Tag Archives: Benghazi


I know that I said Part Three of my series on the Occupy Democrats organization would be the last. Well, I guess I lied, and let’s face it, I’m not the only one who has lied. Seriously, though, this one dropped right into my lap and I couldn’t pass it up.

How Democrats can compare these incidents to Benghazi is not understandable.

In my newsfeed on Facebook, another Meme from Occupy Democrats appeared listing the U.S. Embassy attacks which took place while George W. Bush was president, and stating that there were zero investigations by Republicans, and zero fake outrage on Fox News. The meme was titled, “Bush’s Benghazi.”

Attacks on embassies and consulates have always taken place, but what makes Benghazi different is not that the consulate itself was attacked, it’s the actions or rather lack of actions by the current president, the Secretary of State, and others when Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, notified the State Department that the consulate was under attack, and requested additional protection for himself and those working at the consulate. How that was handled, and the whereabouts of the current president and the Secretary of State during the attack was called into questioning. Also called into questioning, were the actions of the president and the Secretary of State, in efforts to avoid being scrutinized, attempted to blame the attacks on an anti-Muslim video.

The established facts and the outcome of the investigations into the Benghazi attacks are not the subject of this post. Rather, the subject of this post is the liberal spin, excuse me, liberal lies regarding other embassy attacks.

The following are the embassy or consulate attacks that Occupy Democrats consider comparable to Benghazi, but in reality, are no way related.

  • December 15, 2001: Unidentified assailants gunned down a Nepalese security guard of the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal.
  • March 20, 2002: A car bomb exploded near the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru, killing nine people and injuring 32. The U.S. State Department reported no American casualties, injuries, or damage.
  • June 14, 2002: A suicide bombing in front of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, left 12 dead and 52 injured.
  • July, 30, 2004: Two people, including a suicide bomber, were killed and one person was injured as a suicide bomber set off an explosion at the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbedistan. The Israeli Embassy and the Uzbedistan Prosecutor General’s Office in Tashkent were also attacked in related incidents.
  • October, 24, 2004: Edward Seitz, the assistant regional security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, died in a mortar of possible rocket attack at Camp Victory near the Baghdad airport. An American soldier was also injured. He was believed to be the first U.S. diplomat killed following the March 2003 U.S. led invasion.
  • December 7, 2004: Gunmen belonging to al-Qaida in the Arabian Pensinsula stormed the U.S. Consulate in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, triggering a bloody four-hour siege that left nine dead. One American was slightly injured in the assault.
  • September 12, 2006: Islamic militants attacked the U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria with hand grenades, rifles, and a vehicle rigged with explo9sives. One guard and the four attackers died.
  • July 8, 2007: Two Iraqi U.S. Embassy workers were killed when the wife went to deliver a ransom for her husband who had been kidnapped in Baghdad. One of the couple’s bodyguards was killed in the filed ransoming.
  • July, 9, 2008: Four unknown gunmen killed three Turkish police at the U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
  • September 17, 2008: Suspected al-Qaida militants disguised as security forces detonated vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, fired rocket propelled grenades, rockets and firearms on the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen. A suicide bomber also blew himself up at the embassy. Six Yemeni police, four civilians, including an American civilian, and six attackers were killed while six others were wounded in the attacked.
  • November 27, 2008: A Taliban suicide car bomber targeted the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing four civilians in addition to the suicide bomber and wounding 18 others. The embassy was hosting a Thanksgiving Day event as Americans and other foreigners were arriving at the venue at the time of the attack.

As any sane person should be able to ascertain, none of the above incidents are even similar to the events surrounding the Benghazi attacks. The fact that liberals could even make such a comparison, leaves me confused. But again, they are liberals. They don’t care about facts. Furthermore, they appear incapable of thinking thing through.

Their inability to think things through by liberals used to mystify me. But, long after trying to discern liberal logic, I just might be getting it. They think they’re so smart because they have the academicians in their corner. They’re not smart at all, though. Maybe those academicians can read a textbook, take a test on the subject matter of that textbook, and make an “A.” Maybe they can study subjects and teach those subjects to students where those students range from age six to sixty. They have total control over those students, and the protection from the real world in their brick and mortar classrooms where they are seldom challenged.

Of course, the liberal population is comprised of more than just academicians. Artists, including writers, painters, and musicians, are generally liberal leaning, as well as non-political government workers, plaintiffs’ trial lawyers, and union members.

Be that as it may, until liberals are able to differentiate the above from tragedies like Benghazi and have the liberal media on their side, meaningful dialog will never take place.



Next UN Secretary General?

Obama is always wrong

In Obama’s speech in 2004 to the attendees at the Democrat National Convention, State Senator Barak Obama, in a fiery speech that had the Democrats slobbering all over themselves, stated that there was no liberal America, no conservative America, no black America, no white America, there is only one America.

Fast forward to the present where he has slightly less than six months to serve as president of the United States, and the citizens of this nation are more divided than ever. We’re divided not only on political and racial lines, we’re divided along socio-economic lines, and religious lines. He has continually played the race card, involving himself in local level disputes such as the ones involving Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a former professor at Harvard University, a black man and a white policy officer, James Crowley. Without knowing all the facts, Obama came out against the white police officer. I thought he was supposed to be a president to all the people, and that we didn’t have a white America or a black America.

During Wednesday night’s speech, he indicated that he was filled with faith in America and possessed much optimism about America’s future. That’s not how he felt when he first took office and shortly thereafter went on the “apology tour” in order to apologize for what he perceived was wrong with this country.

In Obama’s speech, he,  of course, talked about his signature legislation, Obamacare, saying that access to health care was now a right, not just a privilege for the wealthy. Excuse me! Millions of folks were covered for reasonable amounts through their employers. And while purchasing health insurance on your own cost about 2-1/2 times what you paid if your employer provided coverage, it wasn’t near as expensive as it is now if you’re not covered by a group plan. Obama further stated that millions more people were now covered. Not in my scope. While I know of maybe one or two folks who have been able to purchase health insurance because they were previously denied due to pre-existing conditions, I know a lot more who are not covered because they can’t afford to purchase coverage or they can only afford to purchase coverage with deductibles so high that if something catastrophic occurred, they would take a big hit or face financial ruin.

Next, the president indicated that we are on our way to weaning ourselves off of foreign oil. Yes we are, but it is nothing that you did. In fact, you and your liberal henchmen fought this. It was the oil companies/the private sector that developed “fracking,” an innovation which allows oil and natural gas to be removed from the ground in an environmentally safe manner. The extraction of oil and natural gas via fracking was only allowed on private lands, not government lands. Thus, the private sector was able to pull this off and cause decreases in the price of oil and natural gas. If this president were to have had his way, we would be making feeble, if not failed efforts to rely on unreliable and expensive green energy. We’d all be either freezing or burning up. Plus, lower and middle income individuals would be hurt by having to spend more of their hard earned money on heating and cooling their houses and gas for their vehicles.

He also claimed to have shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons’ program. A BOLD-FACED LIE! Then he indicated that as a country, we have never been more secure. THE GREATEST THREAT TO OUR NATION’S SECURITY IS ISIS AND OTHER ISLAMIC TERRORIST GROUPS! He also talked about God, but has continuously denigrated Christians who he claims do nothing but cling to their guns and to their Bibles.

At one point in the speech, he indicated that Democrats and Republicans do have their differences and that these differences is what keeps this country moving. However, he has done nothing but trash Republicans and blame the congressional Republicans for his failures.

In Obama’s speech, he says he loves this country. There’s no way that I’m believing this. Like I said above, he went on that apology tour during his first term in office and has never championed American exceptionalism. He and congressional Democrats pushed through, using every legislative trick in the book, the most insidious piece of legislation that has ever been wrought on the American people, Obamacare. He has also refused to define this country’s number one threat, Islamic terrorism. Whenever there’s an attack carried out by an Islamic terrorists(s), he blames it on guns and further seeks to pass stricter gun laws which will make it harder for law-abiding Americans to purchase firearms, but will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Another thing Obama indicated was that America is more respected in the world now than it was eight years ago. BS! Another lie. He also said that America is a great nation. When did he change his mind? Saying that the crime rate in this nation has gone down is another lie.

He further talked about the founding fathers and government by the people, indicating that the American people don’t want to be ruled. He’s consistently trashed the constitution and has indicated that it was an outdated document that got in his way. Maybe he determined that after his “I got a phone and I got a pen, and I’ll go around Congress to do whatever I want to do” rant. This was not exactly met with affection.

He talked about his grandparents in Kansas City, and the values that they taught him as a youth. I was just waiting for him to describe his grandmother as a “typical white woman.” One of these values was hard work, but he’s no advocate of hard work and sacrifice. All he, Hillary, and the rest of the Democrats desire is to have as many people as possible living off of the government dole.

While about half of his speech was dedicated to him and his non-accomplishments, he did eventually get to his endorsement of Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton.

He stated that Hillary Clinton never quits on anything. But what about Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer, Sean Smith, and CIA operatives, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods?

He also claims that no one has ever been more qualified to run for president than Hillary Clinton. WHAT A LIE! So unfathomable. He further indicated that Hillary is respected around the world. How can anyone be so gullible to believe that? He also indicated that Hillary is a friend of the working population. BS! Neither Hillary nor Obama are “friends of the common man.” See my comments above.

He told those in the arena and those watching or listening elsewhere that Hillary would continue to honor our police officers, as he had done. He’s never honored our police officers. All he’s done is interject himself into local matters and giving his opinions before he had the facts. I read in a book, authored by a former Secret Service agent, that while First Lady, she referred to the Secret Service as “dressed pigs.”

He went on to elaborate that Hillary is a “change-maker,” and forgets no one. Of course, we all know what BS that is.

During the course of the speech, he often attacked Donald Trump, and it was brought to my attention during the post-speech commentary that it is not custom and practice for a sitting president to attack the nominee of the other party during his party’s convention. Well, guess what? He’s breached every protocol of the office of the presidency. What else is new?

In summary, Obama spent half or maybe more than half of the speech singing his accolades. By the time he got to Hillary, I was already getting tired. But the common theme running through the speech seemed to indicate that he now loves his country when he once hated it and that the country is great, but he hasn’t always thought so. Does he really think this country is now great because of all the things he has done? Could be. The Democrats all think so.

Do I think that Hillary picked up votes because of Obama’s speech? Maybe a few. Maybe I’m naïve, but I still have some faith in the American people that they are going to Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats for what they are, and while Donald Trump was not my first choice for Republican nominee, Obama has come pretty close to destroying this country and electing Hillary to the presidency will certainly finish it off.



With so many investigations into the embassy attack at Benghazi which took place on September 11, 2012, liberals often ask where was the outrage by the GOP and where was Fox News with regard to the thirteen embassy attacks that happened during the presidency of George W. Bush?

As you can see, the following is a list of the embassy bombings taking place during Bush’s term, including the number of folks killed, courtesy of the Huffington Post. The image also indicates that there were no Republicans outraged and sixty total deaths.

List if Enbasst Attacks on George W. Bush's Watch.

The title of the Huff Post article is “13 Benghazis that Occurred on Bush’s Watch without a Peep from Fox News.” Other left wing sites picked this up.

  1. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: January 22, 2022, Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people were killed, but none of them were Americans.
  2. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: June 14, 2002, Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51. None were American.
  3. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: October 12, 2002: Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices were bombed as a part of a string of “Bali Combings.” No fatalities.
  4. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: February 28, 2005: Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fir upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed, but none of them were Americans.
  5. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: May 12, 2005, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people, including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb. After numerous State Department warnings, and Saudi Arabia investigating al Qaeda for a potential planned attack, three defense compounds were assaulted with car bombs and armed attackers. Nine defense contractors were killed. President Bush immediately called the attack part of the “war on terror,” and two of the attackers that survived the raid were killed by Saudi police forces.
  6. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: July 30, 2004, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people. None were Americans.
  7. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: December 6, 2004, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people were killed, none of them were Americans.
  8. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. So, one U.S. Diplomat was killed. Finally something that’s like Benghazi, except that the Ambassador wasn’t missing, he was killed instantly. There wasn’t an eight hour long siege, an AWOL president and Secretary of State, or service personnel hung out to dry with no rescue attempt. It wasn’t a recent warzone, and there weren’t requests for additional security turned down. Also no one falsely blamed a video for causing a non-existent protest.
  9. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: September 12, 2006, Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb, and a truck bomb. Four people were killed and 13 were wounded. None were American.
  10. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle, fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
  11. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: March 18, 2008. Sana’a Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two. None were American.
  12. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: July 9, 2008. Instanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attacked the U.S. Consulate. Six people were killed, but none of them were Americans.
  13. HUFFPO: This was just like Benghazi: September 17, 2008. Sana’a Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people were killed, including an American student and her husband. This was the second attack on this embassy in seven months. In reality, none were Americans. This last one is contradictory, no embassy officials were killed or missing, and the killings took place in a matter of minutes.

Was this an attempt by the Huffington Post and other websites to mislead the American public? Or was it an attempt at persuading Americans to dismiss further inquiry into how the Benghazi terror attack was handled and reported to the public?

While I can’t say this for sure, it looks like President Bush was on top of things when these incidents took place, not hiding out someplace.

If President Obama had been forthright and if there was evidence that Secretary Clinton had responded in a timely manner, taking steps to send the requested security, and Benghazi still happened, I can guarantee you, there would have been little or no investigation into possible wrongdoing by the president of the secretary.

A special thanks goes to IJReview.com for the information contained in this article.



The U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi released its final Benghazi report  early this morning (Tuesday, June 28, 2016).

The final Benghazi report was comprised of approximately 800 pages of investigations and conclusions and suggests that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration were derelict in their duty to protect American diplomats from the most significant terror attack on the U.S. since 9/11/2001. The report also illustrates how the Obama administration contrived to misinform the public regarding the cause of the attack.

Democrat members of the House, who always maintained that the investigation was politically motivated, produced a report finding no wrongdoing by the Secretary of State and the Obama Administration.

According to Breitbart, for over two years, the Democrats refused to participate in the Majority’s serious, fact-centered investigation, claiming everything had been asked and answered. They said that the committee had found nothing new.


New insights to the investigation from the final Benghazi report included, but are not limited to the following:

  • 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.
  • 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, “if any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “will not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli of Benghazi.”
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times.
  • 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.
  • Five of the ten action items from the 7:30 pm 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. There was no mention from the agents on the ground about a video.
  • 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.”
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated that the FBI had already begun looking at all sorts of evidence and the 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 Secure Video Teleconference group today that everyone was required to “shut their pie holes” about the Benghazi attacks in light of the FBI investigation.
  • 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 Easter 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 very worked about politics. This was all their doing.”
  • 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.

To read the full list, go to: Committee releases last Benghazi Report, slams Clinton,

Now, according to the Huffington Post, the House Republicans Spent Millions of Dollars on Benghazi Committee to Exonerate Clinton. In other words, their report found nothing. That’s quite a spin.

But, according to the Conservative Tribune, moments after the committee released its final report of the Behghazi investigation, Hillary Clinton pulled a classic liberal stunt by attempting to change the subject. Attempting to change the subject is a technique by liberals when they have no arguments to make in order to throw the conservative counterpart off. If there was nothing new in the report as the Huffington Post claims, why would she find it necessary to change the subject? Shouldn’t she be celebrating and pointing out to everyone just how disingenuous Republicans are.

In addition to studying the above bulleted points, I suggest that you go to Breitbart’s website (above link) and read all of the bulleted points yourself.

Note: A special thanks to Brietbart.com for much of the information contained in this post.



When Islamic terrorists attacked the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, killing four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador, Chris Stevens, much was written and much was portrayed in the media. On the Sunday following the attacks, United Nations Ambassador appeared on several Sunday news talk shows indicating the attacks were spontaneous and the sparked by a hateful video.

Following Ambassador Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk shows, it was determined that neither were the attacks spontaneous nor caused by a hateful video.

Fast-forward to today. We know that both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama knew the attacks were terrorist attacks from the onset, but allowed Susan Rice to go on TV claiming they were the cause of some video. We also know that, while Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, used a private email server for official and possibly classified emails. She subsequently “wiped the server” clean, deleting many, many of her emails as Secretary of State.

An article published on 11/3/2015, by Catherine Herridge, of Fox News, now indicated that State Department emails conflict with Ms. Clinton’s Benghazi testimony. According to the article, newly released emails conflict with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s eleven hour testimony before the Benghazi Select Committee. One of the conflicts involves the role played by Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal.

Regarding the dozens of emails from him, which in many cases were forwarded to her State Department team, Clinton testified: “He’s a friend of mine. He sent me information he thought might be of interest. Some of it was, some of it wasn’t, some of it I forwarded to be followed up on. He had no official position in the government. And he was not at all my adviser on Libya.

But a newly released email from February 2011 shows Blumenthal advocated for a no-fly zone over Libya, writing, “U.S. might consider advancing tomorrow. Libyan helicopters and planes are raining terror on cities.” The email was forwarded by Clinton to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, with the question, “What do you think of this idea?”

A second email from former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in March 2011, also advocated for a no-fly zone, with Blair stating, “Please work on the non-fly zone, or the other options I mentioned. Oil prices are rising, markets are down. We have to be decisive.”

In the end, Clinton advocated for the no-fly zone and was able to gather support within the Obama administration to implement it.

In another email from March 5, 2012, Clinton appears to use Blumenthal as what is known in intelligence circles as a “cut out,” a type of intermediary to gather information, allowing the policymaker plausible deniability. In this case, the emails focused on the increasingly chaotic and fragmenting political landscape in Libya after dictator Muammar Qaddafi was removed from power.

In the one-page document, Blumenthal writes that Jonathan Powell, a former senior British government adviser to Blair, is “trying to replicate what we did in Northern Ireland by setting up secret channels between insurgents and government, and the, where appropriate, developing these negotiations.” This type of backchannel discussion helped bring about the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement in Norther Ireland.

Clinton responded two hours later. “I’d like to see Powell when he’s in the building,” with her staff responding, “Will follow up.” In both instances, Clinton’s actions further undercut sworn testimony to the Select Committee that Blumenthal was “not at all an adviser on Libya. “

Another area of conflict involves security and aid requests. In an exchange with Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan, Clinton told the House committee none of the requests for diplomatic security reached her. “That’s over 600 requests,” Pompeo said. “You’ve testified here this morning that you had none of those reach your desk, is that correct also?”

Clinton responded, “That’s correct.”

However, the State Department website, under a section on embassy security, states that the secretary has overall responsibility for the well-being of personnel on assignment. The buck does not stop with “security professionals” as Clinton has testified.

It states,: “The Secretary of State, and by extension, the Chief of Mission (COM), are responsible for developing and implementing security policies and programs that provide for the protection of all U.S. Government personnel (including accompanying dependents) on official duty abroad.”

Yet, the new emails show a request for humanitarian aid sent by the late Ambassador Chris Stevens did reach her desk. The August 22, 2011 email from Stevens was circulated among Clinton staff and delegated for action in under an hour.

With the overthrow of Qadafi, Stevens wrote that the Libyan opposition, known as the TNC, would soon release a statement saying it would insure the delivery of essential services and commodities (esp. addressing the acute shortages of fuel, children’s milk, and medication for blood pressure and diabetes).”

Seventeen minutes later, Clinton responded, “Can we arrange shipments of what’s requested?”

While the request for humanitarian aid from Stevens did reach her office, during her testimony, Clinton emphasized, “Chris Stevens communicated regularly with members of my staff. He did not raise security with the members of my staff. I communicated with him about certain issues. He did raise security with me. He raised security with the security professionals.”

The emails also further depict Clinton’s treatment of sensitive material. A February 2012 email shows Clinton sent an urgent message to an office manager that a white briefing book, used for sensitive and classified information, was left on her desk. The office manager confirmed when it was correctly stored in the State Department safe.

The 7.000 pages released Friday leave no doubt that Clinton’s personal account mingled information now considered classified with the mundane such as social media requests and the taping of a television period drama. On Feb. 1, 2011, Clinton sent a “Lindkedin” request from a “Susan Kennedy” to a State Department IT specialist asking, “How does this work?”

An email from Feb. 23, 2012, from the State Department’s senior official on Near Eastern Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, called “Bingol” is fully redacted, citing the B1 exception which is classified information.

And in January that same year, Clinton wrote to an aide, “I’m addicted to Downton Abbey which runs on Sunday night and reruns on Thursday at 8 pm. Since I missed it Sunday and will again tomorrow so wondering if we could tapa a DVD for me.”

President Obama, meanwhile, is now under scrutiny after having told CBS’s 60 Minutes he was not aware of Clinton’s personal account, even though the White House said Friday there are emails between the two, only they will not be available under FOIA requests until after Obama leaves office.

In the 60 Minutes interview, when asked if he know about Clinton’s use of a private email server, Obama twice said, “No.”

At thie poing between 600 and 700 emails have been identified containing classified information. An intelligence official familiar with the review says there is no such thing as a “retroactive classification,” the information is born classified, and the State Department only has the right to declassify information it produced.

While Clinton testified that 90 to 95 percent of her emails were captured by the State Department system, and nothing she sent or received was “marked classified,” the State Department said that estimate represents the campaign’s data and not their own.

The above information was taken from an article on foxnews.com, authored by Catherine Herridge, Chief Intelligence correspondent for the Fox News Channel. While the above does not represent all facets of Benghazi and the Clinton email scandal, it will serve to fill in some blanks and perhaps prompt the reader to do more investigation on his or her own and determine if Hillary Clinton is fit to serve as president of the United States.