Page 13 of 38 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415161723 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 379
Like Tree13Likes


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Senate report: Benghazi attackers tied to Al Qaeda groups

    Published January 15,

    A comprehensive report by the Senate Intelligence Committee definitively declared that individuals tied to Al Qaeda groups were involved in the Benghazi attack, challenging recent claims that the terror network was not a factor.

    The report was released Monday, nearly one year after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, under congressional questioning over the nature of the attack, shouted at lawmakers: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    The administration initially claimed the attack sprung out of a protest, but has since given a more complicated assessment. Still, administration officials all along have downplayed Al Qaeda involvement, recently seizing on a New York Times report that supported those claims.

    While the report does not implicate Al Qaeda “core” -- the leadership believed to be in the Pakistan region -- it does blame some of the most influential Al Qaeda branches, including Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

    “Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM, Ansar al-Sharia, AQAP, and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks,” the report said. The militant Ansar al-Sharia was, separately, labeled by the State Department as a terror group last week, in part over its alleged involvement in the Benghazi strike.

    The Senate committee report stressed that the intelligence still suggests the attack was not “highly coordinated,” but rather “opportunistic” – possibly put in place in “short order” after protests over an anti-Islam film elsewhere in the region.

    “It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks,” the report said. The report, though, reiterated that there was no protest in Benghazi before the attack.

    The Senate panel report also dove extensively into what went wrong at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before the attack. The committee determined the attack was “preventable” and the administration failed to respond to “ample” warnings that security was deteriorating before Sept. 11, 2012.

    The report faulted the State and Defense departments. It also cited the failure of the Obama administration to "bring the attackers to justice."

    Specifically, the report said the intelligence community provided “ample strategic warning” that security in eastern Libya was deteriorating and U.S. personnel “were at risk.” The report said multiple “tripwires” were crossed signaling security problems, and the State Department should have increased its security posture in response. This included an Aug. 16, 2012, cable from Ambassador Chris Stevens raising security concerns, and prior attacks on westerners in Benghazi.

    The report also detailed a possible failed ambush, where attackers tried to lure the CIA into the hospital where Stevens' body was being held.
    The CIA did not take the bait.

    "The committee worked on a bipartisan basis to investigate the various allegations that have come out since the terrorist attacks in Benghazi in September 2012 and to get to the truth about what happened leading up to, during and after the attacks,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a statement, adding she hopes the report puts “conspiracy theories” to rest.

    Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., top Republican on the panel, also said the report provides “needed and deserved answers.”

    “In spite of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and ample strategic warnings, the United States Government simply did not do enough to prevent these attacks and ensure the safety of those serving in Benghazi,” he said.

    So now what will guess...nothing...this is what we have turned into a no consequence country!!!!

    Arrest and Convict these bums, and they call this an intelligence report..from who and to whom!!!!
    Last edited by kathyet2; 01-15-2014 at 01:56 PM.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Hillary Clinton busted in monster 'lie'

    Is Hillary Clinton's expected bid for the White House suddenly in jeopardy? A U.S. congressman says the former first lady has been snagged in a mind-blowing lie that he heard with his own ears ...

    Congressman: Hillary busted in monster ‘lie’
    A Free Press For A Free People Since 1997

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before he Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 23, 2013

    WASHINGTON — President Obama has problems with credibility, as the world well knows after he disingenuously insisted, “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan” about two dozen times in public.
    Now, it turns out, the Democrat most political observers believe will try to replace Obama as president apparently also has problems telling the truth.
    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about Benghazi, a congressman who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Libya told WND.
    Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa

    He said she also lied to Congress.
    Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was unequivocal when WND asked him, “What makes you so certain that Hillary Clinton lied?”
    “Because,” King replied, “I heard her with my own ears.”
    And, what contradicted her?
    “The facts.”
    King also had a blistering response to a famous question posed by Clinton.
    During a Senate committee hearing Jan. 23, 2013, when asked what caused the death of four Americans in Benghazi, Clinton responded indignantly, “At this point, what difference does it make?”
    WND asked King if he had an answer for her.
    “The reason it makes a difference, Hillary Clinton, is because this administration lied to the American people. Her voice was one of those voices that lied to the American people.”

    video at link below

    The congressman related how Clinton and other administration officials were dishonest when they briefed Congress within a week of the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith and CIA security contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.
    King said he could not divulge what was said during a classified briefing he attended, but, “I will just tell you that the administration’s officials told the same lies to members of Congress in a classified setting that they told the public five times on Sunday.”
    He was referring to appearances on five political talk shows by then-Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on Sept. 16, 2012, during which she claimed the attack was a spontaneous protest inspired by anger over an obscure anti-Muslim video on the Internet.
    “We know that’s false,” King told WND. “On top of that, we know they knew it was false. They knew within three hours that it was a calculated, strategized attack by an organized enemy on that compound and that annex in Benghazi.”
    Strong confirmation of King’s version of events has just come to light, as newly declassified documents show top defense officials briefed Obama that a terrorist attack was underway in Benghazi not long after it began.
    During a classified, closed-door hearing last year, Gen. Carter Ham, who was responsible for U.S. forces in North Africa, testified that he very quickly got to the point and told then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that it was a terrorist attack and not a protest.
    Panetta and Dempsey then met immediately with Obama.
    Last February, Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he told Obama “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.”
    Panetta said, “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack.”
    And yet, for the next few weeks, as the 2012 presidential election reached the crucial home stretch, a number of aides to both Clinton and Obama repeatedly insisted there was no evidence the attack on Benghazi was planned, but it appeared to be protest that turned violent.
    That was contradicted by testimony on May 8, 2013, by U.S. diplomat Gregory Hicks, who was in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack.
    He, and two other key witnesses agreed, there was no basis for Rice to claim the attack began as a protest of an anti-Islamic film. And yet, Obama and Clinton repeatedly made that claim in the hours and days after the incident.
    Hicks pointedly said he was “stunned” by Rice’s response to the Benghazi attack.
    “My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” he said.
    Hicks was asked if there was any indication of a protest in Benghazi in response to the Internet video.
    “The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” he said.
    “We know from the testimony,” King told WND. “We know it wasn’t the movie. It is a fact that it wasn’t the movie.”
    He also pointed out that people who worked in the intelligence community as well as the State Department have testified under oath that they knew the movie did not trigger the attack.
    “And they (administration officials) have not retracted them. They were dishonest,” King flatly stated.
    The congressman made the blunt assertions to WND in his first published remarks following a recent trip he organized to hotspots in North Africa and the Middle East, with Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

    2nd video at link below

    The Iowan had more answers to Clinton’s question, “What difference does it make?”
    He said, of course, the loss of Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans “who stood there bravely to defend that compound” was a “significant tragedy.”
    But, he called the truth an even bigger casualty.
    “[T]he biggest tragedy of this is this administration came forward within days and began to misinform the American people on what took place in Benghazi.”
    That’s because, King insisted, “It’s a tragedy when the integrity of the presidency and the administration of President Obama, or any president of the United States, can be sacrificed for a political agenda.”
    The congressman noted that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates described in his new book how then-senator and presidential candidate Clinton took a position against the surge in Iraq in the presidential primary contests in 2008 for political reasons.
    “If political decisions are made on war policy in Iraq when you’re campaigning for office, and if political conditions were part of the decision as to whether there would be a surge in Afghanistan, that’s also part of Gate’s book, then those two things all but confirm that the story that the administration promoted coming out of Benghazi was a political story, designed to cover,” charged King.
    And why did they need cover? Because they were in the peak of the president’s re-election campaign, said the congressman.
    He said the administration “should have told the American people the straight-up truth as soon as they knew it,” but instead, “they continue to cover-up Benghazi and the only reason they’ve been allowed to do it is a media that is, for a large part, complicit.”
    Conceivably, that could derail presidential ambitions Clinton might harbor.
    Judge Andrew Napolitano says the former secretary of state could be prosecuted if she did, in fact, lie.
    “Lying to Congress carries the same criminal liability and the same punishment as lying under oath to Congress. I’m not suggesting that Mrs. Clinton lied, but I’m saying that a case could be made out, either legally in a courtroom if a prosecutor wanted to, and certainly politically in a public sphere should she decide to seek higher office,” Napolitano said, the day after Hicks testified to Congress that the video played absolutely no role in the Benghazi attack.

    3rd video link below

    When WND asked King if those he spoke with in Libya share his observations about the attack on Benghazi, he said it depends on who you talk to.
    He had nothing but praise for U.S. Ambassador to Libya Deborah Jones, calling her “excellent” and “terrific.”
    “She’s in a very dangerous place, and she has a very difficult task. She’s upbeat, she’s knowledgeable,” and King said all of their discussions encouraged him that “we’ve got a good State Department operating in Libya.”
    Follow Garth Kant on Twitter @DCgarth


    The difference is it does matter Hillary and you Hillary and your Boss Obama have blood on your hands we can all guess why obama does but why do you??????
    Last edited by kathyet2; 01-16-2014 at 12:14 PM.

  3. #123

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    More Proof! The Obama Administration Lied After the Benghazi Attack

    By Onan Coca / 16 January 2014

    More Obama Administration lies uncovered.

    What’s new?
    There are times that reporting on the Obama administration makes me feel like a broken record. Another day, another lie discovered.
    Well, at least we’ve known that this one was a bunch of hogwash for a while. Now we have even more evidence of that fact.
    Are you ready? The Obama administration new almost immediately that the attack on the Benghazi consulate on 9/11/2012 was a terrorist attack, and not some random protest over a YouTube video.
    Fox News correspondent James Rosen got his hands on some of the just released testimony from the Benghazi hearings.
    Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    The General briefed his two superiors moments before they went to the White House to brief the President. The panel of investigators was eager to know exactly what he briefed them on and if he told them that this was a terrorist attack or a “random protest.” The General was quick to say that there was some discussion of the possibility of a demonstration but that “at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack."
    Rep. Brad Wenstrup: "As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack."
    General Ham: "Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack."
    Rep. Wenstrup: "And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?"
    General Ham: "Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir."
    This simply underscores what the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, told us in February 2013.
    Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that "there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi." "Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?" asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. "There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta replied.
    Ok. So the most important voices informing the President about what was happening in Benghazi all say that they knew almost immediately that the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
    Why did Obama’s cronies go around for the next few weeks blathering about some video on the internet?
    Politics. It was two months before an election, folks. The President and his minions were desperately searching for ways to minimize the political fallout of the attack on Benghazi. They knew that this was simply more proof that our President is in above his head on foreign policy and that a sudden protest would be easier to deflect than allowing an embassy to fall to Al-Qaeda. The problem is that there is no support for a “random protest” theory.
    The people with their boots on the ground knew it was a terrorist attack the whole time, too.
    During the investigation Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM's Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region, was also questioned.
    Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to "a considerable event unfolding in Libya." Bristol's next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that "there was a fight going on" at the consulate compound.
    Rep. Wenstrup: "So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -"
    Bristol: "Yes, sir."
    Wenstrup: "-- on the United States?"
    Bristol: "Yes, sir. ... We referred to it as the attack.
    Everyone who mattered knew it was a terrorist attack!
    The only tree left to bark up is the Secretary of State, whose people had the chief responsibility of spreading the “random protest” story/lie. Remember it was Secretary Clinton’s right-hand lady, Susan Rice, who went on the Sunday talk shows and made sure everyone knew that some crappy 15-minute video had caused this mess…not President Obama’s foreign policy.
    The problem is that even Clinton’s people aren’t fessing up to ever believing the “random protest” story.
    After providing the first substantive "tick-tock" of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: "What in all of these events that you've described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?"
    "That is a question that you would have to ask others," replied one of the senior officials. "That was not our conclusion."
    So no one ever believed the whole random protest thing, and yet somehow the administration went around telling this HUGE LIE for two weeks without anyone in the administration wondering what was going on? That seems awfully improbable, doesn’t it?
    Face it folks, the Obama administration is chock-full of liars and they’ve been lying to us for years. When this same investigatory panel questioned Hillary Clinton about the timeline of events, do you remember what she said?
    With all due respect, the fact is we had 4 dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again Senator.

    Here’s part of why it matters, Mrs. Clinton. Your job at the State Department and President Obama’s job as the Chief Executive may be to ensure that future attacks do not happen, but the Congress’ job is to hold you accountable. So when a Congressman wonders why it is that this seemingly nonsensical lie became the official story of the administration, it is to ensure that you and your boss are being straightforward with the American people. Sadly, you were not.
    President Obama and his entire administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, broke the oath they swore to the American people. They have lied, cheated, intimidated, and scrubbed in an attempt to keep the truth from your ears, and they should be imprisoned for these things. Instead, half of the country wants to bestow sainthood on them and elect one of them the next President. It’s disgusting, and it does more than disservice to the men who died because of this administration’s incompetence.


  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Of course I don't want anyone to think I only pick on Hillary and Obama because I don't I am an equal complainer of all our illustrious Politicians
    4 Reasons To Hold George W. Bush Accountable For War Crimes

    Published on Jan 15, 2014
    Support the show:

    I am not sure what it says about our culture when six figure speaker fees are awarded to War Criminals, but that is what happened in New York City on Monday, January 13 when George W. Bush took a break from his retirement and rigorous painting schedule and took his Texas swagger on stage as the keynote speaker at the National Retail Federation's Big Show.

    Outside, about 30 protesters, armed with art from We Will Not Be Silent's word project tried to draw attention to the fact one of the worlds most infamous war criminals was inside, plying his Texas charm instead of spending time in a jail cell where he belongs.

    The small number of protesters was disappointing and begs the question, she we simply let bygones be bygones?

    We do, after all, have a new President who has, in many ways, escalated the blow back inducing homicidal bull in a cultural, religious and geopolitical china shop of a foreign policy pursued under Bush. In light of this fact, we would do well to ask ourselves if the limited resources of the greater activist community would be better spent on activities other than trying to hold W to account. I feel strongly that we should continue to hold Bush accountable, and 4 reasons why are outlined in this video.

    I'm sure you could help me add to this list.

    Arrest bush, W, George W Bush, We Will not Be Silent, George Bush war criminal, Is George Bush a war criminal?, Iraq, 9/11, September 11, War on terror, Torture, Acronym TV, Resistance Report, Popular Resistance,

    Subscribe -


  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Nailed: Here’s What The Benghazi Report Did NOT Say [Full Report Attached]

    Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:59

    by Pete Santilli, The Pete Santilli Show & The Guerilla Media Network

    We’ve become so disgusted by our government official’s lawlessness, that we can almost predict they will cover up any and all scandals, regardless of the magnitude of the crime, the number of victims or deaths, or the overwhelming amount of indisputable evidence.
    The Senate Report on Benghazi has been released, and attached is the full report provided as a courtesy.

    Here’s a brief summary of a very extensive investigation and collection of CIA and FBI Whistleblower testimony which reveals the following information which never made it into the report:

    1) Hillary Clinton has committed treason against the United States by knowingly negotiating a buyback of MANPADS from AlQaeda in Libya — to be shipped to Al-Qaeda in Syria. On September 16th, 2012, shortly after her Ambassador was killed trying to set the deal up with the assistance of the CIA, the shipment was made. She knows all about it. Ambassador Stevens was striking a deal to take powerful, shoulder-fired weapons away from Al Qaeda in Libya, and the attack on his compound may have been an attempt to stop it. We’ll never know the truth about what caused the attacks, but we now know that our Senators are also involved in the coverup. This report is proof , and they should get prepared for the wave of whistleblowers who will soon come forward. Please read this report and listen to the audio of a CIA whistle blower’s account of what he knew from being on the ground in Libya 3 days after the attack.

    2) Hillary Clinton and General Petraeus never testified under oath. Why wasn’t Hillary Clinton and General Petraeus been brought before Congress to testify under oath? How could this report ever be complete without their sworn testimony? FBI and CIA whistleblowers were waiting in the wings for that moment and it never happened.
    Even our Senators are committing treason. They certainly cannot blame it on incompetence, especially since most of them are skilled lawyers.
    FACT: Ambassador Stevens was in that Annex to covertly negotiate an arms deal with Al-Qaeda in Libya. Hillary and Obama knew this. The “security” issue under normal circumstances was outlined in the Senate Report, but if the report actually exposed the real reason for the attack, the security flaws would have mattered even more.

    FACT: Obama, Clinton and the Senate have lied to the American public in this investigation.

    FACT: The “Hillary Clinton Chronicles” published on Guerilla Media Network should be enough to finish off Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid. PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH EVERYONE

    Full Benghazi Senate Report

    The Pete Santilli Show broadcasts live on The Guerilla Media Network. Please join us on the Guerilla Media Network broadcasting your favorite talk shows, political art and news 24/7.
    If you would like to express your opinions or concerns on the air during the live broadcast of The Pete Santilli Show, please call (21 862-9829
    Be sure to tune in to the Pete Santilli Show daily at 10am-2pm PST / 12pm-4pm CST / 1pm-5pm EST. Pete & his co-host Susannah Cole broadcast daily for 3 hours to discuss breaking news headlines, and interview some of our nation’s most interesting patriots & controversial guests.

    Please “LIKE”, share and recommend this story..
    We welcome your comments in our Facebook comment thread!
    Fair Use Notice: This article contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Fair Use notwithstanding we will immediately comply with any copyright owner who wants their material removed or modified, wants us to link to their web site, or wants us to add their photo

    Link again for the full report

  7. #127

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Like · · Share · 31056107 · 5 hours ago ·
    Nation In Distress

    Bipartisan senate reports that the deaths in Benghazi were preventable..

    Join Nation In Distress...

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    OMG America shared Ben Ferguson Show's photo.

    CAN YOU SAY COVER-UP????????? BREAKING NEWS: 15 people “supporting the investigation or otherwise being helpful to the United States” IN THE BENGHAZI have since been killed in Benghazi.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts