Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya crisis: Benghazi

[vector7]

Benghazi Whistleblower: 'My Jaw Hit the Floor' as WH Blamed YouTube



by John Sexton 5 May 2013 916 post a comment

In an appearance on Face the Nation this morning, Rep. Darrell Issa revealed several new pieces of information about the Obama administration's controversial description of the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, casting doubt that the White House mischaracterized its cause by mere accident.

Video at Link

"The talking points were right and then the talking points were wrong," Issa explained in response to a question about reporting at the Weekly Standard. The CIA and Greg Hicks, who took over as Charge d'Affairs in Libya after the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, both knew immediately that it was an attack, not a protest.

Hicks, who did not appear on the show but whose reactions were featured based on transcripts of interviews with Issa's committee, said he was stunned by what UN Ambassador Susan Rice claimed on five different news shows on Sep. 16. When she appeared on Face the Nation, she followed an interview with the President of Libya who claimed he had "no doubt" it was a terror attack. Moments later, Amb. Rice contradicted him and claimed a spontaneous protest was more likely.

Acting Ambassador Hicks watched the Sunday shows and said he found this contradiction shocking. "The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn't know what he's talking about," he accused. Hicks added, "My jaw hit the floor as I watched this...I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career as on that day."

Hicks believes the stunning failure of diplomacy on the Sunday news shows explains why it took the FBI three weeks to gain access to the Benghazi site. The U.S. had effectively humiliated the Libyan President on national TV. That decision, he believed, probably compromised our ability to investigate and track down those responsible.

According to Hicks, no one from the State Department contacted him about what Amb. Rice would be saying in advance. The next morning he called Beth Jones, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near East Affaris, and asked her why Amb. Rice had made the statements she had. Jones responded, "I don't know."

A report published Friday by the Weekly Standard suggests that State Dept. spokesperson Victoria Nuland took issue with the initial talking points and, with backing from the White House, removed any evidence of al Qaeda involvement and of prior attacks on western targets in the region. According to emails reviewed by the Weekly Standard, Nuland said her superiors (unnamed) were concerned about criticism from Congress.

[American Patriot]

A guy called into Hannity yesterday. He claimed to be one of the camera operators for the actual drone that did overflight for Benghazi and the attack there.

He was clear that this was NOT a "protest" and it was an all out attack.

He said they record everything, but it might have been overwritten already (they fly 24/7 and it goes to hard drives from what I gather)... but he was pretty sure there should have been video of the incident.

He also said that Rice flat out lied. He was also sure Hillary lied.

[American Patriot]

President Obama's Benghazi lies unravel

Published May 06, 2013 | Hannity | Sean Hannity
With: Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah


This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," May 6, 2013. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.



SEAN HANNITY, HOST: This week may be the defining week in the Obama presidency as the lies about Benghazi now begin to unfold.


Tonight, evidence is mounting to prove what we have been saying on this program for months, and that is that the Obama White House engaged in a widespread cover-up in the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi terror attack; and they did it all simply to win an election.


Now, there are three breaking developments regarding the investigation into the September 11th assault that took the lives of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Now, this news is emerging in large part thanks to these three men collectively known as the Benghazi whistle-blowers. Each of whom will appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.


But as we wait to hear directly from these high ranking State Department officials, details about what they plan to tell lawmakers, well, they are already coming to light.
Let's begin with Mark Thompson, a former marine who currently runs the State Department's counter terrorism bureau. Now, FOox News has confirmed that Mr. Thompson plans to testify that on the night of the Benghazi attack, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to remove our agency's counter terror bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision making. Now, that's the first piece of evidence proving the administration intended from day one to suppress the notion that this was a coordinated terrorist attack.


Now, the second piece of evidence comes to us courtesy of the second highest ranking U.S. official on the night of the attack, now that's Greg Hicks. He's served as a foreign service diplomat for more than 20 years. He says he knew it was an act of terror, quote, "From the get-go." Now, in addition, he says, his jaw hit the floor when he turned on the television and saw Ambassador Susan Rice saying this on one of those five Sunday shows.


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
SUSAN RICE, UN AMBASSADOR, "MEET THE PRESS"/NBC, SEPT. 16, 2012: Our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what has just transpired hours before in Cairo. Almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.
RICE, "FOX NEWS SUNDAY"/FNC, SEPT. 16, 2012: This was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially, is it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.


(END VIDEO CLIPS)


HANNITY: Not true. Now, let's remember, Susan Rice did not independently decide to appear on those shows nor did she independently come up with the notion that a YouTube video was to blame for Benghazi. Far from it. Because thanks to an investigation conducted by the Weekly Standard, we now have prove that her talking points were developed and edited by top administration officials for days.


Now, let's review the facts. Now we know that on the day of the attack, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. Now, one came just after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time stating that the consulate was under attack. Now, the other was sent two hours later saying an Al-Qaeda-linked group had already claimed credit for this attack. Now, that was Tuesday, September the 11th. But Rice's talking points weren't sent out until just before 7:00 p.m. on Friday night.


Now, the original draft accurately included references to jihadists, Islamic extremists, experienced fighters and Al Qaeda and details of five recent terror attacks in Benghazi.
But take a look at your screen. On the left, that's draft number two of the talking points. And as you can see, several of the bullet points referencing Al Qaeda were redacted, in other words taken out. And that's how the final version on the right of your screen came to be. It reads in part, quote, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protest at the U.S. embassy in Cairo."


And that as we know, was a complete and utter lie.


Now, there are three main things here. Number one, why were repeated requests before the attacks denied? They knew that they were in trouble.


Number two, during the attack why were rescue troops told to stand down? We need answers to that. And why did the president, why did he go to sleep that night without asking about the ambassador, asking about the embassy, and why did he decide to go campaigning the next day?


Also number three, who is responsible for the outright lies after the attack and the cover-up? Now remember, Watergate was about lying and covering up. By the way, in that case, nobody died in Watergate.


Here to talk about these developments, two men who will be on hand for the whistle-blowers' testimony on Wednesday, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Darrell Issa, along with the member of that committee from Utah, Congressman Jason Chaffetz.


Gentlemen, welcome back to "Hannity."


REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, R-UTAH, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEMBER: Thanks, Sean.


REP. DARRELL ISSA, R-CALIF., HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Sean.


HANNITY: All right. Congressman Issa, we've been through this. Both of you have been very generous of your time as we've been trying to get answers to all of this. Although, Jay Carney says, "Oh, that's eight months ago." Hillary, "What difference does it make?"

Let's start at the beginning. Requests for a security were denied, Congressman Issa. Why?


ISSA: Well, on October 10th we made the case that it was denied and at that time, people closely associated with these clear professionals really believed that it was based on this concept of normalization. In other words, pretend like Libya was safe and the war on terror was behind us. We still believe that's probably the genesis of so much of the cover-up, if you will, that occurred immediately following it. But you said very well in your intro, there was a campaign going on, there was a president trying to win re-election, and the changes were made at a very high level.


HANNITY: All right. And Congressman Chaffetz, there was -- we now have discovered through testimony, Greg Hicks among others that there was a C-130 ready to bring reinforcements during the attack to help those that were under fire and they were ordered to stand down?


CHAFFETZ: The administration including Secretary Panetta were very crystal clear, there were no military assets, but I got to tell you, we had proximity, we had capability, we had four individuals in Libya armed, ready to go, dressed, about to get into the car to go in the airport to go help their fellow countrymen who were dying and being killed and under attack in Benghazi and they were told to stand down.


And Sean, of all the things I've seen, that's as sickening and depressing and disgusting as anything I have seen. That is not the American way. We had people that were getting killed, we had people who are willing to risk their lives to go save them and somebody told them to stand down.


HANNITY: But we confirmed, that C-130 was on the tarmac, we had people ready to get on the plane willing to say that?


CHAFFETZ: It left without them.


HANNITY: Who gave the order?


CHAFFETZ: Well, that's what we got to still get some more information about. I think, this is what we anticipate on Wednesday at the hearing. We're going to have people who were on the ground there in Libya that will talk directly to this.


HANNITY: All right. Let me show both of you a series of statements that were made about the Benghazi attacks and the YouTube video and I want juxtapose this to what we know, that the original talking points were correct. They've mentioned Al Qaeda. They mentioned that this was terror. And by the time that Susan Rice went on those Sunday shows by Friday, they had all been changed, altered, redacted.


But let's listen to the administration tell what we now know was a lie and that the Libyan president said was a lie, but yet they still went out with this message to the American people. Let's remind people what they were saying.


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)


HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, SEPT. 12, 2012: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.


UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN, SEPT. 18, 2012: We can all condemn this reprehensible video.


JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, SEPT. 19, 2012: We find the video that has been so offensive to Muslims to be disgusting and reprehensible.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannit...#ixzz2SdMeqr88

[American Patriot]

Benghazi Drone Operator Asks Sean Hannity: “Why Hasn’t Congress Contacted Me?” (Audio)

Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, 8:40 AM




A drone operator called into Sean Hannity‘s radio show on Monday… This is a MUST LISTEN… He was reportedly one of the men who flew drones over the attack location in Benghazi.

He wants to know why Congress hasn’t attempted to contact him.

Unreal.

Hat Tip Mara


Back on November 14, Barack Obama promised to “provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day.”

It was just words.

[American Patriot]

9-11 Benghazi Drone Operator to Hannity - Reaganite Republican

reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/.../9-11-benghazi-drone-operat...
11 hours ago – Hannity took a call on his radio show yesterday from 'Dave in Iowa' who claims to have been a drone camera operator who operated over ...

====================

Drone operator who flew over Benghazi attack: ‘I knew they were lying when they blamed a protest’


Posted by The Right Scoop on May 7th, 2013

Sean Hannity had the drone operator who flew over Benghazi the night of the attack call into his show yesterday. The drone operator says there should still be tape of what the drone recorded from the attack on the consulate and he’s surprised no one has filed a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) to get it. He said it would absolutely clear up that this was indeed was an attack and not an out-of-control protest. In fact, he said as soon as Susan Rice came out and blamed the protest, he knew they were lying about what they saw. He said it was way to complex to be anything other than a terrorist attack on the consulate.

Listen to the full call:
http://www.therightscoop.com/drone-o...med-a-protest/

[American Patriot]

Audio: Benghazi Drone Operator to Hannity: ‘We Were Not Allowed To Be Armed, That Night’

May, 6, 2013 — nicedeb Sean Hannity took a call from a member of the military who claimed to be the camera operator for the Predator drone mission over Benghazi on the night of September 12, 2012. The caller, who identified himself as John from Iowa, said he knew immediately that the Regime was lying about what happened, but due to non-disclosure agreements was prevented from saying anything. He said when they started observing the consulate, it was already under attack and on fire. He remembered seeing a crowd of dozens if not hundreds of fighters outside the consulate and noted dryly, ” if this was a protest, it would have been a protest for all ages.” They soon were asked to monitor the CIA annex where they were to make sure no one was trying to break into it, not that there was much he could do about it, because of the Status of Forces agreement we have with the host country where he was located. “We were not allowed to be armed, that night”, he said.
He said, since the live video in Benghazi was being disseminated to multiple agencies throughout the world, and the State Dept surely would have been alerted.
I’m transcribing this next part exactly as stated:

“We had a supportive unit that we were working for in that region that told us to go there. It was known prior to us even taking off from the location we took off from which I can’t name, that ‘hey, you’re going to be going to the consulate because there are reports that something might go down or is going down.’ So…it was already known in my mind - hours before.”

Hello Darrell Issa? Why has no one from your committee contacted this man, or requested these videos?

[American Patriot]

2h 58m ago
Purported Benghazi Drone Operator Calls Sean Hannity with New Details: Weren’t Able to Be Armed That Night and No One Has Contacted Me

2h 58m ago
An armed man waves his rifle after buildings and cars were set on fire inside the US Consulate compound in Benghazi late on Sept. 11. (AFP/Getty Images) A man identifying himself as one of the drone operators on point during the September 11 Benghazi att

[American Patriot]

Wow! Must-Hear Audio: Man claiming to be Drone Operator over Benghazi on 9/11/12 Speaks out

By Lyn Leahz on May 7, 2013 • ( )
By Shoebat Foundation on May 7, 2013
This is amazing audio from a man who called in to Sean Hannity’s radio show claiming to have been one of the men who was operating the drone over Benghazi on the night of 9/11/12. In addition to essentially piling on the ‘Susan Rice lied’ bandwagon, ‘John’ from Iowa said that he was able to see dozens of people around the consulate who were armed and ultimately saw the building on fire. The big takeaway here very well could be John’s claim that there should be recordings of what the Drone saw. He said that the only time recordings are destroyed is when nothing of consequence is recorded. In this case, Americans were murdered. Hello Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. We have an entirely new can of worms to be opened if video of the attacks in Benghazi has been destroyed. Then again, we have an entirely new can of worms if it hasn’t been and is released. Moreover, if this guy is willing to come forward, it could signal more who are willing to do the same. Via Right Pundit (h/t GWP):
http://vineoflife.net/2013/05/07/wow...12-speaks-out/

[vector7]

LIVE BENGHAZI COVERAGE ON C-SPAN

[vector7]

Fourth Benghazi Whistleblower Blocked From Testifying With Red Tape…


It’s almost like the White House has something to hide.
Via Daily Caller:

Obama administration officials are finally letting the attorney for a Benghazi whistle-blower get a security clearance — but the clearance is at such a low level that it will probably slow the congressional probe of how the administration handled last year’s terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

Victoria Toensing represents an unnamed government official who can help explain the reaction of top government officials to the jihadi attack on the U.S diplomatic site in Benghazi and killed four Americans last Sept. 11. [...]

At least three officials will testify today at a House hearing about the scandal, and are expected to say top officials at the Department of State took actions to minimize political damage to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the days after the attack, officials claimed the attack had resulted from a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muslim film. That story was quickly refuted, although the filmmaker was arrested on a probation violation and remains in prison.

Toensing’s client will not be able to testify at public or closed-door hearings because he or she has not been able to prepare classified testimony with the aid of a lawyer, Toensing told The Daily Caller.

Toensing, who previously held top-level security clearances while working as a Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department’s anti-terrorism unit, has asked government officials to update her past clearances to let her work with her client. But the officials initially refused to provide her with the needed forms, she said.
Keep reading…

ZIP | May 8, 2013 11:20 am


DNC Chief Wasserman Schultz Decries Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing As A “Witch Hunt” Against Hillary Clinton…

Yes, we know, nothing to see here, Debbie. Well, except for four dead Americans and a blatant coverup by the Obama administration.



Via National Review:

[M]eanwhile, Wasserman Schultz called the hearing a “witchhunt” with Hillary Clinton as its target, while Ruppersberger told Mitchell, “Most of the information that I’ve heard so far is not new.”


Among the news revealed today, whistleblower Gregory Hicks has said he spoke with then-Secretary of State Clinton at 2 a.m. on the night of the attack, that her chief-of-staff was “very upset” that he cooperated with a Republican congressman investigating the issue, and that special forces were “furious” when they were told to stand down during the attack.

ZIP | May 8, 2013 3:53 pm

[vector7]

Whistle-blower: Botched talking points hurt FBI probe of Benghazi attack

Published May 08, 2013
FoxNews.com



A key Benghazi whistle-blower, responding to Democratic claims that the prolonged scrutiny over the administration's botched talking points is unwarranted, testified Wednesday that the early mischaracterization of the attack may have actually hurt the FBI's investigation.

"I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi," said Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya who became the top U.S. diplomat in the country after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed. He claimed the Libyan president was angered by the mischaracterization, in turn slowing the U.S. probe.

The claim was one of several new accounts given at Wednesday's high-profile hearing where three whistle-blowers testified.

Democrats, while giving deference to the officials and their version of events, used the hearing to try and deflect criticism away from the administration. In particular, they rejected the notion that early talking points on the attack were deliberately changed, to downplay terrorism, for political reasons.

"People who have actually seen the documents, who have actually conducted a real investigation completely reject the allegation that they were made for political purposes," Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., said.

But the substance of the claims Wednesday could serve to re-open questions about that deadly night -- and specifically about the initial claim by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attack was triggered by a protest over an anti-Islam film.

'I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi.'

- Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya

Hicks was asked to respond to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement at a prior hearing asking "what difference" do the questions over the talking points make.

Hicks argued that Rice's comments so insulted the Libyan president -- since they contradicted his Sept. 16 claims that the attack was premeditated -- that it slowed the FBI's investigation.

"President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced," Hicks said, adding that the president was apparently "still steamed" two weeks later.

This bad blood, he claimed, contributed to the FBI team being stuck in Tripoli for about 17 days. He added that the U.S. could not even get the Libyans to secure the crime scene during that time.

As for Rice's comments that Sunday, when she repeatedly cited the video as the trigger for the attack, Hicks said his "jaw dropped" when he heard that.

"I was stunned," Hicks said. "My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed."

He said Rice never talked to him before those appearances.

Hicks said the only information coming out of his team was that there was an "attack" on the consulate. "The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya," he said.

He also claimed that, when he asked a superior about the interviews, he was told "he should not proceed" with his questions. He was later given a "blistering critique" of his management style and effectively demoted to "desk officer," he claimed.

Hicks' testimony marked some of the most detailed of any delivered Wednesday. He and others also suggested the State Department's internal review into the attack was lacking.

Hicks said when he was interviewed by the group, a stenographer was not present.

In hours of testimony, the witnesses recounted in great detail what happened in eastern Libya on Sept. 11 and how U.S. personnel came under a series of attacks that left four Americans dead. Though Democratic officials have argued the attack has been thoroughly investigated and that the hearing Wednesday was political in nature, the claims challenged several long-standing assertions by the Obama administration.

The witnesses criticized the lax security at the Benghazi site in the run-up to the attack, and suggested the military did not do all it good to respond to the scene that night despite claims to the contrary.

Hicks also revealed that it appeared some were trying to lure even more U.S. personnel into a separate "ambush" while the attack was still being carried out. He described how, as diplomatic officials were trying to find out what happened to Stevens, they were receiving phone calls from supposed tipsters saying they knew where the ambassador was and urging Americans to come get him.

"We suspected that we were being baited into a trap," Hicks said, adding that he did not want to send anybody into what he suspected was an "ambush."

Getting choked up, Hicks described how the Libyan prime minister later called him to tell him Stevens was in fact dead. "I think it's the saddest phone call I've ever had in my life," he said.

At the very beginning of the attack, before Stevens went missing and was later found dead, Hicks said his team believed it was terrorism. He said a regional security officer rushed into his villa yelling, "Greg, Greg, the consulate's under attack."

He then spoke by phone with Stevens who told him the same: "Greg, we're under attack."

After enduring a night of attacks on the U.S. consulate, Hicks said the team departed at dawn for the nearby annex -- shortly after they arrived, "the mortars came."

Another whistle-blower questioned Wednesday why more military assets were not deployed sooner during the Benghazi terror attack. Mark Thompson, a former Marine and official with the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau, said he was rebuffed by the White House when he asked for a specialized team -- known as a FEST team -- to be deployed. This is a unit made of special operations personnel, diplomatic security, intelligence and other officers.

Suggesting that some were hesitant to deploy because they were unsure what was happening, "One definition of a crisis is you do not know what's going to happen in two hours," he said.

Further, Hicks explained how a separate team of special forces personnel were not given the authorization to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi. "They were furious," he said.

Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the oversight committee holding the hearing, defended the witnesses, calling them "actual experts on what really happened before, during and after the Benghazi attacks," who "deserve to be heard."

The three witnesses were Hicks, Thompson and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was formerly the regional security officer in Libya; and Thompson.

"I am a career public servant," Hicks said. "Until the aftermath of Benghazi, I loved every day of my job."

Nordstrom choked up as he began to testify Wednesday.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the oversight committee, said Wednesday that Republicans are using the witnesses' statements for "political purposes." He said he's glad the whistle-blowers are testifying and would ensure they are protected, but pre-emptively challenged some of their claims -- including the claim that U.S. military could have responded sooner to the site of the attack.

The Obama administration has adamantly denied several of the latest charges, including a claim that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making on Sept. 11. The administration also denied that the whistle-blowers in question were intimidated -- while behind the scenes questioning the credibility of the witnesses.

A "fact sheet" released by the department ahead of the hearing reiterated its denials. The statement said the department has "demonstrated an unprecedented degree of cooperation with the Congress" on Libya, and rejected claims that the military was in a position to help that night but was told to stand down. Citing its internal review, the statement noted the review "found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders."on-benghazi-attacks/#ixzz2Sjo24yDt

[American Patriot]

[M]eanwhile, Wasserman Schultz called the hearing a “witchhunt” with Hillary Clinton as its target

[vector7]

Benghazi: Will Hillary be charged with obstruction of justice?

7 May 2013 2 Comments


Appearing in CFP.
“This singular event,” Benghazi, the terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who worked under contract with the CIA, and Sean Smith, on September 11, 2012, “will be repeated unless the United States recognizes and responds to the threats we face around the world.” So says the 46-page Republican interim Benghazi report that was made public on April 23. In it, as is arguably always the case with the Clintons, we learn that the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apparently has obstructed justice—again.

On page 2 of the Benghazi report under Findings: “This progress report reveals a fundamental lack of understanding at the highest levels of The State Department as to the dangers presented in Benghazi, Libya, as well as a concerted attempt to insulate the Department of State from blame following the terrorist attacks.”

Let’s be more specific. There was a concerted attempt to protect Hillary Clinton over the death of her friend Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Hillary is the top Democrat contender for President in 2016 and she must be protected at all costs but there is much more to this than even Hillary’s political viability at stake here.

Remarkably, the Congressional leaders are missing the bigger picture. This “concerted attempt” to insulate the State Department is not just about protecting Hillary, it’s also about protecting the Obama-Clinton regime’s policy, their agenda that continues today. It’s about concealing from public view what Ambassador Christopher Stevens was really doing in Benghazi meeting with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin because it threads through the policy that John Kerry as Hillary’s replacement as Secretary of State has seamlessly continued—Syria.

Recall how after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi Hillary was one of the first top Obama administration officials to falsely blame a YouTube video for the deadly attack. President Barack Obama, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House Press Secretary James Carney repeated the same falsehood. We now know that within two hours of the attack that the Islamist militia group Ansar al-Sharia took credit and the administration knew it all along.

And because altering the talking points to blame a fake villain and mislead Americans was not just about protecting Hillary but protecting their policy that is continuing in Syria, “The President and Secretary Clinton also appeared in a $70,000 advertisement campaign in Pakistan to disavow the video (page 18).”

Oddly, the Republican Benghazi report contradicts itself when it states that the State Department did not have a fundamental lack of understanding of the dangers in Benghazi because that’s not true. Hillary knew about the dangers and ignored them. She is not the person to call at 3:00 am or at any time for help despite her stage-craft theatrics when she ran for President claiming otherwise as Ambassador Stevens and the others can confirm.

Hillary withdrew security despite receiving requests from the ground for more (page 2). Days before the attack, the State Department also knew that the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the so-called local protection force linked to extremists and al-Qaeda “would no longer support U.S. movements in the city, including the Ambassador’s visit (page 7).”

The truth is everybody knew about the dangers, which is why the British Embassy, United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross withdrew their personnel from Benghazi (page 6) while Hillary left Americans, including her friend Ambassador Stevens there to complete the job they were sent to do completely, utterly exposed and vulnerable. Why are the Republicans making excuses for Hillary? The questions that need to be answered is what was Ambassador Stevens really doing in Benghazi, what did the Ambassador discuss with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and how does it affect Syria?

History Repeats Itself

First, will Hillary get away with obstructing justice again? Yes, she will, if Congress does not charge her with obstruction of justice or perjury like they also could have done during the Clinton era as documented in The Whistleblower.

Remember when Hillary’s closest confidante and best friend, Vince Foster, was suddenly found dead in Fort Marcy Park, Virginia? Hillary was protected then. Her files were also protected. Why? Because Foster’s job as deputy counsel to the president did not include serving the American people. As the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1996 concluded there was “a concerted effort by senior White House officials to block career law enforcement investigators from conducting a thorough investigation.” The Senate Committee recommended “that steps be taken to insure that such misuse of the White House counsel’s office does not recur in this, or any future administrations (bold mine).”

How many more times will Hillary be allowed to get away with obstructing justice?

Tragically Congress did not heed their own warnings or enforce the rule of law which could have ended Hillary’s “public service” in the 1990’s and prevented her from misusing another government entity (State) or the White House again like occurred in Benghazi. Holding Hillary accountable in the 1990’s could have also ended the special justice system in America that doesn’t apply to every day Americans but only to the likes of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Jon Corzine (MF Global) for example. Hillary, as co-president with Bill Clinton, ran the presidential counsel’s office where Foster was officially last seen alive. Like at the State Department with Benghazi, it was Hillary’s senior staff at the White House who engaged in a “concerted” effort to protect her and to prevent Americans from finding out what Foster was really working on. In Benghazi, the Obama-Clinton regime denied FBI investigators access to Benghazi for nearly a month (page 23), after the crime scene had been contaminated and compromised just like Vince Foster’s office was contaminated and comprised as documented in Following Orders.

Indeed we have seen how this movie has ended before. The question is will Congress re-write the ending by holding Hillary accountable? If they do not, Congress is officially irrelevant, the rule of law in America is a joke, and the false left, right paradigm of politics will no longer be open for debate.

Congress must not back down to find out what Ambassador Stevens was really doing in Benghazi.

But Congress must ask the right questions. So far, they have not been doing that. The Congressional investigators must find out what the State Department was doing with the CIA in Benghazi working in what could be described as some type of a hybrid State/CIA agency on the “interagency” weapons recovery program called “buy-back” in the press—that the State Department prefers to call the MANPAD (Man-portable air-defense systems, like shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles) weapons recovery program. Unbelievably the Republican Benghazi interim report does not even mention this program or the missing weapons.

Recall it was after Col. Muammar Qaddafi was overthrown in late 2011 when then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya “secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.”

Where are these weapons? Who has the weapons inventory now? Who is responsible for the programs oversight? Thus far CIA and FBI have declined my FOIA requests. State has responded to my first inquiry. I’m awaiting an additional response now.

Remember technically Ambassador Stevens served under State but he, along with Woods and Doherty were CIA assets. Woods and Doherty were also GRS’s, the elite of the elite, of the elite forces—Global Response Staff, who called for help when they learned the Ambassador was in danger—rushed to help him themselves and were never provided with any assistance from the Obama-Clinton regime or as reported here—they were not provided with any options either.

The U.S. Backed Arab Spring

Meanwhile, because we have to take a broader look at Benghazi to see what really happened in Benghazi, let’s look at the region. We know the Saudi’s and other regional powers have been arming Syria’s rebel forces to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al- Assad for months. The Obama administration also wants to topple Assad. Additionally, we also know that when the U.S. intervened in Egypt, overthrowing President Hosni Mubarak, and Qaddafi in Libya, the Sunni Muslim brotherhood came into power. The Obama administration has been implementing a defacto-regime change policy in the Middle East.

Now reports of Saudi-style “morality police” have surfaced in the region.

Christians are being persecuted and slaughtered. Already the Muslim Brotherhood is planning their return to Syria. Who benefits from another Muslim Brotherhood regime? Why doesn’t the Obama administration speak out against the slaughter of Christians and others? Therein the pieces of the puzzle start to make sense.

Which is why the Congressional investigators must also ask what does the Obama administration think will happen when they try to overthrow President Assad in Syria like they did in Egypt and Libya? How does a Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Syria help American interests?

And that brings us back to Benghazi and how it relates to what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Libya. Congress must quickly find out how the Libya policy affects Syria as the ongoing drumbeats for war from Saudi Arabia and the U.S. to topple President Assad beat louder. It was just reported that the Syrian rebels have used sarin gas, not Assad. Congress must find out if the weapons from the Libya MANPADS recovery program ended up in the hands of the Syrian rebels.

Have American taxpayers been funding the Syrian rebels for months like they already funded the Egyptian and Libyan rebels or so-called “freedom fighters”? It certainly appears to be the case. Even the New York Times is finally now catching up and reporting how the CIA has been helping Arab governments and Turkey obtain and ship weapons to the Syrian rebels.

Did the Obama administration break international arms law? Does Iran Contra ring a bell? Don’t forget about the humanitarian aid that Hillary sent to Turkey. Has it all gone to aid for the refugees or somewhere else?

Back to the Republican Benghazi interim report.

Regarding the “talking points” Hillary’s State Department altered that were used to mislead the world by falsely blaming a YouTube video for the Benghazi terrorist attack, the Republican interim Benghazi report found on page 19 and 20:

“To protect the State Department, the Administration deliberately removed references to al -Qa’ida- linked groups and previous attacks in Benghazi in the talking points used by Ambassador Rice, thereby perpetuating the deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a demonstration caused by a YouTube video …

Congressional investigators were given access to email exchanges, in which White House and senior [State] Department officials discussed and edited the talking points. Those emails clearly reveal that Administration officials intentionally removed references in the talking points to the likely participation by Islamic extremists, to the known threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya, and to other recent attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi. This process to alter the talking points can only be construed as a deliberate effort to mislead Congress and the American people (bold mine).”

Yes, the talking points were altered to mislead America and protect Hillary but Benghazi is bigger than Hillary. The talking points were also edited to protect the administration’s policy and that is what needs to be exposed. They like to arm “rebels”—just don’t call them Islamic extremists as we witnessed in Egypt and Libya.

As we saw during the Foreign Relations Committee Benghazi hearings, Hillary and John Kerry were content to blame another fake villain—Congress and the lack of funding for the Benghazi terrorist attack when the YouTube story fell apart as I warned you they would do in “The Fix is In: Benghazi Cover-up 101 for Dummies.”

Incidentally, the Republican Benghazi interim report confirmed my warning, that Hillary’s latest fake villain was also fake (page 10 & 25). Perjury anyone? Still wondering why no one has been brought to justice yet?

The Obama administration will continue to blame fake villains banking on a public who remembers sound-bites to protect the bigger picture—the policy that doesn’t appear to be in America’s best interests.

Congress needs to take a step back and look at the big picture—at home and abroad. Remember when President Obama took office, his administration has been redefining “terrorism and terrorists” to man-made disasters or “Overseas Contingency Operations” for example. Military training manuals have been scrubbed; the term “jihadist” has been redefined to “extremists.” Removing references to Islamic extremists from the Benghazi talking points is standard operating procedure for this regime.

From the Benghazi interim report, page 20 and 21.

“After slight modifications [to the talking points] were made on Friday, September 14, a senior State Department official again responded that the edits did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and that the Department’s leadership was “consulting with [National Security Staff].”Several minutes later, White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account and asserted further discussion would occur the following morning at a Deputies Committee Meeting.

After the Deputies Committee Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, at which any interagency disagreement would be resolved by the White House a small group of officials from both the State Department and the CIA worked to modify the talking points to their final form to reflect the decision reached in the Deputies meeting. The actual edits were made by a current high–ranking CIA official (bold mine).”

Translation: Obama’s White House, Hillary’s State Department and David Petraeus’ CIA were working together to protect the policy –what Ambassador Stevens was actually doing that affects Syria today and not just to protect Hillary.

The report continues, ”Those edits struck any and all suggestions that the State Department had been previously warned of threats in the region, that there had been previous attacks in Benghazi by al -Qa’ida- linked groups in Benghazi and eastern Libya, and that extremists linked to al-Qa’ida may have participated in the attack on the Benghazi Mission. The talking points also excluded details about the wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya, an exacerbating factor that contributed to the lethality of the attacks.

Administration officials have said that modification of the talking points was an attempt to protect classified information and an investigation by the FBI but the evidence refutes these assertions … Claims that the edits were made to protect the FBI investigation are not credible (bold mine).”

So yes, the lies pile up and will continue to pile up if Congress fails at their job—again.

Next stop Syria

Widen your view. By their fruits you shall know them. Whose interests are being served by toppling regimes in the Middle East for the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood to take power because that is exactly what has happened in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and will also happen if the U.S. and the Saudi’s topple Syrian President Assad.

Remember while the Assad family are Alawites, Syria is a majority Sunni nation. Topple Assad and expect a mass slaughter or genocide of all faiths including Christians, Jews and Alawites. Topple Assad and expect an unimaginable epic bloody sectarian conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites (next door in Iran) like occurred in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was ousted but much, much worse.

Topple Assad and expect leaders like Maher Assad (Bashar’s brother) and other Alawites, who believe in the Muslim Shiite Twelver ideology that advocates the end of the modern world to bring about the return of the Mahdi which they believe will bring about a period of horrific destruction for all non-believers including the cleansing of the Sunnis—in their eyes also false believers, to abandon Syria for places like Iran—also Twelvers like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

While the West will predictably play the destruction of Damascus as an extraordinary defeat for the Syrian dictatorship of the Assad family, it might be viewed as martyrdom for Islam.

If you think what Washington, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton, has done and is doing will not affect you. Think again. Topple Assad and see how fast Iran swings into action to block the passage of oil and watch what happens to the oil-backed U.S. dollar. As my Benghazi insider detailed, “Any attack on the free flow of oil is an attack on the dollar. Any attack on the dollar is an attack on our ability to project power and protect Western democracies, economies, and ideals. God have mercy on us all if that attack is successful.”

This is why the Obama-Clinton regime has told so many lies about Benghazi. This is why Hillary during her testimony before Congress in January hid behind the now discredited Advisory Review Board (ARB) report, a disgusting sham and sick joke of an investigation that her friends, including U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen wrote, like I warned you she would do. During the ARB Hillary’s friends couldn’t be bothered to interview the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, find out about the weapons recovery program or even interview Hillary for starters. Recall how the ARB also blamed Ambassador Christopher Stevens for his death.

This is also why Hillary during her testimony, hollered at Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), “What difference does it make?” she said with her arms waving, referring to the question of who had edited the administration’s talking points and removed all references to Islamist terrorism.

Are you awake yet? Ask yourself, whose interests is this administration serving? Who is happy when references to Islamic terrorism are removed, extremists are armed and the terrorists that killed Americans in Benghazi are not held accountable? Who?

What Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi involves the next phase—Syria.
Syria will be different, worse, than Egypt and Libya. Syria will not implode, it will explode into a fierce fire that will keep spreading. The risk of a broader Middle East conflict is undeniable. If the Obama-Clinton regime get to finish what they started, after this epic battle that’s ignited in Syria ends, if it ends, who rises from the bloody ashes to “restore peace.”

You have been warned.

The Obama-Clinton regime was not just transforming America, but the world.

That’s why Ambassador Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith were not given any help or options.

[American Patriot]

[American Patriot]

Benghazi memos reportedly revised 12 times, official 'concerned' they would hurt State

Published May 10, 2013

FoxNews.com

New details about the Obama administration's initial story-line on the Benghazi attack are raising additional questions about top-level efforts to downplay terrorism, with one report showing a State Department official pushed to delete a section that could have been used to "beat up" her department.

The fresh reports have surfaced two days after three whistle-blowers testified on Capitol Hill about the Benghazi attack. One of them sharply challenged the administration's decision to describe the attack out of the gate as a protest gone wrong.

ABC News reported Friday that, despite administration claims that the flawed description reflected the best intelligence at the time, the talking points that led to the statement were revised 12 times.

Initial versions, as has been previously reported, contained references to Al Qaeda that were later deleted. But the latest excerpts show how State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland pressed the CIA to scrub references to the agency's prior security warnings.

According to ABC News, the original paragraph read:

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

But Nuland wrote that the lines "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned ..."

The paragraph in question was then reportedly deleted.

The Weekly Standard, which referenced that exchange briefly in a prior account, also reported new details Friday, describing how then-CIA Director David Petraeus voiced surprise when he learned the Saturday after the attack that officials had deleted all prior references to Al Qaeda and jihadists, leaving only the word "extremists."

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice would use the final version of the talking points to say on several Sunday shows that the attack was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film.

While administration officials and congressional Democrats have described the protracted debate over the talking points as politically motivated and inconsequential, the testimony this week drew new attention to it.

Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, said Rice's comments actually hurt the FBI investigation by insulting the Libyan president -- who gave a conflicting account at the time by saying the attack was premeditated.

Hicks said the anti-Islam film was actually a "nonevent" in Libya, and his "jaw dropped" when he heard Rice's comments.

ABC News reported that the CIA's first drafts did say the attack appeared to be "spontaneously inspired" by the protests at the embassy in Cairo. However, the early versions also said "we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack."

The State Department and White House have continued to defend their actions and intervention in light of the new details.

After it was first revealed that references to security concerns -- in addition to references to Al Qaeda -- were removed, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said: "What we said and what remains true to this day is that the intelligence community drafted and redrafted these points."

He defended administration claims that the faulty statements were merely the product of incomplete intelligence in a rapidly changing environment. Despite the excerpts, he stood by claims that White House involvement was minimal.

"The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this. But the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' and the like," he said.

State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell also said Rice's comments were based on the intelligence community's "best assessment that there was not any evidence of months-long pre-planning or pre-meditation, which remains their assessment."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2SuifKN00

[American Patriot]

10 May 2013 Last updated at 12:09 ET


Officials removed terror reference from Benghazi memo - report


Official talking points about an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya were edited by the state department to remove references to terrorism, a US television network has reported.

The revelation by ABC News contradicts earlier White House comments that the memo was mostly developed by the CIA.

Four Americans, including the US envoy, died in the raid on 11 September 2012.

Republicans suggest the Obama administration wanted to downplay terrorism ahead of the November vote.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens died of smoke inhalation when he was trapped in the burning consulate building, after armed men stormed the compound.

State department employee Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty also died in the attack.

The controversy stems in large part from an appearance on Sunday chat shows soon after the attacks by US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, who said the attack had grown out of an anti-US protest.

Other officials have said they knew at the time it was an organised, armed assault, possibly by an Islamist militant group.

'Beat up state department'

The new documents contain two rationales for the changes in language.

The first is that it would prejudice the FBI investigation. Perhaps, but I am not at all persuaded.

The other reason given - old-fashioned butt-guarding - is more credible.

However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the White House did get the CIA to change its story.

This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll.

The White House will be on the defensive for a while.


According to ABC News, as the dust settled in Libya the state department offered input on the talking points memo to be distributed to Congress and to Ms Rice.

The state department wanted to remove a reference to earlier CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi and excise the mention of Ansar al-Sharia, a group linked to al-Qaeda, ABC News reported.

State department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in an email to intelligence and White House officials obtained by the BBC that the reference should be dropped because it "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the state department for not paying attention to warnings", the network reports.

In November, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the information given to the public in the wake of the attack had been supplied by the intelligence community.

He said at the time: "The White House and the state department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate."

On Wednesday, a US diplomat in Libya during the attacks gave the first public account of the incident, in a Congressional hearing.

Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Tripoli, expressed frustration with the lack of military response to the incident, telling lawmakers he believed a second attack would have been deterred by a swift reaction.
'Systemic failures'

Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version

On Capitol Hill in January, Hillary Clinton angrily defended her handling of Benghazi

The Pentagon has said it could not have done anything to assist the besieged Americans.

And Mr Hicks criticised an official review of the attack, saying it focused too much on low-ranking officials.

That probe, led by former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and Adm Mike Mullen, singled out the diplomatic security and near eastern affairs bureaus for criticism.

It said "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels" in those teams led to a "security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place".

In congressional hearings in January, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took responsibility for the security failures at the compound.

Some analysts say that Mrs Clinton, who has been cited as a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, could be haunted by the incident if she chooses to run.

[American Patriot]

New round of "whistle blowers" coming out of the woodwork all of a sudden today.

[American Patriot]

The asshole mouthpiece lied his ass off.

The "talking points" main "changes" had nothing to do with the words terrorism or al qaeda which we now know was NOT TRUE.

Folks... it's time to call these people out for their constant lying to the America Public.

[vector7]

They are lying about many things.


I believe the Administration is holding out hope for the 2014 elections to have a majority in the House and Senate to legally push through their real draconian agenda so it will become the law of the land.


If it starts looking hopeless or dangerously close to taking down the leadership within the Administration they may get into survival mode.



GERALDO RIVERA: MY SOURCES TELL ME BENGHAZI WAS ABOUT RUNNING MISSILES TO SYRIA REBELS

Now liberal Geraldo appears to be going after the Obama administration. Sounds like he smells a big rat and his name isn’t Ben.

[American Patriot]

correction:

One WORD was changed (according to jay carney) "consulate" to "diplomatic facility".....