Throughout the investigation into the 9-11 terror attack on the US facility in Benghazi, the question has often been asked, “Why didn’t this consulate have the same security that every other US consulate has?” Well, we have our answer, and it makes the Hillary Clinton State Department look very bad indeed.
Here’s the video:
The fact that we are only finding this out now is just further evidence that the Obama administration has been hiding information from Congressional investigators since day 1.
If this is true, this is huge. A former State Department diplomat has come forward alleging that confidants of Hillary Clinton separated out incriminating Benghazi documents before the Accountability Review Board could investigate.
From Daily Signal:
As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. This is the first time Maxwell has publicly come forward with the story.
At the time, Maxwell was a leader in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, which was charged with collecting emails and documents relevant to the Benghazi probe.
“I was not invited to that after-hours endeavor, but I heard about it and decided to check it out on a Sunday afternoon,” Maxwell says.
He didn’t know it then, but Maxwell would ultimately become one of four State Department officials singled out for discipline—he says scapegoated—then later cleared for devastating security lapses leading up to the attacks.
Obviously, Hillary will deny this but if the witness is credible, and he seems to be, even those on the left might begin looking at the Benghazi cover-up as a real scandal.
One of the sad realities of this date in the Obama age is that we now have not one but two terrorist attacks to commemorate. For the 2012 attack on Benghazi, we still have very few answers and a defiant White House who refuses to give any straight information.
Today, we remember the Americans who lost their lives when the White House turned their backs on them.
Ambassador Chris Stevens
We will continue to pursue the answers to why these four Americans were abandoned while they were under attack and why the Obama administration lied about it in the days after.
Greta Van Susteren claims the White House contacted her to discourage a reporter from covering Benghazi.
Bill Whittle. He’s fantastic as usual. This one is full of head shaking information about how President Obama delayed the rescue mission to save kidnapped journalist James Foley for more than 30 days. His reason, according to his advisors? He didn’t want to be “Carterized.” Well, he’s worse than a Carter. Obama is a coward.
Here’s the video:
What happened after the failed rescue mission is even more shocking. Obama revealed classified information to the enemy and once again failed to rescue Steven Sotloff.
The full interview isn’t out yet, but three US security contractors with the CIA are finally telling their story to the public. In this advance clip, the team tells Bret Baier that they were ordered to stand down 3 times.
Finally, they actually defied orders in a last ditch effort to save Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, but it was already too late.
Here’s the video:
It still remains to be told who actually gave the stand down order. Did that call come from the State Department in Washington, the CIA, the Pentagon, or the White House?
With the anniversary of September 11 coming up, this certainly doesn’t fill me with much comfort.
from Free Beacon:
Islamist militias in Libya took control of nearly a dozen commercial jetliners last month, and western intelligence agencies recently issued a warning that the jets could be used in terrorist attacks across North Africa.
Intelligence reports of the stolen jetliners were distributed within the U.S. government over the past two weeks and included a warning that one or more of the aircraft could be used in an attack later this month on the date marking the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, said U.S. officials familiar with the reports.
“There are a number of commercial airliners in Libya that are missing,” said one official. “We found out on September 11 what can happen with hijacked planes.”
The official said the aircraft are a serious counterterrorism concern because reports of terrorist control over the Libyan airliners come three weeks before the 13th anniversary of 9/11 attacks and the second anniversary of the Libyan terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.
Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the Benghazi attack, which the Obama administration initially said was the result of a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muslim video.
Obama won’t be able to call this one a “spontaneous airplane crash.” That’s still not much comfort.
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.