Benghazi Hearing Reveals Administration Incompetence And Lies

House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee hearing on the Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi in Washington

House Republicans took the Barack Obama White House to task with renewed vigor on Wednesday over charges that the Administration orchestrated a shameful cover-up of the Benghazi, Libya, terror attack in September.

Two attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi occurred within hours of one another on Sept. 11, resulting in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Upon review by a committee consisting of former top diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired Gen. Mike Mullen, it was determined that management and leadership failures at the State Department and gross lack of security at the embassy were major factors in the fatal attacks.

Democratic lawmakers time and again have accused Republicans of politicizing the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, but information revealed in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing this week highlights a certain level of Administration culpability in the fatally botched government response as the attacks unfolded. Even more damning for top Administration officials is information revealed in the Wednesday hearings that provides further evidence of a cover-up attempt.

Here are some highlights from the hearing.

Democrats doubled down attempts to divert blame from the Obama White House and State Department.

Representative William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) said that budget cuts were responsible for the tragic outcome.

The State Department told Benghazi whistle-blowers not to speak to Congressional investigators.

Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission for the United States in Libya, told members of Congress that the State Department made very clear that it didn’t want him to give his account of the Benghazi attack to lawmakers — even though he was in direct contact with Washington and the consulate at the time of the attacks.

Everyone knew it was a terror attack, and response teams that could have ended the attack promptly were ordered to stand down.

Excerpted from Hicks’ testimony:

When I got to the Tactical Operations Center, I told people that the ambassador — that I had just talked to the ambassador and what he said. At the time, John Martinec was on the phone with Alec Henderson in Benghazi, the RSO there, and I asked one of our D.S. agents who — what number did I reach Ambassador Stevens on.

And he said, “Oh, that’s Scott Wickland’s telephone.” Scott Wickland was Ambassador Steven’s agent in charge, his personal escort for that night, and was with him in the villa during the attack. So I asked — when John Martinec got off the telephone, I asked him what was going on. And he said that the consulate had been breached, and there were at least 20 hostile individuals armed in the — in the compound at the time. So I next called the annex chief to ask him if he was in touch with the Benghazi annex to activate our emergency response plan.

He said later, describing steps taken before two separate stand-down orders were issued by Administration officials:

I also discussed with the annex chief about mobilizing a Tripoli response team, and we agreed that we would move forward with a — chartering a plane from Tripoli to fly a response team to Benghazi to provide additional reinforcements. The defense attache was also reporting through his chain of command, back to AFRICOM and to the joint staff here in Washington about what was going on in the country.

The State Department’s public relations following the terror attacks were baffling to many people involved.

“I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed.” Hicks said, describing his reaction to Ambassador Susan Rice’s five national television appearances blaming a YouTube video for the attack.

The White House dismissed the hearings.

White House press secretary Jay Carney dismissed the Benghazi hearing as a political stunt during a briefing Wednesday.

“This is a subject that has, from its beginning, been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans when, in fact, what happened in Benghazi was a tragedy,” he said.

The press secretary also justified White House manipulation of facts regarding the terror attacks by saying edits to talking points relating to the event made by top Administration officials were for “stylistic” purposes.

“The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this,” Carney said. “Edits made by anyone at the White House were stylistic and not substantive. They corrected the description of the building… from consulate to diplomatic facility. Ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to congressional investigators. The attempt to politicize the talking points again is part of an effort to chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

No word yet on whether or not Merriam-Webster will alter the definition of “stylistic” to mean “of or relating especially to ass-covering lies.”

Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Kinetic1

    How iis this news? Nothing In this report is new information, just a rehash of testimony from the other hearings. Oddly enough, missing from this “report” is the pentagon’s response to reports about the administration’s failure to mount a rescue.
    “the Special Operations Command in Africa ordered the team to remain in Tripoli, saying that the mission in Benghazi at that point had shifted from a rescue operation to an evacuation.”

    “There is no evidence this four man team could arrive in Benghazi to assist with the attacks,” George Little, the Petagon press secratary said.

    Of course all of this and more is missing. How could you gin up more anger if you reported the whole story? Of course there is no mention of the 54 attacks on diplomatic targets resulting in 13 deaths during the Bush administration. Only 3 hearings were held and there was no outrage over the former administrations failure to protect Americans is those events. There were over 60 such attacks during the Clinton admits ration, around 100 during the senior Bush administration, and well over 100 during the Reagan years. Somehow all of this is overlooked. To some it may even appear that FOX and others are avoiding this information.

    • Warrior

      Why the “video” story?

    • Doc Sarvis

      I saw a good portion of the testimony on C-Span yesterday and observed that while the Democrats seemed to want to find out how to fix things the Republicans just wanted to rant without learning anything new on the event.

      • Wizzardly

        You sure you watched the same hearings I did? The Dems’ only input was to try to discredit the witnesses and other panel members’ motives and protect the fiction that Hillary and BHO were not involved.. Shameful.

      • Don 2

        You watched the testimony, and that was what you took away from it? Seriously? Was MSNBC re-writing their own version of what actually happened?

      • Vigilant

        Sarvis, people died and the administration lied. We are well aware of your myopic take on history, fostered by Karl Marx and agitated by such great leftists as Saul Alinsky and Howard Zinn.

      • Greg Murphy

        Do you really think that the likes of William Lacy Clay could ever fix anything?

      • Pplepeu9

        The purpose of this hearing is to find out what happened, what didn’t happen that should have, why it did or didn’t happen, and who was responsible, and why they lied about it. That requires asking questions and waiting for answers. All I saw the democrats on the panel do was to testify themselves on behalf of everyone who’s ass is on the line, making excuses and attempting to glorify them. In a court of law, a judge would, at that point, ask if the counselor had a question for the witness. If not, sit down and shut up!

    • MN guy

      All politicians ignore the truth of our Christian Heritage. Say that with me and that you will work to protect Christians in your lust for ‘democracies’ around the world. Politicians sell out for money, power and prestige. Your point is noted and appreciated, but respectfully dsagreed with on the point of WHY doesn’t the US stop Christians from being killed by non Christians?. May I ask why neither you or anyone else is stating Muslims attacked and killed Americans during every US administration, even during the time of Thomas Jefferson (see Barbary Wars) WHY does the US not protect CHRISTIANS around the world as we topple administrations in the name of ‘Democracy’? Christians are being butchered, and there is no US outcry that we respect the Christian religion and will protect them. We have sold out and forgotten our God. ie- international bankers are in league with Mid East Caliphs. US soldiers die, Europe, Asia or others get the resources. I want Hillary or Obama to tell the American people they will NOT TOLERATE (pun intended) the killing of Christians in these ‘democracies’ that Hillary and Obama want to establish with US taxpayer monies. Short version, they are handing Governmental power, US resources (US cash) and our military might to despots who are against our US interests. Can you say Morsi? Go on, tell me YOU will speak out to protect Christianity, churches and Christians in these mideast ‘democracies’, including Egyt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. Tell me Christians will be safe, with US support in those countries

    • Bob666

      Very well said Kinetic.

    • Vigilant

      Kinetic’s at it again, attempting to divert the conversation.

      Try reading the opening paragraph of this article. The issue is coverup.

      You might try providing some details about former administrations’ coverups if you wish to make an apples and apples comparison, which you apparently don’t. “…outrage over the former administrations failure to protect Americans” has not a thing to do with the absolutely shameful manner in which the State Dept. and Obama lied about the cause of the attacks.

      This amateurish CYA blathering shows ONE thing, which has become so typical of this administration: THEY are the first to deflect blame to avoid political damage. It’s more important to them to prevent devaluation of their political currency than to admit they’ve got a problem.

      It’s only my opinion, but I truly believe that the FIRST thought of those in charge was NOT shock at the tragedy of lives lost, but rather “Houston, we have a problem and need to distance ourselves from culpability.”

      THAT’S what I call “politicization.”

      • Vigilant

        As for the statement that “management and leadership failures at the State Department and gross lack of security at the embassy were major factors in the fatal attacks,” you may be justified in claiming that the shortfalls existed through other administrations, but that IN NO WAY justifies the same with this administration that you love so much.

        One does not justify bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior in the past. Obama’s at the helm, Hillary Clinton was on the ship as well when these lives were lost. It was THEIR responsibility, not Reagan’s, Clinton’s or the Bush’s.

        • hippybiker

          Your just like a little child saying…”But they did it too!”

        • Dave

          And Hillary Clinton accepted responsibility for the security lapses if your memory has failed you.
          Funny you never here about a conservative accepting responsibility for ANYTHING. Bush never accepted responsibility for 3000 Americans dying on 9/11 or Rice… neither did they accept any responsibility for the 13 Americans killed at our Embassy’s under Bush’s watch.
          Why wasn’t the GOP outraged then?
          Politics perhaps? Could you imagine what the GOP would have done if Al Gore allowed 9/11 to happen? It would have been brutal.
          You conservatives know this is another in a long line of GOP BS designed not to improve security at our embassy’s but to make sure it this the GOP that wins the WH in 2016. The GOP will have no problem having hearing after hearing just to keep up the spectre of wrongdoing… That is their MO since the Clinton years.
          You all should be ashamed of yourselves, but then conservatives don’t do shame, or morality, or humility.

          • Vigilant

            “Funny you never here [sic] about a conservative accepting responsibility for ANYTHING. Bush never accepted responsibility for 3000 Americans dying on 9/11 or Rice… ”

            …Especially since it was Bill Clinton who allowed OBL to get away so many times, especially when he had him in the crosshairs. Does “Sandy Berger” and the destruction of classified material proving Clinton’s culpability ring a bell with you?

          • Dave

            Hmmm can’t deal with Bush’s failures so you push it off onto Clinton. Typical Conservative move. Bush was on the job for almost a year, It was he who ignored the warnings and made China are number #1 security threat over terrorism. But like I said, Conservatives never take responsibility for anything so this comes as no surprise.

          • Vigilant

            And Clinton was on the job for 8 years, sonny, without ever nabbing OBL after the Cole bombing and other terrorist acts were traced to him.

            Let me get this straight, you DENY that Clinton could have taken out OBL prior to 2011? If you deny that, YOU are the one who lives in a pipe dream.

            9/11 would have happened no matter who was president. Clinton had the chance to stop it and didn’t. Facts are facts, cretin.

          • Dave

            Clinton did try and get OBL but what was the GOP response? “Wag the dog” remember? Of course not… the GOP demanded Clinton go after OBL right? LOL…
            fact are facts you are right… I will leave the ad hominem attacks as a testiment to your debating skill.
            Bush failed to get OBL for 7 years, Obama got him in 2. BINGO
            You don’t know 9/11 would have happened. If the Gore security kept the focus on terrorism like Clinton did and Gore actually paid attention to the memo “OBL determined to attack US” when they said they would use aircraft, maybe 9/11 could have been prevented. We will never know because we have the worst president in 150 years at the healm.

          • Greg Murphy

            Post ignored due to lack of intellectual content.

          • Vigilant

            On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke, covering internal assessments of the Clinton administration’s handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003.” (Wikipedia)

            To borrow your words, liberals “never take responsibility for anything so this comes as no surprise.”

          • Kinetic1

            You are assuming that the plans for 9/11 were not in place or would not have been possible to execute without Bin Laden in charge. What do you base that on? Yes, it does appear that Clinton failed to get Bin Laden on several occasions, the most notable in the summer of 1999. There were no armed drones at that time and launching missiles would have taken too long but there was the option of CIA ground forces. For reasons I am not privy to, he chose not to approve an attack. Had he done so, would it have stopped 9/11?

            Intel suggests that planning for 9/11 began in late ’98 early ’99, before the missed opportunity. So it looks like the wheels were in motion. During the transfer of office they did warn the incoming Bush administration that Bin Laden was the #1 threat. The CIA warned the new administration of an imminent attack no fewer than 6 times in the summer of 2001. Bush not only failed to head the warnings, but also went 8 years without getting Bin Laden.

            Facts are facts. Only two of the aborted opportunities came before 1999. Clinton did sent 66 missiles into Saudi Arabia in 1998, but Bin Laden had left the target area before they arrived. There is no evidence to suggest that killing Bin Laden in either the aborted 1999 mission or the 2000 missile strike would have prevented 9/11. There is, however plenty of evidence that the Bush administration chose to ignore intel that might have prevented the attack.

          • Greg Murphy

            Post ignored due to lack of factual or intellectual content.

          • Vigilant

            Dave steps on it again with ” Bush was on the job for almost a year, It was he who ignored the warnings and made China are [sic] number #1 security threat over terrorism.”

            Uh, I think you’re confusing Muslims with the Chinese.

            Moreover, your short memory fails to acknowledge that “In 1999, Berger was criticized for failing to promptly inform President Clinton of his knowledge that the People’s Republic of China had managed to acquire the designs of a number of U.S. nuclear warheads. Berger was originally briefed of the espionage by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in April 1996, but did not inform the president until July 1997.” (Wikipedia)

            That’s not even to mention the unauthorized sale of highly classified technology to China during the Clinton administration. You are pitiful,

          • vicki

            Dave writes:

            Hmmm can’t deal with Bush’s failures so you push it off onto Clinton. Typical Conservative move.

            Hmmm can’t deal with obama’s failures so liberals push it off onto President Bush. Typical.

          • Vigilant

            “And Hillary Clinton accepted responsibility for the security lapses if your memory has failed you.”

            She also refused to label the attack as terrorist-inspired. “Accepting responsibility” just prior to resignation was a calculated political move to distance herself from Obama in hopes of a 2016 presidential run. (Don’t ever accuse Sarah Palin again of running away from her governership responsibilities).

            Has Hillary ever “accepted responsibility” for Whitewater, Rose Law Firm billings, WH Travel Office, Vince Foster, insider trading? C’mon, you liberals, let’s hear about that. Or has “your memory failed you?”

          • jmprint

            Did you not hear Mr Hicks mention the people in Benghazi were fighting. There was a lot of unrest that day. And yes it was due to the book, which made for a great opportunity for terrorist attack. Decisions had to be made, and they were. President Obama would have been elected regardless if they had called it a terrorist attack or not.

          • Greg Murphy

            Only because Romney campaign threw in the towel.

          • Kinetic1

            Post ignored due to poster’s delusional state of mind.

          • jmprint

            No, they didn’t throw any towel, not even all the crap they pulled won them the election.

          • Vigilant

            And what book, pray tell, are you babbling about?

          • jmprint

            OK I stand to be corrected, meant VIDEO. What do you mean by pray tell. Am I the one babbling? Why do people on this site act so stupid, you guys know the whole arab world was in distress.

          • Vigilant

            “And yes it was due to the [video], which made for a great opportunity for terrorist attack.”

            That’s a new one. You’re so in the tank for Obama you don’t even realize that EVERYONE knows that to be an incorrect (as in fabricated) misrepresentation of the truth. Even Obama has backed off of that poor excuse.

            Better get an updated copy of your leftist talking points. News flash: the world is not flat.

          • jmprint

            Wait a minute. I am not making accuses for anybody.

            On 9/11/2013 there were a lot of uprising, due to this video. It was viewed on all tv stations, even FOX News.
            Not my fault you’re uniformed. BUT if you want to keep educating me, with your senseless spewing please continue.

          • Vigilant

            I repeat, “Even Obama has backed off of that poor excuse.” ‘Nuff said.

          • jmprint

            Good night parrot,

          • Average_Joe56

            jmprint says:

            On 9/11/2013 there were a lot of uprising, due to this video.
            Crystal Ball? You do realize that we will have to wait another 4 months for that date to arrive. Liberals are so intelligent, they don’t even know what year it is; let alone what they are talking about.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            To create a conflagration takes time of planning and to keep it going take time of planning so what exactly are you saying? There are people directing the supposed “distress” in the whole arab world and nothing happens without the countries leaders knowing. In America people mind their own business, not so with the nosiness in the ME.

          • Jana

            Yes and the video was a lie!

          • vicki

            Book? What book? The Qur’an?

          • Greg Murphy

            They have no memory. Brain cells destroyed from over dosing on kool aid.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Dave, what does Hillary or O saying “I take full responsibility” mean when they weasel out of any consequences and punishment?

          • Greg Murphy

            Post ignored due to lack of factual and intellectual content.

          • Frank Kahn

            Ah, the shameful, arrogant and amoral Dave raises his ugly head again and again.

            Facts BOY, facts is what you need here. If you are saying that the 9/11 attacks on the WTC were a false flag perpetrated by the government then yes, Bush should take responsibility. If it was an unexpected attack, that happened exactly the way it was reported, then he is not responsible in the way that Obama is. Did the Bush administration refuse to provide a response to the embassy attack? Were forces ready, available, and capable of repelling the attack, but told to not respond? If they were, and his administration did that, then he is responsible. Did it happen, and then his people lied and tried to cover it up? If this is true, then Bush is just as guilty as Obama. A lot of ifs there, but if they are all true then he should be held accountable just like Obama should. That does not change the fact that this time it is Obama that is responsible. He needs to be held accountable too. And he needs to be forced to face it now.

            You look down on republicans for trying to make democrats take responsibility for wrong doing. Why are you not upset that the democrats dont try to make republicans take responsibility for it. The only thing the democrats complain about is when the republicans refuse to do things their way.

          • Dave

            Fact BOY is what I have…

            Bush was warned months before 9-11. We were attacked and then Bush used 9-11 to get sheep in this country to go along with his adventure in Iraq. What did your conservatives do? Clapped their flippers like the trained seals they are and went right along with

            Read Richard Clarke’s Book “Against All Enemies” for the facts BOY. Then read every transcript of every speech Bush made from 9-11 to the 2003 invasion. he mentions OBL, Saddam and 9-11 in the same sentence. That was not by accident.

            So spare me your act Frank. I look down on both parties which is why I am an independent.

            You write:

            “The only thing the democrats complain about is when the republicans refuse to do things their way.”

            I respond:

            The only thing the Republicans complain about is when the Democrats refuse to do things their way.
            See… it works just as easily.

          • Don

            Bush didn’t take responsibility for 3000 Americans dying on 9-11 because Bush didn’t kill them.

            Bush and Rice didn’t accept responsibility for the 13 Americans killed at our embassy because they didn’t kill them.

            Bush and Rice didn’t lie to cover up either incident

            Obama and Clinton lied about Benghazi to America and the U.N., lied about a video, and lied about a demonstration, lied and fingered an innocent man for causing Benghazi, had an army of law enforcement officials and cameras present while taking the innocent man into custody at 2 A.M., and are still keeping the man in jail over a previous simple misdemeanor charge, and likely forcing the man into protective custody when he does get out of jail.

          • Dave

            Don, Obama and Hillart did not kill for Americans in Libya either.
            But they are responsible for the security conditions at our Embassys and they are responsible for addressing terrorism threats are they not?
            Bush and Rice failed and failed miserably. Sorry… Your hero is the worst President in the last 150 years.

          • Don 2

            Bush is hardly my hero, but if we’re talking about “worst presidents” Obama is so far ahead of the rest of the pack, hell, he even beats Jimmy Carter, and that’s saying a lot.

          • Don 2

            P.S. – No one ever said Obama and Clinton personally killed 4 Americans in Benghazi, but they sure did repeatedly lie through their teeth to the American people about it in order to cover up Obamas gun-running operation to the Muslim Brotherhood, and made up B.S. about it being caused by some video nobody ever saw.

            How can you continue to defend these obvious scumbags? You must have no principles or moral character yourself. There is no other possibility.

      • Liberty Lover

        Obama and Clinton would like the lies to become history, but they realized from the start that it would only be necessary to sustain the lies through the upcoming election. The dishonesty and incompetence of a President and Secretary of State are and ought to be a matter of political importance.


          The whole sordid affair was a black ops…gun running from Libya to Syria to arm jihadists, Stevens was left to die because he did not want to be a part of it anymore…see Joel Skousen on it. Having said that, it was still a purely political motive on part of Obummer to say it was video, because to say it was al-Qaeda did not fit in with narrative that because Osama was kiled, Al-Qaeda is dead, etc…

          • Don 2

            Obama figured correctly that his mush-for-brains worshippers would swallow the video crap, hook, line, and sinker, along with all of his other lies, and they obviously did by re-elected him Destroyer-in-chief.

        • Vigilant


    • Greg Murphy

      Post ignored due to lack of intellectual content.

      • Bob666

        what is it like to go through life without a firm grasp of reality?

        • Vigilant

          Tell us, please.

          • Bob666

            Tell you what?
            Greg’s detachment from reality? He is the best person to inform you.

    • Greg Murphy

      Pleas ignore this poster.

      • Kinetic1

        Per your request, I will do my best to ignore you henceforth.

        • vicki


    • Frank Kahn

      Once again, liberal one, what happened under Bush has no bearing on what is being investigated here.

      Once again, you liberal morons are attempting to manipulate words to show something is different than it really is. It changed from a rescue to an evacuation? I am not a liberal, I have a good command of the English language, I understand those two words perfectly, but I dont understand how liberals think that, changing the word from RESCUE (to retrieve people from a dangerous situation) to EVACUATION (to RESCUE people from a dangerous or devastated area) makes it different.

      They were RESCUED from the attackers.

      They were EVACUATED from the scene of the attack.

      If, and only if, the attack had ended, at the time of the stand down order, would there be any difference in the two ideas. Considering that the attacks continued for many hours after the order to stand down, the evacuation is exactly the same as the rescue.

      • Kinetic1

        The english language is not as cut and dried as you imply. I understand that your definitions serve your purpose, but your failure to fully understand / explore their meaning does not mean that there are no other meanings. In this instance the term rescue, as I understand it refers to an attempt to secure and save the compound (see definitions b and c). The decision came down to abandon the building and evacuate (see definition 4) the occupants. Not being privy to the details I can only assume that the forces needed to evacuate were less than what would be needed to continue defending the position.

        a : to take (as a prisoner) forcibly from custody
        b : to recover (as a prize) by force
        c : to deliver (as a place under siege) by armed force

        1: to remove the contents of : empty
        2: to discharge from the body as waste : void
        3: to remove something (as gas or water) from especially by pumping
        a : to remove especially from a military zone or dangerous area
        b : to withdraw from military occupation of

        • Frank Kahn

          Actually your liberal mental disorder, which twisted the true meaning of the term is what is at fault. Also your blatant attempt at discrediting me by intentionally leaving out the pertinent part of the definition of rescue

          “Definition of RESCUE

          : to free from confinement, danger, or evil : save, deliver: as
          a : to take (as a prisoner) forcibly from custody
          b : to recover (as a prize) by force
          c : to deliver (as a place under siege) by armed force”

          the fact that you wish to twist reality to some insane purpose does not change the fact that I was right. rescue means to remove from danger.
          and you will note that 4 a. of evacuate is exactly what I used in my post.


          It does not serve MY PURPOSE to use the correct definition of the words. It serves YOUR PURPOSE to select a definition that will support the illegal and traitorous actions of the administration.



          SINCE YOU ARE NOW COMPLICIT IN IT, THE LAW OF THE LAND ALSO GRANTS YOU A MINIMUM OF 20 YEARS IN PRISON. And, on a serious note, you are just too stupid to allow to reproduce.

          • vicki

            Definition of RESCUE
            : to free from confinement, danger, or evil : save, deliver: as
            a : to take (as a prisoner) forcibly from custody
            b : to recover (as a prize) by force
            c : to deliver (as a place under siege) by armed force



            Definition of EVACUATE
            transitive verb
            1 : to remove the contents of : empty
            2 : to discharge from the body as waste : void
            3 : to remove something (as gas or water) from especially by pumping
            4a : to remove especially from a military zone or dangerous area
            b : to withdraw from military occupation of
            c : vacate (were ordered to evacuate the building)


            As Kinetic1 says English can be a bit imprecise so we have to look at the context.

            Context matches Evacuate 4a: to remove especially from a military zone or dangerous area which exactly matches Rescue “to free from confinement, danger, or evil”.

            So Frank did in fact properly explore the meanings and noticed and used context to see that rescue=evacuation in the context provided.

  • Warrior

    Ya know what is pretty amazing about these type of gubmint events? Glad you asked. What’s amazing is we finally get to see what our tax dollars pay for. We have all these “busy people” performing the “peoples work” and when a cog breaks, we discovered they have all become these “Former” secretaries of “This” and “Former” undersecretaries of “That” and “Former” assistant secretaries of “This” and “Former” first assistant underwear secretary of “That”.
    So, from all this personnel movement, one could surmise the “gubmint” is just the “ultimate” game of musical chairs. We have “red” and “blue” players. When it’s their team’s “turn”, the players get to move around the .org and collect “benefits”. When they have been in “position” long enough to “qualify” for better benny’s they are moved along and the next “patronage” person steps in. And I’ll bet you thought the purpose of “secretaries day” was to show a little “appreciation” for that person at the front desk!
    You are sooooo right mrs. clinton, to those playing the game, “it doesn’t matter one damn bit”!

  • dan

    Hicks has exposed FRAUD… there were F-16s 10 min out…there were armed predators in orbit 20 min out…gunships 60 min out…Benghazi Security forces PARTICIPATED to coverup heat seeking missiles in the compound supplied to Al-CIA-duh’Brotherhood’infiltrators

    Glad they’re on record so Hillary and the government mafia can’t disappear them or arrange ‘accidents’

    • Vigilant

      Sad part of it is, when Billary runs for president, the programmed shills like Sarvis will vote for her regardless of her checkered past. Like Obama with NO past.

    • Dave

      And if Obama told the F-16’s to shoot or the drones…the attack was 10-16 minutes in total length. They would have been late and other people besides the people who attacked the embassy would have been killed and the GOP would be handing Obama today for killing innocents.
      We know the game the GOP is playing with this tragedy. Its sad but the GOP stops nothing for power. They will use 9/11 to get into Iraq, They will use Whitewater to misuse the IC to go after Clinton’s sex life and now we will see the GOP use the deaths of 4 Americans for nakedly political purposes. They have no shame whatsoever.

      • rswallick

        please wake up, it is not a democrate thing or a rebublican thing, it is a ruling political class thing. both parties increase the size of govt and reward their croonies. they try to divide and conquor us. all of these political stooges do as they are told. coorporations has taken over america. every conflict is for some coorportations to profit. until we stop behaving like stoopid cows, they will continue to milk us of all our labor/money and exist off us live the leeches they are. the only peacfull way out is to stop using their products (debt), become self relient, grow some food, learn what wild (weeds) edible’s grow all around you, get out of debt, become free as possible

      • Guest

        Seriously Dave it’s both parties how dumb are you? They both are in collusion to destroy our economy and make us slaves.

      • Greg Murphy

        Post ignored due to the lack of intellectual content.

      • Frank Kahn

        The attacks did not last just 10-16 minutes, they lasted for over 7 hours. Our professional F-16 pilots, with sophisticated targeting weaponry could have surgically taken out the terrorists with minimal loss to either civilians or property. Assuming that the terrorists were not in possession of sophisticated anti-aircraft guns and / or missiles, just an extreme low level high speed pass would have given them cause to re-think their attack. A single missile strike from one of them would definitely have ended it.

        This is not a game, the administration prevented deployment of tactical assistance, in a time of need, to American citizens under attack by Muslim terrorists. The reason for the administration acting as an enabling accomplice in this does not matter, the fact that they did is what needs to be addressed and corrected. The fact that they are now, and have been from the beginning, lying about the event is also needing to be addressed and corrected.

        This is no more political by the republicans than it is by the democrats. The republicans want to know the facts, and the democrats want to hide them. Both stand to gain by succeeding in their actions.

        • Jana

          Exactly! They not only lasted over 7 hours but our readiness teams that were formed and prepared to go into an attack zone to extract our people were told to STAND DOWN!
          So other people besides those who attacked the Embassy were killed. Besides those attacking the Embassy were not, and I will repeat WERE NOT INNOCENTS, they were part of Al Quaida.

      • Don 2

        Obama disappears during an attack on a U.S. embassy, doesn’t account for his whereabouts during the attack, doesn’t inquire about the attack while it is going on, 4 Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, are killed during the attack, does an obvious cover-up of the attack along with Hillary Clinton and the U.N. ambassadors help, refuses to turn over documents to a House oversight committee investigating the attack, blames the attack on a fake demonstration, and some poor saps video that nobody has seen, doesn’t punish the perpetrators, and somehow, it is the GOP that is at fault.

        Bill Clinton sexually uses many women, including a young intern, for personal gratification in the presidential office, ruins her life, outright lies to the American people on national television, commits perjury, and somehow, it is the GOP that is at fault.

        Now that’s what you call illogical thinking.

  • jdn

    The BS will continue to mount from the left field as to why things should be accepted and ignored as non-issues . Come on guys get over it , Barack got to go into the election declaring his perfect record of no terror attacks . Yes everything is all about him being perfect . Well that’s over and the election is over so why continue with the crap fest and lets get some answers and try to put some safe guards in place to stop any future political gain at the expense of sacrificial Americans .

  • de

    who said STAND DOWN — F I R E T H E M P E R I O D

  • Liberty Lover

    The larger tragedy regarding Benghazi is that a majority of the American public just didn’t care enough about honesty and competence in government to take the corrective action that was within their power to accomplish last November.

    • Jana

      It is truly sad to see such a division in our country that one party is so paranoid that if the truth does come out they are afraid their whole party will be blamed.

      How about blaming the people responsible for not doing their jobs?
      Maybe someone didn’t get it over to Obama that night, that it was as serious as it was; if the truth was to come out he might be vindicated. Is it that the powers that be for some reason say they are all connected at the hip and like dominoes, if one falls they all fall? Is this why they concocted the BIG LIE?

      Another theory would be that they are trying to protect Hillery Clinton for not doing her job and they want her to be President in 2016. No, they couldn’t possibly let her take the fall so at all costs they must protect the party.

      No matter how you look at it, it still comes out as intrigue and conspiracy and lies and deceit. There are still 4 dead men and, one man is still lingering in prison with his name slandered for writing a short story that started all this This was a manufactured lie coming out of President Obama’s mouth, Hillery Clinton’s mouth, and Ambassador Rice’s mouth. BUT THE PARTY LIVES!

      • Jana

        In fact an observation while watching the hearings was the Republicans asked questions of those who came to testify, and for the most part the Democrats gave speeches.

  • peter

    Is any one surprised that the Whitehouse has dismissed them? The major objective here is to get this horrendous injustice out of the way to clear the way for the next President! Hilary must get this episode completely obliterated so as not to impede her progress to the Throne. God help us! More and more we are being conned into believing that these thieves and liars are gods and icons. What are we thinking? Maybe we are no longer capable of reasoning and clear thinking, when all we seek are idols instead of people of true grit.

  • Dave

    The GOP is so eager to have perpetual controversey to stop Obama from getting anything done (The GOP did the exact same thing on Whitewater when they had nothing, they moved to Chinton’s infidelities and the investigatioins magically stopped when George W bush was elected president)
    There have been 9 open door hearings and 1 closed door hearings and the major revelation has been that moron Darryl Issa leaking classified info in the public hearing about our CIA safe house being located a few blocks away from the Benghazi embassy. Each hearing we were promised that “THIS” hearing was going to blow the doors off the Obama administration and prove that Obama was involved in a cover-up. Well guess what boys and girls, each one produced squat except a waste of time and money. Listening to Fox news, the operative word is “IF” in their exploitation of this tragedy. They have nothing, as does the GOP. So far there has been no proof of any effort by Obama to cover up anything. The GOP are more interested in what Rice said that addressing the issue of security at our Embassys.That much is clear. Over 100 Embassy employees were killed in terrorist acts at our Embassy’s from 2001-2006. That includes 13 Americans. Did the GOP demand 9 open door hearings? Nope… Did they demand Condi Rice’s head on a platter? Nope.
    So we know what this really is… a political maneuver… So conservatives and GOP… Give us some kind of proof and I will stand with you to hold Obama and Clinton responsible. Because so far, Clinton is the only one that has her hands dirty, as does the Congress who also participated in the security situation by cutting funding for security… for political reasons. Quit wasting our time and money. We have bigger issues to deal with than the GOP’s naked hatred of Obama and their desire for power.

    • Greg Murphy

      Ignore this poster, and please do not respond to his posts.

      • rendarsmith

        Might as well, the guy is nuttier than a squirrel.

    • Frank Kahn

      First of all, did you not watch the video of Hick’s testimony? Did you not hear him say that the state department attempted to dissuade him from testifying? Is the republican party paying him to lie? Is this a conspiracy to discredit your queen Hillary?

      There is evidence, it has been revealed, you choose to ignore it. And, pretending that everyone, that is not a liberal, is a liar is your problem not ours.

      I noticed that you say Hillary’s hands are dirty. What does that mean? Are you admitting that she is at fault? Are you admitting that she had her state department try to suppress testimony? Are they, just a little dirty, because she used poor judgement in preventive security measures? Or, are they really dirty because she refused to authorize a response to the attack?

      You seem to be distancing Obama from the dirty hands of Hillary. I might point out, to you, the concept of chain of command. Obama is Commander in Chief of all military and security forces in this country. He is also the ultimate authority for all cabinet positions and their operations. So these two positions puts him in control (and responsible for) of both the state department, and any possible military or security response forces. So, if Hillary has dirty hands, so does Obama. He is responsible for everything that Hillary did or did not do in this situation.

      Talking about wasting our time and money, you and the democrats in congress are doing just that by trying to push all the blame onto some budget cuts. This wont wash, because the lack of security was just the initial problem. The final result of the attacks came about because our government failed to respond to the attack with immediate assistance of any kind.

      • Dave


        Hillary Clinton is ultimately responsible for our security at our embassys. How many embassy’s and installations do we have in the world? If The State dept tells anyone to not testify, then they need to go down for that.

        But the issue should be how securty is set up at these parts of the world. Stevens was a fearless guy from his interviews that I have seen and wanted to make a difference in Libya but it was highly risky to be an American in Libya after such a revolution in that country. Just because the opposition got rid of Ghadafyi does not make those people sympathetic to the United States and the country was still in the kaos stage.

        Another one of your assumptions is that I like Hillary Clinton. I don’t. I don’t like many people with a (D) or (R) next to their names.

        Here is the time line of events:

        Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”

        About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next eight entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing unless otherwise noted.)

        About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”

        Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.

        About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”

        About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”

        Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”

        During that time we did not know about the status of Ambassador Stevens so the idea of dispatching at figher or drone where that compound was is foolish in a city on the other side of the country is a recipe for disaster.

        The attack was a F-Up…The security situation was ridiculous and Steven should not have been allowed to go to such a place under such conditions. If anyone in the State Department threated Hicks in any way from testifying, those people should go down.
        Plane and simple.
        But it doesn’t take away from the political nature of this investigation. The GOP never went after Bush for his MANY failures in security that led 13 Americans dead at various US Embassys and the 3000 that died on 9-11. We have a very clear record of the GOP here so I call “politics” on this because the desire is not for better security, it is to get Obama. that is it.

  • FreedomFighter

    This is the key to removing Obama from Office and killing Hillary Clintons ambition’s for the White House in any future election.
    WTF is BAINER doing? WTF is the REPUB machine doing?

    • Dave

      On what high crime and misdemeanor specifically FF?
      I know conservatives like touse impeachment as a political tool to get your way but impeachment is somewhat serious. Do you have anything specific?

      • Vigilant

        For those not brain dead, the long list has been posted here many times before.

        • Dave

          Educate me Vigilant and then tell me why Obama’s “crimes” are much worse than Bush’s Ok? Thanks!

          • rendarsmith

            Let it go Dave! Bush is gone! I swear if Adolf Hitler was the Democrat president you and all the other libs would support him!

          • Frank Kahn

            We cannot impeach Bush, he is no longer president. What, if anything, Bush did does not change the facts covering the crimes committed by Obama. Your, liberal, well bush did worse things, is not a defense for criminal actions by anyone else.

          • Vigilant

            Thanks for admitting you’re not educated. I have neither the time nor interest to take you in hand.

        • vicki

          We should post it again and often (with links).

  • Nadzieja Batki

    Even with the whistle blowers coming forth to shed “light” on what transpired in Benhazi, we won’t know who actually set off this conflagaration on the US side. Will you have Hillary Clinton, or O come forth and admit that they were the screw-ups making bad decisions and bad choices by working hand in glove with the Libyans?

  • Guest

    This is a perfect example of how much Obama and Hillary think of the rest of humanity. He kills innocent people with drones and many other atrocities we’re not aware of and Hillary has been a corrupt lawyer and politician from day one. When they, the Clintons, were in Arkansas so much of their devious behavior was covered up by the MSM like seven medical waste incinerators through out the state to burn waste from all over the world. God help us if she ever becomes president extreme lack of morals and ethics as the world is finally seeing.

  • James Wilson

    We fought 3 wars against communism/socialism and Karl Marx’s philosophy which does not recognize individuals rights. Marx based his theory on a lie which is the individual doesn’t have rights and are irrelevant, only the the group matters and has rights. I don’t know about you, but I do not consider myself irrelevant or insignificant. The people killed in Benghazi are not either.

  • Ron r

    The real tragedy here is the fact that the reich wing machine along with Fox/Fixed news don’t have a valid question to ask. Let alone try to find an answer to it. Nothing came out of the hearing but more what ifs. More anti- american B/S from the reich.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So according to you, anyone who questions the workings of Hillary or O is anti American. What a dolt you are.

      • Bob666

        Now Now Nads,

        We don’t want to upset Vicki with your ad hominem here.