This is the first time I've seen any mention that Iran, Syria and Russia were behind the Benghazi attacks

Former Muslim Brotherhood member: ‘Obama knows what happened in Benghazi’

(“Syrian president Bashar el Assad, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah of Lebanon are fully responsible for the death of United States Ambassador Christopher Stevens. President Obama has known this fact since the minute he first learned about the attack.”)

This would contradict the Blind Shiek theory... or maybe not?

BENGHAZI: UNAUTHORIZED WEAPONS OPERATION OR CONGRESSIONAL COVER-UP?

What is going on with these Republicans?

(Brietbart) Legislation implemented in 1980 gave the president the authority to limit advance notification of especially sensitive covert actions to eight Members of Congress--the “Gang of Eight”: the chairmen and ranking minority Members of the two congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House, and Senate majority and minority leaders. These members are: House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA).

By law, such a covert weapons operation in Benghazi should have been known by all eight members. The disastrous results from the events of September 11, 2012 have not made it easy to get answers from these lawmakers regarding this point. 

Former CIA Spook: John Brennan A “Bully Of The Highest Order”

t

(involved in crafting the phony talking points that then-Secretary of State Susan Rice gave regarding attack)(alleged gun-running is being blamed for the death of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission and CIA annex. CNN confirms)

Benghazi was about a blind shiek

...a planned prisoner exchange to swap Ambassador Chris Stevens for “The Blind Sheik.”, a deal between Barack Obama and Mohamed Morsi that went bad.

Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack

( CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack. Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya. Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret. CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.
Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings. The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress. It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career. In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.” Another says, “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.” “Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that,” said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer. In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare. “If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it’s called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they’re looking for something, or they’re on a fishing expedition. But it’s absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly,” said Baer. CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted in a statement that the agency has been open with Congress. “The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi,” the statement said. “CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want,” the statement continued. “The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident.” Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack. A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously. While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency. The lack of information and pressure to silence CIA operatives is disturbing to U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, whose district includes CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. “I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it’s an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way,” said the Republican.)

Morsi the Muslim Brotherhood leader of Egypt is charged with murder

The Egyptian army has announced that former President Mohammed Morsy is no longer being held in 'protective custody.' He's being charged with murder and conspiring with Hamas.
State news agency Mena said the mooted charges against Morsi included conspiring with the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, killing prisoners and officers "deliberately with prior intent", kidnapping officers and soldiers, and setting fire to the prison of Wadi el-Natroun.
They relate to his escape from the prison in 2011, when he was arrested during the uprising against Mubarak, and provide legal grounds for his continued detention. .

..and this is very odd. was Stevens a pawn in a hostage swap agreement between Obama and Morsi?

NBC to produce four-hour Hillary Clinton miniseries by Clinton donor

(What difference does it make?) From Deadline At the top of NBC‘s TCA presentation, entertainment chairman Bob Greenblatt announced that it has put in development four event series/miniseres as part of its push in the arena. They include 4-hour miniseries Hillary, about Hillary Clinton to star Diane Lane.

Oscar nominee Courtney Hunt (Frozen River) will script the project which recounts Clinton’s life as a wife, mother, politician and cabinet member from 1998 to the present as she goes from First Lady to US Senator and then Secretary of State.

Asked whether the mini would approach Clinton as a great tough woman or a controversial figure, Greenblatt said, “it’s going to be all of those things.” 

Obviously the State Dept has learned nothing from #Benghazi. Enabling #Jihad in the name of activism

Israel Matzav: Kerry poses for photo-op with father of Mavi Marmara terrorist

Benghazi Narrative Shift Was Perfectly Clintonian

the night before the Boston bombing (that we now know Obama was warned by the Russians about)... we saw a CNN video about the Oklahoma City Bombing.... why would the media be interested in pushing this narrative the night before the Boston bombing?
Oklahoma City, April 19, 1995: Twenty minutes before the blast that leveled the Murrah Federal building in downtown Oklahoma City employees at a tire store spotted Timothy McVeigh and a short Middle Eastern-looking man in a Ryder truck and gave the pair directions.
Five minutes before the blast, printing operator Jerry Nance noticed an unusual car in the downtown Oklahoma City parking lot. It was a dilapidated yellow Mercury Marquis. Behind the wheel was a dark-skinned, Middle Eastern-looking man in a ball cap.
When Nance walked back towards the car to get some stuff from his own car, the Mercury Marquis almost ran him over. Now, however, the Middle Eastern man was sitting in the passenger seat, and a tall white man was driving the car out of the parking lot, recklessly at that.
Two minutes later, the Murrah building blew up. Nance informed the FBI of this incident and the car before anyone knew McVeigh had been apprehended in a yellow Mercury Marquis.
Another eyewitness, Daina Bradley, cried out to the rescuers who were trying to extricate her after the blast. "It was a Ryder truck. It pulled up, a foreign looking man got out, and then before long, everything went black."
A week later, the FBI quoted Nance and the tire store employees in its request before a federal judge to hold McVeigh over for trial. The Washington Post of April 28 confirmed the same:

The magistrate, Ronald L. Howland, ordered McVeigh to be held without bail after listening to four hours of testimony from FBI special agent John Hersley in which he described eyewitness accounts of a yellow Mercury with McVeigh and another maninside speeding away from a parking lot near the federal building. (italics mine)

For the next six weeks, John Doe #2 was the most hunted man in the world until, without explanation, he just kind of went away. The narrative had shifted. The White House only needed the two white right-wingers, Terry Nichols and McVeigh. With them as poster children, the media buried Gingrich's "Republican Revolution" in the rubble of the Murrah building. (MORE)

Obama and the "Official Truth"

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has been sitting in a US federal prison in Texas since his photographed midnight arrest by half a dozen deputy sheriffs at his home in California for violating the terms of his parole. As many reporters have noted, the parole violation in question would not generally lead to anything more than a court hearing.
But in Nakoula's case, it led to a year in a federal penitentiary. Because he wasn't really arrested for violating the terms of his parole.
Nakoula was arrested for producing an anti- Islam film that the Obama administration was falsely blaming for the al-Qaida assault on the US Consulate in Benghazi and the brutal murder of US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans on September 11, 2012. Obama and his associates falsely blamed Nakoula's film - and scapegoated Nakoula - for inciting the al-Qaida attack in Benghazi because they needed a fall guy to pin their cover-up of the actual circumstances of the premeditated, eminently foreseeable attack, which took place at the height of the presidential election campaign.
With the flood of scandals now inundating the White House, many are wondering if there is a connection between the cover-up of Benghazi, the IRS's prejudicial treatment of non-leftist nonprofit organizations and political donors, the Environmental Protection Agency's prejudicial treatment of non-liberal organizations, and the Justice Department's subpoenaing of phone records of up to a hundred reporters and editors from the Associated Press.t

(On the surface, they seem like unrelated events.)

How many #feminists does it take to force fuck a gay diplomat?

Answer: At the very least one feminist Secretary of State (BENGHAZI EMAILS) 

This afternoon the White House released 100 pages of emails that trace the development of the talking points about Benghazi that Susan Rice eventually used on her notorious tour of the Sunday morning news shows, and that formed the basis for much of what the Obama administration said about the attacks for weeks afterward. This is the original version of the talking points that came out of the CIA, with slight revisions. Note that this initial version is ambiguous, reflecting what was probably genuine uncertainty on the part of the drafters. Note, too, that there is no reference to any YouTube video:

The CIA said that “[t]he currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently its annex.” On the other hand, it also says, “we do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations,” and refers to “numerous” prior warnings by the CIA and prior attacks carried out by “extremists linked to al Qaeda” in Benghazi and eastern Libya. Further, it notes reports that Ansar al-Sharia was involved. What happened over the ensuing 24 hours or so is that this initial summary was watered down to the point where it was virtually devoid of content.

Several significant points emerge from the emails. First, as has been widely reported, it was the State Department that drove the dumbing down of the talking points. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland–”Toria” to her friends, evidently–represented the department in the negotiations over Benghazi. She was particularly concerned that the public not get the impression that the Obama administration had been warned about the potential for violence in Benghazi:

Democratic Party political operative David Adams weighed in on Ms. Nuland’s side:

This email refers to the State Department’s “deep concerns about mentioning the warnings.” We certainly wouldn’t want it to get out that the Obama administration had been repeatedly warned of the potential for terrorist violence in Benghazi!

The emails make another key point crystal clear: the administration molded the talking points for the specific purpose of counteracting the news, which was already starting to get traction, that what happened in Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack:

In Congress, “they all think it was premeditated,” so we need to “correct the record.” In fact, though, it was premeditated, as everyone now knows. Furthermore, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was already well aware, based on her famous 2 a.m. conversation with Greg Hicks, that the attack was premeditated; that there was no demonstration; that armed terrorists assaulted the Benghazi compound and overran it. Yet Hillary Clinton did not participate in the email communications, and she apparently never communicated what she learned from Hicks to anyone involved in the messaging process.

Not only that, the emails show that the FBI had already concluded that al Qaeda (not just al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) was involved. Yet this information never saw the light of day:

In Hillary’s absence, who ran the show? Another striking fact about the emails is that the process was driven entirely by political operatives. The show was run by Ben Rhodes, an Obama speechwriter; Tommy Vietor, who started out driving a van for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign; and David Adams. Even David Petraeus was a mere flunky; he said that he would rather not use the watered-down talking points, but the Obama administration was not interested in his opinion:

As the talking points finally emerged from the administration’s political process, they lacked any reference to the many warnings the CIA had given about the potential for terrorist attacks in Benghazi, or the actual attacks that had already taken place there. They didn’t mention Ansar al-Sharia. But they didn’t refer to any YouTube videos, either:

Which brings us to the penultimate significant point: the email threads manifest a strong concern with what Susan Rice would say on the Sunday morning news shows. That drove the rush to get the talking points finalized. Yet, what Rice actually said bore little relation to anything that went before. Her harping on the YouTube video had no support in any version of the talking points, and her insistence that there was no evidence a planned attack was flatly contradicted by the original version of the talking points, and only tenuously supported by the final version.

So the final question is: where was Hillary Clinton in this process? Based on her conversation with Greg Hicks, she knew that the assault was planned, and that it was carried out by terrorists armed with RPGs and mortars. She knew that there was no demonstration over a video, or anything else. And yet she allowed her colleague Susan Rice to spin a web of lies to mislead the American people. Is Hillary Clinton an absent, inept manager who has little to do with what happens in the department she ostensibly runs? Or is Benghazi just one more example of an administration that cares nothing about policy, and everything about politics–an administration that is endlessly willing to subvert the truth for political ends? My own judgment is: certainly the latter, perhaps the former.

SOURCE: ONLY PRESIDENT COULD HAVE MADE 'STAND DOWN' CALL ON BENGHAZI

From (Infidel/Breitbart): A source with intimate information about the events that happened on the ground in Benghazi the night the U.S. Consulate and the CIA annex was attacked by terrorists told Breitbart News that, ultimately, only the President of the United States, or someone acting on his authority, could have prevented Special Forces either on the ground or nearby from helping those Americans who were under deadly assault.  

According to the source, when the attack on the Consulate occurred, a specific chain of command to gain verbal permission to move special-forces in must have occurred. SOCAFRICA commander Lieutenant Col. Gibson would have contacted a desk officer at the time, asking for that permission.

That desk officer would have called Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, then in command of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara. From there, Bristol would have made contact with Rear Admiral Brian Losey, then Commander of Special Operations Command Africa. Losey would have contacted four-star General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. AFRICOM at the time.  

“Ham answers directly to the President of the United States,” said the source. It wasn’t a low-level bureaucrat making the call, the source adamantly added.

A Confluence of #Evil: #Conspiracies of Silence…From #Arafat To #Benghazi

(U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel Jr.
who died by Arafat's hand)

(Adina Kutnicki) Welsh at the time was monitoring radio communications between Palestinian leaders in Beirut and the Sudanese capital. Audio tapes made in Cyprus and U.S. embassies in Beirut and Khartoum left no doubt that it was Arafat’s voice directing the operation from Feb. 28, 1973, – the day before the men were kidnapped – to their execution two days later.

Welsh believes the purpose of the initial cover-up was to prevent embarrassment to the State Department and the Richard Nixon White House. After Nixon was gone, the matter was kept quiet to protect the future viability of the NSA’s signals intercepts.
But ultimately, Welsh asserts, the cover-up persisted to protect Arafat’s role as a “peacemaker” and leader of the Palestinian cause.
If transcripts of the tapes had been released, it would have destroyed Arafat, Welsh believes.(MORE)

Hillary Clinton's hacked Benghazi emails sent to Russia Today

Hillary Clinton's hacked Benghazi emails sent to Russia Today.HT: RussiaToday.A hacker using the alias “Guccifer” was credited last week with compromising the AOL email account of Sidney Blumenthal, a64-year-old journalist who formerly worked as an assistant to then-President Bill Clinton. Now days after the security breach was first reported, Guccifer has supplied RT and a number of other media outlets and political figures with incredibly sensitive memos that were emailed to Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary, in the wake of last year’s terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Benghazi attacking militias return

Doc's Talk: Libya militia linked to US attack returns to Benghazi
Libya militia linked to US attack returns to Benghazi
REUTERS
LAST UPDATED: 02/17/2013

BENGHAZI - An Islamist militia linked to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi and kicked out of the city by locals is back openly manning checkpoints and building up support promising much-needed security.

Heavily bearded youths from Ansar al-Sharia control the western entrance into Libya's second biggest metropolis, patrol a hospital and check cars and trucks passing through another checkpoint in the south.

Witnesses say the group's members were at the scene of the Sept. 11 attack that killed the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans - though Ansar al-Sharia denied any involvement.

Days after the assault, outraged residents drove the group out of its bases in the city in a "Rescue Benghazi" protest.

The group's highly visible return, five months on, underlines the complex security situation on the ground two years after the start of the revolt that ousted Muammar Gaddafi.

The Terrifying Mindset of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Joseph Curl

Her words are already long gone from the daily flow; in fact, they never really resonated at all, were all but ignored by the mainstream media, and were characterized more as a feisty in-your-face comeback than what they truly were.
And what they truly were was horrifying — but at the same time a deep insight into the Democratic mindset, as well as a peek at what may be coming in 2016.
Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton finally appeared to answer questions before two congressional panels on exactly what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

That day, the consulate was overrun by heavily armed terrorists, some with rocket-propelled grenade launchers, others with high-powered assault weapons. They swept past the almost nonexistent security, killed the U.S. ambassador and set the building on fire. They followed when dozens of Americans fled to a more-heavily fortified annex nearby, but U.S. forces did nothing during the next 10 hours and three more were killed, including two Navy SEALs.
For weeks, the White House and top administration officials said the assault was merely a protest turned violent: The angry mass had gathered to protest a short video posted on YouTube that Muslims reportedly found offensive. It was, they said, spontaneous, and it was, they said, all about that video.
The hearing last week was a fact-finding mission: Lawmakers charged with oversight of the State Department gathered to ask the secretary of state — for the first time — what went wrong, and to find out, if possible, the cause of the deadly blunder. More, they wanted to hear from the secretary herself just why the administration had said for so long that a video caused an impromptu protest that led to the death of the U.S. ambassador.
Asked during a Senate hearing why they had given out faulty information for so long, Mrs. Clinton grew angry and, with her voice rising, her hands flailing, said: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?!”
And that, in a nutshell, sums up the frightening Democratic mindset. The administration had buried the matter for months in an internal investigation: No one from the White House to the State Department would comment on what happened, turning away queries with the simple: “It’s under investigation.” And they weren’t about to start explaining now.
Remember, the story had changed completely just hours before another congressional hearing months earlier. State Department officials, speaking with anonymity, had scrambled to hold a hastily-arranged conference call with reporters to say, in essence, “Oh, turns out it was terrorists, not just protesters, who attacked in Benghazi. And oh, nothing to do with any video.” That call came just before officials planned to tell a completely new story, but this time to lawmakers, where — as Mrs. Clinton learned after her husband’s affair with a White House intern — lying under oath is a felony.
So, lawmakers still wanted to know why the administration dispatched aides to the Sunday talk shows right after the deadly attack to say it was the culmination of a spontaneous attack over a video. Later, Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would say that they were merely offering up the best information at the time, but as information dribbed and drabbed out over the following months, it turned out that no one in the intelligence community ever said the attack was spontaneous or caused by a video posted on YouTube nearly six months earlier.
But Mrs. Clinton made clear at the hearing that she didn’t have to answer to anyone — certainly not elected lawmakers, let alone the American people. “What difference does it make?!” she bellowed. Now, this hearing was in fact a hearing intended to find out why the administration said the attack came after an impromptu protest over a video. Senators made clear in the days preceded the hearing that they planned to ask just that, get the answer to that most pressing unanswered question.
“You know, to be clear,” the secretary explained, as if to children, “it is, from my perspective, less important today, looking backwards, as to why these militants decided they did it [sic], than to find them and bring them to justice.”
So, from her perspective, there doesn’t need to be any investigation into why the administration said what it said. It’s like a child breaking a lamp, lying about it to his parents, and then saying, “Look, we could go on and on about who said what about breaking the lamp, but fixing the lamp now is really all that’s important — let’s move on.”
And that is terrifying. The secretary of state said simply, “The ends justify the means.” The Obama administration had lied about what happened in Benghazi to help secure a second term for the president, buried the murder of Americans in a private investigation, then, when finally questioned, said, “What difference does it make!?” what we said way back then.
The tactic is, of course, how Democrats operate. They feel that what they are doing is morally superior; thus, however they can achieve their goals is above question or reproach. In fact, in this case, they can lie about it — bald-faced — and then dismiss lawmakers’ questions with an indignant huff.
It is, as we know, exactly how the Clintons operate. Bill Clinton lied for weeks and months over his sexual dalliance with an intern only a few years older than his daughter — even under oath — and Democrats decried the probe as a witch hunt. Remember when Mrs. Clinton made $100,000 through spurious cattle futures contracts? Of course not: By the time it all came around, the Clintons said, “Oh, that old stuff?” Or the time the Clintons announced they had suddenly found papers demanded by investigators for years? And don’t even ask about Vincent W. Foster Jr.

This is what’s coming in 2016. A politician running for president who need not answer questions from anyone. And that truly is horrifying.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

cunt

Greta Van Susteren interviews #Hillary #Clinton about #MiddleEast ,Pres #Morsi and #Benghazi.

You see the way this feminist hussy is trying to spin why an insecure embassy was in Libya? We were giving the Muslim Brotherhood weapons, but Clinton spins it. We were there to keep the weapons from going to Israel? Those were our weapons. Wow... that takes some progressive chutzpah. The lies never... ever... ever... stop!

Video - Greta Van Susteren interviews Hillary Clinton about Middle East ,Pres Morsi and Benghazi.HT: BarrackNow. Greta brings up Morsi's 2010 comments, which included him saying the Jews were descendants of "apes and pigs", and that Egypt must "nurse its children on hatred of the Jews". A few hours before Greta's interview, reports came out that a close Morsi aid said the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews secretly moved to the U.S.
Hillary's response?
At the 1:58 mark, she says "We were quite concerned about those statements" and that "the Egyptian presidency has repudiated" the comments.
What more proof does one need that the Democratic Party has more contempt for Christians and conservatives than for the Muslim Brotherhood? Virtually the entire Barack Obama administration, for more than four years, has been engaged in class warfare that involves much more critical and relentless criticism of conservatives who haven't even come close to talking like Morsi.
At the 3:30 mark, when asked about Morsi personally, Hillary said:
"I think he has a lot of the right intentions".
Wait a minute. A leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who also happens to be the President of Egypt has pure intentions?! The intentions of the Brotherhood include the annihilation of Israel and establishing a global caliphate.

via mfs-theothernews.com

Hillary Clinton denies blaming free speech for Benghazi jihad massacre

"Hillary Clinton: ‘I Did Not Say That It Was About the Video for Libya,’" from Fox News, January 23 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified at the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, answering questions on the attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) pressed her on the anti-Islamic video that was originally blamed for the attack. “When you briefed us, you said unequivocally this was a result of a video and I remember in fact you got pretty upset about it when somebody suggested this was a terrorist attack.”
Clinton said, “I did not say … that it was about the video for Libya, it certainly was for many of the other places where we were watching these disturbances.”

Oh yes she did:

via jihadwatch.org

heh exact spot of internet video reference is around 8:45

Benghazi: Hillary Clinton Asks What Difference It Makes?

(The PJ Tatler » [VIDEO] Pressed for Answers on Her Response to the Benghazi Attack, Hillary Clinton Fumes ‘What Difference Does It Make?’)Most of the Senate Republicans tasked with questioning Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi failed to lay a glove on her. They never bothered to ask any questions regarding why she blamed the attack on a movie. Sen. Ron Johnson broke the pattern of weak questions, though, and asked Clinton about the talking points that the administration used after the attack to blame a YouTube movie. Clinton briefly flew into a rage.
h/t Washington Free Beacon

Rand Paul takes apart Hillary Clinton who should be screaming for ObamaCare: youtu.be/fxS8ptBzXPA?a via @youtube
— Wayne Dupree (@NewsNinja2012) January 23, 2013

What difference does it make Hillary asks? As if going over the process that led to the deaths could not avoid the death. Amb. Stevens was giving weapons to Muslim Brotherhood groups. Those weapons are showing up in the hostage crises in Algeria. Hillary seems to think that the only victims in Benghazi were the four that died there. There is a systematic problem. Obama and Hillary were allied with the Muslims and Obama is still running things... in fact Obama by nominating Hagel has become more determined then ever to ram his dangerous views of killers into permanent U.S. policy

Hillary Clinton Faints, Has Concussion

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sustained a concussion after becoming dehydrated and fainting, and will no longer testify Thursday before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Clinton had been suffering from a stomach virus at the time, according to a statement on Saturday from Philippe Reines, deputy assistant secretary of state.
She is being monitored by doctors and is recovering at home. She was never hospitalized, Reines said.
“At their recommendation, she will continue to work from home next week, staying in regular contact with Department and other officials. She is looking forward to being back in the office soon,” Reines said.
A senior State Department official added that the fainting occurred earlier in the week and the concussion was “not severe.”
Secretary Clinton had been scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill Thursday about the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, in September that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.
Jodi Seth, spokeswoman for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said in a statement that Clinton would not testify before that committee Thursday.

“Secretary Clinton’s team contacted Senator Kerry this morning to inform them of the Secretary’s concussion. Senator Kerry was relieved to hear that the Secretary is on the mend, but he insisted that given her condition, she could not and should not appear on Thursday as previously planned, and that the nation’s best interests are served by the report and hearings proceeding as scheduled with senior officials appearing in her place,” Seth said.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement it was “unfortunate” Clinton would not be testifying before her committee either on Thursday.
William Burns and Thomas Nides, both Deputy Secretaries of State, will testify before that committee instead.
“Although I respect Bill and Tom, we still don’t have information from the Obama administration on what went so tragically wrong in Benghazi,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “We have been combing classified and unclassified documents and have tough questions about State Department threat assessments and decision-making on Benghazi. This requires a public appearance by the Secretary of State herself.”
The September 11, 2012, attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, and called into question the security of U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad.
Source: CNN
{Matzav.com Newscenter}

via matzav.com