Entire May 8, 2013 hearing of Ben Ghazi on C-Span
(You can watch here FREE only while it is still available, which is probably for about 3 - 6 months before they file it away and charge for it.)
The Blaze offered 5 take away points at:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/here-are-the-5-key-things-to-take-away-from-wednesdays-benghazi-hearing/
An expanded version of that might be :
1. There was a stand down order [Actually, there were at least 2: 1 in Spain 4.5 hours response time away on an A-110, and 1 in Tripoli]
2. Gregory Hicks was demoted from Deputy Chief of Missions in Libya to a Stateside Foreign Affairs Officer at a desk assignment.
3. Gregory Hicks was ordered, as were other witnesses, not to talk to Congress in private without a State Department lawyer present to represent State Department interests.
4. Lt. Col. Gibson received his stand-down order in Tripoli by phone in the presence of Greg Hicks, just as he was about to board the plane to fly out to Ben Ghazi by C-130 to aid them, and was ordered NOT to.
5. Congressmen Gowdy and Chaffetz read previously unreleased e-mails that drew criticism by Democrats for not being disseminated a day prior to the hearing. For example, Congressman Gowdy
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/rep-trey-gowdy-reads-previously-unreleased-benghazi-email-during-hearing-whistleblower-says-he-was-embarrassed-attack-was-blamed-on-video/
offered an excerpt of an e-mail sent by the Department of State's Beth Jones, Acting Assistant Secretary of Mid-east Affairs to Greg Hicks which read in part:
“I spoke to the Libyan ambassador and emphasized the importance of Libyan leaders continuing to make strong statements. When he said his government expected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I TOLD HIM that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”
Pamela Geller offered a very good article of related information at:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/05/hicks-on-the-libyan-jihad-on-91l12.html
Alternate Clips of Testimony: May 8, 2013
Gregory Hicks - video ca. 31 minutes 26 seconds
http://youtu.be/ajmNFLEserY
Nordstrom - video 3 minutes 16 seconds
http://youtu.be/KrSfXwSXLsE
Representative Gowdy's exchange:
http://youtu.be/OmQd5vF1cUU
Ambassador Stevens dying declaration was that the embassy was under attack. There was never any mention at any time about any later alleged demonstration. E-mail of Beth Jones
Representative Chaffetz's exchange:
http://youtu.be/0uqoZiwPRXg
Hicks mentions Lt. Gibson's statement that he was told to stand-down and his reaction. Mr. Thompson tells that he was told to stand down as well. Second reading of previously unreleased e-mails are addressed by Committee Chairman Issa.
Representative Jordan's exchange:
http://youtu.be/u4PZ3TPQV_k
Hicks untarnished record and performance in Libya, including on 09/11/2012 etc., was praised on all levels up to and including Obama until he challenged the Susan Rice video false narrative.
On Monday May 6, 2013, Representative Darryl Issa told CBS News: "If Hillary Clinton is not
responsible for the before, during and after mistakes... it's somebody
close.... There certainly are plenty of people close to the former secretary who
knew, and apparently were part of the problem."
On September 21, 2012, Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that: "...(W)e found the video that's at the core of
this series of events offensive, disgusting, reprehensible." Problem is, there was no conflict about a video at Ben Ghazi or ANYWHERE in Libya on September 11, 2012. It was a false flag cover up and Public Relations manipulation of both the Muslims of the Middle East and American Citizens.
Barack Obama before the United Nations, knowingly falsely blamed the video 6 times as the cause of the 09/11/2012 attack.
“That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world,”
In November 2012, Rush Limbaugh offered his premium members a pretty good timeline about Ben Ghazi as of November 2012 assessment which is now posted for free at:
One hypothesis, not related to any testimony extracted from the hearing, that sounds credible, was that the U.S. Department of State at Cairo's Public Relations release was possibly as an alleged idea from George Soros’ Think-tank group "Think Progress",
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7121
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
(as yet unvetted), that was the video claim was pre-scripted and followed in order to help ensure Obama's election in November. To me, if that is the case, it could be that the Egyptian demonstrations was the false flag initiated by U.S. groups and covert U.S. agents, and that the blow-up at Ben Ghazi wasn't planned for and NOT supposed to happen. And when Ben Ghazi did happen, the attitude was "It is an election year. We have to ignore it, and hope it will go away." Or something to this effect.
Possible Drone Operator Asks Why Hasn't Congress Asked For The Video Under Freedom Of Information Act?
The Blaze has brought out a startling Sean Hannity radio interview.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/07/purported-benghazi-drone-operator-calls-sean-hannity-with-new-details-cant-be-armed-that-night-and-no-one-has-contacted-me/
A possible Drone Operator over Ben Ghazi states that he was to fly the Consulate. Since it was already under attack and on fire, he was ordered as re-tasked to the C.I.A. Annex. The Drone was utilizing Infrared. The video footage was disseminated around the globe, even if the original video was eventually erased over and destroyed at the drone.
So what is the take away that the Corporate Media should have had, rather than blacking out and burying this hearing?
Obama claimed every resource was made available. He lied. He needs to be held accountable moreso than this nation held President Nixon accountable for the Watergate break-in.
If, hypothetically speaking, Saudi Arabian or other Muslim terrorists ever decide to take out the Television Corporate Media at their home offices, should we Americans care, or have empathy toward the Television Corporate Media anymore? If the Media refuses to see, to hear or to speak, why should we acknowledge them as worthy of empathy, hypothetically speaking? Is that where we are going as a society? Again, hypothetically in such a hypothetical (and unlikely to ever happen) case, perhaps we all should simply switch the channels off and stop reading the news, and maybe all such attacks, even if the hypothetical terror attacks upon the Media themselves should occur and continue against the Corporate Media Offices, maybe we can do what the Media does and just pretend it isn't an issue, and that it would just "go away" if we wish it so. Is THAT the kind of lack of empathy they of the Corporate Media really want America to have toward them in a have others do unto you what you are doing unto them? If they don't care...I have no problem ignoring anything that happens to them from now on, if they really wish to play that game. Since Obama didn't care that his own ambassador died, why would he care if foreign terrorists attacked the Media either? He would go to Vegas, hang and party with J-Z or take a vacation, do golf, look for people to praise him and put him on more magazine covers so he can admire himself some more.
May 8, 2013, Ben Ghazi Hearing Testimony Reveals At Least 2 Stand-down Orders
At least 2 stand-down orders were issued to 2 response units, leaving open the possibility of a 3rd Rapid Response Military Unit training in Croatia receiving the stand-down orders as well. In Tripoli, Lt. Col. Gibson received a phone call from what was perceived by Deputy Mission Chief Gregory Hicks to have been General Carter Ham, then Commander of the United States Africa Command,
http://www.africom.mil/about-the-command/past-leaders/general-carter-f-ham
and ordered not to board the plane to attempt to aid those still engaged in being attacked in Ben Ghazi. There was no knowledge of how long it would last, and they were to be abandoned. The flight was NOT authorized, nor would anyone above General Carter Ham seek to get Libyan permission to fly a flight in their airspace. Had Carter Ham been the one to send out the distress signal, would the Joint Chiefs have stood down? No. They would have collectively said "Send our birds in. Scramble 2 F-16's and buzz the mission in Ben Ghazi in full afterburners at low altitude, now! Send the strike teams and begin deploying our Mediterranean SEAL Team (such and such).... " That is exactly what they would have said verbatim, and that is exactly what the sentiment would have been. But a civilian U.S. Ambassador and C.I.A. ex-military being in danger of dying? They are political baggage to Obama, and therefore their service to this country and their lives are expendable to Obama as if they never existed as human beings.
Not only does Obama join Nancy Pelosi in viewing U.S. Citizens who legally and peacefully protest excessive bureaucracy and excessive taxation as "astroturf", Obama views all our foreign civilian service personnel in C.I.A. and other branches as "astroturf" as well. Inhuman and something to be stepped and stomped upon as if fake grass.
What is it with Obama's priorities for empathy or a lack of empathy anyway? Obama was more obsessed with a gay black basketball player coming out of the closet than what was happening in Ben Ghazi the night it happened. His wife, Michelle Obama let slip a complaint that she is a "single Mom".
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/04/09/oops-michelle-obama-calls-herself-a-%E2%80%98single-mom%E2%80%99/
Michelle Obama: "And believe me, as a busy single mother – I shouldn’t say single – as a busy mother."
Excuse me? What the hell is that about, other than that Michelle let a Freudian slip of the very good likelihood that she meant that Barack and Michelle's kids are not by sexual intimacy, but as a result of "in vitro fertilization". Michelle Obama raised the issue. Newsweek raised the probability of this being a very good likelihood by designating Obama is America's first gay / homosexual President.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2012/05/13/newsweek-obama-cover-first-gay-president
Obama's obsession with a homosexual black pro-basketball player raised the issue.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-calls-collins-offers-support-coming-223006145.html
If Obama is having homosexual sex on the sly and is actively engaged in such, and it goes back to even his marriage arrangement, it is a national security issue for anyone below his pay-grade...and to keep everything fair, his being a National Security Risk subject to removal while being an active homosexual in-the-closet and subject to blackmail (such as if there are tapes or electronic files of him in the act, for example) must apply to Barack Hussein Obama II him also.
Where the Corporate Media is concerned, their inquiring minds DON'T want the public to know. And we should wonder and demand to know, "Why?"
Barack Obama before the United Nations, knowingly falsely blamed the video 6 times as the cause of the 09/11/2012 attack.
“That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world,”
In November 2012, Rush Limbaugh offered his premium members a pretty good timeline about Ben Ghazi as of November 2012 assessment which is now posted for free at:
One hypothesis, not related to any testimony extracted from the hearing, that sounds credible, was that the U.S. Department of State at Cairo's Public Relations release was possibly as an alleged idea from George Soros’ Think-tank group "Think Progress",
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7121
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
(as yet unvetted), that was the video claim was pre-scripted and followed in order to help ensure Obama's election in November. To me, if that is the case, it could be that the Egyptian demonstrations was the false flag initiated by U.S. groups and covert U.S. agents, and that the blow-up at Ben Ghazi wasn't planned for and NOT supposed to happen. And when Ben Ghazi did happen, the attitude was "It is an election year. We have to ignore it, and hope it will go away." Or something to this effect.
Possible Drone Operator Asks Why Hasn't Congress Asked For The Video Under Freedom Of Information Act?
The Blaze has brought out a startling Sean Hannity radio interview.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/07/purported-benghazi-drone-operator-calls-sean-hannity-with-new-details-cant-be-armed-that-night-and-no-one-has-contacted-me/
A possible Drone Operator over Ben Ghazi states that he was to fly the Consulate. Since it was already under attack and on fire, he was ordered as re-tasked to the C.I.A. Annex. The Drone was utilizing Infrared. The video footage was disseminated around the globe, even if the original video was eventually erased over and destroyed at the drone.
The Consulate was surrounded by dozens to hundreds of people, including cars during the attack. When his drone went to the C.I.A. Annex, there were people on the Annex roof-top, but the drone did not have permission to fly in this host country of Libya this night, so it appears that it was told to return. The alleged drone operator said that the drone only operated perhaps 1/4 the amount of time it had the potential to fly.
So what is the take away that the Corporate Media should have had, rather than blacking out and burying this hearing?
Obama claimed every resource was made available. He lied. He needs to be held accountable moreso than this nation held President Nixon accountable for the Watergate break-in.
If, hypothetically speaking, Saudi Arabian or other Muslim terrorists ever decide to take out the Television Corporate Media at their home offices, should we Americans care, or have empathy toward the Television Corporate Media anymore? If the Media refuses to see, to hear or to speak, why should we acknowledge them as worthy of empathy, hypothetically speaking? Is that where we are going as a society? Again, hypothetically in such a hypothetical (and unlikely to ever happen) case, perhaps we all should simply switch the channels off and stop reading the news, and maybe all such attacks, even if the hypothetical terror attacks upon the Media themselves should occur and continue against the Corporate Media Offices, maybe we can do what the Media does and just pretend it isn't an issue, and that it would just "go away" if we wish it so. Is THAT the kind of lack of empathy they of the Corporate Media really want America to have toward them in a have others do unto you what you are doing unto them? If they don't care...I have no problem ignoring anything that happens to them from now on, if they really wish to play that game. Since Obama didn't care that his own ambassador died, why would he care if foreign terrorists attacked the Media either? He would go to Vegas, hang and party with J-Z or take a vacation, do golf, look for people to praise him and put him on more magazine covers so he can admire himself some more.
May 8, 2013, Ben Ghazi Hearing Testimony Reveals At Least 2 Stand-down Orders
At least 2 stand-down orders were issued to 2 response units, leaving open the possibility of a 3rd Rapid Response Military Unit training in Croatia receiving the stand-down orders as well. In Tripoli, Lt. Col. Gibson received a phone call from what was perceived by Deputy Mission Chief Gregory Hicks to have been General Carter Ham, then Commander of the United States Africa Command,
http://www.africom.mil/about-the-command/past-leaders/general-carter-f-ham
and ordered not to board the plane to attempt to aid those still engaged in being attacked in Ben Ghazi. There was no knowledge of how long it would last, and they were to be abandoned. The flight was NOT authorized, nor would anyone above General Carter Ham seek to get Libyan permission to fly a flight in their airspace. Had Carter Ham been the one to send out the distress signal, would the Joint Chiefs have stood down? No. They would have collectively said "Send our birds in. Scramble 2 F-16's and buzz the mission in Ben Ghazi in full afterburners at low altitude, now! Send the strike teams and begin deploying our Mediterranean SEAL Team (such and such).... " That is exactly what they would have said verbatim, and that is exactly what the sentiment would have been. But a civilian U.S. Ambassador and C.I.A. ex-military being in danger of dying? They are political baggage to Obama, and therefore their service to this country and their lives are expendable to Obama as if they never existed as human beings.
Not only does Obama join Nancy Pelosi in viewing U.S. Citizens who legally and peacefully protest excessive bureaucracy and excessive taxation as "astroturf", Obama views all our foreign civilian service personnel in C.I.A. and other branches as "astroturf" as well. Inhuman and something to be stepped and stomped upon as if fake grass.
What is it with Obama's priorities for empathy or a lack of empathy anyway? Obama was more obsessed with a gay black basketball player coming out of the closet than what was happening in Ben Ghazi the night it happened. His wife, Michelle Obama let slip a complaint that she is a "single Mom".
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/04/09/oops-michelle-obama-calls-herself-a-%E2%80%98single-mom%E2%80%99/
Michelle Obama: "And believe me, as a busy single mother – I shouldn’t say single – as a busy mother."
Excuse me? What the hell is that about, other than that Michelle let a Freudian slip of the very good likelihood that she meant that Barack and Michelle's kids are not by sexual intimacy, but as a result of "in vitro fertilization". Michelle Obama raised the issue. Newsweek raised the probability of this being a very good likelihood by designating Obama is America's first gay / homosexual President.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2012/05/13/newsweek-obama-cover-first-gay-president
Obama's obsession with a homosexual black pro-basketball player raised the issue.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-calls-collins-offers-support-coming-223006145.html
If Obama is having homosexual sex on the sly and is actively engaged in such, and it goes back to even his marriage arrangement, it is a national security issue for anyone below his pay-grade...and to keep everything fair, his being a National Security Risk subject to removal while being an active homosexual in-the-closet and subject to blackmail (such as if there are tapes or electronic files of him in the act, for example) must apply to Barack Hussein Obama II him also.
Of the Incident at Ben Ghazi, Charles Krauthammer asks:
Where was the Commander in Chief in all of this?
Peace.
[Last updated ca. 1:54 a.m. Pacific, 05/09/2013]
No comments:
Post a Comment