Tag: HIllary Clinton

Declassified Documents Prove That Obama Knew the Truth About Benghazi As It Happened.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

BenghaziWhiteHouseOn September 11, 2012, 4 brave Americans, including US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stephens, were savagely murdered on the grounds of the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi.

On September 25, 2012, United States President Barack Hussein Obama, appeared before the United Nations General Assembly, to address the circumstances of the massacre. Here are the words he spoke, before representatives of the entire world:

…At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

…The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shia pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies. That’s the vision we will support.

When he gave this speech, in front of representatives of countries all over the world, Obama already knew that the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods were committed by Muslim Terrorists…members of al Qaeda.

Let that sink in for a moment.

The Leader of the Free World LIED.

Last night, James Rosen of Fox News reported that

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing — occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.

According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham — who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 — said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.

“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,'” Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.”

Ham’s account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under “Top Secret” clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America’s national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.

Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous “happenstance” that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.” Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.

Armed Services Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee’s hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.

…”In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta,” McKeon asked, “was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?” Ham initially testified that there was some “peripheral” discussion of this subject, but added “at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for.”

…The day after the attacks, which marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since 1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show “The View,” when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been “an act of terrorism,” the president hedged, saying: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation.”

The declassified transcripts show that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to label the incident a terrorist attack.

Remember when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, last January, one month after being called?

Senator Ron Johnson interrogated her about the administration’s conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11th attack.

She rudely replied,

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 decided to 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.

Right off-hand, Hil, I can think of a way to ensure that the Dereliction of Duty and downright treasonous non-action which took place in the White House on the night of September 11, 2012, will never be repeated.

And, I quote:

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.

The President of the United States and his Administration intentionally lied about the murders of American citizens to further their own Political/Religious Ideology and Political Machinations.

And, for this, both Obama and his Administration, who are supposed to be working for us, need to answer to us for their Dereliction of Duty and the sacrificing of 4 Brave Americans for Political Expediency.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Former Secretary of Defense Gates Spills the Beans About America’s Prevaricator-In-Chief

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

ObamalyingThe hottest story in the News today revolves around the revealing White House Insider Information from a soon-to-be published memoir by Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

To set up these stunning revelations properly, let’s hop in the Wayback machine, Sherman,so that we can ponder the words of a rising young wunderkind…a certain Democrat Senator from the great state of Illinois…

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

– then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., January 10 2007, discussing then-President Bush’s proposal for a surge of troops in Iraq

Today, 1518 days after it began, the war in Iraq rages on, with no sign of a resolution. The Iraqi people appear no closer to the settling their differences. The Iraqi government is more divided and dysfunctional than ever. The Iraqi parliament speaks of adjourning for the summer, without addressing the major issues standing in the way of a ceasefire. And our brave young servicemen and women are still fighting and dying to police someone else’s civil war… In January, I introduced a plan that already would have begun redeploying our troops out of Iraq, with the goal of removing all of our combat troops by March 31. But it also would offer enough flexibility to delay our exit in the event that the Iraqis responded with meaningful steps toward peace. I still believe in that approach, which the President vetoed earlier this month. Ultimately, I think it will become the framework for a bipartisan coalition the President can’t resist.

Today, I have reintroduced that plan.

Tomorrow, I expect cloture votes on two other proposals. One is the Reid-Feingold plan, which would begin a withdrawal of troops in 120 days and end all combat operations on April 1. The other is Senator Levin’s proposal, which would create standards and benchmarks for additional funding.

I will support both, not because I believe either is the best answer, but because I want to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the President and my Republican colleagues that it’s long past time to change course.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue to press for my own plan, and work to find the 16 votes in the Senate to pass it with a veto-proof majority and bring our troops home quickly, safely and responsibly.

– Statement of Sen. Obama on May 15, 2007, before voting to withdrawal US combat troops from Iraq within four months, with all troops gone by March 31, 2008

The surge is not working.

– Obama for American website changed in July 2008

Now, I’m certain that Sen. Obama gathered all the pertinent facts about the proposed surge before he made those statements, aren’t you?

Are you kiddin’?

Dailymail.co.uk reports that

Hillary Rodham Clinton, a likely Democratic Party standard-bearer in the 2016 presidential contest, staked out her military-related positions in the 2008 race based on how they would play politically, according to a former secretary of defense who served in both the Obama and Bush administrations.

Describing a ‘remarkable’ exchange he witnessed, Robert Gates writes in a book due out next week that ‘Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary.’

Obama, too, ‘conceded vaguely that [his] opposition to the Iraq surge had been political,’ Gates recounts. ‘To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.’

And Gates recounts how, as the president lost faith in Gen. David Petraeus’s handling of hostilities in Afghanistan, he – Gates – lost faith in Obama’s commitment to accomplishing much of anything.

‘As I sat there,’ he recalls, ‘I thought: The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand [President Hamid] Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy and doesn’t consider the war to be his.’

‘For him, it’s all about getting out.’

Hillary Clinton staked out her Iraq policy in late 2006 not on a military calculation, but based on how she could aid her soon-to-come presidential campaign, according to Gates’ memoir.

Gates puts on paper his reflections about Obama’s own troop surge, a move of 30,000 armed personnel into Afghanistan meant to stabilize the country in advance of a final all-out troop withdrawal.

The commander-in-chief, he says, was ‘skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail.’

‘I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops,’ Gates insists, ‘only his support for their mission.’

Ultimately, Gates nearly quit over Obama’s hand-wringing about Afghanistan, he writes.

The Bush administration hold-over reveals in his memoir that he was ‘deeply uneasy with the Obama White House’s lack of appreciation – from the top down – of the uncertainties and unpredictability of war.’

Describing a contentious day when Obama evaluated his Afghanistan strategy, Gates recalls: ‘I came closer to resigning that day than at any other time in my tenure, though no one knew it.’

Mrs. Clinton’s cameo in the book is more brief but equally damning.

While a U.S. senator and former first lady, she announced in the days leading up to her entry in the 2008 White House race that that she opposed the George W. Bush administration’s ‘surge’ of 20,000 troops in Iraq. 

At the time, she proposed a freeze in the number of active military troops there, and suggested instead that more U.S. forces should be sent to Afghanistan to protect against a feared Taliban offensive. 

In late 2006, nearly two years before the Democrats’ nominating convention, Clinton could not afford to be seen as hawkish when other Democrats – especially Obama, her presumed principal opponent – were blaming President Bush for putting ever-more boots on the ground in the Middle East.

In the Senate, she had voted in favor of an October 2002 use-of-force resolution that put the United States on war footing against Iraq, following allegations that the dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

So, Obama, a Former Collegiate Protester and Far Left Radical, can’t stand our Brightest and Best.

I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

The feeling is mutual. Back on October 23rd, 2013, theblaze.com reported that

Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is underway.

Retired generals and current senior commanders that have spoken with TheBlaze say the administration is not only purging the military of commanders they don’t agree with, but is striking fear in the hearts of those still serving.

The timing comes as the five branches of the U.S. armed forces are reducing staff due to budget cuts, and as U.S. troops are expected to withdraw from Afghanistan next year.

“I think they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or not tow the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis,” a senior retired general told TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution.

“Even as a retired general, it’s still possible for the administration to make life miserable for us. If we’re working with the government or have contracts, they can just rip that out from under us,” he said.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, said the White House fails to take action or investigate its own, but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into fast and furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

I don’t know why the Major General is so concerned. I’m sure that Obama’s firing of America’s Military Leadership was nothing personal.

Like his opposition to the Iraq Surge…it was strictly political.

Now…doesn’t that make everyone feel better? …And, safer?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Secretary of State John Kerry Visits Vietnam to Talk…About Climate Change. This is “Smart Power?”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

johnkerrycartoonSecretary of State John F. Kerry has returned to Vietnam. No, it’s not to negotiate or leverage some sort of accords which would strengthen the defense of our country. Oh, no. It’s much more important than that. Sec. Kerry has returned to the scene of his “heroism” to address the “problem of Climate Change”.

Yahoo News reports that

It is the first time that Kerry has returned to the Mekong since 1968 when he served as a young U.S. naval officer in Vietnam battling Viet Cong guerillas in a conflict that earned him three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star.

“It is obviously amazing for me to be here today,” Kerry told students gathered on the banks of the Cai Nuoc river. “Decades ago, on these very waters, I was one of many who witnessed the difficult period in our shared history,” he said.

“Today on these waters I am bearing witness to how far our nations have come together and we are talking about the future. That is the way it ought to be,” he said. “As our shared journey continues, our eyes are firmly fixed on the future and not on the past.”

Dressed in casual khaki-green trousers, a blue-checked shirt and wearing sunglasses, Kerry is surrounded by aides and other officials on the boat but he is mostly quiet and introspective.

“It hasn’t changed all that much,” Kerry remarks at one point during the tour. The familiar smell of burning firewood in the air coming from villages takes him back to his time on the river.

At the small riverside community of Kien Vang, translated roughly as “the golden ant”, Kerry stops to take a walk, visiting a small convenience store where he buys candy for the local children. There he pets a dog and is reminded of a mutt he adopted while serving in Vietnam he named “VC” – short for Viet Cong.

Here he also inquires from Dang Kieu Nhan, deputy director of the Mekong Delta Development Research Institute, about water levels and how possible changes in water flows on the river will affect villagers.

His concern is not only the effects of climate change on the Mekong but also plans by China to build four more dams along the Mekong to generate power for its rising economy, projects that will have a disastrous downstream impact on Cambodia and Vietnam, according to environmental specialists.

In addition Laos is also proposing to build hydropower plants on the Mekong, while Cambodia has plants for two dams on the river.

Across the canal, Kerry addresses these developments in a speech to the students, while also pledging $17 million to a program to address the impact from potential climate changes.

“No one country has the right to deprive another country of the livelihood and eco-system and its capacity for life itself that comes with that river,” Kerry says.

“That river is a global asset, a treasure that belongs to the region, and so it is vital that we avoid dramatic changes in the water flow and sediment levels. Already we are seeing fisheries are experiencing threats to the fish stocks as a consequence of the changes taking place,” he adds.

Kerry says he will raise the issue when he next visits China “so that we can work together on it in an effective way.”

While the Main Stream Media and the rest of the Liberals are portraying Sec. Kerry as some sore of conquering hero returning to the scene of his past triumphs, there is a part of Kerry’s “Vietnam Experience” that they avoid talking about. And for good reason.

On September 19, 2005, Fox News  reported

John Kerry’s opposition to the Vietnam War led him to many places, including Paris, where he met with the North Vietnamese in 1970. Kerry said then, and says now, that the meeting was a part of an effort to learn more about U.S. POWs. But some question the propriety of a commissioned Naval officer meeting with the enemy at a time of war.

When Kerry testified before the Senate in 1971, he pushed for an immediate, unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces. If that happened, he said he knew the North Vietnamese would return all U.S. POWs.

“I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government,” Kerry said.

Kerry referred to an eight-point withdrawal plan that was offered to the U.S. by Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, then-foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government. While on his honeymoon in Paris with his first wife Julia Thorne, Kerry met with Madame Binh at a meeting that included members of both delegations to the peace talks, according to Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan.

Explaining Kerry’s trip, Meehan said in a statement, “Senator Kerry had no role whatsoever in the Paris peace talks or negotiations. He did not engage in any negotiations and did not attend any session of the talks. Prior to his Senate testimony, he went to Paris on a private trip, where he had one brief meeting with Madame Binh and others. In an effort to find facts, he learned the status of the peace talks from their point of view and about any progress in resolving the conflict, particularly as it related to the fate of the POWs.”

Kerry’s meeting with Binh occurred while he remained a commissioned officer with the U.S. Navy. Kerry was, by then, a member of the Navy Reserve and not on active duty.

“We’ve had presidents who have served in the military. We’ve had presidents who have never served in the military. But we’ve never had an American president who met with the enemy in a time of war while a naval officer in reserve status. Inconceivable,” said John O’Neill, a key member of the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (search).

Some critics have suggested Kerry’s meeting might have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice (search), which prohibits members of the armed services from meeting with the enemy at a time of war. Meehan told FOX News the code of military justice did not apply to inactive reserve officers and that Kerry “did nothing wrong.” Meehan also said that Kerry met with the North Vietnamese only once.

But historian Gerald Nicosia has written that Kerry met with the North Vietnamese twice.

Citing redacted FBI files, Nicosia said, “The files record that Kerry made a second trip to Paris that summer to learn how the North Vietnamese might release prisoners.”

Nicosia told FOX News that the FBI files contained a newspaper clipping about a speech Kerry gave in August 1971 saying that he had just returned from a Paris meeting with the North Vietnamese. Nicosia told FOX he discussed the article with Kerry’s authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, who told him that Kerry had confirmed he’d met with the Vietnamese in 1970 and 1971.

How Obama and Congress could have put this Lightweight in such a powerful position, boggles the mind. Of course, this same bunch thought that an ex-First Lady, with no Foreign Policy experience, in the form of Hillary Clinton, would make an excellent Secretary of State, too.

With a track record behind both of them consisting of Arab Spring, Benghazigate, the Syria Fiasco, and now, the Internationally -panned Iranian Agreement, as far as the position of Secretary of State is concerned, we’ve gone from Tokyo Rose to a combination of Benedict Arnold and Pee Wee Herman.

Kerry didn’t return to the scene of his war victories, He just went there to visit his “buds”.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Benghazigate: Stinger Missiles Given to al-Queda? General Ham Told to Stand Down?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

benghazigate cartoon 5813On the night of September 11, 2012, the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and overrun by Muslim Terrorists, who murdered 4 brave Americans in the process. The Administration’s curious reaction was to blame it on a Youtube video, which no one in the Middle East had ever seen. Eight months later, the truth of that horrible night is finally, slowly being revealed.

A Fox News Poll, released yesterday, shows 62 percent of voters believe that President Barack Hussein Obama could have done more to help the four Americans murdered at the consulate in Benghazi on that horrible night

Even Democrats are about equally likely to say the president could have done more (44 percent) as to say he did all he could (43 percent). Eighty-four percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents think Obama could have done more.

Nearly two-thirds of voters who have served in the military think Obama could have done more.

…Overall, 27 percent think the president did everything he could to help.

…A 60-percent majority says the administration is covering up what happened. That’s more than twice as many as the 28 percent who say the Obama administration is being open and transparent.

Sixty percent of independents and a third of Democrats (33 percent) think the administration is hiding something on Benghazi. Almost all Republicans think so (88 percent).

Who should get more of the blame for what happened in Libya? About equal numbers say Obama should get more of the blame (32 percent) as say former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (31 percent). About one in six volunteers the response “neither” (16 percent) and about one in 10 says “both” are to blame (11 percent).

Republicans are more likely to blame Obama than Clinton by an 18 percentage-point margin. Democrats are more likely to blame Clinton by 12 points. Independents divide the blame evenly (28 percent Clinton, 27 percent Obama).

During Congressional hearings, Clinton was asked about who caused the violence in Benghazi. She answered with her now famous rhetorical question: “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?”

A 56-percent majority disagrees with her. Thirty-three percent of voters agree with Clinton’s assessment.

Voters were also asked why the Obama administration changed the CIA explanation about the attack to remove references to al Qaeda. Half of voters (50 percent) think the administration made the change for political reasons to bolster the president’s campaign claim that al Qaeda was “on the run.” On the other side, 37 percent think the changes were made for security reasons related to the on-going initial investigation.

The administration initially said the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest sparked by a controversial online video. Later the White House acknowledged it was a planned terrorist attack and not a protest or a demonstration.

In general, a 53-percent majority disapproves of how the administration has handled the response to the attack in Benghazi. That includes about one in four Democrats (24 percent disapprove) and over half of independents (54 percent).

About a third of voters (32 percent) approve of the administration’s handling of Benghazi.

Interest in this story is high: 75 percent of voters say they are following news about Benghazi. That includes 35 percent who are following it “very” closely and another 40 percent “somewhat” closely.

According to PJ Media, several whistleblowers will be coming forth shortly, as soon as they have procured legal counsel. They have to, since they work in areas where they are not fully protected by the Whistleblower Law.

Two diplomats relayed this information to PJ Media. and they claim that what these new witnesses will reveal will be more explosive than what we already have learned from the testimony of previous whistleblowers.

The information revealed is supposed to be very damaging to President Obama and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is presently the Democratic Front-runner for their Presidential Nomination in 2016.

These new revelations are supposed to reveal that Amb. Chris Stevens was in Benghazi to buy back Stinger missiles from the Libyan Rebels , which our idiot State Department, headed by Mrs. Clinton, sold to them.

Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

The other part of the revelations will involve pressure which was put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

An article by John Griffing,  published on AmericanThinker.com, on November 17, 2012, reported that

…Already uncovered in the [Benghazi] controversy is how there had been pleas for more security for the Americans in that location, how forces who were nearby could have responded, and how there were orders stopping that from happening.

It is within this context that questions are being asked about the scheduled replacement of General Ham, head of Africom, only a few years before his mandatory retirement date, especially since his replacement occurred so close to the consulate attacks. Africom is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. This command encompasses all of Africa and its adjacent waters except for Egypt.

It is notable that Ham is to be removed from a post with a three-year rotation after only one and a half years.

When announcing Ham’s replacement, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta praised Ham’s service. A report from the department said leaders remain “fully confident” in Ham’s performance.

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said that Ham “has the full confidence of the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” Little attributed the change to Ham’s “decision to retire,” which he described as “an entirely personal decision.”

Officials have denied there were other reasons for the change. “Gen. Ham’s departure is part of routine succession planning that has been ongoing since July,” said a government statement.

So…where did the “pressure” on Gen. Ham come from? 

My guess? The top of the Food Chain.

In the wake of Fast and Furious, the White House could scarcely afford another gun-running scandal.

Only, this would be worse. Stinger Missiles???!!! People who are supposed to be looking out for US, gave a bunch of Muslims Terrorists Stinger Missiles? What if some of those “toys” found their way back to America? Can you even imagine what kind of destruction Muslim Terrorists could achieve with those things?

What the He!! were Obama and Clinton thinking? Are they both that cotton-pickin’ stupid and naive?

Ambassador Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, and Glen Doherty would probably answer with a resounding “Yes!!!”…if they could.

Stay tuned. The revelations are only going to get worse. 

Until He Comes,

KJ

Little White Lies, Bald-Faced Lies, and Benghazi

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

jay carney 2I was going to start today’s post with some sort of pithy quotation, like “The best-laid plans of mice and men…” or “Oh, what a tangled web we weave…”, but trite quotations seem woefully ineffective in describing what America witnessed yesterday, starting with “Good Morning, America” on ABC and culminating with a Daily Press Briefing which was an amazing spectacle in which the Liberal Main Street Media turned on the hand which fed them Talking Points.

Yesterday morning, Jonathan Karl reported for ABC News that,

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

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

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

…The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.

If Fox news had reported this, it would have gone unnoticed by the MSM. However, since it was one of their own who broke the story, they were forced to actually begin to cover this Muslim Terrorist Attack, which they had assisted the Administration in covering up, for months.

Before the before-mentioned Daily Press Briefing, which was delayed until late Friday afternoon, the Administration held a “Deep Background” meeting with 14 selected members of the Press Corps.

“Deep Background” means that the info presented by those who brief the Press can be used in reporting but the briefers can’t be quoted.

Can you say “Talking Points”? Sure you can.

Well..that little confab didn’t seem to help Benghazi Jay a whole heck of a lot during the Press Briefing. The way the members of the Fourth Estate attacked him was reminiscent of a sick, old gnu being savaged by a pride of lions on the Serengeti Plains.

It was both brutal and fascinating at the same time.

The survival instincts of the reporters drove them to actually resemble professional journalists for the first time in many of their careers.

Benghazi Jay Carney ineffectively attempted to defend his boss and the rest of the Administration, seemingly recycling every single lie that Obama and his minions have ever told about that horrible night at the American Embassy Compound in Benghazi.

And, yesterday, he threw in some new ones, which made him appear to be holding a shovel in both hands, digging a hole in which to bury the Obama Administration…a hole of their own making.

The imbecilic excuse for a Presidential Press Secretary actually had the nerve to try and attack failed Republican Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, whom, he claimed “put out a press release to try and take political advantage of these deaths.”

Carney quickly corrected himself: “Of the attack in Benghazi.”

Carney also insisted, over and over again, that the CIA was solely responsible for the editing of those emails, which took out all references to al Queda and Muslim Terrorists.

And, of course, he blamed Republicans, over and over again, for  “politicizing” this “tragedy”.

Speaking of  “politicizing”…

On September 25, 2012, appearing before the United Nations General Assembly, United States of America President Barack Hussein Obama said,

In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims.

When he gave this speech, in front of representative of countries all over the world, Obama already knew that the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods were committed by members of al Queda.

Let that sink in a moment.

The President of the United States intentionally lied about the murders of American citizens to further hia own Political/Religious Ideology and Political Machinations.

And, for this, both He and His Administration, who are supposed to be working for us, need to answer to us for their Dereliction of Duty and the sacrificing of 4 Brave Americans for Political Expediency.

Until He Comes,

KJ

.

The Benghazi Hearings: The Media Should Be Ashamed of Themselves

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

benghazigate cartoon 5813While I was at work yesterday, I was also keeping up with the House Oversight Committee Hearings concerning the murder of 4 brave Americans at the Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012 by Barbaric Muslim Terrorists.

Here in America’s Heartland, the general consensus is that the witnesses who appeared yesterday are brave men in their own right, for coming forth.

The day definitely went to the House Republicans, who asked all the right questions, while their Democrat Colleagues came off looking like a bunch of braying jackasses.

Besides the political chicanery which was revealed yesterday involving Secretary of State Clinton and her lawyer, Ms. Mills, the other big story of the day was the intentional Main Stream Media Blackout of the Hearings themselves…a blatant attempt to keep the American public from learning the truth of that terrible day.

Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook Page yesterday,

Is there any wonder why distrust of arrogant, out-of-touch media is at an all-time high? During today’s Benghazi hearings, the Washington Post actually tweeted: “Who’s tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers.” This would be the same Washington Post that broke the story on Watergate. Now they just mock concerned Americans who want answers to why four brave Americans died, including two distinguished vets. And the Obama administration asks, “What does it matter?”

As I have related in the past, I took some Journalism courses in college, to go along with my major in Radio, TV, and Film.

In a course in Broadcast Journalism, I received the top grade in both classes, which my instructor taught, on an investigative research project. In the middle of the Iranian Hostage crisis, I found out that the Black Radical, Stokely Carmichael, whom the Black Student Association was bringing in to speak, had been brought in two years previously by the Iranian Student Association. That instructor, by the way, was a former CBS News Writer/Producer.

It’s funny, though. I remember this guy cautioning us to remain objective in our reporting.

Ironic, considering CBS News’ blackout of the Hearings, yesterday.

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio program:

…here we are months and months later. We have career diplomats choking up, retelling a story that was of no interest to their commander-in-chief, no interest to the secretary of state, who did nothing to help these people. In fact, the next day the commander-in-chief gets up — after being out of touch for five or seven hours, nobody knew where he was — and he jets off to Las Vegas.

These are people that battled terrorists on the battlefield, at our consulate. They got nothing from the guy who put ’em in harm’s way, and now they’re up telling the story. Their testimony, so far, is unfiltered and uninterrupted. It’s powerful, it’s devastating, it’s tragic. Then the Democrats get hold of it after they finish and do their best to discount it, discredit it. But after watching a little bit of this, I understand why some Democrats are worried about this.

If the media picked up on this and actually made this a cause like they did Watergate, it would be a whole different dynamic. I can’t forget Hillary telling those people in that hangar — wherever it was, Dover, Andrews Air Force Base — when the bodies came back, over the flag-draped coffins, “We’ll get the guy who did that video.” She was straight-face lying to them about why their family members died.

“We’ll get the guy in the video.”

We live in an upside-down world, folks. We really do.

…Nobody cares about any of this stuff but us. In fact, we are being called purists and problematic because we care about this because we are being so rigid, we’re making it impossible for people to see that the Republicans are flexible and adaptable and all that. We are making it impossible for the Republicans to ever win. Because we care about this. This is insignificant. This doesn’t matter. Nobody cares about this. Other than the families, other than the witnesses, other than the Republicans on the committee and five or six other people, nobody cares about it. We live in an upside down world. The challenge we all have here, folks, is staying emotionally and physically well in the middle of all this, because we live in a world where nothing makes any sense, and where it appears that everything that was the glue that held this country together is vanishing.

While I believe Rush is right, as he usually is, I also believe that, just like the Gosnell Case, if we average Americans holler loud and long enough, eventually the Main Stream Media will HAVE to cover the story.

The problem is, of course, the Liberals own and operate the Main Stream Media. So, therefore, their attitude toward covering the Hearings is to minimize their importance, just as the rest of their Liberal brethren, in our nation’s capital, are trying to do.

Lt. Col. Allen West, as he is wont to do, summed up the Obama Administration’s deflection and obfuscation of Benghazigate quite nicely,

I’ve been watching the Benghazi hearings and just find it amazing that we even have to have a hearing on something so blatantly clear. This was a terrorist attack that we were told was about a video and we hung Americans out to die. Yet, no one is responsible, just move along, nothing to see here, wasting time. This had nothing to do with funding, it had everything to do with failure….oh, what the heck, let’s all just go to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Jim Morrison, the lead singer of the 60s iconic rock band, the Doors, once said,

Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.

In 2013 America, Liberals have control of our Media…and that’s why we have so many Low Information Voters.

The Main Stream Media’s Journalistic Mission is to perpetuate the blissful ignorance of the low information voters in order to protect the Liberal President of the United States.

And, for that chilling fact, which led to yesterday’s blackout of the Benghazi Hearings, they should be truly ashamed.

But, being shameless, hive-mind Liberals, they aren’t.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Benghazi Hearings: A Search for Responsibility

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

LibyanembassybloodThis is it. Make no mistake where you are. This is it. You’re going no further.

Kenny Loggins wrote those words a long time ago. Never have they been more appropriate than today, the first day of the Benghazi Hearing, presented by the House Oversight Committee.

Jim Geraghty of nationalreview.com has some advice for those holding the hearings:

Dear Republicans on the House Oversight Committee:

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

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

Going back through the Blogs I have written about Benghazigate, a mutlitude of answers remain to be given by this Administration.

Back on November 1, 2012, in a post titled, “BenghaziGate: A Matter of Transparency”, I reported that

On September 11, 2012, 4 brave Americans, including our Ambassador, were murdered on the grounds of the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. As I wrote the other day, answers are still being sought , and America’s President “ain’t saying a mumblin’ word.”

Perhaps, that is because his present actions are in direct opposition to what he promised upon taking office.

From whitehouse.gov, “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government”

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public…

As Americans have figured out by now, all of Obama’s promises come with expiration dates.

Jake Tapper of CNN,  yesterday, interviewed Pat Smith, whose son Sean Smith, a State Department information officer, was one of four Americans killed during the attack.

JAKE TAPPER: One woman still looking for answers is Pat Smith. Her son, State Department Information Officer Sean 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?

PAT SMITH, MOTHER OF SEAN SMITH, KILLED IN BENGHAZI: Terrible. I cry every night. I don’t sleep at night. I need answers.

TAPPER: What do you want answers to? What do you not know?

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.

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

SMITH: Yes, it did.

TAPPER: Eight months ago.

SMITH: Yes.

TAPPER: What is your reaction to that?

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.

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?

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.

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.

SMITH: Yes.

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?

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.

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.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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 CLIP)

TAPPER: What was your reaction to that?

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.

TAPPER: You blame Secretary of State Clinton.

SMITH: Yes.

TAPPER: Why?

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?

Good question, ma’am.

And, where was her boss, President Barack Hussein Obama?

Like Pontius Pilate, he washed his hands of the matter.

And, he, Former Secretary of State Clinton, and his entire Administration are a bunch of liars, and are guilty of Dereliction of Duty, at best, and, Treason, at worst…all for the sake of political expediency.

Period.

From the order given to “Stand Down” on that horrible night,  to the sending of Susan Rice out to the media sources to spread the blatant lie that an un-watched Youtube Video caused the murderous barbarians to attack on the 11th anniversary of the largest Muslim Terrorist attack ever perpetrated on American Soil, Obama and his minions did nothing but lie to the American people.

As I originally wrote on November 1, 2012,

This is not going away anytime soon.The American public wants some answers.

Ambassador Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith remain unavailable for comment.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Benghazigate: It’s Time for the Truth

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

benghazigate2The long-awaited hearings at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about the Benghazi terror attack of September 11, 2012,finally begin tomorrow. The mission of the Democrats will be to protect Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at all costs, because, at least for now, she is the front-runner to be their 2016 Presidential Candidate.

One of the witnesses is going to state that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making.

That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau.

… Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.

Another witness who will testify against Ms. Clinton is Gregory Hicks, the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya.

According to Hicks…

I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.

The Libyan military agreed to fly their C‑130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements. Because we at that time — at that time, the third attack, the mortar attack at 5:15, had not yet occurred, if I remember correctly.

So Lieutenant Colonel Gibson, who is the SOCAFRICA commander, his team, you know, they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C‑130 when he got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, you can’t go now, you don’t have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight.

They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it. So, anyway, and yeah. I still remember Colonel Gibson, he said, ‘I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.’ A nice compliment.

Q: What was the rationale that you were given that they couldn’t go, ultimately?

Hicks: I guess they just didn’t have the right authority from the right level.”

Regarding Susan Rice’s lies, among them, blaming a Terrorist attack on an unwatched Youtube Video, when Obama and Hillary trotted her out on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows, Hicks remarked…

I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day.

My jaw hit the floor as I watched this.

According to the man who was ultimately responsible for the safety of those 4 murdered Americans, President Barack Hussein Obama, who was interviewed by his fan club at Morning Joe on the seldom-watched cable News channel, MSNBC, on the morning of October 29, 2013:

Anytime a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans who were serving our country get killed, we have to figure out what happened and fix it. But I do take offense with some suggestion that in any way, we haven’t tried to make sure that the American people knew as the information was coming in what we believed.

Pamtelones en fumar!

Obama was all over the place that day, attempting to put out the fire of Benghazigate, that was threatening his re-election, as Foxnews.com summarizes for us:

President Obama declined to answer directly whether a CIA annex was denied urgent requests for military assistance during the deadly attacks last month on U.S. outposts in Libya.

The president did not give a yes-or-no answer Friday when asked pointedly whether the Americans under attack in Benghazi, Libya, were denied requests for help during the attack.

Fox News has also learned that a request from the CIA annex for backup was later denied.

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

When asked again, Obama said, “The minute I found out what was going on, I gave three very clear directives — Number 1, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”

According to Breitbart.com:

Lt. Col. Tony Schafer told Fox News that sources were telling him that the President was watching the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in real-time. Schafer told Fox that “only the President” could have ordered backup for the Americans who were under siege by terrorists so the President was most certainly informed of the situation as it was unfolding. “I hate to say this,” Schafer said, “according to my sources, yes, [the President] was one of those in the White House situation room in real-time watching this. And the question becomes, ‘What did the President do or not do in the moments he saw this unveiling?’ He — only he — could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something.”

And, in a related story from abcnews.go.com:

In an unusual move, the Navy has replaced an admiral commanding an aircraft carrier strike group while it is deployed to the Middle East. The replacement was prompted by an Inspector General’s investigation of allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.

Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group, is being returned to the United States for temporary reassignment.

In a statement the Navy said it had approved a request made by Vice Adm. John W. Miller, the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, to temporarily reassign Gaouette “pending the results of an investigation by the Navy Inspector General.”

The statement said Gaoutte would return to the carrier’s home port of Bremerton, Washington.

A Navy official familiar with the circumstances of the investigation said it involved allegations of “inappropriate leadership judgment” and stressed it was not related to personal conduct.

Uh huh.

Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, one of those brave Americans killed on 9/11/12, said, during an interview on Fox News:

This news that he disobeyed his orders does not surprise me. My son was an American hero, and he had the moral strength to do what was right … even if it would have professionally cost him his job, even if it would have cost him his life.

…The reason I’m speaking out right now is that after the facts came out that the White House […] watched my son and denied his pleas for help, my son violated his orders to protect the lives of at least 30 people. He risked his life to be a hero; I wish the leadership in the White House had the same level of moral courage that my son displayed.

Indeed, Mr. Woods. Indeed.

This week, we will see whether the Leader of the Free World will throw his Former Secretary of State under his now world-famous bus, as he apparently did those 4 brave Americans on that horrible night of September 11, 2012.

It will not surprise anyone if he does.

Harry S. Truman had a plaque on his desk which read,

The Buck Stops Here.

President Barack Hussein Obama has one on his desk, which reads, 

It’s Not My Fault.

Obama and Clinton AWOL on 9/11/12…While Americans Were Murdered.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

BenghaziGate3Yesterday, outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, spoke before the Senate on the subject of that horrible night at the Benghazi Consulate, where 4 Americans, including our Ambassador, were savagely murdered.

The Weekly Standard reports

Panetta said that Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under seize, “up to us.”

In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Panetta said that, save their 5 o’clock prescheduled meeting with the president the day of September 11, Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that day. There were no calls about the what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.

Neither the secretary of defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to the secretary of state during the 8-hour attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey, “In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what converations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?”

“We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton,” Panetta responded.

But, wait…there is even more gross incompetency…

             General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the State Department never requested “support” in Benghazi:

“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 iterrupted, “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.

“And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?” Cruz asked. Dempsey confirmed this.

Back on November 1, 2012, in a post titled, “BenghaziGate: A Matter of Transparency”, I reported that

On September 11, 2012, 4 brave Americans, including our Ambassador, were murdered on the grounds of the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. As I wrote the other day, answers are still being sought , and America’s President “ain’t saying a mumblin’ word.”

Perhaps, that is because his present actions are in direct opposition to what he promised upon taking office.

From whitehouse.gov, “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government”

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public…

As Americans have figured out by now, all of Obama’s promises come with expiration dates.

The Weekly Standard reports:

Seven weeks later, the White House still hasn’t explained what President Obama did and didn’t do during the seven hours of the attack on Benghazi on September 11. And there’s been no response from the White House to questions asked by senators or THE WEEKLY STANDARD or David Ignatius in the Washington Post.

We have, to be sure, heard from some government officials. But the information they’ve provided raises still more questions.

CIA director David Petraeus authorized a statement pointedly saying that “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate”—which strongly suggests that Petraeus believes or knows that officials in other parts of the government may have told subordinates “not to help those in need.”

Those could have been officials in the Defense Department. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta seemed to suggest that was the case: “The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place, and as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

Yesterday, we found out why Obama would not say what he was doing during the murder of those Americans.

Like Pontius Pilate, he washed his hands of the matter.

And, he, and his entire Administration are a bunch of liars, and are guilty of Dereliction of Duty, at best, and, Treason, at worst.

Period.

From the order given to “Stand Down” on that horrible night,  to the sending of Susan Rice out to the media sources to spread the blatant lie that an un-watched Youtube Video caused the murderous barbarians to attack on the 11th anniversary of the largest Muslim Terrorist attack ever perpetrated on American Soil, Obama and his minions did nothing but lie to the American people.

As I originally wrote on November 1, 2012,

This is not going away anytime soon.The American public wants some answers.

Ambassador Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith remain unavailable for comment.

Until He Comes,

KJ

“What Difference Does it Make?”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Hillary2One month after being called to testify before a Senate Committee, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally graced them with her presence. To say she showed her hindquarters and prevaricated it off, at the same time,  is being kind.

(But then again, I am a Christian Southern Gentleman.)

James Taranto reports or The Wall Street Journal that

Hillary Clinton is ending her tenure as secretary of state in fiery fashion. “You really get the sense that [Mrs.] Clinton barely managed to restrain herself from dropping an F-bomb there,” remarks New York magazine’s Dan Amira. He refers to an exchange between the secretary and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing this morning.

Johnson pressed her about the administration’s conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the ambassador and three other Americans. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” said the secretary snappishly to the senator. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to 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.”

So it’s “our job to figure out what happened” but it doesn’t make a difference what happened? Huh? What would we do without rhetorical questions? We suppose we’d answer them, as Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin does:

“The answer to her question is clear. An administration that sought, for political purposes, to give the American people the idea that al-Qaeda had been “decimated” and was effectively out of commission had a clear motive during a presidential campaign to mislead the public about Benghazi. The fact that questions are still unanswered about this crime and that Clinton and President Obama seem more interested in burying this story along with the four Americans that died is an outrage that won’t be forgotten.”

Especially if she runs for president in 2016. As we watched this exchange, it occurred to us that Mrs. Clinton was back in a familiar role, and an ironic one for someone who is supposed to be a feminist icon. Once again, she was helping the most powerful man in the world dodge accountability for scandalous behavior.

As I said, she was prevaricating her hindquarters off, because the truth condemns her, President Barack Hussein Obama, and the entire feckless, anti-American Administration.

On October 25th, 2012, contributor Peter Ferrara summarized what actually happened in an Op Ed for Forbes.com:

As the anniversary of 9/11 approached, the Obama Administration should have known that more security was necessary to protect diplomatic missions in the increasingly hostile country, especially on that sensitive date. But they did just the opposite, reducing security. The Wall Street Journal reported on October 10 that the Administration removed a well armed, 16 member, security detail from Libya in August, to be replaced by the Libyan security personnel that Ambassador Stevens had just told them could not be relied upon.

Based on documents released by the House Oversight Committee, the day of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, September 11, the White House situation room starts receiving emails at about 1 pm that the mission is under hostile surveillance. The only response was that the Pentagon sends a drone armed with a video camera so that everyone in Washington can see what transpires in real time, as it happens, at the White House, at the State Department, at the Pentagon, at the CIA.

The drone documents no crowds protesting any video. But at 4 pm Washington receives an email from the Benghazi mission that it is under military style attack. Subject: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The email states,

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

The attack was then fed to all of them, the White House, the Pentagon, the State Dept., the CIA, through live video feed. A later email that day reported, “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” The feed showed no protest of any supposedly offensive You Tube video.

Just one hour flight time away were U.S. Air Force bases that could have been rousted in minutes to send fighter planes and attack helicopters that could have routed the attackers in minutes of fighting. As Investors Business Daily editorialized on October 24, “Within an hour’s flight time from Libya, at the large naval air station in Sigonella, Italy, and at bases in nearby Aviano and Souda Bay, were fighters and AC 130 gunships that can be extremely effective in dispersing crowds or responding to a terrorist assault.” But the order for the rescue never came. Maybe because Barack Obama did not want to offend Muslim sensibilities by such a show of force.

I was going to show the well-publicized picture of the blood stained wall of the American Consulate, but, that image is probably already seared in your mind, as it is in mine. 

In fact, there are a lot of images that race through my mind as I sit here at my computer.

I remember the image of a lone terrorist, brandishing a machine gun, standing in front of the burning Benghazi Consulate.

I also remember the image of Benghazi barbarians dragging a murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens through the streets, taking pictures every few yards, with their cell phones. 

My mind envisions the image of two brave Americans, up on a roof holding off 100 Muslim Terrorists, trying desperately to hold out for help which was denied to them, until finally the overwhelming numbers which comprise the horde of barbarians, murdered them as well. 

I imagine Ambassador Stevens’ elderly mother, making the trip from the West Coast to the East Coast to pick up the lifeless body of her abused and murdered son, whom she and her entire family were so proud of.

Finally, I remember the show of hypocrisy involving members of this anti-American Administration solemnly welcoming the bodies of those brave Americans home.

Secretary Clinton…the truth makes a big difference…to the families of those that were so savagely murdered that fateful night…and to the millions of Americans who still believe in this “Shining City on a Hill”.

Americans deserve the truth.

And, you should be ashamed.