From
World Net Daily, By Garth Kant, January 15, 2014
Congressman:
Hillary Busted in Monstrous Lie
WASHINGTON
— President Obama has problems with credibility, as the world well
knows after he disingenuously insisted, “If you like your
health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan” about two
dozen times in public.Now, it turns out, the Democrat most political
observers believe will try to replace Obama as president apparently
also has problems telling the truth.
Former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about
Benghazi, a congressman who recently returned from a fact-finding
trip to Libya told WND. He
said she also lied to Congress. Rep.
Steve King, R-Iowa, was unequivocal when WND asked him, “What makes
you so certain that Hillary Clinton lied?”
“Because,”
King replied, “I heard her with my own ears.”
And,
what contradicted her? “The
facts.”
King
also had a blistering response to a famous question posed by Clinton.
During a Senate committee hearing Jan. 23, 2013, when asked what
caused the death of four Americans in Benghazi, Clinton responded
indignantly, “At this point, what difference does it make?”
WND
asked King if he had an answer for her.
“The
reason it makes a difference, Hillary Clinton, is because this
administration lied to the American people. Her voice was one of
those voices that lied to the American people.”
King
said he could not divulge what was said during a classified briefing
he attended, but, “I will just tell you that the administration’s
officials told the same lies to members of Congress in a classified
setting that they told the public five times on Sunday.”
He
was referring to appearances on five political talk shows by
then-Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on Sept. 16, 2012,
during which she claimed the attack was a spontaneous protest
inspired by anger over an obscure anti-Muslim video on the Internet.
“We
know that’s false,” King told WND. “On top of that, we know
they knew it was false. They knew within three hours that it was a
calculated, strategized attack by an organized enemy on that compound
and that annex in Benghazi.”
Strong
confirmation of King’s version of events has just come to light,
as newly
declassified documents show
top defense officials briefed Obama that a terrorist attack was
underway in Benghazi not long after it began.
During
a classified, closed-door hearing last year, Gen. Carter Ham, who was
responsible for U.S. forces in North Africa, testified that he very
quickly got to the point and told then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
that it was a terrorist attack and not a protest.
Panetta
and Dempsey then met immediately with Obama.
Last
February, Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he
told Obama “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.”
Panetta
said, “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist
attack.”
And
yet, for the next few weeks, as the 2012 presidential election
reached the crucial home stretch, a number of aides to both Clinton
and Obama repeatedly insisted there was no evidence the attack on
Benghazi was planned, but it appeared to be protest that turned
violent.
That
was contradicted by testimony on May 8, 2013, by U.S. diplomat
Gregory Hicks, who was in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist
attack.
He,
and two other key witnesses agreed, there was no basis for Rice to
claim the attack began as a protest of an anti-Islamic film. And yet,
Obama and Clinton repeatedly made that claim in the hours and days
after the incident.
Hicks
pointedly said he was “stunned” by Rice’s response to the
Benghazi attack.
“My
jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” he said.
Hicks
was asked if there was any indication of a protest in Benghazi in
response to the Internet video.
“The
YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” he said.
“We
know from the testimony,” King told WND. “We know it wasn’t the
movie. It is a fact that it wasn’t the movie.”
He
also pointed out that people who worked in the intelligence community
as well as the State Department have testified under oath that they
knew the movie did not trigger the attack.
“And
they (administration officials) have not retracted them. They were
dishonest,” King flatly stated.
The
congressman made the blunt assertions to WND in his first published
remarks following a recent trip he organized to hotspots in North
Africa and the Middle East, with Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and
Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.
The Iowan had more answers to Clinton’s question, “What difference does it make?”
He
said, of course, the loss of Ambassador Stevens and the three other
Americans “who stood there bravely to defend that compound” was a
“significant tragedy.”
But,
he called the truth an even bigger casualty.
“[T]he
biggest tragedy of this is this administration came forward within
days and began to misinform the American people on what took place in
Benghazi.”
That’s
because, King insisted, “It’s a tragedy when the integrity of the
presidency and the administration of President Obama, or any
president of the United States, can be sacrificed for a political
agenda.”
The
congressman noted that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates
described in his new book how then-senator and presidential
candidate Clinton took a position against the surge in Iraq in the
presidential primary contests in 2008 for political reasons.
“If
political decisions are made on war policy in Iraq when you’re
campaigning for office, and if political conditions were part of the
decision as to whether there would be a surge in Afghanistan, that’s
also part of Gate’s book, then those two things all but confirm
that the story that the administration promoted coming out of
Benghazi was a political story, designed to cover,” charged King.
And
why did they need cover? Because they were in the peak of the
president’s re-election campaign, said the congressman.
He
said the administration “should have told the American people the
straight-up truth as soon as they knew it,” but instead, “they
continue to cover-up Benghazi and the only reason they’ve been
allowed to do it is a media that is, for a large part, complicit.”
Conceivably, that could derail presidential ambitions Clinton might harbor.
Judge
Andrew Napolitano says the former secretary of state could be
prosecuted if she did, in fact, lie.
“Lying
to Congress carries the same criminal liability and the same
punishment as lying under oath to Congress. I’m not suggesting that
Mrs. Clinton lied, but I’m saying that a case could be made out,
either legally in a courtroom if a prosecutor wanted to, and
certainly politically in a public sphere should she decide to seek
higher office,” Napolitano said, the day after Hicks testified to
Congress that the video played absolutely no role in the Benghazi
attack.
When WND asked King if those he spoke with in Libya share his observations about the attack on Benghazi, he said it depends on who you talk to.
He
had nothing but praise for U.S. Ambassador to Libya Deborah Jones,
calling her “excellent” and “terrific.”
“She’s
in a very dangerous place, and she has a very difficult task. She’s
upbeat, she’s knowledgeable,” and King said all of their
discussions encouraged him that “we’ve got a good State
Department operating in Libya.”
My
comments:
Satan
is a LIAR and the father of LIES as are his surrogates. (John 8:44)
LYING
is a hallmark of the Obama Administration.
They
are Alinskyites
And
will use any means to accomplish their perverted goals.
This
LIE was instrumental in getting Obama re-elected;
That
along with the IRS preventing Conservative Groups
From
obtaining tax exempt status before the 2012 election
Which
disabled them from participating in that election.
No comments:
Post a Comment