BENGHAZI: WORSE THAN WATERGATE AND AN INDICTMENT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, STATE DEPARTMENT, AND HILLARY CLINTON
It appears that the State Department knew the truth …
Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.
It appears that at least one senior State Department official raised concerns based on politics and the “optics” of the situation …
The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”
It appears that the CIA provided a minor accommodation and that the State Department was still playing politics …
In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly.
The White House interferes …
Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.
The CIA, allegedly responding to White House pressure, re-writes the communiqué … consistent with the pro-Muslim policies of the Obama Administration wishing to protect Islam and the Obama Administration from political criticism?
There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.
The demonstrable lies told to the American people by President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice …
In ensuing days, administration officials emphasized a “demonstration” in front of the U.S. facility in Benghazi and claimed that the demonstrators were provoked by a YouTube video. The CIA had softened “attack” to “demonstration.” But as soon became clear, there had been no demonstration in Benghazi.
A lie created by senior White House and State Department officials out of whole cloth?
More troubling was the YouTube video. Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.” There is no mention of any “video” in any of the many drafts of the talking points.
The President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, knowingly subvert the Constitution’s First Amendment and attack the video’s creator, apologizing for the free speech of a citizen of the United States United States on foreign soil, and complicitly continuing to lie to the American public …
Still, top Obama officials would point to the video to explain Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even denounced the video in a sort of diplomatic public service announcement in Pakistan. In a speech at the United Nations on September 25, the president mentioned the video several times in connection with Benghazi.
State Department official continues the lie and the cover-up of what really happened …
On September 17, the day after Rice appeared on the Sunday shows, Nuland defended Rice’s performance during the daily briefing at the State Department. “What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment, it was also an assessment you’ve heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House.”
Was Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, marginalized or given “plausible deniability?” …
And at times, members of the intelligence community appeared eager to help. On September 28, a statement from ODNI [Office of the National Director of National Intelligence] seemed designed to quiet the growing furor over the administration’s explanations of Benghazi. “In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available.”
The statement from the ODNI came not from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, but from his spokesman, Shawn Turner. When the statement was released, current and former intelligence officials told The Weekly Standard that they found the statement itself odd and the fact that it didn’t come from Clapper stranger still. Clapper was traveling when he was first shown a draft of the statement to go out under his name. It is not an accident that it didn’t.
To read the full story in context and view the e-mails, visit: The Benghazi Talking Points | The Weekly Standard
Is this what the Obama Administration is really hiding: A totally corrupt and inept State Department hired a security group connected with al Qaeda to defend the facility and they set the stage for the attack?
The Libyan militia group that the State Department hired to defend its embattled diplomatic mission in Benghazi had clear AL-Qaida sympathies, and had prominently displayed the AL-Qaida flag on a Facebook page for some months before the deadly attack.
That organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, was paid by the U.S. government to provide security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. But there is no indication the Martyrs Brigade fulfilled its commitment to defend the mission on Sept. 11, when it came under attack. Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/state-dept-hired-al-qaeda-to-defend-diplomatic-mission-in-benghazi/
And, are they hiding illegal gun-running activities to arm certain anti-America terrorists to fight in Egypt and Syria. I can understand this being embarrassing in light of the Obama Administrations gun-running activities in Mexico – also the subject of an Administration cover-up. But, it might be the type of illegality which can get Presidents impeached and lesser officials jailed.
Bottom line … Worse than Watergate!
This is not a second-rate burglary to steal political documents, this is a cover-up of a terrorist attack on U.S. personnel in a U.S. facility on the anniversary of 9/11. This is a cover-up for political purposes and to shied the Administration from the accountability of their actions in denying long-sought security assistance at the facility. This is a cover-up which dishonors the memory of the four men killed – including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and two former Navy SEALS who apparently defied orders and rushed to the assistance of the stricken Americans during the attack.
Even worse, someone in the administration, the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, or the Director of the CIA – may have “ordered” rescue forces to “stand down” – possibly hoping that all Americans directly involved were killed and there were no witnesses left to tell the story.
We are hearing that there are now whistleblowers coming forth to testify at the May 8, 2013 hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee. One can only hope that the participants on both sides of the aisle will avoid those bullshit long-winded questions that only inflate the ego of the questioner and obscure the real truth.
In any event, the Benghazi affair proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Hillary Clinton is corrupt, a liar, and unfit to serve the nation as the President of the United States. A pattern of deception, lying, dissembling and corruption we saw coming from Hillary Clinton and the Clinton White House. Should Hillary Clinton be nominated by the democrat party, it would be singular proof of their corruptness and the fact that the party has been deeply infiltrated by socialists and communists. Perhaps, the very fifth column striking our nation from within, anticipated by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Say what you will about the vile, corrupt, and self-serving McCarthy, a release of documents from the old Iron Curtin countries have proven him 100% correct.
Awaiting May 8th to see if the Committee will honestly deal with Benghazi or use this opportunity to cut political deals favorable to the Republicans on healthcare, the budget and other areas. In essence, selling out America and its citizens for self-serving advantage.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS