COVERUP: Benghazi Testimony Contradicts Obama And Clinton

Benghazi Memory Hole Hillary SC COVERUP: Benghazi testimony contradicts Obama and Clinton

Thanks to the record, the testimony, and the expert witnesses yesterday at the Benghazi hearings, we know with confidence that:

• State department officials, including Ambassador Stevens, made numerous requests for increased security to protect our people in Benghazi.

• Those requests went to individuals at the highest levels of our government.

• Those requests were systematically denied.

• Indeed, security protections were reduced, the exact opposite of recommendations coming from experts on the ground.

• American government officials at the highest levels were warned about terrorist aggression in Benghazi, and the likelihood an attack was imminent.

• Ambassador Stevens traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi in September of 2012 in order to forward the cause of formalizing and stabilizing the diplomatic mission in Libya, according to orders from Sec. Clinton.

• Government officials at the highest levels knew within hours that the 9/11/12 attack was perpetrated by identifiable terrorists. Yet those officials purposefully lied to the American people, blaming the attack on a protest that got out of hand, based on rage over an offensive video. Even the Libyan president confirmed the attack was terrorist-inspired, planned, and executed; and it had nothing to do with an offensive video.

• The terrorism response team was not even activated.

• Four Americans died trying to defend themselves and fellow Americans doing legitimate work in Benghazi. They called for help. Help was denied by government officials at the highest levels, even though resources were available.

• Upwards of 30 other Americans who survived have been locked down, sequestered, and silenced for eight months.

• Thanks to remarks by American government officials at the highest levels, the Libyans were not cooperative in the immediate post-attack period, delaying FBI ability to visit and secure the crime scene for almost three weeks.

• State department personnel wanted to come to the rescue of Americans under attack in Benghazi. But the military was ordered to stand down for no apparent reason, at least not one that has been articulated thus far by the Administration.

• House oversight officials, including Chairman Darrell Issa, tried numerous times to invite the cooperation of the Obama Administration in the effort to investigate and determine the truth. Chairman Issa reports that the Administration did not cooperate; but indeed, the Administration stonewalled.

• Whistleblowers who gave testimony yesterday contradicted the Obama Administration’s version of events. These are credible witnesses, career State Department officials with no political agenda. They testify further that when they tried to speak the truth about these matters, they were met with very negative reactions from Administration authorities and superiors who obviously wanted to silence and discredit them.

• The President knew almost immediately that the attack was perpetrated by terrorists; yet he misrepresented the cause for weeks after the event, blaming the video. The President never spoke to Hillary Clinton the night of the attack. Instead, he had dinner and prepared for a campaign trip. We still don’t know who actually issued the stand-down order.

• Hillary Clinton must have known about the serious security threat in Benghazi as well as the requests for improvements in security but denied that knowledge during her testimony, shirking responsibility and hiding behind subordinates, blaming them.

• At least two parents of sons lost in Benghazi place the blame for their deaths squarely on the shoulders of the President and the Secretary of State at the time.

• The President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Vice President promised the parents of the slain that there would be full disclosure. That was eight months ago. The parents are still waiting for that promise to be kept.

All this points to one inescapable conclusion: from the President on down, there was and is a concerted effort to cover up certain details about this tragedy. And those details are so terrible that the Administration is willing to lie and threaten victims and whistleblowers to hide the truth from the American people.

 

Allan Erickson enjoyed an 11-year career in radio, television and print journalism as a reporter, talk show host, and operations manager. He then turned to sales and marketing for a decade. Twelve years ago he started a training and recruitment company. Allan & wife Jodi have four children and live in California. He is the author of the book “The Cross & the Constitution in the Age of Incoherence,” Tate Publishing, 2012. He is available to speak in churches addressing the topics of faith and freedom. To contact him, email: allanlerickson@gmail.com

 

 

Benghazi: Are We A Nation Run By Fools?

Carney Sweeps Benghazi Under Rug SC Benghazi: Are We A Nation Run By Fools?

It seems like only yesterday when President Obama stood in front of an electrified audience at the 2012 Democratic National Convention just days before the deadly September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reminding supporters, “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead.”

Days later, on September 14, a somber-faced Obama and his sullen-faced Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood in front of four flag draped coffins at Andrews Air Force Base, assuring the small group of grieving family members that their loved ones did not die in vain. Their ill-informed message suggested these patriots weren’t killed by terrorists; they died because of protests about a YouTube video.

Since then, the administration has done its best to dodge questions and distance itself from the events of September 11 (and acquired a convenient case of amnesia along the way.) Nine months in, and Americans still have no clue why initial talking points from top officials claiming the attacks were most likely executed by al Qaeda-linked terrorists were reduced to “a YouTube video.” Did they fear acknowledging such a claim so close to the 2012 presidential election? Or did they actually believe the video story?

Hopefully, some of these questions were answered by way of three courageous State Department whistle-blowers scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee May 8. Pre-hearing interviews from one of the whistleblowers, Gregory Hicks (the second highest diplomat in Libya at the time of the attacks), were released to the press. Hicks claimed a Special Forces team, which could have saved lives and protected evidence, was ordered to “stand down” despite multiple pleas for help. Contrary to the administration’s claims, Hicks also said, “…everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack” from the beginning.

Hicks’ statements seem to fit in with the timeline obtained by the Weekly Standard from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The Weekly Standard article “The Benghazi Talking Points” describes how “senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened” and made “substantive revisions” to the “CIA’s talking points” six weeks outside the 2012 presidential election.

So where’s your thirst for truth, America? Why aren’t we outraged? Maybe because, as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “Benghazi happened a long time ago.” Maybe Carney should ask grieving family members wanting answers and longing for closure how long it’s been since their loved ones lost their lives in Benghazi. Or maybe we are at a point in this country where a politician’s political aspirations trump everything else.

The last time something of this magnitude happened, a U.S. president stepped down. But that was during a time when good men who made bad choices still had the intestinal fortitude to accept personal responsibility for their actions. It was also a time when journalists were principled enough to set aside politics to do their job and make politicians accountable.

Some in the mainstream media are reluctantly pulling their heads out of the ground. On May 5, CBS news anchor Bob Schieffer acknowledged the possibility the administration might have been involved in a “cover-up.” Others are unenthusiastically following suit because they have no choice. Of course, the illegitimate diehards will remain with their heads in the sand until the storm passes.

As the pieces of this puzzle come together, one thing is certain: full and honest disclosure is always the best policy. Regardless of how Benghazi pans out, we will discover that either the Obama administration was involved in a cover-up and played us as fools, or our government is run by fools who actually believed the Benghazi attacks were in response to an uprising over an amateurish anti-Islam video by a man now serving jail time for a separate issue. Either way, we lose.

Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers

Libya SC Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers

It’s on. As the White House grapples with a growing backlash over its Libya lies and lapses, President Obama’s apologists are gearing up for battle. Put on your hip-waders. Grab those tar buckets. Get ready for Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers.

Capitol Hill hearings this Wednesday on the deadly 9/11 consulate attack by jihadists will feature three compelling witnesses, all State Department veterans: Gregory N. Hicks, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya and highest-ranking U.S. diplomat in the country at the time of the Benghazi jihad attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine who now serves as deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the top security officer in Libya.

Nordstrom first testified last fall about how State Department brass spurned his requests for increased security at the compound. Hicks and Thompson are coming forward publicly for the first time this week with more damning evidence contradicting Team Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s claims about the administration’s response the night of the attack and in the ensuing months of cover-ups.

According to the House Oversight Committee, Hicks reportedly will refute Team Obama’s claims that nobody was told to stand down and that all military resources available were used in the rescue efforts. As Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi to save lives during the attacks, Hicks says the team received a phone call from the U.S. Special Operations Command Africa telling them “you can’t go” and that the decision was “purely political.”

The State Department press office already has accused Victoria Toensing, attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, of “lying” about administration pressure on her clients. Left-wing operatives funded by billionaire George Soros have taken to Twitter to mock reports of fear and intimidation among the new witnesses. White House press secretary Jay Carney continues to sing “Long, Long Ago” and deny all wrongdoing.

Read More at Real Clear Politics . By Michelle Malkin.

Cruz And Paul Betrayed By Own Party

Rand Paul Ted Cruz 300x200 Cruz and Paul Betrayed by Own Party

It’s been a rough last few years for the Grand Old Party. From utter vilification during the Bush years to two consecutive presidential election defeats, the Republican Party could use a little pick-me-up.

That’s why it seems so baffling that the two most prominent and accomplished rising stars of the GOP, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, have been getting so much hate from their own party.

This dynamic senatorial duo has been doing most of the heavy lifting for their party as of late. Sen. Cruz has really had his chance to shine staring down the Obama Administration on gun control. Now he’s at it again, throwing down the gauntlet to Vice President Joe Biden, challenging him to an hour-long debate on gun control. His fearless efforts have even earned him the praise of his enemies.

Sen. Paul, meanwhile, has served splendidly as the face of the resistance to the current Administration. Whether providing the only solid rebuttal to the State of the Union address, grilling then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi debacle and suggesting she be removed from her position, or bringing the whole country to a standstill in a valiant filibuster against drone assassinations of American citizens without due process, Rand Paul has solidified his position as the de facto leader of the Republican Party. He may very well be the foremost GOP contender for a 2016 run for President.

Unfortunately, it seems like there’s no rest for these two weary leaders. Not even from their own party. Cruz has earned ire from fellow Republicans who wish out loud that he would just shut up and stop doing what he does best, never mind that the prevalence of the silent strategy is the reason such bold stands are needed in the first place. Even Paul, the GOP’s unequivocal workhorse, has faced ambushes from his own supposed comrades for standing up for the very principles the whole party is theoretically behind.

The Republican Party purports to stand for limited Constitutional government, personal responsibility, liberty, and a strong family. When said party bites the very hands that lead them into battle for those exact principles, something is clearly wrong. The GOP no longer represents the will of its patriotic American supporters, and is no longer deserving of their support.

Joel Valenzuela is the editor of The Desert Lynx

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Hints Of Explosive Testimony In New Benghazi Hearings

Hillary Clinton speech 11 SC Hints of Explosive Testimony In New Benghazi Hearings

The new round of Benghazi hearings are starting to look positively explosive. One way you can tell is that the mainstream media feels compelled to pay attention to them. That’s a lot easier now that Obama has been re-elected, of course, and his palace guard can take off their blindfolds and earmuffs, but the sea change in media attitude over the past week has been notable.

Here, for example, is CBS News on Sunday giving top-story coverage to the testimony of Gregory Hicks, who was the Number Two man at the U.S. embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi attacks. Hicks – whose appearance at the hearings was discussed by House Oversight chairman Darrell Issa earlier Sunday on CBS’ Face the Nation – says everyone at the embassy knew it was an organized terror attack immediately, and they were flabbergasted to see the Obama Administration try to pass it off as a “spontaneous protest” over a YouTube video. He’s also one of the whistleblowers who claims to have been threatened with career reprisals by the Administration.

Hicks also says the White House was lying when it claimed to be in close contact with the diplomatic team in Libya during the attack, which once again raises the question of exactly what Barack Obama was doing that night. (I think we all know the answer – getting ready for a fundraiser – but the Palace Guard media didn’t want voters dwelling on that before the election.)

Another stick of dynamite testimony at these hearings will come from a high-ranking State Department counter-terrorism official, who points the finger squarely at Hillary Clinton for politicizing intelligence about the terror attack – a breathtaking contradiction of the Administration narrative about anonymous rogue numbskulls in the intelligence community inventing the phony “spontaneous video protest” narrative and making fools of the White House. Fox News reports:

On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a “whistle-blower” witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.

Read More at humanevents.com . By John Hayward.

Photo Credit: Aaron Webb Creative Commons