Found it on Facebook — what came out of the Benghazi hearings today

One of my Facebook friends who is, like me, a refugee from the Left, put together a perfect summary of what came out of today’s testimony.  If you’re on Facebook, please share this article or just block and copy this summary and send it around:

What the Obama administration did to America's ambassador

What the Obama administration did to America’s ambassador

What have we learned so far the from Benghazi hearing:

1. Security support was denied before and during the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the US Benghazi Consulate by the State department.

2. Ambassador Stevens’ last words “Greg, we are under attack!” [To Greg Hicks - his second in command in Tripoli]

3. It was clear to everyone in Libya that this was a coordinated attack – NOT a demonstration over an obscure YouTube anti Islam video.

4. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked to Mr. Hicks – then the top diplomat in Libya – during and after the attack. She knew exactly what was going on.

5. During the attack, President Obama did not speak once with the Pentagon, and most likely went to bed while a US embassy was under attack.

6. Five days later UN ambassador Susan Rice in a media campaign orchestrated by State tells the world repeatedly that this was a demonstration over the anti Islam video – no one consulted Gerg Hicks – now the top diplomat in Libya over the talking points.

7. The obscure movie maker is jailed (and is still in jail in California)

8. Greg Hicks – the top diplomat in Libya – is shocked and embarrassed by Susan Rice’s appearances. When he raises the issue with his superiors at State they turn hostile.

9. When a congressional investigation team comes to Libya, Greg Hicks – still the top diplomat in Libya – is ordered by State Department lawyers for the first time in his 22 year long career not to talk to a Congressional committee. A State Department lawyer is sent along with the committee to make sure Hicks is kept away.

10. When he does talk to the committee, a furious Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, calls Hicks and demands an explanation and a report.

11. Gregory Hicks – a diplomat with a stellar record – has been harassed by the State Department and has not had an appointment since the Benghazi affair.

To which I will add what I’ve said before, this is Watergate (crime and cover-up), Iran-Contra (probable arms running), and a possible new one — an American president and Commander in Chief who deserves to be court-martialed for gross dereliction of duty.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • SADIE

    Ted Cruz has an article at NRO. He’s also asking questions – here’s a dozen for starters:
     

    Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security to Benghazi?
    Were there really no military assets available to provide relief during the seven hours of the attacks? If so, why not? During the attacks, were any military assets ordered to stand down?
    If the secretary of defense thought there was “no question” this was a coordinated terrorist attack, why did Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the American people that the cause was a “spontaneous demonstration” about an Internet video?
    Why did the State Department edit the intelligence talking points to delete the references to “Islamic extremists” and “al Qa’ida”?
    Why did the FBI release pictures of militants taken the day of the attack only eight months after the fact? Why not immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing?
    Why have none of the survivors testified to Congress?
    Why is the administration apparently unaware of the whistle-blowers who have been attempting to tell their stories? Is it true that these career civil servants have been threatened with retaliation?
    Did President Obama sleep the night of September 11, 2012? Did Secretary Clinton?
    When was President Obama told about the murder of our ambassador? About the murder of all four Americans? What did he do in response?
    What role, if any, did the State Department’s own counterterrorism office play during the attacks and in their immediate aftermath?
    Why was Secretary Clinton not interviewed for the ARB report?
    And why, if all relevant questions were answered in the ARB report, has the State Department’s own inspector-general office opened a probe into the methods of that very report?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    It will take 100 WACOs before Americans wake up to the truth of evil. By that, of course, I mean hate. Until people hate evil, they don’t understand a damned thing. They will never have the will to fight until then.
     
    A few deaths in Libya is not enough. More will be needed to force people’s hearts to open. Their hearts, not their eyes.

  • Libby

    Great list. I would add an item between #4 & #5: 3 days after the attack Hillary and Obama turned the memorial service for the four victims into a public, political event where they both publicly and privately (when speaking to the families) blamed the video for the violence. There is no way either of them can distance themselves from Rice’s Sunday news show message because they were saying the same thing. Worse, Hillary stood in front of Stevens’ casket and claimed that the mob was attempting to get him to the hospital when they were really abusing his unconscious (or I hope, lifeless) body in a most disgusting manner.

  • jj

    All true, and in fact much worse than Watergate – but it won’t amount to anything.  The average voter in this country is a moron, certifiably so, and following this will be far too complex a task without Blather or Blowjaw to explain it to them every night.  Slight problems with that one: (a) they’re not there, and (b) they and their successors are liberals and wouldn’t do the job or any part thereof anyway.
     
    I saw some democrat jackass in congress last night, (can’t remember who, a highly thoughtful member of the Black Caucus), spouting the party line to the effect that this is purely a republican attempt to smear and get at the president and Madame Fat-Ass, his heir apparent.  No cover-up, no problem, everybody except republicans had the purest of motives, did their best, and was only interested in what’s best for the country.  I watched a few moments of the congressional dog and pony show (I’ve come to the sad conclusion that even if they were honorable, on the same page, in full agreement, and determined to do something useful they’d still drown us all in orotund, time-wasting, irrelevant bullshit), and it was plain to see – you might suppose embarrassingly plain to see were democrats capable of being embarrassed – that they were not at all interested in the truth.  They didn’t give one good goddam about the truth, they were there to obstruct, and provide cover for Liar #1 and Liar #2, Obama and Clinton.
     
    And that will be what happens.  These two samples of humanity at its worst will be protected by what the democrats have in the congress – Obama could be caught holding up a bank and killing a guard in broad daylight and it wouldn’t rise to the level of an impeachable “misdemeanor” as far as Reid and the excrescence Schumer are concerned – so where you think we’re going with this I don’t know.  But I’ll tell you where we’re going: nowhere.
     
    Democrats are, I think, a different species than the rest of us.  I well remember when Nixon ran into trouble.  The famous question: “what did the president know and when did he know it?” was asked by Howard Baker, a republican.  About a sitting president of his own party.  No democrat ever spawned would ever ask such a question in such a circumstance.  The republican, you see, was interested in justice, truth, the integrity of (and respect for) the system, and the welfare of the country.  No democrat ever was or ever will be.  All they’re interested in is protecting their party.  They are creatures with no integrity, no pretense of honor, and no concern for anything beyond the immediate gratification of “winning” this debate.  No concern at all for the long-term well-being or integrity of either the system or the country.  A different species.
     
    And as long as the American populace continues to be morons, this too shall pass.  They will successfully obstruct, obfuscate, and outright lie – and they’ll get away with it.  And Madame Fat-Ass will be next in line to be the highest piece of dung on the dung-hill.  It’s a far cry from anything once known as “America,” and we have democrats to thank for it.  Them – and that republicans, a party that once stood for something, has stood by and let it happen, making them, in my eyes, equally worthless and equally at fault.    
     
     

  • Charles Martel

    I sincerely doubt that the Benghazi revelations will amount to more than a hill of beans politically. The media and a majority of Congress are so in the tank for this administration that they are pulling a Gosnell and hoping to dispatch the story before it can draw a second or third breath.
     
    For us here, who are appalled daily by the mendacity, venality, and immorality of Obama and his sycophants, we’re like the Star Trek convention goers who speak fluent Klingon: Whoopdeedoo. The rest of the world simply doesn’t give a damn. We’re obsessive freaks to them.
     
    Benghazi is not the straw that will break Obama’s back. The reason is that the media, who have been so complicit in covering up Benghazi, are not about to admit to their ass kissing or lend cred to a dangerous newcomer like Cruz. When the time does come for them to bluster and show their chops, they’ll figure out some other way to plunge the knife into Nancy Boy. That way they can show us all what a brave, independent bunch of speakers of truth to power they are!
     
     
     

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com David Foster

    The corrupt news media aside (for the moment), I wonder what percent of the American people identify strongly enough with the country and their fellow Americans to really CARE about the people murdered in Benghazi.
    What I observe among the upper-middle-class and above demographic is a lot of identification with their specific locality…as expressed in the “buy local” movement….and a lot of identification with various exotic overseas locations (as in “buy from South American villages.”) But I don’t observe a lot of interest in “Buy American”…ie, these consumers don’t really particularly identify with a factory worker in North Carolina or Illinois.
    I also see a more than a few bumper stickers that say “God Bless EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE,” clearly an attempt to assert their moral supremacy over those who have a particular affinity for fellow Americans.
    I doubt if those with that bumper sticker are particularly bothered by the killings of Americans in Benghazi.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

     
    @jj, Charles, David:  The only thing more depressing than what you guys are writing here is the fact that I can’t think of anything much to refute it……
     
    (sigh)

  • http://www.amazon.com/Occupy-Innsmouth-ebook/dp/B009WWJ44A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361504109&amp raymondjelli

    The fate of Nakoula is not getting enough attention and a lot of it is because whomever champions him will probably get burned given he is not exactly a model citizen. 
    Still it is huge news he is in jail and blamed in the first place.  The essential administration talking point that what he did inflamed the Moslem world only worked because the administration knew that the supporters of the administration would be comfortable with that  self-same talking point.  If the administration knew that putting Nakoula in jail would not be perfectly okay with its voting bloc he would not be there right now. That is huge.  Nakoula ultimately did not go to jail because he offended Moslems but because he offended Leftists. Anyone who thinks that the Left merely apologizes for Jihad but is not actively allied with it should watch the fate of this man.
    If Nakoula was a member of planned parenthood, a pro-gay marriage organiztion, a labor union, ( or even better) made a rap video threatening to shoot at the police  he would not be in prison right now.  Obama’s supporters could not stomach that.
     

  • SADIE

     
    I am not much of a fan of flying in airplanes, dizzying heights, mountain climbing..so I am genuinely surprised to find myself living on a planet far far away and have no idea how I was transported. Months and weeks ad nauseam of a trial in Mesa, Az. – did you hear … someone named Jodi murdered her boyfriend with a knife and gun and we get every detail. Other side of the country, Hermit Gosnell, did the same thing (no gun) more than once and the same press is well… the same press. Benghazi will have as much impact as Ben Gazzara’s obit. No Entebbe moment for our soldiers, we wouldn’t want to upset muslims and appear “pushy”. Heaven forbid, we could upset the UN and risk condemnation with a rebuke. Reminder: UN Chief Kurt Waldheim called Israel’s action “a serious violation of the national sovereignty of a United Nations member state.”

  • Mike Devx

    The problem with Nakoula is that, technically, he did violate the terms of his parole when he made that obscure video, and therefore did deserve to be thrown back into jail.  But the attention paid to his case, and the outrageous police effort in targeting him is definitely a case of selectively harsh enforcement.  The Administration deliberately turned him into a sacrificial victim for their own crass, even evil purposes, and the media went along with it, creating a circus and a firestorm.  The implication that that could happen to any of us is terrifying.
     

  • SADIE

     
    Nakoula was a scapegoat to accent the $70,000 pissed away on a Pakistan PSA. The obscene thing is that Nakoula violated his parole and went to jail, but the bastards in and out of Libya violated humanity and went free!

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

     
    Absolutely right, Sadie. 
     
    Everyone should read Rich Lowry’s piece in Politico (believe it or not, and I could hardly), found here:
     
    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-benghazi-patsy-91101_Page2.html#ixzz2Sp34M7TG
     
    There is no whitewashing of Nakoula….all his faults, as a person and as a film-maker, are unmasked.  But here are the key paragraphs:
    “A violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards. Not for Nakoula….Nakoula’s character is sketchy and his work is execrable. Yet the First Amendment applies to him all the same, even if he might have reason to doubt it as he serves out a sentence that never would have come about if he hadn’t offended the wrong people.”
    Do we live under the rule of law…..or of men?
     
    Read the whole thing.

  • SADIE

    Do we live under the rule of law…..or of men?
     
    Earl: Seems like neither and feels like sharia.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    While the media is certainly influential, they don’t constitute more than 10-20% of the Left’s overall power and backbone.
     
    If people are thinking of fighting and crushing the Left’s media propaganda arm, know that you’ll have much harder fights ahead even if you won. You have yet to see the Left’s true power.
     
    Do not underestimate the power of the Left’s evil, nor of their 2 centuries of strategic preparation.
     
    Only when humans come to hate evil will they find the path to truth and justice. Until then, it’s easy for their logic to come up with excuses why things are going well.

  • Mike Devx

    PowerLine has a good article up on the summation of where we stand with Benghazi.
     
    The Obama Administration has staked its line in the sand: This was a turf fight over “messaging” between the State Department and the CIA, nothing more.  The CIA didn’t fight very hard, so the State Dept. interpretation (It was the video, not terrorists!) won.  If that summation was wrong, Hillary’s State Department is to blame.
     
    That lack of security?  The refusal to supply additional security?  That was Hillary’s State Department mistake.
     
    Four Americans dead, all the others almost taken hostage?  No military intervention?  Military forces ordered not to respond, ordered to stand down?  The Obama Administration has spewed forth enough FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to indicate that it is likely that no forces nearby could have saved the lives, nor intervened enough to make any impact in the outcome.  So it was “reasonable” to not respond.  That is *JUST BARELY* enough plausible deniability to keep this from becoming a huge controversy.  If the media goes along with this, the story dies.
     
    So in sum, Hillary will have a problem to deal with.  She can probably skate by with a non-apology apology at some point that “mistakes were made” in evaluating the threat, and someone beneath her will be the fall-guy for the video stupidity.  They’ll call it a stupidity of some sort, not a cover-up.  And the media will go along, to save her 2016 campaign.  Nice, neat package, all of it!  Move along.
     
    EXCEPT…
     
    EXCEPT…
     
    The hearings are still going on and will continue.  What remains?  A few very important questions.  WHY was security refused?  Was the reason that something underhanded and illegal was going on at the embassy and other compounds?  Illegal arms sales and gun-running to Turkey and/or Syrian rebels, to Obama’s beloved Muslim Brotherhood forces?
     
    If these questions indicate illegal covert activity, then the Obama Administration is shown AGAIN, and this time with solid proof, to be engaged in a massive coverup, using the State Department itself as their fall guy.  If this happens within the next year or fifteen months, the impact on the 2014 elections could become massive.
     
    So it will all depend on the results of the continuing investigations by Congress, and what they are able to further uncover.  The Obama Administration had better hope (if it is still hiding the truth) that thie truth does not emerge.  They are trying to use national security restrictions to squash investigation into covert operations – will that succeed?  Are there more CIA whistleblowers waiting in the wings with details of illegal covert arms operations?  Due to national security “concerns”, will CIA whistleblowers be able to speak only via anonymity: Will we get a Deep Throat for Benghazi-Gate?
     

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

     
    Mike: I think your analysis makes a good deal of sense.  It explains a lot of stuff that looks kind of weird at first glance.  But there’s a gaping hole remaining, it seems to me.
     
    My question is this: OK, we’re doing some skull-duggery in Benghazi that we don’t want exposed.  How under the sun does that make it sensible to deny our ambassador and his staff adequate security when they’re on what amounts to American soil!?
     
    What was THAT about?