Friday, May 31, 2013
Hillary's Secrets.Is that the real Hillary, the "casa-nostra" power-broker? The keeper of family secrets?
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
It's been a rumor for a long time now that Vice President Joe Biden might take his chances in 2016 at a White House run and now, it looks like he's been working quietly behind the scenes to make President Biden a reality.
With nearly four years left in Obama's second term, it would be untoward for Biden to be openly self-promotional, and his advisers say he's focused on his current job. Still, with the jockeying for 2016 nominations already well under way, there's an advantage to staying part of the conversation. So the freewheeling man from Scranton, Pa., is polishing a reputation carefully nurtured over four decades in Washington, playing up his own strengths even as he stays fiercely loyal to his current boss.But can he beat Hillary?
"The good news is my dad understands that he works for the president, first and foremost," said Beau Biden, the vice president's son and Delaware's state attorney general. "I hope he takes a real, hard look at running, but now's not the time."
That time will come soon enough. In the meantime, the vice presidency has afforded Biden ample opportunities to keep his name in the spotlight without seeming overtly political. He's hit the pavement, keeping a strenuous schedule that would wear out many 70-year-old men.
Another factor in Biden's equation — and every conversation about 2016 — is Hillary Rodham Clinton, who Democratic insiders say would start out a heavy favorite if she seeks the nomination.
A match-up with his former Senate colleague, 2008 primary opponent and West Wing teammate would test the loyalties and relative influence of a number of key Democratic constituencies.
Fiercely popular with women and with strong bipartisan appeal, Clinton stands to gain from fond memories of a booming economy under her husband's presidency. Like Biden, she also lays claim to the Obama legacy. But Biden, on many issues, also has cast himself to the left of Obama, staking out ground that could make him an attractive alternative to Clinton for the party's liberal base in presidential primaries.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
MSM treatment of the IRS and DOJ investigations Mainstream Media Paving the Way for “Hillary the Savior”
Color me unimpressed, but I don’t buy the sudden media interest in the IRS and DOJ targeting of Tea Party groups, the AP and Fox News. Is the mainstream media finally giving some coverage to the Obama administration’s myriad of scandals? Sure. But do they really give a hoot that Obama uses the Constitution as a footrest in his pursuit of liberal utopia? Not in a million years.
Let’s be honest. If there’s anything the MSM knows best, it’s how to lick Democrat boot. Most liberal media types would gladly douse themselves in oil and light a match if they thought it would help with the fundamental transformation of America. And it’s not like they didn’t have plenty of opportunity to investigate the IRS persecution of conservatives last year. So what gives?
What we’re really seeing is the MSM setting the table for the next Democratic heir apparent, Hillary Clinton. Now that the election is over, pillorying Obama has minimal damage potential when it comes to the liberal movement as a whole. In fact, it might even be helpful:
helps reestablish the MSM’s tarnished reputation as non-partisan keepers of the public trust, which is of course a joke. But more importantly, the more flak that Obama gets, the better the MSM can describe Hillary as America’s savior. All of the failures over the past few years will be blamed not on the fundamental mismatch between liberal ideology and reality, but on the failures of a single person, Barack Obama. Besides, everyone knows the Clintons would never use the IRS to target their political enemies (except maybe this time, this time, and this other time).
What will be far more enlightening over the coming weeks is not how the MSM treats the IRS and DOJ investigations, but how they respond to a scandal that is directly connected to Clinton, namely Benghazi. After successfully shielding her from any blame connected to Fast and Furious—if you believe that high powered weapons could be transferred over an international border without the Secretary of State’s say so then I got an island in Iowa to sell you—the next big thing for the MSM will be to assign blame for Benghazi to anyone other than Hillary:
With many more Benghazi congressional hearings to come, protecting Hillary may become a bridge too far for even the most dedicated Clinton sycophant. The latest out of PJ Media, in case you haven’t heard, is Ambassador Chris Stevens was hanging out in terrorist country purchasing anti-aircraft Stinger missiles that the State Department had been handing out to al-Qaeda linked groups like M&Ms the year before in order to help bring down Muammar Gaddafi.
According to a PJ Media diplomatic source, Clinton was taking a page out of the “Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. ‘It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said “Hey, let’s do that!”’”
home survivors whose tales of woe could compromise her political future.
Already we’re starting to see the MSM spin like crazy over Benghazi. Their latest reports revolve around blaming David Petraeus for producing talking points that cast the CIA in a positive light and the debunked theory that the GOP maliciously doctored emails to deflect blame on the State Department. They’ll pretty much do anything but address Hillary’s central role in the death of an American Ambassador.
Will the MSM cover for Hillary be successful? Probably. But then again, maybe not. Congress needs to keep pushing Benghazi because if they don’t, you can be sure that regardless of the facts, the MSM will give Hillary a clean bill of health and then proclaim her our next President, no voting required.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Colonel David Hunt has over 29 years of military experience including
extensive operational experience in special operations, counter
terrorism and intelligence operations.
Most recently, Colonel Hunt served as tactical adviser in Bosnia where
he facilitated all national intelligence matters for the Commander in
Chief. Prior to this, he served as counter terrorism coordinator to the
Summer Olympic Games in Seoul, Korea. In this capacity, Colonel Hunt
planned, choreographed and implemented the first United States national
response for an Olympic event in Korea in conjunction with Korean
National Intelligence and the Korean Crisis Response Agency.
He has served as a security adviser for the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as state and local police officials.
A graduate of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Colonel Hunt holds a Master's degree in English from Norwich
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt laid the blame for the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the Benghazi, Libya American mission on Hillary Clinton and the State Department:
The State Department just allowed our guys to get killed. If you approve no bullets in guns for the mission security guards and an outhouse for a mission, you’re inviting it.Earlier, on Howie Carr's radio show Thursday, Colonel Hunt said that the American mission at Benghazi "was like a cardboard building, there wasn't even bullet proof glass." In addition, Hunt said the security guards inside the mission didn't have bullets:
Howie Carr: They weren't allowed to have bullets, is that correct?Hunt told Breitbart News that the new State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, approved and signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton since the 2011 fall of Khadafi's regime, severely compromised the safety and security of murdered Ambassador Stevens and all American diplomatic staff in Libya.
Colonel Hunt: That's true. They were private security. The rules of engagement were ridiculous.
He also stated that the decision not to staff Benghazi with Marines was made by Secretary of State Clinton when she attached her signature to the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya document. Breitbart News has subsequently learned that under those rules of engagement, Secretary Clinton prohibited Marines from providing security at any American diplomatic installation in Libya.
Hunt told Breitbart News that "the rules of engagement have been changing drastically over the last 10 years. . . The reason the surge in Iraq worked was we had another 40,000 soldiers and the rules of engagement were changed to allow our guys to shoot. What’s happened in Libya is the final straw of political correctness. We allowed a contractor to hire local nationals as security guards, but said they can't have bullets. This was all part of the point of not having a high profile in Libya."
According to Hunt, the debacle at the American mission in Benghazi is directly the result of Obama's new policies. "The policy of the Obama administration led to this," he said.
"It was the policy of the Obama administration to have a low profile in Libya. That's why the rules of engagement were approved by the Secretary of State to have no Marines at Benghazi, and to have an American contractor hire Libyan nationals to provide security there. The rules were they couldn't have ammunition."
"Obama may not have known the details of the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, but his Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor would have. The Secretary of State absolutely would have."
"The Department of State Security are the people in charge of diplomatic security. They enforce the rules of engagement, which are set at Clinton’s level at State. The Department of Defense was told we’re not going to have Marines at Benghazi. Whether it goes higher than the Secretary of State to the President, I don't know."
Hunt added that the rules of engagement specific to each country or military situation are drawn up by State Department lawyers and approved by the chain of command. "There should be a document with Hillary’s signature and the Secretary of Defense's specific to Libya. It was signed after Khadafi fell from power. You'll have to ask the State Department to get the document. They might claim it's classified, but it shouldn't be."
"The State Department has rules of engagement documents that are different for different countries. In our embassies in London and Paris, for instance, it’s always a mystery if the Marines at the embassies have ammunition in their weapons."
Hunt compared the security at the Benghazi mission with security at the recent RNC and DNC.
"The recent political conventions had more security than Ambassador Stevens had in Benghazi. If you carried a sharp stick within a mile of the conventions at Tampa or Charlotte you got arrested, yet you don't give bullets to the guards of our Ambassador to Libya. It wouldn't surprise me if Al-Qaeda bought off some of the Libyan nationals hired to guard our ambassador at Benghazi."
Ambassador Stevens was based at the American embassy in Tripoli. According to a spokesperson at the State Department, he would visit the mission at Benghazi sporadically. No one at the State Department has yet answered this key question:
Why on the anniversary of 9-11 was he at the low security mission in Benghazi when it would obviously have been more prudent for him to have been at the presumably more secure embassy in Tripoli?At her daily press briefing on Thursday, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland offered a description of the defenses at the Benghazi mission that appeared to be in conflict with other press reports. In contrast to some reports that said security within the perimeter of the mission was provided by Libyan nationals, Nuland stated that they provided security on the perimeter and that "there was a robust American security presence inside the compound." [emphasis added]:
QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit more about the security that was at the Embassy? It seems that for an area such as Benghazi, where there was a lot of instability, there were very few guards there. And can you talk about whether the U.S. asked Libya, the Libyan Government, earlier in the week for extra security precaution and whether that – extra security precautions or security personnel and whether that request was fulfilled. . .It does seem though that there were very few security personnel at this location.
MS. NULAND: I’m going to reject that, Elise. Let me tell you what I can about the security at our mission in Benghazi. It did include a local Libyan guard force around the outer perimeter. This is the way we work in all of our missions all around the world, that the outer perimeter is the responsibility of the host government. There was obviously a physical perimeter barrier, a wall. And then there was a robust American security presence inside the compound. This is absolutely consistent with what we have done at a number of missions similar to Benghazi around the world. . .Ms. Nuland, however, failed to elaborate on the specifics or size of the "robust American security" within the perimeter of the mission. Later in her news briefing, she addressed the State Department reasoning for failing to have Marines stationed at Benghazi:
MS. NULAND: There were not marines at this mission.
QUESTION: Why not?
MS. NULAND: They – we have a number of posts around the world. We have – there are embassies without marines, there are other consulates of this type without marines. We make a decision based on the local conditions as to whether that makes sense, but this posture that we had, which was external security by the Libyans and then a strong U.S. security presence – but it didn’t include that particular contingent of Americans – inside, in a number of other missions that look a lot like Benghazi. . .
QUESTION: Is that for marines coming generally from the mission itself, or does the State Department say, you know, the situation’s really bad right now in this particular section of the world, perhaps we should have marines based here.
MS. NULAND: It’s not a matter of marines necessarily being a qualitatively different way of securing. There are many other ways to secure that are equivalent, too. It depends on the circumstances and it is different in every part of the world, and we evaluate it along with our friends at the Defense Department and other agencies individually, per mission.
Breitbart News has attempted to secure a copy of the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, but officials at the State Department have stonewalled, as this email correspondence from Friday reveals:
To [State Dept Spokesperson]:
(A) Status of my document request for the State Department rules of engagement for Libya?
(B) Can you help me find answers to these two questions:
1. Who provided security inside the Benghazi mission at the time of the 9-11-12 attack, how were they armed, and how many of them were there?
2. Who provided security on the perimeter of the Benghazi mission at the time of the 9-11-12 attack, how were they armed, and how many of them were there?
Michael Patrick Leahy
Breitbart News Contributor
Here is the official response from that State Department spokesperson:
I do not yet have more information on the rules of engagement document, which as discussed last night, might require a FOIA request. I will let you know as soon as I receive feedback. However, and this also applies to your two follow up questions, we do not discuss security details for the safety of our missions. The two questions below are addressed to the fullest extent possible in both briefings I sent you last night.
[State Department Spokesperson]
On Friday, Breitbart News filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the State Department to secure a copy of the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya.
Look for the State Department to continue to stonewall this request, and resist release of the document until after the election. Its contents will be just too damaging. In effect, the country will be able to see Hillary Clinton's signature on the document that served as Ambassador Chris Stevens's death warrant.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Gov’t Official (and Poet) Put on Leave After Benghazi Finally Breaks His Silence — and He’s Making Some Big Charges Against Hillary and Her Team
Raymond Maxwell, one of four State Department employees recently disciplined by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, made headlines this month for penning slightly cryptic verses critical of the agency’s handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
And now Maxwell, who was placed on forced “administrative leave” despite his claim had no role in consulate-related security issues, is back in the news for ditching the poetry and outright accusing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of making him the Benghazi scapegoat.
“The overall goal is to restore my honor,” Maxwell said in an interview with The Daily Beast.
The former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, who is currently stuck in a sort of legal limbo, has filed grievances regarding his treatment by the State Department’s human resources bureau and the American Foreign Service Association, the report notes.
Maxwell is the only official in the bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (i.e. the group responsible for Libya) to lose his job over the September 11 attacks.
“I had no involvement to any degree with decisions on security and the funding of security at our diplomatic mission in Benghazi,” he said.
Maxwell was placed on forced “administrative leave” on December 18, the day after the Accountability Review Board released its report on the Benghazi attack. The department placed him on leave so that it could decide whether he should be permanently “let go.” However, here we are five months out and no decision has been made.
The disciplined State Department official sits at home and waits.
A department spokeswoman declined to comment on why Maxwell and three other State officials were disciplined, saying only that the ARB suggested someone be disciplined over the death of four Americans.
“As a matter of policy, we don’t speak to specific personnel matters,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told The Daily Beast.
Maxwell said the reason for him being put on leave has never been explained to him, he has never seen the classified portions of the ARB report that detail personnel failures leading up to the attack, and because his “administrative leave” is not a formal disciplinary action, he has no legal means to appeal his status.
And although he planned on retiring in September 2012, Maxwell remained at his post voluntarily so that he could assist the department in responding to the disastrous attacks. Now, after being singled out for the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, Maxwell refuses to let it go until his name has been cleared.
“They just wanted me
to go away but I wouldn’t just go away,” he said. “I knew Chris [Stevens]. Chris was a friend of mine.”
“He is seeking a restoration of his previous position, a public statement of apology from State, reimbursement for his legal fees, and an extension of his time in service to equal the time he has spent at home on administrative leave,” the Daily Beast reports.
“For any FSO being at work is the essence of everything and being deprived of that and being cast out was devastating,” he said.
Maxwell said that soon after he was removed from his post, a State Department official visited him at his home one night and asked him to sign a letter acknowledging his removal and “forfeiting” his right to enter the State Department building.
He refused. He said that the letter amounted to an admission of guilt.
So who placed him on leave?
“The decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was made by Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills, according to three State Department officials with direct knowledge of the events,” the report notes.
“On the day after the unclassified version of the ARB’s report was released in December, Mills called Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and directed her to have Maxwell leave his job immediately,” it adds.
But there may be a reason why Maxwell, of all people, was removed from his office the day after the release of the ARB report.
“One person who reviewed the classified portion of the ARB report told The Daily Beast that it called out Maxwell for the specific infraction of not reading his daily classified briefings, something that person said Maxwell admitted to the ARB panel during his interview,” the report claims.
“The crime that he is being punished for is not reading his intel,” this person said.
When asked about this specific claim, Maxwell said he has not been “officially counseled” on any wrongdoing and has not been allowed to read the ARB’s classified report.
But here’s his bombshell claim: Maxwell believes Hillary Clinton’s staff headed the review of the disastrous Benghazi attack – not an independent review board.
“The flaws in the process were perpetrated by the political leadership at State with the complicity of the senior career leadership,” he said. “They should be called to account.”
Monday, May 20, 2013
There is so much to say about what happened in Benghazi and the aftermath that one almost does not know where to begin. It was certainly refreshing to watch the news conference the other day with the entire White House Press Corp all over Jay Carney for misleading them regarding the matter. The fact Benghazi is now a lead story in mainstream media outlets is very exciting. We must all look at some realities that remain regarding this whole affair.
The biggest reality remains that the administration of Barack Obama seriously misled the American people. They did this knowingly and with intent to do so. A perfect example is when the President said the day after Benghazi (September 12th) that we will not tolerate terrorist attacks. Despite what Candy Crowley said in the Presidential debate he did not specifically called Benghazi a terrorist attack. That was not until way after the event. He was parsing words.
But let us be clear in our language -- The President and members of his administration did not “mislead” or “create falsehoods” and/or say things that were “untruthful.” They lied. They flat out lied to the American people. Did The President and Secretary Clinton lie to us? Absolutely. Were the lies intentional because of it would affect the 2012 Presidential election? We will never know that. What we do know is that they thought it would affect the election; that is why they lied and told the American people about an internet video and arrested the maker of the film.
As for the contentious talking points, there needs to be a little clarity. Now that Steve Hayes (Senior Writer for The Weekly Standard) has done his masterful work (followed by ABC News) in discovering the multiple variations of the talking points that led to Susan Rice’s ridiculous Sunday morning talk show assertions, we cannot accept the position their allies are now creating as mantra. The allies are saying that the variations occurred because of bureaucratic infighting. Wrong. There were political people both for the White House and Hillary Clinton’s State Department who have their fingerprints on these talking points. The fact that there were 95 pages of emails released about the back and forth on the talking points makes it self-evident that the process was political as the hacks ached over every word to make sure their bosses were not tarnished as opposed to stating the truth. We may never get someone to come forward and expose this truth, but it does not make it any less of a truthful statement.
It has become quite clear that the scrubbing of the talking points was because the State Department did not wish to alert Congress that they had ignored multiple warnings about terrorist activities in Libya. That is a clear failing of the Secretary and her staff.
The fact that this is political has been questioned. First of all, the Administrationmade this political because of all of their actions. Second of all, everything is political in Washington. But, most importantly, this is an issue that goes beyond politics so let’s drop that discussion. Four Americans were killed because of bad planning and bad leadership. We need to investigate the truth of what happened to make sure to the best of our abilities that this does not happen again. How in God’s name could our personnel be so exposed in such a volatile country on such a consequential day (9/11)? How could we have not been able to respond in a timely manner to defend an American Ambassador? The American people deserve answers to these and other questions and that is not political. The people responsible for these horrible decisions should suffer consequences.
The next reality is that the Obama Administration got away with this. They got by the election and, although they purposefully lied to the American people, they will never pay the price for this. Maybe – maybe some will lose their jobs, but it will never be abundantly clear that the fallout over Benghazi was the reason. The Obamaites will never clearly state that. It is not their style. But we can make other people pay and it should be the Clintons.
The Clintons made a Faustian deal with Obama to keep him in office. President Clinton became Obama’s only surrogate of value. After lying on behalf of Obama at the ceremony when the Benghazi bodies arrived in America, Hillary disappeared for a month and then she told America she accepted responsibility for what happened by video from an “undisclosed location” in South America. The fact that her team said she hates going on the Sunday talk shows and answering questions shows her callous disregard for the death of her underlings. That she did not go on the Sunday talk shows displays either her abdication of responsibility to lead in this crisis or her desire to distant herself from the Administration and how they were handling the matter. She then disappeared again. The Clintons cast their lot with Obama because one can only project that Obama will support their return to the White House is 2016.
Hillary has not earned that return by any means. She was a completely forgettable Secretary of State following on her being a forgettable U. S. Senator. When she had the one big test of her time of being at the State Department, she was not only a failure -- she was a liar. Her sad statement at the Senate hearing when she said “What does it matter” is justification enough to disqualify her from elected office of any kind. If she does not fully comprehend why this matters then she is a fool. But why would we want to go through more Clinton lies and histrionics? Why would we want more “Right-wing conspiracy” baloney?
The American people cannot extract the justifiable pain from Obama for his lying and obfuscating. But Hillary said she was responsible for this mess and we should make her pay for her actions. She should go off into the ether land with her husband and Al Gore with their centi-millions and leave us all alone. The only way to make sure that happens is by draping a Benghazi necklace around her neck
Monday, May 13, 2013
Hillary, Then and Now. ~ (Via @BenjiBacker) ~ #Benghazi http://t.co/IUWQpbosTJBam! This photo is making the rounds and actor Adam Baldwin tweeted it out yesterday. That question was posed by then-Senator Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) during the Watergate proceedings and has often been repeated. What happened, Hillary? Now it is “what difference does it make?”
Adam Baldwin (@adamsbaldwin) May 12, 2013
One major difference between Watergate and Benghazi: Watergate had no body count. Photo: bit.ly/18x7aA8 #tcot—Bingo.
PJ Media (@PJMedia_com) May 10, 2013
And a little reminder about Hillary Clinton’s role during Watergate.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA #foreshadowing RT @Rare: Hillary Clinton fired from Watergate committee for fraud bit.ly/13S01Y9—Hey, at least she’s consistent!
Amy Lutz (@amylutz4) May 13, 2013
As Twitchy reported this morning, Cher is calling Benghazi a “witch hunt.” Maybe looking at a photo will be easier for her to understand.
.@cher this –>> RT @adamsbaldwin: Hillary, Then and Now. ~ (Via @BenjiBacker) ~ #Benghazi po.st/7OylCz—Heh.
Peace&JusticeLady (@PeaceLibLady) May 13, 2013
@adamsbaldwin HRC is a perfect example of a person who has put politics before morals.—Sen. Feinstein is already circling the wagons to protect Hillary’s 2016 chances.
Georgia Girl (@SavannahGa66) May 12, 2013
@adamsbaldwin @benjibacker @BenjiBacker Keep that in the bank for the next election!—
Jagg55 (@bdmj55) May 12, 2013
Feinstein: "When Hillary Clinton’s name is mentioned 32 times in a hearing, the point of the hearing is to discredit the Secretary of StateUnbelievable. Yet totally believable coming from Sen. Feinstein.
Ali Weinberg (@AliNBCNews) May 12, 2013
Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.) hit “Meet the Press” this morning and she totally let her shameless show.
Wow. To Sen. Feinsten, it’s all about Hillary; She even counted the number of times she was mentioned, apparently.
@greenivykh @meetthepress Feinstein recalled Clinton's name mentioned 32 times in the hearing… Clearly it's not about Benghazi anymore.—Uh, perhaps her name was mentioned because she was heading the State Department at the time? Facts are hard. What difference does it make? Hillary’s 2016 chances are in jeopardy and isn’t that what really matters?
Gerrard Panahon (@gerrardpanahon) May 12, 2013
Dianne Feinstein concerned that Hillary is targeted & should not be because she has a high popularity rating & may be 2016 candidate. Oh OK.—Yep. Disgusting. Will she parrot the foul Oliver Willis next and start referring to “Benghazi truthers“? Here is a little tip for you, Sen. Feinstein: Hillary Clinton needs no help discrediting herself. The hearing was about finding truth and justice. Guess what? The truth is that the Obama administration was beyond dangerously incompetent. And they lied, over and over.
LambChop (@21LambChop) May 12, 2013
Twitter users call her out.
Feinstein let the cat out of the bag Dems are circling the wagons around Hillary AT ALL COST. Even if the cost is truth about #Benghazi #MTP—
PattiO (@soylentbeige) May 12, 2013
.Sen Feinstein…turns MTP….into PROTECT HILLARY. How much lying before It finally bites Hillary?—
(@TenNamesLater) May 12, 2013
#MTP there it is. Cover for Hillary is a must. Way to go Senator Feinstein. Way to go…—
Scott Burnside (@scottwburnside) May 12, 2013
Yeah, the truth tends to discredit liars. RT @ihatethemedia FEINSTEIN SAYS BENGHAZI HEARING WAS REALLY ABOUT DISCREDITING HILLARY CLINTON—Precisely.
L.N. Smithee (@LNSmithee) May 12, 2013
@theblaze No Dianne Feinstein- its about Americans who were murdered and finding out the truth about why Hillary Clinton let this happen?—
Ricky Schellenberg (@RCSchellenberg) May 12, 2013
Ask Diane #feinstein if you don't discredit @HRClinton for abandoning an Amb & 3 Americans… WHEN would you??? #Benghazi #tcot @gop—
Defund NPR PBS & NEA (@Jarjarbug) May 12, 2013
Maybe Senator Feinstein should be more concerned about the truth than Hillary Clinton's political future.—
Thomas Dickhut (@ssider1966) May 12, 2013
#mtp Feinstein does not find the death of four Americans in Benghazi diabolical, but the hearings are.—
George Rudolph (@thenewnarrative) May 12, 2013
Sen Feinstein says "Republicans have a grievance" about Benghazi. No, senator. EVERYONE has a grievance. This is not a partisan issue.—
Michael Rosengart (@michaelrosey) May 12, 2013
I repeat: The truth does not require 12 revisions. End of discussion.—Bingo.
Brian Wilson (@BrianWilsonDC) May 12, 2013
Perhaps Sen. Feinstein would like to talk to the mother of the late Sean Smith, who just wished Hillary Clinton a happy Mother’s Day by saying, “She has her child and I don’t have mine. Because of her.”
But, hey, 2016! Remember this: Democrats will do anything to protect their own, even if it means spitting on the graves of the dead.
Boom: Benghazi mom wishes Hillary Clinton a happy Mother’s Day; ‘She has her child; I don’t have mine’
Pat Smith wished Hillary Clinton "Happy Mother's Day" on Fox.Pat Smith is the mother of the late Sean Smith, who was slain during the attack in Benghazi. She appeared on Fox News’ “Huckabee” last night and had a little something to say to lying liar who lies, Hillary Clinton.
Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 12, 2013
Pat Smith wishes Hillary Clinton a Happy Mother's Day on Huckabee: "She has her child, and I don't have mine. Because of her."—
Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) May 11, 2013
Sean Smith's mom – "I'd like to say happy mother's day to Hillary- she's got her child…I don't have mine, because of her . #Benghazi—Gut-wrenching.
(@johnqpubliq) May 11, 2013
Gut wrenching interview with Navy Seal's mom on FOX this AM telling Hillary Happy Mother's Day. m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2529463—
Daisy (@Daisy1776) May 12, 2013
*New Video* Benghazi victim's mother wishes Hillary Clinton Happy Mother's Day washingtonexaminer.com/article/2529463—The Washington Examiner has more:
Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) May 12, 2013
Huckabee asked Smith if she was somewhat comforted by the Congressional hearings about the attacks last week.Watch the heartbreaking video here:
“Absolutely not,” she said. “I am still waiting to answers to just about everything.”
Happy Mothers Day To Hillary Clinton From Pat Smith, Son, Sean Smith Killed In #Benghazi Huckabee youtu.be/49vuB9Rp2ro?a—Twitter users tweet Mrs. Clinton in support of Pat Smith.
Mass Tea Party (@massteaparty) May 12, 2013
@HRClinton ~I just want you to know 4 Mothers cannot be told"Happy Mothers Day"today because of your #cowardliness http://t.co/ckZXwAZtuU—
Brian (@Holyfield67) May 12, 2013
Happy Mother's Day, @HRClinton.
Hair (@SHannitysHair) May 12, 2013
@HRClinton happy day. Oops, I omitted Mother's. was that misleading? that's ok bc I wasn't sworn in. And my fingers were crossed.—What difference does it make? It matters.
Jon Boland (@BolandJon) May 12, 2013
It makes a difference: Twitter sums up #BenghaziInFourWords
I want to play #BenghaziInFourWords. But I'm not a rich, middle age male who eats Chick-fil-a so I guess I can't.When a hashtag like #BenghaziInFourWords is topping Twitter’s list of trending topics on a Saturday night eight months after the fact, it’s a sure sign that the issue of what happened in Libya last September is not going away, and “what difference does it make” is not going to suffice.
Sarah Knoploh (@SarahKnoploh) May 12, 2013
Hillary Lied, Americans Died. #BenghaziInFourWords—Geraldo’s not going to like that one.
Jack's Not 4 Turning (@jackmcoldcuts) May 10, 2013
#BenghaziInFourWords Obama goes to Vegas—
Hugh Bris (@_HughBris) May 11, 2013
#BenghaziInFourWords Incompetence at its worst.—
Ronnie Wright (@Lakota07) May 11, 2013
#BenghaziInFourWords Thrown Under #Obama's Bus—
בועזיז (@Boazziz) May 11, 2013
#BenghaziInFourWords Party in Vegas, baby!—
Daria DiGiovanni (@dariaanne) May 11, 2013
#BenghaziInFourWords It Ain't YouTube's Fault—
J P (@RileyRebel129) May 12, 2013
#benghaziinfourwords Woods, Doherty, Smith, Stevens—
Redacted (@FoolishReporter) May 12, 2013
First amendment, shmirst amendment #BenghaziInFourWords http://t.co/Yjf7QBdOJn—
Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) May 12, 2013
#BenghaziInFourWords – President Hillary, not happening—
Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) May 12, 2013
#BenghaziInFourWords – Let the survivors testify—
TBradley (@TBradleyNC) May 12, 2013
#BenghaziInFourWords Blood On Their Hands #uniteblue #stoprush http://t.co/axo7NrOg7x—
Roy Rogers (@Roy__Rogers) May 11, 2013
America wept….Obama slept
Victor Nikki (@hapkidobigdad) May 12, 2013
#Benghaziinfourwords Video Killed The Ambassador—
nick searcy (@yesnicksearcy) May 12, 2013
#benghaziinfourwords its republicans fault somehow—
Redacted (@FoolishReporter) May 12, 2013
#BenghaziInFourWords We. Need. Air. Support!
4 from DeeCee: You're On Your Own.—
Mike Letalien (@Coach_Crash) May 12, 2013
#BenghaziInFourWords Bump In The Road…Obama's words, definitely not mine.—
Angela.Kay (@DeepSouthProud) May 11, 2013
#BenghaziInFourWords – Too big to bury—
TBradley (@TBradleyNC) May 12, 2013
#BenghaziInFourWords America Will Not Forget—
Paul Kinkel (@PaulKinkel) May 11, 2013
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Raul PAUL: The moment of responsibility for Hillary Clinton Her fatal mistakes mirror the disaster at Mogadishu:he took Hillary Clinton to task in January for the mishandling of security in Benghazi, Libya, would have relieved her of her post
When I took Hillary Rodham Clinton to task in January for the mishandling of security in Benghazi, Libya, I told her that if I had been president at the time, I would have relieved her of her post. Some politicians and pundits took offense at my line of questioning.
During those hearings, I reminded Mrs. Clinton that multiple requests were sent to the State Department asking for increased security measures. I asked if she had read the cables from Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens asking for increased security. She replied that she was busy and had not read them. I find that inexcusable.
Four months later, we are hearing that Mrs. Clinton allegedly withheld information from a counterterrorism bureau during the response. We are hearing new allegations that Special Forces wanting to respond during the attacks were told, “You can’t go” by superiors. Ambassador Stevens‘ deputy, Gregory Hicks, testified this week that he spoke with Mrs. Clinton on the night of the attack, when these orders were given. We are hearing that Mr. Hicks was initially told by the State Department not to meet with congressional investigators.
We are, again, hearing allegations that contradict the White House’s story.
Benghazi security was a life-and-death matter that resulted in the latter. The notion that high-ranking government officials are somehow beyond reproach, as some suggested during my criticism of Mrs. Clinton, is dangerous and wrong.
The secretary of state’s responsibility is to protect our diplomats. Mrs. Clinton should have been relieved of her post for denying pleas for additional security. Almost 20 years ago, President Clinton’s secretary of defense was relieved of his post for a similarly bad decision.
In early October 1993, a battle between U.S. forces and Somali militia in Mogadishu left 18 Americans soldiers dead, 80 wounded and two American helicopters shot down. Today, this is remembered as the Battle of Mogadishu or more popularly, “Black Hawk Down,” thanks to a subsequent movie of the same name.
A month earlier in September, then-Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff Colin L. Powell requested soldiers, tanks and armor-plated vehicles to reinforce the mission in Somalia. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin denied these requests. The Associated Press reported the following on Oct. 8, 1993, just days after the Battle of Mogadishu: “Defense Secretary Les Aspin today brushed aside calls for his resignation as ‘the politics of Capitol Hill,’ but conceded that in light of recent casualties, he shouldn’t have rejected a request to send more armor and troops to Somalia last month.”
Two months later, after less than a year of service, Aspin resigned as secretary of defense.
Though Mr. Clinton cited personal reasons for Aspin’s resignation, it was reported widely that he had asked him to step down. Aspin did ultimately accept responsibility for his decisions, saying, “The ultimate responsibility for the safety of our troops is mine. I was aware of the request and could have directed that a deployment order be drawn up. I did not, and I accept responsibility for the consequences.”
By refusing to grant requests for weapons and reinforcement in Somalia in 1993, Aspin made a bad decision, admitted his bad decision, accepted responsibility and eventually left his position as a result of it.
When Ambassador Stevens, Libya’s site-security team commander Lt. Col. Andrew Wood and others made repeated requests for increased security and resources in Benghazi, those requests were ignored. No one denies that these requests crossed Mrs. Clinton’s desk. But virtually everyone involved has denied that they should accept responsibility for the tragedy in Benghazi.
Now there are new allegations, accusations that arguably bear more significance on how this tragedy unfolded. It is imperative that we continue to ask: Who was responsible?
My job as a U.S. senator and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is to be part of the confirmation process for high-ranking national security positions as well as review the performance of officeholders. When Aspin made bad decisions in 1993, he testified before the Senate, which examined his job performance, and many gave him a bad review.
Mrs. Clinton was never above a similar job-performance review. When I asked her in January if her resignation meant that she was finally accepting responsibility, the answer never came.
Will the answers ever come? Don’t the victims’ families deserve them? Shouldn’t we do everything in our power to leave no rock unturned in order make sure such bad decision-making doesn’t happen again?
Aspin resigned over Black Hawk Down. The same precedent should have applied apply to Mrs. Clinton. To date, no one has ultimately taken responsibility for Benghazi.
My office is currently seeking out the witnesses and survivors of Benghazi to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. To date, the Obama administration has refused to let them testify.
Too many questions remain unanswered. Now, there are too many new questions. The evidence we had in January already suggested that Mrs. Clinton ignored repeated requests for more security in Benghazi. The new evidence we have today — and that continues to mount — suggests that at the very least, Mrs. Clinton should never hold high office again.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/10/the-moment-of-responsibility-for-hillary-clinton/#ixzz2T1ErX86M
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter