A.P Dillon on Social Media
Got PayPal? Donate Today!
Donate Other Ways
Got News? Get the Newsletter.
LATEST LL1885 POSTS
- Guilford County Schools teacher charged with multiple counts of sex act with a student
- Law firms file suit against Guilford County Board of Education in Holland case
- Former Yadkin County substitute teacher charged with taking indecent liberties with child
- Second suit filed against New Hanover School Board related to teacher-student assault case
- Buffy is still right about homeschooling
- New Hanover’s Michael Kelly has 4 more plaintiffs added to Civil Suit against him
- Radical Organize2020 members take over leadership of NCAE
ARCHIVES BY CATEGORY
Tag Archives: Susan Rice
The Interim Progress report on the attacks in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was published today. You can read the full report via The Hill. The write up of the report by The Hill hits the nail on the head in the title, GOP Benghazi Report Blames Clinton.
The 46-page report accused Clinton — a possible White House contender in 2016 — of seeking to cover up failures by the State Department that could have contributed to the attack last year that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
The report, compiled by five House panels after a seven-month investigation, said Clinton approved reductions in security levels prior to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, contradicting Clinton’s testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Jan. 23.
“Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the Department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel,” the report states.
“Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department,” it said. “For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador [Gene] Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.”
There’s more, read the whole thing.
Maggie’s Notebook cuts to the chase, highlighting Hillary Clinton indeed did see the cables requesting more security and that it would appear she lied in her testimony about them.
One of the huge questions, among so many huge questions, has been why Benghazi did not have sufficient security after specifically requesting more at least several times. Now we know the answer. Secretary of Hillary Clinton not only saw the request from Benghazi, she signed the request and then denied it. My second question is who, if anyone, told former SEALs Woods and Dohoerty to “stand down.” If it’s there, I missed it. I outlined some things from the report that I found especially interesting. Read the report in full here.
PAGE 7: However, in a cable signed by Secretary Clinton in April 2012, the State Department settled on a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including Benghazi
An ongoing Congressional investigation across five House Committees concerning the events surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya has made several determinations to date, including:
● Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.
● 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.
● Contrary to Administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information. Concern for classified information is never mentioned in email traffic among senior Administration officials.
These preliminary findings illustrate the need for continued examination and oversight by the five House Committees. The Committees will continue to review who exactly was responsible for the failure to respond to the repeated requests for more security and for the effort to cover up the nature of the attacks, so that appropriate officials will be held accountable.
Maggie does a very thorough run down of the report and of prior related testimony and timelines. Clinton also tried to blame funding for the lack of security, an item that was debunked in the beginning and re-iterated in the report. Read the whole article.
Clinton’s full testimony; relevant testimony to the cables roughly begins at the 1:35:30 mark:[youtube=http://youtu.be/fQjnPeFRTLE]
But… what difference does it make?
It makes a big difference. Continue reading
And the bullshit train chugs on along around camp stonewall.
Hillary took a spill and bumped her head. Not hard enough to go to the hospital, but they know it’s a concussion and she can’t testify now. Instead, they’re sending in the B-team of Burns and Nides, who will of course claim they know nothing. This announcement comes from John Kerry, who is poised to take Clinton’s job as Secretary of State. Easy there John, you don’t have the job yet. Kerry is now the administration’s top pick after Susan Rice bowed out ungracefully last week, crying to Obama in a letter how the meanie pants GOP were all sexist, racist pigs who dared question her judgement and abilities.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won’t testify to Congress next week on Benghazi, after fainting and suffering a concussion Saturday and due to her ongoing stomach ailment.
“While suffering from a stomach virus, Secretary Clinton became dehydrated and fainted, sustaining a concussion,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines said in a statement. “She has been recovering at home and will continue to be monitored regularly by her doctors. At their recommendation, she will continue to work from home next week, staying in regular contact with Department and other officials. She is looking forward to being back in the office soon.”
Deputy Secretaries of State Bill Burns and Tom Nides will both testify in Clinton’s place, according to the office of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA).
Clinton may really have injured herself and if that is the case we should cut her some slack. Having said that, this is still unacceptable. Clinton is THE person who should be testifying, not two flunkies under her we’ve never heard of. All of this is nicely timed to fall apart right before the Christmas holidays.
Eat, drink and be fat and merry Americans… forget all about Secretary of State Clinton who will be resigning and is trying to escape having to testify to 4 Americans murdered by terrorists on her watch. That’s it, have another eggnog. Fire up the subpoena machine, Mr. Issa. You will not get her in to testify otherwise.
Related reading on Benghazi from LL1885 is here. Continue reading
Weekly Standard has this article with video. Emphasis added is mine:
In response to a question from reporter Major Garrett on whether the Obama administration’s mishandling of Benghazi raises “core questions of basic competency,” press secretary Jay Carney revealed that Barack Obama “is not particularly concerned” about whether Susan Rice misled the American people:[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fORePNOHqQo]
“What the president is worried about, Major, is what happened and why in Benghazi. He is not particularly concerned about whether the ambassador or I went out and talked about the fact that we believed extremists might have been responsible. And whether we named them as al Qaeda or not does not–no, it certainly doesn’t have any bearing on what happened and who was responsible as that investigation was continuing on Benghazi.”
Mr. Carney, last week, the President barked like a junkyard dog in defense of Susan Rice. The President stood at the podium and told us HE sent Rice out there.[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zqrsky39GYA]
Are you now telling us the President wants us to just blow off her lies? This after his own dramatic performance at his first press conference and the ridiculous trotting around by the Democratic women in the House crying racism and sexism?
It doesn’t have any bearing on the investigation? At what point do you people in the White House start to choke on your lies? This President knows exactly what happened there, he has since the beginning of the attack. Rice was instructed to lie by someone. Obama sent her out there. You do the math. Continue reading
This just in… The Office of DNI has voluntarily offered themselves up to be thrown under the bus regarding the “Benghazi talking points”. James Clapper, of ‘mostly secular’ fame, is laying down in the middle of the road. Via Hot Air, emphasis added is mine:
Meet James Clapper — the latest fall guy for the White House on Benghazi. After last week’s hearings in Congress showed that the talking points from the CIA had been changed to eliminate the mention of terrorism, Washington erupted into a whodunit.
CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack – with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.
However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too “tenuous” to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information — the reference to al Qaeda — in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.
“The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level — which Rice, as a member of President Obama’s cabinet, would have been privy to. …
The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.
Note that this report doesn’t pin the blame on Clapper himself. It instead locates the change in Clapper’s “office,” allowing for a rather non-specific assignment that makes almost no sense at all. Are we to believe that a Clapper aide overruled David Petraeus’ assessment of Benghazi? If so, on what basis?
There is more. Go read it.
September 14th they were approved? Those must be magic talking points as I’d like to point out Carney was already using the video talking points before September 14th, as were Hillary Clinton and Obama himself:[youtube=http://youtu.be/WBHJnQnySZY]
Even if they were ‘compiled’ the day before, Clinton was using them on the 13th. Obama used them on the 12th. Clapper if full of crap. This is all besides the point and yet another one of this administration’s manufactured distractions. It makes no difference what talking points were given to whom and when; this White House approved them and sent Rice out with the. On top of that, Carney, Clinton and Obama himself all used them as well. The truth was known within hours and yet this President and his administration purposefully deceived the nation for three weeks. The President even went in front of the United Nations and lied.
Enough with the games. Enough with the lies. This administration is rotten to the core. Assign the independent counsel. Continue reading
Post written by Liberty Speaks. Original may be found here.
So on November 13th, President Obama, after winning re-election held his first news conference in 8 months. It wasn’t until the eleventh question asked that the attack on Benghazi came up. The question was not about the lack or denial of security requests, it wasn’t about the stand down order from the CIA to the two former Navy SEALS who ultimately lost their lives while protecting the consulate and the annex, it wasn’t about the fact that the White House had real time intelligence that the attack was pre-planned and perpetrated by Al Qaeda, nor was it about the ignored calls for help from those on the ground who never received that help. No, instead of all those questions that all of us seem to want the answers to, the question to the President was about the attacks on….wait for it…..Ambassador Susan Rice and the possible nomination of her for the Secretary of State position. What came next was nothing short of a stunning exposition of playground tactics and a strange revelation. First, here is the question from Jonathan Karl (video of the comments here):
“Thank you, Mr. President. Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. As Senator Graham said, he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I’d like your reaction to that. And would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?”
Now, here is the Presidents response:
“Well, first of all, I’m not going to comment at this point on various nominations that I’ll put forward to fill out my Cabinet for the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed.
But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”
President Obama’s defense of Ambassador Rice, was commendable, how ever he truly did her a disservice. He acted like a playground defender of a victim of bullies when stating that Senators McCain and Graham should go after him instead of her. Then basically labeled Susan Rice as a small player in the scheme of things by stating she “gave her best” understanding of the intelligence that had been provided her, and was simply making a “Presentation” but “had nothing to do with Benghazi”.
KEEP READING —> Continue reading
I think there are going to be a lot of backpedaling Democrats and Lefty talking heads. I wonder if Nancy Pelosi and her troop of ‘women for Susan Rice’ will acknowledge the news or just stick their heads in their ladyparts and yell ‘LA LA LA LA CAN’T HEAR YOU!’.
It’s sexist, no matter what to this cabal of Julias who are setting women back about 60 years. None of their complaints explains why she was sent out there in the first place. We’ll come back to the Democrats and their closing ranks around Rice again in this post.
But all of their protesting, race card playing and cries of sexism, as well as Obama’s indignant defending the Damsel in distress act, are for naught. Petraeus testified yesterday and he pretty much put the buck back on Obama’s desk.
BOOM: President told within 72 hours Benghazi attack linked to al-Qaida extremists
Excerpt emphasis added:
U.S. intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday.
KEEP READING —> Continue reading
The lies coming out of the White House on the embassy attacks are piling up, mainly surrounding the attack in Benghazi which took the lives of four Americans – one being Ambassador Stevens.
The White House, Susan Rice, Jay Carney… they keep pushing the angle this was about a movie. The media are their accomplices in this lie, but even they are starting to question things. The White House had that ‘it’s the movie’ response ready to go from the moment the news broke and continue to push that response. Obama was apparently not very worried since he hit the hay that night and didn’t bother to stay up and see what happened as our consulate burned. Obama continued to push the movie at the U.N this week, were he told the world that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” This administration hauled off the filmmaker (or rather trailer maker) for ‘involuntary questioning’ and then yesterday arrested him. We have yet to get details on what the charges are. So much for Free Speech in Obama’s America.
Over at Creeping Sharia, someone has a similar theory they are carefully constructing which mirrors my own musings. This ‘random’ video, made by a not so Coptic man as it turns out, lands on Egyptian TV just as the U.S. Presidential election heads into the debates before election day. No one here has heard of it or the maker until the riots break out in Cairo. No knows who this guy really is right now…except for the government.
Counterterror chief’s company linked to “Innocence of Muslims” video
The more Obama and his team blame the movie, and now they’ve arrested the purported producer of the video, the easier it is to believe it was intentional. via Douglas J. Hagmann at the Northeast Intelligence Network h/t to the reader who left the link in comments
Body of lies from Benghazi to Barack Continue reading