Wait until you hear the reason…
Sean Smith was an Information Management Officer working in Benghazi when he was killed during last year’s September 11th attack. His mother, Pat Smith, has been a very vocal critic of the administration and how they have handled the attack, as well as their tactics for disseminating information since.
Smith joined Sean Hannity last night to discuss the appointment of Susan Rice as National Security Adviser. As she has in the past, Smith did not withhold what was on her mind, calling Rice a “proven liar”.
She then went on to add that the Obama administration would not fly her to a ceremony honoring her son. The reason, which she claims to have in writing?
She is not considered “immediate family”.
Transcript via Gateway Pundit:
“When I went to the casket ceremony they told me that there was going to be an award and that they would send for me, that they would get me over there so I could witness the award. They didn’t do it. And not only did they not do it… He lies. He lies and so do everyone who’s surrounding him. They’re not telling the truth. And I don’t know why… They told me I was not immediate family. I have that in writing. They were not going to send for me.”
A little over one-month out from the Boston Marathon bombing that claimed the lives of three people and injured over 260 others, the President laid out a sketchy claim during his national security speech that “no large-scale attacks” against America have occurred since 9/11.
As the Daily Mail points out, the President also conveniently forgot about the successful Benghazi terror attacks (which were on American soil), and the Fort Hood massacre.
In a long-awaited speech at the National Defense University, Barack Obama claimed that the nature of international terror attacks threatening the United States has changed since Sept. 11, 2001, with ‘no large-scale attacks’ on America occurring since then.
But his definition of ‘large-scale attacks,’ his speech made clear, doesn’t include the 2013 Boston Marathon attack that wounded hundreds, the 2012 Benghazi terror attack that injured dozens and killed four, and the 2009 attack at Fort Hood that killed 13 and injured 30.
All those attacks had the potential to leave far more American bodies in their wake than they actually did.
In fact, Heritage has calculated 54 such attempted Islamic terror attacks since 9/11.
Via the Washington Times:
Terrorism analysts are rebutting President Obama’s assertion that the “scale of the threat” from Islamic terrorists has reverted to pre-Sept. 11, 2001, levels.
“This is a total fabrication,” said Steven Emerson, whose Investigative Project on Terrorism tracks radical Islam. “The ‘scale of this threat’ in the 1990s never closely resembled the terrorist attacks post 9/11. This is an outright lie.”
The Heritage Foundation has been cataloguing foiled terror attacks post-9/11 by Islamic groups. The number: 54.
James Carafano, a military analyst at Heritage, said the 1990s’ numbers “were a fraction of that.”
This shouldn’t surprise, however. When you’ve spent an entire political career pretending something doesn’t exist – like radical Islamic terrorism – it’s difficult to admit the very basic proof laid out before you.
Spying on the press? But they’re his friends for cryin’ out loud!
In what is being called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” of government power against the press, the Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) secretly obtained two months worth of telephone records of reporters and editors at the news organization, including the personal phone records of individuals.
Via the AP:
The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.
In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.
“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” Pruitt said.
The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.
Were specific reporters being targeted for specific messaging purposes? The PJ Tatler reports:
The DoJ notified the AP on Friday but included no explanation for the seizure.
It included phone numbers for five reporters and an editor who were involved in this May 7, 2012, story on the thwarting of a new underwear bombing plot.
The plot was significant because the White House had told the public it had “no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden’s death,” the AP noted today.
Which begs the question – Why is the White House so hell bent on covering up any story that may involve the concept of terrorism?
Meanwhile, the National Press Club is demanding an explanation. Via Yid:
In the wake of reports today that the Justice Department secretly obtained phone records of several of AP’s reporters and four of its offices, the National Press Club requests that the Obama administration publicly explain the reasons behind the action.
“This appears to be a gross violation of press freedom,” said National Press Club President Angela Greiling Keane, a Bloomberg News reporter. “If there’s a good explanation for this, the public has a right to hear it promptly.”
The Benghazi scandal was swept under the rug because it hurt the American military and targeted Obama’s foreign policy. The IRS scandal was swept under the rug because it targeted conservatives and reiterated Obama’s Chicago-style politics. Until recently anyway.
But this scandal targets the President’s friends in the media. Will they finally relent and accept that this is one of the most corrupt administrations in history?
That’s what we in the business call, a ‘rhetorical question’. The cover up by the administration has been rather obvious. The cover up of the cover up being provided by the media has been utterly disgraceful.
American Crossroads this morning released a new video, “Benghazi,” detailing the massive contradictions between the statements of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others in the Obama Administration on the Benghazi attack, that it was the result of a protest stemming from a “video,” and revelations from Wednesday’s hearing that Sec. Clinton knew from the beginning that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
The video asks: “Why did she blame a video? And was she part of a cover-up? … Americans deserve the truth.”
Warped doesn’t even begin to describe this justification for the administration allowing Americans to die in Benghazi on September 11th.
Elijah Cummings (D-MD) on Benghazi attacks: “Death is a part of life.”
Here’s the full statement via Real Clear Politics:
CUMMINGS: And, as I listen to your testimony I could not help but think of something that I said very recently — two years ago now — in a eulogy for a relative. I said that death is a part of life, so often we have to find a way to make life a part of death. And, I guess the reason why I’m saying that, going back to something Mr. Nordstrom said, he wanted, I guess all of you said this, he wanted to make sure we learn from this.
Click on the link to watch the video clip.
Or listen to Rush rip Cummings here…
Cummings was no better at the opening of the hearings, attempting to intimidate the whistleblowers with his opening statements.
They had a moral duty to send support and to aid Americans in harms way. Morality isn’t a strong point of this administration however, as we have come to learn over the last several months concerning the massacre in Benghazi.