- From Bimbos to Benghazi This is how she rolls.
- Hillary Hasn’t Heard the End of Benghazi Who killed the Americans and why the frantic lying to cover it up has not been answered.
- How Did America Become a Paper Tiger? Being lied to consistently can cause mass deafness.
- Benghazi shows Democrats at most desperate Hacks get that way when cornered.
- Secret email reveals top official told Libya's U.S. Abmassador that terrorists were behind Benghazi attack - four days BEFORE U.S. Ambassador to UN said it was a spontaneous attack There will be more to come......
Upping the ante this cycle, Virginia Republicans, for their gubernatorial standard-bearer, have tapped the proudly inflammatory Ken Cuccinelli, who has used his reign as state attorney general to, among other notable hits, crusade against climate change and on behalf of the state’s recently junked anti-sodomy laws. For a party struggling to dispel its reputation as a bastion of right-wing nuttery, putting Cuccinelli front and center is a bit like tapping Mitt Romney to dispel the GOP’s rep as a bastion of rich old white guys.
In short, the Democrats should have had this one.
.....And let the truth be known, Amen.
"...Hoping to funnel into one chronological timeline the rampantly varying accounts of how President Obama's administration responded last Sept. 11 in the wake of an attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday will hear from three "whistleblowers" expected to offer testimony enormously at odds with the administration's characterization of a strike that killed four Americans.
Testifying are Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya. Excerpts of an interview Hicks did with investigators that were released to CBS News' "Face the Nation" on Sunday boomeranged the Benghazi politics back into the spotlight four months after hearings on the issue in the House and Senate.
According to Hicks, "everybody in the mission" believed it was an act of terror "from the get-go." But on Sept. 16 - five days after the attack - U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice hit the Sunday show circuit, peddling the theory that the strike began "spontaneously" out of protests in Egypt and was not a premeditated terrorist act. Rice's spot on "Face the Nation" that day was preceded by the new president of Libya, Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had "no doubt that this was pre-planned, predetermined."
- Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack "from the get-go"
- Issa: "No question" Clinton's circle involved in Benghazi "cover-up"
- Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks
"I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day," Hicks told investigators of Rice's appearances.
The top official in Libya after Amb. Chris Stevens died in the attack, Hicks said he was never consulted about the administration's talking points that puppeteered Rice's remarks: "I was personally known to one of Rice's staff members," he said. "Even on Sunday morning, I could have been called, and, you know, the phone call could have been, 'Hey, Greg, Amb. Rice is going to say blah, blah, blah,' and I could have said, 'No, that's not the right thing.' That phone call was never made."
Administration officials have staunchly stood by Rice, whose vilification after the attack cost her top billing on the short list to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. At a Tuesday night gala at which Rice was receiving an award, Vice President Joe Biden said she had "the absolute, total, complete confidence of the president."
Critics, though, of the Benghazi "cover-up" have continued to rally attention to the White House's bungled talking points, as well as reports that the State Department deliberately declined requests for additional security in Benghazi.
Issa: "No question" Clinton's circle involved in Benghazi "cover-up"
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who will oversee Wednesday's hearing, told CBS News on Monday that the administration's ever-evolving statements were likely perpetrated by political concerns, three weeks out of a major election. Or, he suggested, "it could be a general want to believe that we're closer to an end of the war on terror than right in the middle of it."
Issa said he expects this week to find someone from Clinton's circle - if not the former secretary of state herself - at the heart of covering tracks after any missteps by the administration. Clinton testified on Benghazi in January before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where she took responsibility but conceded there was no "clear picture" of what happened Sept. 11 as the situation unraveled.
"If Hillary Clinton is not responsible for the before, during and after mistakes... it's somebody close," Issa said. "There certainly are plenty of people close to the former secretary who knew, and apparently were part of the problem."
Those close to Clinton who may have engaged in "deliberately, premeditated lying to the American people," Issa said, could include Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy or Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for near eastern affairs at the State Department. Hicks said one day after Rice's media blitz, he called Jones to inquire about the source for the ambassador's statements; the tone of her answer - "I don't know," he continued - indicated that "I perhaps asked a question that I should not have asked."
Benghazi investigation: How high are the stakes for Obama?
Earlier this week, Fox News reported that Thompson plans to testify Wednesday that Clinton attempted to cut out the counterterrorism bureau from communications about the attack - a charge that would likely cripple her pristine record as secretary, as well as any chance that she'll mount a presidential bid in 2016.
Citing in particular Hicks's claim that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the attack was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa, CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate said during a Tuesday edition of "Flash Points" that the reputation of the administration, as a whole, hangs in the lurch.
"The stakes are pretty high," Zarate said. "If it turns out that there's some indication that the White House or others were not only manipulating talking points, framing how Susan Rice was talking about this on the Sunday talk shows, but was actually trying to construe this in a way that demonstrated it wasn't a terror attack, and that actually impacted our response - the fact that perhaps they didn't put things in motion was because it was purposely not being treated or discussed as a terror attack from the get-go, that's a real problem."
© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
A source with intimate information about the events that happened on the ground in Benghazi the night the U.S. Consulate and the CIA annex was attacked by terrorists told Breitbart News that, ultimately, only the President of the United States, or someone acting on his authority, could have prevented Special Forces either on the ground or nearby from helping those Americans who were under deadly assault.
According to the source, when the attack on the Consulate occurred, a specific chain of command to gain verbal permission to move special-forces in must have occurred. SOCAFRICA commander Lieutenant Col. Gibson would have contacted a desk officer at the time, asking for that permission.
That desk officer would have called Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, then in command of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara. From there, Bristol would have made contact with Rear Admiral Brian Losey, then Commander of Special Operations Command Africa. Losey would have contacted four-star General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. AFRICOM at the time.
“Ham answers directly to the President of the United States,” said the source. It wasn’t a low-level bureaucrat making the call, the source adamantly added.
That call may have been made early in the engagement. Both Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey testified in January that they had no further communication with President Barack Obama after an initial briefing in the early hours of the Benghazi crisis, which continued through the night.
But what about then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?
“I have a hard time thinking it was Hillary alone. Hillary may have tried to circumvent the counterterrorism board and deal with this. I think in order for her to tell General Ham, ‘No, you’re not going to get involved,' she would have had to talk to the president. The president would have had to say, ‘No, take your commands from Hillary.’ He would have had said something, because Ham does not work for the Department of State; he works directly for the president,” the source explained.
The lack of clarity surrounding orders given during the Benghazi attacks is a stark contrast to the clarity projected after the successful Osama bin Laden raid in May 2011, when administration officials were keen to attribute responsibility for the orders to the president.
Witnesses with firsthand information about the Benghazi attacks will appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.
State Department employees Mark Thompson, Gregory Hicks, and Eric Nordstrom are expected to be whistleblower witnesses who will reveal information about State’s reaction to the attacks that has not been released previously.
AWR Hawkins contributed to this report.
Tonight there is a premier showing of "Hating Breitbart" here in the Bay Area. Please go. there are even free ticikets available at KSFO.com
This movie brings Andrew's life into focus and why he fought so hard for truth and vigilance against the dangerousness of liberalism.
I would give anything to have Andrew back with us and his family. But let's honor the legacy he gave us.
|When it first became clear that the CIA’s Benghazi talking points had been altered, many of us viewed the White House as the prime suspect. After all, it served President Obama’s political purposes to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which he was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism. It turns out, however, that the State Department was the prime culprit. It was State that pushed back hard against the original talking points.|