Hillary Clinton tried to silence the State Department about the Benghazi terror attack according to Fox News. A witness said Hillary Clinton kept the counterterrorism bureau out-of-the-loop on the night of the attack and tried to mis-portray the attack.
Update: 10:50 am: The Bureau has issued a statement saying that the claims are not true. The bureau never felt left out and was in constant contact with the administration on the night of the attack.
That is hard to believe when one considers the time sequence of the changing Talking Points. Over the course of five days, they morphed into the deceitful video narrative and all traces of an attack were reduced to it being a possibility. On the day before Susan Rice told the faux video tale on five news shows, State, Defense, and the CIA met at the WH to discuss the Talking Points.
Original Story: 7:00 am: According to a witness from the counterterrorism bureau, Mark I. Thompson, on the night of the September 11th attack on Benghazi, then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and a key aide (Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy) tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making.
Mr. Thompson will testify to this on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Another official has confirmed this statement according to Fox News:
“You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,” the second official in State’s counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October.
Click here to listen to a clip of Hillary Clinton’s testimony about Benghazi. She claimed to know nothing and she deflected the questions.
We still don’t know President Obama’s schedule that day and how his actions played into this.
Also of note is that some in the mainstream media are covering Benghazi.
Darrell Issa made an appearance on Face the Nation this past Sunday with interviewer Bob Schieffer.
Mr. Schieffer used the words “cover up” twice, once in the introduction and again in the form of a question. Here is one exchange:
Bob Schieffer: But do you think they were trying to cover up the fact that the State Department had turned down requests for more security, that had been coming in from the diplomats on the ground there. Is that what this is about?
Darrell Issa: Well perhaps in part. But it does seem like it’s bigger than that. There was this normalization, sort of a mentality, where you had to pretend like things were safe. The war on terror was over and that may have gone in a great way to getting people to say well, we can’t call this a terrorist attack because then, the war on terror is back alive. Well, Bob, the war on terror is very much alive. Whether it’s Chechen nationals that come here or it’s what’s going on in Syria, it’s Al Qaeda around the world and that’s the reality that hopefully state department people will feel at least they are being properly protected after this attack.
An opening exchange:
Bob Schieffer: The Weekly Standard reported that the first reports that went out from the CIA, including the assertion from the U.S. government that they knew there were Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participating in this attack but after seeing the first version of the talking points, the Weekly Standard says, a ranking official at the state department who they have identified as Victoria Nuland who is a spokesman for the department sent a message, they were worried that members of congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings about needing more security. And it was after that, that these different versions of the talking points came out. Can you confirm that?
Bob Schieffer played a clip of the interview with the Libyan President, Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said it was a terror attack, followed by a clip of Susan Rice on the Sunday news show contradicting al-Magariaf’s statement.
Mr. Schieffer then played Mr. Hicks’ statements:
Greg Hicks: … The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The impact of that is immeasurable. Magariaf has just lost face in front of not only his own people, but the world… my jaw hit the floor as I watched this… I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career as on that day… I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris’s last report, if you want to say his final report, is, “Greg, we are under attack.” … It is jaw-dropping that – to me that – how that came to be.
The next exchange:
Bob Schieffer: Well, Mr. Hicks’ had also testified that he had called Beth Jones, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs at the state department, the morning after these Sunday shows and he asked her,
Gregory Hicks: Why did Ambassador Rice say that?
And Beth Jones told him, “I don’t know.” So Mr. Hicks is saying that a key State Department official said she didn’t know why the Ambassador has indicated the attacks were spontaneous.
Darrell Issa: Not only that, he indicated in his testimony that these were unwelcome. That he felt very much like Beth Jones didn’t want to hear from him, and in the days and weeks to come, that continued. One of the amazing things is, here you have the person on the ground who probably, of anyone in Tripoli knows more about what was going on, he’s never seen the classified ARB report. They have not let him see it. So when he says that that is a flawed report, he says so with the same information we have publicly–