Congressman: Hillary busted in monster 'lie'
'I heard her with my own ears'
Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton testifies before he Senate Foreign Relations Committee
on Jan. 23, 2013
Now, it turns out, the
Democrat most political observers believe will try to replace Obama as
president apparently also has problems telling the truth.
Former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton lied to the American people about Benghazi , a
congressman who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Libya told WND.
Rep.
Steve King, R-Iowa
He said she also lied to
Congress.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa,
was unequivocal when WND asked him, “What makes you so certain that Hillary
Clinton lied?”
“Because,” King replied,
“I heard her with my own ears.”
And, what contradicted
her?
“The facts.”
King also had a
blistering response to a famous question posed by Clinton .
During a Senate committee
hearing Jan. 23, 2013, when asked what caused the death of four Americans in Benghazi , Clinton responded indignantly, “At this point, what difference
does it make?”
WND asked King if he had
an answer for her.
“The reason it makes a difference,
Hillary Clinton, is because this administration lied to the American people.
Her voice was one of those voices that lied to the American people.”
The congressman related
how Clinton and other administration officials were dishonest when they briefed
Congress within a week of the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in
Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith and CIA security contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty
were killed.
King said he could not
divulge what was said during a classified briefing he attended, but, “I will
just tell you that the administration’s officials told the same lies to members
of Congress in a classified setting that they told the public five times on
Sunday.”
He was referring to
appearances on five political talk shows by then-Ambassador to the United
Nations Susan Rice on Sept. 16, 2012, during which she claimed the attack was a
spontaneous protest inspired by anger over an obscure anti-Muslim video on the
Internet.
“We know that’s false,”
King told WND. “On top of that, we know they knew it was false. They knew
within three hours that it was a calculated, strategized attack by an organized
enemy on that compound and that annex in Benghazi .”
Strong confirmation of
King’s version of events has just come to light, as newly
declassified documents show top defense officials briefed Obama that a
terrorist attack was underway in Benghazi
During a classified,
closed-door hearing last year, Gen. Carter Ham, who was responsible for U.S.
forces in North Africa, testified that he very quickly got to the point and
told then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that it was a terrorist attack and not a protest.
Panetta and Dempsey then
met immediately with Obama.
Last February, Panetta
told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he told Obama “there was an
apparent attack going on in Benghazi .”
Panetta said, “There was
no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack.”
And yet, for the next few
weeks, as the 2012 presidential election reached the crucial home stretch, a
number of aides to both Clinton and Obama repeatedly insisted there was no
evidence the attack on Benghazi was planned, but it appeared to be protest that turned
violent.
That was contradicted by
testimony on May 8, 2013, by U.S.
diplomat Gregory Hicks, who was in Libya
at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack.
He, and two other key
witnesses agreed, there was no basis for Rice to claim the attack began as a
protest of an anti-Islamic film. And yet, Obama and Clinton repeatedly made
that claim in the hours and days after the incident.
Hicks pointedly said he
was “stunned” by Rice’s response to the Benghazi attack.
“My jaw dropped, and I
was embarrassed,” he said.
Hicks was asked if there
was any indication of a protest in Benghazi in response to the Internet video.
“The YouTube video was a
non-event in Libya ,” he said.
“We know from the
testimony,” King told WND. “We know it wasn’t the movie. It is a fact that it
wasn’t the movie.”
He also pointed out that
people who worked in the intelligence community as well as the State Department
have testified under oath that they knew the movie did not trigger the attack.
“And they (administration
officials) have not retracted them. They were dishonest,” King flatly stated.
The congressman made the blunt
assertions to WND in his first published remarks following a recent trip he
organized to hotspots in North Africa and the Middle East ,
with Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.
The Iowan had more
answers to Clinton ’s question, “What difference does it make?”
He said, of course, the
loss of Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans “who stood there
bravely to defend that compound” was a “significant tragedy.”
But, he called the truth
an even bigger casualty.
“[T]he biggest tragedy of
this is this administration came forward within days and began to misinform the
American people on what took place in Benghazi.”
That’s because, King
insisted, “It’s a tragedy when the integrity of the presidency and the
administration of President Obama, or any president of the United States , can be sacrificed for a political agenda.”
The congressman noted
that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates described in his new book how
then-senator and presidential candidate Clinton took a position against the
surge in Iraq in the presidential primary contests in 2008 for political
reasons.
“If political decisions
are made on war policy in Iraq when you’re campaigning for office, and if
political conditions were part of the decision as to whether there would be a
surge in Afghanistan, that’s also part of Gate’s book, then those two things
all but confirm that the story that the administration promoted coming out of
Benghazi was a political story, designed to cover,” charged King.
And why did they need
cover? Because they were in the peak of the president’s re-election campaign,
said the congressman.
He said the
administration “should have told the American people the straight-up truth as
soon as they knew it,” but instead, “they continue to cover-up Benghazi and the
only reason they’ve been allowed to do it is a media that is, for a large part,
complicit.”
Conceivably, that
could derail presidential ambitions Clinton might harbor.
Judge Andrew Napolitano
says the former secretary of state could be prosecuted if she did, in fact,
lie.
“Lying to Congress carries the same
criminal liability and the same punishment as lying under oath to Congress. I’m
not suggesting that Mrs. Clinton lied, but I’m saying that a case could be made
out, either legally in a courtroom if a prosecutor wanted to, and certainly
politically in a public sphere should she decide to seek higher office,”
Napolitano said, the day after Hicks testified to Congress that the video
played absolutely no role in the Benghazi attack.
When WND asked King if
those he spoke with in Libya share his observations about the attack on Benghazi , he said it depends on who you talk to.
He had nothing but praise
for U.S. Ambassador to Libya Deborah Jones, calling her “excellent” and
“terrific.”
“She’s in a very
dangerous place, and she has a very difficult task. She’s upbeat, she’s
knowledgeable,” and King said all of their discussions encouraged him that
“we’ve got a good State Department operating in Libya .”
*COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. S
a
i
To
To
Tak
R
T
A
Hav
I
"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE (CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL) ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE (CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL) ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD."
Al l l aw s w h ic h ar e r e p ug n an t t o t h e Con st it ut ion ar e n ul l an d
void." Mar b ur y
vs. Madison r an c h )
137, 164, 176. (1803)
"Wh e r e r ig h t s se c ur e d b y t h e Con st it ut ion ar e in vol ve d, t h e r e c an b e n o r ul e m akin g or l e g isl at ion w h ic h w oul d ab r og at e t h e m ."
Mir an da
vs. Ar izon a , 384 U.S.
"An un c on st it ut ion al ac t is
n ot l aw ; it c on fe r s n o r ig h t s;
it im p ose s n o
dut ie s;
it
affor ds n o p r ot e c t ion ; it c r e at e s n o
offic e ; it is
in l e g al c on t e m p l at ion ,
as in op e r at ive as
t h oug h it h ad n e ve r b e e n p asse d."
Nor t on
vs. Sh e l b y Coun t y , 118 US
Te ddy' s
An sw e r
t o
Dive r sit y!
Th e r e is
n o r oom in t h is c oun t r y
for h yp h e n at e d Am e r ic an ism . Th e on e ab sol ut e l y c e r t ain w ay
of b r in g in g t h is n at ion t o r uin ,
of p r e ve n t in g al l p ossib il it y
of it s c on t in uin g t o b e a n at ion at al l , w oul d b e t o p e r m it it t o b e c om e a t an g l e of
squab b l in g n at ion al it ie s.
— Th e odor e
Roose ve l t , sp e e c h b e for e t h e Kn ig h t s
of Col um b us, 1915 , Ne w
Yor k
T
— T
Te ddy' s
An sw e r
t o
Bush !
To
an n oun c e t h at t h e r e m ust b e n o c r it ic ism of
t h e p r e side n t , or t h at w e ar e t o st an d b y t h e p r e side n t r ig h t or w r on g ,
is n ot on l y un p at r iot ic an d se r vil e , b ut is
m or al l y t r e ason ab l e t o t h e Am e r ic an p ub l ic .
— Th e odor e
Roose ve l t
— T
Te ddy' s
An sw e r
t o
Bush
& Con g r e ss
"We c an n ot affor d t o diffe r on t h e que st ion of h on e st y if w e e xp e c t our r e p ub l ic p e r m an e n t l y t o e n dur e .
Hon e st y is n ot so m uc h a c r e dit as an ab sol ut e p r e r e quisit e t o e ffic ie n t se r vic e t o t h e p ub l ic . Un l e ss a m an is h on e st , w e h ave n o r ig h t t o ke e p h im in p ub l ic l ife ; it m at t e r s n ot h ow b r il l ian t h is c ap ac it y."
— Th e odor e
Roose ve l t
Want to be on our
lists?
It w il l t ake up t o 72 Hour s t o t ake you off
of l ist s!
1 comment:
The picture above is not Hillary Clinton. If anything, it might be a clone of her. Don't believe it? Look up Hillary Clinton clones.
Post a Comment