Google+ Followers

Google+ Followers

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Rep. Jim Jordan Shreds Obama Admin on Benghazi in Tea Party’s Tele-Townhall

Friday, May 30, 2014

Video: Hillary Allies Huddle to Plot Benghazi Strategy

According to a report in Politico, an array of left-leaning organizations and strategists are meeting today with top Clinton allies to fashion a defensive scheme regarding the Benghazi scandal, in which the former Secretary of State is a central player. With the Congressional Select Committee revving just up as Clinton's new book is released, Democrats sense a pressing need to help shape the Benghazi narrative, as the issue is one of her (relatively few at this stage, frankly) strong negatives ahead of the 2016 campaign:

 An array of Democrats — including Hillary Clinton’s allies — are meeting this week to hammer out a united front on national security issues, including a clear response to Republicans over the Benghazi controversy...A major milestone in the effort will take place this Friday, when a coalition of Democratic-leaning groups and influentials converges at the headquarters of the centrist think tank Third Way for a briefing that includes top Clinton adviser Philippe Reines. The meeting is one in a series that Third Way has convened with Democrats since the George W. Bush era to discuss and shape national security policy. But at least some Democrats involved in the upcoming session are hoping it results in a coordinated and strengthened response to the new congressional probe into the deadly Benghazi attack. Several people involved in the meeting say Reines was invited to speak at Third Way on Friday to discuss the chapter of Clinton’s upcoming book “Hard Choices” that covers the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on U.S. diplomatic outposts in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead — including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

I discussed this confab on Fox Newsyesterday afternoon, noting the irony that a Bizarro World "Left-wing conspiracy" of sorts is rushing to Hillary's aid:

Meanwhile, Fox has announced a half-hour interview special with Mrs. Clinton, which will air in mid-June. Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren will steer the conversation jointly, and one of the advertised topics is the 9/11/12 attack. Clinton is showing up on the top-rated cable news network to sell books, of course, but she'll have to answer a battery of tough questions. For instance, why did the State Department keep its under-protected people in a dangerous hotbed of radical Islamism long after other Western nations and groups had pulled out? Why were requests for beefed-up security rejected, while existing security forces wereredeployed out of Libya, over serious objections? And why did she cite an irrelevant online video in private discussions with grieving family members daysafter the administration -- and the State Department specifically -- knew for a factthe deadly raid had been an orchestrated terrorist act? Is Greg Hicks lying? And since that false explanation didn't come from the CIA, where did she pick it up in the first place?

Three additional nuggets from the Politico piece mentioned above: (1) Hillary personally lobbied House Democrats against boycotting the Select Committee, evidently making an appeal based on politics 101 -- don't let the other side have all the microphones if you can help it. I made a similar case here(2) Among those participating in an ongoing email listserv discussion about the Left's Benghazi response is former Obama administration spokesman Tommy Vietor. After his performance on Special Report a few weeks back, I'd imagine the Clintons are savvy enough to view any PR advice he may bring to the table with suspicion. (3)Also in the mix is the attack dog group Media Matters, which acts as the American Left's vanguard of hackery. At least one representative from that outfit will reportedly attend today's briefing. Awkward question: Will SEIU have a presence there, too?

Clinton leaks memoir chapter that unloads on critics of her Benghazi response

Hillary Clinton, in an intentionally leaked chapter of her highly anticipated memoir -- coinciding with a flurry of activity surrounding the book release and her potential 2016 candidacy -- unloads on critics of the administration's response to the Benghazi terror attack. 
In the book, the former secretary of State accuses her detractors of using the tragedy as a "political tool" and seemingly threatens to sit out a newly launched congressional probe. 
Passages from Clinton's chapter on Benghazi, titled "Benghazi: Under Attack," were published Friday by Politico. The leak comes shortly after Clinton met Thursday at the White House with President Obama, for what was described as an "informal, private lunch." And Clinton advisers were meeting Friday morning in Washington with Democratic groups. 
According to Politico, Clinton uses the 34-page chapter on Benghazi to rebut criticisms and rebuke critics. 
"Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country," Clinton reportedly wrote. 
She also seemed to make reference to the election-year select committee being led by congressional Republicans, saying: "I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It's just plain wrong, and it's unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me." 
In the chapter, the former secretary decried the "speculation and flat-out deceit" surrounding the attack, while apparently taking responsibility and describing her grief over the four deaths as a "punch in the gut." 
Despite her claims, Republicans say it was the White House and others in the administration who were deceiving lawmakers and the public about the nature of the attack. New concerns about the administration's public narrative in the days immediately following Sept. 11, 2012, are what led the House to form a select committee to investigate. The controversy resurfaced following the release of emails in which a White House adviser discussed a "prep call" for then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice, stressing the role of an anti-Islam video. Rice came under fire for repeatedly saying the Sunday after the attack, incorrectly, that protests over an anti-Islam film were to blame. 
Clinton, in her book, reportedly defended Rice, saying she got her talking points from existing intelligence. Further, Clinton argued it is still "inaccurate" to say none of the attackers were influenced by the video. 
Clinton insisted as well that she never saw cables requesting more security at the Benghazi compound. 
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who has clashed with Clinton over Benghazi in the past, told Fox News in response to the book excerpts: "Sounds like a carefully crafted framework for a defense that answers nothing." 
Politico also reported Friday that former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor was being brought on by Clinton's team to help with the response to the book. Vietor stirred controversy earlier this month after he brushed off a question about talking points editing during an interview on Fox News. "Dude, this was like two years ago," Vietor said. 
At the meeting of Clinton aides in Washington on Friday, at the headquarters of the centrist think tank "Third Way," one Democratic operative who attended told Fox News that it was called "to discuss the Democratic message on national security." 
Sources also confirmed that they discussed Clinton's book, and specifically Benghazi and the congressional select committee probe. 
Another Democratic source said: "It was just a bunch of us nerds. We have these meeting all the time."

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Hillary declares she’s “proud of what we accomplished” at State

Let’s recap Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State before diving into her remarks about it in her new book. It started with the mistranslated “reset button” that attempted to blame the Bush administration for tensions in US-Russian relations, and ended for all intents and purposes in the terrorist attack on our all-but-undefended consulate in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including the first ambassador killed in the line of duty since the Carter administration. In between, the US gained no significant new trade agreements, turned Libya into a failed state in which al-Qaeda and its affiliates metastasized, fumbled the “Arab Spring” in Egypt, and retreated across the board.
Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton proclaims herself “proud of what we accomplished” — even ifthe AP report on her book excerpt notably does not include any concrete examples:
Hillary Rodham Clinton writes in new excerpts from her upcoming book that she wishes she could go back and reconsider some of her past decisions but she is “proud of what we accomplished” during her time as secretary of state.
Clinton, a potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, writes in an author’s note released Tuesday that her four years running the State Department for President Barack Obama taught her about the United States’ “exceptional strengths and what it will take for us to compete and thrive at home and abroad.”
“As is usually the case with the benefit of hindsight, I wish we could go back and revisit certain choices. But I’m proud of what we accomplished,” Clinton writes. “This century began traumatically for our country, with the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the long wars that followed, and the Great Recession. We needed to do better, and I believe we did.”
The only specific instance cited in the AP report was the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, which … was not an operation from State, but of the military coordinating with the intelligence community. Hillary uses it to laud the leadership of Barack Obama, as his top advisers were divided on whether to proceed with the mission. “It was as crisp and courageous a display of leadership as I’ve ever seen,” Hillary writes in her memoir.
That might be good news for Obama at this point, but it’s a strange time to cheer Obama for his leadership qualities. Hillary’s fellow Democrats are almost at the breaking point with Obama over his crisis management and executive qualities in general after the VA scandal failed to push Obama into action. Privately, Democrats are using words like “detached” and “incompetent” to describe Obama’s leadership, not “crisp” and “courageous.”
Under the circumstances, this attempt to cheerlead for 2009-12 seems dated, expired, and irrelevant. According to The Hill, that’s exactly how the Left feels about Hillary, too:
Liberal Democrats feel the wind is at their backs, making it all the more irksome for them that Hillary Clinton could be their presidential nominee in 2016.
For many on the left, Clinton is the woman who supported the Iraq war, ran to the right of President Obama and is associated with the Wall Street-friendly centrism espoused by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Progressives feel they are in a political golden age in which questions about income inequality are growing louder, anti-gay marriage laws are falling and the growing Hispanic electorate regards the GOP with skepticism. Given all that, they don’t want to be stuck with a standard-bearer they see as too centrist.
Their problem is that they have few other choices, at least at the moment. The only other figures on the Left in position to challenge Hillary are first-term Senator Elizabeth Warren, socialist Bernie Sanders, or former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, whose pro-energy stance makes him at best problematic for the Left. The ranks of Democratic governors are similarly filled with centrists who understand that progressivism is a losing proposition in most states. The only two who might emerge would be Andrew Cuomo and Deval Patrick, but neither looks able to break out of their own progressive constituencies into anything resembling a formidable general-election nominee.
On the other hand, almost all of them (except Warren and Sanders) have actual accomplishments to offer, rather than platitudes and paeans to Obama’s already-discredited leadership. The Left may not have to try all that hard to challenge Hillary in a primary.

Monday, May 12, 2014

Indecision: House Democrats Still Conflicted on Benghazi Panel Participation

Late last week, Nancy Pelosi announcedthat House Democrats would decline to appoint members to the select committee on Benghazi -- temporarily, at least. She held out the possibility of Democrats participating if some of their demands are met, and proposed negotiations with Republicans. A split-the-baby option of assigning one or two members to the panel, but refusing to fill out the full five-member complement, reportedly remains on the table. Most of the concessions sought by Democrats are unreasonable. Republicans are not going to permit Democrats to veto Chairman Gowdy's subpoena requests, and they're not going to split the committee evenly between the two parties (the divide will be 7-5, in favor of the majority). In my conversation with the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes on Hugh Hewitt's radio program on Friday evening, however, Hayes suggested that the GOP might be wise to play ball on Democrats' appeal for more leeway in interviewing witnesses. It's a fair "ask." For their part, Democrats spent the Sunday chat shows trashing the inquiry -- yet they're still torn on whether or not to engage. I'd imagine they'd love nothing more than to boycott the entire thing to telegraph the extent of their comprehensive contempt for Republican efforts to ferret out the elusive truth regarding what happened on and around September 11, 2012 in northern Libya. But taking their proverbial ball and pouting on the sidelines carries inherent risks for the president's party. I addressed those potential pratfalls on Fox, listing three reasons why Democrats would be unwise to follow through on a boycott. All three bullet points are political in nature, which seems appropriate given Democrats' posture throughout the Benghazi debate:

Several CNN anchors dismissed the notion of a full-fledged boycott as "not even an option" earlier this morning:

Democrats' internal deliberations continue, spurring NRO's Jim Geraghty to quip, "there’s a certain sweetness in watching a cynical, ruthless political opposition frozen in indecision because they can’t decide which option is more politically advantageous." Meanwhile, Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen -- who reported on President Obama's tendency to forego in-person security briefings, including on the day immediately following the Benghazi attacks -- recommends that the select committee track down the "President's Daily Diary." This document painstakingly records the president's every official movement and activity, and could help shed light on one of the enduring mysteries of the American response to the eight-hour terrorist attack: Where was the Commander-in-Chief?

 There is another document that meticulously records all the president’s activities, public and private, every second of every day. It is called the “President’s Daily Diary.” Just outside the Oval Office is a room called the Outer Oval, where the president’s secretary and personal aide sit and through which all visitors coming to see the president pass. Staff members in the Outer Oval keep track of the president’s location at all times. They carefully record the names of all individuals who walk into the Oval Office — when they entered, how long they stayed, what the topic of discussion was. They keep a record of all calls made and received by the president, including the topic, participants and duration. They even record the president’s bathroom breaks (they write “evacuating” into the log). This and other data on the presidents’ whereabouts are collected by a career National Archives employee whose title is White House diarist. This individual preserves them as a minute-by-minute historical record of the presidency for future use by presidential scholars. What this means is that there exists a minute-by-minute record of where the president was and what he was doing for all eight hours of the Benghazi attack. So how is it that the White House has failed to give a full account of the president’s whereabouts during that eight-hour period?

In his snippy and rude exchange with Bret Baier, former NSC official Tommy Vietor confirmed for the first time that Obama was not in the White House situation room that night. Thiessen thinks Americans have a right to know where he was, and what he was doing while Americans were under siege abroad. We know what he did the very next day. I'll leave you with Trey Gowdy striking the appropriate tone regarding the charge and attitude of Republican investigators moving forward:

Eleanor Clift’s Absolutely Astonishing Benghazi Claims Could Raise Your Blood Pressure Just a Tad

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens wasn’t murdered the night of the Benghazi attacks but died of “smoke inhalation,” according to Daily Beast columnist Eleanor Clift.
Clift made that pronouncement — and a few other eye-popping claims — on Sunday’s The McLaughlin Group, Mediaite noted.
Clift forgets the other two fingers, but they're air quotes all the same. (Image source: YouTube via The McLaughlin Group)
Clift forgets the other two fingers, but they’re air quotes all the same. (Image source: YouTube via The McLaughlin Group)
“I would like to point out that Ambassador Stevens was not ‘murdered,’” Clift exclaimed (even adding air quotes for good measure), “he died of smoke inhalation in a safe room in that CIA installation.”
Fellow panelists quickly took issue with her statements, including Pat Buchanan, who fired back: “It was a terrorist attack, Eleanor. He was murdered in a terrorist attack.”
Clift dug in her heels, further insisting that Benghazi was an “opportunistic terrorist attack” with an anti-Muslim video as its catalyst. In addition, she noted earlier that the Benghazi issue “animates the right-wing of the Republican party.”
“It’s still a CIA [outpost],” Clift added. “And if you’re going to put people on trial, we should put David Petraeus on trial, not Hillary Clinton.”

Saturday, May 10, 2014


Friday at the Republican National Committee spring meeting at the Peabody hotel in Memphis, TN, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's actions both leading up to, during and after the 2102 Benghazi terror acts have precluded her from being qualified to be commander-in-chief...


Former Clinton operative and one-time labor secretary Robert Reich slammed the Obama White House for working with retail giant Walmart on a new climate change campaign.

Titling his post "DEPARTMENT OF ILL-ADVISED PHOTO OPPORTUNITIES," Reich slammed Obama for working with a company that has famously resisted unionization. Reich insisted that Walmart is one of the nation's "worst employers" and said the company discriminated against women.
"What numbskull in the White House arranged this?" Reich demanded to know.
The former labor secretary was responding to an announcement by the White House that Obama would visit a Walmart store in Mountain View, California, to celebrate the company's work at increasing its energy efficiency. The Presidential visit occurred May 9.
"Walmart may be one of the retail industry's leaders in the use of renewable energy in its stores, but its greenhouse emissions grew 2 percent last year to nearly half a million metric tons, and it lags badly behind other large companies on renewable power, with only 3 percent of electricity from these sources," Reich said.
"Obama should use this opportunity not to praise Walmart but to condemn it for its irresponsible labor practices," Reich concluded, "to call for it to allow its workers to unionize, and meet with Walmart workers to hear first-hand about how they’re treated."
Walmart spokesman Kory Lundberg disagreed with Reich's claims.
"He's certainly been on record talking about Walmart for a long time," Lundberg told The Huffington Post. "There's very little in those comments that's accurate."
Neither Reich nor Lundberg noted, though, that Walmart is one of the nation's leading corporations in charitable giving. In 2012, the corporation donated $311,607,280 which figures out to be 4.5% of its profits.

Hillary: The Special Commitee on Benghazi is Hardly Necessary

When House Speaker John Boehner spoke to the media yesterday again about his decision to form a special committee on Benghazi, he made it abundantly clear that the investigation would not be a partisan witch-hunt or show trial to score political points. Rather, it was going to be an impartial inquiry convened for the sole purpose of learning the truth about what happened that night:

 “This all about getting to the truth. It’s not going to be a side show. It’s not going to be a circus. This is a serious investigation.”
Rep Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who you'll recall was hand-selected by Boehner to lead the investigation, echoed his boss' comments in an op-ed published yesterday at USA Today. In that piece, he laid out the reasons for why the special committee is necessary -- and indeed critical -- to the House's ongoing investigation:
 House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is right to convene a select committee devoted to uncovering all relevant facts connected to Benghazi, just as the House committees of jurisdiction were right to investigate Benghazi before this. Despite the passage of 20 months, there remain unresolved questions.
Why was security for our facility in Libya inadequate, and why were repeated calls for additional security unheeded and, indeed, explicitly rejected? Was our military response during the pendency of the siege sufficient? And in the days and weeks after the attack, was the Obama administration transparent and forthright with our fellow Americans in describing the impetus behind the attack?
Moreover, no one has been arrested, prosecuted, or punished for the murders of our fellow Americans. These outstanding questions, and others, are legitimate, and seeking the answer to these questions should be an apolitical process.
And yet, despite these unanswered questions, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that forming a special committee on Benghazi is essentially a waste of time:
 Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she is "absolutely" satisfied with what she knows about the Benghazi terror attack, and cast doubt on the intentions of House Republicans spearheading a select committee to investigate it.
"I mean of course there are a lot of reasons why, despite all of the hearings, all of the information that’s been provided, some choose not to be satisfied and choose to continue to move forward," Clinton said in an appearance in New York.
"That’s their choice and I do not believe there is any reason for it to continue in this way, but they get to call the shots in the Congress," she said.
No reason for it? Here's one: Pat Smith and others who've lost loved ones are still waiting for answers. Thus, forming a bipartisan committee of lawmakers to investigate what happened seems to be the best way to get them some.

Dem Charlie Rangel: Americans Won’t ‘Lose Any Sleep’ Over Benghazi.

On Thursday, New York Democrat Charlie Rangel had some strong words for Republicans when he claimed that the Republican charge to investigate the Benghazi scandal is a non-issue for voters.
Spoiler alert: He’s wrong.
Speaking with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto on Thursday, Rep. Rangel joined his fellow Democrats in flippantly dismissing the significance of the Benghazi scandal which continues to haunt this administration. 
“I think it’s tragic that the Republican Party would destroy itself in 2016 by not having one issue that the American people believe should be a priority,” Rangel claimed.
“I don’t think people, Americans, Democratic or Republicans, are going to lose sleep over Benghazi. And I really think that they’re concerned about the economy and jobs and immigration. What I’m talking about is, is that if the Democrats are the only ones standing on their feet in 2016, America has lost.” 
Rangel also wondered why a new select committee was being assembled and noted that Rep. Darrell Issa, “has had all of these hours and days and weeks and months investigating this, that now you`re saying you have no confidence in him, so you have to bring in a new member to head up a new committee to find the answers?”
The answer: we still haven’t gotten to the bottom of this.
While Rangel is correct that Americans are, in fact, concerned with such things as the economy and immigration, the truth is that the majority of Americans don’t believe that the Obama Administration is being truthful with regards to Benghazi.
People are interested. When a government’s weak foreign policy invites terrorists to attack our consulate without fear of consequences, people are interested.
When it’s revealed that security requests were denied by the State Department soon before four Americans were slaughtered, people are interested.
When Americans learned that President Obama wasn’t even monitoring the developing situation as Americans were murdered, people were interested.
When it was revealed that before the smoke had cleared, the White House and the State Department colluded to manipulate talking points to steer the conversation away from the “broader failures of policy,” people have been very interested.
The more Democrats circle the wagons in an attempt to protect the Obama Administration from the fallout that serves as a consequence of a dearth of leadership, the more Americans wonder, “What are they hiding?”
Rangel was wrong to declare that Americans wouldn’t care. The Tea Party cares and unlike for the Democrats, this is not a partisan crusade. Americans were murdered and our Commander-in-Chief was MIA while his staff feverishly worked to craft the next set of lies to tell the American people.
It’s outrageous and unconscionable.
The reason lawmakers continue to investigate Benghazi is because these efforts are continually and obnoxiously hindered, stalled and obstructed by Democrats conscious of the fact that the whole truth is pretty damning.
If Rangel, Obama, Reid, Pelosi or any other politicians want an end to investigations into Benghazi, the simplest solution would be to stop prolonging the inevitable and get it over with; start telling the truth.

Friday, May 9, 2014

The Cavalry That Never Came

Someone at the highest level of the United States government made the decision to abandon American consular staff to their fate and cede U.S. sovereign territory to an al-Qaeda assault team — and four out of five Sunday news shows don't think it's worth talking about.

In the smoking ruins of that consulate in Benghazi, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought for hours and killed 60 of the enemy before they were overwhelmed, waiting for the cavalry that never came. They're still waiting – for Candy Crowley, David Gregory, Bob Schieffer, and George Stephanopoulos to do their job.
Democrats and their media enablers openly giggle at the word "Benghazi" now. So funny, isn't it? Those provincial simpletons at Fox News are still droning on about dead Americans in Benghazi as if anybody but their drooling rubes care about it, ha-ha... If the Democrats are right about that, it doesn't speak well for the American people. Those four Americans died serving the United States - not Obama, not Clinton, but their fellow Americans. And they're owed not the mawkish, hollow, self-serving eulogies written by hack staffers for the President and the Secretary of State to read over the coffins, but the truth about how and why they died. It's odd, even for the insular Obama cultists, that so many people find that a laughing matter.
Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt devoted most of his three hours on air to Benghazi. I put the night in context:
MARK STEYN: Not a lot of U.S. ambassadors get killed in the line of duty.
MS: If you discount the poor fellow who was on the plane with General Zia in Pakistan when that mysteriously blew up in mid-flight, you have to go back to Kabul over 30 years ago for the killing of a U.S. ambassador. So it happens extremely rarely.
Within half-an-hour, the President knew what was happening and why it was happening. Yet he did not act. Why? For me, that question remains as important as it was a year and a half ago:
MS: Brave men fought valiantly all through that horrible, long night, and saved dozens of people. But they were waiting for the help that never came, the help that was two hours away but was never ordered. And the official explanation is that 'Oh, well, we could have sent somebody, but they wouldn't have got there in time." Well, you know, just to go back to your sporting analogies, a terrorist attack on a U.S. facility is not a cricket match or a soccer match... You don't know how long it's going to last till the attack ends... Even if they had sent forces and they hadn't gotten there in time to save the ambassador or to save the other three people who died, they could have got there in time when the people who committed this act were still sifting through the rubble of the U.S. facility. And so they would have caught them, instead of these guys being free to wander around, swank around the Maghreb boasting about what they were able to pull off.
So who took the decision not to act, and why?
MS: Was it just about electoral advantage? Was it just to protect Joe Biden's soundbite Qaeda is dead and General Motors is alive? Or is it actually worse than that? In other words, in those first few moments, when the President is informed what's going on, does somebody, does somebody take the decision that because this whole thing is unhelpful to their view of the world, they are not going to send force? Because that, to me, does render whoever made that decision ...unfit for office.
As I go on to say, Chris Stevens was one of them, a Team Obama loyalist. But they abandoned him and dishonored him in death because the President's political needs outweighed his life. The heartlessness of all these caring, compassionate Democrats would impress Putin - if it was ever applied to America's enemies. You can read the entire transcript here.

GOP Rep. Sternly Lectures Democrats on the Lessons He Learned in the Army During Impassioned House Floor Speech on Benghazi

Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) blasted Democrats for expressing “fake outrage” and claiming the investigation into the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi is purely political. He cited some of the “lessons” he learned while serving in the Army to make his point.
“A couple lessons I learned in the Army were you moved to the sound of gunfire and the most important step in the troop leading procedures is to supervise the execution of you orders,” he said. “When Americans were fighting for their lives in Benghazi, Barack Obama did neither. He sent no quick reaction force and didn’t even stay in the situation room to supervise the execution of his orders. We expect more from the lieutenants in the army than our president gave us that night.”
Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).
Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).
Cotton accused the Obama administration of covering up the president’s “failure of leadership by stonewalling.” However, Congress is determined to uncover the truth, he added.
Democrats “express great outrage at politicizing” Benghazi, he continued. However, he suggested their outrage is extremely selective.
“When I was leading troops in Iraq in 2006, men and women who were being shot at and blown up by al Qaeda, where was the outrage as they fundraised endlessly off the Iraq war?” he asked. “Where was the outrage as they viciously attacked our commanders? Where was the outrage when they said soldiers were war criminals? Where was the outrage when they said the war was lost? Where was the outrage when they said only high school dropouts join the Army?”
The congressman then revealed one more lesson he learned while in the Army: We leave no man behind. And we will not leave these four men behind.”
The Washington Free Beacon has the video:
(H/T: Right Scoop)

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Stop Hillary PAC

Benghazi is not a vast right-wing conspiracy -- unless the Congressional Select Committee fails to subpoena Hillary Clinton.
If that happens, Hillary's guilt will be permanently buried, and her 2016 nomination to carry on Obama's destructive legacy will be cemented by the Democrats.

If you haven't read my email below and signed your petition, please do so immediately.

Stop Hillary PAC is ahead of the curve. AND with your added support, we will not allow the Congressional Select Committee on Benghazi to protect Hillary's legacy. John Kerry has been subpoenaed -- but Hillary Clinton has not!

Add your name to demand Hillary be compelled to testify under oath --

- Ted

Sent from my iPhone
Stop Hillary PAC


Benghazi is more than just a political buzzword, but to Hillary, that's all it is...

Four Americans were murdered there --

  • Ambassador Christopher Stevens;
  • U.S. State Department specialist Sean Smith;
  • Former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty; and
  • Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods.
These four men were killed in cold blood, not by a mob angry over a YouTube video as Hillary Clinton directed her State Department to announce, but by a deliberate, coordinated assassination.

In order to get to the truth, the new Select Committee MUST subpoena Hillary Clinton and call her in front of the Committee under oath.

And that's why I urgently need you to sign the SUBPOENA HILLARY CLINTON petition to insist Congress uncover the truth -- and immediately hold Hillary Clinton accountable.

Please, follow this link, and sign the SUBPOENA HILLARY CLINTON petition today...

Clinton herself was personally briefed on the threats and vulnerabilities facing Benghazi, but she chose to ignore and deny repeated requests for increased security, taking no action - AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT!

Congress' newly formed Select Committee is about seeking truth and justice. The four men who died deserve at least that much -- but before that can happen, Clinton must come clean.

That is why Stop Hillary PAC has created the SUBPOENA HILLARY CLINTON petition. 
Your signature, along with thousands (and hopefully MILLIONS), will be delivered directly to the Select Committee on Benghazi demanding Hillary Clinton is served a subpoena and MUST answer questions under oath.

The Benghazi Congressional Select Committee will have to subpoena Hillary Clinton in order to hold her to account for her central role in allowing the deaths of four American citizens.

Follow the link to sign the petition and when you're done, please chip in $5 to get this petition in front of 2 million concerned Americans

I need your help to hold Hillary accountable. The Congressional Select Committee has the power to do it, but without a full and thorough investigation, Hillary might get away AGAIN.

Hillary is complicit with the White House in selling the American people a bold-faced-lie.
 Getting Obama re-elected and securing her 2016 run for the Presidency was more important to Hillary than telling the truth about four dead Americans.

Sign the petition, and chip in $5 today.


Senator Ted Harvey
Co-founder, Stop Hillary PAC

P.S. Sign the SUBPOENA HILLARY CLINTON petition to insist Congress get to the TRUTH!