From: CNS News
The mother of diplomat Sean Smith, who was killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2012, said that at her son’s memorial service President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Ambassador Susan Rice told her that the attack occurred because of an anti-Muslim video, although evidence now shows the White House was told by the CIA “that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack” and that the agency never mentioned a “video.”
It is also now known that White House and State Department officials edited the talking points provided by the CIA to remove any references to the al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia and earlier warnings from the agency about terrorist threats against the Benghazi compound. The talking points, in their various versions, never mentioned the anti-Muslim video touted by the president, Clinton and Rice.
Sean Smith, killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack, was 34 years old and worked for the U.S. Foreign Service as an Information Management Officer. He was married and had two children. The memorial service for Smith and the other three Americans killed occurred on Sept. 14 at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama spoke at the service.
Sean Smith’s mother, Pat Smith, was interviewed on The O’Reilly Factor on May 9 about congressional hearings into the attack and new testimony by whistleblowers about what happened on Sept. 11, 2012.
Part of the exchange between host Bill O’Reilly and Pat Smith about events at the memorial service is presented below:
Bill O’Reilly: “Did Hillary Clinton say anything to you? Did President Obama, did they say anything to you on that day?”
Pat Smith: “Oh yes, they all told me about the reason that this happened was the video. Every one of them told me that.”
O’Reilly: “They actually told you it was the video? Both Secretary of State Clinton and the president told you it was the videotape?"
Pat Smith: “Yes, they actually did, and Susan Rice also.”
O’Reilly: “Face to face?”
Pat Smith: “Nose to nose. I was with – they were hugging me."
O’Reilly: “And that was 3 days after the attack, correct? The 14th?"
Pat Smith: “Well, whenever it was – it was at the ceremony [at Andrews Air Force base].”
O’Reilly: “September 14, three days after the attack.”
While the talking points used by the Obama administration do not mention a video, Secretary Clinton did issue a statement on Sept. 11, while the attack was still ongoing in Benghazi, stating that, “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”
When CNSNews.com asked the State Department who gave Clinton that information, while the Benghazi attack was still unfolding, spokesman Patrick Ventrell would not answer.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Friday, May 10, 2013
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Asia: The Next War?
From: Real Clear World
Don't look now, but conditions are deteriorating in the western Pacific. Things are turning ugly, with consequences that could prove deadly and spell catastrophe for the global economy.
In Washington, it is widely assumed that a showdown with Iran over its nuclear ambitions will be the first major crisis to engulf the next secretary of defense -- whether it be former Senator Chuck Hagel, as President Obama desires, or someone else if he fails to win Senate confirmation. With few signs of an imminent breakthrough in talks aimed at peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, many analysts believe that military action -- if not by/around_the_world/united_states/United States -- could be on this year's agenda.
Lurking just behind the Iranian imbroglio, however, is a potential crisis of far greater magnitude, and potentially far more imminent than most of us imagine. >China's determination to assert control over disputed islands in the potentially energy-rich waters of the East and South China Seas, in the face of stiffening resistance from>Philippines along with greater regional assertiveness by the United States, spells trouble not just regionally, but potentially globally.
Islands, Islands, Everywhere
The United States is bound by treaty to come to the assistance of Japan or the Philippines if either country is attacked by a third party, so any armed clash between Chinese and Japanese or Filipino forces could trigger American military intervention. With so much of the world's trade focused on Asia, and the American, Chinese, and Japanese economies tied so closely together in ways too essential to ignore, a clash of almost any sort in these vital waterways might paralyze international commerce and trigger a global recession (or worse).
All of this should be painfully obvious and so rule out such a possibility -- and yet the likelihood of such a clash occurring has been on the rise in recent months, as China and its neighbors continue to ratchet up the bellicosity of their statements and bolster their military forces in the contested areas.
Don't look now, but conditions are deteriorating in the western Pacific. Things are turning ugly, with consequences that could prove deadly and spell catastrophe for the global economy.
In Washington, it is widely assumed that a showdown with Iran over its nuclear ambitions will be the first major crisis to engulf the next secretary of defense -- whether it be former Senator Chuck Hagel, as President Obama desires, or someone else if he fails to win Senate confirmation. With few signs of an imminent breakthrough in talks aimed at peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, many analysts believe that military action -- if not by/around_the_world/united_states/United States -- could be on this year's agenda.
Lurking just behind the Iranian imbroglio, however, is a potential crisis of far greater magnitude, and potentially far more imminent than most of us imagine. >China's determination to assert control over disputed islands in the potentially energy-rich waters of the East and South China Seas, in the face of stiffening resistance from>Philippines along with greater regional assertiveness by the United States, spells trouble not just regionally, but potentially globally.
Islands, Islands, Everywhere
The possibility of an Iranian crisis remains in the spotlight because of the obvious risk of disorder in the Greater Middle East and its threat to global oil production and shipping. A crisis in the East or South China Seas (essentially, western extensions of the Pacific Ocean) would, however, pose a greater peril because of the possibility of a U.S.-China military confrontation and the threat to Asian economic stability.
The United States is bound by treaty to come to the assistance of Japan or the Philippines if either country is attacked by a third party, so any armed clash between Chinese and Japanese or Filipino forces could trigger American military intervention. With so much of the world's trade focused on Asia, and the American, Chinese, and Japanese economies tied so closely together in ways too essential to ignore, a clash of almost any sort in these vital waterways might paralyze international commerce and trigger a global recession (or worse).
All of this should be painfully obvious and so rule out such a possibility -- and yet the likelihood of such a clash occurring has been on the rise in recent months, as China and its neighbors continue to ratchet up the bellicosity of their statements and bolster their military forces in the contested areas.
Monday, May 09, 2011
State Department Ignores Christian Slaughter
From: Front Page Magazine
“It’s time to speak out against hate,” declared Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a video introducing the State Department’s new “campaign to stop bigotry.” Created by the Obama administration’s Special Representative to Muslim Communities, Farah Pandith, and Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, Hannah Rosenthal, 2011 Hours Against Hate will “promote respect across lines of culture, religion, tradition, class, and gender.” (All 23 current classifications of gender? Just wondering.) The campaign was launched at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna, February 17, 2011.
At the OSCE, Pandith raised legitimate concerns about the defacing of mosques and of Jewish tombs, schools, synagogues, and kosher shops. But she also said that the “latest trends show growing movements that target ‘the other’ – be they immigrants, or religious and ethnic minorities, in the name of protecting the identity and ‘purity’ of their nation.” By 2011 Hours Against Hate standards, British Prime Minister David Cameron’s declaration that multiculturalism has failed is a dangerous targeting of “the other.” Pandith also noted that “permissibility of anti-Muslim speech is growing.” Really? A host of individuals facing charges, paying fines, and hiding from death threats would be surprised to hear this. But then it seems permissible to target “the other” of “the other.”
“Hate is hate, no matter who the target is,” 2011 Hours Against Hate intones. But some targets of hatred appear to be more equal than others. Perhaps because some leftist elites never got over their assumption that Christians are the persecutors, not the persecuted, they have difficulty speaking out against hatred aimed at those whom the mainstream media sees as hate-mongers.
On April 29, 2011, the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom (IRF) co-sponsored a 2011 Hours Against Hate event. Hosted by George Washington University, the event was billed as a “Town Hall Discussion on U.S. efforts to combat discrimination and hatred against Jews, Muslims, and others.”
Hopefully, the 100 million-plus Christians experiencing persecution around the world today, along with Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’i, etc., are included in “and others.” The IRF office should be reminded that advocates for persecuted Christians played a major role in its creation, along with the creation of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Both were mandates of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA).
“It’s time to speak out against hate,” declared Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a video introducing the State Department’s new “campaign to stop bigotry.” Created by the Obama administration’s Special Representative to Muslim Communities, Farah Pandith, and Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, Hannah Rosenthal, 2011 Hours Against Hate will “promote respect across lines of culture, religion, tradition, class, and gender.” (All 23 current classifications of gender? Just wondering.) The campaign was launched at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna, February 17, 2011.
At the OSCE, Pandith raised legitimate concerns about the defacing of mosques and of Jewish tombs, schools, synagogues, and kosher shops. But she also said that the “latest trends show growing movements that target ‘the other’ – be they immigrants, or religious and ethnic minorities, in the name of protecting the identity and ‘purity’ of their nation.” By 2011 Hours Against Hate standards, British Prime Minister David Cameron’s declaration that multiculturalism has failed is a dangerous targeting of “the other.” Pandith also noted that “permissibility of anti-Muslim speech is growing.” Really? A host of individuals facing charges, paying fines, and hiding from death threats would be surprised to hear this. But then it seems permissible to target “the other” of “the other.”
“Hate is hate, no matter who the target is,” 2011 Hours Against Hate intones. But some targets of hatred appear to be more equal than others. Perhaps because some leftist elites never got over their assumption that Christians are the persecutors, not the persecuted, they have difficulty speaking out against hatred aimed at those whom the mainstream media sees as hate-mongers.
On April 29, 2011, the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom (IRF) co-sponsored a 2011 Hours Against Hate event. Hosted by George Washington University, the event was billed as a “Town Hall Discussion on U.S. efforts to combat discrimination and hatred against Jews, Muslims, and others.”
Hopefully, the 100 million-plus Christians experiencing persecution around the world today, along with Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’i, etc., are included in “and others.” The IRF office should be reminded that advocates for persecuted Christians played a major role in its creation, along with the creation of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Both were mandates of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
