The Butcher of Benghazi, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has blood on her hands: the blood of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty.
This according to a scathing report entitled “Breach of Duty: Hillary Clinton and Catastrophic Failure in Benghazi,” put together by Special Ops OPSEC, the same group that produced the viral documentary Dishonorable Disclosures.
Western Center for Journalism has analyzed this groundbreaking report and found that Hillary Rodham Clinton has indeed been implicated in murder.
Watch our exclusive video for all the details about “The Butcher of Benghazi Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
H/T Weasel Zippers
The attempt to rehabilitate Hillary Clinton begins as the New York Times revives the long-ago debunked “video clip” excuse for the well-planned Benghazi massacre while denying documented al-Qaida involvement.
These days it’s all the news that is fit to be made up that graces the pages of the once-proud Gray Lady that has morphed from a self-proclaimed “newspaper of record” to the house organ for the Obama administration.
The latest example is a piece on the Benghazi terrorist attack of Sept. 10, 2010, titled, “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi.” It resembles the infamous White House talking points — on steroids.
Great points, and a very good column you should read, no doubt. But, consider that on this blog, I wrote this yesterday
OH, you mean you did not hear the news? Well actually, they have not fully endorsed her, yet, but that is what this story is all about Absolving Miss What Difference Does it Make. See it WAS all about that video after all.
I also was the first to call this Operation Cover Hillary’s Ass 2016! Of course, someone will go on Fox, or somewhere else and use that, or very similar wording and they will be praised as insightful, a genius, or be described as on the cutting edge. And if I see Karl Rove, with his whiteboard, or Dick Morris saying that on TV, my head will explode. But, we know who said it first, ME! So, really, it should be me on Fox aweing Megyn Kelly, or Andrea Tarantos, who can restrain me anytime
or maybe Kimberly Guilfoyle. Or maybe, just maybe I would go on MSNBS, and wow Tamron Hall with my political insight, and she would come out of the closet, no not THAT closet, and announce her infatuation with Conservative guys, namely me.
Now, will this happen? Of course not! But I can have dreams can’t I?
Hillary Rodham Clinton will receive the 2013 Liberty Medal at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
Jeb Bush, the chairman of the Constitution Center, will present the award to Clinton at a ceremony scheduled for Sept. 10.
Both Clinton and Bush are potential contenders in the 2016 presidential elections, for opposing parties. But in a statement, the GOP’s Bush only accentuated the positive.
“Former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to serving and engaging people across the world in democracy,” said Bush, the Republican former Governor of Florida, son of a former president and brother of another. “These efforts as a citizen, an activist, and a leader have earned Secretary Clinton this year’s Liberty Medal.”
Tickets for the general public will be made available in August. Details will be released next month, a Constitution Center spokeswoman said.
The Liberty Medal was established in 1988 to commemorate the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. Previous recipients include former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, U2 frontman Bono, filmmaker Steven Spielberg and Nelson Mandela.
Scandal: The decision to place U.S. personnel in Benghazi with substandard security was made at the highest levels of the State Department by officials who have so far escaped blame over the Sept. 11 attack.
An indication that the Orwellian-named Accountability Review Board (ARB) investigating the terrorist attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, was an effort not to assign responsibility for the disaster but to enable those responsible to escape blame is the fact that ARB never bothered to interview the likes of Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy.
ARB co-chair Thomas Pickering told CBS’ Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” in May that he and his colleagues had ample opportunity to question Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself but concluded that conducting an interview with her was not necessary. “We knew where the responsibility rested,” he said.
In defending the ARB’s findings on Benghazi, Pickering, who co-authored its report with former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mike Mullen, had no use for whistle-blowers like Gregory Hicks, the No. 2 official in Libya at the time of the strike that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Hicks had told the House Government Oversight Committee he believed the ARB report “let people off the hook.”
“They’ve tried to point a finger at people more senior than where we found the decisions were made,” Pickering said, citing specifically Clinton and Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy.
His mind was made up, and he didn’t want to be confused with the facts such as the testimony of Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau. Thompson told the House committee that Secretary Clinton attempted to cut the bureau off from communications about the attack.
“(The ARB) has decided to fix responsibility on the assistant secretary level and below,” testified Eric Nordstrom, who was regional security officer. “And the message to my colleagues is that if you’re above a certain level, no matter what your decision is, no one’s going to question it.” The fix was in.
The disgraceful cover-up afterwards is rivaled by the disgraceful lack of security provided to the mission, which was set up to be a permanent diplomatic post at which Clinton would arrive to celebrate the triumph of the Obama administration’s Middle East policy.
Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, the day he died in the terrorist attack, because Clinton ordered him there. Hicks said Stephens wanted to have the Benghazi complex upgraded to a permanent constituent post so Clinton could make this announcement in her planned visit to Libya before the end of 2012.
According to a Fox News review of recent congressional testimony and internal State Department memos, Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy, the man not interviewed by ARB, signed off on an internal memo nine months before the attack that green-lighted the Benghazi operation complete with its lack of security.
The December 2011 memo from Jeffrey Feltman, then-assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), referred to Benghazi not as a future diplomatic post but only as a “consulate.” This exempted it from rigid mandatory security standards required for facilities like embassies.
Nordstrom said the Benghazi operation never met the rigid standards set out by the Overseas Security Policy Board, or OSPB, which according to the State Department website is “an interagency body created to assist the secretary” in carrying out security obligations under a 1986 law. Apparently Patrick Kennedy was fine with that.
“I find it very hard to believe that he (Kennedy) would sign this memo without having talked to Secretary Clinton or at least Deputy Secretary (William) Burns,” former ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told Fox News after examining the December 2011 memo.
Maybe somebody like Pickering and Mullins should have asked them.
Did you know Hillary Clinton was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C.? Clinton was advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal back in 1974. I didn’t either until I read her Wikipedia entry. I also discovered another rather interesting story. Back in 2008 when Clinton was running against Obama in the Democrat primary the Digital Journal ran a revealing story. The story says Hillary Clinton was fired from the committee staff. Jerry Zeifman, supervised Hillary Clinton during the Watergate impeachment inquiry. He refused to give her a letter of recommendation because of her lies and unethical behavior. Clinton obtained a position on the committee staff through her political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Chappaquiddick Senator Ted Kennedy. Jerry Zeifman says Hillary Clinton was unethical and a liar (as if we didn’t already know that.) He also described Hillary Clinton as a dishonest lawyer. Finally, Zeifman says Hillary Clinton conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality. Sound familiar? Like Benghazi maybe? Zeifman had this reaction after Hillary Clinton’s phony tears at a campaign rally in 2008:
My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.
Digital Journal also had this on Hillary Clinton:
engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation by stealing Judiciary Committee files on the only precedent case that could have stonewalled their plot and drafting a legal brief that, according to Mr. Ziefman, “was so fraudulent and ridiculous Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.”
Isn’t it amazing and ironic? Hillary Clinton who is involved in the worst government cover-up since Watergate was on the Watergate investigation panel as a young pup back in ’74. I guess history does repeat itself.
A strongly worded letter? No Instead, they are just going to close their eyes tighter and chant “How dare you”
Associated Press: Let’s Quote Democrats Dismissing the Testimony Before We Quote the Witness http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/05/08/house-republicans-seek-answers-benghazi-hearing/8CCL4XE24tnHJNqBXCa4YJ/story.html … | @vjmfilms
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with. It’s hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sept. 14, 2012, while standing over the caskets of the four Americans killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya
Jeff Goldstein cites the important testimony that “a State Department official emailed the Libyan government on September 12 that the consulate attack was in fact a terrorist operation — specifically identifying Ansar al-Sharia in the email.” But why bother with facts? What difference, at this point, does it make?
Quite obviously, it makes a very important difference to Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) in their tireless efforts to convince Americans that Obama’s foreign policy is working, and especially to persuade us that the fine public servants at the top levels of the State Department did nothing wrong in the Benghazi affair.
When you point out the obvious facts — that the “Arab Spring” was a bad idea, that everybody in the administration lied through their teeth about Benghazi, and that the major media are enthusiastic volunteers in a partisan P.R. effort to assist in the cover-up — liberals go into fake indignation mode: How dare you?
The pathetic nature of the Democratic Party is astounding, but, they are what they are. Morality? Patriotism? Justice? Putting country first and finding out the truth? How dare we expect such upright principles from the Democrats!
On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a “whistle-blower” witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.
That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau – independently of Thompson – voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.
Extremists linked to Al Qaeda stormed the U.S. Consulate and a nearby annex on Sept. 11, in a heavily armed and well-coordinated eight-hour assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.
Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.
Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to – and characterize – the Benghazi attacks.
“You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,” the second official in State’s counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson’s forthcoming testimony.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the counterterrorism officials’ allegation “100 percent false.” A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge is not true.
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.”
He went on to call his bureau a “central participant in the interagency discussion about the longer-term response to Benghazi.” He said “at no time was the Bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its tasks.”
Thompson’s attorney, diGenova, would not comment for this article.
Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of “The Weekly Standard,” showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda’s known involvement in them from “talking points” being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly.
Those talking points – and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks – sought instead to depict the Americans’ deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by “The Weekly Standard” show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy “my building’s leadership.”
The allegations of the two counterterrorism officials stand to return the former secretary of state to the center of the Benghazi story. Widely regarded as a leading potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, Clinton has insisted she was not privy to decisions made by underlings about the inadequate security for the U.S. installations in Benghazi that were made in the run-up to the attacks. And she has portrayed her role – once the attacks became known in Washington – as that of a determined fact-finder who worked with colleagues to fashion the best possible response to the crisis.
Clinton testified about Benghazi for the first and only time in January of this year, shortly before leaving office. She had long delayed her testimony, at first because she cited the need for the ARB to complete its report, and then because she suffered a series of untimely health problems that included a stomach virus, a concussion sustained during a fall at home, and a blood clot near her brain, from which she has since recovered. However, Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB she convened.
Fox News disclosed last week that the conduct of the ARB is itself now under review by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General. A department spokesman said the OIG probe is examining all prior ARBs, not just the one established after Benghazi.
The two U.S. officials – former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Tom Pickering – who oversaw the internal review of the attacks defended their report.
“From the beginning of the ARB process, we had unfettered access to everyone and everything including all the documentation we needed. Our marching orders were to get to the bottom of what happened, and that’s what we did,” they said in a statement Monday.
The counterterrorism officials, however, concluded that Clinton and Kennedy were immediately wary of the attacks being portrayed as acts of terrorism, and accordingly worked to prevent the counterterrorism bureau from having a role in the department’s early decision-making relating to them.
Also appearing before the oversight committee on Wednesday will be Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Like Thompson, Hicks is a career State Department official who considers himself a Benghazi whistle-blower. His attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, has charged that Hicks, too, has faced threats of reprisal from unnamed superiors at State. (Toensing and diGenova, who are representing their respective clients pro bono, are married.)
Portions of the forthcoming testimony of Hicks – who was one of the last people to speak to Stevens, and who upon the ambassador’s death became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya — were made public by Rep. Issa during an appearance on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” on Sunday.
Hicks told the committee that he and his colleagues on the ground in Libya that night knew instantly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and that he was astonished that no one drafting the administration’s talking points consulted with him before finalizing them, or before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice delivered them on the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 16.
Hicks was interviewed by the ARB but Thompson was not, sources close to the committee’s investigation tell Fox News.
Representative Jeff Duncan – “Madam Secretary, you let the consulate become a deathtrap, and that’s national security malpractice.”
Senator John McCain – “People don’t bring RPGs and mortars to a spontaneous demonstration.”
Senator Rand Paul – “Had I been president at the time, and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post.”
FLASHBACK: Representative Trey Gowdy – “I want to know why we were lied to!” (November 14, 2012)
Benghazi-gate: Obama’s Lying Cronies
Benghazi: Lies, Damned Lies And Dead Americans
Zip of Weasel Zippers fame assumes, correctly I would think, that she does not want the issue hanging over the soon coming Hillary 2016 campaign. So, she will get the lying and denying over with now
Via Daily Mail:
Hillary Clinton will testify in front of Congress about the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya – despite receiving a concussion and being hospitalized for a blood clot, it was revealed on Thursday.
The Secretary of State cancelled appearances before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee after she fainted and hit her head on December 9.
She sent two aides to testify in her place.
Some conservatives initially claimed she was using the health issue to dodge testifying on the contentious issue.
The Washington Post reports that Clinton ‘remains committed’ to appearing in front of the Congressional committees, though no date has been set.
Of course, perhaps this is just a tactic to stall, hoping the issue goes away.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was set to face a grilling from Congress this week over the terrorist attacks in Benghazi when she started channeling the late poet Shel Silverstein.
“I have the measles and the mumps / A gash, a rash and purple bumps,” said Clinton, in effect, informing the House and Senate (with regrets!) that she was suffering too many maladies to testify as expected about the Sept. 11 attack in Libya.
America’s top diplomat was to provide her first public answers regarding the murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Now that won’t happen.
Clinton’s story beggars belief: While traveling in Europe, she contracted a stomach virus . . . which made her dehydrated . . . which made her faint at home . . . which caused her to fall and hit her head . . . which gave her a nasty concussion.
So Clinton’s deputies will appear in her stead before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to explain the State Department’s failures.
That is not nearly enough.
We’ve chided the Obama administration in the past for its lack of transparency – but this looks like one of the most transparent dodges in the history of diplomacy.
And if Congress allows the secretary of state to wriggle free from scrutiny in the last days of her tenure (she may be gone from Foggy Bottom before the next round of congressional hearings in 2013), it will be a shame on that body as well.
So it’s clear that Clinton needs to testify.
And the Republicans, at least, seem to realize it.
“We still don’t have information from the Obama administration on what went so tragically wrong in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four patriotic Americans,” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, when Clinton reported her noggin-bump. “This requires a public appearance by the secretary of state herself.”
Thursday’s hearing covers the State Department’s Accountability Review Board, the squad of DC luminaries who’ve been investigating the attack since October and who delivered their findings to Clinton yesterday.
The report may shed some light on the attack, but it behooves Clinton to explain why the administration spent weeks misleading the public by pinning blame for the strike on an obscure YouTube video.
No, she owes the public true accountability – not a paper press release from some former bureaucrats.
And that requires her to testify before Congress, before the public.
Nothing else will suffice.
During a press conference in Washington yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad for “their real achievements on the ground” citing the safe streets of the West Bank, the overhaul of government institutions and helping to enhance Israel’s security.
Clinton then berated Israel for announcing new settlement construction stating such activities “set back the cause of a negotiated peace.” I suppose Hillary thinks Palestinian unilateral declarations of independence are just fine and dandy.
Well, last I checked Palestinians were throwing stones at PA buildings because of high prices, low wages and government corruption.
The PA will never achieve anything tangible until it stops naming its schools after suicide bombers, refrains from using its official newspaper to print cartoons insinuating that Israel poisoned Yasser Arafat, and using its state run TV to air music videos calling Israel “the enemy” and a “snake”.
There was, of course, a time when Hillary Clinton spoke out against the “hateful rhetoric” of the Palestinians. But alas that time has long since passed.