On Saturday, Mike Rogers, Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued a statement following his committee's final investigative findings regarding the attacks in Benghazi:

As the Committee's bipartisan report makes clear, the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into the Benghazi attacks focused on the Intelligence Community's activities before, during, and after the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11-12, 2012.  The bipartisan panel concluded that there was no stand down order issued by or to intelligence community personnel, and there was no denial of air support to intelligence community officers on the ground.  The officers present testified to that effect.

What? There was no stand down order issued by either Obama or Jarrett?

If there was no order to stand down, then what happened to General Carter Ham and Admiral Charles Gaouette? J.B. Williams offered this excellent analysis in News With Views:

Nothing the Obama administration has told the people about Benghazi is true… but who is responsible?

General Carter Ham and Admiral Charles M. Gaouette know the answer to this question. Where are Ham and Gaouette today? Why hasn't Issa's investigative committee called these decorated Military officers to testify before the committee investigating Benghazi?

We have known since 30 October 2012 that these two officers…

1. Were ordered to STAND DOWN in Benghazi
2. Ignored those orders
3. Were relieved of duty for refusing orders to STAND DOWN

We know from the unclassified cables between Benghazi and DC and the subsequent Executive Brief that cables were firing in all directions in the hours before and during the Benghazi attack that ended in the brutal death of four Americans.

General Ham was head of AFRICOM and Commander of the 2011 US-NATO operation to depose Gadhafi in Libya. Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was in command of the Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3), then deployed in Middle Eastern waters during the attack on Benghazi.

Both Ham and Gaouette reported receiving the same desperate cables for additional security and backup that Obama administration officials received and ignored from Benghazi. They did not ignore those desperate calls for help ringing out from the Benghazi installation on 11 September 2012.

No, both Ham and Gaouette attempted to launch ready response teams in the region capable of provided the much needed assistance during the seven hour long assault on Benghazi. Both were then relieved of command for their actions, described by the US Military as "allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment."

General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready to deploy to Benghazi. Then, General Ham received the order to stand down. His response was "screw it," – he was going to help anyway.

Within minutes after issuing an order to deploy his ready response team, Ham's second in command apprehended the General and told him that he was now relieved of his command. Ham knows who issued the order to STAND DOWN as well as the order to relieve him of his command at AFRICOM.

Adm. Gaouette had also received the startling requests for support as the attack unfolded in Benghazi. Like Ham, he readied a response from Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3). Gaouette was also ordered to STAND DOWN and like Ham, he decided to refuse those orders. Gaouette readied vital intelligence and communications operations for an extraction effort to be launched by Ham.

Regardless of these independent findings it seems that a Republican led House committee found absolutely no wrongdoing from anyone in the Obama administration.

As reported by CBS

The CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a Republican-controlled House committee has found. Its report asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration officials.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the two-year investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

So this Republican led committee is saying that all of these Benghazi findings have been nothing more than unfounded conspiracies.

What evidence are they looking at?

For the record, these are the current Republican "majority" members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

The Republicans outnumber Democrats on this committee by a count of 12-9. So we are not talking about a single turncoat here. There has to be more than one.

God save us all.

These folks have just validated our worst fears.

Will a republican majority, in BOTH houses starting in 2015, really change anything?


These are not the Republicans of old and wanting them to be will not change that. Many of these people, which we have elected and re-elected, are RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).

And speaking of RINOs…

Any discussion of the House Select Intelligence Committee would be quite incomplete without mentioning the credentials of the man who chairs it. Who is Mike Rogers?

Isn't he that same guy who is leaving congress for a new career in talk radio? Didn't he get caught last spring making plans to be a keynote speaker for a Muslim Brotherhood tied organization?


Same guy.

As Breitbart reported in late May:

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) has committed another blunder that may threaten his talk radio career before he even starts.

According to a Breitbart News column by Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, Rogers will be the keynote speaker at an event held by The International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD), an organization with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The dinner's guests of honor will be Feisal Abdul Rauf—the infamous "Ground Zero Imam" who refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization when scrutinized over his plan to build a mosque near the remains of the World Trade Center—and his wife Daisy Khan.

What just happened here?

We have a republican majority committee that just basically gave the Obama Administration a free pass on Benghazi.

That committee is led by someone who has been found to be quite friendly with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Our President has also been found to be a strong ally, if not a card carrying member, of the Muslim Brotherhood.

There is nothing to see here. Move along…

Two of America's top military leaders were relieved of command, but not because of any imaginary "stand down order." The republicans would not lie to us.

Or would they?

Here you go America.

This is what your leaders are all about. This is your sneak peak at the new and improved republican controlled congress.

How do you like it so far?

But Trey Gowdy will save us all, won't he?

So now we hang our hopes on Trey Gowdy.

Will that turn out differently?

One would certainly hope so. He does talk a very good game.

But isn't Trey Gowdy the same guy who hired Muslim Brotherhood lobbyist Philip Kiko and has refused to call out Mike Rogers?

Members of Congress should never be trusted, even the ones who seem to be the most trustworthy. As much as the American people may be inclined to trust House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy, they should not, at least not completely. Healthy skepticism is healthy for a reason. Gowdy has already made one highly questionable decision by appointing Philip Kiko as Executive Director, as Shoebat.com has explained. This should warrant more scrutiny, not less.

As should any deference Gowdy might show toward House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI). In response to an irresponsible New York Times piece on Benghazi by David Kirkpatrick last December – reviewed by Shoebat.com – Gowdy was asked in an interview who the American people believe, Kirkpatrick or Rep. Rogers, who expressed skepticism with Kirkpatrick's claims that al-Qaeda wasn't involved in the attack. Gowdy said:

"They should believe Mike Rogers, who is a former FBI agent and Adam Schiff who happens to be in a different party but I respect him greatly… Both of those men dedicated their lives to following the facts wherever they take you, without respect to trying to prop up anybody's political career, without respect to trying to damage anyone. Wherever the facts go, that's where they go."

The facts didn't seem to go where the American people expected them to go this time. In fact, Mike Rogers' congressional committee just made two highly decorated American heroes out to be liars.

What would Gowdy say about Mike Rogers now?

Would he say that Mike Rogers can be trusted while an American Admiral and General cannot?

Now is the time to put the pressure on Gowdy through calls, letters and emails. We cannot afford a repeat of what just happened. You cannot let your blind faith in Gowdy keep you from holding his feet to the fire.

Justice must be served.


Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.