Obama and his administration, including Hillary are going DOWN!
- Thread starter Sam Fisher
- Start date
Benghazi : 4 killed
9/11 : 6,291 killed
There was a 911 commission you twit.
Sam Fisher
Banned
Sam Fisher
Banned
Looks like it very well was a cover-up.
Republican lawmakers hounding the Obama administration for months over unanswered questions on the Benghazi attack will have their moment, on Wednesday, to demonstrate whether the internal response amounted to a cover-up -- as whistle-blowers give long-awaited testimony expected to challenge the White House's version of events.
Fox News obtained the prepared opening statements of two of the whistle-blowers, both of whom use the statements to affirm their credentials and credibility in testifying about what happened last Sept. 11 in Libya.
"I am a career public servant," Greg Hicks' statement reads. "Until the aftermath of Benghazi, I loved every day of my job." He was deputy chief of mission in Libya and became top U.S. diplomat in the country after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in the terror attack.
The other statement, by Mark Thompson of the State Department Counterterrorism Bureau, is mostly biographical. Testimony also is due Wednesday from Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was formerly the regional security officer in Libya.
The administration has parried Republican allegations lately by arguing that the attack is old news, that the State Department already has investigated it and that Republicans are engaged in a political witch hunt.
But a series of carefully timed leaks on the whistle-blowers' testimony indicates House Republicans could have the goods to at least merit a second look at the administration narrative.
"The question is, where's the accountability for lying to the American people?" Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News. "The American people were lied to."
Three whistle-blowers are set to testify shortly before noon to the oversight committee Issa chairs.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of that committee, said if it weren't for lawmakers' persistence, "we would be left with a whole host of lies coming out of this administration, because they were not truthful about this."
The "truth" surrounding the Benghazi attack has been elusive. The Obama administration has adamantly denied several of the latest charges, including a claim that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making on Sept. 11. The administration also denied that the whistle-blowers in question were intimidated -- while behind the scenes questioning the credibility of the witnesses.
The witnesses are: 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 U.S. Marine and presently the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau, and The witnesses are expected to cover a breadth of material in their testimony Wednesday. Lawmakers have questioned to what extent security requests were ignored before the attack, whether the military could have done more to respond the night of the attack and whether talking points were intentionally changed for political reasons after the attack to downplay terrorism. The witnesses could address all three areas on Wednesday.
Issa claimed one "cover-up" is "undeniable" -- that the State Department botched security in Benghazi in the run-up to the attack. But, he said, "it still doesn't explain the president misleading the American people over a period of weeks."
The Weekly Standard reported last week that the initial CIA talking points on the attack said "Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack." The reference to Al Qaeda was later taken out, and the initial reference to "attacks" was reportedly changed to "demonstrations."
According to The Weekly Standard, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland raised "serious concerns" at the time about the draft, concerned it could fuel criticism of the department.
The language continued to be watered down.
Issa told Fox News, in reference to the revisions, that "it's very clear ... that this was a political change."
State Department officials released a statement Tuesday night labeled "Benghazi Attack Fack Check" to defend its security efforts.
"No one is more determined than the State Department family to bring those who perpetrated this attack to justice and do everything we need to do to keep our people safe," the statement reads. "That's where our attention is, and we hope Congress and the media, too, can keep the focus."
Hicks, according to a transcript, also told congressional investigators that he thought it "was a terrorist attack from the get go."
The whistle-blowers will be able to provide a new perspective on what was happening on the ground that night.
Hicks, according to transcripts, told investigators that the U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed. Further, he claimed that a second rescue team that was supposed to go from Tripoli to Benghazi early the next morning was told not to go.
He said Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6 a.m. local time on Sept. 12 but got a phone call when they were on their way to the flight telling them "you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight."
He added: "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it," apparently because they did not have the "right authority."
Thompson has also claimed that Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the loop that night.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the claim on Monday.
Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department's Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges.
"I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue," he said. "Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lowers-give-benghazi-testimony/#ixzz2SeiRrlJj
Republican lawmakers hounding the Obama administration for months over unanswered questions on the Benghazi attack will have their moment, on Wednesday, to demonstrate whether the internal response amounted to a cover-up -- as whistle-blowers give long-awaited testimony expected to challenge the White House's version of events.
Fox News obtained the prepared opening statements of two of the whistle-blowers, both of whom use the statements to affirm their credentials and credibility in testifying about what happened last Sept. 11 in Libya.
"I am a career public servant," Greg Hicks' statement reads. "Until the aftermath of Benghazi, I loved every day of my job." He was deputy chief of mission in Libya and became top U.S. diplomat in the country after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in the terror attack.
The other statement, by Mark Thompson of the State Department Counterterrorism Bureau, is mostly biographical. Testimony also is due Wednesday from Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was formerly the regional security officer in Libya.
The administration has parried Republican allegations lately by arguing that the attack is old news, that the State Department already has investigated it and that Republicans are engaged in a political witch hunt.
But a series of carefully timed leaks on the whistle-blowers' testimony indicates House Republicans could have the goods to at least merit a second look at the administration narrative.
"The question is, where's the accountability for lying to the American people?" Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News. "The American people were lied to."
Three whistle-blowers are set to testify shortly before noon to the oversight committee Issa chairs.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of that committee, said if it weren't for lawmakers' persistence, "we would be left with a whole host of lies coming out of this administration, because they were not truthful about this."
The "truth" surrounding the Benghazi attack has been elusive. The Obama administration has adamantly denied several of the latest charges, including a claim that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making on Sept. 11. The administration also denied that the whistle-blowers in question were intimidated -- while behind the scenes questioning the credibility of the witnesses.
The witnesses are: 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 U.S. Marine and presently the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau, and The witnesses are expected to cover a breadth of material in their testimony Wednesday. Lawmakers have questioned to what extent security requests were ignored before the attack, whether the military could have done more to respond the night of the attack and whether talking points were intentionally changed for political reasons after the attack to downplay terrorism. The witnesses could address all three areas on Wednesday.
Issa claimed one "cover-up" is "undeniable" -- that the State Department botched security in Benghazi in the run-up to the attack. But, he said, "it still doesn't explain the president misleading the American people over a period of weeks."
The Weekly Standard reported last week that the initial CIA talking points on the attack said "Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack." The reference to Al Qaeda was later taken out, and the initial reference to "attacks" was reportedly changed to "demonstrations."
According to The Weekly Standard, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland raised "serious concerns" at the time about the draft, concerned it could fuel criticism of the department.
The language continued to be watered down.
Issa told Fox News, in reference to the revisions, that "it's very clear ... that this was a political change."
State Department officials released a statement Tuesday night labeled "Benghazi Attack Fack Check" to defend its security efforts.
"No one is more determined than the State Department family to bring those who perpetrated this attack to justice and do everything we need to do to keep our people safe," the statement reads. "That's where our attention is, and we hope Congress and the media, too, can keep the focus."
Hicks, according to a transcript, also told congressional investigators that he thought it "was a terrorist attack from the get go."
The whistle-blowers will be able to provide a new perspective on what was happening on the ground that night.
Hicks, according to transcripts, told investigators that the U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed. Further, he claimed that a second rescue team that was supposed to go from Tripoli to Benghazi early the next morning was told not to go.
He said Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6 a.m. local time on Sept. 12 but got a phone call when they were on their way to the flight telling them "you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight."
He added: "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it," apparently because they did not have the "right authority."
Thompson has also claimed that Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the loop that night.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the claim on Monday.
Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department's Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges.
"I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue," he said. "Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lowers-give-benghazi-testimony/#ixzz2SeiRrlJj
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
its pretty clear, very obvious what Benghazi was.
it was a cover up.
How and why?
How is by not having enough security there in the first place.
Not sending any help while it was going down. What kind of administration just lets it's embassy, it's personnel including the actual ambassador get attacked and slaughtered without even making an effort to send help? That is inexcusable and I and many others think that is where the criminal element of it lies.
Afterwards INTENTIONALLY lying about it the the PEOPLE over and over for weeks. both through media and even during hearings. That is inexcusable and extremely evil.
The how, thats the easy part. They didn't want it to affect the election.
A few more things that are disturbing are A - The medias coverage, or lack of coverage of it.
B - Well, Some misguided fools, the evil politicians and the lefty media saying that the republicans are exploiting it for political reasons. Could it be that maybe they just want to get to the bottom of it and find out what actually happened?
I know Evil Hillary said it doesn't matter but it does so fuck her.
Disturbing is that why are only republicans investigating it? Why aren't democrats? Don't they want to know or is protecting the PREZ and his literal partners in crime and preserving their power and control more important?
Another hearing will happen tomorrow, May 8th. Should be interesting.
it was a cover up.
How and why?
How is by not having enough security there in the first place.
Not sending any help while it was going down. What kind of administration just lets it's embassy, it's personnel including the actual ambassador get attacked and slaughtered without even making an effort to send help? That is inexcusable and I and many others think that is where the criminal element of it lies.
Afterwards INTENTIONALLY lying about it the the PEOPLE over and over for weeks. both through media and even during hearings. That is inexcusable and extremely evil.
The how, thats the easy part. They didn't want it to affect the election.
A few more things that are disturbing are A - The medias coverage, or lack of coverage of it.
B - Well, Some misguided fools, the evil politicians and the lefty media saying that the republicans are exploiting it for political reasons. Could it be that maybe they just want to get to the bottom of it and find out what actually happened?
I know Evil Hillary said it doesn't matter but it does so fuck her.
Disturbing is that why are only republicans investigating it? Why aren't democrats? Don't they want to know or is protecting the PREZ and his literal partners in crime and preserving their power and control more important?
Another hearing will happen tomorrow, May 8th. Should be interesting.
Sam Fisher
Banned
meester, well said. And, as far as I know, only the Republicans and Fox News have extensively investigated this and they have not let it fall to the wayside.
I'm going to be parked in front of the television tomorrow AM watching the complete, uninterrupted coverage on C-SPAN.
I'm going to be parked in front of the television tomorrow AM watching the complete, uninterrupted coverage on C-SPAN.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
I'll check it out on yootoob tomorrow night.
And for the record I don't care if it were a dem or repub administration responsible for this I would feel the same.
And for the record I don't care if it were a dem or repub administration responsible for this I would feel the same.
Sam Fisher
Banned
Sam Fisher
Banned
Somebody should remake Da Vinci's Last Supper painting with Obama surrounded by his minions.
Sam Fisher
Banned
oh shit! loller
Sam Fisher
Banned
Sam Fisher
Banned
Sam Fisher
Banned
Mayhem
Banned
No, not really.
Edit: Michele Bachmann is in the audience, so we can expect some half-assed comment from her at the end of the day.
What gets me is this is being drawn on partisan lines as usual.
Be honest, if this had happened under the Bush administration would the replies here and the media coverage be the same? You know it wouldn't.
The ambassador had expressed concern beforehand and requested increased security and was denied.
When the consulate was under attack and they requested help they were denied.
When special operations personnel were ready to assist on their own volition they were told to stand down.
An al-qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility for the attack but the state dept. and the prez blamed it on a youtube video.
All of these are facts. But as Hillary said "What difference does it make?" The american electorate doesn't care. So unless you're a family member of one of the deceased why should you?
Be honest, if this had happened under the Bush administration would the replies here and the media coverage be the same? You know it wouldn't.
The ambassador had expressed concern beforehand and requested increased security and was denied.
When the consulate was under attack and they requested help they were denied.
When special operations personnel were ready to assist on their own volition they were told to stand down.
An al-qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility for the attack but the state dept. and the prez blamed it on a youtube video.
All of these are facts. But as Hillary said "What difference does it make?" The american electorate doesn't care. So unless you're a family member of one of the deceased why should you?
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
No, those aren't facts. I watched a good deal of the inquisition of Hillary Clinton, and she knocked down the talking points thrown at her. Fact is, congress cut funding to embassy security, requests for help were never received by Clinton, and no one was told to stand down. This is a partisan witch-hunt because the GOP is terrified Hillary Clinton is going to announce a run for 2016. There was no republican outrage at the many embassy attacks during the Bush administration, or for 9/11. President Obama should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Darrel Issa's abuse of power as chair of the Oversight Committee.
Here's an article that pretty well sums up Issa's "official" charges against the Obama administration- http://liberalbias.com/post/2201/the-benghazi-the-official-list-of-charges/
