I’m not sure if this is something we should laugh or cry about, but you have to admire Jason Mattera’s audacity.
Here’s the video:
Mattera: “If you could make it out to Christopher Stevens, I think you knew him.”
Clinton: “Yeah, I’m not gonna make it out to Chris Stevens.”
Mattera: “What difference does it make?”
Man, the use of her own words against her is just brutal. If she ends up running in 2016, Hillary will face that line over and over again as a bludgeon against her credibility.
Fox’s James Rosen grilled State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki yesterday when she gave hollow answers as to why it took the US government so long to capture Benghazi suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala who wasn’t taking great efforts to hide himself.
here’s the video:
Since the attack on Benghazi, it was very clear that Ahmed Abu Khattala wasn’t trying to hide. He gave interviews to multiple press outlets including to the New York Times and CNN. Each time, his interview was held in a public space with very little security.
The only reason the Obama administration chose to pick him up yesterday is that they desperately needed a distraction from all the other issues they’re facing.
Hillary “What Difference Does it Make” Clinton continues to assert that the ridiculous “Innocence of Muslims” video was at least partially responsible for the attack at Benghazi.
here’s the video:
This has, of course, been thoroughly discredited multiple times. The attacks on the US facilities in Benghazi was planned in advance by terrorists, and in no way a spontaneous response to a stupid YouTube video.
Here’s the left’s manufactured outrage du jour.
When a Heritage foundation on the topic of the Benghazi attack opened the floor to questions, law student and American Muslim Saba Ahmed used the opportunity to ask a loaded question about the supposed American portrayal of “all Islam and Muslims as bad.”
Here’s the video. I know it’s a bit long, but the full context and response from the panelists is important.
Notice first that the panel and the audience was quite welcoming to Ahmed and her question, even laughing along when she said she joked that she is the current leader of the Islamic peace movement. Also notice that multiple panel members directly addressed her assumption that Americans think “all Muslims are bad” as misleading. Notice that the audience applauded Ahmed at the end.
Now, let’s dig into Bridgett Gabriel’s fiery answer!
Here’s how the Blaze summed it up:
After a response from Frank Gaffney, Gabriel began by thanking Ahmed for the question. Then she launched into a heated explanation of why radical Islam matters, even if the majority of Muslims are peaceful.
“There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today – of course not all of them are radicals!” Gabriel said. “The majority of them are peaceful people. The radicals are estimated to be between 15 to 25 percent. … But when you look at 15 to 25 percent of the world Muslim population, you’re looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization. That is as big as the United States. So why should we worry about the radical 15 to 25 percent? Because it is the radicals that kill. Because it is the radicals that behead and massacre.”
Gabriel continued to note that the majority of Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Japanese in the 20th century were peaceful people, but the radicals in charge massacred tens of millions of people.
“The peaceful majority were irrelevant,” Gabriel said repeatedly.
“I’m glad you’re here, but where are the others speaking out?” Gabriel asked, before being drowned out by a round of applause. “As an American citizen, you sat in this room and instead of standing up and [asking] something about our four Americans that died [in Benghazi] and what our government is doing to correct the problem, you stood there to make a point about peaceful, moderate Muslims.”
What Gabriel said here about the peaceful majority is the truth. So long as the majority are silent and do not take action en masse against the violent radicals, they are irrelevant to any discussion about radical Islam. It goes without saying that not every Muslim is a terrible person. Of course not every Muslim is a terrible person. However, when the minority represent a number as large as the population as the entire United States, the violent, radical minority will be the primary relevant piece of the conversation.
Take a look at how the liberal media is portraying this exchange:
Instead of simply reporting the truth, liberal media outlets today from Media Matters to the Washington Post are calling the exchange at the Heritage meeting “ugly” and “bigoted” and “Islamophobic.” It is none of the above. The exchange was emotional and truthful, and no amount of phony outrage can change that.
It’s about time. A rare bit of good news from an otherwise bleak forecast in the Middle East.
U.S. Special Operations forces captured one of the suspected ringleaders of the terrorist attacks in Benghazi in a secret raid in Libya over the weekend, the first time one of the accused perpetrators of the 2012 assault has been apprehended, according to U.S. officials.
The officials said Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured Sunday near Benghazi by American troops, working alongside the FBI, following months of planning, and was now in U.S. custody “in a secure location outside Libya.” The officials said there were no casualties in the operation, and that all U.S. personnel involved have safely left Libya.
Khattala’s apprehension is a major victory for the Obama administration, which has been criticized for having failed so far to bring those responsible for the Benghazi attacks to justice.
I don’t want to minimize the importance of this development, but I feel it important to point out that this capture does not absolve the Obama administration of its responsibility in the events leading up to the attack on Benghazi. It also doesn’t excuse the continued coverup of the investigation. The White House maintains a stone wall of lies and misinformation and has refused to fully cooperate with any investigation into the matter.
There is shocking new information tonight regarding the 9-11 attack on the US facilities in Benghazi. The CIA listened in on phone calls made by the attackers using State Department cell phones to terrorist leaders during the attack.
The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks.
Eric Stahl, who recently retired as a major in the U.S. Air Force, served as commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft that was used to transport the corpses of the four casualties from the Benghazi attacks – then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – as well as the assault’s survivors from Tripoli to the safety of an American military base in Ramstein, Germany.
In an exclusive interview on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”
A separate U.S. official, one with intimate details of the bloody events of that night, confirmed the major’s assertion. The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.
This revelation goes to show that there is still much to be uncovered about what really was going on in Benghazi before, during, and after the attack. The Obama administration still hasn’t even answered the question as to why we were there in the first place.
The lengths the Obama administration has gone to cover up the truth is astounding.
In her interview with ABC’s Dianne Sawyer, Hillary Clinton claimed that Benghazi was “another reason for her to run for President,” claiming that she’s tired of the “distractions” and “minor league” politics from Congress.
Rubio responded to her comments and appropriately slammed her for claiming the deaths of 4 Americans is “minor league.”
Here’s the video:
from Hot Air:
When asked if there was anything she could have personally done to ensure that those over whom she had responsibility could have been offered better protection, she said that there was not. “I’m not equipped to sit and look at blueprints, to determine where the blast walls need to be or where the reinforcements need to be,” Clinton said. “That’s why we hire people who have that expertise.”
Asked to respond to those comments on Tuesday on CBS News’ This Morning, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) exploited the obvious opening that Clinton’s strategy has created. Coldly, soberly, dispassionately, Rubio charged Clinton with an insufficient concern about threats to American national security.
“The State Department had at its disposal a steady stream of reporting about how dangerous – how much danger that facility in Benghazi was in,” Rubio began. “It is a fact they did not take sufficient security measures, and it is a fact that perhaps it shouldn’t have even been there, and it is a fact it should not have been there and it is a fact they did not have an extraction plan in place that was sufficient.”
“If she thinks it’s something we shouldn’t focus on, then perhaps that gives insight as to why it happened in the first place,” Rubio added, delivering the coup de grâce.
Because of her cavalier dismissal of Benghazi as a petty issue, opponents will be able to pound home the grave nature of 4 dead Americans for the entire campaign.
Marco Rubio just laid out the template for campaigning against Clinton, and that’s to correctly point out that she just doesn’t care.
Hillary Clinton can’t name a signature achievement from her tenure as Secretary of State.
That’s because her signature achievement involved four dead Americans in Benghazi. It’s not polite to say that out loud.
You would think that Hillary Clinton would want to run as fast as she can away from the mess she helped create in Benghazi. Her new memoir, however, has a photo of Hillary Clinton and President Obama standing in front of one of the caskets of the fallen at Benghazi.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a book coming out next week. Today, her publisher released images from the back cover of the book. The pictures mostly show Hillary meeting global leaders and attending important meetings.
But one of the images is Clinton with President Barack Obama, standing in front of the Benghazi caskets at Andrews Air Force Base, dated September 14, 2012, just days after the September 11 attack.
Here’s the back cover as posted on her twitter account:
The juxtaposition of that photo and the one of her laughing hysterically next to Germany’s Angela Merkel makes me incredibly angry.
Either somebody at the White House is a free-speech hating idiot, or the White House got an early jump on starting the “this is a response to a video” meme.
The memo suggests that even as the attack was still underway — and before the CIA began the process of compiling talking points on its analysis of what happened — the White House believed it was in retaliation for a controversial video.
The subject line of the e-mail, which was sent at 9:11 p.m. Eastern Time on the night of the attack, is “Update on Response to actions – Libya.” The e-mail was written hours before the attack was over.
Issa has asked the White House to declassify and release the document. In the meantime he has inserted a sentence from the e-mail in the Congressional Record.
“White House is reaching out to U-Tube [sic] to advice ramification of the posting of the Pastor Jon video,” the e-mail reads, according to Issa.
Asked about the document, a senior White House official told ABC News it demonstrates that the White House genuinely believed the video sparked the attack all along, a belief that turned out to be incorrect.
“We actually think this proves what we’ve said. We were concerned about the video, given all the protests in region,” the official said. And the intelligence community “was also concerned about the video.”
Issa has an entirely different view. He contends the document contradicts the White House assertion that it was the CIA who first pinned blame for the attack on protests in response to the anti-Islamic video.
“The e-mail shows the White House had hurried to settle on a false narrative — one at odds with the conclusions reached by those on the ground — before Americans were even out of harm’s way or the intelligence community had made an impartial examination of available evidence,” Issa said.
So which is it? Did they “know from the beginning” that it was a terrorist attack? Or was somebody actually stupid enough to believe that this was in response to a poorly-filmed YouTube video.
Regardless, the White House took this false narrative and long after the facts became clear, they actually arrested this film maker and threw him in jail. To date, this is the only arrest or capture ever made in the wake of the Benghazi attack.
Andrea Mitchell to Dem Congressman: ‘Why Even Play the Game’ of GOP’s Benghazi ‘Witch Hunt’?
Umm…Ms. Mitchell, your bias is showing! She’s not even a little bit embarrassed…
I really don’t like using this photo very often, but sometimes it’s necessary to remind people of the gruesome reality of what happened in Benghazi.
One person who needs reminding is President Obama who is now dismissing the investigation into Benghazi as “not serious.”
from Washington Examiner:
President Obama chided Republicans for scrutinizing his administration’s handling of the Benghazi, Libya, attack and the implementation of Obamacare.
Obama made the comments during a Monday night fundraiser in Potomac, Md., to benefit House Democrats in the upcoming midterms. He said most Americans agree with his priorities and that Republicans are trying to sow cynicism with their investigations into Benghazi and criticism of the Affordable Care Act.
“[The] debate we’re having right now is about, what, Benghazi? Obamacare?” he asked. “And it becomes this endless loop. It’s not serious. It’s not speaking to the real concerns that people have.”
The American public, he said, is on Democrats’ side on several top issues, including raising the minimum wage, passing comprehensive immigration reform and pay equity for women.
I’m sorry, Mr. President, but your petty, partisan issues can wait until we get some answers on why your people allowed 4 Americans to sit and die with no help available to them.
These men also lost their lives that night in Benghazi because somebody in the Obama administration said “stand down” to the military. They lost their lives because instead of leading, President Obama went to bed that night. Then he and all his cronies lied to the American people.
They’re still lying…and we want answers. Why were we in Benghazi in the first place? Why didn’t we leave then the British left and the Red Cross was bombed? Why didn’t we offer our men any assistance when they asked for it in advance of the attack? Why didn’t we attempt to rescue them during the attack? Why did the White House lie about what happened for weeks?
If the Benghazi investigation isn’t serious, I don’t know what is.
Rep. Darrell Issa is giving Secretary of State Kerry one more chance to comply with the Congressional subpoena as the Obama administration continues to stonewall the investigation into Benghazi.
from Washington Examiner:
A House oversight panel sent a second subpoena Thursday to Secretary of State John Kerry, asking him to testify before the committee later this month regarding the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said he is accommodating Kerry by asking him to testify on May 29. Kerry will be in Mexico on May 21, the date he was summoned to appear in a previous subpoena.
"As we have said, and we reiterate today, we will continue to work with the committee to resolve their request, but we have not made arrangements for a hearing date, and we hope to explore with them whether there are witnesses better suited to answer their questions and meet their needs for oversight," State Department Deputy Spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a statement issued Thursday afternoon.
Issa issued the original subpoena for Kerry to appear after the State Department refused to comply with three separate subpoenas for information about Benghazi.
The House recently voted to impanel a select committee to examine the Benghazi attack and the response from the United States.
Issa said he won’t change the date for Kerry again and expects him to show up.
"With this State Department’s slippery tactics, it’s no wonder our friends in the world are losing faith in us and our adversaries doubt our credibility,” Issa said in a statement.
Throw the bum in jail if he doesn’t show up!