The Obama-Clinton 10:00pm Phone Call

Although it would be unrealistic for me to try to keep up with the real-time meltdown of the Obama presidency playing out like a political reality show, every now and again there are items especially worth sharing. This piece from Breitbart News' Debra Heine is just such an item.

The Obama/Clinton 10:00 Phone Call

by DEBRA HEINE 20 May 2013

Andrew McCarthy has a must read post up at National Review about the 10:00 pm phone call between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the night of the Benghazi attack. 

If the fact that a 10:00 pm phone call took place between the Commander and Chief and his Secretary of State that night comes as a surprise to you, it's because even the conservative media has paid scant attention to this key piece of information, preferring to assume that Obama simply went to bed and let his underlings handle the crisis as it unfolded. 

But as McCarthy notes, "fraud flows from the top down, not the mid-level up."

Mid-level officials in the White House and the State Department do not call the shots — they carry out orders. They also were not running for reelection in 2012 or positioning themselves for a campaign in 2016. The people doing that were, respectively, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.

Last February, CNS News managed to pry the disclosure out of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney: “At about 10 p.m., the president called Secretary Clinton to get an update on the situation,” he said.

On Fox News Sunday, yesterday, Chris Wallace went there. He asked White House Senior Advisor, Dan Pfeiffer, where Obama was and what he was doing, on the night of the attack. “He was talking to his national security staff,” was Pfeiffer's response.

Asked about whether the president entered the Situation Room, Pfeiffer said, “I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night, and that’s a largely irrelevant fact.”

Pfeiffer then argued that Wallace’s questions about the president’s handling of the Benghazi terror attack were “offensive.”

“The premise of your question”, he huffed, “is that somehow, there was something that could have been done, differently”….

It turns out, there indeed were things that could have and should have been done differently. An administration official who was part of the Benghazi response told  CBS News, last week,  that he wished they'd sent the  Foreign Emergency Support Team. 

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi “talking points” when Congress asked for them, and using the word “spontaneous” while avoiding the word “terrorism.” 

The Foreign Emergency Support Team known as “FEST” is described as “the US Government’s only interagency, on-call, short-notice team poised to respond to terrorist incidents worldwide.” It even boasts hostage-negotiating expertise. With U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens reported missing shortly after the Benghazi attacks began, Washington officials were operating under a possible hostage scenario at the outset. Yet deployment of the counterterrorism experts on the FEST was ruled out from the start. That decision became a source of great internal dissent and the cause of puzzlement to some outsiders. 

Thursday, an administration official who was part of the Benghazi response told CBS News: “I wish we’d sent it.”

So what did the President and Secretary of State actually do that night?

We do not have a recording of this call, and neither Clinton nor the White House has described it beyond noting that it happened. But we do know that, just a few minutes after Obama called Clinton, the Washington press began reporting that the State Department had issued a statement by Clinton regarding the Benghazi attack. In it, she asserted: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. 

Gee, what do you suppose Obama and Clinton talked about in that 10 p.m. call?

As McCarthy notes, "they thought they could play fast and loose with reality. Why? They had done it before.  So they would do it again."

Their efforts, coupled with a compliant media, helped them stagger past the finish line in the 2012 election. But now the Regime has a problem on its hands because even the most sycophantic members of the media are starting to turn on them. 

Richard Fernandez at The Belmont Club sums up: 

Unlike the earlier challenges mounted at him the Benghazi scandal did not go away.  Maybe he had made too many any enemies. Perhaps there were too many in the know to shut up entirely. But in the end the conservatives kept coming in their own clunky way, almost like the torpedo squadrons at Midway.  Perhaps the best thing that can be said about the Benghazi hearings is they never gave up, even when none of the hearings or stories in the conservative media seemed to strike a direct hit.  But they held the public’s attention until a seemingly endless serial of scandals materialized out of the sky to fall on Obama’s narrative.

Now, polls are finally showing that the American people distrust what this White House has been telling them,  and Pfeiffer's appearances on the Sunday talk shows, yesterday, did little to mitigate that fact.

Representative Jason Chaffetz has been saying that Obama could face impeachment over his administration’s response to the Benghazi attack.

“They purposefully and willfully misled the American people, and that’s unacceptable,” Chaffetz told NRO's Robert Costa. “It’s part of a pattern of deception.”

That's why that 10:00 phone call is so important. 

Source.

Boston Herald Editorial on the Benghazi Cover-Up

Benghazi lies exposed

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Author(s): 

Boston Herald editorial staff

Surely there has never been a bigger bunch of liars than the crew currently occupying the White House and the now-departed secretary of state.

The steady drip, drip, drip of the Benghazi scandal is now a torrent — one that cries out for a special congressional Select Committee to put it all together email by email, revelation by revelation and lie by lie.

Yesterday ABC News reported on 12 versions of those now infamous talking points — the ones that we now know began with the real story and ended in the highly sanitized pre-election version dished out to the public on five Sunday morning talk shows by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.

For eight months the lies have continued.

On Nov. 28, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened. The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

That was an outright lie.

What was excised from those original talking points drafted by the intelligence community were all references to al-Qaeda and its affiliate in the region Ansar al-Sharia — which Libya’s top officials pinpointed as the source of the attack the very night the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed.

The CIA version of the talking points mentioned both al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia and a host of earlier warnings about their level of activity in Libya that created a dangerous situation for U.S. personnel.

All of those references disappeared after an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, from State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland who said such information “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”

Why indeed. Just because it happens to be the truth — even if the truth reflects badly on her boss, Hillary Clinton.

There surely must be a special place in hell reserved for those who cried crocodile tears at the death of our ambassador after doing nothing to help keep him safe and everything to cover up the true nature of the attack.

Source.

Benghazi Briefs

There is a great deal riding on the Congressional hearings on the 9/11/12 attacks on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. If you are concerned about what is already being called by many news outlets, journalists and leaders the worst government cover-up in our nation's history, I urge you to contact your congressional representative and your senators and tell them you want to see a special independent counsel and investigation to get to the bottom of it.

Here are a few links to some of what I consider to be crucial points and commentary. Contrast White House and State Department statements made last Fall, versus revelations coming out of the hearings this week. The flat out lies and contradictions are shameful.

At bottom is a strong letter from ACT! for America Executive Chairman Guy Rodgers, who outlines what is at stake from a national security perspective.

ABC: OBAMA ADMIN SCRUBBED TERROR REFERENCES IN BENGHAZI TALKING POINTS

Flashback: White House Said No 'Indication' Libya Was Terrorism

FLASHBACK -- SUSAN RICE: PROTESTS 'DIRECT RESULT' OF VIDEO

FLASHBACK -- CARNEY: 'SINGLE CHANGE' TO TALKING POINTS

Formerly Skeptical BBC Editor Changes Tune: Benghazi Is Now ‘Very Serious’ and ‘Heads Will Roll’

Top GOP Senator Says Obama Could Be Impeached Over ‘Most Egregious Cover-Up in American History’

______________________________

Why discovering the truth about Benghazi matters—and it has to do with 9/11 by Guy Rodgers Executive Director There’s a lesson from 9/11 that MUST be applied to the Benghazi terror attack—and very few people are talking about it. Please take a few minutes to read this very important letter. We know that terrorist attacks against America pre-9/11, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the attack on the USS Cole, emboldened Osama bin Laden. He watched the weak and confused responses by our government to those terrorist attacks and concluded the United States government and its people didn’t have the will to fight back against a larger attack. He even alluded to this in one of his videos in the late 90’s, when he made reference to the world watching to see who is “the strong horse.” Fast forward to Benghazi. It should be abundantly clear by now to any reasonable observer that there were government decisions made prior to the attack that compromised security in Benghazi; there were decisions made during the attack that compromised the ability to rescue those under attack; and there were decisions made after the attack to alter the narrative to make it look like a video prompted the attack. Even the “establishment media” has finally, finally, finally begun to take a closer look at this. For instance, this short, must-see ABC News report, provides powerful evidence that it was people inside the Obama administration who changed the talking points about what happened in Benghazi—not the intelligence community as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed on November 28, 2012. Here’s one excerpt from that ABC News report: In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?” Nuland was referring to information from the CIA that was originally included in the talking points. The CIA clearly had concerns about previous al Qaida-related activity and how it could not “rule out” that al-Qaida related Islamists were involved in the attack. In other words, Nuland was more concerned about the State Department getting a black eye for ignoring security warnings than it was about putting out the truth as to why those four men died. In spite of all of these new revelations, there are those who still ask, “Why does it matter?” Even some ACT! for America members have emailed us asking why we keep focusing on this. Here’s why we won’t let this go. It’s because of the lesson America should have learned from 9/11. 9/11 happened in large part because American leadership displayed weakness, confusion, and a lack of resolve in responding to the terrorist attacks that occurred prior to 9/11. Now, today, consider what jihadists around the world are watching: An administration blaming a video for the Benghazi attack.  An administration desperately trying to keep the American people in the dark about what really happened—both before the attack and after the attack.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in testimony before Congress, blurting out “what difference does it make” regarding what really happened.  A compliant “establishment media” that failed to doggedly investigate this attack prior to last year’s election, capped off by CNN’s Candy Crowley, the debate moderator, jumping to Obama’s side during his debate with Mitt Romney.  Secretary of State John Kerry recently saying “we need to move on to more important matters.”  State Department career officials, such as Gregory Hicks, getting punished for trying to get the truth out.  Democrats in Congress attacking these whistleblowers from the State Department, and describing the investigation as a “witch hunt.”  What message is being sent, loud and clear, to our jihadist enemies in America and around the world? The same message of weakness, confusion and a lack of resolve that was sent prior to 9/11. But this time it’s worse, because not only has the response by this administration been weak and confusing, it has compounded that failure by attempting to cover up what really happened. Are there Republicans in Washington who want to use this debacle for partisan, political purposes? Of course—just as there would be Democrats trying to do so if this happened on the watch of a Republican president. But that’s not why ACT! for America continues to press for the full truth to be brought to light. Our reason is this: THE JIHADISTS OF THE WORLD NEED TO KNOW, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WHO WILL NOT CAPITULATE IN THE FACE OF TERRORISM AND WHO ARE NOT CONFUSED ABOUT WHO THE ENEMY IS AND WHY THE ENEMY IS ATTACKING US. THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN AMERICA WHO WILL NOT REST UNTIL WE HAVE A FULL ACCOUNTING OF WHY THESE MEN DIED, SO THAT AMERICA CAN TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ENSURE SOMETHING LIKE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WHO WILL CONTINUE TO DEMAND THAT OUR GOVERNMENT POLICIES RELATED TO JIHAD BE CHANGED TO ACCURATELY DEFINE WHO OUR ENEMY IS AND WHY THEY ARE ATTACKING US. We cannot, as a nation, afford once again to send signs of weakness and confusion to the jihadist world, as we did before 9/11. If we do, we are giving the jihadists of the world every encouragement to attack us again in a major way. The “easy button” would be for ACT! for America to, as John Kerry said, move on to other matters. But our mission to protect our national security—our very reason for being—and our responsibility to our fellow Americans, will not allow us to do that. This is why, on Monday, we will issue a national ACTION ALERT to pressure House Speaker John Boehner to appoint a special select committee to finally and completely ferret out the truth—and issue recommendations regarding what must be done so that this does not happen again. Rest assured, we will continue to fight for you, for your families, and for the well-being of this country we love. Yours for a safe and free America, Guy Rodgers ACT! for America

The Benghazi Lie

I hope to soon post my own article from an Orthodox perspective on the Benghazi Attack Cover-Up, but for now, Mark Steyn's commentary in the National Review Online is a worthy read (the cartoon and images I've inserted help punch it up a bit too):

The Benghazi Lie

A failure of character of this magnitude corrodes the integrity of the state.

By Mark Steyn

Shortly before last November’s election I took part in a Fox News documentary on Benghazi, whose other participants included the former governor of New Hampshire John Sununu. Making chit-chat while the camera crew were setting up, Governor Sununu said to me that in his view Benghazi mattered because it was “a question of character.” That’s correct. On a question of foreign policy or counterterrorism strategy, men of good faith can make the wrong decisions. But a failure of character corrodes the integrity of the state.

That’s why career diplomat Gregory Hicks’s testimony was so damning — not so much for the new facts as for what those facts revealed about the leaders of this republic. In this space in January, I noted that Hillary Clinton had denied ever seeing Ambassador Stevens’s warnings about deteriorating security in Libya on the grounds that “1.43 million cables come to my office” — and she can’t be expected to see all of them, or any. Once Ambassador Stevens was in his flag-draped coffin listening to her eulogy for him at Andrews Air Force Base, he was her bestest friend in the world — it was all “Chris this” and “Chris that,” as if they’d known each other since third grade. But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.

Now we know that at 8 p.m. Eastern time on the last night of Stevens’s life, his deputy in Libya spoke to Secretary Clinton and informed her of the attack in Benghazi and the fact that the ambassador was now missing. An hour later, Gregory Hicks received a call from the then–Libyan prime minister, Abdurrahim el-Keib, informing him that Stevens was dead. Hicks immediately called Washington. It was 9 p.m. Eastern time, or 3 a.m. in Libya. Remember the Clinton presidential team’s most famous campaign ad? About how Hillary would be ready to take that 3 a.m. call? Four years later, the phone rings, and Secretary Clinton’s not there. She doesn’t call Hicks back that evening. Or the following day.

Are murdered ambassadors like those 1.43 million cables she doesn’t read? Just too many of them to keep track of? No. Only six had been killed in the history of the republic — seven, if you include Arnold Raphel, who perished in General Zia’s somewhat mysterious plane crash in Pakistan in 1988. Before that you have to go back to Adolph Dubs, who died during a kidnapping attempt in Kabul in 1979. So we have here a once-in-a-third-of-a-century event. And at 3 a.m. Libyan time on September 12 it’s still unfolding, with its outcome unclear. Hicks is now America’s head man in the country, and the cabinet secretary to whom he reports says, “Leave a message after the tone and I’ll get back to you before the end of the week.” Just to underline the difference here: Libya’s head of government calls Hicks, but nobody who matters in his own government can be bothered to.

What was Secretary Clinton doing that was more important? What was the president doing? Aside, that is, from resting up for his big Vegas campaign event. A real government would be scrambling furiously to see what it could do to rescue its people. It’s easy, afterwards, to say that nothing would have made any difference. But, at the time Deputy Chief Hicks was calling 9-1-1 and getting executive-branch voicemail, nobody in Washington knew how long it would last. A terrorist attack isn’t like a soccer game, over in 90 minutes. If it is a sport, it’s more like a tennis match: Whether it’s all over in three sets or goes to five depends on how hard the other guy pushes back. The government of the United States took the extremely strange decision to lose in straight sets. Not only did they not deploy out-of-area assets, they ordered even those in Libya to stand down. Lieutenant Colonel Gibson had a small team in Tripoli that twice readied to go to Benghazi to assist and twice was denied authority to do so, the latter when they were already at the airport. There weren’t many of them, not compared to the estimated 150 men assailing the compound. But they were special forces, not bozo jihadists. Back in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty held off numerically superior forces for hours before dying on a rooftop waiting for back-up from a government that had switched the answering machine on and gone to Vegas.

Honorable?

Throughout the all-night firefight in Benghazi, Washington’s priority seems to have been to do everything possible to deny that what was actually happening was happening at all. To send “soldiers” on a “mission” to “fight” the “enemy” was at odds with the entire Obama narrative of the Arab Spring and the broader post-Bush Muslim world. And so the entire U.S. military was stood down in support of the commander-in-chief’s fiction.

As Mr. Hicks testified, his superiors in Washington knew early that night that a well-executed terrorist attack with the possible participation of al-Qaeda elements was under way. Instead of responding, the most powerful figures in the government decided that an unseen YouTube video better served their political needs. And, in the most revealing glimpse of the administration’s depravity, the president and secretary of state peddled the lie even in their mawkish eulogies to their buddy “Chris” and three other dead Americans. They lied to the victims’ coffins and then strolled over to lie to the bereaved, Hillary telling the Woods family that “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.” And she did. The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi. It was such a great act of misdirection Hillary should have worn spangled tights and sawn Stevens’s casket in half.

The dying Los Angeles Times reported this story on its homepage (as a sidebar to “Thirteen Great Tacos in Southern California”) under the following headline: “Partisan Politics Dominates House Benghazi Hearing.” In fact, everyone in this story is a Democrat or a career civil servant. Chris Stevens was the poster boy for Obama’s view of the Arab Spring; he agreed with the president on everything that mattered. The only difference is that he wasn’t in Vegas but out there on the front line, where Obama’s delusions meet reality. Stevens believed in those illusions enough to die for them. One cannot say the same about the hollow men and women in Washington who sent him out there unprotected, declined to lift a finger when he came under attack, and in the final indignity subordinated his sacrifice to their political needs by lying over his corpse. Where’s the “partisan politics”? Obama, Clinton, Panetta, Clapper, Rice, and the rest did this to one of their own. And fawning court eunuchs, like the ranking Democrat at the hearings, Elijah Cummings, must surely know that, if they needed, they’d do it to them, too. If you believe in politics über alles, it’s impressive, in the same way that Hillary’s cocksure dismissal — “What difference, at this point, does it make?” — is impressive.

But the embassy security chief, Eric Nordstrom, had the best answer to that: It matters because “the truth matters” — not least to the Libyan president, who ever since has held the U.S. government in utter contempt. Truth matters, and character matters. For the American people to accept the Obama-Clinton lie is to be complicit in it.

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is the author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. © 2013 Mark Steyn

Source: National Review Online...