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
FOX News Poll: 67% Support Creation of Benghazi Special Committee … 51% Believe Obama Admin Knowingly Lied About Blaiming Video Tape for Political Purposes
The Obama White House, Hillary Clinton and Democrats are overwhelmingly on the wrong side of the American people when it comes to finding the truth as to what happened in Benghazi and who covered it up.
According to a recent FOX News poll, an amazing 67% believe that a special committee should be created in order to investigate the Obama administrations decisions and activities surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of four Americans, including US ambassador Chris Stevens. This as Barack Obama, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Peleosi and the rest of Democrats scoff at the idea of a special committee as a conspiratorial witch hunt. Sorry, but 67% is hardly a minority of people just out to get Obama. The poll also finds that 51% of respondents believe that Obama administration “knowingly lied” about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya “to help the President Obama during his re-election campaign” against Mitt Romney.
Complete FOX News Poll can be seen HERE.
Fully two-thirds of the public endorses the propriety and necessity of forming this select committee, which all but seven House Democrats opposed. Fewer than 30 percent have embraced the official White House line on the matter — and by a 16-point margin, Americans say the Obama administration’s general goal has been to deceive, rather than elucidate the truth, regarding Benghazi.
More numbers lay bare the depth of the public’s cynicism over this entire episode: A majority (51/39) believes Obama’s team “knowingly lied” about the cause of the attack to boost the president’s re-election bid, and a similarly-sized majority (50/40) says Hillary Clinton has been deceitful about the raid. Seventy-two percent of respondents believe the Obama administration bears at least some responsibility for what happened, with another super-majority (68/27) blaming the administration for the fact that nobody has been brought to justice for the assassinations.
Eleanor Clift Ludicrous Comments on Benghazi Terror Attacks … “Ambassador Stevens Wasn’t Murdered, He Died Of Smoke Inhalation”
Some Liberal moonbats will go to no ends to protect Hillary Clinton from her actions, or lack there of in Benghazi, including making an ass of them self.
Eleanor Clift has said some pretty ignorant things over the years, but this one might just take the cake. Not so much for her partisan, liberal, progressive partisan Democrat view point, but for the fact that she would continue to propagate a lie, a cover-up and a tape at the expense of a deceased US Ambassador. Eleanor Clift actually said on The McLaughlin Report, “I would like to point out that Ambassador Stevens was not ‘murdered, he died of smoke inhalation in a safe room in that CIA installation.”. SICK, SICK, SICK!!!
WOW … can we just say, LIAR!!! It is safe to say that no one can ever take this fool seriously anymore. She has been a liberal apologist for years, but this is beyond the pale and crazy talk. Of course her main liberal agenda was to protect Hillary Clinton, the presumptive 2016 Democrat presidential nominee. Clift ended her nonsensical ramblings by saying, “and its still a CIA and if you are going to put people on trial we should put David Petraeus on trail, not Hillary Clinton.”
Clift went on to continue to blame the video tape, which has all but been debunked at this point. Way to be kept in the informational loop Elenore. It is time to put Elenore out to politic pundit pasture. As Red State opines regarding the misguided Clift, “Next she’ll tell us that the 30o girls in Nigeria weren’t kidnapped by Islamic terrorists..they were actually just out on a school field trip, and are lost in the woods.”
Get used to this folks, defend, deflect, detract and lie to at all cost to protect Hillary Clinton from her record.
ELEANOR CLIFT: I would like to point out Ambassador Stevens was not murdered. He died of smoke inhalation in the safe room in that CIA installation.
SUSAN FERRECHIO: I don’t think that’s a fact, Eleanor.
CLIFT: I think that is a fact.
FERRECHIO: I’ve heard a drastically different story from people who are also in the know about that. So, I don’t think it is –
PAT BUCHANAN: It was a terrorist attack, Eleanor. He was murdered in a terrorist attack.
CLIFT: It was an opportunistic terrorist attack that grew out of that video.
BUCHANAN: The video had nothing to do with it.
CLIFT: There were demonstrations across the world.
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.
UNBELIEVABLE … Majority of Democrats Walk Out of Benghazi Congressional Hearings Refusing to Listen to Testimony of Parents of Murdered Sean Smith & Tyrone Woods
IT REALLY DOES NOT GET ANY MORE DISRESPECTFUL OR DESPICABLE … DEMOCRATS WALK OUT OF HEARINGS REFUSING TO LISTEN TO TESTIMONY OF THE PARENTS OF SLAIN TY WOODS AND SEAN SMITH.
As reported at The Town Hall, Democrats did the unthinkable yesterday and walked out of the Congressional hearing on Benghazi and spitting on the graves of Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith. Democrats refused to hear testimony from the parents of fallen Navy Seal Tyrone Woods and the parents of Sean Smith, who were both killed by terrorists in Benghazi during an attack that the Obama administration originally blamed on a video tape. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? Do these politicians realize that they work for “We the People”? How could a supposed Representative of the people refuse to listen to the people in the “People’s” House?
Words do not even begin to describe the unconscionable act that these Democrats just did.
During the second portion of a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing about Benghazi Thursday on Capitol Hill, the majority of Democrats on the Committee left the room and refused to listen to the testimony of Patricia Smith and Charles Woods. Ms. Smith is the mother of Sean Smith, an information management officer killed in the 9/11 Benghazi attack. Charles Woods is the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was also killed.
SICK, JUST PLAIN SICK! The only Democrats who stayed for testimony of the parents were Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and Rep. Jackie Speier.
UPDATE I: PJ Tatler has VIDEO of the hearings of Patricia Smith, mother of slain U.S. Foreign Service information officer Sean Smith and Charles Woods, father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods.
UPDATE II: Weasel Zippers has a list of the cowardly Democrats who walked out on the parents of two American heroes who gave their lives for this country. You might want to call their offices and give them a piece of your mind as to their disgusting and disrespectful behavior.
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Gerald E. Connolly
Michelle Lujan Grisham
William Lacy Clay
Posted September 20, 2013 by Scared Monkeys
al-Qaeda, America - United States, Benghazi-Gate, Congress, Democrats, Government, House of Representatives, Justice, Liberals, Libyan Consulate - Amb. Stevens, Middle East, Murder, Progressives, Scandal, Terrorism, US National Security, War on Terror, We the People, WTF | 5 comments
Under mounting pressure from tri-partisan demands of Republicans Democrats and the MSM … Obama Administration does late afternoon document dump of Benghazi emails.
As reported at CNN, the Obama Administration released more than 100 emails late Wednesday afternoon in an attempt to stop the political hemorrhaging. Obama and his minions have blinked. The AP, yes the same AP that Obama’s DOJ secretly obtained phone records sparking yet another scandal, reported that the White House had until now declined to make the documents public and had let congressional investigators review the documents without making copies. Some how the White House thinks that editing the emails to release a narrative on Benghazi to the point that the taking points became a complete fabricated lie is ok.
Jake Tapper discusses some of the releases emails with Wolf Blitzer
All of the emails can be read HERE (pdf.)
The White House released more than 100 pages of e-mails on Wednesday in a bid to quell critics who say President Barack Obama and his aides played politics with national security following the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
The exchanges detailing discussions between top Obama administration officials from multiple agencies suggest the CIA took the lead in developing talking points to describe the attack last September 11 that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Those talking points, which were requested by members of the House Intelligence Committee, were originally drafted by the CIA. The lawmakers had requested unclassified information they could use in media interviews. Following the original drafting of talking points, CIA analysts made a handful of significant changes, according to administration sources.
Isn’t it ironic that David Axelrod had stated that the Obama White House should release the Benghazi emails and puff, there they are after all this time. It is simply incredible that Democrats continue to make this political and about maintaining power rather than the deaths of four Americans who were put in harms way without the proper security and then left to die as no help came to save them. David Axelrod, Obama apologist , now turn Hillary Clinton defender, stated on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Republicans are trying to bully Hillary Clinton out of running for president by attacking her on Benghazi, Libya. For Democrats like Axelrod, politics is their religion and they will do and say anything to maintain their power, even when it is so obvious that the State Department made major errors that resulted in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens. For Democrats, its not about the truth, its not about learning from this so that it never happens again, its not about holding those accountable … its about protecting Hillary Clinton for 2016. Sad, truly sad as four brave Americans were left to die.
UPDATE I: From the PJ Tatler, “Well, the White House has just made things even worse. The released emails begin on September 14, three days after the attack. By then, both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton had been blaming a movie for two days.”
OUCH … The Washington Post Gives Barack Obama 4 Pinocchio’s for His Claims that he called Benghazi an ‘Act of Terrorism’
BARACK OBAMA … YOU LIE!!!
“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.” (President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron new conference 5/13/13)
WOW, the Washington Post Fact Checker calls President Barack Obama a liar and gives him 4 Pinocchio’s for his claims that he called the Benghazi an “Act of Terror” following the attack that left four American dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Barack Obama had the audacity yesterday to say while answering a question on Benghazi that he called Benghazi a terror attack. Nothing could be further from the truth and even the left-leaning WAPO is calling Obama on it. As Powerline opines, Obama Bobs and Weaves on Benghazi. However, this rope-a-dope is more dope than rope. Barack Obama is twisting in the wind as he has lost all credibility.
The only one who has politicized Benghazi for their political gain has been The One
— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013 Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.
Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”
Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?
Left Kirsten Powers stated yesterday about the Obama’s Benghazi Press Conference: “I’m Just Going to Call Them Lies Because They’re Lies” … “Nobody Thought He Called It a Terrorist Attack”
WOW … Kirstin Powers on Obama’s Benghazi Press Conference: “I’m Just Going to Call Them Lies Because They’re Lies” … “Nobody Thought He Called It a Terrorist Attack”
Kirsten Powers has grown tired of the
Lion Lying King, Barack Obama.
Kirstin Powers lets President Barack Obama have in on Fox News ‘Special Report’ as she comments on Obama’s press conference being full of lies. Did we mention that Kirsten Powers of a Lefty? Are those on the LEFT finally getting tired of the “Lying King”? Powers went on to say, “And, I’m just going to call them lies because they’re lies. They’re on tape. Nobody thought that he called it a terrorist attack.” Be careful Kirsten, you may be audited next by the IRS or have your phone tapped. Powers is correct in saying that no one believed that Obama called the attack on the Benghazi consulate a terror attack, because he did not. Obama and the rest of his minions blamed it on a video tape. As Kirsten Powers stated, “Now at what point are people going to get tired of the president coming out and over and over saying things like don’t believe your lying eyes?” Honesty, not soon enough as Obama was reelected in 2012 and thus the reason why he and Team Obama politicized and covered up what really happened in Benghazi.
“He’s so centrally involving himself with these repeated lies. And, I’m just going to call them lies because they’re lies. They’re on tape. Nobody thought that he called it a terrorist attack. Last night I went up and I looked at The New York Times how they reported it (Benghazi) the day after. They never reference that we had a terrorist attack against the United States. On September 20th, however, they run a story that says Libyan envoys killing was a terrorist attack. And they say until now White House officials have not used that language in describing the assault. That is September 20th. That is The New York Times. Now at what point are people going to get tired of the president coming out and over and over saying things like don’t believe your lying eyes?“
Kirstin Powers on Obama’s Strategy: I’m Just Going to Call Them Lies Because They’re Lies
Hat Tip: The Gateway Pundit
Former Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich was Asked Whether Benghazi Talking Points were Politically Scrubbed … His Response, “Of Course They Were, Are You Kidding?”
BOMBSHELL COMMENTS FROM FORMER REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO AND HARD CORE LIBERAL …
Former Democrat US Representative Dennis Kucinich and now Fox News contributor appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning and his comments regarding Benghazi were damning for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I must say that I had to check outside the window while I was 100% aggressing with Kucinich’s remarks as I thought I saw pigs flying by. When asked by Chris Wallace during the panel discussion, if he thought the Benghazi talking points were politically scrubbed, Kucinich replied, “OF COURSE THEY WERE. COME ON, ARE YOU KIDDING”? Kucinich had previously stated that the Obama administration had to call the Benghazi attack a street demonstration otherwise it brought into play on the eve of an election the fact that the entire Benghazi policy was a failure. Then there was the damning comment of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton run State Department … “So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there?”
WALLACE: Congressman Kucinich, I think it’s fair to say you’re a liberal Democrat. But I want to ask you, does it bother you that the CIA, as we now know, originally wrote about links to Al Qaeda, originally wrote about having warned the State Department for months about threats in Benghazi and that all of that was taken out and let’s put this up on the screen. State Department official Victoria Nuland wrote in pushing back against what the CIA had written, that information “could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned.” This, Congressman, from the transparent administration of Barack Obama.
FORMER REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO: Well, I didn’t need those memos to know that it was wrong for us to intervene in Libya. This is one liberal Democrat who said the intervention was wrong. And what the attack on the consulate brings up, Chris, is the failure of the Benghazi policy from the beginning. And that’s why they had to call it a street demonstration instead of an attack because on the eve of an election that brought in a whole new narrative about foreign policy, about dealing with terrorism, and about the consequences that led to four deaths of people who served the United States.
WALLACE: So do you think those talking points were politically scrubbed?
KUCINICH: Of course they were. Come on, are you kidding? You know, this is one of those things that you have to realize, we’re in the circumference of an election, and when you get on the eve of an election, everything becomes political. Unfortunately, Americans died and people who believe in America who put their lives on the line, they weren’t provided with protection. They weren’t provided with a response. They and their families had a right to make sure that they were defended. Look, we went into Benghazi with under the assumption that somehow there was going to be a massacre in Benghazi. So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there? I’m offended by this, and there has to be real answers to the questions that are being raised.
WALLACE: Kim, let’s assume that Congressman Kucinich is right and that the talking points were politically scrubbed to protect Hillary Clinton, to protect Barack Obama running for re-election, is that where the scandal ends? What evidence is there — there certainly were misjudgments, but what evidence is there that the administration did anything wrong, wrong, either before or during the attack?
KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, the thing is we don’t know. And this is what we found out this week, that the official record that is out there on all kinds of things, is simply not correct. OK, so, you know, apparently the White House was not involved in the talking points. That’s not true. Apparently Hillary Clinton was just a footnote in all of this. That was not true. Apparently and supposedly their requests for aid were never denied. We’ve heard this week that that was not true. And so the White House faces an issue here, which is where do we go — where do we get these answers? And that’s why you are now hearing calls for a bipartisan select committee. The Democrats keep claiming that this is partisan, this is a partisan exercise. The only way you’re going to get these answers is if you actually put a committee, put both sides on it, give them the power of deposition, give them the power of subpoena, finally get the emails, finally talk to all the witnesses in public, and if the White House really claims it has nothing to hide, then it shouldn’t fear such an exercise. But that’s the only way that you’re going to start getting any answers on this. Otherwise it’s going to drip, drip, drip on like this week after week.