Blow-by-Blow: How Obama & Hillary Left Americans to Die

xxx-benghazi-hearings-hdb-1-4_3_r541_c540Wednesday on Capitol Hill, three impeccable witnesses offered the clearest evidence to date that the Obama administration’s response to Benghazi before, during and after the terrorist attack that claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, State Department employee Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods, was a deadly combination of ineptitude, political calculations, and outright lying. Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya, offered unshakeable testimony, despite efforts by several Democratic lawmakers to protect both the current administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, their party’s most viable presidential candidate for 2016. What the witnesses averred reveals a grim web of deceit likely orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to cover up the order to ground U.S. rescue teams that could have easily saved our besieged countrymen in Benghazi.

Some of the most compelling and emotional testimony was provided by Hicks, who offered the House Oversight and Government Reform committee a damning blow-by-blow account of the September 11, 2012 attack: In Tripoli at the time, Hicks recounted how he had spoken with Stevens early in the evening, and there was no sign of unusual activity. After relaxing for a while, he got an alert that Benghazi was under attack. When he checked his cell phone he saw two numbers, one of which he didn’t recognize. He called that number first and got Stevens on the phone. “Greg! We’re under attack!” said Stevens, according to Mr. Hicks.

Later, when it became clear that Stevens was missing, the first concern was that he had been taken by terrorists. “We began to hear also that the ambassador’s been taken to a hospital,” said Hicks. “We learn that it is in a hospital which is controlled by Ansar al-Shariah, the group that Twitter feeds had identified as leading the attack on the consulate.” As this information was coming in, a “response team” from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport, one that Hicks thought might become involved in a “hostage rescue” operation, even as officials worried they were being “baited into a trap.”

Hicks then spoke of the mortars that landed on the compound shortly after a group of Americans fleeing the consulate arrived at the annex. The first mortar landed among a group of Libyans who had helped bring the Americans to safety. “The next was short,” he said. “The next three landed on the roof.”

Those were the mortars that killed Doherty and Woods.

Hicks was visibly choked up when he recounted learning about Stevens’ death from the Libyan prime minister. “I think it’s the saddest phone call I’ve ever had in my life,” he said.

In one of the most stunning portions of the hearing, Hicks confirmed the chilling refusal of the Obama administration to send in readily available U.S. assets to stop the consulate slaughter. This order to “stand down” was given not once, but at least twice. Hicks also revealed that an explicit order from the chain of command prevented a four-man special forces rescue team in Tripoli from getting to the Americans trapped at the annex. He noted the order came from “either AFRICOM or SOCAFRICA” and that the team was “furious” when they were told to stand down. “I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson,” said Hicks, referring to the officer on the receiving end of that command. “He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’” Hicks’ testimony on this point directly contradicts recent statements from the Obama-run Pentagon. “There was never any kind of stand-down order to anybody,” said Maj. Robert Furman, Pentagon spokesman, on Monday.

Yet Mark Thompson also testified that he tried to get a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) comprised of special ops and intelligence personnel deployed, and he, too, was told to stand down. According to a source interviewed by, only President Obama, or someone acting on his authority, could have given the stand down order. As we know from testimony provided by former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, President Obama met with the two officials on September 11 at 5 p.m. EDT for 30 minutes — less than an hour-and-a-half into the attack — and was supposedly never heard from him again for the rest of the evening. The very next day, Obama headed to a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas.

The Obama administration undoubtedly understood that its decision to leave defenseless Americans, including our ambassador, to needlessly die at the hands of al-Qaeda-linked jihadists would not go over well for a commander-in-chief in the throes of a presidential election and a secretary of state angling for the Oval Office in 2016. Hicks’ testimony affirmed suspicions that administration officials conspired to conceal the nature of the attack by concocting an absolutely fictitious account of events involving a “spontaneous” attack prompted by an anti-Islam YouTube video. Hicks testified that he had personally told former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the Benghazi raid was a terrorist attack at 2 a.m. that same night. He recounted that “everybody in the mission” believed it was an act of terror “from the get-go,” a reality echoed by Libyan President Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had “no doubt that this was pre-planned, predetermined.” Magariaf made this assertion the very day before UN ambassador Susan Rice went out to peddle the lie that a “spontaneous demonstration” had gotten out of hand due to an Internet video.

When Hicks heard Rice, he was appalled. “My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” he said.

In reality, Rice was a willing mouthpiece for the two biggest promoters of the Internet video lie: President Obama and Hillary Clinton. In fact, the State Department spent $70,000 to run advertisements in Pakistan featuring the two of them rejecting the contents of the video, and promoting tolerance for all religions. Even more remarkable, despite committee Democrats implying that a thorough investigation was conducted internally by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB), Hillary Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB.

Hillary’s entire take on the matter can be whittled down to the infamous statement she made during the U.S. House Oversight Committee hearing on May 8, 2013. After being questioned as to why the administration misled the American people, Clinton became indignant. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she said. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

Eric Nordstrom, who became emotional when he described his friends and other personnel who lost their lives in the attack, provided an answer to that question. “It matters to me personally and it matters to my colleagues–to my colleagues at the Department of State,” he said, his voice breaking. “It matters to the American public for whom we serve. And, most importantly, it matters to the friends and family of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods who were murdered on September 11, 2012.”

Nordstrom further testified in writing that Hillary Clinton waived security requirements for the Benghazi consulate despite high and critical threat levels in the six categories of security standards established under the Overseas Security Policy Board and the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999. The waiver can only be authorized by the Secretary of State, who cannot delegate that responsibility to someone else. “If the Secretary of State did not waive these requirements, who did so by ordering occupancy of the facilities in Benghazi and Tripoli?” Nordstrom wrote.

Nordstrom also offered his take on the ARB. “I found the ARB process that I was involved in to be professional and the unclassified recommendations reasonable and positive. However, it is not what is contained within the report that I take exception to but what is left unexamined,” Nordstrom wrote. “Specifically, I’m concerned with the ARB’s decision to focus its attention at the Assistant Secretary level and below, where the ARB felt that ‘the decision-making in fact takes place,’” he wrote.

Hicks testified that the State Department actively sought to intimidate witnesses in order to prevent facts surrounding the Benghazi attack from being leaked. He revealed that a top State Department official called him to demand a report from his meeting with a congressional delegation and expressed unhappiness that a State Department lawyer was not present for the session. “I was instructed not to allow the RSO, the acting deputy chief of mission–me–to be personally interviewed,” he said. Later in the hearing, Hicks noted that State seemed especially concerned with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who has done yeoman’s work tracking down the survivors of the attack, kept under wraps by the administration. “We were not to be personally interviewed by Congressman Chaffetz,” said Hicks, who added that Cheryl Mills, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff,  “demanded a report on the visit” that did take place.

The State Department was caught in another lie yesterday as well. While the hearings were getting underway, Republicans revealed that Ambassador Thomas Pickering, co-chairman of the ARB, refused to testify. State countered that Republicans refused to let him. Frederick Hill, spokesman for Committee chairman Darryl Issa (R-CA), produced a letter dated February 22 inviting Pickering to testify. “Ambassador Pickering initially told the Committee he was not available on that date,” Hill told ABC News. “When asked about a different date, he said he was not inclined to testify.”

The State Department isn’t the only entity interested in controlling the flow of information in this tragedy. House Democrats embarrassingly struggled to distract from the proceedings with absurd non sequiturs and personal attacks. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking Democratic at the Benghazi hearing, told one of the whistleblowers to “protect your fellow employees.” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) suggested it was unpatriotic to challenge the administration’s narrative. “I find it truly disturbing and very unfortunate that when Americans come under attack, the first thing some did in this country was attack Americans,” she said. “Attack the military; attack the president; attack the State Department; attack the former senator from the great state of New York, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) blamed Republicans and congressional budget cuts for the terror attack, even as he apparently remains oblivious to the reality that it was Democrats who insisted the lion’s share of the budget cuts induced by sequestration come from the military.

Media are also shamelessly entrenched in the campaign to suppress the facts surround the Benghazi attack. Politico reports that CBS News execs are getting “increasingly frustrated” with premiere investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s stories on Benghazi, which they consider “dangerously close to advocacy.”

Dangerously close to honesty is more like it, which is exactly what CBS is worried about. As Washington Post explains, “While other media, particularly Fox News, have been similarly skeptical about the official narrative about Benghazi, Attkisson and CBS might put the story in a different light,” the paper reports. “As a much-decorated reporter from a news outlet often derided by conservatives as a liberal beacon, Attkisson and her network flip the usual script on this highly politicized story. That is, it’s hard to peg her and her network as Republican sympathizers out to score political points against a Democratic president.” With Attkisson, a self-described “political agnostic,” questioning the administration, Bengahzi can no longer be dismissed by the left as a vast right-wing conspiracy. “People can say what they want about me, I don’t care,” Attkisson says. “I just want to get the information out there.”

Attkisson notwithstanding, it remains to be seen whether the remainder of the mainstream media will now demand answers from the Obama administration on why it chose to needlessly throw American servicemen to the wolves in Benghazi and why, exactly, it was necessary to contrive a totally false account of events. The Obama administration is fighting hard to distract from the severity of the scandal. White House press secretary Jay Carney claimed that continued scrutiny of Benghazi is nothing more than an attempt by Republicans to “politicize” the issue. “This is a subject that has from its beginning been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans, while in fact what happened in Benghazi was a tragedy,” he said, adding that the incident has been “been looked at exhaustively.” Carney further noted that the ongoing pursuit is “part of an effort to chase after what isn’t the substance here.” The entire substance, according to Carney, is the reality that the consulate was attacked, four Americans were killed, and the president will make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Carney saved his most ridiculous assertion for last, claiming the administration’s editing of the talking points, in which wholesale changes and rampant deletions were made, (the details of which can be seen here) were “stylistic and not substantive.” “We’ve been very clear about the specific edits that were made at the suggestion of the White House.”

That is an utter lie. Version one of the CIA report included references to an “attack,” “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa’ida,” the involvement of Ansar al Sharia and the fact that “wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya contributed to the lethality of the attacks,” which were all completely removed. Furthermore, at no time did any of the versions mention an anti-Islamic Internet video as being the catalyst for the attack.

The Obama administration can try spin this debacle any way it likes, but it can’t spin away four dead Americans, two separate “stand down” orders and the State Department’s advanced knowledge of inadequate security. They can’t change the reality that no rescue was even attempted over the course of a seven-hour battle, that brave Americans were left to fend for themselves, or that the administration sat on the details of this story for eight months — two most crucial of which occurred prior to the 2012 election.  Even now the administration continues to stonewall every effort to get to the truth.

But with the truth finally coming to the surface, the remaining question observers are left with is why the Obama administration abandoned Americans who were easily within reach. While the lies used to cover up this disaster are easy to explain, the rationale behind the unconscionable stand down orders must still be determined. As the facts stand now, the likely explanations do not bode well for President Obama. The circumstances suggest the decision was made by a callous and desperate president struggling with a re-election campaign, a central plank of which was that al-Qaeda had been decimated and was “on the run” — not something affirmed by news of al-Qaeda operatives’ murder of our ambassador and military personnel. Or perhaps our commander-in-chief was too busy being our campaigner-in-chief and simply didn’t care about the carnage unfolding on his watch, which he declined to prevent. In any case, it is incumbent on the Obama administration to provide a rationale for its disastrous decision. As persistent Americans have shown, the investigation will not cease until that occurs.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    Where was Barack Obama during those seven hours? Who is surprised by another media free pass for Obama? A fraternal kinship may be the reason why the mainstream media failed to properly vet presidential candidate Barack Obama and his illicit drug use back in 2008 and they are doubling-down in their effort to shroud him even now.

    Barack Obama boasted that he was not a lightweight like President Bill Clinton, who claimed that he "never inhaled." Obama was a proud sage — an accomplished drug user who bragged about consuming c0ca!ne and maariju@na.

    And who hasn't seen photos of him at banquets; hoisting a glass of wine where he looked more toasted than Toast Master?

    Am I the only one to suspect that our Commander in Chief was not in command of himself during those seven Lost Weekend-type hours?

    ……jus sayn'………..

    We are all damaged by the lies, cover-ups, and corruption. Boehner is acting in concert with the obfuscation. We deserve better.

    • Annie Walker

      “We deserve better.”

      Do we?

      “We” voted for these fanatics. “We” put them in office, and more than once for many of them, including Barry.

      • κατεργάζομαι

        ""We" voted for these fanatics. "We" put them in office, and more than once for many of them, including Barry. "

        Speak for yourself.

        The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position, as you have done, and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. You isolated my final three words ("We deserve better") and distorted them from a larger position and as such, you misrepresent my point.

        "I" actively campaigned for Ted Cruz and others. "I" also financially supported Conservatives in other states. So holster your cheap-shot "WE" turd back in your pocket. Try reading for context before you go shootn' up the town with errant straw man spit wads.

    • truebearing

      I suspect the same thing…though there isn't much I would put past Imambama. I noticed how glum and low-energy he was after the correspondents shindig the other day. He acted like a crackhead on the morning after. Maybe Larry Sinclair could shed some light on Obama's post-high behavior for us.

    • Guest

      Perhaps he was enjoying some quality time with Reggie Love, his ex-Body man?

  • truebearing

    Yes, the question is why did Obama and Hillary abandon four Americans to a violent death. Certainly they couldn't have known that Doherty and Woods would have made their heroic, self-less effort to save Stevens and Smith, but they knew Stevens was in trouble for a long time. They had to because they turned down his repeated pleas for more security. Instead they reduced his security.

    When Stevens was attacked, the Whitehouse did everything in its power to enable Al Queda's assassination of a US ambassador. They did absolutely nothing, and sustained their homicidal passivity for hours…while watching things unfold on Direct Drone TV.

    Yes, the question is why hang Stevens, and those who valiantly tried to save him, out to dry? If the answer is winning an election, then the inescapable conclusion is that Obama and Hillary see American lives as expendable when power is at stake. It means American sovereignty is expendable when their totalitarian agenda is threatened. It means both Obama and Hillary are so rapacious for power that no amount of suffering by Americans is too much if failing to achieve their objectives is the alternative.

    • Bob Mahlstedt

      Wow…well said. Excellent analysis.

      • truebearing

        Thanks. The whole situation is hard to believe, especially since 9/11 happened only a little more than decade ago.Of course, geniuses like Jay Carney would tell us that that is a long time ago. Funny that the Left doesn't feel that way about slavery, or anything else that is useful to demonize their enemies.

    • who cares?

      Even before I learned that Stevens, an enrolled member of the Chinook Indian Tribe, also happened to be gay, I wondered what he knew that made this a non-issue for the Obozo administration. Look, NO ONE hangs their valued diplomatic staff out to dry like this. Stevens was a mover in the DNC, a fund raiser, and got that job through political connections (most ambassadors do). So, WHY him? Why did other embassies get new cars, Marines, etc. during the period Stevens was begging for additional security– and the Libyan embassy did NOT. How was Stevens a danger to the administration– what did he know? This whole situation should result in impeachment proceedings and end Hillary's political career, but I'm not holding my breath.

      • truebearing

        I forgot to include that Hillary is the one who sent Stevens on this mission….after removing some of his security and refusing his pleas for more. Talk about a textbook circumstantial case for accusing her of setting Stevens up.

  • Michael Copeland

    A theory was put forward (at Atlas Shrugs, if memory serves) that the raid could have been a kidnapping plot to secure a high-value prize to exchange for the Blind Sheik. Alas, the attempt was overdone: the smoke suffocated the ambassador, who was not otherwise harmed.

    • noapologies

      Funny, I thought that from the early stages. My wife, who is very supportive of my "theories", said this was a bit out there. However, what better way to make the exchange, appease your brothers in the Brotherhood, and save face with the American people? After all, you only made the switch to save an American Ambassador? Brilliant (in their warped sense of the word brilliant) move until two American Hero's showed up and stomped on those roaches. Once botched, the roaches felt betrayed and killed the Ambassador…..abandon ship…..lipstick this pig until the election is over and America will forget about it like they always do. As you can see, they were right for the most part. Justice will not be served here, those days have passed us by. My only hope is that this is enough of a fly in the ointment to keep Hillary from winning in 2016. I believe that's why the Republicans are pressing. Semper Fidelis

      • Carolina girl

        Right on!

      • Maxie

        You will know "the Republicans are pressing" when a Special Prosecutor with subpoena power is appointed. Until then this is just more political theatre and nothing of consequence will have been obtained. This is the Bill Clinton impeachment fiasco redux. This time the MSM is running interference for Bill's lovely bride HiLIARy.

    • kafir4life

      I think he was assassinated for the same reasons that President Stinky (BO) Benghazi and his boy Eric had Agent Terry murdered. They were both about to blow the whistle on the gun running operations that Stinky and Eric were involved in. Some mighty nice commissions were earned by Stinks for those guns.

  • Ken Baskin

    Aw, leave poor Barry alone – he had presidential priorities to deal with – the Vegas fundraiser was already set up and he couldn't be a no-show now, could he? From the chair on Letterman to Jimmy Fallon to Ellen DeGeneres, to the View to Jimmy Kimmel, my God, people, even Barack can't do it all!! At what point do you want him to start acting presidential? Give the poor man a break. An American ambassador sodomized, murdered and dragged through the streets prompted a rapid response from Washington – the midnight knock on the door of a filmmaker and his subsequent arrest ( for making an insulting film about Mohammed, oops – I mean for parole violations ) – followed by his jailing for a year. What other response would you want from a president – a search for the killer of Chris Stevens perhaps? Cut the poor man some slack!!

    • kafir4life

      Maybe he needs a golf outing?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Finally we will all see just how much leftists (don't) give a damn. There are certain trolls who I'm sure are dying to say something but they sense a danger doing it here.

    Bring it on.

    • Grayorg

      I believe you missed the sarcasm in Mr. Baskin's post.

      • Looking4Sanity

        Either that, or he found it to be grossly inappropriate.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "I believe you missed the sarcasm in Mr. Baskin's post."

        Why would you say that? Did I not quote him accurately?

    • @Eyeless_Sid

      To claim someone does not care is an opinion and generalization. Regardless of political alignment people care about loss of lives. Both sides cared when we found out that the WDM's were a lie and that we had ended 230,000 lives in Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11 or any attack on us. Everyone cares when peoples lives are cut short and it could have been prevented.

      • V_O

        I, for one, am sick of hearing the sophmoric WMD relativity argument.

        When I was a child, I often went to the "But they did it, too" defense, which was invariably answered by my parents with "If they jumped off a bridge, would you think that was a good idea too?" Or "Two wrongs don't make a right."

        This is not to say that the WMD situation in 2002 and 2003 constitutes an actual leg, for those who use it, to stand on. The fact that your WMD comparison is full of holes large enough to drive a truck through brings to mind the childhood strategy of getting one's parents engaged in a discussion on something totally off topic… That's the one that worked on a rare blessed occasion to deflect their attention from the situation at hand.

        The fact that you, Sid, and so many others like you are trotting out this lame same ol', same ol' counter argument non-defense is proof enough for me that there really IS no defense for the administration in this case.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "When I was a child, I often went to the "But they did it, too" defense, which was invariably answered by my parents with "If they jumped off a bridge, would you think that was a good idea too?" Or "Two wrongs don't make a right.""

          It's a way of devolving the discussion and creating opportunities to evade justice or conclusion. It's obviously very dishonest but since it's so common, I guess that's OK now. It's a new tradition of the globalist-leftists. After all, those guys who wrote the Bible lied more than anyone else in history, so non-believers can lie for about another 1700 years or more just to get even.

          That's fairness to a Marxist. It's an illustration of the concept of "social justice" and where it leads: It's never ending delusion-based revenge of the lunatics.

      • pagegl

        Much of the info about WMDs the Bush administration had came from British intelligence and reports from the Clinton administration. Or is that something you forgot?

        As far as people caring about others, I think the fact that Obama and Clinton have done and continue to do everything they can to prevent the release of info about what really happened is indicative of how much they care about the lives those four men. Clinton's question what does it matter was so self-serving it was beyond the pale.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "To claim someone does not care is an opinion and generalization."


        "Regardless of political alignment people care about loss of lives."

        Non-salient point.

        "Both sides cared when we found out that the WDM's were a lie and that we had ended 230,000 lives in Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11 or any attack on us."

        Fantasy land trip as a way to distract from the salient points of the discussion.

        IOW, you don't give a damn. If the fire department fails to show up to try to save you, we'll call that "social justice" and that will be OK with you? Everyone dies and everyone cares. OK? Just don't expect us to pay or lift a finger to help you. Welcome to the new America.

        "Everyone cares when peoples lives are cut short and it could have been prevented."

        You care a lot. It's obvious what you care about and it isn't American sovereignty.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    Obama's ever-growing catalogue of prevarications — calculated to deceive and misdirect, seem to flow so effortlessly from his being that one wonders if Barack Obama knows the difference between truth and the craven falsehood: without which it could be said that he bore the marks of a marked personality disorder.

    Or, who hasn't seen photos of him at banquets; hoisting a glass of wine where he looked more toasted than a Toast Master?

    Am I the only one to suspect that our Commander in Chief was not in command of himself during those seven Lost Weekend-type hours due to drugs or alcohol?

    America's Postmodern Sun King with his serious character & moral issues is now a frightening reality.

    America's Bad Seed By Glenn Fairman @ American Thinker

    • AnOrdinaryMan

      Did you happen to see the video of Obama trying to make a toast to Queen Elizabeth, before the band's rendition of "God Save the Queen" was over? This occurred two or three years ago, during Zero's visit to England. Good Queen Bess told him to wait until the music stopped. Zero finished the toast a minute or two later. It didn't appear that Zero was drunk or stoned on this occasion, but he his ignorance of protocol is outrageous and totally unacceptable, and he definitely has a personality disorder.

      • κατεργάζομαι

        Replying to AnOrdinaryMan . yep.

        The Obama's are the most uncouth, crass, and ungracious first couple to have occupied the White House. Their vulgarity is boundless.

      • Maxie

        That disorder has a name: NPD as in Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "It didn't appear that Zero was drunk or stoned on this occasion, but he his ignorance of protocol is outrageous and totally unacceptable, and he definitely has a personality disorder."

        And he's without excuse. That's the state department's job to prepare him for such fundamental courtesies. It was consciously or subconsciously intentional. He hates the UK. He hates Europeans and their history. All of it. Well, all of what he thinks he knows about it.

  • Denise

    Let us not forget that the whole spin machine was on a turbo cycle in the heat of the re-election campaign and at the core of this was David Axelrod, so we must ask what was his influence on the talking points at the time.

  • kafir4life

    All of the security, all of the preparations for the attack, all of the energy of the State Department, all of the military leaders, all of the intelligence apparatus were used in a stunning efficiency……to protect the current and future presidency of President Stinky (BO) Benghazi, and his hand picked replacement, Cankles Clinton. Each and every one of them did EXACTLY what they were told to do. Nothing wrong with that. What good can Stinky do the country and the planet if he were under pressure to do his job, and devil forbid, lose the election.

  • Volvulus

    Watergate springs to mind. The differences being republican vs democrat and no lives lost vs lives lost. Nixon had to resign to avoid impeachment.
    "The connection between the break-in and the re-election campaign committee was highlighted by media coverage. In particular, investigative coverage by Time, The New York Times, and especially The Washington Post, fueled focus on the event. The coverage dramatically increased publicity and consequent political repercussions." " The media played a massive role in almost impeaching one of the most powerful men in the World and most certainly the roles played by 'Post' reporters Woodward and Bernstein were instrumental in forcing President Nixon to resign."

    • pagegl

      There's one other difference, Nixon had enough morals to have the good grace to step down. Obama does not and will not. That is why the man is so much more dangerous than anyone ever considered Nixon to be.

      • jimnjoy

        Many things are going on with Obama. He is a narcissist…no matter what evidence to the contrary, they would never admit they are wrong.

        He is a Muslim (or thinks like one), and their Koran says it is OK to lie to the infidel (us) if it will benefit them.

        Dangerous is the correct word.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      " The media played a massive role in almost impeaching one of the most powerful men in the World and most certainly the roles played by 'Post' reporters Woodward and Bernstein were instrumental in forcing President Nixon to resign."

      From this statement alone you can discern that Nixon was a Republican.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    Folks, America's Sleeper Cell is Barack Hussein Obama!

    • Concerned American

      He is the Trojan Horse !

  • davarino

    I'm sorry but I think there is more here than the prez trying to save his bacon for the presidential campaign. It just smells like there is way more at stake here than that. They are threatening whistle blowers, they concoct a stupid video story, and Obama doesnt even lift a finger to rescue these people at Benghazi. They are trying to hard with the lies and smear campaign, and obfuscation. What did ambassador Stevens know, and why would the admin want him gone? Everyone in the admin and state department are sweating bullets for some other reason than they tried to cover up a terrorist attack so Obama could get re-elected. I dont buy it

    • Looking4Sanity

      I think you underestimate the narcissistic nature of the man.

    • mlcblog

      I think you are very naive.

  • S.Smith

    Hope there is protection for such people. Clinton enemies don't usually escape unscathed. And now Obama has joined the fold, it is even more dangerous for courageous people.

    • Looking4Sanity

      Vince Foster?

  • ealha3

    So???? Therefore ….???? We now know nothing, NOTHING will happen even if it is conclusively accepted Obama lied, conspired to abandon, neglected to act, was politically motivated, etc., etc. That Hillary lied, conspired, neglected and was politically motivated, etc., etc. and that all the others named as incompetent at best and criminal at worst have been identified. Committee investigations have resulted in nothing happening to those proven to be responsible for their incompetence, negligence and criminality. So we must ask, why is anyone asking if nothing will happen to those responsible? Government activity is an ongoing exercise in failure….

    • Richard Ong

      Ambassador Pickering was “inclined” not to testify but did the Republicans think to encourage him with a subpoena? Why, no, it appears. And the identity of the persons or persons who issued “stand down” orders appears destined never to be revealed. Similarly, a general acted to send help but was apparently instantly relieved. Are the Republicans interested in the identity of the officer who was primed to instantly have his subordinate relieved? Apparently not.

      • Maxie

        This Committee did/does not have subpoena power. A Special Prosecutor needs to be appointed for that possibility I believe.

  • slider 96

    Bush Administration : 54 attacks on American Embassies / 23 Americans killed / 3 hearings
    Obama Benghazi Attack 4 Americans killed 9 hearings ….and counting .
    Still waiting for the "bombshell revelations " as now [under oath] star witnesses are distinguishing FACT from OPINION .
    No problem for the GOP , if testimony disagrees with their " mission " …just call everyone liars .

    • Asher

      Bush-Cheney were not traitors against their own country…There were no attacks on American soil after 911 due to HomeLand Security, and other counter measures put in place, and a competent administration that were hell bent on fighting the war on terror, not encouraging it! We need to face the facts that Islam is in all parts of our government, making the decisions at the top that affect the FBI, CIA, and other resources…they are not condusive to a sound, safe, and secure United States! Bush-Cheney would never leave soldiers or military people to die in a foreign land! Chew on that for awhile!

      • slider 96

        Asher , sharpen up your reading comprehension skills . I did not say "American soil " I said American Embassies .
        I know it is "convenient for you" to ignore the words you see in front of you , and makeup an argument based on your words and not mine , but you really are transparent here , don't you think ?

        • Tali

          American embassies are American soil, genius!

    • reader

      Name one, when the Bush administration officials gave "stand down" orders and would lie about what had happened.

    • pagegl

      Name an ambassador killed during any of those attacks during Bush's adminstration? Did the Bush administration ever deny a request to upgrade security? Did the Bush administration attempt to coverup what they did relative to those attacks? Did the Bush administration push a blatant lie about what happened in any of those attacks?


      One difference is that Bush never refused a request for increased security. Another is that he never would have refused to try to rescue our personnel when they were fighting for their lives. Bottom line – there was nothing like Benghazi under the Bush administration, your wishful thinking notwithstanding.

      Also, score yourself a -20 – I accidentally gave you thumbs up.

  • jennyhatch

    Thanks, that was the best overview I have read so far…

    • slider 96

      LOL…one lies and the other swears . I'll bet that's the only overview you've read ,especially since I m,ade no mention of "American Soil " but rather on American Embassies .
      What a convenient memory hole you teebaggers have , it's really laughable .

      • Ace

        Slider, so we can judge your character more sccurately, please tell us what your epithet “teebagger” [sic] means. Don’t be shy. Tell us.

      • V_O


        When reasoned argument can't carry the day, resort to name calling. Don't we all just love and admire the tolerance on the Left?

        And of course, never address the current subject directly – dredge up past instances where possible to obfuscate the issue at hand.

        The Alinski-ites always march in step, don't they?

      • kasandra

        Under international law, embassies are considered the territory of the country to which they belong so an attack on an American embassy is an attack on American territory. Why don't you try sliding into a library and learning something before spouting off against other people.

      • pagegl

        Did Jenny make any reference to American soil? And you accuse others of reading comprehension issues.

  • Jordan

    What good can Stinky do the country and the planet if he were under pressure to do his job, and devil forbid, lose the election.


    • kafir4life

      That's PRESIDENT Stinky to you! It's because of the -bo.

  • Galtoid

    According to Rush, the Situation Room sat vacant during the Benghazi siege. Obama won't use that room if it doesn't result in bragging rights for himself. He is not only narcissistic, he's is a danger to this nation.

  • jleinf

    Any bets Barry went to practice his vegas speech on 9/11 instead of trying to help 35 Americans in harms way in Benghazi?

    • Maxie

      He doesn't need practice. He just goes to stand there and wallow in the adulation he gets from the assembled LIV's. That adulation is what is called "supply" in the jargon of the Narcissist. Our "leader" has an affliction.

  • Asher

    Perhaps the anointed one was getting his beauty rest for the next day of campaigning. Special forces could have pulled off a rescue if allowed to proceed on the mission, they were told to stand down, by Who?

  • pierce

    Both Hilary and Barack are guilty of self indulgence, and reading and believing their own press clippings. There is no doubt in my mind that both have let down the American people big time.
    Obama's offense can be considered impeachable.
    Hilary's oversight should exclude her from future Presidential aspirations.
    In either case, they should pay the ultimate penalty.

  • tagalog

    I doubt that President Obama or Sec. of State Clinton were motivated by re-election concerns or by a concern for the propaganda that al-Qaeda was decimated and hanging on by its nails.

    I don't know what their motivations were, but I don't think those are the ones. A benign explanation could be the fog of events rapidly unfolding, with an inappropriate emphasis on the presence of airplanes 2-3 hours away with no ability to refuel them in midflight by tanker. But why the response teams were told to stand down, who knows? Maybe there was concern that the numbers of troops was too small.

    Or maybe there's something more sinister going on. Frankly, I think it's just fallible human beings making mistakes. They're the leaders, so they have to answer for it anyway. But I don't think anybody did anything evil. Then they tried to gloss it over and told outrageous lies that were patent from the first. That's also human fallibility at work, though of a more faulty, political, variety.

    Hillary Clinton, however, deserves reproach for her "at this point, what difference does it make?" remark; anyone could see in an instant what difference it makes. Whether spontaneous or planned makes a big difference, the difference between impulse and premeditation.

    • davidfarrar

      I agree. I think here is something bigger they are trying to hide, like a botched kidnapping.

      ex animo

    • kasandra

      Then you think that the administration's narrative for two weeks that the Benghazi attack was the result of an "anti-Islamic video" was just a "mistake" despite the absence of any support for that narrative from the U.S. diplomatic and intelligence communities, irrespective of the Libyan leadership's announcement that there was no protest and the video had nothing to do with what happened, and inspite of the undisputed fact that there had been no anti-video demonstration in Benghazi. Wow, that's quite a "mistake."

      • tagalog

        No, as I wrote, I think THAT was a lie, an attempt to gloss their mistakes over, not a mistake in itself but a coverup.

        davidfarrar may be right about something bigger going on, time will tell, I think, now that the hearings are getting some traction among the MSM and not just the right wing channels. They might actually have the willingness to do some investigative journalism, assuming there's any journalists as opposed to TV actors left in their ranks.

    • Concerned American

      Who Knows why? THE AMERICAN PUBLIC KNOWS WHY, POWER AND GREED! If your getting a handout of some sort you want to believe in the person who's giving. They are buying your vote for whatever reason.

  • PAthena

    Is there any connection between the events at Benghazi and President Obama's unilateral attack on Libya and the removal of Muamar Gadaffi as the ruler?

    • derekcrane

      …or perhaps the shooting of Osama bin Laden?


      Yes, there's one: the events in Benghazi would never have happened if Obama had not decided to intervene in a war with Libya to remove Quaddafi, which empowered Islamist groups some of whom then attacked the compound. Preserving the fictitious narrative that Obama had Islamic terrorists on the run was very much the motive for the cover-up.

      • jimnjoy

        My conversations with Obama supporters indicate to me that the terrorists being on the run would not have made any difference to them. Nothing that happens makes any difference to them. The Democrats overestimate the reasoning skills and deductive logic of their minions. They are deceived and deluded and have drank the Kool-Aid. Seeing their reaction to these hearings validates that thought.

  • jimnjoy

    I don't think Obama was really that interested or made aware of what was actually happening. He role in this administration is only as an electable figure-head…he had other things on his mind and his assignment at that time was to campaign and get elected. I'm sure he thought that whatever was happening would be "handled"…like every other inconvenient issue of his life. His administration is being handled by anti-Americans like Valerie Jarrett. However, this does not excuse either him or Hillary because whoever made the decisions…gave the orders…were doing so in accordance with previous policy, and, ultimately, the buck stops with the people at the top.

  • slider 96

    Still waiting for some proof of the repetitious and baseless accusations . Haven't heard any thusfar , have you ? I'm open minded , I'll accept ANY FACTS , that are brought forward by this committee . Chaffetz could not produce one instance of threats other than A STATE DEPT OFFICIAL , claiming his PROMOTION HAS NOT YET COME THROUGH and he thus construes this as " intimidation " …..really ?

    As one politician once stated " you have a right to your own opinion , but you don't have a right to your own "facts " .
    Let's see some FACTS . So far just the Benghazi Boogaloo .

    • jimnjoy

      You are correct that not all the "facts" are evident. It's going to boil down to who we believe. Is it a fact that "stand down" was ordered…twice? Seemingly credible people have different recollections. One indisputable fact is that our embassies and personnel in foreign countries deserve to be respected and protected. One indisputable fact is that this administration has previously refused to acknowledge the inconvenient "fact" that we are dealing with Islamic extremists, both here and abroad. Ford Hood was not "work-place violence".

    • reader

      Fact number one: stand down order was given at least once, in all likelihood twice – the attack in progress. Fact number two: intentionally false narrative would be used to alter CIA talking points. Fact three: intentionally false information would be dissemenated in the media about what happened and why. Fact four: people would be denied access and prevented from testifying as to what exactly had happened. Fact five: Obama still refuses to clearly explain what he was doing on the night of the attack.


      Well, if you're going to deliberately ignore or misunderstand facts when presented to you, it's pointless to have a discussion. But here's three rock-solid facts for you to chew on:

      1. The military and security personnel wanted to stage a rescue, but were ordered to stand down. We still don't know by whom, although we certainly have grounds for suspicion. It matters, because whoever issued the order condemned our men to death.

      2. The State Dept. official you mentioned, Greg Hicks, is not waiting for a promotion to come, he was actively demoted – that is his sworn testimony.

      3. Hicks told Hillary Clinton early on the morning of Sept. 12 that it was a terrorist attack. Thus, every time she later blamed the attack on a video, she was lying, that is, she knew perfectly well no video was to blame even as she claimed otherwise.

      4. Obama told the same lie as Clinton, and he told it repeatedly.

      There's a lot more already out there, and still more to come, but this should be enough to condemn Obama and Clinton in anyone's eyes. They are unfit to hold public office.

    • jo ella

      They had to hire attorneys in order to speak out….Are you really that naive???

    • Maxie
    • spawn44

      slider96. How about Hillary blaming the deaths on the video while looking directly into the eyes of the parents of the deceased knowing full well it was a lie. slider96. Why not tell the truth if you weren't out covering your rear end. You are a drone to the max if you believe anything coming from this administration.

  • Chezwick

    "the order to 'stand down' came in not once but twice."

    Therein lies all we need to know about why Susan Rice was paraded around on Sunday morning, telling lies.

    One can't blame Obama for believing he could get away with it. After all, he knew a sympathetic and complicit media was there, entirely at his disposal. If it weren't for evil Fox News, he would've pulled it off.

    • BS77

      Even now, despite all the evidence, the libstream media will ignore this story……and simply consign it to the past. The "investigative journalism" of today's main stream media is pathetic….nothing more than the work of Orwellian hacks and shills.

      • Chezwick

        CBS has censored one of its reporters for being "partisan". Her crime was that she investigated the Benghazi scandal with a little too much professionalism.

  • PatEnglish

    Let's pray that our people did not die in vain. Their death may well lead to an abolished Hillary Clinton and an impeached Obama.

    • slider 96

      I think you are more concerned that your nemesis Obama gets impeached [your pipedream] than any think related to those who were killed . As fir your "prayer " ? Be careful prayers based in hatred can be hazardous to your soul.

  • Webb

    Why are we not hearing a peep about the other American fighters wounded during the attack?

    • slider 96

      You'll have to ask them , as far as the State dept. testified , they have not been threatened nor have their lawyers approached the State Department for ANYTHING . So , you base your argument on baseless information . Surely their lawyers would have spoken up .Unless of course you allege they are being threatened also . WHERE ARE THEY ??? WHERE ARE THE FACTS ??

      • kasandra

        Why, they've been swept under the rug by the administration for the past 8 months with that administration doing everything in its power to make sure they don't come out. That's where they are.

        • Webb

          Ah, Kasandra, we have our answer quickly enough. Slider the Slime comes trolling in to defend Hussein and speak for the wounded. To remind us we have not heard from the lawyers for the wounded. Good job Slimer, now what are the dead saying? Or their lawyers? BTW Slimer, a question is not an argument.

  • S. Veritas

    All this may be true, but it sadly seems that the average American voter doesn't care, just like Hillary

  • slider 96

    You are not hearing any facts yet either . You can not simply repeat allegations , and repeat the term "stand-down " and reject the exculpatory facts regarding those orders . Those FACTS on why , have been given by ALL who had authority to give the stand down orders. If you reject that testimony , then you must base that on FACT ….I haven't heard any so far ……maybe today I will .

    • al222


      1. the talking points were changed, all references to terror and al Qaeda were removed
      2. Obama and Clinton knew the video had nothing to do with the attack–and they knew it was an attack–yet they used it as an excuse anyway.
      3. no rescue attempt of any kind was made
      4. the ARB never interviewed Hillary Clinton
      5. Obama never contacted his Joint Chiefs chairman or his Secretary of Defense after the initial meeting
      6. emails reveal multiple requests for adequate security were turned down
      7. we know four Americans died and Clinton asked what difference does it make.

      Am I getting warm yet?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Am I getting warm yet?"

        He can't read that much in one sitting and by the time he gets to the end he's forgotten it. He's still say there are no facts in evidence.

        He's a retread troll.

  • jem

    If the truth comes out and the Obama administration still gets a pass, we know our political system is totally corrupted.

    • Maxie

      Of course it is.

  • guest

    Not to mention forcing Petraeus to resign when he wouldn't go along with the Obama narrative. Remember this?

  • Burlington

    In this upside down world the hearing disclosures will mean nothing. The Republicans can't even stretch it for more than a day and then they get bumped for a jury verdict and news about the Cleveland rape. I had a history professor who stated,"the only cure for the presidential fever is victory or death."
    I fear that Hillary Clinton will be nominated in 2016 no matter what. Aside from Ann Colture, Palin, Bachmann and a few others the women will all vote for her. It's their turn after all. Veritas, we need Veritas.

    • reader

      The problem is people like Boener, who refuses to call a special investigative committee despite multiple requests from the House members of his own party. As Mark Levin put it, we live in the perilous times, when both political parties are lead by the worst of the worst.

      • jimnjoy

        I agree. Except for a few issues they've the same. I'm still wondering why Bush didn't close the borders after 9/11…it made no sense. This is exactly why alternatives like the Tea Party have credibility.

  • slider 96

    Oooops , hearings are over ….and no smoking gun . Investigation will go on no doubt .Probably right up to 2016 . Good luck with that .

    • reader

      We already know – for a fact – that Clinton perjured herself by repeatedly referring to the video, not the terrorist attack.


      No smoking gun? Ha-Ha! It looked like an L.A. smog fest in that committee room – that's how much smoke was coming from the gun. You're hopelessly biased and living in your own fantasy world, like so many Progressives. But if you ever get strong enough to face reality, do let us know, won't you?

  • davidfarrar

    Wtf: When Hick first got the message from Stevens they were under an attack, until it became clear that Stevens was missing…Hick did nothing more? He didn't immediately send a FLASH message to Washington the moment he heard the news they were under attack?

    ex animo

    • Walt

      I believe I read earlier that they had already performed 'emergency destruction' on their commo gear and keylists. Besides, how much more timely can you get than speaking directly to SECSTATE personally? Just as an aside – if they would have been able to send a message at all, it wouldn't have been a
      'FLASH', it would have been a 'CRITIC'!

  • slider 96

    GOP is imploring any and all who have info to come forward , they'll be protected ……….CRICKETS …..

    • Pontotoc Bill

      Ah, but they DID come forward and testify.

      You just refuse to accept reality.

  • slider 96

    GOP -constructed version of events and allegations – ONE BIG FAIL . Reality does not resemble contrived and politically motivated conspiracy theory .

    • BS77

      take a long walk on a short pier

      • slider 96

        Too bad you crying Annies didn't get your way ? Sorry , but reality takes precedence over your echo chamber .
        btw ….brilliant reply !

    • jimnjoy

      Is there anything about this chain-of-events that you feel is worthy of discussion? Do you not even think an "incident review" is warranted? Don't you think all avenues should be investigated so that this type-of thing doesn't happen again? So that the American people can know EXACTLY what happened and can make intelligent decisions as to whether or not we agree with the policies of this administration?

      • reader

        You're trying to reason with a troll now? Please.

        • jimnjoy

          You're right. However, you never know when something said may spark a glimmer of doubt… "hope springs eternal in the human breast."

          • slider 96

            Yea , pray for objectivity and a non-biased brain , who knows you may get an answer . But the GOP and Teebaggers will make another "birther issue " out of this , and make fools of yourselves AGAIN .

      • slider 96

        Yes , I do …and 9 is enough .The American People know as best anyone could know ,GOP has left no leaf unturned . So NOW that they've turned up NOTHING , no conspiracy , no coverup , no threats to anyone , no intimidation , and the allegations proved to be lacking any credibility , you reject the results of your own investigations . Sorry it didn't go your way , you'll have to accept that or make further fools of yourselves .
        If you're so concerned about Admin .Policies , how come there was no Hue and Cry over the 7 CIA operatives that were blown up in Afghanistan , you know , just like in your favorite movie Zero Dark 30? How much do you wish to discuss this ? Your lot has been whining , casting aspersions , making accusations , espousing conspiracy and coverup for 8 months now . You've uncovered NOTHING , there's no bombshell , and after 9 hearings …… new revelations . You demanded an EXPLANATION , and you got it . What are you going to do now ? Accuse the whole Military , CIA , State Dept , and Admin .of Lying ? OK …PROVE IT . Otherwise drop it , you're beating a dead horse .

        • Pontotoc Bill

          "Otherwise drop it, you're beating a dead horse."

          So speaks the liberal mindset.
          Cannot see reality for the horse blinders they wear.

          • slider 96

            Well genius 9 hearings , and you weasels have turned up empty . WHERE is the PROOF of your fractured fairy tales ?
            Ahlert is a good fiction writer , more like a yellow journalist , as his rant is nothing more than twisted facts , conjecture and biased opinion . Which is par for the course here with FPM writers .

          • Pontotoc Bill

            Because you refuse to accept reality and continue to deny, there is NO PROOF that you will accept.

            However, those with a modicum of brain power can see the proof that is there. You only need to listen/read the testimony of those before the House committee.

        • reader

          This is what the historian and a former GRU defector Viktor Suvorov referred to as a classical "breaking down a night stand" routine using his former GRU buddies' lingo. It goes like this:

          So, comrade Ivanov, where did you get the money?
          In the night stand.
          And how did the money get into the night stand?
          My wife put it there.
          And where did your wife get the money?
          From me.
          And where did you get the money?
          I've already told you. I got the money in the night stand.

  • davidfarrar

    Wtf: When Hicks first got the message from Stevens they were under an attack, until it became clear that Stevens was missing…Hicks did nothing? He didn't immediately send a FLASH message to Washington the moment he heard from Stevens that they were being attacked?

    ex animo

  • Mark Thompson

    I have to say that I am not at all surprised that they would try to cover this up. Thank God there are still people in this country who are still willing to tell the truth and not let money stand in the way of doing what is right. I also feel that the power of social media has made a huge difference in the way these cover-ups are being uncovered. The People deserve to know the truth about the corruption that is going on with our elected officials. I am simply disgusted at our current administration for all they are doing to harm this great country.
    How to make your wife love you again

  • gee59

    If America really wanted to save those fine men – we do have an ally in the region. One with an excellent record in rescue and having the means to reach Benghazi in time.

    Israel would have not only been capable of helping, but would have done so with their entire heart and soul and ability. Why weren't they asked for help?

  • WatcherOntheWall

    Bravo! Excellent, informative article, which clearly displays their backs are against the wall! Keep it going!

  • daniel metz

    obummer is killing thousands of American every year (well his illegal aliens and inner city thugs that he protects)

  • fanlad

    This deception, distortion, lies, cover-up and clean-up at the highest level is mis-government against the American people. The foundation of our Constitutional Republic is being eroded by these lies and deception. Keep on digging for the truth and its shining light. It must come out. Wake up America!

  • Brujo Blanco

    It appears that we now need to demonstrate if this is a country of laws or just Obama's playground.

  • slider 96

    You're demented . But a typical hatemongering teebagger . Oh well .

  • jo ella

    The coward was sleeping so he could attend a fund raiser and party! Looks like Hill or the Kenyan souldn't answer that "3 am" call! They should both be brought up on charges!

  • slider 96

    The Republican inquisition over the attacks against Americans in Benghazi has never really gone away, but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House Oversight Committee's Benghazi hearings this week there are renewed psycho-histrionics over Benghazi.

    Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation — turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins. It appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press, intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they're so obsessed by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly "keeping us safe."

  • spawn44

    If HILLARY and THE FOREIGNER spent half the time in doing their job as they have in COVERING UP THEIR MISTAKES this disaster would not have happened in the first place. Both these SOCIALIST ANTI AMERICAN DEMOCRATS should be prosecuted for NEGLIGENCE OF DUTY and LYING TO CONGRESS, among other things.

  • slider 96

    That reference about attorneys came from YOUR camp Bunky . Remember this whole GOP construct of what GOP and TEEbaggers ALLEGE to have happened has infact fell flat on its face . The Questions were asked and the answers given , and they do not fit your conspiracy fantasy . In fact the hearings ended with the frustrated GOP imploring ANYONE with information to come forward .No one has .
    So all your accusations , slanders , aspersions , conspiracies etc. remain in the realm of your own hate twisted echo chambers and warped minds .
    No Facts , NO PROOF for what you have constructed in the totally obvious and OBSCENE politicization of the event .
    My bet is that you pathetic "patriots " and your alligator tears for those Americans Lost will continue till 2016 , in another vain attempt to derail your opponents . And it will blow up in your faces yet again .

    • spawn44

      FACT #1: Mrs. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE and THE FOREIGNER are not AMERICANS and did not act like them in the BENGHAZI matter. REAL AMERICANS would have EXHAUSTED ALL RESOURCES to back up our people under attack instead of EXHAUSTING ALL RESOURCES trying to cover up why they didn't do it. #2 THE FACT WILL SHOW these two american frauds covered up this scenario to the american people, so as not to revealed they were asleep at the switch, and politically protect their future. Unfortunately for them, and democratic drones like you, this is only going to get worse for them going forward.

      • slider 96

        Produce the FACTS . Easy enough ain't it ? PRODUCE THE FACTS !
        You people are the FRAUDS .

        • Pontotoc Bill

          Have you ever produced facts? I didn't think so.

          just innuendo and slander from you.

  • @quillerm

    Had Hillary approved a minimum of 10-12 Marines, as per Ambassador Stevens requests, he would be alive today. That one Fact was the reason for this elaborate Cover Up by the White House. Hillary and Obama knew that once the American People found out she Denied Multiple requests for assistance from Stevens, that her prospects for the Presidency would be in Peril. So the mythical 'Spontaneous Mob' and video excuse was hatched. How could Hillary have anticipated a spontaneous Mob attack? But then there were witnesses that wouldn't shut up. The leftist media has come to the rescue.

  • @quillerm

    It appears that Top Secret decisions such as Embassy Security are just low level communications in the Obama State Department. Normally, Security staffing decisions are made at the highest levels as Ambassadors are the equivalent rank of Four Star Generals. Ambassador Stevens was the highest ranking member of the US Government to be Tortured and then murdered by Terrorists in US History. Democrats are far more worried about protecting Hillary and Obama than telling the truth. How many more people have to die to protect Hillary?

  • @quillerm

    Progressives are devoid of normal constraints such as duty, honor, country, truth, or even facts, if necessary. Their goal is Power over the masses, and if that takes getting away with murder, so be it. That's a lesson Hillary and Obama have given us in regards to Benghazi. They can engage in the most blatant incompetent acts imaginable, yet the media and loyal democrats will give them cover. It's all about Power.

  • watermelonbeast

    I think even Jack Anderson, the celebrated Washington Post columnist and rabid Nixon hater, is rolling in his grave at how the media has handled Benghazi. Watergate was just a third rate burgulary and not one person died. We need to find the "Plumbers" behind this coverup operation.

  • Guest

    Obama and Clinton willingly sacrificed four Americans to get Obama re-elected. Well, no one ever accused either one of having any morals or ethics!

  • slider 96

    LOL…ANDERSON for whatebver he felt about Nixon …PRODUCED FACTS . Where are the facts that the GOP promised of these so called "star witnesses " who were "allegedly threatened " ??

    Turns out to be a bucket of steam . Plenty of accusations and conjecture , tainted with highly biased OPINION ….but NO FACTS .

    • Maxie

      Your too frequent and hyper-ventilating postings on the subject of Benghazigate betrays your fear. It's all going to unravel. It's team Oblunder that has to provide the facts and they can't because they concocted a lying cover-up.

      • slider 96

        If anyone's hyper-ventilating , it's paranoid loons like YOU . " FEAR " ? LOLOLL you gotta be kidding !
        Show the facts or ZIP-IT . YOU HAVE NONE > Epic Fail , in your partisan bugaloo . You whine like spoiled brats , denied of your [political] goal .You could care less about those four Americans . 8 months and 9 hearings , and you turn up EMPTY , aside from your slanderous accusations and biased opinions .
        Where's the PROOF ? .
        Your FEAR is obvious when the GOP has to publicly implore all with info to come forward , and no one steps up .

        • Pontotoc Bill

          Your failure to perceive reality does NOT mitigate the fact that the proof has been provided.

          Innuendo, slander, and a daily diet from Daily Kos does not leave one with any mental abilities.

  • FrontPgSubscr

    We're STILL hearing about this in the national news (I include Fox News here). That should be a clear message that SOMETHING was going on!!!

  • mlcblog

    Imagine that!! HIllary lied and people died.

  • Ellman

    "The circumstances suggest the decision was made by a callous and desperate president struggling with a re-election campaign, a central plank of which was that al-Qaeda had been decimated and was “on the run” — not something affirmed by news of al-Qaeda operatives’ murder of our ambassador and military personnel. Or perhaps our commander-in-chief was too busy being our campaigner-in-chief and simply didn’t care about the carnage unfolding on his watch, which he declined to prevent."

    Obama has demonstrated throughout his political career that gaining or retaining political office and power is his central and essential motivation in everything he does and says. Truth and transparency, although he pays inordinate lip service to them, are irrelevant because power is what matters most. Neither he nor Hillary would have achieved political power if their primary concern had been justice, truth and transparency. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • slider 96

    "We're STILL hearing about this in the national news (I include Fox News here). That should be a clear message that SOMETHING was going on!!!

    Of course you do , the loudest wheel get's the grease . Keep screaming Benghazi enough , and you get your headlines . make a stink about more fruitless hearings turning up nothing and make bigger fools of yourselves , alienating what's left of a shrinking voter base . . I have no doubts you will wear this out just like the birth certificate , with the Tea party leading the charge . You've already EARNED the titles – Party of NO , and Party of Stupid , so what's next ?

  • slider 96

    From Worldnet:'s Erik Rush:

    Obama Likely ‘Orchestrated the Attack’ in Benghazi and ‘Deserves to Be Occupying a Cell in Some Federal Penitentiary’
    “Depending on the outcome, measures might be as severe as charges filed against Cabinet officials or the impeachment of Obama himself,” Rush writes. “While this president reasonably deserves to be occupying a cell in some federal penitentiary anyway, impeachment presents many troublesome aspects.”
    But he warns that impeachment proceedings against Obama will “ignite civil unrest,” which Rush claims is actually Obama’s plan all along!

    The GOP and Teebagger wingnuts are idiots and must believe the rest of America is just as dumb .


  • Asher

    Hussein Obama has put Muslims in Homeland Security. Of course they don't want to save Americans or American soldiers. The FBI never shared info with the Boston Police on the Tsarnaev brothers either, there was no Radar on them to prevent them from committing Jihad. Face it Folks…we are being destroyed because we aren't defending ourselves….What kind of a government allows Radial Muslims to kill troops when they could have been saved…and NOT Retaliate?

  • http://FrontPage Christopher Riddle

    Apparently,Slider 96 has REALLY taken to drinking The Liberal Kool Aid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Apparently,Slider 96 has REALLY taken to drinking The Liberal Kool Aid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

      We now know clearly who the most delusional leftist troll is. By a HUGE margin.

  • Christopher Riddle

    Apparently,Gregory Hicks is a registered DemonRat and he voted for Shrillary in the 2008 primary and Obama in both 2008 and 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Bimbam

    This should be forever known as the Bhenghazi Massacre and two names should be associated with it. THE ILLEGAL MUSLIM RACIST MARXIST NEGRO barry saetoro AND THE COMMUNIST AMERICAN HATER hillary clinton!

  • Hesperia Bob`

    It is quite obvious that it all said, the Obama Administration continues. Nothing is going to be corrected or ousted. As long as these idiots remain in office, the same lies will continue to flow and same mistakes will continue. This topic will be continue for a period of time and soon it will be forgotten as all other similar consequences that have occurred during Democrats control. The three executive branches of government which is to control equality of all, does not exist. We have a generation that is totally ignorant of government process. The American people has to regain control of government, not the psuedo- elites which have control at this point whether be Democrat or Republican. May God have mercy on this nation.

    • @Vic5245

      The American People need to gain control, that is correct, but this country cannot wait another 3.5 years for a presidential election. Gaining control via elections is kid stuff at this point.