New Documents Prove Hitlery Told Conflicting Stories About Video Blamed For Benghazi Attacks

New Documents Prove Hillary Told Conflicting Stories About Video Blamed For Benghazi Attacks – Daily Caller

.

.
New State Department documents belatedly provided to the watchdog group Judicial Watch show that Hillary Clinton told different stories as secretary of state to different foreign leaders about a YouTube video that the Obama administration falsely blamed for the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks.

The documents, which Judicial Watch obtained last month, include notes of calls that Clinton had with world leaders after the terrorist attacks.

One set of notes comes from a Sept. 15 telephone call Clinton had with then-Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr. During the chat, Clinton referred to the “stupid, very offensive film” as the root cause of the Benghazi violence, which left four Americans dead.

“I have repeatedly, as has the President and other officials in our government, deplored not only the content of this stupid, very offensive film, but also intentional efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” Clinton told Amr.

“This runs counter to American history and the Constitution. But we’ve made clear that violent attacks are never justified in any religion,” she continued, adding that “we have to exercise more self-discipline.”

That call took place a day before then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on several Sunday morning talk shows to blame the “heinous and offensive video” as the impetus for the attacks.

Clinton also appeared to blame the film – “Innocence of Muslims” – in a Sept. 12 call with Afghan President Hamid Kharzi.

“We appreciate your statement in response to the video. Especially, the point that the people that make these kind of videos are a fringe group,” Clinton said during the call.

“We need to talk about religious feelings and insults and defamation,” she added.

Judicial Watch says that the State Department provided those call notes only last month in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. It is unclear why it took so long for the agency to hand over the documents.

Also unclear is why in other private conversations Clinton claimed that the video was not the spark for the Benghazi attacks.

During a Sept. 12 phone call with then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil Clinton said that the Benghazi attacks “had nothing to do with the film.”

“You’re not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe that group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda,” Kandil responded to Clinton during their chat.

Clinton’s call with Kandil was referred to during Clinton’s Oct. 22 testimony in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. As was an email that Clinton exchanged with her daughter, Chelsea, on the night of the attack. In that email she acknowledged that an “Al Qaeda-like group” had carried out the attack.

But Clinton’s comments in those communiques were at odds with the public position that she and others in the Obama administration took in the days after the attack.

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton said in a White House-approved statement on the night of the onslaught. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

Further complicating matters is Clinton’s statement during the Oct. 22 Select Committee hearing and during a Democratic debate that she believes that the video did play a role in the Bengahzi attacks.

“Congressman, I believe to this day the video played a role,” she told Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan 
94%
during the Benghazi hearing.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said that the new documents show that Clinton offered inconsistent stories about the root cause of the attacks.

“There are two scandals here,” Fitton said in a statement.

“The first is Hillary Clinton was telling different stories to different foreign leaders about the Benghazi attack – including an admission that it was a terrorist attack.”

The second, he said “is the State Department’s cover-up of these documents.”

He accused the agency of playing “whack-a-mole” with the Benghazi documents.

“It is no wonder that two frustrated federal court judges granted Judicial Watch discovery into the Clinton FOIA issues.”

.

.

Muslim Man On FBI Watch List Attacks People In Ohio Restaurant With Machete – Is Shot And Killed By Police

Man Attacks People In Ohio Restaurant With Machete, Police Take Him Out With Taxpayer Relief Shot… Update: Suspect Was Muslim Man On FBI Watch List – Weasel Zippers

.

.
We need machete control.

Via Columbus Dispatch:
.

Columbus police have shot and killed a man after they say he went into a Mediterranean restaurant on the Northeast Side this evening and attacked several patrons with a machete.

According to a dispatcher, police were called just after 6 p.m. to the Nazareth Restaurant, 5239 N. Hamilton Road. The dispatcher said that six people were transported to area hospitals from the restaurant, though their names and the extent of their injuries aren’t known at this time.

The suspect then reportedly fled and was stopped by police about 5 miles away, off Stelzer Road and just south of Montclair Drive.

He was shot by police, the dispatcher said, and died at OhioHealth Grant Medical Center at 6:24 p.m.

Further information and the name of the suspect aren’t available at this time.

.
HT: Breaking 911

UPDATE: Religion of Peace

Via PJM:
.

CBS News has identified the suspect as Mohamed Barry, however neither 10TV nor Columbus Police have confirmed the suspect’s name. CBS News also reports Barry has a Somali background and may have traveled to Dubai in 2012.

Law enforcement tells them the incident appears to be the type of “lone wolf terrorist attacks they’re trying to stop.”

The FBI is assisting in the investigation.

.

.

RNC Strips National Review Of Debate Hosting Gig After Magazine Attacks The Donald

RNC Strips National Review Of Debate Hosting Gig After Cover Story Attacking Trump – ABC News

.
…………….

.
National Review will no longer be hosting a GOP debate in February after the RNC “disinvited” the conservative publication, the magazine’s publisher said.

The news comes on the heels of a harsh cover story from National Review, penned by 21 conservative columnists, calling Donald Trump a “menace to American Conservatism,” to which Trump and the RNC fired back.

“National Review is a dying paper, it’s got – its circulation is way down. Not very many people read it anymore. I mean, people don’t even think about the National Review, so I guess they want to get a little publicity, but that’s a dying paper,” Trump said Thursday night, speaking at the Outdoor Channel awards show, which includes the annual “Shot Show.”

“Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself,” National Review’s cover story out Friday reads.

Trump says, though, that the GOP is beginning to accept him. “I think they are warming up. I want to be honest, I have received so many phone calls from people that you would call ‘establishment,’ from people – generally speaking, conservative Republicans that want to come in our team,” Trump added.

And he may be right, as National Review publisher Jack Fowler wrote Thursday that his publication was being stripped of its hosting duties for a GOP debate with CNN in late February.

“Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited. The reason: Our ‘Against Trump’ editorial and symposium. We expected this was coming. Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald,” Fowler wrote.

RNC spokesperson Sean Spicer confirmed to ABC News that National Review will no longer be participating in next month’s GOP debate.

National Review was originally meant to share hosting duties for the debate with NBC, but earlier this month the broadcaster was also disinvited and CNN was given the debate.

.

.

Flashback: Juan Ellis Bush Admitted That ‘Leaky’ Immigration Led To 9/11 Attacks

Flashback: Jeb Bush Admitted ‘Leaky’ Immigration Led To 9/11 – Big Government

.

.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s campaign is furious with 2016 GOP frontrunner Donald Trump over Trump’s comments that the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened on Bush’s brother former President George W. Bush’s watch. But a review of the basic facts of the situation – and Jeb Bush’s own writings – reveals that even the Bushes admit that “leaky” immigration enforcement was a major driving factor in leading to the terrorist attacks.

While Trump has attacked Bush before – describing the candidate as “low energy” – this line of questioning represents a new level in the war as Trump soars over Bush in recent polling, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has essentially replaced Bush as the establishment frontrunner. The latest Trump-Bush bout began in the most recent debate.

In the CNN Republican presidential debate, Trump blamed George W. Bush’s unsuccessful presidency for giving us President Obama, prompting an immediate response from Jeb Bush.
.

TRUMP: “Your brother – and your brother’s administration gave us Barack Obama, because it was such a disaster, those last three months, that Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have been elected.”

BUSH: “You know what? As it relates to my brother, there’s one thing I know for sure. He kept us safe. I don’t know if you remember…”

.
This exchange sparked a war of words between the two campaigns – culminating in Trump’s declaration that if he were president and were able to enact his immigration policies, 9/11 would not have happened under his watch.

On Fox News Sunday, Trump said:
.

Look, look, Jeb said, “We were safe with my brother, we were safe.” Well the World Trade Center just fell down. Now am I trying to blame him? I’m not blaming anybody. But the World Trade Center came down. So when he said we were safe, that’s not safe. We lost 3,000 people, it was one of the greatest – probably the greatest catastrophe ever in this country… I am extremely, extremely tough on illegal immigration. I am extremely tough on people coming into this country. I believe if I were running things, I doubt those – I doubt those people would have been in the country. So there is a good chance that those people would not have been in our country With that being said, I’m not blaming George Bush, but I don’t want Jeb Bush to say, “My brother kept us safe,” because September 11th was one of the worst days in the history of this country.

.
The Bush campaign was quick to attack Trump in response, declaring that “Across the spectrum of foreign policy, Mr. Trump talks about things as though he’s still on ‘The Apprentice’… My brother responded to a crisis, and he did it as you would hope a president would do. He united the country, he organized our country and he kept us safe.”

However, a review Jeb Bush’s 2013 book Immigration Wars reveals that Jeb Bush himself agreed with Trump’s argument and admitted that our “leaky” immigration policy was responsible for the attack.

Bush wrote:
.

In addition to the Mexican drug cartels, the fact that several of the 9/11 terrorists entered the country lawfully under a leaky immigration system has heightened national security concerns – so much so that immigration enforcement has been placed under the Department of Homeland Security.

.
Indeed, all of the the nineteen September 11th hijackers were voluntarily imported into the country on visas issued to them by our federal government. Almost all of the visas were issued in the predominantly Muslim country of Saudi Arabia. Four of the September 11th hijackers – Zacarias Moussaoui, Satam al Suqami, Nawaf al Hamzi, and Hani Hanjour – were visa overstays.

In a blockbuster 2002 report, National Review’s Joel Mowbray acquired the visa applications of 15 of the 19 hijackers and exposed how every single one of their applications should have been flatly rejected.

Mowbray wrote:
.

Brothers Wail and Waleed al-Shehri applied together for travel visas on October 24, 2000. Wail claimed his occupation was “teater,” while his brother wrote “student.” Both listed the name and address of his respective employer or school as simply “South City.” Each also declared a U.S. destination of “Wasantwn.” But what should have further raised a consular officer’s eyebrows is the fact that a student and his nominally employed brother were going to go on a four-to-six-month vacation, paid for by Wail’s “teater” salary, which he presumably would be foregoing while in the United States. Even assuming very frugal accommodations, such a trip for two people would run north of $15,000, yet there is no indication that the consular officer even attempted to determine that Wail in fact had the financial means to fund the planned excursion. They appear to have received their visas the same day they applied.

.
ABC News covered Mowbray’s report:
.

Abdulaziz Alomari claimed to be a student but didn’t name a school; claimed to be married but didn’t name a spouse; under nationality and gender, he didn’t list anything.

Visa approved.

Three months later, Alomari followed his friend Mohamed Atta through airport security… heading for the World Trade Center.

Khalid Al Mihdhar, who helped crash the plane into the Pentagon, simply listed “Hotel” as his U.S. destination – no name, no city, no state – but no problem getting a visa.

.
“They were handing these things out gift-wrapped with ribbons on top,” Mowbray said. “[Al-Qaeda operatives] didn’t have to beat the system, the system was rigged in their favor from the get-go.”

By definition, had the visas been rejected or had the visa-overstays been deported, September 11th would not have happened.

Interestingly, even though George W. Bush remained in office for more than six years after the attack, millions of visa overstays were still not deported. In fact, the United States continues to churn out hundreds of thousands of visas to Muslim immigrants, some of whom have gone on to commit terror attacks in the United States.

As Center for Immigration Studies’ Executive Director Mark Krikorian wrote earlier this year, “This view, that foreign visa applicants rather than the American people are to be served, continues; the number of student visas issued to Saudis, for instance, is up more than 500 percent from 9/11.”

The Republican presidential candidates have taken starkly different positions on the issue of Muslim immigration.

For instance, while Donald Trump has repeatedly articulated a strong stance against increasing the number of Muslim immigrants voluntarily admitted into the country, Marco Rubio has adopted an entirely different position on the matter.

Although four of the 9/11 hijackers were visa overstays, Sen. Rubio authored legislation that would have legalized visa overstays and would have made them American citizens. At the same time, Rubio voted against a visa tracking system offered by his Republican colleague Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), which sought to prevent future foreign nationals from illegally overstaying their visas.

Rubio has also expressed support for expanding the resettlement of Muslim immigrants – on top of the annual 280,000 Muslim migrants the United States admits annually, which includes 100,000 Muslim immigrants who are brought in on green cards and will eventually be able to bring in their family members and vote in U.S. elections.

Moreover, while Trump has declared that he would be cautious about the Muslim migrants that are admitted into the United States on temporary visas, Rubio has introduced legislation that would substantially boost temporary visas to some of the most terror-prone regions of the world. Rubio’s legislation, however, does not include any corresponding enforcement measures to track foreigners brought into the country on temporary visas.

A review of recent terror activity – provided by the Senate Immigration Subcommittee – reveals that a number of attacks have been committed by Muslim immigrants admitted entry to the United States on visas.
.

A refugee voluntarily admitted from Uzbekistan and “living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs.”

A college student voluntarily admitted from Somalia, “who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Kazakhstan “with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS.”

.
.

.

Mob Of Likely Obama Supporters Viciously Attacks Ride Operator At Tennessee Fair (Video)

Unruly Mob Attacks Ride Operator At Fair While Trapped Children Watch In Horror – Gateway Pundit

Fun at the Fair –

An unruly black mob attacked a ride operator at the Delta Fair in Tennessee this week. The angry mob was upset that the ride operator was not loading the ride fast enough.

So they beat him.

The kids on the ride watched in horror.

.

.

.

*VIDEO* A Tribute To The Victims Of The 9/11/01 Muslim Terrorist Attacks – Never Forget

.

.

Intel Assessment: Obama Regime’s Incompetent Response To Cyber Attacks Encouraging More Of Them

Intel Assessment: Weak Response To Breaches Will Lead To More Cyber Attacks – Washington Free beacon

.

.
The United States will continue to suffer increasingly damaging cyber attacks against both government and private sector networks as long as there is no significant response, according to a recent U.S. intelligence community assessment.

Disclosure of the intelligence assessment, an analytical consensus of 16 U.S. spy agencies, comes as the Obama administration is debating how to respond to a major cyber attack against the Office of Personnel Management. Sensitive records on 22.1 million federal workers, including millions cleared for access to secrets, were stolen by hackers linked to China’s government.

U.S. officials familiar with the classified cyber assessment discussed its central conclusion but did not provide details.

Spokesmen for the White House and office of the director of national intelligence declined to comment.

Recent comments by President Obama and senior military and security officials, however, reflect the intelligence assessment.

Obama said during a summit in Germany June 8 that he would not disclose who conducted the OPM hack. But he said such attacks would continue.

“We have known for a long time that there are significant vulnerabilities and that these vulnerabilities are gonna accelerate as time goes by, both in systems within government and within the private sector,” the president said.

Last week, Adm. Mike Rogers, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, said the increase in state-sponsored cyber attacks is partly the result of a perception that “there’s not a significant price to pay” for such attacks.

Privately, administration officials said the assessment appears to be an indirect criticism of the administration’s approach to cyber attacks that has emphasized diplomatic and law enforcement measures instead of counter-cyber attacks.

“The administration is expecting more attacks because they’re unwilling to do anything,” said one official. “They’re preparing for more attacks because we’re failing to deter and defend against them.”

Intelligence and cyber security experts agreed with the assessment that weak U.S. responses are encouraging more cyber attacks.

“Until we redefine warfare in the age of information, we will continue to be viciously and dangerously attacked with no consequences for those attackers,” said retired Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, a former Defense Intelligence Agency director.

“The extraordinary intellectual theft ongoing across the U.S.’s cyber critical infrastructure has the potential to shut down massive components of our nation’s capabilities, such as health care, energy and communications systems. This alone should scare the heck out of everyone.”

James Lewis, a cyber security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed. Lewis said the defensive approach that emphasizes closing vulnerabilities to cyber attacks is not working.

“Unless we punch back, we will continue to get hit,” Lewis said.

Lewis says that conducting retaliatory cyber strikes without starting a war is difficult but not impossible.

“There are a lot of ways to do this – leaking some party leader’s bank account could be a good start,” Lewis said. “Many people think a cyber response is the best way to signal where the lines are the other side should not cross.”

“We’re all coming to the same place – that a defensive orientation doesn’t work,” he added.

Rogers, the Cyber Command chief who has stated in the past that he favors more aggressive U.S. responses, acknowledged that the U.S. response to the OPM hack has been muted compared to the government’s highly-public response to North Korea’s damaging cyber attack in November against Sony Pictures Entertainment. The Sony hack was a failed bid by the North Koreans to derail the release of a comedy film critical of dictator Kim Jong Un.

Major incidents in recent months include the Sony attack; cyber attacks against the health care provider Anthem that compromised the records of some 80 million people; attacks against State Department and White House networks from suspected Russian government-linked hackers; the OPM hacking; and an Iranian-backed cyber attack against the Sands casino in Las Vegas.

Asked about the increase in state-sponsored attacks, Rogers said during a security conference in Colorado that one factor has been a lack of response.

Rogers earlier in congressional testimony has suggested a more muscular cyber policy that would include demonstrations and threats of retaliatory cyber attacks against hackers in a bid to create deterrence similar to the Cold War-era strategic nuclear deterrence.

In addition to more capable hackers, “you’ve got a perception, I believe, that to date there is little price to pay for engaging in some pretty aggressive behaviors,” Rogers aid.

“Whether it’s stealing intellectual property; whether it’s getting in and destroying things as we saw in the Sony attack; whether it’s going after large masses of data – OPM being the most recent but go back to the summer of ’14 and we saw a successful penetration of a large health insurance company and the extraction of most of the medical records and personal data information that they had.”

Nation states are only one part of the threat. Criminal groups also are conducting large-scale cyber attacks, Rogers said.

In November, Rogers said he argued for going public in naming North Korea’s communist regime for the Sony hack and having the president make a public statement that Pyongyang would pay a price.

Rogers said some officials in the administration favored a less public response to the Sony case.

“So one of my concerns was this time it was a movie,” Rogers said. “What if next time a nation state, a group, an individual, an actor decides I don’t like the U.S. policy, I don’t like a U.S. product, I don’t agree with this particular position taken by a company, or taken by an individual. If we start down this road, this is not a good one for us as a nation.”

Rogers said he argued strongly that “we cannot pretend that this did not happen,” and that the attack had to be linked to North Korea directly.

“My concern was if we do nothing, then one of the potential unintended consequences of this could be does this send a signal to other nation states, other groups, other actors that this kind of behavior [is okay] and that you can do this without generating any kind of response,” Rogers said.

On not naming the Chinese for the OPM hack, Rogers appears to have lost out during the administration’s debate on naming the Chinese.

“OPM is an ongoing issue,” Rogers said, adding that he would not discuss the specifics of internal discussions.

“But I would acknowledge, hey, to date the response to OPM, there’s a thought process and I’m the first to acknowledge to date we have to take a different approach.”

Asked if he agreed with doing nothing about the OPM response, Rogers suggested some action might be forthcoming.

“Just because you’re not reading something in the media does not mean that there’s not things ongoing,” he said. “So I would argue, let’s step back and see how this plays out a little bit.”

He defended the more public U.S. response to the Sony hack that included limited sanctions against North Korean agencies and officials, by noting that to date no similar cyber attacks by Pyongyang have been conducted.

.

.