Posts

Benghazi vs Watergate: What Difference Does it Make?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Irish CentralOver 40 years ago the country came to a standstill as revelations of lying and a cover-up by the President of the United States were exposed. Watergate became a name synonymous with a scandal of proportions that could topple a president.

Days of televised Congressional hearings with the often repeated phrase: “what did the President know and when did he know it?”— held the nation spellbound as politicians from both parties asked tough questions of the presidents staff.

The media coverage was unrivaled as details of a bungled petty burglary turned into a major scandal and efforts to hide the president’s involvement came to light.

But no one died as a result of Watergate.

Today’s congressional hearing on the events leading up, during and after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, are revealing disturbing differences between what the Obama administration told the American public and what actual witnesses to the events are testifying to.

It is becoming clear; a purposeful decision was made to reduce the security presence in Libya which could have protected our personnel from attack. If normal security procedures would have been followed in Benghazi, our ambassador and three other Americans would not have been killed on September 11-12.

During the attack on our consulate and annex, contrary to what President Obama has claimed, not all measures were taken to send help to our besieged Americans. They were left outgunned and outnumbered to be killed, mutilated and wounded.

For weeks after the attack, a deliberate false narrative was put out by the Whitehouse and the State Department to cover up the real instigators in the attack: violent Islamic extremists who were closely allied with Al Qaeda.

At the critical moment in the presidential campaign, President Obama and Vice President Biden’s main theme had been they killed Osama Bin Laden and had defeated Al Qaeda. To admit that an Al Qaeda element had attacked our consulate and killed our ambassador would have been an admission of failure of one of the few successes the administration could lay claim to.

This knowledge would have made a huge difference in the election and could have been the difference between having a President Obama or a President Romney….It also would have been devastating for President Obama to defend in the debates with Romney….But it was an opportunity denied to Romney.

But today’s Benghazi hearing, no matter how riveting, and the news coverage leading up to it, is dramatically showing how our country has changed since the Watergate scandal.

Perhaps Americans have become hardened to scandal and no longer expect honesty from their President.

Perhaps if this was a Republican administration, there would be dozens of reporters assigned to get to the bottom of this story and 24/7 coverage would continue until all of the facts were exposed.

Unlike Watergate, where Democrats and Republicans joined together to find the truth, the Benghazi scandal has magnified the meanness of partisan politics. Any attempt to get to the truth by congress is labeled partisan politics by democrats. There is little if any cooperation by house democrats in this investigation.

The truth, if it is ever to be known by the American public will have to be uncovered by patriotic Americans, who put their country first.

_____________________________________

Ed Farnan is the conservative columnist at IrishCentral, where he has been writing on the need for energy independence, strong self defense, secure borders, 2nd amendment, smaller government and many other issues. His articles appear in many publications throughout the USA and world. He has been a guest on Fox News and a regular guest on radio stations in the US and Europe.

Benghazi Dooms Hillary’s Presidential Aspirations (+video)

/0 Comments/in , /by

If the revelations of the Benghazi whistle-blowers haven’t been enough, Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations should surely be laid to rest after enough Americans see the below video.

The mother of Sean Smith, one of the Americans killed in Benghazi due to Obama’s and Hillary’s willful inaction, is continuing to angrily confront the Administration for not coming clean on what happened.

In the interview, Pat Smith describes the minimal contact that she’s had with the Administration. And what little contact she has had is “all lies.”

She angrily concludes, “I blame Hillary.”

If you don’t watch anything else in the following video, skip forward to Hillary Clinton’s 20-second outrageous outburst (2:18 to 2:38), that Ms. Smith then comments on. Hillary’s presidential aspirations should be dead in the water if enough Americans see this clip:

Transcript:

CNN’s JACK TAPPER: One woman still looking for answers is Pat Ms. Pat Smith. Her son, State Department Information Officer Sean Ms. Pat Smith was one of the four Americans killed. Pat, thanks so much for being here. I know this is not an easy time. How are you holding up?

MS. PAT SMITH: Terrible. I cry every night. I don’t sleep at night. I need answers.

CNN’S JACK TAPPER: What do you want answers to? What do you not know?

MS. PAT SMITH: Why was there no security for him? When they were supposed to have security and the security that they did have was called back. It just — things do not add up and I’m just told lies.

CNN’S JACK TAPPER: Last week, you heard this in the piece the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that Benghazi happened a long time ago.

MS. PAT SMITH: Yes, it did.

CNN’S JACK TAPPER: Eight months ago.

MS. PAT SMITH: Yes.

CNN’S JACK TAPPER: What is your reaction to that?

MS. PAT SMITH: Why don’t they have answers by now? They’ve had plenty of time to come up with something other than the things they have not told me.

CNN’S JACK TAPPER: Are you concerned at all that the hearings and Benghazi that has become a political issue, the Republicans have turned it into a political issue. The Democrats have turned it into a political issue as opposed to being a scandal and a tragedy apart from politics?

MS. PAT SMITH: Of course, it’s political. That’s the way it’s been. That’s how they’re treating it. That’s what they’re doing with it. They’re making it into something that — why don’t they just do their job? They didn’t do their job and now they’re hiding behind the word political and going from there.

CNN’S JACK TAPPER: You have expressed disappointment in the past because President Obama, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, all of them came to you, talked to you.

MS. PAT SMITH: Yes.

CNN’S JACK TAPPER: And then you haven’t heard from them. Have you heard from anybody in the Obama administration? Have you gotten any outreach or any answers at all?

MS. PAT SMITH: I got one telephone call from a clerk that was a couple days after it happened. He was reading to me from the time line, which I already had. And that was it. And since then, all they have told me is that I am not part of the immediate family so they don’t want to tell me anything.

CNN’S JACK TAPPER: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified about the Benghazi tragedy shortly before she left office. I want to play a little bit of what she said.

(START VIDEO INSERT)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: 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 they’d 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.

(END VIDEO INSERT)

CNN’S JACK TAPPER: What was your reaction to that?

MS. PAT SMITH: Well, that’s what I want to know. Why did it happen? And she is in charge. Why couldn’t she do something about it? I blame her.

CNN’S JACK TAPPER: You blame Secretary of State Clinton.

MS. PAT SMITH: Yes.

CNN’S JACK TAPPER: Why?

MS. PAT SMITH: Because that’s her department. She is supposed to be on top of it. Yet she claims she knows nothing. It wasn’t told to her. Well, who is running the place?

Source: Only President Could Have Made ‘Stand Down’ Call on Benghazi

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Breitbart 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.

According to the source, when the attack on the Consulate occurred, a specific chain of command to gain verbal permission to move special-forces in must have occurred. SOCAFRICA commander Lieutenant Col. Gibson would have contacted a desk officer at the time, asking for that permission.

That desk officer would have called Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, then in command of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara. From there, Bristol would have made contact with Rear Admiral Brian Losey, then Commander of Special Operations Command Africa. Losey would have contacted four-star General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. AFRICOM at the time.

“Ham answers directly to the President of the United States,” said the source. It wasn’t a low-level bureaucrat making the call, the source adamantly added.

Read more from this story HERE.

Huckabee, Bolton: Obama Will Be Ousted Over Benghazi

/0 Comments/in , /by

photo credit: gage skidmoreBy Jonathan Easley. 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.”

“When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern,” he added. “And as the facts come out, I think we’re going to see something startling. And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next three and a half years.”

Some Republicans have maintained that the administration has not been forthcoming in the circumstances surrounding the attack, pointing to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who went on Sunday news shows and argued the attacks were a spontaneous reaction to an offensive video. The administration later admitted Rice’s claim was made with insufficient intelligence, and labeled the event an act of terror.

On Monday, House Republicans released portions of an interview with State Department whistle-blower Gregory Hicks, who took over as the top U.S. diplomat in Libya after Stevens was killed.Read more from this story HERE.

John Bolton: Benghazi Could Topple Administration

By Bill Hoffmann. The mushrooming Benghazi scandal could potentially lead to the unraveling of the administration of President Barack Obama, says John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

“This could be a hinge point for the Obama administration. It’s that serious for them,” Bolton told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

Bolton made his remarks as Congress prepares on Wednesday to interview at least three witnesses about the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

One witness, Greg Hicks — the embassy’s No. 2 official — has said everybody knew the bloodbath, which ended in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, was a terrorist attack.

This despite the White House initially claiming it was an impromptu protest against a blasphemous YouTube video. Read more from this story HERE.

Benghazi Witnesses: Obama Admin. Let Americans Die for Politics

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: AFP/Getty ImagesBy Oren Dorell. Testimony from three State Department “whistleblowers” scheduled to appear at a hearing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday will show that politics played a role from the start in the government’s handling of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, a Republican lawmaker says.

The hearing will explore why the State Department never activated its Foreign Emergency Support Team, a unit made up of security and intelligence professionals who specialize in responding to crises, said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.

Chaffetz believes the reason is that activating the team, whose members have connections to the CIA and the military, would have labeled the attack “a terrorist activity,” which then-secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department did not want to do.

“They didn’t want the political label of a terrorist attack,” said Chaffetz, who heads the national security subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding Wednesday’s hearing.

“Early on in this fight these people made a critical bad decision in that they did not activate these people simply because they were afraid it would be labeled as terrorism. It was pure politics.” Read more from this story HERE.

Benghazi Whistle-Blower Witnesses are “Terrified” of State Department

By Cheryl K. Chumley. Rep. Jason Chaffetz said the witnesses who are due to testify on Benghazi, Libya, on Wednesday have been intimidated by the Obama administration to such degree that they’re terrified.

“There are people who want to testify that have been suppressed,” he said, during a Fox News appearance on Sunday. “They’re scared to death of what the State Department is doing with them.” Read more from this story HERE.

Video: Liberal Democrat Agrees that Obama’s Benghazi Talking Points Were False

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: YouTubeFox News Chris Wallace: I want to talk to you about a controversy, a continuing controversy, about the talking points that came out afterwards that led, some people say, to a lot of disinformation. These were the talking points the administration put out after the attack. Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard reports that the first draft by the CIA on September 14th said this: “The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” This was the first draft of talking points from the CIA on September 14th. But after objections from State and after the White House had a meeting, you can see the talking points — and it’s a little hard to see there on the screen — there were lots of lines drawn though them. They were heavily edited. And all mention of the Islamic extremists were taken out. Congressman Lynch, weren’t the talking points the administration put out in advance of Susan Rice’s appearance on those five Sunday shows, weren’t those talking points scrubbed?

Rep. Lynch: They certainly weren’t accurate. I don’t know what the process was there. But absolutely. They were false. They were wrong. There were no protests outside the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there. So any statement that this was sort of like the you know the other protests in Cairo and other embassies, this was not that type of attack.

Benghazi Witness: US Military Response Could Have ‘Scared’ Off Attackers, Prevented Mortar Strike

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: TheBusyBrainThe U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed, a top diplomatic official who was in Benghazi during the Sept. 11 assault told congressional investigators.

The account, contained in a transcript obtained by Fox News, was given by Gregory Hicks during an interview last month with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, a whistle-blower who is preparing to testify Wednesday before that committee, was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed that night, he became the highest-ranking diplomat on the ground.

Hicks, in his interview, argued that after the first wave of attacks on the U.S. consulate, the U.S. military could have prevented additional violence with a quickly scrambled flight — after the first wave, terrorists would go on to launch a pre-dawn mortar assault on the CIA annex.

“And so, in my personal opinion, a fast-mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night,” Hicks said, according to the transcript…

“I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split,” he said. “They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Benghazi Investigation May Turn Into Impeachment Proceedings, if House Believes Whistle-Blowers

/122 Comments/in , /by

The news from the Benghazi whistle-blowers is starting to create the type of firestorm that could spell the beginning of the end of the Obama Administration.

Among the shocking revelations from Rep. Darrell Issa on Face the Nation this weekend, Gregory Hicks, the senior Foreign Service Official at the US embassy in Tripoli, stated that Ambassador Stevens called and told him personally that they were under attack, NOT under siege by demonstrators.

Hicks insisted that he knew from the beginning that the attack was a terrorist attack and he “reported an attack on the consulate.”

And Hicks wasn’t the only one. According to CBS, embassy personnel repeatedly asked,

“Send reinforcements!”

But they were told immediate help wasn’t available.

Embassy personnel say they repeatedly asked the Defense Attache on site in Tripoli for military assistance.

“Isn’t there anything available?” one Embassy official says he asked. “But the answer was ‘no.'”

“What about Aviano?” the official pressed, referencing the NATO air base with US assets in northeastern Italy. “No,” was the answer.

The whistle-blowers that came forward with these firsthand accounts continue to be exposed to intimidation and “threats of retaliation.”

Americans are getting sick and tired of this Administration’s lies, whether they’re about the supposed Benghazi reaction to a stupid YouTube video, or the lies told in an attempt to cover-up Obama’s and Hillary’s responsibility for the fiasco.

So let’s hope the truth comes out in this week’s hearings. Assuming the testimony is consistent with what we’ve heard from the whistle-blowers so far, the House should seriously consider impeachment proceedings. Any president that consciously turns his back on Americans in conflict, when he has available resources and no national security reason to remain passive, must be held to the highest account.

Retired FBI Counter-Terrorism Agent Confirms NSA Whistle-Blowers: Feds are Recording All Cell Phone Conversations (+videos)

/0 Comments/in , /by

During an interview with CNN this past week, a retired FBI counter-terrorism agent let it slip that the U.S. government is recording all cell phone conversations.

The interview concerned the FBI’s investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s widow, Katherine Russell, and what, if anything, she knew about the Boston Marathon bombings. The CNN panel speculated on the FBI’s efforts to determine if Russell were a part of the conspiracy.

The CNN host, Erin Burnett, thinking that the feds could gain access to Russell’s old voice mails but couldn’t actually listen to her old phone calls, observed, “there’s no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them.”

The former agent, Tim Clemente, disagreed:

No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

Burnett knew immediately that Clemente was referring to Russell’s old phone calls and asked incredulously, ” So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.”

Clemente answered, “No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.”

The former counter-terrorism agent’s revelation is not the first time former federal officials have admitted that Washington is engaged in extensive warrantless surveillance of all US citizens. This past fall, NSA whistle-blower William Binney, a 32-year veteran of the NSA was widely interviewed about his work that allowed federal agencies to conduct near-universal surveillance of digital communications.

In his interviews, Mr. Binney voiced sincere regret for his contribution to this Orwellian eavesdropping program, noting that he intended it for use internationally, not domestically:

Additionally, in a federal court case several weeks ago, the FBI admitted to the use of another warrantless tool that selectively targeted cell phone conversations and revealed the participants’ locations.

And Congress seems to be going right along with it. In March, experts testified before the House arguing that federal law should be changed to explicitly permit the permanent storage of virtually all of Americans’ text messages and emails.

When considering this along with the existing federal ability to track almost all credit card transactions and banking transactions, the aggressive IRS efforts to track everyone’s “digital footprints,” and many other warrantless federal intrusions into our privacy, all liberty-loving Americans should demand that their elected leaders reign in the massive surveillance state.

We have little time to turn this around. The enormous, unlawful power that the central government is accumulating is a real threat to the constitutional freedoms entrusted to us by our Founders.

Issa: Obama Benghazi Cover-up was for Political, not Classified Reasons

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: NewsmaxRep. Darrell Issa of California charged on Sunday that the Obama administration made a political decision to deny that terrorists were responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

“We can’t find a classified reason for it. We can’t find a diplomatic reason for it,” said the Republican, appearing on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will begin hearings on Wednesday to find out whether there was a cover-up by the Obama administration of the attack that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Gregory Hicks, who was second in command at the Benghazi mission, will testify along with Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, and Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya.

“I thought is was a terrorist attack from the get-go,” Hicks was quoted as telling investigators. “I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.”

Read more from this story HERE.