http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi/2013/05/06/diplomat-us-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-benghazi-during-attacks
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/
If more witnesses fall in line, this may just become too easy. The following is just a taste of what looks to be coming down the pike.
-From the second link:
"BS NEWS - The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told 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.
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."..........."
Hicks told congressional investigators that if the U.S. had quickly sent a military aircraft over Benghazi, it might have saved American lives. The U.S. Souda Bay Naval Base is an hour's flight from Libya.
"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. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack
Although it is not time to determine for certain why exactly the available assets were not deployed in response to the appeals for help from Consular staff, the possibility that the White House desperately wanted a reason to limit our free speech rights does look like a likely motive. Hillary is suspected by many as being open to new US laws that would prohibit speech that "defames religion" - a major goal of Muslim groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. We saw with our own eyes the tremendous efforts the administration expended in trying to tell us that the mini-film Innocence of Muslims was the spark that set off a supposed protest, which it turns out never happened, that then purportedly devolved into an armed attack on our Consulate. Although we would never accept a law that so restrains us, burying any evidence of a terrorist attack would be something that the administration would cite to argue that we are not being reasonable in failing to acquiesce to such a prohibition.
-From the third link:
Hillary was one busy lady that week. Poor thing, she must have been exhausted.
"You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night," the second official in State's counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson's forthcoming testimony.
Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of "The Weekly Standard," showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda's known involvement in them from "talking points" being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly.
Those talking points -- and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks -- sought instead to depict the Americans' deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by "The Weekly Standard" show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy "my building's leadership."..........
I hope that this house of cards collapses on them. I know that the Media has their back, that military personnel fear for their careers (Which come second to serving the nation), that they have been subjected to Leftist-inspired officer training programs, and that State Department and CIA staff always have the sword hanging over their heads by a thread, but I still hold that only the most utterly arrogant group of miscreants could imagine in their wildest dreams that they would be able to frighten everyone involved into silence.
Even if we are successful in these hearings and whatever may (I hope) follow from there, we would still not be out of the dark. Remember, half the nation voted for this guy and his cronies, and that came after it was apparent that something was more than askew with their stories.
Although I (And most others I assume) detest the character of the Sheriff in the 1992 version of Unforgiven, the actions of the administration remind me of the warning that he gave to the character Ned. For the record, the choice of words for the prostitutes wasn't too nice, either:
0 comments:
Post a Comment