Tag Archives: Benghazi

Hillary: "America should ‘empathize’ with its enemies"

hillary
Fox News: Hillary Clinton is taking heat for saying America should “empathize” and show “respect” for its enemies.
The former secretary of State, who is considered a likely 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, made the remarks during a speech Wednesday at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.
Touting an approach she calls “smart power,” Clinton urged America to use “every possible tool and partner” to advance peace.

Show some respect!

Show some respect!


This, she said, includes “leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”
Now who couldn't empathize with this?

Now who couldn’t empathize with this?


At a time when the U.S. military is launching airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, some called the comments out of place.  Former Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, a Fox News host, said the comments are “irrational.”
“I can’t think of a presidential candidate who would have said those kinds of things,” he said. “Think about December 7, 1941 and then FDR going to the Congress of the United States the next day saying, ‘We need to have more empathy for Japan.’”
North added: “If you’re going to run for president of the United States, you cannot talk that way about the people who intend to kill us. Who are dying to kill us. … This is capitulation.”
Karl Rove, former George W. Bush adviser and Fox News analyst, called Clinton’s remarks the “wrong language.”
Maybe Chelsea can "empathize"...

Maybe Chelsea can “empathize”…


DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

The Boombox…

comic
comic2
comic3
comic4
comic5
comic6
h/t Laura
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Report Says Valerie Jarrett Gave The Order To Stand Down In Benghazi

I’m thinking skippy doesn’t even scratch without Broom Hilda‘s permission. Yikes, she’s scary.   

She eats Children. She is Evil Personified. Yikes!!!

She eats Children. She is Evil Personified. Yikes!!!


https://www.examiner.com/article/report-says-valerie-jarrett-gave-the-order-to-stand-down-benghazi

August 8, 2013
A post at the Conservative Report Online made the shocking claim that Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett gave the order to stand down in Benghazi during the Sept. 11 terror attack that saw four Americans killed, citing only unnamed “confidential sources.” The report was discussed by Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday and an editorial at the Investor’s Business Daily said Wednesday that it would not have been the first time Jarrett issued such an order.
“The military-order, not to initiate action, saving our men in Benghazi, was issued by the President’s Advisor, Valerie Jarrett,” Chip Jones wrote.
Limbaugh said that if the story is true, it would explain “all of the serial lies and the cover-ups and the obfuscation and all of the efforts that were made to distract people’s attention from this.”
“Somebody had to give the order, and Obama was off the grid. That has always, to me, been one of the most interesting aspects of Benghazi. Five o’clock he tells Panetta and whoever else — we were originally told that Hillary, secretary of state, was there, too,” he added.
Naturally, the ultra-left wing Media Matters weighed in, attacking Limbaugh for mentioning the story.
Others also reported on Jones’ account, but did not get scrutinized by Media Matters.
The Blaze said the allegations are worth noting for two main reasons:

  1. The White House hasn’t been forthcoming with details about the deadly terror attack. In fact, the administration has gone out of its way to craft blatantly false narratives involving a YouTube video; and
  2. It’s been widely reported that Jarrett’s influence has shaped our management of international crises, specifically her role in convincing President Obama to call off the planned raid on Osama bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout three separate times.

Meredith Jessup said she is taking the report with a grain of salt, but added that the burden of proof is on the White House, since it “has worked overtime to muddy the water and obfuscate the truth.”
Now the administration is claiming the entire scandal is “phony,” a mere distraction cooked up by Republicans to keep Congress from acting on Obama’s economic plans.
“Until the Obama administration is forthright and truthful with the American people, the rumor mill will continue churning out reports from unnamed sources,” Jessup added.

Video of Limbaugh’s on-air segment can be seen https://www.examiner.com/video/rush-limbaugh-did-valerie-jarrett-issue-the-order-to-stand-down-benghazi

~Steve~

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Ex-Diplomats Report New Benghazi Whistleblowers with Info Devastating to Clinton and Obama

ok, by now i hope we all know ambassador Stevens was not in Benghazi to build schools and do WHATEVER it is ambassadors do. nope he was there doing some kind of shady biz which I’m sure goes on all around the world all the time. according to this story you’re about to read , this seems like a really stupid thing to have done. wanna guess where it leads.?  ———— ~ steve ~————


https://pjmedia.com              by Roger L Simon         May 21st, 2013 – 12:05 am
More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.
These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.
According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
hillary
The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

stevens

Gen. Ham

Gen. Ham


Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.
Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”
This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.
The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.
He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.
Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”
Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White Housecalled his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”
He told us. Did he not?

He told us. Did he not?


The White House motivation in all this is as yet unclear, but it is known that Ham retired quietly in April 2013 as head of AFRICOM.
PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.
We will report more as we learn it.

 H/T    The I-Man

                                                                       

PJ Media HERE!!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Obama Aide: 'Irrelevant Fact' Where President Was During Benghazi Attacks

Warning!! Duct Tape Area!

Feel Free To Use Mine. I have All The Latest Colors .

 
https://www.weeklystandard.com
9:48 AM, MAY 19, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER
Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer said it’s an “irrelevant fact” where the president physically was during the Benghazi terror attack on September 11, 2012:
Please Pay attention at 1:13 mark
“every hearing has found it’s been a tragedy”

Oh Really now!

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JEHHeQuQXOw]
Host Chris Wallace reminds Pfeiffer that Obama didn’t really talk with Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, or Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that night. “He was talking to his national security staff,” Pfeiffer insists.
Asked about whether the president entered the Situation Room, Pfeiffer says, “I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night, and that’s a largely irrelevant fact.”

Pfeiffer then argues that Wallace’s questions about the president’s handling of the Benghazi terror attack are “offensive.”

And now a word from our resident lunatic. “offensive…Offensive” No you little twit, this is offensive.

us-libya-ambassador-chris-stevens-nationalturk-0455

look at it..look at it you perverted PIECE of excrement. while your boss was getting his nails done and god knows what else at the down low club. this man and 3 others died. that is offensive to me and about 80% of the nation. More important. it’s OFFENSIVE to god.

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

General Petraeus To Testify On Benghazi This Week

Yep, I’m going to beat Benghazi Like A Dead Horse.

DeadHorseTheoryamplido
OK,   This article looks like things are going to rock and roll when
General Petraeus Testifies this week. Seems he may have an ax to grind with skippy. I’d like to pull one paragraph out and highlight how Jay Carney answers a reporter’s question. It just amazes me how these people can say so much and not even come close to answering your question..LOL
I’ll run the whole story after the pull out. Am I confusing you? Cause I’m sure as heck confusing myself.   😀         ~ Steve~
OK,  This is reporter’s question.
“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”
And this is Carneys response.
“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”
Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

 Just what in the hell is he saying? I know he did not answer the question, and seems he threw the C.I.A. under the bus. Now if memory serves who was the director of CIA at time of Benghazi? Hmmmm-

Watch out for Petraeus in Benghazi                    scandal

https://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/joseph-curl/

By their second term “inside the bubble,” presidents have completely lost touch with reality: Aides and confidants conspire to keep the chief executive insulated from the real world — the bad news, the worse press coverage. They think it’s their job, and lounging on the Oval Office couches, they nod along with the president’s every musing.
But this presidency has taken OOCS to new heights. Mr. Obama has only a few trusted aides, and occasional leaks from the West Wing show a paranoid president suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Supremely confident, convinced by the fawning minions at his feet that he is untouchable, the president dismisses all controversy as partisan attacks by an overzealous opposition. A pliant press corps of stenographers follows in lockstep.
Not surprisingly, every president in the past 60 years has had a major scandal in Term 2: Dwight Eisenhower had the U-2 “incident”; Richard Nixon had Watergate; Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton had Monica (literally); George W. Bush had Katrina (and let’s not forget those WMDs that never turned up); and now, this president has Benghazi.
Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal. Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.
For months before, there were warnings about weak security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya; no one paid attention. During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.
And after? That’s when the Obama scandal falls into the predictable second-term pattern his predecessors all learned the very hard way. Faced with a crisis, the Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up.
So little is known about what happened in BenghaziWhere was the commander in chief that night? No pictures from the Situation Room this time. Why didn’t the Pentagon authorize a quick-response team to swoop in? Members of the military say they were ready — burning — to go. The call came in: Stand down. Let them die. There were dozens of witnesses to the attack that night: Where are they? What do they know? What really happened that night?
And who forced the heavy-handed redactions of those infamous “talking points,” the ones that sent Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations onto the Sunday talk shows to declare that the attack was just the culmination of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube?
Carnival barker Jay Carney looked almost ashen Friday as he took the podium to face a suddenly invigorated press corps. Of course, the public briefing came after a private session with “reporters who matter,” a sure sign the White House is in full hunker-down mode — and, more precisely, terrified.
“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”
“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”
Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.
Speaking for the White House, the flack said the CIA was fully to blame for the talking points. Fully. “That is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA,” he said.
“Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants.” That line was stricken: Everything was fine there — fine fine fine.
And: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That line, too, was deleted by … someone. Instead, this was inserted: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning. And the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat: the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.
With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.

petraeus_web_20121112_0007_s160x146General (Retired) Petraeus

A warning to those West Wing sycophants suffering from acute OOCS: Don’t walk down any dark alleys.
Read more: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/?page=2#ixzz2TB1BiC00

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

MSM Start To Turn On Benghazi . Could Get Interesting Real Quick.

This is encouraging. This will be the only way to take him down. Kinda wish the media would have done their jobs say…about 5 yrs ago.

~Steve~

MAY 10, 2013  POSTED BY 

https://www.newyorker.com

SPINNING BENGHAZI

——————————————————————————————
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Holds Daily Press Briefing
                          Poor wittle Jay Carney. Busted lying thru his teeth.    😀
                        I definitely have a case of Schadenfreude on this.  LOL

It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.
On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.
From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)
Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.
But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a <href=”#.uy1gksebagw.twitter”>secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Benghazi Report, Talking Points Changed 12 Times. ABC News Reports.

Things on benghazi are really heating up. abc news has done a story showing 12 edits to original talking points memo. You can see edits at this link .                                              https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583988/emails-reveal-a-flurry-of-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points/                                     

I googled and just about every OTHER network has now reported on it.  Now this I believe is a good thing. It will not go quietly into the night. 

Now for my 2 cents. they may be reporting on it, but every story, and i mean every all throw State, the Cia,   

And STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESWOMAN VICTORIA NULAND under the bus.

US-JAPAN-DIPLOMACY-KERRY-KISHIDA

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland 

They may be reporting on it , but still covering the jackass’s butt.

Not one reference anywhere to Skippy or white house at all. 

—————————————————————————————————-

   ABC Is Reporting………   

By Robert Laurie (Bio and Archives)  Friday, May 10, 2013

First, NBC outed Democrat attempts to destroy the Benghazi whistleblowers, now ABC News is shredding the official White House version of events. It’s starting to look like the President’s media lapdogs have finally been shamed into exposing their favorite administration.

n this case, ABC has revealed that they’ve received a whopping 12 different revisions of the Benghazi talking points. Their reporting makes it clear that the White House lied when it said the revisions were enacted predominantly by the intelligence community.
“When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows on the Sunday after that attack.
BRAZIL-US-PATRIOTA-RICE

Susan Rice

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.”
They even call Jay Carney out – by name – for telling a bald faced lie back in November.         Hehehehehehhee

Poor wittle Jay, him sad cause he in deep doo doo.

Poor wittle Jay, him sad cause he in deep doo doo.


“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney said at the time. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word “consulate’ to “diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Bear in mind, this isn’t Fox News. This isn’t the National Review, TownHall, or even the crackpots at InfoWars. This is mainstream, Democrat-friendly, ABC News. We can all complain about how long it took the last horse to cross the finish line, but at least it’s managed to do so. Progressives can no longer claim that this “is a non-story” or that “only right wingers care.”
The story is becoming bigger and bigger, and not even the Obama-faithful can ignore it any longer.
We’ll see how long this new found love of reality lasts – and the smart money’s on ‘not long’- but if outlets like NBC and ABC have stopped carrying the President’s water on this matter, the wheels are truly coming off.
Here’s the ABC News piece, and you can read all of their reporting HERE.
CBS has a breakdown of the edits. You can read it   HERE

H/T Canada free press
https://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55120

~Steve~

 

US-JAPAN-DIPLOMACY-KERRY-KISHIDA

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland listens to US Secretary of State John Kerry and Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida speak to the press prior to a meeting at the State Department in Washington on February 22, 2013. Credit: AFP/Getty Images 

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

BENGHAZI = TREASON

President Lucifer desires your complete cooperation.

Desires your complete cooperation.


 
In the words of CS Lewis,
“They have brought down
deep heaven on their heads.”
     ~TD

Spokes-Weasel Carney:
Benghazi Happened A Long Time Ago

Clinton:
What difference does it make?

https://youtu.be/AR3XTOjZPfg

Dem. Congressman at Benghazi Hearing:
Death Is a Part of Life

Dem Congressman
Blames Budget Cuts

Cummings on
Funding for Embassy Security

Benghazi Witness Says State Dept.
Told Him Not To Meet With Congress

https://youtu.be/UZejNGjXsVo

Mother of Benghazi victim
I blame Hillary


See also Dr. Eowyn’s post: Whistleblowers confirm Obama regime lied about the Benghazi attack

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Benghazi Witness: Special Forces Told “You Can't Go” To Benghazi

In my opinion this is the biggest cover up and out right lie and for some reason it was permitted to happen. Help was prevented from coming. Do you understand that? I would call it accessory to MURDER!.
Situation this big you can bet your sweet bippy Skippy and Madame shrillery knew about it 3 minutes after it happened. If they were not told people would be fired. This is not a minor matter that minions handle.
If this does not send people to jail, notice I did not say just impeachment, then I would say we are just peeing in the wind and fooling ourselves by saying it’s raining.
In closing might I just say….They need to fry all their sorry arses.

———————————— ~ Steve~  ———————————————

From  Freedom Outpost
May 7, 2013 by Tim Brown
More is coming to light surrounding one of the biggest scandals of the Obama administration as Benghazi whistleblowers prepare to testify before Congress this week. According to CBS News, Benghazi witness Greg Hicks informed congressional investigators that “a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.”

I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them,” Hicks testified.

Sharyl Atkisson reports,

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound “when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”

Obama administration officials have insisted that no military resources could have made it in time. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies.”

The following is an excerpt from Hicks’ April congressional testimony which was released from the House Oversight Committee.

Q: But do you think, you know, if an F-15, if the military had allowed a jet to go fly over, that it might have prevented [the second attack]?

A: Yeah, and if we had gotten clearance from the Libyan military for an American plane to fly over Libyan airspace. The Libyans that I talked to and the Libyans and other Americans who were involved in the war have told me also that Libyan revolutionaries were very cognizant of the impact that American and NATO airpower had with respect to their victory. They are under no illusions that American and NATO airpower won that war for them. And so, in my personal opinion, a fast-mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.

Q: The theory being, the folks on the ground that are doing these — committing these terrorist attacks look up, see a heavy duty airplane above, and decide to hightail it?

A: I believe that if — I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.

******

Q: I just wanted to ask, you mentioned permission from the Libyans. Why is that important? What did you mean by that?

A: Well, it’s their country. And for an American military aircraft to fly over their country, we have to have permission from them to do so.

Q: So what would have been the risk of — do you think it would have been risky for us to send someone, do you think it would have been counterproductive for us to send a fighter pilot plane over Benghazi without that permission?

A: We would have certainly wanted to obtain that permission. I believe we would have gotten it if we had asked. I believe that the Libyans were hoping that we were going to come bail them out of this mess. And, you know, they were as surprised as we were that American — the military forces that did arrive only arrived on the evening of September 12. Yeah.

While this would not have saved Chris Stevens of Sean Smith, it would have probably saved the lives of Tyrone woods and Glen Doherty who were waiting on support that never arrived.

Q: Now, at this point, are you having communications with Washington?

A: I was in communications with Washington all night long. I was reporting all night long what was happening to Washington by telephone.

Q: When these Special Forces folks were told essentially to stand down, what was your next move? Did you have a recourse? Were you able to call Washington? Were you able to call anyone at this point to get that decision reversed?

A: No, because the flight was — the flight was leaving. And, you know, if they missed — you know, if the vehicles didn’t t leave when they leave, they would miss the flight time at the airport. And the airport — you know, we were going all the way to Mitiga. The C-130 is at Mitiga, which is all the way on the other side of Tripoli.

Q: What was the rationale that you were given that they couldn’t go, ultimately?

A: I guess they just didn’t have the right authority from the right.

Hicks indicates that there was not a denial from Libya to allow US armed aircraft, but rather that the Libyans would have been willing, but they were never asked. This is contradictory to the Obama administration’s claims.

                                                                  H/T  Freedom Out Post

https://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/benghazi-witness-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi/ 

Please follow and like us:
error0