January 24, 2013
For Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, the testimony she gave before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was an emotional swan song filled with defensive outbursts and reactionary statements about her sorrow for the families involved. Clinton said: “As I have said many times since Sept. 11, I take responsibility. Nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger and more secure.”
Responding to Senator Jim Risch’s questions, Clinton maintained that she was focused “on keeping people safe” and that the US government “didn’t know who the attackers were or what their motives were.”
Clinton said that Ambassador Susan Rice made comments that were not consistent with the intelligence known at the time; the morning after the event. The lack of clarity regarding the situation made Rice’s talking points “the most acceptable” at the time.
At one point, Clinton began shouting at Senator Ron Johnson, saying: “What difference does it make? With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Clinton claimed that she never saw the requests made by J. Christopher Stevens for more security. In her mind, this incident was one of a long history of violent outbursts that justified the necessity of US Armed Forces in the region to stabilize and maintain order.
As a verbal slap in the face, Clinton told the Senators that: “For me, this is not just a matter of policy – it’s personal. I stood next to President (Barack) Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews,” she added, her voice breaking as she described the ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base when the men’s remains were brought home. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, the sisters and brothers, the sons and daughters and the wives left alone to raise their children.”
Because of lack of funding, Clinton said, the terror attack on Benghazi occurred. She redirected the blame onto Congress who did not approve enough money for the State Department to afford to send adequate security for Stevens.
Clinton told Senator Marco Rubio that Libya must be held accountable for their inability to properly secure the gated-villa in Benghazi. Clinton said: “This was a constant conversation. What I found with the Libyans was willingness but not capacity.”
Senator Rand Paul said that he “would have relieved [Clinton] of [her] post” wither regard to how she handled Benghazi. Clinton said that during the “independent” review conducted by the internal agency of the State Department on Benghazi, some personnel had lost their jobs. Paul said that Clinton is “just incompetent”.
Senator John McCain was not “satisfied” with Clinton’s testimony and asked if classified cables showing threats of attack prompted actions to be taken. McCain said: “All of these warnings. And we did not have a single Department of Defense asset available to come to this rescue.”
Clinton remarked that without proper funding, the security shortcomings began an obvious problem with regard to Benghazi.
Michael Morell, acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), explains that the documents were not altered to reflect the story communicated by the Obama administration and translated to the American public. Morell says that confusion surrounding that night and the events added to the inability to analyze the intelligence documents provided.
Due to bias, watered down intelligence and unavailable documents, the Benghazi incident was able to happen with such success; according to Morell.
David Petreaus, former director of the CIA, testified last November that the Obama administration’s account of the attack on Benghazi does not match CIA intelligence provided at the time. Petraeus was adamant that the attack as terroristic in nature. He mentioned that the Department of Justice and US State Department were corroborating his account of the events.
Facts about Stevens’ mission in Benghazi were not mentioned by Clinton, or the SFRC that could explain why the incident occurred. The cover-up continues with Clinton’s testimony.
Stevens was appointed to the status of Ambassador by Clinton as a cover for his work with the CIA. In Libya, Stevens was commissioned to assist in surveillance missions with the CIA on the National Transitional Council (NTC).
When Gadhafi was assassinated, the NTC was installed to stabilize the region for the US. They are a defacto-government headed by known terrorists. The rent-villa in Benghazi was a place for Stevens to stay when he was speaking and dealing with the NTC.
At some point, the NTC became aware that Stevens was monitoring them and sending intelligence to the CIA. During his mission in Benghazi, Stevens was also involved with arms deals between Libya, Saudi Arabia and the Free Syrian Army (FSA). This prompted the response that culminated in the attack on the gated-villa in Benghazi.
The Obama administration, along with Clinton, attempted to cover-up the murder of CIA spy Stevens by invoking his status as Ambassador and incorrectly claiming that the gated-villa in Benghazi was a US embassy. The nearest US embassy is in Tripoli.
Regardless of Clinton’s testimony to the SFRC, the facts surrounding Stevens, his purpose for being in Benghazi and his mission as a CIA spy is not being discussed on Capitol Hill, or being acknowledged by the mainstream or some alternative media outlets. Without complete transparency, the testimony of Clinton is another notch in the cover-up.
It is meant to quell the question of the public long enough to distract them with other news. The reality of why Stevens and 3 other Americans were murdered will fall into the annals of history unless the truth is revealed.Add This to Technorati Faves