Thread: Hillary perjured herself on Benghazi?

WND EXCLUSIVE

Hillary perjured herself on Benghazi?

More of her testimony called into question

Published: 58 mins ago Aaron Klein About | Email | Archive Aaron Klein is WND's senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.








JERUSALEM – Did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lie under oath when she testified in the January Benghazi hearings that no one within the government ever recommended the closure of the U.S. facilities in the Libyan city?


In her Jan. 23 testimony, Clinton stated: “Well, senator, I want to make clear that no one in the State Department, the intelligence community, any other agency, ever recommended that we close Benghazi. We were clear-eyed about the threats and the dangers as they were developing in eastern Libya and in Benghazi.”







Clinton was responding to a question from Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

However, WND has found that Clinton’s testimony is contradicted by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who led the U.S. military’s efforts to supplement diplomatic security in Libya.


Get the book that unveils Obama’s 2nd-term plans, Aaron Klein’s “Fool Me Twice,” and receive three FREE issues of WND’s acclaimed monthly print magazine
Wood testified that he personally recommended that the Benghazi mission be closed, according to a recently released 46-page House Republican report probing the Benghazi attacks.


Page six of the report cites security concerns, including over 200 attacks in Libya, 50 of which took place in Benghazi, including against the U.S. mission there. One of those attacks even was carried out by disgruntled Libyan contract guards hired by the U.S. who allegedly threw a small improvised explosive device over the perimeter wall.


States the Republican report: “These developments caused Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, who led the U.S. military’s efforts to supplement diplomatic security in Libya, to recommend that the State Department consider pulling out of Benghazi altogether.”


Continued the report: “Lieutenant Colonel Wood explained that after the withdrawal of these other organizations, ‘it was apparent to me that we were the last [Western] flag flying in Benghazi. We were the last thing on their target list to remove from Benghazi’.”


The report was quoting from Wood’s testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Oct. 10, 2012.
Clinton may be in further hot water due to her repeated insistence in her Benghazi testimony that the Obama administration did not conclude finally until days after the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks that there were no popular protests outside the U.S. mission.


Clinton’s claims may be called into question by a top State Department official scheduled to give congressional testimony this week who says he knew immediately the attacks were terror strikes, not a protest turned violent, according to interview transcripts released Sunday.


“I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get go,” said Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the No. 2 U.S. official in Libya at the time of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks.


“I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” Hicks said.


Further, according to scores of news media reports, video and intelligence evidence that was immediately available to the government had demonstrated there were no popular protests outside the Benghazi facility and that the attacks were carried out by jihadists.


The Obama administration blamed a YouTube video for sparking what it claimed were popular protests that engulfed the Benghazi mission.
On Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five morning television programs to discuss the White House response to the Benghazi attacks. In nearly identical statements, she asserted that the attacks were a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video.”
Other Obama administration officials made similar claims.


Hillary snagged in Benghazi cover-up


As media reports present evidence the U.S. has played a central role in arming Syrian rebels, new questions have emerged about Clinton’s involvement in the controversial scheme.


The questions prompt a second look at the perplexing security decisions made by Clinton and other top Obama administration officials the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks.


One of the key decisions reportedly delayed an investigative FBI team from arriving at the Benghazi site for 24 days. The site was widely reported to have contained classified documents.


WND previously raised the question of whether Clinton was telling the truth when she told the Senate panel she had no information about whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries.


Her claim appears to contradict a New York Times report that the CIA has been aiding Arab governments and Turkey in obtaining and shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels.


The goal of the alleged weapons shipments was to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.


Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida members, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups


Now a closer reading of two separate reports from the New York Times paints a picture of Clinton as the leader of the plan to arm Syrian rebels.
Confirming WND’s exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times in March reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding the Arab governments and Turkey in shopping for and transporting weapons to the Syrian rebels.


The reported plan to arm the rebels mirrors a plan that, according to the New York Times, was concocted by Clinton herself.


In February, the New York Times described Clinton as one of the driving forces advocating a plan to arm the Syrian rebels. At the time, the newspaper quoted White House officials stating they rejected the plan, which was also proposed by then-CIA Director David Petraeus.


A comparison of the Clinton plan to arms the rebels, as first reported by the Times, and the new Times report of American-aided shipments to the rebels since last year makes clear the Clinton plan was apparently put into action.


In February, the Times reported that the idea of the Clinton plan was to “vet the rebel groups and train fighters, who would be supplied with weapons.”
In March, the Times reported that since at least November 2012, the U.S. has been helping “the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.”


The earlier Times article described Clinton as having instincts that were “often more activist than those of a White House that has kept a tight grip on foreign policy.”


In an administration often faulted for its timidity abroad, “Clinton wanted to lead from the front, not from behind,” Vali R. Nasr, a former State Department adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan, told the Times.


Benghazi cover up?



Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND have said U.S.-aided weapons shipments go back more than a year, escalating before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi.


In fact, the Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND since last year describe the U.S. mission in Benghazi and nearby CIA annex attacked last September as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting Assad’s regime.


The aid, the sources stated, included weapons shipments and was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.


Last month, WND reported Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. stated in interview with Fox News that murdered U.S Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi to keep weapons caches from falling into the hands of terrorists. Until that point, no official explanation for Stevens’ deployment to Libya has acknowledged any such activity.


Meanwhile, the New York Times reporting on how the plan for arming the rebels was put into action has prompted major questions about the role Clinton played in the U.S. response to the Benghazi attacks, assaults against the very facilities where the arms-to-rebels scheme was allegedly being coordinated.


National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed to Fox News in November that Clinton herself worked on the immediate U.S. response to Benghazi.
“The most senior people in government worked on this issue from the minute it happened,” he said.


“That includes the secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, secretary of state, national security adviser, et cetera. Additionally, the Deputies Committee – the second in command at the relevant national security agencies – met at least once and more often twice a day to manage the issue.”


One of the key decisions by Clinton’s State Department that has perplexed many security experts was the determination not to deploy an interagency rapid response unit designed to respond to terrorist attacks known as a Foreign Emergency Support Team, or FEST.


FEST teams previously deployed immediately after al-Qaida bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000. But they were not used for Benghazi, confounding insiders speaking to news media


Counter-terrorism officials told Fox News in November that the FEST teams could have helped the FBI gain access to the site in Benghazi faster. It ultimately took the FBI 24 days.


The site reportedly contained a large volume of classified documents related to the activities of the Benghazi facilities.


Further, during the night of the attack, top counter terror officials felt out of the loop, according to emails shared with both Fox News and CBS News in November.
Counter-terrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News expressed frustration that key responders were ready to deploy but were not called upon to help in the attack.


Besides strangely not deploying FEST, the Counterterrorism Security Group, or CSG, was never asked to meet the night of the attack or in subsequent days, according to two separate counterterrorism officials, as first reported by CBS News.


The CSG is composed of experts on terrorism from across government agencies and makes recommendations to the deputies who assist the president’s Cabinet in formulating a response to crises involving terrorism.


It is likely that the CSG task force, if contacted, would have recommended FEST aid, according to CBS.


CBS reported the lack of coordination with the Counterterrorism Security Group made the response to the Benghazi crisis still more confused.
One official told CBS News the FBI received a call during the attack representing Clinton and requesting agents be deployed. But he and his colleagues explained the call was just a gesture and could not be implemented.


He said his colleagues at the FBI agreed the agents “would not make any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to maximize their success.”
Recruiting jihadists



Days after the Benghazi attack, WND broke the story that Ambassador Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials.


Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.


The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.
The latest New York Times report has bolstered WND’s reporting, citing air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders describing how the CIA has been working with Arab governments and Turkey to sharply increase arms shipments to Syrian rebels in recent months.
The Times reported that the weapons airlifts began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanding into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows.


The Times further revealed that from offices at “secret locations,” American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia. They have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.
The CIA declined to comment to the Times on the shipments or its role in them.


The Times quoted a former American official as saying that David H. Petraeus, the CIA director until November, had been instrumental in helping set up an aviation network to fly in the weapons. The paper said Petraeus had prodded various countries to work together on the plan.
Petraeus did not return multiple emails from the Times asking for comment.


Both WND’s reporting, which first revealed the U.S.-coordinated arms shipments, and the Times reporting starkly contrast with statements from top U.S. officials who have denied aiding the supply of weapons to the rebels.
Additional research by Joshua Klein

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/hillary-p...hzpw7RDqhBy.99

Don’t Count on Benghazi Exploding on Obama

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Gary DeMar

Constitutionalists are wondering if the Benghazi cover-up will bring down the most corrupt and immoral presidency in America’s history.
Don’t count on it.


The Examiner opens its article on the Benghazi affair with the following:

“Although the Benghazi debacle is far from the only scandal that has rocked the Obama administration, it has a very real potential of being the one scandal that could explode, blowing up right in the faces of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other top administration officials.”

Barack Obama is not George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, or Richard Nixon. As long as the welfare checks keep coming, food stamps are available, abortion remains legal, homosexuality is pushed as a new civil rights cause, and Republicans don’t have an alternative conservative platform they are willing to run on, Benghazi will not affect the president.

The Republicans won’t get any public traction for at least six reasons: (1) Barack Obama is not Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, or Bush 1 or Bush 2, (2) the Justice Department and State Department will drag their feet and obfuscate, (3) the Obama administration will not cooperate, (4) the Democrats will circle the wagons after initially expressing outrage on the Benghazi debacle, (5) the media won’t report aggressively on the story, and (6) the media, Democrats, and Obama will find a scapegoat to blame.


If Fast and Furious had happened under Bush’s presidency, it would have been reported as a mega scandal. Benghazi would still be a front page story. Exposes would be written, and a Pulitzer or two would have been awarded by now. There would have been resignations by the score

We’ve seen how the establishment media have virtually ignored the abortion-butcher story of Kermit Gosnell. Compare the media’s relative silence on this very public act on American children with the way the media covered interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad during Bush’s presidency. Pictures of the abuse were everywhere. In fact, the media are still publishing articles on interrogation techniques used on prisoners at Guantánamo.

The Examiner’s comments later in the article bring us back to political reality:
“The Fast and Furious scandal is in all likelihood far worse than Benghazi. But due to the current political landscape where politicians and the news media are determined to keep the administration’s dirty little gun smuggling issue out of public view, Benghazi appears to be the one that has the most potential in unraveling public confidence in Obama, which already has been slipping in the polls over the past two months.”

If Republicans believe Benghazi is going to be Obama’s political Waterloo, they better wake up before it’s too late. Counting on the president being savaged by the press is a pipedream.

The GOP needs to learn that they can’t beat something with nothing. American voters need to see a true conservative alternative. So far, the Republicans don’t have a thing.

They’re pinning their hopes on a falling star. It’s not going to happen. They can’t win a game hoping the other side will lose.


Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/...#ixzz2SijOaYIV

May 6, 2013 by Tim Brown
Benghazi Whistleblower: “You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night!”

Benghazi whistleblower Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, is expected to level the allegation that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut his department out of the chain of reporting and decision-making. His testimony is set to begin on Wednesday before Chairman Darrell Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
But there’s another official Fox News is reporting on.

Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau — independently of Thompson — voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.
…
Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.
…
“You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,” the second official in State’s counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson’s forthcoming testimony.

The State Department said these allegations are “100 percent false.”

Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department’s Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning. He said, “I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue. Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of.”

He said that his bureau was a “central participant in the interagency discussion about the longer-term response to Benghazi.” He said “at no time was the Bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its tasks.”

Well, let’s see here. The State Department, Hillary Clinton in particular, went along with YouTube video being the reason for the Benghazi attacks, even though they would later claim they never did. In fact, she still wouldn’t rule that out when she was before the Senate earlier this year. This really brings into question anything anyone in that Department says that is in favor of the current administration’s “official story.”

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/be...#ixzz2SixHFG8W

Testimony: Ambassador Stevens Taken to Hospital Run by Terrorists Who Attacked Benghazi Consulate

Katie Pavlich | May 08, 2013











CAPITOL HILL - According to testimony given by whistleblower and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya Gregory Hicks, the hospital where Ambassador Chris Stevens was taken after the Benghazi attack was being operated by Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militia group. The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate on September 11, 2012 were from Ansar al-Sharia.
The body of Ambassador Stevens was missing for hours during the attack after being dragged out of the consulate. Stevens' cause of death was deemed smoke inhilation and asphyxiation. The fire in the Benghazi consulate was a petroleum fire which produces cyanide gas. One full breathe of this kind of smoke is incapacitating.





http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...ulate-n1591031