Michele Bachmann on Benghazi

The prog-left hate Michele Bachmann with a passion they reserve only the rarest breed of counter patriot who attack their schemes, lies and corrupt nature head-on.

Bachmann is sometimes not well organized in battle;  She is, after all, in the arena taking strikes from all directions, including the media – and cocktail republicans are insufferably afraid of defending her.   But in this Benghazi regard she is highly accurate:

“Today’s hearing with General Petraeus further underscores the need for a thorough investigation of what happened during the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. From beginning to end, the American people are still without knowledge of what happened on that tragic day. The hearings that we have held to this point have not produced answers to the questions that the victims’ families and the American people deserve to have answered.

“The various committees with proper oversight of these matters in Congress have yet to hear from the principal decision makers who responded to what occurred September 11 and 12 when American lives were placed in peril.

National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and their subordinates in their respective chains of command who carried out their directives all should testify before Congress so the American people get the answers they deserve. While DNI Chief Clapper and General Petraeus came before our committee, their respective remarks are only an introduction—certainly not rising to a full investigation—regarding the attacks that transpired in Benghazi.

Three particular areas need further investigation.

The first is the lack of security at the Benghazi mission prior to the September 11 attack. We now know there were numerous reports of a deteriorating situation with security in eastern Libya prior to the attack. With that knowledge, why were the repeated requests for additional security by the State Department employees at the Benghazi mission reportedly denied, leaving the protection of Ambassador Stevens placed primarily in the hands of local Libyan militia? We also need to address why UN Ambassador Rice was sent on Sunday television shows after the attack and stated that there was a “substantial security presence” with Ambassador Stevens when that was clearly not the case.

“The second line of investigation needs to be regarding the calls for security assistance from the American personnel in Libya to the Obama administration. Reports state that key decision makers knew almost immediately from cables, emails, and phone calls that Ambassador Stevens and other Americans were in peril at the Benghazi mission. Americans deserve to know why did it take 20 hours for the U.S. military to land at the Sigonella Air Base in Italy, and at what point was there a military presence on site securing the American mission and annex in Benghazi? The question needs to be answered why did it take the FBI until October 4 to get on the ground to secure the sovereign soil of the American compound. And why the delay in US access to the site of the deadly attacks, both at the mission and the annex, so much so that reports stated that CNN was able to secure Ambassador Steven’s personal diary. If CNN was able to obtain such a private document, what other sensitive documents went missing?

“Third, why did the White House consistently embrace the false narrative that the deadly attacks were a spontaneous event motivated by an anti-Islamic video? President Obama in his remarks before the United Nations on September 25 stated six times that the anti-Islamic video was the motivating factor behind the attack. Why did the President continue to give this false narrative on September 25 —two weeks after the attack—when our government clearly knew that the video was not the primary motivation for the attacks? Today, the Obama administration is trying to change their narrative and have it both ways on their story regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

“These important questions and many additional ones have yet to be answered. Ultimately, President Obama is responsible for the actions of his national security team and it is incomprehensible that we have yet to hear what the President knew, when he knew it, and the specific orders he gave his team.

“Almost immediately after Osama bin Laden was killed the Obama administration starting releasing specific details, including some classified information, about the operation and a timeline of events. By contrast, two months after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi with an Ambassador and three other Americans dead, we have little knowledge of what the President knew and what his actions were. The victims’ families, the American people, and Congress deserve answers.”  (article)

This entry was posted in Benghazi-Gate, CIA, Clinton(s), Egypt & Libya Part 2, Islam, media bias, Sept 11, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Michele Bachmann on Benghazi

  1. Auntie Lib says:

    I want to hear from General Ham. Soonest. Under oath.


  2. jordan2222 says:

    Maybe I missed it, but I still have not seen anyone demand the video of what they saw in the situation room, nor a demand to know exactly who was there. Am I the only one who thinks that is important?

    I mean, come on now. if we saw them during the Bin Laden murder, then why is this different?

    I would add Obama to the above list of who testify under oath.


  3. dreamerspirit says:

    These are all the same questions we have explored here, in the Treehouse. I applaud Michele Bachmann for trying to push for accountability, but Obama and his administration, fortified by his reelection clearly feels he is beyond reproach. Too much focus is on messenger and the message and not on the actual events and lack of security.

    Interestingly, they have now formally acknowledged the building in Benghazi was not even formally classified a consulate. Somehow, this change in their narrative is going to part of their justification for not meeting the standard building security codes and possibly even the need to provide a security presence.

    With the holidays breaks coming up and the focus being shifted to the fiscal cliff I do not see any significant progress being made on this investigation. After the inauguration Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and perhaps other key players will be gone so what consequence the investigation would have on them would be minimal. I believe Leon Panetta may have been the one that withheld military support, given his comments about not sending resources into a situation where the circumstances were unclear…or something to that affect. What his future roll in Obama’s administration will be should be interesting.


    • Sharon says:

      May he will be the Assistant President. a new position to be established by POTUS…like The Office Of The President-Elect. Like the czar-thing, so it doesn’t have to be approved by Congress, which is irrelevant anyway.


      • dreamerspirit says:

        Right. We wouldn’t want any accountability. I am seriously beginning to question why do we have a Congress under this president. If they don’t give Obama what he wants on the fiscal cliff issue what does Obama really lose? He gets to implement tax increases via the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts on all income levels and make deep cuts into the military budget. He ends up with increased revenues and decreased defense spending, all things he wants, but gets to blame it all on the republicans if the economy fails to thrive.
        Obama acts more as a dictator and Congress seems more concerned with going on their breaks then staying and actually accomplishing anything. I swear they have more time off then they spend working.


        • Sharon says:

          We only have a Congress out of habit. Riding the rails as it were. They are not fulfilling their Constitutional duty and have not been for some time.


  4. 22tula says:

    The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth
    Fred Grandy Hosts – Frank Gaffney, Michael Mukasey,
    *Herb London*, and Bill Gertz

    “Obama and Terror: A Four-Year Scandal”
    By Michael B. Mukasey – November 2012

    “Cover Up 2012”
    By Herbert London – November 6, 2012

    “Sex, Lies, and Benghazi”
    By Bill Gertz – November 14, 2012


  5. lcrurik says:

    Maybe that’s why I donated to her campaign. Maybe that’s why I’m glad I did. Maybe that’s why I wanted ehr to get the GOP Presidential nomination.


  6. 22tula says:

    In the above article Herb London writes about the 1973 feeding frenzy amongst the journalists, when it came to Watergate. Today, with Benghazi, maybe a nibble. Why?

    “The Nixon Administration and Watergate”
    History Commons – “Silent Coup”

    Former DNC Secretary Sues Liddy for Defamation; Liddy Claims WatergateBurglary Was Really about Democratic Prostitution Ring

    “The Curious Case of Henry Kissinger”
    By J.R. Nyquist

    “Influence Agents: Who Started World War II?”
    By JR Nyquist – June 7, 2001


  7. 22tula says:

    Side Note
    Herb London mentioned non stop media coverage of Katrina. In comparison, Sandy – crickets

    Bad Sign: FEMA office on Staten Island closes ‘due to weather'”
    By Joe Tacopino – November 8, 2012

    Lost in the Storm

    The People Who Were Killed By Hurricane Sandy
    November 5, 2012 – Updated November 17, 2012


    Queens – Howard Beach Queens(Section B), north of the Rockaways,(Section A).
    Section B was not an evacuation zone. – October 30, 2012

    Long Island – “Long Island Residents Dealing with Sandy Related Garbage Nightmare”
    November 16, 2012 – Scroll Down for Video – see comments – and you thought all New Yorkers were Democrats.


  8. howie says:

    I guess the 5000 shoulder fired SAM’S and the millions in cash the Al Qaeda got are just bump’s in the road. What happened to all the survivors. Did Obama farm them out to Putin for work in his Siberian Green Energy complex?


  9. triage says:

    I love Michele Bachman. She and other genuine conservatives remined me of Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the hill only to have it roll down over them. Then they start again. It is their lives work. Sadly the boulder is often pushed back by members of the Republican party. She is immune to the left’s Alinsky tactics because the ridicule does not phase her ( like Reagan) so they can’t go to the next step and marginalize her. She with Palin, Malkin, Ingram are fearless with more backbone than many of the Republican men.

    These women should be the poster child for the Womens movement ( pioneer stock, independent, self reliant, courageous). But no they use Sandra Fluke who is totally dependent on government or should I say other taxpayers. It’s ironic that Fluke is a kept women but it is just that her man is Uncle Sugar. I thought the National Organization for Women (NOW) despised this quality in women.

    The best thing Bill Clinton ever did was expose the fact that NOW is not a womens movement but a radical left wing movement. He figured out that as long as he supported abortion (their holy grail) he could grope, demean and rape wome with impunity and NOW would not only vote for him but slobber over him. Thanks Bill for clearing that up for us. No wonder he was always smiling. He was doing what Now said they hated and they loved him for it . I plan to start the Bob Packwood apology tour starting tomorrow.


  10. howie says:

    Maybe she can do something about our fearless Generals. They are really trying their best not to make our enemy mad at us.


    • Sharon says:

      This is just beyond the pale. And perfectly fits the pattern of what we already know. There is really never anything new in the information that keeps dribbling out. And we desperately keep waiting for some American in our government to stand up and behave in a way that is consistent with the interest of Americans.

      I’m not assuming it’s ever going to happen.

      It’s all ok with Congress….since they had a couple of hearings last week, they got enough of the lies on record (lies which we clearly understood—oh, about 7 weeks ago–) but they got enough of them on record that they felt equipped to go out and make a talk show appearance or two so they can now say, “See, I DID something….”

      More information does not change what’s happening, nor does it change the bottom line of what we know was happening. It’s all ok with Congress. And until that changes–at its corpse (yup–at its corpse)–the rot at the core of our “leadership” will just keep on spreading.


  11. dreamerspirit says:

    I believe the AC130 U Gunship was in Italy, but part of the problem as was pointed out by John McCain, we had no military resources on alert status. That I believe that means the Aircraft guns were not armed nor were staff readily available for an emergency response. This, just like the lack of providing adequate security, points to even more questions of Obama’s level of basic competence.


    • Sam says:

      I don’t know about that. A SEAL would know not to laser paint a target unless the gunship was real close at hand. Targeting works both ways if the enemy has night vision. Two Spectres were in Libya. It’s not unreasonable to believe that one of them flew to Benghazi or was already in Benghazi. So, assuming Owens’ info is correct, the question should be: who called it off? Who in the American government facilitated the murder those SEALs?


      • dreamerspirit says:

        That seems to be the one question no one really has the audacity to ask. They dance around what Susan Rice said about the video, about the security issues, about the time line of events, who knew what when, etc. No one is asking the hard question you put forth. Why?


  12. Dusty says:

    There was some type of fire power in the airspace over Libya or the Laser (GLD) would not have marked. The GLD takes a signal from the source of balistic revenue to operae in the marking manner. It could have been a drone or the big Momma AC130 U. As peons we have to hope someone in the military comes forth and tells us the actual truth of the evening. This old vet is an ex C130 loadmaster and hopes for integrity in those who still serve. Come now my fellow blogger, do you really trust the Rino John McCain? After all John boy has been a big part of the Libyan operation since the Congress was not consulted about the use of war powers against a country whose leader believed in the rule of Law. Read up on Mr.Mommar Gadfi, quite an interesting man in a very turbulent time.


    • dreamerspirit says:

      No, I am not a fan of John McCain or his pal Lindsey Graham. However, I do believe he was correct in his research as to our alert status level for 9/11/12 in Libya. Do you believe Obama put our forces in Italy, Tripoli or anywhere on high alert status because of the 9/11 anniversary or that he cared to recognize the increasing threat of terrorism that was escalating in Benghazi? From what I understand if they are not on high alert status, that directly impacts how quickly they are able to respond. It does not mean they are unable to respond. That was the point I was trying to make. Obama was incompetent first, by not having issued a high alert status for 9/11 irregardless of any other unseen circumstances and second, for what appears not immediately issuing orders to our military to go to the aide of those in harms way.

      As for Mr. Gaddafi, Obama was instrumental in his demise which was brutal and also in the advancement of the Muslimn Brotherhood in his stead which obviously does not believe in the rule of law.


  13. triage says:

    I am losing faith. I don’t know where we are going as a country. The Obama administration is so horribly corupt but no one cares. The more they get away with the more numb I become. It’s changing my reality. Obama knows that his race will protect him no matter what he does.

    I hear the main stream media say “Does anybody really care about Bengazi?” and I realize that much of our country believe issues should be solved by who cares and not whats right. Chris Mathews gets people on his show and says to them ” Look into the camera and tell the american people that you believe that Barack Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number.” The Guest would always cave in and say no they don’t believe that. The appropriate answer would be to tell Chris that whether Obama is commiting social security fraud is not up for a vote. It is not a matter of belief. We should see all the facts and the facts will speak for themselves. Liberals want moral issuse solved by a show of hands. Conservatives say they know all the Alinsky tricks but still fall for them. I am getting so tired.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s