Thursday, May 9, 2013

It seems like only yesterday when President Obama stood in front of an electrified audience at the 2012 Democratic National Convention just days before the deadly September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reminding supporters, "al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead."

Days later, on September 14, a somber-faced Obama and his sullen-faced Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood in front of four flag draped coffins at Andrews Air Force Base, assuring the small group of grieving family members their loved ones did not die in vain. Their ill-informed message suggested these patriots weren't killed by terrorists; they died because of protests about a YouTube video.

Since then, the administration has done its best to dodge questions and distance itself from the events of September 11, and acquired a convenient case of amnesia along the way. Nine months-in and Americans still have no clue why initial talking points from top officials' claiming the attacks were most likely executed by al Qaeda-linked terrorists were reduced to "a YouTube video." Did they fear acknowledging such a claim so close to the 2012 presidential election? Or did they actually believe the video story?

Hopefully, some of these questions were answered by way of three courageous State Department whistle-blowers scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee May 8. Pre-hearing interviews from one of the whistleblowers, Gregory Hicks, the second highest diplomat in Libya at the time of the attacks, were released to the press. Hicks claimed a Special Forces team, which could have saved lives and protected evidence, was ordered to "stand down" despite multiple pleas for help.

Contrary to the administration's claims, Hicks also said, "...everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack" from the beginning.

Hicks' statements seem to fit in with the timeline obtained by the Weekly Standard from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The Weekly Standard article "The Benghazi Talking Points," describes how "senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened" and made "substantive revisions" to the "CIA's talking points" six weeks outside the 2012 presidential election.

So where's your thirst for truth, America? Why aren't we outraged? Maybe because, as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "Benghazi happened a long time ago." Maybe Carney should ask grieving family members wanting answers and longing for closure how long it's been since their loved ones lost their lives in Benghazi. Or maybe we are at a point in this country where a politician's political aspirations trump everything else.

The last time something of this magnitude happened, a U.S. president stepped down. But that was during a time when good men who made bad choices still had the intestinal fortitude to accept personal responsibility for their actions. It was also a time when journalists were principled enough to set aside politics to do their job and make politicians accountable.

Some in the mainstream media are reluctantly pulling their heads out of the ground. On May 5, CBS news anchor Bob Schieffer acknowledged the possibility the administration might have been involved in a "cover-up." Others are unenthusiastically following suit because they have no choice.

Of course, the illegitimate diehards will remain with their heads in the sand until the storm passes.

As the pieces of this puzzle come together, one thing is certain: Full and honest disclosure is always the best policy. Regardless of how Benghazi pans out, we will discover that either the Obama administration was involved in a cover-up and played us as fools, or our government is run by fools who actually believed the Benghazi attacks were in response to an uprising over an amateurish anti-Islam video by a man now serving jail time for a separate issue.

Either way, we lose.

Obama used taxpayer funds in Benghazi cover-up

$70,000 Pakistani ad buy blamed obscure anti-Muhammad film

JERUSALEM – As the House Oversight Committee hears from witnesses presenting a chronological timeline that starkly contrasts with initial statements by the Obama administration on the Benghazi attacks, it is instructive to recall how the administration spent $70,000 in taxpayer funds on an ad denouncing an anti-Muhammad film.

The ad aired on Pakistani television amid White House claims that the Benghazi attacks were caused by popular protests against an obscure Muhammad film released on YouTube.

It would later emerge that no such protests took place and that the Obama administration almost immediately had evidence the Benghazi attacks were carried out by jihadists.

The ads reportedly aired on seven Pakistani networks. They also came in response to protests in Pakistan that were reportedly a reaction to the film. However, it was the claim of popular protests in Benghazi at the time that garnered the biggest public reaction from the White House.

The Sept. 19, 2012, ads feature Obama and Clinton making statements against the film in the wake of the Benghazi attacks, which transpired one week prior.

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation of respect, that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” Obama says in the ad, which is stamped “paid content.”

Clinton then denies any official U.S. involvement in producing the “Innocence of Muslims” video.
“We absolutely reject its contents,” she says.

The Obama administration blamed the YouTube video for what it claimed were popular protests that engulfed the Benghazi mission.

On Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, three days before the ads were released, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five morning television programs to discuss the White House response to the Benghazi attacks. In nearly identical statements, she asserted that the attacks were a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video.”

Rice’s spot on “Face the Nation” was preceded by the new president of Libya, Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had “no doubt that this was pre-planned, predetermined.”

Still, other Obama administration officials made similar claims about the film being behind the Benghazi attacks.

Scores of news reports, video and intelligence evidence that was immediately available to the government had demonstrated there were no popular protests outside the Benghazi facility and that the attacks were carried out by jihadists.

The claims about the anti-Muhammad film being behind the Benghazi attacks are also now called into question by a top State Department official who said he knew immediately the attacks were terror strikes, not a protest turned violent, according to interview transcripts released Sunday.

“I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go,” said Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the No. 2 U.S. official in Libya at the time of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. “I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.”

According to Hicks, “everybody in the mission” believed it was an act of terror “from the get-go.”

Reacting to Rice’s television interviews blaming the anti-Muhammad film, Hicks stated, “I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day.”

In testimony yesterday, Hicks said he was “stunned,” his “jaw dropped” and he was “embarrassed” when Rice blamed the terror attack on an Internet video.

“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” he stated.

See the video here:
Relative of Boston jihad bomber is prominent Islamic supremacist

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

With numerous ties to jihadists. "Exclusive: Dagestani Relative of Tamerlan Tsarnaev Is a Prominent Islamist," by Simon Shuster for, May 8 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
Last year, when Tamerlan Tsarnaev spent six months in the Russian region of Dagestan, he had a guide with an unusually deep knowledge of the local Islamist community: a distant cousin named Magomed Kartashov. Six years older than Tsarnaev, Kartashov is a former police officer and freestyle wrestler—and one of the region’s most prominent Islamists. 
In 2011 Kartashov founded and became the leader of an organization called the Union of the Just, whose members campaign for sharia law and pan-Islamic unity in Dagestan, often speaking out against U.S. policies across the Muslim world. The group publicly renounces violence. But some of its members have close links to militants; others have served time in prison for weapons possession and abetting terrorism—charges they say were based on fabricated evidence. For Tsarnaev, these men formed a community of pious young Muslims with whom he could discuss his ideas of jihad. Tsarnaev’s mother, Zubeidat, confirmed that her son is Kartashov’s third cousin. The two met for the first time in Dagestan, she said, and “became very close.”
Since April 19, when Tsarnaev and his younger brother Dzhokhar were publicly identified as being the key suspects in the bombing of the Boston Marathon, investigators have been trying to work out how they were radicalized to the point of wanting to kill and main people in the United States, the country the brothers had called home for much of their lives. (Tsarnaev was killed during a manhunt for the two men in Boston; his younger brother was shot but survived and has been charged with acts of terrorism including using a weapon of mass desctruction resulting in death. If convicted he could face the death penalty.) Much of the investigators’ attention has focused on Tsarnaev’s visit to Dagestan in 2012. It appears that investigators have only recently begun exploring Tsarnaev’s links to his cousin.
On May 5, three agents from Russia’s Federal Security Service, the agency known as the FSB, interrogated Kartashov for the first time about the Boston bombings, according to his lawyer, Patimat Abdullaeva. The FSB agents were interested in whether Kartashov and Tsarnaev had ever discussed Islamic radicalism, Abdullaeva says.
Kartashov told them that they had, but claimed that Tsarnaev was the one trying to “pull him in to extremism,” says the lawyer, who spoke to Kartashov soon after the interrogation. (It was impossible to ask Kartashov about this directly; he has been in jail since April 27 after a brawl with police in northern Dagestan, and prison officials denied TIME’s requests to visit him or have him answer questions in writing. His lawyer agreed to pass a reporter’s questions to him in jail.) In recounting her client’s replies, the lawyer said: “Kartashov tried to talk [Tsarnaev] out of his interest in extremism.”...
Whistleblower: Altered Benghazi talking points hurt FBI probe of jihad attack
From Jihad watch / Posted by Robert Spencer 

They mischaracterized what was a jihad attack because they do not want the American people to know that there is a jihad against the U.S. "Whistle-blower: Botched talking points hurt FBI probe of Benghazi attack," from, May 8 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
A key Benghazi whistle-blower, responding to Democratic claims that the prolonged scrutiny over the administration's botched talking points is unwarranted, testified Wednesday that the early mischaracterization of the attack may have actually hurt the FBI's investigation. 
"I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi," said Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya who became the top U.S. diplomat in the country after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed. He claimed the Libyan president was angered by the mischaracterization, in turn slowing the U.S. probe.
The claim was one of several new accounts given at Wednesday's high-profile hearing where three whistle-blowers testified.
Democrats, while giving deference to the officials and their version of events, used the hearing to try and deflect criticism away from the administration. In particular, they rejected the notion that early talking points on the attack were deliberately changed, to downplay terrorism, for political reasons.
"People who have actually seen the documents, who have actually conducted a real investigation completely reject the allegation that they were made for political purposes," Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., said.
But the substance of the claims Wednesday could serve to re-open questions about that deadly night -- and specifically about the initial claim by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attack was triggered by a protest over an anti-Islam film.
Hicks was asked to respond to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement at a prior hearing asking "what difference" do the questions over the talking points make.
Hicks argued that Rice's comments so insulted the Libyan president -- since they contradicted his Sept. 16 claims that the attack was premeditated -- that it slowed the FBI's investigation.
"President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced," Hicks said, adding that the president was apparently "still steamed" two weeks later.
This bad blood, he claimed, contributed to the FBI team being stuck in Tripoli for about 17 days. He added that the U.S. could not even get the Libyans to secure the crime scene during that time.
As for Rice's comments that Sunday, when she repeatedly cited the video as the trigger for the attack, Hicks said his "jaw dropped" when he heard that.
"I was stunned," Hicks said. "My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed."
He said Rice never talked to him before those appearances.
Hicks said the only information coming out of his team was that there was an "attack" on the consulate. "The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya," he said.
He also claimed that, when he asked a superior about the interviews, he was told "he should not proceed" with his questions. He was later given a "blistering critique" of his management style and effectively demoted to "desk officer," he claimed.
Hicks' testimony marked some of the most detailed of any delivered Wednesday. He and others also suggested the State Department's internal review into the attack was lacking. Hicks said when he was interviewed by the group, a stenographer was not present.
In hours of testimony, the witnesses recounted in great detail what happened in eastern Libya on Sept. 11 and how U.S. personnel came under a series of attacks that left four Americans dead. Though Democratic officials have argued the attack has been thoroughly investigated and that the hearing Wednesday was political in nature, the claims challenged several long-standing assertions by the Obama administration.
The witnesses criticized the lax security at the Benghazi site in the run-up to the attack, and suggested the military did not do all it good to respond to the scene that night despite claims to the contrary.
Hicks also revealed that it appeared some were trying to lure even more U.S. personnel into a separate "ambush" while the attack was still being carried out. He described how, as diplomatic officials were trying to find out what happened to Stevens, they were receiving phone calls from supposed tipsters saying they knew where the ambassador was and urging Americans to come get him.
"We suspected that we were being baited into a trap," Hicks said, adding that he did not want to send anybody into what he suspected was an "ambush."
Getting choked up, Hicks described how the Libyan prime minister later called him to tell him Stevens was in fact dead. "I think it's the saddest phone call I've ever had in my life," he said.
At the very beginning of the attack, before Stevens went missing and was later found dead, Hicks said his team believed it was terrorism. He said a regional security officer rushed into his villa yelling, "Greg, Greg, the consulate's under attack."
He then spoke by phone with Stevens who told him the same: "Greg, we're under attack."
After enduring a night of attacks on the U.S. consulate, Hicks said the team departed at dawn for the nearby annex -- shortly after they arrived, "the mortars came."
Another whistle-blower questioned Wednesday why more military assets were not deployed sooner during the Benghazi terror attack. Mark Thompson, a former Marine and official with the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau, said he was rebuffed by the White House when he asked for a specialized team -- known as a FEST team -- to be deployed. This is a unit made of special operations personnel, diplomatic security, intelligence and other officers....

White House claims edits to Benghazi talking points to remove references to al-Qaeda were "stylistic"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

They just happened to coincide with the Obama Administration's general policy of downplaying the jihad threat and pretending that it largely does not exist. And whenever they are forced to discuss it, they do so in the context of a hijacking of the true, peaceful Islam and an avidity to distance Islam from violence even when the perpetrators of that violence invoke Islam to explain it. This is the same Administration that in 2011 mandated the scrubbing of counter-terror training materials of the truth about Islam and jihad. It is the terror threat that dare not speak its name.

"White House claims edits to Benghazi talking points were ‘stylistic,’" by Brian Hughes for The Washington Examiner, May 8 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):
Any White House edits made to talking points about the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, were merely “stylistic,” Obama spokesman Jay Carney insisted on Wednesday amid congressional hearings about the Sept. 11 strike that killed four Americans. 
“The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this,” Carney said.
“Edits made by anyone at the White House were stylistic and not substantive. They corrected the description of the building … from consulate to diplomatic facility.
Ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to congressional investigators. The attempt to politicize the talking points again is part of an effort to chase after what isn’t the substance here.”
The White House has been hammered for initially blaming the violence on a spontaneous protest to an anti-Islam YouTube video and a Sunday show appearance in which former United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice trumpeted that false narrative.
A recent article by The Weekly Standard suggests the edits were more substantial.
According to the magazine, senior officials at the White House and State Department were heavily involved in rewriting the talking points.
After a meeting with the senior officials, the CIA deleted all references to al Qaeda, the article said. Republicans have long accused administration officials of wanting to downplay a terrorist attack so close to a presidential election....

Benghazi Hearing Reveals Administration Incompetence And Lies

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Benghazi Hearing Reveals Administration Incompetence And Lies
The House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee heard testimony Wednesday on the terrorist attacks on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
House Republicans took the Barack Obama White House to task with renewed vigor on Wednesday over charges that the Administration orchestrated a shameful cover-up of the Benghazi, Libya, terror attack in September.

Two attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi occurred within hours of one another on Sept. 11, resulting in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Upon review by a committee consisting of former top diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired Gen. Mike Mullen, it was determined that management and leadership failures at the State Department and gross lack of security at the embassy were major factors in the fatal attacks.

Democratic lawmakers time and again have accused Republicans of politicizing the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, but information revealed in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing this week highlights a certain level of Administration culpability in the fatally botched government response as the attacks unfolded. Even more damning for top Administration officials is information revealed in the Wednesday hearings that provides further evidence of a cover-up attempt.
Here are some highlights from the hearing.


Democrats doubled down attempts to divert blame from the Obama White House and State Department.

Representative William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) said that budget cuts were responsible for the tragic outcome.

Click on the link below to see and hear the testimony.

The State Department told Benghazi whistle-blowers not to speak to Congressional investigators.

Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission for the United States in Libya, told members of Congress that the State Department made very clear that it didn’t want him to give his account of the Benghazi attack to lawmakers — even though he was in direct contact with Washington and the consulate at the time of the attacks.


Everyone knew it was a terror attack, and response teams that could have ended the attack promptly were ordered to stand down.

Excerpted from Hicks’ testimony:
When I got to the Tactical Operations Center, I told people that the ambassador — that I had just talked to the ambassador and what he said. At the time, John Martinec was on the phone with Alec Henderson in Benghazi, the RSO there, and I asked one of our D.S. agents who — what number did I reach Ambassador Stevens on.
And he said, “Oh, that’s Scott Wickland’s telephone.” Scott Wickland was Ambassador Steven’s agent in charge, his personal escort for that night, and was with him in the villa during the attack. So I asked — when John Martinec got off the telephone, I asked him what was going on. And he said that the consulate had been breached, and there were at least 20 hostile individuals armed in the — in the compound at the time. So I next called the annex chief to ask him if he was in touch with the Benghazi annex to activate our emergency response plan.
He said later, describing steps taken before two separate stand-down orders were issued by Administration officials:
I also discussed with the annex chief about mobilizing a Tripoli response team, and we agreed that we would move forward with a — chartering a plane from Tripoli to fly a response team to Benghazi to provide additional reinforcements. The defense attache was also reporting through his chain of command, back to AFRICOM and to the joint staff here in Washington about what was going on in the country.


The State Department’s public relations following the terror attacks were baffling to many people involved.

“I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed.” Hicks said, describing his reaction to Ambassador Susan Rice’s five national television appearances blaming a YouTube video for the attack.


The White House dismissed the hearings.

White House press secretary Jay Carney dismissed the Benghazi hearing as a political stunt during a briefing Wednesday.

“This is a subject that has, from its beginning, been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans when, in fact, what happened in Benghazi was a tragedy,” he said.

The press secretary also justified White House manipulation of facts regarding the terror attacks by saying edits to talking points relating to the event made by top Administration officials were for “stylistic” purposes.

“The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this,” Carney said. “Edits made by anyone at the White House were stylistic and not substantive. They corrected the description of the building… from consulate to diplomatic facility. Ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to congressional investigators. The attempt to politicize the talking points again is part of an effort to chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

No word yet on whether or not Merriam-Webster will alter the definition of “stylistic” to mean “of or relating especially to ass-covering lies.”

Israel Warns US About Russian Arms Sale to Syria 

Israel warned the United States in recent days that Russia plans to sell advanced ground-to-air missile systems to Syria despite Western pressure on Moscow to hold off on such a move, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

The newspaper said U.S. officials had confirmed they were analyzing the Israeli reports but would not comment on whether they believed the sale of S-300 missile batteries was near.

No comment was immediately available from officials at the Pentagon or U.S. State Department.

The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been seeking to purchase the advanced S-300 missile batteries, which can intercept both manned aircraft and guided missiles, from Moscow for many years.

Western nations have repeatedly urged Russia to block the sale, which they argue could complicate any international intervention in Syria's escalating civil war.

The Journal said the information provided to Washington by Israel showed that Syria has been making payments on a 2010 agreement with Moscow to buy four batteries for $900 million, including a payment made this year through Russia's foreign-development bank, known as the VEB.

The paper said the package included six launchers and 144 operational missiles, each with a range of 125 miles (200 miles), with an initial shipment expected in the next three months.

While the effectiveness of Syria's aging air force is unclear, most experts believe that its air-defense missile system, which was upgraded after a 2007 Israeli strike on a suspected nuclear site, remains quite potent.

Obama and Clinton must now be held accountable 
By: Diane Sori

Yesterday, a compelling case was made for further investigation into the events surrounding Benghazi, as this is only the beginning for Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all those who aided in the cover-up of the MURDERS of Ambassador Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, ex-Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

"These witnesses have information that has not previously come forward because the administration has tried to suppress it," said Frederick Hill, spokesman for the oversight committee. "The testimony of the former deputy chief of mission directly contradicts statements made by high-ranking officials."

And the testimony given by the three whistleblowers, in my opinion, gives credence NOT only to Mr. Hill's statement but to this unholy group being LIARS, deceivers, and instigators in all that is Benghazi for they knew that what happened that fateful night was a terrorist attack...hell, they even might have outright planned it to cover for an Obama secretly sanctioned gun and weapons smuggling operation into Syria...a smuggling operation gone
horribly wrong after Ambassador Stevens found out about it.

But like I said, that is my opinion alone, yet on FOX News last night one of the commentators on Bret Baier's panel said the attack on the compound was "designed to draw people in."

'Draw people in''s really NOT that far a stretch now is it.

And while the main stream media continues to downplay Benghazi while they flock to the circus known as Jodi Arias, Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, conducted this oh so important hearing to get to the truth about what happened that night, because the families of the victims and 'We the People' deserve answers. 

NOT only answers but to assure that those responsible are punished to the fullest intent of the law.

So, as I watched the testimony of these three brave whistleblowers I also saw what was paramount to trying to manipulate partisan politics into these hearings, for all the Democratic Congresspeople asking questions seemed NOT to care for the possibility that 'the anointed one' might very well be guilty of a cover-up or worse, but instead chose to accuse Republicans of using the witnesses for 'political purposes'. And this including 'supposedly' impartial Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democratic member on the oversight committee.
"Our top military commanders have already testified they did everything in their power, they did the best in their capacity," Cummings said, sort of the same words this administration keeps bloviating over and over ad-nauseum, proving Republicans were at that hearing to learn the truth about the night of September 11, 2012, from those who were there, while Democrats came to the hearing to deflect blame off Obama and Clinton and place it on those very Republicans daring to seek the truth.

Never mind that the whistleblowers gave powerful and highly emotional testimony regarding the events that night including describing the deaths of the four they called 'friends'...never mind that under oath Gregory Hicks, the number two diplomat in Libya at the time of the attack, said that he and many others knew the September 11th attack was terrorism from the get-go and was completely shocked when the Obama administration said otherwise...NEVER mind any of that...NEVER mind the truth...all that is important is to protect Obama and Hillary and shift blame to the Republicans who are just seeking the truth, and truth should have NO party affiliation.

"I was stunned." "My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed" said Mr. Hicks referring to Obama, Clinton, and UN Ambassador Rice's LIE that the attack was the result of spontaneous violence over a YouTube video critical of mohammad and islam.

Mr. Hicks, his voice cracking when talking about the death of his friend Ambassador Stevens, said that when he returned to Washington for Stevens' funeral how he had been "effectively demoted from deputy chief of mission to desk officer" simply because he had challenged Obama and crew's lie about a YouTube video being the cause of the attack.

"I am a career public servant," Hicks said. "Until the aftermath of Benghazi, I loved every day of my job."

Sad, so sad for this is NOT how America operates...or NEVER did until this miserable administration came into power and the word 'truth' was stricken from their vocabulary.

And when Eric Nordstrom, the former regional security officer in Libya said, "It matters to me personally and it matters to my colleagues at the Department of State...It matters to the American public for whom we serve, and most importantly it matters to the friends, the family" of those killed, he was clearly talking about the truth and that nothing less would be acceptable.

And some of the 'truth' we learned today made me cringe, especially when Mr. Hicks spoke of what hospital Ambassador Stevens was taken to while still alive. "The ambassador was in a hospital controlled by Ansar al-Sharia, the group whose twitter feed said it was leading the attack on the consulate," Hicks said. 

MY stomach dropped for those words hit hard as I realized that if Ambassador Stevens was still alive after the actual attack I knew for sure he was NEVER going to leave that hospital alive...and he didn't.

And the 'stand downs'...the 'truth' about the stand downs is equally sickening as Mr. Hicks testified about asking Washington twice whether an F-16 or some other "fast-mover" aircraft could fly over the battlefield with hopes it would scatter the attackers.

"I talked with the defense attache, Lt. Col. Keith Phillips, and I asked him, 'Is there anything coming?' 

Mr. Hicks testified that Lt. Col. Phillips said the nearest fighter planes were in Aviano, Italy, and it would take two to three hours to get them airborne, and that there were no tanker assets close enough to support them.

LIAR...for, according to Mr. Hicks, while there indeed might have been NO tankers close enough to send help in time there was a team of military Special Forces in Tripoli ready to go to help those in Benghazi but their commander, Lt. Col. Gibson, was ordered to stop them by his superiors.

"He got a phone call from SOCAFRICA (Special Operations Command Africa) which said, you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now," Hicks said. "They were told not to board the C-130 flight, so they missed it."

Hicks said Gibson told him: "I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military." 

And while some are truly embarrassed I am truly angry...seething...furious that our military was told to 'stand down' because while SOCAFRICA might have given Lt. Col. Gibson the orders to 'stand down' someone higher up had to give orders to SOCAFRICA...and we can reasonably guess who that might be, because the attack happened just weeks before the election, and Obama's campaign rhetoric that he had al-Qaeda on the run would come back to bite him.

Along with, and most importantly, the 'truth' getting out of what I still believe to be a secret guns and weapons running operation funneled through Benghazi to operation that cost four brave Americans their lives, because above all else 'the anointed one' and his sidekick Hillary, with presidential aspirations of her own, must be protected at all costs...innocent lives be damned.