Benghazi Lies and Video Tape: Attack on the President - Part I

There is an on-line blogger out there who has taken the Fox News "Exclusive Report" on Benghazi and the CIA allegedly calling the President for "Air Support" during the attacks and not getting it, and has created one of the most dangerous fictional accounts of what caused the attacks in Benghazi, that I've ever heard. It is dangerous for the United States and our allies, not to mention the Men and Women we might have working in our intelligence community for legitimate purposes having to do with out collective national security, to have someone with such disregard for reality and such blind opposition to the President of the United States, that he's willing to say anything as long as it degrades the status of the President.

Who is Doug Hagmann?​

Source: Canada Free Press.

Extraction & Takeaway:

When I come across someone who makes their living as a civilian, "fighting terrorism" and "increasing the public awareness" - I can't help but wonder what's in it for them, whenever they release "information" to the public about the very thing make a living at. I also get very suspicious about what they might tell me, when I see things like this on their website:



A Count-Down counter for when President Obama "leaves office."

Clearly, I would say that this "source" is biased and its material content should be read with that in mind. Furthermore, the very opening sentence from Mr. Hagmann, does not align itself with the facts regarding Benghazi. The tactic used to "inform the public" is the same tactic that I typically see most bias entities use. The first make a declaration about the "facts" without providing any real facts. They then follow up that "factual declaration" about evidence they have not seen, with an iron-clad guarantee to the reader that said "facts" come from a high reliable source. The assumption comes by way of making sure that you never ask for them to reveal their highly reliable source, but that you simply trust that they do indeed have a highly reliable source, else they would certainly not be making the declaration in the first instance.

That prelude then opens the door for a 1,200 word avalanche of more "fact" without source and/or verification and a healthy dose of assumptive closes, topped with a generous portion of trust me, I'm telling you the truth because I am an expert at what I do. I will attempt to untangle the web of misinformation presented by Mr. Hagmann, paragraph-by-paragraph.

Hagmann, paragraph #2, #9:

Based on the above tactical presentation, Hagmann, makes two (2) essential errors in his assumptions. He assumes and incorrectly states that the "Administration" failed to dispatch an "Extraction Team" to Benghazi, to rescue those under attack. What Mr. Hagmann, does not seem to understand is that fact that the correct name for such a "team" is called FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team), which is by definition an 8154 rapid deployment unit that must go through CNO/CMC in order to be deployed - not the President, and not his Administration. What Mr. Hagmann, fails to tell his readers, is that FAST was indeed deployed to Libya, on September 12, 2012.

The second error that Mr. Hagmann, makes is the duration of the initial attack. Mr. Hagmann, states that the attack went on for up to 9 "grueling and tortuous" hours. The fact is that impulse wave of the attack lasted no more than 45 minutes. The initial wave of attacks began around 2140 hrs local and that's when the mortar rounds come into the Consulate, along with what has been described as heavy to medium rounds/fire. At approximately 2000 hrs, some "150 men" wearing "beards" and "Afghan-style tunics" that made them look like Islamic militants, began setting road blocks into the Compound area and blocking traffic.

It has been reported that eye witnesses who lived in the area saw these 150 men gathering other "younger men" and instigated them to begin "chanting against the film" (obviously referring to the Anti-Islamic film that set-off an attack against the U.S. Embassy in Egypt). It was reported that approximately an hour later, the bearded gunmen stormed the walls of the U.S. Consulate, after hitting it with mortar rounds, first.

Source: CBS News.

Now, here is where the entire story gets very interesting.

Mr, Hagmann, concluded that the attack lasted nine (9) "grueling and torturous hours." But, what he does not tell you in his report is that there were allegedly two (2) primary attacks on two (2) completely different locations, separated by at least one (1) mile in distance. The first attack was on the Civilian Compound in Benghazi, and that alleged second (2nd) attack was supposed to have been at a CIA Annex. Fox News, allegedly broke an "Exclusive" from Libya, citing "sources" in Benghazi, that allegedly told Fox News about a two (2) individuals from the CIA, who were supposed to have gone to the Civilian Compound to "rescue" its personnel. Well, this Fox News "Exclusive" report from Benghazi, poses a very serious physical problem.

If the Civilian Compound was one (1) mile away from the CIA Annex, and all the streets leading into that Compound were blocked by some of the "150 bearded men" wearing "Afghan-style tunics" that made them look like "Islamic militants," then how did the two (2) individuals from the CIA Annex, manage to penetrate their way through 150 armed men bearing heavy machine guns and RPGs on the perimeter, enter the building that was now on fire, rescue one (1) of the personnel who worked in the compound and then fight their way out of that same building filled with smoke nad fire, while not getting swarmed with heavy rounds either inside the building, or on their way out? Lastly, how did two (2) individuals with the CIA, carrying one individual, manage to egress from the building and drive over one (1) mile away, without having 150 "heavily armed Islamic Militants" in pursuit the entire time? And, lastly - how was it possible for these same two (2) individuals from the CIA to exit their vehicles and somehow make it back inside the Annex, just in time for incoming mortar rounds to hit their position inside the building - while not being fired upon while trying to exit their vehicles and physical re-enter the Annex?

None of that Fox News story makes any sense and that was supposedly what constituted the nine (9) hour time line that was said to have been "grueling and tortuous."


Hagmann, paragraph #3:

Mr, Hagmann, cites his source as being corroborated with other sources elsewhere, for his introduction of brand new "information" (for the public) about "funneling arms" to Syria, through Libya, as the reason for the Administration covering up the attacks in Benghazi. What Mr. Hagmann, fails to share with his readers is the logical nexus between Apples and Oranges. In other words, he simply takes two (2) competing ideas that have no logical connection at all, and randomly connect them all on his own, without providing any substantive scenario for why they should even be considered in the same breath, let alone be considered as the actual causation for the deaths of four (4) people at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

Were the bearded gunmen trying to intercept the arms that Mr. Hagmann, alleges were flowing out of Libya, on their way to Syria? Were the bearded gunmen upset because the CIA had not made the same alleged deal with them? Did the bearded gunmen want to levy a tariff on the alleged arms that were flowing out of Libya, to Syria, and just stopped by to collect their duty and things got out of hand?

Until Mr. Hagmann, can come up with some kind of logical nexus between arms going to Syria through Libya, that involves the Benghazi Consulate, that makes more sense than just arming the Syrian Rebels directly through 101 different and more direct channels, then this theory is simply implausible at best.

End - Part 1 of 2

 

Part 2 of 3, continue...


Hagmann, paragraph #4, #5:

Mr. Hagmann, goes on to conclude that in fact, there was no Benghazi Consulate and that everyone killed in Benghazi, was located at one of the "largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East." He then concludes that said operation center was "logistic headquarters for arms being shipped out of Libya," after the fall of Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi. Unfortunately, Mr. Hagmann, contradicts his own statements when he alleged that he actually read the NEA's unclassified Action Memo's that had been released by Derrell Issa, subsequent to the initiation of the Congressional Hearings on the Benghazi attacks.

In those unclassified documents, one of the very first things that NEA Jeffrey Feltman, discusses is the desire to maintain a "35 person footprint at the Benghazi Consulate." NEA Jeffrey Feltman, goes on to actually describe the physical nature of the multi-building compound, what the square footage of each compound was, and what the lease payments were to the landlord/owner of the compound and how that facility would continue to serve the needs of the Consulate team already in Benghazi. So, clearly, Mr. Hagmann, has some explaining to do on how as a Private Investigator, he knows more than the man who was the US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, between 2009 through 2012.

Source: House Oversight Documents: From: NEA Jeffrey Feltman


Hagmann, paragraph #6:

Mr. Hagmann, reading more like an excerpt taken from a best selling Vince Flynn, Spy Novel, says that "his source" tells him that the reason for the September 11th, 2012, meeting was so that Ambassador Stevens' Turkish 'counterpart' could inform Stevens that the alleged "operation had been compromised" and to show him some Russian Spy Satellite photos (straight out of The Hunt or Red October) of "what was going on in Turkey." The problem with all this is that Mr. Hagmann, forgot to tell his readers that if Turkey, was working that closely with Russia, it most certainly would not be sharing Russian spy satellite imagery with the United States, unless Mr. Hagmann, is ready to label the Turkish "counterpart" a Double Agent of some kind, who really works for the United States government.

Once again, Mr. Hagmann, cites that he has a "source" for this information. So far, this "source" knows what's allegedly going on inside the U.S. Consulate and knows that the U.S. Consulate is not really a Consulate at all, but large CIA arms shipping logistics hub into Syria. This "source" also knows in vivid detail, exactly what took place during the attacks at the Consulate that does not exist in Benghazi. And, the "source" also intimate and detailed knowledge about the Turkish "counterpart" who met with Ambassador Stevens on September 11th, 2012. That puts the source in at least two (2) different locations on the night of September 11th, 2012, and in contact with at least two (2) key people who are now dead as a direct result of the attacks in Benghazi.

Yet, this same "source" escaped all this unscathed and made his report to man who makes his living as a Private Investigator slash Anti-Terrorist Expert slash Internet Blogger?


Hagmann, paragraph #7, #8:

Very predictably, Mr. Hagmann, then begins paragraph number #7 with the creative hook phrase "Gun Running." I was rather surprised that Mr. Hagmann, did not follow-up that lyrical hook with the phrase "Fast & Furious." I was even more surprised when Mr. Hagmann, did not go all the way to signing a deal with Vince Flynn, by linking the death of a U.S. Border Agent, with the deaths of four (4) U.S. Non-Consulate /slash/ Large CIA Arms Shipping Logistic Center, that his double-agent "source" who seemed to be the proverbial fly-on-the-wall might told him about, just in time for the 2012 Presidential Election. Mr. Hagmann, then goes on to conclude that the Russian spy satellite imagery shown to Ambassador Stevens, most probably showed how the CIA funneled "WMD" to Syria, that used to be in a U.S. Consulate cover for a Large CIA FedEx (Logistics) Shipping Facility in Benghazi, was actually being weaponized on the tip of Turkish missiles for use against Assad in Syria, in a "false flag operation" lead by Muslim Brotherhood and others.

Unfortunately, what Mr. Hagmann, fails to explain is why a "false flag operation" would be anything even remotely desired by the Muslim Brotherhood, as it is not currently in power either in Turkey, or in Syria. Furthermore, it was the Muslim Brotherhood, who said that Assad, and its ally Russia, both had blood on their hands for Assad's willful killing of innocent Syrian Muslims.

Again, Mr. Hagmann, offers a scenario without substantive logical nexus and/or any form of demonstrable evidence other than what his "source" told him, who has to be the most connected "source" in all the Middle East, to have access to all three (3) sides of a mosaic of players that Mr. Hagmann, instantiates into existence with his claims.


Hagmann, paragraph #10:

Mr. Hagmann, goes on to conclude that "we did know what was going on in Benghazi," and therefore we should have sent in the military. What Mr. Hagmann, forgets to tell is readers is that the call coming from Benghazi, about an attack came after 2140 hrs local time and reached "the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little more than a mile away."

What Mr. Hagmann, continues to fail to tell his readers is the fact that the physical attack itself only took minutes to bring to an apex, before the compound itself had been breached, according to the time line given by the State Department and according to common sense. Why would it take 150 armed men with RPGs and heavy machine guns at their disposal, more than a few minutes to take-out what is nothing more than a "Villa" as described by NEA Jeffrey Feltman, himself. Feltman, in his unclassified Action Memo as distributed by Derrell Issa, describes the entire Consulate as:

Immediately after the compound was physically breached, the armed men began dumping an diesel fuel inside the compound and then set it on fire. Some of the armed men were probably around the compound making sure nobody got in, or out without being fired upon. It does not take that long for diesel fuel to ignite and once it does, it burns hot and very toxic. The smoke is what killed Ambassador Stevens. So, all of that does not have to take nine (9) full hours to conclude. It does not take nine (9) hours to ignite the interior of what is really nothing bigger than a good size house. That part of the attack could literally take only minutes to bring to a close, with the rest of the time being spent by the gunmen, trying to pick-off anybody who attempted to escape the burning building - which was obviously their plan of action.

And, of course, what Mr. Hagmann, does not tell the reader is that afterwards, local Media (Not Fox News) reported that 14 Libyan Security Forces personnel were sent to the hospital in the wake of all the shooting that took place. So, we know that at the very least, there were 14 trained people who did respond to the attacks, in addition to the U.S. Rapid Response team which numbered five (5) people in total.

That's a grand total of 20 respondents to the attacks, while Fox News has been reporting over the past few days that there was zero response to the attacks and near zero security forces in defense of the compound.

Source: NPR: Time Line of Events in Benghazi.


End: Part 2 of 3...

 

Granny says, "Dat's right - she gonna sing like a canary when dey get her under dat bright light...

State Department: Clinton not dodging Benghazi hearings
December 18th, 2012 - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is "on the mend" and working from home, the State Department’s spokeswoman said Tuesday.

See also:

Clinton to testify before House panel in January
December 19th, 2012 - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify in January before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen told CNN on Wednesday.

 

The military is 'not a global 911 service'...

Panetta defends military response in Libya attack
7 Jan.`13 - WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that the speed of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, kept U.S. armed forces from responding in time to save the four Americans who were killed as the Pentagon chief defended the military's response on a chaotic Sept. 11 day.

 

Ive always seen it as a exchange of prisoners for rendition gone horribly wrong,thus the cover-up

 

I do say that you make some good points, but I would have to add number 1.that there was a notice that they would not be able to defend and there was trouble in the area,and the powers that be did not heed the warning.number 2, had they not lied about it in the first place,they might have avoided all of this conjecture. Number 3. As far as Miss Clinton is concerned as soon as I heard her say"what difference does it make"made me physically sick. That is after all what the hearing was about, but just like her hubby she was let off the hook.

 

Are you aware of the context in which she said that? It was a bad choice of words, but in all seriousness, what difference does it make why those terrorists did what they did? It's not like there's possibly a valid reason for such acts. What is important is how the act was carried out strategically, and how to prevent these type of things in the future. Then again, if your goal is just too make the current administration look bad, that doesn't help your cause.

 

It's not so much to Make Obama look bad as it is to distract the fact that over 5,000 U.S. troops died in the Iraq war started with lies about WMD, and wasted over $3 trillion. There is no way to make Benghazi look as bad as that. Four Americans dying, compared to over 5,000 dead U.S. troops, is like an ant compared to an elephant. Trying to make a big deal out of a lapse in intelligence, that's how Shrub justified the Iraq invasion. For the last four years the cons have been trying to make Obama look bad, to keep attention off of their own destruction of the U.S. economy,integrity, and credibility. And they are only digging their hole deeper.

 

Fox News is purely Entertainment I never take them serious. As for Facts Mr. Hagmann and other Conservatives prove that Facts no Longer matter Just Fiction. They Cannot believe the administration did everything they could and the fact that the State Department Report failed to Blame the White House is Killing the Right wing nuts. The state department has the executive power to request support from troops in these events In fact presidential authority is not required except in a scenario where a rescue can be seen as a declaration of war or an attack on a nation i.e if the mission required Libyan Government or
Soldiers to be directly targeted. The questions even get more ridiculous, Lindsay Graham Claims the president should have made "phone calls" to prevent this attack! Fair question you might say! even going further to say the president ignored requests for rescue? The fact is the Libyan Government were notified immediately and the State Department was in direct contact . No rescue Troops were in Range! I wish Lindsay and others were as angry when 3000 Americans died on 9/11 and a further 4000 in Iraq. In any event in war there are always casualties and this was a tragedy. The Republicans sound as if the ambassador's life was some how more special! make no mistake every life is equal this political nastiness needs to stop.

 

Your post lost all credibility when you attempted to marginalize them.

Quote him making such a statement.

 

336,

I do not know your background. I assume from your avatar, and some of your lingo, that you are now or have served in the military. I too have military experience, and I have a son that is currently serving in the Marines. Strangely enough, my son's first years in the Marines was with FAST. So I have a little experience with the subject. So, please allow me to correct you on some points. First of all, even though the word "Fleet" is in the FAST name, it is not a Naval or FMF asset. It is in fact a DOD asset that is staffed and trained by the Marine Corps. In other words the Commander in Chief and/or the Sec of Defense does not have to go through CNO or the CMC to order the deployment of a Fast element. Especially since the FASTEUR based at Rota Spain had been placed on standby in advance of the attack.

You pointed out that Hagmann failed to mention that FAST was in fact been deployed to Libya on 12 Sept, 2012. Yet you are just as guilty not to mention that the Deployment was in fact to Tripoli, and not to Benghazi. The first Americans to arrive in Benghazi after the US personnel had been pulled out was a CNN Camera Crew. This is how they came into possession of the Ambassadors personal diary.

Now let's look at you claim of Hagmann's second error. You claimed that the Initial attack only lasted 45 minutes. You further credit CBS as the source of that information. I have double checked their web site, and I can not find that claim. I have checked a number of web sites including CBS, CNN and Wall Street Journal. They state that the initial assault started at between 2130 and 2142, and lasted until 2330 when the Consultant Personnel (less the Ambassador) arrived at the CIA Annex. After that there was a lull in the action until 0200. That is when the assault on the Annex began. So, you are right that the assault had come in two waves, but given the timeline you can not call it two separate attacks. It is understandable that when the Consultant had retreated to the Annex, that the attackers would regroup to continue that assault at the Annex. That regrouping was the reason for the three hour lull in the action. If the attackers had known about the Annex, or had the manpower to curry out separate attacks on both location then they would have been carried out simultaneously. Since the Consultant and Annex personnel were not truly safe until the flights had left the Benghazi Airport at dawn, then Hagmann was correct in his statement that the attack lasted 9 hours.

Another point about the lack of military support. At 2311, the first drone arrived over Benghazi. But since it was unarmed, it could only be used for observation. There is no reason that other drones could not be armed and used as Air-Ground support against the attackers. The fact is that the Obama Administration made the illogical decision that the attack was over as soon as they had made it to the Annex. The fact is that if a show of force had been used, then that attack on the Annex never would have taken place. This could have been accomplished by having fast movers make passes overhead, use of armed drones to attack mortars being set up for the assault on the Annex, and having the two warships operating off the Libyan coast to fire phosphorus flares to light up the area around the Annex. I believe that this would have made that attackers think twice about continuing that attack. This would have saved the lives of two American, and made their extraction much easier.

Before you start questioning what sources that you do not like is reporting, you should take the time to read the timelines published by the State Department, the DOD and the CIA. If you had you would have seen that the CIA had confirmed that a security team had deployed from the Annex about 25 minutes after the attack had started. One of the members of that team was former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods. Woods was later killed along with fellow former Seal Glen Doherty by mortar fire during the attack on the Annex. This is the same thing that Fox news reported.

Further, I resend my assumption that you have ever served in the military. Your statements questioning the “(9) "grueling and torturous hours."”shows me that you have never been in a forward area during a combat operation. I can't think of any better words to describe being pinned down under fire. Even when the rounds are not coming in your direction, you know that the assault could resume at any time. So, there never is a point that you can true relax and let your guard down. You stay alert, tense and ready at all times. For you to think other wise proves that you have never been there.

As far as Hagmann's claim that the US was using Libya to funnel weapons to Syria, I have no knowledge one way or the other. Maybe he has a source that we don't know about. Frankly, if I was carrying out that kind of operation, It would be more reasonable to use assets in Iraq or Lebanon. Libya seems a little far to use in getting assets into Syria. But I would not put it past the Obama Administration to try it.

That having been said, I think that we recently learned what really stirred the natives up. During the Brennan Confirmation hearing we learned that he had been conducting secrete operations in Benghazi against Muslim extremists.

So, if I have this correct, the Obama Administration is conducting operations against Muslim Extremists and knows that the anniversary of 9/11 is coming, but they decide to refuse the Ambassador's request for more security. Yea, I can see where you get that Obama is being unjustly attacked. By the way, in case you couldn't guess, that last sentence was sarcasm.

 

Paragraph 4 & 5

Do you remember in part 1 when you stated that the Attack was actually two separate attacks carried out on two separate locations? Yet somehow you forget that statement here. You point out that they wanted the State Department wanted to maintain the Consultant Staff at 35 personnel. Further you state that the fact disproves Hagmann's statement that Benghazi was the largest CIA Operation in the Middle East. Since the Consultant and the Annex were two separate operations. Thus the 35 members of the Consultant staff would not include the personnel from the CIA Annex. Further, this can be confirmed by another piece of information. The Embassy dispatched a 6 man Marine Contingent from Tripoli. From what I understand, the aircraft used would accommodate 60 passengers. Yet it took two trips to evac all US Personnel from Benghazi. Now apply some basic math. 35 Consultant staff, plus 6 Marines, equals 41 Personnel. This means that the CIA Annex staff was anywhere between 20 and 79 personnel.

Paragraph 6

In this section, you show you lack of knowledge of world affairs. Now again, I am not saying that Hagmann is correct. I do not have any first hand knowledge one way or the other. But your rendition of his statement is far more creditable then you show. Let's assume that Hagmann is correct and the US is using Libya to funnel weapons into Syria. Or for that matter, that we want certain people to believe that we are. The first question would be whether Russia and Turkey would be working together. The answer is a very creditable yes. You see, Russia and Turkey are currently working together to build a pipeline the supply Turkey with Natural Gas from Russia's Caspian and Black Sea fields. Further, at the time Turkey was having trouble with Syria. Seeing as Russia is a strong backer of the Syrian Government, it would be in their best interest to help ease tensions between the two nations. Russia also realizes that Turkey being a NATO Country would have strong ties with the US. So, if they believed that the US was using it's operations in Benghazi to funnel weapons to the Syrian rebels, it would be against their interests. The best way to stop it would be to let the US know what they believe was going on. In this case, Putin would not just pick up the hotline. Obama would just deny it, and the operation would just carry on. So, instead they use a third party. They reveal to Turkey what they believe, and have the Turkey Ambassador to Libya deliver the message to the US Ambassador to Libya. This would pose a dual threat. One that Turkey would inform the host nation whom may or may not know about the operation. Further, Turkey could notify NATO and the UN. This would be embarrassing to the US. It would be contrary to formal statements that the US had made.

Again, I am not stating that Hagmann is right, or that I believe him. I am merely pointing that your reasoning for not believing him is flawed, and shows a lack of knowledge of world affairs.

Paragraph 7 and 8

Just a couple of quick points on this one. First the Muslim Brotherhood is backing the Rebels in Syria. Just as they had in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. Secondly, the reason to run a “False Flag” Operation in that scenario would not be for the benefit of the Brotherhood. It would be to protect Turkey and the US from association of the use of WMD's in Syria. Could you imagine the world outrage at the US's complicity in this type of operation? So, the False-Flag claim would be legitimate.

Paragraph 10

Hagmann is correct that they did know what was going on, and that Military assets could and should have been used. But I find it funny that in part 1 you blast Fox News for claiming that a team had been deployed from the Annex. You stated that it was not possible that one of the members of the team had made it back to the Annex, and then been killed in a mortar attack. Yet now you point out at a Rapid Deployment team had deployed from the Annex. So is it plausible or not?

You stated, “What Mr. Hagmann, continues to fail to tell his readers is the fact that the physical attack itself only took minutes to bring to an apex...”. Now, I don't know where you think you got that information, but it is totally inaccurate. The initial attack took about two hours. It did not conclude until the Consultant Staff left the Consultant. There are several points that you left out of your recap of what happened. The first was the arrival of Libyan Government forces about 30 to 45 minutes after the attack began. All they did was seal the entrances to the compound, and not allow any additional attackers to enter. They did not attempt to clear the compound of the attackers that were already there. You also left you that as the attackers were setting the fires, the Consultant had moved into safe zones. These were large vault like rooms that were fire proof. The attackers worked at trying to get into these rooms until the security team arrived from the Annex. When the security team arrived, the staff was gathered, except for the Ambassador which they could not locate, and they departed for the Annex in two cars.

(BTW, the source for this information is the Wall Street Journal. They are the only source that I have found that that actually reported the Libyan Security forces being onsite at the Consultant during the attack. All other sources that I have read mentions them going to the hospital to search for the Ambassador, and meeting the US Marines when they arrived at the Benghazi Airport.)

 

I recognize the context and it wasn't about why the terrorists attacked.

When she said "What difference at this point does it make..." she was being asked why she and her pals lied about it and covered it up.

Covering for terrorists and providing them an alibi is treason.

I would like an actual explanation, so did the congressman who asked her. "What difference at this point does it make..." doesn't answer that question.

In other words, yeah we lied, who (*)(*)(*)(*)ing cares. What are you gonna do about it?

This is an attitude of untouchability that must end! Such an above-the-law attitude should be delusions of grandeur, not the actual truth.

 

Is aiding and abetting terrorists who killed Americans supposed to be no big deal because the Iraq war of past politicians was a much bigger (*)(*)(*)(*) up?

Personally, my interest isn't in making Obama "look bad".. He only looks bad because he is bad. Exposing the truth does make him look bad. Because he's done some horrible things.

I for one oppose allowing a traitor to be president and I oppose the continuous stream of lies and one (*)(*)(*)(*)ing coverup after the next and these things relentlessly and continuously stream from both "sides" of the "aisle".

When are people going to rise above the pointless partisan quibble and raise their standards already?

 

I reckon happy fun dude is gonna be pretty upset when Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2016.

 

Benghazi was a tragedy and old news ! ITs clear Obama wasn't involve in the killing so this story of a cover up is getting boring . If there was real smoke in the story Fox News would be the first to expose it. After reading and researching on this topic the worse thing i have heard Obama did during the attacks is not make a phone call! Come on ! Republicans give us a break tell us what the cover up is already ,, facts please

 

The coverup was the story they invented about how the deaths were a result of riots sparked by a youtube video, the story they would tell for weeks even though they had nothing to indicate such a thing, and plenty to the contrary.

In other words, the Obama administration covered for the terrorists.

 

What was Obama doing during the Benghazi attack? Was he monitoring it in the White House Situation room as he originally claimed? If he had been he would have known that the attack had nothing to do with the Anti-muslim film. The latest statement was that Obama was getting periodic updates. If they updated him before he went to bed, and again when he got up, that would be periodic. The fact is that the CIA, Sec of Defense and Sec of State have all said that they did not speak with anyone in the White House during the attacks. As a result, the CIA, DOD and the SOS did not have act to repeal the attack. This tragic event happened because Obama insists on being a Phone-in President.

 

Right so you have just solved the conspiracy , "the cover up was a story they invented about the deaths" so thats it? The truth is out? Obama covered the terrorists ? Are you saying he was in partnership with the terrorists? From what you stated yourself the coverup has been uncovered . If the evidence is strong enough lets see congress try and convict him. This story is dead for a reason, no coverup, no scandal, no crime committed, no whistle blower is going to magically appear and confess they personally saw the president kill these folks, the gop political stance on this is so week. Boehner and the house have the power to subpoena these survivors ! Yes they can, why do u think they haven't? They have their names, Graham met them, all he could come out with was they were told to be quite , well off course they would if they are CIA . Whole point of the CIA is secrecy they cannot come forwarded in public to risk assets they might have on going cases. i know the right wishes for Obama to pay for this but he won't if in doubt ask Boehner.

 

I know I speak for millions of combat veterans when I say that the “Commander In Chief” broke the most solemn promise our troops in battle live under because of his lack of action during the Benghazi attack. This battle code is a promise to always come to the aid of comrades under fire and never ever leave wounded or dead on the battle field. Obama & Clinton went to bed and did not give the order for reactionary forces to help them during the attack and didn't respond to requests for more security before when they knew they were going to be attacked. The 2012 election campaign was more important at that time and the cover up with video story was even more despicable.

I remember very vividly during my tour in Viet Nam in 1968-69 when reading the names in the Stars & Stripes newspaper showing the KIA reports and remembering how many of them were medics and Navy Corpsman (A term our President could not even pronounce correctly I might add). These medical personnel along with other reactionary forces were “first responders” that gave their lives by the thousands coming to the aid of other troops under fire, wounded troops and even troops already killed in fire fights that were still active.

In 1968 because of the negative public opinion and waning political will to continue the war in Viet Nam, most of us were performing combat missions just trying to survive and as you hear many combat veterans say their main reason for fighting was to protect and save their brothers during the mission they were asked to perform. Can you image how hard and how much courage it took for the people that were responding to save and help us under these conditions. I personally saw helicopters full of both reinforcement and Medivac people go down myself during heavy fire fights.

For this past history of the millions of men and women that have lived and died under this “battle code” it was unconscionable to do nothing when intelligence people were watching the Benghazi attack in real time for 7 or 8 hours and then cover it up with stories about some video for two weeks. The Obama and the Campaign people made a decision, because of the soon to be held national election, to under play or not bring attention to this attack for political reasons. Millions of us want to know WHO told Ambassador Rice to go with the video story on the Sunday News Shows. And yes, Mrs. Clinton, it does make a difference. A big difference and I for one will never forget you said that if you run in 2016.

 

It was a major failure by the Administration which they are still trying to cover up, it was an attack on us by our enemies since when is it old news?

 

She admitted responsibility (which is equivalent to BLAME), and now everyone's talking about her running for President. I guess there's something about inexperienced know-nothings (George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, etc) that the American people are attracted to. Go figure. I know one thing. if I ever worked on a job, and negligently caused 4 good people to die, I'd have been fired in an instant, and I wouldn't be talking about running for president of that company.

 

Why not deal with the facts, the GOP tried to blow up the Benghazi thing into a big scandal to get Romney elected.
The effort failed, because there isn't anything there beyond a couple of factoids, there is no substance to the story, it's all conjecture and it ignores the facts.
The public didn't buy that this was a major failure by Obama, because it doesn't make sense to rational people.
So file this with the President's Kenyan Birth Certificate, and Saddam's hidden WMDs, and tax cuts for the wealthy balancing budgets, as things no rational person believes.

 

The Benghzi "thing", you can't bring yourself to call it what it was? You would have prefered it not be "blown up" just ignored? Let's see Hillary testifies before Congress she was both responsible for it and at the same time clueless about it. Now we have the memos that bear her signature pulling the security the Ambassador and others on the ground had been begging to be increased, and there is no substance?

Are you really this blind or just partisan to the point of allowing such incompetence that result in 4 needless deaths?

- - - Updated - - -

And she should never be put back into a position where she would have to be responsible and make those decisions again. Time to send her packing and on the speech making circuit for the rest of her life.

 

I don't think she should be on the speech making circuit either. What's she going to talk about ? How to have a Muslim Brotherhood member (Huma Abedin) as your chief of staff of the State Dept. ? How to reduce security at a US facility overseas, opening the door for Muslim jihadists to come in and kill Americans ? Or any of her other blunders ?