Monday, May 6, 2013

Clinton and Kennedy were very uncomfortable with the attacks on the mission in Benghazi being presented as terrorism, so they worked to keep the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop in the early decision-making about the attacks.

Clinton and Kennedy were very uncomfortable with the attacks on the mission in Benghazi being presented as terrorism, so they worked to keep the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop in the early decision-making about the attacks.

Whistleblower testimony leaks: Clinton circumvented counterterrorism bureau

According to a May 6 report by James Rosen of Fox News, information has leaked about the upcoming testimony of Benghazi whistleblower, Mark I. Thompson, the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau and a former Marine. In what appear to possibly be officially-planned leaks, Thompson will reportedly testify that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy attempted to work around the department's own counterterrorism bureau in their response to the attacks in Benghazi.
In accusations substantiated by another counterterrorism official, Thompson maintains that Clinton and Kennedy were very uncomfortable with the attacks on the mission in Benghazi being presented as terrorism, so they worked to keep the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop in the early decision-making about the attacks.
Benghazi whistleblower Mark I. Thompson is being represented by attorney Joe di Genova who is working pro bono. Di Genova’s wife, Victoria Toensing is representing another Benghazi whistleblower, Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. He was the possibly the last person to talk to Ambassador Chris Stevens before he was killed.
Did you find this article informative? If so, you can subscribe to this column and receive articles in your email inbox. All that is required is a working email.

Breaking: It Turns Out That Protecting Our Embassies Costs Money

| Wed Oct. 10, 2012 10:56 AM PDT
Via Steve Benen, I see that Darrell Issa might have a wee problem on his hands when he holds his hearings today about inadequate security at the Benghazi consulate. Dana Milbank reports:
House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
That's the problem with budget cutting: it sounds great when you're thumping tubs on the campaign trail in front of adoring tea party crowds, but when the actual work of governing comes up, those cuts have to come from actual programs that do actual things. Like protecting our embassies.

Hillary Clinton Pointed Out That DEMOCRATS Cut The Embassy Security Budget Three Consecutive Years (2007-2009). So How Is GOP To Blame???

If and when we get the transcript of the Benghazi hearings, we will see Hillary Clinton explaining to a Democrat that the embassy security budget had been cut every single year but one since 2007.
Who was in charge of the Congress in 2007?  That was the year that Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid began presiding over Democrat majorities of both the House and the Senate, that’s who.  The same Democrats were also in charge in 2008 – when they voted to cut the embassy security budget again.  And the same Democrats were in charge in 2009, when yes, they voted to cut the embassy security budget still again.
And yet why are the Republicans to blame for the Benghazi disaster, in which the first US ambassador was brutally murdered since the failed Carter years in the 1970s?  Because they voted to cut the embassy security budget.  Just like the Democrats (that’s the people who have been blaming the Republicans for cutting the embassy security budget) had done before them.
Every Democrat in both the Senate and House hearings demagogued the fact that Republicans had voted to cut the embassy security budget.  Both before and after Hillary Clinton pointed out that cutting the embassy security budget was hardly a partisan issue against Republicans given how many times Democrats had done it.
But that seems to have gotten lost somehow.
Republicans seemed fixated on the fact that a number of key Democrats in various State Department and intelligence positions had stated under oath that the budget cuts had absolutely no impact on the security situation in Benghazi.  They never seemed to comprehend the fact that if they didn’t know that Democrats had been the first ones to “gut” the embassy security budget, Hillary Clinton had just stated it as a fact.  Republicans are so used to being demagogued and demonized that they just go into defense mode rather than understand that Hillary Clinton had just given them the perfect response to Democrats’ demagoguery: “Why on earth are you blaming us for doing the exact same thing that you just got through doing year after year just a short time ago?”
Mind you, Hillary Clinton’s bright, shining moment of abject moral depravity during the hearing occurred when she said:
“With all due respect, the fact is, we  had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because  of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some  Americans?! What difference, at this point, does it make?!  It is our job  to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from  ever happening again, Senator.”
Well, for one thing, Secretary Clinton, there’s something called “the truth” and there are still a few people who believe that the truth makes a difference.  But to be more specific, you completely omitted the ONE possibility in your statement above that turned out to BE that truth: that the murder of our ambassador and the three Americans who tried heroically to save America’s honor WAS A PLANNED, COORDINATED TERRORST ATTACK like conservatives said it was from the very getgo and what liberals denied from the very getgo.  Do you notice that?  Hillary Clinton says it was either a protest or a group of guys that just randomly decided to kill Americans in an attack that just completely coincidentally occurred on the anniversary of 9/11.  How on earth, madam secretary, can we ever “figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again” when you steadfastly refuse to even consider the truth as so much as a possibility?
What was it that Obama’s stooge Susan Rice trotted out and said?
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
Not one single word of what she said was true.  We now know that it in fact was a planned, coordinated, premeditated attack by an al Qaeda affiliated terrorist organization.  Every single thing Obama’s White House told us was completely false.  So how the hell are we supposed to “figure out what happened” when that is our “truth”???
The fact that the ONLY person who has been punished or disciplined in any way, shape or form over this murder of our ambassador was the guy who exercised his First Amendment right to make a video that everybody now knows had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that attack.  And nobody has been captured or killed because there is no possible way that we can “figure out what happened” thanks to Obama’s and Clinton’s rampant deceit to cover up their gross incompetence.
But that isn’t all, of course.  There’s also the fact that Obama had been campaigning as the guy who had al Qaeda on the run and was on the verge of destroying it.  It was a completely bogus narrative, as the 9/11 attack that murdered our ambassador and as the meltdown in Algeria clearly prove.  The thing was, an al Qaeda-affiliated attack undermined Obama’s bogus political narrative.  So he forced the intelligence narrative to support his bogus political narrative by covering up the truth about what happened in Benghazi.
Obama produced a narrative of complete, abject lies as a cover-story for his cover-up in Benghazi.  And reacts with outrage to the suggestion that maybe the lies had a political motive even though they very clearly had a political motive.
What Obama did - altering the intelligence to conform to a politically convenient narrative – is an impeachable offense.  That’s what difference it makes, Hillary, you liar.
What does it matter?  Well, the truth does NOT matter to this wicked administration.
Tragically, Ambassador Christopher Stevens would be alive today had we had a Secretary of State, who had been more informed, who had been more available, who had bothered to read Ambassador Steven’s desperate pleas for security.
But “what difference, at this point,” does it make now?  Apprently none.

Whistleblower: Hillary cut State’s counter-terrorism bureau out of Benghazi loop

posted at 8:41 am on May 6, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

In the previous post, I noted that Darrell Issa’s witnesses in the House Oversight hearings on Benghazi would make life difficult for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Fox News reported late yesterday that one witness in particular will testify that Hillary purposefully cut out of the loop the State Department’s bureau for counter-terrorism as Benghazi burned — which will prompt all sorts of questions as to why any Secretary of State would make that decision:
On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a “whistle-blower” witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.
That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau — independently of Thompson — voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.
Thompson considers himself a whistleblower, Fox reports, and wanted to tell this story all along — but the Accountability Review Board suppressed it:
Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.
Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to — and characterize — the Benghazi attacks.
“You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,” the second official in State’s counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October.  Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson’s forthcoming testimony.
To quote Hillary, what difference at this point would it make? It’s about to rain all over her 2016 parade by painting her as an incompetent, of course, but that’s actually a by-product of her own choices.  The bigger issue now is the cover-up.  Why would the Obama administration try to keep a counter-terrorism response group on the sidelines during a terrorist attack?  Who got to the ARB and made it into a CYA exercise rather than a real investigation?
Who knew what, and when?
Stay tuned, because Issa’s carrying dynamite, and it’s not clear exactly how the explosion will manifest itself.  Expect lower-level officials to throw themselves on it to protect both Obama and Clinton, but so far it looks like higher-level officials want to go on the record, and that’s bad news for the White House.

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

The Huffington Post  |  By Posted: Updated: 10/11/2012 1:55 pm
Jason Chaffetz Embassy Cuts
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) voted to cut back on funds for embassy security. (AP Photo/J. Scott)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.
On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."
"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”
For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.
Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored.
"It seems to be a coordinated effort between the White House and the State Department, from Secretary [Hillary] Clinton to President Obama's White House," Chaffetz told Fox and Friends on Tuesday.
Chaffetz and Issa co-signed a letter to the State Department, demanding answers on to the Benghazi security detail. State Department officials and other witnesses will testify before the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations on Wednesday.
Ahead of the hearing, some Democrats claim that partisanship and campaigning are corrupting the Libyan investigation, The New York Times reports. The charges come as some GOP members attempt to frame the incident as a failure of the Obama's foreign policy and to call criticize the administration for engaging in a "cover-up" of what really occurred.

Benghazi 'Whistleblower' to Testify Hillary Clinton Sought to Cut Out Security Experts

article image
Whistleblower Mark I. Thompson intends to testify that Hillary Clinton and a key aide attempted to cut the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of planning and reporting in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.
Set to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reforms Committee on Wednesday, Thompson became the Deputy Coordinator for Operations in the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism in 2006.
According to Fox News, Thompson plans to testify that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy sought to remove the Bureau of Counterterrorism from the equation in the wake of the attack on the American mission which left four dead, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Another official from the Bureau of Counterterrorism lodged a similar complaint about Clinton and Kennedy in October of 2012.
Spokespeople for Clinton and the State Department have denied Thompson’s allegations.
Thompson is one of three whistleblowers from the State Department who will testify this week. Gregory N. Hicks, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the attacks and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, will also testify that more could have been done when the mission came under siege to protect Americans.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., head of the oversight committee, said Hicks will testify that a rescue mission to save Stevens and others was thrown out in the midst of the siege.
Nordstrom testified before the oversight committee last year.
“For me the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building,” he told the hearing in October of 2012. Nordstrom is the only one of the three counterterrorism officials who does not consider himself a “whistleblower.”
According to their attorney Hicks and Thompson have been subject to intimidated from their superiors in order to silence them from telling the truth about what happened in the Libya attacks.
Jen Psaki, spokeswoman for the State Department called the three officials’ claim “100 percent false.”
Clinton testified in January that the attack in Benghazi was not the violent act against the U.S. after an anti-muslim video was published to Youtube. “[We] also saw violent attacks on our embassies in Cairo, Sanaa, Tunis, and Khartoum, as well as large protests outside many other posts where thousands of our diplomats serve,” she testified.
Issa told a GOP audience at the annual Lincoln-Reagan dinner on Friday that Hicks received terrified phone calls from Ambassador Stevens “begging for help.”
"Nobody knew the dangers better than Chris, first during the revolution and then during the transition," Clinton testified in January. "A weak Libyan government, marauding militias, even terrorist groups … a bomb exploded in the parking lot of his hotel, but he didn’t waver. Because he understood that it was critical for America to be represented in that pivotal place at that pivotal time.”
Sources: Fox News, Daily Mail

Clinton sought end-run around counterterrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2SZmHWAKf

On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a "whistle-blower" witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.
That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau -- independently of Thompson -- voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.
Extremists linked to Al Qaeda stormed the U.S. Consulate and a nearby annex on Sept. 11, in a heavily armed and well-coordinated eight-hour assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.
Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson's lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.
Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to -- and characterize -- the Benghazi attacks.
"You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night," the second official in State's counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October.  Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson's forthcoming testimony.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the counterterrorism officials' allegation "100 percent false." A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge is not true.
Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department's Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges.
"I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this charge is simply untrue," he said. "Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the Department. At no time did I feel that the Bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of."
He went on to call his bureau a "central participant in the interagency discussion about the longer-term response to Benghazi." He said "at no time was the Bureau sidelined or otherwise kept from carrying out its tasks."
Thompson's attorney, diGenova, would not comment for this article.
Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of "The Weekly Standard," showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda's known involvement in them from "talking points" being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly.
Those talking points -- and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks -- sought instead to depict the Americans' deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by "The Weekly Standard" show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy "my building's leadership."
The allegations of the two counterterrorism officials stand to return the former secretary of state to the center of the Benghazi story. Widely regarded as a leading potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, Clinton has insisted she was not privy to decisions made by underlings about the inadequate security for the U.S. installations in Benghazi that were made in the run-up to the attacks. And she has portrayed her role -- once the attacks became known in Washington -- as that of a determined fact-finder who worked with colleagues to fashion the best possible response to the crisis.
Clinton testified about Benghazi for the first and only time in January of this year, shortly before leaving office. She had long delayed her testimony, at first because she cited the need for the ARB to complete its report, and then because she suffered a series of untimely health problems that included a stomach virus, a concussion sustained during a fall at home, and a blood clot near her brain, from which she has since recovered. However, Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB she convened.
Fox News disclosed last week that the conduct of the ARB is itself now under review by the State Department's Office of Inspector General. A department spokesman said the OIG probe is examining all prior ARBs, not just the one established after Benghazi.
The two U.S. officials -- former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and former Ambassador Tom Pickering -- who oversaw the internal review of the attacks defended their report.
"From the beginning of the ARB process, we had unfettered access to everyone and everything including all the documentation we needed. Our marching orders were to get to the bottom of what happened, and that's what we did," they said in a statement Monday.
The counterterrorism officials, however, concluded that Clinton and Kennedy were immediately wary of the attacks being portrayed as acts of terrorism, and accordingly worked to prevent the counterterrorism bureau from having a role in the department's early decision-making relating to them.
Also appearing before the oversight committee on Wednesday will be Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Like Thompson, Hicks is a career State Department official who considers himself a Benghazi whistle-blower. His attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, has charged that Hicks, too, has faced threats of reprisal from unnamed superiors at State. (Toensing and diGenova, who are representing their respective clients pro bono, are married.)
Portions of the forthcoming testimony of Hicks -- who was one of the last people to speak to Stevens, and who upon the ambassador's death became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya -- were made public by Rep. Issa during an appearance on the CBS News program "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
Hicks told the committee that he and his colleagues on the ground in Libya that night knew instantly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and that he was astonished that no one drafting the administration's talking points consulted with him before finalizing them, or before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice delivered them on the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 16.
Hicks was interviewed by the ARB but Thompson was not, sources close to the committee's investigation tell Fox News

Top State Department Counterterror Official to Testify Against Hillary Clinton on Benghazi


Hillary-Clinton-Benghazi-testimony-jpg
The Benghazigate investigation seems to have gotten its first major break with a top State Department official willing to go on record, despite the threats and the undoubted penalties to his career.
On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a “whistle-blower” witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.
That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau — independently of Thompson — voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.
Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.
Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to — and characterize — the Benghazi attacks.
“You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,” the second official in State’s counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October.  Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson’s forthcoming testimony.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the counterterrorism officials’ allegation “100 percent false.” A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge is not true.
Keeping the counterterrorism bureau in the loop would have required dealing with practical recommendations involving military action and would have led to realistic assessments of the attack.
By cutting counteterror out of the loop early in the game, Hillary Clinton showed that the coverup which attributed the attack to a protest over a video gone wrong wasn’t belated, it began right out of the gate. Clinton and top State Department officials chose to minimize what was going on and to abandon their people on the ground right from the start.
There was no reason to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop unless Hillary Clinton never wanted to address this as a terrorist attack or to save the Americans in Benghazi right from the outset.

"OBAMA" TRIES TO "KILL" HILLARY CLINTON before TV sets of human cattle disconnected

"OBAMA" TRIED TO KILL HILLARY CLINTON just before TV sets of human cattle disconnected for GOOD

"OBAMA" TRIED TO KILL HILLARY CLINTON TO STOP HER FROM TESTIFYING in Benghazigate =
Crown Jewel of very last soap opera before TV sets of human cattle are disconnected
MAKE NO MISTAKE: "OBAMA" TRIED TO KILL HILLARY CLINTON TO STOP HER FROM TESTIFYING in Benghazigate" (1) is the crime that crowns O's endless array of crimes in the very last soap opera before TV sets of human cattle are disconnected for good.

Media reductionism during each genocide setting a milestone:
- during the genocide of christian Armenians by muslim Turks, one of the milestones that marks the begin of End Times, there was yet no radio. Yet there were still reports about it in printed media.
One of the reasons that it is a milestone for the begin of end times is one of the ultimate signs of end times.
Each even greater genocide afterwards would be TOTALLY censored, although printed media would be extended with radio, TV, satellite TV ((milestone and trademark: CNN) and finally the global internet:
- during the jewish holocaust, 1937-1945, there was yet no TV, but illuminati radio, starting with BBC broadcasts to Germany, totally censored it (2);
- the ongoing genocide of undesirable at hospitals and homes for elderly in this millenium alone accounts for more than 35 million.
It became the largest genocide ever in 2007 (3), in the age of not only satellite TV but also of global internet (4).

As we are just weeks away from the begin of the "genocide to put an end to all genocides" (5), a reminder: during the final genocide in Illuminatziland media coverage will be a non-question.
Because there will be no media at all.

Notes
(1) This is as usual announced by the CIA Web of Disinfo first as a question.
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-BREA...ON-TO-STOP-HER

In fact it is the craziest ever staged footage, to be released within days, as revealed by Last Prophet.
Obama hits Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton backfires:
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Craz...ts-Clinton-she

(2) To get how the illuminati censored the Truth as it took place, start by how they do it NOW.
To what lengths illuminati go to censor TRUTH about Auschwitz and Holocaust
http://www.christianforums.com/t7691347/
To what lengths US / EU governments go to censor TRUTH about Auschwitz and Holocaust

(3) 2007 or "coincidentally" at the same time of systemic collapse.
You will find systemic collapse near genocide of elderly explained in the script for the final genocide:
Disarm citizens: ULTIMATE script ILLUSTRATING importance of TRAITORS for illuminati - Christian Forums
Disarm citizens: ULTIMATE script ILLUSTRATING importance of TRAITORS for illuminati
2006, March: Last Prophet's words in a CIA forum adding 1 + 1 to return the data on the largest genocide ever, survived in webarchive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/200708150...ad.php?t=32681

(4) TOTALLY censored in the age of global satellite TV (trademark CNN) and internet translates to End Times Information Process.
Talk of CNN: angelic Google returns the truth and almost NOTHING but the TRUTH, once you add 1+1, or more precisely you add it to what this article is about:
Google
Information Highway Parallel Lanes - Traffic Jam in the Lane to Hell...: CNN 9/11 by Google - the BIG PICTURE of Global Coverage, from Vietnam to Serbia and Iraq

(5) One of the reasons that Global Slavery is the ultimate goal of the Illuminati religion is that it means fulfillment of "order out of chaos".
Global Slavery alias New World Order means no more wars, no more genocides.
2012, November: China Illuminati puppets masscre dozens of slaves owned by Apple / Foxconn - Differences to Bangladesh slaves owned by Walmart and US slaves before citizens disarmed:
"Communist" China Illuminati puppets masscre dozens of slaves owned by Apple Foxconn

US special forces told not to fly to Benghazi in wake of attack – diplomat

Benghazi row rumbles on as GOP release testimony suggesting US military team could have arrived in time to save lives
A US flag lies amid the rubble at the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya,where Chris Stevens was killed
Gregory Hicks will allege that military commanders blocked deployment of troops for fear of offending the Libyan government. Photograph: Stringer/EPA
Republican critics of Hilary Clinton have released selected testimony from a forthcoming hearing on the Benghazi embassy attack which appears to show that special forces and fast jets could have arrived in time to protect US diplomats.
As the political fallout from the September 2012 incident continues to dog Clinton, the former secretary of state, a witness due to speak before the House oversight committee on Wednesday alleges that military commanders blocked deployment of troops or planes for fear of offending the new Libyan government.
Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, told a congressional interview in pre-prepared testimony that he believed the arrival of special forces or jets could have saved lives or even prevented the attack, which led to the death of ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others.
The White House declined to comment, stressing that it was an interview it had not yet been able to view. It was also not possible to verify whether the selected testimony from Hicks released on Monday was a partial version designed to emphasise critical aspects.
It does, however, shed important new light on attempts to dispatch troops to Bengazi:
Hicks: So, Lieutenant Colonel Gibson, who is the Socafrica commander, his team – you know – they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C-130 when he got a phone call from Socafrica, which said: you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight. And, of course, this meant that one of the ...
Questioner: They didn't miss the flight. They were told not to board the flight.
Hicks: They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it. So, anyway, and yeah. I still remember Colonel Gibson – he said: "I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military." A nice compliment.
The testimony also raises questions about whether US officials in Washington and Libya were too cautious in responding to the attack, which is thought to have been carried out by fighters close to al-Qaida.

White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged that there had been mistakes made before the attack, but insisted these had been dealt with in subsequent investigations.
"There was an accountability review board chaired by two of the most distinguished experts in our national security establishment, nonpartisan experts – Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering – who oversaw this review," said Carney.
"And it was unsparing. It was critical. And it held people accountable. And it made a series of recommendations for action that could be taken to improve security to reduce the potential for these kinds of events from happening in the future. And every single one of those recommendations has been or is being implemented by the State Department."
Nonetheless, Wednesday's hearing looks set to re-open the issue both for the White House and for Clinton, who is still widely tipped to be planning a presidential run at the next election.
Pressure is likely to focus on what steps the US took once it was aware the embassy was under attack, an issue the selected Hicks testimony suggests was badly handled:
Questioner: But do you think, you know, if an F-15, if the military had allowed a jet to go fly over, that it might have prevented [the second attack]?
Hicks: Yeah, and if we had gotten clearance from the Libyan military for an American plane to fly over Libyan airspace. The Libyans that I talked to and the Libyans and other Americans who were involved in the war have told me also that Libyan revolutionaries were very cognizant of the impact that American and NATO airpower had with respect to their victory. They are under no illusions that American and NATO airpower won that war for them. And so, in my personal opinion, a fast-mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.
Questioner: The theory being, the folks on the ground that are doing these – committing these terrorist attacks look up, see a heavy duty airplane above, and decide to hightail it?
Hicks: I believe that if – I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.
The hearing will also include testimony from Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya.
In October 2012, the Oversight committee held the first hearing on the Benghazi attacks, which it says exposed denials of security requests and forced the administration to acknowledge that the attacks were not sparked by a protest of a YouTube video, contrary to claims made by Obama administration officials.

A Benghazi bombshell

A Benghazi bombshell

The Obama administration wants to consign the Benghazi terrorist attack to the history books, but this week three State Department officials will tell Congress that the Obama administration’s version of history is false — and that the falsehoods it told the American people were willful and deliberate.
One of the whistleblowers, Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, was in direct, real-time communication with people on the ground during the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya, before he was locked out of the room. Yet despite his firsthand knowledge of how the attack unfolded, he was not interviewed by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board, even though he asked to be. According to sources I spoke with, Thompson will testify that the circumstances under which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died have been “purposefully misrepresented” by the administration and that “all their public statements from the initial account to the talking points [that Ambassador Susan Rice used on the Sunday shows] were false, and they knew it.”
Marc A. Thiessen
A fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post.
Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the attack, will apparently back up that charge. This weekend, Rep. Darryl Issa (R-Calif.), who heads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, revealed some of what Hicks told congressional investigators: “My jaw hit the floor as I watched [Rice speak] .... I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day. . . . I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate.”
What was even more jaw-dropping was that no one from the State Department contacted Hicks before Rice’s interviews on the Sunday shows. Hicks says he was “personally known” to Rice’s staff and “I could have been called. . . . I could have said, ‘No, that’s not the right thing.’ That phone call was never made.” The next day, Hicks told investigators, he called Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, and asked her, “ ‘Why did Ambassador Rice say that?’ And Beth Jones said, ‘I don’t know.’”
Hicks told congressional investigators that Stevens’ final report before he died was to say, “Greg, we are under attack.” Incredibly, though, Hicks has not even been allowed to see the classified Accountability Review Board report. Perhaps the Obama administration is afraid to let him review its “findings” for fear he will uncover more falsehoods.
Last week, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell dismissed the whistleblowers, declaring there has already been a thorough investigation into the attack “and that should be enough.” Well, apparently the man who was second in command at our embassy in Libya disagrees.
In addition to getting to the bottom of what the administration knew about Benghazi, and when they knew it, Congress needs get to the bottom of the coverup, which is apparently ongoing. Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for one of the whistleblowers, told Fox Newsthe whistleblowers have been threatened with career-ending reprisals if they furnish new information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress. Who threatened them? What were they told would happen to them? And who else was pressured not to testify?
White House spokesman Jay Carney last week tried to dismiss Benghazi as something that “happened a long time ago.” With all respect, the attack took place just eight months ago. To the families who woke up this morning without sons and husbands and fathers by their side, it does not feel like “a long time ago.”
Moreover, eight months later, we still have not gotten the full story of what happened. If all the facts are out, and the administration truly has nothing to hide, why has it reportedly tried to silence these career State Department officials?
Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that eight months have passed since Benghazi and still nothing has been done about it. Our country suffered a coordinated terrorist attack on an American diplomatic facility. A U.S. ambassador was killed at the hands of our terrorist enemies. Yet no one has been brought to justice — nor has justice been delivered to anyone.
Maybe before the Obama administration closes the book on Benghazi, it ought to tell the truth about what happened — and then actually do something to avenge these dead Americans. Because when a president seems more intent to sweep a terrorist attack under the rug than he is to respond to it, it sends a message of weakness to our enemies and invites new attacks.

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Read more on this topic:
Jennifer Rubin: Benghazi plot thickens
The Post’s View: Benghazi report is important first step on accountability

Oversight Committee Announces Witnesses for Wednesday Benghazi Hearing

May 4, 2013
WASHINGTON – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa today announced three witnesses who will appear at a full committee hearing, “Benghazi:  Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage,” on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at 11:30 AM in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

“I applaud these individuals for answering our call to testify in front of the Committee.  They have critical information about what occurred before, during, and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks that differs on key points from what Administration officials – including those on the Accountability Review Board – have portrayed,” said Issa.  “Our committee has been contacted by numerous other individuals who have direct knowledge of the Benghazi terrorist attack, but are not yet prepared to testify.  In many cases their principal reticence of appearing in public is their concern of retaliation at the hands of their respective employers.  While we may yet add additional witnesses, this panel will certainly answer some questions and leave us with many new ones.”


Witnesses:
Mr. Mark Thompson
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism
US Department of State

Mr. Gregory Hicks
Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/ChargĂ© d’Affairs in Libya
US Department of State

Mr. Eric Nordstrom
Diplomatic Security Officer and former Regional Security Officer in Libya
US Department of State

In October 2012, the Oversight Committee held the first hearing on the Benghazi attacks, which exposed denials of security requests and forced the Administration to acknowledge that the attacks were not sparked by a protest of a YouTube video, contrary to claims made by Obama Administration officials.

*** NOTE: Press seating will be reserved, but limited. Please arrive early (hearing room will open to press at 10:30 AM) to guarantee a seat. An overflow area will be available. ***

Hearing Details:
Wednesday, May 8th, 2013
Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Full Committee, Chairman Darrell Issa, (R-CA)
11:30 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building and streaming live at oversight.house.gov.

Related Documents

US special forces told not to fly to Benghazi in wake of attack – diplomat

Benghazi row rumbles on as GOP release testimony suggesting US military team could have arrived in time to save lives
A US flag lies amid the rubble at the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya,where Chris Stevens was killed
Gregory Hicks will allege that military commanders blocked deployment of troops for fear of offending the Libyan government. Photograph: Stringer/EPA
Republican critics of Hilary Clinton have released selected testimony from a forthcoming hearing on the Benghazi embassy attack which appears to show that special forces and fast jets could have arrived in time to protect US diplomats.
As the political fallout from the September 2012 incident continues to dog Clinton, the former secretary of state, a witness due to speak before the House oversight committee on Wednesday alleges that military commanders blocked deployment of troops or planes for fear of offending the new Libyan government.
Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, told a congressional interview in pre-prepared testimony that he believed the arrival of special forces or jets could have saved lives or even prevented the attack, which led to the death of ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others.
The White House declined to comment, stressing that it was an interview it had not yet been able to view. It was also not possible to verify whether the selected testimony from Hicks released on Monday was a partial version designed to emphasise critical aspects.
It does, however, shed important new light on attempts to dispatch troops to Bengazi:
Hicks: So, Lieutenant Colonel Gibson, who is the Socafrica commander, his team – you know – they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C-130 when he got a phone call from Socafrica, which said: you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight. And, of course, this meant that one of the ...
Questioner: They didn't miss the flight. They were told not to board the flight.
Hicks: They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it. So, anyway, and yeah. I still remember Colonel Gibson – he said: "I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military." A nice compliment.
The testimony also raises questions about whether US officials in Washington and Libya were too cautious in responding to the attack, which is thought to have been carried out by fighters close to al-Qaida.

White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged that there had been mistakes made before the attack, but insisted these had been dealt with in subsequent investigations.
"There was an accountability review board chaired by two of the most distinguished experts in our national security establishment, nonpartisan experts – Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering – who oversaw this review," said Carney.
"And it was unsparing. It was critical. And it held people accountable. And it made a series of recommendations for action that could be taken to improve security to reduce the potential for these kinds of events from happening in the future. And every single one of those recommendations has been or is being implemented by the State Department."
Nonetheless, Wednesday's hearing looks set to re-open the issue both for the White House and for Clinton, who is still widely tipped to be planning a presidential run at the next election.
Pressure is likely to focus on what steps the US took once it was aware the embassy was under attack, an issue the selected Hicks testimony suggests was badly handled:
Questioner: But do you think, you know, if an F-15, if the military had allowed a jet to go fly over, that it might have prevented [the second attack]?
Hicks: Yeah, and if we had gotten clearance from the Libyan military for an American plane to fly over Libyan airspace. The Libyans that I talked to and the Libyans and other Americans who were involved in the war have told me also that Libyan revolutionaries were very cognizant of the impact that American and NATO airpower had with respect to their victory. They are under no illusions that American and NATO airpower won that war for them. And so, in my personal opinion, a fast-mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.
Questioner: The theory being, the folks on the ground that are doing these – committing these terrorist attacks look up, see a heavy duty airplane above, and decide to hightail it?
Hicks: I believe that if – I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.
The hearing will also include testimony from Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya.
In October 2012, the Oversight committee held the first hearing on the Benghazi attacks, which it says exposed denials of security requests and forced the administration to acknowledge that the attacks were not sparked by a protest of a YouTube video, contrary to claims made by Obama administration officials