6 Ways Benghazi Proves Hillary Should Never Be President
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to be the front runner for the Democratic nomination to run for President in 2016, despite the fact that her actions surrounding the terror attack on the Benghazi Consulate prove she shouldn’t be allowed to run a non-profit, much less a whole administration.
The entire Obama Administration has handled the attack poorly, but Hillary should shoulder most of the blame, due to her position and involvement.
The American people need only to look at her behavior before, during and after Benghazi to know how she would handle a similar crisis if she were to be elected President. If anything, we should be looking for ways to file criminal charges — not give her the most powerful political office on earth.
1. She blatantly lied. Hillary Clinton deliberately lied about the cause of the attack. The American people were told that the attack was the result of a spontaneous riot in protest of a little-seen Youtube video that spun out of control. Anyone could see that it was obviously a planned assault by a terrorist outfit. Yet, Hillary and other members of the administration blamed the video for over a month.
2. She said it didn’t “matter”. When Hillary finally found time to testify before Congress about the Benghazi attack, she claimed that her lies did not matter. Despite multiple Congressmen pointing out facts of the attack that disproved the administrations narrative, she arrogantly dismissed their questions.
Pressed by Senator Johnson about why she had lied, she famously exploded “what difference, at this point, does it make?” She also lied under oath in these hearings, claiming she had no foreknowledge of the security situation in Benghazi. Documents and emails obtained from the State Department, bearing her signature, prove otherwise.
3. Her “investigation” was a fraud. After the attack, Hillary directed the State Department to conduct an internal investigation into what went wrong. That was like having a criminal on trial act as his own prosecutor, judge and jury.
The fraudulent investigation discovered nothing noteworthy, mostly because it did not interview any of the survivors of the attack, nor any of the high-ranking State Department officials involved. Sticking only to interviewing mid-level and insulated employees, the investigation served only as an attempt to cover-up Hillary’s mistakes.
4. She could have stopped the attack. New evidence and information have revealed that the Benghazi attack could have been stopped. Numerous documents and emails show that the State Department, including Hillary Clinton, were well aware of the dangerous lack of security at the Consulate, yet they did nothing to remedy the situation.
Furthermore, anonymous special ops witnesses and whistleblower survivors have said that military assets were near the region and could have easily reached Benghazi in time to save lives and prevent the second attack.
5. She has silenced whistle blowers. The White House has censored the truth about what happened in Benghazi, helped along by the complicit mainstream media. From the beginning, all attempts to uncover the truth have been stonewalled at every turn and met with lies, half-truths, or silence.
Witnesses have been hidden. The few who have stepped forward claim they were threatened to remain silent. Certain members of the military who may have spoken out about Benghazi have died, disappeared, or fallen from public view in disgrace. By all appearances it seems the White House, and Hillary Clinton, are involved in a full-scale cover-up.
6. She had no plan for defense. It is now quite obvious that Hillary had no plan for dealing with an attack like Benghazi. From the ignoring of prior threats and attacks before 9/11 and the removal of a highly trained security force, to the denial of requests for additional security measures and the lack of communication between the State Department and the military, it is apparent that Hillary Clinton is quite incompetent when it comes to securing the interests of America and the lives of Americans serving those interests abroad.
Can we take the risk of expecting her to be any more competent in dealing with a similar situation as President? The answer is obvious. Keep that woman out of the White House, whatever it takes.
Please share this on Facebook
Lying about Ben Ghazzi. Screaming what difference does it make if it was organized terrorism or not?
A congressional select committee could offer immunity to the CIA’s dispersed, intimidated survivors.
You can always tell the depth of an event’s illegality by the measures people take to cover it up. By that measure, the conduct of President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and David Petraeus leading up to the terrorist attack that killed four Americans on 9/11 2012 must be must be so sufficiently wrongful that, if revealed, they could lead to the president’s impeachment.
How else can we gauge what is apparently the most energetic coverup in modern history? We know, from several sources, that the survivors of the attack — not on the consulate, but on the CIA annex — number a few dozen or more. We also know from those sources that almost all of their names have been concealed from Congress in the course of the coverup.
Those sources also reveal that the CIA has required those survivors to sign confidentiality agreements binding them to never disclose what they were doing in the days or months leading up to the 9/11-12 attack. Keep in mind that good old Joe Wilson — the former ambassador sent to Niger by the CIA to “learn” what Iraq had done to acquire uranium — wasn’t required to sign any confidentiality agreement, hence his ability to become a Democratic political attack dog instantly after Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage leaked his wife’s CIA employment to reporter Robert Novak.
The Joe Wilson episode and the CIA requirement imposed on the Benghazi survivors is entirely consistent with the political conduct we’ve seen from the CIA in the past dozen years.
And it gets worse. Last week, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) disclosed that the CIA’s involvement in covering up the Benghazi scandal goes much further. He said that the CIA was not only requiring the Benghazi survivors to change their names, it is also spreading them around the country in a CIA version of a witness protection program. In this case, the witnesses are being protected from ever telling the truth to the media or testifying before Congress.
We now also know that the CIA’s Benghazi veterans are being required to submit to monthly polygraph tests to check on their behavior: they are being required to answer if they’ve leaked to Congress or the press every time they are polygraphed.
Why is there such blatant intimidation of these people? We’ve all seen and heard the reports that the Benghazi CIA annex was the locus of a gun-running operation. If it was, the only likely recipients of the arms would be either the Syrian opposition — which is largely made up of al-Qaeda members and other Sunni jihadis — or the Turks who might have been serving as a pipeline for the arms to those same Syrian opposition guys.
In either case, the president — whose approval had to have been obtained for any such operations — would be directly implicated. He was either acting without congressional authority or in violation of laws on the books that are supposed to block those actions.
Either way Obama, Clinton, and Petraeus would be in the dock personally for having broken the law.
It would be enough to make Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, and Dean green with envy. Except for the fact that nobody died in Watergate. And the fact that the other facts of the day don’t just call into question Obama’s Middle East policy: these facts demonstrate that this policy is quite bizarre.
In the past two weeks, there have been massive jailbreaks of al Qaeda members — some of them high-ranking leaders — in Iraq and Libya. In Pakistan, hundreds of Taliban jihadis, again including some Taliban leadership, escaped. There are probably about a thousand al Qaeda and Taliban thugs at large today who weren’t at large last month.
So it should come as no surprise that the State Department issued a travel advisory on Friday and ordered our embassies in most Muslim countries closed yesterday. Al Qaeda isn’t, as Obama has told us again and again, decimated or out of action. The specific information that led to the warning and closure of 22 embassies is of a widespread al Qaeda threat that could target Americans in any of those countries on President Obama’s birthday. This is his birthday gift from the people who brought us the “Arab Spring.”
The president continues to insist that there is some bloom of democracy in the Middle East. Both he and Eric Holder have admonished the Egyptian military to include the Muslim Brotherhood in any interim government they might form. This would be, Obama and Holder insist, a more “inclusive” government for Egypt.
They obviously believe that the Muslim Brotherhood — for all its ties to terrorism, for all its doctrine of strict Sharia law — is a force for democracy rather than against it. Either they believe that, or Obama and Holder have made America into a force against freedom and democracy. At this point, there is ample reason to believe either interpretation of American policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment