And She Wants To Be Your President

When asked what she did after the hearing, Hillary said, “Well, I had my whole team come over to my house, and we sat around eating Indian food, and drinking wine and beer. That’s what we did. … We were all talking about sports, TV shows. It was great, just to have that chance to, number one thank them, because they did a terrific job, kind of being there behind me, and getting me ready, and then just talk about what we’re going to do next.”  

Link


Meanwhile, the families of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, spent the night remembering this:

The Butcher of Benghazi

Obama's Link To Al Qaeda: Former Egyptian Jihad Leader: Morsi Gave $25M to Al Qaeda

 Nabil Na'im, former leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and close confidant of current Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri


Let's put the pieces together - the Obama administration was in full support of the Arab Spring in Egypt, the Obama administration was in full support of the Muslim Brotherhood taking power in Egypt, and now it all comes full circle as the link between the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda is clear - so, put the Muslim Brotherhood together with al Qaeda and then steer your attention to Benghazi and I would say you have a pretty solid theory of why Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton made up the "Mohammed video" fairly tale.

The story comes from The Clarion Project.

Former Egyptian Jihad Leader: Morsi Gave $25M to Al Qaeda


Nabil Na'im, formerly a close confidante of Al Qaeda's leader, said the money was to help organize support for the Brotherhood.


Speaking on Haya TV, Nabil Na'im, a former Islamist who was the leader of Egypt’s Islamic Jihad and who was previously a close confidante of current Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri, asserted that during the reign of former Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi, Zawahiri was given $25 million from Muslim Brotherhood leader Khairat al-Shatter to organize, fund and assemble the jihadi groups “in order to support the Brotherhood.”

Al-Shatter, though not a member of Morsi’s government, was imprisoned after the overthrow of Morsi. Al-Shatter was asked for personally by John McCain during his visit to Egypt last summer after Morsi's ouster at which time McCain pushed for the reinstatement of the Brotherhood. U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson was reportedly seen visiting Shatter often.

Na'im has previously said that attempts by the U.S. to “reconcile” Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood was “nothing but a conspiracy by the American administration,” and that the Brotherhood, when in power, had betrayed Egyptian sovereignty, adding that ousted president Morsi granted Egyptian citizenship to more than 60,000 Palestinians, many of whom were in the ranks of the jihad.

Hillary "actually having fun" ... While Families of Benghazi Victims Mourn

From this article at Bloomberg that talks about Hillary Clinton thinking of running for President, there is this admission from Hillary when asked how she is spending her time:

“I’m actually having fun doing ordinary things like seeing my friends and going on long walks and playing with our dogs,” said Clinton, 66. 

So there you have it.  Hillary Clinton wants all of America to know that she is "actually having fun" while the worms feed on the four dead Americans from the Benghazi terror attacks.  Hillary is playing with her dogs while the families of the four dead Americans mourn each and every day.  Hillary likes "seeing my friends" - well, Chris Stevens, Sean Smith , Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods don't have a chance to see any friends today because of this heartless monster.

Have fun, Hillary.  Run for President and we'll see to it that it's the most miserable experience of your entire life.

Clinton Says She’s ‘Thinking About’ Presidential Run


Hillary Clinton, an early front-runner in the 2016 U.S. presidential race, said that though she’s contemplating seeking the White House, she won’t make a decision soon.

“I am thinking about it,” Clinton, a Democrat and former U.S. secretary of state, said yesterday in a question-and-answer session following a speech at a conference in San Francisco. “I’m not going to make a decision for a while because I’m actually enjoying my life.”

Clinton, drawing upon her stint as America’s top diplomat, also told her audience that Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin is “a tough guy with a thin skin” who is trying to rebuild his country’s empire. She called his annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region “illegal” and a violation of international law.

“I have had my personal experiences with him,” said Clinton, who retired early last year as secretary of state. “He is very difficult to read personally, and he is always looking for advantage. So he will try to put you ill-at-ease. He will even throw an insult your way. He will look bored and dismissive.”

The global economic market is doing its part to rein in Putin, she said at the event hosted by Marketo Inc. (MKTO), a San Mateo, California-based provider of digital marketing software.

“The flood of money out of Russia in the last several months has been astonishing, and I hope it continues,” said Clinton, a former U.S. senator representing New York whose husband served as president from 1993 to 2001. “That is the best way to undermine the oligarchs who support him, undermine his own economic interests.”
Social Media

Clinton called social media “an important, essential catalyst for organization and action,” citing its use by activists during the January 2011 rebellion that ousted former President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and in other uprisings in the Middle East known as the Arab Spring.

Still, recalling a meeting with the social-media drivers of that effort soon after the revolt, she said they didn’t have a vision for what to do next.

“There is no doubt that social media, in and of itself, has an enormous transformative effect, but that can’t be the end of the story,” she said. “Or you leave that to people who can care less about Twitter; they care about power and they intend to exercise it and take advantage of everybody else.”

At the State Department, Clinton encouraged embassies to use websites run by Twitter Inc. (TWTR) and Facebook Inc. (FB)
Immigration Debate

Clinton said she was sorry that a push led by President Barack Obama’s administration to revise immigration policy has failed to advance in Congress.

The technology industry has been advocating for more visas for skilled immigrant workers. Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg last year announced the formation of an advocacy group, Fwd.us, and has met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to press the effort.

“I’m disappointed that it’s still a contentious issue,” Clinton said of the overall immigration debate. “It’s essential to keep focused on the visa issue because that’s a discreet problem that, even though I’d like to see it be part of an overall comprehensive reform, you have to keep pushing to open the aperture.”

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a Republican who is also considering a run for president, this week urged lawmakers to avoid “harsh political rhetoric” in discussing immigration, saying many undocumented workers who enter the U.S. are seeking to provide for their families in an “act of love.”
‘Hard Questions’

Clinton has said previously she will make her decision on a 2016 run later this year. She lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Obama in 2008.

“The hard questions are not: ‘Do you want to be president? Can you win?,’” she said at yesterday’s conference. “The hard questions are: ‘Why would you want to do this and what can you offer that could make a difference?’”

In an average of polls taken in March complied by the RealClearPolitics website, Clinton was the runaway preference for the Democratic presidential nomination, with 65 percent backing. Vice President Joe Biden was a distant second, with 12 percent support.

“I’m actually having fun doing ordinary things like seeing my friends and going on long walks and playing with our dogs,” said Clinton, 66.

The Battling Boys of Benghazi

Hat tip on this one to Henry Bowman, the email containing it refers to an anonymous Marine who authored it.

THE BATTLING BOYS OF BENGHAZI 

We're the battling boys of Benghazi

No fame, no glory, no paparazzi.

Just a fiery death in a blazing hell

Defending our country we loved so well.

It wasn't our job, but we answered the call,

fought to the Consulate and scaled the wall.

We pulled twenty Countrymen from the jaws of fate

Led them to safety, and stood at the gate.

Just the two of us, and foes by the score,

But we stood fast to bar the door.

Three calls for reinforcement, but all were denied,

So we fought, and we fought, and we fought 'til we died.

We gave our all for our Uncle Sam,

But Barack Obama didn't give a damn.

Just two dead seals who carried the load

No thanks to us.........we were just "Bumps In The Road".

---

Why Mitt Romney Didn’t Double Down on Benghazi

From Family Security Matters.

Why Mitt Romney Didn’t Double Down on Benghazi


What was behind Mitt Romney's unwillingness to use Benghazi as an issue in the 2012 presidential race? The recent book, Double Down, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, which purports to give the most detailed account of the 2012 campaign to date, attempts to answer that question. Halperin appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel earlier this month to discuss the new book.

Bill O'Reilly wanted to know why Romney didn't go after Obama more forcefully on Benghazi. "He was crazy, because he had the facts in the third debate right at his disposal," said O'Reilly. "Yes, he got bammed by the press, but [Romney] could have hammered him easy."

O'Reilly was referring to the Obama administration's failures surrounding the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. The security failures at the State Department also reflect on Obama's administration and on Hillary Clinton's leadership as Secretary of State.

"His campaign was telling him the country doesn't care about this issue," responded Halperin, who works for both Time magazine and MSNBC. He added, "...Every political person on his campaign said, the base cares about this, but the polls say we won't win on this issue, you need to talk about the economy." In the book, they wrote that "The campaign's research showed (as did Chicago's) that Benghazi meant next to nothing to the small slice of voters who remained undecided."

Actually, a review of polls at the time tells a different story. It meant a lot to the independents-in other words-the swing voters. According to an October 2012 NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, 39% of voters said that the U.S. could have prevented the attack in Libya, and 34% didn't know enough at the time. Obviously, there was room for a little education of the voters here. And an October 2012 CBS/New York Times poll indicated that evaluations of the administration for its handling of Libya are "more negative among likely voters." Fifty-seven percent of the all-important independents disapproved of Obama's handling of the Libya attacks.

In the fall of 2012, then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney attacked President Obama for his administration's initial response to the Benghazi attack. And he got burned by the media, which were more interested in reporting on Romney's supposed "gaffe" than on Obama's lack of leadership in a time of crisis. What Romney had said, in a prepared statement the morning after the Benghazi attack, was, "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Heilemann and Halperin at least acknowledged that Benghazi "was a horrendous failure on the part of the administration," but they argued that "Romney had distracted attention and scrutiny away from the White House. A potentially brutal blow to the president had been deflected by the man who hoped to replace him."

Then, Romney got burned again in the presidential debates when he accused President Obama of waffling on whether the Benghazi attacks were an "act of terror" or the result of spontaneous protests provoked by the "Innocence of Muslims" film. Candy Crowley, the moderator, just happened to have a copy of Obama's September 12th Rose Garden speech at the ready when Obama called out, "Get the transcript." "He did in fact call it an ‘act of terror,'" she replied. "It did, as well...take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape, to come out, you're correct about that," interceded Crowley. Romney accurately responded that "The administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction. It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group."

Romney felt burned by the debate incident, even though he was correct in his claim. But, "After those two occasions, he was never going to get near it again," Halperin told O'Reilly.

"In Obama's Rose Garden remarks on September 12 and two other speeches, the president had used the phrase ‘acts of terror' in the context of Benghazi," wrote Halperin and Heilemann in their book. "But on three other occasions when he was asked directly whether the attack was the work of terrorists, he had declined to say yes-fueling charges from the right that the administration was seeking to limit the president's political exposure." But this is an incomplete telling of the events as they occurred.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," said Obama in his Rose Garden speech. His next sentence was, "Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America." If there was no additional information available, one could argue that Obama was accurate in his claim of having acknowledged that it was an "act of terror," which is, however, legally distinguishable from an "act of terrorism" or a "terrorist act."

But Obama then went on CBS "60 Minutes" and addressed a direct question about what he meant that day: he refused to call it a terrorist attack.

Steve Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?

Barack Obama: Well it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.

That part of the "60 Minutes" segment was held back by the producers until November 4, 2012, two days before the presidential election. Double Down doesn't even mention this blatant act of media bias, although it does mention the interview as a whole.

As the account above demonstrates, the media played an active role in deflecting Romney's barbs, not just Romney himself. As for Halperin and Heilemann, they left out key parts of the story in the book, and Halperin's account to O'Reilly didn't match up with the facts.

The 15 Worst Congressmen/Congresswomen In the United States of America

Each and every one of these pieces of shit should be targeted for being voted out in 2014 - no expense, no sweat should be spared in making sure that these 15 never, ever disgrace this country again.

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

Progressives, Dems Slap the Faces of Benghazi Dead

In a move that illustrates why the overwhelming majority of American's have grown to despise partisan politics - and come to be understandably offended by the actions of the Left, Progressives and Democrats on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee executed - under the guise of protest - one of the most insensitive and disrespectful actions in the history of the United States House of Representatives. They staged a pre-planned and organized "walkout" before the testimonies of the families of those slaughtered in Banghazi on September 11, 2012.

Those elected to office are sent to Washington to represent the whole of their constituencies, not just those with whom they agree. By staging this inarguably childish - and ultimately selfish - political theater, they have abdicated their responsibility to represent those with whom they disagree ideologically. This is an abdication of their obligation to the office; to their constituents. It is an action that even their supporters should abhor and, in fact, penalize them for.

The Capitalism Institute reports:

Earlier today, an important hearing regarding the attack on Benghazi was being held by the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee. The parents of the Benghazi heroes who died fighting to protect the US consulate were about to speak.

Then, in a turn of events that's disgusting even by DC standards, most of the Democrats stood up and walked out. Apparently, they were either protesting or trying to show disrespect - either way, if there was any honor in their districts at all, this would end their careers...

Here's the list of people who walked out:

Carolyn Maloney (P-NY)

Danny Davis (P-IL)

Eleanor Holmes Norton (P-DC)

Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA)

Jim Cooper (D-TN)

John Tierney (P-MA)

Mark Pocan (P-WI)

Matt Cartwright (P-PA)

Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM)

Peter Welch (P-VT)

Stephen Lynch (D-MA)

Steven Horsford (P-NV)

Tammy Duckworth (P-IL)

Tony Cardenas (D-CA)

William Lacy Clay (D-MO)

Remember, last week John Kerry stopped the Benghazi survivors from being even questioned by congress.

What were these vicious ideologues trying to prove? That they could be indignant to the point of insulting parents and family who had to receive coffins in place of an embrace from their loved ones as they returned home from serving their country?

What was the statement the country was supposed to take away from their actions? That they are too good to listen to the grief that their political party's infantile foreign policy has foisted onto these families?

Will these indignant Progressive and Liberal zealots have us believe that there was some "higher principle" to take away from their affront to the aggrieved; some "larger purpose" to their hate-filled and arrogant actions?

Progressives and Liberals would have you believe that their party - the Democrat Party - is the party of compassion and understanding; that the Democrat Party is the political party that commiserates with those affected by "social injustice" and morally transgressed in our country. The actions of these fifteen intellectual reprobates proves - in no uncertain terms - that Progressives couldn't care less about those they disagree with, even when life has been lost...even when life has been lost in the service of our country...even when life has been lost in the service of our country at their political party's direction (or indirection, if you will).

The mother of slain diplomat Sean Smith, in probably the most moving comment of the session, asked:

"Every time I see this on TV, I see these bloody fingerprints crawling down the wall of that Benghazi place, and I keep asking everybody...‘Do those belong to my son?!'"

How can any human being - elected to office or not, ideologue or not - care less about this woman's torture; care less about that singularly important question? What kind of monster(s) ignores this woman's plea for answers?

With each footstep that each of these fifteen political derelicts took leading to the doors of the committee chamber, we should all remember that those were footsteps that Amb. Chris Stevens, Diplomat Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty will never - ever - be able to take...anywhere...ever.

I think it is safe to say that the actions of these fifteen "lawmakers" exemplify the worst in American politics today.

The sad thing in all of this is that there are people who will vote for these national disgraces again in 2014, dismissing their cruel and unusual actions against the grieving families of the Benghazi dead. To those people I say, when you cast your vote for one of these fifteen, take note of the blood dripping from your hand, because it is there.

I must say, over the years I have become thoroughly disgusted with the Progressive movement for their selfish, narcissistic and ignorant nature. This action seals it.

God bless those who lost their lives in the Benghazi slaughter, for which our Commander-In-Chief offered no aid; for which our President and his Progressive minions have affected no justice. And God protect those who grieve for their loss.

Why Doesn't the Obama Administration Want To Talk About the 400 Missiles Stolen In Benghazi?

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

Obama Administration Covers Up Missile Theft

The Obama administration is covering up the theft of 400 surface to air missiles by "some very ugly people," the lawyer for a Benghazi whistleblower told WMAL Radio in Washington D.C. last week.

Joe DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney, represents Mark Thompson, who was Deputy Coordinator for Operations in the State Department's Bureau of Counterterrorism.

He was referring to MANPADS (man portable air defense systems) such as the American Stinger or the Russian SA-24. They're now in the hands of al Qaida, Mr. DiGenova said.

The theft was the reason why the administration shut down 22 diplomatic missions, he said.

"They were afraid that there was going to be a missile attack on one of the embassies," Mr. DiGenova said.

Fear that U.S. troops coming to the rescue might be shot down may also be why no help was sent during the seven hour siege of our consulate in Benghazi and its annex on 9/11/2012, he said.

"We had troops in Croatia ready to deploy," Mr. DiGenova said.

A former diplomat told him AFRICOM "had special ops assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately," Roger Simon of PJ Media reported in May.

He didn't know whether the missiles were taken from the CIA annex, but "it's clear" the annex was "somehow involved" in distributing them, Mr. DiGenova said. He didn't say to whom.

MANPADS from Libya have been reported in the hands of Somali pirates, an Islamist militia in Niger, and Syrian rebels.

Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi bought thousands of MANPADS from Russia over the years, which fell into Islamist hands when he was overthrown, Con Coughlin, defense editor for the London Telegraph, wrote in October 2011.

The CIA annex "had been a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles," Reuters News Service reported last October.

Rebels had MANPADS before Qaddafi fell. They used them to shoot down Libyan air force aircraft during the civil war.

The rebels got some early in the conflict from raids on regime weapons depots.

Rebels showed him Stinger missiles, a reporter for the Australian Broadcasting Company said in March, 2011. There's an enormous difference in capability between the modern Stinger and the old Soviet SA-7s (first manufactured in 1972) looted from the regime's arsenals.

Perhaps Ben Knight, the Aussie reporter, was using the term to describe MANPADS generally. But rebel leaders specifically requested Stingers. The rebels were getting Stingers from foreign sources, Khadafy's intelligence service suspected.

Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi on 9/11/2012 to buy back from al Qaida groups Stinger missiles "issued to them by the State Department," Mr. Simon said he was told by two former diplomats.

The CIA was against giving missiles to insurgents for fear they would fall into the wrong hands, but Secretary Clinton wanted "to overthrow Khadafy on the cheap," one of his sources told him, Mr. Simon said.

"This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the 'insurgents' actually were al-Qaeda," he wrote.

Whatever was going on, the administration is going to considerable lengths to conceal it.

There were "dozens" of CIA operatives at the annex on 9/11/2012, CNN reported Aug. 1. Survivors "have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations."

"The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress," CNN said. "It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career."

The administration is "dispersing" witnesses across the country, and is changing their names to hide the truth from Congress, charged Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-SC, a member of the House Oversight Committee investigating Benghazi, and a former federal prosecutor.

The Obama administration "did not take proper measures to secure the weapons," said Rep. Peter King, R-NY, who heads the Counterterrorism and Intelligence subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee.

"They are now responsible for all the stepchildren of violence that happens as a result of this," Mr. DiGenova said. "That's why they have lied repeatedly about what happened in Benghazi."

A Take On What Really Happened At Benghazi That You Haven't Heard Before

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

Former Muslim Brotherhood Member tells us what the Government won’t about the Terror Attack in Benghazi

Dr. Mark Christian from the Global Faith Institute sent The Gateway Pundit his account of the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012:

Syrian president Bashar el Assad, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah of Lebanon are fully responsible for the death of United States Ambassador Christopher Stevens. President Obama has known this fact since the minute he first learned about the attack.

Stevens, from his Benghazi base, was stockpiling weapons - and resourcing the expert fighters who could use them - to topple Assad's rule in Syria. On September 11, 2012, Assad powerfully punched back, raiding the Benghazi compound which housed the armament for his own destruction. Though Assad's reprisal resulted in the loss of four American lives, including Stevens, he forcefully conveyed that he would not be thrown out of the ring.

The Syrian uprising is not a simple "the good guys vs. the bad guys" action-packed conflict. While there is plenty of action, there are no good guys. There are, however, two opponents who have been duking it out for hundreds of years, the Sunnis and the Shiites. In the Sunni corner, we have U.S. President Barack Obama, championed primarily by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt. Their combatants, the Shiites, include Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah - the Lebanese militia controlled by Iran and Syria.

Under President Barack Obama's direction in the 2011 Arab Spring, the Sunnis had already ousted evil dictators from countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. It appeared to be pro-democracy freedom-fighting at its finest. It wasn't. The overthrown governments were quickly replaced with Muslim-Brotherhood-aligned, Sunni Islamic theocracies. And the next country on the list for overthrow was Syria. But unlike the easier targets of Mubarek, Ben Ali, and Gaddafi, Shiite Syrian leader Bashar Assad has the powerful allies of Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia.

The Assad regime was fully aware of the shrouded activity in Benghazi, fully aware that Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the man credited for the assassination of Gaddafi, was much more than an ambassador. Though serving in Tripoli as the U.S. Ambassador to transition a tribal Libya to Sunni Islamic rule, Stevens covertly used Benghazi as his base of operation for the next phase of Arab Spring: overthrowing Assad in Syria. From his Benghazi compound Stevens stored and supplied weapons for thousands of hired, rebel fighters - many of which were al-Qaeda - headed to Syria.

In August, 2012, team Sunni provoked team Shiite on their home turf in Tehran at the Non-Alignment Movement Summit. After making several diplomatic attempts to end the illicit smuggling of guns and gunners by Obama and the Sunnis into Syria, Iran became insulted when Egyptian President Morsi demanded removal of Syrian President Assad. Following this ultimatum, Morsi arrogantly snubbed the fundamental Shiite beliefs held by Iranian President Ahmadinejad and spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. This was the last straw.

The threatened Shiites forcefully and strategically retaliated by attacking the Benghazi compound. Why? They were seeking to expose the Sunni agenda of President Barack Obama to the American electorate during Obama’s re-election campaign, Iran was confident that this bold retribution would prevent Obama’s second presidential term, and squash the Sunni initiative in Syria.

On the morning of September 11, 2012, Christopher Stevens and his aide, Sean Smith, were meeting at the Benghazi headquarters with Turkish Consul General, Ali Sait Akin, and his associates. Turkey was the staging ground through which the Syria-bound guns and rebels were smuggled. Thirty-four additional Syrian opposition supporters were also in attendance. Shortly after Mr. Akin & Co. made a substantial “financial contribution” and left, the compound was struck by a highly-organized assault by Hezbollah fighters. The eyes of the Middle East, as well as any online observer of Libyan and Middle Eastern press, watched the brazen attack on Benghazi…

…If Americans knew what really happened, if the mainstream media uncovered and exposed Obama and his Sunni agenda, Obama would not be the current American president, but a prosecuted American citizen. If his orchestration and support of Arab Spring, including Syria, was revealed, President Obama, who has hidden much more than Benghazi from the American people, would finally be held accountable for his actions. If it became public knowledge that – while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was ignoring the body of her American Ambassador Christopher Stevens, she was ordering that all of Stevens’ classified information in Tripoli be destroyed – then Ms. Clinton’s presidential aspirations might be imprisoned. And the families of Stevens, Smith, Woods, and Doherty would definitively know what difference it does make when the daylight of truth shines on the darkness of night.

Eye-witnesses, including the thirty-four various nationals who participated in Stevens’ meeting on the morning of September 11, 2012, could provide testimony exponentially more illuminating than the scripted smoke of the one-day Congressional performance of Benghazi whistle blowers. However, their interest in exposing the truth, and their whereabouts, is extremely unlikely since they were undoubtedly complicit with the Sunni scheme.

But Benghazi was just the beginning. Assad and his gang continue to target countries supporting the Syrian uprising.
Were these attacks just isolated events or part of a coordinated plan?
*On April 15, 2013, two bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon in America.
*Two Iranian-linked terrorists were apprehended just days following the Boston bombing when their plan to derail a Canadian passenger train in Toronto was thwarted.
*A car bomb injured two guards at the French Embassy in Tripoli on April 23, 2013; France financially supported the Syrian opposition.
*British Prime Minister Cameron met with Russian President Putin on May 10, 2013, and with President Obama on May 13, 2013. On May 22, 2013, a British soldier was publically beheaded by terrorists.
*Dozens are killed from a car bomb near the Syrian border in Reyhanli, Turkey on May 11, 2013.
*President Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan meet on May 16, 2013 followed by violent riots in Istanbul, where bombings as recent as June 5, 2013 have occurred.

As tensions between Israel and Syria intensify, as Syria is purported to have received its first shipment of $300 anti-aircraft missiles from Russia, all the key players are keenly conscious that an attack against Syria, the dominant subject of the upcoming Geneva talks, is an attack against Russia. The stakes are shockingly high, and there is no indication of either faction, Sunni or Shiite, backing down. Meanwhile, as the controlled and calculated fires of IRS and the Associated Press capture the American attention, keeping them distracted and clueless, a catastrophic wildfire awaits. World War III could readily ignite, and the Benghazi blazes were simply the match.

The Straw That Will Break Obama's Back

Benghazi.  It must be the end of Barack Hussein Obama.  We, as American citizens, have to see to it that Benghazi sticks - that the whole mess is opened up like a rotting corpse of a water buffalo on the African plain....this WILL be the demise of Barack Hussein Obama - if you want it bad enough.

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

Benghazi was Center for Covert Arms to Syrian Rebels in CIA OP; Secrecy is to Avoid Iran-Contra Type Exposure

CNN's Jake Tapper broke new ground yesterday by reporting that there were 35 CIA operatives on the ground in Benghazi at the time of the September, 2012 raid. But the questions loom: What were they doing there? And why was the Administration so desperate to coverup their presence that it administered polygraph tests to stop leaking and had agents use aliases?

Answers to these questions were ventured by James Horn, a former intelligence operative and the author of the 2011 book Experiencing Islam. Horn spoke on the Dick Morris Show on WPHT 1210 AM in Philadelphia.

In a previous appearance on the Dick Morris show on June 24, 2013 and in an article in Family Security Matters magazine in June, Horn broke the news - now confirmed by CNN -- that the CIA had "thirty additional Americans on the ground in Benghazi at the time of the attack."

He says that they were involved in a covert and possibly illegal effort to ship arms from Libya to the Syrian rebels with the aid of al Qaeda operatives. "The CIA was involved in the illegal acquisition of weapons from the terrorist al Qaeda affiliates in Libya and shipping them to al Qaeda Sunni terrorists in Syria via Turkey."

If Horn's testimony is to be believed, it would mean that the coverup of the Benghazi raid was motivated by much more than a mere desire by Obama to conceal the viability of al Qaeda despite the bin Laden killing. Obama may have been trying to stop a full blown Iran-Contra type scandal from engulfing his administration.

Apart from the cosmetics of being found to be working with al Qaeda to arm al Qaeda rebels in Syria, Obama may have feared legal issues.

Media reports suggest that lawyers advising the Administration have had serious concerns that arming the rebels could violate "customary international law" and give Syrian dictator Assad legal justification and motivation to attack Americans around the world.

In addition the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had not approved aid to the Syrian rebels at the time of the Benghazi attack and did not do so until last month. To have armed the Syrian rebels would have violated the tacit understanding between the executive and the Intelligence Committees that the Administration would not proceed without the approval of the Committees.

The perspective from Horn of the real issues at stake in Benghazi makes the CIA's efforts to cover it up more understandable. It would be to stop revelations of this magnitude from leaking out that the agency would be polygraphing its operatives in Libya monthly, moving them around the country, and making them take assumed names.

But the Benghazi scandal has gone from an effort by the Administration to deflect public focus on al Qaeda's continuing power to an attempt to cover up possibly illegal arms shipments reminiscent of Reagan's Iran Contra scandal.

Now the focus of the investigation must not only be why Obama and Hillary Clinton lied saying that the raid was simply an overreaction to a movie and why there was not adequate military support for Ambassador Chris Stevens but what the CIA was doing there anyway and whether it violates American or international law.

BREAKING: Benghazi Survivors Forced to Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements

It's simple.  Benghazi should be the end of the Obama presidency and the end of tyranny in this country.

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

BREAKING: Benghazi Survivors Forced to Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements

Virginia Republican Congressman Frank Wolf said Thursday that survivors of the Benghazi, Libya terror assault have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements prohibiting them from speaking out about the deadly attack.

"According to trusted sources that have contacted my office, many if not all of the survivors of the Benghazi attacks along with others at the Department of Defense, the CIA have been asked or directed to sign additional non-disclosure agreements about their involvement in the Benghazi attacks," Wolf said on the House floor. "Some of these new NDAs, as they call them, I have been told were signed as recently as this summer."

Wolf said that if accurate, "this would be a stunning revelation."

“It also raises serious concerns about the priority of the administration’s efforts to silence those with knowledge of the Benghazi attack in response,” Wolf said.

The congressman said he was requesting from the CIA, Defense Department and State Department a list of all personnel or contractors asked to sign non-disclosure waivers.

“Perhaps through a list of all the employees that have signed the NDAs related to Benghazi we may finally develop a witness list to subpoena for eyewitness testimony to learn what happened that night where we lost four American lives,” Wolf said. “I do not expect the Obama administration to be forthcoming with answers, but if this Congress — if this Congress — does not ask for the information and compels its delivery the American people will never learn the truth.”

The Damning Evidence of the Benghazi Talking Points Emails

Impeachment.  Arrests.  Incarceration.  Public Shame.

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

Emails Reveal: Accuracy was Scrubbed out of Benghazi ‘Talking Points’

As the hour grew late on the night of Sept. 14, the White House wanted to make one thing clear to the State Department and the CIA as the three collaborated on what would come to be known as the Benghazi "talking points," designed to be used by Congress and administration officials to explain what had happened three days earlier at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

The attack, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, was not planned, White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote in an 8:54 p.m. email.

"There is massive disinformation out there," Mr. Vietor wrote. "They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptions or briefings. So I think this is a response to not only a tasking from the house intel committee but also [National Security Council] guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record."

The initial talking points ran six paragraphs long and said the crowd was a mix of individuals, but "that being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida participated in the attack." The talking points went on to recount attacks against other countries' diplomatic missions in Benghazi and raised the prospect that the U.S. facilities were "previously surveilled" in anticipation of the attack.

By the time the talking points were approved a day later, they had been reduced to three paragraphs and any hint of terrorists or planning had been scrubbed. The final version said the attack was the culmination of "demonstrations" that were "spontaneously inspired" by protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier Sept. 11, though it did acknowledge "indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

"There is massive disinformation out there. They all think it was premeditated ... more >

Benghazi and the administration's talking points have not gone away as an issue for Republicans.

On Tuesday, Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, delivered a floor speech on the need for a special committee to answer several questions. He said he plans a series of statements and letters to the State Department to garner more information before the August recess.

"Perhaps the most telling sign of the incomplete state of the Benghazi investigation is the fact that not one of the survivors of the Benghazi attacks - from the consulate or the [CIA] annex - have publicly testified before Congress," Mr. Wolf said. "Despite nearly a full year of multiple committee investigations, not one witness has been brought before a committee to publicly testify under oath about what happened that night."

On Thursday, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs will hold a hearing on what Rep. Edward R. Royce, California Republican and committee chairman, calls “inadequacies” in the State Department’s accountability review board and its report on Benghazi security failures.

A page-by-page examination of administration emails documenting the editing of the talking points shows a final product that got the facts wrong, but dovetailed with President Obama’s campaign-mode narrative that a mob angry over an American video committed the attack.

The document has become the centerpiece of a Washington scandal, as Republicans charge that the White House attempted to cover up what really happened so as not to harm the president’s re-election chances. Obama supporters say the exercise was standard interagency back-and-forth discussion as all sides tried to reach agreement on the facts.

Some findings from the pages of emails released by the White House on May 16:

• Obama aides ignored or discounted mounting evidence that the attack was planned — not, as they asserted, a spontaneous violent protest over an anti-Muslim YouTube video.

• During the exchange of emails, the FBI said al Qaeda was involved in the assault, yet the words “al Qaeda” were deleted from an early draft and never reinserted.

• State Department political appointees worked to delete any language that suggested there were warnings of an attack, saying it would leave Foggy Bottom open to criticism from Congress. (Congressional hearings later would show that the embassy in Tripoli had sent memos warning of increased violence and asking for more security.)

Al Qaeda weapons expert: U.S. ambassador to (Benghazi) Libya killed by lethal injection

Good lord.

From Family Security Matters.

Al Qaeda weapons expert: U.S. ambassador to (Benghazi) Libya killed by lethal injection

An al Qaeda terrorist stated in a recent online posting that U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi went bad.

The veracity of the claim by Abdallah Dhu-al-Bajadin, who was identified by U.S. officials as a weapons expert for al Qaeda, could not be determined. However, U.S. officials have not dismissed the terrorist's assertion.

An FBI spokeswoman indicated that the bureau is aware of the claim but declined to comment because of the ongoing investigation into the Benghazi attacks.

"While there is a great deal of information in the media and on the Internet about the attack in Benghazi, the FBI is not in a position at this time to comment on anything specific with regard to the investigation," spokeswoman Kathy Wright said.

A State Department spokesman had no comment.

The FBI is investigating the deaths of Stevens, State Department information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. They were killed in attacks that U.S. officials say were carried out by an al Qaeda-linked group known as Ansar al-Sharia.

A State Department Accountability Review Board report and an interim House Republican report on the attacks gave no cause of death for Stevens, whose body was recovered by Libyans in the early hours of Sept. 12.

The House report, "Interim Progress Report for the House Republican Conference," said that "Libyan doctors tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate Ambassador Stevens upon his arrival at the hospital."

To date, no official cause of death for Stevens has been made public, although it was reported that a Libyan doctor who examined Stevens said he died from apparent smoke inhalation and related asphyxiation.

Video and photos of Stevens being handled by a mob in Benghazi were posted on the Internet. It is not clear from the images whether he was dead or alive at the time.

According to a March 14 posting on an al Qaeda-linked website, Dhu-al-Bajadin stated that Stevens was given a lethal injection that was overlooked during the autopsy.

The “plan was based on abduction and exchange of high-level prisoners,” the terrorist wrote on the prominent jihadist Web forum Ansar al-Mujahideen Network. “However, the operation took another turn, for a reason God only knows, when one of the members of the jihadist cell improvised and followed Plan B.”

Dhu-al-Bajadin’s claim of assassination also was copied to the Ansar al-Mujahidin website from the al Qaeda-accredited website Shumukh al-Islam. That site is open only to members, and the claim initially was posted for Dhu-al-Bajadin by a member identified as Adnan Shukri.

The reference to Shumukh al-Islam has boosted the credibility of the claim among some U.S. intelligence analysts. A Western intelligence official said Dhu-al-Bajadin is a well-known jihadist and a key figure behind a magazine called Al Qaeda Airlines.

According to this official, intelligence analysts believe Dhu-al-Bajadin’s claim of assassination by lethal injection appears aimed, in part, at pressuring the U.S. government on its handling of the Benghazi attacks.

The article did not say what substance was used in the lethal injection. It also stated that the State Department had come under criticism for not providing adequate security in Benghazi before the attacks.

Dhu-al-Bajadin said he had more details about the attacks and the assassination, but would not reveal them in the posting.

The Washington Free Beacon obtained a copy of the translation of Dhu-al-Bajadin’s posting in Arabic.

The article stated that lethal injections are done in “more than one place in the human body that autopsy doctors ignore when they see that the symptoms are similar to another specific and common illness.”

“Anyone who studied the art of silent assassination that spies applied during the Cold War would easily identify these parts of the body,” the article stated.

Dhu-al-Bajadin has said the Al Qaeda Airlines publication is not solely focused on aviation but was chosen as a way to instill fear in the enemy.

The 10 P.M. Phone Call: Clinton and Obama Discussed Benghazi. What Did They Say?

Can you imagine if you could have been a fly on the wall during that discussion on September 11, 2012?

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

The 10 P.M. Phone Call: Clinton and Obama Discussed Benghazi. What Did They Say?


"What would you be focusing on in the Benghazi investigation?" I spent many years in the investigation biz, so it's only natural that I've been asked that question a lot lately.

I had the good fortune to be trained in Rudy Giuliani's U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan. Rudy famously made his mark by making law enforcement reflect what common sense knew: Enterprises take their cues from the top. Criminal enterprises are no different: The capos do not carry out the policy of the button-men - it's the other way around.

So if I were investigating Benghazi, I'd be homing in on that 10 p.m. phone call. That's the one between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - the one that's gotten close to zero attention.

Benghazi is not a scandal because of Ambassador Susan Rice, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, and "talking points." The scandal is about Rice and Nuland's principals, and about what the talking points were intended to accomplish. Benghazi is about derelictions of duty by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton before and during the massacre of our ambassador and three other American officials, as well as Obama and Clinton's fraud on the public afterward.

A good deal of media attention has quite appropriately been lavished on e-mail traffic between mid-level administration officials in the days leading up to Sunday, September 16. That is the day when Ms. Rice, a close Obama confidant, made her appalling appearances on the Sunday-morning political shows. Those performances were transparently designed to mislead the American people, during the presidential campaign stretch run, into believing that an anti-Islamic Internet video - rather than a coordinated terrorist attack orchestrated by al-Qaeda affiliates, coupled with the Obama administration's gross failure to secure and defend American personnel in Benghazi - was responsible for the killings.

Fraud flows from the top down, not the mid-level up. Mid-level officials in the White House and the State Department do not call the shots - they carry out orders. They also were not running for reelection in 2012 or positioning themselves for a campaign in 2016. The people doing that were, respectively, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.

Obama and Clinton had been the architects of American foreign policy. As Election Day 2012 loomed, each of them had a powerful motive to promote the impressions (a) that al-Qaeda had been decimated; (b) that the administration's deft handling of the Arab Spring - by empowering Islamists - had been a boon for democracy, regional stability, and American national security; and (c) that our real security problem was "Islamophobia" and the "violent extremism" it allegedly causes - which was why Obama and Clinton had worked for years with Islamists, both overseas and at home, to promote international resolutions that would make it illegal to incite hostility to Islam, the First Amendment be damned.

All of that being the case, I am puzzled why so little attention has been paid to the Obama-Clinton phone call at 10 p.m. on the night of September 11.

Even in the conservative press, it has become received wisdom that President Obama was AWOL on the night of September 11, after first being informed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in the late afternoon, that the State Department facility in Benghazi was under attack. You hear it again and again: While Americans were under attack, the commander-in-chief checked out, leaving subordinates to deal with the crisis while he got his beauty sleep in preparation for a fundraising campaign trip to Vegas.

That is not true . . . and the truth, as we've come to expect with Obama, is almost surely worse. There is good reason to believe that while Americans were still fighting for their lives in Benghazi, while no military efforts were being made to rescue them, and while those desperately trying to rescue them were being told to stand down, the president was busy shaping the "blame the video" narrative to which his administration clung in the aftermath.

We have heard almost nothing about what Obama was doing that night. Back in February, though, CNS News did manage to pry one grudging disclosure out of White House mendacity mogul Jay Carney: "At about 10 p.m., the president called Secretary Clinton to get an update on the situation."

Obviously, it is not a detail Carney was anxious to share. Indeed, it contradicted an earlier White House account that claimed the president had not spoken with Clinton or other top administration officials that night.

The earlier story better fit Obama's modus operandi, which is to disappear in times of crisis. His brief legislative career was about voting "present" because he prefers to be absent when accountability knocks. The idea is to be the Obama of Evan Thomas lore: "standing above the country, above - above the world, he's sort of God." He reemerges only after the shooting stops and the smoke clears: gnosis personified, here to diagnose our failings. He is not a commander-in-chief for the battle but the armchair general of the post mortem.

In this instance, though, Carney's hand was forced by then-secretary Clinton. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, she recounted first learning at about 4 p.m. on September 11 that the State Department facility in Benghazi was under attack. That was very shortly after the siege started. Over the hours that followed, Clinton stated, "we were in continuous meetings and conversations, both within the department, with our team in Tripoli, with the interagency and internationally." It was in the course of this "constant ongoing discussion and sets of meetings" that Clinton then recalled: "I spoke with President Obama later in the evening to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective."

Yes, the 10 p.m. phone call.

In contrast to President Obama's preference for absence, Mrs. Clinton has always projected the image of the tireless hands-on leader. But the aim of this energetic ubiquity is not all that different from that of Obama's disappearing act: If you're dazzled by how hard she works, she may not need to account for what it is she's been working on.

In the case of Benghazi, however, we now have context for Clinton's frenetic activity. Thanks to the whistleblower testimony at a House hearing by Gregory Hicks, the State Department's No. 2 official in Libya at the time of the Benghazi siege, we know what Clinton learned in her "continuous meetings and conversations" that night.

When Clinton began monitoring events after 4 p.m., State's No. 1 official in Libya, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, had just urgently called his deputy, Hicks, to alert the State Department that the Benghazi facility and Stevens himself were "under attack." Hicks, who was in Tripoli at the time, made clear that everyone on the ground in Libya knew what was happening in Benghazi was a terrorist attack - the anti-Islamic video "was a non-event," he explained. He also made clear that he was the leader of what Clinton had called "our team in Tripoli." As such, he kept the State Department in Washington up to speed on developments.

We also know that at 8 p.m. Washington time, Hicks spoke directly with Clinton and some of her top advisers by telephone. Not only was it apparent that a terrorist attack involving al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Sharia was underway, but Hicks's two most profound fears at the time he briefed Clinton centered on those terrorists: First, there were reports that Ambassador Stevens might be in the clutches of the terrorists at a hospital they controlled; second, there were rumblings that a similar attack on the embassy in Tripoli could be imminent, convincing Hicks that State Department personnel should evacuate. He naturally conveyed these developments to his boss, the secretary of state. Clinton, he recalled, agreed that evacuation was the right course.

At about 9 p.m. Washington time, Hicks learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens was dead. Hicks said he relayed all significant developments on to Washington as the evening progressed - although he did not speak directly to Secretary Clinton again after the 8 p.m. briefing.

That is the context of the 10 p.m. phone call between the president and the secretary of state.

We do not have a recording of this call, and neither Clinton nor the White House has described it beyond noting that it happened. But we do know that, just a few minutes after Obama called Clinton, the Washington press began reporting that the State Department had issued a statement by Clinton regarding the Benghazi attack. In it, she asserted:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.

Gee, what do you suppose Obama and Clinton talked about in that 10 p.m. call?

Interestingly, CNS News asked Carney whether, in that 10 p.m. phone call, the president and Secretary Clinton discussed the statement that Clinton was about to issue, and, specifically, whether they discussed "the issue of inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

Carney declined to answer.

We now know from the e-mails and TV clips that, by Sunday morning, the White House staff, State Department minions, and Susan Rice were all in agreement that the video fairy tale, peppered with indignant rebukes of Islamophobia, was the way to go.

How do you suppose they got that idea?

This article appears at NRO.

What Could Go Wrong? Islamic Terror Group Sympathetic To Al Qaeda Was Hired By Hillary Clinton To Guard Benghazi Consulate

From The Clarion Project.

Report: Jihadist Group Hired to Defend U.S. Benghazi Mission


In an “exclusive” story, a Newsmax.com reporting on Fox News has uncovered that the Libyan militia group that was hired by the State Department to defend its embattled diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, were clearly al-Qaeda sympathizers, and had even prominently displayed the al-Qaeda flag on a Facebook page for months before the deadly attack.

Newsmax.com reports that, “A document recovered from the mission two days after the attack indicated the State Department had arranged for the Martyrs Brigade to act as a “Quick Reaction Force” to protect the mission. The Memorandum of Agreement states that ‘in the event of an attack on the U.S. mission, QRF will request additional support from the 17th February Martyrs Brigade.’ ”

Noteworthy is the fact that on October 30, more than six months ago, The Clarion Project’s Clare Lopez reported:

“In August 2012, Stevens reported that the security situation in Benghazi was deteriorating, yet in spite of this, the 16-man Site Security Team assigned to Libya, comprised of Special Forces led by SF LTC Andy Wood, was ordered out of Libya, contrary to the Ambassador’s stated desire that they stay.

“Note that, at any time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have ordered the deployment to Benghazi of additional security experts from the Department of Security (DoS) Bureau of Diplomatic Security (or Diplomatic Security Service—DSS), but apparently chose not to do so.

“Instead, DoS hired a British firm, Blue Mountain, to manage its security in Benghazi, and Blue Mountain subcontracted the job to a local jihadist militia called the February 17 Martyrs Brigade who have known Muslim Brotherhood ties.

“Furthermore, Nordstrom testified at the October 11, 2012 Congressional hearings that ‘in deference to sensitivity to Libyan practice, the guards at Benghazi were unarmed’-- an inexplicable practice for a place as dangerous as Benghazi.”

The Martyrs Brigade, financed by the Libyan defense ministry, is considered the largest and best armed militia in eastern Libya. It consists of at least 12 battalions and possesses a large collection of light and heavy weapons in addition to training facilities. Its membership is estimated at between 1,500 and 3,500.

The group has carried out various security and law and order tasks in eastern Libya and Kufra in the south. Some of its members are also believed to be fighting the Assad regime in Syria. They fly the al-Qaeda flag on their Facebook page, and have long been al-Qaeda sympathizers.

The Brigade was paid by the U.S. government to provide security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. There is no evidence that the Martyrs Brigade fulfilled its commitment to defend the mission on Sept. 11, when it came under attack.

That assault claimed the lives of four Americans: Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979.

On their Facebook page, several members professed to support Ansar al-Sharia, the hard-line Islamist extremist group, who is believed to have carried out the attack on Benghazi. The State Department, however, refuses to comment on whether or not this was the case.

The recent congressional report on Benghazi documents the group’s use of kidnapping and making threats against Americans. Just days before the attack, the group announced that they would no longer provide security when members of the embassy staff left the compound.

House Republicans recently released an interim progress report on its investigation into the Benghazi killings. It cited "numerous reports" that "the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets."

Despite those known threats, the many requests for additional security from the mission went unanswered by the State Department, for reasons that remain unclear. Documents show that despite the requests for more security, some made in the immediate months before the attacks, the State Department withdrew military personnel charged with defending American diplomatic personnel in Libya, thus actually reducing security.

Newsmax.com reported on an email exchange between the mission’s regional safety officer and the State Department’s Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary in charge of diplomatic security.

As late as July of 2012, the officer had requested the U.S. military security team be allowed to continue to protect the mission. Lamb replied, “NO, I do not [I repeat] not want them to ask for the [military security] team to stay!”

The list of questions on Benghazi keeps on getting longer: Why would the State Department hire a group that openly displayed its admiration for al-Qaeda, and ask it to participate in the defense of its diplomatic mission? Why did the State Department hire a group which is close to and so connected to al-Qaeda? And why was the 16-man security force removed just a couple of weeks before the attack?

More importantly, why did the U.S. not move to save the embassy staff during the attack when military personnel have testified that it would have been entirely possible to send in American forces in the area? Why were “stand-down” orders given to these forces? Why are Benghazi whistle blowers reporting on being threatened with losing their job by the CIA the State Department if they talk?

Many are hinting that his story might end up being a massive cover-up by the Obama administration in general and Hillary Clinton in particular.

The Tears of Benghazi

From Family Security Matters.

The Tears of Benghazi


The Hollywood version of heroes is that of large, muscular men who show no fear and little emotion after a confrontation with the enemy. The images that come to mind are Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwartzenegger, and Bruce Willis who, while not a muscleman, has the swagger we associate with movie heroes.

On Wednesday, on Capitol Hill, three men, Greg Hicks who was deputy chief of mission in Libya, second in command to the assassinated Ambassador, Chris Stevens; Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was formerly the regional security officer in Libya; and Mark Thompson, a former Marine and an official with the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau; sat at a table and gave short statements followed by answers to the questions they were asked.

In real life, heroes often look like someone in middle management. It was wrong-even demeaning-for the media to call them "whistle blowers." These men were patriots. Who else would go to a war zone to represent their nation or to protect its highest diplomat there?

At the hearing they wore suits and ties. And, when called on to tell the truth, they sometimes choked up from the mix of emotions that flowed through them from memories of colleagues lost in combat and the awful realization that the nation for which they put their lives on the line, the nation they served with honor, left them defenseless to come to the aid of those colleagues.

Looming in the room were the ghosts of the dead ambassador, two security personnel; Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were both former Navy SEALS, contracted by the Central Intelligence Agency, and Sean Smith, a ten-year veteran of the State Department and on temporary assignment in Libya as an information officer for the embassy. Smith, an Air Force veteran, left behind two young children.

The testimony was emotional at times as the witnesses had to pause to regain their composure. They were a sharp contrast to the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who became annoyed by the questions she was asked at a hearing on Benghazi. "What difference does it make?" she replied angrily to a question from Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

"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 decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?" Clinton asked the Republican Senator. "It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again."

Did she really believe it was just "because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill Americans"? On the anniversary of 9/11? Did she and the President really believe that the attack was because of a video? That is what they told Americans in the wake of the attack. That is what our ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, was sent out to say on five Sunday morning news shows.

What emerged from the hearings was the failure and the refusal of the State Department, the CIA, and the Department of Defense to activate any of the resources they had to send any forces to defend the consulate. Someone had to make a conscious choice to do that. Someone had to tell those forces to "stand down.

As Hicks said, "I am a career public servant. Until the aftermath of Benghazi, I loved every day of my job." As one watched, his quiet presentation was marked with moments of emotion. He was the last man to speak by phone to Ambassador Stevens. Thompson said he was rebuffed by the White House when he asked for specialized team known as FEST-men trained specifically to response to an attack. Asked how a team of Special Forces personnel were not given authorization to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi responded, Hicks said "They were furious."

Rep. Darrell Issa, (R-CA) the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News, "The question is, where's the accountability for lying to the American people?"

That's what the President of the United States did. That's what the former Secretary of State did. And that's why the White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, replied to a question about Benghazi dismissing it saying the attack had happened "a long time ago."

The loss of the lives of four patriots and the testimony of their colleagues, still mourning their loss, is sad, but how much sadder still is the fact that our great nation is led and represented by such soulless people?

The Damning Indictment of Hillary Clinton

Benghazi.  The end of Hillary Clinton.


The end of Barack Hussein Obama?

"You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night," the second official in State's counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson's forthcoming testimony.

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

Obama’s then-Secretary Hillary Clinton Allegedly Tried to Cut Anti-Terror Unit Out of Benghazi Loop

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

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

Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau -- independently of Thompson -- voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.

Extremists linked to Al Qaeda stormed the American consulate and a nearby annex on Sept. 11, in a heavily armed and well-coordinated eight-hour assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

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

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

"You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night," the second official in State's counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson's forthcoming testimony.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the counterterrorism officials' allegation "100 percent false." A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge is not true.

Thompson's attorney, diGenova, would not comment for this article.

Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of "The Weekly Standard," showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda's known involvement in them from "talking points" being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly.

Those talking points -- and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks -- sought instead to depict the Americans' deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by "The Weekly Standard" show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy "my building's leadership."

The allegations of the two counterterrorism officials stand to return the former secretary of state to the center of the Benghazi story. Widely regarded as a leading potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, Clinton has insisted she was not privy to decisions made by underlings about the inadequate security for the U.S. installations in Benghazi that were made in the run-up to the attacks. And she has portrayed her role -- once the attacks became known in Washington -- as that of a determined fact-finder who worked with colleagues to fashion the best possible response to the crisis.

Clinton testified about Benghazi for the first and only time in January of this year, shortly before leaving office. She had long delayed her testimony, at first because she cited the need for the ARB to complete its report, and then because she suffered a series of untimely health problems that included a stomach virus, a concussion sustained during a fall at home, and a blood clot near her brain, from which she has since recovered. However, Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB she convened.

Fox News disclosed last week that the conduct of the ARB is itself now under review by the State Department's Office of Inspector General. A department spokesman said the OIG probe is examining all prior ARBs, not just the one established after Benghazi.

The counterterrorism officials, however, concluded that Clinton and Kennedy were immediately wary of the attacks being portrayed as acts of terrorism, and accordingly worked to prevent the counterterrorism bureau from having a role in the department's early decision-making relating to them.

Also appearing before the oversight committee on Wednesday will be Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Like Thompson, Hicks is a career State Department official who considers himself a Benghazi whistle-blower. His attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, has charged that Hicks, too, has faced threats of reprisal from unnamed superiors at State. (Toensing and diGenova, who are representing their respective clients pro bono, are married.)

Portions of the forthcoming testimony of Hicks -- who was one of the last people to speak to Stevens, and who upon the ambassador's death became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya -- were made public by Rep. Issa during an appearance on the CBS News program "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

Hicks told the committee that he and his colleagues on the ground in Libya that night knew instantly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and that he was astonished that no one drafting the administration's talking points consulted with him before finalizing them, or before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice delivered them on the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 16.

Hicks was interviewed by the ARB but Thompson was not, sources close to the committee's investigation tell Fox News.

Are You Serious? The Benghazi Rescue Team Flew On a "Chartered" Plane and Included Only TWO Military Personnel?

I swear to G_d the more I hear about the details about the night of the terror attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the more incensed I get with the sheer incompetence or deception by our country's leadership.  I am literally shaking my head in disbelief here.

Get this snippet from details of that night on 9/11/12 from the report at CNS News:

“About 2150 local, the DCM was able to reach Ambassador Stevens, who briefly reported that the SMC [Special Mission Compound] was under attack before the call cut off.”

After Amb. Stevens' incomplete we-are-under-attack phone call to his deputy in Tripoli, it took almost three hours for the U.S. government to get a solitary private charter plane on the way to Benghazi--and almost four hours to get that plane landed at the Benghazi airport.

“Within hours,” said the ARB report, “Embassy Tripoli chartered a private airplane and deployed a seven-person security team, which included two U.S. military personnel, to Benghazi.”

While not stating that this plane was a private charter, the DOD's timeline specifies that it took off from Tripoli at 12:30 a.m. Libya time—or 2 hours and 48 minutes after the attack started.

The DOD timeline and the State Department ARB report differ on the number of people included in the security team that traveled on this chartered plane. DOD’s timeline says it was six; State’s ARB report, as quoted above, says it was seven. “12:30 am A six man security team from U.S. Embassy Tripoli, including two DoD personnel, departs for Benghazi,” says the DOD timeline.

We have gone beyond people being fired for the conduct and coverup regarding Benghazi - this is treasonous behavior, in my view.  The actions noted above show sheer incompetence and quite frankly, stinks to high heaven of a coordinated effort by senior leadership in this country to be SURE that those Americans in Benghazi were NOT rescued.

Former Special Forces Commander: DOD Could Have Flown Rescue Team From Tripoli to Benghazi; DOD: State Dept. Decided Whether and What to Fly

(CNSNews.com) - Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin--formerly commander of U.S. Special Forces Command and deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence—told CNSNews.com that, if it had been asked, the Defense Department could have sent a plane to Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, to transport a rescue team of U.S. security personnel that instead ended up taking a chartered private plane from Tripoli to Benghazi that night.

“There is no question that we could have moved an airplane in there and we could have also put boots on the ground at the embassy,” Gen. Boykin told CNSNews.com.

“State should have coordinated with DOD and said: We’ve got to have an airplane,” said Gen. Boykin. “The Department of Defense could have provided an airplane in there. All they had to do was ask.”

A Defense Department official told CNSNews.com, however, that the type of aircraft that was used that night and the decision to use it were both determinations made by the State Department. But the Defense Department official also said that DOD would not have been able to get a plane to Tripoli to fly the security team to Benghazi as quickly as the State Department’s chartered plane did.

According to a timeline released by the Office of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the chartered private plane took off from Tripoli and headed to Benghazi with the rescue team about 2 hours and 48 minutes after the terrorist attack in Benghazi started at 9:42 p.m. Libya time.

According to the State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) report, the department’s temporary duty regional security officer (TDY RSO) in charge of the security detail at the department’s Benghazi mission on Sept. 11, 2012 was monitoring a security camera and saw the terrorists swarm through the front gate of the compound at the start of the attack.

Using his cell phone, this security officer notified the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli within three minutes. He also notified the nearby Annex operated by the CIA. Within eight minutes of the start of the attack, Amb. Chris Stevens, who was in the Benghazi compound, used a cell phone given to him by a State Department Diplomatic Security agent to talk to his deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and tell that deputy personally that the Benghazi compound was under attack.

“Upon notification of the attack from the TDY RSO around 2145 local, Embassy Tripoli set up a command center and notified Washington,” said the ARB report.

“About 2150 local, the DCM was able to reach Ambassador Stevens, who briefly reported that the SMC [Special Mission Compound] was under attack before the call cut off.”

After Amb. Stevens' incomplete we-are-under-attack phone call to his deputy in Tripoli, it took almost three hours for the U.S. government to get a solitary private charter plane on the way to Benghazi--and almost four hours to get that plane landed at the Benghazi airport.

“Within hours,” said the ARB report, “Embassy Tripoli chartered a private airplane and deployed a seven-person security team, which included two U.S. military personnel, to Benghazi.”

While not stating that this plane was a private charter, the DOD's timeline specifies that it took off from Tripoli at 12:30 a.m. Libya time—or 2 hours and 48 minutes after the attack started.

The DOD timeline and the State Department ARB report differ on the number of people included in the security team that traveled on this chartered plane. DOD’s timeline says it was six; State’s ARB report, as quoted above, says it was seven. “12:30 am A six man security team from U.S. Embassy Tripoli, including two DoD personnel, departs for Benghazi,” says the DOD timeline.

Neither the DOD timeline nor the ARB report described any of the members of the security team that took that private chartered flight from Tripoli to Benghazi as State Department personnel.

In a Nov. 2 piece in the Washington Post, David Ignatius reported--in a timeline described to him by a “senior intelligence official”--that the security team that flew to Benghazi on that chartered plane was in fact comprised of CIA people and military personnel working with the CIA.

In fact, the timeline Ignatius published in the Post seems to indicate the CIA chartered the plane.

“1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they've hastily chartered,” reported Ignatius. “The Tripoli team includes four GRS [CIA Global Response Staff] security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They don't leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport; obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. (Also killed was a State Department communication specialist.) But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack.”

(Like the State Department's ARB report, Ignatius's timeline indicates there were seven people on the chartered plane that flew from Tripoli to Benghazi--not the six claimed in the DOD timeline.)

According to descriptions of the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist event published in the State Department ARB report, as well as in a report published by the Senate Homeland Security Committee report, and in a CIA timeline provided by a senior intelligence official, the U.S. personnel in Benghazi were targeted by a series of attacks that occurred at the State Department’s compound, at the CIA Annex, and on the road between the compound and the Annex. This first phase of attacks continued from 9:42 p.m. to about 1:00 a.m.—a span of almost three hours and twenty minutes.

The timeline published by David Ignatius in the Post says: “The attacks stop at 1:01 a.m., and some assume the fight is over.”

But it was not. About 4 hours and 15 minutes later, the terrorists struck again.

“The seven-person response team from Embassy Tripoli arrived in Benghazi to lend support,” said the ARB report. “It arrived at the Annex about 0500 local. Less than fifteen minutes later, the Annex came under mortar and RPG attack, with five mortar rounds impacting close together in under 90 seconds. Three rounds hit the roof of an Annex building, killing security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The attack also severely injured one ARSO [State Department regional security officer] and one Annex security team member.”

Amb. Stevens and State Department Information Management Officer Sean Smith had died during the first phase of the attacks, at the State Department compound, in a building torched by the terrorists. The State Department security officers and CIA personnel had recovered Smith’s body from that building, but had not found Amb. Stevens before they were forced--by the threat of being overwhelmed by the attacking terrorists--to retreat under fire to the CIA Annex.

At 11:10 p.m. Libya time, which was about 20 minutes before the U.S. personnel were forced to retreat to from the State Department mission to the CIA Annex, an unarmed DOD drone arrived in the skies over Benghazi to monitor the events as they unfolded. U.S. Africa Command had redirected the drone to Benghazi at 9:59 p.m. About seven hours later, at 5:00 a.m., another drone sent by DOD replaced this first one.

“9:59 pm An unarmed, unmanned, surveillance aircraft is directed to reposition overhead the Benghazi facility,” said the DOD timeline.

“11:10 pm The diverted surveillance aircraft arrives on station over the Benghazi facility,” said the DOD timeline.

“5:00 am A second, unmanned, unarmed surveillance aircraft is directed to relieve the initial asset still over Benghazi,” said the DOD timeline.

These unarmed drones could watch and show administration officials back in Washington what was happening in Benghazi, but they could do no more than that.

“There is no question that we could have moved an airplane in there and we could have also put boots on the ground at the embassy,” Gen. Boykin told CNSNews.com. “But just dealing with the aircraft issue, we could have moved a military plane in there, picked those people up, moved them to Benghazi. And, in fact, we could’ve gotten people moved by helicopter, launched them out of the Sixth Fleet or the naval base in Rota, Spain.”