Ed Klein: Bill Clinton encouraged Hillary to resign in the wake of the Benghazi scandal

October 24, 2012

Writer

Author Ed Klein joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss the unfolding story of what really happened in Libya the night Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed. Klein made some pretty shocking allegations about the White House response to the attacks, including that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered more security at the embassy only to have her request denied. He also said that her husband, Bill Clinton, encouraged her to resign rather than to take the full blame for the attacks on the embassy.

Transcript of interview is below:

Now the question is Hillary Clinton knew as well. The question that the press should be asking today is who gave the order to not go in and save these guys? Who made the decision, "Do not launch a plane, do not send a Marine?" Who made the decision "Let them die"? Hillary Clinton stepped up and she said she takes full responsibility. However, Ed Klein was on with Andrew Wilkow last night and he says that the Obama administration knew and Hillary requested extra security, she requested things, she was overridden, and Bill Clinton stepped in, and I'll let him tell you the rest of the story. Ed is here. Ed Klein, welcome to the program, sir.

KLEIN: Again, how are you?

GLENN: I'm very good. I'm a little ‑‑ I'm nervous about this information because I don't know your sources, and you're the only one saying it. And this is quite a charge to make.

KLEIN: Well, I've been saying a lot of things that I've proved to be true including the fact that I put an op‑ed piece out on the Daily Caller not so long ago saying that all the traffic between Libya and the State Department was, in fact, being monitored by the National Security Council which monitors these kinds of traffic so that even before the attack, Glenn, before the attack, they knew in the National Security Council which, of course, is located in the West Wing of the White House ‑‑

GLENN: Yes.

KLEIN: ‑‑ that there was a severe security threat to this consulate, and Hillary, according to my sources ‑‑ and I've got very good sources on this, I give you my word.

GLENN: How many sources do you have?

KLEIN: I have two sources.

GLENN: Okay.

KLEIN: Two separate sources on this. And Hillary claims, and I tend to believe her, that she ordered beefed‑up security in Benghazi because it had been requested and that this order was never carried out and that furthermore when and if she is subpoenaed, along with her internal memoranda and the cable traffic from the State Department by the House committee, it will prove that she did just that.

Now, if it doesn't prove that she did just that, then they're lying to me, and the sources are ‑‑ you know, I'm not suggesting that that's impossible, but I seriously doubt it since I'm talking to legal counsel to Hillary Clinton. Legal counsel. These people don't generally lie.

PAT: Ed, if that happened, why did she then later accept full responsibility for what took place? Why would she do that?

KLEIN: This was a big debate within the Clinton camp itself, between Hillary and Bill. Bill did not want her to take full responsibility. He wanted her to, in fact, consider the possibility of even resigning if the White House continued to try to make her the scapegoat in this. Hillary and her legal team decided she should look presidential, above ‑‑ she should look moderate, she should come forward and say, "Look, I take responsibility. I'm the Secretary of State" and by comparison making the president look a hell of a lot smaller because he was ducking all responsibility and knowing full well that when the full story came out, she would be, in her words, or at least the words of her legal counsel, exonerated.

GLENN: Who ‑‑ do you have any idea, was ‑‑ when they were watching this video, do you know if she was watching the video as well?

KLEIN: No, I don't. I don't know that.

GLENN: Because we do ‑‑

KLEIN: I don't speculate and I don't know that.

GLENN: We do know that the live video was available to the State Department.

KLEIN: Absolutely.

GLENN: It was live video. Somebody was watching.

KLEIN: This should come as no surprise to anybody who realizes what our intelligence capabilities are and that cable traffic between the State Department and its embassies and consulates when it's regarding threats to the lives of our ambassadors and our State Department people, this is outline monitored in the National Security Council in the White House. This is not something new. This has been going on for probably 40, 50 years. And so to even begin to think that Tom Donilon, the National Security Council adviser, the national security adviser didn't know and didn't brief the president daily on the threat that was building in Benghazi and then after the ‑‑ during the actual battle didn't actually brief the president? I mean, if not Tom Donilon should be fired along with the president.

GLENN: What do you expect to happen in this case? Because still, the press is treating this like an "also ran" story.

KLEIN: You're right.

GLENN: Ed, do you know of a story? This ‑‑ I believe this is far bigger than Watergate

KLEIN: I think so, too.

GLENN: This is huge.

KLEIN: Because you've got dead people here.

GLENN: Yeah.

KLEIN: Dead Americans.

GLENN: Yeah. And not only dead Americans. Nobody is asking the question, why was the ‑‑ why was Ambassador Stevens in this safe house, which was a CIA safe house, protected by Libyan guards? I mean, that's crazy on September 11th.

KLEIN: Of course it is. Of course it is.

GLENN: And meeting with the general counsel of Turkey, which we are now finding out, we're running guns through Turkey to Syria. This was a gun‑running scandal. This ‑‑ there is so much here.

KLEIN: I know.

GLENN: It is ‑‑

KLEIN: And we've got only, what, 13 days until the election?

GLENN: It's terrifying. If this president can get away with this, this is truly terrifying.

KLEIN: Well, there's going to be, if not ‑‑ I think, what is it, 11:00 this morning or is it ‑‑ I'm not quite sure of the time, a White House briefing by Jay Carney. I would hope that the mainstream media will drop its pro Obama leanings and really ask these questions that you're asking. I mean, these are serious, serious questions and we need answers to these questions. I think the American people know this. I mean, we're not a stupid people. We under ‑‑ I mean, I'm talking to Glenn Beck who understands this better than anybody. People understand that this is a coverup. It's clear as a bell it's a coverup. And this has got to affect the president's chances for reelection. If it doesn't, I don't know what will.

GLENN: Nothing will.

KLEIN: That's right.

GLENN: Honestly nothing will. Ed, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

KLEIN: Oh, Glenn, it's always great to be with you. Thanks so much.

GLENN: Keep it up. Bye‑bye.

I don't know. You know, his sources are his sources. They're not our sources. And I can only claim our sources. He has been close to the Clintons. I mean, he's just said it was legal counsel. I don't know. But I ‑‑ that's the one thing that has confused me on this is the Hillary Clinton part. Because Hillary Clinton is ‑‑ they're political survivors. This is not something you survive. This is a scandal that quite honestly, if it goes where I think it goes, I ‑‑ this goes to drug‑running to our enemies. This involves the Muslim Brotherhood and Al‑Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood knowingly hitting our guns and our stinger missiles. That's ‑‑ we are aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States of America and our closest allies. This is ‑‑ this goes to treason. This is so far beyond, you know, the Iran contra scandal or Watergate. This is way beyond that. Because this one aids and abets our enemies.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep