Hillary Clinton’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists … But, Hillary Called the Abduction of the Girls by Boko Haram was “Abominable, It’s Criminal, It’s an Act of Terrorism”

HOW PRESIDENTIAL … Hillary Clinton, I was for not calling Boko Haram terrorists, before I was for it.

Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a lot of explaining to do. In the wake of the Muslim Islamist terror group Boko Haram kidnapping nearly 300 girls and threatening to sell them into human sex slavery, Hillary Clinton like many jumped on the bandwagon of outrage. On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton called the abduction of the girls by Boko Haram was “abominable, it’s criminal, it’s an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria. Clinton went on to say that as Secretary of State she had numerous meetings with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and had urged the Nigerian government to do more on counter-terrorism.

Oh contraire mon frère … Hillary Clinton supposedly urged the Nigerian government to do more on counter-terrorism, but as reported at The Daily Beast, Hillary’s State Department refused to brand Boko Haram as terrorists. According to accounts by Josh Rogin, what Hillary Clinton failed to mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal of branding  Boko Haram as terrorists came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.But of course naming a new group to the terrorist list would have gone against Obama’s reelection talking points that al Qaeda was on the run.

As the folks at Hot Air opines,“Sound familiar? … Now Hillary wants to fight Boko Haram with hashtags. Too bad she didn’t fight them with real resources when she had the chance.”

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringOurGirlsBack, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.

What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.

But of course Clinton’s response to these questions will be, we have 300 girls threatened to be sold into sex slavery, what difference does it make that Boko Haram are terrorists.

Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi … Why aren’t we talking about something else?”

BECAUSE THE FAMILIES OF THE FOUR DEAD AMERICANS DESERVE ANSWERS …

Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi thinks the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, is a “diversion” and “subterfuge.”  “SICK. Nancy Pelosi told reporters  Thursday when asked about a new cache of recently released emails. “Why aren’t we talking about something else? Or as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would say, “What difference does it make”.  I am guessing the parents, families, loved ones and friends of those murdered in Benghazi, Libya do not think it is “subterfuge.”

Roll Call:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wanted to talk about immigration and the minimum wage at her weekly press conference on Thursday morning — not what she called the newest Republican attack line on the State Department’s response to the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Asked by reporters more than once about revelations that the White House withheld certain documents from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after the panel subpoenaed all relevant emails on the matter, the California Democrat threw up her hands.

“Diversion, subterfuge. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Why aren’t we talking about something else?” Pelosi asked.

“If you all want to sit around and talk about Benghazi, you can sit around and talk about Benghazi,” she said in her closing remarks. “The fact is that’s a subterfuge and they don’t want to talk about jobs, growth, immigration reform, voting rights, you name it.”

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.

click HERE for the full email

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.”

Some words from Rush Limbaugh:

“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.

UNREAL … Obama Secretary of State Kerry Warns Israel Could Become ‘An Apartheid State’

The Obama Administration once again treating an American ally badly … I guess this is one way of making Hillary Clinton look good.

The Daily Beast is reporting that Sec. of State John Kerry said during a closed door meeting of the Trilateral Commission on Friday that if Israel doesn’t make peace soon, it could become ‘an apartheid state,’ like the old South Africa. That’s the way John Kerry, piss off one of America’s greatest allies, that will win them over.  Hey Kerry, I must have missed which one want to eradicate Israeli’s? And who did Fatah just embrace last week … can you say Hamas. This is unbecoming of  a Secretary of State and usually a president would be asking for a resignation, but not when they are doing Obama’s foreign policy bidding.

So Barack, then I told them if they do not accept our all or nothing peace solution, Israel could become ‘An Apartheid State’.
I see John, you do realize that was not meant to be repeated publicly, right?

The secretary of state said that if Israel doesn’t make peace soon, it could become ‘an apartheid state,’ like the old South Africa. Jewish leaders are fuming over the comparison.

If there’s no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state,” Secretary of State John Kerry told a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting Friday.

Senior American officials have rarely, if ever, used the term “apartheid” in reference to Israel, and President Obama has previously rejected the idea that the word should apply to the Jewish state. Kerry’s use of the loaded term is already rankling Jewish leaders in America—and it could attract unwanted attention in Israel, as well.

It wasn’t the only controversial comment on the Middle East that Kerry made during his remarks to the Trilateral Commission, a recording of which was obtained by The Daily Beast. Kerry also repeated his warning that a failure of Middle East peace talks could lead to a resumption of Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens. He suggested that a change in either the Israeli or Palestinian leadership could make achieving a peace deal more feasible. He lashed out against Israeli settlement-building. And Kerry said that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders share the blame for the current impasse in the talks.