Whistleblower: Hillary cut State’s counter-terrorism bureau out of Benghazi loop

posted at 8:41 am on May 6, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

In the previous post, I noted that Darrell Issa’s witnesses in the House Oversight hearings on Benghazi would make life difficult for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Fox News reported late yesterday that one witness in particular will testify that Hillary purposefully cut out of the loop the State Department’s bureau for counter-terrorism as Benghazi burned — which will prompt all sorts of questions as to why any Secretary of State would make that decision:

On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a “whistle-blower” witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.

That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau — independently of Thompson — voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.

Thompson considers himself a whistleblower, Fox reports, and wanted to tell this story all along — but the Accountability Review Board suppressed it:

Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.

Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to — and characterize — the Benghazi attacks.

“You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,” the second official in State’s counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October.  Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson’s forthcoming testimony.

To quote Hillary, what difference at this point would it make? It’s about to rain all over her 2016 parade by painting her as an incompetent, of course, but that’s actually a by-product of her own choices.  The bigger issue now is the cover-up.  Why would the Obama administration try to keep a counter-terrorism response group on the sidelines during a terrorist attack?  Who got to the ARB and made it into a CYA exercise rather than a real investigation?

Who knew what, and when?

Stay tuned, because Issa’s carrying dynamite, and it’s not clear exactly how the explosion will manifest itself.  Expect lower-level officials to throw themselves on it to protect both Obama and Clinton, but so far it looks like higher-level officials want to go on the record, and that’s bad news for the White House.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Bishop?

bofh on May 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM

The role of the Accountability Review Board was obviously to review any attempt at accountability – and stifle it.

Drained Brain on May 6, 2013 at 8:44 AM

I’ll believe it when I see it. Why do I get the feeling that she will skate and become the next President?

Decoski on May 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Methinks Hillary is looking less invincible.

And Obama will be only oh-so glad to throw her under the bus.

WannabeAnglican on May 6, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Unleash the dogs on Wednesday!

hillsoftx on May 6, 2013 at 8:47 AM

That’s some real presidential timber there….yes maam.

Lonetown on May 6, 2013 at 8:49 AM

What were these idiots doing? What possible purpose was there in ignoring the threats?
The more you hear about this the more it actually looks like they were trying to work with the terrorists. To make the terrorist’s job easy for them and then to cover for them afterwards.

It makes no sense. It’s beyond just covering for Obama.

If this were Bush he’d be impeached by now.

JellyToast on May 6, 2013 at 8:49 AM

The target of this investigation should be Mrs. C, since she’s the one who was supposed to be on top of this, and will be running for president in 20165 touting her managerial experience (i.e. — those making rumblings about impeaching Obama over this are going to end up giving Hillary a free pass on Benghazi, because the spin in the media will be to try and turn this into Lewinsky II, and nothing more than a witch hunt by evil House Republicans. Better to have the White House be the ones to throw Hillary under the bus to save their own skin).

jon1979 on May 6, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Accountability Review Board

Can’t just be one or the other.

Good God. This is so Orwellian.

budfox on May 6, 2013 at 8:49 AM

then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making

Who was that key aide? Huma Abedin?

steebo77 on May 6, 2013 at 8:52 AM

To quote Hillary, what difference at this point would it make? It’s about to rain all over her 2016 parade by painting her as an incompetent, of course, but that’s actually a by-product of her own choices.

Gee, Hillary Clinton is both incompetent and a liar? Isn’t that the same thing that her very first Washington, D.C., employer said about her also, back when she was working as a congressional intern during the Watergate hearings?

Looks like psychologists are right: past behavior really is the best predictor of future behavior.

AZCoyote on May 6, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Its a right wing conspiracy,damn it! /
Where’s my vodka?

bazil9 on May 6, 2013 at 8:52 AM

The MSM will subvert the story as always. They didn’t raise an eyebrow when she called in sick to avoid giving testimony to Congress.

litebrite on May 6, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Can you imagine that face on the 3 dollar bill?

Electrongod on May 6, 2013 at 8:53 AM

liberalism breeds death, liars and perverts……….

crosshugger on May 6, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Ya know, one of these days, an enterprising young
“news journalist” will go out to CA and interview this
Video maker…..and then put that interview Nationwide
for all to see the utter shamelessness of how this
Administration made this guy a scapegoat for their
despicable actions…..

..numberous people in the Administration should be facing
criminal charges…..this woman among them.

ToddPA on May 6, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Forget about Barky. He’s fully Teflon-coated, with an extra-tasty race-card outer shell as well. And neither Issa nor Boehner have the stones to go there, regardless of who testifies. After all, one man’s whistle-blower is another man’s sore-loser – it’s all in how it’s presented, what you’re allowed to see.

The question is whether the Clintons still have the juice to keep Hillary out of the soup. There’s still plenty of room under the big bus.

Bill seems to have become invisible of late – gone walkabout? How fully-invested in Hillary’s 2016 candidacy really is the central control committee of the DNC? Enough to pull her out of this unscathed? Because any battle-damage she suffers here dims the certainty of her 2016 victory, and surely her real support at central control level is not 100% in any case (i.e. she undoubtedly has enemies too).

bofh on May 6, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Nothing but a witch hunt–only this time there’s a real live witch!

Naturally Curly on May 6, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Nixon was crushed by Watergate because he treated the break-in as a political matter in the face of a brutally hostile media…

Obama/Jarret/Clinton treated Benghazi as a strictly political matter in the face of an adoring friendly media…

Nixon held out for so long because he was a brilliant politico — I am not convinced Obama is a brilliant politico — thus he could have is second term completely distroyed by this.

“What difference, at this point, does it make?!” is starting to resemble an epitaph – will the media notice?

mjbrooks3 on May 6, 2013 at 8:56 AM

She’s as ideologically leftist as Obama. Take note RINO’s– if America is attacked, and Americans murdered by terrorists, as happened in Benghazi, every fact has to be filtered through an ideological filter before being released. If the propagandizing press is going to report it, it is especially important to get the story straight. Just as Vicky Neuland.

MTF on May 6, 2013 at 8:56 AM

Why would the Obama administration try to keep a counter-terrorism response group on the sidelines during a terrorist attack?

Hey.. where’s the gay community on this? Obama sat by and allowed an openly gay ambassador to be murdered.

JellyToast on May 6, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Who was that key aide? Huma Abedin?

steebo77 on May 6, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Good question. And, great guess.

(OT- Miss seeing you at the Gulch.)

Fallon on May 6, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Second look at Mochelle 2016!

dmann on May 6, 2013 at 8:58 AM

It appears that there was a ‘stand down’ order that night. Hillary and Staff took over but did nothing as assets in the region were ready to help those guys under attack, but were never called upon.

journeymike on May 6, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Why did they want Chris Stevens dead?

Naturally Curly on May 6, 2013 at 8:59 AM

“I take responsibility,” Clinton

Oh no you haven’t!

bazil9 on May 6, 2013 at 8:59 AM

As Clint looks at the empty chair that old tittle “Hang’em High” comes to mind.

tim c on May 6, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Clinton testified about Benghazi for the first and only time in January of this year, shortly before leaving office. She had long delayed her testimony, at first because she cited the need for the ARB to complete its report, and then because she suffered a series of untimely health problems that included a stomach virus, a concussion sustained during a fall at home, and a blood clot near her brain, from which she has since recovered. However, Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB she convened.
LINK

Never interviewed??? I guess that leaves her out of being “accountable”, right?

“As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right,” Clinton said. “I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger and more secure.”

Well, you certainly FAILED in this case Hillary.

Rovin on May 6, 2013 at 9:00 AM

bengazi is a political witchhunt by a congressman trying to make a name for himself

nonpartisan on May 1, 2013 at 5:42 PM

People need to grow up and stop assuming that there’s always a cover up or government incompetence involved.

bayam on May 1, 2013 at 5:16 PM

yeah, they were wrong about it being a youtube video that sparked it. ok, thats not a crime. we have more pressing issues to deal with.

nonpartisan on May 1, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Does anyone really think this is going to go anywhere? Fast and Furos anyone?

Midas on May 6, 2013 at 9:01 AM

then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making

Who was that key aide? Huma Abedin?

steebo77 on May 6, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Winner. Maybe even another Hillary cutout (does the name Vince Foster ring a bell?). Regardless, the GOP are weak sisters and the MSM will unleash the dogs to prevent their utopian vision of Hillary after the One. I would love it however, if something stuck to anyone in DC. Beside those evil Repubs, I mean.

ghostwalker1 on May 6, 2013 at 9:01 AM

That damned 3am phone call.

BKeyser on May 6, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Ot: forget this we are going to dive deeper in Cruz birth and see if he’s eligible to run for president
-chuck todd

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Ahhh, especially on a Monday morning, how sweet the smell of blood in the water.

petefrt on May 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM

we have more pressing issues to deal with.

nonpartisan on May 1, 2013 at 6:08 PM
Resist We Much on May 6, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Like this?

forget this we are going to dive deeper in Cruz birth and see if he’s eligible to run for president
-chuck todd

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 9:02 AM

bazil9 on May 6, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Hillary won’t be touched, with the prime Dem excuse being she’s no longer at State. Anyone else involved, even peripherally, will get the blame if they still work there. That will pacify most of the public, while the LSM will still make Hillary a victim of incompetent aides.

Liam on May 6, 2013 at 9:05 AM

That damned 3am phone call.

BKeyser on May 6, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Not just that..
They kept on ringing..for 7 hours..
Clinton got tired of it and just left the phone off the hook.

Electrongod on May 6, 2013 at 9:07 AM

How many more people rioted and died following the Obama/Hillary you-tube video promotional tour and ad campaign?

Ben Hur on May 6, 2013 at 9:10 AM

What country do we live in? Do the Laws of our nation no longer mean anything?

Where are the Americans who give a d@mn anymore? Have they been replaced by ‘Obama-zombies’, the walking dead who have ceded their lives in exchange for free hand outs and cradle-to-grave care from the government?!

Hillary Clinton REJECTED requests for additional security in Benghazi from Ambassador Stevens – even after 2 previous terror attacks. Issa & Congress now have her signature on a document rejecting a request from Stevens – DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE COMMITTED PERJURY BEFORE CONGRESS DECLARING SHE NEVER KNEW SUCH A REQUEST HAD BEEN MADE!
– She BROKE THE LAW! She committed a FELONY crime of PERJURY…which means SHE GOES TO JAIL! THAT is the REALITy of the situation!

However, our elected government leaders have elevated themselves to the point of demi-gods, replacing their role as ‘servants of the people’ with that of being our MASTERS who are above the laws they pass….and if we allow this to happen now this nation is forever lost! It is now that we must reclaim our nation & ‘chain’ the would-be MASTERS, returning to their rightful place as equal citizens who have simply been elected to represent their brtohers & sisters in Washington!

HILLARY NEEDS TO – MUST BE – CONVICTED OF PERJURY & SENTENCED TO JAIL TIME, & A MESSAGE SENT THROUGH WASHINGTON THAT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Can you imagine that face on the 3 dollar bill?

Electrongod on May 6, 2013 at 8:53 AM

And to think that only a minuscule portion of her inner butt-ugliness has seeped out onto her face.

justltl on May 6, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Sure puts Hill’s shrill defensive posturing and mysterious illness into question. Wow.

Issa, watch your back.

These people are beyond terrifying in their machinations to hold onto power. Just ask Vince Foster.

tru2tx on May 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Don’t blame me

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Hmmmmmmmmm…..

If Obama throws Hillary under the bus, will Hillary’s 2016 supporters, “its time for a leftie female president” crowd abandon
their support for Obama? Leftie women love him because he is so cool!!/sarc

If Hillary throws Obama under the bus, will blacks, illegals and all welfare recipients turn on Hillary and abandon her presidential run in 2016? What would that do to Bill Clinton’s resume as the “first black president”? Would he be now hated by association?

Amjean on May 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM

In the end it won’t matter. The LSM memo is that it’s just politics and nothing more than a Republican witch hunt. The un-informed voters will bring up past embassy attacks while Bush was in office. Obama and Clinton will skate away laughing as usual.

Control the media, control the message.

bsinc1962 on May 6, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Does anyone really think this is going to go anywhere? Fast and Furos anyone?

Midas on May 6, 2013 at 9:01 AM

As much as, and as easy as it is, to make fun of Sheriff Joe and his mental abilities, he is someone in the administration with a major stake in seeing Hillary destroyed by the Benghazi cover-up.

Whatever hopes Biden has of getting the 2016 nomination depends on Clinton being out of the race. The only question is does the VP’s foreign policy connections — based on his current position in the administration and his past connections via the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — deep enough so that his people have ongoing leakable information that would be damaging to the former Secretary of State’s public media image of being a managerial genius and still the Smartest Woman in the Universe?

jon1979 on May 6, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Why would the Obama administration try to keep a counter-terrorism response group on the sidelines during a terrorist attack?

That’s what makes no sense to me. Unless you want to allow the terrorist attack to be carried out successfully, why do something like that?

Doughboy on May 6, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Anyone else involved, even peripherally, will get the blame if they still work there. That will pacify most of the public, while the LSM will still make Hillary a victim of incompetent aides.

Liam on May 6, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Agree that the media will attempt to make Hillary out to be the victim, but, if she throws some of her sub-ordinates under the bus, it will be interesting if they also “remain silent”. (that would be too many convenient concussions)

Rovin on May 6, 2013 at 9:16 AM

The Clintons had better start looking for a condo at the Villages because 1600 Penn. isn’t looking very promising any more.

JetBlast on May 6, 2013 at 9:16 AM

They left those poor men to die.

All you media trash who are ignoring this can pound sand, you are complicit in this crime and in a just world your azs would be in the dock too.

Bishop on May 6, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Hey, Nixon went down over the cover-up not the actual crime.

I heard the lawywer for Thompson on the radio this morning. As much as he could say, he made it clear that this was not going to be testimony that was a re-hash of what is already known (the weekend’s DNC talking point about the upcoming hearings).

Happy Nomad on May 6, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Yup B9

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 9:19 AM

easyt65 on May 6, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Problem = the media.

The media is an active participant in the destruction of the nation, hiding under the cloak of the First Amendment.

justltl on May 6, 2013 at 9:21 AM

“With Obama safely re-elected, the goal is now to protect Hillary Clinton. Last week, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) called upon Speaker of the House John Boehner not only to retract, but to apologize publicly for, an inter-committee report that suggested Clinton had ignored requests for additional security in Libya.

On MSNBC, a channel that serves as the mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, Rev. Al Sharpton–who also serves as an informal White House adviser–described the Benghazi investigation as the “new vast right-wing conspiracy,” a reference to Clinton’s claim, as First Lady, that Republicans were merely out to target her husband and that he had not committed any wrongdoing in the Monica Lewinsky affair that led to his impeachment.

Though there are undoubtedly some political motives present, Democrats’ claims are largely a projection of their own political agenda in Benghazi, which has remained consistent from the start: to shield the party and its leaders from responsibility for a major terrorist attack on American sovereign territory.

That agenda far exceeds any pursued by Republicans, whose goals, however political, happen to include the national security interests at stake.

On this past weekend’s Sunday shows, Democrats showed unusual willingness to criticize the Obama administration over Benghazi, acknowledging that the Benghazi talking points had been false.

Yet that willingness to criticize may be a way of inoculating the party against further revelations to come; it may also be easier because new information about the Benghazi talking points has tended to implicate the White House rather than Clinton herself, even if State Department officials have also been listed among those involved.

Clinton’s role in Benghazi is particularly damaging because it risks becoming the signature legacy of her tenure at the State Department. Despite racking up an exhaustive travel record, Clinton had few actual achievements to show for her four years as Secretary of State–a burden as she contemplates her 2016 ambitions…”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/06/Democrats-Agenda-for-Benghazi-Hearing-Protect-Hillary-at-All-Costs

workingclass artist on May 6, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Hmmmmmmmmm…..

If Obama throws Hillary under the bus, will Hillary’s 2016 supporters, “its time for a leftie female president” crowd abandon
their support for Obama? Leftie women love him because he is so cool!!/sarc

If Hillary throws Obama under the bus, will blacks, illegals and all welfare recipients turn on Hillary and abandon her presidential run in 2016? What would that do to Bill Clinton’s resume as the “first black president”? Would he be now hated by association?

Amjean on May 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM

No way in hell does Obama go down in flames over this. He and his team will destroy Hillary if necessary. As for who would win that showdown, my money’s on Barry. He effectively turned a huge chunk of the Democrat/media complex against Hillary in 2008. And that was before he had the power of the Presidency.

Doughboy on May 6, 2013 at 9:22 AM

That’s what makes no sense to me. Unless you want to allow the terrorist attack to be carried out successfully, why do something like that?

Doughboy on May 6, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Because the Dog Eating Bat Faced Pus Bag went and shot off his mouth to bolster his tough guy image; “Al Queda is dead! They’re on the run! We’ve got this well in hand! The middle east is on a new peaceful path thanks to me! Blah yackety blah!”

Then Benghazi occurred and the Fruit Bat President and the Bitter Old Harpy had a decision to make: Let the men die and find a convenient excuse, or send in troops and risk a Blackhawk Down scenario. Some American soldier getting killed and dragged through the streets of North African dumphole wouldn’t help the aforementioned narrative.

So our two leading thugs, Dog Eater and Killary, quietly made the decision to do nothing. They looked one another in the eye, saw agreement, and quietly pulled the plug on those lost men.

Bishop on May 6, 2013 at 9:23 AM

**WhistleBlowers*….

…are good,when

GOP is in Power…….

And,…bad,when

Democrats are in Power!!

canopfor on May 6, 2013 at 9:23 AM

All will be forgiven (forgotten) by 2016.

Clink on May 6, 2013 at 9:01 AM

I doubt it. This is bound to be a key topic by whoever opposes her for the Dem nomination and the GOP nominee if she should get the nod. It’s got to be. She’ll run on her super-smart diplomicy and stuff like the Benghazi cover-up is a prime point for rebuttal. Especially if it gets messy after the whistle-blowers talk.

What Clinton will do is come up with some lame excuse as to why she lied her ass off about YouTube videos and myths of Libyans rushing a wounded Stevens to the hospital.

Happy Nomad on May 6, 2013 at 9:24 AM

The one factor they will never be able to explain to me is why they never even tried to help those people? WHY?

Pardonme on May 6, 2013 at 9:24 AM

The one factor they will never be able to explain to me is why they never even tried to help those people? WHY?

Pardonme on May 6, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Because a sodomized and murdered ambassador at the hands of Al Qaeda undercut a key campaign talking point. You act as if the administration had responsibilities beyond getting the rat-eared coward a second term and priming the pump for the fat pig in 2016.

Happy Nomad on May 6, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Its a right wing conspiracy,damn it! /
Where’s my vodka?

bazil9 on May 6, 2013 at 8:52 AM

In my Bloody Mary. You have to be quicker.

katy the mean old lady on May 6, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Had to listen to a lib friend explain that this is an evil campaign to smear Hills. Because we are afraid of her or something.

katy the mean old lady on May 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Anyone else involved, even peripherally, will get the blame if they still work there. That will pacify most of the public, while the LSM will still make Hillary a victim of incompetent aides.

Liam on May 6, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Agree that the media will attempt to make Hillary out to be the victim, but, if she throws some of her sub-ordinates under the bus, it will be interesting if they also “remain silent”. (that would be too many convenient concussions)

Rovin on May 6, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Good points! But a way around risking Hillary depends on how high-level a lamb they need to sacrifice. Likely would be some functionary who has no dirt on Hillary. Or, if one high enough, make a deal: He sucks up the blame but faces no criminal charges and, keeps his job as well as his pension. Or maybe accepts ‘early retirement’ with all benefits.

These people are expert at the art of the coverup, especially when it comes to the Clintons.

Liam on May 6, 2013 at 9:31 AM

I don’t think Barry wants Hill to go down. The Clintons would have lost their last remaining shot at the big time having eaten crow for the past 4 years and they will eviscerate Barry in retaliation. God knows what dirt they will spill. It’s all about the need for power. A cage fight like this could divide and seriously damage the Democratic party.
It’s hard to see what Barry can do to save her now, though. The cover up is blown, the sacrificial lambs are sacrificed and the media black out is breaking down. He will have to throw her under the bus to save himself. And then his presidency will be at the mercy of Bill & Hillary. Will they put their party before themselves?

breffnian on May 6, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Why did they want Chris Stevens dead?

Naturally Curly on May 6, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Maybe because he was ordered to implement facilitating arms transfers through a libyan corridor or something…

workingclass artist on May 6, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Chuck Todd spent 30 seconds on this issue…. but has a whole segment on Cruz and his birth

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 9:35 AM

The one factor they will never be able to explain to me is why they never even tried to help those people? WHY? Pardonme on May 6, 2013 at 9:24 AM

A. Administration was fearful of a BlackHawk down mess. So they said Stand Down

B. Administration was lazy. 3 am call

C. Administration wanted Chris Stevens to die for some reason

D. Administration wanted Chris to be kidnapped in some kind of plot that went horribly wrong and he ended up dying (old Internet rumors)

E. Mixture of everything

journeymike on May 6, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I keep thinking of that old saying, the truth will out. It doesn’t seem to be happening anymore and at this point, it does make a difference. Most Americans pay scant attention to the news and those who do find a swirling fog of cya to decipher. Our laws have been reduced to a Chinese fast food menu of picking and choosing which ones will be used to further a political career. Watch and wait for Rangel to get a gold watch and a plaque thanking him for his many years of faithful service to the country.

Kissmygrits on May 6, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Hmmmmmmmmm…..

If Obama throws Hillary under the bus, will Hillary’s 2016 supporters, “its time for a leftie female president” crowd abandon
their support for Obama? Leftie women love him because he is so cool!!/sarc

If Hillary throws Obama under the bus, will blacks, illegals and all welfare recipients turn on Hillary and abandon her presidential run in 2016? What would that do to Bill Clinton’s resume as the “first black president”? Would he be now hated by association?

Amjean on May 6, 2013 at 9:12 AM

No way in hell does Obama go down in flames over this. He and his team will destroy Hillary if necessary. As for who would win that showdown, my money’s on Barry. He effectively turned a huge chunk of the Democrat/media complex against Hillary in 2008. And that was before he had the power of the Presidency.

Doughboy on May 6, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Maybe…But I wouldn’t be surprised if this becomes Ted Cruz’s fault…Cause Y’know

workingclass artist on May 6, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Had to listen to a lib friend explain that this is an evil campaign to smear Hills. Because we are afraid of her or something.

katy the mean old lady on May 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Should have told your friend we learned something from the Libs treatment of Saracuda.

antipc on May 6, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Chuck Todd is a cad and a blowhard, the man spends so much time on his knees kowtowing to the demorats that he has to budget his pants spending. I hate the media with the heat and fury of a blue star, and when everything collapses under its own weight I hope they are the first to suffer.

Bishop on May 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Who was that key aide? Huma Abedin?

steebo77 on May 6, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Nail, meet head. Our government has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, birds of that feather and their sycophants.

SteveInRTP on May 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Amen bishop

Chuck Todd sad…apparently Cruz is eligible

cmsinaz on May 6, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Some seem to forget what Clinton said that day in the hanger:

Clinton said the rage and violence aimed at American missions was prompted by ‘an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.’

YOU LIED LADY!

Rovin on May 6, 2013 at 9:48 AM

awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.’

YOU LIED LADY!

Rovin on May 6, 2013 at 9:48 AM

IN FRONT OF THEIR FLAG-DRAPED CASKETS. That is an image and deed that should be held front and center in any of the hearings!

SteveInRTP on May 6, 2013 at 9:53 AM

To quote Hillary, what difference at this point would it make? It’s about to rain all over her 2016 parade by painting her as an incompetent, of course, but that’s actually a by-product of her own choices. The bigger issue now is the cover-up. Why would the Obama administration try to keep a counter-terrorism response group on the sidelines during a terrorist attack?

It’s one thing to be caught with your pants down, quite another to pull your pants down in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.

This smacks less of incompetence and more of deliberateness.

But what were they hoping to achieve?

rbj on May 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Some seem to forget what Clinton said that day in the hanger:

Clinton said the rage and violence aimed at American missions was prompted by ‘an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.’

YOU LIED LADY!

Rovin on May 6, 2013 at 9:48 AM

And she reportedly told one of the parents of a Benghazi victim that the Obama Administration was gonna get the guy who made the video. So not only did they attempt to mislead the public(as well as the families of the victims), but it sounds like the director of the video was intended as the fall guy from day one.

Doughboy on May 6, 2013 at 9:55 AM

No way in hell does Obama go down in flames over this. He and his team will destroy Hillary if necessary. As for who would win that showdown, my money’s on Barry. He effectively turned a huge chunk of the Democrat/media complex against Hillary in 2008. And that was before he had the power of the Presidency.

Doughboy on May 6, 2013 at 9:22 AM

I’m not sure about that. The Democratic establishment did not support Barry, remember. She is the darling of labor, gays, women. Barry won by mobilizing the young and minorities and because the first black president trumped the first female one in the world of Democrats. I believe a lot of them still despise him and resent him for what he did to Hillary.
That being said, I agree a showdown would result in another Obama victory. But the collateral damage could destroy them all.
That’s why the ball is in Bill and Hillary’s court. Will they go quietly into the sunset? What could Barry offer them now in return? How damaged would she be for 2016? If the damage cannot be controlled and spun and her career is finished, then wait for a Clinton backlash at a time of their choosing. They will wait for Obama’s presidency to be weakened and then apply the coup de grace. The way things are going, that may not be long.

breffnian on May 6, 2013 at 9:58 AM

I’ve been waiting for Rep. Issa to take these guys to the woodshed for awhile. Hopefully this is an example of slow and steady wins the race.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on May 6, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Wow!

ted c on May 6, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Some seem to forget what Clinton said that day in the hanger:

YOU LIED LADY!

Rovin on May 6, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Hillary Clinton is many things. Lady is not among them.

Happy Nomad on May 6, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Someone, TBD, will be directed to throw himself on Issa’s grenade to protect Mrs. Clinton.

TimBuk3 on May 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM

They left those poor men to die.

All you media trash who are ignoring this can pound sand, you are complicit in this crime and in a just world your azs would be in the dock too.

Bishop on May 6, 2013 at 9:18 AM

They left those poor men to die, then had a photo op over their flag-draped coffins and lied. They have no souls.

Naturally Curly on May 6, 2013 at 10:02 AM

I wish, really wish, that I could believe that these whistle blowers coming forward would result in at the very least shaming the administration into confessing and apologizing to the American people for out and out lying to them and engaging in a conspiracy to cover up the truth for political gain. Hillary didn’t do anything behind the president’s back…he had to know what was going on. If he didn’t, he should resign right now. But the fact is, I don’t believe anything will happen to either one of them. They’ll both go on their merry way and she’ll probably cruise right back into the White House in 2016. Do you think seriously that a single democrat in Washington cares about this? I don’t. I wish I did, but I don’t. However, I do appreciate what this site (and many others), and SOME of the news stations, have done to expose the truth.

scalleywag on May 6, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Hillary Clinton is many things. Lady is not among them.

Happy Nomad on May 6, 2013 at 9:58 AM

I for one would like to see her become a bag lady.

antipc on May 6, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Hillary will be Obama’s cutout if needed. The question is who will be Hillary’s cutout?

ghostwalker1 on May 6, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Looks like Barry and Hillary! flubbed that “3am phone call”.

GarandFan on May 6, 2013 at 10:10 AM

If this wasn’t so despicable and heartbreaking it would be satisfying and enjoyable to watch the cat fight that will ensue between the Clintons and the Prince of Darkness.

I’m expecting this upcoming implosion to be epic.

tru2tx on May 6, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Had to listen to a lib friend explain that this is an evil campaign to smear Hills. Because we are afraid of her or something.

katy the mean old lady on May 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Next time you see your friend, ask them what her “qualifications” were to be the Junior Senator from New York, much less Secretary of State.

You won’t get an answer.

Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2013 at 10:11 AM

This is the most despicable thing to happen during a president’s term that I can think of, it’s certainly more loathsome than anything that came out of the Nixon administration. There can be no excuse for it. None. Once this investigation is complete, will Republicans demand an impeachment?

scalleywag on May 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Methinks Hillary is looking less invincible.

And Obama will be only oh-so glad to throw her under the bus.

WannabeAnglican on May 6, 2013 at 8:46 AM

The liberal media won’t attack her on this, and the Republicans are too polite, but a serious young black or hispanic candidate in the democratic primary could make this a big issue.

slickwillie2001 on May 6, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Hey.. where’s the gay community on this? Obama sat by and allowed an openly gay ambassador to be murdered.

JellyToast on May 6, 2013 at 8:57 AM

He was expendable. Even being a member of a “protected” group does not help. In the eyes of a leftist, it is the cause that matters. Look at how many hispanics lost their lives as a result of Fast and Furious.

If you want to make an omlette….

SubmarineDoc on May 6, 2013 at 10:17 AM

The State Run Media will ignore this whole hearing…

d1carter on May 6, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Was the purpose to protect Obama’s re-election or Hilary’s 2016 bid?

ctmom on May 6, 2013 at 10:19 AM

The State Run Media will ignore this whole hearing…

d1carter on May 6, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Most of them will try. But CBS has been reporting on this and I wouldn’t be surprised if someone like Tapper at CNN covers it.

Doughboy on May 6, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2013 at 10:11 AM

The liberals and the liberal media will say “she’s entitled”, (in their own words).

Rovin on May 6, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Who was that key aide? Huma Abedin?

steebo77 on May 6, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau — independently of Thompson — voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.

From Ed’s post above

Vince on May 6, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3