Wellllllllll...lookeeee here...the return of the IHOP 'wizard-of-smart'. Welcome back Mr. Oracle. Obviously the proctologist's operation was successful eh?
Is this true? Have certain people been threatened because of information they are willing to provide to Congressional investigators?
The State Dept says they've investigated fully, so "... that should be enough."
Fox interview with an "operator".
Last night on Fox Special Report, their correspondent, Adam Housley, interviewed an unidentified special operator -- face was blacked out, voice changed for the interview -- about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi. And during the interview the special operator said this about the attack.
WHISTLEBLOWER: I know for a fact that C-110, the UCOM SIF, was doing a training exercise not in the region of northern Africa, but in Europe, and they had the ability to react and respond. We had the ability to load out, get on birds, and fly there at a minimum stage. C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in four to six hours from their European theater to react.rator" in the area around Benghazi:
WHISTLEBLOWER: They would have been there before the second attack. They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that could facilitate their exfill out of the problem situation. Nobody knew how it was going to develop. And you hear a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of advisors say hey, we wouldn’t have sent them there because the security was unknown situation. ... at a minimum you send forces there to facilitate the exfill or medical injuries. We could have sent a C-130 to Benghazi to provide medical evacuation for the injured.
Housley then said, "So you say many connected to Benghazi feel threatened, they're afraid to talk? So far, confidential sources have fed some information, but nobody's come forward publicly on camera until now."
WHISTLEBLOWER: The problem is, you know, you got guys in my position, you got guys in the special operations community who are still active and still involved, and they would be decapitated if they came forward with information that could affect high level commanders.
President Obama said he is unaware of longstanding efforts by Republican lawmakers to question survivors of the Benghazi attacks but pledged to investigate the issue.“I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody has been blocked from testifying,” the president said during a White House news conference on Tuesday. “So what I’ll do is I will find out what exactly you’re referring to.”
Obama’s pledge to find out more came as officials at the State Department pushed back against allegations -- first aired Monday on Fox News -- that career employees at the agency have been threatened if they furnish new information about the Benghazi attacks to members of Congress.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2S3k7ipd9
I have to believe that POTUS gets daily briefings on multiple issues in the news. While the mainstream media may not be giving this issue coverage, certainly the administration staff would be aware of what's going on. Why would the staff not keep the POTUS informed of this activity when they knew he would be giving a press conference?
He seemed to keep better informed about the Trayvon Martin case than about the developments following the Benghazi incident.
They've released the names of three of the whistle-blowers from the State Dept. on the Benghazi matter.
One of them had already testified: (one of the few people who testified back then who showed any outrage at the way the event was handled by DC)
Nordstrom previously testified before the oversight committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in October 2012. Of the three witnesses, he is the only one who does not consider himself a whistleblower. At last fall's hearing, however, Nordstrom made headlines by detailing for lawmakers the series of requests that he, Ambassador Stevens, and others had made for enhanced security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in the period preceding the attacks, requests mostly rejected by State Department superiors.
"For me the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building," Nordstrom testified, angry over inadequate staffing at a time when the threat environment in Benghazi was deteriorating,
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2SNuraU3Y
From National Review, May 5, 2013:
A top-ranking diplomat in Libya is set to testify that the Americans on the ground at the diplomatic facility in Benghazi believed from the outset that, contrary to the claims of administration officials, the September 11 attack was carried out by terrorists. CBS’s Face the Nation this morning revealed portions of an interview that the diplomat, 22-year State Department veteran Gregory Hicks, gave to the House Oversight Committee.
“I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” he said. Hicks told the commitee that U.N. ambassador Susan Rice’s contention that the attack resulted from angry protests over an anti-Muslim YouTube video, which contradicted the statements of Libyan president Mohammed al-Magarief, were viewed as an insult by the Libyan government and made the FBI’s investigation of the attack more difficult. “I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day,” Hicks said of Rice’s five interviews on Sunday news programs just days after the attack. “The net impact of what has transpired is 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.”
Hicks also contradicted the White House’s claim that it contacted American officials in Libya on the night of the attack, telling investigators that he never heard from administration officials.
Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa, who this week will hold hearings on the Benghazi attack at which Hicks will testify, told CBS’s Bob Schieffer that Rice’s remarks indicate at best a “misinformation campaign” orchestrated by the Obama administration and at worst a full-blown coverup.
Listening to Hannity while in the car today. One of his caller's was one of the fellows who was the remote pilot for one of the drones over the annex on Sept. 11. He went off duty before the incident was over. Funny that nobody has asked to interview any of those guys. He said there would have been only six people working that sector, so it would be easy to track down whoever was working that night. He had started by watching the actual embassy, but was then directed to watch the annex. He said that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of people outside the embassy.
Due to the arrangements with the Libyan govt, he said that the drones were not allowed to be armed. Makes me then wonder about the former SEAL who believed that at least one drone was armed since he supposedly risked his life to identifie the target for that drone. Reasonable, however, to figure they wouldn't want to "advertise" an armed drone if the drones were not supposed to be armed.
So far anyone who was close to the action, or privy to what was happening, that night says they were stunned when they heard Rice's statements on the Sunday talk shows, since it was so far from the truth.
Limbaugh made an interesting statement: he said that it is actually possible that Hillary & Obama, and the rest of their coterie really didn't expect the people at the embassy to die. The reason: that they truly believe that once Obama came into office, these ME countries could no longer possibly hate us since Bush was gone. That kind of delusional thinking would be just as, if not more, frightening than plain incompetency. After all, how could the POTUS just tell Panetta to "handle it", go off to bed, and never check back to see what was going on? This would only maike sense if the conspiracy theorists were correct in assuming that this was to be a "mock" kidnapping of Stevens to set up a trade for some terrorist that had been captured. But how could they lose track of what was really happening there? Why would not Stevens have been aware of the plan? Would they have kept Stevens out of the loop so that such a setup would appear real?
From the advance leaks of the probable testimony of these whistleblowers, it seems as if some spit is going to hit the fan on Wednesday. Will thiese testimonies prove Hillary guilty of perjury? Will she get off as easily as Slick Wilie did?