TexasCHLforum.com

By James Rosen
Published January 13, 2014

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

..................

WENSTRUP: "As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack."

HAM: "Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack."

WENSTRUP: "And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?"

HAM: "Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir."

.........................

Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately -- from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts -- that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive "tick-tock" of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: "What in all of these events that you've described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?"

"That is a question that you would have to ask others," replied one of the senior officials. "That was not our conclusion."

TexasCajun wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:What's the over-under on how long before executive privilege is invoked???

Will he invoke EP to save Hillary like he's done for Holder?
Hillary is a much bigger fish for the Dems to save... but that makes her a much bigger target.

Did she lie under oath to Congress? (were her lips moving? )....

Obama didn't lie to Congress (on Benghazi). I'm not seeing where he did anything impeachable on Benghazi. Derelict, certainly. But impeachable?...
Hillary, OTOH.

I don't believe he invoked EP to save Holder, he did it to save himself. I think the same will hold true here.

TexasCajun wrote:What's the over-under on how long before executive privilege is invoked???