Benghazi Committee to Review Secret Tapes

So, while the lives of the American staff at the embassy became more and more vulnerable thanks to Obama’s and Hillary’s depraved indifference, they focused on ‘regime change’ and secret deals with the son of despot Muammar Qaddafi.

From Fox News.

The special congressional committee probing the Benghazi terror attacks plans to review secretly recorded tapes that reportedly raise questions about then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s role in the 2011 U.S. military intervention in Libya.

The Washington Times first reported that Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House committee, told his staff to review the materials. The newspaper previously reported that the audio tapes showed Pentagon officials were so concerned with Clinton’s push in 2011 to back Libyan rebels against Muammar Qaddafi that they opened their own back-channels with Qaddafi to try and prevent the U.S. from entering the civil war.

“Chairman Gowdy and the committee are aware of the details reported by The Washington Times, and we are reviewing them as part of the committee’s inquiry into Benghazi,” Benghazi committee spokesman Jamal Ware said in a statement, confirmed by FoxNews.com.

The decision could open up a new aspect of the Benghazi investigation, which is focused on the 2012 terror attack on the U.S. compound that killed four Americans, at a time when Clinton is moving toward a 2016 White House run. Clinton also may be called in the coming months to testify.

Gowdy said previously he may call Clinton as a witness, and according to the top Democrat on the panel, Clinton already has agreed to do so if she’s asked.

Clinton’s State Department has been under scrutiny for the level of security at the U.S. compound, and for efforts to initially describe the attack as a demonstration turned violent.

The newly reported tapes deal with the intervention by the U.S. and its allies in 2011.

At the time, Pentagon officials reportedly used an intelligence “liaison” to communicate with Qaddafi’s son and a top Libyan leader outside of White House or State Department knowledge. The conversations were secretly recorded. The Times also reported that U.S. intelligence challenged Clinton’s claims about a looming genocide in Libya, used to drive the case for U.S. military intervention.

The unnamed intermediary, who was referred to as an intelligence “asset” working for the Pentagon, not only conducted the conversations with Qaddafi’s son, but reportedly shared his concern that Clinton was unnecessarily hyping the danger of a potential genocide by the regime as a way to drag Congress into the situation and shift public opinion in favor of an invasion. 

“You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They’re just full of stupid, stupid facts,” the U.S. intermediary reportedly told the Qaddafi regime in 2011. The paper said the liaison was “specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”

Armed with a United Nations resolution, the U.S. led international bombing raids against the Qaddafi regime in March 2011, eventually aiding the rebels in ousting the longtime dictator, whom they killed.

The Washington Times story suggests that the Obama administration’s efforts, led by Clinton, were focused on regime change, not a negotiated settlement, during the lead-up to the war.

The story says that the recordings indicated Clinton allegedly “ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Qaddafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate the resolution.”

Questions the Committee should throw at Hillary:

Who gave the official order and who was on the phone with “Bob” when he told them to stand down?

Who sent the drone to be used as a voyeur instead of a counter-attack weapon?

Who in the State Department made the decision to pull out three Mobile Security Deployment teams in August of 2012, telling the embassy to “do more with less”?

Who kept refusing to send extra security to the embassy?

Who exactly in the Obama regime went to all the trouble to scour the bowels of the YouTube library for an obscure video to blame for what was part of the muzzie rampage that had been going on for 21 months?

Actually,we already know.

Obama denied outright an urgent request to send more security to the embassy. He lied about what he knew, and his flying monkeys tried to squelch Fox News investigative reporting surrounding the attack.

The intelligence community identified the terrorists within 24 hours. Two days after the attack, Hillary Clinton  had a meltdown at a Congressman over the point that it was indeed Al Qaeda.

A run down of Hillary’s bullshit:

“What difference does it make?

“Benghazi security wasn’t my problem”.

Hillary blamed ‘lack of funding’ and amnesia.

An innocent filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was used as a scapegoat for Obama and Hillary’s coverup. As a matter of fact, the attack was still underway when Hillary and the White House concocted a “blame the video” strategy, in an attempt to offset the fallout from their stupidity and incompetence.  She knew the narrative was a lie but she pushed it anyway.

Hillary’s State Department spent months blowing off Ambassador Stevens’ repeated requests for extra security and his concerns over the growing terrorist violence in the area.

Hillary scrubbed the Benghazi talking points and hid incriminating documents.

Here’s a link to a video of Fox News reporter Bret Baier reading (at about 06:45 into the video) the emails from Ambassador Stevens to the State Department, one of which is just 4 hours prior to the attack. Each one was a desperate plea for more security in the face of growing terrorist violence in the area.

Obama and Hillary showed nothing but depraved indifference from the first sign of trouble to the horrible aftermath.

The more that comes out about Hillary’s disastrous tenure as Secretary of State, the more despicable it gets.

5 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by sfcmac on 09/02/2015 at 07:43

    Sadan,
    I don’t care about the Dems. In a perfect world, Ted Cruz would run. I also like Allen West. Mia Love, Joni Earnst, and Scott Walker. The main reason Mitt Romney didn’t win is because he lacked the guts to pound Obama on all fronts; economy, foreign policy, and his corrupt regime. The sad fact is that the minorities and liberals voted skin color over substance. They’ve gotten a rude awakening, especially with the effects of ObamaCare. We’re saddled with the SCOAMF until 2016.

    SFC MAC

  2. Yeah she’s a crappy candidate, no argument. However the GOP field looks extremely weak also. Bad choices all round!
    Who would you like to see winning the GOP and Dems nominations? Which candidate would you like to see in the White House next?

  3. Posted by sfcmac on 06/02/2015 at 09:00

    Sadan,

    If Hillary is smart, she’ll stay out of any future campaigns for president. She and her husband Bubba have a lot of criminal baggage.:
    While Bubba Clinton was president, Hillary fired the Travel office and threatened them with FBI intimidation if they talked. She was heavily involved in the Whitewater scandal. Aside from her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State, she and Bubba illegally obtained FBI files on political enemies and lied about their existence, but they showed up on her desk after a couple of years of being “misplaced”. She was also involved in Bubba’s pardons of some pretty sleazy characters in exchange for cash and other favors. As a couple, they used the White House as a conduit for their own crime spree, including treason.

    Any opponent should have a field day pointing out that she shouldn’t be anywhere near the White House.

    SFC MAC

  4. Wow, this seems very thin Cheryl. I can’t see anything coming out of this. Gowdy is an impressive prosecuter. At best they might lightly damage Hillary if she runs in 2016, but I can’t see a knockout blow.

    Pentagon officials were so concerned with Clinton’s push in 2011 to back Libyan rebels against Muammar Qaddafi that they opened their own back-channels with Qaddafi to try and prevent the U.S. from entering the civil war..

    So State Dept and US allies backed the rebels and Pentagon backed Qaddafi? That seems insane to me. No wonder the regime change was a complete disaster.

    Regards

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: