Hillary Clinton, Benghazi and revealing documents

4
2660
Barack Obama delivers statement on US Consulate attack in Benghazi

CHARLOTTE, NC, May 2, 2014 – It would seem that the “smoking gun of Benghazi” has finally been uncovered, but then again, that may only depend upon which political party is making the claim.

There has really been no need for “smoking gun” evidence in the first place other than to verity what everybody already knows: that the Obama administration has been lying since day one about events in Libya that left four Americans dead.

The documents which have revitalized interest in Benghazi were obtained by the conservative watchdog group known as Judicial Watch. A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit has uncovered a September 14, 2012 e-mail from Ben Rhodes, a White House aide, to former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice just prior to her appearances on five Sunday morning news programs in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks.


READ ALSO: Kerry calls Israel an apartheid state: Another foreign policy gaffe by the Obama administration



Meanwhile, as the controversial White House communications were being revealed, terrorist convert to Christianity, Walid Shoebat, continued his relentless investigative reporting into the Clinton administration and its association with the Muslim Brotherhood and other known terrorist organizations. Though the Shoebat findings are nowhere to be found in any other media source, the key linking factor between the two stories is the far reaching tentacles of Hillary Clinton who is in the center of both.

Regarding the latest revelations on Benghazi, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) wrote, “It is now abundantly clear that senior White House staff were directly involved in coordinating the messaging in response to the Benghazi attacks and were actively working to tie the reason to the infamous Internet video.”

Actually, it has always been abundantly clear, but, until now, there has been no direct proof. This new evidence, however, has prompted Wolf to call for a select committee investigation which House Majority Leader John Boehner has long resisted.

Democrats argue that there have been countless hearings on the subject of Benghazi that have provided no significant results to incriminate the administration for any cover-up. While democrats are accurate about multiple hearings, what they do not say is that the bulk of those inquiries were bogus exercise due to the format used to obtain information.

As Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) correctly and vociferously states any further investigations need to be structured in a manner that does not allow for congressional speechmaking and, at the same time, provides time periods of significant length to pursue a line of questioning that can have some legitimate continuity.


READ ALSO: Benghazi is ancient history to most Americans


Said Graham, “If this is not a smoking gun, proving beyond any doubt, the story told by the administration about Benghazi was politically motivated and fabricated, nothing will ever prove that.”

Adding clarity to the Benghazi story, though the two are only related because of Hillary Clinton, another written document has surfaced, this one from the Clinton Library, that highlights the close association between the Clintons and Bassam Estwani, the former chairman of the notorious Dar al-Hijrah mosque. As Walid Shoebat points out in his blog “Estwani is a major mole. He has curried favor with powerful politicians; the mosque he led for years incubated and bred terrorists who were released into American streets.”

It is the Estwani letter to the Clintons which is most damning because it alludes to the fact that the mosque is “one of the most active and largest Islamic centers in the United States”.

Estwani goes on to write, “I have been repeatedly honored by your invitations and warm receptions at the white house, especially at the Breakfast Prayers since September 1995. You and the first lady have graciously hosted the Muslim community on several occasions and we are eternally grateful for your and her gracious hospitality and reception.”

So what?, you ask. It goes with the territory of being the president. True, but as Shoebat further adds, the letter clearly shows that the Clintons were involved with Estwani in 1995. That was the same year he hired an imam who had been implicated in the first attack on the World Trade Center two years before.

The Clinton involvement of the story is far more complicated than can be explained in a single article. For full details read Shoebat’s blog. What it does demonstrate however, is proof of Walid Shoebat’s claim that “Clinton was more interested in pandering to terrorists than in holding them accountable.” That is a philosophy that is all too familiar in the current administration as well.

By themselves perhaps each story can be explained, but given Hillary Clinton’s perpetual record of shady deals in the past for political or monetary gain, for power or all three, combined with the shameful display of blaming a video in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack in order to help Barack Obama get re-elected and to preserve Ms. Clinton’s rock star image, the evidence of White House corruption is difficult to ignore.

The worst part is that this is just the tip of the iceberg and chances are, thanks to a complicit media, it will likely only remain at the tip.
Bob Taylor has been traveling the world for more than 30 years as a writer and award winning television producer focusing on international events, people and cultures around the globe. Taylor is founder of The Magellan Travel Club (www.MagellanTravelClub.com).
Read more of What in the World and Bob Taylor at Communities Digital News

Follow Bob on Twitter @MrPeabod

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • KVT

    I’m confused. Where is the evidence that anyone thought it was anything *other* than a spontaneous attack stemming from the demonstrations in Cairo? Per the CIA memo to Rice, same as the WH one?

  • Jim Ward

    Date: September 12th, 2012
    Location: U.S. State Department Treaty Room
    “Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together.” – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

    Date: September 16, 2012
    Location: Face the Nation, CBS Studios
    Ambassador Susan Rice told Bob Schieffer that the attackers brought heavy weapons and that some had extremist ties. She clearly stated, “Whether they were al-Qaida affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaida itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”

    These assessments, of course, came after President Obama — the very morning after the attacks — called the incident “an attack” not a protest. He called the perpetrators “attackers” not protesters. And he quite clearly called it “an act of terror.”

    The link between the Benghazi attacks and the anti-Islam propaganda video did not originate with the Obama Administration. The early news reports, including interviews with protesters and militants at the scene, described how the already well-armed members of the attacking militia were prompted to act after viewing on TV the protests in Cairo over the anti-Islam propaganda video:

    — Independent (UK): Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya’s Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. “There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet.” (September 14, 2012)

    — Washington Post: Stevens arrived Monday from the embassy in Tripoli. “A friend who spent Monday and Tuesday with him said Stevens held meetings with nongovernmental organizations and militia leaders on both days. When the friend dropped Stevens off at the consulate Tuesday afternoon, he said, nothing appeared to be amiss – beyond the protesters.”

    “The first protesters had showed up around noon. Wanis al-Sharif, the deputy Libyan interior minister, said in an interview that the demonstrators were angered by a low-budget American film that portrayed the prophet Muhammad in a blasphemous manner. As the day wore on, Sharif said, the anger escalated and people with weapons infiltrated the crowd.”

    “By late Tuesday evening,” heavily armed militants “joined protesters outside the consulate who were demonstrating against an American movie that they believed denigrated the prophet Muhammad. They said, `We are Muslims defending the prophet. We are defending Islam,’ ” Libyan television journalist Firas Abdelhakim said in an interview.” (September 12, 2012)

    — CNN quoted Libyan officials describing that “an “angry crowd” marched on the U.S. compound Tuesday, furious about an American-produced online film considered offensive to Muslims.” (September 12, 2012)

    — The Daily Telegraph: One eyewitness told “how an armed group infiltrated the ordinary protesters and sounded a warning. They told those nearby to stay back, that they had guns.” (September 12, 2012)

    — The New York Times: The Times, which had two journalists on the ground the night of the attack, also reported on demonstrators on the scene who were motivated by the anti-Islam film. “A group of armed assailants mixed with unarmed demonstrators gathered at the small compound that housed a temporary American diplomatic mission” in Benghazi. “Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults,” the Times reported. (September 12, 2012)

    — AP reported that, “A lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.” “One of the Benghazi outpost’s private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him “an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet.” (October 27, 2012)

    — CBS/AP reported that “Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.” (September 12, 2012)

    — Reuters, which also had reporters in Benghazi, reported that “the attackers were part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad.” The article quoted 17-year-old Haman, who took part in the attack, as saying: “The protesters were running around the compound just looking for Americans, [and] they just wanted to find an American so they could catch one.” “Hamam said Ansar al-Sharia cars arrived at the start of the protest but left once fighting started.” (September 12, 2012)

    — Reuters reporter on NPR: “Almost Everybody Here Believes That It Was A Reaction To The Movie.” NPR’s Morning Edition, the network interviewed Hadeel Al-Shalchi of Reuters, who “had been talking with authorities and protestors.” (September 13, 2012)

    — Al Jazeera: Attackers Were Responding To News Of “American Movie Insulting The Prophet Mohammed.” Al Jazeera producer Suleiman El Dressi reported from Benghazi that “a group of people calling themselves as “Islamic law supporters” heard the news that there will be an American movie insulting the Prophet Mohammed. Once they heard this news they came out of their military garrison and they went into the street calling [unintelligible] to gather and go ahead and attack the American consulate in Benghazi.” (September 12, 2012)

    — New York Times: “Libyans Who Witnessed the Assault And Know The Attackers Say They Cited The Video.” The New York Times reported having spoken with “fighters involved in the assault,” who told the paper “in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon.”

    “Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults,” the Times reported. “Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video.” (September 12, 2012 and October 16, 2012)

    New York Times reporter, David Kilpatrick — whose colleagues were actually on the ground in Benghazi — stands by these reports.

    “In the tinderbox of Benghazi, it doesn’t take very much advanced planning or preparation to pull off an attack like this, because there are lots of well-organized, heavily armed brigades or battalions just sitting around, waiting to go. And some of them adhere to an ultra-conservative or extremist Islamist ideology.”

    “It’s a false dichotomy to say either this was an organized attack, or it was a response to the video,” Kirkpatrick said.

    “The people in the crowd were saying they were motivated by this video,” Kirkpatrick said.

  • latxguy

    now we know how Bill gets away with it “what does it matter” it is over, “no big deal” Wow she was a fantastic Sec of state and a wonderful president! sarcastic speaking. What a new motto for every soldier and marine to have. Forget the “never leave your men behind.” Hilary will leave whoever behind if it fits her agenda.

  • Pingback: Top 50 Hillary Clinton Benghazi Lies | ConservativeAmerican.org()