Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George Will On Benghazi: ‘Rather Less Significant’ Than Watergate
The Right Scoop ^ | May 4, 2014 2:23 PM | Caleb Howe

Posted on 05/05/2014 1:59:46 AM PDT by Olog-hai

On Fox News Sunday, George Will was asked about the significance of the Benghazi memo. Specifically, host (Chris) Wallace asked about remarks by Charles Krauthammer comparing the discovery of the Rhodes email to discovery of the Nixon tapes. […]

“Rather less (significant) than the Watergate tapes, which showed a President at the heart of a crime wave suborning perjury and raising hush money and all the rest. …”

(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: benghazi; benghazicoverup; georgewill; krauthammer; notuptospeed; usefulidiot; watergate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

1 posted on 05/05/2014 1:59:46 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

How many people died in or as a result of Watergate?


2 posted on 05/05/2014 2:04:47 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Cruz and/or Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

George Will is basically right. There’s only three pieces of this story. First, the CIA was buying and distributing weapons from Libya to Syria...on an active basis...using some Jihad characters that weren’t trustworthy. Two, the dead ambassador was part of the weapons program. Three, the President was fixated on his debate, and really didn’t need something screwing up the outcome. That’s it. Maybe a bunch of lies, but the lies all lead back to these three issues. Once you admit the three, it’s the end of the talk. Sadly, neither the President or his staff want to admit those three bits of info. So it lives on.


3 posted on 05/05/2014 2:08:06 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Nobody died in Watergate.

This administration is illegitimate. Between the Benghazi cover up and using many government agencies to target the opposing candidate’s support groups the election was stolen.

Of course it didn’t help that the opposing candidate ran a pathetic and feckless campaign but he still would have won if not for the stunning level of corrupt interference with the election process by the incumbent.


4 posted on 05/05/2014 2:09:33 AM PDT by rootntootn (Boycott Hawaii, the scene of the crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

What if the president signed off on the CIA’s plan?

From Watergate: What did the president know, and when did he know it?

http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/51A02223_002.do


5 posted on 05/05/2014 2:15:34 AM PDT by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The email itself may be insignificant when compared with the full reality of Watergate, but that’s only because it is the first and only actual smoking gun that has been uncovered.

On a scandal to scandal basis, Benghazi has the potential to far outstrip Watergate because common sense indicates that there is far more still hidden than has yet been revealed.

When the lid is finally pried completely off this festering horror, this email will be seen as the start — but only the start. So in that sense he’s right.


6 posted on 05/05/2014 2:18:25 AM PDT by Ronin (Dumb, dependent and Democrat is no way to go through life - Rep. L. Gohmert, Tex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rootntootn

If this committee digs thru all the emails and cross examines the right people, all their illegal acts can be linked. They have not even tried to hide a lot of this stuff, they have been in our face about it all. It all leads back to the White House. This is the perfect time and method to tie it all together, as far as I know there is no lines the committee can not cross to get to the whole truth. It will take time and effort and there will be some career employees who will come out of the woodwork and screw these bastards. Trey has this criminal enterprise by the short and curlies. All that is needed is guts and the will to do it. Screw the MSM and the talking heads.


7 posted on 05/05/2014 2:27:15 AM PDT by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

So maybe he’ll go Regan on us with an “ In my heart” admition ?


8 posted on 05/05/2014 2:27:46 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyP

This President? He hired a bunch of ‘yes-guys’ for his White House staff and for the key positions. So they walk in and occasionally brief him on new operations, and he just gazes at them and nods his head. I doubt if he ever understood the plan from start to finish, or the implications of selling weapons through a jihad group to Syrian rebels. Some signed Presidential ok? No....there is no such thing. Just some ten brief over five or six operations starting up, and he likely never remembered anything (call it issues from his marijuana usage or whatever, but it doesn’t matter).


9 posted on 05/05/2014 2:29:16 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
That’s it. Maybe a bunch of lies, but the lies all lead back to these three issues.

O.K. Let's stipulate that you're correct. Three issues, three issues only. <

Then...why the lies?

Running guns to Syria without congressional approval was no big deal. After all, you'd already started and fought a war in Libya without congressional approval. And any accusation could've been met -- effectively -- with a two-word answer: Iran-Contra.

So, the Ambassador was involved. So, what?

The President was distracted by his debate prep. Welllllll, it wouldn't have been good form to admit that. But they've consistently alleged that nothing could've been done -- and isn't that a sufficient answer?

So far, I don't see a single rational reason for compounding an elaborate (yet tattered from the outset) cover-up then standing squarely behind it for, what?, 3-4 weeks...even unto today. Nor is there any reason whatsoever for sequestering every single person who was present, signing them to non-disclosure pledges and keeping even their identity secret from Congress.

No, there's something else. Something outside those three issues -- something so destructive -- that they're scared silly it might be discovered.

10 posted on 05/05/2014 2:29:51 AM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Watergate was an extremely minor event if taken out of the political context. It was just an excuse to go after Nixon, who didn’t even know about the actual crime at the time it happened.


11 posted on 05/05/2014 2:30:51 AM PDT by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; Fred Nerks

What George Will mised was than Benghazi was much worse than suborning perjury and raising hush money........It involves treason at the highest levels of the White House, possible even the president himself.

Arming the enemy and then refusing to defend US staff against those arms? That’s treason to anyone who can read the law.Will has taken a lefty pill, his view is far too narrow and academic, all of a sudden, A RINO approach. Charles Krauthammer has it right exactly.

Treason of the President of the United States:

.U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 238118 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


12 posted on 05/05/2014 2:33:44 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

Watergate was nothing compared to this and we had 319 hours of hearings broadcast simultaneously on all networks repeated at night on PBS.
In Benghazi you have the gun running by our government (isn’t that in itself illegal?) while trying to take guns away from the American people. There was an Ambassador left hanging out there to die. (Are we sure that wasn’t intentional? If he had been rescued he would have had to answer a lot of questions that would probably have brought to light the gun running right before the election and who knows what else.) Were the other three people simply collateral damage to this administration? (What difference do they make as long as the truth doesn’t leak out of this transparent administration right before an election? (Sarc)) POTUS was practicing for a debate? Is that what they are saying the official reason was that he wasn’t in the situation room after they lied and said he was there watching in real time?
Concocting a BIG LIE TO SPEW REPEATEDLY over and over like Groundhog day while you look right in the camera by numerous people, including POTUS, AND LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE all seems a smidgen worse than Watergate to me.


13 posted on 05/05/2014 2:48:15 AM PDT by MagnoliaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Why the lies?

Basically, if you tell this oddball story...you admit that you are dealing in weapons, working deals with jihad characters, that your jihad characters turned on you and killed an ambassador, and that your top priority during the actual attack was the political debate for the next day. Oh, and I should add...it tends to make you look just like Reagan’s Iran-Contra dealings, and various other underhanded deals of the past forty years.

For historical purposes, I don’t think they want to let the public know they had day-to-day chats with jihad guys, and that you were paying them some cash for services rendered. It makes you look pretty crummy, and in the same scale as France or Russia. I know it sounds stupid that this comes down to three issues, but George Will was right....it’s not all that big or dense as people think.

Oh, and I should add this...someone on the White House staff...knew the connections to the jihad guys who were the service providers and weapon transport experts to Syria. This might make you lead onto another question...how did you get to know this jihad group and what else do you have cooking in their kitchen?


14 posted on 05/05/2014 2:50:51 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; All
willfull/willing/useful idiot pResident O'Muslim tool..
"show him the bloody money, 5¢ journalist for sale, insert coin"

15 posted on 05/05/2014 2:55:50 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Bathhouse/"Rustler" Reid? :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Translation, it is more than politics and a break-in and cover up and it is too icky for George to get involved in. It involves, Trust, Lies, Arms-Deals with shady characters and the soft underbelly of what people do behind the scenes dealing with despots and unfortunately this deals with the loss and injury of many of our bravest and brightest. It also deals with the fact is we probably didn’t send support which means a lot to many of us. But it is too much for the cucumber sandwich crowd in the beltway...


16 posted on 05/05/2014 3:03:08 AM PDT by taildragger (The E-GOP won't know what hit them, The Party of Reagan is almost here, hang tight folks....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Krauthammer’s the guy who made the Watergate comparison, so methinks Will is feeling a bit of rivalry against his fellow network contributor.


17 posted on 05/05/2014 3:03:28 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rootntootn
This administration is illegitimate

It seems to me that the American people are strongly supportive of illegitimacy in every way possible.

18 posted on 05/05/2014 3:05:44 AM PDT by Theodore R. (It was inevitable: Texans will always be for Cornball and George P.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: okie01

I should add this...in the last couple of hours....the NY Times featured an article on a Texas depot...where the CIA manages it’s arms cache. Camp Stanley is the place mentioned. I would suspect that it also fits into the whole broad story. Maybe the weapons got moved from Texas to Libya, and the CIA simply hired out the jihad guys to transport them the rest of the way into Syria.


19 posted on 05/05/2014 3:08:45 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

Who decided on no added security when asked for by the Ambassador, not once but several times and why? Who decided on no military rescue and why? Where are the witnesses who were whisked off and have not been heard from? Were threats made to shut the witnesses up? Was the Ambassador set up for murder and why, did he know to much? Who picked out the native security forces that either allowed it to happen or were involved? What is so important that the cover up was started to begin with and continues to this day? Who gave the MSM their marching orders to enable the cover up and mislead the public? Would the truth have resulted in a failed reelection and didn’t that result in a stolen election? Do not all these actions rise to the level of treason not to mention murder? What if the IRS was used to make certain witnesses toe the line, both witnesses on the ground and in the MSM? Why was the FBI not allowed into the site of the attack for 3 weeks and who stopped them, could that lead to Holder? Who coordinated the talking heads by providing them with the questions they were allowed to ask and if they weren’t willingly agreeable were there threats made and by who? Who told Carney to lie, though he probably would have anyway, who told him what to lie about? Who else was Cummings coordinating with to slow or stop the Issa committee?
This isn’t just a little smoke and mirrors, this is a full fledged forest fire. I am just an ignorant hillbilly and even I can see this and more. Why can’t you?


20 posted on 05/05/2014 3:09:38 AM PDT by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Unfortunately the majority of the American people do not care. Unless the mainstream media take up the story and begin attacking the current administration like they did Nixon, most of the people will view Benghazi another Republican political witch hunt.

Average people I know, even those who dislike the current regime, are weary of the 24 hour news cycle and the in inability through the political system to have a voice. The economy is bad, private sector jobs are insecure and hard to find, private sector work hours are long, and in general day to day life gets harder every year.

Many conservatives I know are disgusted by both the Dems and the GOP. The aftermath of the 2010 elections, the endemic corruption at all levels of government, and the war on the tea party by the elites, has created apathy. More and more people I speak to are just tuning out with respect to politics as well as the news. They’ve turned inward, focusing on family, friends, hobbies, jobs, and whatever aspects of their daily lives they can control.

Meanwhile the left wingers I know are fired up. They know they are winning and want to impose their socialist agenda on their neighbors.

The GOP establishment may be surprised this year. The base may be so apathetic, or so tired of being taken for granted, it doesn’t show up to vote for the lesser of two evils. When you get to the point you realize your vote really doesn’t matter, why make the effort?

At this point all Benghazi seems to be is a way for the GOP elites to make some noise to fire up the base and distract conservatives from the amnesty they plan to deliver as well as the retreat from any effort to repeal the ACA. Even this weak effort to throw red meat at the base is lackluster, proving the leadership really doesn’t care.

To be blunt, the GOP does not like or respect the conservative voters it relies on to win elections and the elites of the party have overtly demonstrated their disdain for the flyover country and suburban voters. The feeling has become mutual. In any organization, when leadership loses the respect of the rank and file, the organization will fail in its mission. This of course assumes there is a mission.


21 posted on 05/05/2014 3:16:09 AM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ronin

There is more. Sequestering witnesses using the IRS to intimidate political opponents weaving a pattern of lies about their activities refusing to enforce laws and unilaterally changing law out side the legislative process

Nixon looks like a kid in short pants


22 posted on 05/05/2014 3:21:29 AM PDT by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
George Will is basically right.

No. He is not right. He is exhibiting typical weak-kneed DC insider "go-along-get-along" attitude and language of pusillanimity presented in the guise of reason. A condition that too many conservatives, let alone Republicans, seem to be overtaken by.

On a very basic level, there is no comparison between the two scandals. The argument that Benghazi is insignificant is incredibly idiotic.

Will also agreed with Rep. Adam Schiff that it would be a smart move on the part of Democrats to boycott any further investigation into the Benghazi incident, as it would make the Republicans look “obviously” as if they were just participating in partisan presidential election politics.

Translation: Shrink back, roll over, accept you can't oppose the evil, it's far too strong. Settle in the yoke of tyranny and find it in ourselves to capitulate and learn to be at ease with it.

George Will is a useless poltroon.

23 posted on 05/05/2014 3:29:24 AM PDT by Jagdgewehr (It will take blood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Misleading headline. Wonder why they do that?


24 posted on 05/05/2014 3:33:34 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
I rather think this incident is more serious than Watergate. What happened at Watergate? A few clowns in the Nixon admin thought they could get some juicy info on the Dems. If Nixon decided to reveal everything from the outset rather than cover up, it's a scandal but does not topple his admin. Nobody died. And Dems were probably doing the same thing.

This scandal cost the lives of four Americans. Obama was probably looking at his golf swing while these people were being killed. No matter the faults of Nixon, can anyone imagine him rolling pins in the White House bowling alley while Americans were being killed by jiahdis? It goes to the core of Obama being an incompetent fool as regards national security which is far more dangerous than a semi-paranoid, insecure president, Nixon, who covers up for his subordinates.

25 posted on 05/05/2014 3:38:36 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Krauthammer’s the guy who made the Watergate comparison, so methinks Will is feeling a bit of rivalry against his fellow network contributor.

The tension between the two is evident when watching them on Bret Baier's Special Report.

I used to put some stock into George Will's opinion many years ago.

Now he seems to grope for his position and seems always slightly off track from the topic at hand.

And I'm not fond of his cute little turns on cliche's.

26 posted on 05/05/2014 3:46:51 AM PDT by sonofagun (Some think my cynicism grows with age. I like to think of it as wisdom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Foundahardheadedwoman

...”Who decided on no added security when asked for by the Ambassador, not once but several times and why? Who decided on no military rescue and why? Where are the witnesses who were whisked off and have not been heard from? Were threats made to shut the witnesses up? Was the Ambassador set up for murder and why, did he know to much? Who picked out the native security forces that either allowed it to happen or were involved? What is so important that the cover up was started to begin with and continues to this day? Who gave the MSM their marching orders to enable the cover up and mislead the public? Would the truth have resulted in a failed reelection and didn’t that result in a stolen election? Do not all these actions rise to the level of treason not to mention murder? What if the IRS was used to make certain witnesses toe the line, both witnesses on the ground and in the MSM? Why was the FBI not allowed into the site of the attack for 3 weeks and who stopped them, could that lead to Holder? Who coordinated the talking heads by providing them with the questions they were allowed to ask and if they weren’t willingly agreeable were there threats made and by who? Who told Carney to lie, though he probably would have anyway, who told him what to lie about? Who else was Cummings coordinating with to slow or stop the Issa committee?
This isn’t just a little smoke and mirrors, this is a full fledged forest fire. I am just an ignorant hillbilly and even I can see this and more. Why can’t you?”...

You are one smart guy, Foundahardheadedwoman. I would love to see you on the leading television talk shows. Thank you for fully expressing your thoughts here.


27 posted on 05/05/2014 3:49:28 AM PDT by jazzlite (esat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

“Krauthammer’s the guy who made the Watergate comparison, so methinks Will is feeling a bit of rivalry against his fellow network contributor.”

A couple months ago, when his book was released, there was a TV special on Krauthammer’s life. In interviews with C.K., he implied, possibly said (I can’t recall exactly), that George Will is just about his closest friend and they’ve been close for decades. (C.K. met Obama the first time at a party at G.W.’s house, I believe.) Perhaps something has happened to change that relationship recently.


28 posted on 05/05/2014 3:51:39 AM PDT by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

If there was EVER a doubt that George Will
is nothing but a DNC-plant of RINO Fox “News”,
.... this is IT.

What a phoney pro-Obama pro-corruption phoney.


29 posted on 05/05/2014 3:52:44 AM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ronin
I think the biggest reason the administration was so anxious to become involved in Syria on the "rebel" (AlQaida) side, was to legitimize the arms trafficking before it became known.

I think that influenced the response (actually lack thereof) by US forces, trying to keep the arms trafficking under wraps.

There is the greatest significance: giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.

For all his failings, Richard M. Nixon didn't come close to that.

30 posted on 05/05/2014 3:53:17 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sonofagun; MayflowerMadam

The juxtaposition of your posts #24 and 26 is interesting.


31 posted on 05/05/2014 3:57:26 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I guess George Will is trying a sort-of-C-Y-A for Obama here.


32 posted on 05/05/2014 4:00:28 AM PDT by topher (NSA - Obama's Personally Trained Pigs...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
No, there's something else. Something outside those three issues — something so destructive — that they're scared silly it might be discovered.<<

Could it be an elaborate plan to release the “Blind Sheik” via a staged kidnapping?

the question then becomes...
1. Why would the US do that??
any explanation at that point becomes really destructive

The reason I bring this up is that anybody who watched the hearings can plainly see that security was drawn down intentionally and the Ambassador was sent on a fools mission!!! (from an administration perspective that would make perfect sense to allow/plan it to happen and have minimum loss of life and little collateral damage)

33 posted on 05/05/2014 4:06:20 AM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
The juxtaposition of your posts #24 and 26 is interesting.

I believe you meant #24 and #28.

If so, I do value, although I don't always agree with, CK's opinions.

Yes, that is interesting.

34 posted on 05/05/2014 4:22:29 AM PDT by sonofagun (Some think my cynicism grows with age. I like to think of it as wisdom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Yes the memo is less significant than the tape because the tapes showed nixon directly involved.

But we have a ways to go and more evidence is to be revealed.


35 posted on 05/05/2014 4:23:30 AM PDT by what's up (su)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

“Arming the enemy and then refusing to defend US staff against those arms?”

Think about that one for a min.

Was the cover-up and long delay to investigate because the guns and mortars used in the attack were US issue?

The terrorists got the stuff, and likely training, from the CIA and used it on them in the attack. THAT would be pretty hard to admit just before the election!

Is that why access to witnesses that were there is being blocked? They likely know if that was the case.

If that’s what happened... You have O’bastard and Hildabeast signing off on the CIA giving arms to terrorists, that wind up being used to kill the ambassador and other Americans on the ground there.


36 posted on 05/05/2014 4:24:50 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Mrs. Bill Rodham Clinton

was deeply involved in
both Watergate and Benghazi.

37 posted on 05/05/2014 4:26:05 AM PDT by greedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

I watched him earlier today. He’s wearing a toupee.

George Putnam used to say that about Sam Donaldson.


38 posted on 05/05/2014 4:30:20 AM PDT by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

hey George, that’s the IRS SCANDAL you’re referring to....which is FAR WORSE than Watergate. But, you haven’t done a damn thing about that either. You’re no conservative, haven’t been and in my mind, are persona non grata...


39 posted on 05/05/2014 4:32:21 AM PDT by Solson (The Voters stole the election! And the establishment wants it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M-cubed
Could it be an elaborate plan to release the “Blind Sheik” via a staged kidnapping?

That is precisely what I believe is being covered up. There was a pre-arranged plot -- hatched by Morsi and Obama -- to kidnap the Ambassador then, on the eve of the election, exchange him for the Blind Sheikh. Both Morsi and Obama expected to win political points from the exercise.

This theory explains why Stevens was sent to Benghazi in the first place. And why he was methodically denied the security he requested. And why Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty had to disobey orders in order to mount a resistance to the attack -- which was supposed to be unresisted. Which also explains why Obama made no move to counter the attack -- it was supposed to be successful.

But, in the ensuing violence, Stevens lost his life -- thereby eliminating the objective of the exercise. Once Stevens was confirmed dead, Clinton and Obama were left to formulate a cover story.

40 posted on 05/05/2014 4:34:52 AM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

“...your top priority during the actual attack was the political debate for the next day....”
***********************************************************************

Actually, the first presidential debate was NOT the next day (September 12th) but was on October 3, 2012. That actually makes Obama’s (and Hillary’s) malfeasance even more reprehensible—if that’s even possible.


41 posted on 05/05/2014 5:06:28 AM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Refreash my memory ... how many died in Watergate?


42 posted on 05/05/2014 5:15:20 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides; pepsionice
“...your top priority during the actual attack was the political debate for the next day....”

Actually, the first presidential debate was NOT the next day (September 12th) but was on October 3, 2012.

Even worse, the "next day's" primary activity was a star-studded fund-raiser in Las Vegas.

43 posted on 05/05/2014 5:15:28 AM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyP

Would the CIA run guns WITHOUT Obama’s approval? I doubt it.


44 posted on 05/05/2014 5:53:52 AM PDT by jch10 (The Democrat mascot shouldnÂ’t be the donkey; it should be the tick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I think he was referring to the amount of evidence linking both presidents to the crime... while evidence against Obama is building, it still is less than his voice being taped, as with Watergate... I may be wrong...


45 posted on 05/05/2014 5:57:36 AM PDT by dps.inspect (rage against the Obama machine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: okie01

The trade for the Blind Sheik certainly makes sense but does not explain why 30+ CIA weapons experts were at the Annex.

I remain convinced Benghazi was a gun-running op to arm al-queda terrorists in Syria.

It would explain why obamatollah has silenced most of the 30+ witnesses to keep the gun-running op under the radar.


46 posted on 05/05/2014 6:00:06 AM PDT by newfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: okie01

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/benghazi-was-about-400-surface-air-missiles-stolen-some-very-ugly-people-digenova-says
Benghazi Was About 400 Surface-to-Air-Missiles Stolen by ‘Some Very Ugly People,’ DiGenova Says
August 13, 2013 - 6:44 AM


By Susan Jones
Subscribe to Susan Jones RSS
Follow Susan Jones on Twitter
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

http://www.cnsnews.com/image/benghazi-14
The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, following the terror attack that resulted in the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP File Photo)

(CNSNews.com) - Former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, who now represents one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, told a Washington radio station Monday that the real scandal in Benghazi is the theft of 400 surface-to-air missiles by some “very ugly people.” The Obama administration fears those missiles will be used to shoot down an airplane or blow up one of our embassies, he said.

Speaking to WMAL on Monday morning, DiGenova blasted President Obama for revealing, at his Friday news conference, the existence of a sealed indictment against a Benghazi suspect or suspects.

Then DiGenova added this bombshell:

“We had troops ready to deploy in Croatia to go (to Benghazi) that night of Sept. 11, 2012 to rescue Americans. We have learned that one of the reasons the administration is so deeply concerned — we have been told there were 400 surface-to-air missiles stolen, and that they are on or about in the hands of many people, and that the biggest fear in the U.S. intelligence community is that one of these missiles will be used to shoot down an airliner.”

DiGenvoa said the information came to him as a result of his legal representation of Benghazi whistleblower Mark Thompson.

“This information comes from former intelligence officials who stay in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community. And it is pretty clear that the biggest concern right now are the 400 missiles which have been diverted in Libya and have gotten into the hands of some very ugly people. And they worried specifically, according to theses sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/image/digenova
Former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenvoa now represents one of the Benghazi whistleblowers. (Photo from DiGenova’s website)

DiGenova says he doesn’t know if the missiles were physically at the CIA annex on the night of Sept. 12 — “but it is clear that the annex was somehow involved in the process of the distribution of those missiles.” The CIA annex in Benghazi apparently was gathering the Libyan missiles to be sent to an unknown destination.

Why did the Obama administration delay the entry of FBI investigators into Benghazi after four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed that night? DiGenova was asked.

“Because it happened before an election,” he replied.

DiGenova said the theft of the missiles continues to have a ripple effect: “This is why we shut down the 19 embassies recently. They were afriad that there was going to be a missile attack on one of the embassies. Remember, you can take a shoulder held missile and shoot it into an embassy, not just into the sky.

“What happened is, the reason they lied, about — in other words, remember the famous demonstration, and the phony video and all of that? That’s what this was all about. That’s why they’re so worried. That’s why they have lied repeatedly about what happened in Benghazi. Because they are now responsible for all of the stepchildren of violence that happens as a result of this. This is a very serious manner. And when you compound it with the flippancy of the president of the United States who talks about a sealed indictment to cover his fanny — to make it look like he’s doing something when in fact he has done nothing — we have reached a level of cynicism on the part of this president that is staggering.”

DiGenova says former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was sent out to lie on five Sunday talk shows, blaming the attack on an obscure anti-Muslim video, to cover up the real scandal involving the stolen missiles.

DiGenova said in revealing the existence of the indictment, the president “did jeopardize the lives of people who may be trying to find some people on the ground in Libya, and I assume that we do have somebody there trying to find some people, although with this president, you never know — because as you know, he doesn’t want to capture people, he wants to kill them, because if he captures them, he either has to try them — which is very hard to do — or put ‘em in Gitmo, which he will not do.”

=


47 posted on 05/05/2014 6:07:34 AM PDT by COUNTrecount (There's no there there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

I often tell people nearly the same thing. Nixon lied and tried to cover things up to protect his party and even the country. Clinton and now Obama, lied and covered up to protect themselves. So, which is worse from the individual perspective?


48 posted on 05/05/2014 6:09:48 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty or Big Government - you can't have both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Nixon lied, and covered up about a burglary he ordered to an office staffed by Democrats: Nixon resigned, rather that choosing to submit to an Impeachment Trial. Nobody died.

Bill Clinton lied and was Impeached. Aide Vince Foster and Bureaucrat Ron Brown died.

B. Hussein lied, was AWOL, covered up and is proud of it. Four of his employees were brutally murdered in Benghazi, while Obama slept like a baby.


49 posted on 05/05/2014 6:23:34 AM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Foundahardheadedwoman

The whole Benghazi ambassador assassination could not have been done better had it been planned by the administration. Well, maybe they could have chained the former seals to their bunks.


50 posted on 05/05/2014 6:26:04 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty or Big Government - you can't have both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson