Tag Archive: Glen Doherty
” Reports indicate two drones and an AC-130 gunship were in the area when Benghazi was attacked, yet their resources were not used.
This runs completely against the current explanation coming out of the White House, which is that Obama did everything he could once he learned of the attack.
There are three huge problems with the excuses Obama and Panetta are making.
1. It is now known that the U.S. had two drones in the area — both of which were filming the attacks, sending back feeds in real time, and at least one of the drone may have been armed.
2. Reports also indicate a Specter gunship, probably an AC-130, was in the area for backup. The gunship could have swooped in and not only leveled the playing field in the match between 50 attackers vs a handful of security personnel, it could have thrown the attack decisively in favor of the security personnel.
3. The security personnel in Benghazi had painted a laser mark on the attackers outside the consulate. This mark would have made possible a response by the drones or the AC-130 routine had they been allowed to zero in on it. The member of the security team who was on the roof of the consulate, spraying machine gun fire down on the attackers, continually asked for backup from the AC-130. It never came.”
” It makes a difference when those sent abroad to represent our country die because they were not provided proper protection — requested, but denied.
It makes a difference that some who were told not to respond put the safety of others first, responded none the less, and because of their effort paid the ultimate price.
It makes a difference that our president did not immediately engage an aggressive effort to help these people.
It makes a difference that those in the highest offices of this nation were informed early this was a terrorist attack, but chose to deceive us with a fabrication about a video as the cause of the attack, rather than state the truth — it was terrorists.
It makes a difference that our president tried to blame the video as causal, rather than terrorists, when speaking to the families of the fallen heroes … such moments and face-to-face family condolences are times for honor and respect, not lies.
It makes a difference that his vice president, his CIA director, and his secretary of state all echoed the lie to the families of the fallen … “nose-to-nose,” as Shawn Smith’s mother stated.”
Please read the rest …
” The White House released more than 100 pages of e-mails on Wednesday in a bid to quell critics who say President Barack Obama and his aides played politics with national security following the deadly terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
The e-mails detail the complex back and forth between the CIA, State Department, and the White House in developing unclassified talking points that were used to underpin a controversial and slow-to-evolve explanation of events last September 11.”
- Did the White House selectively leak e-mail to distort Benghazi timeline story? Update: Axelrod: Release all the Libya e-mails (hotair.com)
- White House releases emails on Benghazi talking points (shortformblog.com)
- White House Releases Benghazi E-mails (nationalreview.com)
- WH releases 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails – Link to Docs (riehlworldview.com)
- Just Released: More than 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails (legalinsurrection.com)
” Sometimes it is better to show a scandal than to explain it. SHARE this exposure of the Benghazi cover-up!”
Kirstin Powers on Obama’s Strategy: I’m Just Going to Call Them Lies Because They’re Lies
” Kirstin Powers on Barack Obama’s dishonesty on Benghazi. “He’s so centrally involving himself with these repeated lies. And, I’m just going to call them lies because they’re lies. They’re on tape. Nobody thought that he called it a terrorist attack. Last night I went up and I looked at the New York Times how they reported it (Benghazi) the day after. They never reference that we had a terrorist attack against the United States. On September 20th, however, they run a story that says Libyan envoys killing was a terrorist attack. And they say until now White House officials have not used that language in describing the assault. That is September 20th. That is The New York Times. Now at what point are people going to get tired of the president coming out and over and over saying things like don’t believe your lying eyes?” “
Judge Jeanine “Fact Blasts” Hillary & Obama Administration on Benghazi Attack – 5-11-13
” Judge Jeanine Pirro, who attended this week’s Congressional hearing on Benghazi, says the testimony she witnessed proved President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are liars.”
This must be seen . Judge Pirro lays out the entire sordid episode , both administration lies and the facts as they have been established to give even the most devoted “low information” voter a firm grasp of exactly what has transpired these last eight months . A better , more concise , and simply stated synopsis of the Benghazi scandal has yet to be tendered … and most likely never will be .
” By their second term “inside the bubble,” presidents have completely lost touch with reality: Aides and confidants conspire to keep the chief executive insulated from the real world — the bad news, the worse press coverage. They think it’s their job, and lounging on the Oval Office couches, they nod along with the president’s every musing.
But this presidency has taken OOCS to new heights. Mr. Obama has only a few trusted aides, and occasional leaks from the West Wing show a paranoid president suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Supremely confident, convinced by the fawning minions at his feet that he is untouchable, the president dismisses all controversy as partisan attacks by an overzealous opposition. A pliant press corps of stenographers follows in lockstep.
Not surprisingly, every president in the past 60 years has had a major scandal in Term 2: Dwight Eisenhower had the U-2 “incident”; Richard Nixon had Watergate; Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton had Monica (literally); George W. Bush had Katrina (and let’s not forget those WMDs that never turned up); and now, this president has Benghazi.
” On Wednesday evening, CNN barely covered the congressional hearing on the Benghazi attack from earlier that afternoon. Instead, the network provided wall-to-wall coverage of the Jodi Arias trial verdict and the Cleveland kidnappings.
From the hours of 5 p.m. until 11 p.m. ET, CNN gave a whopping 4 hours, 9 minutes of coverage to the two crime stories, but a measly eight minutes to Benghazi — over 30 times more coverage. And three of CNN’s prime-time shows didn’t even mention Benghazi.
The 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET hours of Anderson Cooper 360 featured over one hour and twenty minutes of material on Arias and the Cleveland abduction, but not a second on the hearing. The 9 p.m. ET hour of Piers Morgan Live aired over 40 minutes on the two stories, but completely ignored the Benghazi hearing.”
Delta Snipers Gary Gordon and Randy Shugart
” 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.
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.”
State Dept "Contractors" Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods
While we are comparing politicians Clinton and Aspen’s actions and noting similar incompetence displayed during American foreign policy disasters there is another similarity between the two events . This parallelism however, instead of reflecting a common theme of political incompetence , involves America and American’s at our/their finest .
” Shortly before last November’s election I took part in a Fox News documentary on Benghazi, whose other participants included the former governor of New Hampshire John Sununu. Making chit-chat while the camera crew were setting up, Governor Sununu said to me that in his view Benghazi mattered because it was “a question of character.” That’s correct. On a question of foreign policy or counterterrorism strategy, men of good faith can make the wrong decisions. But a failure of character corrodes the integrity of the state.
That’s why career diplomat Gregory Hicks’s testimony was so damning — not so much for the new facts as for what those facts revealed about the leaders of this republic. In this space in January, I noted that Hillary Clinton had denied ever seeing Ambassador Stevens’s warnings about deteriorating security in Libya on the grounds that “1.43 million cables come to my office” — and she can’t be expected to see all of them, or any. Once Ambassador Stevens was in his flag-draped coffin listening to her eulogy for him at Andrews Air Force Base, he was her bestest friend in the world — it was all “Chris this” and “Chris that,” as if they’d known each other since third grade. But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.”
Leave it to Mr Steyn to ask the important questions …
” What was Secretary Clinton doing that was more important? What was the president doing? Aside, that is, from resting up for his big Vegas campaign event. A real government would be scrambling furiously to see what it could do to rescue its people. It’s easy, afterwards, to say that nothing would have made any difference. But, at the time Deputy Chief Hicks was calling 9-1-1 and getting executive-branch voicemail, nobody in Washington knew how long it would last.”
Read the whole thing .
” There’s new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to “terrorism” from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.
Conservatives have long maintained that the administration deliberately suppressed the truth about the attacks.
This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA’s original assessment.
Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and this sentence removed: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”
There’s little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.
State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.”
- BBC Editor: ‘Heads Will Roll’ Over Benghazi – ‘This Is Now Very Serious’ (patdollard.com)
- Heads will roll on Benghazi (bbc.co.uk)
- BBC News covers whistle-blower testimony: “After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll” (winteryknight.wordpress.com)
- Obama administration emails raise new questions on Benghazi (fox6now.com)
- Hillary Was Behind The Talking Points Revisions (sweetness-light.com)
” 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.”
- Obama Administration Revised Benghazi Talking Points 12 Times – Scrubbed References to Al-Qaeda Group to Mislead Public (thegatewaypundit.com)
- Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Jihad Reference (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
- ABC Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference (rubinoworld.com)
- BREAKING: Benghazi “Talking Points” Went Through TWELVE Revisions (minx.cc)
- ABC Finds Benghazi Talking Points Extensively Edited by State Dept. (nationalreview.com)
- With an ‘Exclusive’ Benghazi Report – ABC Starts to catch up with the rest of us (grumpyelder.com)
- The Fallout from Benghazi (thedailybeast.com)
” Obama administration officials are finally letting the attorney for a Benghazi whistle-blower get a security clearance — but the clearance is at such a low level that it will probably slow the congressional probe of how the administration handled last year’s terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
Victoria Toensing represents an unnamed government official who can help explain the reaction of top government officials to the jihadi attack on the U.S diplomatic site in Benghazi and killed four Americans last Sept. 11.
The official may also be able to explain if officials rewrote intelligence reports and took other actions to minimize media coverage of the administration’s errors and the perceived role of Al Qaeda jihadis.”
” The biggest Benghazi-related story that took place outside of the House Oversight Committee’s hearing room today is this item in Politico, regarding CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. She’s the reporter who famously drew White House officials’ profane ire over her unapologetic pursuit of the Fast & Furious scandal story; now she’s apparently facing searing criticism from another source: Her own bosses. Why? Because she’s been covering the Benghazi story too aggressively. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you media bias:
“Attkisson, who holds a third-degree black belt in taekwondo, takes a fighting stance when she feels she’s being stonewalled. Which is exactly what she thinks the White House has done to her on Benghazi,” Farhi writes. But from where Attkisson is sitting, there are actually two Goliaths, one of which is almost entirely absent from the Post profile. The second Goliath is CBS News, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Attkisson’s Benghazi campaign. CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO. Attkisson can’t get some of her stories on the air, and is thus left feeling marginalized and underutilized. That, in part, is why Attkisson is in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract, as POLITICO reported in April. Farhi mentions “internal conflicts” in the final paragraph, though he seems to dismiss them. The “internal conflicts” are indeed real — Attkisson is still eyeing an exit, according to sources — and provide important context for today’s piece. Today, CBS News is celebrating Attkisson’s commitment to the Benghazi story. It’s good press. But that support is an aberration.
“Dangerously close to advocacy”? That’s how CBS News apparently views the work of a reporter who is doggedly seeking truth about an issue of enormous importance that many of her colleagues have scrupulously ignored. Remarkable. And as Ed Morrissey noticed, Attkisson’s Twitter feed went curiously silent very early on during today’s hearings. What happened? Allahpundit thinks he knows what’s going on here, and I agree with him:
[The media establishment and liberals] can’t stop conservative media from existing, but they can ghettoize it as illegitimate and “partisan” in a way that their own partisan garbage isn’t….Skepticism about Benghazi is fine for the wingnuts at Fox, but bringing such unhelpful nonsense into an “impartial,” i.e. pro-Obama, outlet like CBS risks lending credence to the GOP’s accusations. The proper line to take on Benghazi is to dismiss the new hearings with a sneer, a la Joe Klein, or, in the case of “impartial” news coverage, to dismiss them more lightly by referencing Hillary’s long-ago whining about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to discredit the Clintons. “Going where the story leads” is unhelpful to liberalism in this case, ergo it’s advocacy by definition.”
So the only MSM reporter who is actually doing her job is being maginalized by her own employer for … actually doing her job .
Slate: Claims of Benghazi Cover Up Is ‘Pure Fiction’
” As the Benghazi hearings begin anew on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, it is worth remembering that Dave Weigel of Slate.com, the former Journolist member who delights in attempting to debunk conservative narratives, declared in December that Republican suspicions of a Benghazi cover-up by the Obama administration were “pure fiction.”
Americans have also learned that none of the other principals were in contact with each other that day, either. Apparently neither Panetta, nor Clinton, nor Dempsey called each other or took any hand in the response to the situation.
Contrast that to the high degree of coordination on the editing of talking points about the attack to remove evidence of Islamist or jihadist involvement–a process in which the State Department evidently played a key role.
Finally, we’ve still never been told why Ambassador Stevens was even in Benghazi in the first place.
There most certainly has been a cover-up about Benghazi. Unfortunately, few journalists seem interested in asking the right questions.”
” This is what you missed if you were at work or watching the mainstream media all day. Please SHARE with those who were affected by the media blackout of the Benghazi whistleblowers’ testimony! “
Explosive: Rep. Trey Gowdy Unloads Unreleased Email Exposing Benghazi Coverup
(Benghazi Witness) NORDSTROM: Labors to Uncover What Happened Matters
Learn more at http://Oversight.House.Gov
” Today, the Oversight Committee holds its next hearing on the Benghazi attacks, exposing denials of security requests while forcing the Administration to acknowledge that the attacks were not sparked by the protest of a YouTube video, contrary to claims made by Obama Administration officials.”
(Benghazi Witness) HICKS: Until Benghazi I Loved Everyday of My Job
(Benghazi Witness) THOMPSON: “We needed to act now and not wait”
” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) wrote Tuesday he believes major revelations about the lead up to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, are imminent, in a Facebook message:
“I think the dam is about to break on Benghazi. We’re going to find a system failure before, during, and after the attacks.
“We’re going to find political manipulation seven weeks before an election. We’re going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton.”
” On Wednesday, at least three State Department employees will testify before the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee on Benghazi. They are expected to say that yes, there was a stand-down order during the battle. They may also testify that the State Department itself has tried to bully them into silence. What else they may say is not yet known.
As the Benghazi story has unfolded, many mysteries have persisted. Why wasn’t the Benghazi mission’s security enhanced? Where was President Obama? What role, if any, did Obama campaign officials play in crafting the government’s communications after the attack? Perhaps Wednesday’s witnesses can help shed some light on them.”
” Pat Smith’s 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.”