If The Testimony Of The Three Plus Whislteblowers On Benghazi Proves To Be True...


Selene

Recommended Posts

1) Should Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The Smartest Woman In The World," be charged with falsely testifying to a Congressional Committee?

2) Should Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The Smartest Woman In The World," be charged with perjury?

Second question:

1) Does this rise to the level of an impeachable offense for you know who, THE ONE?

Remember, it is all about the cover up...correct?

A,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You conservatives are so amusing and so disappointing. I posted here when the assassinations took place, a picture of the hapless envoy touring Benghazi with John McCain. The Taliban terrorists were saluting them. You probably call Pres. John Kennedy a "liberal." You conservatives serve as the boat anchor and door-stop of the libertarian movement. Hillary Clinton? The girl bought her own peck of trouble for sure, but really was left holding someone else's bag. You gotta figure, if voting made a difference, it would be illegal, so the Manchurian Candidate had no more or less to do with Momma Bear Palin than he did with Missie Rodham. You conservative guys are just the noise makers at the party. You give the liberals someone to argue with. If you stand inside a cathedral and look up you will understand why Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren get support from The Cato Institute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You conservatives are so amusing and so disappointing. I posted here when the assassinations took place, a picture of the hapless envoy touring Benghazi with John McCain. The Taliban terrorists were saluting them. You probably call Pres. John Kennedy a "liberal." You conservatives serve as the boat anchor and door-stop of the libertarian movement. Hillary Clinton? The girl bought her own peck of trouble for sure, but really was left holding someone else's bag. You gotta figure, if voting made a difference, it would be illegal, so the Manchurian Candidate had no more or less to do with Momma Bear Palin than he did with Missie Rodham. You conservative guys are just the noise makers at the party. You give the liberals someone to argue with. If you stand inside a cathedral and look up you will understand why Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren get support from The Cato Institute.

Mike:

You understand that I am not a "conservative" ,,,correct?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You conservatives are so amusing and so disappointing. I posted here when the assassinations took place, a picture of the hapless envoy touring Benghazi with John McCain. The Taliban terrorists were saluting them. You probably call Pres. John Kennedy a "liberal." You conservatives serve as the boat anchor and door-stop of the libertarian movement. Hillary Clinton? The girl bought her own peck of trouble for sure, but really was left holding someone else's bag. You gotta figure, if voting made a difference, it would be illegal, so the Manchurian Candidate had no more or less to do with Momma Bear Palin than he did with Missie Rodham. You conservative guys are just the noise makers at the party. You give the liberals someone to argue with. If you stand inside a cathedral and look up you will understand why Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren get support from The Cato Institute.

This comment was like drinking a very tall, very frosty mug of beer after a long deployment.

"You give the liberals someone to argue with" - LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing like a good class warfare false dichotomy, is there?

You conservatives are all alike.

We liberals have the true truth.

You irrational people are all alike.

We Objectivists have the true truth.

You Muslims are all alike.

We Westerners have the true truth.

You Indians are all alike.

We white folks have the true truth.

You homosexuals are all alike.

We heteros have the true truth.

Oops...

Better stop.

Getting too close to the root...

Damn collectivism...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK - But whoever said anything about "we liberals"? You can't put words in someone else's mouth and then claim they're propagating a false dichotomy!

This sounds like dichotomy projection. If someone says "You conservatives" you hear "versus us liberals".... even when though it was neither spoken nor implied.

In fact... it sounds to me like you are saying exactly what I've been trying to say! The liberal/conservative dichotomy is an artificial construct that serves as a crutch for the intellectually lazy. It's a whole lot easier to write someone off as a liberal simply because they don't agree with you on all of your conservative talking points than it is to listen to what they're saying and incorporate it into the larger snapshot of who that person is and what they believe.

You still see SB demanding that I "admit" I'm a liberal. But I haven't yet heard you speak a word to him about lumping people into those tribal constructs or propagating a false dichotomy. That's why I said to you some time back "Please don't forget that when others here are busy doing exactly that".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kacy,

I don't write you off as a liberal. I see an active mind in you, one that does not agree with me, which is why I discuss things with you.

But I intensely dislike the "you conservatives" form of rhetoric. And I'm happy to revise my dichotomies. Try this:

You conservatives are all alike.
We who are not stupid have the true truth.

How does that sound?

:smile:

By your formulation, when someone says, "You filthy Jews," this does not designate a Nazi. Well that's refreshing. That makes it all right, huh?

:)

The truth is scapegoating is ugly and totally collectivist regardless of how you spin it.

You still see SB demanding that I "admit" I'm a liberal. But I haven't yet heard you speak a word to him about lumping people into those tribal constructs or propagating a false dichotomy.

You think I'm going to step into a fight between man and wife?

I learned long ago where that goes.

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are governed by scum suckers and bottom feeders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We saw the real Hillary.

I think Hillary badly misspoke politically when she said “What does it matter?” concerning the events leading up to and after the death of the Libyan Ambassador and his staff.

American deaths matter.

Who was responsible for those deaths, matters.

The Americans who contributed to their deaths matter, and their lamentable stories matter.

The fact that Hillary was covering up or does not give a damn, matters.

If she runs for President in 2016 it matters. There should be a devastating video created of her telling America to piss off.

Because truth matters.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here is the political question of the day?

What is the difference between the Nixon crime(s) and cover up, the Clinton(s), William and Hillary, crime(s) and cover up and O'bama's and Hillary's potential crime(s) and cover up?

============================================

While you are thinking about that, Mac Thiessen wrote an informative article on the Whistleblowers who will be testifying this week.

First,

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.

Second,

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....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.”

Third, this allegation, if true is a Federal crime,

Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for one of the whistleblowers, told Fox News the 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?

These are three (3) important "fact" and "credibility" issues that need to be resolved.

Thiessen, concludes that:

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.

Here is the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-a-benghazi-bombshell/2013/05/06/d7a4e3fe-b651-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(CNN) -- Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN.

One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that "three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," or AQAP, took part in the attack.

Now, I am sure that this right wing news source made this disparaging report just to embarrass the most transparent administration in American presidential history, but...

oops, it is CNN, never mind...with extreme apologies to Gilda/Emily:

Here is the link: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/world/africa/us-libya-benghazi-suspects/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still see SB demanding that I "admit" I'm a liberal. But I haven't yet heard you speak a word to him about lumping people into those tribal constructs or propagating a false dichotomy.

You think I'm going to step into a fight between man and wife?

I learned long ago where that goes.

:smile:

Michael

LOL! Don't worry... Liliwayway is my wfe. SB is just my bitch.

Kacy,

I don't write you off as a liberal. I see an active mind in you, one that does not agree with me, which is why I discuss things with you.

But I intensely dislike the "you conservatives" form of rhetoric. And I'm happy to revise my dichotomies. Try this:

You conservatives are all alike.

We who are not stupid have the true truth.

How does that sound?

:smile:

By your formulation, when someone says, "You filthy Jews," this does not designate a Nazi. Well that's refreshing. That makes it all right, huh?

:smile:

The truth is scapegoating is ugly and totally collectivist regardless of how you spin it.

Hey, I will agree. I think the-lumping in and tribal associations can be safely dispensed with. But at the same time, it is fun to watch MEM go off about it. I guess when you're the target of these ridiculous associations for long enough, it comes as sweet relief to see the tables turned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice looked through the looking glass...

2book35.jpg

Toensing said she and her client have talked extensively about unclassified events. But they can’t talk freely about classified event or actions, even in a private conversation.

Toensing said she’s now pushing officials to get the higher clearance, she said, to ensure that her client is prepared to explain fully what happened to legislators during top-secret hearings.

Toensing, who previously held top-level security clearances while working as a Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department’s anti-terrorism unit, has asked government officials to update her past clearances to let her work with her client. But the officials initially refused to provide her with the needed forms, she said

.

Officials have now provided a 42-page security clearance form, which Toensing filled out and returned, she told TheDC. But the form is only for a basic security clearance, not a “top secret” clearance, she said.

That’s “not sufficient,” she said.

Victoria Toensing represents an unnamed government official who can help explain the reaction of top government officials to the jihadi attack on the U.S diplomatic site in Benghazi and killed four Americans last Sept. 11.

The official may also be able to explain if officials rewrote intelligence reports and took other actions to minimize media coverage of the administration’s errors and the perceived role of Al Qaeda jihadis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(CNN) -- Several Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi last September, according to several sources who have spoken with CNN.

One senior U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that "three or four members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," or AQAP, took part in the attack.

Now, I am sure that this right wing news source made this disparaging report just to embarrass the most transparent administration in American presidential history, but...

oops, it is CNN, never mind...with extreme apologies to Gilda/Emily:

You can't trust the MSM, right? This must be just another GSTPTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

So, apparently, the release of a slew of e-mails appear to confirm an orchestrated vertical and horizontal cover-up of the "incident" in Benghazi.

And "At this point, what difference does it make.................................?" shreiked Hillary...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article from The Weekly Standard [which is a conservative publication]. There facts are generally well sourced, as is this article.

An email from the deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, has received most of the attention. In it, Rhodes laid out four goals for Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who would be appearing on five Sunday talk shows 36 hours later. “To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad; To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy; To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests; To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

Continuing, it becomes apparent that the critical persons that surround the President also received the e-mail:

The Judicial Watch documents also included White House talking points for Rice, with possible questions and answers she might provide to meet the goals set out by Rhodes. These new White House talking points included a broad discussion of the Arab Spring and its challenges, as well as several specific references to the attacks in Benghazi—a mention of Ambassador Chris Stevens, a question on Benghazi intelligence, and a separate section under the header “Benghazi.”

The Rhodes email and new talking points went to many top Obama administration communications and political officials, including press secretary Jay Carney, communications director Dan Pfeiffer, and Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe.

Apparently, two (2) sets of talking points:

It is now clear that there were, in effect, two sets of Benghazi talking points. The first were initially produced by the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis and, after heavy input from top Obama administration officials, provided to Capitol Hill and to Susan Rice. These are the talking points that have gotten so much attention over the past 18 months—the ones that started out with bold and declarative statements about the “al Qaeda” role in the “attacks” on the Benghazi compound and were watered down after input from the White House and the State Department. Last May, after the contents of email traffic related to that first set of talking points were described in this magazine and on ABC News, the White House released some of the emails. There were just two passing references to the video in those 100 pages of email traffic.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-lies_788985.html?page=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The father Ty Wood,

... expressed his frustration that no attempts were made by the military to intervene and save the lives of Americans in Benghazi.

“And there was no attempt made,” he said after listening to the testimony of Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell (Ret.). “As many military have said, within an hour or an hour and a half they could have had jets from Italy above the battle at Benghazi. Whether they were armed or not, at least they could have broken the sound barrier, they could’ve dispersed and caused confusion on the battlefield. Even that was not done. No attempt was made.”

During the interview, Hannity asked Ty's father what he would say to the President, Mr. Woods stated that:

He said he would tell the president — as he did in a past letter — to imagine if it were a member of his family who was killed in Benghazi. Woods said Obama responded that he wouldn’t have done anything different if it were a member of his family.

Shades of the dumbness of Dukakis!

Cold fish in the White House.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/02/father-of-navy-seal-killed-in-benghazi-has-some-select-words-for-the-obama-administration-after-latest-revelations/

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the chances this incompetent liar will be impeached?

Sadly, I fear approaching zero [0<]. Even with what Mark Levin calls the current "French Republicans" taking the Senate, there appears to be noone on the left in the Senate who will go to O'bama, as Goldwater and other Republicans went to Nixon, and demand that he resign.

And of course there is absolutely no similarity betweeen Watergate and Benghazi LMAA!

Additionally Watergate was much more serious than the deaths of four (4) Americans, one (1) of whom was a US Ambassador because in Watergate there was a cover up...

oops well there must be a difference because it was Nixon, understand?

I don't, however the left does.

Charming people.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they mean well...don't they?

A friend went to school with a guy who was really interested in politics. This guy went to work in Pelosi's office and became an aide for Pelosi. My friend says he's now worth MILLIONs (his emphasis)...and he's just an AIDE! He mentioned this because we were talking about congressman likely being exempt from being prosecuted for insider trading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they mean well...don't they?

A friend went to school with a guy who was really interested in politics. This guy went to work in Pelosi's office and became an aide for Pelosi. My friend says he's now worth MILLIONs (his emphasis)...and he's just an AIDE! He mentioned this because we were talking about congressman likely being exempt from being prosecuted for insider trading.

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

One of the reasons that Levin's Article V argument is so strong because the "insiders" are never going to change the system that they feed from.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earliest I remember demanding our president should resign was back when I was sought by LBJ to fulfill his massive troop build up (slavery, aka the draft) in Vietnam. Add to that the implications of his "Great Society"

For me, Watergate doesn't even register on the scale of depravity when compared with Benghazi, which breaks the scale.

I will say this... The LBJ era & the Obama yrs are the worst yrs I have lived thru so far.

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe:

We would have been better off writing direct monthly checks that would guarantee a minimum income whether you worked or not.

If you worked you would still keep your base subsidy. No bureaucracy. We would have saved 70% of...are you ready...

$17,000,000,000,000.00 -yep that's trillion.

And it is much worse than that according to the Heritage Foundation's testimony before Congress:

According to Congressional testimony given by the Heritage Foundation, “welfare” refers means-tested federal programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care, social services, training, and targeted education aid to poor and low income Americans.

Means-tested programs are anti-poverty programs: they are intended to increase the living standards of improve the capacity for self-support among the poor and near-poor.

Means-tested welfare spending or aid to the poor consists of government programs that provide assistance deliberately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people.

For example, food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families are means-tested aid programs that provide benefits only to poor and lower-income persons.

Non-welfare programs provide government benefits and services for the general population — all income levels.

For example, Social Security, Medicare, police protection, and public education are not means-tested per se.

But, Social Security benefit pay-out rates are lower for higher income people and Medicare premiums are higher for higher income people

There are 69 means-tested welfare programs operated by the federal government:

  • 12 programs providing food aid;
  • 10 housing assistance programs;
  • 10 programs funding social services;
  • 9 educational assistance programs;
  • 8 programs providing cash assistance;
  • 8 vocational training programs;
  • 7 medical assistance programs;
  • 3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,
  • 2 child care and child development programs.

* * * * *
Spending

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare.

In FY2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, were about $940 billion.

Combined federal and state means-tested welfare is now the second largest category of overall government spending in the nation
.

Means-tested welfare is exceeded only by the combined cost of Social Security and Medicare.

Welfare spending is greater than the cost of public education and is greater than spending on national defense.

Total means-tested spending in 2008 was $708 billion … about $7,700 to $17,100 in means-tested spending for each poor American (depending on the estimating method) … on average, around $30,000 to $33,000 for a family of four … with about 1/3 of the amount going to medical care.

In FY 2011, total means-tested spending going to families with children … was around $33,000 per low income family with children.

In recent years …

  • 52 percent of total means-tested spending went to medical care for poor and lower-income persons,
  • 37 percent was spent on cash, food, and housing aid.
  • 11 percent was spent on social services, training, child development, targeted federal education aid, and community development.

Roughly half of means-tested spending goes to disabled or elderly persons.

The other half goes to lower-income families with children, most of which are headed by single parents.

Most of these lower-income families have some earned income. Average earnings within the whole group are typically about $16,000 per year per family.

If average welfare aid and average earnings are combined, the total resources available come to between $40,000 and $46,000 for each lower-income family with children in the U.S. … about 15% below the total population’s median household income.

And, this will make anyone feel astounded by the marxist's stupity, read it and weep:

On January 8, 1964, U.S. President Lyndon Baines Johnson, also known as LBJ, famously declared a “War on Poverty.” Fifty years later, those curious about how the war came out should consult Sasha Abramsky, an authority on the subject.

His recent book The American Way of Poverty has been hailed as the second coming of The Other America, the 1962 book by the late socialist Michael Harrington. That one influenced Lyndon Johnson to launch the war on poverty in the first place.

British-born Abramsky is a senior fellow at the Demos think tank and writes for the Nation. His book chronicles cases of the “long-term poor,” accompanied by Dorothea Lange–style photos.

He wants to be O'bama's Harrington!

Abramsky claims that the "...technocrats took control..." and that is why the War was lost:

It was not because the War had any strategic defects or caused much collateral damage. The author never questions that the federal government was fully up to the task. But it does come through that the problem of poverty remains.

“Not since the Great Depression have so many people been beaten down by vast, destructive forces,” writes Abramsky. To fix it will require a more militant approach, nothing less than a “War on Poverty Mark II.” The author says this one can succeed despite a determined enemy.

This psychotic continues explaining that he wants:

... “targeted, sensible, fair tax increases: raising the capital gains tax, increasing the income tax on the wealthiest Americans, eliminating the upper limit for Social Security contributions, reintroducing an oil windfall profit tax, creating a viable financial transactions tax and imposing estate taxes on large inheritances.”...

Welfare systems “work best when they expand automatically during economic downturns.”

Finally, Abramsky:

... does concede that some people are poor because they have made bad choices. But if they fail to get back on their feet, it’s only because of budget cuts in government drug rehab programs, welfare or food stamps.

The author’s target is President Obama, who “understands the impact of poverty on people’s lives better than almost any other of his predecessors.” But Obama’s inner circle, “many of whom were avowed moderates who had cut their teeth during the Clinton years,” prevented him from protecting the long-term poor from budget cuts.

So the author wants Barack Obama to get militant and launch a new War on Poverty. Judging by his recent rhetoric, the president seems eager to comply. So the nation should get ready for more government, bigger bureaucracy, more punitive taxes, and something else.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/10/50-years-later-lbjs-war-on-poverty-has-proven-a-total-failure/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

Understood. The numbers make me want to puke. Nice research.

I had a great job, as a kid, with a major manufacturer of apparel in NYC, bought a brandy new GTO...life was good, when LBJ corralled me in.

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now