The latest news of Judicial Watch’s freedom of information (FOI) request of E mails from the time of the Benghazi attack has been traveling fast and furiously, although it’s interesting to watch who can come up with the best spin, the White House or the Press.
We know the morning after the attack in Benghazi, Obama held a hurried press conference before boarding a plane bound for Vegas. Next were all those Sunday morning talk shows where the former Ambassador Susan Rice blamed the attack on a movie. Obama and Hillary Clinton even made a commercial to apologize, which was broadcast in Pakistan at a cost of over $70,000. Less than two weeks after four Americans were murdered by Islamic terrorists, Obama spoke at the United Nations and declared, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam…”
Hillary Clinton even lied to Charles Woods’, the father of murdered former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, when she blamed his son’s death on the movie and told him she would make sure that the filmmaker behind the “Innocence of Muslims” online video would be “arrested” and “prosecuted.”
What is interesting about the recent evidence is that the E mail talking points were changed is that not only were they changed by White House aide Ben Rhodes who wanted to blame the attack on a protest, but that Ben Rhodes is the brother of CBS News President David Rhodes, which was reported in June of last year. In that article, I also reported about Susan Rice who is the wife of Ian Cameron, who at the time of Rice’s appointment as a cabinet member of Obama’s national security was executive producer of ABC’s ”This Week with George Stephanopoulos“.
There are numerous ties between the White House and the press. Evidence now shows that Ben Rhodes did change the talking points, and it makes it more damning not only for Obama and his previous administration, but for the press as well, because they failed to question Obama or Clinton about the truth of what happened, and instead, continued pushing the movie narrative. In fact, less than one month after the Benghazi attack and in the last weeks of the election cycle, mains stream news coverage of Obama was largely positive. Four dead Americans seemed to matter little to media outlets or the Obama administration.
It was reported last May that Former State Dept. Spokesperson Victoria Nuland had also changed the E mail talking points, covering up the Al Qaida connection. She lied at a press conference September 13th, 2012 when she stated, “Well, as we said yesterday when we were on background, we are very cautious about drawing any conclusions … That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating.” Nuland has since been promoted to assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs.
It was reported a few days ago, on April 30th in USA Today about the latest on the talking points. Jay Carney, Obama’s White House Spokesman tried to imply that the talking points weren’t about Benghazi, but the “general situation in the Muslim world.”
According to Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) this is ‘laughable’, since “Susan Rice was asked about Benghazi and she repeated exactly what Ben Rhodes wanted her to say.”
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held hearings May 1st on “Benghazi, Instability, and a New Government: Successes and Failures of U.S. Intervention in Libya”. Rep. Darrell Issa, stated at the beginning of the hearing that while the committee wished to have unclassified interviews with military personnel, the Pentagon demanded that they be conducted in top secret interviews.
Mr. Issa went on to remark that demands by many Democrat leaders to end the Benghazi investigations is premature because “ the committee is intent on seeking insight into the communications and directions which occurred between the State Department, DOD and the White House.”
During the committee hearing, Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) had some questions about the successes and failures of U.S. intervention during the Benghazi attack which he asked of Retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell who worked at AFRICOM at the time. “Do you believe that night, and even during that night, did you believe that this was… a protest rooted in an internet video?”
The General answered that they knew that the attack was a hostile action and not a demonstration gone wrong. The most explosive testimony he shared was when he stated that the question isn’t could we have gotten there in time to make a difference, “There are accounts of time, space and capability discussions of the question, could we have gotten there in time to make a difference. Well, the discussion is not in the “could or could not” in relation to time, space and capability — the point is we should have tried. As another saying goes: “Always move to the sound of the guns.”
Later in the hearing, Congressman Elijah Cummings who has been an outspoken critic of the Benghazi hearings, and have called them a ‘witch hunt’, stated that one of the things he’s tried to do as a committee chairman is to “protect the integrity of those” who come to speak before the committee, and mentioned that some of those, including General Hamm and others came to different opinions than those of the Brigadier General. He claimed that our government through the military did everything they could the night of the attacks, and suggested that the General wasn’t truthful when he claimed that the US didn’t try to help those on the ground in Benghazi.
After a line of questioning, Cummings stated, “All of us would have liked for the military to have responded more quickly and changes have been made to allow the military to respond faster, but the facts are that the military did mobilize forces, it did act and it did try. So we concede that point now that you have been presented with some of the actual evidence.”
The General responded, “I’ve always stated that they did try and acknowledged that. My point is there’s more that we should be able to do…”
However, Rep. Issa made the valid point when he rebuked Rep. Cummings, “Mr. Cummings…I’m trying to understand, all of the units that you mentioned were deployed to Tripoli. None of them were ever headed to Benghazi. You know that right?” To which Cummings replied the affirmative. Issa continued, “So when it comes to what was done for the people dying in Benghazi, none of those were going to help them. They weren’t activated for the people dying in Benghazi.”
Elijah Cummings has been against these proceedings from the start, and has proven before to be hostile to witnesses, just as he has been during the IRS investigations. He refused to acknowledge Darrell Issa’s point, so Jason Chaffetz reiterated, stating,
“I want to follow up on the chairman’s point. We have 2 fast teams. That in a public setting, General Hamm has said can respond within hours and I think that begs the question, why? Why did the fast team go into Tripoli and it took almost 24 hours to get there? 24 Hours…
…The other thing is, it’s very clear that the fast team was not intended to go engage in the fight. That’s not what a fast team does. It’s not what they’re engaged to do, not what they’re trained to do. They go in to secure an embassy. If you want to put some in the fight, someone who’s going to extract people or is under the gun, there are other troops, other types of assets that you’d put in, but these are not put into place to go into Benghazi… This fight started at 9:40 pm. The General has just said it was 6 something in the morning before they were able to get out to Benghazi. It was so bad in Tripoli they had to evacuate the embassy in Tripoli and go to another secure facility. So again, did they try to do what they were ordered to do? I think the General is absolutely right. Were they ordered to engage in the fight in Benghazi? The answer is unfortunately no…
…Why did the fast team have to change clothes out of their uniforms and into civilian clothes? Do you have any knowledge of that?”
General Lovell: “The knowledge I had I was not directly related in, but I watched the conversation ensue in the room. It was sensitivity to the impact potentially in Libya.”
Chaffetz: “What do you think about that? What do you think about it?”
General Lovell: “Sir, at this point in time, I… Someone must have thought it was a great idea to have Marines be out of uniform, potentially to go in there, but I like Marines in uniform…”
Chaffetz:”Why do they wear a uniform?”
General Lovell: “They wear a uniform because without saying a word, it’s a visual symbol of the United States of America, the United States Marine Corps represented for hundreds of years.”
Chaffetz: “The outrage here is we got a fight. We’ve got Americans dying and somebody at the State Department it looks like, wanted them to change their clothes because they didn’t want them going in there with the American Flag, they didn’t want them going in there wearing an American uniform. They wear them to carry ammunition, to carry weapons. They do it so they’ll know who’s on whose side and it took them almost an hour later to get… to get to engage because they wanted them to look better. That’s the outrage.”
Rep. Chaffetz then asks the General if he has any other personal comment about having ever seen this before in his 33 years of service.
General Lovell: “I don’t want to see that happen again. If Marines are our choice and they’re going forward, put them in… they’re in uniform because they’re our Marines. We have other forces that can go places that aren’t wearing that uniform.”
Chaffetz: “And they were headed to Tripoli, they weren’t headed for Benghazi, correct?”
General Lovell: “They were going to Tripoli.”
Chaffetz:”They weren’t even going to Benghazi. That’s the point.”
Many people have worked hard to petition Congress and the Senate to form a select committee with subpoena powers which would allow witnesses to testify without fear of retaliation and would require administration to swear under oath to answer truthfully. OPSEC Team has been writing, investigating and trying to get Congress to sign on and demanding John Boehner to form Rep. Frank Wolf’s HR 36 since the beginning of last year. Special Operations Speaks sent a petition to Washington in November 2012 with over 100,000 signatures to demand a select committee and in July 2013, they met on the steps of the Capital and unrolled a 60 foot scroll signed by over one thousand Special Forces veterans demanding a vote for Rep. Wolf’s bill. Charles Woods, Tyrone Woods’ father has asked for a select committee.
Too many of us know there are too many important questions which still after over a year, which need to be answered.
Why were military assets, who were ready to go, were told to stand down and why some may have been relieved of duty because they refused. Why was no CBA ever given, when Obama as president is the only person who can give that authorization? And why were there blackouts at a major military operations center as it occurred, and news stations that were covering the attack were switched off? Special Command could have been called but were not. They could have been sent in plenty of time but were not. Why? Special Forces could have been dropped in, or they could have used the C-130 that was on station in Tripoli to disperse the terrorists, but that never happened. Now we can add, who gave the orders and why, to have the Marines who were going to be sent, to change out of their uniforms, and why were they not being sent to Benghazi?
Americans were purposely mislead and lied to about Benghazi in October and November of 2012 so Obama could be reelected. The same people who perpetuated lies back then are scrambling for excuses now, and are still willing to perpetuate more lies, even in spite of knowing that many Americans know and have known there is more to Benghazi than what has been claimed all along. Obama was reelected because the media covered up the truth of the attacks. Now they are trying to cover for Clinton as she gears up for a 2016 run.
Enough stalling for whatever reasons Speaker Boehner. We the People demand a Select Committee, and we demand it now.