Debunking Liberal Lies About the Benghazi Committee and Hillary's Testimony

[mikegriffith1]

Liberals are circling the wagons around Hillary and are simply ignoring the several important and damning facts that the Benghazi Committee forced her to face during her testimony. Just because Hillary did not lose her temper does not mean that she was not caught in a number of lies, some of them very serious in nature.

This is a long OP because liberals have put out so much falsehood and distortion about the Benghazi Committee and Hillary's testimony. Sources for further reading are provided at the end, along with a link to the full transcript of the hearing. With that said, let's begin:

Do you remember when, a few days after the Benghazi attack, Hillary told the victims' families that the attack was caused by the video and that the pastor who made the video would be brought to justice? Do you remember when she signed off on a State Department press release that blamed the deaths on the video, on the very night of the attack? Do you remember when for days after the attack, Obama, Rice, and other administration officials blamed the attack on the video? Do you remember these facts? They're all a matter of record.

Well, one thing that the Benghazi Committee proved indisputably is that Hillary knew on the night of the attack that the attack did not result from a spontaneous protest that got out of hand, that the attack had nothing to do with the video, and that the attack was a planned attack by an AQ-like terrorist group. Committee member Congressman Jordan confronted Hillary with the transcript of her phone call with the Egyptian prime minister, a call that occurred within hours of the attack, in which Hillary said the following:

We know the attack had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.​

By the way, few people have noticed that in the heat of a subsequent exchange with Congressman Jordan, Hillary said that she still believes the video played a role in the Benghazi attack! Think I'm kidding? Here you go:

JORDAN: Look at the difference in these two statements. One says it wasn't a pre-planned attack, that's Jay Carney talking publicly; the other one says -- from your experts in Libya, says it was a well-planned attack.​

Now they could not be further apart. They could not be. That's what the -- that's what I'm having a hard time figuring out.​

And you know what's interesting? The date of this, 9/14/12, 9/14/12. You know what else happened on the 14th, September 14th? There's another document that's kind of important. That's the same day that Ben Rhodes drafted his talking points memo. Bullet point number 2 -- to underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, not a broader failure of policy, because we couldn't have Libya -- your baby, as Mr. Roskam pointed out earlier -- we couldn't have that fail, can't have that.​

So the same day you got Jay Carney saying this was in no way a pre-planned attack and the experts in Libya talking, Greg Hickson and Near Eastern Affairs people are saying it was a well-planned attack, that same day, the talking points that get Susan Rice ready for the Sunday shows, make sure you focus on --​

CLINTON: Well Congressman --​

JORDAN: Make sure you focus on the video, not about a broader policy failure. After all, we've got an election coming in 50-some days.​

CLINTON: Well, Congressman, I believe to this day the video played a role.
​

Does she really still believe that the video played a role in the attack, even after how completely this myth has been debunked by subsequent investigation?! As Congressman Jordan pointed out to her, her own top State Department experts were telling her, that night and in the days that followed, that this was a planned attack, and we know from released e-mails that her own experts scoffed at the claim that the attack had anything to do with the video:

JORDAN: Privately -- and privately your story was much different than it was publicly. Again, you said to the Egyptian prime minister, we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film, it was a planned attack, not a protest.​

You said to your family, terrorists killed two of our good people. So your story privately is much different than what you're telling the American people.​

The intelligence may have changed, the video may have had an impact in other places, but in Benghazi it didn't. And you tried to put them all together, that is what bothers us.​

Let me show you a slide here. This is from September 14th. In the first statements by Jay Carney: "Let's be clear these protests were reaction to a video that had spread to the region. We have no information to suggest that Benghazi was a pre-planned attack."​

The statement below is from your press person in Libya. Sends this to Greg Hicks and to the experts in the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, the same people who said Susan Rice was off the reservation on five networks.​

Here is what they get. He is what she says to them. "Benghazi, more terrorist attack than a protest. We want to distinguish," distinguish, "not conflate the events. This was a well-planned attack."​

So, again, privately the experts in the Near Eastern Affair Bureau, the experts on Libya, know that this was a well-planned attack. But publicly Jay Carney is saying the same thing you're saying publicly, we have no information that this was pre-planned, this was caused by a video.​

The committee also confronted Hillary with other facts that she had a hard time explaining or that she simply declined to even try to explain. One example:

* Many of the improvements that she claimed were made to the Benghazi compound were not done by the State Department but were paid for and done by contracted security officers at the site because they were apparently tired of waiting for the State Department to do its job, and some of the alleged improvements were either not finished or were not done at all. Even one of the Democrats on the committee, Congresswoman Duckworth, acknowledged that that was what the evidence showed. What did Hillary say in response? NOTHING. Go watch the hearing or read the transcript. Below is the exchange from the transcript. Congressman Westmoreland begins by addressing Congresswoman Duckworth about Hillary's claims regarding improvements that were made to the Benghazi compound:

WESTMORELAND: The other thing I'd like to say is to Ms. Duckworth, if you would read the testimony of the number of diplomatic security agents that served in Benghazi, most of them were temporary duty of 45-, 60-day people that served. If you'll read that, I think you'll find that a lot of these things that the secretary said as far as enhancements was paid for by petty cash out of their own money and not really fulfilled or completed.​

DUCKWORTH: Will the gentleman yield for just 20 seconds?​

WESTMORELAND: Yes.​

DUCKWORTH: I think that's why it behooves us as members of Congress to increase the security budget for the State Department. They routinely get less than they need, and I think that Americans in general would not begrudge more money for security to safeguard our diplomats. But I agree with you that the report does say that.​

Go read the rest of that portion of the transcript. Hillary never even tried to respond to this key point. And kudos to Congresswoman Duckworth, a Democrat, for being honest enough to admit that the report on the compound's security verified Congressman Westmoreland's point.

We keep hearing from the left that the Benghazi Committee has not done or produced anything new. Congressman Gowdy debunked this myth in his opening statement:

This committee is the first committee to review more than fifty thousand pages of documents because we insisted they be produced.

This committee is the first committee to demand access to more eyewitnesses, because serious investigations talk to as many eyewitnesses as possible.

This committee is the first committee to thoroughly and individually interview scores of other witnesses, many of them for the first time.​

This committee is the first committee to review thousands of pages of documents from top State Department personnel.

This committee is the first committee to demand access to relevant documents from the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Defense, the State Department, and even the White House.​

This committee is the first committee to demand access to the emails to and from Ambassador Chris Stevens. How could an investigation possibly be considered credible without reviewing the emails of the person most knowledgeable about Libya?​

This committee is the first committee, the only committee, to uncover the fact that Secretary Clinton exclusively used personal email on her own personal server for official business and kept the public record – including emails about Benghazi and Libya – in her own custody and control for almost two years after she left office. And it was Secretary Clinton's lawyers who determined what would be returned and what would not be returned.​

You will hear a lot about the Accountability Review Board today. Secretary Clinton mentioned the ARB more than 70 times in her previous testimony before Congress. But when you hear about the ARB you should also know State Department leadership handpicked members of the ARB, the ARB never interviewed Secretary Clinton, the ARB never reviewed her emails and Secretary Clinton's top advisor was allowed to review and suggest changes to the ARB report before the public ever saw it. There is no transcript of ARB interviews, so it is impossible to know whether all relevant questions were asked and answered. And because there is no transcript it is impossible to cite ARB interviews with any particularity at all. That is not independent. That is not accountability. That is not a serious investigation.​

You will hear there were previous congressional investigations into Benghazi. That is true. It should make you wonder why those previous investigations failed to interview so many witnesses and failed to access so many documents. If those previous congressional investigations really were serious and thorough, how did they miss Ambassador Stevens' emails? If those investigations were serious and thorough, how did they miss Secretary Clinton's emails? If those previous congressional investigations were serious and thorough, why did they fail to interview dozens of key State Department witnesses including agents on the ground, who experienced the terrorist attacks firsthand?​

I would like to discuss several other important, damning facts that the Benghazi Committee brought out in the hearing, but this OP is already very long. So, here are some sources for further reading on the revealing information that the committee has uncovered and on the conflicting stories that Hillary Clinton has told about Benghazi and her e-mails:

Benghazi Committee Bombshell: Clinton Knew 'Attack Had Nothing to Do with the Film'

Articles: Hillary and the Video Lie

Hillary Clinton caught in lie: Benghazi committee contradicts claim of no subpoena - Washington Times

Obama, Hillary Clinton Benghazi narrative rebutted by Defense Department report - Washington Times

Busted! Hillary’s Benghazi lies go even deeper

Clinton Claims She Didn't Blame Benghazi Attack on a YouTube Video

And here's the full transcript of the hearing:

Full text: Clinton testifies before House committee on Benghazi

 

[TheOldSchool]

So your maint 2 points are that the video had nothing to do with it, and that the State Department did not make improvements to the compound.

But we have captured the supposed Benghazi "mastermind" who said anger over the video was part of it while there were simultaneous protests elsewhere i. The world about the video.

As for the State Department not being behind the improvements, I find it interesting that he condemns Clinton for it and demands more security funding for the State Department, even though it was REPUBLICANS prevented security funding in the first place.

The Benghazi committee was a farce, and now everyone except the most butthurt of republicans knows it.

 

[Misty]

So your maint 2 points are that the video had nothing to do with it, and that the State Department did not make improvements to the compound.

But we have captured the supposed Benghazi "mastermind" who said anger over the video was part of it while there were simultaneous protests elsewhere i. The world about the video.

As for the State Department not being behind the improvements, I find it interesting that he condemns Clinton for it and demands more security funding for the State Department, even though it was REPUBLICANS prevented security funding in the first place.

The Benghazi committee was a farce, and now everyone except the most butthurt of republicans knows it.

Did you hear the mastermind say it or were you told he said it?

 

[Care4all]

I got through the first couple of things in your op and haven't read the rest, yet....

but it was confusing at the time and the admin waffled back and forth on who was responsible as the intelligence information came in....

and that part of this investigation truly has NOTHING to do with the tragedy in Benghazi, that is a partisan issue, but NOT involved at all with the attack.

what the Admin failed to be clear on and tell us, the first week or so has nothing to do with the tragedy...NOTHING, so it is clear as daylight that this dog and pony show, was just that...a Dog and pony show by Republicans, on MY TAX DIME.

Rep. Jim Jordan vs. Hillary Clinton: Why Did You Tell Egyptians Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack But Not The American People?


CLINTON: Well, Congressman, there was a lot of conflicting information that we were trying to make sense of. The situation was very fluid. It was fast-moving. There was also a claim of responsibility by Ansar al-Sharia. And when I talked to the Egyptian prime minister, I said that this was a claim of responsibility by Ansar al-Sharia, by a group that was affiliated -- or at least wanted to be affiliated -- with Al Qaida.

Sometime after that, the next -- next day, early the next morning after that, on the 12th or 13th, they retracted their claim of responsibility.

 

[Care4all]

So your maint 2 points are that the video had nothing to do with it, and that the State Department did not make improvements to the compound.

But we have captured the supposed Benghazi "mastermind" who said anger over the video was part of it while there were simultaneous protests elsewhere i. The world about the video.

As for the State Department not being behind the improvements, I find it interesting that he condemns Clinton for it and demands more security funding for the State Department, even though it was REPUBLICANS prevented security funding in the first place.

The Benghazi committee was a farce, and now everyone except the most butthurt of republicans knows it.

Did you hear the mastermind say it or were you told he said it?

I believe he WAS on video saying it....if memory serves....?

Or maybe it was CIA or FBI investigators.....?

Did you hear the terrorist group that initially took responsibility say it, or were you just told they said it?

Did you hear the terrorist group that initially took responsibility later say that they did not do it and retracted their responsibility, or were you just told they said and retracted it.....?

I guess we all can just pick and choose what we want to believe....

and this is why our Nation is in a world of poo poo.

 

[depotoo]

No, it was from a nyt article, the reporter saying some person in Libya said the guy told him that, while over in Libya.

So your maint 2 points are that the video had nothing to do with it, and that the State Department did not make improvements to the compound.

But we have captured the supposed Benghazi "mastermind" who said anger over the video was part of it while there were simultaneous protests elsewhere i. The world about the video.

As for the State Department not being behind the improvements, I find it interesting that he condemns Clinton for it and demands more security funding for the State Department, even though it was REPUBLICANS prevented security funding in the first place.

The Benghazi committee was a farce, and now everyone except the most butthurt of republicans knows it.

Did you hear the mastermind say it or were you told he said it?

I believe he WAS on video saying it....if memory serves....?

Or maybe it was CIA or FBI investigators.....?

Did you hear the terrorist group that initially took responsibility say it, or were you just told they said it?

Did you hear the terrorist group that initially took responsibility later say that they did not do it and retracted their responsibility, or were you just told they said and retracted it.....?

I guess we all can just pick and choose what we want to believe....

and this is why our Nation is in a world of poo poo.

 

[jknowgood]

After the original 911 attack we knew who and how it was done without lying. I miss the adults being in charge.

 

[BluesLegend]

Its pretty simple, requests for more security were ignored or denied, Americans were killed, Hillary was in charge and she lied to cover her own ass.

 

[mikegriffith1]

A few points in reply to the liberal responses:

* It is ridiculous to claim that how Hillary and other Obama officials described the attack to the American people in the hours and days after the fact is not relevant to the Benghazi attack itself. Seriously? If the Reagan administration had sought to blame the attack against the Marine barracks in Beirut on an anti-PLO video and had claimed that it was not a planned terrorist attack but merely a spontaneous action done in protest over an anti-PLO video, you can bet your life that no Democrat would argue that such a shameful cover-up was "irrelevant" to understanding all the facts of the matter. How a presidential administration responds to a terrorist attack that kills four Americans is absolutely relevant.

* If there was a lot of "conflicting information," as Hillary claimed, it's odd that Hillary told the Egyptian prime minister that she "knew"--not thought, or believed, but "knew"--that the attack had "nothing" to do with the video. It's also odd that State Department experts, several days later, were privately saying, as we see in their e-mails, that Susan Rice was "off the reservation" in saying the attack was the spontaneous result of a protest over the video. They viewed that claim as ridiculous.

* So some terrorist has supposedly claimed that the video was part of the reason for the attack! Seriously? So now liberals are gonna quote terrorists to defend Team Obama's shameful attempt to cover up the truth about the deaths of four Americans?

And what percentage of the terrorists' motives would any rational person assign to the video? 5 percent? 2 percent? I don't doubt that the terrorists were annoyed by the video, but it is ludicrous to believe that the video was even a significant secondary motive for the attack. The video wasn't even translated into Arabic until September 4, but planning for the attack had already begun before then. At best, the video was just one more excuse for the terrorists to carry out an attack that they surely would have carried out anyway--on the anniversary of 9/11, for crying out loud.

And how about the repeated Team Obama claim that the attack was a spontaneous event and not a planned attack? Huh? Did Hillary ever utter a peep of protest while Obama, Rice, Carney, and others were claiming that the incident was not a planned attack but just an unfortunate sput-of-the-moment excess from a protest over the video? (Not to mention the fact that there was no protest in Benghazi regarding the video.)

* As for the obscene, debunked claim that Republican budget cuts deprived the State Department of money that could have been used to beef-up security at the Benghazi compound, two responses:

(1) Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats there, admitted that budget issues had nothing to do with the decision not to increase the number of security personnel in Benghazi. When she appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, she was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?” She replied, "No, sir.” (See Are Budget Cuts to Blame for Benghazi Attack, as Biden Suggested? )

(2) In the two years before the Benghazi attack, the State Department spent millions of dollars on the following purchases:

- 2,500 Kindle book readers at the inflated price of $6,600 per reader, for a total cost of $16 MILLION.
- A portrait of . . . Barack Obama, at a cost of $20,000.
- A book about an ambassador's residence, at a cost of $150,000.
- New art for embassies, at a cost of $4.5 MILLION. (See, for example, State Department Had No $$$ for Benghazi Security, Did Have $16 Mil for Kindles and $4.5 for Art ).

So enough with the ignorant talking point that Republican budget cuts played a role in Hillary's failure to improve security at the Benghazi compound.

* Finally, I'd like to say a word about Hillary's shocking claim that she was unaware that Chris Stevens wanted more security at Benghazi. She said he NEVER asked her to do anything about improving security at the compound! He mentioned it to a bunch of other people, and we know that senior Hillary aide Huma Abedin knew about Stevens' desire for better security, but Hillary would have us believe that Stevens never once brought up the subject with her! Does anyone really believe that tale?

 

[Camp]

Ben Ghazi addicts are like dogs chasing their tails. Compounding the situation is that the the dogs chasing their tails have cropped tails, but don't know it.

 

[the_human_being]

So your maint 2 points are that the video had nothing to do with it, and that the State Department did not make improvements to the compound.

But we have captured the supposed Benghazi "mastermind" who said anger over the video was part of it while there were simultaneous protests elsewhere i. The world about the video.

As for the State Department not being behind the improvements, I find it interesting that he condemns Clinton for it and demands more security funding for the State Department, even though it was REPUBLICANS prevented security funding in the first place.

The Benghazi committee was a farce, and now everyone except the most butthurt of republicans knows it.

Did you hear the mastermind say it or were you told he said it?

I believe he WAS on video saying it....if memory serves....?

Or maybe it was CIA or FBI investigators.....?

Did you hear the terrorist group that initially took responsibility say it, or were you just told they said it?

Did you hear the terrorist group that initially took responsibility later say that they did not do it and retracted their responsibility, or were you just told they said and retracted it.....?

I guess we all can just pick and choose what we want to believe....

and this is why our Nation is in a world of poo poo.

The report I heard said that none of them knew anything at all about the video until after the attack they saw news reports about there being a video. That's when they all agreed to adopt the story concerning the video.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Regarding Hillary's obscene lie that Stevens never asked her to improve security at the Benghazi compound, if she had admitted that Stevens had asked her to do so, she would have had to explain why she failed to make it happen. As Secretary of State, she had the power overrule the diplomatic security bureaucrats with a single phone call and to get additional security equipment and personnel to Benghazi in a matter of days. So it would be fatal for her to admit that he discussed his concerns about security in Benghazi with her. That's why she's sticking to her preposterous lie that Stevens never once asked her to intervene to get his hundreds of unmet security requests fulfilled. I'm not usually quite so blunt, but a person would have to be both stupid and gullible to believe that tale.

Congressman Pompeo skewered her on this issue and on her failure to fire a single person who was involved with denying those security requests:

POMPEO: Why didn't you fire someone? In Kansas, Madam Secretary, I get asked constantly, why has no one been held accountable? How come not a single person lost a single paycheck, connected to the fact that we had the first ambassador killed since 1979?

How come no one has been held accountable to date?

CLINTON: Well, Congressman, the Accountability Review Board pointed out several people working in the State Department, who they thought had not carried out their responsibilities adequately. But they said that they could not find a breach of duty. And...

POMPEO: Yes, ma'am.

CLINTON: The personnel rules and the laws that govern those decisions were followed very carefully.

POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. I'm not asking what the ARB did. I'm asking what you did.

CLINTON: I followed the law, Congressman. That was my responsibility.

POMPEO: Madam Secretary, you're telling me you had no authority to take anyone's paycheck, to cause anyone to be fired? You're telling me you were legally prohibited from doing that, is that your position here this morning?

CLINTON: It is my position that in the absence of finding dereliction or breach of duty, there could not be immediate action taken. But there was a process that was immediately instituted, and which led to decisions being made.
​

A quick pause: So just because a review board did not find those personnel guilty of "dereliction," she imposed no discipline on them?! Are you kidding me? What kind of "leadership" is that? How about the fact that those people displayed horribly bad judgment and performed incompetently? Why couldn't she fire them based on that obvious fact? You can be incompetent and unfit but not "derelict." And some of you guys want this lady to be president?! Let's continue:

POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. The decision was to put these back in full back pay, keep them on as employees. That was the decision made as a result of the processes you put in place. I will tell you, the folks in Kansas don't think that is accountability.

I want to do some math with you. Can I get the first chart, please? Do you know how many security requests there were in the first quarter of 2012?

CLINTON: For everyone, or for Benghazi?

POMPEO: I'm sorry, yes, ma'am, related to Benghazi in Libya. Do you know how many there were?

CLINTON: No, I do not know.

POMPEO: Ma'am, there were just over a 100-plus. Second quarter, do you know how many there were?

CLINTON: No, I do not.

POMPEO: Ma'am, there were 172-ish. Might have been 171 or 173. That's -- how many were there in July and August and then in that week and few days before the attacks, do you know?

CLINTON: There were a number of them, I know that.

POMPEO: Yes, ma'am, 83 by our count.

That's over 600 requests. You've testified here this morning that you had none of those reach your desk; is that correct also?

CLINTON: That's correct.

POMPEO: Madam Secretary, Mr. Blumenthal wrote you 150 e-mails. It appears from the materials we've read that all of those reached your desk.

Can you tell us why security requests from your professionals, the men that you just testified -- and which I agree, are incredibly professional, incredibly capable people, trained in the art of keeping us all safe, none of those made it to you.

But a man who was a friend of yours, who had never been to Libya, didn't know much about it, at least that was his testimony, didn't know much about it, every one of those reports that he sent on to you that had to do with situations on the ground in Libya, those made it to your desk.

You asked for more of them. You read them. You corresponded with him. And yet the folks that worked for you didn't have the same courtesy.

CLINTON: Well, Congressman, as you're aware, he's a friend of mine. He sent me information he thought might be of interest. Some of it was, some of it wasn't, some of it I forwarded to be followed up on. The professionals and experts who reviewed it found some of it useful, some of it not.

POMPEO: Madam secretary...

CLINTON: He had no official position in the government. And he was not at all my adviser on Libya. He was a friend who sent me information that he thought might be in some way helpful.

POMPEO: Madam secretary, I have lots of friends. They send me things. I have never had somebody send me pieces of intelligence with the level of detail Mr. Blumenthal sent me every week. That's a special friend.

CLINTON: Well, it was information that had been shared with him that he forwarded on. And as someone who got the vast majority of the information that I acted on from official channels, I read a lot of articles that brought new ideas to my attention, and occasionally people including him and others would give me ideas. They all went into the same process to be evaluated.

POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. I will tell you that the record we have received to date does not reflect that. It simply doesn't. We've read the e-mails. We've read everything we can get our hands on. It's taken us a long time to get it, but you, you just described all this other information you relied upon. And it doesn't comport with the record that this committee has been able to establish today.

I want you to take a look at this chart to the left. You'll see the increasing number of requests, over 600. I think data matters. The pictures are worth a lot. You see the increase in the requests, and the bottom line is the increase in security. And you'll note that the slope of those two lines is very different.

Can you account for why that is, why we have an increase in requests yet no increase in security?

CLINTON: Well, Congressman, I can only tell you that I know a number of requests were fulfilled, and some were not. But from my perspective, again, these were handled by the people that were assigned the task of elevating them.

And, you know, I think it's important to again reiterate that, although there were problems and deficiencies discovered by the Accountability Review Board, the general approach to have security professionals handle security requests, I think still stands.

POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. I wish you'd have listened to those security professionals.

You described Mr. Stevens as having the best knowledge of Libya of anyone. Your words this morning. And yet when he asked for increased security, he didn't get it.

May I see the second chart, please? This chart says the same thing; I just talked to you about requests for assistance. This chart -- I won't go through the numbers in detail -- we've talked about them a bit. But it shows the increasing number of security incidents at the facility, your facility, the State Department facility, in Benghazi, Libya.

And then again, it shows the increase in security being nonexistent. I assume your answer is the same with respect to the fact that we have increasing security incidents, but no corresponding increase in the amount of security?​

And, of course, as noted earlier, Congressman Westmoreland later debunked Hillary's claims about the small number of security improvements that she claimed were made. It turns out that most of the few security enhancements that were made were done by local security personnel--at their own expense, I might add.

 

[mikegriffith1]

A couple points that liberals keep dancing around or ignoring:

* There was no protest outside the Benghazi compound on the night of the attack. Nobody disputes this. Go read the transcript of Hillary's appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee back in 2013. She was pressed to explain why Susan Rice went around saying it was a spontaneous attack that started as a protest when we now know that there was no protest that night. Her answer was that she was not involved in formulating Rice's claims.

* The fact that there was no protest at the Benghazi compound makes the claim that the video played even just a minor role look ever more absurd.

* Hillary clearly lied when she claimed that Stevens never asked her to intervene to improve security at the compound and that he never even raised the issue with her. We know Stevens made it a point to raise his concerns with Senator McCain when McCain visited to observe the elections. We know Stevens raised his concerns with others in e-mails. We know that Clinton's senior aide, Huma Abedin, knew about Stevens' concerns. But we're supposed to believe that Stevens never once raised the subject with her, even though hundreds of his security requests were unmet.

Obviously, if Hillary admitted that Stevens raised the issue and asked her for help, she would be forced to admit that she made a catastrophic, inexcusable error in judgment, at the very least.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Well, well, we now have more hard evidence that Hillary is lying about never receiving security requests from Stevens. Keep in mind that not only did Hillary recently tell the Benghazi Committee that not one of Stevens' security requests made it to her desk but that Stevens never once told her about his Benghazi security concerns.

In fact, there is hard evidence that Hillary personally denied one of Ambassador Cretz's security requests for increased security at U.S. facilities in Libya, which refutes her claim that she never saw security requests and that such requests never went higher than the security office:

For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned. ( http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/globalaffairs/benghazi.pdf )​

We now know that Hillary received a request from Stevens for humanitarian aid, which raises the obvious point that if she received a humanitarian aid request she most certainly should and would have received far-more-urgent Benghazi security requests.

Furthermore, we now know that according to State Department policy, Hillary WAS responsible for security, that the buck stopped with her and not with the security office:

Another area of conflict involves security and aid requests. In an exchange with Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., Clinton told the House committee none of the requests for diplomatic security reached her. "That's over 600 requests," Pompeo said. "You've testified here this morning that you had none of those reach your desk; is that correct also?"​

Clinton responded, "That's correct."​

However, the State Department website, under a section on embassy security, states that the secretary has overall responsibility for the well-being of personnel on assignment. The buck does not stop with “security professionals” as Clinton has testified.​

It states: “The Secretary of State, and by extension, the Chief of Mission (COM), are responsible for developing and implementing security policies and programs that provide for the protection of all U.S. Government personnel (including accompanying dependents) on official duty abroad.”​

Yet, the new emails show a request for humanitarian aid sent by the late Ambassador Chris Stevens did reach her desk. The Aug. 22, 2011 email from Stevens was circulated among Clinton staff and delegated for action in under an hour.​

With the overthrow of Qadaffi, Stevens wrote that the Libyan opposition, known as the TNC, would soon release a statement saying it would "insure the delivery of essential services and commodities (esp. addressing the acute shortages of fuel, children's milk, and medication for blood pressure and diabetes)."​

Seventeen minutes later, Clinton responded, "Can we arrange shipments of what's requested?”​

While the request for humanitarian aid from Stevens did reach her office, during her testimony, Clinton emphasized, "Chris Stevens communicated regularly with the members of my staff. He did not raise security with the members of my staff. I communicated with him about certain issues. He did not raise security with me. He raised security with the security professionals." ( State Department emails conflict with Clinton’s Benghazi testimony )​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives are a Cult, it's frightening to watch people who I thought had an ounce of brains act like mindless Zombies

 

[BIG YANK BAL 1976]

Hey thank you cons and Repugs, Tea Maggots, after you admitted that Ben Gazzi was all a witch hunt to drive down her poll numbers backfired, her numbers started rising, and she surged after that 11 hour hearing,, to be more blunt you guys fucked up