« | »

Shocker: Hillary Lied About Benghazi Security!

From Roll Call Magazine:

House GOP Benghazi Report: Clinton OK’d Security Reduction

By David M. Drucker | April 23, 2013

A House Republican investigation into the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the death of the American ambassador has produced an interim progress report that has been distributed to members of the House majority.

The report was culled from information uncovered by the following committees: Armed Services; Judiciary; Intelligence; Foreign Affairs; and Oversight and Government Reform. It claims that then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton approved reductions in security which, if true, runs contrary to her testimony on Capitol Hill…

Would Hillary ever lie? And under oath? This is obviously part of a vast right wing conspiracy. Besides, what difference does it make now, anyway?

The interim progress report’s findings assert the following:

1. Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned. This fact contradicts her testimony before Congress, where she said, among other things, “But the specific security requests pertaining to Benghazi, you know, were handled by the security professionals in the department. I didn’t see those requests. They didn’t come to me. I didn’t approve them. I didn’t deny them.” (The New York Times, 1/23/13)

Next we’ll be told that Hillary never underwent sniper fire in Bosnia. Or that she didn’t make $100,000 over night in cattle futures by reading the Wall Street Journal. Or that she couldn’t find the Rose Law firm files. Or that Chelsea wasn’t jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11. Or that she…

2. In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community in order to protect the State Department from criticism for inadequate security levels. Specifically, after a White House Deputies Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the Administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks. The Administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya, including information about at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi. Senior State Department officials requested — and the White House approved — that the details of the threats, specifics of the previous attack, and previous warnings be removed to insulate the Department from criticism that it ignored the threat environment in Benghazi.  These talking points were then used by Ambassador Susan Rice on Sunday talk shows.

Be fair. The Obama administration was at the height of its re-election campaign, which hinged on his claims to have defeated Al Qaeda. How could they have admitted that this was the worst Al Qaeda attack on the US since 9/11?

3. When the talking points were challenged, the Administration claimed that the talking points were changed to protect classified information and an ongoing FBI investigation. Based on facts uncovered by the Committees, neither claim is true. Email exchanges during the interagency process do not reveal any concern with protecting classified information. Additionally, the Bureau itself approved a version of the talking points with significantly more information about the attacks and previous threats than the version that the State Department requested. Thus, the claim that the State Department’s edits were made solely to protect that investigation is not credible

Again, what nonsense. Everyone knows that getting Mr. Obama re-elected was vital to our national security. So naturally they cited national security interests to cover up their lies. The same goes for their stonewalling on ‘Fast & Furious.’

The Republicans need to grow up. No wonder the lose so many elections.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, April 24th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “Shocker: Hillary Lied About Benghazi Security!”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    Seriously. Isn;t there some one or some agency that can put Hillary in prison, incommunicado for the rest of her life as a Clear and Present Danger to our national interests?

  2. Enthalpy says:

    What? Our next POTUS is a liar you say. What would ever lead you to such a belief? Every aspect of her useless life.

  3. River0 says:

    How curious it is that “the vast right wing conspiracy” claims have almost all turned out to be RIGHT, as far back as the early ’90’s.

    But the advantage of ascending to the highest levels of the Ruling Class is you have so much dirt on everyone else, and knowledge of where the bodies are buried, that you can’t be touched.

    Shame on our fellow citizens for being so dumb or corrupt that they can’t keep track of the facts.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      It’s not that they can’t keep track of facts, which is true, but they also don’t want to keep track of facts.

      The number of people I know who are so-called conservatives also have little to now interest in hearing about the details of how HItlery lied or how Rubio is a closet amnestian (big surprise). The looks of visible pain I see in their faces tells me all I need to know.

      Their world is happy, content and full of their day-planner hustle-bustle. The universe is just as perfect as they need it to be and then they find out it’s not. They then deal with it by changing the subject to something fun and exciting. Willful negligence. I agree that there are plenty of times to simply sit around the campfire and ignore the ugliness of what the national socialists are doing but right now, ignoring it really doesn’t help.

      Then, there’s the self-proclaimed “noble people” who won’t say a bad thing about captain you-didn’t-build-that because of fears they will be considered a racist. I find their supposition insulting to my intelligence and a poor testimony to theirs. In other words, I can separate the hatred of the man for the hatred of the race. Apparently, they’ve been educated “differently”.

      Why, just this week a fellow employee was threatened by HR for having the n-word in something he said on his FB account. They threatened him with firing and scolded him, etc. The company has no business sticking their nose in his public communications. First Amendment. I’d like to see what the company does with its employees who deride “whitey” and “all those crackers” and such. No? Crickets? (I’m shocked)

      In any case, the so-called middle-class folks are busy making their mortgage payments, shuttling their tricycle-motors to/from this activity and that. Calling the HOA about someone who had a junk car in their driveway or meeting the guys after work at TGIFridays. Living the sitcom, I call it. And one could argue that that’s as it should be. If this was 1985 and the nation was on a good track.

      But we have a government we cannot trust and it snuck in, partly due to the reasons I just mentioned. To eradicate it will take diligence and effort. But unfortunately, the sitcom families just aren’t geared towards the collective pragmatism required. They fear more than they are willing to admit. One in ten is likely to take a stand against government tyranny while the rest shuffle off to their split-levels muttering, “What kin ya do?” in a defeated and defeatist manner.

      Yeah, the same people who are “fiercely competitive” at their tennis club or golf outings. Who “never say die” when soliciting the local county commissioner for a new playground (It’s for the children). Yeah….they walk away from the notion that the government is trying to destroy us. “You’re paranoid!” they’ll tell me. “You can’t really believe that they’ll come and tell you what you can drive….or eat….or how much electricity you can use, do you?”

      Well, not all at once. But here’s the other facet of this: One has to have the ability to compare and contrast (you know that stuff you had to do when writing essay answers in social studies) between yesteryear and now. Have things improved? If so, how and by how much. Have they gotten worse? Etc., etc. Most people cannot do this.

      And objectivity is an unknown concept as well.

    • Noyzmakr says:

      ….and knowledge of where the bodies are buried,….”

      That’s because she helped bury them! And was responsible for many of their deaths.

    • River0 says:

      very well said, Rusty. I’ve seen the very same thing myself, and for decades.
      “Willful negligence” is exactly right.

      How odd that these “fiercely competitive” and ambitious people have no sense of responsibility for the country that has given them so much. The Romans called that sensibility “civitas”, and when they began losing that – sometime in the third century – they began to die.

  4. heykev says:

    I believe that we may need to coin a new type of lying: clintionize – to willfully lie and mislead.

  5. Astravogel says:

    “I vas only following orderz.”

  6. Liberals Demise says:

    The really bad unsaid part is idiots and like ilk will vote for this lying beach.
    Here is to Hildabeast becoming our new ambassador to Bengazi.
    She deserves nothing more (or less).

« Front Page | To Top
« | »