Jan. 23, 2013:
From Jan. 23, 2013, Hillary Clinton testimony before US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Benghazi:
(You Tube, screen shot). Meaning, what does it matter what caused the 9/11/2012 Benghazi attack, whether a spontaneous response to a video or a well planned attack by terrorists armed with rocket-propelled grenades. The "difference" is that a planned attack in a naturally violent area flooded with weapons was logical and would've been foreseen by a normal Secretary of State. The safety of all US consulates and embassies is an assigned duty of the office. What's "different" is seeing a human being, in this case a Sec. of State, so devoid of feeling about events Americans outside of Washington, DC consider unacceptable. Hillary knew she could say anything she wanted without fear of consequence since everyone in Washington, DC plays for the same team, the Washington, DC team.
=============
Below, a longer, :33 clip of the Jan. 23, 2013 exchange yielding Hillary Clinton's-"What difference at this point does it make" response:
Transcript of last part of Sen. Johnson-Hillary exchange, 1/23/2013:
"(Sen. Ron) Johnson (R-Wis): No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests [about a video] and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.
Mrs. Clinton: 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 who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary."
.............
.........
The May 8, 2013 Politifact article provides a transcript of Hillary's entire Jan. 23, 2013 exchange with Sen. Ron Johnson including the, "What difference at this point does it make?:"
May 8, 2013, "In Context: Hillary Clinton's 'What difference does it make' comment," Politifact, by Tom Kertscher
The Politifact article and transcript were published ahead of Hillary's May 2013 appearance before a House committee with the idea that her "What difference at this point does it make?" performance before the US Senate on Jan. 23, 2013 might be brought up. For those interested. For context, Politifact included a link to a May 5, 2013 CBS News article mentioning two sources with opposing views to "the video did it" view sold by Hillary and Obama. Although there had been many refutations of the "video" claim from day one, perhaps Politifact notes the 5/5/2013 CBS article because it mentions a House committee starting to look at Benghazi matters. Politifact may not be aware that "GOP House committee chairs" are nothing to fear for Hillary or Obama. They have the "chairman" jobs because they play for the team, ie the Washington DC team. Occasional soundbites or pretend outrages are just to fool the rubes.
Following is CBS News article linked by Politifact with two sources opposing "the video did it" talking point:
5/5/2013, "Official: We knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack "from the get-go"," CBS News,
investigators conducted with the No. 2 official in Libya at the time, obtained by CBS News' "Face the Nation."
"I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning," Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens - then the U.S. ambassador to Libya - and three other Americans.
When he appears this week before the committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Hicks is expected to offer testimony at odds with what some American officials were saying in public - and on "Face the Nation" - just five days after the attack. Benghazi whistleblowers have rallied attention to discrepancies among the administration's reaction to the attack....
On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice hit the media circuit, appearing on all five Sunday talk shows to dispel the notion that the strike was a premeditated terrorist act and to perpetuate the case that it began "spontaneously" out of protests in Egypt. Rice's spot on "Face the Nation" that day was preceded by the new President of Libya Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had "no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined."...
"...I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day," Hicks continued in his interview with investigators. "The net impact of what has transpired is, [Rice,] the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world, has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar of doesn't know what he's talking about. ....My jaw hit the floor as I watched this."...
One day after Rice's Sunday show blitz, Hicks said he called Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for near eastern affairs at the State Department, and asked, "Why did Amb. Rice say that?" The tone of her answer - "I don't know," he said - indicated that "I perhaps asked a question that I should not have asked."
The net impact of Rice's statements, Hicks said, was "immeasurable." On top of his personal belief that "the reason it took us so long to get the FBI to Benghazi is because of those Sunday talk shows," he said, Magariaf lost face "in front of not only his own people, but the world" at a time of democratic transition in his country....
Appearing on "Face the Nation" to address Hicks's remarks, chairman Issa agreed Sunday that the "fatal error" in a debacle that marked a "misinformation campaign at best, and a cover-up at worst," was tossing into the lurch the relationship between the United States and Libya.
"You can't insult a foreign leader in a greater way than happened literally here, just those few days later," Issa said. "Ambassadors know that the one thing you can't do is contradict your host, especially at a time when you need their cooperation....And we can't find the purpose. [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] should have been among - above all else - the person who was on the same sheet of music with the Libyan government, and she wasn't."
Issa said his committee's hearing this week will try to get to the heart of why "the talking points were right, and then the talking points were wrong." Though he said it might be "in part" a cover-up effort in light of the State Department having turned down requests from diplomats on the ground for heightened security, "it does seem like it's bigger than that."
"There was this normalization, sort of a mentality, where you had to pretend like things were safe; the war on terror was over," Issa said. "And that may have gone in a great way to getting people to say, 'Well, we can't call this a terrorist attack because then the war on terror is back alive.'
"Well... the war on terror is very much alive," he continued...hopefully, State Department people will feel at least they are being properly protected after this attack.""
...............................
===============
==============
Most embarrassing for America on 9/12/2012, Hillary appears to be mentally unbalanced:
9/12/2012, "State Department: Secretary Responsible for Security Failures," Breitbart, Ben Shapiro
"Today...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked: “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?” [This quote, 6 parags. from end]
That single line is the most damning indictment of Hillary Clinton’s State Department that could ever be penned. It demonstrates her complete lack of knowledge about the region, her failure to anticipate security threats, and worst of all, her willful ignorance about the Islamists that she and President Obama trusted to take over Libya and Egypt.
“How could this happen?”
Clinton, as Secretary of State, should know the answer to that question. That she didn’t anticipate even the remote possibility of the murder of our ambassador to Libya by her erstwhile friends led to his death. The Secretary of State is responsible for ensuring the security of our embassies and consulates and staff, as the State Department website plainly acknowledges:
The Secretary of State, and by extension, the Chief of Mission (COM), are responsible
for developing and implementing security policies and programs that
provide for the protection of all U.S. Government personnel (including
accompanying dependents) on official duty abroad. This mission is
executed through the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS). Personal and
facility protection are the most critical elements of the DS mission
abroad as they directly impact upon the Department’s ability to carry out its foreign policy. With
terrorist organizations and coalitions operating across international
borders, the threat of terrorism against U.S. interests remains great.
Therefore, any U.S. mission overseas can be a target even if identified
as being in a low-threat environment....
The evidence shows that despite ample evidence that Libyan Islamist terrorists were about to take action against US interests – including a taped message from Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released the day before the attacks, as well as a recent history of multiple attacks on diplomats in Benghazi — Hillary Clinton did nothing.
Actually, it’s worse than that: the consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed was an “interim facility” with zero Marines. None. Instead, it was staffed by Libyan security officers, who according to CBS News, told Ambassador Stevens to hide in a second building, then promptly directed the Islamist mob to him. He was murdered and dragged through the streets."...
===============
Added: There was plenty of warning before 9/11/2012:
9/12/2012, "US consulate attack in Libya: the warning signs were there in Benghazi," UK Telegraph, David Blair, Alex Spillius
"Evidence shows that armed groups in Benghazi have been trying to kill the representatives of Western countries for some time.
On June 11 (2012), a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at Sir Dominic
Asquith, the British ambassador, as he drove through the city. He was
unscathed, but two of his bodyguards were injured. Britain responded by
closing its diplomatic office in Benghazi and withdrawing all UK staff.
Five days earlier, unknown assailants had thrown an improvised explosive
device at the gates of the US consulate in the middle of the night,
causing no injuries.
As for the
theory that the fatal incident was sparked by the YouTube video, no
other protests of this kind are known to have occurred elsewhere in
Libya. No mob gathered outside the US Embassy in Tripoli, the usual base
of Chris Stevens, the late ambassador which, on the face of it, would
have been a more logical target....
A statement form the Quilliam Foundation, a counter-radicalisation think tank, suggested that the killing of the ambassador and his colleagues was a “well planned terrorist attack that would have occurred regardless of the demonstration”. A rocket-propelled grenade was fired during the assault on the diplomatic premises. As the Quilliam Foundation pointed out, these weapons are rare accessories “at a peaceful protest”....
A statement form the Quilliam Foundation, a counter-radicalisation think tank, suggested that the killing of the ambassador and his colleagues was a “well planned terrorist attack that would have occurred regardless of the demonstration”. A rocket-propelled grenade was fired during the assault on the diplomatic premises. As the Quilliam Foundation pointed out, these weapons are rare accessories “at a peaceful protest”....
Today, tens of thousands of armed men who fought in the war against Col Muammar Gaddafi’s regime are still on the streets. When the dictator fell last year, rebel militias had about 75,000 gunmen between them....
As recently as June (2012), a militia styling itself the “al-Awfea Brigade” surrounded Tripoli Airport, briefly forcing its closure.
Meanwhile, the fall of Gaddafi caused his arms dumps to be thrown open, flooding Libya with illegal weapons. Unsurprisingly, extremists from across the region seized their opportunity. “Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” the North African branch of bin Laden’s terror network, plundered this new source of weapons, becoming so well armed that it was able to capture 300,000 square miles of Mali earlier this year, in concert with local allies.
Libyan weapons have turned up as far away as Nigeria, flowing into the hands of Boko Haram, one of the most dangerous extremist groups in Africa. Israel believes that Libyan guns have even been smuggled into the Gaza Strip. As an unintended consequence of Gaddafi’s downfall, radicals from Algeria to Nigeria - and from Mali to the Sinai Peninsula - have become better armed and more dangerous.
Nowhere is this more true than inside Libya itself. In a country where the state is too weak to govern and guns are readily available, it was only a matter of time before anti-Western radicalism cost lives in Benghazi."
==================
================
CBS News article linked above, lack of security in Benghazi guaranteed the outcome:
9/12/2012, "Assault on U.S. consulate in Benghazi leaves 4 dead, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens," CBS/AP
"Al-Sharef (a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi) said there had been threats that Islamic militants might try to take revenge for the death of al Qaeda's No. 2 commander Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan in June (2012), and he said the U.S. consulate should have been better protected.
Confirming al-Libi's death for the first time in a video posted online Monday, al Qaeda chief Ayman Al-Zawahri called on Muslim's in al-Libi's native Libya to take revenge for his death.
Al-Sharef said the Libyan guards employed to guard the consulate building were far outgunned by the protesters, and thus retreated when the building was stormed....
There have been indications in recent months that radical, armed Islamic groups have gained a foothold in Libya since the fall of the Qaddafi regime."...
==================
After 9/11/2012 Benghazi attack, Hillary and Obama go on tv in the Middle East and blame the attacks on a US made anti-Muslim video:
9/21/2012, "Obama, Clinton Appear In Pakistani TV Ad Condemning Anti-Islam Film," Real Clear Politics
"Pakistani TV is airing an ad showing clips of US President Barack Obama condemning an anti-Islam film made in the US, which has sparked violent protests across the Muslim world.
...........
The United States has paid Pakistani television $70-thousand dollars to run advertisements about a controversial US-made film."
...................................
...............................
9/13/2012: Hillary blames US made video for Benghazi attacks in speech to Moroccan dignitaries meeting in Washington, DC:
"Remarks at the Opening Plenary of the U.S.-Morocco Strategic Dialogue," state.gov
"I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly – and I hope it is obvious – that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.
To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms, and we greatly appreciate that many Muslims in the United States and around the world have spoken out on this issue.
Violence, we believe, has no place in religion and is no way to honor religion. Islam, like other religions, respects the fundamental dignity of human beings, and it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. As long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name of religion, the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace. It is especially wrong for violence to be directed against diplomatic missions. These are places whose very purpose is peaceful: to promote better understanding across countries and cultures. All governments have a responsibility to protect those spaces and people, because to attack an embassy is to attack the idea that we can work together to build understanding and a better future.
Now, I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. Now, I would note that in today’s world with today’s technologies, that is impossible. But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law, and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be.
There are, of course, different views around the world about the outer limits of free speech and free expression, but there should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable. We all – whether we are leaders in government, leaders in civil society or religious leaders – must draw the line at violence. And any responsible leader should be standing up now and drawing that line."...
...................................
Additional citation for Hillary blaming a video:
Jan. 29, 2015, "Hillary Clinton’s ‘WMD’ moment: U.S. intelligence saw false narrative in Libya," Wash. Times (article about US 2011 war on Libya in which Hillary was also involved) p. 3, "Along with other administration officials, Mrs. Clinton falsely blamed that attack, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, on an anti-Islam video."...
===========
==================
.................
No comments:
Post a Comment