A.P Dillon on Social Media
Got PayPal? Donate Today!
Donate Via Google Wallet
SIGN ME UP!
LATEST LL1885 POSTS
ARCHIVES BY CATEGORY
Get The Latest from A.P. Dillon
Tag Archives: Benghazi-gate
Six months later, the American people still are no closer to learning the truth of what happened in Benghazi. The cover-up continues.The entire cast of characters has been in for hearings and given testimony – everyone except the survivors, which have been shuffled around and kept hidden by this administration who has apparently interviewed the survivors all on their own. Convenient.
DNI didn’t know anything about the changed talking points either. Clapper and Morrell were a tag team of useless information and shrugs. Controversy still hovers over Clapper, who seems to change his mind a lot on if he was involved or not. Clapper tried to chuck his pal Petraeus under the bus, but it didn’t work. If push comes to shove, now with Clinton out of the picture, if a head is going to roll it will likely be Clapper’s.
The CIA said they weren’t responsible. They didn’t change any talking points. Petraeus’ testimony said it was assessed as a terrorist attack from the start; no idea who changed the talking points or who wanted to implement a YouTube video protest as an excuse.
The FBI said they didn’t change the talking points. They didn’t know anything despite having sent a unit to the crime scene in Benghazi. It’s clear they can’t even keep track of suspects either.
The Pentagon – also not responsible, even though their timelines shows it took 19 hours to respond.
The State Department says they weren’t responsible and Hillary Clinton says she didn’t speak to anyone else that night as the attacks went on. She shook her little fist and yelled in her testimony, “what difference does it make?!” when asked about the video excuse. Theatrics and non-answers followed. When finished her campaign debts were paid off by the DNC and she retired. Job done, pay off received.
The President himself said he wasn’t responsible either. Actually, he sent Leon Panetta out to tell everyone that he wasn’t responsible and had nothing to do with the attacks that night. He was in bed or something, resting up to hit Vegas the next day.
No one was talking responsibility for anything. The only entity who has not testified is the White House itself. The only thing the White House wants to say is:
White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said only one minor change was made by the Oval Office.
“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Rhodes told reporters Saturday aboard Air Force One.
“We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment. The only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility,” Rhodes also said. (Fox News)
And we’re full circle with the talking points hot potato. Of course, remember, this administration would rather be dodging talking points than answering why the Commander in Chief was absent as four Americans were murdered by terrorists. Paging Rand Paul!
Flash Forward to this week:
The stonewalling on Benghazi had reached a melting point. So, after multiple members of the Senate threatened to hold up the Brennan nomination unless they received the documents on Benghazi they have requested for months, the White House sent some paperwork over. Continue reading
From The Weekly Standard:
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified this morning on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weq7hY0OhKs&feature=player_embedded]
Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o’clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, “up to us.”
In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that night. There were no calls about what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.
The 5 o’clock meeting was a pre-scheduled 30-minute session, where, according to Panetta’s recollection, they spent about 20 minutes talking a lot about the American embassy that was surrounded in Egypt and the situation that was just unfolding in Benghazi.
Un-freaking-believeable. Read the whole thing.
Obama voted present on Benghazi. He chatted with Israel on the phone but wasn’t involved at all in the siege occurring at our Consulate that resulted in the death of four Americans. Small wonder there are no situation room photo ops being paraded around by the White House… HE WASN’T EVEN THERE. Dereliction of duty doesn’t even cover it. That means the story he just went to bed is true? Well, after chatting with Israel, of course. My God. (Read: Obama Knew About Benghazi Terror Attacks 90 Minutes After They Began… Went to Bed (Video) )
Add another set of lies to the Benghazi pile:
Report: Obama Watched Benghazi Attack From ‘Situation Room’
Aide: Obama didn’t deny requests for help in Benghazi
Axelrod Claims Obama ‘Convened the Top Military Officials that Evening’
A look back at some related reading:
Barack Obama on Benghazi: ‘If four Americans get killed, it’s not OPTIMAL’: Obama’s extraordinary response to security fiasco after Benghazi massacre
Obama On Benghazi Terror Attack: “When Four Americans Are Killed, You Have To Do Some Soul-Searching”
WH: ‘We Decline to Comment’ on When Obama Learned of E-Mails, Met With NSC on Benghazi
Obama ‘Has Not Participated in the Investigation’ of Benghazi
Oh and Nakoula is unavailable for comment. Still. Continue reading
Was what happened in Benghazi some kind of turf war for weaponry in a Middle East version of Fast and Furious after all? If so, that would explain a lot of the lying if the Obama administration were supplying weapons to one group over another under the radar; busting some of their own narratives.
PJ Tatler, emphasis mine:
Libya Blowback: US Missiles intercepted in Egypt bound for Hamas-controlled Gaza
A stunning story out of Egypt on Friday (HT: Jonathan Schanzer at FDD) after a raid in northern Sinai uncovered a cache of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles bound for Hamas-controlled Gaza. The discovery was made in Be’r al-Hefn near Arish in an area known as a transit point for materials headed for the smuggling tunnels running from Sinai into Gaza.
The most remarkable part of the story is that the missiles were American-made, arriving from Libya according to multiple reports.
The report does not say who or what group is associated with transporting the weaponry from Libya through Egypt to the point where they were discovered; one would guess from the destination it would have to be HAMAS. So, how and from whom is HAMAS getting weapons from Libya?
This is not the first time in recent memory arms originating in Libya have been intercepted in Egypt before reaching Gaza. Flashback to November 2012 when 3 Palestinians were arrested: Gaza bound weapons intercepted in Egypt. That was a very pricey shipment. The Times Of Israel noted it was worth $3.3 Million:
According to the report, the shipment included 185 crates full of arms and ammunition, including bullets, anti-tank and anti-aircraft munitions, rocket-propelled grenades, landmines and explosives. The estimated value of the shipment was 20 million Egyptian pounds ($3.3 million).
$3.3 million is not chump change. Neither is $192 million and $400 million. Anyone thinking the bulk of this money was really going to help the Palestinian people is kidding themselves.
It’s entirely plausible that these weapons being bought are being redirected from arms meant for Syria. The Oversight committee should be asking Hillary Clinton about the various arms being shipped in and out of the region – specifically Libya. They should also be asking about the intended recipients of said weapons and how involved Ambassador Stevens was in brokering deals with the intended the recipients of these arms in the region. How much of Ambassador Stevens’ role in returning to the region was to try and recover weapons the US sold the Gaddafi regime? Or another idea, maybe he was trying to buy back items already in country for transfer to various rebel groups in Libya and in Syria.
The reality — We probably will never know the answers to these questions.
Obama Quietly Removes HAMAS Terrorist Muhammad Salah From Terrorist List; May Get $1.4 Million in HAMAS/Qaeda Funds
President Obama Authorizes Covert Help for Libyan Rebels
REPORT: The US Is Openly Sending Heavy Weapons From Libya To Syrian Rebels
Obama asks Saudis to send weapons to Libyan rebels
BenghaziGate: Obama Admin Knew Libyan Terrorists Had US-Provided Weapons Continue reading
I’m beginning to think this President is at worst, a pathological liar or at best, Bipolar. A month ago, he was barking like a junkyard dog in defense of Susan Rice, after admitting he sent her out to lie to the nation. Now we get this from Obama on Benghazi (via MSNBC):
GREGORY: In the politics, in the back and forth in this, do you feel like you let your friend Susan Rice hang out there to dry a little bit?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: No. First of all, I think I was very clear throughout that Susan has been an outstanding U.N. ambassador for the United States. She appeared on a number of television shows reporting what she and we understood to be the best information at the time. This was a politically motivated attack on her. I mean of all the people in my national security team she probably had the least to do with anything that happened in Benghazi. Why she was targeted individually for the kind of attacks that she was subjected to is– is– was puzzling to me. And I was very clear in the days after those attacks that they weren’t acceptable. So, you know, the good thing is– is that I think she will continue to serve at the U.N. and do an outstanding job. And I think that most Americans recognize that these were largely politically motivated attacked– attacks as opposed to being justified.
Politically motivated? Mr. President, you admitted YOU sent her out there. We all now know that both of you knew at the time you set her out to the talk show circuit that what she was telling the nation was a lie. The criticism of Rice was not about politics, it was about LYING. It still is about lying.
The Blamer-in-Chief just prior to these remarks on Rice said this about our Embassy security, emphasis added is mine:
Some individuals have been held accountable inside of the State Department and what I’ve said is that we are going to fix this to make sure that this does not happen again, because these are folks that I send into the field. We understand that there are dangers involved but, you know, when you read the report and it confirms what we had already seen, you know, based on some of our internal reviews; there was just some sloppiness, not intentional, in terms of how we secure embassies in areas where you essentially don’t have governments that have a lot of capacity to protect those embassies. So we’re doing a thorough-going review. Not only will we implement all the recommendations that were made, but we’ll try to do more than that. You know, with respect to who carried it out, that’s an ongoing investigation. The FBI has sent individuals to Libya repeatedly. We have some very good leads, but this is not something that, you know, I’m going to be at liberty to talk about right now.
Again, Mr. President — you’re trying to install an unsupported narrative here. This embassy was vulnerable for at least the 6 months prior to the attack on September 11th; it had been attacks twice prior. The security of this consulate was already at a dangerously low level. There were warnings three days before the attack, which were ignored. Even the Ambassador himself asked multiple times for more security. Instead of granting those requests, his security was actually cut back. (Related: State Department withdrew 16-member special forces team from Benghazi one month before 9/11/12 terrorist attack)
This is not about sloppiness. Sloppiness implies security was implemented, but did it in a manner leaving things in a state disarray. Mr. President, you didn’t implement anything, you removed it and in doing so, thereby leaving your Ambassador Stevens and his staff wide open to attacks. Attacks this administration was warned about from several sources. What transpired wasn’t sloppiness, it was criminal.
By the way, Nakoula was unavailable for comment.
Related Reading from LL1885:
#BENGHAZI: Psych! No Real Resignations.
#BENGHAZI – A Concussion, A Hearing and More Dodging
#Benghazi: Hillary Takes A Spill; Won’t Testify
#Benghazi: Looking Like A Middle East Fast and Furious Continue reading
As I stated last week via the NY Times article, it looked to me like these folks were being paid off by being put on administrative leave. Emphasis added:
Oh hey, look…Some resignations! With the Accountability report also came four resignations. Four is a nice round number to take the blame for what was ultimately the role, responsibility and fault of the President and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the number if more symbolic – four resignations for four murdered Americans. NY Times:
Eric J. Boswell, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, resigned. Charlene R. Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary responsible for embassy security, and another official in the diplomatic security office whom officials would not identify were relieved of their duties. So was Raymond Maxwell, a deputy assistant secretary who had responsibility for North Africa. The four officials, a State Department spokeswoman said, “have been placed on administrative leave pending further action.”
I want to know who the other official they would not name is. The article says they resigned or were relieved of duty, yet they are placed on administrative leave as well? Does that mean they’re being paid for their trouble of playing the part of scapegoats?
The NY Post confirms my suspicion:
The four officials supposedly out of jobs because of their blunders in the run-up to the deadly Benghazi terror attack remain on the State Department payroll — and will all be back to work soon, The Post has learned.
The highest-ranking official caught up in the scandal, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, has not “resigned” from government service, as officials said last week. He is just switching desks. And the other three are simply on administrative leave and are expected back.
The four were made out to be sacrificial lambs in the wake of a scathing report issued last week that found that the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, was left vulnerable to attack because of “grossly inadequate” security.
Someone in the three-ring circus of Congressional Committees better fire up the Subpoena machine and get Hillary before she can plead the 5th. By the way, where are all the survivors of Benghazi? Continue reading