Benghazi could possibly lead to an Obama impeachment, according to one US Senator.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R – Okla.) mentioned the “I word” in a radio interview discussion of the alleged Benghazi cover-up.

On September 11, 2012, four Americans were killed at the US embassy compound in Benghazi — Ambassador Christopher Stevens, embassy official Sean Smith, and security officers Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods (both former Navy SEALS) — when the Obama administration allegedly failed to send reinforcements and rescue teams despite pleas for help. Three State Department Benghazi whistleblowers testified on Capitol Hill this past Wednesday about what they knew about what happened to the four Americans who died in the terrorist attack, testimony that conflicted with the administration’s rendition.

The investigation by the House Oversight Committee is ongoing.

The role of Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, in this matter is also coming under further scrutiny.

In a radio interview with Rusty Humphries a day later, Sen. Inhofe said “People may be starting to use the I-word before too long.” The senator then confirmed he was referring to the impeachment of the president, the man ultimately responsible for the response or non-response to the embassy attack in Libya.

Added Inhofe, who serves on the Armed Services Committee: “Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history.”

Inhofe acknowledged, however, that impeachment would be a non-starter in the Senate as long as the chamber is controlled by Democrats, even if articles of impeachment were voted through in the House.

Yesterday, emails were leaked to the press that apparently showed that the so-called talking points about Benghzi were revised 12 times beyond the version written by the CIA. The emails show the White House coordinating with the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and other agencies to obtain the final version of the talking points on Benghazi, which were then turned over to UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in television appearances in the days after the attack. In particular, the Benghazi emails show that the State Department wanted to remove all references to al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia — the Libyan militant group suspected of carrying out the deadly attack.

The White House has continued to downplay its involvement in the talking points edits.

With the presidential election looming, you’ll recall that the Obama administration blamed the attack on the embassy compound on a spontaneous demonstration against a YouTube video.

Even an MSNBC panelists roundtable recently concluded that all this looks bad for the White House. One panelist, Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky,  admitted that “it becomes a potentially impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House.” A BBC editor said on television on Friday after the e-mails came out that he believes that “heads will roll” over the Benghazi cover-up and that “Hillary Clinton will have to eventually confront the allegations that her department deliberately altered talking points and advanced a false narrative to explain the Benghazi attack.”

For what it’s worth, Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has predicted that the president will be forced out of office, Watergate-style, as a result of Benghazi.

Do you believe that impeachment proceedings will ever be invoked over the Benghazi cover-up? Was Jim Inhofe speaking in hyperbolic terms or is there something to this?

Benghazi Obama Impeachment Possibility Raised By Senator is a post from: The Inquisitr

Rand Paul got the political gossip mill churning recently with blistering comments on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the developing Benghazi story. Doesn’t seem all that out of the ordinary, except that his comments were delivered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which is where many presidential campaigns get their unofficial start.

Speaking at the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Dinner this week, Paul was skeptical of the state department’s official response in the early days after the Benghazi embassy attack, as well as their apparent neglect in providing requested security for the consulate.

“First question to Hillary Clinton: Where in the hell were the Marines?” Paul asked.

“It was inexcusable, it was a dereliction of duty, and it should preclude her from holding higher office,” he added to applause.

Hillary Clinton is thought to be the front Democratic runner for a 2016 presidential bid (though Joe Biden has also expressed interest), and the GOP has been “auditioning” potential candidates, all in the hopes of bagging their first presidential election since 2004.

On the Republican side, names like Marco Rubio and Chris Christie have been bandied about, but neither have confirmed interest in running for the 2016 election. Rand Paul, a junior Kentucky Senator, seems to have unofficially thrown his hat in the ring with his Lincoln Dinner speech.

Paul also talked a bit about immigration reform, one of the most pressing issues in American politics today. He noted that he does support immigration reform, though legislation must not neglect border security.

“I’m also with Sen. Grassley and Congressman King on the fact that I think we were hoodwinked in 1968,” he said. “We were promised security, and it never came.”

1968 was the last year Congress passed meaningful immigration reform. Paul also noted that it is important to reach out to minorities, something the GOP has been struggling with.

“We’re an increasingly diverse nation, and I think we do need to reach out to other people that aren’t like us, don’t look like us, don’t wear the same clothes, that aren’t exactly who we are,” he said. “We’re going to have to do something.”

Do you think that Rand Paul could stand a chance against Hillary Clinton in 2016?

[Image via: Gage Skidmore, Wikimedia Commons]

Rand Paul Blames Hillary Clinton For Benghazi: Is He Prepping For 2016? is a post from: The Inquisitr

A series of emails related to the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012 were turned over to Congress on Friday. A long-simmering dispute over the White House’s account has turned again into an all-out war between the Obama administration and those who claim the administration covered up what really happened.

The emails show the White House coordinating with the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and other agencies to obtain the final version of the talking points on Benghazi, which were then turned over to UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in television appearances in the days after the attack.

In particular, the Benghazi emails show that the State Department wanted to remove all references to al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia — the Libyan militant group suspected of carrying out the deadly attack, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The department also asked to remove warnings about other potential terrorist threats from the talking points, which were drafted initially by the CIA.

The Benghazi talking points, which went through at least 12 versions before being given to Ambassador Rice, also showed how the State Department expressed concern that the CIA-drafted version could be used by some in Congress to criticize the preparedness of the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. A US intelligence official familiar with how the talking points were drafted stated:

“The changes don’t reflect a turf battle. They were attempts to find the appropriate level of detail for unclassified, preliminary talking points that could be used by members of Congress to address a fluid situation.”

Along with Ansa al-Sharia and al Qaeda, the fact that unknown gunmen carried out at least five attacks around Benghazi against “foreign interests” in the days before the attack on the US Consulate.

Understandably, the Benghazi emails first disclosed in a report by House Republicans last month, then detailed on Friday by ABC News, left the White House in a difficult situation.

[Image via Pete Souza]

Benghazi Emails Disclosed, Show Flurry Of Talking Points Changes is a post from: The Inquisitr

Some think that the Benghazi conspiracy/cover-up/scandal/whatever-it-is doesn’t get as much press as you’d think a terrorist attack on an American embassy would, but why? According to Rush Limbaugh, because there’s “no sex” in it.

All of the right ingredients are there in the Benghazi story: American martyrs, a reasonably clear enemy, political intrigue, and a bunch of unanswered questions. Whatever the so-called “truth” in the story really is, there are definitely enough pieces not there in the narrative to give it a second look, even if doing so allows you to arrive to a reasonable conclusion as it stands.

But still, some folks really think we ought to care more about this than we do. That is to say, we shouldn’t care more than we already do, but the media should care more than they already do. If we want to get really reductive, the left-leaning media should care more about it that it does.

So why doesn’t it? Right-leaning media might say that their opponents on the left are trying to shield Hillary Clinton from any backlash so she can run an un-tarnished presidential campaign in 2016 (Hils is pretty popular). Others think the “cover-up” is a media “apology tour” for President Obama whose policies have been pretty polarizing.

For controversial radio host Rush Limbaugh, the explanation is simpler than all of that. The media won’t touch Benghazi because it’s just not a very sexy story.

“You know the thing about Benghazi?” Limbaugh bloviated. “There’s no sex in it.”

He illustrated his point by comparing the story to the recent media focus on the Jodi Arias trial and the Amanda Knox case.

“We had sex with Jodi Arias. We had sex with the Castro brothers in Cleveland. We had sex with Amanda Knox. There’s no sex in Benghazi. No wonder it’s not interesting to people.”

Are you following the Benghazi story? Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that it’s not interesting due to a lack of sex? Listen below, via Mediaite:

Rush Limbaugh: There’s ‘No Sex’ In Benghazi Story [Listen] is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Benghazi hearings revealed that the militia known as the 17th Martyrs Brigade hired by the State Department helped the al Qaeda terrorists.

Greg Hicks, who was the department’s second-ranking diplomat in Libya at the time of the attack, says the militia members stationed inside the US compound by the State Department were “complicit” in the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans:

“Certainly, elements of that militia were complicit in the attacks. The attackers had to make a long approach march through multiple checkpoints that were manned by February 17 militia.”

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, internal security at Benghazi was reduced from 34 people to just three. Instead, groups known to be tied to al Qaeda terrorists were hired to guard Benghazi. The February 17 Martyrs Brigade “was the unit that the Libyan government had initially designated for VIP protection” and four members of the militia lived inside the State Department’s Benghazi compound, outnumbering US security forces.

At the Benghazi hearings, Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX) asked, “I’m stunned that the State Department was relying on a militia with extremist ties to protect American diplomats. That doesn’t make any sense. How does that happen?”

“You mean like in Afghanistan where Afghanis that are working with our military that are embedded and turn on them and shoot them?” Nordstrom responded. “Or Yemen, where our embassy was attacked in 2008 by attackers wearing police uniforms? Or in Saudi Arabia, in Jedda, we had an attack in 2004? The Saudi National Guard that was protecting our facility reportedly ran from the scene, and then it took 90 minutes before we could get help.”

The al Qaeda ties to the Benghazi militia were known before the attacks ever took place:

“Absolutely,” said Nordstrom. “Yeah, we had that discussion on a number of occasions, the last of which was when there was a Facebook posting of a threat that named Ambassador Stevens and Senator McCain, who was coming out for the elections that was in the July time frame. I had met with some of my agents and then also with some Annex personnel. We discussed that.”

The February 17 Martyrs Brigade abruptly ended this contract right before the attack, with the excuse being they were not being paid enough:

“[O]n September 8, 2012, just days before Ambassador Stevens arrived in Benghazi, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade told State Department officials that the group would no longer support U.S. movements in the city, including the Ambassador’s visit.”

During the attack, special forces were denied a Benghazi rescue mission twice even though the flight time was less than an hour. The militia had also stopped guarding any vehicle movements, making any potential rescue even more difficult.

What do you think about the State Department hiring a militia tied to al Qaeda to guard Benghazi?

Benghazi Militia Hired By State Department Helped Al Qaeda Terrorists is a post from: The Inquisitr

John Boehner is demanding Obama should release the Benghazi emails from the State Department.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Benghazi emails detail how the talking points were altered by the State Department after the CIA submitted its initial draft.

Not all of the Benghazi emails were released, so John Boehner is calling on Obama:

“The State Department would not allow our committees to keep copies of this email when it was reviewed. I would call on the president to order the State Department to release this email so the American people can see it.”

The Benghazi emails were not supposed to be revealed due to a deal made in Congress in order to pass the confirmation of John Brennan. These emails detail some of the names of those wanting to rewrite the Benghazi talking points and the reasons why.

The White House claims it only made “stylistic” changes at a closed door White House meeting the morning after the Benghazi attack. The talking points originally included detailed information about the terrorist attack, including links to al Qaeda, but the final version stripped out those references and blamed Benghazi on “violent demonstrations” that never occurred. The story about the YouTube video by Nakoula Basseley was apparently added later by someone in the White House.

John Boehner says some congressmen were able to review the Benghazi emails while being watched, but were not allowed to keep any copies. Boehner is alleging that Obama is hiding the truth about Benghazi:

“Last November, the President said he was ‘happy to cooperate in any way Congress wants. This is his chance. The truth shouldn’t be hidden from the American people behind a White House firewall,” Boehner continued. “Four Americans lost their lives in this terrorist attack. Congress will continue to investigate this issue, using all of the resources at our disposal.”

What do you think the Benghazi emails will reveal?

Benghazi Emails Demanded By John Boehner From Obama is a post from: The Inquisitr

Considering the Benghazi hearings are making it abundantly clear the YouTube video guy Nakoula Basseley Nakoula had nothing to do with the Benghazi terrorist attacks, some people might be wondering whatever did happen to the guy.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Benghazi report accuses the White House and senior State Department officials of altering “accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.” One of the major changes was to blame the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims created by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for instigating the Benghazi terrorist attack by al Qaeda.

Following the Benghazi attack, it became quickly obvious that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s days were numbered. The White House blamed the YouTube video, angering Muslims who had otherwise never heard of Innocence of Muslims. The White House ran public service announcements in Pakistan featuring President Barack Obama saying the United States had nothing to do with the YouTube video. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Charles Woods, the father of a Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi,  that “[w]e will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was arrested the day after President Obama’s re-election.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was sentenced to a year in jail for four violations, including lying to his probation officer about his role in making the YouTube video the Obama administration wanted to blame for Benghazi. Nakoula was under federal probation after a 2010 conviction on bank and credit card fraud and admits to violating his probation. Politico points out how unusual this should lead to jail time, never mind having his records sealed:

“A violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards. Not for Nakoula. … Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s underlying offense wasn’t an underlying offense. He exercised his First Amendment rights.”

During the Benghazi hearings, Gregory Hicks, who was the number two American in Benghazi, testified that Ambassador Stevens made no mention of a demonstration at the mission in Benghazi, only an attack. Hicks claims “[t]he YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” despite the Obama Administration’s attempts to pin the violence in Libya to protests over a trailer for the anti-Muslim film.

What do you think about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula now that we know the YouTube video had nothing to do with Benghazi?

There is a guy still sitting in jail because Obama and Hillary blamed a YouTube video. His record was conveniently sealed. #Benghazi

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 9, 2013

Benghazi: YouTube Guy Nakoula Basseley Nakoula Obama’s Patsy? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Marco Rubio says President Obama and the State Department should be held accountable for Benghazi.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, some say the Benghazi hearings could impeach Obama although Marco Rubio is not going that far.

The three witnesses in the Benghazi hearings claim the consulate’s security budgets were cut through “normalizing.” Multiple requests for maintaining internal security levels were denied despite the Red Cross and the British being attacked. In the end, the State Department never responded to the Tripoli embassy’s request for continued security resources. Internal security was thus reduced from 34 people to just three. Instead, groups tied to al Qaeda terrorists were hired to guard Benghazi and these groups abruptly ended this contract right before the attack. During the attack, special forces were denied a Benghazi rescue mission twice even though the flight time was less than an hour.

As for after the attack, the Benghazi report details how the White House and senior State Department officials of altered “accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.”

After the Benghazi hearings Marco Rubio wants Obama and the State Department held accountable:

“Instead of ensuring that these terrible events are not repeated, the White House and its allies seem more interested in accusing those seeking answers of playing politics than getting to the bottom of what happened that night.

“Perhaps most concerning is the fact that no one has yet been held accountable. How is it that the United States of America, with our global reach and capabilities, has been unable to identify, apprehend or kill those responsible for the deaths of these four Americans?

“It is the White House, not the Congress, that is playing politics with this issue, perhaps out of concern that answering these questions will raise uncomfortable truths about this administration’s policies.”

Do you agree with Marco Rubio that President Obama and State Department should be held accountable for Benghazi?

The #Obama administration and the State Department should be held accountable for tragedy in #Benghazim.usatoday.com/article/news/2…

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 9, 2013

Marco Rubio: Obama And State Department Should Be Held Accountable For Benghazi is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Benghazi hearings this week have apparently been a non-stop Fox News point of coverage, and Daily Show host Jon Stewart ripped the network’s obsession with finding fault over the attack in a segment last night.

Jon Stewart revived the “Bulls*** Mountain” slam against Fox in the Benghazi segment last night, railing against the right’s continued insistence that something, anything went on there that not only should lead to President Obama’s impeachment, but also the prevention of a potential 2016 run by Hillary Clinton.

Stewart described at length what he painted as a desperate attempt to spin Benghazi into a scandal and a continued failure to manufacture appropriate levels of outrage over the imagined coverup.

Beginning by mentioning 54 attacks on diplomatic targets during the Bush administration resulting in 13 American deaths, Stewart said:

“You may be wondering why for Benghazi, Congress has held nine full hearings, including one closed hearing, why Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen issued a full accountability report chastising the State Department for their systemic failures, and why Benghazi has generally emerged as a rallying cry for the President’s opponents when during the Bush administration there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets that killed 13 Americans yet garnered only three hearings on embassy security total and zero outrage on Fox …. So why is this attack so different for Republicans?”

Stewart continued:

“I think I see the problem here. You can’t understand why everyone else isn’t as outraged as you, when it is because the rest of us aren’t sure if what you’re saying is true. And to be quite frank, you do have somewhat of a history of hysteria.”

The comic concludes:

“You may be right, but the denizens of Bullsh*** Mountain have cried wolf before and after 18 months of intensive investigations you should be able to better state your case.”

Below are two clips of Jon Stewart on Benghazi spin last night — do you agree that the controversy over the alleged coverup are a case of manufactured outrage?

Benghazi ‘Coverup’ Ripped By Jon Stewart As Product Of ‘Bulls*** Mountain’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Benghazi hearings are currently ongoing, but already some are wondering whether the testimony could impeach Obama and prosecute Hillary Clinton for their actions, or lack thereof.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Mike Huckabee believes the Benghazi hearings could impeach Obama, or at least get Obama removed from office. Huckabee believes the justification for impeaching Obama would be based upon the Benghazi cover-up:

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

Greg Gutfeld recently summarized the Benghazi hearings in this fashion:

“The thing is Benghazi isn’t complex; it’s very simple. People needed help on 9/11. They were denied. Four people died. The government falsely blamed a video. You can’t get any easier than that. That’s Scandal 101. Even Howie Kurtz could follow it, and he is an idiot. Especially compared with other massive scandals — Watergate: people lied, no one died, Benghazi: the president shilled after people were killed.”

Update: Included more information from Benghazi hearings, which were on-going during the writing of this article.

Whether Hillary Clinton is involved in the Benghazi cover-up is currently being contested at the Benghazi hearings. But some unnamed sources claim another reason to impeach President Obama is because only he could have prevented special forces from being put on the ground:

“I have a hard time thinking it was Hillary alone. Hillary may have tried to circumvent the counterterrorism board and deal with this. I think in order for her to tell General Ham, ‘No, you’re not going to get involved,’ she would have had to talk to the president. The president would have had to say, ‘No, take your commands from Hillary.’ He would have had said something, because Ham does not work for the Department of State; he works directly for the president.”

Many of the statements made by Ambassador Susan Rice attempted to politicize the Benghazi attacks to make them appear favorable to President Obama. The Rice narrative included Al-Qaeda losing ground, which the State Department knew to be untrue, and that the Middle East’s public sentiment toward the United States was improving. The Benghazi attack was specifically stated by to not be connected to any U.S. foreign policy decisions by the Obama White House.

Under military law, specifically the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),  reasons for impeachments are treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. Congress can define what “high crimes or misdemeanors” means so it’s possible the altering of the Benghazi talking points and the following cover-up might qualify.

By definition, an impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment. A commander-in-chief can be indited for watching troops die, while having the capability do prevent those actions, but then purposefully taking no action. But Congress has to be the one to call for impeachment. That can be done if in fact Obama watched the troops die and did nothing about it due to political reasons.

Outside of the Benghazi cover-up that occurred after the attack, based upon what we do know I will summarize quickly how it could be construed that the personnel in Benghazi were purposefully put in danger by the State Department and the Obama administration:

Security budgets were cut through “normalizing.” Multiple requests for maintaining internal security levels were denied despite the Red Cross and the British being attacked. Charlene Lamb never responded to the Tripoli embassy’s request for continued security resources. Internal security was thus reduced from 34 people to just three. Instead, groups tied to al Qaeda terrorists were hired to guard Benghazi and these groups abruptly ended this contract right before the attack. During the attack, special forces were denied a Benghazi rescue mission twice even though the flight time was less than an hour.

During the Benghazi hearings, Mr. Hicks and Nordstrom testified that the United States government never requested permission from the Libyan government to fly our military airplanes over the country with the exception of an unmanned drone that was approved prior to the attack. Mr. Thompson stated his opinion that the United States should showcase the resolve to rescue any US personnel under attack both currently and for the future. Because of this testimony, it could be said that we never seriously attempted a rescue mission at the very least.

The damage from Benghazi extends beyond the deaths at Benghazi. At one point, Hillary Clinton famously declared “what different does it make?” Asked about this, Mr. Hicks said the Libyan government was insulted, the president was angry, and our credibility around the world was hurt. The FBI also was unable to get to the crime scene for 17 days. The Benghazi suspects, whose photos were recently released, are thought to be connected to al Qaeda, but so far the leads have not produced any results.

But will the Benghazi hearings even provide the evidence necessary to finger Hillary Clinton, never mind impeach Obama? So far, based upon the available evidence, President Obama himself has not been directly implicated in making any of these decisions, although many critics would like to speculate since these actions all directly benefited Obama during the 2012 Presidential Elections.

But connecting the dots to President Obama is proving not be easy for his critics. As far as this writer can determine, there are no classified documents released that connect Obama to any major fateful decision. The emails detailing how the Benghazi talking points were altered show how “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” We know the final version of the Benghazi talking points were produced at the White House, as well as the YouTube story, but President Obama is never named directly in all of these instances. At one time, President Obama did say he would take the blame for anything said by Susan Rice, but this was done in a general sense.

Even Hillary Clinton has mostly managed to evade a direct connection to the decision to reduce security in Benghazi. Representative Issa trumpeted a Benghazi security cable document bearing Hillary Clinton’s signature, but quite frankly it cannot be proven that Hillary Clinton read or even knew about the cables, which are actually emails. Never mind, based upon standard State Department protocols literally all of the communications during that timeframe bare Hillary Clinton’s signature as Secretary of State.

Still, we do know Hillary Clinton was at least involved during the Benghazi attacks because her staff was nice enough to make this admission to a CNN reporter:

“As you know, she’s not that interested in focusing on herself. But obviously, she was here very late that night. She was getting regular updates from both the DS Command Center and the senior NEA leadership in the building, she was making phone calls to senior people, and so she was obviously very much involved.”

During the Benghazi hearings, Eric Nordstrom, the security chief in Libya, averred that Hillary Clinton “absolutely” would have been briefed on his and Stevens’ repeated requests for an increased security presence in Libya. But, as far as I’m aware, there is no paper trail proving Hillary Clinton a liar.

So, really, despite the Benghazi hearings so far we only have mid-level government officials making claims of higher ups putting pressure on them, but with no names named. Back in the fall, Mr. Nordstrom claimed Charlene Lamb told him Benghazi security couldn’t be maintained “because there would be too much political cost.” What we don’t know yet is who in the Obama administration gave Charlene Lamb this idea.

Unless a major bombshell is released by the Benghazi hearings an Obama impeachment seems very unlikely. The House of Representatives have sole power of impeachment, but the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments. This is Article 1 of the United States Constitution. The majority of the House of Representatives is Republican, while the majority of the Senate is Democratic. Even in the event of a bombshell, Democrats may pull the same stunt they pulled with President Clinton, who was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice but the Senate rejected the articles sent from the House.

Do you think the Benghazi hearings could lead to an Obama impeachment?

Benghazi Hearings Could Impeach Obama, Prosecute Hillary Clinton? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Fox News Channel commentator Greg Gutfeld claims that real Benghazi cover-up was orchestrated by the mainstream media rather than the Obama administration.

Gutfeld, a former Huffington Post columnist, is now co-host of the FNC’s highly rated The Five broadcast, previewed the Benghazi Congressional hearing in the context of how the media covered or didn’t cover the Benghazi attack and its aftermath.

In a sense, Gutfeld is indirectly alluding to this age-old question — if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

On September 11, 2012, four Americans were killed at the US embassy compound in Benghazi — Ambassador Christopher Stevens, embassy official Sean Smith, and security officers Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods (both former Navy SEALS) — when the Obama administration allegedly failed to send reinforcements despite pleas for help. According to diplomat Gregory Hicks, who is testifying on Capitol Hill today, a US Special Forces team was ready to deploy to Benghazi on a rescue and backup mission until they were inexplicably told to stand down.

For nearly a year, the administration has been stonewalling congressional investigators trying to find out exactly what happened in the attack. And the news media didn’t seem to care about this lack of transparency.

With regard to getting to the bottom of what happened at Benghazi, Gutfeld put the media’s conduct under his satirical microscope: “As three key witnesses are about to testify regarding the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, one question remains — who the hell cares? I mean really, it happened such a long time ago and what difference does it make? Which leads me to another question, what kind of story merits examination?

Added Gutfeld about the media inherent in the coverage: “The thing is Benghazi isn’t complex; it’s very simple. People needed help on 9/11. They were denied. Four people died. The government falsely blamed a video. You can’t get any easier than that. That’s Scandal 101. Even Howie Kurtz could follow it, and he is an idiot. Especially compared with other massive scandals — Watergate: people lied, no one died, Benghazi: the president shilled after people were killed. Wouldn’t that merit hard hitting reporting on par with Watergate?

Gutfeld noted that the media’s approach to the scandal would be a lot different if, say, Bush was still in the White House: “Maybe if it were a Republican involved, not if it’s Obama. Since the media gatekeepers have so much invested in the president, his incompetence reflects their poor choices. … Maybe the administration will be held accountable. The media — never.”

Do you agree with Greg Gutfeld that the media generally downplayed the Benghazi terrorist attack to protect the Obama administration? Watch Gutfeld’s monologue and decide for yourself:

Fox News Host: Who Cares About Benghazi? is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Benghazi hearing witnesses are accusing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of implementing a coverup after the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Benghazi report is a 43 page document that accuses White House and senior State Department officials of altering “accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.”

The Benghazi witness whistleblower names have been released and they’re set to testify before Congress this coming Wednesday. Their allegations include the idea that the Accountability Review board (ARB) Benghazi report was a cover up set up by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to defend the Obama administration.

The House Oversight Committee Benghazi hearing streaming live today will feature Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.

The website for the Benghazi hearing says these witnesses “are expected to say top officials at the Department of State took actions to minimize political damage to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the days after the attack, officials claimed the attack had resulted from a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muslim film. That story was quickly refuted, although the filmmaker was arrested on a probation violation and remains in prison.”

Other reports are saying that not only is Hillary Clinton involved in the Benghazi coverup. Only President Obama could have prevented special forces on the ground from helping according to an unnamed source:

“I have a hard time thinking it was Hillary alone. Hillary may have tried to circumvent the counterterrorism board and deal with this. I think in order for her to tell General Ham, ‘No, you’re not going to get involved,’ she would have had to talk to the president. The president would have had to say, ‘No, take your commands from Hillary.’ He would have had said something, because Ham does not work for the Department of State; he works directly for the president.”

Listening to the live Benghazi hearing, who do you think is primarily responsible for the coverup?

Benghazi Hearing Witnesses Accuse Hillary Clinton, Obama Of Coverup [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Benghazi is the subject of a House Oversight Committee hearing today.

Watch the live stream of the highly anticipated proceedings (see embed below). “At least three officials will testify today at a House hearing about the scandal, and are expected to say top officials at the Department of State took actions to minimize political damage to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the days after the attack, officials claimed the attack had resulted from a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muslim film. That story was quickly refuted, although the filmmaker was arrested on a probation violation and remains in prison.”

According to Rep. Darrell Issa, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, there is “no question” that Hillary Clinton or someone in her “circle” was involved in the cover-up of administration missteps in the early days of the Benghazi consulate attack last September 11.

Four Americans were killed at the US embassy compound in Benghazi — Ambassador Christopher Stevens, embassy official Sean Smith, and security officers Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods (both former Navy SEALS) — when the Obama administration allegedly failed to send reinforcements despite pleas for help. According to diplomat Gregory Hicks, who is expected to testify on Capitol Hill today, a US Special Forces team was ready to deploy to Benghazi on a rescue and backup mission until they were inexplicably told to stand down. For months, the administration has been stonewalling congressional investigators trying to find out exactly what happened in the attack.

In a recent interview, Sean Smith’s mother Pat Smith, said that she blames former Secretary of State Clinton for what happened: “Because that’s her department. She is supposed to be on top of it. Yet she claims she knows nothing. It wasn’t told to her. Well, who is running the place?”

Watch the Benghazi hearing live stream:

Watch The Benghazi Hearing Live Online is a post from: The Inquisitr

There is “no question” that Hillary Clinton or someone in her “circle” was involved in the cover-up of administration missteps in the early days of the Benghazi consulate attack last September, says House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa.

In an interview with CBS News Monday, Issa repeated long-held claims of Clinton’s involvement in a potential cover-up of the September 11, 2012 attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

The difference now is that more evidence has come to light, and what was previously seen as paranoid conspiracy on the part of Issa and his ilk looks less crazy and more, well … true.

But now, the question is “who is responsible?” If you asked Issa, he’d say Hillary Clinton or someone in her cabal.

“If Hillary Clinton is not responsible for the before, during and after mistakes… it’s somebody close,” he said. “There certainly are plenty of people close to the former secretary who knew, and apparently were part of the problem.”

The silver bullet in the Benghazi investigation came over the weekend with testimony from Greg Hicks, the No. 2 man in Libya at the time of the attack.

He testified that everyone (who matters) thought it was a terrorist attack “from the get-go,” completely contradicting the Obama administration’s evolving talking points, Ambassador Susan Rice’s talk show tour immediately following the attack, President Obama’s own comments in a presidential debate with then-opponent Mitt Romney, and Secretary Hillary Clinton’s testimony on the attack shortly before leaving office as Secretary of State.

On top of all that, Mark I. Thompson, the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, is reportedly planning on testifying that Clinton attempted to clock his bureau from communications on the attack.

If that’s true, it will tarnish Clinton’s record as Secretary of State, and possibly cripple her potential bid for the presidency in 2016.

Of course, if we assume that a Benghazi-Clinton cover-up did take place, the question is “why?” Issa actually has an answer for that, saying, ”it could be a general want to believe that we’re closer to the end of the war on terror than right in the middle of it.” It also could have had a lot to do with the fact that President Obama was facing a major election at the time, as well.

Do you think that there’s more to the Benghazi Clinton cover-up than we’re being told, or is there no conspiracy here?

Benghazi Clinton Cover-Up: ‘No Question,’ Says Darrell Issa [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Mike Huckabee claims that the Benghazi cover-up will be the undoing of the Obama administration.

The former Arkansas governor and GOP presidential candidate said on his radio show today that President Obama will be unable to finish his second term in office as a result of what happened in Libya:

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

Added Huckabee about what could be in a sense Obama’s Watergate: “Now, here’s what I’m going to suggest will happen — as the information and facts begin to come out, it will become so obvious that there was a concerted and very, very deliberate attempt to mislead this country and its people, to lie to Congress, as well as to you.”

For what it’s worth, and your mileage may definitely vary on this one, psychic Blair Robertson — who claims to have a pretty good track record for accuracy –  made a similar prediction (that Obama wouldn’t complete his second term) following Election Day 2012.

Four Americans were killed at the US embassy compound in Libya — Ambassador Christopher Stevens, embassy official Sean Smith, and security officers Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods (both former Navy SEALS) — when the Obama administration allegedly failed to send reinforcements despite pleas for help. According to diplomat Gregory Hicks, who will testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, a US Special Forces team was ready to go in Benghazi on a rescue and backup mission until they were inexplicably told to stand down. For months, the administration has been stonewalling congressional investigators trying to find out exactly what happened in the September 11, 2012 attack.

Benghazi finally seems to be receiving some attention from the mainstream media.

Do you think Mike Huckabee is making this prediction just to gain attention or does it have any basis?

Added: Mike Huckabee is considering dropping his radio show, which he broadcasts from a home studio in Florida: “Within the next month, I’ll decide if I want to continue it or not. I know we will, but it’s just such an incredibly intensive process that I really have to decide that I want to spend that kind of time …”

Mike Huckabee: Benghazi Cover-Up Will Force Obama From Office is a post from: The Inquisitr

US Special Forces were about to board a plane to mount a rescue mission to Benghazi when the mission was short-circuited by higher ups and the troops were told to stand down.

Gregory Hicks, one of the Benghazi whistleblowers scheduled to testify Wednesday in a public hearing before the US House oversight committee, gave this newly surfaced information to congressional investigators last month. Hick became the highest-ranking diplomat in Libya after the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

According to Hicks, Special Forces troops under Lt. Col. Gibson were about to board a C-130 for a trip from Tripoli to Benghazi to rescue Ambassador Stevens and the three other under-siege Americans at the US compound when Gibson “got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”

SOCAFRICA stands for Special Operations Command South Africa.

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

In addition to Stevens, embassy official Sean Smith and security officers Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods (both former Navy SEALS) were killed in Benghazi.

Obama administration officials have all along insisted that it couldn’t send any backup in time to save American lives. The administration has also been stonewalling the Benghazi investigation by lawmakers since the September 11, 2012 attack there.

In his dialogue with investigators, Hicks has also reportedly insisted that “everyone in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” in an apparent contradiction to initial administration claims that the attack was spontaneous in nature and stemmed from a controversial video.

Benghazi talking points were also altered by the Obama administration before the election.

CBS: U.S. diplomat says US Special Forces were stopped from going to Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012 prior to mortar attack.

— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 6, 2013

CBS: The account from Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama Administration…

— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 6, 2013

Special Forces Denied Permission For Benghazi Rescue Mission: Diplomat is a post from: The Inquisitr

A U.S. foreign service diplomat said that “everybody in the mission” in Benghazi, Libya, knew that the attack on the consulate last September was a terrorist attack “from the get-go” in video excerpts obtained by CBS News‘ “Face the Nation.”

Greg Hicks, who became the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the attack, told House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigators that he believes “everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” in video clips of his interview.

Hicks is a 22-year foreign service diplomat and was the No. 2 U.S. official prior to the attack.

Critics of the Obama administration’s reaction to the Benghazi attack argue that the discrepancies in the evolving official story are indicative of an attempt to remove references to a terror attack or to the terrorist group al Qaeda, but few attempt to explain the impetus behind such a media wash.

Still, it does seem clear that the official story in the early days contradicts what seems to be true in hindsight – Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on several talk shows the day after the attack to stress that the attack had spontaneously occurred from an impromptu demonstration, and was not a pre-planned terrorist attack.

A day prior to Rice’s media appearances, new President of Libya Mohammed al-Magariaf said that his administration had “no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”

Hicks said that the Obama administration’s initial response to the Benghazi attack left him embarrassed.

“The net impact of what has transpired is, [Rice,] the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world, has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar of doesn’t know what he’s talking about. ….My jaw hit the floor as I watched this,” he said.

On “Face the Nation,” which had previously gone along with the official story on Benghazi, Representative Darrell Issa, who heads the official probe, argued that the Obama administration’s media blitz dangerously undercut the credibility of al-Magariaf, which is a huge international “no-no,” especially in the midst of such a tumultuous power shift in Libya.

“You can’t insult a foreign leader in a greater way than happened literally here, just those few days later,” Issa said.

“Ambassadors know that the one thing you can’t do is contradict your host, especially at a time when you need their cooperation. This was a fatal error to our relationship, at least for a period of time. And we can’t find the purpose. [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] should have been among – above all else – the person who was on the same sheet of music with the Libyan government, and she wasn’t.”

You can watch video of this report below, via CBS:

Official: ‘We Knew Benghazi Was A Terrorist Attack’ Right Away [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Benghazi talking points written by the CIA were altered by the Obama administration before the election.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Benghazi report is a 43 page document that accuses White House and senior State Department officials of altering “accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.”

The Benghazi witness whistleblower names have been released and they’re set to testify before Congress this coming Wednesday. Their allegations include the idea that the Accountability Review board (ARB) Benghazi report was a cover up set up by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to defend the Obama administration.

Even without the testimony of the Benghazi witnesses, emails detailing how the Benghazi talking points were altered have already been released. These emails were not supposed to be revealed due to a deal made in Congress in order to pass the confirmation of John Brennan. These emails detail some of the names of those wanting to rewrite the Benghazi talking points and the reasons why.

Before all the editing, the CIA and the White House knew the Benghazi compound was under attack and that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. Never mind, the Obama administration had hired groups tied to al Qaeda to defend Benghazi, most of whom conveniently disappeared right before the attacks. That’s right, we hired potential terrorists to defend us against terrorists while purposefully dropping internal security from 34 people to three.

The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of the Benghazi talking points as a response to requests from Congress. The Weekly Standard summarizes the primary points originally included in the Benghazi talking points:

“This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government ‘know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.’ That draft also noted that press reports ‘linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.’ Ansar al Sharia, the CIA draft continued, aims to spread sharia law in Libya and ‘emphasizes the need for jihad.’ The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been ‘at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.’ ”

The CIA then amended the Benghazi talking points to include these salient facts: “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy” and “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.”

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland told the CIA to edit the Benghazi talking points because she was worried Congress would criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.” But the CIA editing out specific references to terrorism was not enough. These emails detail how the “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” Ben Rhodes, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy, claimed any remaining issues with the Benghazi talking points would be resolved at a closed door White House meeting the next morning.

In response to White House concerns, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, edited the Benghazi talking points to simplify the message, remove more references to al Qaeda-linked terrorism and attacks, and insert a claim about a spontaneous demonstration that never occurred.

The story about the YouTube video was apparently added later by someone in the White House, although Victoria Nuland defended Ambassador Susan Rice for making the false claims. When it was proven these claims were untrue, the Obama administration cynically blamed the intelligence community for any faults. Some went along with this ruse, claiming that any Benghazi ties to al Qaeda wre new information even though it was known from the start. These statements went out under the name of James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, even though he was traveling at the time.

The House Oversight and Government Reform committee will hold another hearing on May 8 and they’re hoping to get the White House to release the rest of the emails in hopes that the full story comes to light. The Benghazi timeline already shows Charlene Lamb and Hillary Clinton having a hand in lowering internal security. Despite denials by Hillary Clinton, written documents bear Clinton’s signature. So far, based upon the available evidence President Obama himself has not been directly implicated in making any of these decisions, although many critics would like to speculate since these actions all directly benefited Obama during the 2012 Presidential Elections.

After considering all these facts, who do you think is responsible for forcing the editing of the Benghazi talking points?

Benghazi Talking Points Altered By Obama Administration Before Election is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Benghazi witnesses have been named. The Benghazi investigators are already promising that their testimony is “going to make you mad.”

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Benghazi report is a 43 page document that accuses White House and senior State Department officials of altering “accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.”

Amid allegations the Obama administration hired organizations known to be tied to al Qaeda to protect Benghazi, the Benghazi report also cites documents signed by Hillary Clinton linking her to the decisions of Charlene Lamb that “articulates a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission.”

The White House responded to allegations that Benghazi witnesses are being gagged by the Obama administration with Jay Carney saying, “Benghazi happened a long time ago.” One of these unnamed Benghazi report witnesses reportedly hired attorney Victoria Toensing to work with the State Department to received classified information, but the lawyers are claiming the government is “stonewalling” by ignoring phone calls and emails.

Fox News has released the Benghazi witness whistleblower names set to testify before Congress on Wednesday:

“Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attacks.”

Eric Nordstrom has previously said, “For me the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building.” These Benghazi witnesses claim the Accountability Review board (ARB) Benghazi report, set up by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ignored their testimony. Many other material witnesses were not allowed to speak to the ARB.

Two of these State Department employees also claim they have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors. Their lawyer, Toensing, explains:

“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi — that people have been threatened. And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA. … It’s frightening. …They’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.”

Speaking of the Benghazi witness whistleblowers, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) claims:

“it’s going to make you mad. It’s going to make you upset. Come Wednesday, you’re going to start hearing the truth about Benghazi. Our people were abandoned. They were denied assistance. And what you were told by this administration after the fact was a complete political smokescreen.”

Are you mad about the claims of the Benghazi witnesses released so far?

Benghazi Witnesses Names Released Amid Threats And Intimidation is a post from: The Inquisitr

Three al Qaeda operatives who attacked Benghazi might have had their photos released by the FBI.

As previously reported The Inquisitr, the Benghazi report is a 43 page document that accuses White House and senior State Department officials of altering “accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.”

The Benghazi report also cites documents signed by Hillary Clinton linking her to the decisions of Charlene Lamb that “articulates a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission.”

Jay Carney and the White House are denying any Benghazi wrongdoing, but now reports are showing the Benghazi consulate was defended by al Qaeda linked terrorist groups hired by the State Department while internal security was reduced from 34 people to just three. The February 17th Martyrs Brigade apparently disappeared days before the Benghazi terrorist attack, informing the State Department they could no longer provide security, which leaves some suspicious of whether they knew about the upcoming attack.

The FBI recently posted the potential Benghazi al Qaeda operative photos to its website. The FBI says, “We are seeking information about three individuals who were on the grounds of the U.S. Special Mission [in Benghazi] when it was attacked. These individuals may be able to provide information to help in the investigation.”

This FBI request came at the same time a senior federal law enforcement official told CNN they were looking for “three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” or AQAP. Several members of al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch reportedly took part in the Benghazi attack. CNN could not confirm whether any of the three Benghazi suspect pictures showed the Benghazi al Qaeda operatives.

CNN described the terrorist activities of AQAP this way:

“AQAP is regarded as one of the most active and dangerous of al Qaeda franchises. It has tried to launch several attacks on the U.S. homeland. On Christmas Day 2009, a Nigerian recruited by the group attempted to blow up a plane flying into Detroit but failed because his device malfunctioned. The following October the group attempted to blow up planes heading to the United States with printer bombs disguised as air cargo. The packages were intercepted after a tip from Saudi intelligence. And in April 2012, a British informant working for Saudi counterterrorism thwarted a new plot by the group to bomb a U.S-bound airliner. The informant had infiltrated the group and was selected by them to launch the attack. AQAP was the first al Qaeda affiliate to comment on the Benghazi attack. On September 14 it released a statement arguing the attack was revenge for the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior al Qaeda operative, in Pakistan in June 2012.”

What do you think should be done in response to the Benghazi investigation?

Al Qaeda Operative Photos Of Potential Benghazi Suspects Released is a post from: The Inquisitr

Benghazi was defended by al Qaeda-linked groups hired by the State Department.

As previously reported The Inquisitr, the Benghazi report is a 43 page document that accuses White House and senior State Department officials of altering “accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.” Hillary Clinton previously denied having anything to do with lowering the security of Benghazi but the Benghazi report cites documents signed by Hillary Clinton that “articulates a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission.”

Jay Carney dismissed the new reports, saying, “Benghazi happened a long time ago.” In addition to the Benghazi whistleblowers there are now reports that the State Department knowingly hired the February 17th Martyrs Brigade to guard the United States diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya despite knowing of their ties to al Qaeda. The February 17th Martyrs Brigade apparently disappeared days before the Benghazi terrorist attack, informing the State Department they could no longer provide security.

The al Qaeda ties to Benghazi do not end there. As Jay Carney would say, a long time ago in October of 2012, The Inquisitr reported how the Libya Shield Brigade, led by Wisam Ben Hamid, joined the Marines at the Benghazi airport and drove to rescue the surviving embassy staff at the safe house in downtown Benghazi.

Photographs and videos have been published featuring the Libya Shield Brigade flying the black flag of Islamic Jihad; commonly known as the Al-Qaeda flag. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the man who replaced Bin Ladin as the leader of Al Qaeda, established the flag as the symbol of the terrorist organization.

The February 17th Martyrs Brigade also prominently featured the al Qaeda flag on their Facebook page. The Benghazi report released on April 23 also indicates the February 17th Martyrs Brigade “had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.”

What do you think about the Benghazi attack now that we know the State Department hired groups linked to al Qaeda terrorism while at the same time the number of diplomatic security agents in Benghazi were lowered from 34 to just three?

Benghazi Defended By Al Qaeda Linked Groups Hired By State Department is a post from: The Inquisitr

Benghazi happened a long time ago according to Jay Carney, who represents President Obama as the White House Press Secretary.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Benghazi report is a 43 page document that accuses White House and senior State Department officials of altering “accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.” Hillary Clinton previously denied having anything to do with lowering the security of Benghazi but the Benghazi report cites documents signed by Hillary Clinton that “articulates a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission.”

Even after the initial Benghazi report, there are allegations that Benghazi witnesses are being gagged by the Obama administration. One of these unnamed Benghazi report witnesses reportedly hired attorney Victoria Toensing to work with the State Department to received classified information. But Toensing claims the State Department is “stonewalling,” with phone calls and letters from House Representatives being ignored. Back at the White House, this is what Jay Carney said about these Benghazi investigation claims:

“Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.”

Jay Carney also claims Victoria Toensing is lying about her efforts to work with the State Department:

“But again, with regards to these stories, to our knowledge, we’re not aware of any agency that has blocked an employee who would like to appear before Congress. And as you noted, both the State Department and Department of Defense have made clear that they are not aware of any requests for a security clearance for a private attorney having been made in connection with the Benghazi investigation. So what you have is an attorney saying she represents somebody, claiming that she’s not getting this security clearance, and yet the agencies involved have no information about that at all, which falls into the broader story here, which this is these allegations are part of an unfortunate pattern of spreading misinformation and politicizing this issue.”

The Benghazi ARB report commissioned by President Obama is also under fire, with some calling the ARB a cover up, because it failed to interview key witnesses even including Hillary Clinton. Congressman Gowdy (R-SC) explains the rationale for the Benghazi ARB report review:

“How in the world can you have a comprehensive review of Benghazi when you don’t even bother to talk to the secretary of state? She wasn’t even interviewed by the so-called accountability review board! There’s a reason that students don’t grade their own papers. There’s a reason defendants don’t sentence themselves. And there’s the reason the State Department doesn’t get to investigate itself, determine whether or not it made errors in Benghazi. That is Congress’s job. So yes, it would be a wild understatement for us to say we do not have confidence in the accountability review board and its conclusions.”

What do you think of Jay Carney saying, “Benghazi happened a long time ago”?

Jay Carney: ‘Benghazi Happened A Long Time Ago’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Benghazi witnesses are allegedly being prevented from speaking to investigative committees by the Obama administration. In response, Lindsey Graham is demanding President Obama let the Benghazi witnesses speak.

As previously reported The Inquisitr, Hillary Clinton Benghazi allegations came earlier this week when the House of Representatives released a 43 page Benghazi report. The documents accused the State Department of making Charlene Lamb believe there was “too much political cost” to maintaining adequate security in Benghazi, which caused the number of diplomatic security agents in Benghazi to be lowered from 34 to just three.

The Benghazi report also says White House and senior State Department officials “altered accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.” Because of this, Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, recently warned Benghazi whistleblowers to find lawyers to protect themselves against the government.

Attorney Victoria Toensing said she has a Benghazi witness who wants to share classified information with congressional investigators, but is being blocked by the State Department. Representative Issa claims “the investigation has proceeded despite efforts by department staff to limit the committee’s access to documents and witnesses.”

Going public on live television last night, Senator Lindsey Graham challenged President Barack Obama to let the Benghazi witnesses speak freely:

“Benghazi is eight months old, nobody has been arrested, and the survivors have never been allowed to be talked to by the Congress. This administration is investigating itself. I’m urging the president, I’m challenging this administration, allow the survivors to come forward without the fear of being fired.”

In addition to the Benghazi witnesses, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General is investigating the Accountability Review Board (ARB) report convened by President Obama that probed the Benghazi terror attack for the State Department. Joe diGenova, a former US attorney, is calling the ARB report a “cover up” and there are allegations the ARB failed to interview key witnesses. In response, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell says it’s “simply false” to claim the ARB is being investigated and that they’re merely reviewing the processes for creating such panels.

What do you think about the allegations of the Benghazi witnesses being gagged by the Obama administration?

Benghazi Witnesses Gagged By Obama While ARB Report Investigated? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Mike Huckabee is blaming Hillary Clinton for the Benghazi coverup.

As previously reported The Inquisitr, the Hillary Clinton Benghazi allegations came earlier this week when the House of Representatives released a 43 page Benghazi report that also accused President Obama of failing to anticipate a terrorist attack could happen on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This came shortly after Benghazi whistleblowers were told to find lawyers to protect themselves against the government.

It was previously uncovered that someone in Hillary Clinton’s State Department gave Charlene Lamb the idea that there was “too much political cost” for keeping the Benghazi security forces at safer levels. Instead, they lowered the number of diplomatic security agents in Benghazi from 34 to just three. The Hillary Clinton Benghazi allegations also says White House and senior State Department officials “altered accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.”

Although she accepted fault for the general failure of the State Department, Hillary Clinton previously denied having anything to do with lowering the security of Benghazi. But the Benghazi report cites documents signed by Hillary Clinton that “articulates a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission.”

Mike Huckabee chimed in on the Benghazi report, blaming Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration:

“Our diplomats died in Libya, but the questions refuse to die…When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was grilled by Congress about her department’s actions on the night four Americans were killed in Benghazi, she snapped, “What difference does it make?” Well, it might make a big difference, if voters read Congress’ report. It concludes that the Administration had plenty of warnings, but failed to heed them or to give the military authority to respond. They also find Secretary Clinton was responsible for cutting security at the US consulate despite knowing of the threats and the pleas for more security, and that the Administration lied to downplay terrorism, first by blaming a YouTube video, then falsely claiming they were trying to protect an FBI investigation. The White House will dismiss it as a partisan attack, but it’s the result of months of investigations by five House committees. I suspect that anyone who claims to have read it and is still unconcerned about the people in charge of our Middle East security is lying to cover up that they didn’t really read it.”

Do you agree with Mike Huckabee about the Benghazi report that blames Hillary Clinton?

Mike Huckabee Blames Hillary Clinton For Benghazi Coverup is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Benghazi probe is suggesting witnesses should get lawyers to protect themselves against government retaliation.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, there still remains critical unanswered questions over Benghazi. Someone in the State Department gave Charlene Lamb the idea that there was “too much political cost” for keeping the Benghazi security forces at safer levels. Instead, they lowered the number of diplomatic security agents in Benghazi from 34 to just three.

Several State department officials were claimed to be losing their jobs over the Benghazi scandal. This announcement from the State Department was made under Hillary Clinton. But then it was discovered during the Benghazi probe that none of the people involved would lose their jobs and instead were given vacations at the time of the announcement.

During the Benghazi probe Secretary of State John Kerry was dismissive of the ongoing House Foreign Affairs Committee investigation, saying, “I don’t think anybody lied to anybody. And let’s find out exactly, together, what happened, because we need — we got a lot more important things to move on to and get done.”

Charles Woods, the father of ex-SEAL Tyrone Woods, has previously described US officials who didn’t respond to a request for help at the Benghazi diplomatic compound as “murderers of my son.” Mother of another Benghazi victim, Sean Smith, describes her frustration with trying to find the 110 cosponsors of a House resolution to make a formal Benghazi probe:

“When I was in Washington D.C. at the reception of the caskets, I asked for and received promises from President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, VP Biden and several other dignitaries in attendance. They all looked me directly in the eyes and promised they would find out [what happened in Benghazi]. I got only one call from a clerk about a month later quoting from the time line, which I already had.”

The Benghazi probe is claimg ”numerous individuals” have approached the committee with information on the attack. But these witnesses may need to worry about their careers if they testify.

House Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent out letters to Benghazi witnesses suggesting they hire lawyers to protect themselves from whistleblowing on the government agencies they now serve:

“Some witnesses may be required to retain personal counsel to represent them before the committee and in the event the agency subsequently retaliates against them for cooperating with the committee’s investigation.”

Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra says Benghazi witnesses may have access to classified information and may need a lawyer to ensure that they comply with the rules, regulations, and legal requirements:

“There are multiple whistleblowers who want to get the story out. All of these people are very concerned that they do everything appropriately. These whistleblowers still feel that there’s a gap between what’s in the public domain and what really happened. They’ve all been frustrated.”

What do you think the Benghazi probe will find once witnesses are allowed to speak freely?

Benghazi Probe Suggests Witnesses Get Lawyers For Whistleblowing is a post from: The Inquisitr

Here’s a twist that will bring liberals and conservatives together into a collective head-scratching marathon. A bunch of Tea Party activists organized a huge boycott of Fox News because the network is way “too liberal” for their tastes.

According to The Daily Beast, the Tea Party ordered their second boycott of the right-leaning cable network to protest its coverage. Particularly, they argue that Fox has been mostly silent over the Benghazi consulate attack, which is kind of a strange accusation since opponents of the network have often criticized them for talking about Benghazi way too much.

“Particularly after the election, Fox keeps turning to the left,” said boycott participant Stan Hjerlied. He pointed to a post-election interview with Fox CEO Roger Ailes who said that the Republican Party needs to modernize, especially over immigration. “So we are really losing our only conservative network,” bemoaned Hjerlied.

The three-day boycott of Fox lasted from Thursday morning through Sunday morning. Tea Party members said that their previous, two-day boycott knocked 20 percent off of the network’s regular viewership. Actual analysis of the boycott showed that it didn’t really have much of an effect at all.

Strangely, instead of giving an interview, Kathy Amidon (who lead the boycott) directed The Daily Beast to this website. It’s a huge and confusing Benghazi-truther hub, which alleges, among other things, that Fox is complicit in a massive coverup. It also argues that the Tea Party targets Fox because the network needs the Tea Party.

“People ask why not all mainstream media? Why just Boycott FOX? The answer, again, is that FOX needs the Tea Party/conservatives more than the conservatives need FOX after FOX turned left, basically selling out the people who made FOX successful in an attempt to earn an extra buck. FOX is extremely vulnerable to these boycotts while the rest of the MSM doesn’t need us at all, to speak of.”

“We need Fox to turn right,” said Hjerlied. “We think this is a coverup and Fox is aiding and abetting it. This is the way Hitler started taking over Germany, by managing and manipulating the news media.”

Viewers dying for a Fox-fix are encouraged on the site to wait for One America, a network set to debut this summer that sounds like a conservative version of CurrentTV.

Tea Party Boycotts Fox News Because It’s ‘Too Liberal’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

A 2016 Presidential Poll has Hillary Clinton winning despite the former Secretary of State’s bungling of the Benghazi situation.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, a 2016 Presidential Poll shows that Hillary Clinton would defeat any Republican challengers, even rising GOP star Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor who led his state with aplomb during Superstorm Sandy. The 2016 Presidential Poll data suggests that Hillary Clinton would beat Christie 45 percent to 37 percent.

“Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton would start a 2016 presidential campaign with enormous advantages,” said the polling institute’s assistant director Peter Brown. “She obviously is by far the best known, and her more than 20 years in the public spotlight allows her to create a very favorable impression on the American people.”

Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State and presided over the people who were directly responsible for the Benghazi debacle. Hillary Clinton also lied to the public multiple times about Benghazi, and in response to hard questions about the Obama administration purposefully misleading the American public, all she could do was spout, “What difference does it make?”

According to the 2016 Presidential Poll, Benghazi did not make a difference when it came to public perception of Hillary Clinton. But the Benghazi scandal just won’t die.

Only several weeks ago, Senator John McCain spoke about Benghazi, claiming there was “[a massive cover-up of] the information concerning the deaths of four brave Americans. The information has not been forthcoming.” A book called Benghazi: The Definitive Report claims the Benghazi attack was retaliation by Islamist militants who had been targeted by covert US military operations, yet former CIA Director David Petraeus supposedly did not know about the American raids.

There still remains critical unanswered questions over Benghazi. Someone in the State Department gave Charlene Lamb the idea that there was “too much political cost” for keeping the Benghazi security forces at safer levels. Instead, they lowered the number of diplomatic security agents in Benghazi from 34 to just three.

The worst part is that neither Hillary Clinton, Charlene Lamb, or any of the other people in the State Department were held responsible for their actions. Several State department officials were thought to be the sacrificial lambs who would lose their jobs over the gross incompetence displayed with Benghazi. This phony announcement from the State Department was made under Hillary Clinton. Yet, despite all evidence to the contrary, people still think Hillary Clinton was doing a good job.

Do you think Benghazi matters at all and should affect the 2016 Presidential Poll results?

2016 Presidential Poll Has Hillary Clinton Winning Despite Benghazi Bungling is a post from: The Inquisitr

Commentary | Much has been said over the last few months about the debacle in war torn Benghazi, Libya that led to the destruction of the United States Consulate and the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith  Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods. Although the Obama Administration failed miserably to protect the consulate and the men who lost their lives, Mr. Obama’s highly talented clean up crew did a world class job of protecting the President and delaying any investigation until well after the 2012 Presidential election.

The manner in which the President, members of his Cabinet, and his obliging team of yes men, including Press Secretary Jay Carney, managed to evade and obfuscate any and all inquires into the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi should go down in American history as the greatest example of how to effectively deflect a horrendous Presidential failure and still win an election.

Certainly, the legendary sign from Harry Truman’s desk that reads “The Buck Stops Here!” was thrown out the window early in Obama’s first term, probably after “Blame Bush” was uttered for the 1000th time, but following the events in Benghazi, the President retrieved it from the bushes and ran it over several times with a steamroller.

We might expect that a President running for re-election will do everything possible to protect their legacy and defeat their opponent. We certainly understand that Obama was facing a serious challenge from Mitt Romney. However, our President swore an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” and the well being of 315 million American citizens should come before his personal ambition. President Obama and his campaign advisers made a deliberate decision to do everything in their power to sweep Benghazi aside until after November 6, 2012 and the American people have been ill served by their actions.

The first step in the Benghazi cover-up was the Administration’s dishonest attempt to portray the attack on the Consulate as a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video that appeared three months earlier on YouTube.  Obama used the occasion of his annual address to the United Nations General Assembly to hammer the point home, mentioning the video six times in his speech.

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

“That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Working in tandem with the President, the White House trotted out UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who made the rounds of the Sunday news shows, and repeatedly blamed the video for the attack. Americans heard Rice emphasize two key Administration talking points on every major television network: ”Spontaneous Protest” and “Anti-Muslim Video.” Ambassador Rice took a bullet for Obama, completely misled the American people, and demolished her dream of becoming the next Secretary of State.

When embassy cables and other official State Department documents began to surface and it became clear that Benghazi was a premeditated attack by terrorists, the White House was forced to change its narrative and switch to the Washington version of a prevent defense. Hillary Clinton announced the formation of an Accountability Review Board and then refused to discuss Benghazi until the ARB submitted their report after the November election.

Much to the disappointment of Americans who put the truth ahead of getting re-elected, the mainstream media continued their herculean effort as front-line cheerleader’s for the President. They did their utmost to ignore anything that ran counter to the official White House narrative, and did everything they could to portray anyone who doubted the President’s version as little better than the birthers. During the Presidential debates, the Moderators, all well known Obama supporters, did their best to avoid asking any questions about Benghazi.

Someday in the distant future, the second debate between Obama and Romney may be mentioned as the day the independent press finally died in America. The normally unflappable Romney was stunned to silence when Crowley interrupted him mid-sentence as he was commenting on Obama’s handling of the Consulate attack. Unbelievably, Crowley, a well known and outspoken Obama supporter, took it upon herself to join the debate, dispute Romney’s statement on Obama’s response to the attack, and recite talking points to shore up the President’s narrative on Benghazi.

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, the White House strategy on Benghazi worked and Obama was re-elected. We can only speculate how things might have turned out if General Petraeus, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, General Dempsey, Charlene Lamb and Eric Nordstrom had testified prior to the elections. The delay in testifying was nothing short of a blot on the honor of the Presidency and an insult to the families of four dead Americans.

Imagine for a moment how the people might have voted if Hillary Clinton had testified in late October instead of January, 2012. How would they have reacted when she shouted, “What Difference Does It Make” at a United States Senator, after he asked about the four Americans brutally murdered by terrorists. Perhaps she will blame her incredibly thoughtless words on her famous concussion.

The only word to describe Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene Lamb’s testimony is “chilling.” Lamb repeatedly refused to increase the security for the Benghazi Consulate, despite months of pleading from the head of the security team in Libya. Lamb not only ignored the requests, but she ordered him not to ask again, even after the British Ambassador’s motorcade was hit with an RPG while driving through the streets of Benghazi, the Tunisian Consulate in Benghazi was bombed, and the International Red Cross headquarters in Benghazi was attacked.

Joining  Ms. Lamb in front of the House Committee investigating Benghazi was State Department Former Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom. Prior to his testimony before the committee, he was interviewed by House lawyers and he told them the security at the Benghazi Consulate was dangerously low. After making his initial statement, Nordstrom was ordered by superiors at the State Department not to have any further contact with the House investigators. When he finally testified, he informed the committee that his prepared statement was screened by State Department officials prior to his appearance before the committee. Once again, the American people were treated to a sanitized, misleading, incomplete version of Benghazi.

This week, the final group of witnesses spoke about the conduct of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey portrayed a disinterested Obama, who was out of contact with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the evening of the attack in Libya until the following day. In plain English, our Ambassador and three other Americans were dead, and the President was AWOL.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also unavailable to Panetta and Dempsey from the beginning of the attack until the following day. General Dempsey expressed his amazement when Senator Graham told him that Secretary Clinton testified she had never seen the August 15, 2012 cable from Ambassador Stevens. The cable to the State Department warned that the security at the Benghazi Consulate was not strong enough to stop an attack.

Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard wrote about the behavior of Barack Obama on the night of the attack on our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya:

“While Americans were under assault in Benghazi, the president found time for a non-urgent, politically useful, hour-long call to Prime Minister Netanyahu. And his senior national security staff had to find time to arrange the call, brief the president for the call, monitor it, and provide an immediate read-out to the media. I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu, of all people, would have understood the need to postpone or shorten the phone call if he were told that Americans were under attack as the president chatted. But for President Obama, a politically useful telephone call—and the ability to have his aides rush out and tell the media about that phone call—came first.”

President Obama and members of his Administration made a conscious decision to mislead the American people by blaming an old YouTube video with only 3500 views for the attack. They disregarded the fact that the attack came on the anniversary of 9/11 and they ignored the reports that had been appearing in the media for weeks prior to the attack, threatening to burn down US diplomatic facilities in the Middle East and kidnap our diplomats unless the “Blind Sheikh” was freed.

The American people were deliberately deceived in order to win an election, four Americans were murdered by savages, and it was business as usual in Washington, D.C.. Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods cry out from their graves for the truth. We are still waiting for your reply, Mr. President.

Obama’s Benghazi Consulate Debacle: A Video History Of The President’s Failure [Commentary] is a post from: The Inquisitr

COMMENTARY | Clinton tops Obama in poll data, so does that mean Benghazi did not really matter that much to a majority of Americans?

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Hillary Clinton is more popular than President Obama. The former secretary of state received a 60 percent approval rating, while Obama received a 53 percent approval rating and a 40 percent disapproval by voters shortly after re-election. Now, his approval rating stands at 46 percent, just slightly higher than his disapproval.

The Inquisitr also reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally answered questions regarding the attack on the Benghazi consulate last year. But in response to hard questions about the Obama administration purposefully misleading the American public, and Hillary Clinton’s handling of the State Department, all she could do was spout, “What difference does it make?”

The difference, of course, is that the lies repeated by Hillary Clinton and others attempted to politicize the Benghazi attacks to make them appear favorable to President Obama right before the Presidential elections. The difference is that these lies shifted the blame away from Hillary Clinton and the State Department. The difference is that Hillary Clinton claims she was clueless and uninformed about multiple requests for maintaining security in a hot zone when millions of dollars were being spent by the State Department in other locations that were hardly dangerous (yet, of course, Bush is to blame).

At this time we still do not know who else in the Obama administration or the State Department gave Charlene Lamb the idea that there was “too much political cost” for keeping the Benghazi security forces at safer levels. This decision is directly responsible for lowering the number of diplomatic security agents in Benghazi from 34 to just three. While no one knows for certain what difference this would have made in the Benghazi attack, it’s easy to speculate that perhaps some lives would have been saved.

The worst part is that neither Hillary Clinton, Charlene Lamb, or any of the other people in the State Department were held responsible for their actions. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Deputy Assistant Secretaries Charlene Lamb, Eric Boswell, and Raymond Maxwell, and a fourth State Department official who is still unnamed, were thought to be the sacrificial lambs who would lose their jobs over the gross incompetence in providing security for the Benghazi Consulate. This phony announcement from the State Department was made under Hillary Clinton, so chalk that one up as another Benghazi lie. Yet, despite all this, people still think Hillary Clinton is doing a good job.

As Hillary Clinton tops Obama in poll data, which politician do you prefer? Do you think that Clinton, Obama, or never mind Charlene Lamb, should face repercussions for their decisions related to the Benghazi scandal?

4 men died, but seriously #whatdifferencedoesitmake? RT if you are fed up with the lies! #Benghazi twitter.com/withthetroops/…

— al vinton (@withthetroops) January 23, 2013

Clinton Tops Obama In Poll: Benghazi Apparently Doesn’t Matter is a post from: The Inquisitr

Commentary | Outgoing Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton demonstrated that she has all the credentials to run for President in 2016. Clinton sat down with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren for a one on one interview and promptly blamed Bush for the lack of funds to secure the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Although there was little hope that Greta would ask Hillary any questions of substance in the interview or press her on her evasive answers, she did manage one general question about the attack on our consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the destruction of the facility and the death of Ambassador Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, and Sean Smith.

Van Susteren lobbed a perfect softball pitch to Clinton with her question about Benghazi:

“Number one is in light of what’s happened, can Americans now feel safe or satisfied that we are moving to secure all our consulates and embassies for our diplomats overseas?

Instead of assuming any responsibility for being totally out of the loop on the constant requests for security for the Benghazi Consulate, Clinton responded like a true American leader: She blamed George Bush the Younger:

“Now, it’s not all a question of money. I am the first to say that. You know, you have to have the right people and the right job, making the right decisions. But money is a factor. And ever since the Bush administration, our requests for security monies from Congress have not been met. So you’ve had to make priority decisions. And it’s been difficult.”

Sadly, the American public are the true victims of Van Susteren’s utter unwillingness to press Hillary on the issues. She didn’t ask Clinton how she was able to remain unaware of more than six months of security requests from a consulate in a war zone. After Hillary echoed her employer, President Obama, and blamed Bush for the lack of funds, Greta let her off the hook and didn’t ask a single question about the wasteful spending by the State Department. Since the worshipful Van Susteren was completely unwilling to ask these questions, we will have to do the job for her.

Wolff Bachner: Secretary Clinton, you testified that you were not personally aware of the many complaints from Ambassador Stevens, and other State Department officials, about the lack of proper security at the  Benghazi Consulate. Are you seriously making the claim that a consulate located in a nation that just experienced a violent revolution did not require extra security? A consulate in the most volatile region of the world was forced to plead for months for proper security and you didn’t have an inkling that they needed enhanced protection? Are you telling us that not one person in the State Department came to you and told you that Ambassador Stevens was deeply concerned about the possibility of a terrorist attack on the consulate? Are you telling us you were unaware that militant Islamists were trailing Ambassador Stevens for months and had openly published death threats against him on Facebook and other well known Jihadi websites? Websites that we certainly expect the State Department to monitor on a full time basis to better protect our diplomats and the nation.

Hillary Clinton: (still waiting for an answer)

Wolff Bachner: Secretary Clinton, you testified under oath and blamed the Bush Administration and Congress for not meeting your funding requests. Are you seriously telling the American people that when you establish a consulate in one of the most dangerous places on the planet, a country overrun by heavily armed Islamist militias, you do not have contingency funds to provide proper security? Are you actually saying that the State Department, which allocated over one billion dollars to fight global warming, lacks the funds to protect our diplomats? If you lacked the funds to properly protect a consulate in a war zone, why did your budget planners allocate $100,000 to send three comedians on a tour of India and spend 85 million dollars on an Embassy we will never use? You spent almost six million dollars to preserve cultural sites in 100 foreign nations, but you lacked the funds to protect American diplomats in Libya.

Hillary Clinton: (still waiting for an answer)

The ability to “Blame Bush” seems to be an important trait for any Democrat who has the ambition to seek the highest office in the land. The ability to evade a direct answer on any and all questions is also high on the list of desirable qualities for America’s leaders. Hillary performed flawlessly in front of the Congress, and by doing so, she is now being touted as the front runner for 2016. Apparently waving your fists in the air while refusing to directly answer questions, and placing the blame on others, is a quality that many Americans appreciate in their Presidential candidates.

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Candidate for President in 2016, we can only hope the voters remember this conversation between the Secretary of State and a United States Senator.

Sen. Ron Johnson:  ”A simple phone call to people in Benghazi would have established immediately that there was no protest. Why wasn’t that known?”

Hillary Clinton: (Shaking her fists in the air) ”With all due respect, what difference at this point does it make?”

Hillary Blames Bush For Lack Of Funding To Secure Benghazi Consulate is a post from: The Inquisitr

Hillary Clinton has granted exit interviews to several cable and broadcast news outlets as she leaves the office of secretary of state, including to Fox News‘ Greta Van Susteren.

According to TVNewser, Clinton’s sit-down with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News will be her first solo interview since the inauguration. She recently sat down alongside President Obama for 60 Minutes, which the president said was a “thank you” for her years of service as secretary of state.

Interestingly, Clinton’s sit-down with a Fox News pundit comes days after The New Republic released an interview with President Obama, in which he criticizes Fox News editorial coverage.

Fox has long been alleged to carry a right-leaning and biased editorial, and Clinton has been no exception to negative coverage of left-leaning political figures. Fox was the primary outlet covering the Benghazi attack, and criticized Clinton routinely for her handling of the perceived scandal.

Van Susteren herself appeared on ABC‘s This Week Sunday where host George Stephanopoulos asked her about the attacks from her colleagues at Fox.

“I don’t get behind any—I’m responsible for what I say, number one,” Van Susteren said. “Not for one second did I doubt [Clinton was ill]. Once these people heard she was seriously ill, that all changed.”

The Huffington Post reports that Clinton will also give interviews to CNN, NBC and ABC this week.

Such broad media coverage after leaving her post as secretary of state could indicate that Hillary Clinton is sowing seeds for an eventual run for president in 2016.

Hillary Clinton To Sit Down With Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren is a post from: The Inquisitr

COMMENTARY | Hillary Clinton is giving her Benghazi testimony, and she has already made several controversial statements, asking “what difference does it make” for the reasons that the American people were purposefully misled on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Some people believe the difference lies in whether or not the Benghazi cover up was arranged in order to protect President Obama during his re-election.

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is finally answering questions regarding the attack on the Benghazi consulate last year. Hillary Clinton has been getting quite emotional during this testimony as she’s come under blistering fire from many Republicans for her role in the Benghazi coverup.

According to CBS, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) persistently questioned Clinton about what he called Susan Rice’s “purposely misleading” the American people:

“We were misled that there were supposedly protests and something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact. The American people could have known that within days.”

Fists shaking in the air, Hillary Clinton shouted back at her Republican accuser:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator.”

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Charlene Lamb is the State Department official who resigned after the “systemic breakdown” cited by an Accountability Review Board. Hillary Clinton accepted all 29 of its Benghazi recommendations, but the ARB did not point any fingers or place blame on any particular person for why Benghazi was allowed to happen in the first place.

Many of the statements made by Ambassador Susan Rice attempted to politicize the Benghazi attacks to make them appear favorable to President Obama right before the Presidential elections. The Rice narrative included Al-Qaeda losing ground, which the State Department knew to be untrue, and that the Middle East’s public sentiment toward the United States was improving. The Benghazi attack was specifically stated by to not be connected to any US foreign policy decisions by the Obama White House.

Past testimony indicates that the rest of the officials in the State Department allegedly knew that terrorism was the cause from the beginning, which means Hillary Clinton would have known as well. In the past, Hillary Clinton has dodged all direct questions on her level of involvement in the lead up to the Benghazi attacks, but her office claims she “was getting regular updates from both the DS Command Center and the senior NEA leadership in the building, she was making phone calls to senior people, and so she was obviously very much involved.”

Charlene Lamb is allegedly directly responsible for lowering the number of diplomatic security agents from 34 to just three by first pushing for requests for help to not be made, claiming there were political reasons for this decision. Then, when continued levels of good protection were requested in spite of her demands, she ignored them anyway. What we don’t know yet is who else in the Obama administration or the State Department gave Charlene Lamb the idea that there was “too much political cost” for keeping the security forces at safer levels.

Hillary Clinton today told the committee she had no direct role in the handling of denied requests by Stevens and other diplomats for maintaining security levels at 34 security agents:

“I didn’t see those requests. They didn’t come to me.”

Even after all this time, we do not know who is responsible for causing the Benghazi scandal by putting political pressure on Charlene Lamb. Do you think Hillary Clinton should be held accountable for her actions as we know them? Why do you think the government created the Benghazi cover story in the first place?

4 men died, but seriously #whatdifferencedoesitmake? RT if you are fed up with the lies! #Benghazi twitter.com/withthetroops/…

— al vinton (@withthetroops) January 23, 2013

Hillary Clinton Benghazi Testimony: ‘What Difference Does It Make?’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is finally answering questions regarding the attack on the Benghazi consulate last year, and though her testimony may not satisfy her strictest opponents, it does finally shed some light on one of our country’s most recent international controversies.

Particularly of note was the beginning of her testimony, during which Clinton grew emotional and held back tears when talking about the US personnel that were killed in the Benghazi attack.

“For me, this is not just a matter of policy, it’s personal. I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews,” Clinton said, her voice unsteady. “I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, the sisters and brothers, the sons and daughters, and the wives left alone to raise their children.”

Clinton went on to say that serving the State Department and USAID has been one of the “greatest honors” of her life, giving credit to the 70,000 individuals serving domestically and at 275 posts around the world.

“They get up and go to work every day — often in difficult and dangerous circumstances thousands of miles from home — because they believe, as we believe, the United States is the most extraordinary force for peace and progress the earth has ever known.”

The testimony is ongoing, so we can’t yet say whether or not Clinton’s responses will silence her critics, but it seems as though the tragic loss of American life in Libya has affected the secretary deeply.

Watch the video, via Mediaite:

Hillary Clinton’s Emotional Response During Benghazi Testimony [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Colin Powell defended Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi controversy during an appearance today on Meet the Press, and the former Bush administration cabinet member also spoke plainly about what he sees as the Republican Party’s continuing issue with matters of race and treatment of minority voters.

Powell defended Clinton after widespread criticism on the right of the White House’s response to the Benghazi attacks — an issue that permeated all three debates and led to what was a watershed election cycle moment during the second installment of the three debates. (After Mitt Romney accused President Obama of not calling the attack “terrorism,” moderator Candy Crowley referred to a transcript at the direction of the President.)

On today’s Meet The Press, Powell defended Clinton’s role in the lead up to and response after the Benghazi attack, and the Republican conceded the situation in Benghazi “could’ve happened to anyone.”

Powell added:

“”I think she’s had a distinguished record … And I don’t think that this one incident — which is one of these things that those of us in government have been through many, many times where suddenly an action happens late at night … I don’t think it’s a blot on her record.”

On race, Powell was also critical of his party’s official line, saying that he believes the GOP has been lax in fighting race-based scaremongering and insult and essentially admits the party, in ways, planks on racism quietly.

Of the issue, Powell lamented:

“There’s also a dark — a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party. What do I mean by that? I mean by that that they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that?”

The former Secretary Of State says:

“When I see a former governor say that the President is ‘shuckin’ and jivin’,’ that’s racial era slave term. When I see another former governor after the president’s first debate where he didn’t do very well, says that the president was lazy. He didn’t say he was slow. He was tired. He didn’t do well. He said he was lazy.”

Powell continues, explaining that the undertones may only really be clear to both those affected and those who hear what are considered to be racial “dog whistles” in such rhetoric:

“Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans, but to those of us who are African Americans, the second word is shiftless and then there’s a third word that goes along with that. The birther, the whole birther movement. Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the party?”

Below, you can watch as Colin Powell defends Clinton and addresses racism in the Republican Party.

Colin Powell Defends Clinton, Rips GOP On Race Issues is a post from: The Inquisitr

Hillary Clinton may have been discharged from hospital after treatment for the blood clot she was recently diagnosed with, but, over at the State Department, Fox News is in the line of fire over insinuations made by Fox correspondent and producer Justin Fischel.

The new row follows comments made by Fox News in December after a State Department statement that Mrs. Clinton would be unable to testify before the House of Representatives and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees about the September 11, 2012 attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya because she had fallen and suffered a concussion.

Raw Story reports that, just two days after the State Department released their statement, Fishel turned up at a State Department press briefing and appeared to question its veracity.

“Toria, can you expand on why Secretary Clinton can’t testify on Thursday about this [Benghazi hearing]?” Fischel asked Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, according to a transcript. “It seems that she has not been available to testify on the Benghazi situation on some very key dates, including the Sunday after 9/11 and now this Thursday.”

The Hollywood Reporter notes that Nuland explained that the Secretary of State was “still under the weather,” adding “she was diagnosed as having suffered a concussion, and her doctors have urged her to stay home this week. So it’s on that basis that she’s asked for the committees’ understanding … But it was her intention to be there. If she had not been ill, she would be there.”

Following that briefing, Mrs. Clinton was hospitalized for a blood clot — de facto answering the largely skeptical tone taken by some at Fox News — a state of affairs that was called “snarky” by Fox host Greta Van Susteren in a blog post she wrote on December 19.

Now the State Department has upped the ante.

In an email obtained by The Washington Post published on Wednesday, Clinton Senior Advisor Philippe Reines pulled no punches in a withering letter to Fishel.

“We owe you an apology,” Reines writes. “I’m almost embarrassed to even admit this – but somehow your question at today’s Daily Press Briefing was somehow completely mauled and transcribed in the release.”

He continues:

“I just called them and read them the riot act for putting such misleading, accusatory, and absolutely asinine words in your mouth. Because after what we and her doctors explained over the weekend regarding her health, you couldn’t possibly have been insinuating the ulterior motives that question implies. No way. No credible journalist would do that without any basis whatsoever.”

Adding:

“[…] While I know the media can often be incredibly self-involved, there is no way you, an informed reporter, would equate one’s testifying before the United States Congress – made up of duly elected Senators and Representatives empowered by Article I of our Constitution – with going on tv. I don’t know Chris Wallace all that well, but I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t place his television show on par with one of the three branches of our government. And therefore, saying that this has happened on multiple ‘key dates’ is simply a blatant lie and grossly misleading to the public.Anyway, our sincere apologies. If you send us what you really said, I’ll make sure it’s properly reflected.”

Since Mrs. Clinton’s release on Wednesday, Fishel has yet to publicly respond to Reines’ letter, the Hollywood Reporter notes.

State Department Blasts Fox News Correspondent Over Hillary Clinton Questions is a post from: The Inquisitr

Commentary | The Benghazi scandal has everyone speculating who did what and where, and who is to blame. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Charlene Lamb was among the three State Department officials who recently turned in their resignation. If this is political theater it’s almost like those three are hoping to quietly avoid the limelight and quietly slip out the door. While Hillary Clinton has taken the spotlight by having a “diplomatic illness” that allows her to avoid giving Congressional testimony someone must wonder why those three chose to resign. But we do already know, and it’s only after all the facts have to come to light that we now know the terrible responsibility that follows Charlene Lamb.

Way back in October the official State Department line agreed upon with the White White was that the Benghazi attacks were not related to terrorism, the attacks could not have been predicted, an anti-Muslim YouTube video sparked a spontaneous demonstration, and that everything was somehow tied into recent protests in Cairo. We now know this all not true but that was the narrative being fed to the American public. The dam only broke when ex-CIA Director David Petraeus bluntly claimed our government knew from the beginning it was a terrorist attack.

But in October the House of Representatives formed an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing to look into the Benghazi incident. Here are the facts as we know them:

1. The first fact is that Charlene Lamb, who as the State Department official stationed in Washington, was allegedly monitoring electronically from that post what was happening in real time in Benghazi, Libya. This means she would have been intimately aware of what was really going on.

2. Despite having first hand knowledge, Charlene Lamb would not answer the question of Representative Dan Burton (R-IN):

“You Miss Lamb…have described these attackers in a number of ways but you don’t mention terrorist at all. Why is that? I mean the compound had been attacked once before and breached. And these people had all these weapons; projectiles, grenades, all kinds of weapons. Why would you call this anything other than a terrorist attack? And why do you call them attackers?”

In reply, Charlene Lamb dodged the question:

“I have just presented the facts as they have come across. I am not making any judgement on my own and I am leaving that to others.”

3. Charlene Lamb was allegedly directly responsible for lowering security by first pushing for requests for help to not be made, claiming there were political reasons for this decision. Then, when continued levels of high protection were requested in spite of her demands, she ignored them anyway. Her lack of action may have contributed to the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) released unclassified cables from March and July that the State Department had refused to release. These cables detailed  requests  from the US Embassy in Libya for an extension of temporary security forces that were withdrawn in the months prior to the attack.

According to Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, the blame for denying these requests lies squarely with Charlene Lamb.  The top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, said Charlene Lamb demanded over the phone that the requests for more security should not be made, but those stationed in Benghazi wisely did so anyway:

“All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources. In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Lamb] ‘You cannot request an [Site Security Team] SST extension.’ I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway. Once the first team of [temporary personnel] expired, there was a complete and total lack of planning for what was going to happen next. There was no plan, there was just hope that everything would get better.”

Obviously, things did not get better after the number of security personnel decreased and this allegedly politically motivated decision directly led to the deaths. When you combine the Mobile Security Detachments [MSD], consisting of 18 personnel, and the Site Security Team [SST], consisting of 16, the Benghazi Consulate had previously been guarded by 34 armed personnel. Charlene Lamb argues that reducing the number of security personnel from 34 to just three diplomatic security agents was justified:

“We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11.”

Worse, Charlene Lamb tried to lie to cover her backside, claiming that there was a mis-communication:

“Nordstrom said that Lamb never responded to the Tripoli embassy’s request for continued security resources in what he considered a rejection, even if Lamb never issued a written objection. Lamb said that the U.S. mission in Libya had not been specific enough in its requests for forces, but Nordstrom pointed to the cables as evidence that was simply not true.”

4. The rest of the officials in the State Department allegedly knew that terrorism was the cause from the beginning.

Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy said he disagreed with Charlene Lamb and was inclined to support an extension of the security forces in Libya. When asked about the incorrect statements by Ambassador Susan Rice about anti-Muslim videos and spontaneous protests Kennedy suggested that another government agency was to blame:

“There were reports that we received that there were protests, and I would not go any further than that. It was instantly recognizable as a terrorist attack. We almost expected the attack to come. It was a matter of time. [Al Qaeda's] presence grows there every day. They are certainly more established there than we are.”

5. Hillary Clinton was in regular contact with the State Department and thus was apprised of everything they knew. Which also means she knew it was a terrorist attack and that statements she later made to the public were a fabrication.

A CCN reporter had the chance to question Hillary Clinton about the contradictions in the evidence:

“I know Charlene Lamb, who as the State Department official, was mentioning that she back here in Washington was monitoring electronically from that post what was happening in real time. Could you [Hillary Clinton] tell us what you were doing? Were you watching? Were you talking with the President? Any details about that, please.”

In response, Hillary Clinton dodged the question with a 400-word answer:

“I think that it is very important to recognize that we have an investigation going on. [Blah, blah for 222 words]. So that’s what an investigative process is designed to do: to try to sort through all of the information, some of it contradictory and conflicting. [Blah, blah for 76 words]. So I’m going to be, as I have been from the very beginning, cooperating fully with the investigations that are ongoing, because nobody wants to know more about what happened and why than I do. And I think I’ll leave it at that.”

When the unlucky CNN reporter tried to re-ask the question Clinton would only say that she was “going to leave it at that.” Fortunately, a State Department spokesperson was asked why Clinton hadn’t answered and was nice enough to provide this response:

“As you know, she’s not that interested in focusing on herself. But obviously, she was here very late that night. She was getting regular updates from both the DS Command Center and the senior NEA leadership in the building, she was making phone calls to senior people, and so she was obviously very much involved. But I think she was not interested in sort of giving a personal tick-tock. It’s not the way she operates. [Emphasis added].”

6. Worse, Hillary Clinton had the capability to monitor events in real time on multiple open lines in her Washington command center. Part of her job was to inform White House officials, especially President Obama, of what was going on.

7. Many of the statements made by Ambassador Susan Rice attempted to politicize the Benghazi attacks to make them appear favorable to President Obama right before the Presidential elections. The Rice narrative included Al-Qaeda losing ground, which the State Department knew to be untrue, and that the Middle East’s public sentiment toward the United States was improving. The Benghazi attack was specifically stated by to not be connected to any U.S. foreign policy decisions by the Obama White House.

In Conclusion

We know that prior to the Benghazi attacks Charlene Lamb was responsible for reducing security which indirectly led to the deaths of four Americans. Obviously it’s impossible to determine whether having 11 times the protection would have mattered, but it can be reasonably be speculated that this increase would have made a difference.

But this only covers events before the attacks, not during, or after. What we don’t know yet is who else in the Obama administration gave Charlene Lamb the idea that there was “too much political cost” for keeping the security forces at safer levels.

Hillary Clinton has already accepted responsibility for mistakes made during the attacks, but this still leaves the after. So let us consider the Benghazi timeline and the repercussions of these facts.

A. The CIA led by David Petreaus knew Benghazi was terrorism immediately.

B. The State Department knew this as well, although Charlene Lamb tried in vain to hide this fact.

C. The State Department communicated with Hillary Clinton, so she knew the facts.

D. Hillary Clinton, as well as other Federal agencies including the CIA, kept the White House informed.

E. The White House supposedly gave its information to Susan Rice.

F. Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and White House spokesman Carney kept repeating known falsehoods for months.

Ever heard of the telephone game where messages get passed verbally and by the end they’re completely garbled? This situation reminds me of that game. If you go by the testimony of David Petreaus the garbling started at point D, although he admitted he didn’t know exactly who or where was the culprit. He just knew that he prepared CIA notes for the White House itself.

If the culprit behind the Benghazi scandal was some mystery person in a Federal agency the facts seem to suggest that either Hillary Clinton or the CIA would have corrected this huge “mistake” caused by an alleged mis-communication. It’s possible that Hillary Clinton was misinformed the whole time as well. But if Hillary Clinton did know the full story this leaves the only option as being that the false information was fabricated by someone in the White House. Then this mysterious someone also had the authority to make the decision that this story would be presented to the world as the truth.

After considering all these facts, who do you think is responsible for the Benghazi scandal? Do you think Charlene Lamb should be held accountable for her actions? Why do you think the government created this cover story in the first place?

Benghazi Timeline: Charlene Lamb Resignation Leaves Unanswered Consulate Deaths [Op-Ed] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Commentary | The Benghazi report by the Accountability Review Board for Benghazi (click for full text report) focused on the events of the attack and whether the State Department could have done anything to prevent the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans at the Consulate. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, the Benghazi report does fault the State Department for failing to put in place a coordinated approach for handling security, and puts down rumors that anyone might have purposefully ignored cries for help, but even then the report does not single anyone out for disciplinary action. Despite this fact, three State Department employees have voluntarily stepped down from their positions.

But the report does not consider the question that made Benghazi a scandal in the first place: who decided to change the initial CIA reports to remove references to purposeful terrorism, favor the Obama administration right before elections, and blame a YouTube video and a random protest for the whole incident?

Secretary Hillary Clinton said on September 12th:

“We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Later on, Hillary Clinton was apparently still convinced this was true since she privately told grieving parents that they would arrest the man responsible for the anti-Muslim video. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was eventually arrested, but fortunately not in violation of free speech rights. According to the Los Angeles Times, Nakoula was guilty of violating the terms of his probation based upon previous charges of bank fraud. As part of these terms he was not even supposed to use the internet…including YouTube.

The Associated Press also reported on September 12th, with the AP following the media narrative set in place by the Obama administration:

“The protest in Cairo and the attack in Benghazi appear to have been responses to an inflammatory anti-Muslim video posted on the Internet.”

On September 16th, five days after the Consulate attacks, Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told NPR a version of the Benghazi attack that completely contradicted the Obama administration’s version as told by Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice:

“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate.”

Even earlier, between the 11th and the 16th, I recall hearing radio interviews with witnesses living in Benghazi and everyone seemed to think it was a terrorist attack. But by then the media narrative was set in stone.

On the same day, Ambassador Susan Rice went on record to directly contradict the Libyan President’s statements. Further, she claimed the protests were spontaneous and were related to the protest in Cairo. This claim is apparently so false it’s not even mentioned in the ARB Benghazi report’s timeline of events, although it is briefly mentioned that the “Ambassador was informed by his Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) in Tripoli of the breach of the Embassy Cairo.”

The last date when the media repeated this false information was on December 4 with the Wall Street Journal. Even as late as November 27th the White House was still directly claiming that the Benghazi attacks were in response to protests in Cairo and were somehow related to the YouTube video:

“They saw what was the breach of our embassy in Cairo and decided to act in Benghazi.  And as you know, the breach of our embassy in Cairo was directly in response to the video and was started as a protest outside of our embassy in Cairo.

“And I would refer you to numerous reporting — numerous pieces of reporting by serious journalists and serious publications that demonstrate that people who participated in the assault on Benghazi were aware of what was happening in Cairo and were partly motivated by what was happening in Cairo.”

Based upon the closed door testimony of ex-CIA Director David Petraeus we know that someone in either the Federal agencies or the Obama administration changed the CIA reports to downplay Al Qaeda, terrorism, and national defense right before elections. Petraeus said he doesn’t know who deleted the terrorist references from his presentation notes. He even drafted talking points on the Benghazi terrorist attacks for the White House and was surprised by Susan Rice’s announcement.

Susan Rice claims she was only relaying the intelligence information she was handed by the White House. The Rice narrative included Al-Qaeda losing ground and that the Middle East’s public sentiment toward the United States was improving. The Benghazi attack was specifically stated by to not be connected to any U.S. foreign policy decisions by the Obama White House.

Critics say Susan Rice should have known better, and would have had access to the information necessary to correct the story early on. One retired CIA officer went so far as to say that if you accept President Obama’s explanation then “Susan Rice is shockingly guilty of being dumb.”

All this might explain why Susan Rice is apparently no longer in the running for replacing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. According to NBC, her reason for dropping out was that the confirmation process “was very prolonged, very politicized, very distracting and very disruptive.”

The Obama administration may have hopes that the ARB Benghazi report will put the lid on further controversy. But I predict that critics of the Obama administration will use the Benghazi report as a platform for further attacks on Obama.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is already under the microscope.  According to The Hill, former Ambassador John Bolton accused Clinton of lying about having a stomach flu in order to avoid giving public testimony to Congress:

“I think she was waiting for the report so she could find out what it said and then fashion her testimony accordingly. There is nothing more embarrassing than to say something and then have it contradicted and have to change your story later.”

Who do you think is responsible for creating the false information that put a spin on the Benghazi terrorist attacks that favored the actions of the Obama administration immediately before a Presidential election?

Benghazi Report Does Not Answer Scandal Accusations [Op-Ed] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently suffered a concussion that has Benghazi critics crying foul. The suggestion that Clinton faked sick to somehow avoid a potentially embarrassing congressional testimony has been slammed by aides as “wild speculation.”

Former United Nations envoy John Bolton was slammed by the State Department today for speculation that Hillary Clinton may have faked her concussion to avoid testifying before Congress about the attack on the US mission in Benghazi, Libya, reports the Chicago Tribune.

During a Fox News appearance, Bolton speculated that Clinton’s claim of fainting, hitting her head, and suffering a concussion amounts to what foreign service officers call a “diplomatic illness.”

“This is a ‘diplomatic illness’ to beat the band,” said Bolton, who served during the Bush administration. “I mean, I hope it’s nothing serious. But this was revealed in a way that I think was not transparent and I think there is an obligation here.”

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland blasted the Clinton speculation Tuesday, calling Bolton’s “diplomatic illness” accusation “completely untrue.”

“I can assure you, he’s not privy to any inside information,” Nuland said, calling Bolton’s criticism “wild speculation based on no information.” She also reported that Clinton is currently “on the mend.”

Still, Clinton speculation in the media is at an all-time high, with many noting that her “diplomatic illness” is at the very least conveniently timed. According to UPI, The New York Post said the development is “one of the most transparent dodges in the history of diplomacy,” and The Daily Caller called for a medical report, to prove “she’s not just stonewalling.”

Time for you to get in on this Clinton speculation: Is Bolton right-on with his “diplomatic illness” accusation, or is Hils only guilty of suffering from the worst timing ever? Methinks she’s just been too busy texting these days.

Clinton Speculation: Did Hillary Fake Sick To Avoid Benghazi Testimony? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Washington, D.C. — Three State Department officials have resigned from their positions following a report that said “systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies” led to the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi.

CNN reported that assistant secretary of diplomatic security Eric Boswell and deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs Charlene Lamb were two of the officials who turned in their resignation letters. CNN also reported that an employee in the Near East Affairs bureau, who has so far not been named, also resigned.

Lamb and Boswell oversaw security in Benghazi, and documents showed that Lamb denied several requests for increased security in Libya.

The Accountability Review Board that issued the report found that no government employees had ignored their responsibilities or engaged in misconduct leading up to the attacks. The board also did not recommend that any employees be disciplined.

The review board also said that the State Department officials had a tendency to “to overemphasize the positive impact of physical security upgrades … while generally failing to meet Benghazi’s repeated requests” for increased security.

Outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accepted all 24 of the board’s recommendations, which included strengthening security and improving intelligence collections in areas with a high threat level.

Officials said Clinton would ask Congress to transfer $1.3 billion allocated to Iraq for additional Marines and security personnel in overseas missions.

The nearly 40 page report asked Congress to fully fund the request for more security funding.

“For many years the State Department has been engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work with varying degrees of success,” the report said. It also said that the result of that struggle has been sacrificing security for savings.

The 9/11 attack on the US Consulate killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Three State Department Officials Resign Following Benghazi Report is a post from: The Inquisitr

A new report about the Benghazi attacks was released by an independent panel on Tuesday and concluded that systematic management and leadership failures at the US State Department ultimately led to the “grossly” inadequate security at the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

In the report, released to the State Department, the panel wrote:

“Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that the report specifically cited the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Near East Affairs in its criticism. They also stated that there appeared to be both a lack of cooperation and confusion over protection at the Benghazi consulate.

Despite the cited failures, however, the Accountability Review Board’s report stated that there are no individual officials who ignored or violated their duties. They are recommending no disciplinary action right now. CNN notes that the State Department sent a notice to all of its employees on Tuesday, which explained what the department will do to implement the report’s recommendations. Part of the notice read:

“To implement the Board’s recommendations, the Secretary has directed the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources to lead the implementation team, supported by the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, the Under Secretary for Management, the Director General of he Foreign Service, the Executive Secretary and the Deputy Legal Advisor.”

State Department employees were also told that the implementation board met on Tuesday before the report was released and that they will continue to meet to implement the board’s recommendations.

New Benghazi Report Cites ‘Systematic Failures’ Led To Inadequate Security is a post from: The Inquisitr

Egypt has arrested a terror suspect that has been linked to the September Consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans.

The man, Mohammad Jamal Abdo Ahmed, is the leader of an Egyptian terrorist cell that was known for planning attacks in Egypt and is linked to those who stormed the US Embassy on September 11, reports ABC News.

Ahmed led a small cell of terrorists. They worked to collect suicide vests, bombs, and grenades before their safe house was raided in late October by intelligence officials. While most of the terror cell’s suspects were Egyptians, Ahmed admitted to assisting Ansar al-Sharia — the group suspected in the Benghazi Consulate attack.

An Egyptian official has stated that Ahmed was arrested in connection with the Benghazi attack two weeks ago and Egyptian authorities are not sure how involved he may have been in the deadly attack. A US official stated that the terror suspect may have been plotting more attacks on US targets. They added that he had aspirations to join al Qaeda.

NBC News notes that a source claims Mohammad Jamal Abdo Ahmed may have had “active” relations with several radical militant groups in Iraq and Afghanistan for several year. Along with being arrested for a possible link to the Benghazi Consulate attacks, he was also detained to answer questions regarding arms trading in Egypt.

The terror suspect has not yet been charged in Egypt’s State Security Court, though that may be expected soon. US intelligence officials are hoping to question Ahmed regarding his potential involvement in the Benghazi attack. An Egyptian official has said that Ahmed will remain in their custody for at least 15 more days while they question him.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Egypt Arrests Terror Suspect Linked To Benghazi Attack is a post from: The Inquisitr

Embattled United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, has a bothersome new controversy to add to her already full plate. In her recent financial disclosure, Ms. Rice revealed problematic investments in several major companies that do business with the Republic of Iran. Legitimate issues have been raised and the only reply from the party in power is to accuse Republicans of sexism and racial prejudice for objecting to Rice as a future Secretary of State.

A storm is brewing over Rice’s investments and devoted supporters of her boss, President Obama, continue to rail against the one percent while shouting for the rights of the 99 percent.

Critics of the administration point out that Madame Rice happens to be the richest member of the Executive Branch, with a net worth estimated between 24 million to 44 million dollars, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and no one seems to understand why any of this matters.

The inconvenient revelations raise serious questions about Ambassador Rice as an acceptable candidate for Secretary of State, if and when, Hillary Clinton decides to resign the post. Although they have wisely decided to remain anonymous for the moment, even loyal Democrats have begun to express their reservations about Ms. Rice.

According to the Washington Post, the anti-Rice buzz is active and Capitol Hill is jumping with dozens of insiders anxious to put in their two cents on the issue of the week.

“On Thursday, Republicans on Capitol Hill began circulating information about Rice’s investments connected to Iran. Asked about the disclosure revelations, one senior GOP official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the topic, said, ‘This news adds to the list of questions about Susan Rice — not only her public statements, but now there are broader concerns about her past record.’ Democratic staffers also said on condition of anonymity for the same reason that the investments would prompt questions of her if she is nominated.”

Ambassador Rice’s investments include $50,001 to $100,000 in oil giant Royal Dutch Shell, a company that is alleged to follow the sanctions, but still owes a debt of one billion dollars to Iran. She also has investments in BHP Billiton and Norsk Hydro, two companies with extensive business ties to the Iranian Government and privately owned companies in the Islamic Republic.

Even normally left-leaning organizations called Rice’s potential Secretary of State nod into question this week when they revealed another red flag in her financial profile. According to environmental advocates The Natural Resources Defense Council, Rice holds millions of dollars of investments in Canadian oil companies and banks with stakes in the $7 billion Keystone XL Pipeline, a controversial domestic energy project that environmental groups have fought against from day one.

“It’s really amazing that they’re considering someone for Secretary of State who has millions invested in these companies,” said Bill McKibben, an activist and protester of the Keystone XL project.

The disputed investments are informing a non-Benghazi scandal quickly building around the UN Ambassador; a scandal which, interestingly, is growing in bipartisan support. Perhaps this is what was meant by Lindsey Graham when he said he was “more disturbed” by Rice after meeting with her to clear the air on Benghazi.

Supporters of Susan Rice claim that all the companies involved also do substantial business outside of Iran and they are considered legitimate investments. Democrats point out that John McCain also invested in Royal Dutch Shell (along with President Obama) and the Republicans are just attacking Rice out of spite or malice.

The reality of the situation tells an entirely different story. The House of Representatives passed a bill in 2007 allowing state and local governments to divest from companies that conducted business in Iran and Senator Obama supported a similar bill in the United States Senate.

It is simply hypocrisy for the Democrats to advocate against investments in companies doing business with Iran when it was politically convenient five years ago and then insist its is unfair when Republicans hold them to the same standards once Obama becomes President.

 
 
The article was written by Wolff Bachner and Dusten Carlson. 

Lets Make A Deal: Susan Rice Discloses Iran Business Investments is a post from: The Inquisitr

Susan Rice met with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) to discuss the consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya. According to USA Today, this meeting was triggered after the White House signaled it may nominate Susan Rice to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. John McCain previously said he may oppose her nomination because she should have known her statements blaming the YouTube video for the September 11 attack were false.

After the Benghazi terrorist attack, Susan Rice represented the United States by claiming the attack may have emerged from a protest outside the consulate in response to an anti-Islam YouTube video. There was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi, the attack was a well-organized terror plot, and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus claims the CIA knew this from the outset.

Republicans believe Benghazi is a scandal because President Obama was allegedly watching the Benghazi attacks live via drone feed, emails, and phones from the White House situation room. Government and military officials allegedly received requests for help from the CIA operatives that were turned down. The Obama administration defends itself by saying that the situation was fluid. The overwhelming stream of incoming reports included conflicting information, thus they were uncertain if action should be taken and chose to sit tight. This decision resulted in deaths, and then someone in either the Federal agencies or the Obama administration changed the CIA reports to downplay Al Qaeda, terrorism, and national security right before elections.

Petraeus said he doesn’t know who deleted the terrorist references from his presentation notes. He even drafted talking points on the Benghazi terrorist attacks for the White House and was surprised by Susan Rice’s announcement. But even though he’s uncertain who made the changes–and why–he’s also relatively certain it was done to avoid tipping off the terrorists.

Emerging from the meeting, John McCain says, ”We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn’t get. It is clear the information that [Rice] gave the American people was incorrect when she said it was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. It was not, and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case.”

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is even more critical of Susan Rice.

“The bottom line is that I’m more disturbed than I was before … about how four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya,” Graham said. ”The American people got bad information of 16 September, they got bad information from President Obama days after. The question is: Should they have been giving the information at all….It’s unjustified to give the scenario as presented by Ambassador Rice and President Obama three weeks before an election.”

Critics of the Republicans are saying they are merely jealous that Obama has avoided having as scandal pinned on him. Susan Rice now claims she was only relaying the intelligence information she was handed by the White House. Obama himself defends Susan Rice and says Republicans should attack him, not her. But some people are not buying that, claiming that Susan Rice should have known better.

“These officials are supposed to assess these things for themselves,” said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA operations officer and now an analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. ”If you see a situation where a consulate safe house is being attacked by mortars and organized teams, that should tell you this was planned before that video came out.”

Gerecht insists that Susan Rice knowingly wrote the report intending to build up President Obama’s credibility with national security while ignoring contradictory information. The Rice narrative included Al-Qaeda losing ground and that the Middle East’s public sentiment toward the United States was improving. The Benghazi attack was specifically stated to not be connected to any U.S. foreign policy decisions by the Obama White House.

“If you want to take the president’s approach, then Susan Rice is shockingly guilty of being dumb,” Gerecht said.

The Benghazi terrorist attacks will likely haunt Susan Rice’s career for years to come. Do you think she deserves to be the new Secretary of State after reading the responses to the John McCain meeting?

Susan Rice Criticized By Republicans After McCain Benghazi Meeting is a post from: The Inquisitr

Washington, D.C. — Susan Rice is fighting for her political future as critics question her chances of becoming the next Secretary of State once Hillary Clinton steps down.

Senior Republicans such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham have said they will oppose her getting the position if President Obama decides to nominate her. Others, such as Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, have said she is unsuitable for the role.

Much of the criticism comes from appearances on Sunday morning TV shows five days after the attack in Benghazi, Libya in September. Four Americans, including US ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the attack.

Critics say Rice misled the American public by suggesting the attack was part of a spontaneous protest and not an organized assault by al Qaeda affiliates.

Rice’s supporters, however, praise her intellect. The 48-year-old is a former Rhodes Scholar and graduate of Stanford and Oxford. However, they say, she has won few popularity contests.

Member of the UN’s 15-nation Security Council have complained about Rice’s negotiating tactics, criticizing her for being “undiplomatic” and “sometimes rather rude.”

One diplomat said, “She’s got a sort of a cowboy-ish attitude. She has a tendency to treat other countries as mere (U.S.) subsidiaries.”

“She’s not easy,” said David Rothkopf, top manager and editor-at-large of Foreign Policy magazine. “I’m not sure I’d want to take her on a picnic with my family, but if the president wants her to be secretary of state, she’ll work hard.”

Rice defended her comments about Benghazi the day before Thanksgiving.

“I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community,” Rice told reporters at the UN. “I made clear that the information provided to me was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers.”

She also said, “I look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this with [McCain.]”

Rice’s supporters also say much of the criticism around her were examples of sexism as her tough nature is usually seen as an asset in male foreign affairs officials.

Do you think the criticism of Susan Rice is motivated by sexism, or are the concerns legitimate?

Susan Rice Battles Critics Over Benghazi Attacks, Secretary of State Nomination is a post from: The Inquisitr

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, confirmed Sunday that she is initiating a review of “talking points” related to the attack in Benghazi on September 11 after what she says is heavy “politicization” of remarks made by US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice in the wake of the attacks.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein spoke about Susan Rice having come under attack after the situation in Benghazi on Meet The Press, noting that the Ambassador had come under heavy criticism from the right — ostensibly due to dueling narratives about the Benghazi attack and ongoing allegations that the Obama administration engaged in a cover-up after the fracas left four Americans dead, including Libyan ambassador Chris Stevens.

Much of the brouhaha to which Feinstein refers was sparked after Rice said on Face The Nation:

“… based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy – sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.”

Dianne Feinstein says Rice was speaking based on approved, unclassified “talking points” for which she was debriefed and that the Ambassador was unable to disclose further information publicly on the open investigation.

As Rice comes under fire in the attack’s ensuing narrative war, Feinstein explained Sunday:

“She could speak publicly only on unclassified speaking points. I have some concern with those speaking points … We gave the direction yesterday that this whole process is going to be checked out. We are going to find out who made changes in the original statement. Until we do, I really think it’s unwarranted to make accusations.”

House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) has stated that the “narrative was wrong, and the intelligence was right,” expressing the goal of discovering why the two were seemingly dissonant in the days and weeks after the attack:

“The narrative, as it went from at least the CIA and other intelligence agencies, was accurate … There were some policy decisions made based on the narrative that was not consistent with the intelligence that we had. That’s my concern, and we need to say hey, we need to figure out how that happened.”

The debate over the administration’s framing of the attack in its aftermath has been a highly polarized and partisan fight, most heavily during the lead up to the election earlier this month. During an October debate, GOP candidate Mitt Romney challenged incumbent Barack Obama during the second debate, prompting the President to ask moderator Candy Crowley to pull a transcript from the day after the attack during remarks Obama made in the White House Rose Garden.

Romney alleged that President Obama had failed, as had his administration, to refer to the incident as a terrorist attack, and, during the speech, the President had indeed called the Benghazi incident an “act of terror.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has compared the pillorying of Rice to previous situations during which a political figure was attacked due to the talking points she was given, countering that Sens. Lindsay Graham and John McCain, who are heavily attacking Susan Rice, had come to the defense of Condoleezza Rice:

“Eight years ago when President Bush suggested Condoleezza Rice for secretary of State, some people said, ‘Well wait a minute, wasn’t she part of misleading the American people about intelligence information that led to our invasion of Iraq?’ And it was Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham who stood up and said, ‘Don’t hold her accountable for the intelligence that was given to her.’”

McCain himself has been criticized for strongly attacking President Obama (to whom he lost the presidential election in 2008) over the Benghazi attacks when he himself “forgot” an important briefing on the Benghazi situation in order to attend a press conference about Benghazi.

Feinstein also confirmed Sunday that much of the information Susan Rice has been criticized for keeping under wraps had, at the time she spoke, not been “cleared for public review.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Defends Susan Rice On Benghazi ‘Talking Points’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

The truth behind President Obama’s Libya mess.

The Media Hype Behind Obama’s Libya Mess is a post from: The Inquisitr

Jill Kelley allegedly made a $80 million request while bragging about her Petraeus connection. Adam Victor, president and CEO of TransGas Development Systems, is a New York businessman who was managing a multi-billion-dollar Korean business deal related to coal gasification plants. Victor met Kelley at the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August. According to ABC News, Jill Kelley tried to use her relationship with General David Petraeus as a bargaining chip, saying that Petraeus had arranged for her to become an honorary consul for South Korea in order to promote free trade.

“Ms. Kelley made it clear to me that General Petraeus put her in this position, and that’s why she was able to have access to such senior levels [of the Korean government],” said Victor, “that they were essentially doing a favor for General Petraeus, and that she had access solely because of her relationship with General Petraeus.”

While Victor thought it made sense to have a trusted aide in charge of promoting free trade, trouble came when when Kelley named her fee for brokering the deal. The entire deal was worth $4 billion and Kelley wanted an astounding two percent cut. “That’s an $80 million fee,” Victor said. “And I mean that is problematic . . . No broker gets $80 million. I mean that’s two whole orders of magnitude higher than what they would get.”

Victor said he “terminated the relationship” when Kelley made the $80 million request.

“It became clear that it did not smell right. General Petraeus should not have put an inexperienced person in charge of the Free Trade Agreement with such an important ally as South Korea,”Victor said, adding that he was disappointed that General Petraeus had supposedly made Kelley an honorary consul. “Frankly, I blame General Petraeus for this as a lapse of judgment. The general should have known better. It’s a sad day for the country. General Petraeus has served this country well.”

While ABC News could not get Jill Kelley to comment on the $80 million request, retired Army Col. Steve Boylan defended ex-CIA Director Petraeus, saying it was “nonsense” that Petraeus held any blame for Kelley’s alleged $80 million request. “He knows nothing about it,” Boylan claims. “What other people do he can’t control.” ABC News says that Petraeus had asked Kelley to stop using his name to get favors.

Besides the Kelley $80 million request, Kelley is accused of running a bogus charity allegedly to fund political parties all the while living a lavish lifestyle. Meanwhile, the Petraeus affair has caught media attention, distracting from the Petraeus testimony on the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

What do you think about the investigations of the Kelley and Petraeus connection; gossipy waste of time or hints of further corruption in the CIA under Petraeus’ direction?

Jill Kelley $80 Million Request While Bragging About Petraeus Connection is a post from: The Inquisitr

John McCain got a little testy with a CNN reporter who asked why he skipped a Benghazi briefing to complain about Benghazi in a separate press conference.

Today, the Arizona Senator slammed President Obama over his handling of the Benghazi Consulate attack which resulted in the deaths of four American citizens. In a press conference, McCain and supporters called for a Watergate-style investigation into the Administration’s handling of the situation.

At the same time, a classified Benghazi briefing with high-ranking military and diplomatic officials was being held practically across the hall.

McCain’s absence was clarified as a “scheduling error” by his spokesman. Though McCain isn’t suggesting that he was intentionally shut out of the briefing, he was a little short with a CNN reporter who asked him why he bailed on the meet-up.

“I have no comment about my schedule and I’m not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media,” McCain said.

The reporter asked why McCain wouldn’t comment, causing him to reply, “Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”

The CNN reporter asked why McCain would miss a briefing on an issue he was so clearly upset about, causing the Senator to reply, “I’m upset that you keep badgering me.”

Like many, McCain wants answers on the Benghazi attack. There’s a general sense that we’re not getting the whole truth, despite savvy political maneuvering and the embarrassing insistence of some media outlets to “protect” the president.

Still, we have to agree. If you’re more interested in substance than press, you might want to make the classified briefing, Senator.

Here’s the audio of the spat between John McCain and the CNN reporter:

John McCain Snaps On Reporter Over Skipped Benghazi Briefing [Audio] is a post from: The Inquisitr

The mother of one of the four men killed in anti-American violence in Benghazi, Libya, says the Obama administration sat on its hands instead of deploying a rescue team and therefore was responsible for the murders.

Four men were killed in the terrorist attack: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, State Department official Sean Smith, and ex-Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. As previously reported by The Inquisitr, despite numerous calls for help, no military backup was sent to the besieged Americans at the consulate.

Given what happened in Benghazi, Smith’s mother Pat Smith (who, like her son, voted for Barack Obama in 2008) told the San Diego Union-Tribune the following:

“I believe that Obama murdered my son. I firmly believe this.”

Charles Woods, Tyrone Wood’s father, expressed somewhat similar sentiments:

“I’m a retired attorney, and I know that these actions legally do not constitute murder. But in my mind the people in the White House, all of them who have authority to send in reinforcements to prevent what they knew was going to be the death of my son, are guilty of murdering my son.”

Earlier this month, when the president described the murders in Benghazi as “not optimal,” Smith didn’t sugarcoat her feelings:

“It’s insensitive to say my son is not very optimal — he is also very dead. I’ve not been ‘optimal’ since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell.”

New revelations seem to emerge every day about the Libyan attack. The White House has been accused of stonewalling the investigation into what happened at the Benghazi consulate particularly since there were warnings ahead of time about impending violence including from the ambassador himself. In the meantime, the CIA, State Department, and Defense Department seem to be engaging in a lot of finger pointing and blame shifting.

The Washington Post concluded an editorial about the Benghazi security breakdown as follows:

“While the agencies separately defend themselves — or not — the White House appears determined to put off any serious discussion of Benghazi until after the election. Sooner or later, however, the administration must answer questions about what increasingly looks like a major security failure — and about the policies that led to it.”

Do you think the administration is engaged in a cover-up over what really happened in Benghazi?

Pat Smith: ‘Obama Murdered My Son’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Father of Benghazi victim Sean Smith is demanding answers from the White House about why help never arrived. Smith was a computer expert working for the State Department and was one of the four Americans killed during the attack at the embassy in Libya.

The grieving father is also a former US Marine. He wants the Obama administration to explain what happened at Benghazi and why multiple calls for help were denied, according to WTSP News. Ryan Smith had this to say during an interview with the news station:

“They haven’t done anything. My son and them dialed 911 for help and they wouldn’t help them. I want whoever did this, whoever didn’t answer their phone, I want them brought to justice too. He was murdered. He was murdered. I want them to get the people who did this.”

Smith contacted Florida Representative C.W. Bill Young and asked for help getting answers to his questions. Young reportedly became a willing ally in the father’s struggle to garner more information.

The Republican congressman had this to say about Benghazi and aiding the victim’s father:

“He wants answers. Just like the rest of the country. They want to know why these American heroes were asking for help and being denied help.”

Father and son had been estranged for quite some time before terrorist attack in Libya. Ryan Smith claims he was reaching out to his son before he was killed. During his interview with WTSP, the father noted there was one positive aspect to out of the horrific tragedy. Ryan now plans to connect with his two grandchildren and other family members living in California.

Smith is working to get a permanent memorial erected in Sean’s honor at the Bay Pines V.A. hospital. He proudly recalled his son being very intelligent and stated he and the other victims did not deserve what happened to them in Benghazi, according to The Blaze.

Benghazi Victim Sean Smith’s Father Wants Answers About Why Help Never Came is a post from: The Inquisitr