Were Benghazi talking points given to AP on night of attack?

We now know five things unequivocally. First, Hillary Clinton issued a statement about the Benghazi attack prior to 10:42pm EST on 9/11/12. We know this because an AP report published at that time made reference to it. We also know that Hillary and Barack Obama had a phone conversation at approximately 10:00pm EST on 9/11/12 (unless Jay Carney lied again). Third, Clinton's statement made a general reference to the anti-Muhammad video. Fourth, the AP took that general reference and made the leap that UN Ambassador Susan Rice attempted to bolster on 9/16/12.

The 10:42pm AP Headline read, American killed in Libya protest over film and opened thusly:

Protesters angered over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad fired gunshots and burned down the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, killing one American diplomat, witnesses and the State Department said. In Egypt, protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and replaced an American flag with an Islamic banner.

It was the first such assaults on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country, at a time when both Libya and Egypt are struggling to overcome the turmoil following the ouster of their longtime leaders, Moammar Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak in uprisings last year.

The protests in both countries were sparked by outrage over a film ridiculing Muhammad produced by an American in California and being promoted by an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian campaigner in the United States. Excerpts from the film dubbed into Arabic were posted on YouTube.

Fifth, we now know that four months prior to the 9/11/12 attack, Eric Holder's Justice Department was intimately involved with what was going on at the AP, seizing all kinds of phone records from them:

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

For some reason, the Justice Department was very close to what a supposedly independent news agency was doing long before the Benghazi attack. This begs a question: To what extent did the Obama administration influence the AP's reporting on the night of 9/11/12? If Hillary was willing to issue a statement that referred to the video in broad terms, the AP was certainly willing to report on the video as being the cause of the attacks before Doherty and Woods (the two Navy SEALs) were even murdered.

It would seem that Hillary provided the canvas, brush, and paint via the statement (between 5:30pm EST - 10:42pm EST) and the AP provided the finished painting.

What inspired the AP to take the anti-Muhammad ball and run with it?

Something - or someone - clearly did.

On May 28th, Charles Krauthammer was on the O'Reilly Factor and discussed Benghazi. Pay attention to this particular line in the video below:

...five hours in he calls the Secretary of State. And after the phone call she releases a statement essentially about the video and how we denounce any intolerance.

Via GWP:



Below is a screen shot of the statement Krauthammer appears to be referring to. Terrence Jeffrey of CNS News, reported on January 24th that this statement was released some time before 11pm EST / 5am Benghazi time and after the recovery of Sean Smith's body at approximately 5:30pm (reference made in first paragraph of statement).

That leads us to the words of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who said the following to CNS News in February:

“He (Obama) was in regular communication with his national security team directly, through them, and spoke with the secretary of state at approximately 10 p.m. He called her to get an update on the situation.”

That would have been 42 minutes before the AP - the same AP that was being very closely monitored by Eric Holder's Justice Department - report was released. 

Incidentally, the AP report in question - published less than one hour after Obama's call with Hillary - went into extensive detail about the men behind the film. That's awfully quick reporting, especially in light of the fact that we now know this report is completely fallacious and based on a false premise that was pushed by the administration for two weeks.

Why was the AP so quick to push such a narrative that is demonstrably false? The 10:42 report should drop the AP below the National Enquirer on the list of credible media sources.

If the AP is truly outraged about the Justice Department's intrusion, perhaps we could get some answers from the authors of the 10:42pm EST article - Maggie Michael and Sara El Deeb.

Where was Hillary's Muslim Deputy when Benghazi talking points were being altered?

At the time of the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi, one of Hillary Clinton's deputies was a woman named Huma Abedin. To this point, Abedin's name has not been introduced into the scandal publicly. However, at the May 8th Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy referred to an email sent by Beth Jones, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. As Gowdy listed the names of people Jones sent that email to, he ended with:

"...near as I can tell, to almost everyone in the State Department."

In that email - sent one day after the attacks - Jones made it clear to everyone on her distribution list that Ansar al-Sharia had been responsible. Was Abedin - Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff at the time - included in that e-mail? Based on Gowdy's claim, coupled with Abedin's high position at State, it's certainly possible and it would be relevant as Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qaeda are both offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group to which Abedin is linked extensively through her family.

Shouts of 'guilt by association' do not apply in this case. As has been reported previously, relationships and associations very much matter when it comes to the security clearance that came with the position Abedin held.

As the details of the Benghazi cover-up have been unfolding, it's become widely accepted that the CIA talking points were altered because the truth about Ansar al-Sharia / al-Qaeda being behind the attacks disrupted the pre-election narrative of the Obama administration. However, as is often the case with political agendas, shared ends do not necessarily equate to shared motives.

If anyone had a stake in making sure that the talking points did not identify Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda, or even Islamic extremists, Abedin's mother and brother may very well have been candidates. Had Brotherhood offshoot groups been implicated in the murders of four Americans - one an Ambassador - on American soil, it likely would have been a little too close for the comfort of Brotherhood operatives.

Saleha (Mahmood) Abedin is a very prominent figure in the Muslim Brotherhood and is one of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood. Brother Hassan Abedin has a rather interesting history with the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood - Yusuf al-Qaradawi - and al-Qaeda financier Abdullah Omar Naseef.

As the purveyor of the Brotherhood tactic known as Muruna, Qaradawi is very much concerned about not blowing the Brotherhood's cover. While terror groups like al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia share his Sunni strain of Islam as well as his objectives, they certainly don't share his tactics. In fact, the tactics of these groups actually serve to undermine the Brotherhood's more stealthy, political agenda.

Access is the mother's milk of politics and let there be no doubt that Huma's mother had access - through her daughter - to Hillary. As the Vice Dean at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Saleha hosted Hillary in 2010 with the help of her daughter, Huma.

In recent days, several individuals have been implicated in removing references to Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda, and Islamic extremists from the CIA's version of the talking points before UN Ambassador Susan Rice lied on five separate Sunday talk shows on September 16th.

Let's take a look at the names of those who have been revealed as being involved to varying degrees. To illustrate how high-ranking Abedin's position at State was, consider the name Jake Sullivan. Not only did he hold the same title - Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton - but he appears to have been the point man for the State Department who worked with Deputy CIA Director at the time - Mike Morell - and White House adviser - Ben Rhodes - on that high stakes Saturday, September 15th meeting. It was during that meeting that the now infamous talking points took their final form.

As an aside, since his involvement in altering the talking points, Sullivan has since become Vice President Joe Biden's National Security Adviser. TIME had this to say about Sullivan:

Sullivan was the reliable point of contact between the White House and Clinton’s 7th floor even when other White House and State staffers were at each others’ throats. Losing him to Biden’s office closes one line of influence to the White House for Kerry.

It's also been widely reported that when Susan Rice lied on those five Sunday talk shows, she undermined what Libyan president Mohammed al-Magariaf, who had appeared on one of those shows (CBS' Face the Nation) shortly before her and said the attacks were 'pre-planned'.

Consider that when the Benghazi attacks occurred, al-Magariaf had only been in office for about one month. While reports suggest that relations between the newly elected Libyan president and the Muslim Brotherhood were friendly, he was not the group's choice. In fact, the Brotherhood appears to have been quite disappointed at the time because its main interest was in who took the Prime Minister slot. The Brotherhood apparently very much wanted Awad Barasi as the PM.

Via the Libya Herald in an article from last August:

…it would not be wrong to interpret Magarief’s victory as a another significant setback for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction party (J and C).

Quite apart from misleading headlines that Magarief is ‘pro-Islamist’ (of which more later), the simple fact is that the main prize desired by the Islamists in this contest was always the prime minister, not the speaker, and they contemplated significant compromises over who should be selected for the latter post in order to maximize the chances of getting their choice for the former.

As a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, the choice of the J and C and their allies for prime minister was, and remains, Barasi.

While Barasi did not become the PM of Libya, he is currently the Second Deputy Prime Minister there. Interestingly, at the time of the Benghazi attacks, the matter of who would be Libya's PM was very much in a state of flux and up for grabs.

Currently, the PM of Libya is a guy named Ali Zeidan who defeated the Muslim Brotherhood's preferred candidate about one month following the Benghazi attacks.

Again, let's get back to the desire for shared outcomes if not shared motives. As a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood and a Muslim Sisterhood leader, didn't Huma's mother represent an entity that would have wanted to undermine the Libyan president?

The following is a list of names of former / current State Department employees that are implicated to varying degrees in what happened in Benghazi, both before and after the 9/11/12 attacks:

Hillary Clinton: Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland: State Department spokesman
Elizabeth (Beth) Jones: Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs
Cheryl Mills: Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton
Jake Sullivan: Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton
Bill Burns: Deputy Secretary of State
Patrick Kennedy: Under Secretary of State for Management
Eric Boswell: Asst Secretary of State for Diplomatic security
Charlene Lamb: Deputy Asst Secretary for Embassy security

So far, this list does not include the name Huma Abedin.

Should it?

Anthony, TX: Where TWO of Hillary's most problematic Filmmakers are locked up

The anti-Muhammad filmmaker - Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - currently sits in a federal prison in West Texas. So does another thorn in Hillary Clinton's side. His name is Peter Paul. That two of Hillary's most problematic individuals are locked up in the same federal prison is indeed worth a look, especially since Paul is serving a sentence that is longer than what the maximum sentence for his crime allows.

If there was a single individual who came out of the May 8th Benghazi hearings looking worse than anyone else, it was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The number two man in Libya - before Ambassador Christopher Stevens was murdered - was Gregory Hicks. During his testimony, all signs pointed to the buck needing to stop at the very top of the State Department. Cheryl Mills, Hillary's Chief of Staff, was named as a key player in what is to objective eyes, a cover-up.

Barack Obama doesn't exactly have a reputation for telling the truth but when he referred to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - the alleged man behind the anti-Muhammad video blamed for the 9/11/12 Benghazi attacks - as a 'shadowy character', Obama said something truthful. While the alleged filmmaker's past associations should certainly raise more eyebrows than they currently do, Nakoula is seemingly being kept in the shadows by the administration.

No one could have accurately predicted that an obscure YouTube video Nakoula was involved in producing would be a central component in the cover-up of the Benghazi attacks. On September 14th, just three days after the attacks, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allegedly told the father of Tyrone Woods - the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in Benghazi - that the man behind the film would be arrested and prosecuted.

If the administration wanted Nakoula locked up not just to send a message to the Muslim world but also to prevent his story from being told, it certainly picked an interesting place to put him.

In his article the Benghazi Patsy, Rich Lowry writes:

...Nakoula was brought in for questioning by five Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies at midnight, eventually arrested and held without bond, and finally thrown into jail for a year. He sits in La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution in Texas right now, even as the deceptive spin that blamed his video for the Benghazi attack looks more egregious by the day.

If Nakoula's story provides trouble for Hillary Clinton, the fact that he sits at the La Tuna facility is a case of history repeating itself, which leads to the story of Peter Paul, who isn't scheduled to be released until 2014. The problem with that release date is that the maximum sentence for Paul's crime is ten years and he was first jailed for his alleged white-collar crime in 2001 - in a Brazilian prison, with hardened criminals.

In short, in 2000, Paul was a Hollywood mogul and put on a star-studded gala for Bill and Hillary. For Bill, it was a farewell gala and for Hillary, it was a campaign fundraiser for her U.S. Senate run in New York. In exchange, Paul expected Bill to work for him and Stan Lee (of Marvel Comics fame) as a rainmaker for Paul's company after Bill left office.

Unfortunately for Paul, once the gala was over, the Clintons reneged and he was discarded. Unfortunately for the Clintons (Hillary in particular), Paul would not go quietly. In 2007, while under house arrest, he put together a team that produced a documentary entitled, Hillary Uncensored. For nearly a decade, he dogged Hillary relentlessly. The trailer for his video - seen below - caught fire just as Hillary's primary with Obama was heating up. In fact, in October of that year, the video was the number one viewed video on Google, garnering more than 50,000 views / day. Then, magically, on one Saturday in early November, it was no longer in Google's top 100 videos.

When all was said and done, the trailer got more than 10 Million views before Hillary conceded defeat to Obama for the nomination.

Here is that trailer:

Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's show...

* Why do conservative politicians partner with registered socialists?
* Upcoming Benghazi hearings (Hillary's spokesman implicated in coverup?)
* Why is there not more contrasting of Fast and Furious with Sandy Hook at NRA Convention?
* Update on Saudi prisoner in Colorado (renewed interest)?

Consider the Nerve Struck: Democratic Congressman, registered socialist, and Congressional Black Caucus member Elijah Cummings wants Benghazi report rescinded

On Tuesday, April 23rd, a House Republican conference released a report that was quite damning of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Not only did it seem to have the goods on Hillary relative to a decision to withdraw security in Benghazi in the form of her signature but it also seemed to imply that she committed perjury back in January.

Now we know that at least one Democratic congressman - Elijah Cummings - who happens to be someone who registered with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus and is currently a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), just couldn't remain silent. This is almost always a sign that a nerve has been struck.

Via the AP:

A senior House Democrat called on House Speaker John Boehner Thursday to retract a report blaming former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for security deficiencies at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya before last September's deadly attack.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said in a letter to Boehner that the report, written by the Republican chairmen of five committees, misrepresents an important document and suggests that Clinton lied to Congress. In addition to pulling the report, Cummings said, Boehner also should apologize to Clinton on behalf of the report's authors.

Here is what is alleged in the report:

April 19, 2012, the response cable from the Department of State to Embassy Tripoli, bearing Secretary Clinton’s signature, acknowledges Ambassador Cretz’s request for additional security but instead articulates a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission.

Now, let's go back to the AP story:

...Cummings said his staff reviewed the cable, and it does not bear Clinton's signature. The cable includes only her typed name at the bottom of the page next to the word "signature," just as thousands of other cables sent each year from the State Department do.

This question that needs to be asked of Mr. Cummings is as follows:

Do you, sir, have any intellectual curiosity at all when it comes to who is specifically responsible for withdrawing security?

It would seem that if Hillary's name is next to the word "signature" and that the document does not bear her signature, someone treated a typed version of her name as authorization to act on something OTHER THAN her signature. Instead of going after the conference, shouldn't Cummings be going after whomever made that decision?

Better yet, why didn't Hillary?

Then again...

House Republicans on Benghazi Attacks: Hillary's signature on document calling for reduced Security, conflicts with her testimony

Folks, this may just be bigger than previously thought. Yesterday, the news was that a conference of House Republicans found Hillary Clinton accountable for the lack of security in Benghazi prior to the attacks on 9/11/12 but the evidence presented in its report backs up the charge because it includes a document with her signature; that document conflicts with her January testimony.

The report released by a House Republican Conference, made up of five separate Chairmen from five separate Committees is definitely a positive step in that direction.

Those five are:

• Buck McKeon - Armed Services
• Ed Royce - Foreign Affairs
• Bob Goodlatte - Judiciary
• Darrell Issa - Oversight
• Mike Rogers - Intelligence

The conference has just released its report on Benghazi and rests accountability right at the feet of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The report is available through Speaker Boehner's office.

One doesn't have to read past the second paragraph in the Executive Summary to find where the conference has found culpability:

Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.

On the same day that Clinton testified in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, she also testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. During that testimony, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said that if he'd have been president when the Benghazi attacks happened, he would have fired Hillary. It would seem that the report backs up that position.

There are two more bullet points in the Executive Summary, one having to do with the administration altering the talking points in order to blame the anti-Muhammad video for the attacks, the other regarding claims that this one done to protect classified information.

On page two (referenced again on page seven), the conference points to a document with Clinton's signature on it:

Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

It was also good to see the report include reference to a 'quick reaction force' that was relied upon to help defend the Consulate (Special Mission Compound) actually had sympathies with terrorists:

...the Benghazi Mission used local, unarmed guards, who were responsible for activating the alarm in the event of an attack, as well as four armed members of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, who were to serve as a quick reaction force. The February 17 Martyrs Brigade was one of the militias that fought for Gadhafi’s overthrow. Numerous reports have indicated that the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.

Let's take a look at what very well could be perjury on the part of Clinton during her testimony this past January. On page 10 of the report, the conference cites the April 19, 2012 document that Clinton signed, which discusses pulling back on security despite acknowledgment that a request for more security had been made, and juxtaposes it with her January 23, 2013 testimony:

“I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant secretary level where the ARB [Accountability Review Board] placed responsibility. Where, as I think Ambassador Pickering said, ‘the rubber hit the road.’”

And...

"...I was not aware of that going on, it was not brought to my attention…"

When it comes to the issue of perjury, the closest Hillary seemed to come was during her exchange with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), in which she claimed she had no idea - one way or the other - if there was any arms shipments to Turkey from American outposts in Benghazi. It would seem she should have at least known the answer to the question - yes or no.

These new revelations courtesy of the House Republican conference seem to not only point to perjury with respect to Clinton not knowing about the requests for additional security but also a smoking gun in the form of a document bearing her signature that put the lives of the four Americans who were murdered on 9/11/12 in more danger.

For some reason, this :35 second exchange Hillary had with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is taking on increasingly added significance, very much in the spirit of 'thou doth protest too much':



There is a reason the Conference felt confident in resting accountability at Hillary's feet. That reason is far more newsworthy than the report that they did so.

Please read.

Audio: Rand Paul asked about Hillary committing Perjury at January Benghazi hearing

Back on January 24th, after then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I wrote about her response to Senator Rand Paul's question about arm shipments from Libya to Turkey. That response struck me as being the most noteworthy because it was a question she should have known the answer to. Instead, she said she didn't know.

If she did know - one way or the other - it seems her response would constitute perjury.

Fast forward to this week. On his radio show, Aaaron Klein asked Senator Paul if he thought Clinton may have committed perjury when she said she didn't know the answer to that question.

Via WND:

Audio: Is Ted Cruz separating himself from the Rand / Rubio Immigration Chaff?

Conservatives are looking for someone - anyone - in the halls of power to actually assert his / her power. In the House, there are a handful of courageous Republicans (Bachmann, Gowdy, Gohmert, and a few others) but in the upper chamber, where more power is wielded and more weight is carried by each Senator, the battle has seemingly come down to three people.

Rand Paul (R-KY), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Ted Cruz (R-TX).

In a world where a few hot-button issues rotate to the front burner with increasing frequency and intensity, immigration appears to be taking its turn. In this battle, Cruz has taken the lead among conservatives and that is evident when comparing the recent positions / activities of the three men, coupled with Cruz's stated positions on Sean Hannity's April 1st radio show.

Let's take a look at the three Senators who are attempting to tap into the most passionate and sought after voting bloc of the Republican Party - the conservatives.

Paul won major points with conservatives when he decided to filibuster for twelve hours over a response he did not get from the Obama administration over the use of drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil. Regardless of where one comes down on the issue, Paul exhibited a fighting spirit that is far too often lacking from Republican leaders. However, when it comes to the issue of immigration, Paul has deviated from the conservative position and has called for a pathway to citizenship, which in the minds of conservatives, is a pathway to amnesty. Helping Paul among conservatives was the way he confronted Hillary Clinton over Benghazi.

Rubio essentially began his dance with the devil when he joined the gang of eight, which included Socialist Democrats Durbin, Schumer, and Menendez along with RINOs McCain and Graham to cut a deal over comprehensive immigration reform. Rubio's achilles heal with conservatives has long been his rather vague stance on immigration. His decision to join the gang of eight didn't help him much, though to his credit, he is calling for open and robust debate, which just might scare the rest more than the prospect of not getting a deal done. Rubio was also incredibly weak when he had five minutes alone with Hillary Clinton over Benghazi.

Cruz appears to be separating himself from the other two in the pack when it comes to the immigration debate. He understands that until everyone agrees - and then demands / acts on that agreement - to secure the border before any other discussions take place, will get us nowhere, at best. Every time something is done about immigration (Rubio and Rand should listen up), it comes with an empty promise to secure the border after granting amnesty to illegal aliens.

Cruz isn't falling for it. As a result, his stock among conservatives will undoubtedly rise faster than will Rubio or Paul on the issue of immigration, which is a big one.

Via MediaIte:

Did the New York Times expose Hillary Clinton?

At the time of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about Benghazi a couple of months ago, I wrote that Hillary Clinton quite possibly committed perjury during her exchange with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). In a hearing that was disappointingly more about lobbing powder puff softballs at Clinton, Paul performed best, followed by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI).

Other than those two, Republicans failed to deliver - including Marco Rubio. Ranking member Bob Corker's performance was nauseating. Perhaps in a bit of foreshadowing, Corker said one day before the hearing that he didn't expect any "bombshells". Well, perhaps if he had done his homework and followed Paul's lead, Corker could have been responsible for dropping a few. His words before the hearing indicate he didn't want any during the hearing.

Based on what is being learned now, Corker appears to have been woefully wrong and should perhaps answer a few questions himself about why he didn't do his job at that hearing.

In fact, if the Republicans on that committee had done their jobs, the American people might be much closer to the truth about Benghazi today. Thanks to an unlikely source in the New York Times - coupled with Paul's questions - Hillary's testimony should take on renewed interest.

Via Aaron Klein at WND:

Did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commit perjury when she claimed in a Senate hearing that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries? 

The goal of the alleged weapons shipments was to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. 

Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups.

The impetus for Klein's piece is the New York Times article, which should indeed raise questions about Clinton's forthrightness at that hearing:

With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.

The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.

As it evolved, the airlift correlated with shifts in the war within Syria, as rebels drove Syria’s army from territory by the middle of last year. And even as the Obama administration has publicly refused to give more than “nonlethal” aid to the rebels, the involvement of the C.I.A. in the arms shipments — albeit mostly in a consultative role, American officials say — has shown that the United States is more willing to help its Arab allies support the lethal side of the civil war.

From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. The C.I.A. declined to comment on the shipments or its role in them.

The most maddening part may not be Hillary potentially getting away with perjury. Instead, it may be Republican Senators taking such an obvious dive when they could have made things very difficult for Clinton. Paul could have used some help. That he didn't get it from Rubio is particularly disappointing.

Here is that exchange.

"To Turkey?!"

Confirmed: John Brennan involved in changing Benghazi talking points

So, after the Senate Intelligence Committee viewed emails, it's now apparent that Obama's nominee for CIA Director - John Brennan - was involved in altering the talking points used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on September 16th. When taken together with the book written by a former Navy SEAL who was best friends with Glen Doherty and a former Green Beret, it would make sense that Brennan wouldn't want the truth to come out... assuming the charges made by Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb are accurate.

Again, they allege that Brennan was covertly ordering weapons raids in the region and that the 9/11/12 attacks were in retaliation for those raids. If that's true, the administration would indeed have a motive to push the narrative that the attacks were retaliation for a video, not Brennan's operation.

Via The Hill:

“Brennan was involved,” Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said after the briefing. “It's pretty obvious what happened.” 

“At the end of the day it should have been pretty easy to determine who made the changes and what changes were made.” 

He described an “extensive, bureaucratic and frankly unnecessary process” that led to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations publicly linking the attack to a peaceful protest gone awry. Republicans have accused the White House of twisting the talking points to avoid harming Obama's national security reputation ahead of the November elections.

Despite this revelation, the media narrative - even in conservative circles - is that the emails don't show an effort to avoid pinning the attacks on terrorists. The apathy and lack of consideration for the work of Webb and Murphy is a bit stunning, really.

From Greta Wire (via Hot Air):

One source familiar with the briefing indicated that they did not believe the emails shed any new light on anything that was not already known and said the messages did not demonstrate an effort by the administration to deliberately downplay the role of “al Qai’da” or “terrorists.”

Emails I obtained in October made it clear that the State Department said very early on that the attacks were driven by an al Qai’da affiliated group.

That last statement from Greta Wire's Chad Pergram is a bit curious, considering that Hillary Clinton herself released a statement as the 9/11/12 attacks were taking place, before Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were murdered, in which she seemed to sow the seeds for the narrative Rice would enunciate five days later on five separate talk shows. Clinton made several subsequent statements between that one and Rice's Sunday show appearances in which she at least implied that same thing. Now we know that Brennan was involved in the process that allowed the furtherance of that narrative.

Washington Insider: Hillary definitely running in 2016

The first part of this clip has seemingly nothing to do with the headline of the post but stick with it. This ABC News White House ventriloquist dummy Report starts out with another shameless exploitation of a shooting victim. The report plays an ad that features the mother of a young lady who was gunned down. The purpose of the ad is to push for universal background checks. The anchor then kicks it out to Reena Ninan who says that the gun control whackos think that background checks are something they can get through congress. Chuck Schumer calls that the 'sweet spot'.

Where was this push for gun control when Fast and Furious blew up in the administration's face and where are gun rights activists when it comes to pointing this out?

But I digress...

If, as the authors of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report' allege, that John Brennan led an effort from the White House to ship weapons out of Libya to 'start another conflict' (presumably to arm Muslim Brotherhood / al-Qaeda rebels in Syria), it could mean that the administration is simultaneously attempting to disarm American citizens while arming her enemies (watch the video at the bottom of this post that will demonstrate how registration leads to confiscation).

Now, at about the 1:20 mark of the ventriloquist dummy report, the discussion turns to Hillary's plans to run in 2016. According to a Washington 'insider', it's all but a done deal. If true, what are the plans for Huma Abedin? Will Hillary appoint her to the same position currently held by David Axelrod or Valerie Jarrett?

Based on Abedin's irrefutable familial connections to the Brotherhood, do you think she's on board with a policy that would disarm Americans and arm the Brotherhood?

Yes, that is a somewhat rhetorical question at this point.

One more thing that happens at the end of this report worth mentioning. Ninan makes reference to who could be Hillary's Republican challenger and mentions Chris Christie by name. Every presidential election cycle, the mainstream media pushes a Republican candidate. Invariably, that candidate is someone who either doesn't have a chance against the liberal Democrat of choice or would be the best alternative for the liberal establishment (Romney, McCain, and Dole are prime examples).

Whenever the media pushes for a Republican nominee, rest assured, it's the worst possible Republican nominee. As for Christie specifically, he is rather Muslim Brotherhood-friendly.

Via Breitbart:



Here is why any attempt at universal background checks are all about universal gun registration, which ultimately leads to confiscation because, once again, nameless, unelected bureaucrats will be empowered to decide who gets what and who doesn't.

Sounds like a sour spot, doesn't it?

Panetta: Arming Syrian Rebels a good idea

The appearances of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee didn't just reveal that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were nowhere to be found during the attacks. Panetta also revealed that he supported arming the Syrian rebels, which immediately made Clinton's interaction with Rand Paul at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month more relevant.

First, what Panetta told McCain, via the BBC:

In testimony to Congress, Leon Panetta said he still supported the supply of weapons to rebels fighting forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The plan was proposed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, then director of the CIA, but reportedly rebuffed by the White House.

The US has so far offered only diplomatic backing to Syria's rebels.

Later in the day, McCain was interviewed by Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren. Here is a relevant portion of the transcript:

VAN SUSTEREN: And the reason that I ask you about the question what was the CIA doing is because one of the other issues that came up is arming of the Syrian rebels, a question that came up, and there had been a long controversy whether or not the United States was going to arm the Syrian rebels or not and who was on board and who wasn't on board. And there has been some suggestion that through that consulate that weapons were being sent through Turkey to the Syrians. And I'm curious whether or not that consulate was used to channel weapons to the Syrian rebels for one. And number two, what do you think about the response from General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta about weapons to Syrian rebels?

MCCAIN: Well, there were published reports that some of the arms were coming from Libya that were arriving for the resistance in Syria. But that information that we had was not through the United States government, but through other sources, but I'm not clear on that.

Of course, the way to arm the Syrian rebels was ostensibly through Turkey, which leads to Paul's interaction with Hillary Clinton during sworn testimony. When he asked Clinton about the CIA Annex being used to ship weapons from Libya to Turkey, which would then be sent to Syria.

Clinton committed perjury if she knew the answer to Paul's question because she said she didn't know anything about such shipments. Here is an exchange between Paul and Fox News Channel's Martha McCallum before the hearings yesterday.

Hats off to Paul for pressing on this issue.

Did Hillary Commit Perjury... Twice in the same day?

In two otherwise pathetic performances by Republican congressmen - save for a few exceptions - who laid down like subjects in front of Queen Hillary, there were two exchanges - one during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing and the other during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing - where the Secretary of State may have committed perjury.

First up, perhaps the best performance from any of the members of either committee. Rand Paul (R-KY) didn't just tell Clinton she should have been fired, and would have been had Paul been president during the Benghazi attacks. He also asked her a question she denied knowing the answer to. Her claim of ignorance strains credulity.

Moreover, when someone says she doesn't know something when she does, it's still a lie.

This entire exchange is worth watching, to include Hillary's body language when Paul says he would have fired her, but pay attention beginning at the 2:17 mark. Here is the portion of that excerpt transcribed:

Paul: …Is the United States involved with an procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

Clinton: To Turkey? I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me.

Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons, and what I would like to know is, the annex that was close by – were they involved with procuring, buying, selling weapons, and are these weapons being transferred to other countries? Any countries, Turkey included?

Clinton: Well Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the Annex. I will see what information is available…

Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?

Clinton: I do not know. I have no information on that.

Did you catch her ultimate response? Her answer to the 'yes' or 'no' question about whether the CIA Annex was being used as a hub for weapons trafficking was, 'I don't know'. The Accountability Review Board (ARB) that Clinton herself commissioned to investigate the failures of Benghazi found the State Department most responsible, right?

Shouldn't the question about whether the Annex was being used to traffic weapons have been answered by the ARB? Wasn't it the group's job to investigate the attacks? Wouldn't it only demonstrate further incompetence for the ARB not to make that determination, one way or the other?

That aside, is the American public supposed to believe that more than four months after the attacks, Clinton had no interest in ascertaining the answer to such a question, despite news reports that made the claim? At no point, did she or one of her subordinates seek to find out if there was any validity to those reports? If she did not seek out that information, why didn't she do so?

Another possibility is that Clinton knows full well, the answer to the question. If the answer was 'no', what harm would there be in her answering it that way? If the answer was 'yes' and she knew that, one can conclude that the reason to portray ignorance would be to cover up wrongdoing. Otherwise, why commit perjury?

There is something else to take note of here and it's a common reaction by people who are confronted with uncomfortable truths. An attempt is made to diminish the credibility of the messenger. Hillary's initial reaction to Paul's question is to repeat the word 'Turkey' as if it was a question completely out of left field and foreign to her. By appearing surprised, Paul can be painted as a lone voice with an obscure theory.

Nonetheless, her ultimate answer means we are to believe that she has no idea whether the CIA Annex was involved in weapons trafficking.

If she does know, she committed perjury by saying she didn't.



Later in the day, Clinton appeared in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to testify on the same subject - the Benghazi attacks. Take note beginning at the 5:10 mark. Here is the relevant portion of her response to a series of questions from Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL):

Clinton: With respect to the video, I did not say that it was about the video for Libya. It certainly was for many of the other places where we were watching these disturbances.

Check out the statement about the Benghazi attacks - from Hillary herself - on 9/11 (h/t Terence P. Jeffrey at CNS News). It said, in part:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any international effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

Here is a screenshot of the statement (note it says 'Statement on the Attack in Benghazi' at the top):

Have a look at the exchange with Kinzinger. Again, pay attention beginning at the 5:10 mark:

Video: Ron Johnson provides one of few bright spots during Senate Committee hearing on Benghazi

In an otherwise sycophantic exercise between the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and Hillary Clinton, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) was one of the few Senators who challenged the Secretary of State.

Unfortunately, short of Rand Paul, this kind of questioning was the exception, not the rule, today. Conversely, there was plenty of praise for Clinton.

Rubio v. Paul in 2016? Rand wins Round 1 BIG

Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY) are both considered to be frontrunners for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2016. They are also both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As such, both men had the opportunity to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton some tough questions today about the State Department's handling of the attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12.

Contrasting these two exchanges becomes even more important if Hillary is the Democratic nominee in 2016. Assuming that reality comes to fruition, either Rubio or Paul could be the face of the Republican Party debating Clinton in four years. How did each Senator do while having the upper hand in today's Senate hearing?

Though Rubio asked relevant questions, he came across as rather dispassionate and gave Hillary plenty of room to give long, meandering answers. He did not stop her when she got off track. Rubio looked rather weak today. No presidential timber shown today.



How about Rand Paul? Arguably the best exchange of the day, though an argument could be made that Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) deserves that distinction. Two things stand out in Paul's exchange with Hillary.

1. Paul stated clearly that if he were president during the Benghazi attack, he would have fired his Secretary of State.
2. When Paul asked the Senator if the CIA Annex was being used as a hub for shipping weapons to Turkey "or any other country", Hillary told him to check with the CIA. Are we to believe that she didn't know the answer? Hardly. If the answer was no, there wouldn't be any harm in answering it. Not answering it at all only raises the legitimacy of the question.

If all of this was round 1 between Paul and Rubio, Paul won going away.

Hillary on 9/11/12: 'Some' have blamed the anti-Muhammad video

Susan Rice has got to have steam shooting out of her ears... We now know that Hillary Clinton issued a statement on 9/11/12 that pointed to the anti-Muhammad video as being involved in the Benghazi attack:

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet." - Hillary Clinton, 9/11/12

Question: What individuals made up the "some" to which Hillary was referring?

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is not getting Hillary Clinton's job for one primary reason. She appeared on five Sunday talk shows five days after the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi and lied; she said the attack on our consulate was in response to the anti-Muhammad video. Despite not having any responsibility over the State Department, Rice is the one who was punished politically.

Secretary of State Clinton said she was ultimately responsible for the security of State Department personnel and commissioned the Accountability Review Board (ARB) to investigate. The ARB found no one accountable.

Now we have a great find, courtesy of Terrence Jeffrey at CNS News, who has pointed out that five days prior to Susan Rice blaming the video, Hillary did the same thing... on the day of the attacks and before the death of the two former Navy SEALs.

According to Jeffrey's research, this statement released by Hillary Clinton was published at 10:58pm EST on September 11th. Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by mortar fire sometime between 11:16pm EST - 11:26pm EST.

Here is a screenshot of the statement posted to the State Department website before the deaths of Doherty and Woods (click on image to enlarge):

What has been Susan Rice's defense in the face of warranted criticism about her lies on September 16th? She said the following in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams that aired on December 13th:

When I went on the Sunday shows on September 16th, I was doing just as I have always done, providing the best information available to me and available to our government at the time. I was very careful to explain that the information was preliminary, and it could change. And yet I think it was misconstrued and contorted into something much more nefarious, it was never indeed the case nor my intention.

This begs a very important question: If Susan Rice conceded to Brian Williams on December 13th that the information she provided on September 16th was wrong, though based on "the best information available", what does Hillary have to say about her statement, released before two of the four dead Americans were murdered?

This means that Hillary went public with a lie five days before Rice told the same one and became persona non-grata as a result.

Clinton's comments in that September 11th statement are also relevant based on what she said in the days before Rice echoed them.

Here is Clinton on September 13th. Note how close she comes to blaming the video directly. Though she doesn't, the implication is absolutely there. When you couple that implication with what she said in the aforementioned 9/11/12 statement, it means Clinton was clearly on the same page Rice was on 9/16/12. Take note at the :37, the 3:09, and the 3:42 marks as Hillary's comments about the video are like three puzzle pieces that beg for the one found by Jeffrey to complete a four-piece jigsaw patch:



One day later, Clinton was on-hand at Andrews Air Force Base when the caskets holding four dead Americans arrived home. During her speech, she said the following:

This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.

Here is the video of Clinton at Andrews on 9/14/12 (13:15 mark):



It's also worth remembering that the father of one of those Navy SEALs told radio talk show host Lars Larson that upon meeting Hillary at the Andrews Air Force ceremony, was told by the Secretary of State that the maker of the anti-Muhammad film would be arrested and prosecuted.

Let's take a look at that one sentence from Hillary's 9/11/12 statement in particular:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.

Based on the fact that she made that statement before Doherty and Woods had been killed, are we not left to conclude that Hillary is part of the "some" to which she refers?

Perhaps she might be available to testify "some" day.

George Bush's Dubai Ports World deal vs. Al Gore's Al Jazeera deal

Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a mere 236 miles east of Doha, Qatar, where the headquarters of Al Jazeera is located. After the sale of Al Gore's Current TV to the Arabic news network, Al Jazeera America is expected to broadcast from New York.

Via World Atlas:

In 2006, the Dubai Ports World (DPW) controversy involved a deal - supported by then-President George W. Bush - that would allow the sale of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British Company, to DPW. Such a deal would have put the operation of six U.S. ports under the control of DPW. One of those ports was in New York. Ironically, while Bush supported the deal, then-Senator Barack Obama opposed it and said the following:

"Over four years after the worst terrorist attack in our history, not only are we failing to inspect 95% of the cargo that arrives at U.S. ports, but now we’re allowing our port security to be outsourced to foreign governments. Clearly, more time should have been spent investigating this deal and consulting with homeland security experts and local officials. I support my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are seeking a full review of this deal." - Barack Obama in 2006

As news of the deal grew, so did opposition. Then Senate-Majority leader Bill Frist, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, U.S. Senator from New York Chuck Schumer (D-NY), New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, and New York Governor George Pataki all expressed opposition to the deal. In fact, at one point, the prospect of legislation to halt the deal was gaining serious momentum and Bush seemed to play the Islamophobia card while talking to a gaggle of reporters on Air Force One. Via New York Times:

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly'." 

Another prominent politician to express opposition to the deal was none other than the opportunistic Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. The MSNBC link that included the following excerpt is now a dead one but the text is available elsewhere. Check this out:

Mrs Clinton's tough stance that the deal represented an "unacceptable risk" to national security has caused UAE officials some consternation. 

Regarded as the leading Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential elections, she has used the deal – which polls show is disliked by most Americans – and the anti-Arab sentiment it sparked to attack the Bush administration on national security, an issue that has been seen as a weak point for Democrats.

Essentially, Democrats rightfully opposed the deal for the wrong reasons. Those reasons involved going after Bush. That is, unless we are to believe that the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are Islamophobes (yeah, laughable, isn't it?).

In fact, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and other prominent liberal Democrats opposed the deal, along with Republicans like Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

When it comes to the Dubai Ports deal and the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera, there is one primary difference when it comes to American political leaders; Bush received bi-partisan opposition and Gore is receiving only conservative opposition.

Taken further, none other than Senator Chuck Schumer is regarded as being the prominent politician most responsible for bringing the Dubai Ports deal to light. Had he not done so, it's quite possible that the deal would have gone through; it didn't.

Check out this excerpt from an NPR report:

On the Banking Committee and representing a major seaport, and he was media savvy to boot. It was Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York. Schumer's office heard from Muldoon, from Eller & Company lawyer Michael Kreitzer, and from an Associated Press business reporter who had been talking with Muldoon and Kreitzer. In a period of four days, the AP reporter's story ran nationwide, Schumer called for a review by the Department of Homeland Security, and he held a press conference with 9/11 families. He called on President Bush to step in. DP World hired teams of lobbyists.

In essence, Schumer started the snowball that ultimately led to the defeat of the Dubai Ports deal.

This begs what should be a very obvious question. Who on the Republican side of the aisle will raise cain over Al Gore's sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera like Schumer rightfully did with Bush's desire to see P&O sold to Dubai Ports World?

Republicans are at a disadvantage in a couple of respects. For starters, the Republicans who opposed Bush in 2006 did so based on principle. They broke with their party because it was the right thing to do. Democrats JUST. DON'T. DO. THAT. If Al Gore wants to sell Current TV to Al Jazeera, Democrats support him because, well, he's a Democrat.

Conversely, when George Bush wanted to allow DPW to control U.S. Ports, prominent Republicans opposed him and sided with Democrats. Conservative Republicans are far more inclined to do that when it's the RIGHT. THING. TO. DO.

That said, who has the responsibility to be the anti-Schumer relative to Current TV's sale to Al Jazeera?

Unfortunately for conservative Republicans, the man who has the gavel is also the man who is dis-inclined to take the role.

In short, instead of crying after being re-elected Speaker, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) should be screaming about the Al Jazeera sale like Schumer screamed about the DPW deal...

...or he should resign.

Video: Hillary Hack James Carville says those who questioned her illness are 'inhumane', ignores inhumane treatment of Clinton victim

First of all, I challenge anyone to find where I said Hillary Clinton's fall never took place. That claim was never made but critical thinking was applied to the situation. In fact, I concluded that her fall was indeed 'fortuitous' when factoring in the Benghazi situation; it's beyond apparent that she doesn't want to testify.

That said, Hillary hack James Carville appeared on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and decided to plant a flag on the moral high ground, identifying anyone who raised questions about Hillary's illness as 'inhumane'.

That's beyond hypocritical because I challenge James Carville to explain how Hillary Clinton nemesis Peter Paul is still in prison, long past the maximum sentences for his alleged crime.

Here's the video, via the Daily Caller:


Peter Paul began dealing with the Clintons back in 2000. He was arrested in 2001 for charges related to stock manipulation. The maximum sentence for his crime was ten years. He's not scheduled to be released from prison until 2014.

Do the math.

Mr. Carville, what's happening to Peter Paul is inhumane. Perhaps you should look into why he's been imprisoned for so long.

Here's the trailer for the Peter Paul documentary on Hillary Clinton:



The first chapter of Unsung Davids is entitled, "Hillary Clinton vs. Peter Paul".

Timeline of Hillary Benghazi / Concussion / Brain clot Saga

An interesting chain of events, if nothing else.

Hillary's blood clot appears to be quite rare

When news broke that Hillary Clinton had been hospitalized with a blood clot in an unspecified location and was being treated with blood thinners, it was widely reported that such treatment indicated the blood clot was likely in one of her legs, that blood thinners are rarely used to treat a clot in the brain that results from a concussion.

It's now being reported that the blood clot is on Hillary's brain.

NBC's Robert Bazell said the following in a news report before the location of the clot was made public:

"The problem is, concussions, when they lead to blood clots, the blood clots are not usually treated with blood thinners, as they say she's being treated... there may be more to this story that we don't know."

Here is a report from CBS New York after it was learned Hillary's clot was on her brain:

Clinton’s complication “certainly isn’t the most common thing to happen after a concussion” and is one of the few types of blood clots in the skull or head that are treated with blood thinners, said Dr. Larry Goldstein, a neurologist who is director of Duke University’s stroke center.

The area where Clinton’s clot developed is “a drainage channel, the equivalent of a big vein inside the skull – it’s how the blood gets back to the heart,” Goldstein said.

Blood thinners usually are enough to treat the clot and it should have no long-term consequences if her doctors are saying she has suffered no neurological damage from it, Goldstein said.

This would seem to indicate that Hillary has a rare type of blood clot.