Issa Says Hillary’s Testimony Contradicts Evidence

---

Rep. Darrell Issa:

The secretary of state was just wrong. She said she did not participate in this, and yet only a few months before the attack, she outright denied security in her signature in a cable in April, 2012. … The thing that our report shows and our continued investigation shows is, they had a policy of normalization-appearance. They did everything they could to look like they’d won the war and had the peace, and so the policy that you saw in that April cable is the policy that led to the ambassador being exposed and killed. It led to the absence of a plan in what is basically a war zone. … None of it’s been disputed. Bless the Democrats’ hearts, they like their report, but they can’t find a factual error to ours, and as we go into more documents — ones that we want to have given to us, not just allowed to look at — we’re going to find more of these kinds of mistakes that need to be corrected.

---

I have said for months now that there are two wrongs here – the fuck-up and the cover-up. Hillary was involved up to her eyebrows in both. Bad policy and bad lies.

I must admit I am conflicted because I still a fan of Bill and Hillary. But we have to hold our friends to the same standards we hold our foes. This could be a sad ending to an otherwise great career.

---

Where Did They Bury The Survivors?

---

Sharyl Attkisson:

Six months later, where are the Benghazi survivors?

Today marks six months since the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Some watchdog groups, members of the media and Republican members of Congress are asking: Where are the more than two dozen U.S. personnel who survived the attack but haven’t been seen nor heard from in public since? There were also an undisclosed number of witnesses at the U.S. compounds in Tripoli but they also have not spoken publicly.

In a recent press report, Secretary of State John Kerry said he visited one survivor at “Bethesda hospital,” and referred to him a “remarkably courageous person who is doing very, very well.” Kerry added, “I’ve called his wife and talked to her.” But the identities, condition and testimony of the survivors and witnesses have been closely held from the public.

Republicans demanded more information about Benghazi in recent weeks before they would agree to allow Obama Administration nominees to move forward in the Senate. A source familiar with material turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee by the Obama Administration in response tells CBS News that long sought-after FBI transcripts of some survivors were included but had been “blacked out” or redacted. Three Senate Republicans including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., say they want the survivors to be made available for interviews about what happened the night of the attacks.

---

In truth the Republicans haven’t been pushing all that hard. But the real problem is the media. Except for a handful of intrepid and relentless reporters like Attkisson the whole issue has been a taboo topic.

We know more about Ann Romney’s horse than we do about what really happened that fateful night in Benghazi.

Hey look! Squirrel!

---

---

There Is A Reason I Don’t Watch These Things

---

Charles Pierce at Esquire:

They never laid a glove on him — not, I suspect, that many of them wanted to do so — and John Brennan looked very comfortable in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee during his extended job interview to become the head of the CIA. After all, they were all members of the national-security priesthood, one way or the other, and if they had to discuss their deadly private liturgies (in however cursory a fashion) in public (however briefly), well, that’s just the price of doing business. And if Senator Jim Risch felt the need to bluster about a leak, Brennan got to bluster back, so the call-and-response ritual of the liturgies was adhered to in public as it would have been in private. But there was about the hearing a feeling of pure show, because both sides were operating under a tacit agreement that there are things that the American people must not, and should not, know about what it being done in their name. Once that agreement is struck, once that private communion is joined, the fundamentals of self-government are left behind.

---

There is a reason I don’t watch these things. A few reasons actually. But the main reason is that I don’t enjoy Kabuki. And that was what today’s “hearings” really were – Kabuki performances.

Yeah, we learned a couple things. But it wasn’t anything we didn’t already know, today just confirmed it. The information might have made a difference back in October, but now that the election is safely over they are letting some of the truth out in dribs and drabs. Some of the secrets will stay buried forever.

What difference does it make?

Nobody will be impeached. Nobody that matters will lose their job. Nobody will even fail to get confirmed. A few people (mostly bloggers) will get their panties in a bunch. The media will yawn and continued to ignore the whole mess. Most people won’t care. If the scandal ever does come up again it will be because Hillary is running for president and then it will suddenly matter a lot.

Hey, look! American Idol is coming on. Gotta go!

---

---

It Wasn’t Even 3AM

---

So shit goes down at our consulate in Benghazi, and neither Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nor President Obama were actively involved in monitoring the situation.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

---

---

Where Is The Outrage?

---

This is really incredible:

“Why didn’t you put forces in place to be ready to respond?,” Senator John McCain asked the general.

Dempsey started, “Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we –”

McCain interrupted, “You never heard of Ambassador Stevens’s repeated warnings?”

“I had, through General Ham,” responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. “But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces–”

“So it’s the State Department’s fault?”

“I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey responded.

---

So the Pentagon knew there was a problem but since the State Department didn’t fill out a request memo they just did nothing? How about asking “Are you gonna need some help?”

Fucking bureaucrats. There is a whole system and set of procedures in place to deal with this stuff. So they either knew nothing or did nothing, yet nobody is at fault.

This bullshit is really fucking with my feeble attempts at sobriety.

---

---

The Obama War On Women

---

Weakly Standard:

Kerry: Obama Offered Me the Job a Week Before Susan Rice Pulled Out

John Kerry says that President Obama offered him the secretary of state job a week before Susan Rice publicly pulled out of the running for the job.

“He called me, actually a week before Susan got out of the thing,” Kerry tells the Boston Globe. “He called me and said, ‘You’re my choice. I want you to do this.’ He asked me to keep it quiet. I did. I sat on it.”

At the time, Rice pulling out of the running for the top State Department job suggested that the position had simply fallen to Kerry, who had been in a neck-and-neck competition for the job. Now it seems that the White House allowed Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, to publicly save face by publicly withdrawing from a job that was never going to be offered to her in the first place.

---

As I said at the time, I don’t recall any official announcement that Susan Rice was the nominee to replace Hillary. But they didn’t do this just so she could save face. Here’s what Obama said back then:

Today, I spoke to Ambassador Susan Rice, and accepted her decision to remove her name from consideration for Secretary of State. For two decades, Susan has proven to be an extraordinarily capable, patriotic, and passionate public servant. As my Ambassador to the United Nations, she plays an indispensable role in advancing America’s interests. Already, she has secured international support for sanctions against Iran and North Korea, worked to protect the people of Libya, helped achieve an independent South Sudan, stood up for Israel’s security and legitimacy, and served as an advocate for UN reform and the human rights of all people. I am grateful that Susan will continue to serve as our Ambassador at the United Nations and a key member of my cabinet and national security team, carrying her work forward on all of these and other issues. I have every confidence that Susan has limitless capability to serve our country now and in the years to come, and know that I will continue to rely on her as an advisor and friend. While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first. The American people can be proud to have a public servant of her caliber and character representing our country.

---

You might recall that the professional feminists were in high dudgeon mode over how those evil sexist Republicans were picking on Rice because she was a girl. Obama threw her to the wolves then tried to get some mileage off her getting eaten.

For the record – Susan Rice deserved the criticism she received. She gave out misinformation about what took place in Benghazi. She was either a dupe or a willing tool. If the American people had been told the truth it could have changed the outcome of the election.

---

Round Two: Rock The House

---

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before a Senate committee this morning about the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Next up is the House of Representatives.

If you are watching it join our live-blog. If you can’t watch it live because you are at work then follow along with us.

---

End of Round One

---

Okay, Round One is over. Round Two starts in a couple hours. The last thread was a live blog. This is a reaction thread.

So far my impression is that Hillary Clinton was at the top of her game. The GOP landed a few blows but there were no knock-outs. She accepted responsibility without accepting (or assigning) any blame.

I expect the media (who never really covered this scandal anyway) to announce that everything is settle and resolved.

What do you think?

---

Hillary’s opening statement:

---

---

Get Well Soon, Hillary! (UPDATED)

---

Hillary Clinton hospitalized with blood clot

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is under observation at a New York hospital after being treated for a blood clot stemming from the concussion she sustained earlier this month.

Clinton’s doctors discovered the clot Sunday while performing a follow-up exam, her spokesman, Philippe Reines, said. He would not elaborate on the location of the clot but said Clinton was being treated with anti-coagulants and would remain at New York-Presbyterian Hospital for at least the next 48 hours so doctors can monitor the medication.

“Her doctors will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her concussion,” Reines said in a statement. “They will determine if any further action is required.”

Clinton, 65, fell and suffered a concussion while at home alone in mid-December as she recovered from a stomach virus that left her severely dehydrated. The concussion was diagnosed Dec. 13 and Clinton was forced to cancel a trip to North Africa and the Middle East that had been planned for the next week.

The seriousness of a blood clot “depends on where it is,” said Dr. Gholam Motamedi, a neurologist at Georgetown University Medical Center who was not involved in Clinton’s care.

Clots in the legs are a common risk after someone has been bedridden, as Clinton may have been for a time after her concussion. Those are “no big deal” and are treated with six months of blood thinners to allow them to dissolve on their own and to prevent further clots from forming, he said.

A clot in a lung or the brain is more serious. Lung clots, called pulmonary embolisms, can be deadly, and a clot in the brain can cause a stroke, Motamedi said.

Keeping Clinton in the hospital for a couple of days could allow doctors to perform more tests to determine why the clot formed, and to rule out a heart problem or other condition that may have led to it, he said.

---

There was a lot of speculation that Hillary was faking an injury to avoid testifying before Congress. That’s not really Hillary’s style but anything is possible I guess.

I remember when William Casey was reported to have suffered a stroke just hours before he was to testify before Congress about Iran Contra. Many people speculated that he was faking in order to avoid having to testify about what he knew. A few months later he died of a brain tumor, taking whatever secrets he had to the grave.

Sometimes it is just a coincidence.

Get well soon, Hillary!

---

UPDATE:

Hillary Clinton’s blood clot between brain & skull

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was hospitalized in Manhattan last night after doctors found a blood clot during an exam to follow up on a concussion she suffered earlier this month, the State Department said. The blood clot is located between her brain and skull behind the right ear.

Clinton, 65, was admitted to New York Presbyterian’s Washington Heights complex, where she will stay for at least 48 hours to be closely monitored.

Doctors will treat the former first lady with anticoagulants, said her spokesman, Philippe Reines.

“Her doctors will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her concussion,” Reines said.

---

Our thoughts and prayers are with her.

---

Was a rude guest given an early exit?

---

Fox interview ends after author criticizes network

A Fox News Channel interview ended abruptly Monday after an author accused the network of hyping the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, and “operating as a wing of the Republican Party.”

The charges were made by Thomas Ricks, a veteran newspaper reporter and author of “The Generals,” who was brought on for an interview with anchor Jon Scott about GOP criticism of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s comments about the attacks.

Ricks said he thought the story of the Benghazi attacks was “hyped, by this network especially.”

Scott asked why Ricks would call it hype when four Americans were killed, including the first U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years.

Ricks responded that few people knew how many U.S. security contractors were killed in Iraq and compared that to the attention paid to “what was essentially a small firefight” in Libya.

“I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party,” Ricks said.

With that, Scott thanked him and turned to a co-anchor, who introduced a commercial.

“When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor’s question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself and his book,” Fox News executive Michael Clemente said.

---

Two questions, two non-responsive answers, and both of them critical of the host. I would have cut him off too.

The part about the security contractors in Iraq was a red herring – they probably did deserve more attention but that has nothing to do with Libya. And this “small firefight” took place at a US consulate and claimed the life of one of our ambassadors. That meets the criteria for news coverage.

Did Susan Rice lie to the American people? Or did she unknowingly pass along inaccurate information? It’s one or the other, and we have a right to know which one it is.

Is Fox News guilty of hyping some stories and ignoring others? Oh, you betcha! They just happen to be one of the few media outlets that does so in a way that favors Republicans. The rest of the media spent the last year ignoring any story that portrayed Obama in a negative light (Solyndra, Fast & Furious, etc.) and hyping stories critical of Mitt Romney (Bain, Mormon theology, Mitt’s taxes).

Thanks to the First Amendment we can’t force the media to be fair or balanced. We can’t even make them tell the truth. The only option is to allow alternative views to be heard. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

---

It All Depends On Whose Ox Is Being Gored

---

Igor at ThinkProgress:

John McCain Supported Condi Rice After Massive Intelligence Failure

President Obama has yet to nominate anyone to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, but Republicans are already lining up in opposition to potential replacement U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, citing her complicity in the administration’s alleged failures in responding to the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

On Wednesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) promised to filibuster Rice’s nomination and “do whatever to block the nomination that is within our power.” “She’s not qualified,” McCain explained, arguing that she misled the public by initially attributing the September 11 Benghazi attack to protests over an anti-Islam video. He claimed that at a minimum, Rice is guilty of “not being very bright, because it was obvious that this was not a ‘flash mob’ and there was additional information by the time she went on every news show…in America.”

But interestingly, McCain took a far different approach to another Rice in 2005. When President George W. Bush nominated National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to the post, McCain defended the nomination, despite Rice’s central role in spreading the false intelligence that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats held hours of hearing and ultimately confirmed Rice, but not before McCain accused the opposition of using politics to delay her confirmation and challenging her “integrity”

[...]

Seven years later, there is no evidence that Susan Rice mislead the public, yet McCain is leading the charge to oppose her. Rice was “speaking from a set of talking points provided by the U.S. intelligence community, which was also provided to Congress. The video has also been cited by those on the ground as being an impetus for the attack in recent weeks, challenging the Republican narrative.”

---

This is the kind of shit that gives tribalism a bad name. I don’t know when Igor joined ThinkProgress, but I am very sure that in 2005 TP was condemning the appointment of Condi Rice as Secretary of State.

Susan Rice did most assuredly mislead the public, the only question is whether she did so intentionally or not. Then again, so did Condi Rice. In my view, McCain was wrong then and right now.

It is really disgusting the way both parties swap positions with each other so easily. It all depends on whose ox is being gored – principles have nothing to do with it. The only guiding principle at ThinkProgress appears to be “Help the Democrats win.”

Until Susan Rice is completely forthcoming about everything she knows relating to what happened in Benghazi and the attempted cover-up that followed, she should not be confirmed for any other office. And depending on her answers, maybe not then either.

My prediction – If Susan Rice is nominated to replace Hillary, McCain and some other Republican senators will put on a dog and pony show during the confirmation hearings, but ultimately she will be confirmed.

---

---

Worse than Watergate

---

Examiner:

Report: Ambassador Stevens called for help during Benghazi attack, got none

On Wednesday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) told Fox News’ Greta van Susteren that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens called for help during the September 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, but got none.

According to the congressman, Ambassador Stevens called Gregory Hicks, the Deputy Chief of Mission in Tripoli.

“He said shortly after 9:40 PM what happened is his phone rang and he didn’t recognize the number so he didn’t answer it. And then it rang again and again he didn’t answer it because he didn’t recognize the number,” Rep. Chaffetz said.

“But then given the persistence he did answer it. It was Ambassador Stevens and Ambassador Stevens was saying ‘we’re under attack,’” he added.

“Now I can’t say he told me specifically but that’s kind of what I read into it. he hung up the phone and immediately called into Washington DC to trigger all the mechanisms that need to be put on. And then he wasn’t able to contact him. And there were hours and hours that we didn’t know where our ambassador was,” he said.

The full story of what happened during the attack is slowly coming out, no thanks to the so-called “mainstream media.”

Chaffetz also told van Susteren that Gen. Carter Ham, former head of U.S. Africa command, “personally” told him that “he did not get a directive from the White House, from the president of the United States to engage in the fire fight to help protect those people.”

“Mr. President, you can’t have it both ways,” the Utah Republican said. “You can’t say that you are doing everything you can to protect the people in Benghazi when we are under attack — a fire fight that starts at 9:40 at night and goes to the wee hours of the morning — and say you did everything when the military did not engage.”

General Ham has since been relieved of his command, but the Defense Department says it had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, The Blaze reported.

---

People died – Obama lied.

This was literally one of those 3am moments that Hillary warned us about. When the call came, Obama wasn’t ready. He dithered while Benghazi burned. Then he lied to us and went to Vegas.

He says he gave orders – but won’t say what they were or who he gave them to. Nobody has stepped up to say they received these orders.

One thing is very clear – we won’t get any answers until after the election (if we ever get them at all).

---

---

The Missing Piece of the Puzzle?

---

Adm. James Lyons in the Washington Times:

Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi

[...]

We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

In another excellent article, Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org noted that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.

Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered.

Our Benghazi mission personnel, including our two former Navy SEALs, fought for seven hours without any assistance other than help from our embassy in Tripoli, which launched within 30 minutes an aircraft carrying six Americans and 16 Libyan security guards. It is understood they were instrumental in helping 22 of our Benghazi mission personnel escape the attack.

Once the attack commenced, Stevens was taken to a “safe room” within the mission. It is not known whether his location was betrayed by the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the local force providing security to the consulate, which had ties to the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group conducting the attack, and to al Qaeda. Unbelievably, we still do not know how Ambassador Stevens died.

The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI, State Department and the Pentagon, watched and listened to the assault but did nothing to answer repeated calls for assistance. It has been reported that President Obama met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in the Oval Office, presumably to see what support could be provided. After all, we had very credible military resources within striking distance. At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned. Certainly this was a force much more capable than the 22-man force from our embassy in Tripoli.

[...]

I also understand we had a C-130 gunship available, which would have quickly disposed of the terrorist attackers. This attack went on for seven hours. Our fighter jets could have been at our Benghazi mission within an hour. Our Special Forces out of Sigonella could have been there within a few hours. There is not any doubt that action on our part could have saved the lives of our two former Navy SEALs and possibly the ambassador.

[...]

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

---

There was always something strange about the attack on our Benghazi consulate but I couldn’t put my finger on it until now. What I want to know is what was the purpose of the attack?

First of all, the attackers were not highly trained commandos or special forces operatives. A few of them may have had terrorist training from somewhere but that’s still not the same thing as a trained military unit. Handing guns to a mob doesn’t make them an army, it just makes them an armed mob.

That’s why I didn’t find it that strange that the attacks lasted as long as they did. It takes training and discipline to get people to get up and advance in the face of opposing fire. Militia troops are notorious for taking pot-shots from behind cover but otherwise refusing to expose themselves.

But even a poorly trained group should have been able to quickly overwhelm the security at the consulate – and in fact they did. Ambassador Stevens and two others quickly retreated to a safe room in the consulate. So the terrorists set the place on fire. One of the men was able to escape.

Ambassador Stevens and information officer Sean Smith died in the consulate. A quick reaction force from the nearby CIA annex was able to find Smith’s body in the consulate but they could not find Stevens. About 1 am (a little over three hours after the attacks started) some Libyan nationals entered the consulate and found Stevens. He was pronounced dead at the hospital. Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed later at the attack on the CIA annex.

So where were the terrorists and what were they doing all this time? The attack on the nearby CIA annex didn’t take place until about 4 am, over six hours after the initial attacks started. The terrorists had to expect that we would respond with air support if not boots on the ground, but they still hung around? Why didn’t they immediately attack the CIA annex? They had to know about it, it was only a couple blocks away and would have been known to the locals.

Admiral Lyons provides the answer to my questions. They were loading up and moving the contents of the warehouses. Obtaining those weapons was the primary purpose of the attack – killing or capturing Americans was secondary. After setting fire to the consulate they turned their attention to completing their primary mission. Then, after the weapons were loaded and moved, the remaining terrorists launched the attack on the CIA annex.

If you want to get really tin foily, consider the possibility that this was a back-door plot to give weapons to the Islamic extremists in Syria. Think of it as “Iran-Contra Meets Fast & Furious on the Road to Benghazi”. Rather than give the weapons to the extremists directly and risk the bad publicity maybe the Obama administration was going to let them appear to “steal” them.

The terrorists sure didn’t seem to be trying very hard to kill or capture anyone. Both Stevens and Smith died from smoke inhalation. Could their deaths have been accidental? Perhaps they thought the consulate was empty when they set it on fire. Maybe the people who found Stevens’ body were actually the terrorists and they rushed him to the hospital trying to save him? None of the Libyan guards was killed. Doherty and Woods were killed when a mortar round landed on their position. The terrorists never pressed home the attack on the CIA annex.

That theory makes as much sense as the official version.

---

---

It has a lot to do with the cover-up though!

---

Obama: Election ‘has nothing to do’ with Libya deaths

President Obama again on Friday defended his administration’s handling of the attack that killed four Americans in Libya, and said he’s not holding back information ahead of Election Day.

“The election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened,” Obama said in an interview with KUSA, the NBC affiliate in Denver.

“Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do. But we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I’ve made a commitment to the families impacted as well as the American people, we’re going to bring those folks to justice,” he said in one of several interviews with local TV stations in battleground states that he sat for Friday afternoon at Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington.

Pressed twice during the KUSA interview, Obama wouldn’t address a Friday report suggesting that the Americans in Benghazi asked for more assistance as the Sept. 11 attack was taking place, and instead stressed that his administration is engaged in a thorough investigation.

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the military didn’t send forces in during the attack on the U.S. Consulate because there was “no real-time information” to act on. “You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on” and military brass “felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation,” he said.

---

What were they waiting for, CNN reporters to go in and check things out first? Oh, wait – they did that. We didn’t have “boots on the ground” in Benghazi for over three weeks after the attack – something to do with needing tourist visas or something.

Once upon a time (like 1979) a president would have had very limited options in a situation like this one. Times have changed. We now have plans and people in place to deal with exactly these types of things.

First of all, the attack in Benghazi lasted almost seven hours. Within minutes of the start of the attack they hit the panic button in Benghazi, which triggers an alert that rings in several places, including a regional operations center and situation rooms in the Pentagon, at Langley, the State Department and the White House. Those places are always manned and operating.

At various locations around the world we have military troops ready for action at a moment’s notice 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Some of them are sitting in underground silos and in submarines, ready to launch nuclear missiles if the president gives the order. Some of them are sitting in jet fighters with the motors idling, ready to take off and engage enemy planes. And some of them are sitting in ready rooms, waiting to be sent into uncertain and dangerous situations and rescue our people who are in trouble.

This latter group are the most elite military forces in the world. They are trained and equipped for missions like this. Even a small group of them can be formidable. We could have had them on the ground in Benghazi within four hours – even if they had to parachute in.

It’s not like our guys would have been going in blind. Early on in Benghazi we had first one and then a second Predator drone flying overhead and relaying intelligence. We were in communication with the Benghazi consulate and with the nearby CIA annex. Within a couple hours we had a AC-130 Spectre Gunship circling above the consulate.

Not only that, but one of the missions our special operations troops are trained for is reconnaissance. They are the guys you send in when you don’t know what the hell is happening on the ground. But we didn’t send them.

The question is why not?

Listen to this guy who called the Disgusting Fatboy show today:

---

---

Where is the “Free Bradley Manning” crowd now?

---

Anti-Muslim filmmaker detained for almost a month…next court date three days after election

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the 55-year-old filmmaker responsible for the anti-Muslim video that President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice initially and wrongly blamed for inciting the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, is still being held at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) without bond.

It has been almost one month since Mr. Nakoula was arrested for allegedly violating the terms of his probation for a 2010 bank-fraud conviction.

[...]

“Nakoula was ordered detained — held without bond — by a federal judge, who determined he posed a flight risk,” said Thom Mrozek of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.

Mr. Nakoula’s next court date is on November 9, three days after the presidential election. In the meantime, while the Obama administration passes blame around over who dropped the ball with the attack in Benghazi, Mr. Nakoula remains locked up and muzzled in a Los Angeles detention center until after the ballots for president are counted on November 6.

---

What’s the difference between Nakoula and Manning? For one thing, Nakoula isn’t accused of breaking the law. Manning is accused of passing government secrets to Julian Assange. All Nakoula did was exercise his First Amendment rights by making a really bad film clip.

Let Nakoula go. Obama’s cover story is blown now. We know the movie had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on our Benghazi consulate. Where is a man with a fatwa issued for his head going to run to, anyway?

---

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”

---

Here is Bret Baier’s Libya exposé – “Death and Deceit in Benghazi”.

I ain’t vouching for it. Watch it for yourself and make up your own mind.

---

John Sununu pwns Solenoid O’Brien (again)

---

The Right Scoop:

Sununu slams Soledad over Obama’s rose garden statement: You’re out of your mind!

Sununu came loaded for bear this morning in his interview with Soledad O’Brien. In fact as soon as it began he started hammering her for slanting the clips toward defending Obama and that continued well into the interview just on the issue of Libya.

At issue is the parsing that is going on by Soledad and others over Romney’s statement last night. In the debate Romney said it took 2 weeks for Obama to call the what happened an act of terror. Well it just so happened that Obama used those exact words in the Rose Garden speech. But what Romney meant – and it was clear from his context – was that it took 2 weeks for Obama to call it a terrorist act which is something entirely different. In fact Obama also referred to the attack on Benghazi as “senseless violence” in the Rose Garden speech. But that’s not how you describe a terrorist act.

And this parsing of Romney’s words to protect the president is what had Sununu so fired up from the get go in this interview. Even Crowley herself said after the debate that despite the parsing, Romney was correct. And Sununu wanted them to play that clip and they never did.

---

Don’t tell Angie, but back when I was a yellow-dog I didn’t much care for her new boyfriend. But these days I like anybody who refuses to take any shit from the media, and Sununu certainly fits that description.

The Obamafluffers in the media are trying to hang there hat on the fact that Obama mentioned “acts of terror” in his Rose Garden speech on September 12th:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

---

But it is clear from the context that he was referring to violence in general, not the events that had taken place the day before. Five days later Ambassador Susan Rice went on all the Sunday talk shows and insisted that the events in Benghazi were caused by a protest over a YouTube video that had spun out of control.

But lets assume arguendo that Obama did state it was a terrorist attack. Why then did he jump on Air Force One and head for a fundraiser in Vegas? Why did he skip his daily security briefing for the nth time?

People died. Obama lied.

---

Operation Manhood

---

White House reportedly preps strike team to take out terrorists tied to Libya attack

The White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to strike militant targets from Libya to Mali — if investigators can find the Al Qaeda-linked group responsible for the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya.

But officials say the administration, with weeks until the presidential election, is weighing whether the short-term payoff of exacting retribution on Al Qaeda is worth the risk that such strikes could elevate the group’s profile in the region, alienate governments the U.S. needs to fight it in the future and do little to slow the growing terror threat in North Africa.

Details on the administration’s position and on its search for a possible target were provided by three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst who was approached by the White House for help. All four spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the high-level debates publicly.

The dilemma shows the tension of the White House’s need to demonstrate it is responding forcefully to Al Qaeda, balanced against its long-term plans to develop relationships and trust with local governments and build a permanent U.S. counterterrorist network in the region.

Vice President Joe Biden pledged in his debate last week with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan to find those responsible for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

---

Talk about your October surprises. But since when do we tell the enemy we’re coming?

Trying to get rid of al-Qaeda by going after individual terrorists is like trying to get rid of cockroaches by stepping on the ones you see – there is always a bunch more you don’t see. Or perhaps a better example is trying to retaliate for Pearl Harbor by tracking down the individual Japanese pilots that dropped the bombs.

I’m guessing our military is gonna blow up some Muslim people between now and election day. Then the Obama administration will declare we got the bad guys again. Then they’ll spike the football and do an endzone dance.

Again.

---

Obama’s chickens come home to roost

---

Senator Lindsey Graham on “Face the Nation”:

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, the facts are there was never a riot. The– the night in question, September 11th, Ambassador Stevens was being visited by the Turkish ambassador that wasn’t the sole around the compound and the coordinated attack lasted for hours with al Qaeda-associated militia. My belief is that that was known by the administration within twenty-four hours and, quite frankly, Susan Rice, on your show on September 16th, the President on the 18th and the 25th, kept talking about an attack inspired by a video. They’re trying to sell a narrative, quite frankly, that the Mid East, the wars are receding and al Qaeda has been dismantled, and to admit that our embassy was attacked by al Qaeda operatives and Libya leading from behind didn’t work I think undercuts that narrative. They never believed that media would investigate. Congress was out of session, and this caught up with them. I think they’ve been misleading us, but it finally caught up with them.

… Al Qaeda is alive. Bin Laden may be dead. Al Qaeda is alive and they’re counter-attacking throughout the entire region. And the truth is that the foreign policy choices of President Obama is allowing the region to come unraveled.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Where did you get this information that led you to this conclusion? Did you talk to officials there? Did you talk to people in the CIA? Did you talk to people in the administration? How are you so convinced of– of what you have just stated?

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: The intelligence community on the ground in Libya has told Senator Corker and myself that within twenty-four hours, they communicated up to Washington that this was a terrorist attack. The president of Libya on the same date said it was a terrorist attack. The video of the compound shows that there was nobody at the Benghazi consulate. There was never a group to riot. And the evidence is overwhelming, and the idea that it was spawned by a- a video and a riot would be– hold the administration blameless. They said it was a copycat of Cairo. It wasn’t a copycat. It was a sustained attack that lasted for six or eight hours, using heavy weapons which undercuts the idea that al– al Qaeda has been dismantled and on the run and it certainly undercuts the idea that our policy choices in Libya have not going after the militia, not helping the Libyans training the national army were good choices.

Shieffer plays video of Susan Rice, 5 days after the attack, saying “We did not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, it’s not just Susan Rice. The President of the United States said that it was the result of a video on David Letterman two days later. And the facts are very clear. There was never a riot. There was never a group of people around the embassy. It was a coordinated terrorist attack that took hours. Patrick Kennedy from the State Department briefed congressional staffers the day after the attack saying it was a terrorist attack. The next day after she was on your show, the– the counterterrorism deputy said it was a terrorist attack and the President after that went on national TV The View and David Letterman talking about we’re not sure if this was inspired by a video, a hateful video.

Amazing that Obama was doing this on “Letterman” and “The View” — the day after the attack!

The reason they’re trying to sell this, if it is true it was an al Qaeda-inspired attack that was coordinated involving heavy weapons that lasted six-to-eight hours and our embassy consulate was so exposed and they had denied numerous requests to reinforce it, is Exhibit A of a failed foreign policy. I have seen this movie before. I went to Iraq in 2004 and everybody told me things are going fine. This is just a few dead-enders. Iraq was falling apart and you couldn’t get the truth from the Bush administration. The Mid East is falling apart, and they’re trying to spin what happened in Libya because the truth of the matter is al Qaeda is alive and well and counter-attacking.

Iraq, they have been doubling of al Qaeda operatives in Iraq since we left, twenty-five hundred. Iran is flying over Iraqi air space to deliver weapons to Syria. Syria’s becoming thirty thousand people dead and foreign fighters moving into Syria. The Iranians have quadrupled the amount of enriched uranium they have to build bombs, as the Obama administration talks to them. This whole region is about to explode, al Qaeda is on the march. Northern Mali is now under the control of radical Islamists that make the Taliban look like choir boys. So they’re trying to sell something, (INDISTINCT) the facts on the ground will not justify. When John Kerry said at the Democratic National Convention ask bin Laden is he better off. They’re trying to spike the ball after killing bin Laden create a false narrative about the true state of al Qaeda and it all caught up with them in Libya.

---

But wait! There’s more!

Bob Woodward on “Fox News Sunday”:

WOODWARD: There are lots of unanswered questions. And I love documents, and they released some documents in this, and if you go and look at the original request for more security, they say our policy, our goal here is to shift from an emergency footing to normalize the security relationship.

Now, this is in March, six, seven months ago. Anyone looking at that what say, wait a minute, read the document in which they say, oh, the situation is incredibly unstable. Well, why are you trying to normalize your security in a situation that’s visibly unstable? You even acknowledge that.

So you’ve got a bad policy. And anyone looking at that would say, wait a minute; we are screwed up; we can’t normalize here.
So that’s the first problem. The second problem is, as soon as an ambassador is killed, the president should be more proactive and be out there. He can go, you know, five minutes in the White House briefing room and say this is really serious; we’re going to get to the bottom of it; we don’t have the answers. And all of this could have been nipped in the bud and it was not.

[MODERATOR CHRIS] WALLACE: And what do you make of the fact that, five days later, Susan Rice goes out and tells this story about a spontaneous protest, when we now know the State Department never thought there was a spontaneous protest? In fact, we know — and they were in touch, in real time, with people on the ground in Benghazi on the 11th.

WOODWARD: I haven’t — you know, I don’t think we know exactly why she did that or what was going on. But the key… is, two weeks later, the president’s at the U.N. and citing this YouTube video, I guess half a dozen times. That, as we now know, had virtually nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi.

---

For reasons I don’t really understand, Bob Woodward is one of the respected elders of the journalism profession. What he says carries weight among the bloviating gasbags. If he starts turning on Obama it sends the signal to the other jackals to move in for the feast.

Timing is everything, and this could not be a worse time for Obama for all this to start unraveling.

---

---

It’s official – they’re blaming Hillary (UPDATED)

---

Jim Hoft:

David Axelrod Chucks Hillary and State Department Under the Benghazi Bus

Obama Campaign top adviser David Axelrod told Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday this morning that the State Department was responsible for embassy security matters.

David Axelrod:

“The White House was talking about what the White House knew. There are embassies all over the world and requests all over the world and these requests go over the the security professionals at the State Department. And there’s no doubt that some of these matters went into the security department of the State Department. But it didn’t come to the White House and that’s what the White House was responding to.”

This is Barack Obama’s way of thanking Bill Clinton for working overtime to drag Barack Obama across the finish line in this year’s election.

---

I wonder how all those former PUMAs that jumped on the Obama bandwagon feel now?

---

UPDATE:

Hillary strikes back:

A confusing array of contradictions concerning the murders of four Americans, one of which was a U.S. ambassador, was made worse by Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks during the debate with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan Thursday evening.

Today the confusion only worsened yet again when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that her agency was not the source of misinformation concerning the attacks, charging instead that the White House was the source of the false mantra that the murders were spurred by an anti-Muslim film made in the United States.

Clinton told reporters that when Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her rounds on every Sunday morning news show to claim the film motivated the attacks, the information had been fed to her by the White House and not the intelligence community in the State Department or the CIA.

---

Popcorn time!

---

---