• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton initially obliged Tuesday when she was stopped by a man in Washington, D.C., who asked if she could autograph her new book, “Hard Choices,” but she was stunned by the man’s brazen request when he asked her to make it out to “Christopher Stevens.”

On Sept. 11, 2012, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered by jihadists under Clinton’s watch when she served as secretary of state.

The exchange between Clinton and Daily Surge Publisher Jason Mattera went like this:

Mattera: “Hi Secretary Clinton. Would you sign this for me?”

Clinton: “Sure, what’s your name?”

Mattera: “If you can make it out to Christopher Stevens. I think you knew him.”

Clinton: “Yeah, I’m not going to make it out to Chris Stevens.”

Mattera: “What difference does it make?”

After referencing Clinton’s widely reported question in her 2013 Senate testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, Mattera added, “It’s kind of odd that you have more security than Chris Stevens had.”

According to the Daily Surge, “Clinton’s entourage filled up a town car, two SUVs, and consisted of security personnel from the building she had just exited.”

As WND recently reported, published excerpts of the Benghazi chapter in Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming book, “Hard Choices,” contain misleading statements about the deadly attack and the then-secretary of state’s personal role in the decision-making process.

Pre-order Aaron Klein’s “The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don’t Want You to Know” today and it will be delivered to you weeks before the release date.

Denying a personal role in the decision-making process regarding security of the compound, Clinton writes that she did not see the cables requesting additional security.

She claims cables related to the security at the compound were only addressed to her as a “procedural quirk” and didn’t actually land on her desk.

Clinton writes: “That’s not how it works. It shouldn’t. And it didn’t.”

However, the Senate’s January 2014 report on the Benghazi attack reveals lawmakers found that the Benghazi facility required special waivers to be legally occupied, since it did not meet the minimum official security standards set by the State Department. Some of the waivers could only have been signed by Clinton herself.

Some of the necessary waivers, the Senate affirmed, could have been issued at lower levels within the State Department. However “other departures, such as the co-location requirement, could only be approved by the Secretary of State,” reads the Senate report.

The “co-location” requirement refers to the unusual housing setup in Benghazi in which intelligence and State Department personnel were kept in two separate locations.

Clinton would have a lot of explaining to do if she signed waivers allowing the facility to be legally occupied without reviewing the U.S. special mission’s security posture.

Further, the Senate found it was Clinton’s top deputies, including officials known to be close to the Clintons, who were responsible for some major denials of security at the compound.

In one example, it was Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy who canceled the use in Tripoli of a DC-3 aircraft that could have aided in the evacuation of the Benghazi victims.

Kennedy also denied permission to build guard towers at the Benghazi mission and approved the withdrawal of a Security Support Teams, or SST, special U.S. forces specifically maintained for counterattacks on U.S. embassies or threats against diplomatic personnel.

For some lawmakers, it defies logic that Clinton was not informed, especially since she was known to have taken a particular interest in the Benghazi facility. She reportedly called for the compound to be converted into a permanent mission before a scheduled trip to Libya in December 2012 that eventually was canceled.

 

 

 

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.