Posts

Rush Limbaugh: Why Media Ignores Benghazi

/3 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

By Lucy Mccalmont.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said Friday that the mainstream media is not covering Benghazi because it is an issue that he and Fox News are interested in.

“There are a lot of reporters who will discount Benghazi simply because of who is interested in it,” Limbaugh said, according to a transcript of his radio program “The Rush Limbaugh Show.” “For example, Fox is interested in it and it automatically is nothing. If I’m interested in it it doesn’t rate any interest, because Fox and me, all we want is to get Obama.”

Slamming its coverage of the 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic in Benghazi that left the ambassador and three others dead, Limbaugh said of the mainstream media, “They’re working with the regime to cover it up.”

Read more from this story HERE.

_____________________________________________________

Where was Obama? Question resurfaces of president’s whereabouts during Benghazi attack

By Fox News.

Republican senators on Friday put pressure on President Obama to confirm his whereabouts during the night of the Benghazi attack, after an ex-White House spokesman revived the debate by telling Fox News he was not in the Situation Room.

The detail about the president’s location the night of the attack is just one of many revelations that have, in a matter of days, kicked up the controversy to a level not seen since last year. After new emails were released raising questions about the White House response to the attack, a key panel on Friday subpoenaed Secretary of State John Kerry and House Speaker John Boehner announced a special investigative committee.

On Friday afternoon, three GOP senators wrote a letter to Obama asking about his whereabouts and spokesman Tommy Vietor’s comments to Fox News.

“Last night, the former Communications Director for the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, stated that on the afternoon and night of September 11, 2012 — while the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya was under attack — that you never visited the White House Situation Room to monitor events,” they wrote.

Claiming that Americans still do not have an “accounting of your activities during the attack,” the senators asked him to confirm Vietor’s account. The letter was signed by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.

Read more from this story HERE.

‘The Point Is We Should Have Tried’—Brigadier General on Failure to Rescue Americans in Benghazi

/9 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Dominos are falling in the Benghazi cover-up. Today, explosive and emotional testimony from Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell (Ret.), former Intelligence Director of U.S. Africa Command, rocked the House Government Oversight Committee. Lowell held his post at the time of the Benghazi attack, which fell into his area of command. From the U.S. base in Stuttgart, Germany, Lovell watched the message traffic relating to Benghazi, in real time, as the attack was unfolding.

As Lovell stated, it is “my duty” to come forward to give the American people a “full forthcoming” about what happened. The discussion in the post-Benghazi investigations has focused on issues such as time, distance and assets that could have been used to rescue the Americans under attack. However, said Lovell, his voice filling with emotion,

The point is we should have tried. The military is trained to go in the direction of gunfire.

In Benghazi they did not, and the question remains why.

Pressed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R–Calif.) about the mood in the Stuttgart command on that fateful night, Lovell admitted, “There was desperation” about how to save the individuals in Benghazi. “Why didn’t we do anything?” Lovell said with tears in his eyes, “There were a lot of deference to the desires of the State Department what they wanted us to do.”

As brought out by Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio), for the first time in Lovell’s entire military career, he could not “run to the sound of the guns. “It is not what State did, but what they didn’t do, come forward to a stronger request for assistance,” said Lovell.

In Libya, State was in the lead. Lovell revealed that his primary contact at State had been Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary for military and political affairs and a close associate of Hillary Clinton. Shapiro is now, like other Clinton associates, a consultant at Beacon Global Strategies.

Rep. John Mica (R–Fla.) asked Lovell if we might have made military moves that could at least have saved the two Navy Seals, Tyrone Woods and Glen Dougherty, who died around 5 a.m., when the attack resumed at the CIA Annex in Benghazi. Lovell said, “The military could have made a response of some sort.”

Strongly contradicting the narrative promoted by the White House (which, as we now know, originated with deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes) as to the nature of the Benghazi attack, Lovell said.

We knew very early on this was a hostile action, not demonstration gone terribly awry.

He confirmed that he dismissed very early on the idea that this was a demonstration based on a video. “It was not an escalation, it was an attack.”

It is encouraging that Americans are finally hearing first-hand accounts about what happened—and what could have been avoided—that night in Benghazi. But there is so much more yet to be uncovered. It is high time to create a congressional select committee to finally hold the Obama administration accountable.

This article appeared originally at Heritage.com and is re-published in full with the Heritage Foundation’s permission.

‘Big Fat Lie’: Judicial Watch Strikes Back at Jay Carney’s Claim That Bombshell Emails Were ‘Not About Benghazi’

/3 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton struck back Thursday at White House press secretary Jay Carney’s claim that newly released Benghazi emails, being labeled a “smoking gun” by some on the right, were “not about Benghazi.”

“These documents, first of all, weren’t voluntarily disclosed,” Fitton told TheBlaze TV’s Dana Loesch. “We had to go to court to get access to the information. We’ve been sitting around since October of 2012 waiting for it.”

He said purposefully: “We sued for documents about talking points given to [former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice] related to Benghazi. This document was produced to us in response to our lawsuit.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama Covering Up On Benghazi

/3 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: .REUTERS

Photo Credit: .REUTERS

Fox News Poll: Voters say Obama covering up on Benghazi, want Congress to keep investigating

By Dana Blanton.

Most voters think the White House is trying to cover-up what happened in Benghazi and want Congress to continue to investigate the administration’s handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate there that killed four Americans.

That’s according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.

Sixty percent of voters want lawmakers to keep investigating what happened in Benghazi. That’s down from 65 percent who felt that way in November, and a high of 73 percent in early June 2013.

A third opposes Congress continuing to investigate the attack (34 percent).

The 2012 attack took place in Benghazi, Libya on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Read more from this story HERE.

________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: AP / Carolyn Kaster

Photo Credit: AP / Carolyn Kaster

Poll: Most Americans believe Obama lies on important issues

By Charles Hoskinson.

How much do Americans trust President Obama? Not much, according to a Fox News poll.

Sixty-one percent of respondents in the poll released Thursday said Obama lies at least some of the time on important issues. An additional 20 percent said he lies every now and then.

Only 15 percent believe the president is completely truthful.

Read more from this story HERE.

Benghazi Cover-Up Was More to Protect Hillary than Obama

/8 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Bebeto Matthews / AP

Photo Credit: Bebeto Matthews / AP

By Ernest Istook.

A deeply politicized CIA acted more to protect the secretary of state than the president when it falsified its Benghazi talking points, according to Halle Dale, the Heritage Foundation’s senior fellow for public diplomacy.

At this week’s extraordinary public hearing by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell acknowledged being the ultimate editor of the CIA’s infamous talking points memo about the murders of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

The memo’s false claims became the Obama administration’s official version, broadcast by former U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice on national television as she spread the false message that the deaths resulted from a protest gone bad rather than a terrorist attack.

As a guest on my talk radio show Thursday on The Washington Times Radio Network, Ms. Dale said: “What we learned … is that the CIA is a deeply politicized agency.”

And protecting Hillary Clinton seemed a higher priority than protecting Barack Obama.

Read more from this story HERE.

_____________________________________________________________________

LIGNET Got Benghazi Right; Why Didn’t the CIA?

By Fred Fleitz.

In May 2011, I was asked by Christopher Ruddy, Newsmax Media’s President and CEO, to start a commercial intelligence analysis and forecasting service. It was an exciting project and a great opportunity after 25 years working in the national security field.

This project became known as the Langley Intelligence Group Network (LIGNET). Working with other intelligence and national security experts, we launched this project in the fall of 2011. LIGNET produces analysis in the style of the President’s Daily Brief, the classified memo that the U.S. Intelligence Community brings to the president every morning containing analysis of major security issues affecting this country.

Of the over 2,400 analyses we’ve posted since the launch of LIGNET, our work on one subject stands out: the September 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

I’m compelled to speak out about this after watching the testimony of former CIA acting Director Michael Morell before the House Intelligence Committee this week. Morell is in hot water because of controversial CIA-drafted talking points that said the attacks on the Benghazi consulate were the result of demonstrations over an anti-Muslim video and not a terrorist attack. These talking points, which were coordinated through several government agencies, were submitted to the White House and Congress on Sept. 15, 2012.

The talking points were politically convenient for the Obama administration in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election and were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to deny that the attacks on the consulate were related to terrorism during five Sunday morning talk show appearances on Sept. 16, 2012.

Read more from this story HERE.

Benghazi: Betrayal that Whitewash Won’t Cover

/11 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Jacquelyn Martin

Photo Credit: Jacquelyn Martin

By Wesley Pruden.

Transparency, the current vogue word for truth-telling, is usually a good thing, unless you’re trying to fool all the people some of the time, like spending 7,000 words to resurrect a fairy tale in Benghazi, all to give a helping hand to a lady in distress.

The New York Times understands that Hillary Clinton is likely to be the only credible hope the Democrats have for 2016 and that she already needs lots of remedial help. The Times huffed and puffed to deliver an excuse for betrayal in Benghazi, meant to second Mrs. Clinton’s famous alibi for her tortured misfeasance as secretary of state — “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The right response might have made a lot of difference to an American ambassador who lay dead, slain at the hands of Islamic terrorists, and three other Americans who had to give up their lives because nobody at the White House could be bothered to ride to the rescue. President Obama and his frightened and timid acolytes, including Mrs. Clinton, insisted that this was not Islamic terror or the perfidy of al Qaeda, but merely the reaction of innocent Muslims offended by a video posted on YouTube mocking the religion of the Prophet Muhammad.

Even after the White House dispatched Susan Rice, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to push the confection about the video as revealed truth, almost nobody believed it. The White House couldn’t even find anybody else who would say he believed it.

Read more about the Benghazi betrayal HERE.

_________________________________________________________________________________

NYT editor defiant on Benghazi report amid lawmaker criticism

By Fox News.

A New York Times editor on Monday staunchly defended a controversial report on the Benghazi attack which largely backed the State Department’s narrative, amid withering criticism from congressional Republicans and others.

The State Department, as might be expected, also spoke in defense of the New York Times article.

“Much of what’s in this in-depth investigation … tracks with what the [internal review board] found and with our understanding of the facts,” spokeswoman Marie Harf said Monday.

The lengthy Times report and the subsequent fallout represent the latest battle over the public narrative of what happened the night of Sept. 11, 2012. Even the State Department’s internal review did not offer a definitive explanation of what caused the attack and who was behind it.

The Times investigation, though, aggravated some of the department’s toughest critics by concluding there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.

Read more from this story HERE.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Senate Intel panel to release Benghazi report in early 2014

By Susan Crabtree.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded its Benghazi investigation and is set to release its report in early 2014, a move that will only intensify the debate over the administration’s handling of the deadly terror attack.

On Sunday, the New York Times published a six-part article on the attack that concluded that al Qaeda played virtually no role in the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

The piece also bolstered the argument that at least part of the attack was prompted by anger over an anti-Islamic video, as the Obama administration originally claimed.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has yet to weigh in on the New York Times’ Benghazi report. A spokesman said she was traveling on Monday and didn’t plan to comment but also noted that the committee plans to release its Benghazi review “very early in 2014.”

What that report says about al Qaeda’s role, the security lapses surrounding the attack and the motivation behind it will reshape the debate yet again, likely keeping Benghazi in the headlines for weeks to come.

Read more from this story HERE.

Romney Hammers Obama on Tonight Show (+video)

/7 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: YouTubeMitt Romney was in good form on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Leno covered the current Obama Administration scandals including the Department of Justice subpoenaing the Associated Press’s phone records. Romney criticized this apparent attack the First Amendment.

Leno and Romney also discuss the “Benghazi Cover-up”.

Romney refused to take the bait as to whether any of these scandals would have made the difference in his campaign.

He did say, however, that he would never “lose another election” because he would never run again:

Benghazi ‘Cover-Up to Protect Hillary’

/4 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: WNDAmbassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, the day he died in a terrorist attack, because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered him there, according to an exclusive statement given to WND by the attorney representing Gregory Hicks, the former State Department deputy chief of mission and chargé d’affairs who was in Libya at the time of the attack.

Victoria Toensing, legal counsel to Hicks, told WND that Hillary Clinton had given Stevens direct instructions to prepare the CIA compound in Benghazi to be upgraded to the status of a U.S. diplomatic mission and Stevens, in complying with Clinton’s wishes, was in Benghazi the first time he had the opportunity to do so, cognizant of the need to visit the site before the end of the fiscal year, on Sept. 30, 2012.

“Stevens was in Benghazi because Clinton told him to go there,” Toensing explained.

Hicks’ attorney also charged the Accountability Review Board, or ARB, headed by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen, was a cover-up designed to contain blame for the Benghazi terror attack at a level below Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the State Department.

On page 34 of its unclassified final report, the ARB stated: “The Ambassador chose to travel to Benghazi that week, independent of Washington, as per standard practice.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Why Obama and Hillary Engaged in the Benghazi Cover-Up (+video)

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: YouTubeIn perhaps one of the most logical articles we’ve seen explaining Obama’s and Hillary’s actions in Benghazi recently, Erick Erickson’s Red State provides a plausible explanation for the Benghazi cover-up:

The general rule here is Command takes responsibility. JFK survived the Bay of Pigs incident because he embraced that rule. Nixon didn’t survive Watergate because he didn’t. If Obama had said Well, we thought that we had good security up at Benghazi, only we didn’t, so al-Qaeda caught us by surprise and killed our people and that was something that I have to take full responsibility for and I’m never going to let that happen again then… well, he might have lost the election, actually. We didn’t realize at the time, but Obama’s 2012 re-election strategy had pretty much no margin for error. So the administration picked a narrative (it was all due to a YouTube video!) that cynically traded on stereotypes about foreign Muslims and their collective level of impulse control, and did nothing but push said narrative for as long as they could. Which was, oddly enough, long enough for the election to be over.

So why didn’t the Republican National Committee and Romney try to sink this narrative? Well, believe it or not, the RNC actually cut an ad calling the Obama Administration out on Benghazi:

Inexplicably, the ad was never aired.

Obama Used Taxpayer Funds in Benghazi Cover-Up

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: WNDAs the House Oversight Committee hears from witnesses presenting a chronological timeline that starkly contrasts with initial statements by the Obama administration on the Benghazi attacks, it is instructive to recall how the administration spent $70,000 in taxpayer funds on an ad denouncing an anti-Muhammad film.

The ad aired on Pakistani television amid White House claims that the Benghazi attacks were caused by popular protests against an obscure Muhammad film released on YouTube.

It would later emerge that no such protests took place and that the Obama administration almost immediately had evidence the Benghazi attacks were carried out by jihadists.

The ads reportedly aired on seven Pakistani networks. They also came in response to protests in Pakistan that were reportedly a reaction to the film. However, it was the claim of popular protests in Benghazi at the time that garnered the biggest public reaction from the White House.

The Sept. 19, 2012, ads feature Obama and Clinton making statements against the film in the wake of the Benghazi attacks, which transpired one week prior.

Read more from this story HERE.