Holy Sh*t! Benghazi Back In The News - This Time It's BIG!

HMMM? Bush managed to run the country with a Democratic Congress. Clinton managed. Bush managed. Reagan managed. I guess Obama just is not as good.

 

Budgets aside, something stinks about this whole Benghazi mess. I don't know if Hillary lied or not. I don't know if Obama is covering something up or not. But, questions are being raised and they shouldn't just be swept under the rug.

There are too many questions unanswered about the "anti-Islam video" explanation, Rice's explanation, Hillary and Obama's actions, the intelligence leading up to the attack, the response (or lack of) the night of the attack, etc. I think we owe our Ambassador and his aides a full investigation, at least. Up to this point, I don't think the attack has been fully investigated.

 

The admin thought it could present some kind of dog & pony show the satisfy the public but when the officials explanation/answers didn't line up with the truth people started to come forward.

 

And part of that is the media's job to either discover the truth or to make it well known that there is a problem. Teddy said

Maybe the fact that they are covering it is why they are #1. At least one branch of the media is doing their job properly.

 

I got this in an email tonight. I thought that is was rather poignant

We're the Battling Boys of Benghazi.
NO fame, no glory, no paparazzi.
Just a fiery death in a blazing hell.
Defending the 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 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 till we died.
We gave our all for Uncle Sam,
but Barack Obama didn't give a Damn.
Just two SEALS who carried the load.
No thanks to us....We were just "BUMPS IN THE ROAD".

 

View attachment 1622

 

Yeah! Poignant.

 

Iraq ~ 4488 Dead Americans (No investigation of Bush)
Libya ~ 4 Dead Americans (More investigations than we can count)

HUM?

 

And no investigation of President Clinton for reporting that there were WMD's in Iraq - according to the liberals, the cause of the war? How about investigating Senator Clinton, Biden, et al for supporting the war?

 

...or the domestic intel agencies that concurred WMD existed...or the intel from our Allies that said WMD existed...or the Iraqi scientist who oversaw Saddam's chemical program claiming WMD existed...or the 100,000 Kurds who were gassed by WMD...or Nancy Pelosi who testified WMD existed...or leaks out of Syria that indicate Saddam moved his WMD to that country...

 

Lil joe seems to be ignoring the FACT that State Dept personnel & survivors of the Benghazi attack are contradicting the stories being told by BO & Hillary.
Wonder why that is?

 

Oh, so it's a numbers game?

 

In reverse...

 

I wonder what was going through the minds of BO & Hillary was they watched our consulate being attacked? I wonder what they were thinking as our people there were pleading for help & begging for their lives? I wonder what prompted the admin to order the Marines to "stand down" even though they were close enough (and on ready) to help?

 

Oh! Book sales. That's what this nonsense is all about.

'Benghazi: The Definitive Report'

Published February 18, 2013 | Hannity | Sean Hannity
With: Jack Murphy, Brandon Webb

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And now a new e-book claims that the attacks may have been retaliation for some off-the-books counter terror operations that were run by John Brennan, and that's the president's nominee for CIA director.

And joining me now are the authors of that new book, "Benghazi: The Definitive Report," former U.S. Army ranger Jack Murphy and former Navy SEAL Brandon Webb.
And by the way, on the floor of our studio, we projected a map of Benghazi. Now before we get to the book, we're going through a timeline of the events of that night. Guys, welcome to the program. Good to see you both.

JACK MURPHY, AUTHOR, "BENGHAZI," FORMER U.S. ARMY RANGER/GREEN BERET: Thank you for having us.

HANNITY: This is important because we're seeing that events that we don't know about could have precipitated these attacks, a good summary?
MURPHY: Yes, it's absolutely accurate.
HANNITY: OK. All right. Let's start with the timeline of events.
MURPHY: It began approximately 9:40 at night when the attacks initiated with RPG's hitting the consulate, actually the temporary mission facility that we know now, we call the consulate. At that point the local militia guards were unarmed, they fled, they were only armed with bats, essentially. So, when they see the mob coming, they take off, they cut and run.
The attackers breached the main gate, they overrun the compound, at this point Ambassador Stevens is going into the safe room inside the consulate and DSS agents are retrieving their tactical gear and making a call up to higher to say they're getting hit.
So, by 10: 5, what you have is --
HANNITY: Can I stop you there?
MURPHY: Yes.
HANNITY: And for those who said this was in retaliation for a YouTube video and this was a spontaneous demonstration, they had mortars, rocket propelled grenades, this was not spontaneous.
MURPHY: No, it's not spontaneous and in the State Department's own report, they talk about arresting or detaining a Libyan policeman who's taking pictures of the consulate with his cell phone that morning. So, there were people planning this attack ahead of time.
HANNITY: All right. Back to the time line.
MURPHY: So, by 10:55 -- 10:05 p.m., excuse me, Ty Woods and other Global Response staff members from the nearby annex about a half mile away were preparing to go to the consulate and rescue the State Department personnel who are tied up there. And Ty Woods was really instrumental in putting together that rescue effort and insisting that it go forward and go in there.
HANNITY: Now, he was told to stand down, and I interviewed his father and his family.
MURPHY: By --
HANNITY: And we still don't have answers to that question.
MURPHY: It was actually the person who is in charge of the annex that initially said, no, it's not our job to go in there. But Ty actually convinced him otherwise, and to his credit, that person actually reversed course and agreed with Ty.
HANNITY: Either convinced him or did he disobey orders?
MURPHY: I think he convinced him.
BRANDON WEBB, AUTHOR, "BENGHAZI," FORMER U.S. NAVY SEAL: Yes, I think, you know, Ty showed a lot of initiative. He was a senior guy, years in the special operations and he just said, look, knowing, being overseas and being in these conflicts before, he said we need to act now to save these Americans, if we don't move now and go, more people are going to die.
HANNITY: OK. Back to the timeline.
WEBB: By 11 p.m., the attackers had completely overrun the compound, and the team from the annex is making their way to the consulate to conduct this rescue operation.
Once they're at the annex, basically the attack slowly followed them back. And so, the one -- the one difference between the State Department compound and the CIA annex, the CIA had a very heavily fortified position. I mean, they had their act together when it comes to security. So, you know, throughout the night, they were fending off small attacks.
And then, you know, 5 a.m., the team from Tripoli comes up, and it is important to -- the team from Tripoli is important because here you have a group of CIA JSOC operators and -- which included Glen Doherty, who were trying desperately to get up to Benghazi. You look at why it's important is because ultimately, the two JSOC Joint Special Operations guys, they had a device called a rover which essentially it beams down the predator drone footage onto this device and now they have increased situational awareness on the ground at the CIA annex and they ultimately made the call, when they saw that more and more attackers were amassing outside of the gates.
Glen went up to the roof, saw Ty, they embraced and they were still engaged in the fight, then they got bracketed by three mortar rounds. The first one hit Ty, killing him. Second one hit Glen and the third one injured one of the other security guys on the rooftop.
Just before 7: 0, they made the decision, hey, we've got to get out of here. Without those guys coming up from Tripoli and having that rover device to get the predator footage, the decision to evacuate everyone may not have been made and they may have been overrun themselves.
HANNITY: And then we he learned through Leon Panetta's testimony that he briefed the President only when it began and the president never asked for an update throughout the rest of the night.
WEBB: Yes.
HANNITY: These guys were all under fire and we didn't send anybody to help them. Now, let me get the last question in, the premise of your book, the definitive report beyond the timeline that we're going here. You claim that there were incidents that the American public had never heard about where we attacked them?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
HANNITY: And that we might have precipitated this and that then puts, I think, a lot more clarity on maybe why it happened and also, then it does - - there's no explanation at that point why we didn't at least abide by the request by Ambassador Stevens to give him more security.
MURPHY: I think one of the big takeaways from all of this is that the State Department didn't have any visibility on these operations. They didn't have the wherewithal to even know that this counterattack, that this blowback from other operations was coming and they couldn't have known.
However, there was an escalation of terrorist attacks against American assets inside Benghazi over the summer and that alone should have been enough to elevate their security.
WEBB: I think we saw the State Department really not prepared in Benghazi. The requests were going up the chain of command and they weren't being responded to, so the State Department was in a very poor situation when it comes to security.
HANNITY: Before the security was denied, during, no help came except for Ty and the other guys, and after they lied, true?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/02/19/benghazi-definitive-report#ixzz2Sd1q0lbj​

 

So when you have incomplete stories and out right lies, you get all kinds of suppositions. Now if they had told the truth to begin with, it might have been over that week. Just ask Nixon what can happen with cover-ups. BTW, no one died in Watergate.

 

Boy, talk about a stretch!
Where do they get this stuff?

 

I want to know what the hell happened that night and if it's true that help was denied. I know the liberals would love for this story to just disappear, but the truth-seekers among us want answers. Is it true that the White House knew immediately that the attackers were linked to al-Qaeda? If so, why would they try to hide that fact?

Whistle-blowers: Rescue requests denied in Libya attack

Revelations from State Department "whistle-blowers" on the Benghazi terror attack allege that requests for military rescue were turned down and that the White House was immediately aware that the CIA concluded the Libyan attackers were linked to al-Qaeda.

Documents released by various congressional committees and excerpts of interviews provided by the House oversight committee appear to contradict descriptions of the Sept. 11 event as provided by the Pentagon, the White House and then-secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Among them:

• The U.S. military refused to send jets over a raging battlefield in Benghazi in an attempt to scatter the attackers.

• The Pentagon's Africa command refused to let a Special Forces team in Tripoli fly the short distance to Benghazi in an attempt to rescue U.S. personnel.

• The CIA told the White House the attack on the U.S. Consulate was a coordinated assault by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists. But the White House and State Department publicly blamed the attack on a spontaneous mob angered over an anti-Islam video, and claimed the reports of terrorists was not learned until later.

• The State Department never activated a foreign emergency response team, which assists diplomats under attack. A State official will testify this was done to avoid the appearance that a terrorist attack had happened.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/07/bengahzi-revelations/2141413/

 

After a remarkable House hearing yesterday, we can say this with almost complete certainty: The Obama administration knew perfectly well that last year’s Sept. 11 attack on Americans and American facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist act — yet chose to characterize it falsely as a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam YouTube video.

We can say this because we learned during the hearing that on Sept. 12, State Department official Beth Jones said flatly in an e-mail, “The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”

We can say this because we heard the testimony of the No. 2 US diplomat in Libya, Greg Hicks — in which he said no one on the ground in Libya had any doubt it was a planned assault by Ansar al-Sharia. The first thing his boss, Ambassador Chris Stevens, told Hicks over the phone was, “We’re under attack.” Stevens was murdered shortly thereafter.

We can say this because we learned last week that the State Department Operations Center sent out a bulletin on Sept. 11 stating that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility.
Hicks said that in his conversations with State Department officials back home, including Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, neither he nor they nor anybody else said anything about a spontaneous demonstration or anything about a YouTube video.

So Team Obama knew. But Team Obama also knew there had been protests in Egypt around the embassy there that had been staged in response to the YouTube video. And at some point in the days that followed, the administration decided to conflate the two events and assign blame for the attack in Benghazi on the video.

It sent out UN Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 16 to say, as she did on CBS’s Sunday chat show, “Our assessment as of the present is . . . what began spontaneously in Benghazi [was] a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo.”

We don’t know why the Obama administration chose to do this. We can speculate. We can guess it did so because it had developed a story line for the 2012 election in which al Qaeda was dead, and this muddied that story line.

But there’s a very good counter-argument that, politically, Obama missed an opportunity: He could have gotten up and said, “I’m the man who got bin Laden, and we’ll get these men, too.” That would’ve rallied the country. Who would’ve objected? Who would’ve criticized?

The point is, all we will have is speculation until someone on the inside gives up the goods in a memoir, if anyone ever does.

Is this an impeachable offense? No. Will Hillary Clinton’s evident involvement in the revision of the administration’s line on Benghazi harm her presidential chances in 2016? No.

Will this be of great political utility to Republicans? No. Will this harm Democrats terribly? No — even though Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings did say, “Death is a part of life,” in response to the fact that four Americans were slaughtered by terrorists.

So what’s the big deal?

We can say it’s a big deal because of the testimony of Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer in Libya at the time of the attacks. “It matters to me personally and it matters to my colleagues at the Department of State,” Nordstrom said as his voice cracked with sorrow and he paused several times to choke back tears. “It matters to the American public for whom we serve and, most importantly, it matters to the friends and family of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, who were murdered on Sept. 11.”

http://www.nypost.com/Page/Uuid/28b8d5d6-b867-11e2-aed9-bfd3f6ce7520

 

View attachment 1642

http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi/...ases-100-pages-e-mails-notes-related-benghazi