Carney: Obama ‘Not Particularly Concerned’ That Susan Rice Lied to the American People

November 28, 2012 at 9:42 pm (Al Qaeda, Benghazi, Extremists, Jay Carney, Major Garrett, President Obama, Susan Rice, Terrorists, White House)

Why would he be concerned?

A)  He and his administration were the ones telling her to lie to the American people after the attacks in Benghazi.

B)  The American people indicated that they don’t particularly care about being lied to when they voted him back in.

Via the Weekly Standard (h/t Memeorandum):

In response to a question from reporter Major Garrett on whether the Obama administration’s mishandling of Benghazi raises “core questions of basic competency,” press secretary Jay Carney revealed that Barack Obama “is not particularly concerned” about whether Susan Rice misled the American people:

“What the president is worried about, Major, is what happened and why in Benghazi. He is not particularly concerned about whether the ambassador or I went out and talked about the fact that we believed extremists might have been responsible. And whether we named them as al Qaeda or not does not–no, it certainly doesn’t have any bearing on what happened and who was responsible as that investigation was continuing on Benghazi.”

Here’s the video…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Patronizing Democrats – Susan Rice Only Being Criticized Because She’s Black

November 16, 2012 at 4:07 pm (Benghazi, Congressional Black Caucus, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Libya, Lindsey Graham, Marcia Fudge, Minority, Ohio, Race Card, Republican, Susan Rice, United Nations, Women)

It remains a mystery in my eyes, how liberals and Democrats fail to recognize that by constantly playing the race card in every possible scenario, it ends up being patronizing to the minority group that they are actually trying to defend.

Case in point – voter ID.  Liberals would have you believe that getting a free photo identification from the local DMV, and making it necessary to vote in elections, would suppress the minority vote.  Now, the only way you can possibly believe that statement is true, is if in your own little head, you actually believe that those minority groups are too incompetent to attain the proper identification necessary to vote.  It’s the only way that statement rings true.

And now we have this…

Via Gateway Pundit:

Representative Marcia L. Fudge the next Chair of the 43-member Congressional Black Caucus released a statement today defending Ambassador Susan Rice.
Twelve liberal Democratic women in the House embarrassed themselves today by defending dunce Susan Rice over her bizarre Libya comments.
They said Rice was being attacked because she’s black.
ABC News reported:
A dozen female members of the House staunchly defended U.N. ambassador Susan Rice against Republican criticism over her remarks on the deadly Sept. 11 Libya attack, suggesting the GOP lawmakers’ comments were racist and sexist.
“It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities,” Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the next chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told reporters Friday at a Capitol Hill news conference.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham earlier this week called Rice untrustworthy and unqualified to be the nation’s top diplomat if President Barack Obama chooses her to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The two vowed to block any Senate confirmation if she is nominated.

First off, Rice’s actions amount to one of two things.  She either knowingly lied about what had happened in Benghazi, or she was used as a puppet by the administration to feed the public their talking points.  If she lied, then she is unfit to serve in her current post, let alone as a replacement for Hillary Clinton.  If she was used to promote the administration’s lies, then they have also denigrated this African-American woman by using her as a tool rather than letting her do her job.

Second, to come to the conclusion that Rice is being attacked because she is a black woman, is to view her with a condescending level of tunnel vision.  The very people that are criticizing her are doing so because they view her as Susan Rice, United States Ambassador to the United Nations.  The people that are defending her do not look at her in the same manner.  Instead they patronizingly view her as a poor defenseless black woman incapable of standing up to her critics or defending her position.

When Susan Rice attained the tremendous heights that she has throughout her career, do you think she’d rather have been viewed as a successful overall individual, or do you think she’d prefer to be viewed as the career product of being a poor black woman?

There couldn’t be anything less racial about the entire Benghazi cover up.  And yet Democrats feel they still have to play that card.  The left consistently turns race into a political ploy.  If you’re a minority, don’t you feel a little bit embarrassed every time they do it?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Petraeus to ‘Amend’ His Testimony – Knew It Was Terrorism ‘Almost Immediately’

November 16, 2012 at 11:41 am (Ansar Al Sharia, Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, Congress, Cover Up, David Petraeus, Navy SEALs, Obama Administration, Scandal, Susan Rice, Terrorism, Testimony, White House)

CNN is reporting that a well-placed source has indicated that CIA Chief David Petraeus will ‘amend’ his previous testimony, telling Congress that he knew the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans was terrorism, and that he knew this “almost immediately”.

Via Breitbart (h/t Memeorandum):

Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported that a high-placed source informed her that former CIA Chief David Petraeus will use his upcoming testimony to amend his previous testimony. According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed door congressional hearing that he knew “almost immediately” that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.

Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security advisor to George W. Bush, who is now a CNN analyst, tweeted this out:

Of course Petraeus knew the attacks were terror related almost immediately.  The entire White House knew it as well.  On October 24th, we reported on e-mails sent to officials at the White House and the State Department, advising the administration within a couple of hours that the attacks were carried out by an Islamic militant group, Ansar Al Sharia, the same group Petraeus plans to note in his testimony.
Reuters reported:

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 relaying mis-information that a video had sparked the attack.

They knew.  They knew, and they lied.

Which is precisely why GOP lawmakers have a hard time considering Susan Rice competent when she subsequently went on a whirlwind media tour five days later claiming that the attacks were a spontaneous response to an anti-Mohammad video.

Petraeus, in addition to his ‘amended’ testimony, also informed CNN’s source that “he believed the CIA talking points given to Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration.”

Politico is also reporting on these statements from Sen. Saxby Chambliss:

Sen. Saxby Chambliss on Friday stopped short of charging that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s explanation of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi was a lie but said it was crafted to provide White House political talking points.

“Susan Rice was sent to give a White House message,” said Chambliss, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “It was not an intelligence community message, and there’s a very clear distinction in that.”

“I do think that there were some politics involved in the message that the White House wanted to send,” he added.

Upon hearing President Obama’s touchy defense of Rice a couple of days ago, Charles Karuthammer had this to say:

You called at it a show of passion, I would say it was his usual show of indignation, which is his default response whenever he feels defensive or backed into a corner. ‘How dare you attack my U.N. ambassador?’ And then he gives the strangest defense by saying she didn’t have anything to do with the Benghazi [attack]. Then why the hell are you sending her out there? Why didn’t you send out the Secretary of State, or the CIA Director, or [Secretary of Defense] Panetta or somebody, who did know? 

The question is rhetorical.  We know that the White House, the State Department, and the CIA Director were informed that this was a terror attack almost immediately.  The White House then gave Rice her talking points for the American public five days later which denied terrorism was a factor by shifting blame to a video.

Rice had one job and one job only – to lie to you, to lie to me, and to lie to the families of those that were killed that night.  All because an election was right around the corner.

This is disgraceful.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Clinton Getting More Security For a Wine-Tasting Event Than the Navy SEALs Who Were Killed in Benghazi

November 14, 2012 at 12:00 pm (Australia, Benghazi, Hillary Clinton, Navy SEALs, Secretary of State, Security, Wine Tasting)

Seems Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can’t find the time to testify at the closed Benghazi hearings due to a ‘scheduling conflict’.  This despite the fact that the Obama administration owes America answers as to what happened in Benghazi, and Clinton is certainly a prime player as to how events went down that night.

Nevermind America, she owes the families of the victims answers.  Instead, she has a very critical meeting to attend in place of the hearings.

The scheduling conflict?  A wine-tasting event with friends.

And she’s bringing along a security entourage that I’m sure the Navy SEAL’s who were told to stand down before they were killed would have greatly appreciated.

Here is her conflicting schedule via the Herald Sun:

Few details of Ms Clinton’s visit on Wednesday and Thursday have been revealed, but it is understood she will visit close friends, one whom is connected to the Carnegie Mellon University. It also believed that:

THE 150-strong entourage is likely to visit Penfolds’ Magill Estate for either a wine tasting session or private function.

THE entourage has booked more than 100 rooms over several floors at the Intercontinental Hotel on North Tce.

HEAVY traffic restrictions are likely from late Wednesday ahead of her anticipated arrival that night.

HER entourage will leave Adelaide on Friday morning.

While Ms Clinton will be protected at close quarters by her own US Secret Service detail, dozens of AFP protection officers and STAR Group officers will be involved in protecting her motorcade and any venues she visits.

Police are also likely to use helicopter surveillance to monitor her every move.

The operation will be larger than that mounted to protect Prince Charles and his wife Camilla for their five-hour flying visit to Adelaide on Wednesday.

Bryan Preston at the PJ Tatler nails it:

Too bad Ambassador Stevens and the three others killed in the Benghazi attack didn’t have a fraction of the security that will protect Clinton in war-torn Australia.

The fact that a Clinton is involved in Benghazi all but assures that the families of the slain and the American people will never get answers and will never see any accountability.

Indeed, a 150-person entourage may have come in handy the night of the attack at the compound and annex, especially when the SEALs were calling Hillary and the White House begging for reinforcements.

Bottoms up!

Permalink Leave a Comment

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

Benghazi: Is the President Running Out the Clock Until Election Day?

November 1, 2012 at 9:02 pm (2012 Election, Benghazi, Cover Up, Darrell Issa, Drip, Jake Tapper, Jason Chaffetz, President Obama, Run Out the Clock, September 11th, State Department, Task Force, Terrorism)

Sorry, Mr. President, but your time is just about up.

ABC’s Jake Tapper wrote a post today in which he mentions that critics think the President is simply trying to run out the clock on Benghazi.

Via Political Punch:

As he left his Marine One helicopter Wednesday evening and walked to the residence of the White House, President Obama did not respond to a question shouted out by ABC News’s Mary Bruce about when he would begin to provide answers to the numerous questions building up about what exactly what went wrong in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012.

The president smiled and continued walking.

Perhaps he couldn’t hear the question over the din of the chopper’s blades, but either way the smile and wave – almost Reagan-esque in style – underline the apparent strategy the president specifically and his administration in general have seemed to adopt when it comes to the myriad inquiries about the decisions that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens: they are deferring detailed answers to the investigation and – critics say –running out the clock until Election Day.

Unfortunately, the strategy of running out the clock may not be working.

More stunning details about the attack are coming forward.  A Daily Beast report by Eli Lake indicates that two separate U.S. officials claimed the State Department never made a request made for military backup that night.

Additionally, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are investigating whether the Government of Libya, the one ushered into power with the aide of the U.S., may have been involved in the plot that eventually killed four Americans.

Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and National Security Subcommittee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) today sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressing for answers after documents first disclosed by Foreign Policy indicate the possible involvement of Government of Libya personnel in what was clearly a preplanned assault.  According to the letter sent by the two Congressional oversight leaders:
These documents paint a disturbing picture indicating that elements of the Libyan government might have been complicit in the September 11, 2012 attack on the compound and the murder of four Americans.  It also reiterates the fact that the U.S. government may have had evidence indicating that the attack was not a spontaneous event but rather a preplanned terrorist attack that included prior surveillance of the compound as a target.
Given the location where they were found, these documents appear to be genuine and support a growing body of evidence indicating that the Obama Administration has tried to withhold pertinent facts about the 9/11 anniversary attack from Congress and the American people.
The documents are fully consistent with the Committee’s understanding of events that took place before and during the attack on the compound and include new details not previously released to the public.  The letters ask the State Department whether the information included in the letters discussed above was memorialized in any cables, telegrams or e-mails prior to the attack or in any post-attack review. 
Click here for a copy of the Issa/Chaffetz letter to Secretary Clinton that includes the new documents obtained by Foreign Policy.  

Worse yet, CBS is reporting that a key task force on counter-terrorism was not convened by the Obama administration.

CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).

“The CSG is the one group that’s supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies,” a high-ranking government official told CBS News. “They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon.”

Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.

Flashback to September 10th…

On September 10, 2012, The Associated Press Reported That “President Barack Obama Has Been Briefed By His Top National Security Aides On The Government’s Preparedness Ahead For The 11th Anniversary Of The Sept. 11 Attacks.” 

“President Barack Obama has been briefed by his top national security aides on the government’s preparedness ahead of the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. The White House said Monday the president and his advisers discussed specific measures the administration was taking to prevent 9/11-related attacks. They also discussed steps that were being taken to protect Americans abroad and U.S. forces serving in combat zones.”

Please check out this timeline of events in Benghazi and Washington running side-by-side, as provided by Doug Ross.

The one part that stands out to me is –

9/11/2012 22:00 Hillary Clinton blames internet video for violence.

Six hours later…

9/12/2012 4:00 Doherty and Woods killed on roof of annex.

They had time to concoct the video fairy tale, but didn’t have time to take military action to possibly aide the two Navy SEALs who died 6 hours later.  Unreal.

The actions of the administration – or inactions – at the very least exacerbated the success at which the terrorists carried out their attacks.  The subsequent cover up was downright criminal.

And while the White House would like to run out the clock until the election, the slow drip-drip-drip of information coming out of Benghazi, provided by the few real journalists remaining in media, may cause them to bleed out.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Classified Cable Shows State Department Was Warned That Benghazi Consulate Could Not Withstand Coordinated Attack

November 1, 2012 at 9:21 am (Al Qaeda, Benghazi, Cable, Christopher Stevens, Classified, Hillary Clinton, Secret, State Department, Terrorist, White House)

No wonder Fox News crushes in ratings.  They actually do the job of journalists.

A new secret cable has been revealed that shows Hillary Clinton’s State Department was warned less than a month in advance of the Benghazi terror attack, that security personnel at the consulate had deep concerns that they could not withstand a coordinated enemy attack.

Notice that they did not say that they couldn’t withstand a spontaneous protest over a video.  But rather, they could not withstand a coordinated terror attack.  Something in which four Americans fell victim to less than a month later.

Via Fox News: 

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.

According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.

The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.

The report then summarizes the implication in having this secret cable perfectly:

“It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.”

Biggest cover up in White House history?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Gingrich: Networks May Have E-mails Showing White House Explicitly Telling Counterterrorism Teams to Stand Down in Benghazi

October 31, 2012 at 9:59 am (Benghazi, Greta Van Susteren, Libya, Newt Gingrich, President Obama, Stand Down, Terrorism, White House)

Last night with Greta Van Susteren, Newt Gingrich made the shocking claim that news networks have access to e-mails which explicitly show the White House itself ordering counterterrorism groups to stand down and do nothing while four Americans were being killed by terrorists.

Will they be released by the media?  And will any network other than Fox start covering the story more intensely?  This is after all, the biggest coverup in modern Presidential history.

Via the Daily Caller:

On Tuesday night’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on the Fox News Channel, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that major news networks might have secret emails proving that the White House canceled plans to assist the besieged U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.  Gingrich said that the bombshell emails could be revealed within the next two days.

“There is a rumor — I want to be clear, it’s a rumor — that at least two networks have emails from the National Security Adviser’s office telling a counterterrorism group to stand down,”

Gingrich said. “But they were a group in real-time trying to mobilize marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action. If that is true, and I’ve been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that is true and comes out, I think it raises enormous questions about the president’s role, and Tom Donilon, the National Security Adviser’s role, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoulders, that he said don’t go. And that is, I think, very dubious, given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to do everything they could to secure American personnel.”

Here’s the video…

Permalink Leave a Comment

White House Releases Photo of Obama in Situation Room Monitoring Hurricane Sandy, Still Waiting on Picture of Him Monitoring Dead Americans in Benghazi

October 30, 2012 at 4:28 pm (Benghazi, Briefing, Charles Krauthammer, Hurricane Sandy, Libya, Politics, President Obama, Situation Room, White House)

The White House has released this very convenient photo-op of the President actually acting like a … President.  (h/t Weasel Zippers)

The caption reads in part:

President Barack Obama receives an update on the ongoing response to Hurricane Sandy, in the Situation Room of the White House, Oct. 29 2012.

Of course, we’re still anxiously awaiting any pictures of the President monitoring the situation in Benghazi on September 11th, as he and his staff were able to watch the 7-hour struggle in real-time.

Charles Karuthammer earlier today noted the contrasting events.

Via the Daily Caller:

As Hurricane Sandy was approaching the Jersey Shore, President Barack Obama has suspended his campaign activities to be at the ready for the pending crisis. But on Monday’s broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “Special Report,” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wasn’t convinced it wasn’t just for political imaging purposes.

Krauthammer compared Obama’s willingness to be out front on Sandy to his lack of willingness to be out front on Benghazi, which he said suggested political opportunism.

“He says he’s not concerned about the impact on the elections,” Krauthammer said. “I’m sure he’s very sincere on that. It is a little odd that he shows up in the briefing room, where he hasn’t shown up in the briefing room for about, what — a month and a half on Libya, or for everything else for that matter? Then you get the photo-ops of him in the situation room deploying, I guess, the utility crews who will restore power all over America. Whereas you would think he might want to use the situation room and had convened high-level people during the nine hours our people were under attack in Benghazi.”

Watch Krauthammer below…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Father of Slain SEAL: White House ‘Had a Moral Duty to Send Support, They Chose Not To’

October 27, 2012 at 11:41 am (Benghazi, Charles Woods, Chris Stevens, CIA, Hero, Heroes, Navy SEAL, Obama Administration, President Obama, Tyrone Woods, White House)

Morality isn’t a strong point of this administration, as we have come to learn over the last couple of months concerning the massacre in Benghazi.

Last night on Hannity the father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, spoke about the moral bankruptcy of the White House in their response to the attacks, and the subsequent lies and cover up.

Here is a brief excerpt (transcript and video below):

“For seven hours the cowards in the White House were watching something they knew that was going to potentially kill those 30 people and potentially kill my son and they refused to do that – even though they had a moral duty to send support, they chose not to.”

TRANSCRIPT (Rough):

HANNITY: moments ago i spoke with the father of this american hero tyrone woods to get reaction to these developments. an incredible interview. here is what he had to say.

HANNITY: we have learned so much in the aftermath of this attack. and you know we learned that the ambassador first requested security. it was denied. we learned that while they were under attack that they requested security and none was forthcoming and we learnd that they were watching this in the state department, charleen lamb said they were watching in in real time so everybody knew what was going on.

CHARLES WOODS: right, exactly. when i went back to washington, d.c. when the bodies were flown in i knew that something was fishy. it just — it was just obvious that something was wrong with this picture and in my mind i questioned, you know, this was obviously a long drawn out battle. why there was no immediate air support sent in that would have saved the lives of not just the other 30 people but also the life of my son who truly was an american hero? now, it has come out that pleas for help were made not just by the other individuals but by my son and these pleas were turned down by the white house. now, as you know i’m a retired attorney and i know that these actions legally do not constitute murder but in my mind the people in the white house all of them who have authority to send in reenforcements to prevent what they knew was going to be the death of my son are guilty of murdering my son. there is new information that came out this morning that my son on a couple of different occasions requested permission to go to the aide of those 30 people being attacked and on at least two of the first occasion he was told stay where you are are at, let them die, don’t go and it does not surprise me that my son disobeyed orders in order to save american lives. that is the type of american hero he was.

HANNITY: so after he was told to stand down as i understand t there were numerous other are pleas for help and your son actually as i understand it rescued many people and got them out of the consulate. is that true?

WOODS: you know, one of the real touching e-mails i got was — i won’t mention a name but i received an e-mail from someone who said your son’s sacrifice saved my life and he saved more than one life and that is the type of man he was. that is the type of leadership the military needs.

HANNITY: so if he would have obeyed that order to stand down rather than help the ambassador’s team that person is telling you they wouldn’t be alive today.

WOODS: that is correct.

HANNITY: and then —

WOODS: and a many other people as well.

HANNITY: your son first got involved, was told to stand down after they heard shots at a approximately 9:40 p.m. now, as i understand it, it wasn’t until about 4:00 a.m. the next day that your son after he had rescued other people was still fighting in this attack and it was then that he took on mortar fire?

WOODS: that is my understanding. for seven hours the cowards in the white house were watching something they knew that was going to potentially kill those 30 people and potentially kill my son and they refused to do that even though they had a moral duty to send support they chose not to. this is not the way the seals operate. the seals are an honorable unit and ty was honorable by disoh boying the powers in the white house that told him not to rescue those lives.

HANNITY: your son was told to stand down. a navy seal, risks h his military career and his life for 7 full hours and rescues all these people. multiple requests throughout the entire period go, it is be hing watched in real time and nobody sends any help. i can’t fathom this. and then we are told the president goes out there for two weeks and couldn’t admit this is a tort attack. why do you think he tried to blame it on the video or denied it was a terror attack?

WOODS: unfortunately, sean, we have a generation of liars who have no moral background. hopefully my son’s sacrifice and his moral courage and his moral strength will encourage our next generation to be completely different. that we will change our direction. that we will raise up a new generation of true american here are rows such as my son — heros such as my son who have moral courage and who are are not liars like too many people in authority are nowadays.

HANNITY: i know you met the president and you met hillary clinton. when they had this service.

WOODS: that is, correct. at andrew’s air force base when the bodies were flown in.

HANNITY: you said the president couldn’t look you in the eye and it was like shaking hands with a dead fish.

WOODS: that’s exactly right.

HANNITY: and so you felt he couldn’t look you in the eye and that basically he felt no empathy and you said the same thing pretty much about hillary clinton?

WOODS: right. what happened was he came through there kind of after everyone else had been in the room circulating and he came over and shook my hand, you know, i wanted to do more than just shake his hand so i kind of put my arm around his shoulder to have just a little bit of physical warmth, not a major hug but just a small one and he kind of — it wasn’t in a powerful voice it was more of just a whiney little voice i’m sorry. i could tell my his voice he wasn’t even sorry. it would be like a little kid that is told by the teacher to go apologize to johnny out on the play ground and when looked at me his face was pointed towards me but he couldn’t look me in the eye. he was shooing over my shoulder and like i say, i thought he political — literally like shaking hands with a dead fish. i did not believe him at all as far as his being sore arery and now we understand why. was he one of those cowards that was in the white house watching my son being murdered on tv and refusing to do anything? that is a question that he will probably not have the courage to answer publicly but i would like to personally know that answer and one of these days the whole i’m sure that we will have that answer.

HANNITY: it is the hardest thing to lose a child and learning about the heroics of your son are beyond inspiring. he put everything on the line, you know, if we want to use a biblical quote no greater love hath a man than to day down his life for someone else. your son lay down his life for others.

WOODS: thank you very much, sean. i appreciate the work you are doing.

HANNITY: i appreciate your time. thank you for being with us

Permalink Leave a Comment

Next page »