Hillary Clinton 2016 And Why The #Benghazi Hearings Will Be A Flop

Update II: There are many quotable quotes of the day about the coverup at Benghazi. We think the analysis in our article below is still correct: appoint a select committee with a few members (no more than seven) all with prosecutorial experience to get to the bottom of this Benghazi coverup. 41 hams do not an investigation make especially when they make false charges which undercut their investigation.

As to Hillary Clinton, we have some observations in defense of her January testimony. Hillary’s “what’s the difference” quote has been taken out of context and is entire reasonable.

And today’s Benghazi hearing clears Hillary Clinton of several accusations made against her this weekend and after her January testimony, by hammy members of the committee. Yes we’re referring to the Mark Thompson accusations which he himself refuted today as well as the “signature” issue which was completely refuted as well.

We need a select committee with subpoena power and smarts to investigate the Benghazi coverup.


Update: We argue below that only a small select committee with experienced prosecutors has a chance to unravel the Benghazi knot. But John Boehner says “no” to a select committee and instead wants the 41 hams on the Oversight Committee to fight for the TV kleig lights.

Most of the testimony and witnesses have already been leaked by some of the hams on broadcasts so expect no bombshells from the place that the bombshells should’a taken place. Obama Dimocrats will do their best to distract and deny.

A clue as to whether these hearings will be step one on the road to a select committee or whether they will be successful in getting facts will be if the Republicans continue to give hammy speeches or do the smart thing which is give their time to one person (such as Trey Gowdy) with prosecutorial experience who knows how to interrogate and ask questions to elicit facts.

Another clue as to whether these Benghazi hearings succeed in getting to the bottom of this scandal comes from the Open thread: Benghazi hearing in House Oversight Committee article at HotAir:

“Greg Gutfeld warns that regardless of the answers, the questions will become irrelevant if the media decides to ignore it

Big Media will do what it has to do to protect Barack Obama. The Oversight Committee today will focus on talking points and other after the fact cover-up lies. To us the central question of Benghazi is why on a September 11 anniversary there was no preparation against attack. It is indeed the central FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP.

As we wrote on January 23, 2013, “People died, Obama lied.” The witnesses today are credible and have standing to accuse and whistle-blow. But we’re gonna need a bigger boat to get to the lies and blow up the cover-up. We’re gonna need a small group of prosecutors in a select committee.

The Benghazi hearing can be seen on C-SPAN.


The Benghazi hearings slated for this Wednesday are already a flop. We’re sorry that is our conclusion. We think that getting to the bottom of the disaster of September 11, 2012 – the same day Tdouchbag Tsarnaev became an American citizen – is important and necessary.

Uncovering the truth about what happened in Benghazi on September 11 is important because even if Big Media and Obama Dimocrats don’t think it is important – the terrorist killers of Americans in Benghazi know the truth and they are emboldened when our political system denies the truth.

What contempt for the American way of government these terrorist killers must have as they witness the lies and corruption that our political system cannot uncover, or rather, works like sleepless rust to keep covered.

These terrorist killers must laugh at American power and American “justice” as they see the apparatus of the “government of the people, government by the people, government for the people” protect them and shift the blame for terrorist murders of American officials on an American who exercised his rights and produced a Youtube video Innocence of Muslims. That American is now in prison even as the friend of Boston terrorist killer Tdouchebag Tsarnaev is free on bail.

Our hope is that Prince Hamlet was correct when he declared “Foul deeds will rise, Though all the earth o’erwhelm them, to men’s eyes.”

We fear however that our hope is as misplaced as the fools who in 2008 thought Barack Obama was the herald of “hope and change”.

So why are we so pessimistic that the Benghazi truth will rise? Why do we think the Benghazi hearings on Wednesday will flop or have already flopped? It’s because we know the difference between a good investigation and a foolish investigation.

Consider a successful investigation: The Watergate Hearings. There are five reasons why the Watergate Hearings were successful:

(1) The Watergate Hearings held to investigate Richard M. Nixon were conducted under the auspices of a Senate resolution authorizing a Senate select committee comprised of only seven members which in one year issued a report;

(2) the Watergate select committee had subpoena power to acquire witnesses and materials needed for its investigation into the Watergate break-in as well as any other criminal activity – along with the authority to investigate “all other illegal, improper, or unethical conduct occurring during the Presidential campaign of 1972, including political espionage and campaign finance practices”;

(3) the Watergate hearings had a smart leader in a wily “country lawyer” that had in fact graduated from Harvard Law School (a respected institution at the time), was considered a constitutional law expert, served as a Supreme Court Justice in his native North Carolina, and was interested in getting to the bottom of what had happened at the Watergate and the “White House Horrors” as expeditiously as possible;

(4) the public hearings themselves featured an extensive period of time wherein the majority counsel was able to interrogate the witnesses without interruption or distraction;

(5) the Watergate select committee developed a smart media strategy which mostly prevented leaks to the media in favor of dropping “bombshells” from the mouths of witnesses which had the effect of riveting viewers to their televised investigation.

The Senate select committee on Watergate provided a final report on June 27, 1974. On July 24 the Supreme Court ruled that President Nixon had to surrender the tape recordings he fought to keep secret from the special prosecutor. The tapes proved President Nixon participated in a cover-up of White House links to the Watergate burglary. A House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against President Nixon and sent them to the full House for a vote. Before the House of Representatives voted Richard Nixon on August 9, 1974 resigned.

Media at the time was not friendly to Richard Nixon, more like it hated him, but Richard Nixon was overwhelmingly reelected in 1972 and the media was not as corrosive a force as it is today. This meant that Watergate was at first mostly ignored. The Washington Post was alone in its reports until eventually the New York Times joined in. It was the Senate select committee that focused attention on Watergate and convinced the American people that the Watergate break-in was a serious enough issue to remove a twice elected president who had a remarkable set of skills and many successes yet to be matched.

The Watergate Senate select committee was a success. By comparison the Benghazi investigation is an embarrassment.

We can already hear the whelps of pain and screams of “idiots” at us for suggesting that the Benghazi investigation is “an embarrassment”. We are sure the defense against our “embarrassment” charge is that this past weekend has been a festival of revelations about what is to come this Wednesday at the Benghazi hearing before Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee.

But all those weekend revelations are exactly why we are concerned and believe that the Benghazi hearings will be or are already – a flop. Why did those leaks occur? Does anyone think those leaks are helpful? Really?

We’ve all heard the sensational charge that the military was politically blocked from helping the besieged in Benghazi. That charge is refuted and we get that information from the Republican/conservative website AceOfSpades:

“One note I’ve been wanting to make and it’s related…despite the stuff from Fox this week about how a military response was possible, it wasn’t.

Even the scathing report from the House said there was no timely military rescue/support option (pdf).

Although responsible military officers and civilian officials within the Department of Defense reacted quickly to the attacks in Benghazi, the effectiveness of their response was hindered because U.S. military forces were not properly postured to address the growing threats in northern Africa or to respond to a brief, high-intensity attack on U.S. personnel or interests across much of Africa.

You can fault the DoD for not being properly set-up that night but given how they were deployed and their alert status, there was simply no way to get military assets to Benghazi in time that night.

There’s plenty to go after Obama on over this, making up stories about potential rescue missions doesn’t help.”

The incorrect speculations don’t help. Providing heads up leaks don’t help. Just get the facts first and let the conclusions conclude the investigation.

The leaks are fun and all, but speculation is not fact. And if the speculations are wrong, the advertisements don’t live up to the product, then real harm to the investigation is done. Behold fun speculation that is probably irresponsible, counterproductive, and just plain stupid to “leak”:

“A source with intimate information about the events that happened on the ground in Benghazi the night the U.S. Consulate and the CIA annex was attacked by terrorists told Breitbart News that, ultimately, only the President of the United States, or someone acting on his authority, could have prevented Special Forces either on the ground or nearby from helping those Americans who were under deadly assault.

That call may have been made early in the engagement. Both Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey testified in January that they had no further communication with President Barack Obama after an initial briefing in the early hours of the Benghazi crisis, which continued through the night.

But what about then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

I have a hard time thinking it was Hillary alone. Hillary may have tried to circumvent the counterterrorism board and deal with this. I think in order for her to tell General Ham, ‘No, you’re not going to get involved,’ she would have had to talk to the president. The president would have had to say, ‘No, take your commands from Hillary.’ He would have had said something, because Ham does not work for the Department of State; he works directly for the president,” the source explained.”

The Watergate hearings worked in large part because of the bombshell factor. On July 16, 1973 the world was stunned when Alexander Porter Butterfield testified as a witness before the Senate select committee that a White House taping system existed which recorded all of President Nixon’s conversations. That wasn’t leaked. The impact was akin to a massive meteor striking the Earth.

So why did we have so many revelations this past weekend about what is going to happen on Wednesday? We know who the “secret” whistle blower witnesses are going to be and what they are going to say. Why? Why were these bombshells not exploded together for maximum effect on Wednesday at the public hearing?

All the leaks do is help the White House prepare itself for a response at a time of its choosing. The leaks give away the tactical advantage to the Obama White House goons.

Unlike the Watergate select committee which was small and had smart leadership the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is not a select committee but is a sprawling mess with 41 members many of limited intelligence and to make matters worse its chairman is a bit of a show horse who makes promises he can’t seem to keep:

“After becoming Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Issa has become a vocal advocate for investigations into the Obama administration, including the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, corruption in Afghanistan, WikiLeaks, and the Food and Drug Administration, among other issues.[41] In 2010 he told the press that he wanted the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to hold investigative hearings “seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks.“‘

We really don’t see much of a record of success. Is it the fault of Chairman Issa? Chairman Issa has unilateral subpoena power but somehow we don’t seem to see much action. We know that there are Benghazi survivors in Washington who have never been publicly heard from but somehow Chairman Issa has not seen fit to subpoena them.

Perhaps the problem is not Chairman Issa but the mess of a committee he heads. With 41 members we know that every Obama Dimocrat will take their turn at bat to subvert the job of investigating what happened in Benghazi. But the Republican members will take their turn to posture, preen, and pose, all the while ignoring the previous questions from their Republican colleagues. It would be best if Republicans on the committee gave up their time to one person with prosecutor conditionals, such as Trey Gowdy, to ask all the questions for the majority.

We are not the only ones concerned; Jim Geraghty at National Review Online:

“Dear Republicans on the House Oversight Committee:

Please do not grandstand. Please do not take the time before the television cameras to tell us how outraged you are, even though what you are investigating is, indeed, outrageous. There will be plenty of time for that after the hearing. All day Wednesday, give us the facts, and then more facts, and then more facts.

Just ask the questions of the witnesses. Let them speak and don’t cut them off. Do not give the Obama administration any cover to claim that this is a partisan witch hunt from unhinged political opponents. Don’t waste time complaining about the media’s lack of interest or coverage so far. Just give them — and us — the facts to tell the story, a story that will leave all of us demanding accountability.

Sheryl Attkisson’s excellent reporting for CBS gives us a sense of what to expect, with three big issues.

First: Leading up to September 11, why did the State Department keep reducing the amount of security protecting diplomatic staff in Libya, in light of the increasingly dire requests from those in country? [snip]

Second: Precisely what happened that night? Was there a time when a rescue could have been authorized, but wasn’t? Were any forces told to “stand down” and not attempt a rescue? [snip]

Third, what happened afterwards, and was there an effort to lie to the American people about what happened? [snip]

Finally, did the previous efforts to investigate this amount to a cover-up?

Get the facts. Don’t give speeches. Get the facts with clear, simple questions. And as Geraghty warns:

“In short, what we don’t need is a bold, expectation-setting, agenda-hinting prediction like this:

Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said on his radio show Monday that President Obama “will not fill out his full term” because he was complicit in a “cover-up” surrounding the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya.

“I believe that before it’s all over, this president will not fill out his full term,” Huckabee said. “I know that puts me on a limb, but this is not minor.”

Just the facts Ma’am. Just the facts.

After Wednesday, may we please get a select committee of the House… please? Appoint members with prosecutorial experience such as Trey Gowdy to the committee and weed out the show boats and the squishes to finally pull out corruption by its grey haired roots.

* * * * * *

Back in 2008 we called for a special prosecutor to investigate Barack Obama.

As the Benghazi attack Big Media blackout continued we wrote:

“We want answers as to what happened in Benghazi. On this issue politics should be put aside and let the chips fall where they may. As we have repeatedly written we believe if the entire story is told Hillary will come out smelling like a rose. But we doubt the entire story will be told while Barack Obama is in office.”

We wrote that as Hillary Clinton was preparing to testify before the House and Senate committees on January 23, 2013. We did not expect much before that hearing and we did not get much from that hearing:

“As we wrote below Republicans have caved on Benghazi like they have on the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling. Perhaps this afternoon the House Republicans will ask some pertinent questions.

Most ridiculous “question” came from Durbin of Illinois who spent his time remembering Bush era “weapons of mass destruction” stories which at the time even Al Gore thought were true. Somehow Durbin forgot Hillary voted for the authorization on that Iraq issue. Even if Durbin has a point on the weapons of mass destruction issue, shouldn’t everyone of every political stripe be against misinformation and lies in situations such as Benghazi? People died, Obama lied.

We know that many will assume we are insincere when we state we want the truth and that we do believe that at the end of the Benghazi investigation Hillary Clinton will come out smelling like a rose. Some will get their hopes up and call us “shills” for “Shillary” the crook, criminal, lesbian, liar, killer, rape enabler, thief… all the insults that bring temporary emotional gratification but not much else.

Consider, if Hillary Clinton is the horrible criminal and evil mastermind some allege, then how has she gotten away with it for so long and do you really think that Darrell Issa and his committee are the ones that can do what hasn’t been done?

Unlike Barack Obama whose sole defense is to have his goons race-bait in order to protect him, Hillary Clinton cannot race-bait – but she does have decades of experience surviving attacks and profiting politically from them. Today Jonah Goldberg writes “Hillary is no Barack” as if that is a bad thing.

Goldberg whose mom did everything she could do to destroy Bill Clinton failed in her task as Bill Clinton left the White House with 65% approval from the American public. Of course, after Barack Obama’s election it is tough for us to argue about the wisdom of the American electorate. But we certainly can argue that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton will survive Benghazi and much more.

Goldberg should consider our analysis that Hillary will have more difficulty getting the nomination than winning the general election in 2016. And Hillary’s biggest challenge in the general election 2016 is scraping the Barack off her shoes:

“In 2016 the greatest threat to Hillary Clinton is once again Barack Obama – and his legacy of weakness and profligacy. Tie Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama and she loses.”

With Benghazi many Republicans/conservatives and assorted Hillary haters or just plain ol’ political opponents who honestly and fairly disagree with her on many issues believe that they can “get her” before she runs for president in 2016. In other words Benghazi 2013 stops Hillary Clinton 2016. We don’t believe it is going to be so easy and many Republicans/conservatives who don’t want Hillary Clinton 2016 wisely agree with us.

Ed Morrisey at HotAir discussed a WaPo fact checker: Who rewrote the Benghazi talking points?:

“Give Glenn Kessler credit; he was almost alone among the mainstream media in immediately calling Susan Rice’s explanation of the attack on the Benghazi consulate fishy, awarding her two Pinocchios at the time. (Perhaps not too much credit, says Ann Althouse, via Instapundit.)  Should that get bumped up now that whistleblowers are prepared to blow the Obama administration’s fairy tale on Benghazi out of the water?  Kessler argues, correctly, that the better question is who crafted the four-Pinocchio lie, and to what purpose: [snip]

Kessler’s right, but his scope is too narrow. The rewrite has always appeared to be a cover-up from the White House and/or State Department — and make no mistake, the CIA wouldn’t be carrying water for Hillary Clinton and State. The big question is: what were they trying to cover? In my column for The Week, I argue that the context is much broader, and it’s perhaps even more relevant today than ever: [snip]

The point of the cover-up wasn’t just to preserve the argument that Barack Obama had fatally weakened al-Qaeda, which few really believed anyway. It was to preserve the foreign-policy expertise argument in the 2012 presidential election, and to keep American voters from seeing the true scope of the disaster of Obama’s intervention in Libya. And that matters even more now, with the same administration considering another 30,00o-foot intervention that would end up once again benefiting al-Qaeda affiliates on the ground.”

[emphasis added]

Our operating theory is that Benghazi was a CIA operation in a State Department compound for who knows what. Possibly an Iran/contra type operation to get munitions and supplies to Syrian “rebels” is what was going on. Maybe it was about Chad, who knows? That’s what we need an thorough investigation for.

Let’s hope we’re wrong and that this Wednesday we finally unravel the Benghazi knot of lies. Investigate, investigate, investigate.


212 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton 2016 And Why The #Benghazi Hearings Will Be A Flop

  1. We searched for a Youtube of the Dragnet guys saying “Just the facts Ma’am.” But found this one we preferred:

  2. Mark Sanford wins tonight’s special South Carolina election. It’s a surprise but entirely predictable because that is a very Republican district. It’s sad that the Republican primary electorate made him the primary winner and that now he is the congressional representative.

  3. And if the speculations are wrong, the advertisements don’t live up to the product, then real harm to the investigation is done.

    Exactly. Great article admin.

    There’s an anti-climactic effect of building up people’s hopes and expectations.

  4. Oh my God Admin, you deserve an award for this thread/post. Waving pink pom poms and twirling around the room. [Not really 😉 ]

    So many things are spot on, to pick out my favorites would take up half a page.

    Trey Gowdy, Hillary scraping Obama off her shoes, the leaks about the witnesses……….


  5. “Obama Dimocrat will take their turn at bat to subvert the job of investigating what happened in Benghazi. But the Republican members will take their turn to posture, preen, and pose, all the while ignoring the previous questions from their Republican colleagues.”
    Best summary of why I’m not going to waste my time.

  6. get ready…here they come…


    When It Comes to Health-Care Reform, the IRS Rules

    Published: Monday, 6 May 2013 | 10:13 AM ETBy: Mark Koba
    Senior Editor, CNBC

    Get ready for the Internal Revenue Service to play a dominant role in health care. When Obamacare takes full effect next year, the agency will enforce most of the laws involved in the reform—even deciding who gets included in the health-care mandate.

    “The impact of the IRS on health-care reform is huge,” said Paul Hamburger, a partner and employee benefits lawyer at Proskauer.

    “Other agencies like Social Security will be checking for mistakes, but the IRS is the key enforcer,” Hamburger said. “It’s also going to help manage who might get health care.”

    In its 5-4 ruling last year, the Supreme Court upheld the law’s mandate that Americans have health insurance, saying that Congress can enforce the mandate under its taxing authority and through the IRS.

    As a result, the agency has to administer 47 tax provisions under Obamacare. They include the right to levy a penalty against businesses and individuals who don’t provide or acquire insurance. Noting that the IRS will collect the penalties, the decision labeled them a tax.

    The IRS also has to determine how to distribute annual subsidies to 18 million people who make less than $45,000 a year and thus qualify for subsidies in buying health coverage, as well as how to deliver tax credits to small businesses that buy coverage for workers.

    In addition, the agency will collect taxes on medical devices and a Medicare surtax on people making more than $200,000 a year, as well as conducting compliance audits of tax-exempt hospitals.
    The financial burden for all this IRS enforcement is expected to total $881 million for fiscal years 2010 through 2013, according to the Treasury Department.

    But former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told Congress last year that he would need another $13.1 billion for the job in 2014. It’s uncertain as to whether the funds will be forthcoming from Congress, which has cut the IRS’s budget in each of the past two years.

    One step the IRS has taken on health-care exchanges is drawing another round of lawsuits that accuse it of forcing more people into the system.

    Each state has been offered the chance to set up its own health-care exchange to allow residents to buy insurance at lower cost and with some financial assistance. If states choose not to set up an exchange, the federal government will run them.

    Twenty-six states have said they will not set up their own exchange; seven others have opted to help organize them but not fund them. Because the exchanges are federally funded, residents in those 33 states would not be eligible for federal subsidies. But the IRS stated last year that they would be eligible for health-care premium subsidies.

    Individual and small business owners coordinated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed suit against the decision in federal court in Washington last week. It contends that the ruling would force more businesses and people (who would probably be exempt from the mandate without the subsidies) into buying health insurance and subsequent penalties if they failed to purchase it.

    The agency has not responded to the lawsuit.

    “The IRS has a lot on its hands when it comes to Obamacare,” Hamburger said. “There will be some rough spots ahead. There really hasn’t been anything like this in decades in terms of sweeping reform legislation.”

    It’s not clear if the IRS is to blame for one rough spot that has been encountered.

    Saying that it can’t meet the 2014 deadline, the Obama administration is delaying parts of the program intended to provide affordable coverage to small businesses and their workers. Instead of a marketplace with choices in the 33 states with federally run exchanges, small businesses will be limited to a more costly single plan until 2015.

    What the IRS can actually enforce also seems a difficult question.

    The law severely limits the agency’s ability to collect penalties. It can ask for the money, but there are no civil or criminal penalties for refusing to pay it. The IRS cannot seize bank accounts or dock wages to collect it. No interest accumulates for unpaid penalties.The law allows the IRS to withhold tax refunds to collect the penalty but only if someone overpaid taxes.

    And the IRS is still working on procedures for taxpayers to prove they have insurance.

    Some of Obamcare is in effect. Parents can keep their children on their health insurance plans until age 26. The 2.3 percent tax on those making more than $200,000 to help pay for Medicare expansion is also on the books.

    Upcoming provisions include that insurers cannot refuse coverage for preexisting illnesses, as well the individual and business mandates.

    An estimated 27 million people will be eligible for health care by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That kind of number is going to put the IRS on the firing line, Hamburger said.

    “They are preparing for it, but it’s going to be tough to say the least,” Hamburger said. “To know for sure if the IRS will be ready to handle in 2014 is hard to guess. But health-care reform is not going away, so they better be as ready as possible.”


    this is going to be the single most intrusive attack on our personal life and our privacy in American history…what a freaking mess…

  7. Excellent points in this article, Admin. And, as always the metaphors and descriptive phrases are priceless. One of Hillary’s challenges will, indeed, be “scraping Barack off her shoes.” It will be one of this country’s biggest challenges, as well. We will be “scraping Barack off”our collective shoes for some time to come, if we evah get his ass out of the White House, and don’t end up with Meechel as POTUS. How would we ever afford to keep her in the style to which our tax dollars have allowed her to become accustomed.

    I must have felt the need to do serious penance this week. I found myself tuning in to Conservative Talk radio again. Rush, Hannity, and Mike Huckabee, along with a few local pundits, whose combined IQ must be all of 30. They have all been gunning for Hillary. Oh they have thrown a dart or two at Barack and at “the media” (of which they don’t consider themselves a part). They are far too morally superior to be a part of “the media”. And their views are of course, impeccably reasoned, in accordance with The Holy Bible, as well as the words of their other god – Ronald Regan. These superior conservative minds, of course, consider Hillary to be the real villain in Benghazi. And, not only that, Bill Clinton committed sexual indiscretions in the Oval office. Yeah, boys. That’s real relevant.

    But, Hillary aside for a moment – after all, they are absolutely no match for her. Someone needs to tell these good ole boys that if they would shut their right wing mouths for a while, or at least try to move them a little to the center, they could do something positive for this country. Rather than feigning such outrage about “corrupt Dem politicians”, they could honestly acknowledge that there has been plenty of corruption among the Republican elites, as well. They could sincerely call for more decent, honest people of all parties to run for office. Have they forgotten some of W’s antics?

    Rush screams about the Dems being treacherous. Hucabee and Hannity condemn them, but think they need to be on someone’s prayer list. It’s all just such a show. Show business that has earned them a loyal following. The fans keep those cards, letters, and calls coming in, praising them, feeding their giant egos, and these right wing cretins just eat it up.

    If they would stop for one second, and apply a little logic, they might recognize that the far right is losing ground. If they want to see a Republican in the presidency again, they will have to move to the center a little – and bring their right wing fans (and their votes) along with them. After all, is it not better to have someone in office who represents some of your ideals, rather than someone who represents none? The far right talking heads who can boast a following of any size had better begin modifying their rhetoric a little. Shifting their message. Hell, if they opened their eyes, they might see that Hillary has been a centrist – not a left wing radical – all along.

    Of course, they won’t do that. Why, accept anyone who is pro-choice? They want to be all up in women’s wombs. Their calling is to save the world from the scourge that gay marriage is, to them. They feel compelled to keep women out of high office, and into – well, wherever it is they want their women to be. If they actually care for this country as much as they yell, scream, cry, and say they do, and want to see it turn around. They need to climb off those high unicorns of theirs, and grow the hell up. They will never have it their way. But, if they used their considerable influence to address some realistic issues. If they would try to sound less like some emotion crazed revival preachers at a tent meeting, and more like reasoned, intelligent, thinking individuals, they might be able to rally enough people to actually fight some of the ridiculous wrongs this administration has visited upon this country.

    Part of the reason this country has had the unpatriotic, Anti-American Barack in charge for two terms is the fact that the far right has been unwilling to compromise and support moderates. They use themselves up on outrage and hatred, and refuse to fight the fights that count. In some ways, they are as responsible for the terrible direction this country is taking as are the progressives.

  8. I had lunch today with a friend who voted for Obama in the primary and the GE. I told him Obama was no good. He would not listen. Now, he agrees with me. Now wants a do-over to vote for Hillary. He has been telling me for months that Benghazi does not matter, and nobody cares. I have been telling him in does matter. Now suddenly a light went on and he is mad at me. He told me today that Benghazi will sink Hillary. I told him that it did change my view of Hillary, but there is no way it will sink her candidacy. If anything it will strengthen it, and will inoculate her against attacks on the subject three years from now. He seemed greatly relieved but I doubt he understood my reasoning. A third party joined us and I did not bother to circle back to explain my reasoning. Lincoln said it best: for those who like that sort of thing, that is exactly the sort of thing they will like. And, in the process, they will overplay their hand and turn the rest of the people off.

  9. I sent Larry my analysis of Mark Thompson vs Dan Benjamin.

    He reads Benjamin same way I do–a credentialed political hack. When you are a hack, a Harvard education will not save you from being what you are. It just make you a little more arrogant about it. And when you are also a Time and Slate magazine reporter, when fucking A the world is your oyster.

    Larry said this on his blog today:

    “Benjamin was nowhere in sight that night. Mark was on the job and trying to do his job. Unlike Benjamin, who had little experience in actually managing terrorist incidents, Mark brought more than 15 years to this challenge. I encourage you to tune in and listen to Mark, along with the other two whistle blowers. Mark got his job at State Department because of his professional credentials and experience in the Marine Corps. Dan Benjamin got his job because he has been a political strap hanger. When it comes to trusting someone to confront the threat of terrorism, you will want to place it in a many like Mark Thompson. Dan Benjamin? He cannot even be trusted to tell the truth.”

  10. freespirit

    Part of the reason this country has had the unpatriotic, Anti-American Barack in charge for two terms is the fact that the far right has been unwilling to compromise and support moderates. They use themselves up on outrage and hatred, and refuse to fight the fights that count. In some ways, they are as responsible for the terrible direction this country is taking as are the progressives.

    I agree 100% with you. As long as the right fights with their Bible in one hand, their semi-automatic in the other and believes it’s ‘My way, or the highway’… incompetents like Barry will keep squatting in our House at 1600. The country isn’t just kooks and folks like Hannity and Rush.

  11. I move for a change of venue, from the House Chamber to Royal Albert Hall, where the lighting and acoustics are better, and where if Elija suffers cardiac arrest there is likely to be a doctor in the house rather than a bunch of know nothing lawyers.

  12. admin
    May 7, 2013 at 9:04 pm

    Mark Sanford wins tonight’s special South Carolina election. It’s a surprise but entirely predictable because that is a very Republican district. It’s sad that the Republican primary electorate made him the primary winner and that now he is the congressional representative.
    A miscarriage of justice. One of many.

  13. Obama is committed to a nuclear Iran, despite the problems that will create. His appointment of Jim Dobbins telegraphs his intentions. I asked a friend of mine who is Persian what he thought about it. He says this is a common subject among Iranian ex pats, and his own position on the subject is clear: never, so long as the current crew of Mullahs are in charge. He says the Mullahs are mainly motivated by money, and the government briefly portaryed Britain rather than the United States as the great satan shortly after Britain put a freeze on the assets of a relative of the Ayatolla which were held in the Bank of England. His concern is not that the current group of thugs will attack Israel, and more that if they have nuclear weapons then they will use them on their own people.

    Who Is James Dobbins?

    With little comment from conservative media, President Obama last week appointed James Dobbins as special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the high-profile job long occupied by the late Richard Holbrooke.

    Dobbins is a prominent exponent of the idea that America can live with a nuclear Iran, as well as an opponent of the use of military force against Iran’s nuclear program under any conditions. Whatever the White House might be thinking, the appointment sent a signal to Iran that the military option is pure bluff.

    “Obama’s AfPak envoy may embrace Iran” is the lead of today’s Asia Times Online under the byline of MK Bhadrakumar, a former Indian ambassador to Turkey. Writes Bhadrakumar:

    The probability is that the United States President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry got around to reading the congressional testimony titled “Negotiating with Iran” given by Ambassador James Dobbins on the Hill on November 7, 2007, while deciding to name him as the new U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    The appointment seems odd, the former Indian diplomat explains, because:

    Dobbins has been an inveterate critic of Obama’s plan to reduce the US military footprint in Afghanistan. He voiced enthusiastic support for the counterinsurgency strategy [COIN] carried out by General David Petraeus and was sharply critical that the COIN was reduced to mere counterterrorist operation.

    One wonders if the Republican establishment declined to object to Dobbins’ appointment because of his COIN credentials.

    But there’s an explanation for Obama’s selection, Bhadrakumar adds:

    Dobbins’ real credentials lie quite somewhere else than on the kinetic battlefield. Kerry made this clear while announcing the appointment. He said, “He [Dobbins] has deep and longstanding relationships in the region, … Jim will continue building on diplomatic efforts to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion, actively engaging with states in the region and the international community.”

    Secretary Kerry was referring, evidently, to Dobbins’ “deep and longstanding relationship” with Iran.

    Permalink | 16 Comments
    Posted at 7:13 am on May 7th, 2013 by David P. Goldman

  14. That is where I start to get really mad. If Obama would just go over to Tehran, tell the Aytolla here I am, smoke a little hash, shoot a few hoops, why they would surrender their nukes faster than the drug gangs in his home town are surrendering their AK-47s.

  15. Leanora
    May 8, 2013 at 5:27 am
    I am sure it is just a coincidence that the best states to do business in have republican governors, and the worst states to do business in have dimocrat governors. Christy is another Christ. A dimocrat, flying under false colors, who is content to heap gratuitous, unctuous phase on the charlatan at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

  16. It takes a unique kind of individual to go before that pack of hyenas in Congress and do what is right for the American People. 99 people out of 100 would not do it. It is not just the slanderous things your opponents will call you, or the failure to make good on their promises by the people who claim to support you, and the sheeple who will be bamboolzed by a corrupt big media into hating you. It is the impact on your public persona, your career, your family, your friends, and everything you hope to achieve in life. It is akin to putting your life at risk to launch an attack on terrorists, as one of the witnesses has done. I hope at the end of the day it is worth it. In any event, the curtain calls will be only his own. This is a tough business.

  17. U.S. Is Weighing Wide Overhaul of Wiretap Laws

    WASHINGTON ­ The Obama administration, resolving years of internal debate, is on the verge of backing a Federal Bureau of Investigation plan for a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.


  18. In my opinion, the Bush Administration should have been subjected to the same level of scrutiny as we hope to see here, for its improvident decision to invade Iraq. How many people were killed or maimed by that? But the great Obama, and Pelosi in particular, let Bush off the hook for that eggregious breach of national interest. Therefore, it is just not cricket that the Republicans would fail to return the favor in this instance, and save Elija Cummings from the risk of cardiac attack. If his eyes start to bulge out in the hearing today, I hope they have the ng pills ready to place under his tongue. We do not need any more casualties coming out of the Benghazi affair, particularly such a distinguished personage as him.

  19. On the other hand, if you took the irrefutable logic of the most distinguished personage of all John Roberts we should forgo having any congressional hearing over such matters as this, apply the business judgment rule which shields corporate directors from the consequences of improvident decisions that adversely affect shareholders, call it a political decision, refuse to sully the courts robes, and let the sheeple decide everything important at the next election, based on which side is more adept at manipulating the voting apparatus to thwart the will of the voters. You see, when you think about it, it is all very simple. And in that case, we do not need buckpassers like Roberts either. I think we have tapped our way to a sensible solution. Mob rule.

  20. There’s an anti-climactic effect of building up people’s hopes and expectations.

    It is not Hope it is Hype, 🙁

  21. If you are concerned about the lives which were lost at Benghazi, you need to look at what actually happened on the night of the attack and whom was in charge. That would be Panetta, not Hillary.

    And here is what he has said:

    Panetta says that after the 5 p.m. meeting he never communicated with either Obama or Clinton.

    Why are we not focusing on him, one could reasonably ask.

    I think we know why.

    He is not running for President in 2016.

  22. I mean its like his name is never mentioned. I do understand of course that these are state department witnesses. BUT it was the military that could have responded, should have responded and did not respond to the attack when it was raging. And that means Panetta. Why, why, why did PANETTA fail to respond? In response, he offers the lamest of lame excuses: we did not know what we were getting into. Really? Clausewitz said it best–war is ALWAYS the realm of risk and uncertainty. The other response, i.e. we could not get people there in time, presupposes that they knew from the get go how long the battle would last. It lasted 7 hours which was more than enough time. So lets cut to the chase here: who gave the order not to save the American lives. There are only two possibilities: Obama, or Panetta. That is the question we should be focusing on. That is where the treason lies. Yes, it was far more than gross negligence. It was politically inspired.

  23. Damn but it is good to hear Joe Friday again*. Thanks for that admin, and of course the presentation of Benghazi as we stand just ahead of the hearing.

    I see where the Brits are grappling with immigration too. They seem to have their direction set. Unlike us.(Believe I just saw where US Senators have 80 amendments to ours in progress; hopefully that was just a mirage that came to my eyes lol.

    Queen’s Speech: Immigrants face tougher rules
    A fresh attempt to curb immigration is the centre piece of the government’s planned new laws, set out by the Queen at the State Opening of Parliament. Access to the NHS will be tightened, landlords forced to check immigration status and illegal migrants prevented from obtaining driving licences….

    * One thing I had as a kid was a steady dose of examples such as Dragnet pointing the way to integrity. I had no doubt. Roy and Dale Rogers. Matt Dillon, Sheriff of Dodge. And so many others. Somewhere along the way, that emphasis began to diminish and now is on its was toward extinction. Both on screen and in reality.

  24. Where the CIA is concerned on Benghazi, it is a case of : oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive. Hopefully, we will learn something about that as well.

  25. It’s all lies, all fake:


    Remember the cigarette tax hike President Barack Obama proposed in his big budget rollout?

    The White House barely does.

    Presidential budgets are all about theater. But this year’s was more theatrical than most: Its biggest single new proposal — the sin tax to generate $78 billion to fund a preschool education program — vanished almost as soon as Obama announced it four weeks ago Wednesday.

    The president hasn’t mentioned it. The White House didn’t coordinate with outside anti-smoking groups, and none of them spent any time pushing for it. Tobacco companies never worried about putting together a lobbying strategy to kill it. Obama’s political arm hasn’t sent an email calling on Congress to consider it. Not even Obama’s surgeon general, who calls curbing smoking “the single most important issue for all the surgeons general of the past five decades,” put out a press release applauding the idea.

    That’s the attitude within the West Wing, too — rather than a marquee idea, aides say the 94-cents-per-pack cigarette tax was in fact not a priority, and there are no plans to build a public case for it. The tax was just the most politically palatable idea they could come up with to pay for their big new entitlement program — and in the context of a budget debate they never expected to get serious, that was enough.

    Obama blowing smoke… and mirrors.

  26. The hearing was supposed to commence two hours ago. I checked on c-span and it is not airing yet. Either there is some malfunction or the parties have convened an executive session, to decide how much of what these witnesses say the public will be allowed to hear. That is my present worry.

  27. Wbboei, since the very beginning we’ve been asking why there was not added security on September 11. It seems a rather obvious thing to do.

    As to your point about Panetta and why Defense was not prepared, Cheney agrees with you.


    Former Vice President Dick Cheney criticized the Obama administration on Tuesday for its handling of the September 11, 2012 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, calling it ‘a failure of leadership.’ Cheney said U.S. leaders should have been better prepared for violence on the anniversary of the al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001.

    They should have been ready before anything ever happened,’ Cheney told MailOnline exclusively during a party in Georgetown celebrating the launch of a new book by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

    ‘I mean, it’s North Africa – Libya, where they’ve already had major problems,’ Cheney said. ‘You know that al-Qaeda is operating there, and you have some of the other al-Qaeda-affiliated groups there like Ansar al-Sharia and others.’

    Ansar al-Sharia, a militant terror group that aims to enforce Shariah law across Libya, was fingered almost immediately by U.S. intelligence as an organization that ‘claimed credit’ for the Benghazi attack, according to a 43-page interim report on the Benghazi fiasco issued by Republican leaders of five House committees.

    Cheney said that the George W, Bush administration made a point of ramping up security at military bases, diplomatic outposts and other American facilities worldwide each year on September 11.

    ‘When we were there, on our watch, we were always ready on 9/11, on the anniversary,’ he recalled. ‘We always anticipated they were coming for us, especially in that part of the world.’

    I cannot understand why they weren’t ready to go,’ the former two-term vice president said of the Obama administration.

    You’ve got units in the Defense Department that are superb. They practice for this contingency. And they didn’t have anybody in the area,’

    Bush/Cheney were not ready on 2001 even though there were plenty of warnings and for that they should be condemned. But at least they did the right follow-up. Obama has no excuse.

  28. I am certain that this whole affair is so wrapped up with CIA games, and all their bullshit, that the whole truth will never come out–at least not when we need it, which is always at the point of decision. Aiding al Quadea is part of it.

  29. admin
    May 8, 2013 at 10:29 am
    Thanks Admin. To me that is the pivotal issue of this whole thing. To have the assets to protect our troops and not to have used them is the ultimate stain on this Administration and it redounds to the two people I mentioned: Obama and Panetta. They put American personnel in harms way and did not have their backs. That is a nutshell is Obama. That is what he is all about. Hardy put it best: as flies to wanton boys (sorry Tapper, for what someone with your delicate sensibilities perceive as a racial slur, when it is meant to be a reference to an adolescent mind)are we to Gods. They kill us for their sport.

  30. The reason I say that is, IF we had saved those lives, this would not have been the kind of tragedy is was, which has shaken the faith of the people who defend this country. Just making the effort, trying to save them, would have meant alot. I would even go so far as to say it was more important to do that than to retire to bed and prepare for a Las Vegas fundraiser, even though to the sheeple there is no higher calling than a shop warned canned speech. It gives them something to swoon over. And for them, that is what it is really all about: swooning.

  31. admin May 8, 2013 at 10:29 am
    Believe I recall Bush/Cheney mocking Clinton/Gore for their security recommendations when handing over the WhiteHouse. Recall the silverware and keyboard scandals too lol.

  32. Bravo, Admin! Your assessment is spot on.
    Yes, we need the facts and only the facts to get to the bottom of the Benghazi tragedy. To be sure, both BO and the right-wing drama queens want to hang this all on Hillary’s neck for their own political agendas. We need all the facts and reveal who the main players were and let the chips fall where they may (this includes the extent of Hillary’s involvement in this). I’ve wondered all along about the chain of command and why no one has cared to investigate matters along these lines. Bottom line: who gave the order to stand down? And Why?

    I, too, find it interesting that the old anti-Clinton apparatus is emerging at this time — i.e. the Golbergs (as you point out), and most recently with regard to the whistleblowers, lawyers Victoria Toensing and her husband, Joseph di Genova. Aside from pushing the Lewinski story day in and day out in the 90s, during the run up to the Iraq War Toensing apparently didn’t think protecting Valerie Plame’s CIA cover was a a legitimate issue during:

    “In the brief, [Toensing] “argued that the law couldn’t have been broken when Valerie Plame’s cover as a CIA agent was blown because her status wasn’t really covert.”[1] She also contended that Ms. Plame didn’t have a cover to blow, citing a July 23, 2004 article in the Washington Times which argued that Valerie Plame’s status as an undercover CIA agent may have been known to Russian and Cuban intelligence operations prior to the article (by Robert Novak) that revealed her status as a CIA employee.

    Wobbie, I absolutely agree with the following:
    “There are only two possibilities: Obama, or Panetta. That is the question we should be focusing on. That is where the treason lies. Yes, it was far more than gross negligence. It was politically inspired.”

  33. wbboei
    May 8, 2013 at 2:03 am

    “That is where I start to get really mad. If Obama would just go over to Tehran, tell the Aytolla here I am, smoke a little hash, shoot a few hoops, why they would surrender their nukes faster than the drug gangs in his home town are surrendering their AK-47s.”


  34. Shortly after the revolution, Fidel gave 7 hour speeches. Elijah is giving Fidel a run for his money. Bastante!–enough. We do not come here to hear you bloviate. We came here to hear what the witnesses have to say.

  35. Mark is being introduced now. He is the guy Larry Johnson says to watch. He is the real deal.

  36. Update: We argue below that only a small select committee with experienced prosecutors has a chance to unravel the Benghazi knot. But John Boehner says “no” to a select committee and instead wants the 41 hams on the Oversight Committee to fight for the TV kleig lights.

    Most of the testimony and witnesses have already been leaked by some of the hams on broadcasts so expect no bombshells from the place that the bombshells should’a taken place. Obama Dimocrats will do their best to distract and deny.

    A clue as to whether these hearings will be step one on the road to a select committee or whether they will be successful in getting facts will be if the Republicans continue to give hammy speeches or do the smart thing which is give their time to one person (such as Trey Gowdy) with prosecutorial experience who knows how to interrogate and ask questions to elicit facts.

    Another clue as to whether these Benghazi hearings succeed in getting to the bottom of this scandal comes from the Open thread: Benghazi hearing in House Oversight Committee article at HotAir:

    “Greg Gutfeld warns that regardless of the answers, the questions will become irrelevant if the media decides to ignore it

    Big Media will do what it has to do to protect Barack Obama. The Oversight Committee today will focus on talking points and other after the fact cover-up lies. To us the central question of Benghazi is why on a September 11 anniversary there was no preparation against attack. It is indeed the central FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP.

    As we wrote on January 23, 2013, “People died, Obama lied.” The witnesses today are credible and have standing to accuse and whistle-blow. But we’re gonna need a bigger boat to get to the lies and blow up the cover-up. We’re gonna need a small group of prosecutors in a select committee.

    The Benghazi hearing can be seen on C-SPAN.


  37. Obama does not need to listen to this testimony. He has a golf lesson to tend to, lest the generations fail.

  38. Update: We argue below that only a small select committee with experienced prosecutors has a chance to unravel the Benghazi knot. But John Boehner says “no” to a select committee and instead wants the 41 hams on the Oversight Committee to fight for the TV kleig lights.
    Precisely. Boehner has been asked by conservatives to do this repeatedly. He is a big part of the problem.

  39. Eric Nordstrom near tears. He’s choking up as he talks about those to whom he owes the responsibility to speak up.

  40. CNN covering the hearings (at least until Amanda Berry decides to speak). MSNBC not ignoring the hearing but not showing it either. MSNBC is on full attack mode denouncing the hearing. Fox News showing the hearing.

  41. Now moon. Be careful here. We must not give dog crap a bad name, by comparing it to Elija Cummings. Just kidding. I am sure Cummings is a real cut up in social situations. I bet he does those knock knock jokes, between bites of caviar.

  42. Cummings is trying to filibuster the whole thing by talking crap for ages……..his goal is pure misdirection. Issa lean over and whack him one.

  43. Nice recovery by the Ambassador and Issa from Elija’s effort to undermine the testimony with something Panetta said to protect Obama about no aircraft could have gotten in there for 9-12 hours, when the other testimony indicated not for 2-3 hours. Issa told Elija they would bring in other witnesses to refute Panetta, and by inference Elija. Elija keeps telling us how serious this is. Too bad he was not think so before, but was content to let the Mullen Pickering report be conclusive and ascribe crass partisanship to efforts to get at the truth/

  44. Elija just tried to suspend the hearing over a document they had not previously receive. Did not work.

  45. Yeah because the repubs know now not to give them advance warning so they can sanitize it. Cummings got ambushed, they did not like it.

  46. Chavetz made some extraordinarily good points with Hicks and with Thompson. General Ham was not on station, but in Washington at the time of the attack. Patrick Kennedy was involved–I think he is the one to blame for this, not his superior Hillary, and the response team who was best suited to go in from Tripoli was not authorized to go. That was Ham’s responsibility. This is what is really bugging the military–that top military people would succumb to political pressure.

  47. Tierny . . . when the law is on your side argue the law, when the facts are on your side argue the facts, when neither is on your side pound the table. That is Tierney. A dickhead. Well . . ya think?

  48. Getting interesting….Obama’s lawyer squad tried to prevent Chaffetz’ investigation. Obstruction of justice……

  49. Rep. William Lacy Clay. The one pumapac’s Candice Britton ran against twice. Too bad he is still there. Could he talk any more off point or slowly?

  50. This jerbal from Massachusetts is going to great lengths to validate the ARB report, which every sentient being knows is defective, or worse.

  51. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/benghazi-whistle-blower-hicks-stand-down-order-came-from-africom-or-socafrica-video/

    Mr. Hicks testified this morning that the stand down order for the rescue team in Tripoli came from either AFRICOM or SOCAFRICA. General Ham. leader of AFRICOM, may have been in Washington DC at the time.

    So who ordered AFRICOM to stand down?

    AFRICOM leader General Carter Ham was never given the order to secure the consulate in Benghazi. This is what the general told Rep. Jason Chaffetz after the 9-11 Benghazi terror attack. That means only Barack Obama or Defense Secretary Panetta, the two men above the AFRICOM commander, never ordered an operation to secure the consulate.

  52. Avatar
    Retired_from_SPOnaj • 8 minutes ago

    Sounds like we need to get LTC Gibson in to clarify who gave him the stand down order. This will ultimately lead to Panetta, the designated fall guy for the incident. Then we need to get to the cover up.

  53. The ARB report is part of the cover-up. But a cover-up for whom? Would Mullen cover up for Obama? Perhaps he would. Would he cover up for the Pentagon? Now that seems somewhat more likely. The failure to interview witnesses who were known to have critical information because of the positions they held was ipso facto a cover-up. It cannot be otherwise.

  54. Rice has within past few minutes tweeted “gush” about her award celebration last night.

  55. I do not know who the blivet is on the live feed now but he talks about back packing? and no smoking gun? Get the fuck out of here–as Churchill would say.

  56. Issa should introduce this moron and then when he starts to speak thank him and tell him he has exceeded his time and cut out the mike. After all, they are running behind schedule.

  57. The Benghazi hearing is still on but no one is watching. Even Fox News has moved on. The kidnapped girls/women story from Cleveland was the first distraction. The latest distraction is the verdict in the Jodi Arias trial.

    It’s too bad because Chaffetz had some good questions. This format with 41 hams asking questions is very distracting and does not have a narrative flow.

  58. Cheap? Is that what Horsford is calling this investigation. May be it is Horsford that is cheap. Maybe it is Hosefeathers who does not like investigations:

    In August 2011, Horsford appointed Senator Mo Denis to lead the caucus election efforts during for the 2012 election cycle, garnering criticism from some in his party due to Denis’s sub-par fundraising.[12][13][14] As of August 2012, the Senate Democratic Caucus had out-raised its Republican counterpart $228,128 to $205,250.[15]

    In November 2009, Horsford drew criticism for illegally parked his SUV with his Senate license plate visible in a handicapped parking space at a park for six hours.[16][17] Subsequently, Horsford pledged to work harder on disabled rights issues.[18]

    In the summer of 2010, Horsford again garnered unwanted media attention when a fundraising letter from his PAC soliciting donations in exchange for private meals or receptions to meet with various Democratic legislative leaders and Senate committee chairs. Following criticism that the letter amounted to “pay to play,” Horsford rescinded the letter, discontinued the solicitation program and refunded all donations made in response to the letter.[19]

    On April 7, 2011 it was reported that web poker giant PokerStars treated Horsford on a lobbyist-paid trip to the Bahamas prior to introducing legislation that would benefit the online gaming industry.[20][21] Horsford said of the trip, “It was productive. They made a good presentation.”[20] Horsford received $37,500 in campaign contributions from PokerStars.[22] Forty-eight Nevada legislators accepted PokerStars campaign contributions. Horsford (and others) later returned the campaign contributions.[23] He personally reimbursed the full cost of the trip.

  59. By the way “horsefeathers” is a term made popular by that paradigm of wisdom, W.C. Fields. The modern translation is bullshit.

  60. WashPo headline blames Hillary. Why? Because that is their ultimate goal. But here is the bottom line: only the president could have given the stand down order. No one else.

  61. And why did he give that order? Occums Law: to protect his re-election narrative that he has al Qaeda on the run.

  62. No crime scene ever improves with the passage of time. Obama’s decision to promote the false narrative delayed and ultimately sabotaged the investigation on the ground. He thought he had covered all the basis, until this hearing today. Now we need to hear from the officer who received the stand down order. My guess is it came from Obama to Panetta to Hamn in that chain of command. And then Obama went to bed, to prepare for a rough trip on airforce 1 to a fundraiser. A misplaced set of priorities? Not from his standpoint. I just heard a loud roar from Congressional. Seems Obama just sunk a 4 foot putt to break 90, and big media is elated.

  63. That is correct WBB, only the President can give the stand down order, but what has bothered me in addition, is that Hillary supported the narrative, even to the parents of a slain American.

    Hillary may come out of this techanically unscathed, but morally, thats a horse of a different color.

  64. I do think Patrick Kennedy was involved, but I can’t imagine a senario where he wouldn’t have been in contact with Hillary during the process.

    I have said from the get go, it was 9/11 people…security? you have to be kidding!

    We all know the fraud was disingaged…Panetta was acting in full authority during sleepy time for the fraud would be my best guess.

    But the media will bury this as they have already…complict.

  65. Hicks said he informed Hillary at 2am after the attack, but that morning she presented to the media the wh narrative, “it’s all about the video”

  66. How is Obama weathering all this, the world wonders. Wonder no more. I can see him sitting in the oval office, still in his golf attire, swearing he will never take it off, because it helped him break 90. And then, he leans back in his chair, feet on the desk, gazes at the ceiling, and says to reporters you have no idea what pressure is until you stare down the barrel of a four foot putt to break 90 at Congressional. A nervous reporter asks him: sir, how do you stay so young and so vibrant? Obama laughs and says its easy, I never worry about the job, I just campaign.

  67. I only got to see about 10 of the hearing.

    Does anyone have the highlights, new info that came out today?

  68. Shadowfax
    May 8, 2013 at 6:06 pm
    The witnesses were superb. The attacks on their credibility were minimal and they failed. The democrats did not have the information that the Republicans did, so they had no real ability to meet the evidence, and confined most of their remarks to cheap shots at their opponents. Hillary is in the middle of the whole res gestae and there is no getting away from that. Nevetheless, some of the testimony we heard was actually helpful to her position, including the fact that she did answer a 2 am phone call and spoke about saving the ambassador and the people there. Two of her subordinates are in hot water however–Charlene Lamb, her chief of staff, and Pat Kennedy. One or more of them will likely hang. The ARB report was shown to be defective insofar as it failed to interview material witnesses who could have shed important light on the matter, and the witnesses who gave them testimony were not permitted to review it. Also, there was an unanamed attorney from the state department who tried unsuccessfully to insert himself between congressional investigators and the witnesses. There was evidence that the chief of staff was miffed to learn the ambassador Hicks spoke to the congressional investigators, and berated him for sending a cable critical of state. There was an email showing on the night of the attack the state department was aware that this was a terrorist attack but chose to characterize it differently for days thereafter. Lastly, there was testimony that a rescue force was ready to go in but a stand down order was given. The rescue group and their commander were furious, because this was what they had been hired and trained to do. We understand through independent sources that this order could have only come from the president, but all the committee did was say they would call that officer who said that to testify. The roots of failure here were the politicization of our security needs and the cover-up that ensued and the sheer bureacracy and rules which have been put in place that give bad people too many things to hide behind. The investigation needs to pivot now to go after Obama for issuing the stand down order. That is key for Hillary because already now the big media who sought to bury this thing before are starting to blame it on her, c.f. WashPo. We need to remember what one of the Republicans said, namely that this was a cross departmental failure and the DOD and CIA, and Panetta bear responsibility.

  69. Leanora
    May 8, 2013 at 6:22 pm

    No I don’t believe the WH!!
    Sheryl is the best investigator in the country. The worst by far is Brian Ross at ABC whom I have spoken to–he has the attention span of a flea. Sheryl has had to take on CBS. P of the reason is the President of that network is the brother of Obama’s national security speech writer Rhoades. Yes, Obama and CBS are joined at the hip. I hope she joins FOX.

  70. Sorry, that did not come out right. It was three people in hot water–kennedy, lamb, and whoever the chief of staff was.

  71. Oh yes, in the case of Hicks there was evidence of employment retaliation.

    I do not think any of this registers with the American People, except for those who were aware of it before. But if I were a democratic party congressman, I would be a little pissed at the white house for making me look stupid. Being stupid is one thing. Looking stupid is something else, when you are a politician. A good rule of thumb is never look smarter or stupider than those you represent. The former will cause them to not trust you and the former will cause them to challenge you.

  72. Ted Cruz Lays Down Gauntlet on Immigration Bill

    By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary) | May 8th, 2013 at 03:38 PM | 13


    As we’ve noted over the past few weeks, there are dozens of systemic flaws in the approach of the gang’s immigration bill. But there are two overarching problems with all of these proposals: 1) the legalization (and certainly the suspension of deportations) is immediate and certain; the enforcement measures are later and tenuous 2) it is incontrovertibly clear that granting such a low-skilled population a path to citizenship, when coupled with chain migration and birthright citizenship, will constitute a demonstrative public charge.

    Once those two issues are addressed, there will be a broad consensus on how to deal with those already here illegally. At tomorrow’s Judiciary Committee markup, Senator Ted Cruz plans to throw down that gauntlet to the Democrats and Republican gang members. If they truly desire a solution to this problem, which was largely created by some of the members on the committee, they would sign onto Cruz’s amendments.

    Ted Cruz will introduce an amendment stipulating that no legalization can commence until the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and the biometric US-Visit exit-entry system are implemented. They can have their amnesty, but the laws already on the books must be followed before that process begins.

    In order to address the welfare point, Cruz will introduce a second amendment – just one-page long – barring all amnestied illegals from ever receiving federal, state, or local means-tested benefits or Obamacare coverage.

    There are diverse views in the political world about what to do with those already here illegally. But walling off the welfare state and implementing enforcement first must serve as the foundation for any amnesty. Were the Democrats on the committee (along with Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham) to support those amendments, we will indeed achieve the bipartisan solution the media so zealously desires.

    Parting question: Where does Mitch McConnell stand on all of this? He is the GOP leader, isn’t he?

  73. 6. Democrats were uninterested in getting at most of the facts, but were very interested in destroying Mark Thompson. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) set the tone for the Democrats’ angle on the hearings in his opening remarks. He used his opening to attack the committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, and to pre-question the witnesses. Most of the Democrats who followed him failed to ask many questions of the witnesses. Instead, they delivered speeches or blamed budget cuts, an argument that has already been debunked by the State Department itself. One sadly hilarious moment came during Rep. William Clay’s questioning. The Missouri Democrat blamed the repeated denials to enhance security at Benghazi on budget cuts. Issa reminded him that the State Department has debunked that line, in the person of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb. She testified last fall that budget cuts had not impacted the decisions not to enhance security at Benghazi. Clay claimed not to remember Lamb’s testimony, then moved quickly to cite the ARB, which backed his side. His selective memory proved politically, if not factually, reliable.

    Mark Thompson, member of the Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) testified that his section had been cut out of decision making during the attack. The Democrats consistently circled on him to try to get him to contradict himself or attack his boss, Daniel Benjamin, who has claimed FEST was included throughout the attack. They never really succeeded, and now Benjamin will be called to testify in a future hearing to clear up the dispute. The heads of the ARB, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen, will now be called as well.

  74. Here is one summary of the hearing. I found it at PJ media.

    Rep. Darrell Issa opened the hearing noting the many ways in which the Obama administration has stonewalled Benghazi investigations, and how the Democratic minority in the House has aided the stonewalling.

    Rep. Elijah Cummings used his opening statement to attack Issa and assail the as yet undelivered whistleblowers’ testimony. Cummings in effect filibustered their testimony by wasting time, while he claimed to be a champion of whistleblowers. Disgraceful.

    11:56 AM — Three whistleblowers are sworn in. They are Eric Nordstrom, Mark Thompson and Greg Hicks.

    First to testify is Mark Thompson. He is a high-ranking counterterrorism official in the US State Department, Acting Secretary of State for Operations — Counterterrorism Bureau.

    Thompson’s role is rapid response to crises around the globe. Visible in the shot behind him are lawyer Joseph DiGenova, who represents some of the whistleblowers, and Rep. Michele Bachmann.

    12:02 pm Greg Hicks begins his opening statement. Hicks is the former deputy chief of the US mission in Libya.

    12:05 pm Eric Nordstrom offers his opening statement. He directly challenges then SecState Hillary Clinton’s “What difference, at this point, does it make?” by noting that the truth matters to him, his colleagues, and to the American people. Nordstrom’s opening statement was brief but emotional as he took Clinton on without naming her.

    12:10 pm Hicks says he texted Amb. Stevens about the riot in Cairo. Shortly after that, he got word from Stevens that their own consulate in Benghazi was under attack. “Greg, we’re under attack,” Hicks testified that Stevens said to him.

    Hicks: The mission was quickly breached by about 20 armed hostile individuals. He says everyone on the ground in Benghazi that night believed that it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. There was no protest or demonstration. He earlier said that Stevens wasn’t even aware of the situation in Cairo until he, Hicks, told him about it.

    As many as 60 hostiles attacked the consulate. Hicks lauds officers’ “heroism” for repeatedly trying to get into the burning consulate during the attack, noting that it was a petroleum-based fire.

    Hicks: Stevens went missing, then he and his officers in Tripoli were notified that Stevens had been taken to a hospital controlled by Ansar al-Sharia (al Qaeda’s Libya brand, and the group behind the attack on the consulate). The attack then had the potential of becoming a hostage situation.

    (Meanwhile in Cairo, al Qaeda had stormed the US embassy to pressure the US government into releasing the 1993 WTC attack mastermind, Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, and other al Qaeda operatives held in Western prisons.)

    Hicks says the terrorists’ mortar attacks were “terribly precise.” He feared that his team were being lured into an ambush at checkpoints, raising again the question of why the State Department failed to secure the Benghazi compound.

    Hicks and military commander in Libya “wanted to go and bring our people home” from Benghazi. They were ordered not to go.

    12:43 pm Rep. Cummings delivers another statement, tells whistleblowers that he and other politicians “feel their pain.” That’s dubious, given his pre-emptive attack on them in his opening statement, and the fact that they lost friends and colleagues in the attack.

    Cummings says Chairman of JCS testified that it would have taken 20 hours to get fighters on the scene from Italy. Hicks says his own defense attache told him that it would take 2 to 3 hours. Cummings is taking the administration line that it was impossible to get any aircraft to the scene in time to help. Cummings is peppering Hicks with SecDef Panetta’s testimony, but Panetta may be among the officials who have a vested interest in downplaying US capability to deploy defense assets to relieve those who were under attack in Libya.

    12:51 pm Cummings stands down, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) steps up. Gowdy asks Hicks whether Stevens or anyone else had ever believed that there had been a protest or that the YouTube movie had anything to do with the attack. Answer: No.

    “I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed.” Hicks, on his reaction to Amb. Susan Rice’s five national television appearances in which she blamed a movie. Hicks says Rice never called him for his input before her appearances on TV.

    “Why in the world would Susan Rice go on five talk shows?” and blame a movie, Gowdy asks Hicks. Hicks cannot answer for Rice. Hicks says it took the FBI 18 days to get to the scene of the attack.

    12:57 pm So far, questioners have refrained from giving speeches rather than asking questions. Well, the Republican questioners have. Cummings has filibustered twice and now Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) is giving a speech. She accuses Benghazi skeptics of “attacking the military, attacking the president” by questioning what happened. Now she is attacking Rep. Issa.

    After three minutes of speaking, Maloney asks a question to the “panelists and witnesses,” meaning no one in particular. She goes off into the weeds about the number of cables that go in and out of diplomatic missions and the State Department every year. She then cites a mainstream media “fact check” to slam Issa. The mainstream media have mostly ignored Benghazi, when they haven’t tried to debunk the scandal.

    1:03 pm Rep. Jason Chaffetz is up, he asks Hicks about the second rescue team. Hicks says that team were “furious” that were told to stand down, commanding general said that “This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than someone in the military.”

    Chaffetz then moves to question Thompson, the counterrorism officer on the FEST (Foreign Emergency Support Team). State Dept. claims FEST can respond to attacks with aircraft in four hours. Chaffetz asks why FEST was not deployed – Thompson says he was told the Benghazi situation was “too unsafe” for the FEST. Morning after attack, he was told not to attend a meeting that should normally have involved him.

    1:11 pm Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) asks Thompson why he believes that his section of FEST was kept out of the meeting. Thompson refuses to blame it on politics, Norton turns that into “Thompson is not saying that politics” drove the decision, implying that politics played no role. Clever, but dishonest on her part.

    Holmes interrupts when Thompson says that his group being cut out of the meeting, while other sections of the bureau were represented, mattered because of his group’s role, and treats him like a hostile witness. She accuses him of not telling the truth. Holmes is using the testimony of Dan Benjamin, who was out of country during the events of 9-11-12, to contradict Thompson, who was in Washington and says his counterterror section was cut out of meetings regarding Benghazi.

    1:19 pm Rep. James Langford (R-OK) asks Hicks and Nordstrom whether security was adequate at Benghazi. Answer from Nordstrom: No. They did not meet the minimum standards. Nordstrom testifies that only the Secretary of State can grant waivers for facilities that do not meet the minimum standards. That’s BIG.

    1:24 pm Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) gives speech saying that we must learn from Benghazi so that it does not happen again. Democrats continue the pattern of talking at rather than asking questions of the three whistleblowers. Tierney continues the pattern of isolating and attacking Rep. Issa, bringing Alinsky tactics into the U.S. House of Representatives hearing on a terrorist attack that killed four Americans.

    Tierney accused Thompson of not making himself available to the State Dept.’s ARB investigation. Thompson corrects him — he did make himself available but the ARB did not interview him.

    Tierney now playing a video of DNI James Clapper defending Hillary Clinton. Democrats defend Democrats — big shocker there.

    Hicks: “There was no report of a demonstration.” Tierney quickly interrupts him. Tierney ends with a speech.

    1:30 pm Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) notes that Hicks was commended by SecState Clinton after the Benghazi attack. Obama also called Hicks directly to commend him for his actions on the night of the attack. But those commendations changed after Rice’s statements blaming the movie, and on a call with Beth Jones, Hicks questioned Rice’s statements. “The sense that I got twas that I needed to stop that line of questioning.” Jones was Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. State told Hicks not to be personally interviewed by Rep. Chaffetz, who was investigating the attack. Hicks says that has never happened to him before in his 22-year State career.

    Hicks details how State shut lawyer out of briefing due to lack of clearance. Consistent with Victoria Toensing’s statements that State has limited her ability to represent the whistleblowers. Hicks says Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills personally called him demanding a report. A call from someone so senior is “Not generally considered good news.”

    1:36 pm Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) uses his time to blame budget cuts for the lack of security at Benghazi. That line has been debunked, by the State Department itself. He is wasting time and intentionally distracting from the facts of the situation in Benghazi.

    Clay, like his fellow Democrats, is delivering a speech. Filibustering.

    Clay is citing the Accountability Review Board’s findings, but the ARB was hand-picked by Clinton and failed to interview her. A skeptic could view the ARB as an exercise in giving Clinton the appearance of seeking the facts, while giving her enough cover to get past the 2012 election. Clay makes no allowance for this possibility.

    Issa reminds Clay that Charlene Lamb testified in October that budget cuts were not the issue. Clay claims that he cannot remember what Lamb said, but that the ARB said resources were an issue. Selective memory. Laughable. Clay is, so far, the least serious member of the panel, and that’s saying something after Cummings’ and Maloney’s antics.

    1:43 pm Rep. John Mica (R-FL) takes over the questioning. He asks Thompson whether the ARB ever interviewed him about Benghazi. Answer: No, despite his offer to be interviewed. Thompson is the counterterror official who says his group was cut out of the response to Benghazi. “Accountability” Review Board was the theme of his questions, as at least two principals involved — Thompson and Clinton — were never interviewed.

    1:48 pm Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) takes over the mic. He is delivering a speech. Lynch eventually asks Nordstrom a bureaucratic question about security in Benghazi. Nordstrom says it’s unclear who made the decision to deem the Tripoli and Benghazi facilities as temporary, denying them the requested security upgrades.

    1:54 pm Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) takes over, notes that there were two stand-down orders given to Benghazi rescue teams. Both orders were given to Lt. Col. Ed Gibson’s Special Forces team, which wanted to go to Benghazi and bring the Americans there home.

    Hicks testifies that he does not know why the stand-down orders were given, but there was no reason to believe that the attack was over when they were issued. Americans were still in danger.

    Hicks, responding to Issa, says that once command passed to him upon Stevens’ death, he ordered his personnel to rescue. He could not order the Special Forces in, as they were outside his command authority.

    2:01 pm Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) questions Thompson regarding whether his team was cut out. The Democrats have focused on Thompson because while he says his section was cut out of meetings, the overall counterterror team was not, according to Thompson’s boss, Daniel Benjamin. Benjamin, though, was out of country during the attack. Issa breaks in to note that Benjamin will be a future witness so that this issue can be cleared up.

    To his credit, Connolly notes that security in Libya was so bad that when he visited months before the attack, he was not allowed to stay in country overnight.

    2:07 pm Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) takes over, notes how strange it is for someone with first-hand knowledge of an incident not to be interviewed by investigators about it. He asks Hicks whether the ARB let anyone “off the hook.” Hicks: Yes. Says Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy bears “some responsibility.”

    Nordstrom: The ARB fixed blame at the “mid-level,” implying that it did not seek accountability high enough in the State Department. That would be consistent with the view that the ARB was really an exercise in keeping accountability away from Clinton and her closest officials.

    2:13 pm Rep Jackie Speier (D-CA) accuses Thompson of not “engaging” with Democrats when they ask questions. Speier’s pointless questioning ends with her telling Hicks that he deserves a post in a country of “his desire” and asks him where he would like to be posted. Hicks defers the question to his wife.

    2:20 pm Patrick McHenry (R-NC) “brings the subject matter of this hearing back to the subject matter of this hearing,” which is to get at the “root cause and the root facts” of Benghazi. After a brief speech, McHenry asks Hicks if there was a protest prior to the attack. “There was none,” Hicks replied, and if there had been, Stevens would have taken appropriate action and gotten staff out of the consulate. “The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” Hicks testified.

    McHenry plays video of State Dept. spokesman defending Rice for blaming the movie, asks Hicks if he would have said the same things that Rice said. No, says Hicks, noting that even the Libyan president called it a “planned attack.” “I was jumping up and down” when he said that, Hicks testified. “It was a gift.”

    Hicks connects, for the second time, Rice’s misleading statement with the 17 to 18 day delay to get the FBI into Benghazi to investigate. He is suggesting that her statements had the effect of obstructing the investigation of the scene of the attack.

    2:27 pm Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) opines that “there is no smoking gun…there isn’t even a warm sling-shot” coming from today’s hearings. That line seemed to have been pre-written to minimize the testimony near the end of the hearing. Pocan then proceeds to deliver a speech and again cast doubt on Thompson’s statements that he was not allowed to testify to the ARB. Hicks notes that the security situation was so bad that officials could not get out on the street to talk with average Libyans, and were thus unable to find out how terrified Libyans were of the Islamist militias.

    2:23 pm Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) takes over questioning. He asks Thompson why he is so concerned about being cut out, and the ARB’s failure to interview him. Thompson responds that his group can go from zero to wheels up in hours, could have responded to Benghazi.

    Hicks testifies that none of the people he knows who testified to the ARB have been allowed to read its classified report. Walberg asks if the ARB “let anyone off the hook,” Hicks again points at Undersecretary Kennedy.

    Hicks testifies that there was no stenographer present in the room when he testified to the ARB. There were “note takers” but no one who took verbatim transcripts. Other witnesses report the same. Shocking — or not surprising at all, depending on how one views the ARB’s role.

    2:37 pm Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) gives speech about “putting politics aside.” Then asks Hicks what he believes needs to be done to improve security. Hicks is a diplomat, says “We have to be able to go outside” to do our jobs. Duckworth asks Nordstrom how to improve security. Does not ask about specific requests and denials leading up to Benghazi attack. Nordstrom says that his requests for security enhancements consistently stopped at the Undersecretary for Management — Patrick Kennedy. He denied requests in the Benghazi attack and prior to an attack in East Africa. Both Hicks and Nordstrom have pointed at Kennedy in their testimony. He would be above the level of “accountability” that the ARB chose to examine, according to Nordstrom’s earlier testimony.

    2:44 pm Rep. Chaffetz takes the mic again after brief questioning from another GOP member. He asks whether the US government ever asked the Libyan government for overflight permission. Hicks responds that a drone was overhead and it had permission. No other requests for permission were asked for, but Hicks and Nordstrom say the Libyans would have granted such permission if it had been asked.

    Earlier, I missed a moment: Hicks testified that he debriefed Clinton at 2 am after the attack, but she continued to blame the YouTube for days afterward. He never even believed that the YouTube movie had anything to do with the attack.

    2:50 pm Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL) takes over, asks Hicks about timelines. She gets the flight time wrong in her first question. Asks Hicks if he knows why the rescue team was told not to go to Benghazi. Answer: He does not. Kelly reads a DOD press release stating that there was nothing the team could have done in Benghazi, yields the rest of her time to Rep. Connolly.

    Connolly brings up a NYT time story from Sept. 12 quoting a Libyan official blaming the movie. Hicks says his team’s assessment was that the video played no role in instigating the attack, based on the lack of demonstration and any sign that the video had made any difference anywhere in Libya. Issa notes that the same NYT story reported that the consulate was unsafe and should have been shut down.

    2:56 pm Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) takes over questioning, asks Hicks about his conversation with Jones regarding Rice’s statements. He says the conversation was “curt,” and that soon thereafter he started getting questioned about his “management style.”

    Gosar plays Clinton’s “What difference, at this point, does it make?” video, asks Hicks to respond to it. Hicks: Libyan president was insulted, and his credibility was reduced along with his ability to govern. He was angry even two weeks later. It negatively affected our ability to get the FBI to Benghazi quickly enough to investigate. This is the third time Hicks has connected the Clinton and Rice statements to obstructing the FBI investigation. Hicks says the FBI never interviewed him. Command had passed to Hicks after Stevens’ death.

    3:02 pm Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV) takes over questioning. Horsford pins the blame on Congress, another go at blaming budget cuts rather than the individuals who made concrete decisions before, during and after the attack. This line of argument has been debunked by Charlene Lamb under oath, but Democrats do not seem to care. Horsford’s speech is aimed at blaming Congress collectively, meaning anyone who wants to cut federal spending, rather than Clinton, Obama or anyone else who made decisions in Benghazi.

    3:05 pm Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA) takes over, immediately debunks Horsford’s speech. Meehan asks Nordstrom how security could have been so lax on that day, Nordstrom says he is still asking that question. Meehan notes that Clinton had to sign off on any security waiver. Nordstrom says that the ARB has never answered that question.

    Meehan notes the numerous terrorist attacks in Benghazi leading up to the 9-11 attack, asks Thompson whether any reasonable security official in State should have viewed the mission in Benghazi as a likely target. Thompson: Yes.

    Nordstrom says that the decisions to deny security enhancements seemed to be part of a “script” driven by politics rather than the security situation. State had “normalized” Libya’s security profile, meaning family of staff could return to the country according to State Dept. protocol.

    3:14 pm Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-CA) takes over questioning. Asks Nordstrom if he ever asked Stevens not to travel to Benghazi on 9-11. Nordstrom was not on post at that point. Cardenas tries to turn that statement into a change of opinion on Nordstrom’s part. A skillful questioner may have been able to get away with that sleight of hand, but Cardenas is not skillful. It came off as an attack on Nordstrom, who had repeatedly voiced his security concerns. Nordstrom was not in a position to warn Stevens on 9-11, as he had left Libya in July.

    Cardenas turns the questioning to Hicks, who testifies that the mission took several steps to minimize Stevens’ profile before and during the trip. Cardenas is trying to depict the security warnings and today’s statements as Monday morning quarterbacking. He failed.

    3:20 pm Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) takes over questioning. Hicks again testifies that Jones started criticizing his “management style” sharply after he asked about Rice’s five statements blaming the movie. Recall that Clinton and Obama had personally commended Hicks prior to his questioning Rice. He says there was a sharp change in how he was treated after that moment. Hicks says that he has taken another job within State which is effectively a demotion to desk officer.

    3:26 pm Issa reads from a cable from President Obama to Libya’s president dated Sept. 17, in which Obama calls Benghazi a “tragic attack.” The cable does not call it a “terrorist attack” or talk about fighting terrorism.

    3:28 pm Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX) takes over and asks Thompson if his FEST group is built to respond to quiescent situations or “hot spots.” Answer: Hot spots. Asks if blaming the YouTube damaged our relationship with Libya. Hicks: It complicated our relationship with the Libyan people.

    Asks Nordstrom to describe the “February 17th Martyrs Brigade” that had been contracted to provide security in Benghazi. Then asks Hicks if members of that brigade were involved in the attack. Hicks: Yes, they were. Farenthold says he is shocked that the US employs people with terrorist ties to work with our personnel. Nordstrom goes into a long list of similar decisions in Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere. “It was the best bad plan,” Nordstrom said.

    3:33 pm Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) assumes the mic. He picks up questioning about the lawyer who was not allowed to attend interviews with the ARB. “Was that unusual?’ Hastings asked Hicks. Hicks says it had never happened before in his career. Then questions Hicks again about his treatment before and after questioning Rice. Hicks says he had never had any adverse relationships with superiors prior that moment, but afterward, Jones questioned why any superior would want him back and complained that staff had complained about him.

    3:39 pm Break time. Ten minute break for the witnesses. And one blogger.

    3:53 pm the hearing resumes. Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) takes the mic. Hicks tells her that he and other witnesses have had their access to information curtailed because they have never been allowed to read the classified ARB report.

    3:57 pm Rep. Bob Woodall (R-GA) takes over questioning. Asks Nordstrom whether the security decisions were being made by Lamb or someone above her. He points again at Lamb and Undersecretary Kennedy. He says he believes that any decision Lamb was making was being run by Kennedy. Nordstrom says the reasons for the security denials were never verbalized but he suspected that it was political and that their requests were “embarrassing” to the State Department. He suspects that high level State officials were embarrassed at having to rely on DOD for security.

    One of his request cables, sent in July, was never even responded to. Nordstrom says that that was very unusual, that putting a request into a cable puts it into the official record and State then usually responds.

    4:02 pm Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) takes over questioning. Davis reads from the statement of a unnamed military official, who was interviewed by Fox incognito and says the military had assets in the area that could have responded. Davis reads a DOD statement saying that there was not enough time to respond before the end of the second attack, on the annex in Benghazi. Davis lined that statement up with the ARB’s findings, again, never allowing for the possibility that the ARB itself was compromised.

    4:07 pm Maloney (D) asks whether Stevens was aware of the security situation in Benghazi. Nordstrom says yes, he was.

    4:08 pm Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) asks Thompson about reaction to his request to deploy the FEST to rescue the Americans in Benghazi. He was told “It was not the right time.” Thompson says the FEST trains for emergencies and could have been deployed effectively. Massie asks him if the ARB has led to changes that would prevent another Benghazi from happening elsewhere. Answer: No.

    Hicks testified that Amb. Pickering was surprised that Sec. Clinton intended to establish a permanent post in Benghazi, and that was why Stevens was there on 9-11-12. Clinton also intended to visit Tripoli later in the year, and wanted to announce the permanent post at that time. Stevens was in Benghazi to make her wish come true, and died.

    4:14 pm Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) questions. Nordstrom says he expected Clinton to have read or been briefed on his cable requesting more security, “Absolutely.”

    Hicks says that Washington was told that Stevens would travel to Benghazi around August 22nd. Washington offered no concerns about traveling to Benghazi.

    4:20 pm Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) questions. Asks Thompson whether anyone other than himself wanted to deploy the FEST. Yes, both the FBI and DOD were interested in deploying it. They were “shocked and amazed” that they were not being called.

    4:24 pm Gowdy (R) asks about an email Hicks received on Sept 12.

    4:25 pm Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI) asks Thompson about the composition of the FEST. Asks why Special Operators were not deployed to rescue. Hicks says his teams did deploy, first with seven members, then with more, but could not deploy all of their security personnel.

    4:28 pm Gowdy resumes questioning about the email he brought up at 4:24. The email was sent on 9-12 and in it, Rice claims that the FBI investigation had already begun. It would not begin for 17 days. Gowdy drives home the point that Rice’s blaming the movie delayed the investigation and did “immeasurable” damage to the investigation.

    4:31 pm Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) asks who gave the stand-down orders (finally!). The commanding officer, LtCol Gibson did not tell Hicks who was responsible for the stand-down order.

    Juxtaposition on my screens in my blogging lair: Streaming video from the Benghazi hearing, which is an investigation into what may be a massive cover-up at the highest levels of our government, and the verdict from the Jodi Arias trial on the cable nets. Thousands are waiting outside the courtroom for the verdict to be read, just standing around, even though the verdict tells us nothing about the credibility of our government or its ability to defend US interests around the world. The networks aren’t even carrying the Benghazi hearing at this point, despite the fact that the allegations aired in it are so disturbing. This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.

    The Republicans should have stretched this hearing out across more than one day, probably an entire week. It has been full of new information. But a full day of hearings is too much to report fairly and accurately in the drive-by media. It has already been blown off the TV by Jodi Arias. The media will run 20-second stories about it tonight, if they run any, and will move on. It was a one-day story. The Republicans treated it as such.

    4:52 pm Chaffetz is eviscerating sections of the ARB’s unclassified report. Today’s testimony has contradicted the ARB’s findings that there were no denials of support during the attack and no delays in responding. Unsurprisingly, Maloney steps up to defend the ARB and rip the Republican majority on the committee. Now Cummings has joined the attack, which centers on Mark Thompson’s testimony. The Democrats are upset that they never had access to Thompson’s testimony before the hearing and had not had a chance to prepare to respond to it. In other words, they’re mad that they could not adequately pre-spin him. Issa asks all three witnesses if the Republicans ever told any of them not to speak with any of the committee’s Democrats. Answers: No.

    5:04 pm My C-SPAN stream just died as Gowdy was going over ground already covered, again. My sense is that the hearing today was fruitful and much new information was learned. But Jodi Arias will blow it all away. The Republicans botched this very badly by holding such a long hearing on one day instead of holding it across several days.

  75. So next we will hear from Gibson, Mullen, Pickering and Benjamin. Let us hope that Trey is given a free hand to eviscerate Benjamin.

  76. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/08/seven-things-we-learned-from-the-benghazi-whistleblower-hearing/2/

    7. House hearings are a poor way to determine who did what and why during and after the attack. The Republicans, as I said, should have broken today’s hearing out across several days. When they did question the witnesses, they kept their speeches short and focused on getting answers. Their Democratic counterparts consistently gave speeches and raised red herrings. They were able to waste time and stall long enough for the Arias trial to push the hearing off the TV, and for energy to flag and boredom to set in. The Benghazi attack needs to be properly investigated by someone outside the political process and outside the Obama administration. State cannot be trusted; its own investigation failed even to interview Clinton. Defense may also have officers and political appointees to protect. A special prosecutor is in order and should be appointed.

  77. wbboei
    May 8, 2013 at 6:24 pm
    May 8, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    Great recap Wbb, thank you for giving me the meat of the hearings.

  78. Shadowfax
    May 8, 2013 at 9:24 pm
    you are welcome. There will be more:

    1. Rice can tell us who directed her to go on the news networks and tell the lie which served to delay the investigation

    2. Lt. Colonel Gibson can tell us who gave him the stand down order.

    Those two answers will put us one step closer to Obama, and will move things away from Hillary. (Note: one of the assessments I saw tried to tie the false story by Rice to Hillary, based on the erroneous assumption that Rice reported to Hillary. However, in the revised chain of command, she was elevated to cabinet level (obviously not on merit), and her boss was Obama. Not that she will throw Obama under the bus. I would like to see Ben Rhoades get his just dues, not only for this but for his cloud cuckooland foreign policy speeches which have led to the implosion of the middle east.

  79. admin
    May 8, 2013 at 9:05 pm
    Yes indeed. A special prosecutor is warranted. As you have said from the beginning. The problem with this approach is driven by political agendas and the contest for power by two competing factions.

  80. Wbb 7:35

    Gosar plays Clinton’s “What difference, at this point, does it make?” video, asks Hicks to respond to it. Hicks: Libyan president was insulted, and his credibility was reduced along with his ability to govern. He was angry even two weeks later. It negatively affected our ability to get the FBI to Benghazi quickly enough to investigate. This is the third time Hicks has connected the Clinton and Rice statements to obstructing the FBI investigation.

    Either my memory has failed me or, it took 18 days for the Feds to get into Benghazi to invetigate, and Hillary’s comment was in her hearing after she was sick and still had on the big black glasses.

    Her comment couldn’t have prevented the Feds from getting into Libya, angering their president because she said it months after the attack.

    Please correct me if I am wrong here.

  81. Shadowfax, don’t forget for the past few weeks we were told that Hillary lied at the hearings when she denied she was involved in any stand down order or security. The “lie” charge came about because there was a memo with her “signature”. Today it became undisputed that Hillary told the truth, she did not sign that memo – it was an auto pen. We do think all of this should be investigated and that Hillary has questions to answer as to security issues – but making charges that turn out to be false do not help investigations.

    As to the “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Matt Drudge who takes pleasure in twisting every story into an anti Hillary story made a mistake today. Drudge put up a Hillary picture as his headline and used that “what difference” quote to skewer Hillary. But Drudge must not have read the article because it helps Hillary by putting the quote in context. A lot of outlets and commenters are using that “what difference” quote to attack Hillary but they hurt their own case by taking the quote out of context.

    Here’s the story Drudge linked to:


    In Context: Hillary Clinton’s ‘What difference does it make’ comment

    By Tom Kertscher
    Published on Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 at 1:52 p.m.

    If the buildup doesn’t disappoint, you can expect plenty of news out of the U.S. House Oversight Committee hearing on May 8, 2013.

    The panel, which includes freshman U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, will review how President Barack Obama’s administration — including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — handled the Sept. 11, 2012 bombing at the U.S. consulate in Benghzai, Libya.

    The attack killed four Americans — and set off administration critics such as U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.

    A few days before the hearing, it was disclosed that a top U.S. diplomat had said “everyone” at the consulate thought “from the beginning” that the attack was an act of terror.

    And even before that, Johnson had reminded citizens at least twice of what Clinton told him about the attack during a Senate committee hearing in January 2013.

    “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans,” Clinton said. “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

    So that was the punch-line quote. But what was the context?

    With Benghazi back in the news and renewed attention being paid to Clinton’s comment, we thought this would be a good time for In Context, an occasional feature that gives context to statements that get widespread notice.

    Based on a C-SPAN video of their six-minute exchange, here is a transcript of what Johnson and Clinton said during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013:

    Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary. I’d like to join my colleagues in thanking you for your service sincerely, and also appreciate the fact that you’re here testifying and glad that you’re looking in good health.

    Clinton: Thank you.

    Johnson: Were you fully aware in real time — and again, I realize how big your job is and everything is erupting in the Middle East at this time — were you fully aware of these 20 incidents that were reported in the ARB[State Department Accountability Review Board] in real time?

    Clinton: I was aware of the ones that were brought to my attention. They were part of our ongoing discussion about the deteriorating threat environment in eastern Libya. We certainly were very conscious of them. I was assured by our security professionals that repairs were under way, additional security upgrades had taken place.

    Johnson: Thank you. Did you see personally the cable on — I believe it was August 12th — specifically asking for, basically, reinforcements for the security detail that was going to be evacuating or leaving in August? Did you see that personally?

    Clinton: No, sir.

    Johnson: OK. When you read the ARB, it strikes me as how certain the people were that the attacks started at 9:40 Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to — or have you ever spoken to — the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?

    Clinton: I‘ve spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation.

    Johnson: How many people were evacuated from Libya?

    Clinton: Well, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends

    Johnson: Approximately?

    Clinton: Approximately, 25 to 30.

    Johnson: Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?

    Clinton: There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli — which, I think you’re talking about Washington, right?

    Johnson: The point I’m making is, a very simple phone call to these individuals, I think, would’ve ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. This attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time and it was an assault. I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. But I’m going back to then-Ambassador [Susan] Rice five days later going on the Sunday shows and, what I would say, is purposefully misleading the American public. Why wasn’t that known? And again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing, but why weren’t we transparent to that point in time?

    Clinton: Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS [Diplomatic Security] agent at Walter Reed seriously injured — getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not — I think this is accurate, sir — I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the —

    Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?

    Clinton: But, Senator, again—

    Johnson: Within hours, if not days?

    Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—

    Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.

    Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown —

    Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that — an assault sprang out of that — and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

    Clinton: 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 who decided that they’d they 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. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

    Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary.

    A couple of observations: Hillary does not know how many evacuees there were. She says there were “other friends” involved in the evacuation which make knowing a precise number difficult to ascertain. Is Hillary’s use of “friends” a euphemism for CIA operatives? Republicans should find out a precise number of the evacuees and a list of names – officially.

    After getting a list of names, then Republicans can proceed to discover whether or not Hillary (who testified she did not know) did know there were contradictory reports as to what happened before Susan Rice was sent out with talking points.

    But again, to us the central question which the Republicans and Big Media are not focusing on which should be the central focus even more important than talking points and the stand down order is – why was their no preparation weeks or days before September 11 for attacks? Why?

  82. There is a big problem having a eunuch like Obama as commander in chief, and it was best stated by Napoleon:

    “An Army of lions commanded by a deer will never be an army of lions.”

  83. Napoleon also described the realities of geriatric medicine:

    a collection of uncertain prescriptions the results of which, taken collectively, are more fatal than useful to mankind.

  84. why was their no preparation weeks or days before September 11 for attacks? Why?
    It is the CIA part of this thing where the real answers lie.

  85. Thanks Admin, Republican’s and Obama thugs all know, it doesn’t matter what the truth is, what matters is the sound bites that can be used in ads to try and keep Hillary from being President.

  86. Some backup to what we just wrote:


    The State Department’s Office of Inspector General is reviewing the process used in conducting the Benghazi audit as well as previous review boards. More than half the Republican conference is clamoring for a select committee to probe the attack and the administration’s response amid the renewed focus on Benghazi.

    A select committee is a “must”. 41 hams on display is unappetizing.

    Clinton told Congress in January that she took “responsibility” for the security failures but that she was not personally involved either in denying extra security for the post or in crafting talking points downplaying links to al Qaeda and depicting instead a peaceful protest gone awry.

    She testified that she did not control United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice’s appearance on Sunday news shows five days after the attack.

    I personally was not focused on talking points,” she said. “I was focused on keeping our people safe.”

    Susan Rice is an Obama henchwoman/thug. Don’t blame Hillary for creepy Susan Rice.

    Another bit of news that was incorrect but bandied about all weekend was Mark Thompson saying Hillary tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop. Ham Jason Chaffetz was saying this in front of every camera he could find. But today at the hearing Mark Thompson walked his comments back and said the quote was incorrect. Here is what was reported before Mark Thompson refuted he said what is in quotes:

    Fox News is reporting, however, that a top official in the department’s counterterrorism bureau, Mark Thompson, will testify that Clinton and a top deputy sought to cut his bureau out of the loop as they decided how to characterize the attack.

    I think it was political rather than security,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the chairman of the Oversight subcommittee on National Security, told Fox News on Monday. “But what boggles my mind is four and a half months after the fact, Secretary Clinton still had the gall to come here and perpetuate [that] things that we know as common knowledge are simply not true.”

    Chaffetz owes Hillary Clinton and apology. His hammy accusations do not help the investigation.

    As to the signature issue:

    This isn’t the first time Clinton finds herself in House Republicans’ cross hairs over Benghazi. Five committees of jurisdiction — including Issa’s — released a 46-page interim report of their investigations last month that put the blame squarely on her shoulders.

    But the report may have overreached when it said it had evidence that Clinton had personally signed an April 2012 cable turning down then-Ambassador Gene Cretz’s request for more security. All State Department cables from Washington bear the secretary’s automatic signature, the State Department said.

    “Although a telephone call could have clarified this issue in a matter of moments, you chose not to check with the (State) Department before making these highly inflammatory and erroneous accusations in a public forum,” the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), wrote to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

    For the record we do think the Benghazi scandal is a coverup designed by CREEP, the committee to reelect the President. We want the truth so that terrorists and third world countries cannot mock our democratic processes and our systems of political organization and justice.

    Finally, this not friendly to Hillary collection of quotes, for some reason, makes us smile then laugh:

    It will be interesting to see what demands Clinton makes to take this fall alone.

  87. Update II: There are many quotable quotes of the day about the coverup at Benghazi. We think the analysis in our article below is still correct: appoint a select committee with a few members (no more than seven) all with prosecutorial experience to get to the bottom of this Benghazi coverup. 41 hams do not an investigation make especially when they make false charges which undercut their investigation.

    As to Hillary Clinton, we have some observations in defense of her January testimony. Hillary’s “what’s the difference” quote has been taken out of context and is entire reasonable.

    And today’s Benghazi hearing clears Hillary Clinton of several accusations made against her this weekend and after her January testimony, by hammy members of the committee. Yes we’re referring to the Mark Thompson accusations which he himself refuted today as well as the “signature” issue which was completely refuted as well.

    We need a select committee with subpoena power and smarts to investigate the Benghazi coverup.


  88. For the record we do think the Benghazi scandal is a coverup designed by CREEP, the committee to reelect the President.
    We can stipulate to that. And, I am just a guess’n you understand, but it is not unlikely that a failed fiction writer who gave us the illusion of Arab Spring and worked for Bambi on the 2008 campaign, would turn his fiction writing skills, such as they were, to create yet another illusion that the attack was caused by a video, in order to protect the narrative of the 2012 campaign, that the war on terror ended with the death of bin Laden, and the deployment of drones, when in fact Obama has merely diffused that threat throughout the world, as evidenced by the Boston bomber. And that could also cause his brother who is now, somehow, the head of CBS, to muzzle the best investigative reporter in the business who just happened to be digging into the Benghazi cover-up and exposing the lies.

  89. Pam Geller asks in her article the very same question that I have been asking since the attack – what was the ambassador doing there? There has been no satisfactory answer yet.


    Hicks and the 9/11 Jihad in Libya

    Hicks is blowing the lid off the cover-up by the Obama administration. But still it begs the question — what was Stevens and his team doing in Benghazi on 911 (without security)? How close was the Stevens contingent (Hicks included) to the jihadists and al qaeda forces they were arming and supporting (to defeat Qaddafi) — and that turned on them and slaughtered them? Look at this. Hicks describes the second phase of the jihadist attack on the US consulate.


  90. Benghazi Continues: Hillary de Medici – so says Roger Simon

    The Benghazi scandal is not over. You will be told that by a lot of people. There is no smoking gun, etc. (Actually, there are many.)

    Some folks on the right, because they have been so accustomed to failure in the face of a monolithic media, will be ready to throw in the towel.

    That group is particularly disturbing because they are the very people who should be pushing this forward. Without realizing it, their proclamations of pessimism are a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I urge them to overcome it for the sake of our country, because ­ trust me ­ Benghazi is not over. It has only just begun.


  91. Ask the simple questions. That’s where the big answers lie. Ask the simple, obvious, questions:


    CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It’s clear the ambassador himself who was slain is the one who was really begging for more security. Everybody understands it was rated as a facility that was extremely insecure. That’s one element.

    The other element is at the time of the attack, what happened? And I would ask another question, where was the commander in chief in all of this? The one man who can authorize and order troops to move above everybody and instantly is commander in chief. Where was he for these hours when the fight was raging? Has anybody asked it? Has anybody answered that? (Special Report, May 8, 2013)

    Who had the most to lose and who had the most to gain? Obama. The election was less than 2 months away. Who was the most desperate to get the story suppressed and twisted for at least 2 months?

    Why wasn’t Hillary sent on the morning talk shows? Because Obama could not trust her and Hillary wouldn’t do it. Obama could trust Susan Rice and the pay off would be a nomination to be the Secretary of State.

  92. Flash back brings truth to front and center. Obama Brags “Al-Qaeda Is Defeated” on Same Day US Death Toll Reaches 2,000 in Afghanistan. Published on Oct 1, 2012 “Yesterday the number of US fatalities in Afghanistan reached 2,000 after two US soldiers were killed by Afghan soldiers. In response to this grim milestone Barack Obama bragged yesterday in [Nevada] that Al-Qaeda is defeated. What a bad joke.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy_Z_zA2rZ4&feature=youtu.be

  93. There is great disgust and disappointment at the conservative blogs I visit that big media has spun the results of the media yesterday into nothing more than a Republican attack on a fine administration. They begin with that pathetic line, if this were a Republican administration, they would have treated it as if it was another Watergate. I weary of these ain’t it awful digressions. They persuade absolutely no one at this point. The positions are well settled, the partisan lines are drawn, and the media has made its bed with a group of people who are destroying the country. If you start with that premise, then you will not look to anything from the media than the kind of reporting we have seen all along which amounts to nothing more than a continuation of their cover-up. It is a waste of time to expect from them or bemoan the lack of journalism. They are part of the conspiracy, and they cannot extricate themselves any more than a made member of the Mafia can leave the organization and escape with his life. The prospects for redemption here are virtually nil. So forget about this foolish nonsense if they were Republicans, and realize the game. They are the tool of the Washington establishment who is interested in two thing, i.e. money and power. Patriotism is not one of them, believe me.

  94. admin
    May 9, 2013 at 9:14 am

    Why wasn’t Hillary sent on the morning talk shows? Because Obama could not trust her and HILLARY WOULD NOT DO IT. Obama could trust Susan Rice and the pay off would be a nomination to be the Secretary of State.
    Yes, that is very important. She would not go on the morning talk shows and lie for Obama. That hard fact is part of the big media cover-up. Their current posture of defending her is really nothing more than a defense of Obama. They do need a candidate for 2016, but they are perfectly capable of switching their loyalty to Biden, so their loyalty to any Democrat but Obama is superficial.

  95. I share the dismay of media but cannot stop doing what I do. Believe I’ve said before I maintain small effort at a family & friend Facebook site. We came to a truce long ago – I could post what I had to and they could scroll by, hide or unfriend as they needed to. Nobody left and a few more have joined. Both are boyfriends of my daughters and there is no communication of anykind between us. I believe they are there for access to what I post. One woman makes rare comment. I hope she reads daily. etc.

    Now, one more good video just because it mentions Benghazi. I’m sure it has been here before – Special Operations meant for helping Romney but was already way too late for that and then there would have been the matter of the money to have it aired. I’ve already FB’d and Tweeted it. Know I am preaching to the choir here, so this will be the last today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hMdCAGANiE&feature=youtu.be

  96. I am curious ??? Does this sorta kinda sound like a BRIBE!!! 🙁


    2:13 pm Rep Jackie Speier (D-CA) accuses Thompson of not “engaging” with Democrats when they ask questions. Speier’s pointless questioning ends with her telling Hicks that he deserves a post in a country of “his desire” and asks him where he would like to be posted. Hicks defers the question to his wife.

  97. Benghazi and Afghanistan, same activity, same culprit:


    The watchdog who tracks the billions of taxpayer dollars spent to rebuild Afghanistan says government officials have tried to silence him because they think he’s embarrassing the White House and Afghan President Hamid Karzai by pointing out the waste and fraud.

    John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, used a speech at the New America Foundation on Wednesday to blast government “bureaucrats”’ who have told him to stop publicizing damning audits that detail case after case of waste, corruption and mismanagement of rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan. Some government officials have even complained that they aren’t allowed to pre-screen or edit his reports, he said. [snip]

    “Many in our government, even some surprisingly senior officials you think would know better, seem to believe that an inspector general should be their partner — or, more correctly, their silent partner,” he said. “In their opinion, my reports should be slipped in a sealed envelope in the dead of night under the door — never to see the light of day — because those reports could embarrass the administration, embarrass President Karzai, embarrass Afghanistan.”

  98. A pattern is emerging:


    For Stokes, it is not just that he and the other agents are in hot water, it is about who he says is not in hot water. Stokes said he believes the DHS inspector general left two people out of the final report: a Secret Service executive and a volunteer White House staffer who was also the son of a powerful Washington lobbyist. Stokes says there was evidence that they also had prostitutes in their rooms at the very hotel where the president was going to stay.

    The White House, Secret Service and DHS say those allegations were thoroughly investigated and were unfounded. But Stokes claims at least one investigator thought otherwise. Stokes said, “I even became aware that the lead investigator — a man of high integrity, in my opinion — was placed on administrative leave for refusing to redact or omit portions of his original report to the satisfaction of the inspector general.”

    “So the lead investigator wrote up a report with the facts as he understood them, submitted it and they sent it back and said, ‘Change the facts?’” Miller asked.

    Stokes replied, “That’s my understanding.”

  99. In one sense this is all a big charade. I think the Republican position would be more credible today, if their standard bearer Mitt Romney had made an issue of this during the presidential campaign. But he did not avail himself of that opportunity. Obviously, he did not have the witnesses then that he does now. And obviously he would have been assailed by big media. But he was too cowardly to do it. And he had consultants like Ed Gilespee counselling him to be nice. Furthermore, if the Republicans were serious about holding people accountable, and making sure it does not happen in the future, they would forego this opportunity to seize partisan advantage, and support the appointment of a special prosecutor. I think highly of Issa, but the core of that party is dominated by Washington interests, which makes them uniquely vulnerable because their narrative of patriotism, small government etc. is belied by their actions. But that is why I like bulls in the China shop such as Cruz, Paul and Lee. They blow the doors off the establishment barn, frighten the horses, and scare the billiebejiggereds out of eunchs like McCain, Graham, Hatch, Boehner, McCarthy, Murkowski, and so many other RINOS.

  100. Thank you
    May 9, 2013 at 9:55 am
    I have stopped commenting here but come and read almost every day and I want to say think you wbboei for your common sense. This is no longer a game of “get the other party” This is the future of our country, what kind of nation we will be leaving for our children and grandchildren.

    I hear we need to get justice for the 4 Americans who died in Benghazi, and I agree. But this has gone far beyond that, we need to get justice for the man who was handcuffed and led out of his house in front of news cameras based on Obama’s lies. I want justice for myself and all the other Americans who listened to Susan Rice lie on 5 Sunday morning talk shows. And sad to say, I want justice for the grieving parents who Hillary lied to right at the very moment they were presented with the dead bodies of their heroic loved ones. She had the oppertunity to display the same courage and loyality but chose not to – why? The only thing that will redeem her in my eyes is if she or her family is being threatened with physical harm – threatened with disgrace is not good enough.

    How dare they lie and lie and lie? Should they suffer no consequences? And calling it a game enables them.

  101. The strategy of the leftists is not just to win the non-white vote. It is also to split the white vote. And RINOS are their unwitting accomplices. When Rubio whose staff are out of the Soros machine, sends letters to his constitutents bemoaning the fact that the Romney–a weak candidate by any measure garnered only a small fraction of the non white vote, they intuit that the Republican Party must abandon principle on issues like illegal immigration in order to win. You hear that crap as well from jokers like Morris, and Shoen who is not a joker in my book but does make the same point at the end of the day. But the question they have yet to consider is what happens if they abandon principle to attract minorities, and run a RINO like Rubio, if the base just decides to stay home. Because that is the risk they are running. You cannot win an election if you lose the base. That is the dilemma they are facing. And none of the pundits and politicians I have mentioned has a good answer. Instead of obsessing about the non-white vote Romney failed to attract, they would be better off adhering to their principles and focusing on the white vote that did not turn out because the candidate the establishment chose was not to their liking.

  102. Betty
    May 9, 2013 at 11:58 am
    Thanks Betty. We miss your excellent comments. Hope you will resume them soon.

  103. I looked for it and I could not find it: that wonderful clip from the Hollywood movie classic Seven Days In May. Admin posted part of it here. But the part I am most interested in is the exchange between the president, who is the essence of everything good which the Democratic Leader could ever be, and something the Republican Leader probably never could, and a congressional supporter who is no stranger to the bottle. The president, portrayed by Frederick March says to the supporter portrayed by Edmond O’brien his goal: prosperity and low unemployment. Instead he must fend off a plot by a four star general portrayed by Burt Lancaster to hijack the nation for his own benefit and that of the military industrial complex, who is ultimately opposed by a marine col. portrayed by Kirk Douglas after he uncovered the plot. If you apply that same theme to the current situation, the parallels are obvious. Today, the threat of a hostile take over emanates from big business, and although I am not prepared to say that it has been effectuated in toto, it is certainly a work in progress, as national borders fall, the people are disenfranchised, a man who hates America is elected president, our constitutional rights are destroyed in the name of national security, the media promotes lies, and 25% unemployment is marketed to us as “the new normal”. Today, we do not talk like Roosevelt did about serving the common man, and instead we categorize people by race and gender, with a predetermined set of things we are supposed to believe in, so the mob can be triggered whenever it pleases the elites. And woe betide those who try to operate outside the scope of politically correct discourse. It is no longer about serving the American People. It is all about serving the elites, who have shown themselves to be the most avaricious group of people this nation has ever produced.

  104. OUTRAGE! Obama Administration Allowed Radical Cleric to Curse US Navy SEAL Heroes at Funeral Services (Video)

    Today three families of Navy SEAL Team VI special forces servicemen, along with one family of an Army National Guardsman, appeared at a press conference to disclose never before revealed information about how and why their sons along with 26 others died in a fatal helicopter crash in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011. This was just months after the successful raid on the Bin Laden compound in Pakistan.

    At the press conference today the families released video on how military brass, while prohibiting any mention of a Judeo-Christian God, invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes. This cleric disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah. A video of the Muslim cleric’s “prayer” was shown this morning with a certified translation.

    This will break your heart.


  105. The committee may move to hear testimony next from at least one leader of the State Department’s internal review of the Benghazi attack. Though the leaders, former Joints Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, apparently declined to testify, Pickering told MSNBC on Wednesday that he is willing to speak.
    He goes on MSNBC to respond? MSNBC? Now there is a smoking gun. That is an act of partisanship, because we have it on the best authority, namely the president of that joke of a news network that: “outsiders are cool, they leather jackets, they drive motor cycles, but we at MSNBC are not outsiders, we are insiders in the Obma Administration”–that is what Griffin told the Young Turk when he cancelled his show, because the young turk criticized Obama. The decision by Mullen to appear on that network only adds to the growing suspicion that the oversights in his investigations were not oversights, but intentional omissions. If the retired generals who are stewing over the decision by the Obama Administration are willing to redirect their ire toward Mullen and Pickering who helped cover it up, then perhaps those two would be compelled to appear before congress, if for no other reason than to salvage their reputation. I will say it again however. That there was a coverup here I do not doubt. But the beneficiaries were not just Obama, it was senior Pentagon officials and the CIA. You will know that for sure, when and if Congress decides to suspend the public hearings and go into executive session.

  106. Correction: the decision by Pickering, not Mullen. Mullen is mimicking a wooden Indian. No offense to Indians. One of my best friends is Indian, and she would rebel at the notion of being compared to Mullen. He is a lizard.

  107. This has to be related to concern of Leanora
    May 9, 2013 at 12:32 pm
    Obama administration tries to nix ICE agents’ lawsuit
    Trying to head off a potentially devastating court defeat, the Obama administration said Monday that ICE agents’ lawsuit to overturn the president’s non-deportation policy should be thrown out because the agents themselves initially wanted to handle the matter in collective bargaining.
    But the agents say that position marks a reversal for the administration, which previously had told the agents that they wouldn’t subject the new policies to collective bargaining.
    At stake is whether the department can force agents to not arrest illegal immigrants they encounter. That’s at the crux of the new Obama administration policies preventing most rank-and-file illegal immigrants from being deported, which the administration says has helped focus efforts on more dangerous criminal aliens…..

    You’d better grab quickly anything you want about this. I printed some of it out on Tuesday to put on a talkback facility. It’s already been seriously rewritten. On Tuesday we were told that WH was re-offering negotiation. This one says WH fighting to get ICE law suit thrown out. Chicago Mob.

  108. http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi/2013/05/08/whistle-blower-hillary-defending-dem-i-do-not-politicize-my-job-madam
    The tip of the spear was not consulted, used or included. That was his testimony. He was not speaking for his boss, who was wandering around in Germany at the time. He was speaking for himself and his team of counter-terrorism experts. The conflict in testimony here is semantic not substantive. The witness was poorly treated. That is the way I read it. It would be interesting to know when his boss Benjamin was consulted. We know Thompson was talking to him. Let Trey sweat the truth out of Mr. Harvard/Oxford/Time/Slate/Please pass the caviar, his excellency Benjamin. Trey is too modest. He is more than an average prosecutor. I have a strong hunch that Benjamin is a mile wide and six inches deep.

  109. This musical chairs bullshit that takes place in Washington between members of the club, produces a situation where everything is political, and the national interest of the united states is routinely compromised. By what sophistry of reason does a perennial lightweight like Joe Klein at Time Magazine end up on Council of Foreign Relations, who among his other credits has a bad tendency to play fast and loose with the truth. When you compare lackies like him, and Benjamin, yes who can forget Mr Benjamin to the kind of non partisan patriotic people who appeared yesterday, whose performance under intense scrutiny was what any of us would hoped to have achieved in a similar ordeal, without quite knowing whether we could, you begin to realize what trouble we are in. It gets back to some variation of Napoleon’s observation that an army of lions cannot be led by a dear, and continue to be an army of lions.

  110. The fact that Thompson disavowed certain statements which were imputed to him by others proves that he is non-partisan as he said. But when he tried to make that point, and that he had served faithfully under three presidents, and personally led the counter terrorist missions, the left wing congresswoman from DC cut off his response. If the goal is to get to the truth, that kind of thing is unseemly. If others on the Republican side played the same sort of games, they deserve condemnation as well.

  111. “Within the Counter Terrorism Bureau, Mark Thompson headed the only part of the office with the skill and experience to respond to an overseas terrorist incident. He was the most senior person in the entire Bureau with that experience. Although Daniel Benjamin, who was not in the country, was his boss, Benjamin had no experience in overseas response operations. Mark Thompson was the thoracic surgeon of counter terrorism. The person who subsequently was asked to attend meetings knew nothing of the substance of the crisis response operations or procedures. That lady was like asking your housekeeper to perform brain surgery.

    Dems also have insisted that no military response was possible because the Sec Def and JCS Chief General Dempsey. That’s a goddamn lie. Panetta claimed last October that the uncertainty on the ground precluded any response. What nonsense? Can you imagine a call to your local 911 operator reporting a possible robbery and hostage incident at a bank? Will the police choose to do nothing because they report is preliminary and they don’t have the full facts? Or do they alert and deploy the SWAT?”—–Larry Johnson

  112. We need Time/Slate/HuffPo writers like Benjamin protecting our nation from terrorism . . . like a fish needs a bicycle.

  113. The Battle of Khartoum or Siege of Khartoum lasted from March 13, 1884, to January 26, 1885. It was fought in and around Khartoum between Egyptian forces led by British General Charles George Gordon and a rebel Sudanese army led by the self-proclaimed Mahdi, Muhammad Ahmad. Khartoum was besieged by the Mahdists and defended by a garrison of 7,000 Egyptian and loyal Sudanese troops. After a ten-month siege, the Mahdists finally broke into the city and the entire garrison was killed.

    The British press put the blame of Gordon’s death on Gladstone, who was charged with excessive slowness in sending relief to Khartoum. He was rebuked by Queen Victoria in a telegram which became known to the public, and an acronym applied to him, G.O.M. for “Grand Old Man” which was changed to M.O.G. the “Murderer Of Gordon”. His government fell in June 1885, though he was back in office the next year. However this public outcry soon paled, firstly when press coverage and sensationalism of the events began to diminish and secondly when the government released details of the £11.5 million military budget cost for pursuing war in the Sudan.

    In reality, Gladstone had always viewed the Egyptian-Sudanese imbroglio with distaste and had felt some sympathy for the Sudanese striving to throw off the Egyptian colonial rule. He once declared in the House of Commons: “Yes, those people are struggling to be free, and they are rightly struggling to be free.”[13] Also, Gordon’s arrogant and insubordinate manner did nothing to endear him to Gladstone’s government.

    After his victory, Muhammad Ahmad became the ruler of most parts of what is now modern-day Sudan, and established a religious state, the Mahdiyah, which was governed by a harsh enforcement of Sharia law. He died shortly afterwards, in June 1885, though the state he founded survived him.

    In Britain, Gordon came to be seen as a martyr and a hero. In 1896, an expedition led by Horatio Herbert Kitchener was sent to avenge his death (who swore to do so upon hearing of Gordon’s demise) and reconquer Sudan. On 2 September 1898 Kitchener’s troops defeated the bulk of the Mahdist army at the Battle of Omdurman. Two days later a memorial service for Gordon was held in front of the ruins of the palace where he had died. Surviving family members of the movement’s leaders were held by the British in a prison in Egypt.[14] The women and children were held there for ten years. The men were held for twelve years. After their return to Sudan they were held under house arrest for the rest of their lives.

  114. wbboei
    May 9, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    How could they possibly know help could not have reached them in time? They are then making statements that we knew how long the attack would take? We could not have known.

    Help was on the tarmac in Tripoli, told to stand down TWICE.

  115. This is nuts!!

    NYC Considering Allowing Non-Citizens To Vote
    New York City could soon become the first major city in the country to give non-citizens the right to vote. The proposal, which would allow certain non-citizens to vote in local elections, appears to have a veto-proof majority in the New York City Council ­ enough to overcome opposition by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. As hearings on the proposal get underway Thursday, supporters are optimistic it will become law by the end of the year and believe it will have an impact beyond the five boroughs.


  116. Is there anywhere else in the world where non citizens are allowed to vote? Anywhere?? And if they are allowed to vote, then they can outvote citizens, can they not? Make no mistake, this is yet another way the left seeks to disenfranchise the American People. If it succeeds, then San Francisco will be next. And the entire concept of citizenship will be reduced to a hollow shibboleth. It is where this faux concept of multiculturalism ultimately leads. Yes? It is what Soros wants.

  117. gonzotx
    May 9, 2013 at 6:34 pm
    It is not even a credible lie. But it is enough to satisfy 52% of the electorate. What else is there?

  118. A Nobel Prize to Obama.

    A Great American Award to Rice.

    A Humanitarian Award to Idi Amin.

    Only a racist would object.

  119. AMERICAN THINKER October 27, 2012
    Has General Ham Been Fired?

    Mike Johnson

    Has General Carter F. Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command, been fired for defying Leon Panetta on Benghazi?

    Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, ran a piece Saturday afternoon titled “Interesting Rumor Concerning General Carter Ham and Stand Down Order.” This piece is presented as a rumor. It suggests that General Ham was told to stand down from sending aid to Benghazi, that General Ham on his own decided to proceed, and that he was then relieved of his command. Remember, all rumor at this point.

    On 18 October 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta participated in a “DOD News Briefing on Efforts to Enhance the Financial Health of the Force.” In his introductory remarks, Mr. Panetta said: “Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate General David Rodriguez to succeed General Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command . . .”
    Read more of Mike Johnson post: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/has_general_ham_been_fired.html#ixzz2AYIOMfrK

  120. The one that needs to swing for Benghazi is Laughing Leon Paneta. He is the one who gave the stand down order. What about Obama? I am quite sure he was in the fetal position here, just as he was with bin Laden, the pirates and other go/no go decisions. Panetta was the one who gave the order in each of these situations. He is the one who left our soldiers to die in the field, when he could have saved them. Blame Panetta for their deaths, not Hillary. The retired military people need to focus on him. It is high time he faced the music.

  121. The absolute truth here is Obama was advised that we were being attacked, was told that help was requested, and did not give the order. Instead he went to bed. Panetta was asked by General Ham for authority. Panetta refused. Ham defied that refusal and started to give the authority. For that, General Ham was relieved of Command by Panetta. Later Obama claimed he told Panetta and Ham to do everything possible to save our people. HAD HE GIVEN THAT ORDER THERE WOULD BE A WRITTEN RECORD. There is no such record. NYT and WashPo know all this. But they would rather blame Hillary.

    How do we know this? One of our greatest military officers, Bing West, a force recon marine–they do not get any tougher, has revealed the Obama part of this already. We know Obama is lying. And we know that he let those men die when he went to bed. And Panetta simply let it happen . . . Watch:

  122. Given the foregoing, isn’t it possible that we should be focusing on Panetta rather than Hillary???????????? Would it matter that the Benghazi facility was not adequately manned and protected, if no one had lost their lives. To err is human, but to let people die, like Obama and Panetta did, that is criminal. That is where the Watergate style investigation should focus. Yes? No? Maybe?

  123. I believe Bing West is referring to General Dempsey when he says the problem is Benghazi was our senior military leadership was either timid or politicized. Below is Dempsey’s bio. Graham is now calling Dempsey’s truthfulness and veracity into question. He has given prior testimony that no one was told to stand down which has now been contradicted. He and Panetta were the ones who were with Obama when the no decision to help the bleaguered troops was made. The dims tell us that he will appear again, but his testimony will not change. Let’s call him, get the goods on him, and find out just how far he is willing to take the fall for his superiors. My sense is the same as Bing’s–the military is embarrassed and feel that their senior leadership is guilty of a dereliction of duty.

  124. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., issued a sharp and unusual challenge to the truthfulness of the nation’s top uniformed military commander on Thursday, demanding that U.S. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, return to Capitol Hill to provide fresh testimony on the Benghazi attacks.

    The point of contention involved whether any military officers issued an order to U.S. armed forces personnel on the night of Sept. 11, when the U.S. consulate and a nearby annex came under terrorist attack, to “stand down” from providing assistance.

    “I asked [Gen. Dempsey] directly,” Graham said in an exclusive interview with Fox News. “Were there any military assets in motion, to help folks in Benghazi, [that were] told to stand down? And what did [State Department whistleblower] Greg Hicks say? That Lt. Col. [Steve] Gibson — a DOD employee, a member of the Army — was in Tripoli, ready and willing to go to Benghazi, preparing to go to Benghazi, and was told to stand down.”

    “Clearly,” Graham added, “our chairman of the Joint Chiefs’ rendition that no one was told to stand down is now in question.”

    What’s more, Graham lumped the chairman into a group of prominent Democrats whom the Senate Republican said he would like to see summoned, or recalled, to the witness chair to testify on Benghazi

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/sen-graham-challenges-joint-chiefs-chairman-on-benghazi-testimony/#ixzz2Sqw0kjR3

  125. Hick testified that the terrorists tried to breach the annex, but could not because of “improvements” that had been made. If Hillary gets blamed for the consulate deaths, why is she not given credit for saving the dozens of people in the annex?

    He also said he briefed Hillary at around 2 am. So doesn’t that support her lack of involvement in the early flawed management of the situation?

    WTF? Is it me, or does everything coming out clear Hillary of all but minor after-the-fact complicity in the cover-up? You know they had to have been pressuring her to do what Susan Rice did.

  126. Admin: I think the way out of this box is just what I laid out above. Nothing will kill an emerging scandal faster than a bigger scandal. One can speculate on and on and on about the preparations which could have, should have, but were not made prior to the actual attack. But that discussion becomes moot if it can be shown that in the heat of the ensuing battle, those brave troops still could have been rescued. And the failure to rescue them lies with Obama as President for not giving the order he claimed he did, and with Panetta for countermanding the order of the theater commander to rescue them. If that can be proven, then whatever Hillary did, or failed to do before the fact becomes moot. This is like the old doctrine in law called last clear chance. (Remember that one Jbstonesfan?). Obama and Panetta had the last clear chance to save them. The estimable Marine Colonel Bing West proved a few months back that Obama never ordered that the troops be rescued, and now Lindsay Graham is moving to subpoena Dempsey who was with Obama and Panetta at that 5 pm meeting, because his testimony is in direct conflict with what the security officer told Acting Ambassador Hicks that no stand down order was given. I would say the pincers are closing on the real culprits here, Lord willing and the creek don’t rise. Again, the Bing West video is the key to this.

  127. The other thing, and Guliani made this point, but I think it has been raised here as well is that Hillary may have passed along the requests for additional security to Obama, and those requests were denied by him and/or his minions.

    If so, then I expect tht she has documentary proof of this, and in that case, Obama is on hot water on that front to, because sooner or later that information will have to come out.

  128. I hope they are smart enough to box Obama in. The raw material to do that is present. And if it is done right, there is nothing big media can do to stop it.

  129. He is using ‘Mothers’ Day’ to push for abortion? Give me a break! Maybe he would like to change the name to ‘Almost Mothers’ Day’. What a piece of slime this man is!

    Obama plans pre-Mother’s Day defense of health law

    President Obama will speak Friday about the Affordable Care Act’s effects “on the health, lives and pocketbooks of women and their families,” the White House said in his schedule.

    Timed to coincide with Mother’s Day, which is on Sunday, the event comes also comes as House Republicans plan to vote next week on a bill to repeal the health care law.

    The audience for the 2:40 p.m. event will include representatives from women’s groups, including Planned Parenthood.


  130. Leanora – wonder whose idea that headline was. And should we stay tuned to see if there are any post-Mother’s Day defenses lol.
    Listed today at The Tea Party Conservative Daily site:
    The big Benghazi mystery: Where was Obama while 4 Americans perished? Michael Ramirez
    The most over-used trick of Barack Obama’s reign of error in Washington is whenever something adverse happens, just ignore it. Keep on talking happy. And with a complicit or, at best lazy, capitol media corps the problem will eventually melt away
    Follow us: IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

  131. Obama Administration Revised Benghazi Talking Points 12 Times – Scrubbed References to Al-Qaeda Group to Mislead American Public

    The White House and State Department revised the Benghazi talking points TWELVE different times. They scrubbed references to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia to purposely mislead the American public.


  132. Does Peggy Noonan hold the key? WSJ and not certain of the link.
    The Inconvenient Truth about Bengazi
    …If what happened in Benghazi was not a planned and prolonged terrorist assault, if it was merely a street demonstration gone bad, the administration could not take military action to protect Americans there. You take military action in response to a planned and coordinated attack by armed combatants. You don’t if it’s an essentially meaningless street demonstration that came and went….”

  133. The White House and State Department revised the Benghazi talking points TWELVE different times. They scrubbed references to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia to purposely mislead the American public.

    Couldn’t have any thing get in the way of his reelection. 🙄

  134. One of Noonan’s parting shots from her op ed cited above:
    Think of that. They can’t give answers when the story’s fresh because it just happened, they’re looking into it. Eight months later they don’t have anything to say because it all happened so long ago.
    Think of how low your opinion of the American people has to be to think you can get away, forever, with that.

  135. Wbboei, this morning Geraldo Rivera on Fox and Friends (we’ll look for the video and post it if available) talked about what we have hinted at because it is along the lines of what we heard. Rivera said that the CIA was in Benghazi to collect shoulder fired missiles to ship them to Turkey which would then forward them on to Syria’s “rebels”. It’s Iran-Contra all over again.

    Rand Paul screwed up his question to Hillary when he asked about munitions to Syria. First she is not part of that operation. Second the weapons would go to Turkey. The weapons would then be transferred from Turkey by Turkey to Syria which would keep Obama’s hands “clean”. Reagan tried that ruse and it blew up on him.

  136. Wbboei, this morning Geraldo Rivera on Fox and Friends (we’ll look for the video and post it if available) talked about what we have hinted at because it is along the lines of what we heard. Rivera said that the CIA was in Benghazi to collect shoulder fired missiles to ship them to Turkey which would then forward them on to Syria’s “rebels”. It’s Iran-Contra all over again.

    Rand Paul screwed up his question to Hillary when he asked about munitions to Syria. First she is not part of that operation. Second the weapons would go to Turkey. The weapons would then be transferred from Turkey by Turkey to Syria which would keep Obama’s hands “clean”. Reagan tried that ruse and it blew up on him.
    Yes. Iran Contra II. No plausible deniability here however. Even assuming that in the game of spy vs spy this is the right move, what assurance do we have that the shoulder fired weapons we were giving to the al Quaeda inspired rebels will not be pointed at our people, not just here, but especially our troops in the middle east? And, of course, with Obama, there can be no plausible deniability. The biggest problem I have with this, however, apart from the fact that four are dead, is that our own big media was in on the entire thing. You can be quite certain that they were privately briefed on this, especially CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, TIME, WASHPO. This assertion does not require specific proof. All it requires is to know that the National Security Chief for Obama, routinely leaks classified information like this to NYT who turns around and writes books about it.

  137. A new ad. What they are upset with Hillary for is going along with the video story. Maybe she shouldn’t have covered for them. 🙁

    American Crossroads Slams Obama Administration With New Ad: “Benghazi”
    American Crossroads released a new video this morning, “Benghazi,” detailing the massive contradictions between the statements of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others in the Obama Administration on the Benghazi massacre. The administration told the American public before the election that the attack was the result of a protest stemming from a “video.” During Wednesday’s hearing we found out that Secretary Clinton knew from the beginning that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

    “Why did she blame a video? And was she part of a cover-up? … Americans deserve the truth.”


  138. One of Noonan’s parting shots from her op ed cited above:
    Think of that. They can’t give answers when the story’s fresh because it just happened, they’re looking into it. Eight months later they don’t have anything to say because it all happened so long ago.
    Think of how low your opinion of the American people has to be to think you can get away, forever, with that.
    True enough. But completely understandable when you are dealing with a man who is a sociopath, believes what he told Hillary, i.e. that he can make the American People believe anything they want to believe and have a uber corrupt treasonous media (NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT, WashPo) to cover your tracks and lie for you. The significance of the last point was understood by the founding fathers of this nation to a fare thee well, and its significance can scarcely be overstated:

    “The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.” –Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

  139. Leanora May 9, 2013 at 6:15 am
    Pam Geller asks in her article the very same question that I have been asking since the attack – what was the ambassador doing there?


    And that’s the question I’ve been longing to hear answered too.

  140. OBAMA: okay Ly’n Brian, Boy George, Illegal Alien from Mars Peeeeers, Maggot Man Matthews, Race Man Sharpton, your charge was to make this Benghazi thing go away. Right?
    Chorus: so right.
    OBAMA: then why the fuck is it still being bantered around?
    Ly’n Brian: your excellency, we did our best, but it was those mean spirited racist republicans, and FOX News. We have been trying to plant our people over there, but it has not worked. In fact, one of them was just convicted. It has not come out yet and probably never will, but he was our man, your excellency.
    Chorus: hail Obama, our god, we who are likely to lose our audience and our jobs salute you.

  141. Obama to Carney. The easy part for you is over. Lots of little white lies and excuses . . . they will not work anymore. It is an ebb tide, and we need to work fast. Find as many scapegoats as possible, get working on the big lie, scream racism from every corner of the country, and make sure my passport to Indonesia is still current. Now you will have to earn your money my boy. Find Sharpton and Roland Martin–send them in here. Time to wag the dog.

  142. Well, it will be interesting. Too bad nothing will come of it. I predict the dims will take the House in 2014. Anyone who relies on big media to set the record straight here is wishing on a star. They have made their devil’s pact. And, the 52% who have proven unfathomably dumb up to this point will still be manipulable. I hope I am wrong, but the experience of the past four years suggests otherwise. So permit me at least to be cynical.

  143. My hunch is that young Mr. Rhoades, the failed fiction writer, and Obama campaigner, played a key role in the video did it narrative. His adolescent brother who is president of CBS, should step down, to avoid a potential conflict of interest. If I were a shareholder, I would circulate a petition to that effect.

  144. Well, I will say this much for them. At least they know where to go to arrange for a hit job: NBC. The network that tried to make create a race riot in the Travon Martin case, and has created other similar autrocities to the profession of journalism. Should have gone to Ly’n Brian however.

    Weasel Zippers: Scouring the bowels of the internet

    NBC’s Lisa Myers Says “Number Of Democrats” Calling Her To Attempt To Undermine Benghazi Whistleblower…

    Safe to say behind the scenes Dems are in full-blown panic mode.

    “There is something called Benghazi going on, and I think the Democrats now are starting to worry about it. I started. I got calls from a number of Democrats yesterday trying to undermine Greg Hicks’s testimony, saying he wasn’t demoted. So I think they feel that some damage was done by those three witnesses on Wednesday.”

  145. Maybe, if Obama decides to step down, Biden will decline to accept the position and give it to Hillary. He talked about doing that before. I expect that the party and big media would accept that. That assumes, of course, that she can distance herself from Obama, and that will require some fancy footwork.

  146. Dem Strategist: Party in Decline

    By JAMES HOHMANN | 5/10/13 5:05 AM EDT

    One of the Democrats’ most veteran strategists warns that the party is “in decline” and “at considerable risk” when President Barack Obama is no longer on the scene.

    “Since Obama was elected President, the Democrats have lost nine governorships, 56 members of the House and two Senate seats,” Doug Sosnik, the political director in Bill Clinton’s White House, writes in a new memo.

    While Republican branding problems get the lion’s share of attention, the Democratic Party’s favorability rating has declined by 15 points since Obama took power. A Pew Research Center survey this January showed that the Democratic Party was viewed favorably by 47 percent of Americans, down from 62 percent in Jan. 2009.

    With the likelihood of gridlock and near-record-low confidence in public institutions, Sosnik expects 2014 to bring the fourth change election in the past eight years.

    “This puts Senate Democrats in a vulnerable position, while threatening Republican’s control of the House as well as their sizeable numerical advantage in the governorships across the country,” writes Sosnik, who advised Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential race and now does consulting work for a variety of private-sector clients.

    Obama neither directly campaigned nor raised money for down-ticket Democrats last year. The post-election creation of Organizing for Action to push his own agenda has upset party regulars because it makes the Democratic National Committee less relevant than ever, squeezes fundraising for other Democratic groups and emphasizes issues that put moderates in a bind.

    “Obama not only got elected by running against the party establishment, but he has governed as a President who does not emphasize his party label,” writes Sosnik. “It’s hard to be a change agent if you are lugging around a party label in an era where voters are so strongly disaffected from our institutions.”

    These memos are read closely by an influential community of insiders in the political and business worlds. In this one, Sosnik outlines several challenges facing his own party:

    • Obama’s personal popularity does not easily translate for other candidates. The president is not building the Democratic Party’s institutional apparatus in a way that it will thrive when he’s gone.

    • The losses in the 2010 midterms gave Republicans control of the redistricting process, which will be in effect until after the 2020 census. This gives the GOP a structural advantage in keeping the House.

    • Millennials, born 1981 to 1994, and Generation X’ers, born 1965 to 1980, are voting Democratic, but a plurality identify themselves as independents — which makes them less reliable.

    • Democrats cannot count on the same level of African-American turnout without Obama at the top of the ticket. Sosnik cites new analysis showing that in 2012 for the first time ever eligible black voters turned out a higher rate than whites.

    While Republicans have a serious Hispanic problem, Sosnik explains, “younger Hispanics feel less of an allegiance to the Democratic Party than their elders.” Only 50 percent of Hispanic voters aged 18-34 identify themselves as Democrats, according to Gallup, compared to 59 percent of Hispanic voters 55 or older.

    If Hillary Clinton does not run, Sosnik fears that Democrats will be left with a thin bench of top-flight presidential contenders in 2016.

    Looking to 2014, Democratic base groups also tend to turn out at lower rates for midterms than presidential elections.

    In terms of actual policy making, Sosnik believes that it will be “almost impossible” for Obama to effectively engage Congress.

    “Obama’s victory last November was a great political achievement, but the fact that he didn’t set out a clear policy agenda for a second term left him without a clear mandate to govern over a politically divided Congress,” he writes.

    Sosnik notes that many Republicans are more concerned about losing in a primary than a general election, which makes compromise harder.

    “Furthermore,” he writes, “there’s not a single member of either party who fears paying a political price for not falling in line with the President, making it even more difficult to get members to cast difficult votes.”


  147. Noonan prevents the conventional wisdom that the reason for the video story was to uphold the campaign narrative that with the death of bin Laden, the war on terror was effectively over. That may be part of it, but the larger part of it was that the Obama Administration was gunrunning to terrorists, just as they gunran to drug cartels in Mexico, albeit for different reasons. That is the Machiavellian part of it which all of them, including Mullen and Pickering were attempting to hide.

  148. ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack. . . .


Comments are closed.