Posted on 09/09/2014 5:50:12 PM PDT by jazusamo
In her memoir, "Hard Choices," former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton included a chapter on the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012. But she failed to specifically explain why Amb. Chris Stevens was there that day.
"U.S. ambassadors are not required to consult or seek approval from Washington, when traveling within their countries, and rarely do," she wrote.
"Like all chiefs of mission, Chris made decisions about his movements based on the security assessments of his team on the ground, as well as his own judgment," she said. "After all, no one had more knowledge or experience in Libya than he did. He was well aware of the lawlessness in Benghazi, including a series of incidents earlier in the year against Western interests. Yet he understood Benghazi's strategic importance in Libya and decided that the value of a visit outweighed the risks."
So, what exactly was the "value of the visit"?
The Senate Select Intelligence Committee published a report on Jan. 15 of this year — about five months before Clinton published her book — indicating that the intelligence community had warned of the growing terrorist threat in eastern Libya.
"On June 12, 2012," the intelligence committee said, "the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) produced a report entitled, 'Libya: Terrorists Now Targeting U.S. and Western Interests.' The report noted recent attacks against the U.S. Mission compound in Benghazi, the growing ties between al-Qa'ida (AQ) regional nodes and Libya-based terrorists, and stated: 'We expect more anti-U.S. attacks in eastern Libya [redacted] due to the terrorists' greater presence there.'"
On Aug. 16, 2012, according to the committee, Amb. Stevens sent a cable to State Department headquarters describing the Emergency Action Committee that had convened in Benghazi the day before.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
Tens of thousands of Americans want answers to this and will not stop asking the question(s). I, like many others, am especially interested in learning why the administration pedaled the “inflammatory video” story as if spraying Glade over a roomful of sh*t. The truth will come out.
I pray the truth will come out.
The people that were abandoned and murdered and their survivors deserve it.
What was the significance of Benghazi that Cankles wanted to make it a permanent post?
Great question that I’d also like to know the answer to, I doubt she or anyone else in the administration will answer it.
There was a program with Kenneth Timmerman before an audience in LA on C-SPAN's BookTV last weekend, discussing his book Dark Forces, still available for viewing on the BookTV website. It is about 50 minutes long. David Horowitz was there and asked one of the questions in the Q&A part. Timmerman is convinced that the attack was orchestrated by Iran.
Nice try Hillary, just one little problem.
There is no way the terrorist could plan an attack against a particular person on a particular day at a particular location unless someone were able to guarantee that particular person would be at a particular location on a particular day.
Only 2 people could make that guarantee Hillary.
You and Obama.
Don’t shoot! Morsi sent us!
Clinton and Obama both seem to firmly believe that they can/could do anything they wanted if only they kept it cloaked under State Department and/or CIA security cover long enough.
It doesn't appear that either one of them gave any thought to the fact that needing to cloak their evil intent and unlawful plans with “government secrecy” just might be a clue that what they were doing was illegal, unconstitutional, and extremely dangerous and stupid!
Because both of them, and their insane supporters truly believe their documented lack of any real qualifications for the positions they occupy is a good thing!
As do all their demonstrably stupid supporters.
You make a good point around the fact of Ambassador Stevens known presence and light security at a mission compound that was out of compliance with the Secure Embassy Act, at a period of high threat and numerous recent and deadly attacks.
Talk about asking for trouble while oblivious to it is a stunning state of mind for a sitting ambassador. All for garnering a little applause for the State Dept and Obama administration in a blind bluff for accomplishment. Securing a “permanent embassy” in a $%’t hole. LOL!
What a goal.
Killary is, no doubt, at the bottom of this barrel.
The answer is THERE IS NO ANSWER.
They Seriously "F'd up and NO ONE will talk about it and pretends it's NOT their fault. Typical LIBERAL behavior.
The attack was planned, then the protest in Egypt was planned to create the “spontaneous” lie, then the video was created to explain the protest.
When we got the story the video led to the protest which led to the attack.
When the dems let it be known and it was in the news they were going to honor Carter at their convention is when the attack moved from the planning phase to the preparation phase.
Once the dems let it be know they were going to honor Peanuts, right wing talk radio and other pundits began comparing Obama to Carter once again and it was done for a couple of months at least.
We know the dems honoring Carter was a complete phony and orchestrated for something other than what it was supposed to be, honoring Carter, because just a few weeks ago Peanuts let it be known Obama has never called him.
You don’t honor someone at your convention you never wasted your time to call.
Stevens and the others were supposed to be taken hostage for the October Surprise II and the attack would be blamed on republicans.
All the weapons they had given to the terrorist would then be blamed on the republicans collaborating with terrorist and the terrorist had seized the weapons the Obama adm was rounding up.
For over 2 weeks every time the claim was made the protest over the video is what led to the attack, people would respond with “there is no connection between the video and the attack”.
People began believing there was no connection and the republicans in the House had a hearing and the big finding was there was no connection between the video protest in Egypt and the attack in Benghazi.
That little statement “Don’t shoot Morsi sent us” means the protest in Egypt was planned and coordinated to take place at the same time/day to explain the attack.
The 2 being coordinated means the attack was planned for a particular day.
Particular person, particular day, particular location Obama and/or Hillary had to be the ones to guarantee Stevens was there.
bttt
I still don’t think he was there ONLY because Hillary wanted a permanent post there. I think it was ARMS RUNNING! MANPADS, baby.....to ISIS!!
I wish Kenneth Timmerman would get more play on TALK RADIO!
Here’s another one she never got around to answering:
Who hired Craig Livingstone?
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.