s Management Failure
    By Elliott Abrams
    January 23, 2013 7:00 P.M.

    During her congressional testimony today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly defended her failure to see key cables dealing with Benghazi by noting how many cables the State Department receives. She explained there are 1.4 million cables to the department a year, all addressed to her as secretary.

    That’s wrong — and this poor excuse is worth examining.
    That is to say, if she did not see the Benghazi cables in a timely fashion, if she did not see Chris Stephens’s cables describing the deterioration of security, and if she did not see his requests for more security, this was a huge management failure on her part. It is a poor excuse to say, “Gee, the Department gets lots of cables” — and perhaps even worse then to hide behind an Accountability Review Board that pins responsibility on assistant secretaries and no higher.

    • One would think that, even with hundreds of thousands of cables, somebody on the “7th floor” (Huma?) ought to have been (and probably WAS) closely monitoring what was going on in Benghazi or at least in Libya. I heard this morning on radio that she completely dodged a question about WHO (which deputy) on the 7th floor (her level of management) DID get the cables that were sent up to the 7th floor specifically about Benghazi. Dodged it because she doesn’t want to say.

      She also fell back on that STUPID excuse that they hadn’t had permission from the Libyan “government” to take military action to save our people’s lives. To borrow a phrase? “WHO CARES?” At that point, the top priority of Barry AND Hillary is the LIVES of our people. There’s NO excuse for inaction and there was NO ANSWER to why there were no assets there TO use to save the lives, except that I don’t BELIEVE that there were no assets. I totally believe that Barry wouldn’t pull the trigger. They wanted to have that “soft footprint,” you see.

    • Well, isn’t that why the State Dept has a huge staff of employees? So that there are others to help with reading and responding to the alleged millions of cables addressed to the SoS, among other tasks?

  9. Well that was quite a Dog and Pony show.everyone applaud now. 😆

  10. Limbaugh Unloads On Hillary Clinton’s ‘Bullsh*t’ Testimony
    January 24, 2013

    Rush Limbaugh rightfully goes ballistic over Hillary Clinton’s “What difference does it make?” outburst.

    • Nailed! The worst was her saying it was NOT premeditated and was in response to an offensive video. What exactly was offensive about it, anyway? Not that anyone’s seen it. But she outright LIED in that quote. If she didn’t KNOW, as she testified, then how could she and why did she so adamantly say, without qualification, that it was NOT premeditated (which is WAS) and that it was in reaction to the video (which is was NOT)?

  11. Great montage of the voices who told the lies about the amateur film, and the lovefest of those speaking and fawning over Hillary.

    Rush is in prime form..using her words against everything she has done.

  12. The brilliant Thomas Sowell weighs in on Hillary’s testimony. He was not fooled, nor was he amused. He has her number:

    Shouting Louder

    An old-time trial lawyer once said, “When your case is weak, shout louder!”

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

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

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

    I read somewhere that DemoncRATS and media pundits claim that Hillary won the first debate of 2016 with her performance. I think not.

  13. A brilliant article by a brilliant blogger:

    What Purposes Would Federal Background Checks and Firearm Registries Serve?

    Probably not only the purposes our devoted civil savants
    advance to justify them. …”

    Do go to the link and read it there. There are priceless images, too.

    • This relates to what we talked about elsewhere: Running the clock:

      “We are generally considered a nation of laws, where laws are obeyed whether popular or unpopular, constitutional or unconstitutional, even as we try to have them changed through the normal processes. However, during the now celebrated “civil rights era” of the mid twentieth century, there was massive non-violent disobedience of laws now generally considered unconstitutional or otherwise perverse. Many were arrested or worse for violating those laws, which had been enacted and then enforced for many years with little resistance. Then a spark ignited a conflagration. Should unconstitutional gun control laws or orders now come into effect, that alone might well produce the spark necessary to ignite a no less massive conflagration. It would not be the first time in what is now the United States.

      “When seconds count, the police can be only minutes away.” When weeks matter, final judicial action can be only years away.

      With a comprehensive Federal gun registry, gun confiscation — if not widely resisted — could proceed smoothly and quickly. It could become a fait accompli before the process — in patent violation of the Second Amendment — could be halted by judicial intervention.”

      INSIGHT applauded! The post ends with plaudits for our favorite: Col. West.

  14. Yep, HILL knows exactly what works & how to work her kissing-butt
    crowd.. ruffling her papers… like she had not one care in the world.
    I wonder did Steven’s her dearest friend she sent to Benghazi) have
    too much on her? Hill is a twin of Charlize Theron as …’Ravenna’ in
    ‘Snow White & the Huntsman’ … one cold mean nasty bit*h…

    • Don’t forget, she was a lawyer first…..which like my Uncle used to call them ” Lieyers”. This has always been her and Bill’s style, this isn’t new.

      • That’s why they never say they’re innocent of anything. All they say is there’s no “evidence” of that, after ensuring, like Barry, that all “evidence” is destroyed or intimidated out of existence.

    • Good point: What did Stevens know? My guess: Plenty. She’ll have your heart cut out?

    • “Clinton (shouting, glaring, and waving her arms): With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference — at this point — does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened, and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

      Note in passing the obvious contradiction in saying that it makes no difference what happened, and then immediately saying that “our job” is “to figure out what happened.” Clearly, in her flustered state, Clinton confused her talking points, the intended gist of which was presumably that the job of finding out what happened is the responsibility of the administration’s own internal investigators alone, because only the administration itself will be able to construct a tale that “gets to the bottom of things” without incriminating anyone in the administration. … “At this point.” That is, and has always been, the underlying strategy of the Obama administration on Benghazi: stall for time until they’ve reached a safe distance from the horrors they perpetrated on the ambassador and his brave defenders, on the American people, on an insignificant amateur video maker, and on the many Arab Muslims killed during real protests stoked by the administration’s repeated citing of an “outrageous,” “disgusting,” “intolerant” video which in fact had nothing to do with anything. From this distance, they hoped, all the important questions would begin to seem less urgent, and all the ugly facts begin to drift into the dark recesses of public consciousness.”

      More running out the clock. Typical.

    • Wow! Cashill does it again. He goes back to the Kroft interview with the Clintons, after the first “bimbo eruption” of the election of 1992:

      “When Kroft asked Bill if he had an affair with Flowers, he answered, “That allegation is false.” Hillary, her hands lovingly intertwined with Bill’s, nodded in affirmation. Of course, they were both lying, Bill with much greater skill. Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey would later immortalize Bill as “an unusually good liar.”

      At this point in the interview, Hillary tried to explain how these allegations emerged. “When this woman [Flowers] first got caught up in these charges,” she said, “I felt as I’ve felt about all of these women: that they had just been minding their own business and they got hit by a meteor, and it was no fault of their own.”

      It was Hillary’s next thought that caused me to hit the pause button and replay the video. “We reached out to them,” said Hillary. “I met with two of them to reassure them they were friends of ours.” This was the only sentence for which I marked the time — roughly 3:28 in the video clip — and wrote down the quote verbatim.

      Something provocative, perhaps historic, had caught my attention. No, it was not the use of “friends of ours,” mob shorthand for “made guys.” Rather, it was that on no other occasion had Hillary admitted an active role in silencing Bill’s women. She continued, “I felt terrible about what was happening to them.”

      Hillary had reason to feel terrible. Among the people the Clintons reached out to that year — in this case, through a proxy — was Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas and Clinton paramour.

      “[The proxy] said that there were people in high places who were anxious about me and they wanted me to know that keeping my mouth shut would be worthwhile,” Perdue would later relate. “Worthwhile” meant a GS-11 or higher job with the federal government. If she turned down the offer and talked to the media, “He couldn’t guarantee what would happen to my pretty little legs.””

      The M.O. from the beginning. THUGS from the beginning. Mobster thugs from the beginning. No wonder the DemoncRATS aren’t alarmed by Barry. They adore the preceding thugs.

      Excellent catch by Cashill: A news article transcribing the interview just happened to OMIT the sentence where Hillary admits that she personally “reached out to” and met with two of the women to make sure they kept their traps shut, or else.

      Vince Foster.

  15. Lindsey Graham on Hill’s testimony..”she got AWAY with MURDER”
    two things Hillary SAID WILL come back to HAUNT HER .. Forever!
    On her Watch … she has been telling BIG FIBS to WTPOTUS!
    Did she & has she ever really told us the truth about anything…???

  16. Chris Stevens, S Smith, G Doherty & T Woods..
    would ‘DITTO’ your words
    if still alive & at home with their familys & friends…
    No HILL you can’t control EVERYTHING… but you & the TEAM
    dropped the ball.. it’s plain neglect.. so keep the BS & that fun filled
    MEMOIR’s on your own coffee table… I wouldn’t dare touch one!

    And why when someone harms shoots & kills at home ‘we run to it’…
    But when our four men needed guns & back-up ‘we ran from it’ ?

  17. I don’t see glued 2 the hip Huma Abedin… do YOU? Is Kerry keeping
    her on?

    • My guess would be that she’s going to land at another very powerful position. She’s not going to go “cabining” with Hillary. She has her eye on a bigger position. The media, too, who are all in love with Huma Weiner.

  18. It will 2 me Hill…. dis-gust-ed with all the LIES!!!!!! But will they throw
    rotten bait at us again ? we will wait and see….

  19. Morphing stories about Benghazi. Panetta AND DEMPSEY are supposed to testify this Thursday.

    Someone’s Wrong: CIA and State Dept. Accounts of Benghazi Contradict Gen. Dempsey’s Explanation for Why DOD Sent No Help

    The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is telling a different story about Benghazi than the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.

    If the story Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is telling is correct, then the story the State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) and the Central Intelligence Agency have told is not. If the story the State Department and the CIA have told is correct, than Gen. Dempsey is telling an inaccurate story to explain why the Defense Department sent no help to the State Department and CIA personnel who were attacked by terrorists in Libya on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.

    On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Dempsey said the reason the Defense Department sent no aid to the Americans under attack by terrorists in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11-12, was because the attack did not last seven hours but was really two 20-minute attacks six hours apart. …

    However, both a CIA timeline provided last fall by a senior U.S. intelligence official and the report published by the State Department ARB, published in December, contradict Gen. Dempsey’s claim that the Benghazi terrorist attack was two discrete 20-minute battles separated by six hours.

    Additionally, an account presented by the Senate Homeland Security Committee in its report on Benghazi also does not comport with General Dempsey’s version of events.

    According to these accounts, the first phase of the battle against the Benghazi terrorists lasted roughly three hours and 20 minutes, during which time the terrorists fired at U.S. State Department and CIA personnel at the State Department’s compound in Benghazi, on the road between the State Department compound and the CIA Annex, and at the CIA Annex itself.

    The firing on the Annex during this first phase of the battle ceased at about 1:00 a.m. Benghazi time–which was about three hours and twenty minutes after the attack started at about 9:40 pm Benghazi time, and about two and a half hours after Gen. Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had been notified at 10:32 p.m Benghazi time that the attack was happening.

    The second phase of the terrorist attack started at about 5:15 a.m. Benghazi time–or about four hours and fifteen minutes after the first phase ended. This second phase lasted about 11 minutes. …”

    More at the link.

    • More from that story:

      “U.S. government security personnel who were based in Tripoli had deployed to Benghazi by chartered aircraft after receiving word of the attack, arriving at the Benghazi airport at 1:15 a.m,” added the Senate committee report. “They were held at the airport for at least three hours while they negotiated with Libyan authorities about logistics. The exact cause of this hours-long delay, and its relationship to the rescue effort, remains unclear and merits further inquiry. Was it simply the result of a difficult Libyan bureaucracy and a chaotic environment or was it part of a plot to keep American help from reaching the Americans under siege in Benghazi?”

      The story goes on to ask WHY the rescue team had to arrive in Libya on a private chartered plane instead of military aircraft. They say NOBODY has yet answered that question. (Was it even asked?)

  20. Now here’s another:

    Gen. Carter Ham: Members of al Qaida group among Benghazi attackers

    The attackers who killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans last September in Benghazi, Libya, represented a variety of Islamist groups and were motivated by a myriad of factors, the top Libyan official investigating the case has told McClatchy.

    They almost certainly included members of al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, the North Africa affiliate of al Qaida, which the French now are confronting in northern Mali, Army Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. military’s Africa Command, said in a separate interview.

    Col. Abdel Salem Ashour, who heads the Libyan Interior Ministry’s criminal investigations department, said he now thought the attack was hastily planned by smaller groups whose membership comprised different nationalities. He said the attack wasn’t well organized but that with the Libyan government essentially without forces in eastern Libya, it didn’t need to be. …

    Determining what motivated the Benghazi attack is one issue that Ham and Libyan investigators are still struggling with.

    Ham and Ashour said they thought that anger over the killing of a top al Qaida official, Abu Yahya al Libi, by a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan was one factor. Al Qaida leader Ayman al Zawahiri had confirmed al Libi’s death in a video aired the day before the Benghazi attack.

    “There are some indications that was part of the motivation for some of those who participated in the attack. Whether it was the compelling reason or not, I think, is hard to say,” Ham said.

    At the same time, protests had broken out in Egypt hours before the assault over an inflammatory video produced by Egyptian exiles living in the United States that insulted the Prophet Muhammad. Ashour said that was the motivation for smaller groups that planned the attack on the consulate. [I CRY BS ON THAT ONE!]

    “Each group used (the assault) for its own interests,” Ashour said. “One used it for the film and another used it for the leader that was killed. And there were other thieves who used it for the sake of stealing.””

    What a load of BS. Who’re ya gonna believe? The probably complicit Libyan “officials”? How convenient that he blames other nationalities AND that stupid video that had nothing to do with it. There’s no way these multiple groups SUDDENLY organized a well-planned attack on the “consulate” (what happened to “mission”?) with RPGs AND MORTARS AND ARMED TRUCKS!

    It will be interesting to see it Congress is up to grilling these guys as they deserve. Panetta on his way out, just like Hillary. Ham, of course, is already out. I doubt that he’s testifying, but he might.

    • That FACT, which imho was the most important thing to come out of that hearing, was studiously NOT MENTIONED in the newspaper story I read this morning. All it gave was Barry’s spin: There were two separate attacks, not an ongoing situation (which I don’t believe is TRUE). And that the military was too far away; didn’t arrive in Libya until 15 hours later, after the attacks were over (which I also don’t believe is TRUE). The story also gave such a muddled timeline. It said Panetta said he ordered troops moved to Libya sometime between midnight and 2 a.m. I’m assuming this would be DC time, but even if it were Libya time, that’s hours AFTER the attacks began so no wonder (with a 13-15 hour lead time) they got there after the fact. That’s WHY they should have used air power. I don’t believe that a plane could not have got there in time to take out that mortar. I simply don’t believe it. How fast do supersonic jets fly? Pretty damned fast. They didn’t scramble any and the question remains: WHY NOT?

      • I thought they didn’t know where Stevens was for hours, yet they never asked about this in the hearing did they?

        • I didn’t hear them ask about that. It’s interesting because, iirc, Graham kept bringing up that they didn’t KNOW that the first attack was over. One of them did say something about believing it might be a hostage situation. But the guys from the annex got to the mission and brought out those survivors. (Who are they and where are they now? Also not asked.) They didn’t, however, bring out Stevens and so didn’t know where he was for HOURS. So why would they have not sent “boots”?

    • Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi

      Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified this morning on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

      Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o’clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, “up to us.”

      In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

      Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that night. There were no calls about what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.

      The 5 o’clock meeting was a pre-scheduled 30-minute session, where, according to Panetta’s recollection, they spent about 20 minutes talking a lot about the American embassy that was surrounded in Egypt … ”

      Video clip of the interrogation there.

      • How many incompetents were on OFF duty Sept. 11 2012? How many passed the buck during their testimony? They all played Sgt Schultz of Hogan’s Heros, ” I dun know noting.” Panetta threw Obama under the bus, good job. Where was the illustrious Usurper that day and night? Who was he with and why wasn’t he interested in what was happening? Was Ms. Lamb the only one that watched the entire attack?

        Panetta: Obama AWOL on Night of Benghazi Attack
        7 Feb 2013

        While giving Senate testimony regarding Benghazi on Feb. 7, Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta said Obama was not present nor did he communicate with the Sec. of Defense during the Benghazi attack. Panetta was answering questions from Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) when he made it clear he had no communication with Obama outside the normal, “pre-scheduled” 5 p.m. meeting on September 11.

        When asked if Obama at least called to check in as the attack unfolded Panetta said “No.”

        When asked if anyone from the White House called that night, Panetta said “No.”

        According to Panetta, the President trusted that the Sec. of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCOS) Chairman General Martin Dempsey were aware of what military assets were and weren’t near Benghazi, so he left it “up to us.

    • No Word from Hillary During Benghazi Attack
      Panetta, Dempsey did not speak to Clinton.

      Neither the secretary of defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to the secretary of state during the 8-hour attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey, “In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what converations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?”

      “We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton,” Panetta responded.

      “And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?” Cruz asked. Dempsey confirmed this. …”

      Hey, I think I did a pretty good job of picking the nuggets in real time. 🙂 Too bad I didn’t think to do my live blogging on the correct thread, but this link will take you there.

    • ‘Obama AWOL when Americans killed’
      Congress told White House left terror attack response ‘up to us’

      Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says President Obama was out of touch completely the night four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in Benghazi, Libya.

      In his testimony to Congress today, Panetta said that the operational details of the response, the decisions on what resources were available to help, and other decisions were left “up to us.” … Panetta said he simply didn’t hear from anyone at the White House.

      He also said logistics and fear of more attacks prevented a quicker, more aggressive U.S. response to the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2012.

      But for days, even weeks, the Obama administration attributed the violence and deaths to a mob that was upset over a little-known online video purporting to be about Mohammad, a move that still has not been explained.

      Panetta said no air support was dispatched when the terror attack over logistics. “The reason simply is armed UAVs, AC-130 gunships, or fixed-wing fighters with the associated tanking, armaments, targeting and support capabilities were not in the vicinity of Libya and because of the distance, would have taken at least 9-12 hours to deploy. This was, pure and simple, a problem of distance and time,” he said. [And I simply don’t believe this. I don’t.]

      “The quickest response option available was a Tripoli-based security team. Within hours, the six-person team, including two U.S. military personnel, chartered [a] private airplane to Benghazi. Within 15 minutes of arriving at the annex facility, they came under attack by mortar and rocket propelled grenades,” he said. … [Were these the people who were DETAINED and DELAYED at the airport by Libyans?]

      Dempsey said that an unarmed drone was on the scene “within minutes.”

      He continued, “Our military was appropriately responsible. We acted quickly once notified of the attacks on the Temporary Mission facility . [There’s a new name for you–temporary mission facility!] As a result of our posture and our ongoing operations, we were able to divert an unarmed, unmanned reconnaissance aircraft to Benghazi within minutes.” [But NO ARMED ONES, even though they’re armed and ready for strikes in Yemen and Pakistan, both of which are close to Libya?]

      Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Dempsey’s explanations were lacking.

      It is one of the more bizarre statements that I have seen in this committee,” he said. “Our posture was there because we did not take into account the threats against the consulate.”

      Dempsey did not answer McCain’s question, “Who is responsible then?” … ”

      The article continues with a long list of questions not asked or answered.

  21. Did we miss this one? I don’t recall it. (I’m getting like Hillary!)

    Media ignore Hillary’s bombshell Benghazi claim
    Secretary insists she did not know about gun-running at U.S. mission

    The exchange on the subject took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

    Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

    To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.” [Clever, Hill. No, they were going to SYRIA, via Turkey.]

    Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

    Clinton replied, “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

    You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.

    I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.” …”

    As Rush Limbaugh would say, “her brain is Jello.” (When she wants it to be. They should have asked Panetta and Brennan about this yesterday, at the hearings.)

    WND also reports that the “temporary mission facility” in Benghazi was set up without the Libyans knowing and that it might have broken international law, but who would be surprised to learn that Barry finds clever ways to evade ALL laws–US Constitution, federal law, state law, and now even international law?

    Did Benghazi mission violate international law?
    Newly released probe may raise new questions about facility

    … According to the 39-page report released this week by independent investigators probing the Sept. 11 attacks at the diplomatic facility, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was set up without the knowledge of the new Libyan government.

    “Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility,” the report states.

    This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB).”

    The report, based on a probe led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a “Special U.S. Mission.”

    Until now, government descriptions routinely referred to the facility as a “mission,” while news media largely wrongly labeled the building a “consulate.”

    While the report documents how the U.S. mission’s special “non-status” exempted the facility from State Department security standards, it is not immediately clear whether the mission was also exempt from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which governs the establishment of overseas missions. … ”

  22. I like this Burr guy. I just like listening to him talk. Great accent. Look how clueless Lew is.

    I’m glad they’re not letting it go. What was Barry DOING all night long?

    • Good grief he couldn’t or wouldn’t answer the question! Who were the National Security Staff – how many people – that were updating the president? NAME Them …if you ask the question a different way, you’d get a different answer, said Lew! So Lew wasn’t doing it either but he was there when the briefing was taking place! The Senator eliminated most of the top people that you would expect to be briefing Obama…I suspect that Obama never heard a peep – he was busy elsewhere and totally ignored what was happening in Benghazi.

      It appears they are getting closer as one by one people, especially top officials, are eliminated from having talked to Obama that night. The truth will come out but it will have to be a slip by someone. I bet they practice and practice evasive techniques before coming before the Committee.


    Obama made no phone calls on night of Benghazi attack, White House says

    President Obama didn’t make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.

    During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama’s defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.

    Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.

    The White House has said Mr. Obama was kept up to date on the attack by his staff, though after being alerted to the attack in a pre-scheduled afternoon meeting he never spoke again with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin E. Dempsey or then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. …

    We still don’t know what the president of the United States was doing the night of the attack and who he was talking to. We know who he wasn’t talking to,” Mr. McCain said.”

    • Such a liar. There’s NO WAY that the “intelligence community” truly BELIEVED that there was any protest in Benghazi. After Panetta’s and Dempsey’s and even Clinton’s testimony, THAT’S OBVIOUS. They knew before Barry knew about the attack that it was NOT because of a protest or a video, but it WAS a terrorist attack.

  24. Susan Rice ….Benghazi Update from above.


      Update on the Benghazi Talking Points

      The CIA’s talking points read as follows:

      “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

      This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

      The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.”

      This is not what the intelligence community thought. How do I know? Because I have seen the actual intel briefings used to inform Panetta and Chairman Mullens of what the situation was believed to be on the ground.

      Panetta gave a hint of this last week when he testified:

      Mr. Panetta told Congress last week that he knew immediately the attacks were a terrorist assault, though the White House downplayed that notion in the first five days after the attack. …

      Anyone who has ever worked at CIA and coordinated a community piece knows how the process works. No other Agency or Department would unilaterally change a coordinated piece.

      There is only one entity in Washington who tamper with intel community approved talking points–that is the White House.

      Susan Rice was sent out with one mission–protect Barack Obama from the legitimate charge that he was not protecting Americans from an attack launched by Al Qaeda elements. That, my friends, is a cover up of deadly proportions.”

  25. We talked about this on an open thread, so I decided to post this here, to keep some of the Benghazi news together. This was one of the “trending” stories on Yahoo! One of their top ten that people were reading.–politics.html?.tsrc=yahoo

    McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    While discussing the contentious confirmation hearings for defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, things got a bit heated on Sunday’s “Meet The Press” when Sen. John McCain referred to the lack of information from the White House surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi as a “massive cover-up.” …

    “Well, what you said was the cover-up–a cover-up of what?” [obot “journolister” David] Gregory asked.

    “Of the information concerning the deaths of four brave Americans,” McCain replied. “The information has not been forthcoming. You obviously believe that it has. I know that it hasn’t. And I’ll be glad to send you a list of the questions that have not been answered, including ‘What did the president do and who did he talk to the night of the attack on Benghazi?'”

    McCain continued: “Why did the president for two weeks, for two weeks during the heat of the campaign continue to say he didn’t know whether it was a terrorist attack or not? Is it because it interfered with the line ‘Al Qaeda has [been] decimated’? And ‘everything’s fine in that in that part of the world’? Maybe. We don’t know. But we need the answers. Then we’ll reach conclusions. But we have not received the answers. And that’s a fact.” …”

    And the fact of the matter is: WHAT IS MCCAIN GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? Will he do EVERYTHING in his power to get the FACTS or will he just bloviate, bluster, and then let them “proceed” with taking down the USA? Time to man up, McCain, and put on that hero hat again. You survived the Hanoi Hilton, surely you can deal with another tinpot dictator wannabe.

    • Zenway, I read that this is a quid pro quo. Barry is SO intent on getting Brennan confirmed that he’s made this deal to (allegedly) turn over the emails. Supposedly, it’s like as show of good faith. A DEAL to get the emails in return for letting Brennan be confirmed. If so, this is disappointing that the Republicans would be THAT STUPID. First of all, who believes they’re really going to turn over ALL the emails or even ANY of the REAL ones? They’re probably busy typing them up right now. Brennan is such a threat to our national security that it’s a deal with the devil to consider this a fair trade. But they’re so clueless. We can only hope that Graham isn’t dumb enough to fall for this and continues to ask for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.

      • I hope they wait until they have those emails “in hand” before voting. I see heavily redacted emails coming their way. There will be nothing of substance in the ones turned over to Graham. That is how other emails about Fast and Furious arrived with a couple words on a page, the rest were blacked out… but, they can say they supplied the emails!

  26. JW Sues Office of the Director of National Intelligence for Docs Describing Attack on U.S. Consulate in Benghazi
    Feb. 22 Snip

    Judicial Watch Seeks the “Speaking Points” Intelligence Memo Referencing Link to Terrorism that was Allegedly Scrubbed by Obama Administration Officials

    (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Administration’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence seeking access to records detailing the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks a controversial “speaking points” memo indicating that intelligence officials believed from the outset that terrorists were behind the attack despite public statements to the contrary issued by Obama administration officials, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The lawsuit was filed on February 14, 2013 (Judicial Watch v. Office of the Dir. of National Intelligence (No. 13-0198)).


    As usual, the Obama administration refused to comply with the request so Judicial Watch had to file a lawsuit for the information. Stonewalling Congress and normal citizens for information is their MO. TY, JW for standing for the U.S. and the victims of this administration.!

    Judicial Watch seeks the following records pursuant to its October 19, 2012, FOIA request:

    Any and all memoranda, assessments, analyses, and/or talking points regarding the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya and/or the killing of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence between September 11, 2012 and September 20, 2012. This request includes, but is not limited to, the “speaking points” memorandum referred to by Senator Dianne Feinstein during a televised interview on October 17, 2012, (see feinstein-intelligence-flaw-lax-security-to-blame-for-libyan-terror-attack/).

  27. Remember those survivors? This is concerning:

    Boehner Idle as GOP Calls for Select Committees on Benghazi

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has not yet acted on calls from within his own party to form select committees to uncover more information on the attack which killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya in 2012.

    Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have suggested the formation of select committees since November 2012, one month after the assault which killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other State Department employees. Such select committees could provide a channel for Benghazi survivors to come forward and tell their stories to Congress without legal repercussions from the federal government.

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told USA Today on Wednesday, “I want to know who the survivors are and for the appropriate committees to interview them.” He explained further, “We know it was clear from the beginning it was a terrorist attack. I want to know what kind of help they asked for.” …”

    So why is Boehner sitting on his hands? He won’t answer Breitbart’s questions.


    CBS News Source: Benghazi Documents Reveal White House ‘Specifically Warned of Imminent Attack’

    … “One source who viewed the docs says someone in federal agency ‘press shop’ was involved in changing the talking points to remove al Qaeda,” [Sharyl] Attkisson wrote.

    She also reported that an “official familiar with the docs” said there were advanced warnings in the days leading up to the attack, including ones that “specifically warned of an imminent attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.”

    The CBS reporter also referenced another source familiar with the Benghazi documents that said nearly all communication between Libya and Washington, D.C., since the attack began referenced al-Qaeda as being the likely “instigators.” That portion is significant because there are still unanswered questions as to why the Obama administration initially blamed the attack on an anti-Muslim YouTube video.

    “A source who viewed the docs says the few that mentioned a protest” on night of Benghazi “were not first hand references,” Attkisson reports.

    Additionally, she cited two sources that believe information on Benghazi survivors and transcripts of their interviews still have not been provided in unredacted form to the Senate Intel Committee. …”

    Our representatives are still asking for the names of the survivors so they can interview them. Here’s the underlying CBS story:

  29. Did we know the name of the Turkish ambassador who met with Stevens? It’s in this story:

    LYONS: Benghazi cover-up continues, nearly six months later
    Unanswered questions linger on 9/11 attacks

    With the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi, why did Stevens find it necessary to be there on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11 when we know he feared for his safety? Having dinner with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin is not a compelling reason. Further, on that day, there were tactical warning signs that something was not right. Even the Blue Mountain Security manager of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade that was contracted to provide security for the SMC sensed that “something” was wrong and put out an alert on both his radios and cell phone. We know one of the local policemen who was assigned to guard the SMC was found taking pictures of the inside of the compound, and a memo later found written by Stevens shows he found this to be “troubling.” We know roadblocks were established by the Ansar al-Shariah militia who carried out the assault hours before the attack.

    Was Stevens targeted to be killed, or was he supposed to be taken hostage in exchange for the return of the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman? We know his body was taken to the hospital controlled by the militia that carried out the attack. Why?

    The Accountability Review Board appointed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton provided few answers. It was like having the mafia investigate a crime scene. …”

    Hard to believe that’s in the lamestream media.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s