CONGRESSMAN:
HILLARY BUSTED IN MONSTER ‘LIE’
Yesterday I cross posted the James Rosen article summarizing what Obama
was actually aware of pertaining to the Benghazigate Scandal. To summarize what
knowledge Obama had about the Islamic terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed
four Americans including Ambassador Chris Steven with one word – LIAR. Obama
lied AND the President told his Administration surrogates to lie (such as Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Jay Carney).
Undoubtedly the Mainstream Media
will twist some propaganda to make lite of one these so-called Obama phony
scandals so below is another perspective based on an interview with Rep. Steve
King (R-IA) conducted by WND’s Garth Kant that focuses on the next Dem Party darling
in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
JRH 1/16/14
Please Support NCCR
***************************
CONGRESSMAN: HILLARY BUSTED IN
MONSTER ‘LIE’
‘I heard her with my own ears’
By GARTH KANT
January 14, 2014
WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON — President Obama has
problems with credibility, as the world well knows after he disingenuously
insisted, “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care
plan” about two dozen times in public.
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.
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.”
WND VIDEO: Part 1 Kant
Interviewing Rep. King
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 not long after
it began.
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.
WND VIDEO: Part 2 Kant
Interviewing Rep. King
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.
WMD VIDEO: Judge Andrew
Napolitano on Benghazi Lies
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.”
Follow Garth Kant on Twitter
@DCgarth
________________________________
© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.
Share this:
Like this:
Loading...
Leave a comment
The
Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not
video or protest
Rate
This
Unclassified documents of recent House investigations of
Benghazigate clearly paints a different picture than the Obama Administration
PR and also throws mud in the face of a NY Times investigation that vainly attempted to
validate the Obama Administration. Obama at the top and a handful of high placed officials on the
Military and government were fully aware that the Benghazi attack was an
orchestrated Islamic terrorist attack rather than a spontaneous riot due to a sophomoric anti-Mohammed/anti-Islam
film.
Fox News has an excellent summary
of the revelations in the documents exposing Obama, Hillary and the
Administration as a bunch of liars to the people of the United States of
America. After I cross post the Fox News Story the website Stand Up
America has PDF links to some of those documents which still has some
redaction involved.
JRH 1/15/14 (Hat Tip: Infidels
United)
Please Support NCCR
*********************************
The Benghazi Transcripts: Top
Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest
By James Rosen
January 14, 2014
Fox News
Minutes after the American
consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian
and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office
session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist
attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of
why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet,
allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false
narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.
Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time
was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction
over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him
who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S.
Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing
— occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their
session with the commander in chief.
According to declassified testimony
obtained by Fox News, Ham — who was working out of his Pentagon office on the
afternoon of Sept. 11 — said he learned about the assault on the consulate
compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time,
through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.
“My first call was to General
Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I
need to see him right away,'” Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. “I told
him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary
Panetta.”
Ham’s account of that fateful day
was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials
in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services
subcommittee. The testimony, given under “Top Secret” clearance and only
declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a
crisis travels at the top echelons of America’s national security apparatus,
all the way up to the president.
Also among those whose secret
testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about
Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous “happenstance” that
he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put
it, “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at
the White House.” Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when
they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.
Armed Services Chairman Howard
“Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee’s hearing with Ham last
June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely,
whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of
their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew
spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in
America.
Numerous aides to the president
and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the
weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that
night — as Obama’s hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final
stretch — that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a
premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone
awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the
Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on
Benghazi were untrue.
“In your discussions with General
Dempsey and Secretary Panetta,” McKeon asked, “was there any mention of a
demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?” Ham initially testified
that there was some “peripheral” discussion of this subject, but added “at that
initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under
attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador
Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for.”
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a
first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve
officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to
admit that “the nature of the conversation” he had with Panetta and Dempsey was
that “this was a terrorist attack.”
The transcript reads as follows:
WENSTRUP:
“As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be
advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military
leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack.”
HAM:
“Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about,
you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I
personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was
not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.”
WENSTRUP:
“And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?”
HAM:
“Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of
the conversation we had, yes, sir.”
Panetta told the Senate Armed
Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the
president that “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.” “Secretary
Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a
terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “There was no question in my
mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied.
Senior State Department officials
who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in
Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately — from surveillance
video and eyewitness accounts — that the incident was a terrorist attack. After
providing the first substantive “tick-tock” of the events in Benghazi, during a
background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked
two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: “What in all of these events that
you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this
was prompted by protests against the video?
”
“That is a question that you would
have to ask others,” replied one of the senior officials. “That was not our
conclusion.”
Ham’s declassified testimony
further underscores that Obama’s earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to
the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the
question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration
that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for
Benghazi.
The day after the attacks, which
marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since
1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in
his statement to say: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs
of others.” As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show “The
View,” when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been “an act of
terrorism,” the president hedged, saying: “Well, we’re still doing an
investigation.”
The declassified transcripts show
that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels
throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to
label the incident a terrorist attack. In a classified session on July 31 of
last year, Westrup raised the question with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol,
commander of AFRICOM’s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara
region.
Bristol, who was traveling in
Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint
Operations Center alerting him to “a considerable event unfolding in Libya.”
Bristol’s next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in
Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that “there was
a fight going on” at the consulate compound.
WESTRUP:
“So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that
this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an
attack -“
BRISTOL:
“Yes, sir.”
WENSTRUP:
“– on the United States?”
BRISTOL:
“Yes, sir. … We referred to it as the attack.”
Staffers on the Armed Services
subcommittee conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, and
are close to issuing what they call an “interim” report on the affair. Fox News
reported in October their preliminary conclusion that U.S. forces on the night
of the Benghazi attacks were postured in such a way as to make military rescue
or intervention impossible — a finding that buttresses the claims of Dempsey
and other senior Pentagon officials.
While their investigation
continues, staffers say they still want to question Panetta directly. But the
former defense secretary, now retired, has resisted such calls for additional
testimony.
“He is in the president’s
Cabinet,” said Rep. Martha Roby R-Ala., chair of the panel that collected the
testimony, of Panetta. “The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to
know what’s going on, and I honestly think that that’s why you have seen —
beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans’ lives — is that the
American people feel misled.”
“Leon Panetta should have spoken
up,” agreed Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under
President George W. Bush and now a distinguished fellow at the Heritage
Foundation. “The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA
stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on
longer than they should have.”
Neither Panetta’s office nor the
White House responded to Fox News’ requests for comment.
James Rosen joined Fox News
Channel (FNC) in 1999. He currently serves as the chief Washington
correspondent and hosts the online show “The Foxhole.”
_______________________________
Top Secret Transcripts Revealed
on Benghazi
Posted by SUAadmin
January 13, 2014
Stand Up America
Editor’s
Note – We have been hearing that much is due to be released on
Benghazi that to date has been hidden, lied about, or just plain stonewalled.
Below is the official release from the Armed Services Committee, through its Chairmen, Buck McKeon (R-CA 25).
It is clearly time for all the
facts to come out and for those who have broken the law, or tried to obstruct
the committee’s investigation to be held fully accountable.
These recently de-classified
documents relating to Benghazi, with some redaction, demonstrates an enduring
power struggle between the Dept. of Defense and the State Department when it
came to protection of U.S. sovereign territory in foreign countries. Due
to the tacit and a non-agreed to agenda of the State Department, Hillary
Clinton apparently prevailed at will.
Mrs. Clinton mobilized friends for
the creation of an Accountability Review Board that performed a shallow and
political investigation into the attack on the two U.S. compounds in Benghazi
resulting in the death of 4 Americans, but what is most revealing is that the
final decision to send military aid to Benghazi rested with Barack Obama.
In the end, Hillary Clinton kept
her global reputation and Barack Obama never made a rescue call, telling us
that politics were more important than saving the lives of the four and
endangering up to as many as 40 others in Benghazi. They were left in abject
peril for political reasons. Sadly, the lies of Benghazi are now proven.
Declassified Transcripts of
Benghazi Briefings Released
Armed Services Committee
Examined Actions Of Military Chain Of Command Before, During, and After Attack
WASHINGTON— The House Armed
Services Committee today released a series of recently declassified transcripts
of briefings on the September 11th 2012 attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya.
The briefings were conducted by the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations then chaired by Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL), though they were open
to all members of the Committee and attended by Members off the Committee.
The briefings, which took place
over the course of several months, were part of the Committee’s examination of
the actions of the military chain of command before, during, and after the attack.
A report summarizing the conclusion of the HASC Oversight & Investigations
majority Members draw from these briefings is expected to be released later
this week.
Read the transcripts linked
below:
o Transcript #1 – 1_Briefing transcript
(redacted), “DOD’s preparation for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” (Part I,
Session I, DOD), May 21, 2013.pdf (3.7
MBs)
o Transcript #2 – 2_Briefing transcript
(redacted), “DOD’s preparation for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” (Part I,
Session II DOD), May 21, 2013.pdf
(642.4 KBs)
o Transcript #3 – 3_Briefing transcript
(redacted), “DOD’s preparation for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” (Part
II, AFRICOM), June 26, 2013.pdf (9.2
MBs)
o Transcript #4 – 4_Briefing transcript
(redacted), “DOD’s preparation for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” (Part
III, Colonel Bristol), July 31, 2013.pdf
(10.8 MBs)
o Transcript #5 – 5_Hearing transcript,
“DOD’s posture for September 11, 2013,” (Part IV, Force Posture), September 19,
2013.pdf (691.9 KBs)
o Transcript #6 – 6_Briefing transcript
(redacted), “DOD’s force posture in anticipation of September 11, 2012,” (Part
V, General Dempsey), October 10, 2013.pdf (2.3 MBs)
_________________________________
The Benghazi Transcripts:
Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest
©2014 FOX News Network, LLC.
All rights reserved.
______________________________
Top Secret Transcripts
Revealed on Benghazi
Copyright © 2010 – 2014 Stand Up America US. All rights
reserved.
About SUA
The Standard Bearer for
the Conservancy of the Constitution
Who We Are:
The Stand Up America US
Project (SUA) was founded in 2005
by MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret), as a multi-media organization that
involves publishing, radio, television, speaking engagements, web site, writing
articles for publication as well as books. This site is meant as a resource for
education, based upon the values and principles set forth by our founding fathers.
It is our goal to inform, clarify, and speak truth to power. We are a network
of patriotic Americans from all walks of life including former members of the
military, former federal, state, and local employees of government, analysts,
writers, world leaders, and our group extends across the globe.
SUA is also an intelligence
gathering and analyzing group that is and has briefed our government leadership
on all manners of international interest, terrorism, and anything that affects
the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of our citizenry and way of life.
SUA has briefed the FBI, Congress, law enforcement, and many other agencies.
All our work is based on the following conservative values, and principals:
o The
United States of America’s CONSTITUTION – The intent of our Founding Fathers;
o American
Exceptionalism, and the grand experiment of representative republicanism;
o Upholding
all our 1st Amendment Rights;
o Upholding
all our 2nd Amendment Rights;
o Upholding
all our 10th Amendment Rights;
o The
Rule-of-Law, not of man or men, nor cult of personality;
o Strong
National Defense and Secure Borders;
o National
and State Sovereignty;
o Capitalism
and Western economic values;
o A
safe and secure Israel;
o Supporting
Our Uniformed Services and Veterans;
o Individual
Liberties and Personal Responsibility;
o Fiscally-Responsible,
Limited Government;
o Reclaiming
our Republic and returning to the original intent of the Constitution, and
more!
Mission Statement
Stand Up
America US was created to be an educational forum based upon the values and
principles that our founding fathers intended for the creation of the greatest
form of government ever conceived and implemented. Based upon the convictions
set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the creation of the Constitution,
and the rights endowed by our creator, basing our future on such things as the
Federalist Papers, The Law Of Nations, and the … READ THE REST
