U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, famed as the chief purveyor of the Obama Administration’s false talking points on the Benghazi attack, will become Barack Obama’s new National Security Adviser following the resignation of Tom Donilon. Obama previously tried to promote her to Secretary of State, but that required confirmation, so the effort collapsed.
I’d say that a more brazen insult to the American people from this President could not be imagined, but, hey, IRS.
This means the President who claims he learns about his Administration’s activities by watching the news will be advised on national security by a woman famous for lying to the media. That seems like a closed information loop. Rice’s defenders claimed she had nothing to do with preparing the phony talking points – she was just mindlessly reciting them. Is that really the sort of thing America wants on a national security adviser’s resume?
The dam has broken, the curtain has been lifted, and the flood of scandals coming to light this week is finally beginning to open people’s eyes.
1. Benghazi. Four Americans were abandoned to die in the middle of a terrorist attack. In the aftermath the administration changed the talking points, lied about a stupid video being to blame, and spent months trying to hide the truth as they intimidated and blocked access to witnesses.
2. The IRS admits to targeting Tea Party groups. It turns out they were also targeting pro-life groups, pro-Israel groups, religious groups, and pretty much anybody who dared to criticize Obama’s policies. They were also leaking confidential information about the opposition to their political friends.
So how is Obama trying to squirm his way out of trouble?
One unique excuse being offered by David Axelrod is that the government is simply too big for Obama to know what’s going on. Yes, you heard that right…the liberals’ favorite argument that more government is the solution to every problem has suddenly turned into an excuse for ruling class ignorance and incompetence.
Eyewitnesses to September’s deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya told a congressional committee Wednesday that State Department officials had blocked efforts to aid Americans under fire and later tried to conceal al Qaeda’s involvement.
Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism at the State Department, told the politically charged hearing that on the night of the attack he was stopped from mobilizing a foreign emergency support team that was specially equipped and trained to deal with emergencies like the one in Benghazi.
At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.
Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.
“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”
House Republicans have concluded that the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies bear no blame for failing to halt the terrorist assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last year, releasing a report Tuesday that said President Obama and the State Department set up the military for failure.
The report also found that plenty of intelligence presaged the attack, but the White House and State Department — including the secretary at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton — failed to heed the warnings.
In the most damning conclusion, House Republicans said Mr. Obama’s team lied about the attacks afterward, first by blaming mob violence spawned by an anti-Muslim video, and then wrongly saying it had misled the public because it was trying to protect an FBI investigation.
They don’t tell me much. They want me to shut up…. I was told, and I really would rather not say by who, [though] I can if you need it, but I was told that I’m causing a lot of problems and to shut up…. I told them ‘I will not! I will not shut up until I find out what really happened!’
Terrorists attack an American compound (which is technically American soil) on the anniversary of 9/11. Four Americans are killed. There are over 30 survivors, but we don’t even know their names, much less their stories. Not a single media interview. Barely an acknowledgement that they even exist. The State Department refuses to answer letters from lawmakers demanding to know the truth.
You’d think the media would be beating down their doors in the search for that “exclusive” first-hand account – even if they needed a shadow screen and voice changing technology to protect their identities. But no. The media doesn’t seem even the least bit interested in their stories. Could it be because the tale they have to tell proves that Obama botched it big time, and lied to cover it up?
More than six months since the deadly attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, Republican lawmakers say they are still looking for answers and are frustrated that the White House is blocking access to an unknown number of survivors.
The Washington Times learned Friday that the State Department has failed to respond to a letter written nearly three weeks ago by two House Republicans seeking answers about the survivors, as many as seven of whom are believed to still be at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center recovering from injuries sustained in Benghazi.
As news trickled out this month that newly confirmed Secretary of State John F. Kerry had made a secret visit to one of the injured survivors at the hospital in Bethesda, frustration mounted in the office of Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, who co-wrote the March 1 letter to Mr. Kerry with Rep. Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania.
“If somebody’s still being treated six months after the attack, I think the American people need to have the truth,” said Mr. Wolf, who voiced his frustration Friday that Mr. Kerry could have made such a trip to Walter Reed while ignoring a letter from Congress seeking answers about the survivors.
[…] “We need to talk to anybody that was involved that wants to come forward and tell what happened,” said Mr. Wolf, who has for months called for Congress to create an independent, bipartisan and multijurisdictional committee to probe more deeply into what transpired in Benghazi.
“I’m not satisfied,” he said. “I don’t think the American people are satisfied.”
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, in an extensive interview with Fox News, alleged that the injured survivors of the Benghazi terror attack have been “told to be quiet” and feel they can’t come forward to tell their stories — as he urged the House to subpoena the administration for details if necessary.
The South Carolina senator said he’s “had contact” with some of the survivors, calling their story “chilling.” He told Fox News that “the bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet.”
The White House is denying any attempt to exert pressure on the surviving victims.
Nothing. That is what President Barack Obama did on the night of September 11, 2012, as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans, among them Ambassador Christopher Stevens. President Obama’s inaction was revealed in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday by outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey.
Under direct questioning by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Panetta admitted that he had no communication with President Obama after their “pre-scheduled” meeting at 5:00 p.m. EDT. The attack on the consulate had already been under way for 90 minutes at that time. Neither the president nor anyone else from the White House called afterwards to check what was happening; the Commander-in-Chief had left it “up to us,” said Panetta.
Panetta’s testimony directly contradicts President Obama’s own claim to have issued “three directives” as soon as he learned “what was going on” in Benghazi.
[…] Panetta was also forced to admit, in the face of vigorous questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), that no military action at all had been taken to intervene in Benghazi after the attack had begun, promising only that a similar lapse would not happen again.
[…] In sum: President Obama did nothing to save Americans under attack from terrorists. His Secretary of Defense did nothing. His Secretary of State did nothing. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did nothing. His Deputy National Security Adviser defended doing “nothing” to help bring the perpetrators to justice. And the entire administration participated in an effort to cover up the truth. Because there was an election to be won.
While giving Senate testimony regarding Benghazi on Feb. 7, Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta said Obama was not present nor did he communicate with the Sec. of Defense during the Benghazi attack.
Whether or not Obama was present, the fact remains that he neglected as Commander-in-Chief to act when American lives were at stake. He knowingly abandoned them in harm’s way. In the morning, four Americans were dead, and Obama was on a plane to his next fundraiser.
After endless stonewalling, the woman at the heart of Whitewater and the White House Travel Office firings today testified before Congress about Benghazi.
The woman whom the late New York Times columnist William Safire referred to as a “congenital liar” finally came forward without being forthcoming.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before Congress about the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and a pair of Navy SEALs. She uttered words so stunning in their heartlessness that even some liberals may have trouble white(water)washing them.
Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson noted the falsehood of the “film-maker as instigator” narrative. After four months, nobody will answer “who pushed the video?” Regarding the motive for the murders, Clinton went into full righteous-indignation mode and bellowed “What difference at this point does it make?”
Only an ice queen with total indifference to the truth could ask why the truth matters. Only a woman who spent her entire life sacrificing others around her as chess pawns could ask why the motives for terrorism matter.
What difference does it make, Hillary? To the families of four dead Americans, and those who were duped by your lies, it makes a LOT of difference!
It’s embarrassing that a sitting Secretary of State lost her cool over a simple question she had to know in advance was coming, because let’s face it – she LIED. Condoleeza Rice faced far harsher criticism over Iraq, and always firmly stuck to her guns, but always spoke respectfully and professionally. Liberals resent that they have to be accountable to ANYBODY for their words and actions. They think they are above it all.
And sadly, the mostly weak line of questioning from Republicans at this hearing is part of the reason why Democrats have grown accustomed to getting away with murder – literally – and expecting not to get called on it! If Republicans were smart, they’d nail Hillary’s hide to the wall and destroy any chance of a 2016 presidential run. Unfortunately, they’re too worried about looking “fair” so that propagandist media won’t crucify them. It won’t work. The media is determined to make Republicans look bad no matter what, so they should make sure it’s for something that they can be proud of, and actually do their jobs!
When originally asked to explain to the American public what had happened the weekend after the attack, Sec. Hillary Clinton declined and sent Susan Rice to be the fall guy with the bogus talking points. When first asked to testify, she claimed a scheduling conflict. This time, she supposedly fell and got a concussion (though she was never taken to the hospital and checked out by a doctor), and therefore must cancel her scheduled testimony.
4 Americans are dead, and nobody will be held responsible. Why? Because the State Department put the very people responsible in charge of the investigation!
Secretary Clinton’s “Accountability Review Board” (ARB) declared multiple times in its unclassified report that although there were multiple failures in leadership, “management ability,” allocation of security resources and communication, the board could not find “reasonable cause” to discipline (or even name) one person in the State Department.
The report states that there was a breakdown in communication between Libya and Washington. It confirmed previous testimony given on Capitol Hill that the personnel in Libya did ask for increased security. However, the ARB found that those working at the embassy in Tripoli “did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy” for increased security at the “special mission” in Benghazi.
The report goes on to say that the diplomatic security staff in Benghazi in “the months and weeks” leading up to the attack (and on the day of the attack) was “inadequate, despite repeated requests.” The ARB found that the security of the Benghazi special mission “was not a high priority for Washington when it came to security-related requests, especially those relating to staffing.”
Amazingly, however, the ARB made sure to extensively absolve anyone in the State Department from being accused of being derelict of their duty…
Bottom Line: Although it ardently sold the phony video meme idea for weeks, the Obama White House was not implicated in the official report. Although she’s been in charge of the State Department for the entire term, Clinton was not implicated in the official report.
An aide said Clinton had sent word to Congress she’d be willing to meet with members later which, of course, is what she’s been saying all fall. These darn schedules just haven’t worked out, you see.
And, oh look! Early next year Clinton will be leaving that job anyway. A new secretary will be there. A new Congress in town. A new inauguration on Jan. 21. No justice meted out to any terrorists. No bureaucrat disciplined, fired or even reprimanded. Life returns to normal. New news emerges. In Washington terms, the Benghazi story will be tidied perfectly, buried and enroute to being forgotten.
First he armed Mexican drug cartels through “Fast & Furious.” Now he’s gun running to Islamic militants through Libya into Syria – arming terrorists who want to kill Americans. How does this not qualify as treason: “aiding and abetting” our enemies?
The Obama administration “secretly” approved arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, however, U.S. officials quickly became concerned as evidence suggested Qatar was handing the weapons over to Islamic militants, The New York Times reports, citing a number of United States officials and foreign diplomats.
[…] The Obama White House has not learned where all the weapons, paid for by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, ended up in Libya, according to officials.
Qatar is accused of shipping machine guns, automatic rifles and ammunition by air and sea. Some of the weapons have since ended up in the hands of militants with ties to al-Qaeda in Mali, where radical Islamists have implemented Shariah law in the northern part of the country, according to a former Defense Department official. Other small arms have gone to Syria several American and foreign officials and arms traders told the Times.
The US knew that Islamist terrorists operated in eastern Libya for years before Obama came into office. Al-Qaeda recruited heavily in the region for its fight against the US in Iraq. Decapitating Qaddafi meant losing pressure on AQ and other Islamist terror networks, and flooding the area with uncontrolled weapons almost guaranteed that the already-organized terror networks would hijack them from other less-organized resistance movements.
But this brings up another important question. The Obama administration knew that the Islamist terror networks ended up controlling many if not most of these weapons, and had become much more dangerous as a result. If that’s the case, how could they possibly have left the consulate in Benghazi as unprotected as it was?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, reiterated his opposition to forming a select committee to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Libya in a sharply-worded letter to Republican senators, writing Nov. 16 that “I refuse to allow the Senate to be used as a venue for baseless partisan attacks.”
Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire pressed this week for the establishment of a Watergate-style select committee to investigate the circumstances behind the attacks, which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens.
For a guy who took every opportunity to politicize the Iraq War, Harry Reid sure has found religion all of a sudden. Recall Reid declaring that the war in Iraq was “lost” — in April of 2007. This sentiment was echoed by our current president, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and other prominent Democrats who wished to use the war as a political club with which to beat the Republicans over the head. Reid is the last person on earth who should be complaining about “politicizing” national security.
The White House denied allegations Saturday that it scrubbed terrorist involvement from original CIA talking points on the fatal Libya attacks – part of a weekend back and forth in which both parties continued to defend their positions.
White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said only one minor change was made by the Oval Office.
“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Rhodes told reporters Saturday aboard Air Force One.
“We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment. The only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility,” Rhodes also said.
His remarks came a day after former CIA Director David Petraeus told House and Senate intelligence committees that the agency’s original talking points suggested the Sept. 11 attacks involved Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers – including the Libyan group Ansar al-Shariah.
However, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice made no mention of terrorists when appearing Sept. 16 on several TV shows to say the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, were “spontaneous” and appeared to be sparked by angry protests over an anti-Islamic film.
Rice purportedly was working off non-classified CIA talking points that had first been reviewed by the White House and other agencies including the Defense and State departments.
It had to be the CIA that screwed up, not the White House, right? Sure it was, Rhodes asserted:
I can’t speak to what the process is within the CIA. (The administration) indicated we believed extremists were involved. The president himself called it an ‘act of terror,’ right? So you have an initial assessment, an initial judgment, but you’re able to get more specific as … the investigation proceeds. That’s going to be the natural progression of events.
According to insiders who heard the testimony of General David Petraeus on Friday, he said that he had quickly concluded after the attack that it was a terrorist attack. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said that the talking points that administration officials used erased the reference to a terrorist attack.
Rhodes finished throwing the CIA under the bus like this:
The focus of this has often been on public statements that were made by Susan Rice and other administration officials in that first week after the attack, those were informed by unclassified talking points that were provided to the Congress and the other agencies in the rest of the administration by the intelligence community. So that’s what informed our public statements. Now if there were adjustments to them made by the intelligence community, that’s common and that’s something they would have done themselves.
Yet officials inside the White House apparently have confessed that the White House knew within 72 hours of the attack that it was al-Qaeda operated. And knowing that the attack was likely being viewed in the situation room of the White House as it occurred makes it virtually impossible to believe that the White House would have eschewed getting information from the CIA immediately.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, says the unclassified talking points put together by the CIA changed when they got to administration appointees:
“[T]here was not an intelligence failure,” Rogers told “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
“The intelligence community had it right, and they had it right early. What happened was it worked its way up through the system of the so-called talking points, which everyone refers to, and then it went up to what’s called a deputy’s committee…It went to the so-called deputy’s committee, that’s populated by appointees from the administration. That’s where the narrative changed. And so how that thing got back to (Susan) Rice, I think, is probably another question.”
No, really. If you dare to criticize Obama, his lying Ambassador Rice, his corrupt Attorney General Holder, or anybody other liar in his administration who happens to be a minority, you’re branded a racist.
Apparently they believe only white males are capable of incompetence.
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Tuesday that a letter from nearly 100 House Republicans urging President Obama not to appoint Susan Rice as secretary of State employed racially charged “code words” to make its case.
The letter, signed by 97 House Republicans, says Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, “is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter” — language Clyburn saw as racially loaded.
I’m tempted to call it stupid, but it’s not: The charge is stupid but it’s leveled in service to a clever goal, framing Rice’s prospective nomination as Secretary of State as a referendum on racism and sexism. McCain is the target for daring to suggest that she’s unqualified and maybe “not … very bright” for buying the White House’s early line on Benghazi, which required her to feed the public ridiculous disinformation about how “substantial” our nearly nonexistent security presence in Benghazi was. If you vote no at her confirmation hearing, it’s not because you want to send a message to O about not lying to Americans. It’s because you hate women and minorities. Republicans, in fact, have already started to tone down the attacks on her, whether because they don’t want to have to deal with this nonsense or because, more likely, they realize that Rice is a footnote to the larger Benghazi inquiry and they don’t want to get bogged down with her.
The Left spends more energy on faux outrage than we do on REAL outrage. Why? Because they need to in order to push the narrative about how racist and evil Republicans are.
Maybe if we spent the same amount of time pushing the narrative that Democrats are greedy, sexist racists who push people down to keep themselves in power, people might actually believe it! If people can so easily fall for lies, they can just as easily fall for the truth!
Ironically, Obama recently created a survey that featured a “constituency list” of 22 groups that supporters could identify with – except white or male. Who are the racists, again?
Former CIA director David Petraeus testified today that someone stripped the truth about Benghazi being a terror attack from the list of talking points before sending Ambassador Rice to peddle a bogus story about a stupid internet video being to blame:
Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration’s handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s original talking points — while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
At his news conference Wednesday, President Barack Obama postured as the young Galahad striding out onto the schoolyard to stop a pair of bullies from beating up a girl.
Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham had charged U.N. Amb. Susan Rice with misleading the nation when, five days after the Benghazi attack in which Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed, she appeared on five TV shows to say it had all resulted from a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video.
Susan Rice, thundered Obama, “made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.
“If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. … But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”
The indignation here is more than a bit cloying. After all, Rice’s rendition of the worst terror attack on the U.S. since 9/11 was utterly false.
There never was a protest.
Rice misled the nation. No one now denies that. The question is: Did Rice deceive us, or was she herself misled or deceived?
Far from being a convincing defense, Obama’s remarks call into question the competence or the truthfulness of the White House itself.
Consider again what Obama said.
Susan Rice “had nothing to do with Benghazi.”
But if she “had nothing to do with Benghazi,” why was she sent out “at the request of the White House” to explain Benghazi?
Who at the White House programmed Rice? Did she push back at all when fed this bullhockey about Benghazi? Or does she just parrot the party line when told to do so?
Why did the White House not send Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CIA Director David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta or National Security Adviser Tom Donilon? Or did they decline to go?
The president says Rice “gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.”
And who might be the source of that “intelligence” about the protest in Benghazi, when there was no protest in Benghazi?
Rice was scripted to tell the nation it was not a “preplanned” attack, when that is exactly what it was. The CIA knew it within hours, because two of its former Navy SEALs died in the attack, and other CIA people survived and got out the next morning.
According to the Washington Guardian, it wasn’t just CIA Director David Petraeus who knew that the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi were terrorism linked with al Qaeda. It was the White House. And they knew it well in advance of Ambassador Susan Rice’s appearances on national television to lie to the American public about a “spontaneous” demonstration based on a YouTube video spurring the assault.
Two days ago during his righteously indignant press conference, President Obama said that Rice was sent out on the Sunday shows at the behest of the White House. We now know that the talking points she used were edited by someone – and that the White House knew they had been edited. In other words, the White House knew that Rice would lie before she ever set foot on a television set. Rice is culpable for playing the flack for Obama. But Obama is right: we should be going after him. He knew. And he promoted lies to get him past election day.
Of course, Democrats are claiming any criticism of Susan Rice’s deceptive behavior is “sexist” and “racist.” Apparently you’re not allowed to question liars if they happen to be female or have dark skin.