Bill Clinton: Who Wants a President Who ‘Knowingly, Repeatedly Tells You Something He Knows Isn’t True?’

November 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm (2012 Election, Ambassador Stevens, Barack Obama, Benghazi, Bill Clinton, Jay Carney, Libya, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Susan Rice)

“You are laughing, but who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows is not true? When I was a kid, if I got my hand caught in the cookie jar, where it wasn’t supposed to be, I turned red in my face, and I took my hand out of the cookie jar.”

–  Bill Clinton, Philadelphia, November 5th
We here at the Mental Recession, couldn’t agree more.  So we urge Mr. Clinton to please tell the Obama administration to get their damn hands out of the cookie jar when it comes to Benghazi.
A short video reminder from the Heritage Foundation:

Permalink Leave a Comment

‘Stand Down’: More Proof That Americans Killed in Benghazi Were Left to Die by Their Government

October 26, 2012 at 12:07 pm (Ambassador Stevens, Annex, Benghazi, CIA, Delta Force, Fox News, Glen Doherty, Jennifer Griffin, Libya, Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods, White House)

The story of four Americans killed in Benghazi grows more horrifying each and every day.  This should be considered perhaps the biggest scandal in Presidential history.

Does it feel like it’s brig reported as such?

Via Fox News:

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to “stand down.”

Woods, Doherty and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

Three separate requests for help.

Three separate denials.

They were told to stand down.  They were left to die.

Watch the report below…

Permalink Leave a Comment

E-Mails Show White House Knew Benghazi Was a Militant Attack Two Hours In

October 24, 2012 at 12:05 pm (Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, John Bolton, Libya, Obama Administration, President Obama, Saxby Chambliss, Scandal, State Department, White House, White House E-Mails)

So much for reporting on the intelligence available at the time.  My question – Do you not as Americans get angrier with each and every lie that comes out of the White House regarding the murder of four fellow patriots?

Does it bother you at all?

Via Reuters:

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

By ultimately, they mean several weeks later.  This is definitive proof that Obama’s White House was not getting bad reports and bad intelligence from the State Department or the intelligence community, and simply erroneously relaying information that a video had sparked the attack.

They knew.  They knew, and they lied.

More details from Gateway Pundit:

This email was sent to State Department officials, White House officials, Secret Service officials at 6:07 PM EST on 9-11.

This was at least the third email sent to the White House the evening of 9-11 on the Benghazi attack.

Barack Obama was meeting with his security team in the Oval Office that evening.

The email clearly blamed Al-Qaeda linked group Ansar al-Sharia for the attack on the US consulate.

This was before the lifeless body of Ambassador Stevens was dragged from the consulate ruins.

A copy of the e-mail:

Then there’s this from Fox Nation via Maggie’s Notebook:

The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday.

“They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.

The network reported that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the hours-long siege on Sept. 11 — obtaining information that should have spurred swift action.

But as Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues were killed by terrorists armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Defense Department officials were too slow to send in the troops, Berntsen said.

“They made zero adjustments in this. You find a way to make this happen,” he fumed.

“There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments.”

The Pentagon said it moved a team of special operators from Central Europe to Sigonella, Italy — about an hour flight from Libya — but gave no other details.

Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network.

The White House knew about it and did nothing.  They watched it happening in real-time and did nothing.  President Obama knew about it and went to sleep.  Literally. 

Republicans are responding.

NewsMax:

Republicans are blasting the Obama administration for failing to act on real-time information that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was under attack. Emails obtained by the news agency Reuters show that officials at the State Department were told within two hours of the attack starting that the al-Qaida-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility. Reacting to the report, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton said he was not surprised by the disclosure, telling Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Tuesday night that “what the emails show beyond any doubt is that the State Department was fully possessed of the information in real time.” Bolton said the “paper trail” now makes it harder for the Obama administration to “sweep away” the security failure at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, in which Ambassador Chris Stephens and three other Americans were killed. On Capitol Hill, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called for additional hearings on Libya based on the emails…
… Bolton also blamed the failure to launch an immediate military response to the attack, based on the email traffic that reportedly reached the White House situation room and the State Department, on election year politics and the administration’s reluctance to admit that al-Qaida “was resurgent in Libya.” “It undercut the [Obama campaign] storyline that the war on terror is over, al-Qaida’s on the run, the Arab spring has been a success,” Bolton said. “And that led to the denials of the request [before the attack] for security enhancement. That led to the tragedy in Benghazi. And I think that then led to this ridiculous story that it was caused by some YouTube video.” Bolton described it as “a willful blindness” to reality.

Willful blindness to reality.  Does that statement apply more so to the administration, or those voters who will ignore this massive scandal come election day?

Permalink Leave a Comment

State Department: You Know All Those Times We Said the Benghazi Attack Was a Protest About a Video? Yea, We Never Said That

October 10, 2012 at 9:00 am (Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, Libya, Obama Administration, September 11, State Department, Terrorism)

They insult our intelligence on a daily basis...

The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.

But asked about the administration’s initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, “That was not our conclusion.”

Um, er…

(h/t Michelle Malkin)

Permalink Leave a Comment

Report: Sensitive Documents May Have Disappeared in Libya Attack Aftermath

October 3, 2012 at 4:08 pm (Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, Hillary Clinton, Libya, Obama Administration, Sensitive Documents, Washington Post)

The incompetence of the Obama administration in handling this attack grows ever more apparent.

Via the Washington Post:

More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the remains of the U.S. mission here on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate details about American operations in Libya. 

Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and a translator visited Wednesday. 

Although the gates to the compound were locked several days after the attacks, looters and curiosity-seekers were free to roam in the initial chaotic aftermath, and many documents may already have disappeared. 

No government-provided security forces are guarding the compound, and Libyan investigators have visited just once, according to a member of the family who owns the compound and who allowed the journalists to enter Wednesday.

Of course nobody is in a hurry to secure the crime scene and investigate the attack, Hillary has already said she’d like to hold off on finding answers until after the election.

Read the rest of the report here…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Bombshell: Did the White House Cover Up Ambassador’s Murder Because They Were Warned of Attacks Months in Advance?

October 2, 2012 at 8:17 pm (Ambassador, Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, Hillary Clinton, Libya, Susan Rice, Terrorism)

We know the Obama administration has been actively engaged in a cover-up as to why the U.S. consulate in Benghazi came under attack on September 11th, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats.  How else to explain the weeks-long campaign to convince people that the attacks were not terrorism.

Now we’re finding out more details as to why they may have engaged in such a wide-ranging cover-up.

Via the Telegraph (emphasis mine):

Now that Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has confirmed there was an explicit link between al-Qaeda and the attack, questions are being asked about the role Dr Rice played in trying to play down the significance of the attack. The Republicans have already called for her to resign from her post for misleading the American people.

But the real smoking gun is whether the Obama administration was warned in advance that al-Qaeda was planning an attack. A number of Israeli newspapers have suggested that Washington was warned as early as September 4 – a week earlier – that the environment in Benghazi was becoming increasingly hostile and anti-American, while in London the Foreign Office took the decision to withdraw all its consular staff from Benghazi two months before the murders. This decision was based on an intelligence assessment made by MI6 that al-Qaeda was openly operating in the area following a failed assassination attempt on Sir Dominic Asquith, Britain’s ambassador to Libya, in June.

It is well known that British intelligence works closely with its counterpart in America, and if MI6 knew al-Qaeda was operating in the Benghazi region, then it is highly likely that the CIA did too.

Suddenly the Administration’s “it’s nothing to do with us, guv,” defence is starting to look rather thin, with potentially disastrous consequences for Mr Obama’s re-election prospects.

If indeed, Washington was warned about an “increasingly hostile and anti-American” environment in Benghazi on September 4th, it makes this State Department memo (since scrubbed from their website) on September 6th even more curious:

Gateway Pundit explains how the administration tried hiding this memo after the fact:

Here’s what they did – They scrubbed a damning State Department memo from the internet–

On Wednesday September 12, 2012 blogger Speak With Authority discovered that five days before 9-11, the US State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11.

But now it’s gone.The State Department scrubbed the letter from its OSAC website.

At the time that this was revealed, their had been reports that the U.S. knew of potential threats a single day ahead of the actual attacks on September 11th.  But this latest report from the Telegraph demonstrates that the White House knew al-Qaeda was operating in the area in June, had specific reports of increasing hostility on the 4th, and then reported that there were no credible threats on the 6th.

That is criminal.

To have lowered security expectations despite their knowledge of threats is criminal.

This is a cover up of the highest order.  The Obama administration knew that attacks were possible and left U.S. consulate buildings unprotected.  The administration is directly responsible for the magnitude in which those attacks became successful.

And now, they are aware that there is evidence something could have been done to prevent the deaths of these four Americans.  There was blood on their hands, and instead of admitting mistakes they’ve been trying to scrub the crime scene clean ever since.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Uh Oh … Guess Who Really Shot First and Aimed Later? (Hint – It Wasn’t Mitt Romney)

September 29, 2012 at 2:50 pm (2012 Election, Ambassador Stevens, Cover Up, Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, Libya, Mitt Romney, President Obama)

Remember way back on September 12th when the President accused Mitt Romney of having “a tendency to shoot first and aim later”?  That criticism was in response to a Romney campaign statement in which the Republican candidate criticized the administration for ‘not condemn(ing) attacks on our diplomatic missions’.  The thinking was that Romney had inappropriately injected politics into a national tragedy.

Turns out he was actually just injecting a bit of reality into a national tragedy.

Since that time, we have learned that the White House knew the attacks were not spontaneous protests, that they were indeed acts of terrorism, and they had been carried out by Al Qaeda affiliates.

Fox News reports:

An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that no threat assessment was conducted before U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team began “taking up residence” at the Benghazi compound — describing the security lapses as a “total failure.”

The claim comes more than two weeks after Stevens and three other Americans were killed in what is now being described officially as a terror attack possibly tied to Al Qaeda.

The source told Fox News that there was no real security equipment installed in the villas on the compound except for a few video cameras.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst, the intelligence source said the security lapses were a 10 — a “total failure” because Benghazi was known to be a major area for extremist activity.

A total failure that led to four murders.

Now, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is trying to take the fall for the White House…

The office of the United States’ top intelligence official appeared to take the blame Friday for the Obama administration’s changing narrative on the U.S. Consulate attack in Libya, saying administration officials who initially claimed the attack was spontaneous did so based on intelligence officials’ guidance. 

The statement by Shawn Turner, spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, was put out late Friday — at the close of a tumultuous week for the Obama administration over the Libya attack. 

The problem here is that even if National Intelligence was incorrect in their initial sentiments, they realized their error within 24 hours, something which the White House was also knew about.

Turner, though, sought to explain that officials who discussed the attack as spontaneous did so based on intelligence community assessments.

“In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo,” he said. “We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.”

However, sources have told Fox News that intelligence officials knew within 24 hours the attack that left the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans dead was terrorism, and that they suspected it was tied to Al Qaeda.

It’s unclear, then, why the intelligence community told Executive Branch officials it was spontaneous.

To believe this version of events is to believe that the Director of National Intelligence knew within 24 hours that the United States had just suffered a terrorist attack with casualties on the anniversary of 9/11, and he still lied to his own superiors by telling them it was spontaneous.  Absurd!  If that were even vaguely true, then the President would have no choice but to ask for Clapper’s immediate resignation.

And again, the Obama administration continued lying to the American people for several days after the fact, culminating with the President’s speech to the U.N. two weeks later, in which he still gave credence to the idea that a protest of an anti-Muslim video is what caused the attacks.

The media should be apologizing to Mitt Romney for the heat he took after condemning the administration’s response to the attacks.  President Obama should apologize for saying Romney shoots first and aims later.

18 days after the attack the President is still shooting and has yet to aim.

Will the cover up continue until election day, or will the President be forced to admit the scandal?

And will the American people fire this man in November?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Even Democrats Are Demanding Answers From the President

September 28, 2012 at 10:44 am (9/11, Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, Cover Up, Ed Morrisey, George Bush, John Kerry, Libya, President Obama, Scandal, Senate Democrats, Terrorist Attack, Thomas Nides)

They’re normally just so obedient.

But the Obama administration’s lies are obvious, and the cover up is becoming more scandalous on a daily basis.

Via the Washington Examiner:

Senate Democrats joined Republicans Thursday in questioning the Obama administration’s handling of the fatal Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and why the administration refused for days to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack linked to al Qaeda.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., circulated a bipartisan letter addressed to Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, asking for an “accounting of the attacks against U.S. missions in Egypt, Libya and Yemen,” according to a copy obtained by The Washington Examiner.

The lawmakers are also demanding to know whether the administration had any advance warnings of the Libyan attack and, if so, whether it had shared that information with U.S. personnel on the ground.

The letter marks the first time congressional Democrats have so directly expressed their dissatisfaction with the administration’s response to inquiries about the attacks, which resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others and raised questions about U.S. security throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa.

A Kerry aide confirmed that the committee intended to enlist the support of Republicans and Democrats and said the letter would likely be sent Friday. Another aide told The Examiner that the panel’s 10 Democrats and nine Republicans plan to sign it.

In other words, recognition of obvious bulls*** has now gone bipartisan.

Gabriel Malor in the Daily News writes:

It has been 15 days since the attack in Libya. And where are we? President Obama, who first confidently (but incorrectly) declared that the attack grew spontaneously out of a protest over a YouTube video, has finally admitted that it was an act of terrorism directed against Americans on the anniversary of 9/11. There was no protest before the attack, we now know.

We now know this because of journalists in Libya. We know this because of Libya’s own officials. But we know hardly anything from our own government about what happened in Libya because most of what we were told by the White House was a lie.

The President boldly vowed that the perpetrators — he declined to call them terrorists at the time — would be brought to justice. To that end, he called in the FBI. More than a week later, the FBI flew a team to Tripoli, but that is as far as they got. They have not traveled to Benghazi. They have not examined the scene. They have not collected evidence. They have not interviewed the people the Libyans have arrested. It has been fifteen days since the attack.

Why is this not a scandal yet?

The answer is that the President’s name is no longer George Bush. Had this obvious cover up occurred under W, it would be an epic media played scandal.  But today, the media provides cover for a President coming under attack from even his closest political friends, such as Kerry.

That said, it’s actually worse than simply not providing answers that the American people deserve.  It’s the active lying prior to, and since, the ensuing attacks.

As we reported earlier, the administration did indeed have advance warning of imminent attacks on 9/11. 

This CBN report explains:

CBN News Terrorism Analyst Erick Stakelbeck called Benghazi an al Qaeda “hot spot” and agrees that there was threat there well before the film’s release.

“For the Obama administration to continue to argue that these attacks were just spontaneous flies in the face of reality,” Stakelbeck said.

“One day before the attacks, Ayman al-Zawahri — who’s al Qaeda’s global leader — specifically called for al Qaeda attacks in Libya,” he explained. “One day later we see those attacks.”

This is a cover up of the highest order.  The Obama administration knew that attacks were possible and left U.S. consulate buildings unprotected.  The administration is directly responsible for the magnitude in which those attacks became successful.

And now, they know that there is evidence that something could have been done to prevent the deaths of these four Americans.


As Ed Morrisey writes, the administration “got caught flat-footed on the anniversary of 9/11 in the one part of the world where an American diplomatic mission would be most vulnerable — and they’ve been trying to deny it ever since.”

The American people deserve the truth.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama Admin Deletes State Department Memo After Benghazi Attack

September 28, 2012 at 9:00 am (Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, Chris Stevens, Cover Up, Libya, Obama Administration, President Obama)

It would appear the State Department has been caught trying to cover up more information in regards to the attack in Benghazi, Libya.  Attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Essentially, they deleted an internet memo which stated that prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, that they had received no credible threats.  We now know this was not the case.

Via Gateway Pundit:

Yesterday there were reports that the Obama Administration found out that Al-Qaeda was behind the Benghazi consulate attacks within 24 hours of the assault that killed four Americans.
Here’s what they did – They scrubbed a damning State Department memo from the internet–
On Wednesday September 12, 2012 blogger Speak With Authority discovered that five days before 9-11, the US State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11.
But now it’s gone.The State Department scrubbed the letter from its OSAC website.

We now know this not to be true.  The administration had received credible threats prior to the attacks.

This CBN report explains:

CBN News Terrorism Analyst Erick Stakelbeck called Benghazi an al Qaeda “hot spot” and agrees that there was threat there well before the film’s release.

“For the Obama administration to continue to argue that these attacks were just spontaneous flies in the face of reality,” Stakelbeck said.

“One day before the attacks, Ayman al-Zawahri — who’s al Qaeda’s global leader — specifically called for al Qaeda attacks in Libya,” he explained. “One day later we see those attacks.”

This is a cover up of the highest order.  The Obama administration knew that attacks were possible and left U.S. consulate buildings unprotected.  The administration is directly responsible for the magnitude in which those attacks became successful.

And now, they know that there is evidence that something could have been done to prevent the deaths of these four Americans, and for other embassies coming under fire.

The only question now is, was it intentional?

Think I’m throwing stones?

Read this, and you won’t look at the current administration the same again…

Permalink Leave a Comment