Washington Times’ Bombshell Tapes Confirm Citizen Commission’s Findings on Benghazi


“what difference does it make?”…

As Hillary Clinton further delays the announcement of her 2016 run for the White House, more news has broken regarding her role in the 2011 disastrous intervention in Libya, which set the stage for the 2012 Benghazi attacks where we lost four brave American lives.

Two new stories from The Washington Times expose some of the infighting among government agencies and branches of government on this controversial decision, and highlight the key role that Clinton played in initiating the war. You can listen to tapes of discussions between Pentagon staffers, former Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and the Qaddafi regime for yourself.  HERE

This news also validates the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) 2014 interim report, which exposed that Muammar Qaddafi had offered truce talks and a possible peaceful abdication to the United States, which Washington turned down.

“[The article] also makes it clear that the Benghazi investigation needs to be broadened to answer the question: ‘Why did America bomb Libya in the first place?’” commented Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic (Ret.), a key source for the CCB’s interim report who was also quoted by the Times.

“Despite the willingness of both AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham and Muammar Qaddafi to pursue the possibility of truce talks, permission was not given to Gen. Ham from his chain of command in the Pentagon and the window of opportunity closed,” reads Kubic’s statement for our report from last year. You can watch here, from a CCB press conference last April, as Admiral Kubic described his personal involvement in the effort to open negotiations between Qaddafi and the U.S. government.

Now we learn that the likely source of the stonewalling came from the State Department—and Secretary Clinton—herself. “On the day the U.N. resolution was passed, Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal,” reported the Times on January 29.

Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates indicated in his book, Duty, that he was opposed to the war for national security reasons. He highlighted a division among White House advisors—with Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and Samantha Power “urging aggressive U.S. action to prevent an anticipated massacre of the rebels as Qaddafi fought to remain in power.” Add to that list the former Secretary of State.

“But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention,” reported The New York Times on March 18, 2011, the day after UN Resolution 1973 authorizing a “no fly” zone in Libya was voted on and passed.

“Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day.”

The Washington Times now reports that “In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gaddafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya ‘is all Secretary Clinton’s matter’ and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed” about a humanitarian crisis that didn’t exist. However, one must wonder just how much President Obama implicitly supported Clinton in her blind push to intervene in what was once a comparatively stable country, and an ally in the war against al Qaeda. While this new report is certainly damning of Mrs. Clinton’s actions, and appears to place the blame for the unnecessary chaos in Libya—which ultimately led to Benghazi—on her shoulders, President Obama shares the blame as the ultimate Decider-in-Chief.

“Furthermore, defense officials had direct information from their intelligence asset in contact with the regime that Gadhafi gave specific orders not to attack civilians and to narrowly focus the war on the armed rebels, according to the asset, who survived the war,” reports The Washington Times in its second of three articles. Saving those in Benghazi from a looming massacre by Qaddafi seems to have been a convenient excuse made by the administration for political expediency. Could it be, instead, that President Obama, as well as Mrs. Clinton, put greater value on the rise to power of an “Arab Spring” government with Muslim Brotherhood connections? And, as the CCB interim report shows, the U.S. government was willing to go so far as to facilitate the provision of arms to al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya in order to ensure that Qaddafi fell.

Will the mainstream media pick up on these new revelations, or will they cast them aside as another “phony scandal” to throw into their dustbins filled with other stories that might possibly embarrass the Obama administration, or prove to be an impediment to Mrs. Clinton’s path to the White House?

“It’s critical to note that Qaddafi was actively engaged with Department of Defense officials to arrange discussions about his possible abdication and exile when that promising development was squashed by the Obama White House,” noted CCB Member Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer, regarding the failed truce talks. “The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi has been asking, ‘Why?’ for well over a year now.”

“It is time the American people and the families of those who fought and gave their lives at Benghazi in September 2012 were told why those brave Americans had to die at all, much less die alone with no effort made to save them,” she said.

Clinton, through House Democrats, has indicated that she is willing to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. But Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) recently indicated that the Committee must first examine her emails from the State Department before questioning his witness. This complicates the issue of her testifying, since Mrs. Clinton is in the process of calculating when she will announce her presidential run.

Do the emails that Gowdy has requested from the State Department even extend back to 2011?

Chairman Gowdy identified three “tranches” that his potential questioning would fall under in an interview with Fox’s Greta Van Susteren:

Why was the U.S. Special Mission Compound open in the first place?

What actions did Clinton take during the attacks?

What was Clinton’s role during the talking points and Susan Rice’s Sunday morning talk show visits?

A fourth tranche should be: Clinton’s push to intervene in Libya and how it set the stage for an insecure country and strong jihadist movement willing—and able—to attack the Americans posted there. And while he’s at it, Rep. Gowdy should ask Mrs. Clinton to explain why all of the very legitimate requests for increased security in Benghazi were turned down, and why were Ambassador Chris Stevens’ personal security staff, from the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) directed to store their weapons in a separate location—not on them—on the night of September 11, 2012?


I’d be willing to bet the walls are closing in around the Hildabeast as news from Rep. Trey Gowdy’s Select Committee are being leaked by Hillary’s informants (most notably Cummings) which would explain why she has held back announcing her presidential ambitions.

I hope she’ll be charged with treason and accessory to murder when this is all over.  I know that’s a tall order but I can still dream.

~ Hardnox

About Hardnox

Constitutional Conservative that Lefties love to hate.
Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Washington Times’ Bombshell Tapes Confirm Citizen Commission’s Findings on Benghazi

  1. vonMesser says:

    I want them all in prison. Mostly in Leavenworth or Portsmouth NH.

  2. Kathy says:

    The more that comes out about Benghazi, the more that things point to Hillary. The question now is was O complicit with her plans, or shirking his responsibilities so he could focus on campaigning? It sounds a bit like he took the attitude of ‘whatever, that’s her baby, not mine’ and wasn’t aware of all the secrecy. By no means does this make him innocent, since it’s his job to oversee and know what’s going on.

    With every bit of new information we get, this whole thing gets more and more convoluted. I agree the walls are closing in, and hopefully the timing of it will kill her run.

  3. Liz entrekin says:

    Agreed. ALL involved including Obama need to be tried. Treason carries a death penalty which I believe is too easy. Each should be imprisoned in isolation for the remainder of their lives to ponder what their actions wrought even at the citizens expense. Of course, I do not mean in luxury accomodations. Maybe they would like Quantanamo I hear there are rooms available.

    • vonMesser says:

      Treason only carries death penalty under certain limited circumstances – and it’s not mandatory, even then. Much like murder carried the death penalty. They could get off with as little as 5 years in the pen if convicted.

      18 U.S. Code § 2385 says: Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

      18 U.S. Code §2381 says: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  4. Liz entrekin says:

    To this I submit the following: which definitely applies in the consideration of communism first and known acts of outside groups which seek harm, control, or eliminate our government such as terrorists (read muslim since they are 99.9% identified in terrorist activities) Communists by the way were specifically required to register their political affiliation with the government — so should muslims since to date they are not recognized as a religion and have ties to those who would destroy our constitution.

    The Smith Act

    Title I. Subversive activities. The Smith Act set federal criminal penalties that included fines or imprisonment for as long as twenty years and denied all employment by the federal government for five years following a conviction for anyone who:

    …with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or…organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof……..


    U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2385
    18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government
    Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or……….

  5. Garnet92 says:

    The dems are in deep doo-doo. They’ve gone “all in,” betting the pile on Hillary and she is about to have a Gowdy-bomb dropped on her.

    I agree with Kathy that anticipation of what is coming is what’s keeping her from announcing. If she announces now and Gowdy’s Benghazi committee exposes her involvement in all sorts of evil stuff, she (and the dems) will be toast. In this case, I think that Gowdy should continue down other paths (like Ovomit) and keep his Hillary evidence under wraps for a while – all the better to sink her (and the dem’s) chances in 2016 – something of an “October surprise.”

    • Hardnox says:

      I would hate to wait until October 2016 for that bomb to fall. I know some tactical decisions need to be made. The media certainly will ignore any and all of it.

  6. Clyde says:

    Good piece. Hitlary’s chances are fading faster than a virgin intern in BJ Bill’s office. Should the bitchess survive this, and go on the campaign trail, there NEEDS to be protesters at EVERY stop, saying nothing, but holding up signs that say something along the lines of “Benghazi: IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

  7. I.R. Wayright says:

    Does anybody fully understand why the Libyan war happened? Do you know that education was free and there was a literacy rate of 89%? Food was inexpensive. Libya was a creditor nation fueled by oil exports, and had billions invested in Western banks. Kadafi made loans and was helping other African nations. Water projects were increasing arable farm lands. The country was making progress faster than most other Arab states. There was a good reason Kadafi gave up his nuclear weapons program.
    He would rather spend the money on more worthwhile projects that would benefit the Libyan people.

    But the real trigger for the conflict that removed him was the plan to introduce a currency for all of Africa that would have put the dark continent a light year ahead and may have helped speed the end of the Euro and the US dollar.
    Well, the Bilderburgers would have none of that. Do you know what one of the first targets was when the bombing started? The Libyan Central Bank. And, the $150 bilion Libya have deposited in banks of other countries…guess where that money went.
    I’m not saying that Kadafi was a perfect leader and surely there was a long list of abuses. But, you have to peel back the layers of the onion a bit to understand the evil that exists in Western and European governments in conjunction with the uber rich string pullers, and how they manipulate world events with cunning ruthlessness. WE need regime change and the string pullers need to be cut off.
    And we need to discover the networks that can pull off a scam like this. If our CIA had a hand in the rebel “civil war” we need to find out who guided that hand from behind the scenes and convinced Obama to help with the bombing without going through congress first.

    • Liz entrekin says:

      I agree Wayright. If it is proven, and it appears that it will be finally, then I would say our policy should be to keep our noses out of another country’s business. Every person found guilty either in fact or by association should have to face federal trial aired publically for the citizens and receive the maximum to bring closure and justice for all who have lost their lives or been harmed. Additionally if they hold a public office EVERY document and campaign fund donor should be scrutinized with the full intent of finding the means and people behind them who are responsible for the manipulation and travesty.

      We have more than enough to take care of our own country’s problems. If there does appear that our intervention is needed, then No covert actions, No aid, No statements to foriegn governments should be made until they have plead their case before our Congress and only after consideration of documented facts should the President, any committees, departments be given the right to go forward within the parameters Congress establishes concerning speaking to individuals outside our borders or just as importantly setting a ceiling on all funding as needed on a humanitarian basis Not in support of any political, religious, or ideological need. If military intervention is required, then any and all equipment, manpower, and other negotiations should be for a specific time then every possible effort be made to have every item returned to the US for inhouse redistribution.

      No longer should a single branch hold the power to meet and speak individually, make treaties or pacts, have the ability to direct others to circumvent laws, or carry on negotiations if the Congress has not set parameters and if necessary had the Supreme Court pass judicial review on its legal status within the boundaries of our Constitution. It should also be noted that I would expect those in Congress to provide this guidance expeditiously after documentation has been authenticated as in any court of law.

      If these in positions of authority and “hired” by their constituents can not treat their role as a full time 40hr a week position where they are daily at their desks in Congress except for all specified, brief holidays, then they need recalled to their home state as any employee to explain and either be reprimanded or removed at any time during their term. It should be incumbent upon each state to monitor their chosen employees for activity and the ability to represent their rights and concerns. More of that would hopefully reduce the buffoon count and get a better percentage of intelligent, common sense members. I believe if these guys consider and run then they are aware of the salaries available. If they do not think themselves able to perform the duties of the position as they swear oath and for the amount listed, then do not run. Allowing them to raise their salaries unilaterally while the rest of the country receives pay cuts is unacceptable.