O’Reilly to Chaffetz: ‘Get Your Butt In Gear’ and Subpoena Leon Panetta

BY: :

Bill O’Reilly blasted the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) for failing to subpoena former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta over Benghazi Thursday on The O’Reilly Factor.

O’Reilly expressed his frustration that Panetta has yet to be subpoenaed considering he was informed the night of Benghazi that the assault was in fact a terrorist attack. President Obama was careful to avoid the exact verbiage of what Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told him the night of September 11, 2012 in his Super Bowl interview with Bill O’Reilly.

The Fox News host said Chaffetz and the House OGR need to get their “butts in gear” and subpoena Panetta to find out what exactly transpired between the former defense secretary and President Obama the night of the Benghazi attack:

BIll O’REILLY: This is the story. This is it. Panetta is it. And nobody has asked him under oath if he told his boss, the president, the commander in chief, that it was a terror attack. If Panetta says that, all hell breaks loose. And you guys haven’t done it. So, it’s a cheap shotting Obama, all right, to complain about him when you guys haven’t brought in the guy that could break the story wide open. And I tried to get it from President Obama but he wouldn’t answer it. So now I’m asking you, Congressman, to get your butt in gear and get your committee to get Panetta in there. Is that unreasonable?

JASON CHAFFETZ: No, it’s not unreasonable at all. What we did in the Armed Services group brought in General Ham. That’s where these quotes came out.

O’REILLY: That’s right.

CHAFFETZ: Just two weeks ago.

O’REILLY: But you didn’t follow up to the big guy.

CHAFFETZ: I know. That was a couple weeks ago. This investigation is not done. To me it feels like halftime because this administration has been stonewalling us for a long time we have got to hear from for instance I want the public. This is amazing to me. The public has never heard from anybody who was on the ground that night in Benghazi and that is so wrong.

O’REILLY: That doesn’t matter.

CHAFFETZ: It does matter Bill.

O’REILLY: It doesn’t matter because the story is whether the President of the United States, all right, went along with his re-election committee and falsely put out a narrative to protect his re-election chances. That’s the story. And Panetta is the guy.

Inhofe Blasts Obama’s Super Bowl Benghazi Comments: ‘It’s Just An Outrageous Lie’

download (66)BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
February 3, 2014 

Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.) blasted President Obama for lying about Benghazi during his Super Bowl Sunday interview with Bill O’Reilly in remarks to Oklahoma’s KFAQ Sunday evening.

Inhofe said Obama’s contention that Fox News is perpetuating the myth of a Benghazi coverup is an “outrageous lie.”

O’Reilly pressed President Obama during the Super Bowl Sunday interview on his meeting with Secretary of Defense Panetta directly after the Benghazi compound was assaulted. Particularly, O’Reilly questioned whether Panetta relayed information from General Carter Ham indicating Benghazi was in fact a terrorist attack. President Obama was careful to avoid any characterization of what Panetta actually told him that night, instead loosely asserting the Secretary of Defense informed him “we’ve got an attack on our compound.”

Inhofe tore into President Obama for his failure to be forthright with O’Reilly, telling the radio host Obama’s Sunday comments are simply the most recent example of a historic coverup, comparable to Iran-Contra or Watergate. “This was a cover-up in order for people right before the election to think that there was no longer a problem with terrorism in the Middle East,” he said:

JAMES INHOFE: It’s just an outrageous lie, it is kind of hard to call it anything else. It’s kind of like Obamacare. He has to come up and say something and blame someone else.

[…]

I will say this to my dying day — I know people don’t realize it now — but that’s going to go down in history as the greatest cover-up. And I’m talking about compared to the Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate and the rest of them. This was a cover-up in order for people right before the election to think that there was no longer a problem with terrorism in the Middle East.

(H/T Politico)

 

Also see:

Persecuting Partners: Murdoch’s Saudis Vs. Gore’s Qataris

imagesCAQBUC44by Andrew Bostom:

Yesterday, highlighting a particularly egregious example of preening by Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, I reiterated my contention that Fox’s well-paid media personalities behave hypocritically when they ignore the morally cretinous Saudi/Rotana/Al-Risala dealings of their owner Rupert Murdoch, while lashing out at Al Gore’s sale of Current TV to Qatar’s Al-Jazeera English.

Let me preface this post by noting that I support the righteous effort of Cliff Kincaid/ Accuracy in Media demanding House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) convene hearings on the overall danger posed by Al-Jazeera’s broadcasting in America, including specific inquiries about the associations between Al-Jazeera, Al-Qaeda, and the government of Qatar. I find compelling Kincaid’s analogy between Al-Manar and Al-Jazeera, i.e., previously banning Al-Manar in the US because of its ties to the jihad terrorist organization Hezbollah, and now doing likewise with Al-Jazeera because of its support of Al-Qaeda. Indeed, to gauge Al-Jazeera’s continued grotesque supportive propaganda regarding Al-Qaeda, read this puff piece on the “gentle face” of Al-Qaeda’s butchers and thugs who recently overran Mali.

However, Fox’s shading of the civilizational jihad, due to its obeisance to Murdoch’s Saudi business partners (which includes, as but one of a myriad examples this intellectually and morally bankrupt attack on Michelle Bachmann for advocating an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood influence peddling), must also be confronted, particularly by conservatives.

The objective findings (hat tip Nina Shea; methodology here) in this World Watch List report just issued by Open Doors on global religious persecution of Christians, provides a ranked comparison of Murdoch’s Saudi Arabia (an “extreme” offender, and second worst overall to North Korea), and Gore’s Qatar (a “severe” offender, and 20th overall), noting also, that fully 10 of the 11 most egregious persecutors were Muslim nations.

Bottom line, lest we (and the Fox news personalities and loyal viewers) forget, Murdoch’s Saudi Arabia is still measurably worse than Gore’s Qatar. Details from the Open Doors report are reproduced below:

[Saudi Arabia, Rank 2; Extreme]: There is no provision for religious freedom in the constitution of this Islamic kingdom. All citizens must adhere to Islam and conversion to another religion is punishable by death. Public Christian worship is forbidden; worshippers risk imprisonment, lashing, deportation and torture. Evangelizing Muslims and distributing non-Muslim materials is illegal. Muslims who convert to Christianity risk honor killings, and foreign Christian workers have been exposed to abuse from employers.

[Qatar, Rank 20; Severe]: The state religion is conservative Islam and nearly all Qatari citizens are Sunni or Shia Muslims. Christian worship is only allowed in designated religious complexes, of which there are only two at the moment, which makes them easier to control and monitor. Many expat laborers are denied access to these complexes as they live too far away or are prevented from attending by employers. A Muslim who converts is considered an apostate and may face the death penalty. Foreign workers who evangelize non-Muslims are frequently deported.