A top military intelligence official at the time of the Benghazi attacks testified Thursday that U.S. personnel “should have tried” to help Americans under fire on Sept. 11, 2012, in an unprecedented public statement from a leading military officer.
Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, who at the time of the attacks was the deputy intelligence director at U.S. Africa Command, questioned the merits of the ongoing debate over whether U.S. military forces could have responded in time. Leading Pentagon and other military officials previously have argued that additional U.S. assets were not deployed to assist Americans under attack that night because they weren’t close enough.
“The point is we should have tried,” Lovell told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in his opening statement. “As another saying goes — always move to the sound of the guns.”
But — again — more pointedly:
He later said the military “could have made a response of some sort.” Lovell, who was stationed in Germany during the attack, made clear repeatedly that the military was waiting for clearance from the State Department to intervene in Benghazi.
Note: “waiting for clearance from the State Department to intervene in Benghazi.”
And who controlled the State Department then? Correct: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Lovell also sharply countered claims that the intelligence community and military initially thought this was a protest over an anti-Islam video gone awry. He said U.S. officials knew this was a “hostile action” from the outset, even though they didn’t know how long the attack would last.
“This was no demonstration gone terribly awry,” Lovell said. “The facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack.”
“No demonstration gone awry.” Precisely the opposite of the talking points demanded of Susan Rice for the Sunday news shows directly following 9-11-12.
Smoking Gun? WH Email Instructs Officials to Blame Benghazi on Video
by Jeff Dunetz
Rhodes gave direction that the purpose of Rice’s appearance was to “underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
A new State Department document obtained by Judicial Watch via a FOIA request reveals that then White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials coordinated a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama’s image and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”
According to the Judicial Watch press release:
The main point of the White House team’s strategy was to paint the terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video and not a failure of policy,” Judicial Watch said in an emailed release. Meanwhile, the State Department — at the same time that message was being shaped — initially considered the incident simply an “attack,” and perhaps even a kidnap try, the watchdog said.
So. All the things we in the Conservative World stated, lo, those many, many months ago, are turning out to be true. Es wahr. So startling. So shocking. But the bulk of those who read this blog are not shocked nor are we startled. We knew it from the start.
The Obama Administration lies and it lies up front and in bold type and italics and in a large font. In fact, the greater the lie, the greater the belief.
Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances — where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.
More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.
The Rhodes email, with the subject line: “RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET,” was sent to a dozen members of the administration’s inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.
So. Correct. No one at the Spite House knew anything. They were incredibly innocent docents whose job was to bob and weave on the issue.
Deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya Gregory Hicks testified Wednesday that he was told not to meet with a congressman sent to investigate the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Hicks said a State Department lawyer accompanied the delegation and attempted to be in every single meeting he was involved in.
Amazing testimony but — guess what? Whilst these vitally important hearings occurred on Wednesday, would it shock you to know that CNN was conspicuously absent? Instead, CNN was camped out on a minor crime scene in Cleveland.
Mr Hicks further testified regarding US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and her talking points post-Benghazi:
Furthermore, Mr Hicks goes on to say the Benghazi scene was unsecured for 18 days:
If not bad enough, clear evidence indicated a poorly-produced video had nothing to do with the events of Benghazi:
Secret email reveals top official told Libya’s U.S. Ambassador that terrorists were behind Benghazi attack – four days BEFORE U.S. Ambassador to UN said it was a spontaneous attack
Sept. 11: Terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya
Sept. 12: State Dept. Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs tells Libya’s President that Ansar al-Sharia was responsible
Sept. 13: CIA writes candid talking points for members of Congress
Sept. 15: White House deputies edit the talking points, removing all references to Islamic terrorism
Sept. 16: UN Ambassador Susan Rice, in five television interviews, blames the attack on a spontaneous mob angered by an anti-Islam YouTube video
A top State Department appointee told Libya’s ambassador to the United States one day after the military-style assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that the terror group Ansar al-Shariah was responsible.
But four days later, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations said on television that it was the product of a spontaneous protest.
During a fiery and emotional congressional hearing on the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy read aloud from an email dated Sept. 12, 2012 to senior State Department officers, from Elizabeth Jones, the acting Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.
Describing a conversation she had with then-Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones wrote in the previously undisclosed email that ‘I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.’
‘Let me say that again,’ Gowdy emphasized during the hearing: ‘She told him.’
Which means the five different TV shows visited by Susan Rice that immediate Sunday following the Benghazi Murders were nothing more than FALSE “talking points” conjured up by the Demorat DC regime of Barack Hussein Obama in concert with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And here’s another tidbit: there had been 230 attacks against US and allied installments in Libya and 48 of those in Benghazi in the year prior to the 9/11/12 attack. CIA developed intelligence which indicated there was a massive likelihood that a major terror event would be staged on 9/11/12.
The motivation for all the Benghazi lies is this base and venal: a presidential election hinged on and was based upon a fraud perpetrated by those who purposely lied about the events of Benghazi in order to keep Demorat presidential power in DC. No more, no less. The fragile election could brook no scandal. And the American Media Maggots, complicit, did and are doing their level best to quash Benghazi wholesale. Witness CNN.
The AMM could not have Mr Obama countered, as he had recently sworn to the American public that he had alQaeda “on the run.” And Hillary? As the Next Ordained One, she absolutely cannot have her star tarnished by such a rudimentary and stupid thing as a few petty Americans getting wiped out in some piss-ant country full of sand that would offend her ankles. Pah!
What does it say about our Secretary and State and our Secretary of Defense, who do not get back on the line to talk to the Number One remaining administrator in Benghazi following the attack? Were they otherwise occupied? Were there other murders occurring in consulates around the world which would divert their attention? Was American Idol on TV? Did they need to clean their office fish tanks? Buff their nails?
Let me make this abundantly clear for the possible PC amongst us: I couldn’t care less, not one molecule, about some women held captive in Ohio or some female convicted of killing her husband. The Benghazi Murders are infinitely more important in terms of the position of our country and our regime in DC. CNN has made its bed and made its continuous and current fellating of DC Demorats more than abundantly clear. Satisfying blow jobs that, obviously, shall not stop until an opposite regime is installed.
There are crimes here, ladies and gentlemen. Intimidating witnesses. Obstruction. Perhaps even the suborning of perjury.
UN Ambassador Susan Rice knows that what she said about Benghazi was not true — let me make this blunt: a LIE — but “necessary” according to the Obama Administration. She was purposely asked to obfuscate the issue and she complied. This was not done by some kind of mistake; it was instead done blatantly and with impunity when she was scheduled for all five major political TV shows the Sunday immediately following the death of Ambassador Stevens and three good SEAL members.
Susan Rice personally and purposely and knowingly misrepresented the Benghazi Consulate story. She was responsible for the meme and talking points becoming some half-assed and poorly produced YouTube video (Innocence of Muslims) which resulted in that individual being placed on a plethora of Islamic death lists globally.
Susan Rice was a Good Drone. She took one or two for the team. She lied for Mr Obama and helped him to get re-elected. And as such it was recently discovered she was in line to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
But I submit: can you actually get a bald-faced LIAR through the US Senate with no opposition and no “holds”?
From FoxNews.com:
