Tyrone Woods' father: Hillary told me they would 'prosecute' filmmaker

It didn't take long for many in the Muslim world to exploit the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi by doing what the Obama administration did - they pointed to the Innocence of Muslims video. The video was being held up as an example of why it's wrong to criticize anything Islam. We learned that before the attack, forces were already at work, plotting to call on international bodies as well as national governments to make any speech against or criticism of Islam a crime. At the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi called for restrictions on free speech.

The Obama administration pointed to the video as well. However, as the weeks have passed, a specific motive for doing so has been attributed to the administration. As the thinking goes, Obama and his team were using the video as an excuse so that the lack of security would not be exposed. It makes perfect sense. On October 19th, in a letter to Obama, Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa accused the administration of looking to "normalize" Libya despite an opposite reality on the ground. It's become widely accepted that Obama, Hillary, et. al. wanted to use the video as a distraction and as an excuse.

This would necessarily mean that Islamists and the administration had adopted the same narrative but for different reasons.

Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, may have called that entire premise into question when he called in to the Lars Larson show on October 24th. In describing his visit with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when the casket of his son and three other Americans arrived in at Andrews Air Force Base three days after their deaths, Tyrone's father dropped a bit of a bombshell.

Take note of what Charles says he was told by Hillary Clinton, beginning at the 6:15 mark.

"We're going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video."

I'll explain why this is potentially so very important, after the clip.



If Hillary Clinton was willing to "prosecute" the filmmaker, this puts her in direct opposition to the Constitution she swore an oath to uphold. It also potentially calls into question the premise that the video was used solely as an excuse to cover-up the lack of security at Benghazi.

Here is Hillary speaking at Andrews on the day that four caskets containing the bodies of four dead Americans arrived. Beginning at the 6:15 mark, Hillary essentially points to the video and indignantly says the U.S. Government had "nothing to do with (making it)".



This begs a very serious question: If the administration was only using the video as an excuse to prevent the truth about what happened in Benghazi from coming to light, why would Hillary take that a step further and tell the father of Tyrone Woods that the filmmaker would be prosecuted?

Such a reality doesn't just put the Obama administration on the same page with Islamists when it comes to blaming the video (but for different reasons). It actually suggests that the reasons for pointing to the video were the same.

If Hillary told Charles Woods that the filmmaker would be prosecuted, it meant that she was interested in criminalizing criticism of Islam as well. That would be a direct attack on the first amendment, which is something even the Obama administration is not yet willing to be seen as doing. Obama himself, in a PSA for Pakistan in which he appeared with Hillary, wouldn't go that far publicly, saying there was "no justification for this senseless violence... none". Again, Hillary accentuated the assertion that the "United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video" (I have always been intrigued by how adamantly she has stated that).



It's important not to forget that Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff and closest advisor - Huma Abedin - has extremely close and irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, Abedin's mother Saleha and Mohamed Mursi's wife are two of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood, which makes them close colleagues. Yes, that's the same Mursi who spoke at the CGI several days after the Benghazi attack and said there should be limits to free speech. Isn't it possible that the Abedins share that view? Isn't it also possible for Huma to influence Hillary to adopt it?

Islamists have been pointing to the video in order to target our first amendment rights. Was the Obama administration attempting to do the same thing?

Threatening to prosecute someone for exercising his first amendment rights makes that possibility far more plausible.

This latest development does not mean the filmmaker - Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - doesn't warrant further investigation relative to his associations and motives for making the video. Both remain highly suspect and require more sunlight.

h/t Gather

Smoking RPG: Emails fire hole in Obama administration's Benghazi story

Three separate emails sent from someone at the State Department to multiple recipients at State, Department of National Intelligence (DNI), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been released by CBS' Sharyl Attkisson and others. What these e-mails unequivocally show is that very  specific details of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were known in real time.

The attack began at approximately 3:40pm EST / 9:40pm EET (Libya Time). The first of the three emails that were released is time stamped 4:05pm EST, which was during the actual attack.

Here is what the first email said:

(SBU) The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound save haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

The Operations Center will provide updates as available.

The second email, at 4:54pm EST / 10:54pm EET reads:

(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.

The third email blows a hole through the Obama administration narrative that it pushed for at least two weeks after the attack. That narrative was that an anti-Muhammad video - Innocence of Muslims - was responsible. This email, sent slightly more than two hours after the first one above (6:07pm EST / 12:07am EET), contains a smoking RPG in the subject line:

Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)

The body of the email contains one sentence, which reads:

(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.

Yet, despite these real time emails, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were featured in a PSA intended for air in Pakistan that was based on the lie that the video was the cause of the attack. That PSA was produced one week after the attack at the expense of $70,000. If we want to talk about disgusting, reprehensible, and despicable videos, perhaps we should start with this one:



During an interview with Sarah Palin on 10/23, as news of these emails was breaking, Greta continued to come back to one question:

Why was the Obama administration so intent on blaming the video?

Pay attention to what Greta says, beginning at the 5:40 mark (via Sarahnet):



It's not only long past time to find out why the administration blamed the video. It's also long past time to find out who / what was really behind its production.

Where is Eiad?

Third Debate: Mitt didn't take the Gloves off

Both sides are claiming victory in the third presidential debate. Unlike debate number one, no one will concede defeat. In debate number two, Obama's media hacks called the debate for their guy but that narrative was belied by Romney's surge in the polls afterward. The common thread that ran through both debates was that Romney was aggressive and showed the conservative base that he could fight.

That is also a trait that is contagious and even won over some independents.

The stars seemed to align for a Romney three-peat. The final showdown was on foreign policy as the Obama administration was on the ropes over its handling of Benghazi-gate.

Those expecting Romney to go for the knockout would be quite disappointed. The aggressive Mitt didn't show up. After the opening question, which was about Benghazi, the subject never really came up. At that, Romney's response to that initial question was quite vanilla. Some might argue that the opportunity never presented itself; that doesn't wash. Candidates are given quite a bit of latitude when it comes to answering questions how they see fit.

Just three days before the debate, House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa sent a damning letter to Obama that singled out the National Security Council as the likely source of a policy of "normalization" in Libya over security. The evidence is mounting that a political decision to portray Libya as secure trumped the decision to protect our diplomats. Romney could have asked Obama about this but he didn't.

He took a pass.

As we approach the third anniversary of the Fort Hood Jihadist attack that killed 14 people, survivors have made it quite clear - in a video - that they are outraged that what Nidal Malik Hasan did on November 5, 2009 continues to be identified as workplace violence instead of what it was. As a consequence, those survivors are not eligible for purple hearts and are being told to accept a lie about the motives of a murderer they will never forget.

Asking Obama why Hasan's attack hasn't been identified as an act of war that involved correspondence between the shooter and Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, instead of workplace violence, would have been quite appropriate in a foreign policy debate.

It never came up.

Operation Fast and Furious is a foreign policy matter as well. A U.S. Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexicans have lost their lives because someone thought it was a good idea to put assault weapons into the hands of drug cartels there. Obama injected himself into the scandal when he asserted Executive Privilege to prevent congressionally subpoenaed documents from being produced. He did so on the day his Attorney General would be found in both criminal and civil contempt for not producing those documents.

Romney avoided that subject as well.

It's clear that Mitt Romney made a strategic decision to look presidential instead of looking to win. Did he win over some independents? Perhaps. Did he disappoint those in the conservative base who had finally started to warm up to him.

Absolutely.

When your opponent is on the ropes, it's never a good strategy to stop swinging.

Then again, what do I know?

I'm not a politician.