#HillaryLies - And An Attempt To Make Her Look Good Reveals It!

It's an odd thing, but sometimes your friends can do you a lot more harm trying to make you look good than your enemies can.

There's a story in the New York Post, one of what appears to be several excerpts from a new book entitled "Blood Feud: The Clintons Vs. The Obamas" by Edward Klein, a 'journalist' with a thoroughly justified reputation for, shall we say, stretching the truth more than a little.

According to him, Mrs. Clinton "bristled at the Benghazi deception", by which he means she knew that this was a well planned terrorist assault by an al-Qaeda affiliate and argued with President Obama that his story about Benghazi being the result of a protest over an anti-Islam video wasn't credible.

According to Klein, the president refused to listen and demanded that she put out a State Department press release as soon as possible pushing the 'it was the video' narrative.

Hillary then called Bill Clinton and they discussed the matter:

After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do.

“I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation.

“That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”


The two discussed various options, including her resigning as Secretary of State:

If her resignation hurt Obama’s chances of winning re-election, her fellow Democrats would never forgive her. Hillary was already thinking of running for president in 2016, and her political future, as well as Obama’s, hung in the balance.

Obama had put Hillary in a corner, and she and Bill didn’t see a way out. And so, shortly after 10 o’clock on the night of September 11, she released an official statement that blamed the Benghazi attack on an “inflammatory (video) posted on the Internet.”

The Benghazi Deception was in full swing.


There are two possibilities here...and neither of them cast Lady Macbeth in anything like a good light.

If Klein is telling the truth, then what we have here is a politician so consumed with ambition that she was willing to openly lie to the American people, and even to the families of the deceased not for any good of the country but simply for her own personal political ambition and to satisfy an obscene lust for power.

That should disqualify her from even being considered for any position of office or of public trust.

And if Klein is lying just to peddle a few books? Certainly possible. But if that's what going on here, then it just means that Secretary Clinton was an active and willing partner in the deception, a scenario I personally think is much more likely than the one Klein is selling.

Needless to say, if she was a willing partner and enabler of the Benghazi coverup, that the same thing applies..we have a foully corrupt, scheming politico who should never be considered for any position of office or public trust.

Odd that this book and this excerpt were apparently disseminated to try and exonerate Hillary,make her look honorable. It does just the opposite either way you look at it.

As always, #HillaryLies. It's simply whom she is.

An Interesting Point On Benghazi That May Prove The WH Is Lying

Here's an interesting point that may just prove once and for all that the Obama White House is lying about what went on in Benghazi.

I've mentioned a number of times on this site that aside from phone contact and real time camera feeds from the consulate, there was an ex-Navy SEAL at the CIA annex well within sight of the consulate with a laser site calling in coordinates for targets.Now, my first impression was that he was calling in targets for what he thought would be forthcoming U.S. aid or to target the jihadis for a line of fire from the annex.

Fox News is finally reporting on this:

The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive.


But BlackFive raises an excellent point that didn't occur before to me (emphasis mine):

Having a back and forth with a former legendary Delta operator. Here is the gist of what he is implying:

Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not "paint" a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.

(NB: Which clears up something I had been wondering about, by the way..why send an unarmed drone to a terrorist attack? Obviously, if this is true than it wasn't an unarmed drone as we were told by the White House)

If that SEAL was actively "painting" a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!

Unless, of course the commander-in-chief was otherwise engaged and voted present. That, actually has always been my innate feeling about this. I don't think the White House deliberately left the SEALs to die (although Ambassador Stevens might have been a different matter). As then SecDef Leon Panetta said, the president 'left it up to us'. President Obama never issued the directive he claimed he did, which is why there's no record of it. Instead, he was simply absent for whatever reason, or unwilling to give the necessary orders. And neither Panetta nor any of the others were able to get the authority to order our assets to attack the jihadis during that crucial 4 hours when the men on the rooftop of that CIA annex stood them off alone, waiting for help that never came.

If this is true, there are people in the military who know it...the members of the platform crew who were receiving calls for assistance, had a clear target marked out for them and would have been ordered by someone to stand down. There are also videos, communications records and phone logs..all of which have been marked classified by the Obama Administration.

This would seem to be a fruitful area for the Benghazi House select committee to get its teeth into.

Pelosi Refusing To Appoint Democrats To Benghazi Committee As Investigation Begins

Thus far, Democrat House Leader Nancy Pelosi has refused to appoint any Democrats to the House select committee on Benghazi as the committee, headed by Rep.Trey Gowdy ( R-SC) begins its work.

The always entertaining former Speaker first demanded that the committee be 'evenly split' between Republicans and Democrats, something she would have rejected outright when she was Speaker after she stopped cackling.Actually no select committee in history has ever been set up in that manner.

Then, she rejected the operating rules of the committee, which would allow Chairman Trey Gowdy to unilaterally issue subpoenas without the approval of the Democrats on the committee and the Republican members to interview witnesses separately.These kinds of rules are by no means unheard of, and are fairly standard.

Considering that Rep. Elijah Cummings (D- MD)is now facing ethics charges over his behavior on Chairman Issa's House Oversight Committee and the fact that deliberations and investigative strategy were leaked from committee meetings to the very people and agencies the committee was supposed to be investigating, such rules make sense unless the idea is simply to obstruct and stonewall.

Among most Democrats, the latest talking point has been to deride the need for 'just another investigation' at all. They make much of the fact that there have been seven investigations, so his must be just another partisan witch hunt. What they're not mentioning is that the White House has repeatedly lied about how the talking points blaming the attack on a spontaneous demonstration and a video were deliberately constructed for partisan political purposes, and about releasing all of the documentation to Congressional committees. Nor do they mention that the Benghazi survivors are still prevented from speaking congress by the Obama Administration and that all of the security videos as well as the telephone recordings and transcripts of conversations between the White House, the consulate and the CIA annex are all still classified and hidden away from congress as well.

Even basic questions about what happened, why the US was unprepared for a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, and why security assets less than two hours away weren't allowed to intervene to save American lives remain unanswered.Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has never been questioned under oath, and we still have sharply different accounts of what President Obama was doing while all this was going on.

These are the things the select committee is designed to find out once and for all, and it's understandable that 7 Democrats voted along with their Republican colleagues to get to the bottom of it. of course, it's equally understandable why the majority of Democrats want this whitewashed and abandoned.

Meanwhile Speaker John Boehner has already named the Republican members of the committee; Aside from Trey Gowdey, there's Rep.Jim Jordan, Rep. Peter Roskam, Rep. Martha Roby, Rep. Susan Brooks, Rep. Mike Pompeo, and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland.

Gowdey and Brooks are experienced former federal prosecutors, Jordan, Roskam, Roby and Pompeo are all successful attorneys who serve, respectively on the Oversight committee, as Deputy Whip and on the House Oversight subcommittee, on the Armed Services Committee, and on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

These are people whom understand law, the rules of evidence and how process works.There's no doubt in my mind that they're going to make every effort to uncover the truth no matter where it leads.

Pelosi and the House Democrats have a choice to make. They can stay removed, continue to snipe from the outside and hope that the committee doesn't uncover anything awkward. They can have a change of heasrt and try to appoint the most knowledgeable and able people they can to work on getting to the bottom of this, as Boehner appears to have done. Or, they can participate, but appoint partisan hacks to the committee in an effort to sabotage things and keep what happened that night in Benghazi a question mark.

I'm guessing they pick number three.

Trey Gowdy In Action On MSNBC's 'Morning Joe'

 

The 'Right Scoop' has the full video of Rep. Trey Gowdy, the head of the new House Select committee on Benghazi taking on a roomful of Lefties and coming out on top.

As I mentioned before, Gowdy has a long time history as a successful prosecutor, and it shows.

We may finally actually get to the bottom of this.

State Department: John Kerry Will Ignore House Subpoena Over Benghazi

 

Well, that didn't take long.

The State Department has responded to a subpoena by the House Oversight Committee by stating that Secretary of State Kerry will not appear before them and will not comply with the subpoena, issued by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA.

Issa issued the subpoena for Kerry on Friday, saying that the State Department has “failed to meets its legal obligations.”

“This disregard for the rule of law is even more disturbing considering your agency’s role in encouraging governments throughout the world to respect the rule of law and the authority of representative government brought to office through free and fair elections,” Issa said in a letter to Kerry. “By ignoring your own legal obligations and posturing the State Department as immune from congressional oversight, these actions undermine our credibility abroad and erode our moral authority.”

"Compliance with a subpoena for documents is not a game. Because your Department is failing to meet its legal obligations, I am issuing a new subpoena to compel you to appear before the Committee to answer questions about your agency's response to the congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack."

Kerry was supossed to appear before the Committee May 21st. State's reply?

Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Kerry planned to travel to Mexico at that time and officials would discuss alternative options with the committee.

“We are committed to working with the committee to find a resolution to this that is acceptable to both sides. We were surprised when they didn’t reach out to us before issuing a subpoena for exactly that reason,” Harf said. “And as I’ve noted here, there have been a number of Republicans who themselves, under the previous administration, said a secretary of state should not be subpoenaed.”

It's fascinating that she doesn't mention any by name. And that bit about needing toi be subpoenad? As if Kerry would have appeared voluntarily if they just asked?

George Schultz, Reagan's Secretary of State testified before Congress on Iran -Contra. James Baker, Bush '41's Secretary of State did too, both without the necessity of being subpoenaed.So did Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice.

Clinton's Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee
and Christopher's successor, Madelaine Albright testified on NATO expansion in hearings before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. Neither needed a subpoena.

So what makes Secretary Kerry such a special little snowflake? Oh, wait...none of these previous administrations had anything like the contempt for congress the current one does, or the record of serial obstruction.

And none of them had even remotely as much to hide, based on how the Obama Administration has behaved on Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS-Gate or any of the other scandals this most lawless and secretive of regimes has been involved in since its inception.

I'll be surprised if Kerry appears at all let alone under oath, given his penchant for shooting his mouth off without thinking. But if he won't appear, the House Select Committee certainly has a clear path to requiring him to be deposed.And that will be under oath.

(h/t, Weasel Zippers)

UPDATE: Kerry has apparently changed his mind. He announced late today he would in fact comply with the subpoena.

The Shameful Stench Of Benghazi Continues

Both the White House and House Democrats signaled very clearly today that they have no intention of cooperating with the House Select committee investigating Benghazi.

Here's House Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, saying that House Democrats will refuse to participate in the Select Committee because it's a 'colossal waste of time' and a partisan witch hunt.



And (what a coincidence) Here's White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

“We have always cooperated with legitimate oversight,” Carney said this afternoon during the daily White House briefing. Asked whether the panel qualified as “legitimate,” he said: “I think if you look at what even some Republicans have said, it certainly casts doubt on the legitimacy of an effort that is so partisan in nature.”

“You know, at some point, you just have to assume that Republicans will continue this because it feeds a political objective of some sort,” he added. “At the same time you have to ask, ‘What about the American people who want to see Congress work for them?’”

I have to smile at Carney talking about how the White House has always 'cooperated' with legitimate oversight..Fast and Furious, NSA-Gate, IRS-Gate, Benghazi...

The Obama Administration's meme has traveled an amazing distance, from "It was the video" to "What difference does it make" to "Who cares? That was so two years ago. And besides, this is just a partisan Republican witch hunt." Of course, calling it that when you refuse to participate is what makes it partisan, but it does make a nice talking point to disparage whatever the committee uncovers doesn't it?.



Perhaps the reason we're still talking about Benghazi is that the Obama Administration decided to lie about it for partisan political purposes to protect President Obama's re-election. That's what the Rhodes e-mail admits in black and white, the one the Administration tried unsuccessfully to hide and had to be pried out of them in federal court.

And because they've continued to lie about it ever since. For instance, here's something I dug out from the memory banks:

 President Obama has changed his story on Benghazi several times. In an interview with MSNBC, the president claimed he'd been briefed but that 'the intelligence was unclear' and he was still trying to find out what had happened, but that his 'number one responsibility is to go after folks who did this, and we’re going to make sure that we get them.' This was on October 29th, well after he had been informed by the CIA that this was an organized and well planned attack by an al-Qaeda affiliated militia.

Yet, on October 28th, the day before that, he was speaking in Denver and had an entirely different story, saying "“The minute I found out what was happening . . . I gave the directive,” he said, “to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and military knew the number-one priority was making sure our people are safe.” 

Now, as I noticed at the time, what the president said about issuing a directive to the military and the CIA to do whatever they needed to do to rescue the Americans in Libya and make sure they were safe directly contradicted what then Secretary of Defense Leon Pannetta had to say to Congress, not to mention the testimony of General Martin Dempsey, Obama's Chairman of the JCS and General Ham, then the theater commander of AFRICOM whose responsibilities included Libya who all claim they never got any such directive. And if they had, there would be a written record of it. Bing West, former Assistant Secretary of Defense laid this out quite well:



So does it matter that someone's obviously lying here? If General Dempsey and General Ham actually got a presidential directive and then failed to carry it out, they're not only subject to courts martial but possible criminal action for lying to Congress under oath. And if President Obama is telling the truth about an order he gave and there's no written record of it, (and there would be, even if he gave a directive verbally) that's a gross violation of military procedure and again, Dempsey would at the very least be forced to resign.

And if President Obama is lying? If he didn't issue that directive? It would explain why no effort was made to save the four men who died in Benghazi, even though as I point out there were ample assets in place to make an attempt to do just that. It would mean this president simply left four people to die, because he had other priorities and no one else in the chain of command was going to contradict him.

Of course, that's just one of many lies we've been told about Benghazi, and only one of the aspects the administration doesn't want to delve into, although some people are starting to get a whiff of how bad this really smells. I revealed the true story about that a year ago, and I understand exactly why President Obama and his creatures are fighting tooth and nail to keep it hidden.

So what does it matter? It matters because four Americans died needlessly, waiting for help that never came. It matters because the American people deserve the truth. It matters because Americans who serve their country need to know that they're not just pawns in someone else's game, and that no man or woman gets left behind if we can help it. It matters because justice matters.

And most of all, it matters so that in the end, four good men didn't die in vain.

It's On - House Forms Select Committee On Benghazi, Trey Gowdy To Chair

Now this looks to be a positive development.

The Benghazi coverup is going to be investigated by a House select committee, with full powers of subpoena and the ability to hire its own special prosecutor.

This will essentially bypass Eric Holder and the corrupt Obama Department of Justice:

The move comes after the revelation of an email from a top Obama national security official, Ben Rhodes, instructing Susan Rice to focus on an anti-Muslim internet video to explain the attacks.

“The new emails this week were the straw that broke the camel’s back,” says the aide. “The Speaker was furious to learn that the administration withheld relevant documents from a congressional subpoena. He’s sick and tired of this evasion and obstruction from the administration, and wants a solution to finally force accountability, get to the truth, and provide justice.”

Now, since this is Boehner, I expected him to put some toothless establishment RINO in charge who would go through the motions. But I was pleasantly surprised to see that none other than Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a staunch conservative and Tea Party favorite is going to head the committee. Gowdy spent six years as a very successful Federal prosecutor, so he has the knowledge, the smarts and the aggressive temperament to make this the Obama Administration's worst nightmare. And he's also close to Chairman Darrel Issa of the House Oversight Committee, which Gowdy used to serve on.

And speaking of which, Issa just subpoenaed Secretary of State John Kerry to testify before Congress about the department's response to information requests about the attack. Note that Issa didn't just issue an invitation,which is less formal.

"The State Department's response to the congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack has shown a disturbing disregard for the Department's legal obligations to Congress," Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote in a letter to Kerry.

He added: "Compliance with a subpoena for documents is not a game. Because your Department is failing to meet its legal obligations, I am issuing a new subpoena to compel you to appear before the Committee to answer questions about your agency's response to the congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack."

I'm cautiously optimistic.

"Benghazi? What Difference Does it Make?"

Not as much as it would have made in September of 2012...which was apparently the whole point.

Thanks to a long and successful battle by Judicial Watch in federal court, a whole raft of new e-mails between the White House and the State Department concerning the deliberate lies and coverup over the fiasco in Benghazi have surfaced that definitively prove that the White House deliberately lied about the nature of the attack, and colluded with the State department to construct a false narrative and deceive the American people to protect President Obama's re-election.

Emails  sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials like David Plouffe and Jay Carney were sent out just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice hit 5 separate Sunday news shows to promulgate the lie about 'the video'.

Interesting fellow, Ben Rhodes. Officially, he's the current deputy national security adviser for strategic communication for President Barack Obama. Now, he has no real national security qualifications for the gig, although his degree, an MFA in creative writing from NYU probably helps a bit in crafting the sort of fanciful fiction we hear out of the president.

Oh, and just by chance, his brother is - wait for it - David Rhodes. The president of CBS News, the same network where award winning reporter Sharyl Attkisson has said since her resignation that she was actively discouraged from investigating stories like Benghazi and Fast and Furious in any depth and was thought of as a 'troublemaker' for doing so.

Speaking of Sharyl Atkisson, she's gone independent for now and she has a fine piece of reporting here that highlights what was in the recently released e-mails, and why the White House wanted them hidden so badly:

In the email, Ben Rhodes lists as a “goal” the White House desire “To ​underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

The email is entitled, “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET” and refers to White House involvement in preparing then-U.S.Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for her upcoming appearance on Sunday television ​ network political talk shows.

The Rhodes email states that another “goal” is “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

A court compelled the release of the documents, which were heavily-redacted, to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which has sued the government over its failed Freedom of Information responses. I have also requested Benghazi-related documents under Freedom of Information law, but the government has only produced a few pages to date.

Today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the Rhodes email the “smoking gun” showing the “political manipulation by the White House” after the attacks.

​“The political shop at the White House took over early on,” Graham told me. “They understood it was a terrorist attack, that they had a political problem, and were going to handle it politically. They weren’t going to entertain anything other than what they wanted the public to hear.”

USA Today quotes a spokesman for the White House National Security Council reacting to the Rhodes’ email by stating that it contains general talking points on unrest spreading throughout the region in response to an offensive video, and also made clear that "our primary goals" included the safety of U.S. personnel in the field and bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice.

Since the deadly attacks on the U.S. missions in Benghazi, there have been persistent allegations that the Obama administration developed a false political narrative to downplay or hide the fact that terrorists had struck. The President had campaigned by stating that al Qaeda was “on the run,” and Republicans have argued that news of a terrorist attack eight weeks before the election could have decimated his re-election campaign. Four Americans were killed in the assaults, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

White House officials copied on the Rhodes “goal” email include Press Secretary Jay Carney, then-Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Senior Advisor David Plouffe, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri and Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest. Earnest has failed to respond to more than a year’s worth of my emails and phone calls in my effort to obtain official White House photographs taken the night of the Benghazi attacks. The White House photo office had told me that Earnest’s personal approval was needed for the photos to be released. 

 

Attkisson doesn't mention it here, but regular readers of this site know that State Department spokesmouth Victoria Nuland was involved in the coverup process as well, 'managing' how the phony narrative was presented publicly in order to protect her superiors - like Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So was then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell, who heavily edited the fact sheet and the original talking points.

Attkisson also found out how the White House tried to hide this document:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told me today that the government apparently tried to keep the Rhodes email out of Congress and the public’s hands by classifying it after-the-fact.

“They retroactively changed the classification,” Chaffetz says. “That was an unclassified document and they changed it to classified.”

In the past month, the government has supplied 3,200 new Benghazi-related documents under Congressional subpoena. In some instances, Congressional members and their staff are only permitted to see the documents during certain time periods in a review room, and cannot remove them or make copies.

Chaffetz says that the State Department redacted more material on the copies provided to Congress than on those that it was forced to provide to Judicial Watch.

One of the most heavily-redacted email exchanges is entitled, “FOX News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm.” The Fox News article was circulated among dozens of officials including Rhodes and then-Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough but the content of their email discussion is hidden.

She has more at the link, showing how the White House had a reasonable degree of advance warning and that they knew almost immediately that the attack on Benghazi had nothing to do with any video.



So, where do we go from here?

Anyone who's been following the Benghazi story knows by now just from their behavior that the White House deliberately set out to deceive the American people to protect President Obama's re-election chances, after all that 'al-Qaeda is on the run' bluster. This simply formalizes it. Normally, just as with IRS-gate, an ethical attorney general abiding by his oath of office would have appointed a special prosecutor long ago, but that's not what we're dealing with here.

Congress, of course could use this as a springboard to vote funds and authorization for their own prosecutor, followed by formal impeachment charges that wouldn't get President Obama out of office but would publicize this stuff to the American people and force Democrats to take a position they'd be stuck with.

 But it's a reasonable assumption that Speaker John Boehner doesn't want to go there because he lacks the stones to deal with the political fallout from the actions that would probably be needed if an investigation revealed that the president was indeed or other high ranking regime figures were as involved in these things as they appear to be.

Even more damaging would be what would come out if we get into the question of exactly what Ambassador Stevens was doing in an unprotected consulate in Benghazi, an al-Qaeda hotbed even the International Red Cross had moved its people out of because it was too dangerous.

What actually happened in Benghazi is bad enough even without the coverup and I revealed the true story here about a year ago. If that ever came out, we 'd be talking about  criminal indictments.

 

Where The Citizens Commission Gets It Wrong On Benghazi, And What Really Happened

There are a number of high profile articles out there in the last few days concerning the findings of a self-selected Citizens Commission on Benghazi.

The speculation here - that the Obama Administration 'changed sides in the War on Terror' by 'allowing a half billion dollar shipment of arms to be sent to al-Qaeda', that Ambassador Stevens was supposed to be the victim of a staged 'kidnapping' and swapped for 'the Blind Sheikh' Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot and the use of questionable sources like NewsMax and WorldNetDaily should tell you that this report was concocted more for sensationalism, online fund raising and internet traffic rather than accuracy.

Here's an example of one tall tale. Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told a press conference that the Obama administration failed to stop a huge arms shipment from the United Arab Emirates from reaching what she called 'al-Qaeda-linked militants'.

"Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,' Lopez claimed. 'They were permitted to come in. ... [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed.."

Except Khaddaffi had plenty of arms already during the period she's talking about, and if he had any arms shipped in at that point there was no blockade until he had virtually won the civil war and was advancing on Benghazi, where he had the Islamists and al-Qaeda fighters cornered. That's the point when President Obama had us intervene, and putting the no fly zone into effect took additional time.And that's just one part of this 'report' than can easily be picked apart.

Let's also not forget that Benghazi happened after Khaddaffi had be defeated and lynched by a mob..so an 'arms shipment' would have been unnecessary and futile from Khaddaffi's viewpoint, to say the least!

And the 'kidnapping'? The jihadis  planned the whole thing well in advance, and used heavy weapons like mortars and RPG's from Khaddaffi's looted stash to attack the consulate. Tell me..who uses ranged anti-personnel weapons like mortars in a kidnapping?

What actually happened in Benghazi is bad enough without making things up, and I revealed the true story here about a year ago. Obviously it needs retelling, so that the guilty parties aren't able to squirm out from under because of some self-seeking media buffoonery.

The key to finding out the truth about Benghazi is to try and figure out what Ambassador Stevens was doing sitting in a compound with no security in a town run by the al-Qaeda allied Ansar-al-Sharia, when even the International Red Cross had pulled its people out because it was too dangerous.What was he doing there?

The first thing we have to look at is why a U.S. Ambassador was there in Benghazi in the first place. He was there as an envoy to Ansar al Sharia and the other jihadist groups that ruled Benghazi, and his assignment, according to what I've been able to find out, was to make a deal over the heavy weapons they had pilfered from Khaddaffi's armories thanks to President Obama's ill advised intervention in favor of the rebels. Stevens, who was intimately familiar with Libya, was there to purchase as many of these arms as he could outright to ship them to Ansar al-Sharia's al-Qaeda comrades in arms in Syria. The idea was to help take out Basher Assad's regime covertly without the necessity of committing US forces, and as a secondary goal to dispose of as many of the arms as possible, buy off the Benghazi rebels if possible and cover up what a huge mistake the Obama Administration had made by getting involved in Libya. There was absolutely no other reason for Ambassador Stevens to be in such a dangerous location virtually unprotected, except as an envoy to the jihadist forces controlling Benghazi.

An envoy in the Arab world has a very carefully defined position. He relies on the age old rules of Arab hospitality, comes unarmed to his enemy and throws himself on their protection. And if the negotiations fail, especially if a state of war exists, his life can be forfeit. That's why not only was Stevens denied more security, but most of what he had was taken away, even when it became plain to him (if not to the Obama Administration) that the deal had failed and he and the rest of the Americans were in mortal danger.

Needless to say, the approach to Ansar al-Sharia and the other Muslim Brotherhood groups involved had to be off the radar. For it to come out publicly during an election that the Obama Administration was dealing with one al-Qaeda affiliate as a middleman to ship arms to another al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood group in Syria was not something that would have gone down well with either the American electorate or with the Russians, with whom the president was working on a diplomatic solution - at least officially.

The Saudis and the Qataris are the ones bankrolling the jihadi Sunni rebels in Syria, so it was their money that was involved.

The murder of Stevens and the subsequent mutilation of his body (something that was carefully hidden and unreported by the U.S. press, but was widely reported overseas) was the classic Arab negative response to the deal the Obama Administration was trying to achieve. It was an unmistakeable message. When Ansar al-Sharia was finished with him, it was they who took the body to a hospital under their control. And those Libyan arms wound up being used in places like Mali, Algeria and Sinai, as well as helping Ansar al-Shariah and their friends keep control of Benghazi.

Stevens likely wasn't rescued for two reasons. First,because the president was AWOL and no one else wanted to take responsibility for giving the order to send our forces in. It was Mrs. Clinton's '3 AM phone call' ad on steroids. And second because the way things went down, it would almost certainly have raised a number of awkward questions in the middle of an election campaign that had President Obama's supposed foreign policy expertise as a major talking point.

In the end, Ambassador Stevens was far more useful as a dead martyr and photo-op than as a live ambassador subject to inconvenient congressional questioning.The talking points, of course, had to be constructed in such a way to lead as far away from the real story as possible, a story we now know they were fully aware of. The Obama Administration was primarily concerned with protecting the president politically in the middle of his re-election campaign, and felt that by sequestering the survivors under pain of prosecution, classifying all the documents, videos and phone logs as top secret and relying on a compliant media to spread the narrative the Administration came up with they could make it work.

The repercussions of Benghazi were hideous. Libya remains a failed state in chaos to this day thanks to President Obama. And as I said at the time, one of my notorious Lil' Birdies who is definitely in a position to know told me, among other things, that the attempt to buy arms and send them to jihadis in Syria was seen as a major double cross by the Israelis, who knew those arms could just as easily be used against them. Those stinger missiles wouldn't only have been useful in taking out Basher al-Assad's Russian-built helicopters but commercial airliners, including those landing in Israel. You can just imagine how the Israelis felt about a plot to have weapons like this shipped to their northern border without their knowledge. Not to mention the Iranians, who use commercial airliners to ship fighters and weaponry to Syria to bolster Basher Assad's forces.

And the Russians? They were also livid about what they saw as President Obama's duplicity while he was supposedly working with Putin on a diplomatic solution to Syria. That's pretty much the point where Putin stopped trying to deal with President Obama in any serious way.

You can refer back to the link to read about the mechanics of the coverup an dother details. But this is the real story of what happened in Benghazi that night. No mystery arms shipment, no fake kidnapping...just a Middle East version of Fast and Furious, thought out by a clueless amateur of a president and his team..who then had to lie and connive to keep the truth from the American peiople to protect Barack Obama's re-election.

That's what happened, and that's how it was.

-Selah -