Posted on 01/01/2014 7:25:48 PM PST by xzins
WASHINGTON—The mother of a victim in the 2012 Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack blasted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an interview with WORLD, saying a recent article in The New York Times is only trying to protect Clinton’s 2016 presidential aspirations.
“They’re just covering up for Hillary,” Pat Smith, mother of slain foreign-service officer Sean Smith, told me by phone. “Hillary killed my son. … As far as I can tell from all my sources, she was responsible—directly.”
Lawmakers, media outlets, and analysts have all criticized a front-page story in Saturday’s edition of The New York Times, in which reporter David Kirkpatrick, after “months of investigation,” concluded neither al-Qaeda nor other international terrorist groups were involved in the 9/11 anniversary attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Kirkpatrick, whose story is part of his forthcoming book, also wrote that “contrary to claims by some members of Congress, [the attack] was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”
Smith told me that conclusion doesn’t jive with reports from her sources, many of whom have reached out to give her information since she testified before Congress in September. She said she’s “very upset” about the Times article, which doesn’t mention Clinton and offers no explanation for why security was porous or why reinforcements were told not to go help during the all-night attack.
“All the [U.S. Navy] SEALs and everybody I’ve talked to recently, they say they would never, ever, ever leave someone to be sacrificed. And that’s what happened—they were sacrificed,” she said.
The Times story contradicted the sworn testimony of Gregory Hicks, then the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, who in May told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the YouTube video was a non-event for Libyans. Hicks—who spoke by phone with Stevens during the attack, the last known conversation the ambassador had—said he talked with Clinton at 2 a.m. local time, and the video was never discussed as even a possible reason for the attack. Hicks said he was stunned when he heard the administration blaming the film: “My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed.”
According to Victoria Toensing, Hicks’ legal counsel, Kirkpatrick made no attempt to talk to Hicks for his article or the book. “It’s obvious he didn’t want to talk to my client,” she told me. “It’s inexplicable to me why he did not call.”
Kirkpatrick built his story mostly on sources, including numerous anonymous ones, from Benghazi, which Toensing said was like going to Japan during World War II to ask if they attacked at Pearl Harbor. “The story is based on proving a negative,” she said. “I was shocked that The New York Times published something so unsophisticated.”
The story says al-Qaeda had been unable to establish a foothold in Libya, a claim that runs counter to the U.S. government’s findings a month before the attack. An August 2012 Library of Congress report said al-Qaeda “has established a core network in Libya,” though it “remains clandestine and refrains from using the al-Qaeda name.” It said Ansar al-Sharia, the group that immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, “has increasingly embodied al-Qaeda’s presence in Libya.”
Kirkpatrick acknowledged Ansar al-Sharia’s role in the attack but found “no evidence” to suggest a “direct role” for al-Qaeda. Kirkpatrick contended only local extremists, led by an “eccentric” militia leader named Ahmed Abu Khattala, carried out the assault.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of that committee, both told Fox News the Times story was misleading. Rogers said the FBI is targeting people with “strong al-Qaeda ties” in connection with the attack, and Schiff said, “The intelligence indicates al-Qaeda was involved.”
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the Times story largely tracks with what the State Department believes happened in Benghazi, though the investigation is still ongoing. When asked if she agreed that al-Qaeda played no role, she chose her words carefully, saying no “core al-Qaeda” members directed or planned the attack, but “extremists were involved. … These were clearly terrorists.”
Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer who is part of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi, said it would be very easy to identify what kind of attack took place if the administration would release the surveillance.
“They’ve got a lot of camera footage, and they’re not releasing it,” she told me. “They knew who broke through, when they broke through, and what weapons they were carrying.”
Hillary has so much bad karma I don’t even want to think about it.
She looks drunk...
Bttt
She’s all cuddles...need some a lot
I agree. Having her in charge would bring all that badness down on the nation....as it has with Obama.
speak up lady
all you pussies in the military that know what really happened need to get over yourselves and speak up too
The only negligence was that they did not count on the Navy Seal/CIA guys coming and messing up their plan. Obama needed to show that he could be tough on Islam. He planned to have the Ambassador kidnapped and then he would get tough on the terrorists and they would give the Ambassador back. Obama a hero, election in the bag. He stripped away all the security to make it easy. Problem was that some Navy Seals showed up and started kicking some Muslim butt. Terrorists figured they were set up and the real plan was to wipe them out. They thought that Obama was trying to be the hero by defending the Ambasador. Things spin out of control, Ambassador is abused and killed Muslin style. Obama and Hillary have to go into spin and lie mode. It seems to me that the facts of what happened seem to fit well into this scenario.
Get this Mom on film and find someone with the guts to run it in primary state after primary state. It would torpedo Hillary’s chances. Then again, the same media outlets who had no problem with “Romney killed my wife” ads in 2012 would probably find these objectionable and reject giving them airtime.
I believe you misspelled "mrs bill".
I have it on good authority that she absolutely HATES being called that, so I take every opportunity possible to do so. *grin*
I worked at an operational nuclear power plant during a refueling. We were doing something unsafe. We were working about 100’ directly over the main walkway into the drywell, without any netting or fall protection for the scaffolding that we were building freehand. If any of the components fell and struck a person, serious injury or death could result.
I filled out a safety suggestion form and my supervisor went berserk, first pointing his finger in my face, while standing over me at the lunch table, then angrily yelling at me as to why I filled out a safety suggestion form, and finally, moving me elsewhere. The craft discipline that I was a part of, continued doing the work without any changes to prevent someone from being hit or killed by a falling object.
I went over my supervisor’s head, and talked to plant management. I also quit (a very lucrative paying job) so that I would not be intimidated into keeping quiet about the safety issue. Intimidation is a felony in a nuclear power plant.
My point is, no one was willing to speak up about what we were doing wrong, and no one was about to stand up to the supervisor, and no one was going to quit to better make the point. By the time I got home the business agent (union) had driven to my house to coerce me out of taking my complaint up channel. I had given the plant management enough information to have my supervisor removed. They did. They gave him the easy way out by more or less telling him it was time for him to retire and to go home and collect his pension. I believe that I could have seriously compromised his freedom by going to the NRC with my intimidation complaint.
I did not push the issue (further) upon finding out the supervisor was no longer at the helm. I worked for less than two years with a former employer, deciding over time that the union was dead to me, and walked, with no regrets. In this instance, no one was injured or killed.
My point is: people that were part of the staff at the consulate need to man up and do the right thing and tell the truth loud and clear even if (especially if) they have something incriminating/damning to say, and even more so if intimidation tactics are being used against them. People died.
“At this point what difference does it make.” EXACTLY. What is the administration going to do about it? What is the Justice Dept. going to do about it? What is Congress going to do about it? What is the military brass going to do about it? It is left up to the people to do something about it! But will they? >>> Shaking head <<<
'hack
Well, at least hanged.
I believe that the obama/Hillary!™ plan was to have them captured and held hostage, so that obama would have an excuse to release the blind sheik and many/all Gitmo prisoners.
When the SEALS showed up, the muzzies assumed they'd been betrayed (after all such duplicity is what they would have done!) and proceeded to emasculate, sodomize, murder and sodomize Amb Stevens in pure spite, blood lust and revenge.
Now the treasonous bastiches really need a coverup!
As you say...
And high.
Please. All the idiocy spouted during the Zimmerman circus had only an occasional bit of truth in it. The detractors and supporters of Zimmerman had all the legal knowledge of the late Morton Downey Jr.’s studio audience.
Conspiracy? I would love to believe it, but there’s no proof that she wanted them dead, or sicked the mob on them. There was a cover up, but for political reasons.
Unfortunately, I don’t know what the federal statute says constitutes criminally negligent homicide. But I recall the NY penal code says that criminal negligent homicide is when a person substantially deviates from the behavior of a reasonable person and thereby increases the risk that their behavior will cause the death of another, and thereby causes the death of another. Criminally reckless homicide is when a person substantially deviates from the behavior of a reasonable person and knows that thereby he is increasing the risk that their behavior will cause the death of another person, and it causes the death of another person. Let’s just say the federal statute says something or other like that.
Her behavior, however, did not cause the death of the four Americans. The angry mob did that. Had there been no angry mob of terrorists, having insufficient security would not have caused anyone’s death.
It might have been what’s called “depraved indifference” homicide, because she knew there was an angry mob out there howling for blood, but did not care if they killed Ambassador Stevens and the three servicemen, thereby showing a depraved indifference for their lives. But even though I’m not a lawyer, just a fortunately-no-longer-active paralegal with a couple decades’ experience, I doubt that charge would fly.
I doubt she’s even the real culprit. More likely, it was Obama his very own treasonous Kenyan self who ordered everyone to do nothing (something he’s very good at) and simply vote ‘present’.
You are quite right and I will be on my toes forevermore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.