Thread: BENGHAZI – BIGGEST COVER-UP SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY? – BENGHAZI CIA GUN-RUNNING

Obama’s ‘Biggest Lie of All’

May 10, 2013 by Chip Wood

UPI FILE

Benghazi, Libya, may be HIllary Clinton's undoing.

Will we ever get all of the truth about the false explanations and misdirection from the Administration of President Barack Obama after the terrorist assaults on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11?

Probably not. But we’ve gotten a lot closer in the past few days, thanks to three courageous State Department employees who refused to be part of a cover-up and a House committee that dug long and hard to get more of the truth.

It’s too soon to know what all of the consequences of Wednesday’s hearings by the House Oversight and Government Reform committee will be. One popular White House critic was probably way too optimistic when he predicted that the revelations could bring down Obama’s Presidency.

But on the bright side, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that this story could end any hopes Hillary Clinton had of being elected President in 2016. More on this in a moment.
Whatever happens next, it is now indisputably clear that the murder of Ambassador Chris Stephens and three other Americans was planned by an al-Qaida affiliate in Libya. The CIA knew it — and told Washington. Our staff in Libya knew it — and told their superiors. Top Libyan officials knew it — and repeatedly said so.

So why was any reference to terrorism or al-Qaida carefully and deliberately removed from the “talking points” handed to our U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, before she made the rounds of the TV talk shows the Sunday following the attacks?

About that, we can only speculate. Because no one in authority in Obama’s White House and what was Clinton’s State Department will fess up.

Are you really surprised?

It was deeply moving to listen to the three State Department veterans who had the guts to come forward and testify on Wednesday. I was especially impressed by Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission/charge d’affairs in Libya. He was in Tripoli, a two-hour flight from Benghazi, when Stevens called to tell him, “Greg, we’re under attack.”

Hicks told the committee that none of his efforts to get military assistance for the beleaguered Americans in Benghazi was successful. He revealed that a Special Operations team in Tripoli was ordered to “stand down” and not fly to Benghazi. The officer in charge of the team told Hicks, “I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.”

Hicks said he was absolutely “dumbfounded” when he heard that an obscure anti-Islamic video was being blamed for turning a group of demonstrators into a murderous mob. “I was stunned. My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” Hicks told the committee. He knew it wasn’t true. But that was the Administration’s story; and, by golly, they were going to stick with it.

Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, no doubt engaged in a bit of hyperbole when he told Sean Hannity before the hearings began that his committee would force the Administration to come clean about “the biggest lie of all.” Issa said:

The Administration has made a claim that for classified reasons they changed the story. We believe right now that may be the biggest lie of all, and we intend on making the president come clean as to, quote, ‘what the classified reasons are that would justify lying to the American people.’

Gripping as the day-long hearings were, of course they didn’t force Obama or anyone in his Administration to “come clean” about the attempted cover-up. That was too much to hope for.

Still, at least one prominent critic believes that the Administration’s deceit about Benghazi could spell the end of Obama’s Presidency.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee didn’t mince words on his radio show earlier this week. “When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up,” the one-time Republican Presidential candidate declared, “he cannot continue to govern.”

Did Huckabee really mean to suggest that Obama could be impeached over the attacks that led to the deaths of Stephens and three other Americans? It sure sounded like it. How else could you interpret comments like these: “As the facts come out, I think we’re going to see something startling. And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next 3 ½ years.”

Huckabee is probably overstating the case. It’s certainly true that seemingly minor incidents can have enormous consequences. Who could have imagined at the time that an amateurish burglary of a Democratic Party office in the Watergate complex in Washington would ultimately force Richard Nixon to resign his Presidency? Or that a sexual escapade with an intern would lead to Bill Clinton’s impeachment?

Huckabee is not alone in warning how serious the consequences of Benghazi could be. John Bolton, our ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush, said that the growing scandal could lead to the “unraveling” of the Obama Administration. “This could be a hinge point for the Obama Administration,” Bolton declared. “It’s that serious for them.”

We’ll see.

While it’s too soon to declare that our lame-duck President is a dead duck politically, I think it’s very likely that the hearings and the attendant publicity may have had a major unintended consequence. They may have saved us from a Clinton Presidency in 2016.

Remember when Clinton was finally well enough to testify about the assault this past January? She lost her cool (or at least pretended to do so) during her interrogation by a Senate committee. She was almost yelling when she lashed out at Senator Roy Johnson (R-Wis.), saying, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

Actually, Madame Secretary, you knew very well that the murders occurred, not because of a protest that got out of hand or because some “guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans.” The assault on our consulate was planned by an al-Qaida affiliate to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11 — and there were plenty of people who knew it.

We still don’t have “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” about the events in Benghazi on Sept. 11, or about the lies and obfuscations that that started in Washington, D.C., almost immediately thereafter.

But we do know that Clinton was part of the effort to stonewall us. And I think enough voters will remember this in 2016 to deny her what she wants more than anything else: the keys to the White House.

Let’s make sure we do our part to see that they do.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

http://personalliberty.com/2013/05/1...st-lie-of-all/

A Shameless Bid To Hold The Reins Of Power

May 10, 2013 by Bob Livingston

UPI FILE

Four Americans died in the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The elected class and their media enablers are shameless in their desire to hold onto their reins of power.

During Wednesday’s hearings before a Congressional committee on the Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack, whistle-blowers Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom described the events that took place in Benghazi on Sept. 11. It’s a far different tale from the “story” the Administration of President Barack Obama and its propaganda arm, the corporate mainstream media, told in the days following the attack.

It’s clear the Obama Administration and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were either incompetent in their handling of the events of that day or they made a conscious effort to let Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three other State Department employees die. It’s equally clear their initial story was a bald-faced lie, and they knew it was a lie as they told it.

It was election time, you see; and there was a narrative of Obama as a slayer of terrorists everywhere and defeater of al-Qaida that had to be maintained. And now, as the hearings showed, Democrats are more interested in covering for Obama and Clinton than they are in getting to the bottom of some of the important issues like:

• Who were the attackers and their sponsors?
• Was there warning of the impending attacks?
• Was there adequate security?
• Could the attacks have been prevented?
• Could the State Department employees have been saved by a military intervention?
• Was a response team ordered to stand down?
• Why did it take so long for the investigative team to arrive?
• Have the whistleblowers been threatened and/or punished?
  

One would like to think the voting public is closely following the Benghazi story through alternative media and sees through the veil the MSM has thrown over the whole affair as it works to cover for its two darlings:

Obama and Clinton. But that’s probably too much to ask of the low-information voter occupied with celebrity worship, processed foods and [non]reality TV.


http://personalliberty.com/2013/05/1...eins-of-power/

Alot of Dems are going to "jump ship" on Obama as he goes into plausible dependability mode. Looks like Hillary doesn't want to fall on the sword for Obama.

"Benghazi: Protecting The Throne" | By Michael Connelly, Constitutional Attorney

May 09, 2013

AP

As a result of the May 8th House of Representatives Committee hearing on the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya three chilling conclusions can be drawn. First, the four Americans who were killed were abandoned by the very government they so bravely served. Days prior to the attack Ambassador Chris Stevens and others on his staff pointed out to the State Department that the security situation in Libya was deteriorating. There had already been a car bomb attack on the Consulate in Benghazi and an attempt had been made on the life of the British ambassador. Therefore, Ambassador Stevens wanted an increase in security personnel.
Yet, despite these reports and the fact that the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 was rapidly approaching these requests were denied and orders were issued actually reducing the number of security personnel already assigned to the Ambassador. Then when the attacks began on September 11th, there is clear evidence that there were American military assets in the area, including a four man special opts team in Tripoli, that could have been used to break up the assault and save American lives. Instead of immediately deploying these assets, someone in the Obama administration ordered a stand down and no help was provided to the Ambassador and his embattled staff at the Consulate.

AP

The second conclusion that can be clearly drawn is that the U.S. government knew from the beginning of the assault that this was a coordinated terrorist attack yet tried to hide this fact from the public for days. Instead of acknowledging that we had been struck by Jihadists once again on 9/11 administration officials, including the President and Secretary of State, claimed it was a spontaneous demonstration resulting from an obscure You Tube video critical of the prophet Mohammed that the demonstration somehow evolved into bloodshed. This was claimed despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

There are still more questions than answers and there will be more hearings, but the final inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this initial hearing is that the Administration, the vast majority of the Democrats in Congress, and most of the mainstream media don’t want the American people to know the truth. Their only interest is in protecting King Obama and his throne, and protecting his possible successor, Hilary Clinton. Instead of asking pertinent The Democrats on the committee spent most of their time attacking the Republicans and the valiant whistleblowers.

Indeed, these elected representatives of “we the people” drew their swords and locked their shields together in order to form a bulwark between the truth and the American people. This is a direct violation of their oath of office where they swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The founding fathers carefully crafted the Constitution to set up a limited Federal government with three separate, but equal branches that would provide checks and balances to keep one branch from becoming too powerful and plunging our nation into tyranny. By refusing to rein in the excesses of the Executive Branch of government these so called “lawmakers” are failing to do what they are tasked to do by the Constitution. This is not only an impeachable offense, but is subject to criminal penalties under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.

As for the members of the national news media, they take no such oath but I contend that they are still bound by the duties imposed on them by the Constitution. The First Amendment provides for freedom of the press and the founding fathers placed it in the Constitution for a specific reason. They wanted a free press to be a watch dog over the Federal government to keep it from becoming tyrannical, lying to the American people, and taking away our God given freedoms. By refusing to dig for the truth about Benghazi and in fact assisting the Administration in the cover up much of the mainstream media has become nothing more than a propaganda forum for the President and his allies. They are no longer the standard bearers for a free press, but the disciples of tyranny.

It is time for us to take back our country and hold the enemies of our Constitution accountable for their actions.

Follow Us: @redflagnews on Twitter

Get the RedFlag app today for Apple and Android devices...

Written by Michael Connelly, Constitutional Attorney
mrobertc@hotmail.com

http://redflagnews.com/headlines/ben...ing-the-throne

May 10, 2013 by Tim Brown

Who At The White House Is Giving A Tremendous Amount Of Pushback To CBS On Benghazi?

128 Comments

Sharyl Attkisson, of CBS News, has been one of the few reporters who is “a persistent voice of media skepticism on Benghazi,” according to the Washington Post. It’s nice to know there are still some in the media who are persistent voices of media skepticism when it comes to our government. After all, that really is part of what the First Amendment is about; holding government accountable through freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, she’s now claiming that she has received “a tremendous amount of pushback” from the Obama White House.
“I’m a political agnostic,” she says. “I don’t think about who’s good and who’s bad. I just go where the story leads. . . . People can say what they want about me, I don’t care. I just want to get the information out there.”

Not only does Attkisson, say that, but she lives it. She claims that she is not partisan and has already demonstrated that she will go up against the administration in her coverage of the Justice Department’s gun running operation, Fast and Furious, won her an Emmy for investigative reporting.

Attkisson believes she is being stonewalled by the White House in her investigation of Benghazi, specifically the Obama administration’s non-response to a petition for documents requested back in November under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Washington Post recounts her sentiments:

“I find [that] improper,” she said. “You could say suspicious.” Suspicious? “We don’t know what we don’t know,” she says. “There could be political reasons or valid national security reasons [for not replying]. I just don’t know. I know they haven’t made a good argument” for why public disclosure of the material would harm national security.
White House officials did not respond Tuesday to a request for comment. But they have said previously that they have made extensive disclosures, including making public an internal State Department review of the episode.

Attkisson’s general approach to her work may be spelled out in the self-description on her Twitter account: “Investigative Journalist. Dreaming of a day when public officials answer questions as if they know they work for the public.”

She says she has received “a tremendous amount of pushback” from the White House as a result of her reporting on Benghazi and Fast and Furious. Among other things, she says, White House officials have called and written her bosses at CBS to complain about her work. She says she doesn’t find that unusual or even disturbing.

Obviously a tremendous amount of pushback from the White House is indicative of the fact that they are unhappy with Attkisson not being the media sheep they are used to dealing with. That’s a good thing. However, since she is getting this pushback from the White House, who exactly is talking to her bosses over at CBS and putting the pressure on? Breitbartreports,

There are many candidates, but sources tell Breitbart News that one obvious candidate is Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor for communication for Barack Obama. Rhodes has worked for Obama since 2007, and works under National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. Rhodes’ brother, David Rhodes, is the president of CBS News. He “directs network newsgathering for all CBS News platforms,” according to the CBS News website.

Ben Rhodes has been named as a central player in the revision of the Benghazi talking points that ended with Ambassador Susan Rice going on network television and lying about the nature of the Benghazi attacks by labeling them results of a spontaneous protest about a YouTube video. Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard writes:

CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

Ah yes, Ben Rhodes! That name seems to be coming up quite a bit when we speak about the person who may have come up with the idea for the entire “YouTube video was the cause of the attacks in Benghazi” cover-up line.


Finally, keep in mind that it was CBS News that aided and abetted Barack Obama in covering up Benghazi during the 2012 elections.


http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/wh...s-on-benghazi/

White House Had Off The Record Meeting With The Press On Benghazi

May 10, 2013
By Lonely Conservative

White House Had Off The Record Meeting With The Press On Benghazi

It looks like the White House is in full damage control. According to Politico, they held an off the record meeting with reporters on Benghazi earlier this afternoon. The meeting was conducted on “deep background,” according to White House spokesman Josh Earnest, but sources told POLITICO that the existence of the meeting was “off the…

http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/0...s-on-benghazi/