Skip to comments.Benghazi: A Coverup Laid Bare --( House hearing with Whistleblowers )
Posted on 05/09/2013 10:36:36 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks to House Republicans, Americans finally got to hear from the State Department officials the Obama administration never wanted to testify. They are now called whistleblowers, but thats only because their accounts of what really happened in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, were buried by the administration, apparently in the furtherance of Democrats election-year imperatives.
Soon after the testimony, Democratic office-holders took to the airwaves and the internet to assure liberal loyalists that there was nothing really new here. Republicans, by contrast, trumpeted the accounts of Gregory Hicks, Eric Nordstrom, and Mark Thompson before the House Oversight Committee as proof that the administration never told the truth about Libya.
Interestingly, both sides are mostly right. Americans who have followed this incident closely didnt learn much that they hadnt already suspected about the sacking of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the murder of four Americans, and the administrations extraordinary efforts to deflect any accountability for the tragedy by stonewalling, stalling, and issuing a series of misleading assertions about the sequence of events. Yet in hearing directly from Hicks, who was the deputy to slain ambassador Christopher Stevens, Americans can now put a face to that coverup.
Hicks, the second highest ranking State Department official in Libya when the consulate was attacked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, confirmed the following facts under oath: There were no protests outside the U.S. compound; the anti-Islamic YouTube video denounced by the administration was a non-event in Libya and had nothing whatsoever to do with the assault that night; Hicks team knew almost immediately that the attack was carried out by terrorists; and all of this information was relayed to Washington in the hours and days afterward.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Cannot be, cannot be.
The WaPo calls the testimony a “yarn”.
And everyone knows, when a journalism major (what we science types call someone getting an ‘F’ in elementary math) writes something, it MUST be true.
Well now...this is more like it! I was regretting getting out of bed this morning after glancing at the lack of Benghazi headlines.
Where are the calls to re-summon Hillary Clinton to the stand to get names and answers for her lies?
I wasnt involved in the talking points process.... As I understand it, as Ive been told, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the State Department, all participated, to try to come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it was an intelligence product.
With all due respect,the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?Hillary Clinton
Where was Hicks last fall when his testimony could have “made a difference”!
I fear the conspiracy runs deeper than anyone suspects.
I, for one, was surprised to learn that Amb. Rice knew it was a terrorist attack no later than 9/12, well before peddling the "video" nonsense on TV. I had always assumed she was the one stuck with the talking points precisely because she knew nothing, but would stick to the script. Turns out she was knowingly lying the whole time.
Roger that. Just some disgruntled employees who are just a bunch of black president hating white guys who can’t stand having king hussein in the WH. Besides, what difference does it make now since it happened a long time ago and far far away.
She looks mentally impaired.
She is slipping fast.
When can Chelsea run? At 35?
And I want to Highlight this bit:
We did learn at least two new, relevant facts from yesterday's testimony. One is that Beth Jones, an official in the State Department, sent an email on September 12 bluntly acknowledging terrorists participated in the attacks (The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.) The other is that Hicks said his jaw dropped when he heard Rice make her claims about spontaneous protests. Hicks testified that he later confronted her about the comments, and shortly thereafter he was demoted.
And this is all still simple groundwork. The fact of a cover-up is patently obvious now, except to those who are exercising willful blindness. The admin was covering up their refusal to act.
The elephant in the room that hasn’t been mentioned yet: WHY did the admin refuse to act? We’ve talked about theories on this score, but it needs to be investigated and put on the record.
Thank you so much, sweet Ernest!
When can Chelsea run? At 35?
“Requirements to Become President of the United States
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presrequire.htm - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of ... One must also be at least 35 years of age to be president.”
I watched the whole thing twice and cannot believe that the dems and media are getting away with saying nothing new was learned and that it is only political.
Limbaugh talking about it now.
I saw their exchange last night.
She told him off.
Thanks for the post.
Closer to reality than most of the MSM coverage.
It’s very possible the clown will get away with his crime. Half the country has its head up their a$$es, and the media are pushing it in farther.
But what about the supposed coverup of the purported secret purpose of the consulate to coordinate shipment of arms to Syrian rebels? Nobody on the committee even asked a question about it while I watched most of the hearing. Not saying I have any knowledge of that “secret purpose” other than the rumors I’ve read.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) discusses the House hearing on the Benghazi attack on "FOX & Friends."
They didnt want to admit that it was a terrorist attack because to admit it was a terrorist attack was to admit that terrorism was still out there and reaching us. And so thats the reason why they sent the order in my opinion. In some way, shape or form, they sent the order that these talking points should not be allowed to include any reference to terrorism per say or at least it acting as a terrorist attack, but rather they need to be told that this was something that was a result of a YouTube video. So, I think that was the political motivation behind it. What I think is sad is how many people are around the administration, including the former Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton, knew this to be the case and allowed this to move forward anyway. You would have hoped the people would have stood up and said this is wrong, the American people deserve the truth. That didnt happen.
She is a little fireball....I deeply admire her.
Sounds like Must See TV! Time for more folks to display some righteous anger!!
Gregory Hicks, Eric Nordstrom, and Mark Thompson are much more than whistleblowers, they are very competent and credible witnesses that have testified under oath.... they are also PATRIOTS.
Did the Libyans know about it?
And how many people we had there?
Michelle Malkin is seen by me as beautiful, intelligent, patriotic, fearless and she is most attractive when she is p!ssed.
I watched this last night, but it was fun to watch it again.
We knew from the very beginning that it would be this way.
I wonder if the all of the libtards realize, not just some of the librards realize; if Hillary and Obama will do what they did to those 4 men; they will do it to them? Get the trains ready, the libtards are going with the rest of us. They may believe they aren’t with some sweet cushy lives and others freebies; but to people if you can call them that; don’t care. You are just another number.
Dropping another video link here:
Bill O'Reilly explains his view that the Benghazi incident was the result of gross incompetence on the part of the Obama Administration.
Anyone who listened to that testimony and wasn’t a rabid Democrat partisan would know the US government lied about what happened for political expediency and those lies were concocted by the White House. The testimony also revealed that the State Department had made no real plans for increased security and ignored warnings from their own staff about the danger in the region. The big unanswered question was what was the Ambassador doing in Benghazi especially when it was known to be a hot bed for terrorists and the compound was not very secure. Was the Ambassador supervising the transfer of Libyan arms to Syrian rebels in a covert operation???
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.
More questions today than before the hearing.
Had to count the number of yes answers....seems about right to me.
I’d rather be fighting off enemies with Michelle than with Juan any day. Any day. How can Juan look into his own eyes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.