Why did Hillary REALLY visit Beaumont, Texas ?

Thought you might like to hear the real story ….

No need to Snopes this….Channel 12 in Beaumont Texas did the reporting

Story appears on Beaumont TV station Channel 12.

According to the Beaumont newspaper and reports from a couple of Beaumont TV stations this really happened.

Why did Hillary REALLY visit Beaumont, Texas - Got to read this!!

Hillary Clinton made a campaign stop yesterday in Beaumont, Texas.
Only six people were there to greet her. Her security detail outnumbered her supporters by quite a bit. She wouldn’t talk, wave to or even acknowledge those there to greet her. As bad as that is, it’s not the real story here. The real story is who she took a private meeting with.

After landing, Clinton headed off to a fundraiser in West Beaumont, where she was greeted by around 150-200 Muslims, most of whom were  of Pakistani origin. The event was held by Pakistani businessman Tahir Javed and Hillary raised approximately $500,000 by pandering to Muslims, making it “one of the top five private fundraiser's Clinton has had in this country.”

She’s bought and paid for by them.

Spread this far and wide.

You will not see it on national news but this is what is going on.



See:
https://www.truthorfiction.com/hillary-clinton-really-beaumont-texas/

45 Page Analysis Of Report Shows Conclusively That Hillary Misled America About Benghazi Murders...

45 Page Analysis Of Report Shows Conclusively That Hillary Misled America About Benghazi Murders by Geoffrey Grider A 45-page analysis of the Benghazi Committee’s investigative report released Tuesday by a pair of Republican congressmen lays out in devastating detail the lengths to which Hillary Clinton went to obscure the motives behind the murder of four Americans in Libya in 2012. The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others on Sept. 11, 2012. Reps. Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo amassed ample evidence that then-Secretary of State Clinton quickly learned that the killings resulted from a organized terrorist attack. “Yet, Secretary Clinton and the administration told one story privately — that Benghazi was a terrorist attack — and told another story publicly — blaming a video-inspired protest,” wrote Jordan and Pompeo, who said they wrote their report to highlight what they regard as the most important parts of the forthcoming official report of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Hillary Clinton Makes Statement On Benghazi Report | MSNBC Hillary wants you to, please, stop investigating what really happened in Benghazi. It's wearing her out and she would very much appreciate it if we could all just move on. After all, what difference at this point does it really make? Thank you. Indeed, in her Oct. 22 testimony before the Select Committee, Clinton blamed conflicting reports for the differences in her public and private statements on the motivations behind the attack. The report issued Tuesday by Jordan and Pompeo indicates there was overwhelming and immediate evidence in Clinton’s hands that it was a coordinated attack that had nothing to do with the video. Democrats on the committee released their own report Monday, dismissing the investigation as “the ongoing Republican obsession with conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality.” But it is hard to refute the written record showing Clinton and other administration officials clinging to their story that the attack started as a spontaneous protest over on obscure anti-Muslim internet video made by an American. Here is a timeline in the report: Sept. 11, 2012 What they said in public: Clinton issued a statement at 10:08 p.m., before the attack was even over: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.” Hillary Clinton's Fiery Moment at Benghazi Hearing: What they said in private: Hours earlier, though, at 6:49 p.m., Clinton told Libyan President Mohammed al Magariaf that there was “a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as-Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.” In an email to daughter Chelsea at 11:23 p.m., she made no mention of the video. “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda-like [sic] group.” Sept. 12, 2012 What they said in public: Clinton said in public remarks that officials were trying to determine the motives for the assault. "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet," she said. What they said in private: In a summary of a call between Acting Assistant Secretary Beth Jones and Libyan Ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones said, "I told him that the group that conducted the attacks — Ansar Al Sharia — is affiliated with Islamic extremists." Mother of Benghazi victim fires back at Hillary Clinton: An email from State Department official Jacob Sullivan to the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, rejected the public contention that the attack in Libya was linked to a protest that had occurred in Cairo, Egypt. "There was not really violence in Egypt [and] we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted 'over inflammatory videos,'" he wrote. Clinton herself rejected the protest theory in a statement to then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Mohamed Qandil: "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest … Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda." Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy, in briefing with congressional staff, said, "No, the attack was a direct breaching attack." He also differentiated it from the Cairo incident. "Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint." Sept. 13, 2012 What they said in public: In remarks in Morocco, Clinton again blamed the online anti-Muslim film. "To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage." Obama and Hillary Blame Youtube Video for Benghazi Terrorist Attack as Coffins Arrive: Even as the words first came out of her mouth, Hillary knew that blaming the terror attack on a video was a complete and total lie. But that's what liars do. They lie. What they said in private: A summary of a call between Deputy Secretary Thomas Nides and the Egyptian ambassador to the United States states: "Nides said he understood the difference between the targeted attack in Libya and the way the protest escalated in Egypt." Sept. 14, 2012 What they said in public: White House press secretary Jay Carey said at a news conference, "We have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive." That is consistent with an email sent that evening by White House adviser Ben Rhodes to Carney and others that it was important "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." The father of Tyrone Woods, one of the fallen Americans, wrote in his diary that during a ceremony for the return of his son's body, "I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand, and she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son." The mother of another victim, Sean Smith, similarly said, "We were nose-to-nose at the coffin ceremony. She told me it was the fault of the video. I said 'Are you sure?' She says, 'Yes, that's what it was … it was the video.'" What they said in private: An email from a State Department press officer in the embassy in Tripoli urged colleagues not to draw attention to the video. "And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence," the officer wrote. Sept. 15, 2012 What they said in public: That did not stop President Obama in his weekly radio address from declaring that the "tragic attack takes place at a time of turmoil and protest in many different countries." What they said in private: Clinton made no mention of a protest or video in call with the Libyan prime minister-elect. Sept. 16, 2012 What they said in public: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, in interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Channel, said, "But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack." What they said in private: In an email to media officers, a public affairs officer at the U.S. embassy in Libya wrote that there was evidence that a second attack on the diplomatic mission's safe house could not have occurred without coordination and organization by the attackers. "This goes against statements that the attacks were not carried out by a single group but by an angry multitude protesting," the officer wrote. Sept 17, 2012 What they said in public: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stood by Rice's remarks on the Sunday news shows. "Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is," she said. What they said in private: Responding to instructions to link the attack in Benghazi to the protest in Egypt, a press officer in Libya wrote in an email, "I really hope this was revised. I don't think we should go on the record on this." Sept. 18, 2012 What they said in public: Carney told reporters, "I would point you to what Ambassador Rice said and others have said about what we know thus far about the video and its influence on the protests that occurred in Cairo, in Benghazi and elsewhere." What they said in private: In a written statement to a congressional panel, Deputy CIA Director Michael Morrell wrote, "The critically important point is that the analysts considered this a terrorist attack from the very beginning." In an email exchange about an article quoting White House officials as seeing no signs of a premeditated attack, one State Department security agent asked another, "Can you believe this?" The second agent asked the first if there had been any rioting reported in Benghazi before the attack. "Zip, nothing, nada," the agent responded. Sept. 19, 2016 What they said in public: In a cable to all U.S. embassies, Clinton warned of widespread violence at diplomatic posts across the Muslim world. "The proximate cause of the violence was the release by individuals in the United States of the video trailer for a film that many Muslims find offensive," she wrote. Sept. 20, 2012 What they said in public: At a Univision Town Hall event, Obama was still trying to determine what happened in Libya. "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests." source

Iraq Situation Report: June 21 - 28, 2016...

Iraq Situation Report: June 21 - 28, 2016

ISW will continue to provide updates on the situation in Syria as it unfolds. For continuous updates, visit  iswresearch.blogspot.com/ and UnderstandingWar.org or Syria Direct. By Patrick Martin and ISW Iraq Team Key Take-Away: The Iraqi Federal Court ruled that two key sessions of the Council of Representatives (CoR) in April, one held by legitimate CoR and the other held rebelling members of a rump parliament, were illegal. The ruling stated that the April 14 rump CoR session, when rebelling CoR members illegally voted to remove CoR Speaker Salim al-Juburi from his position, was invalid as it did not meet quorum. The Federal Court also ruled that the April 26 regular CoR session that voted in five new technocratic ministers was invalid due to unconstitutional procedure of the session. The former decision deals a blow to the Reform Front - the incarnation of the rebelling CoR members and the rump parliament - as one of its primary objectives has been to remove Speaker Juburi from office and replace him with a member of the Reform Front. Some of their members stated that the group would return to the CoR and attempt to vote out Speaker Juburi once more. The Reform Front's return could help the CoR make quorum and recommence legislative work, but political stability is far from likely. The second decision to nullify the April 26 session undermines PM Abadi's credibility by highlighting his inability to carry out even a compromise cabinet reform, let alone a preferred full reshuffle. The CoR is slated to reconvene in early July. Even if it reaches quorum, the perpetually-stalled reform agenda, calls by Muqtada al-Sadr and other firebrand CoR members for resignations of senior government members, and a fracturing Kurdistan Alliance all but ensure a delay on progress for important legislation. Continued disruptive behavior and obstructionism will likely continue within the CoR, and further momentum could build for a no-confidence vote in PM Abadi in the wake of Federal Court's decision.

The United States Of Europe: Germany And France Hatch A Plan To Create An EU Superstate...

The United States Of Europe: Germany And France Hatch A Plan To Create An EU Superstate

Posted: 27 Jun 2016 06:11 PM PDT

If you believe that the Brexit vote is going to kill the idea of a “United States of Europe”, you might want to think again.  In fact, it appears that the decision by the British people to leave the European Union is only going to accelerate the process of creating an EU superstate.  As you will see below, one of the largest newspapers in the UK is reporting that the foreign ministers of France and Germany have drafted “a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states”.  So even though men like George Soros are warning that the eventual dissolution of the European Union is “practically irreversible” after the Brexit vote, the truth is that the globalists are not about to give up so easily.

For a very long time, advocates of increased European integration have dreamed of going all the way and creating a true “United States of Europe”, but Britain was always one of the stumbling blocks that stood in the way.

But now that Britain is out and there is great fear that the entire European project may be in jeopardy, there seems to be a rush to go for broke and try to complete the job of European integration.  The Express is one of the biggest news organizations in the UK, and they are reporting that the foreign ministers of France and Germany already have a blueprint “to effectively do away with individual member states”…

The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.

Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.

Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.

When I read that earlier today I was absolutely stunned.

Did they come up with this blueprint before the Brexit vote or after?

And do they plan to allow the citizens of individual nations to vote on any of this?

It is being reported that the following paragraph comes from the preamble to the document…

“Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens. We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture.”

Of course it would have been totally unrealistic to expect backers of European integration to go down without a fight.  After all, what did we expect them to do – throw up their hands and admit that the British people are right and that the European Union is a failure?

No, that was never going to happen.

As I mentioned in the other article that I published today, the elite are going to make the British people pay for what they have done.  The British pound has already been smashed, British stocks are getting pounded, and the UK economy is going to suffer greatly.  In addition, the British people are being inundated by mainstream news stories telling them what a horrible mistake they made.

And as the crisis in Europe gets progressively worse, the “solution” that will be heralded by mainstream news organizations will be increased European integration.  In fact, this is something that CNN is already promoting…

The elite are desperate to rescue a European project that is considered to be “dying” in the eyes of many.  For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman just compared what is happening in Europe right now to the collapse of the Soviet Union…

The upheaval in the U.K. after its Brexit referendum in favor of leaving the European Union has similarities to the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman.

While it’s “unreasonable to draw direct parallels,” it’s obvious that the U.K. is going through a “turbulent, confusing and unpredictable period,” Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call Monday. Russia “has gone through the collapse of the Soviet Union and many generations clearly remember the period of the Soviet collapse, that period of uncertainty.”

So those that are in favor of European integration are in full damage control mode at this point.  Just today, there was a report in the Daily Mail about how German Chancellor Angela Merkel is telling people that it is vital to keep any other members of the European Union from leaving…

Mrs Merkel said the EU needs to stop other countries following Britain out of the door amid market fears that the bloc is ‘no longer governable’ after Brexit.

The German Chancellor told her conservative party board in a conference call that it was necessary to prevent other European Union members going down the same path as Britain.

Merkel is also said to have revealed that international financial markets are concerned the EU is ‘no longer governable’ in the wake of Britain’s exit vote.

The elitists that run the EU don’t really care about the will of the people, and they will work very hard to prevent more referendums from being held.  In an age of “democracy”, the EU is one of the most undemocratic political institutions in the entire western world.  I know, because I studied EU law when I was in law school.

If you have any doubt about this, just check out this recent quote from European Parliament President Martin Schultz…

“The British have violated the rules. It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate“.

Say what?

In the short-term, it is entirely possible that we could see more nations leave the EU.  I would watch Greece in particular.

But in the long-term, we will see a major push for more European integration.  Germany and France will be at the core of this movement, and other European nations will join them.

The British people may not participate any time soon, but the dream of a United States of Europe is far from dead.

And if the advocates of increased European integration have their way, we will be seeing their dream become a reality sooner rather than later.

Select Committee on Benghazi Releases Proposed Report 81 New Witnesses, 75,000 New Pages of Documents Reveal Significant New Information, Fundamentally Changes the Public’s Understanding of the 2012 Terrorist Attacks that Killed Four Americans...

Select Committee on Benghazi Releases Proposed Report

81 New Witnesses, 75,000 New Pages of Documents Reveal Significant New Information,

Fundamentally Changes the Public’s Understanding of the 2012 Terrorist Attacks that Killed Four Americans

Washington, D.C. – Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) released the following statement after the committee’s Majority released a mark of its investigative report:

“Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were heroes who gave their lives in service to our country. Their bravery and the courageous actions of so many others on the ground that night should be honored.

“When the Select Committee was formed, I promised to conduct this investigation in a manner worthy of the American people’s respect, and worthy of the memory of those who died. That is exactly what my colleagues and I have done.

“Now, I simply ask the American people to read this report for themselves, look at the evidence we have collected, and reach their own conclusions. You can read this report in less time than our fellow citizens were taking fire and fighting for their lives on the rooftops and in the streets of Benghazi.”

The committee’s proposed report is just over 800 pages long and is comprised of five primary sections and 12 appendices. It details relevant events in 2011 and 2012.

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:

• Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]

• With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]

• The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]

• A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]

• None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]

• The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.”

Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Our committee’s insistence on additional information about the military’s response to the Benghazi attacks was met with strong opposition from the Defense Department, and now we know why. Instead of attempting to hide deficiencies in our posture and performance, it’s my hope our report will help ensure we fix what went wrong so that a tragedy like this never happens again.” 

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part II:

• Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]

• The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]

• Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]

• According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]

• On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]

• After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]

• Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]

• The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]

• A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Obama Administration officials, including the Secretary of State, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Rather than tell the American people the truth, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly.”

Rep. Peter Roskam (IL-06) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“In the days and weeks after the attacks, the White House worked to pin all of the blame for their misleading and incorrect statements on officials within the intelligence community, but in reality, political operatives like Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe were spinning the false narrative and prepping Susan Rice for her interviews.” 

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part III:

• During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]

• The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]

• When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]

• In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]

• Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]

• In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]

• Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]

Rep. Susan Brooks (IN-05) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“President Obama has said his worst mistake was ‘failing to plan for the day after … intervening in Libya.’ As a result of this ‘lead from behind’ foreign policy, the Libyan people were forced to make the dismal trade of the tyranny of Qadhafi for the terror of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and others. Although the State Department considered Libya a grave risk to American diplomats in 2011 and 2012, our people remained in a largely unprotected, unofficial facility that one diplomatic security agent the committee interviewed characterized as ‘a suicide mission.’”

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“One of the most concerning parts of the State Department’s policy in Libya was its reliance upon the militias of an unstable nation to protect our men and women in Benghazi. These were by no means forces that could adequately protect Americans on the ground, and the State Department knew it. But the appearance of no boots on the ground was more important to the administration.” 

Part IV of the report reveals new information about the Select Committee’s requests and subpoenas seeking documents and witnesses regarding Benghazi and Libya, and details what the Obama administration provided to Congress, what it is still withholding, and how its serial delays hindered the committee’s efforts to uncover the truth.

Part V proposes 25 recommendations for the Pentagon, State Department, Intelligence Community and Congress aimed at strengthening security for American personnel serving abroad and doing everything possible to ensure something like Benghazi never happens again, and if it does, that we are better prepared to respond, the majority make a series of recommendations.

The Select Committee intends to convene a bipartisan markup to discuss and vote on the proposed report on July 8, 2016. All members of the committee will have the opportunity to offer changes in a manner consistent with the rules of the House.

Letter from Chairman Trey Gowdy to Speaker Paul Ryan

The Benghazi Committee's Investigation - By the Numbers

Below is the full report with links to PDF files of each section.

Report of the Select Committee on

the Events Surrounding the 2012

Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

 

Illustrations

 

I. Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi 

 

II. Internal and Public Government Communications about the Terrorist

Attacks in Benghazi

 

III. Events Leading to the Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi

 

IV. Compliance with Congressional Investigations

 

V. Recommendations

 

Appendix A: Resolution Establishing the Select Committee on the

Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

 

Appendix B: Significant Persons and Organizations

 

Appendix C: Questions for the President

 

Appendix D: Significant Events in Libya Prior to the Attacks

 

Appendix E: Security Incidents in Libya

 

Appendix F: Deterioration of Benghazi Mission Compound Security

 

Appendix G: Timelines of the Attacks

 

Appendix H: The September 12 Situation Report and the President’s

Daily Brief 

 

Appendix I: Witness Interview Summaries 

 

Appendix J: Requests and Subpoenas for Documents

 

Appendix K: Analysis of Accountability Review Board, House Armed

Services Committee and House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee

Reports

 

Appendix L: Glen A. Doherty, Sean P. Smith, J. Christopher Stevens,

and Tyrone S. Woods

 

Additional Views by Rep. Jordan and Rep. Pompeo

The U.S. Navy’s Lethal New Heavyweight Torpedo ...

The U.S. Navy’s Lethal New Heavyweight Torpedo 

06/27/16

Kris Osborn

Submarines, United States

The U.S. Navy is now prototyping a new, longer range and more lethal submarine-launched heavyweight Mk 48 torpedo.

The U.S. Navy is now prototyping a new, longer range and more lethal submarine-launched heavyweight Mk 48 that can better destroy enemy ships, subs and incoming weapons at longer ranges, service officials said.

Many details of the new weapon, which include newer propulsion mechanisms and multiple kinds of warheads, are secret and not publically available. However, senior Navy leaders have talked to Scout Warrior about the development of the weapon in a general sense.

“There is prototyping going on for new versions of underwater weapons with significant underwater range and a wider variety of payloads. We are now coming up with effects that better enable us to provide a broader range of options for future commanders,” Rear Adm. Charles Richard, Director of Undersea Warfare, told Scout Warrior in an interview. 

 Naturally, having a functional and more high-tech lethal torpedo affords the Navy an opportunity to hit enemies at further standoff ranges and better compete with more fully emerging undersea rivals such as Russia and China.

Progress with new torpedo technologies is happening alongside a concurrent effort to upgrade the existing arsenal and re-start production of the Mk 48, which had been on hiatus for several years.

(This story originally appeared in Scout Warrior)

Richard did add that some of the improvements to the torpedo relate to letting more water into the bottom of the torpedo as opposed to letting air out the top.

The earlier version, the Mk 48 Mod 6, has been operational since 1997 – and the more recent Mod 7 has been in service since 2006.

Lockheed has been working on upgrades to the Mk 48 torpedo Mod 6 and Mod 7 – which consists of adjustments to the guidance control box, broadband sonar acoustic receiver and amplifier components.

Tom Jarvo, Director and General Manager of Targets, Torpedoes and Sensors, Lockheed Martin, told Scout Warrior in an interview that Lockheed is noiw delivering 20-upgrade kits per month to the Navy.

Part of the effort, which involves a five-year deal between the Navy and Lockheed, includes upgrading existing Mod 6 torpedoes to Mod 7 as well as buying brand new Mod 7 guidance control sections.

The new Mod 7 is also resistant to advanced enemy countermeasures.

Read full article