Audio: The Blind Sheikh, Benghazi and the Case for Impeaching Obama administration officials

On today's program, I attempted to lay out the case for the impeachment of Obama administration officials over the Benghazi attacks based on what I believe to be smoking gun evidence that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president was involved in those attacks:

The above program expounded on information contained in the report below, published one day earlier:

By Walid Shoebat, Ben Barrack and Keith Davies

A Libyan intelligence document has been produced that directly implicates Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Mursi in the attacks on American installations in Benghazi on 9/11/12. Those who attempt to discredit this document run into trouble when it is coupled with real-time video we uncovered on 9/13/12. In that video, gunmen at the scene of the attack can be heard declaring that they were sent by Mursi.

After weeks of attempting to push the narrative that a video was responsible, the Obama administration ultimately had to concede that the attacks in Benghazi were terrorist in nature. A few months after 9/11/12, the top lawyer for the Pentagon stated that the war on terror should be waged by "law enforcement and intelligence agencies".

Based on the Obama administration's standard, the Benghazi attacks should be treated as a crime instead of as an act of war. Therefore, let us bring forth the evidence, which implicates the leader of a nation state (Egypt) in the attack and warrants a grand jury (House of Representatives) investigation to decide if administration officials should be indicted (impeached).

Since we're deciding who to indict, we must look at evidence of involvement in the attack. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President - Mohammed Mursi - is a good place to start. Our first two exhibits are both damning but when taken together, may just constitute a 'smoking gun'. EXHIBIT A is a video shot from a cell phone at the scene of the attacks. In this video, gunmen are seen running toward the camera, toward other gunmen. At one point - in Arabic which we have confirmed - one approaching gunman says, "Don’t Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi!". Even though the video is in Arabic, you can discern the word "Mursi".



A Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) has now been brought forward by credible Arabic translator Raymond Ibrahim. This document discusses the confessions of six members of an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell who were arrested and found to be involved in the Benghazi attacks. Ibrahim reported the following about this document:

It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.

According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi...

Libyan Intelligence Document translated by Ibrahim (EXHIBIT B)

That the attack was planned and involved foreigners corroborates what Libyan President Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf told CBS News' Bob Scheiffer on Face the Nation on Sunday, September 16th (EXHIBIT C):

BOB SCHIEFFER: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that-- is that what you are telling us?

MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF: It was planned-- definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who-- who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their-- since their arrival.

Relative to Mursi's alleged involvement, El-Magariaf provided only circumstantial evidence by identifying attackers as being "foreigners" but in retrospect, the Libyan president's claims that day are corroborated by the Libyan Intelligence document and the real-time video. It is for this reason that we request he be required to testify in front of the grand jury.

Also on September 16, 2012, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows and asserted the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to a video. Here are quotes from Rice's appearance during on ABC This Week, during which she said the following (EXHIBIT D):

“What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region was a result, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.”

At a minimum, Rice was directing attention away from Mursi's involvement with this demonstrably false statement. A short time later, she went as far as directly defending Mursi:

"President Obama picked up the phone and talked to President Mursi in Egypt and as soon as he did that, the security provided to our personnel and our embassies dramatically increased... President Mursi has been out repeatedly and said that he condemns this violence. He's called off... and his people have called off any further demonstrations and have made very clear, that this has to stop."

Rice attempted to leave viewers with two impressions, one demonstrably false and the other belied by hard evidence:

1. A video was responsible
2. Mursi was not involved

At this point, we'd like to introduce an exchange between House Oversight Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy and Gregory Hicks, a whistleblower and the top-ranking State Department official in Libya once Ambassador Stevens was murdered (EXHIBIT E). This entire exchange is being introduced as evidence but we ask you, the Grand Jury, to pay particularly close attention at the 1:45 mark, when Gowdy introduces the name Beth Jones and reads from an email she sent to several State Department officials on September 12th, one day after the attack. In her email, Jones wrote the following:

"I spoke to the Libyan Ambassador... When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks - Ansar al-Sharia - is affiliated with Islamic terrorists."

On September 12th, Jones corroborated the claims made in the Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) that an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell was involved in the attacks, which corroborates the real-time video (EXHIBIT A). Yet, four days later - after this reality must have been further demonstrated, Rice's statements only served to cover-up the involvement of Mursi and Ansar al-Sharia by extension.

Moreover, Hicks charged that by contradicting the Libyan president, Rice seriously chilled the willingness of the Libyan government to allow FBI Investigators access to what the Obama administration viewed as a crime scene. As such, the crime scene was contaminated and Rice's lies may constitute an obstruction of justice charge.



The first indications that the Obama administration would decide to point to the video as being responsible for the Benghazi attacks appeared to come soon after it was learned that Sean Smith had been killed. There is cause to believe that news of Smith's death may have precipitated the decision to point to the video. A Press Release (EXHIBIT F) bearing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's name was released some time prior to 10:42pm EST that night. This is known because an AP article (EXHIBIT G) published at that time made reference to Clinton's statement as well as to Smith's death:

EXHIBIT F

In the days after September 11th, President Mursi seemed to adopt the narrative of the Obama administration relative to the video being responsible for causing them. He did so, ironically enough, at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in New York City on September 25th (EXHIBIT H).



EXHIBITS I and J are two video excerpts from President Obama's speech at the United Nations on September 25th, the same day that Mursi spoke at the CGI. During the speech, Obama echoes what Rice said about his defense of Mursi. Yet, Obama defended him publicly two weeks later, even after intelligence about Mursi's role had been readily available:



Obama again identifies the video as being responsible for the attack:

Ever since assuming the office of President on June 30, 2012, Mursi has been extremely clear about his strong desire to have the "Blind Sheikh" released. The Washington Post reported that Mursi "assumed office with a pledge to press the United States for Abdel Rahman's release" and that al-Qaeda's number one - Ayman al-Zawahiri - echoed the sentiment (EXHIBIT K).

Fox News reported on July 3, 2012, that Mursi "proclaimed to hundreds of thousands of supporters in Tahir Square... that he will gain the release of Rahman" (EXHIBIT L).

In an interview between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Mursi from January 7th of this year, Mursi doubled down on his support for the release of Rahman (the "Blind Sheikh") while making an appeal for sympathy for the mass murderer (EXHIBIT M):

While admitting his desire for the release of the "Blind Sheikh", Mursi said that if release is not possible, increased visitation and freedom should be granted to Rahman. A letter attributed to Rahman appeared in an al-Qaeda's Inspire magazine (EXHIBIT N). In an article published by The Hill, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) pointed to this letter in which the convicted terrorist is credited with ordering a bombing in western Egypt in 1997 that killed dozens of people. This demonstrated that the "Blind Sheikh" still has deadly tentacles.

Four-star Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) who on November 14, 2012, appeared on Fox Business Network with Lou Dobbs (EXHIBIT O). During that interview, Lyons said he believed the only reason that made any sense relative to Ambassador Stevens being in Benghazi on 9/11 was a kidnapping operation in which Stevens could be traded for the "Blind Sheikh":

Consider the itinerary for Ambassador Stevens, who arrived in Benghazi on 9/10/12 and was scheduled to depart on 9/14/12 (EXHIBIT P). That the State Department's top official in Libya would be sent to Benghazi one day before the anniversary of 9/11 is indeed vexing but that he would be sent to a location that was woefully unprotected and had been attacked with an I.E.D. that blew a large hole in the perimeter wall is beyond troubling. There had been several terrorist attacks on western installations as well prior to September 11th as chronicled in a letter (EXHIBIT Q) from House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa to President Barack Obama.

Amazingly, on September 28, 2012, after evidence implicating Mursi in the attacks in Benghazi had become available, the Obama administration announced that it would be providing Mursi's government with $450 Million, despite protestations from Congress. A New York Times article (EXHIBIT R) outlined the details of the aid package:

The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million, but the aid immediately encountered resistance from a prominent lawmaker wary of foreign aid and Egypt’s new course under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood.

An act of war, which probable cause suggests, Mursi was involved in perpetrating against the United States in Benghazi, is not usually met with a multi-million dollar aid package.

However, if there were a deal between Obama administration officials and Mursi administration officials, to stage a kidnapping operation in which Stevens was captured and subsequently exchanged for the "Blind Sheikh", which side would stand to lose more if the truth were to come out?

While still president-elect, Mursi attempted to satiate his base by pledging to have the "Blind Sheikh" freed; it was practically part of his platform. If there had been a deal that were made public, Mursi's stock would most assuredly rise among his base. Conversely, if such a truth were to be made known, Obama would be finished.

This would grant Mursi significant leverage. Again, we take the opportunity to underscore that the Obama administration had to have known about the high probability of Mursi's involvement in the attacks as it was cutting a check for $450 Million on September 28th, barely more than two weeks later.

Fast forward a couple of months later when the Obama administration sent four F-16 fighter jets to Egypt. This was done, in part, to honor a foreign aid package that had been drafted in 2010, when Hosni Mubarak was still president. This deal required the U.S. to send more than a dozen F-16's and 200 Abrams tanks to Egypt over the course of 2013. As a Fox News article (EXHIBIT S) points out, critics in Congress expressed opposition to honoring the agreement because Mursi was in power, though these objections did not include evidence implicating Mursi in the Benghazi attacks.

In March of 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Egypt would be receiving another $250 Million in aid from the Obama administration. This rankled more members of Congress, particularly Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who had served as the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. She was quoted in another Fox News article (EXHIBIT T) as saying:

"With sequestration forcing our nation to face billions of dollars in cuts across the government, it is unfathomable that the administration would send funds unconditionally to the Muslim Brotherhood-led government."

We must emphasize that Ros-Lehtinen's objections, though forceful, were not made on the basis of strong evidence implicating Mursi's involvement in the Benghazi attacks.

Now, as the situation in Egypt has become increasingly more violent and tenuous, the Obama administration is sending 400 troops from the site of the 2009 Jihad attack at Fort Hood, TX that left 14 dead and 32 wounded, to Egypt on a "peacekeeping mission" according to a Fort Hood press release (EXHIBIT U).

The behavior of the Obama administration relative to its assistance to Mursi warrants further investigation into whether the Obama administration may be the victim of blackmail.

This leads to our next witness, former C.I.A. Director David Petraeus (EXHIBIT V). Evidence suggests that Petraeus may have punished by the Obama administration when he did not sign on to the talking points that would ultimately be used by Ambassador Rice on September 16th. As references to Al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were being scrubbed from the talking points, Petraeus sent an email at 2:27 PM one day earlier in which he wrote, "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then..." (EXHIBIT W):

EXHIBIT W

On November 7, 2012, one day after Barack Obama's re-election, Petraeus' boss - James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence - advises the White House that Petraeus may resign over an extra-marital affair being made public. It is subsequently learned that the FBI had known about the affair for months and that Attorney General Eric Holder had known about it for weeks. During an appearance on the Fox News Channel on November 13th, Washington Post writer Charles Krauthammer seemed convinced that Petraeus had been punished for not endorsing the talking points about Benghazi (EXHIBIT X):



Whereas it is demonstrable that the Obama administration was likely punitive in its treatment of David Petraeus when the C.I.A. Director didn't sign off on the talking points, it is therefore alleged, based on factual and circumstantial evidence that the Obama administration may also be a victim of blackmail from the nation-state of Egypt and its Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohammed Mursi.

Pursuant to the premise that acts of terror must be treated as criminal acts, it is our view that this evidence is more than sufficient to convene a grand jury to indict Mursi and to draw up articles of impeachment for Obama administration officials.

Since the Clinton administration, a common refrain that has been heard - especially from the political left - is that terrorists must be treated as criminals and terrorist attacks should be treated as prosecutable crimes. A perfect example can be found in the case of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the "Blind Sheikh") who was successfully prosecuted and given a life sentence for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

If the Benghazi attacks were prosecutable crimes, we suggest that a grand jury is long overdue.

In politics, that's equivalent to articles of impeachment.

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?

Obama in 2013: 'There there'; Clinton in 1998: 'Is is'

When asked about Benghazi at today's press conference, Barack Obama said there is no "there there":



When asked about Lewinsky during his 1998 deposition, Bill Clinton said "is is":



h/t GWP

Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's show...

Analysis of the Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi.

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:

Videos: Benghazi Whistleblower names names at Oversight Hearing

Here are three videos from the House Oversight Committee hearing in which three whistleblowers testified. First up, committee member Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) questioned the senior most whistleblower and second in command in Libya behind Ambassador Christopher Stevens - Gregory Hicks. In this line of questioning, Gowdy begins by showing how absurd it was for Ambassador Susan Rice to go on five Sunday talk shows on 9/16/12 and point to a demonstration and a video.

Gowdy also introduces a new name into the Benghazi scandal - Beth Jones. Jones is the Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. He reads an excerpt from an email sent by Jones to several high ranking members of the State Department on September 12th in which Jones relayed a conversation she had with the Libyan Ambassador. That conversation included an urging by Jones to the ambassador to 'continue to make strong statements'. Jones also said on September 12th that 'Islamic extremists' and 'Ansar al-Sharia' was behind the attacks.

The Libyan president flew to Benghazi and appear on Face the Nation on 9/16/12 right before Rice did. Unfortunately for Libya's president, while he did make a strong statement on the CBS Sunday show, Rice's appearance followed and she totally contradicted him with the 'protest' / 'video' narrative. It is this appearance by Rice that chilled relations with Libya and is largely looked to as the reason the FBI was not permitted into Libya.



A related video comes from Rep. Jim Jordan's exchange with Hicks. An increasingly common occurrence these days seems to be bureaucrats who express dissent often end up being targets. In this exchange, the topic of Beth Jones came up again. After Rice's appearance on the Sunday talk shows, Hicks had received a call from Jones. During that conversation, he asked her why Rice said what she did on those shows (why did she lie). According to Hicks, ever since having the gall to ask that question, he has been a target.

Another individual's name is introduced in this exchange. Her name is Cheryl Mills and she was Hillary Clinton's Chief of Staff. According to Hicks, he received a phone call from a very angry Mills during a visit to Libya by Oversight Committee member, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT).

Listen to him explain during this exchange with Jordan:



Here is Gowdy at the end of the hearing:

Video: Darrell Issa previews Benghazi hearings on Face the Nation

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) appeared on Face the Nation to preview the May 8th Benghazi hearings. Gregory Hicks will be one of those witnesses and the quotes attributed to him that were read by host Bob Schieffer were indeed shocking. Without question, UN Ambassador Susan Rice's five Sunday show appearances on 9/16/12 - five days after the attacks - will come under renewed and even more intense scrutiny.

May 8th is likely going to be very significant.



During an appearance on Fox News one day earlier, former UN Ambassador John Bolton expressed shock at how high up the chain of command the whistleblowers go. Hicks - next in line after Stevens - is certainly an example of what Bolton was talking about.

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:

Video: Rep. Trey Gowdy promises 'explosive' hearings on Benghazi

During an appearance on Fox News, House Oversight Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) promised that there will be 'explosive' hearings into the Benghazi attacks and that they will be coming quickly. Unfortunately for the American people, the House of Representatives is led by people like John Boehner and not by people like Gowdy.

Perhaps the best line during this interview:

"...there's a reason we don't let kids grade their own papers in school and there's a reason we don't let defendants sentence themselves in court and the State Department should not be the ones investigating whether or not the State Department did a good job; it should be Congress, and it's going to be Congress very shortly."

Giddy up.

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: Mother of Benghazi victim says she is being told to 'shut up'

In an interview with Sean Hannity, Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith - one of the four killed at the Special Mission Compound (SMC) in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12 - said that she is being told to 'shut up'. However, when asked, she said she wasn't being told that by government employees.

Some might remember that Pat Smith spoke out in the weeks after the attack that killed her son.

This is a compelling interview.

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?!"

Video: Senator Lindsey Graham calls out John Boehner over Benghazi

It would appear that Speaker John Boehner is feeling some heat directly from a Republican Senator in Lindsey Graham (R-SC) over getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attacks. During this interview, which took place last night, Graham said he would be meeting with House leaders "tomorrow" which is today. Can't wait to hear how that went.

Take note at the 3:00 mark. Shortly thereafter, Graham says:

"To my House colleagues, please, for God's sake step up your game when it comes to Benghazi."

I'd like to make a suggestion to Senator Graham. Pick of the phone and call Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. I'm guessing Issa is sure to give you an earful about how Boehner did more harm than good when it came to helping with the Fast and Furious investigation.

Is it time to investigate John Boehner?

"We need a select committee (on Benghazi). Every member of Congress - if you want to get to the bottom of this - should support a select committee." - Rep. Frank Wolf, 3/12/13

"To our leadership in the House, you're gonna have to up your game on Benghazi. - Senator Lindsey Graham, 3/15/18

House Speaker John Boehner is not doing his job... on many fronts... and needs to be replaced. It's become obvious on the Obamacare front that when it comes to de-funding it, the buck stops with Boehner and he's refused to accept it by attaching a de-funding mechanism to the Continuing Resolution. Instead, he's passed that buck again... to Barack Obama.

When it comes to investigating what happened in Benghazi, the buck is landing on Boehner's desk as well. It's beyond obvious at this point that there is a coverup taking place within the administration and if the House Speaker were truly interested in doing everything possible to blow a hole through the stonewall, he would form a Select Committee.

Like with Obamacare, Boehner is proving incapable of fighting.

Take note of the quote above from Rep. Frank Wolf, particularly this part:

"...if you want to get to the bottom of (Benghazi)..."

What followed from Wolf is something that only John Boehner can do - form a select committee. But that is something Boehner has refused to do.

If Wolf is right about a select committee being the way to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi, and Boehner doesn't form one, we are left to conclude one thing - Boehner doesn't want to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.

With increasing frequency, it is becoming apparent that Speaker John Boehner's actions (and inactions) are benefiting the Obama administration greatly.

Not only is it time that Boehner be replaced but perhaps it's time to investigate him.

Video: Rep. Frank Wolf still calling for Select Committee on Benghazi

In addition to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) continuing to call for a House Select Committee to investigate what happened in Benghazi on 9/11/12 - calls which John Boehner continues to ignore - he revealed something else noteworthy in this clip. There are still survivors of the attacks at Walter Reed six months later and we still know nothing about them.

Via Free Beacon:

Will Confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director reveal an even weaker Senate?

There is a mainstream line of thought that says John Brennan's confirmation as CIA Director will go smoother than that of Chuck Hagel, who was recently confirmed as Secretary of Defense. Hagel was able to clear the necessary hurdles despite an embarrassing performance at his hearing and a string of past statements that indicated an anti-Israel bias at best and and anti-Semitic streak at worst.

However, unlike Brennan, Hagel didn't hold a high-ranking position inside the Obama administration during the Benghazi attacks. As of yet, we still don't have enough answers when it comes to the administration's response and / or Brennan's involvement. Though we do know that Brennan was involved in altering U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points. For some reason, it's being all but dismissed as relevant.

As Foreign Policy points out, one of the reasons a vote on Brennan's confirmation did not take place on the scheduled date of February 28th was because of unanswered questions surrounding the Benghazi attacks.

On Sunday, fellow amigos John McCain and Lindsey Graham took to CBS's Face the Nation to renew their months-long quest for more information on the terrorist attack in Benghazi -- and to threaten delays for Brennan's confirmation. One of the key sticking points has been the altered talking points provided to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before she went on a range of Sunday talk shows to discuss the attacks.

Again, we received confirmation last week that emails provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee showed that Brenann was involved in altering those talking points.

If you are in the camp of those who believe promotions should be given based on good performance and openness relative to questionable performances, then the Senate should exercise its authority in preventing Brennan's confirmation until it gets the answers its entitled to. Unfortunately, such a reality is belied by a Democratically-controlled Senate that doesn't seem interested and a Republican minority that doesn't have enough collective will - as we saw with the nomination of Hagel.

Nonetheless, McCain, Graham, and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) issued a statement outlining what is known and what is not known about the Benghazi attacks. The statement highlights why there should be far more interest in getting more information about Brennan, relative to those attacks, before moving forward with any confirmation.

Read that statement here.

If the Hagel nomination is any indication, such a statement will not be backed up by a united Republican front that will prevent Brennan's nomination from going through until such questions are answered. It truly will be astounding if the issues raised in the aforementioned statement are not addressed before Brennan is confirmed.

Another point of resistance to Brennan's confirmation comes from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who is virtually apoplectic in response to Brennan's refusal to answer a "yes" or "no" question about whether Drones could or should be used to target Americans on U.S. soil.

Via FP:

The administration's targeted killing program via drone strikes remains a sticking point for Sen. Rand Paul. The Kentucky lawmaker says a simple "yes" or "no" answer on whether the White House can authorize a drone strike against an American in the United States would satisfy him.

A couple of areas that are being ignored by these Senators are the claims made by former FBI Agent John Guandolo and the authors of a book entitled that singles out Brennan as being the primary player in an operation that served to kick the hornets nest that led to the Benghazi attacks. Guandolo claims to have sources who witnessed Brennan to convert to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia.

If authors Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb are correct about Brennan's lead command role in a covert operation that involved weapons raids that took place without the knowledge of CIA Director Petraeus or Ambassador Stevens, it is the responsibility of both Republican and Democratic Senators to vet those claims. Ditto for the claims of Guandolo.

Unfortunately, Congress seems to be ceding its power to the Executive Branch on a near daily basis.

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.

John Boehner Projection: Obama has 'balls made out of marshmellows'?!

Caveat necessary. The video below does not consist of House Speaker John Boehner saying that Obama's balls are made out of marshmellows. However, it does include a man named John Mauldin who claims to have been present when Boehner said it and it's not at all likely that someone like Mauldin would falsely attribute those words to Boehner.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume Boehner actually said it. According to Mauldin, the House Speaker made the charge during the debt ceiling debate, which took place in the summer of 2011. In a word, the charge meant that Obama lacked 'audacity', which is defined as:

boldness or daring, especially with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions.

Yep, that pretty much describes Obama. It's also the opposite of Boehner's assessment.

If we include the debt ceiling debate and every battle Boehner has been involved in with Obama since then, how many has Boehner actually won?

Uh, can't think of any.

When it comes to the most powerful Republican in elected office (Boehner) and the most powerful Democrat in elected office (Obama), there have been two kinds of battles.

1. Battles fought
2. Battles not fought

As for the battles fought...

• The debt ceiling
• The 2012 elections
• Fiscal cliff
• Tax cuts
• Spending cuts
• Sequestration
• Continuing Resolution
• Healthcare Debate
• Deficit / Debt Reduction

In all of the battles fought, it's hard to find one instance in which Obama has lost since the 2010 elections, which were actually won by the same Tea Party Boehner doesn't seem to have much regard for.

The debt continues to grow, despite the fact that the House is responsible for the purse strings; the 2012 elections were a major embarrassment for the Republican Party in general, to include Boehner as the House's gavel-holder. His lack of fight after the 2010 elections contributed to the base staying home in 2012. Boehner bemoaned making mistakes in the fiscal cliff talks by saying he shouldn't have negotiated with Obama and that he was 'full of regret' over how he handled it. Spending cuts? What spending cuts? Sequestration? Well, despite it being Obama's idea, Boehner is proving woefully inadequate when it comes to making the president own it.The continuing resolution debate will heat up in March. If the government is not allowed to shut down, Boehner will lose another round to Obama. Healthcare debate? Obama definitely didn't lack fortitude / audacity there.

As for debt / deficit reduction... Obama loves runaway debt and deficits. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Boehner wants to stem / reverse the tide. After the Republicans were swept into office in great numbers in the 2010 elections, Boehner had momentum (and the gavel). When it comes to the national debt / annual deficits, nothing has changed.

Advantage: 'Marshmellow' balls.

As for the battles not fought, two come to mind:

• Fast and Furious
• Benghazi Investigation

How about the battles not fought? Boehner REFUSED to make an issue of Fast and Furious; the Obama administration was wobbly in the knees for several months. Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa was essentially on his own. It was obvious Boehner wanted to avoid getting to the bottom of a scandal that demanded justice.

Marshmellows, Mr. Speaker?

How about the investigation into Benghazi? Boehner has been all but silent. Rep. Frank Wolf has twice formally asked the Speaker to form a House Select Committee to help get to the bottom of that scandal, which involves dead Americans and likely criminal activity on the part of the Obama administration.

Marshmellows, Mr. Speaker?

Really?! I believe Barack Obama is the worst president this country has ever had but to accuse him of having 'balls' of 'marshmellows' is rather audacious in light of your track record when it comes to fighting him.

Boehner's behavior smacks of projection. His entire record over the last two years reveals a man who is afraid to fight and is getting beaten like a drum. Yet, the guy who beats him is the coward? Mr. Boehner, with all due respect, the accusation you allegedly made about Obama 18 months ago appears to be an accusation you should be levying at yourself. Instead, you appear to be employing a psychological defense mechanism that is preventing you from making that admission.

Projection is a psychological defense mechanism which states:

Projection is the misattribution of a person’s undesired thoughts, feelings or impulses onto another person who does not have those thoughts, feelings or impulses. Projection is used especially when the thoughts are considered unacceptable for the person to express, or they feel completely ill at ease with having them. For example, a spouse may be angry at their significant other for not listening, when in fact it is the angry spouse who does not listen. Projection is often the result of a lack of insight and acknowledgement of one’s own motivations and feelings.

If Boehner is uncomfortable accepting the reality that it is he who lacks courage, he very well could be projecting that lack of courage onto Obama. The question that needs to be asked of Boehner is a simple one:

If Obama has 'balls made out of marshmellows' Mr. Speaker, how come he keeps beating you?

There's really no reason to doubt the authenticity of what Mauldin attributed to Boehner as having said but it is truly unbelievable that Boehner - of all people - would be the one to say it:



h/t WZ