Obama calls Benghazi controversy a 'sideshow'
Published May 13, 2013
Fox News
President Obama delivered a defiant defense Monday of his administration's response to the Benghazi terror attack, calling the revived controversy over the matter a "sideshow."
The president addressed the issue during a press conference alongside British Prime Minister David Cameron, who is visiting Washington. Obama denied any suggestion that there was a cover-up, questioning recent reports that showed a State Department official trying to water down the administration's initial story-line on what happened the night of Sept. 11.
"There's no there there," Obama said.
The president, with his comments, echoed remarks made by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who asked during testimony in January "what difference" did the controversy over the talking points make.
Obama on Monday dismissed the questions as rooted in "political motivations."
Since Clinton's testimony, though, new details have been made public about the administration's early efforts to explain what happened in Benghazi last September. Despite claims that the White House and State Department were not heavily involved in editing the intelligence community's narrative, emails show State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland pushed to remove references to Al Qaeda and to the intelligence community's prior warnings about security in the region.
Based on those talking points, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on five Sunday shows to claim the attack was prompted by a protest over an anti-Islam film.
Further, three State Department whistle-blowers testified last week, with one claiming he was shocked and "embarrassed" to hear Rice's comments since he knew it was a terror attack all along.
On Twitter
On Youtube
On Roku
On Facebook
Podcasts on Demand
Podcasts on Spreaker
Podcasts on iTunes
Podcasts on Stitcher
Podcasts on Tunein Radio
Affiliates
6 Dollar T-Shirts
GoldSilver.com
The Ready Store
Onnit Labs
Audible Audio Books
Amazon.com
Bulletproof Upgraded Coffee
Blue Host
Blog Roll
What Really Happened
Cryptogon
Citizens for Legit Gov.
Full Specturm Dominance
Information Liberation
VICE
Cryptome
All Gov.
Michael Snyder
Tony Cartalucci
VoltaireNet
The New American
Raw Story
Truth Dig
Antiwar
Drudge Report
Breitbart
The Peoples Voice
Real News Network
Alternet
Information Clearing House
VOA News
Truth Out
Common Dreams
No Agenda News
Aangirfan
Old Thinker News
Activist Post
Dark Politricks
SGT Report
Andrew Gavin Marshall
Tom Burghardt
Dana Gabriel
Jacob Hornberger
Media Monarchy
Truth Is Treason
Reason
Lew Rockwell
Strike The Root
10th Amendment Center
Globalist Report
Aftermath News
Survive Change
Explosive Reports
Vigilant Citizen Red Ice
Wayne Madsen
WhoWhatWhy
Silent Crow
Wtfrly
From The Trenches
WhoWhatWhy
Liberty Garage
Boing Boing
Freedom Outpost
Resist Radio
Wide Awake News
News Blok 2
Against The Wall
End The Lie
Disinformation
SHTF Plan
ITHP
The Excavator
Open Secrets
Project Censored
Business / Economics
Gold and Metals Prices
Zero Hedge
Testosterone Pit
Washingtons's Blog
Of Two Minds
Money News
Max Keiser
Naked Capitalism
Sovereign Man
Business Insider
Market Watch
Bloomberg
Wall Street Journal
RTT News
CNN Money
Forbes
Business Week
Market Oracle
Money Morning
My Budget 360
Alt-Market
Shadow Stats
Azizonomics
Economist
Economy Watch
Financial Times
Fortune Magazine
Daily Crux
The Daily Economist
The Daily Reckoning
Energy Business Review
Faux Capitalist
Daily Bail
Hang The Bankers
Against Crony Capitalism
Economic Policy Journal
Gonzalo Lira
Liberty Blitzkrieg
The Burning Platform
The Daily Bell
Milplex / Intel / Defense
Strat Risks
Oil Price
Phantom Report
Global Research
Foreign Policy Journal
Global Post
Intel News
1913 Intel
F. William Engdahl
Rick Rozoff
Corbett Report
Public Intelligence
Boiling Frog Post
Danger Room
Washington Technology
Defense Industry Daily
Global Security
Geopolitical Monitor
Defense Link
Space War
Jane's
Defense Tech
Strategy Page
Military Info Tech
Strategy Page
Homeland Sec. Newswire Science / Tech News
Tech Dirt
Ars Technica
Wired
Blast Magazine
PHYSorg
Science Daily
Popular Science
Tech Eye
Engadget
New Scientist
DVice
Mother Board
EFF
Technovelgy
Next Big Future
Singularity Hub
H+ Magazine
Science Magazine
Seed Magazine
CBR Online
Science News
SlashDot
Scientific American
Spectrum IEEE
Technology Review
io9
ZD Net
Technology News
The Register
Tech News World
Health & Environment
Prevent Disease
Food Freedom
Farm Wars
Medical Express
Natural Society
Waking Times
Natural News
Major US Newspapers
New York Times
New York Post
New York Daily News
Washington Post
Washington Times
L.A. Times
USA Today
Magazines
The Atlantic
Salon
Slate
Time
One of the whistleblowers, Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, was in direct, real-time communication with people on the ground during the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya, before he was locked out of the room. Yet despite his firsthand knowledge of how the attack unfolded, he was not interviewed by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board, even though he asked to be. According to sources I spoke with, Thompson will testify that the circumstances under which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died have been “purposefully misrepresented” by the administration and that “all their public statements from the initial account to the talking points [that Ambassador Susan Rice used on the Sunday shows] were false, and they knew it.”
Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the attack, will apparently back up that charge. This weekend, Rep. Darryl Issa (R-Calif.), who heads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, revealed some of what Hicks told congressional investigators: “My jaw hit the floor as I watched [Rice speak] …. I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day. . . . I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate.”
What was even more jaw-dropping was that no one from the State Department contacted Hicks before Rice’s interviews on the Sunday shows. Hicks says he was “personally known” to Rice’s staff and “I could have been called. . . . I could have said, ‘No, that’s not the right thing.’ That phone call was never made.” The next day, Hicks told investigators, he called Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, and asked her, “ ‘Why did Ambassador Rice say that?’ And Beth Jones said, ‘I don’t know.’”
Hicks told congressional investigators that Stevens’ final report before he died was to say, “Greg, we are under attack.” Incredibly, though, Hicks has not even been allowed to see the classified Accountability Review Board report. Perhaps the Obama administration is afraid to let him review its “findings” for fear he will uncover more falsehoods.
Last week, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell dismissed the whistleblowers, declaring there has already been a thorough investigation into the attack “and that should be enough.” Well, apparently the man who was second in command at our embassy in Libya disagrees.
In addition to getting to the bottom of what the administration knew about Benghazi, and when they knew it, Congress needs get to the bottom of the coverup, which is apparently ongoing. Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for one of the whistleblowers, told Fox Newsthe whistleblowers have been threatened with career-ending reprisals if they furnish new information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress. Who threatened them? What were they told would happen to them? And who else was pressured not to testify?
White House spokesman Jay Carney last week tried to dismiss Benghazi as something that “happened a long time ago.” With all respect, the attack took place just eight months ago. To the families who woke up this morning without sons and husbands and fathers by their side, it does not feel like “a long time ago.”
Moreover, eight months later, we still have not gotten the full story of what happened. If all the facts are out, and the administration truly has nothing to hide, why has it reportedly tried to silence these career State Department officials?
Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that eight months have passed since Benghazi and still nothing has been done about it. Our country suffered a coordinated terrorist attack on an American diplomatic facility. A U.S. ambassador was killed at the hands of our terrorist enemies. Yet no one has been brought to justice — nor has justice been delivered to anyone.
Maybe before the Obama administration closes the book on Benghazi, it ought to tell the truth about what happened — and then actually do something to avenge these dead Americans. Because when a president seems more intent to sweep a terrorist attack under the rug than he is to respond to it, it sends a message of weakness to our enemies and invites new attacks.
Source: Only President Could Have Given Stand Down Order During Benghazi Attack
May 8, 2013
Source: Freedom Outpost
A
little over a month after the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi,
that left four Americans dead, then CIA Director David Petraeus denied
that the CIA issued any type of stand down orders to those requesting
to assist in Benghazi, leaving only one person that could have given
such an order. This came as it was revealed that there were people on
the ground with targets painted and air support overhead and the strike was called off. Even former House Speaker Newt Gingrich claimed
that that it was rumored that emails from the National Security
Adviser’s office told a counterterrorism group to sand down (by the way,
this would be part of the reason for the piece yesterday on Ben
Rhodes). Now Breitbart is reporting
that a source with intimate information about what took place on the
ground in Benghazi on the night the U.S. Consulate and the CIA annex was
attacked by terrorists is confirming that only the President of the
United States, or someone acting on his authority, could have prevented Special Forcesfrom helping the Americans who were under assault.
Kerry Picket writes,
In fact, Carney told reporters, “Like every president before him, he has a national security adviser and deputy national security adviser. He was in regular communication with his national security team directly, through them, and spoke with the secretary of state at approximately 10 p.m. He called her to get an update on the situation.”
Again, Obama was being coached by his national security team, which includes national security deputy Ben Rhodes.
Pickett says that the source explained, “I have a hard time thinking it was Hillary alone. Hillary may have tried to circumvent the counterterrorism board and deal with this. I think in order for her to tell General Ham, ‘No, you’re not going to get involved,’ she would have had to talk to the president. The president would have had to say, ‘No, take your commands from Hillary.’ He would have had said something, because Ham does not work for the Department of State; he works directly for the president.”
Today we will begin getting some answers as whistleblowers in the Benghazi scandal, Mark I. Thompson, Gregory Hicks, and Eric Nordstrom, begin their testimony before Congress.
A recent Fox News poll shows
more than two-thirds of American voters believe the federal government
is “out of control” and a threat to their liberties. Meanwhile, a
separate survey commissioned by WND revealed that more than half of the public supports impeaching President Obama for a series of explosive scandals: spying on journalists, IRS targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups, as well as what has become known as “Benghazigate.” Other major scandals such as the administration's Fast and Furious gun-running to cartels, executing Americans without trial, and unconstitutional wars were not addressed in the surveys.
According to the Fox News poll, released on May 21 and conducted under the guidance of two polling firms, a whopping 68 percent of likely voters “feel like the federal government has gotten out of control and is threatening the basic civil liberties of Americans.” Almost half of Democrats agree that Washington, D.C., is out of control as well — more than the number who disagreed. Just a quarter of respondents did not feel that way, while four percent said they had mixed feelings or it “depends.”
Some six in 10 likely voters, meanwhile, believe the Justice Department went “too far” in seizing records from journalists, while less than a third did not think so. Even among Democrats, only 50 percent approved of disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder, who is currently in criminal contempt of Congress for covering up the deadly Fast and Furious gun-running scandal.
However, among the three most recent and explosive scandals swirling around the embattled administration, more respondents felt the IRS targeting of conservative organizations was the most concerning. That was followed by the White House’s handling of the terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi. Seizing phone records from reporters was viewed as the most concerning of the three issues by 21 percent of respondents.
The Fox survey also found that disapproval of the president’s job performance had soared above 50 percent for the first time in a year, with 15 percent of Democrats disapproving. Obama’s credibility among the public, meanwhile, hit new lows, with less than half of respondents saying the president was honest and trustworthy. About the same number did think Obama was honest.
Congress, however, was extraordinarily unpopular — far more unpopular than even the scandal-plagued president. According to the poll, more than three-fourths of likely voters disapproved of the job lawmakers were doing, with just 16 percent saying they approved. It was not immediately clear why Congress remains so unpopular among Republicans and Democrats.
The WND survey, conducted by Wenzel Strategies and also released this week, found even more astounding sentiments among voters. According to the poll, half or nearly half of those surveyed said Obama should be impeached over the scandals currently swamping the administration. On Benghazi, slightly more than 50 percent said they thought Obama should be impeached — including more than a fourth of Democrats.
The poll, which has a margin of error of 4.63 percent, also found that almost half of respondents — 49 percent — agreed that the president should be impeached over the IRS targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups. Almost one out of four Democrats thought the scandal merited impeachment as well, according to the survey. IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner pled the Fifth Amendment in congressional hearings this week, adding fuel to the fire as congressional investigations continue.
Finally, about 48 percent of respondents said impeaching the president would be appropriate in light of the Department of Justice’s controversial seizure of phone records belonging to AP reporters and editors. More than a fourth of Democrats also thought the media scandal, which has since extended to Fox News after one of its reporters was targeted, merited impeachment.
“It may be early in the process for members of Congress to start planning for impeachment of Barack Obama, but the American public is building a serious appetite for it,” Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies, which did the telephone poll last week, was quoted as saying by WND. “Half or nearly half of those surveyed said they believed Obama should be impeached for the trifecta of scandals now consuming Washington.”
WND also cited numerous lawmakers who have openly discussed impeachment, along with commentators and experts who suggested that the time had come. Among those who have discussed impeaching the president was Democrat former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who proposed impeachment over Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya.
There was more bad news for the president in other polls, too. Another Fox News poll released on May 22, the day after the survey that found more than two thirds of Americans thought the government was “out of control,” revealed more trouble for the administration and its agenda on multiple fronts. On the economy, for example, about half of those surveyed said Obama’s ideas were “bad” and too many had been implemented. Only 41 percent said the president’s ideas were good but not enough had come to pass.
Among the most important findings: 56 percent of respondents felt scrapping ObamaCare would be better than leaving it in place. Just one third thought the statute should be kept, and the trend is moving further against the administration’s controversial healthcare takeover. More than half of those surveyed said they would be worse off under ObamaCare — including a fourth of Democrats — while only 26 percent thought they would be better off.
Despite the survey findings published by Fox News and WND, polls from the liberal-minded establishment media released in recent days suggested that the administration’s public support had remained essentially unchanged amid the mounting tsunami of scandals. For instance, a survey commissioned by CNN, which has been losing credibility faster than other “mainstream” outlets in recent years amid a series of major mistakes, put the president’s approval rating at 53 percent. Still, more than seven out of ten said the IRS behavior was unacceptable, and 37 percent thought the IRS was acting on White House orders.
Another poll by the Washington Post and ABC released this week found that about 51 percent approved of Obama, with 44 percent disapproving. However, that survey also found that more than 55 percent of respondents believed the IRS scandal was a deliberate attempt at harassment, and that the administration was trying to cover something up about the Benghazi attack.
The extremely liberal Huffington Post, however, noted that its polls put the president’s approval rating at closer to 47.5 percent — well below other liberal-leaning media outlets’ survey results. “HuffPost,” which has developed a reputation as a far-left defender of the president on par with MSNBC, also reported on other polls that showed Americans were more interested in news about the economy than the three major scandals swirling around Obama.
The varying results between different polls showed strong differences based on how questions were phrased, for example. However, the latest numbers still suggest that the establishment media’s oft-repeated claims that administration has remained relatively unscathed by the scandals are almost certainly not accurate.
Numerous media outlets, including left-leaning establishment publications, have been openly speculating about where all of these scandals may lead. Some analysts, even among openly liberal sources, have suggested that the president will inevitably be impeached. Others speculated that Obama may try to offer Holder’s scalp in an effort to protect his presidency. How all of it will play out, however, remains to be seen.
Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who serves on several House committees including the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, discussed the Benghazi scandal in an interview with the Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas. Particularly, he dealt with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s role in the scandal and he questioned the method by which the administration has revealed to the American people what happened on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi.
Thomas said that some think that because Clinton was not sworn in by the Senate or the House makes the case for the need for a select committee that doesn’t make any mistakes on the seriousness of investigating the attack in Benghazi.
However, “It doesn’t impact your ability, not with respect to her, but with respect to anyone, to say you did not… you were not honest with the committee of Congress,” the South Carolina representative stated.
“I’ve never been on a committee that had the opportunity to question her,” he added. “I’ve watched the questioning and I would like the chance to ask her some questions and hopefully I will get that chance at some point.”
Gowdy said the ARB (Accountability Review Board) report had been labeled “the final say so on Benghazi,” but added that it was a “befuddling, if not mind numbing omission,” since Clinton was never interviewed for the report.
“If you want to know what happened in Benghazi I would think that you would talk to everyone who might potentially have firsthand knowledge,” Gowdy said. ”If 10 people watch a car wreck why would you talk to three?”
Gowdy, like many of us wonders why the ARB didn’t question her, since she was the head of the State Department.
“The Accountability Review Board, at least in my judgment, was calculated to insulate the State Department, not to tell us what happened in Benghazi,” he continued.
This is why Raymond Maxwell, a former official at the State Department who placed on forced administrative leave after the ARB report was released, believes that Hillary Clinton and her staff were the ones spearheading the review, not an independent board.
Gowdy expressed confidence in Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to find out all the “relevant” factors about what happened in Benghazi. He also said it didn’t have to be a committee hearing that was used to get the information. Depositions can also be taken to get the truth.
In fact, rather than have questioning for five minutes at a time, Gowdy said “Depositions where you can go for hours and hours and hours is more calculated to get the full story out.”
Rep. Gowdy said that he didn’t know how you would have a credible report if you failed to investigate all those who had information on Benghazi before, during or after September 11, 2012.
According to Gowdy, Issa has confidence in his committee and he asks their input in the best way to approach the Benghazi issue and the best way to get the facts out. Gowdy believes that depositions are the best way to do that. “That’s the way we do it in litigation,” he said.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/sc-rep-blasts-hillary-on-benghazi-you-cant-lie-to-congress-whether-youre-sworn-in-or-not/#ixzz2UbziOkS1
Content and Programming Copyright 2014 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network
According to the source, when the attack on the Consulate occurred, a specific chain of command to gain verbal permission to move special-forces in must have occurred. SOCAFRICA commander Lieutenant Col. Gibson would have contacted a desk officer at the time, asking for that permission.We know that Barack Obama sent a letter to Congress indicating that he did not make a singled phone call on September 11, 2012. However, just days later, Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama called then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at approximately 10pm EST.
That desk officer would have called Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, then in command of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara. From there, Bristol would have made contact with Rear Admiral Brian Losey, then Commander of Special Operations Command Africa. Losey would have contacted four-star General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. AFRICOM at the time.
“Ham answers directly to the President of the United States,” said the source. It wasn’t a low-level bureaucrat making the call, the source adamantly added.
In fact, Carney told reporters, “Like every president before him, he has a national security adviser and deputy national security adviser. He was in regular communication with his national security team directly, through them, and spoke with the secretary of state at approximately 10 p.m. He called her to get an update on the situation.”
Again, Obama was being coached by his national security team, which includes national security deputy Ben Rhodes.
Pickett says that the source explained, “I have a hard time thinking it was Hillary alone. Hillary may have tried to circumvent the counterterrorism board and deal with this. I think in order for her to tell General Ham, ‘No, you’re not going to get involved,’ she would have had to talk to the president. The president would have had to say, ‘No, take your commands from Hillary.’ He would have had said something, because Ham does not work for the Department of State; he works directly for the president.”
Today we will begin getting some answers as whistleblowers in the Benghazi scandal, Mark I. Thompson, Gregory Hicks, and Eric Nordstrom, begin their testimony before Congress.
Thursday, 23 May 2013 15:00
Impeachment Support Soars as Voters Say Feds “Out of Control”
Written by Alex Newman
According to the Fox News poll, released on May 21 and conducted under the guidance of two polling firms, a whopping 68 percent of likely voters “feel like the federal government has gotten out of control and is threatening the basic civil liberties of Americans.” Almost half of Democrats agree that Washington, D.C., is out of control as well — more than the number who disagreed. Just a quarter of respondents did not feel that way, while four percent said they had mixed feelings or it “depends.”
Some six in 10 likely voters, meanwhile, believe the Justice Department went “too far” in seizing records from journalists, while less than a third did not think so. Even among Democrats, only 50 percent approved of disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder, who is currently in criminal contempt of Congress for covering up the deadly Fast and Furious gun-running scandal.
However, among the three most recent and explosive scandals swirling around the embattled administration, more respondents felt the IRS targeting of conservative organizations was the most concerning. That was followed by the White House’s handling of the terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi. Seizing phone records from reporters was viewed as the most concerning of the three issues by 21 percent of respondents.
The Fox survey also found that disapproval of the president’s job performance had soared above 50 percent for the first time in a year, with 15 percent of Democrats disapproving. Obama’s credibility among the public, meanwhile, hit new lows, with less than half of respondents saying the president was honest and trustworthy. About the same number did think Obama was honest.
Congress, however, was extraordinarily unpopular — far more unpopular than even the scandal-plagued president. According to the poll, more than three-fourths of likely voters disapproved of the job lawmakers were doing, with just 16 percent saying they approved. It was not immediately clear why Congress remains so unpopular among Republicans and Democrats.
The WND survey, conducted by Wenzel Strategies and also released this week, found even more astounding sentiments among voters. According to the poll, half or nearly half of those surveyed said Obama should be impeached over the scandals currently swamping the administration. On Benghazi, slightly more than 50 percent said they thought Obama should be impeached — including more than a fourth of Democrats.
The poll, which has a margin of error of 4.63 percent, also found that almost half of respondents — 49 percent — agreed that the president should be impeached over the IRS targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups. Almost one out of four Democrats thought the scandal merited impeachment as well, according to the survey. IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner pled the Fifth Amendment in congressional hearings this week, adding fuel to the fire as congressional investigations continue.
Finally, about 48 percent of respondents said impeaching the president would be appropriate in light of the Department of Justice’s controversial seizure of phone records belonging to AP reporters and editors. More than a fourth of Democrats also thought the media scandal, which has since extended to Fox News after one of its reporters was targeted, merited impeachment.
“It may be early in the process for members of Congress to start planning for impeachment of Barack Obama, but the American public is building a serious appetite for it,” Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies, which did the telephone poll last week, was quoted as saying by WND. “Half or nearly half of those surveyed said they believed Obama should be impeached for the trifecta of scandals now consuming Washington.”
WND also cited numerous lawmakers who have openly discussed impeachment, along with commentators and experts who suggested that the time had come. Among those who have discussed impeaching the president was Democrat former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who proposed impeachment over Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya.
There was more bad news for the president in other polls, too. Another Fox News poll released on May 22, the day after the survey that found more than two thirds of Americans thought the government was “out of control,” revealed more trouble for the administration and its agenda on multiple fronts. On the economy, for example, about half of those surveyed said Obama’s ideas were “bad” and too many had been implemented. Only 41 percent said the president’s ideas were good but not enough had come to pass.
Among the most important findings: 56 percent of respondents felt scrapping ObamaCare would be better than leaving it in place. Just one third thought the statute should be kept, and the trend is moving further against the administration’s controversial healthcare takeover. More than half of those surveyed said they would be worse off under ObamaCare — including a fourth of Democrats — while only 26 percent thought they would be better off.
Despite the survey findings published by Fox News and WND, polls from the liberal-minded establishment media released in recent days suggested that the administration’s public support had remained essentially unchanged amid the mounting tsunami of scandals. For instance, a survey commissioned by CNN, which has been losing credibility faster than other “mainstream” outlets in recent years amid a series of major mistakes, put the president’s approval rating at 53 percent. Still, more than seven out of ten said the IRS behavior was unacceptable, and 37 percent thought the IRS was acting on White House orders.
Another poll by the Washington Post and ABC released this week found that about 51 percent approved of Obama, with 44 percent disapproving. However, that survey also found that more than 55 percent of respondents believed the IRS scandal was a deliberate attempt at harassment, and that the administration was trying to cover something up about the Benghazi attack.
The extremely liberal Huffington Post, however, noted that its polls put the president’s approval rating at closer to 47.5 percent — well below other liberal-leaning media outlets’ survey results. “HuffPost,” which has developed a reputation as a far-left defender of the president on par with MSNBC, also reported on other polls that showed Americans were more interested in news about the economy than the three major scandals swirling around Obama.
The varying results between different polls showed strong differences based on how questions were phrased, for example. However, the latest numbers still suggest that the establishment media’s oft-repeated claims that administration has remained relatively unscathed by the scandals are almost certainly not accurate.
Numerous media outlets, including left-leaning establishment publications, have been openly speculating about where all of these scandals may lead. Some analysts, even among openly liberal sources, have suggested that the president will inevitably be impeached. Others speculated that Obama may try to offer Holder’s scalp in an effort to protect his presidency. How all of it will play out, however, remains to be seen.
Photo of President Barack Obama: AP Images
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at
anewman@thenewamerican.com.SC Rep Blasts Hillary On Benghazi: “You Can’t Lie To Congress Whether You’re Sworn In Or Not”
Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who serves on several House committees including the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, discussed the Benghazi scandal in an interview with the Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas. Particularly, he dealt with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s role in the scandal and he questioned the method by which the administration has revealed to the American people what happened on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi.
Thomas said that some think that because Clinton was not sworn in by the Senate or the House makes the case for the need for a select committee that doesn’t make any mistakes on the seriousness of investigating the attack in Benghazi.
“You can’t lie to Congress whether you’re sworn in or not,” Gowdy said bluntly. “I know that some committees do swear in witnesses and some do not, but the reality is that you can’t lie to Congress whether you’re sworn in or not.”Gowdy went on to say that some committees don’t like the custom of swearing in former members. Hillary Clinton would fall under that custom as a former member of the United States Senate.
However, “It doesn’t impact your ability, not with respect to her, but with respect to anyone, to say you did not… you were not honest with the committee of Congress,” the South Carolina representative stated.
“I’ve never been on a committee that had the opportunity to question her,” he added. “I’ve watched the questioning and I would like the chance to ask her some questions and hopefully I will get that chance at some point.”
Gowdy said the ARB (Accountability Review Board) report had been labeled “the final say so on Benghazi,” but added that it was a “befuddling, if not mind numbing omission,” since Clinton was never interviewed for the report.
“If you want to know what happened in Benghazi I would think that you would talk to everyone who might potentially have firsthand knowledge,” Gowdy said. ”If 10 people watch a car wreck why would you talk to three?”
Gowdy, like many of us wonders why the ARB didn’t question her, since she was the head of the State Department.
“The Accountability Review Board, at least in my judgment, was calculated to insulate the State Department, not to tell us what happened in Benghazi,” he continued.
This is why Raymond Maxwell, a former official at the State Department who placed on forced administrative leave after the ARB report was released, believes that Hillary Clinton and her staff were the ones spearheading the review, not an independent board.
Gowdy expressed confidence in Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to find out all the “relevant” factors about what happened in Benghazi. He also said it didn’t have to be a committee hearing that was used to get the information. Depositions can also be taken to get the truth.
In fact, rather than have questioning for five minutes at a time, Gowdy said “Depositions where you can go for hours and hours and hours is more calculated to get the full story out.”
Rep. Gowdy said that he didn’t know how you would have a credible report if you failed to investigate all those who had information on Benghazi before, during or after September 11, 2012.
According to Gowdy, Issa has confidence in his committee and he asks their input in the best way to approach the Benghazi issue and the best way to get the facts out. Gowdy believes that depositions are the best way to do that. “That’s the way we do it in litigation,” he said.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/sc-rep-blasts-hillary-on-benghazi-you-cant-lie-to-congress-whether-youre-sworn-in-or-not/#ixzz2UbziOkS1
LLC 501C- 4 UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Content and Programming Copyright 2014 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network
No comments:
Post a Comment