Barack Obama Administration Heard Terrorists Using State Dept. Phones During Benghazi Attacks, Eric Stahl U.S. Air Force Commander Speaks … But What Difference Does It Make
BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE, EH HILLARY?
The information keeps trickling in on Benghazi and what both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were very much aware of as the attacks occurred. The attacks in Benghazi on the US Consulate, that the Obama administration knowingly and falsely blamed on a video tape, where four Americans died including US Ambassador Chris Stevens took place on September 11, 2012. Now we learn that the Obama administration heard terrorists using US State Department phones the night of the attack. UNREAL!
Interview with Fox News and Bret Baier, ‘Special Report’.
Bret Baier: Bottom line, in the alert status you were in, conceivable if they called early enough you could have evaced those people from Benghazi?
Eric Stahl: Absolutely! If they would have called we could have been down there in 3 hours, basically … We could have gone down there and got them easily.
MUST WATCH VIDEO …
The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation, multiple sources confirmed to Fox News.
The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks.
Eric Stahl, who recently retired as a major in the U.S. Air Force, served as commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft that was used to transport the corpses of the four casualties from the Benghazi attacks – then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – as well as the assault’s survivors from Tripoli to the safety of an American military base in Ramstein, Germany.
In an exclusive interview on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”
Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”
A separate U.S. official, one with intimate details of the bloody events of that night, confirmed the major’s assertion. The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.
Major Stahl was never interviewed by the Accountability Review Board, the investigative panel convened, pursuant to statute, by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as the official body reviewing all the circumstances surrounding the attacks and their aftermath. Many lawmakers and independent experts have criticized the thoroughness of the ARB, which also never interviewed Clinton nor the under secretary of State for management, Patrick Kennedy, a key figure in the decisions about security at the consulate in the period preceding the attack there.
Posted June 12, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, Epic Fail, Hillary Clinton, Islam/Muslims, Islamist, Jihad, Liars, Libya, Libyan Consulate - Amb. Stevens, Military, Misleader, Misrepresentation, Murder, Radical Islam, Scandal, State Department, Terrorism, The Lying King, Transparency, United States, War on Terror, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 3 comments
Hmm, where were the calls from the State Department and Hillary Clinton to heed the warnings and requests from Ambassador Stevens in 2011 in Benghazi?
The US State Department issued a warning on Tuesday to avoid traveling to Libya and telling Americans currently in Libya to leave immediately due to security concerns. What, like the downward spiraling security situation in Libya has not been precarious for years? The evacuation warning came shortly after the USS Bataan, with about 1,000 Marines aboard, sailed into the Mediterranean Sea to assist Americans in leaving if necessary. So how is that Obama foreign policy in Libya working? Obama has managed to make a bad situation, even worse. But as Democratic wannabe presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says, “What difference does it Make”.
What’s the matter, Obama “#” foreign policy not working in Libya?
The United States warned its citizens Tuesday to avoid travel to Libya and advised that all Americans currently in that country leave immediately due to a precarious security situation.
“Due to security concerns, the Department of State has limited staffing at Embassy Tripoli and is only able to offer very limited emergency services to U.S. citizens in Libya,” a statement read.
The State Department said the security situation in Libya remains unstable almost three years since a revolution deposed the late leader Moammar Gadhafi. Military-grade weapons, including antiaircraft weapons, are in the hands of private individuals, the State Department warned.
Other threats come from extremist groups, which the U.S. says have made specific threats against American officials and citizens. The statement issued Tuesday warned that “travelers should be aware that they may be targeted for kidnapping, violent attacks, or death.”
The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all travel to Libya and recommends that U.S. citizens currently in Libya depart immediately. Due to security concerns, the Department of State has limited staffing at Embassy Tripoli and is only able to offer very limited emergency services to U.S. citizens in Libya. This Travel Warning supersedes the Travel Warning issued on December 12, 2013.
The security situation in Libya remains unpredictable and unstable. The Libyan government has not been able to adequately build its military and police forces and improve security following the 2011 revolution. Many military-grade weapons remain in the hands of private individuals, including antiaircraft weapons that may be used against civilian aviation. Crime levels remain high in many parts of the country. In addition to the threat of crime, various groups have called for attacks against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests in Libya. Extremist groups in Libya have made several specific threats this year against U.S. government officials, citizens, and interests in Libya. Because of the presumption that foreigners, especially U.S. citizens, in Libya may be associated with the U.S. government or U.S. NGOs, travelers should be aware that they may be targeted for kidnapping, violent attacks, or death. U.S. citizens currently in Libya should exercise extreme caution and depart immediately.
Sporadic episodes of civil unrest have occurred throughout the country and attacks by armed groups can occur in many different areas; hotels frequented by westerners have been caught in the crossfire. Checkpoints controlled by militias are common outside of Tripoli, and at times inside the capital. Closures or threats of closures of international airports occur regularly, whether for maintenance, labor, or security-related incidents.
So what is the difference between Benghazi in 2011 and Libya today? Can you say Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection and his BS campaign slogan that Al-Qaeda was on the run. A note to those that embrace being uniformed … Benghazi is in Libya.
Posted May 28, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
al-Qaeda, America - United States, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, Community Agitator, Epic Fail, Foreign Policy, Islamist, Jihad, Libya, Misleader, Obamanation, Radical Islam, State Department, Terrorism, United States, US National Security, War on Terror | one comment
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) Calls Benghazi Special Committee: ‘It’s a Hunting Mission for a Lynch Mob”
I think the Democrats protest too much …
On Sunday during CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, liberal Senator Dianne Feinstein D-CA) called the House Select Committee on Benghazi is “ridiculous.” and said … “I think it’s a hunting mission for a lynch mob.” However, the American people overwhelmingly think different from Di-Fi as 67% support the creation of a Benghazi Special Committee and 51% believe the Obama Administration knowingly lied about blaiming a video tape for the terror attack for political purposes.
Full transcript HERE.
For Democrats, its all about protecting Hillary Clinton’s back side at this point for 2016.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) Says Democrats May Not Participate in Benghazi Committee, “Colossal Waste of Time” … Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Blasts Boycott of Probe as “Terribly Arrogant” and “Wrong”
Why don’t Democrats want to get to the truth?
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace that he would recommend congressional Democrats not participate in the recently announced Select Committee on Benghazi. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) responded that by doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong.” King went on to say that, “If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide.” On Friday, House Speaker John Boehner said the House would vote on a select committee to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) will lead a Select Committee investigation on White House Benghazi scandal.
“I think it is a colossal waste of time … I don’t think it makes sense really for Democrats to participate. It’s just a tremendous red herring, and a waste of taxpayer resources … I don’t think it makes sense for us to give this Select Committee any more credibility than it deserves.”
Imagine that, Democrats think it is a waste of time to get to the truth. As stated by Protein Wisdom, “Democrats make it clear: Obama’s political reputation more important than American lives.” I would also add, protecting Hillary Clinton’s bacon.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong.”
The call for a boycott was made earlier by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” He was responding to House Speaker John Boehner’s announcement Friday that the House would vote on a select committee to investigate Benghazi.
The congressman said Democrats should not give the select committee more “credibility” by joining, dismissing new evidence that Republicans have called a “smoking gun” showing the White House politicized the tragedy.
“I think it’s a colossal waste of time,” said Schiff, also a member of the intelligence panel. “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”
King, speaking afterward with Fox News, said this would be a “mistake” for Democrats as it would show they “cannot defend the administration.”
“If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide,” King said.
Brit Hume & Former California Democratic Rep. Jane Harman Get into Heated Debate Over Benghazi on FOX News Sunday
Democrats cannot explain away the fabricated and intentionally misleading Benghazi talking points without going into hysterics.
Fox News contributor Brit Hume and former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D – CA) went at it on Fox News Sunday after Harmon delivered an arrogant and dismissive lecture on the Benghazi talking. points. Hume pressed Harman to name a single person in the administration who credibly believed that the Benghazi attack was connected to an anti-Islam video. And predictably, she could not do so. Host Chris Wallace interjected and said, “Ben Rhodes talks about the video five times in this memo, five times.” Harmon would finish by saying, “my view on this, having been around at the time, was that this was not deliberately misleading. It turned out to be wrong, but it was not deliberate.” Wrong, it was deliberate.
“You’re right, there wasn’t a conspiracy in the United States to mount the Benghazi attack,” Hume said. “That’s not the question.”
“The question was whether in the aftermath of the attack, when the administration sent its U.N. ambassador out to explain it to everybody, and she did so falsely, that there wasn’t a conspiracy to create the false talking points that she used,” the Fox News senior political analyst continued. “I’m not talking about the CIA talking points, I’m talking about the talking points used on that program that day, which were monumentally misleading, that since have been shown to be false, and based on no intelligence of any consequence that we know of.”
Harman continued, however, to insist that the administration did not deliberately craft misleading talking points.
“My view on this, having been around at the time, was that this was not deliberately misleading,” the former Democratic congresswoman replied. “It turned out to be wrong, but it was not deliberate.”
ABC’s Jon Karl Hammers WH Spokesman Jay Carney On Revisionist Benghazi Talking Points, Susan Rice Interviews & Smoking Gun Email Linked to Obama White House
Baghdad Bob Jay Carney grilled by ABC’s Jon Karl over new explosive emails linking the Obama White House over Benghazi untruthful talking points. Watch Jay twist, turn and spin … What does the Obama administration do when caught in a lie … Lie some more.
In the wake of Judicial Watch gaining a “smoking” email via FOIA lawsuit, the Obama administration is trying to explain away the obvious … they put politics over the death of four Americans, including a US Ambassador, in an attempt to distract from the truth during an election. ABC’s Jon Karl was relentless with WH spin-man Carney and just grilling him on the faux Benghazi talking points. Karl asked Carney why the Rhodes email is only now being made public? Carney actually said that the document (email) was not about Benghazi. Will the MSM finally do their job and go after the Obama administration?
Yup, not a smidgin of coverup in Benghazi whatsoever. What is being overlooked though, as Carney and Karl argue over whether the talking point email had to specifically do with Benghazi, which it did, Hugh Hewitt makes an important point in that every one of the Rhodes email goals, Not “The Truth” Every One Of Four Goals Urges A Lie.
More from Powerline on the absolutely ridiculous answer given by Jay Carney to the White House reporters regarding the email and that it was not about Benghazi.
Carney’s answer is ridiculous. Of course the email bears more broadly on conditions across the Middle East, but it relates most specifically to Benghazi. Why was Susan Rice appearing on every Sunday morning talk show? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why was the administration’s top political team gathering to prepare her for those appearances? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why does the email begin with the stated goal of conveying that the Obama administration is doing everything it can to protect its people abroad? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why is the group talking about “bringing people who harm Americans to justice”? The only place where Americans were harmed was Benghazi. Obviously, the email relates to Benghazi. And equally obviously, its reference to “underscor[ing] that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy” was intended to deflect blame for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.
The Smoking Email: Benghazi Email Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points … White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes
THE SMOKING BENGHAZI-GATE EMAIL … THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE … OBAMA PLAYING POLITICS WITH AMERICANS DYING.
Yup, not a smidgen of deceit, corruption and cover up …
As reported at the Washington Free Beacon, previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that there was a coordinated effort made in the days following the Benghazi consulate terror attacks that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.” The documents were gained by Judicial Watch, as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State. The documents show explicitly that emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans. WH adviser Rhodes also sent this email to top White House officials like David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack. Rice would then go on all five Sunday talk shows and lie to America and blame a video regarding what happened in Benghazi to protect Obama politically.
AMERICANS DIED AND OBAMA LIED … How much more proof do you need America to show that the Obama administration purposely and willfully orchestrated the Benghazi attack lies in order to distract the American public from Obama’s foreign policy failures ahead of an election? Usually the cover up is worse than the crime, but in this case four Americans died.
Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.
The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.
The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:
[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.
More from The National Review Online:
He wrote that the president and administration “find [the video] disgusting and reprehensible,” but said that “there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this move with violence.”
Additionally, Rhodes recommended Rice herald President Obama ahead of the upcoming elections.
“I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike,” Rhodes wrote. “There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.”
“Benghazi Emails Show White House Effort to Protect Obama — Staff attempted to insulate president’s policies from criticism ahead of election.” It’s everything that we knew!It’s everything we suspected about Benghazi. And remember, we still don’t know where Obama was for five to seven hours. The president of the United States was off the grid. At five o’clock, in the middle of the attack, the last he says to Hillary and Panetta or whoever it was (paraphrasing), “You guys handle it, take care of it,” and he’s gone. So goes the story.
And now we’ve got these e-mails saying that the White House staff redid the talking points. They massaged everything in order to protect Obama, plausible deniability, to make it appear, running of the election, Obama had no clue what was going on. It was not his policy, this or that. He was not involved. Whatever it took, the White House did. That’s the latest from this release from Benghazi. And, yeah, it’s too late for 2012, but it’s not too late for November this year, folks.
FLASHBACK TO FEB 24, 2014 Interview on Meet the Press … Susan Rice Says She Has No Regrets Over Initial Benghazi Interviews, ‘Patently False’ That I Misled American People.
Imagine being on a job interview and asked about your accomplishments to be considered for the job and you got nothing …
Thus was the case for Hillary Clinton when Thomas Friedman asked her what do you see as your biggest accomplishment on the job as stated by Salon political writer Steve Kornacki to the MSNBC Hardball audience. Hoe is it possible that even Hillary Clinton herself was “flummoxed” when asked about her accomplishments?
“So Joan, you know, this isn’t just a case of State Department spokesperson being caught off guard one day. This is something that sounds like Hillary herself has not fully come up with a way to articulate. Republicans clearly think this is something they can hit her with in 2016.”
Hmm, how’s it going in Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran or Russia? Maybe Hillary should have said the Russian reset button, the powder keg that now is the Middle East or Benghazi … but I guess what difference does it make.
Hillary Clinton “Flummoxed” When Questioned About Accomplishments
State Department spokeswoman can’t name Hillary Clinton’s diplomatic achievements … and neither can Hillary Clinton!
State Department Press Secretary Jen Psaki was flummoxed, too, when asked about a 2010 State Department Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) that summarized then-Secretary Clinton’s goals and accomplishments.
‘Can you, off the top of your head, identify one tangible achievement that … resulted from the last QDDR?’ asked an Associated Press reporter during the daily briefing.
‘I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one,’ Psaki replied through a forced smile.
‘I’m sure there are a range of things that were put into place that I’m not even aware of,’ she offered moments later.
‘I won’t hold my breath,’ the reporter shot back
They Have No Shame … Susan Rice Says She Has No Regrets Over Initial Benghazi Interviews, ‘Patently False’ That I Misled American People (VIDEO)
Doubling Down … Softball interview with NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ … National Security Adviser Susan Rice says she has no regrets on Benghazi interview following the death of four Americans.
Oh what tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive. The Obama administration is simply incapable of telling the truth. National Security Adviser Susan Rice, when asked this Sunday on ‘Meet the Press,’ said that she had no regrets with what she said on five Sunday network talk shows in misleading the America public is saying the Benghazi attack was based on a video tape rather than a terror attack. Rice claims that it is “settled science” that the Obama administration had done nothing wrong. Rice stated some of the information turned out not to be correct, “but the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. And I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.” HA, this from the Obama administration that said, if you liked your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan, PERIOD! I am sensing a pattern.
No regrets, really? The reason why she is not Secretary of State Rice and is only the National Security Adviser is because of those lies. Of course an all too in the tank bias media was no where to be found as David Gregory asked no follow up questions to contradict her “Alinky” comments.
Yeah, not a smidgen of corruption whatsoever.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday she has no regrets about her now-infamous round of TV interviews in 2012 about the the attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
Rice, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said that nobody in the Obama administration intended to mislead the American people when she appeared on Fox, ABC, CNN, NBC and CBS in 2012 shortly after the attacks.
Asked by host David Gregory if she had any regrets about the interviews, Rice replied: “No.”
“Because what I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time,” Rice said. “The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment. It could change. I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues and, indeed, to Congress, by the intelligence community. And that’s been well validated in many different ways since.”
“That information turned out, in some respects, not to be 100 percent correct,” she acknowledged. “But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. And I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.”
Hillary Clinton Now Says Benghazi Is My Biggest Regret … But What Happened to What Difference Does it Make?
BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? IT WOULD APPEAR IT NOW MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR A HILLARY WHITE HOUSE RUN …
As Hillary Clinton eyes the 2016 Presidential election, she must first clean up the disasters in her political past and gloss over them hoping that the American people will some how forget. On Monday Clinton said in an interview that the “terrible tragedy” of the 2012 Benghazi attack that resulted in the death of four Americans was the “biggest regret” of her tenure at the Department of State. Regret, what exactly does she regret … completely ignoring the obvious like being told Benghazi was a terror threat?
Let the MSM slobbering love affair begin for the Hillary in 2016 campaign. What happened to the tape? What happened to this investigation? What happened to holding anyone accountable? But what difference does it make.
QUESTION: Any do-overs that you would — relative to Secretary of State?
HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, sure. I mean, you know, you make these choices based on imperfect information. And you make them to — as we say, the best of your ability. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns.
You know, my biggest, you know, regret is what happened in Benghazi. It was a terrible tragedy, losing four Americans, two diplomats and now it’s public, so I can say two CIA operatives, losing an ambassador like Chris Stevens, who was one of our very best and had served in Libya and across the Middle East and spoke Arabic.
Sorry, there should be a lot more than regrets:
- House of Rep Report: President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and State Department Blew the Benghazi Consulate Response
- Sen. Rand Paul (KY-R) To Hillary Clinton at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Benghazi Terrorist Attack: ‘I Would Have Relieved You Of Your Post’
What Hillary Clinton really regrets is losing her cool in the Benghazi hearing and being caught on VIDEO say, what difference does it make, when it came to the deaths of four Americans. Because in the end, its all about Hillary and her run for 2016.