Benghazi attack always was terrorism

The elephant in the room: is Hillary Clinton paving the way for Bill? Or his her own ideology bad enough? She exhibits many traits of a sociopath, but does so deliberately.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On Wednesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hear from three witnesses about the Benghazi attack of September 11 last year. Those witnesses have a story to tell that could have swung the election, had the people known it then. The Benghazi attack was never a protest about a silly video. It was a terrorist attack, and these witnesses knew it at the time. And what’s more, Hillary Clinton knew it, or should have known it.

Benghazi attack witnesses: who are they?

The three witnesses who will testify before Rep. Darrell Issa’s committee are:

  1. Gregory N. Hicks, deputy chief-of-mission in Libya when the attack happened.
  2. Mark I. Thompson, a former US Marine.
  3. Eric Nordstrom, once the regional security officer in Libya.

As deputy chief-of-mission, Gregory Hicks automatically took charge of what was left of the US Embassy the moment Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens died. Furthermore, Ambassador Stevens called Hicks when the attack started. Hicks called his superiors in Washington to set a proper response in motion.

Hicks has already told Congressional investigators that

I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I never reported a demonstration. I reported an attack on the consulate.

So why did then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice talk about a demonstration? Hicks says his jaw dropped when she told CBS News’ Face the Nation that it was all a demonstration over a silly video.

Even on Sunday morning, I could have [taken a] phone call [saying], “Hey, Greg, Ambassador Rice is going to say blah, blah, blah, blah,” and I could have said, “No, that’s not the right thing.” That phone call…never [happened].

Why didn’t it?

There is more. Mark Thompson, according to Fox News, will say then-Secretary-of-State Clinton didn’t inform her department’s counter-terrorism bureau. And that was no oversight. She did it on purpose. And he’s not the only one to say that.

The Weekly Standard also has a detailed timeline showing what the Obama administration was thinking. They knew perfectly well that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack. But that would ruin their story about Al-Qaeda being beaten and on the run. So they changed their story in the last twenty-four hours before Ambassador Rice “Faced the Nation.”

What does it mean today?

Hillary Clinton: will the Benghazi attack scandal ruin her Presidential hopes?

Hillary Clinton. Photo: US Department of State

Hillary Clinton worries about the Benghazi attack even now. As well she should. She still wants to run for President in 2016. (That is, barring Constitutional amendments – or runaway conventions – or worse.) That’s why she petulantly asked,

What difference does it make?

Of course, the Democrats on that committee will do what they can to save her reputation. National security be d____d.

Andrew Martin wondered whether the Benghazi attack scandal could “explode on the administration.” Don’t count on it, said Gary DeMar at Political Outcast.

As long as the welfare checks keep coming, food stamps are available, abortion remains legal, homosexuality is pushed as a new civil rights cause, and Republicans don’t have an alternative conservative platform they are willing to run on, Benghazi will not affect the president.

Of course the terrorists behind the Benghazi attack have this attitude about homosexuality and homosexuals:

Off with their heads!

But who’s keeping track of that sort of thing?

More to the point: Norvell Rose, of Liberty News TV, suggests the Democrats don’t really need Hillary. They can run Michelle Obama for President in 2016. That would amount to a third term for Barack Obama in all but name. Maybe that’s why, though the usual Democratic suspects want to protect Hillary, that doesn’t include Obama himself.

In fact, Jim Kouri of Conservative Action Alerts seems to think the Obama administration is at odds already with Democrats in Congress. Could they be afraid the Benghazi attack scandal will bring them down with Obama, if they don’t protect themselves?

Suddenly those Benghazi attack witnesses, and what they have to say, are far more important than most people realize.

Or is it? Sadly, three vital pieces of information are missing from the reports of the last few days:

  • Did Obama refuse aid when the Benghazi attack was at its height?
  • Was Obama running guns into Syria? Or if not, what else was he hiding? (The beaten Al Qaeda narrative can’t be all.)
  • And what happened to ten thousand missiles that went missing?

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

4 Responses to Benghazi attack always was terrorism

  1. […] Benghazi attack always was terrorism (conservativenewsandviews.com) […]

  2. […] they could do nothing to shake their testimony. And that was devastating. For half an hour, Gregory Hicks described what the Benghazi attack was […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.