What Trey Gowdy Intends to Do About Benghazi Proves Why He’s a Great Leader

Perhaps the saddest part of Barack Obama’s presidency is that while most conservatives could easily see his promise of “hope’n’change” to be absolute malarkey, his willingness to betray the American public by operating as the most secretive president this nation has ever had has surely surprised even the most ardent conservatives.

In essence, while so many of us expected more of the same kind of covert governance, as president, Obama has operated more closely akin to Soviet-era officials than to anything remotely resembling a modern president.

Tea Party Congressman Trey Gowdy intends to upturn Obama’s apple cart by shining a spotlight on the Obama Administration’s failures with regards to Benghazi.

Obama could be remembered as “The Teflon Tyrant” as nothing appears to ever stick. With a complicit media coupled with a radicalized Democrat Party enjoying the full cooperation of the moderate faction of the GOP, the Obama Administration has had little reason to fear the public learning the truth about what happened in Benghazi, at the IRS, in Fast and Furious and a variety of other treasonous offenses.

All that is about to change if former prosecutor Trey Gowdy has his way.

After Congress returns from their recess, the investigative committee to learn the truth about Benghazi will be underway. Gowdy has already claimed that he will subpoena Hillary Clinton and while whether or not she will be forced to testify remains unclear, she is most-certainly unlikely to release her personal Benghazi notes without a fight.

Gowdy has also maintained that he will not be putting on a show, but will, in fact, be thorough in his investigation. According to The Hill:

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Tuesday laughed off the idea that the House select committee investigating the events surrounding the 2012 Benghazi, Libya, attack would finish its work before the midterm elections.

“No. Heavens no,” said Gowdy, who is chairman of the committee, in an interview with ABC News. “I have decided that I would rather be right than first. So we are going to do it methodically, professionally.”

Gowdy said the committee would hold its first public hearing in September, after members return from the August recess.
It will touch on the State Department’s Accountability Review Board recommendations, and how well they have been implemented in the wake of the attack that killed three Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Gowdy said there will be other public hearings, but the committee would do most of its work in private.

“I can get more information in a five-hour deposition than I can [in] five minutes of listening to a colleague asking questions in a committee hearing,” he said.

He added: “My view of public hearings — if there is a factual discrepancy, then the jury or our fellow citizens need to hear both sides, and they can determine where the greater weight or credibility is. But if there is a consensus on a point, there really is not any reason to litigate that in public.”

Democrats have tried to downplay the importance of the committee, but in truth, this is the first time a select committee has been appointed to investigate the terrorist attack that left four Americans dead and that was shrugged-off by the Obama Administration.

Gowdy doesn’t seem to care if people are heavily-invested in his committee or if he makes headlines.

“You want to get on the news, go rob a bank,” Gowdy matter-of-factly stated.

In May, Trey Gowdy shredded the mainstream media in their failure to properly investigate what should be an outrage. After scolding the press for several minutes, Gowdy reminded:

“Congress is supposed to provide oversight, the voters are supposed to provide oversight, and you were supposed to provide oversight. That’s why you have special liberties and that’s why you have special protections.”

[H/T TPNN]

Benghazi attack suspect captured, en route to US

EXCLUSIVE: A suspected terrorist linked to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack that killed four Americans has been captured inside Libya by U.S. forces and currently is en route to the United States, Fox News has learned. 

Sources told Fox News that the suspect, Ansar al-Sharia commander Ahmed Abu Khattala, was captured Sunday during a joint U.S. military and law enforcement operation, and will face prosecution in the United States.

President Obama signed off on the mission on Friday night, Fox News is told. Khattala was captured south of Benghazi by U.S. special operators and is on his way to the U.S. aboard a Navy ship.

Khattala was long thought to be one of the ringleaders of the deadly attack, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died. He had openly granted media interviews since the 2012 attack, but until now evaded capture.

The capture marks the first time the United States has caught one of the suspects in the 2012 assault.

“He didn’t know what hit him,” one source told Fox News of the capture. According to sources, there was no firefight — a small Special Forces team with one FBI agent took part in the mission.

Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby confirmed the capture in a brief statement late Tuesday morning, calling Khattala a “key figure in the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi.”

Kirby said: “There were no civilian casualties related to this operation, and all U.S. personnel involved in the operation have safely departed Libya.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called the development an “important milestone.”

The administration has faced sustained criticism from some in Congress and the families of the victims over the fact that no one had been brought to justice since that day in 2012.

State Department official Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were also killed during the attack.

[H/T Fox News]

NBC and CBS Praise Hillary Clinton Being ‘On Offense’ Over Benghazi

On Friday, both NBC’s Today and CBS This Morning dutifully promoted quotes from Hillary Clinton’s new memoir leaked to Politico of the former Secretary of State blasting critics of her mishandling of the Benghazi terrorist attack. Today co-host Savannah Guthrie proclaimed: “If there was any doubt Hillary Clinton’s clearly ready to go on offense on this.” Political director Chuck Todd agreed: “There’s no doubt at all. In fact, there’s a concerted campaign effort.”

On CBS This Morning, correspondent Nancy Cordes declared: “…the former Secretary of State strikes a defiant tone about the attack and all the investigations into it…” Moments later, Cordes observed: “Democrats are going to see this as a kind of template for how to talk about the Benghazi attacks. In fact, the Clinton team is reportedly meeting with Democratic groups to explain her tone in the book so that everyone is on the same page.”

http://www.mrctv.org/embed/127365

Todd similarly noted on Today: “I know of Hillary Clinton advisers have been meeting with Democratic strategists around town here in Washington to go back and forth, let them know what’s in this Benghazi chapter. Now, of course, the public knows.”

Todd also applauded Clinton’s “strategy” in pushing the memoir: “She’s sitting down with Fox News – which has been one of the news organizations that’s been riding this Benghazi story more than anybody – because they [Clinton’s team] want to get this out of the way now….They don’t want Benghazi hanging over her head and these questions and the investigations during when the campaign actually begins.”

Both Guthrie and Cordes recited Clinton’s talking points from the book:

I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me….Many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered questions. But there is a difference between unanswered questions and unlistened to answers.

Following the report from Cordes, This Morning co-host Charlie Rose made sure to squeeze in one more bit of spin: “You should note…that the Secretary says that some people that night were motivated by the video and others were not. They were motivated by two different things.”

Cordes briefly summarized the GOP response: “Republicans are gonna say that she’s trying to get out of discussing this issue, both before Congress and on the campaign trail.” Guthrie and Todd didn’t bother with such criticism. Neither broadcast featured a quote from a single Republican.

ABC’s Good Morning America skipped Clinton’s Benghazi commentary completely, but did find time to tout a “secret off-the-books meeting between Hillary Clinton and President Obama at the White House” that “prompts new talk of [a] presidential run.”

[H/T News Busters]

O’Reilly on Benghazi: Obama Admin Is ‘Completely Derelict and the Press Doesn’t Give a Damn’

(Fox News Insider) – The Benghazi scandal keeps getting bigger – that was the subject of Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points Memo. During a House Oversight Committee hearing today, retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell testified about why the United States military didn’t respond to the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans.

Henry Presses Carney: ‘If WH Email Wasn’t About Benghazi, Why Was It Released?’

Lovell testified that it was clear early on that the attack was terror-related and not a demonstration in response to an anti-Islamic film.

On The Factor, O’Reilly said the Obama administration created a fiction to mislead the country. In a newly released White House email, top adviser Ben Rhodes wrote that then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice should emphasize on the Sunday talk shows that the protests were in response to a movie.

After the memo became public through a FOIA request for Benghazi documents, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the email was about Benghazi. He said Rice was speaking to the broader environment in the Middle East, even though she went on the Sunday talk shows soon after the September 11, 2012 attack.

Watch the latest video at video.insider.foxnews.com“While Carney may think the press corps is stupid, he knows the press corps doesn’t care and that’s why he says these outrageous things,” O’Reilly said. “He knows the coverage will be minimal except on Fox News.”

The Factor host noted that news broadcasts and newspapers either ignored the story or had minimal coverage of Benghazi yesterday.

“Talking Points is angry. The Obama administration was completely derelict in the Benghazi terror attack, and was dishonest in the aftermath. And the national press doesn’t give a damn?! Disgraceful,” O’Reilly said.

“So let me break it down again,” O’Reilly continued. “According to Gen. Lovell’s testimony today, the U.S. military made no attempt to defend the Americans under siege because they were not asked to do.”

He went on to say that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama have some explaining to do.

Lovell also said today, “We didn’t know how long this would last when we became aware of the distress nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us.”

Based on that testimony, O’Reilly noted that the attack could have been larger and no forces were mobilized to save people under siege.

“That’s shocking. See that’s what the story’s all about. The failure of the U.S. government to protect Americans under fire in Benghazi and then after the fact trying to say, ‘oh, the killers weren’t organized terrorists,’” O’Reilly said.

For reaction to the Talking Points Memo, Bill was joined by Col. David Hunt and Lt. Col. Ralph Peters.

Peters said there may have been an order from the White House to stand down and not help the Americans under attack.

O’Reilly said the question that needs to be asked of former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey is “did someone tell you not to get a rescue mission up and running.”

Peters believes that the military was put on a short leash by the president because, “Even if you do not think there’s one chance in hell you can rescue those Americans, you try. You try. You go after them.”

[H/T FoxNewsInsider]

Joe Scarborough Eviscerates Donny Deutsch’s ‘Disgraceful’ Defense of White House on Benghazi

(News Busters) – On Thursday’s MSNBC Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough annihilated liberal pundit Donny Deutsch’s attempt to defend the Obama White House over emails showing a cover-up of the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack: “I got everybody here apologizing for the White House. What about a cover-up here, Donny?!…what’s the politics of the White House lying about something that we all know they’re lying about?”

Deutsch actually tried to spin the Democratic scandal as bad for Republicans: “I want to put up a warning for the Republicans because obviously the Republicans are seizing on this and jumping in. I think this is fools gold for 2016.” Scarborough tore into him: “Why are you jumping to political strategy instead of talking….about what [White Press Secretary] Jay Carney did, the double speak?!”

http://www.mrctv.org/embed/126840

Citing Carney’s claim that the recently released emails were not about Benghazi, Scarborough slammed the administration:

Jay Carney is saying it’s not about Benghazi when you know it’s about Benghazi! And we know it’s about Benghazi. And Chuck Todd knows it’s about Benghazi. And he [pointing to Mike Barnicle] knows it’s about – everybody watching knows it’s about Benghazi. And you’re talking about how the Republicans – you see the White House spokesperson lying on national television. You see an ABC News person [Jonathan Karl] shocked that he’s lying and treating the press corps and Americans like their stupid, he’s says it’s not about Benghazi.

Republicans and conservatives have been called fools for a year now for saying this happened. They don’t release it with the original documents that are released. They finally reluctantly are forced to release it. Then you have the White House lying about it yesterday saying it’s not about Benghazi. And your only reaction is, “Hey, Republicans better not overreact to the cover-up.”

Deutsch argued: “My reaction is this, that we as voters understand both Republicans and Democrats are political animals and are going to manage a crisis in their situation to their favor.”

Scarborough shot back:

So when Democrats cover something up, it’s politics. When Republicans cover something up, it’s a scandal. It would be on the front page of The New York Times. It would be on the front page of every newspaper in America. But when Democrats cover up, you think it’s shrewd political gamesmanship. That’s a disgrace, Donny. It’s a disgrace. This is disgraceful.

Deutsch again predicted trouble for the GOP on the issue: “I am saying that if the Republicans bite, it’s a stupid move. And what I just said I will stand by.”

An exasperated Scarborough declared: “What about the media biting? What about the media doing their job? What about the media calling a cover-up a cover-up?!” Deutsch laughably replied: “The media has covered this.”

After the contentious exchange, even liberal co-host Mika Brzezinski went after Deutsch:

Now, come on. It’s either they were covering up something or they forgot to release the email. The question we have now is whether they released other prep emails for Susan Rice and where Hillary Clinton stands on all of this. And that may serve the Republicans very well if they don’t have good answers.

[H/T NewsBusters: Kyle Drennen]

Obama Promises to Get to the Bottom of the Ft. Hood Shooting — Just Like He Got to the Bottom of Benghazi

(Rush Limbaugh) – BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Well, President Obama says he’s gonna get to the bottom of the Fort Hood shooting, just like he got to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.  He’s gonna get to the bottom of what happened at the Fort Hood shooting.  Don’t worry.  Obama will protect us all.  Obama is gonna get to the bottom of what happened, when he finishes this fundraiser, and then the next fundraiser, where he’s gonna complain and moan about Republican money in campaigns.  He’s not gonna be worried, though, about Ron Burkle money or David Geffen money or George Soros money.  He’s only gonna be worried about Koch brother money.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Now, let’s delve into the Fort Hood shooting.  We also want sound bite 22 at the end of this, Mike.  I just got that one.  We’re gonna start here with General John McHugh.  This morning in Washington on Capitol Hill during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the 2015 Army budget request, the Army General John McHugh testified and had this to say, his opening remarks, about the Fort Hood shooter, Specialist Ivan Lopez.

MCHUGH:  He was undergoing a variety of treatment and diagnoses for mental health conditions ranging from depression to anxiety to some sleep disturbance.  He was prescribed a number of drugs to address those, including Ambien.

RUSH:  Sounds like a Kennedy, in a way.  I mean, what was it, Patrick Kennedy, Ambien, driving down the median late at night after a session of Congress.  You know what I find one of the most ironic things is that on an Army base, Army, folks, they don’t allow people to run around armed.  Army base!  I mean, there you have the life lesson.  It happened again.  The original Fort Hood shooter, jihad, although not stated, but it was.  Allahu Akbar, you had jihad going on.  Nobody was able to stop the original shooter ’til somebody showed up that was armed.  One of the reasons it happened in the first place, the shooter knew that nobody else was armed.  It’s classic.  The assumption being if you put guns in the place, they’re all gonna be fired, because everybody’s a rotgut when you give ’em a gun.

Here’s another example.  The only guy with a gun was the bad guy, on an Army base.  Well, I mean, it’s a clear illustration of how political correctness on the left totally distort common sense and reality everywhere in our culture.  Here’s Carol Costello.  You should have seen the coverage on CNN this morning.  They’re just beside themselves. How can this happen?  There weren’t any guns. What can we do about it? It’s horrible, it’s horrible, every shooting we talk about mental illness and they don’t pass any laws.  Well, we used to have plenty, Carol, we used to have plenty of laws on mental illness, but they were deemed discriminatory against the mentally ill, so we had to get rid of ’em.

That’s why there are homeless people dumpster diving and living under shopping carts and so forth, because we’ve deinstitutionalized them in the name of their freedom and privacy.  I think this country has a collective mental illness when it comes to looking to government for answers to everything.  You want to talk about insanity, the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.  The genuine mental illness that we have is this seemingly nationwide belief that government is the solution to every problem, even the ones that government costs.

COSTELLO:  We always talk about dealing with the issue of mental illness in this country and nothing happens.  There have been so many instances of a mentally ill person who somehow got a hold of a gun and then participated in a mass shooting, and no law changes, nothing happens, nothing changes.

RUSH:  What’s supposed to change?  The government’s in charge, Carol.  This is not supposed to happen at all because the government’s making the laws.  Or not, as the case may be.  We keep looking for the wrong people to fix things like this.  Whoever is in charge of this rule that nobody on an Army base can bear arms, sorry, that just defies common sense.  It’s just absolutely silly. It’s totally reactionary and it’s rooted in the belief that if take guns away from everybody that you’ll get rid of gun violence. And here’s the second, the third, the fifth, the 15th, the 20,000th incident where we disprove that.

Take guns away from everybody and we’re not supposed to have any gun incidents, are we?  And yet people who intend to get guns and do harm with them always seem to find a way, whether there’s a law against it or not.  Mental health laws, we’re supposed to have laws that would stop this insane guy from doing this, or this disturbed guy from doing this.  If he’s disturbed he doesn’t even know what the law is and he doesn’t care what the law is.  The law doesn’t stop anything from happening.  The law doesn’t prevent murder. The law doesn’t prevent bank robbing. The law doesn’t stop anything.  It’s a moral marker. It’s a social marker. It’s a mechanism for meting out punishment, and in some cases it’s a deterrent, but not very often.

Last night, Anderson Cooper 195, fill-in host John Berman speaking with a White House correspondent from CNN, Michelle Kosinski, about the latest shooting.  John Berman said, “Michelle, give us some details how the president learned and the response.”

KOSINSKI:  I think many of us remember seeing those pictures of the president and Mrs. Obama at the memorial service for those 13 shot in 2009.  He delivered the eulogy for that.  Some describe that as one of his strongest speeches.  So he, too, obviously was affected, calling this heartbreaking.

RUSH:  Are you kidding me?  This is about Obama?  Of all the things that happened with the Fort Hood shooter in 2009 we’re supposed to remember Obama’s speech?  Nobody remembers that.  Did any of you?  When you heard about another shooting at Fort Hood what was the first thing that came to your mind?  I guarantee you the first thing that came to your mind: “Uh-oh, was it terrorism? Is it another terrorist? Was it more jihad?”  You didn’t think, “Oh, my God, Obama, what’s he doing? Oh, my God, I remember Obama’s wonderful speech, oh, my God, what is Obama gonna do?”  That isn’t what you were thinking.  You were thinking, “Another terrorist incident at Fort Hood?”  CNN thinks you were thinking about Obama, what a wonderful speech.

Here’s Jay Carney.  I have time to squeeze this in.  This afternoon the press secretary in a daily briefing.  Question:  “Do you have any updates on Fort Hood, Jay, has the president been briefed this morning?  Is there any new information?  What’s Obama think?  What’s Obama doing?  How does it affect Obama?”

CARNEY:  Last night the president convened a conference call with Department of Defense and FBI leadership while aboard Air Force One. He received another update this morning during the presidential daily briefly.

RUSH:  Oh, good.

CARNEY:  The president will continue to receive updates as new —

RUSH:  Good.

CARNEY:  — information comes available —

RUSH:  Right.

CARNEY:  — and has directed that his team do everything it can to assist the families of the lost and wounded.

RUSH:  The president, he’s been told, is getting updates. He’s getting on the airplane, going to a fundraiser, in fact, I think, with rich Democrats that nobody seems worried are involved in politics.

END TRANSCRIPT

[H/T RushLimbaugh]

Why Hillary Will Get Away With Benghazi

The issue of Benghazi and the September 11, 2012 attacks remains alive and well.

(Western Journalism) – No matter how many times it is called “phony” or the administration blames Fox News for keeping the scandal alive, the issue of Benghazi and the September 11, 2012 attacks remains alive and well. And this fact is damaging to presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State under President Barack Obama. A recent Pew Research Center/USA Today poll ranked the death of those four Americans that night in Benghazi as the “worst thing about the career of [Hillary] Clinton,” followed by her husband’s affair, according to Bloomberg this March.

The Democratic establishment has started to complain that this is Republican politicking because of Clinton’s unannounced, but presumed, candidacy. But the issue cuts both ways: the Democratic establishment has a glaring conflict of interest when it comes to finding out the truth about the Benghazi attacks because they don’t want some of their own tarnished in the process.

“The total cost of compliance with Benghazi-related congressional requests sent to the department and other agencies is estimated to be in the millions of dollars,” stated the Pentagon in a March 11 letter, according to the Associated Press.

“Congressional Republicans have been relentless in investigating the attack, arguing that the Obama administration misled the American people about a terror attack during the heat of the presidential campaign,” reports the Associated Press. “The GOP is determined to press ahead, especially since the assault on the mission occurred during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.” This manufactured public relations framework is aided by the fact that the House GOP established a website dedicated to the investigation into the Benghazi attacks, and has released a number of reports that are authored by the House majority without input from their increasingly alienated minority Congressional partners.

But the converse remains true. Why hasn’t the Democratic leadership forged ahead on the Benghazi issue to investigate and then close it once and for all? There are real issues that remain to be settled in this controversy, such as why the security was so inadequate at the U.S. Mission that night despite escalating threats, and why the military was so poorly positioned on the anniversary of September 11, 2001. One must ask whether this reluctance comes because the investigation might harm those in power at the time—President Obama and Hillary Clinton?

And if the Republicans are engaged in a “witch-hunt,” as Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA)—who solicited the Pentagon letter—contests, why, then, has House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) refused to create a Select Committee to investigate the scandal despite ongoing pressure from a number of groups and even relatives of the deceased?

“Instead, media consumers are left with the narrative that this is a political battle rather than a search for the truth, and that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his Oversight and Government Reform Committee are composed of belligerent politicians who care little about decorum or etiquette,” I wrote for Accuracy in Media back in October last year. “(That, according to Politico, seemed to be the greater takeaway.)” And the same messaging has continued to this day.

Now this issue is heating up, and the complicit media are quick to promote the party in power’s message. “A House Republican chairman is doggedly pursuing the question of whether military personnel were told to ‘stand down’ during the 2012 deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya,” reported the Associated Press on March 28. “The panel’s persistence on an issue the military considers settled underscores that Republicans have no plans to relent in their politically charged investigation of the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans as President Barack Obama sought re-election that fall” (emphasis added).

In the MSNBC piece “Some Conspiracy Theories Aren’t Cheap,” Steve Benen writes that “These GOP lawmakers aren’t just spinning their wheels, looking for election gimmicks; they’re wasting our resources.” Politico says that Benghazi has “become a catchphrase signifying conservative suspicion of the Obama administration” and reports that all 17 Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee “demand” that Chairman Darrell Issa end his probe into the attacks.

Politico’s John Bresnahan also made sure to mention the Hillary connection. “Democrats privately believe that Issa is using Benghazi to try to hurt Clinton’s possible presidential ambitions in 2016,” he reports. At least Bresnahan was more honest; he reports the source of such complaints as being with the party in power instead of placing the blame on the GOP for politicizing the issue, as Businessweek and the Associated Press did.

“[Oversight spokesman Frederick] Hill said the reason the panel continues to probe the attacks—as well as pursues its investigation into allegations that the IRS improperly targeted conservative nonprofit groups—is because the Obama administration has turned it into a battle between the committee and the administration’s legal teams, slowing down the process dramatically while exponentially increasing costs,” reports Bresnahan. So the fight goes both ways. The media shouldn’t excuse the administration in the process.

[H/T WesternJournalism: Bethany Stotts]

America deserves better than Clintons

(WND) – Exclusive: Kathleen Willey suggests Hillary ‘consider retreating from public life’

“What difference does it make?”

Indeed, Madam Secretary, Madam Senator, former first lady and FLOA, it makes a very big difference.

The last time we saw Hillary Clinton as our secretary of state, she was testifying before a congressional committee about Benghazi. During that meeting on Jan. 22, 2013, we heard her shriek, “What difference does it make?”

Earlier, right before one of the presidential debates, on Oct. 15, 2012, Hillary stated during a series of interviews that she, as secretary of state, was responsible for the security of the embassy staff. “The buck stops here.”

I remember being so surprised when I heard it, but I was immediately suspicious.

Nothing – absolutely nothing – is happenstance in the Clintons’ world. Everything they do or say is weighed, measured, practiced and tested. Taking responsibility for anything is rare for them, so I waited for follow-up, the next step. Of course, there was none. It was only a symbolic gesture as the head of her department. Saying it is easy. Doing something about it is a whole different matter. To make it stick, problems needed to be identified and corrected.

Did Hillary do any of that? Did she find the security lapses and beef up what should have been beefed up in the first place? Did she interview any of the staff? How about the members of their security force? Did she ask for and receive follow-up reports from witnesses who were in the embassy compound that night?

What difference does it make? It certainly makes a difference to the families and friends of the four men who died that night. When their bodies came home to Andrew Air Force Base, there was a grand display of solidarity and support for the families of the fallen, with Obama and Hillary leading the delegation of government and military officials. Looking oh-so distraught and sympathetic as she met with the families, she continued to blame the entire uprising on “that anti-Muslim video,” and she looked into the eyes of those families and vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice. Some may say that kind of follow-up should be in the hands of the “proper” authorities, not “hands on” by the secretary of state. Maybe. She made a promise. As a mother herself, she looked into the eyes of those mothers and promised results. So far, she’s done nothing but send up trial balloons about running for president. There are no committees, no valid reports, no interviews, nothing. Her word means nothing.

One has to wonder why the Benghazi attack happened at all. All of our embassies throughout the world are considered to be on American soil, and they are treated as such. They might as well be a government agency on Pennsylvania Avenue. Most of the people on staff are American citizens, and their safety is the responsibility of the State Department. In these troubled times and in the midst of terrorist threats, safety and security take priority.

Is there one amongst us who will never forget certain dates and events that helped shape our country? The assassinations of JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King. Oklahoma City. The Boston Marathon. We suffered our worst terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001. Most of the players are government employees working in government agencies. They should be a lot more attuned to these very significant anniversaries than most. It boggles the mind that no one, from the secretary of state to even a single janitor, did not take note of the fact that the anniversary of the worst act of terrorism on American soil was fast approaching, and it might have been prudent to remind everyone in the complex of that.

We may never know what really happened in Benghazi, but we owe it to the victims’ families and our country to find the truth. Mrs. Clinton does know what happened and, so far, she has been able to avoid telling it. If it is revealed that she played a major part in the demise of our four patriots, as we suspect she did, she might want to consider retreating from public life once and for all and, together with her husband, play the role of senior stateswoman.

We have all become weary of the Clintons and their dysfunctional family drama. We deserve better.

[H/T WND: Kathleen Willey]

About Kathleen Willey: In 1992, then-Democratic activist Kathleen Willey helped send Bill and Hillary Clinton to the White House. While serving as a volunteer in the White House, Willey met with Bill Clinton in the Oval Office to request a paying position. Instead of offering assistance, she said he sexually assaulted her.

More troubling revelations about Benghazi: CIA never conducted investigation

(Allen B. West) – Just when you thought questions and controversy surrounding the Benghazi terror attack couldn’t get any worse, something else pops up.

American personnel on the ground in Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack are outraged after learning that the CIA’s inspector general never conducted an investigation into what happened — despite two CIA workers being killed in the attack and despite at least two complaints being filed by CIA employees, reports Adam Housley of Fox News.

I’d like to believe that since the CIA annex in Benghazi came under attack, the Inspector General of the CIA would want to conduct an investigation of the incident – at the very least to ascertain lessons learned or compile an after action report.

But apparently that’s not the case, and it’s quite disconcerting.

A CIA spokesman said the OIG (Office of the Inspector General) has already “explained fully” to the agency’s congressional oversight committees “why it did not open an investigation into Benghazi-related issues.” In any event, the CIA spokesman said the concerns full under the purview of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB), and that a separate OIG action could unnecessarily disrupt the FBI’s criminal investigation into the Benghazi attacks.

I find it unconscionable that the CIA would defer to the State Department or even the Department of Justice on a matter directly involving their own agency.

Perhaps the Obama administration has a tighter control over State and Justice — after all, Benghazi occurred under the watch of Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder. It’s well known now that the ARB investigation was quite incomplete – as a matter of fact, it didn’t even include an interview with the Secretary of State Clinton — but then again, “what difference at this point does it make?”

Housley points out separate investigations haven’t stopped the OIG from investigating issues before. Agents at the CIA are apparently upset, frustrated and wondering why this issue remains untouched.

Congressman Frank Wolf’s House Resolution 36, calling for a select committee on Benghazi, now has 187 cosponsors — all Republican unfortunately — and it still has not been brought to the House floor for a vote. There are only two people preventing this legislation from coming to the floor for a vote: Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Speaker John Boehner. The committee hearing process has failed, and in the case of the IRS scandal investigation, has turned into a circus.

The fact remains that four Americans were abandoned to die in Benghazi, and no one in a position to do anything about it in Washington D.C. seems to give a damn.

[H/T Allen B. West]

Why Ex-CIA Deputy Director May Be ‘a Co-Conspirator with Al-Qaeda’

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Yet another tree falls for the Obama Administration.

If former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell lied to administration officials when altering the Benghazi talking points, he became a ‘co-conspirator with al-Qaeda’ according to Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, who appeared on Fox and Friends this morning to discuss these developments.

Shaffer is a winner of the Bronze Star and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal who also helped lead the Able Danger program that is said to have identified lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta one year before the attack on the World Trade Center.

[H/T Walid Shoebat]