Stefan Molyneux speaks with Roger Aronoff on the recent findings of the Citizens' Commission on Benghazi, White House lies, the United States selling weapons to Libyan rebels, Muammar Gaddafi's desire to surrender, the possibility of Obama's impeachment, Hillary Clinton's involvement and the impact this could have on the next presidential election.
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio. | |
| I'm joined by Roger Aronoff, who is the editor of AIM or Accuracy in Media and a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi, which recently released a report on April 22nd, which I guess is the culmination of seven or eight months worth of work with some seriously high-powered subject matter experts into Benghazi. | |
| Roger, first of all, thanks a lot for taking the time today, but why should people care about Benghazi? | |
| The mainstream media narrative is, you know, mistakes were made, but it's in the past. | |
| Let's move on. | |
| Why did your expert and yourselves find it so compelling a story and so important a story to pursue it at this length? | |
| Well, we at AIM, watching this from afar, noticed that the media and Congress were really failing to get to the truth. | |
| And we saw this really as sort of a Rosetta Stone that in many ways reveals a lot about the Obama administration, their tendency to lie and cover up things, the fact that they had been working to help the Muslim Brotherhood, And just how the media went along for the ride in the couple months between what happened in Benghazi and the presidential election. | |
| So with congressional hearing after congressional hearing and the Accountability Review Board doing their investigation and still getting nowhere, we decided Look, we've got to try to do something. | |
| AIM has done this in the past, this sort of thing, but not quite like this one. | |
| So we reached out first to retired four-star Admiral James Lyons, who I knew had an interest in the subject, and I had interviewed him for a show that I did. | |
| And he was more than happy, eager to join us. | |
| And then we reached out to several others, some retired generals. | |
| Today we have about more than 15 of us, including four former CIA officers, generals, admirals, colonels, former Member of the House, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is with us. | |
| So we have quite a group that put together really a lot of expertise that goes way beyond my expertise. | |
| But I was fortunate to bring these people together and it's been a great team and a great effort. | |
| Well, the general narrative which emerged immediately afterwards, after the September 11, 2012 attacks on Benghazi, the key narrative seems to have been that there was this amateur internet video, this internet video that caused the spontaneous demonstrations and aggressions and so on. | |
| And this, although this seemed to have been denied by the CIA, this was what the administration stuck to. | |
| And the emails that have recently come to light as a result of Judicial Watch's lawsuit, basically, forcing a federal court to force the Obama administration to hand over the emails, it appears to be that Susan Rice, who was sent on these Sunday shows to talk about Benghazi, stuck to the point that it was spontaneous demonstrations that turned violent as a result of an internet video that Muslims found offensive. | |
| And they said, we need to stick to this narrative. | |
| In order to avoid discussion or revealing the failures of larger foreign policy decisions. | |
| So I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what this nonsense, this sort of side swiping pinata light show of distraction for the masses, what foreign policy decisions were they specifically trying to get the media to avoid, which tragically the media has complied in avoiding? | |
| Well, at the time, as you recall, this was the middle of a presidential campaign, and they had been pushing this line that al-Qaeda had been decimated, that GM was succeeding and al-Qaeda was decimated, and, of course, taking great pride in the fact that bin Laden had been killed during their time. | |
| But so what this would destroy that narrative if the fact that al-Qaeda operatives We're so strong in areas like this that they could overrun a U.S. special mission compound. | |
| A lot of people call it an embassy or a consulate. | |
| It really wasn't either of those. | |
| And there was the CIA annex about a mile away from there. | |
| But clearly what happened is this was a well-planned attack with mortars, and the fact that What had happened before there, we had been hit a couple times before. | |
| The British had been hit and pulled out. | |
| The Red Cross had pulled out. | |
| There were, as we later came to find out, there was a cable, most notably the August 16th cable, sent by Chris Stevens pleading for additional security. | |
| In the meantime, they were reducing the security. | |
| And it was, we were protected by a group out of Wales, Blue Mountain, which part of the contract was that they were not armed. | |
| The only armed security we had was the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, which was basically an al-Qaeda-linked group. | |
| It's really quite incredible. | |
| And so the idea that this video sort of gave them an excuse to cover the whole thing by saying, look, this is what happened in Cairo, and it spilled over here, and it was demonstrations that kind of got out of hand. | |
| And as we know now, Hillary released a statement at 10 o'clock that night while the attack was still going on, blaming the video. | |
| And this continued on for a couple of weeks. | |
| Later on, of course, Obama was saying, no, no, I said it was a terrorist act from day one. | |
| Go look, Candy Crowley, look at the transcript, you know, while he was in the middle of the debate with Romney. | |
| So he really has tried to have it both ways, claiming when it's convenient that He's always called it a terrorist act, and at other times claiming this wasn't, that it was a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand based on this video. | |
| Yeah, because of course a lot of people go to their spontaneous demonstrations with mortars and RPGs. | |
| It's typical, obviously, if it's a party night. | |
| So, I mean, let's just, I really want to sort of circle back for a sec because this is something that, as I dug into it, is so astounding and incredible to me. | |
| That, first of all, the security detail out of Wales, which themselves seem to have had a lot of credibility and licensing issues, to say the least, that they were disarmed, but I think the 17th February Brigade was armed, but also may have been infiltrated, or maybe there's evidence that they were infiltrated by members of Al-Qaeda. | |
| In other words, the only people Who were armed and guarding the American ambassador during a time of civil war and chaos and endless threats. | |
| He just received a death threat over Facebook from Al-Qaeda. | |
| That the only people armed and protecting him were members of Libyan rebel or militia groups and you saying that they had been somewhat infiltrated by Al-Qaeda. | |
| Yeah, more than somewhat infiltrated. | |
| And this is where the story takes an interesting turn, and kind of the two main things that were not known that we released at our press conference last week. | |
| And you can go to aim.org, and you can see it, or aim.org slash Benghazi, which is the website for the Citizens Commission on Benghazi. | |
| Actually, this war did not need to occur, because at the time, and the first person who spoke at our press conference was a retired Rear Admiral, Chuck Kubik, who had been an admiral active duty during Iraq and Afghanistan, and now he was retired. | |
| And he was CB, and he stayed behind doing building projects, and he was in Libya. | |
| And the Libyans came to him and said, look, they're about to start bombing us, and NATO's going to bomb us, and, you know, let's see if we can negotiate something. | |
| And under a white flag of truce, he was Gaddafi, who by no means was an angel, as we know, Pan Am 103, the LaBelle disco, there's so many things going back over years, but he had also When Saddam was captured, had given up his WMD. He had, was basically fighting the same side we were in the war on terror. | |
| He was fighting al-Qaeda. | |
| And so he offered now to leave. | |
| He would, if he could be given refuge somewhere. | |
| And this Admiral Kubik was the intermediary, and he went to AFRICOM, talked to Colonel Linville, and then That went to Carter Hamm, who was the general in charge of AFRICOM, who took this to Washington, and he was waiting for several days. | |
| And this, it was during this time that Hillary Clinton announced that we were giving our support to the Transitional National Council, which was al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood related, and we knew this. | |
| We knew who these people were. | |
| And our expert on this is not me, but it is Claire Lopez, a 20-something-year CIA officer. | |
| And you can watch again on this video and see her and her credentials, and she knows this. | |
| She knows every one of these people, the names, the whole history of the Muslim Brotherhood, which, of course, started in Egypt in 1928. | |
| The Libyan Muslim Brotherhood was 1949. | |
| And who all these people were, the ones that they were driven out from Libya and they went to Afghanistan and some were caught and held at Gitmo and then released and went back. | |
| So what happened is So this offer of abdication was there, and it was refused by the political leaders in Washington, and then the war proceeded, tens of thousands of lives lost that really didn't have to happen. | |
| The other big thing that happened at that time was That we basically blessed, supported and facilitated the transfer of arms, arms that were sold out of East Europe, We went to Qatar, which was sort of the depot, and it was financed by UAE, a billion dollars' worth that was shipped to the Libyan rebels. | |
| And this was at a time when NATO controlled land and sea access to Libya. | |
| So clearly we Control the flow. | |
| And there's an article, if you, some of this is open source, December 5, 2012 New York Times article that goes into the detail and how we were very concerned that it was going to be seen that we were helping al-Qaeda rebels, you know, in our effort to topple Qaddafi. | |
| And one thing that Kubik points out is that this so-called humanitarian crisis that we were trying to prevent Gaddafi had pulled his troops back from the border of Misrata and Benghazi just, you know, while this 72-hour period was going on. | |
| And as Kubik said, he thought our Nobel Peace Prize winning president would give peace a chance, but they didn't. | |
| So he withdrew his troops from Benghazi, Gaddafi, on the assumption that he would be allowed to leave the country, that sanctions would be removed from him. | |
| And this is one of the things that exposed Benghazi to these militias. | |
| And as you point out, half a billion dollars worth of arms during a time when NATO, headed by the U.S., had a no-fly zone and was in control of all the ports and control of all of the roads going in and out. | |
| of Libya and so there's no way that half a billion dollars worth of arms could have gone through Qatar and the UAE into Libya without the express knowledge and permission of the NATO forces and And end up in the rebels, again, which are woven in with Al-Qaeda. | |
| I don't know if anyone knows the degree to which Al-Qaeda and the rebels were synonymous, but this idea that these weapons were going to enemies of Gaddafi, but not going towards Al-Qaeda strains credulity to a significant degree. | |
| Well, that's exactly right. | |
| You just laid it out perfectly, and that is really what happened. | |
| And we did know People like Belhaj and Bin Kumu, and these people who, again, you know, I don't know all the cast of characters as well as some of our experts on our commission. | |
| But yes, clearly, these were al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, working together. | |
| You know, you can look, go back to 2009, shortly after Obama came into the White House and his Cairo speech, where he welcomed the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood and not the leader of the country. | |
| And there were signs of that. | |
| And so, yeah, this was the scenario when we come back to September of 2012, near the anniversary of 9-11, and coming back into Benghazi and this situation emerged. | |
| And it seems, I mean, one of the great tragedies is sort of wrong place, wrong time in history. | |
| Had this not been in the run-up to the election, Through the presidential election, things might have gone a little bit differently, but it seems to me, and tell me what your thoughts are, it seems to me that almost everything about Benghazi was narrative shattering when it came to the president and his claims. | |
| And not just his claims, but even the claims of those who'd come before him. | |
| Number one, of course, was that the war on terror was won. | |
| You know, you got bin Laden and he used the phrase decimated, which in its original form meant only 10% reduced. | |
| But he decimated on the run, on the ropes, that Al-Qaeda was toast, that they were done, and therefore that the war on terror and the massive sacrifice of blood and treasure made by the American public and unfortunately the unborn future American debt holders, that this massive sacrifice that I think at the time was passing the cost for America of World War II, | |
| That this massive sacrifice had been worth it and that the war was essentially won and of course if the amount of mayhem that was able to be executed on American personnel, ex-Navy SEALs, the ambassador in Benghazi, that would shatter the narrative. | |
| Of winning the war on terror. | |
| Number two, of course, is that Al-Qaeda is always presented in the American media as, like, great enemy number one. | |
| Like, number one, worst guys ever, no matter what. | |
| But it seems to me, if you look at it objectively, Al-Qaeda's on this revolving door of, like, frenemies. | |
| You know, friends, enemies, friends, enemies. | |
| Of course, they were brought in The Mujahideen were brought in and you can see pictures of them meeting with Reagan in the 80s, brought in to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s and they were trained. | |
| Here's how you bring down an empire. | |
| What you do is you continue to draw them into unwinnable wars and you crack their treasury and you break their capacity for foreign occupations. | |
| And this is what the CIA taught the Mujahideen, and there's of course rumors that Bin Laden himself received CIA training. | |
| So then, they were our friends. | |
| And then they were also the friends of America in Serbia and Kosovo when it came time To wage that conflict and then of course 9-11 they became the enemies and here again they become the friends. | |
| It's not, you know, black and white and I think that's another narrative that Benghazi and a full explication and understanding of what happened in Benghazi is really hard for people to process because it does take that black and white narrative and make it terrifyingly nuanced. | |
| Well, yes. | |
| There's a lot there that you said. | |
| Some I would agree with, some not. | |
| But look, as of today, there's big news, which is that John Boehner has consented to allow this select committee to be formed in the House. | |
| And surprisingly, they're allowing Trey Gowdy Who, to head it up. | |
| At least that's the reports as of today. | |
| I look at this cautiously and know the devil is in the details and want to see how this plays out. | |
| But if that's what happens with Trey Gowdy as the, you know, former prosecutor, This should really be interesting, because I don't think he will let it go, and I think there is going to be such a resistance from the White House. | |
| But this is something, there have been 190 Republican members of the House out of about 232 Who had signed on to Frank Wolf's H.R. 36 calling for this select committee, and Boehner and the leadership had resisted it up until now. | |
| And with our event last week, we got quite a bit of attention. | |
| The Daily Mail covered it, and it was on Drudge, and we had a lot of coverage. | |
| And then this news from Judicial Watch and this document that got released really just created this massive sort of I think we were all very surprised, | |
| very pleased to see that Boehner has come around on this, because there was concern that, look, one issue is For all the different committee chairmen, they want to protect their committees and their stature as chairman of a committee, as opposed to being just one person on this. | |
| But now what happens is, instead of the five-minute rule, where you really, sometimes they can just drag it out and you get one question, now it's more like a deposition. | |
| And you get to, there's no time limits. | |
| And then as far as their access to classified materials should be greater than it was. | |
| And it's going to be very interesting because we remember Watergate and, you know, the resistance and saying, no, we're not turning that over, executive privilege, and, you know, ultimately this could wind up in the Supreme Court deciding certain aspects of this, if the White House is going to be forced to turn things over or not. | |
| So this is going to be a very interesting confrontation. | |
| Now, some I can't remember if your group has or not, but some groups have suggested that the White House, through redacting information and through not cooperating with Congress, the congressional inquiries and through lying to these congressional inquiries, that the White House has engaged in Deceitful or even criminal behavior. | |
| I wonder if you could help people understand why some people are making that case. | |
| Because, you know, I mean, with Nixon, of course, there weren't four smoking bodies on the floor. | |
| It was third-rate burglary. | |
| These kinds of wiretappings had been performed by both parties throughout most of American history ever since really the invention of the capacity to wiretap. | |
| This seems quite different. | |
| Why do you think people are saying that this really could be criminal activity on the part of the White House? | |
| Because, just for this reason, I mean, they have been deceptive since day one. | |
| First, again, as I was mentioning before, coming up with this rationale, this excuse that it was this video, when they knew all along it wasn't. | |
| The chief of station in the CIA told them from day one, from the opening, the minutes while this was still going on, they were told Carter Hamm, the head of AFRICOM, told Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey, and they went right into the White House and told them that this was a planned terrorist attack. | |
| So there you have total lying to The American people. | |
| And then there's this question of having knowingly sent arms to al-Qaeda-related groups. | |
| Now, that's totally against the law. | |
| And I'm not saying that they violated the law, because perhaps there was a presidential directive signed and someone would rule that that carried, you know, had more weight than What the law said. | |
| So, you know, that's why this is important. | |
| I mean, we did not have, as the Citizens Commission on Benghazi, did not have subpoena power. | |
| But these people do, and they can force these people to testify under oath. | |
| And if they're found to be lying, they can be convicted of perjury. | |
| So the stakes are going to be very high in this. | |
| But for all the reasons, look, they were faced with, if we acknowledge what happened here, Obama very well may have felt he was going to lose the election. | |
| And so they crafted this story and stuck with it. | |
| And for us, again, accuracy in media, I mean, there were all these moments during that period You had, on September 12th, right after he gave his Rose Garden appearance, where he used the term act of terror, | |
| but it wasn't specifically tied to the Benghazi thing, he then went on and did an interview with Steve Croft of 60 Minutes, And Croft asked him, you seem reluctant to call this an act of terrorism, or to use the word terrorism. | |
| He said, well, we don't know yet. | |
| We're still investigating and still looking at it. | |
| Now, CBS did not use, did not even release that piece of video until they released it two days before the presidential election. | |
| They just quietly put it up on a blog site. | |
| And they could have answered this question all along, for instance, during that debate When Romney said, you know, He told him that he didn't call it a terrorist act, and he said, oh, yes, I did, and look at the transcript, and conveniently, Candy Crowley had it. | |
| So there's all these things where the media were complicit, and they didn't do their job leading up to the election. | |
| That's because they generally wanted Obama to get reelected. | |
| There's no question about it. | |
| How do you think this, this is obviously putting on our prognostication helmet, so this is a perilous business and you're released from all liability when it comes to the accuracy of these, but when you look at Hillary Clinton's run, I think? | |
| Putting additional security in is a way of saying Al-Qaeda has strength, Al-Qaeda has power, we're worried, we're concerned, which contradicts again the narrative that the war is won and, you know, kumbaya, give these a chance stuff. | |
| How do you think that the Benghazi narrative is going to play into the next round of the run at the White House, in particular with Hillary Clinton? | |
| Well, I think what's going to happen is that the media are going to primarily try to continue to protect Hillary. | |
| And we had this famous New York Times piece on December 30th of last year, David Kirkpatrick, and he basically said, look, and this was viewed as Kind of establishing the story for Hillary and trying to put an end to it, and to say, oh, in fact, the YouTube video was a factor, and there was no al-Qaeda involvement in this. | |
| So that's what they tried to say. | |
| And they really just released a firestorm from people who just, like us, who completely It took it apart, took apart his story. | |
| But I think the media are going to continue to try to protect Hillary, to make this seem to be just a partisan witch hunt on the part of the Republicans, that they have nothing going for them, so they're just doing this, and that it's a phony scandal. | |
| And that's been the line, and I cannot see them changing it at this point. | |
| So the question is, will that part of the media win out? | |
| I mean, I think we're seeing that several people, having caught them, I mean, one guy, a mainstream media guy, Ron Fournier, yesterday referred to Jay Carney as being like Baghdad Bob. | |
| Which he was up there trying to say that, you know, oh, with this document, even though this was FOIA'd under, about Benghazi, and we presented it, and it was given to them as a Benghazi FOIA, it wasn't about Benghazi at all. | |
| It was about all the other demonstrations that were going on. | |
| Even though, sorry to interrupt, but even though the memos refer to American lives lost, which only happened in Benghazi, he's saying it's not about Benghazi. | |
| It's really Alice in Wonderland stuff. | |
| Right. | |
| Well, he said lives lost. | |
| It wasn't just American lives. | |
| That's what he said. | |
| So, yeah, it was so absurd that even most of the people in the White House press room weren't buying it. | |
| Right. | |
| So I wonder if I could put on my left-wing prostitute's hat for a moment and fire a couple of questions at you that I'm sure will be coming from the media to try and dampen this scandal down in the Democratic run-up to the next election. | |
| I wonder if you could just give me your sound bite responses to these kinds of objections to the information that you and your group is putting forward. | |
| Okay. | |
| What does it matter, in the famous words of Hillary Clinton, what does it matter at this point, why it started or what happened? | |
| It matters greatly because it reveals so much about this administration, their embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, of their willingness to Allow arms, to facilitate arms going to Al Qaeda, to their tendency to lie and cover up. | |
| Look, I think a lot of people view this as far worse than Watergate and anything that happened there. | |
| Or Iran-Contra is another one that sort of springs to mind, which is far less egregious. | |
| Exactly. | |
| And so, yeah, this is huge in terms of both the actions. | |
| Look, here's the other thing, and this is the main thing that drew the people to our commission, I believe, and that is that they view what happened on that day as dereliction of duty. | |
| In other words, Admiral Lyons, who was the commander-in-chief of the I mean, there was a 130-man Marine force at Siginella, which is a naval air station on Sicily, that could have been there within an hour. | |
| There were other assets, military bases, And they should have been prepared, knowing what was going on. | |
| There had been all the warnings. | |
| How could we not send the military assets that we had available to at least try to rescue these people? | |
| And, you know, President Obama says that his first order was do everything you can to go save those people. | |
| Nothing happened. | |
| So did Panetta, did they ignore his orders, or did he really not give that order? | |
| So these are the questions that need to be answered. | |
| And look, if it came down like it looks like it did, yeah, who knows what's in store. | |
| I mean, the idea of impeaching the first black president is so It's controversial. | |
| I don't think that will happen. | |
| But maybe it will just be a stain on his legacy and history, and, you know, he'll be allowed to finish out his presidency. | |
| We don't know, you know, where this is leading. | |
| You know, heading right into a political season with the 2014 elections coming up. | |
| First of all, we don't yet know how long it's going to take to organize this select committee and, you know, what kind of tug of war it's going to be to get certain people to come testify. | |
| So there's really a lot of things yet to be determined. | |
| But again, we see this as, you know, a scandal on so many levels. | |
| The things that I've talked about, letting that war go on in the first place, you know, allowing the arms to flow to al-Qaeda, failing to beef up the security or pulling our people out of there beforehand. | |
| All of these things, you know, the dereliction of duty on the day of, and then the immediate cover-up mode that went on. | |
| So, there are so many angles to this thing. | |
| Right. | |
| Now, the second question, of course, is sort of the It's the defense that the British gave about Czechoslovakia in 1938, which was, well, we couldn't really have done anything. | |
| I mean, and I guess you pointed out that there were forces less than an hour away, even sending in fighter jets at low level, even if they weren't armed, would have probably scattered some people. | |
| There's lots of things that could have been done. | |
| So I guess that question has been answered. | |
| Of course, the third major objection to any kind of Questions around these issues is the issue of national security and the idea that, you know, you lowly proles are not cleared for these kinds of sensitive, this kind of sensitive data. | |
| And what would your response be to the defense of national security? | |
| We have put together an incredible commission of people that I would, I urge you to go to our website again, aim.org slash Benghazi, look under the members, look at the biographies of these people. | |
| These have been some of the most incredible Patriots and people who have given so much for this country and care about this country, and these are not political people. | |
| They may have become more political in recent time, but they are just so concerned about national security of this country, watching what's happening. | |
| In other words, as we stood there On the brink of the war with Libya, President Obama stood up and said, we don't stand by while people are getting killed. | |
| Yet look at Syria, 150,000 now. | |
| And then what's going on? | |
| You know, the Ukrainians were urged and convinced to give up their weapons, and that the U.S. and NATO would stand behind them if anything happened with Russia. | |
| And, you know, they see there's nothing happening there. | |
| I think, I mean, there's a piece by Leon Weseltier in The New Republic that really goes into the fact of Obama just, I mean, a weak U.S. is just a huge problem throughout the world. | |
| People no longer feel the confidence that we're going to come to their aid. | |
| The Russians don't fear us. | |
| It's what's going on with China and their threats to the Philippines, Japan. | |
| There's just so much... | |
| There's uncertainty and fear in the world now that there is not the strong U.S. force that was once there. | |
| And, admittedly, made mistakes, but when we've gone into these wars, it's generally been to liberate, to help, and then to get out. | |
| We don't go in to take over countries, and our history's been that way. | |
| So, yeah. | |
| Yeah, I lean a little bit more towards the isolationist approach, but that perhaps is a debate for another time. | |
| So the last question I have, compared to Watergate, which was a political chicanery followed by foolish avoidance, and according to some theories was payback, from the artistic and journalistic community for Nixon's involvement in the McCarthy hearings. | |
| But there was a ferocious press who were really, really going after a president full-tilt boogie. | |
| It's hard to imagine how this scandal, if it plays out the way that I certainly expect it to play out, which is where more and more egregious information is provided, or, you know, there's this blank stone wall which indicates that the egregious information is being hidden. | |
| Without an aggressive press, it really seems hard to figure out how this administration can be cornered into coughing up some truth. | |
| But again, at the same time, seeing the reporters go after Jim Carney for his obvious mealy-mouthed deceptions, at least in my view, It was quite a revelation that they seem to have reached the limit of their endurance for, you know, speak with two tongues, doublespeak. | |
| Do you think that the press is going to actually pursue this story? | |
| It seems hard to believe almost the head of CBS is the brother of the security analyst who first started massaging the talking points. | |
| Do you think that the press is going to go for this story or do you think there's going to be complicit in the whitewash? | |
| Well, I think The media is going to continue to treat it as a Fox News story. | |
| That's the way they like to label it. | |
| And I do not see NBC and CBS and ABC and The New York Times and Washington Post. | |
| You know, look, The Washington Post, sometimes they're more so than those others that they're willing to Dive in, and even if it goes against the people that they like, I will give them more credit than those others. | |
| But I would be very surprised to see if the others appear to turn on him, as opposed to trying... | |
| I mean, they've tried to avoid this story, like the plague. | |
| I mean, even with the stuff that came out yesterday, and this week, and with our material, It was amazing. | |
| I mean, we, CNN was at our press conference. | |
| They didn't write, they didn't do a peep about it. | |
| And the New York Times, and we specifically sought them out and went to them and tried to get someone. | |
| Someone from the Post was supposed to be there, and they canceled at the last minute. | |
| And so they are hoping and hoping so much that this will Stay buried and viewed as a partisan issue and a Fox News story. | |
| But I'm afraid the tide of history is flowing the other way. | |
| The media, they're going to continue to try to help Obama and Hillary in this, and whether they can succeed. | |
| When you see the numbers For Obama in particular, I don't know that they're going to succeed with this. | |
| And I think Hillary's got a lot to worry about. | |
| She may yet decide not to run by the time these hearings are over. | |
| Well, I guess we'll see. | |
| So, again, thank you so much, Roger, for taking the time and, of course, for all the work that the Commission has done. | |
| If you would just like to repeat the website for my listeners to go and have a look at this information, which I strongly urge you to do. | |
| I mean, as you pointed out, either... | |
| The civilian head of the military had no idea of the status of the war on terror, or they were deliberately lying to the American people about the status of the war on terror in order to win an election. | |
| I'm not sure which is worse. | |
| Ignorance where you should know, or lying about things where you do know. | |
| It is important for people to look at this information to get a real sense of where the political machinery is at the moment. | |
| So if you could just repeat your website, make sure people can get access to the information, I'd appreciate that. | |
| Yeah, thank you, Stephan. | |
| It's AIM.org. | |
| That stands for Accuracy in Media. | |
| We've been around since 1969, the original media watchdog. | |
| And the separate website, which you find if you go to AIM.org, is AIM.org slash Benghazi. | |
| That is the website for the Citizens Commission on Benghazi. | |
| And there's a lot of material on there. | |
| I urge you to look at it, the interim report and what the additional documents I think it will really stun a lot of people and I hope they will take some time to go through the material. | |
| And I thank you so much for your show and for what you're doing and for having me on and a chance to talk about this. | |
| Thank you very much. | |
| I'm sure we'll talk again. | |
| Take care. | |
| Okay. |