Benghazi: The Stand down Order.

On June 17, 1972 individuals working for, but not under specific orders of President Richard M Nixon, broke into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. thus setting off attempts by Nixon to cover up his administrations involvement in the break-in at the Watergate complex. The actual crime itself was misdemeanor breaking and entry. The number of people who died was ZERO. The consequence of this, near-certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction by the Senate, Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974.

Fast forward to September 11th 2012.

The Benghazi annex of the American Counsel in Benghazi Libya comes under attach by Islamic terrorists, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans are murdered by the terrorists in a 14 hour long battle during which multiple requests are desperately made to the American Department of State, then headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for military assistance. Those requests are repeatedly rejected. But it gets worse than that, those requests are not just rejected, various military and CIA assets in the field who are also requesting authorization to to rescue Ambassador Stevens and his personal are told to “Stand Down”.

Benghazi security team on ‘Hannity’ slams Dems covering for the WH: ‘Don’t call us liars’

Members of the Benghazi annex security team challenged two congressmen to a debate on “Hannity” Thursday night after the Democrat lawmakers suggested that they’re continuing to perpetuate the “myth” of a stand down order.

The members of the security annex team, Mark Geist, John Tiegen and Kris Paronto came out earlier this month, telling Fox News that they were told, in fact, to stand down the night the U.S. consulate was attacked.

But at a recent news conference, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) suggested they were only saying these things to promote their new book, “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi,” Fox News Insider reported.

After the accusations, Paronto and Geist challenged Schiff to a debate on “Hannity.” Schiff declined, but Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) accepted the challenge.

Smith said he doesn’t doubt that the men’s immediate superiors told them to stand down, but he rejects the idea that the order came from the White House.

“I don’t know how else to explain it. I want to say to Mr. Smith: was he there that night with us? Where was he? Because that’s what happened. We’re telling you what happened on the ground,” said Paronto.

There is absolutely no doubt that there was in fact a Stand down order issued. Such an order could only originate from either the Secretary of State or from the President of the United States of America. Standing orders have been in place since the 1980’s requiring the United States Military to send whatever military personal are required to protect American Diplomatic Counsels, those orders can only be contravened by either the Secretary of State or the President of the United States.

President Nixon did not order the break in at the Watergate complex, but when he became aware of it, he conspired with other members of his administration to cover up the break in because members of his administration were involved. Whether President Obama ordered the stand down or not one thing is indisputably clear, President Obama has conspired with members of his administration to cover up the fact that a Stand Down order was issued, an order which only he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had the authority to issue. So we have clearly and indisputable reached what can only be called a Nixionian crises. Not one single person died during the misdemeanor breaking and entry that President Nixon was covering up, four American diplomatic personal died as a result of the Stand down order that the Obama Administration is covering up.

Congress itself has thus far been utterly disgraceful in it’s handling of the Benghazi attack, it’s failure to hold the Obama Administration accountable borders on criminal, but it genuinely pales compared to the failure of the Mainstream Media to investigate. In fact, were America to have an honorable Attorney General the Mainstream Media would probably have already been charged under the RICO Statues for engaging in Conspiracy to aid and abet in the commission of a crime for their part in the cover up of the Stand Down order.


David Plouffe; Contemptuous dishonest asshole.

David Plouffe, in what is becoming an all to often official Democrat position is putting on public display an example of just how dishonest the democrat party has become. Their is apparently no lie that these democrats are not willing to tell in order to retain their grip on political power in the United States.

David claims that Benghazi is being driven by a loud delusional minority. No, it is not a loud delusional minority, their is absolutely nothing delusional about an American Ambassador being killed in a terrorist attack that was as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. What happened in Benghazi was at the very least criminal negligence. If the rumors have any substance, that Ambassador Stevens was intended by the Whitehouse to be kidnapped and then traded for Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, then we are talking about the Whitehouse committing a major felony for political reasons. If the rumors that Ambassador Stevens was providing weapons to Al Qaeda to be used in Syria, then the whitehouse is guilty of treason. If the rumors are true that someone in the Whitehouse ordered American troops to stand down and not send a rescue attempt at the request of Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, then the Whitehouses actions constitute the most egregious and abominable betrayal of American Military personal conceivable.

Unlike the Nixon Administrations infamous Watergate scandal, Benghazi resulted in 4 American’s dying. The Watergate scandal resulted in Richard Nixon stepping down just hours before Impeachment hearing convened, Impeachment hearings which certainly would have resulted in his being removed from office. Benghazi, where 4 American’s died, is a thousand times worse than the minor misdemeanor burglary that the Watergate scandal was attempting to cover-up. Nobody died in Watergate, Watergate is and should be the standard by which Benghazi is judged.

It wasn’t the minor misdemeanor burglary at Watergate that resulted in Richard Nixon leaving the office of the President of the United States in disgrace, just as it was not a sexual act that caused President Bill Clinton to be Impeached (And Yes, Bill Clinton was Impeached) it was the attempted cover-up, something that apparently not on person at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave seems to understand. At the barest minimum the Obama Administration is guilty of criminal negligence in the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

The disgusting and dishonest manner in which the Democrats are attempting to spin the Benghazi scandal as nothing more than a delusional witch-hunt by republicans is a pathetic lie and an attempt to do nothing less than cover up the deaths of 4 American’s whose deaths should never have happened, but in fact did because of actions taken by the Administration of Barack Obama. Barack Obama and the senior members of his Administration absolutely must be held 100 percent fully responsible for those deaths. Furthermore, there absolutely must be a full and open investigation into what transpired in Benghazi to determine if there is any grain of truth to the rumors about the possible attempting kidnapping, and arms smuggling.

Lions and Tiger’s and Benghazi, Oh My.

So, that little insignificant episode of unruliness in Benghazi is back in the news. Didn’t Hillary already explain to everyone, that, “At this point, what difference does it make?” Ok, so an email finally leaked out by way of Freedom of Information request that proves that the Obamanation Administration knowingly, willingly and with a full forethought of malice, lied to the American people about what happened in Benghazi. Big deal, so what, it was like two years ago, and Obama had an election to win, so certain lies were necessary, and besides,it was like two years ago. It’s not like anyone died or…. errr, well, not anyone important anyway…

Pelosi On Benghazi Emails: ‘Why Aren’t We Talking About Something Else?’

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the emails were a distraction from real issues.

“Diversion, subterfuge, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi,” Pelosi said, according to CBS News. “Why aren’t we talking about something else?”

Ok Nancy, how about we talk about why you, Harry Reid and Erick Holder aren’t in prison on various and sundry corruption charges.

Ex-White House Official On Benghazi: ‘Dude, This Was Like Two Years Ago’

Former White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor went on Fox News on Thursday, and after host Bret Baier grilled him over the issue of the talking points used after the attack, he finally responded with “Dude, this was like two years ago.”

Throughout the exchange, Vietor, who seemed annoyed at the line of questioning, wasn’t really able to answer Baier on various questions, telling him he “believes so” or that he didn’t remember.

“You don’t remember?” Baier asked, to which Vietor responded, “Dude, this was like two years ago. We’re still talking about the most mundane process … we’re talking about the process of editing talking points. That’s what bureaucrats do all day long.”

Dude, like wake the fuck up, there is no statute of limitations on murder or treason.

Benghazi Lies

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed last summer by Judicial Watch, the Obama administration last week released 41 documents related to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. An email from the deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, has received most of the attention. In it, Rhodes laid out four goals for Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who would be appearing on five Sunday talk shows 36 hours later. “To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad; To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy; To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests; To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
Benghazi Lies

The Judicial Watch documents also included White House talking points for Rice, with possible questions and answers she might provide to meet the goals set out by Rhodes. These new White House talking points included a broad discussion of the Arab Spring and its challenges, as well as several specific references to the attacks in Benghazi—a mention of Ambassador Chris Stevens, a question on Benghazi intelligence, and a separate section under the header “Benghazi.”

The Rhodes email and new talking points went to many top Obama administration communications and political officials, including press secretary Jay Carney, communications director Dan Pfeiffer, and Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe.
Related Stories

At his press briefing April 30, Carney took a question about the new documents from ABC News White House correspondent Jonathan Karl. “Jay, I guess you’re aware that Judicial Watch obtained an email from Ben Rhodes to staff members about the Benghazi attack.” Carney disputed Karl’s characterization—“That’s incorrect”—and followed with a jaw-dropping claim. “The email and the talking points were not about Benghazi. They were about the general situation in the Muslim world where you saw, as you may recall, protests.”

The email and the talking points—produced in response to a FOIA request for Benghazi-related documents and with multiple references to the attacks in Benghazi three days earlier—were not about Benghazi? This was too much even for a White House press corps that long ago dismissed Benghazi as a legitimate news story. Reporters who cover the White House might not know the details of the intelligence on alleged attacker Ali Harzi. And they might not understand the ties between Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al Sharia Libya. But they know when they’re being misled.

In the weeks after the Benghazi attacks, Carney and other top administration officials went to great lengths to suggest that the Obama administration’s public response to the attacks was strictly based on assessments provided by the intelligence community. This was not true.


Fmr. NSC Spokesman Tommy Vietor: Obama Was Not In The Situation Room During Benghazi Attack

BRET BAIER: People on the ground testified that they knew where the ambassador was, that they were military in their precision. It was not guys coming to protest. They had mortars and heavy weapons.

TOMMY VIETOR: Bret, a couple of things. I was in the Situation Room that night, okay. We didn’t know where the ambassador was definitively.

BAIER: Was the president in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: No. And the fact that your network at one time reported that he watched video feed of the attack as it was ongoing is part of what I think is a pattern of inaccurate —

BAIER: Where was the president?

VIETOR: In the White House. Let me finish my initial statement. The notion that we could, you know, divine motives from a drone feed I think is wrong. And I also think this idea that the military had the capability to rescue those individuals but chose not to is I think extremely unfair to the military. And Admiral Mullen said basically the opposite.

BAIER: In the ARB report.

VIETOR: Right.

BAIER: Where was the president?

VIETOR: In the White House.

BAIER: He wasn’t in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: At what point in the evening?

BAIER: Any point in the evening.

VIETOR: It’s well known that when the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office and he was updated constantly. And during that briefing he told Tom Donilon and his Joint Chiefs and Sec Def to begin moving all military assets into the region.

BAIER: So when Hillary Clinton talks to him at 10:00 p.m., he’s where?

VIETOR: I don’t know. I don’t have a tracking device on him in the residence.

BAIER: But you were in the Situation Room and he wasn’t there.

VIETOR: Yes, I was in the White House.

Hmmm, hey Tommy, I’m thinking you should have stuck to, “Dude, this was like two years ago.”

House GOP: Obama withholding Benghazi email is ‘criminal’

House Republicans accused the Obama administration Thursday of “perhaps criminal” behavior for having withheld for months key email that sheds light on how the administration framed its post-Benghazi talking points, potentially violating a congressional subpoena.

House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said Secretary of State John F. Kerry will have to come before Congress to explain why his department refused to release the email until forced to do so by a judge.

Meanwhile, a retired Air Force brigadier general who was in the U.S. Africa Command’s headquarters the night of the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic post in Benghazi testified that he and others quickly realized the assault was spawned by terrorists. The general said it was either negligence or willful ignorance that led the White House, amid a re-election campaign, to say the violence was ignited by anger over a video.

Several high-profile Republican senators said the revelations, combined with questions still unanswered, should spur Congress to create an independent investigative committee to get the answers.

“If the White House won’t explain it, Secretary Kerry should come to the Capitol to explain why he defied an official congressional subpoena. And the White House needs to understand that this investigation will not end until the entire truth is revealed and justice and accountability are served,” Mr. Boehner said.

Judicial Watch, a public interest law firm, obtained the email under an open-records request enforced by a court order. The email shows a top White House national security official shaping how U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice should talk about the attack on a round of Sunday political talk shows. The email said blame should be placed on an Internet video.

The White House dismissed the rekindled questions.

“This is a conspiracy theory in search of a conspiracy,” press secretary Jay Carney said.

But he altered his explanation from Wednesday, when he said the reason the email wasn’t turned over in response to requests was that it wasn’t about Benghazi. Instead, Mr. Carney said it was a State Department decision and Mr. Kerry’s department would have to provide the answers.

Mr. Carney did acknowledge Thursday that the email mentioned Benghazi once, in a question about how administration officials should respond to a report in a British newspaper that the U.S. ignored a warning 48 hours before the attack.

Mr. Carney said Republicans in Congress should drop the Benghazi investigation and instead focus on the economy. He also said the president is focused on finding the perpetrators who killed four Americans in Benghazi.

Yes, drop the Benghazi investigation because… somebody in the Whitehouse might end up going to prison.

Krauthammer’s Take: New Benghazi E-mail Akin to Discovery of Nixon Tapes

The discovery, over a year after the September 11, 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, of an e-mail from a White House political operative that shows him suggesting that former United Nations ambassador Susan Rice underscore that the attack was a reaction to an Internet video is, according to Charles Krauthammer, like the discovery of the Nixon tapes that blew open the Watergate scandal in 1973.

“It’s to me the equivalent of what was discovered with the Nixon tapes,” Krauthammer said Thursday. “The point is that Republicans have done a terrible job in building the case. Even today I have to say, the questioning was disjointed, it was not organized. If they had appointed a special committee a long time ago the way it was done in Watergate, you would have had answers on this and the country would be tired.”

Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton got in an enormous amount of trouble over matters that were, honestly speaking, quiet minor. However, where they fell truly afoul of the law, was not the original scandal, but in attempting to cover the sandals up. The scandal that the Obamanation Administration is attempting to cover up, is not a minor misdemeanor breaking and entry, or even a sexual affair with an intern, it’s criminal level negligence. Unlike with either the Nixon or Clinton scandals, where no one died, four people died and the Obamanation Administration has lied and covered up what took place.

The real question now is this. In a nation where the President and the Attorney General are constantly accusing people of being racists, are we going to hold the Obamanation Administration to the same standards that we held Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton to, or are we going to hold Barack Obama to a completely different standard because he is Black, and if we do, would that not constitute the most egregious act of racism?

Ghosts of Benghazi; Or What difference does it make.

The 9/11/2012 attack on the US Embassy consular building in Benghazi Libya is once again meandering it’s way through the news. All of the same questions are being asked, and no surprise here, the same basic conclusions reached right here on this blog, are now being reached by many others who have looked carefully at the evidence.

File this under: “I Told you So” (The Kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens)

Back on April 30th I related a rumor to you about what supposedly really happened to Ambassador Christopher Stevens during the assault on the Consult in Benghazi. Most of you no doubt filed it away with a chuckle under super crazy tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. Here is what I told you back then.

Why we should hang the Fifth Column Treasonous Media talking heads.

Not only did Barack Insane Obama refuse to send Ambassador Stevens any help, their is considerable evidence to suggest that he actively prevented any help being sent. Moreover their is even rumor to the effect that that hep was specifically denied because the Whitehouse under Barack Insane Obama’s direct orders were engaging in a covert operation that was suppose to result in the kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens and 15 or 20 of his staff who were to be held as hostages so that the Obamanation Administration would have political cover for releasing Blink Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman to Egypt.

Moreover, their is even the suggestion that Ambassador Steven was intended to be killed at some point during that exchange because Ambassador Stevens was cooperating with known Al Qaeda terrorists in a trade of small arms and ammunition in exchange for a significant number of shoulder fired surface to air missiles that had been stolen from the US during the fall of Qaddafi’s Libya.

But, just as has been done in the past, so shall it be done again as this tempest in a teapot simmers down.

A burial shroud for Benghazi…

The Fifth column Treasonous Media is at it again, and sadly most conservatives who saw the 60 Minutes special on Benghazi are falling for it. Let me make something perfectly clear to everyone, the 60 Minute Special on Benghazi is not an expose designed to enlighten anyone nor to bring pressure on the Obamanation Administration. It amounts to nothing less than lime being thrown on a corpse to keep it from stinking, a burial shroud to inform everyone who see’s it, that this story is now officially dead.

The Mainstream media is and always has been fully aware of what happened and why in Benghazi. Their failure to cover the story more aggressively, to relentlessly demand the kinds of answers that was the hallmark of their coverage of the Nixon Watergate scandal, is because, like the Obama administration, they know such activity on their part would be profoundly damaging to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Damaging enough to result in Barack Obama being impeached and land Hillary Clinton in a Federal Prison. The Mainstream Media is no longer about faithfully keeping the American People informed about what is really transpiring around them, not it is now nothing more than a propaganda organization where Marxist/Socialist ideology trumps all, and protecting America’s first Marxist President is the only thing that matters.

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.


‘We don’t claim to have all the answers here,’ said Roger Aronoff, whose center-right group Accuracy in Media sponsored the group and its work.

‘We hope you will, please, pursue this,’ he told reporters. ‘Check it out. Challenge us.’
Retired Admiral Chuck Kubic said the White House refused to let the Pentagon pursue a peaceful exit for Muammar Gaddafi: ‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours’

Retired Admiral Chuck Kubic said the White House refused to let the Pentagon pursue a peaceful exit for Muammar Gaddafi: ‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours’

The commission and AIM filed 85 document requests under the Freedom Of Information Act, hitting the Department of Defense, State Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency with demand after demand.

But most of its information has come from insiders with deep knowledge of the flow of weapons in Libya and elsewhere in the African Maghreb.

Admiral James ‘Ace’ Lyons told the group that he believes the raid on the Benghazi compound was intended as a kidnapping exercise, aimed at snatching U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and demanding a prisoner swap for the ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Abdel-Rahman is serving a life sentence in federal prison for planning the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center garage in New York City. He also masterminded a plan, later foiled, to blow up the United Nations, both the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge and a federal building where the FBI had a base of operations.

A senior FBI source, Lyons said Tuesday, ‘told me that was the plan.’

The attack, history shows, grew in intensity and resulted in the deaths of Stevens and three other U.S. personnel.

Lyons also said U.S. claims that it lacked the resources to mount a counterattack in time to save lives is false.

‘I’m going to tell you that’s not true,’ he said. ‘We had a 130-man unit of forces at Sigonella [AFB in Italy]. They were ready to go.’

‘The flight time from Sigonella to Benghazi is roughly an hour.’


The group has called for a Select Congressional Committee to investigate the Benghazi episode. A total of 189 House members have signed on to a bill that would create the committee, which would be bipartisan and have sweeping powers to subpoena the executive branch.

House Speaker John Boehner, Lopez said Tuesday, ‘he blocked it. One has to wonder if he and Congress have had some sort of briefing on what happened.’

Had the Mainstream Media any creditability what-so-ever left, it would be them, and not a British tabloid running this story, but, the American Mainstream Media has already chosen their side, it is not the side of the American people, for all practical purposes, they are repeating what are perhaps the most offensive and noxious words ever made on the subject of the attack on Benghazi, “At this point, what difference does it make?

Hillary Clintons biggest regret is Benghazi.

When Hillary Clinton said yesterday that Benghazi was her biggest regret, it never even crossed my mind to doubt her.

Hillary Clinton: “My Biggest Regret Is What Happened In Benghazi”

QUESTION: Any do-overs that you would — relative to Secretary of State?

HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, sure. I mean, you know, you make these choices based on imperfect information. And you make them to — as we say, the best of your ability. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns.

You know, my biggest, you know, regret is what happened in Benghazi. It was a terrible tragedy, losing four Americans, two diplomats and now it’s public, so I can say two CIA operatives, losing an ambassador like Chris Stevens, who was one of our very best and had served in Libya and across the Middle East and spoke Arabic.

Of course, mind you now, when I say that I 100 percent believe her that Benghazi is her biggest regret, it does not for one single second mean that I agree with what she asserts makes Benghazi her biggest regret. Her biggest regret is not that her actions caused the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens or the other 3 Americans that died with him that night. No, like every career criminal and sociopath who has ever lived, her regret isn’t that she committed a crime, it that she got caught, or in this case that what happened in Benghazi might obliterate her personal political aspirations to become the next resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Poor little Ruth Marcus just doesn’t get it.

Opinion/Editorial writer Ruth Marcus over at the Washington Post is suffering from a sort of mini identity crisis. Apparently poor little Ruth is under the mistaken impression that the role of the Fifth Column Treasonous Media is something other than to propagate the Democrat Party’s Marxist propaganda of the day. Little Ruthie has dared to ask the forbidden question, where is the accountability?

OPPS WAIT… That’s not what Ruth is doing at all. Ruth is engaging in intentionally dishonest misdirection.

Benghazi, Obamacare and the absence of accountability

In the narrative of every political scandal comes the accountability moment. New facts slow to a trickle, and the next, insistent demand becomes: Who is being held accountable? This is often a dumb question, asked for lack of a more fruitful topic and fueled by partisans more interested in point-scoring than in problem-fixing.

The better question is: What is the goal of accountability? A showy, timed-for-the-evening-news firing to demonstrate action and quiet the baying hounds? Or a change in personnel that will help clean up the mess at hand or send a cautionary message to deter future messes?

Consider the recent mess-o-rama. The botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act. The Senate report that deemed the attack in Benghazi, Libya, preventable and raised questions about accountability, or lack thereof. The mounting problems of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Did you catch that… This is misdirection through equivocation. First Ruthie points to the Nuclear EPIC FAIL known as Obamacare, then to Benghazi, and then ties the recent rather minor scandals of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to those scandals by implying that they are events of equivalent standards. By doing this Ruthie sets the stage for the limelight to be shined on outgoing lame duck President Barack Obama, and Governor Chris Christie while casting Hillary Clintons role in Benghazi as all but invisible.

Ruthie goes even farther in her quest to sanitize Hillary Clintons role in the paragraph.

Yet the report, like previous investigations, offered no evidence that Clinton was aware of security concerns in Libya. Contrast the preparation for Obamacare, which was, or should have been, at the center of Sebelius’s concerns, with the issue of embassy security. That is certainly an important and tragically neglected topic, yet not one fair to tag Clinton with, given the array of issues on the secretarial plate.

Let me make this 100 percent perfectly clear. Their is absolutely no moral or ethical equivalence between Benghazi and Bridgegate. One is a failure on the level of criminal negligence that should have put Hillary Clinton behind bars for the rest of her life, while the other is a 100 percent media fabrication of a scandal.

BREAKING NEWS: Obama Knowingly and willfully lied about Benghazi.

There is absolutely no other honest way to describe the statements made by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice regarding the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi compound that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and three other American’s. They lied, straight up, bald faced, with 100 percent full knowledge and willing forethought of malice.

This is not speculation, not wishful thinking, not tin-foil hat conspiracy theory material, it is 100 percent documented fact from declassified top secret documents.

The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that “the nature of the conversation” he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that “this was a terrorist attack.”

The transcript reads as follows:

WENSTRUP: “As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack.”

HAM: “Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.”

WENSTRUP: “And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?”

HAM: “Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”

Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.” “Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied.

Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately — from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts — that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive “tick-tock” of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: “What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?”

“That is a question that you would have to ask others,” replied one of the senior officials. “That was not our conclusion.”

Ham’s declassified testimony further underscores that Obama’s earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for Benghazi.

The day after the attacks, which marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since 1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show “The View,” when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been “an act of terrorism,” the president hedged, saying: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation.”

The declassified transcripts show that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to label the incident a terrorist attack. In a classified session on July 31 of last year, Westrup raised the question with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM’s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region.

Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to “a considerable event unfolding in Libya.” Bristol’s next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that “there was a fight going on” at the consulate compound.

WESTRUP: “So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -”

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir.”

WENSTRUP: “– on the United States?”

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir. … We referred to it as the attack.”

Staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, and are close to issuing what they call an “interim” report on the affair. Fox News reported in October their preliminary conclusion that U.S. forces on the night of the Benghazi attacks were postured in such a way as to make military rescue or intervention impossible — a finding that buttresses the claims of Dempsey and other senior Pentagon officials.

While their investigation continues, staffers say they still want to question Panetta directly. But the former defense secretary, now retired, has resisted such calls for additional testimony.

“He is in the president’s Cabinet,” said Rep. Martha Roby R-Ala., chair of the panel that collected the testimony, of Panetta. “The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what’s going on, and I honestly think that that’s why you have seen — beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans’ lives — is that the American people feel misled.”

“Leon Panetta should have spoken up,” agreed Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush and now a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have.”

Neither Panetta’s office nor the White House responded to Fox News’ requests for comment.

Apparently the only thing more corrupt in America than the Obama Administration, is the Congress of the United States of America, who should have already impeached Obama for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, but haven’t.


H/T to spinmore at