Thread: Senate Benghazi Report Damns Both Obama And Clinton

Senate Benghazi Report Damns Both Obama And Clinton

5 Comments
Posted 06:40 PM ET

Terrorism: The bipartisan Senate report on the Benghazi attack is damning to both President Obama and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She may be sorry she asked, "What difference does it make?"
The terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi killing our Libyan ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three others was bad political timing for President Obama, coming less than two months before Election Day in 2012.
For a while afterward, Obama peddled the ludicrous story it wasn't planned terrorism but a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muhammad YouTube video. In the second presidential debate, when exposed on misrepresenting the attack, Obama pointed to his generic statement on "acts of terror" the day after Benghazi, which CNN moderator Candy Crowley said supported Obama's new false claim.
A new Senate report settles this, pointing out that FBI and CIA review of closed-circuit video at the mission a week after the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults "showed there were no protests prior to the attacks."
But the long-overdue report goes much further:
• Hillary Clinton's State Department didn't act on warnings of inadequate security at Benghazi.
• Local Libyan militias were used for security at a U.S. facility in an area where terrorist training was going on, and were AWOL when the attacks occurred.
V The U.S. military command in Africa didn't know the Benghazi CIA annex, where two U.S. security personnel were killed, was there — apparently because, like the information wall that kept the CIA and FBI from preventing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, intelligence agencies kept vital information from the military.
• Similarly, the CIA's warnings of deteriorating security in the weeks before the attack somehow didn't reach the ears of the State Department.
• Our military wasn't prepared to defend the mission in an emergency.
• The CIA's elite operatives were not deployed at the high-risk facility.
The report concludes Benghazi could have been prevented. The CIA reported the month before the attack there were Islamist training camps and militants in Benghazi, some linked to al-Qaida. Plus, there were some 20 incidents in August indicating a "deteriorating security situation on the ground" in Benghazi.
President Obama's appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state was one of the most politicized choices in history, done to close ranks in his favor within the Democratic Party and give the former first lady a big boost for the 2016 presidential race. Both Obama and Clinton are now damned by this bipartisan report for their mismanagement and corruption.
There is no excuse post-9/11 for either non-sharing of vital intelligence or security shortcomings at U.S. facilities in places swarming with terrorists. Yet, glaringly, Clinton is mentioned only a single time in the report.
"What difference at this point does it make?" Clinton asked Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., nearly a year ago.
The lives of four Americans serving their country, lost due to incompetence and politicization. That's what difference.

Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...tm?ref=SeeAlso

15 More Benghazi-Related Victims Murdered: Does it Matter Now Hillary?

Posted on January 15, 2014 by Dean Garrison

Wednesday the Senate finally made a statement about Benghazi. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee has found that the State Department could have likely prevented the death of four Americans in Benghazi if they would not have ignored the intelligence reports and pleas for assistance from our diplomatic mission. The findings are that increased security was needed. USA Today reports:

Congressional Democrats for the first time joined the GOP to condemn the State Department for refusing security measures they say could have prevented the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi.

The report, worked on for months and released Wednesday by a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee, also says 15 people in Libya who have tried to help the FBI investigate the murders have been killed.

15 persons in Libya who were attempting to cooperate with the FBI investigation are now dead. Isn’t that convenient?

Does it matter now Mrs. Clinton?

I have to wonder how intelligent our Intelligence Committee really is, because alternative media seems to be far beyond what these Senators are finding. Here’s another thought. Maybe they aren’t that stupid but they think that we are.

Not only did we need more security, the security we hired was grounds for treason. How many Americans know that our State Department hired a group called the February 17th Martyr’s Brigade to defend the diplomatic mission?

You didn’t know that? And why should you care?

Because the February 17th Martyr’s Brigade is al Qaeda. Why on earth would you hire the enemy to defend against itself? This is just one of many Benghazi facts that are not being reported in the American press, but let’s focus on these 15 unfortunate souls who tried to help the FBI.

What does it matter?

They probably weren’t Americans so why should we care?

I don’t know, but how many convenient deaths does that make now for Mrs. Hillary Clinton?

If you want to see a list of 46 you can find them here. Who could forget the mysterious Vince Foster suicide or James McDougal’s convenient heart attack? There are 44 more names on that list. If you want to dig really deep inside the deaths of many of these people you can visit a site called Arkancide.

Who could forget the bombshell admission of Larry Nichols?
The answer to that is probably almost everyone because very few even know the admission happened:

“Whenever I got an F2 call, that meant go and kill. State police are not trained to kill in … the late ’70s, early ’80s. There were no SWAT teams…. I had an F2 call, that meant go in and kill a guy. I didn’t give a shit…. When it [the order to kill] came from the president [Reagan], it was for God and country. When it came from Clinton, hell, I didn’t give a damn. I just go kill somebody, cut his nuts off.”

Why is it that no one takes this interview seriously? Why has none of the mainstream media reported it? If it is untrue then expose Larry Nichols as a liar and let’s move on. But the media acts like the interview never happened. Larry Nichols and the Clintons should be investigated and likely stand trial. Nichols made these comments on a national radio show and no one seems to care.

So, as we head closer and closer to 2016, and an almost guaranteed Hillary Clinton victory, the American people still don’t seem to care. Someday Americans need to learn to think for themselves. There are bad democrats and bad republicans. 95% of them are worthless no matter what party they choose to affiliate with. But so many people would rather vote for a person surrounded by “convenient deaths” than to cross party lines or simply make a wise decision in the primaries. If the election were held today, which thankfully it was not, Hillary would have won in a landslide and people don’t seem to care.
So today we add 15 “collateral damage” deaths to the Benghazi list and there is still no evidence that can directly implicate Hillary Clinton, at least in the eyes of our lawmakers.

Did she have something to do with it? We have no proof so we will just chalk it up to 15 more convenient deaths. We will never likely have proof.

How many more people will have to conveniently die before Americans start seeing what is truly happening? If 2016 goes the way it looks, the answer to that could be a substantial number.
What does it matter if they are dead? You are still alive right?
Pray you never have anything that might implicate a Clinton, because if you do you might just kill yourself or be hit by a falling tree. I don’t know why it happens. It just does.

Oh and by the way, Barack Obama has had some friends conveniently die as well.

Could these 15 people have been killed by people not at all related to Hillary Clinton orBarack Obama? Yes, obviously that is a possibility. But it sure does seem convenient once again.

When and where does it end America?

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/01...r-now-hillary/

From USA today referenced above.

Democrats join GOP to blame State in Benghazi

Oren Dorell, USA TODAY
11:04 p.m. EST January 15, 2014

A bipartisan report blames the State Department for failing to increase security and adds that 15 people in Benghazi who have tried to help the FBI investigate have been killed.



(Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed
• 15 people in Benghazi who have tried to help the FBI probe have been killed
• Questions remain about the role of military, Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah says

Congressional Democrats for the first time joined the GOP to condemn the State Department for refusing security measures they say could have prevented the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi.

The report, worked on for months and released Wednesday by a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee, also says 15 people in Libya who have tried to help the FBI investigate the murders have been killed.

The report was prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and found that State, then under Hillary Clinton, refused requests to boost security despite warnings from the CIA and its own staff about the danger of militant attacks.

"The attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission," the committee said in a statement.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks after having made requests for more security to the State Department.

State has acknowledged that security was not adequate but has defended itself by saying that it never received intelligence indicating an attack of the ferocity of the terrorist assault. Numerous attackers were involved in the assault, which lasted several hours.

"We knew there were extremists and terrorists operating in Libya and in Benghazi," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in response to the report. "But, again, we had no specific information indicating an attack was coming."

STORY: 5 changes State Department has made since Benghazi attack

Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, a Republican on the House Oversight Committee who has been investigating Benghazi, said the report is evidence that State kept security minimal to give an impression that U.S. policy in Libya was a success for the Obama administration.

"The bottom line is Hillary Clinton wanted the appearance of normalization" in Libya, Chaffetz said. "Security was not driving these decisions. Politics was."

Harf said that was "100% false."

The report did not discuss other questions of the attack, such as President Obama's role in responding to the attack. Also not discussed were allegations from State whistle-blowers that they were demoted for speaking against their superiors on the lack of security, or the question of what President Obama did the night of the attack.

The report, based on hearings and interviews with officials, government documents and survivors of the attack, did talk about efforts to save the Americans. It says that six CIA employees stationed at a previously undisclosed CIA station in Libya responded to the attack.

The report said the military response was slow and hindered but did not say it could have prevented the deaths. The Pentagon has been criticized by several Republican senators for not using all means to the aid of the Americans.

Documents show that the CIA was aware of the existence of Islamist training camps and militias in Benghazi, said the report, but did not make State fully aware of everything it knew.

U.S. officials involved in security at the consulate testified before a House committee last year that Stevens had informed his superiors of several incidents that concerned him greatly about the need for improved security. The CIA has also said it had made its concerns about security known to the White House.

Among the incidents leading up to the attacks were assaults on the Red Cross and British embassy personnel, and local militia charged with protecting U.S. staff acting in suspicious manners.

Yet the requests for a boost in security were denied by State.

In a House report released in April on Benghazi, Republicans say Clinton personally signed off on cuts in security at the compound.

The April cable from State acknowledged then-Ambassador Gene Cretz's formal request for additional security but still ordered "the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned," the Republicans said.

State Department cables, or internal messages, often are sent with the secretary of State's signature. The report did not say whether the cable regarding security was personally signed or drafted by Clinton.

Clinton appointed an Accountability Review Board to look into the attack and it faulted a "lack of proactive senior leadership" for security in Benghazi, and said physical security was "profoundly weak."

In testimony before Congress in January 2013, Clinton said that diplomats "accept a level of risk" in taking posts in dangerous areas and that they "cannot work in bunkers and do their jobs."

But she said it was State's responsibility to make sure diplomats have the resources they need to reduce the risks. Clinton called the attack "one of those terrible tragic times" when the State Department's security assessment of the situation failed.

"We are constantly assessing. And sometimes we get it wrong, but it's very — it's rare that we get it wrong," Clinton said.

In a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., she said the Accountability Review Board "made very clear" that the level of responsibility for the failures outlined in the cable was set at the assistant secretary level and below.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who issued an earlier report on Benghazi in December 2012, called the newest report a missed opportunity to call officials at State to account.

"Sufficient time had elapsed for the State Department to demonstrate whether or not decision makers would be held accountable for poor judgments, refusal to tighten security, and misinformation," Collins wrote.
Chaffetz said significant questions remain about the lack of military response to the attack, which went on for several hours after the Pentagon and the White House were aware it had begun.

"You'd think that would get people out of bed — let's get some planes ready — but apparently not," he said.

Regarding the 15 people killed since Benghazi, the report stated that it is not certain all the deaths were connected to cooperation with the United States.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...inton/4490727/

ForAmerica

While interviewing John McCain, Piers Morgan distorted the facts around the Benghazi attacks and blamed Ambassador Stevens for his own death. Yet more proof that Piers Morgan is an idiot!