How the Benghazi Movie Could Affect the 2016 Election

January 14, 2016

Editor

Glenn watched a screening of 13 Hours, which opens Friday, and recommended everybody to go see it. The movie details the grim hours when the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by Islamic militants on September 11–12, 2012.

"What’s really tragic is, you’re not going to see a damn Democrat anywhere near this movie," Glenn said on radio Thursday. "It does not get into politics at all."

That being said, Glenn pointed out the movie offers hints about Hillary Clinton's mistakes throughout and following the ordeal, despite not mentioning her by name.

"If you can get Democrats to come see this movie, then all you have to do is when you get out of the parking lot, you just play that little clip of Hillary where she says, 'What difference does it make?'" Glenn said. "You play that, and they'll go out of their minds."

On his TV show Thursday at 5pm ET, Glenn will be interviewing some of the heroes who were on the ground during the Benghazi attack.

"You will see who they are and how they were treated at the beginning before there was any problem," Glenn said. "I know the stories of people in government, that's the way they treat these guys, like absolute garbage."

Check out the trailer for 13 Hours below.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/embed/4CJBuUwd0Os?showinfo=0;rel=0;fs=1 </p><p> expand=1]

Listen to the segment with Glenn discussing the movie on The Glenn Beck Program.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Last night, I saw a screening of 13 Hours, which opens Friday. And everybody should see it. And what's really tragic is, you're not going to see a damn Democrat anywhere near this movie. And not because it takes down the president because it doesn't at all. It does not get into politics at all.

STU: You did say that it doesn't mention the president at all. And it does.

JEFFY: At the beginning.

STU: The only thing that it does about the president in the entire movie, that I noticed -- there is a quick mention at the very beginning, you're right, Jeffy -- but there's one in the middle where they say the time he was briefed.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And it's just a passing mention of when he was briefed. But I'll tell you, it's not in the end of the movie.

JEFFY: No, it's early.

STU: It's pretty early in the situation that he knows about this.

GLENN: And afterwards, you see the CIA people calling for help and saying, "Help us. Help us. Help us." And you see the military -- one of the disturbing scenes is -- and it's just real quick. I mean, the only mentions where they're indicting people is, you see hours into this -- you'll see at the very beginning, they're ready to scramble the warplanes. I mean, the minute it happens, you see the military spring in action. Where are the planes? Where are the ships? Let's go. Stand ready. Let's wait for the command.

JEFFY: And that's when you're two or three hours of the 13 hours, and that's when POTUS is being briefed.

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Then they will just clip -- for me, one of the lasting images -- and it's only on screen for maybe about four seconds -- are the fighter jets on the tarmac with the canopy open --

JEFFY: Yeah. Yes.

GLENN: -- and the pilots standing next to their jet, ready to go.

STU: Waiting to get in and go.

GLENN: Just waiting to go.

STU: And there was an audible groan in the theater when that happened.

JEFFY: No kidding.

GLENN: There are a few things -- honestly, this movie will shake you to your core. It really will. It really will.

And anybody who knows the story of Benghazi, and if you paid attention to what the White House said and what they said they did -- I think what it was is, when they sent the first drone over, they said, you know -- I remember the White House saying, "We didn't know what was going on. We were getting phone calls and sketching information." Bullcrap. You had a drone over -- over the embassy. We know that. We know that.

And I remember saying for weeks, "There was no drone in the area? There was not a single drone in the sky?" Yeah, there were drones in the sky. They knew. They were watching. They were watching the whole time. And that was one of the infuriating things is when they were watching, and they could see the entire thing. And they never showed this. But you know that -- the president wasn't. He was sleeping. But you know that everybody in the situation room was watching these guys die.

How somebody didn't go -- honestly, I would have gone to prison. How somebody didn't walk up to the president and grab him by the collar and say, "What the hell is wrong with you, man? What is wrong with you?"

STU: Yeah, there's not a moment in this movie where you see Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama pick up the phone and say, "Oh, I don't care about those people," and hang up.

GLENN: Nope. Nope.

STU: But you see they got wind of this early enough, that if they made it a priority, it would have stopped. If they made it a priority, if they said, "I don't care what's happening. Stop all the meetings. I'm going to stay up an extra half an hour past my bedtime." Whatever they had to do and made it a priority, the outcome would have been different.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: I think that's overreaching. They didn't even have to make it a priority. All they had to say was, "Get them. Get them. Go save them." We're the United States of America. They were on the back of pickup trucks. As the president likes to say all the time, "What, a bunch of guys on the back of the pickup -- you just got your ass kicked by a bunch of guys on the back of pickup trucks because somebody had a different agenda. And I don't know what that agenda was. But it wasn't doing the right thing.

So let's talk a little bit about -- first of all, Jeffy, we haven't heard what you thought about it.

JEFFY: I enjoyed the heck out of it. And I enjoyed that it was the story of Benghazi. And if you don't know the backstory, it's a good war movie.

GLENN: Sure.

JEFFY: It's a good battle movie. If you don't know the backstory. Knowing the backstory like Stu said and you, you're angry and you're frustrated. You want somebody to do the right thing. You want somebody to say, "It doesn't matter that we were running guns and people will know, save them."

GLENN: You've got to get people to go see this movie. Because if you can get Democrats to come see this movie, then all you have to do is when you get out of the parking lot, you just play that little clip of Hillary where she says, "What difference does it make, if it was a bunch of guys who were having a party in the middle of the night."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: You play that, and they'll go out of their minds. They'll go out of their minds.

STU: Yeah. And Jeffy is right. If it's a story that is not telling something that's true, it's just a good war movie. The fact that it's telling you something that is true, it's in a lot of ways difficult to watch. Because you're living through an experience that is -- that your country let people down that were fighting for it.

JEFFY: Yep.

GLENN: Here's one of the things that's really powerful and so true and the reason why I'm so ashamed. Is at the end -- not at the end, but at some point during the war scene where they know they're going to die, they just assume they're all going to die, and one of them says, "Why am I here? Why am I even here? I volunteered to come over here. I'm going to die in a country I don't even care about for a cause I don't even understand."

And he says, "I volunteered at the beginning because I believed in something." And the other guy looked at him and says, "All those things, those are all long gone." And it's true. It's true. Every one of our soldiers, I don't know what you're fighting for. And they don't know what they're fighting for. What are you doing?

And it really rang so true to me. So here's a hard thing. I got to talk to these guys tonight at 5:00.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: I don't even -- I mean, I get weird in front of guys like this, especially when they're real heroes. Marcus Luttrell is one of my good friends. He's like a brother. Just love him. I'm so awkward around him. I'm so awkward around him. Because I have so much respect for him. I get weird like that. In a weird way, it's like Michael Buble, I have so much respect of what he does as a performer and everything else, I get weird around him. It happens every time around heroes like this.

I'm so awkward. And I thought of this last night as we were in the car driving home, I said, "What am I going to say to these guys? What am I possibly going to say to these guys?"

"Hey, I'm sorry. Hey, you were great." What do you say? I mean, I've got a billion questions. A billion questions.

JEFFY: It's going to be a long show.

STU: Yeah, that would be a long show.

I'd like to get their reaction on how the administration and Democrats, in particular, Hillary Clinton supporters in particular are trying to challenge their -- their series of events. Because they're basically trying to say none of this happened. They didn't tell them to stand down. You know, that these guys are -- I mean, they're basically accusing them of being liars.

And, you know, they're -- they're saying, "Wait a minute. We didn't even get interviewed for these commissions that they say supposedly proved that there were -- that none of this stuff happened. We didn't get interviewed for them. They didn't even come to us, the people in the middle of the battle, and interview us about it." You know, the way they're treating them is despicable, and I would love to hear their reaction on that because it has to be infuriating.

You go through this situation, and when the same group of people, basically, accuse you of being nothing and disparage you the entire time, and then afterwards, after you save their lives, they're still essentially doing it.

GLENN: Pat, does this sound like Wounded Knee to you at all? It sounds exactly like the same story. The guys who tried to tell the truth, the government just demolished. And anybody who told the lie got the medal.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: No, the Indians did it first -- they all got the Congressional Medal of Honor. The general and I think it was a couple of colonels that said, "That's not what happened. I was there. That's not what happened." Those guys, their careers were destroyed.

PAT: Yeah. And Hillary was just asked last week or the week before, "Well, somebody is lying. It's either you or it's these guys who were actually there that are now on Fox News elsewhere talking about it." And her response was, "It's not me." So she essentially accused them of lying. You know, rather than say, "Well, I wouldn't say anybody is lying. It's just different perspective or whatever."

GLENN: That's why, these guys can make their case. Because, A, you will see who they are and how they were treated at the beginning before there was any problem. And if you don't think that's true -- I mean, I have guys -- I have guys who work for me that have -- have, you know, when they were in the military, they did some of the stuff that these guys -- and they verified that, "Yep. That's the way you're treated. That's the way Hillary Clinton will come in and treat you. That's the way any of them will." So I know the stories of people in government, that's the way they treat these guys, like absolute garbage. So you know that's true.

And the -- to me, the way you know that this -- they're not telling a lie is, there's not one thing in this movie that is on the screen that these guys didn't know. There's not one thing. They didn't say, "Here's what was happening in Washington." They didn't even say why the ambassador was there. They only told it from their perspective. This is what happened on the ground.

So what is going to believe -- I mean, they're not reaching out. What's happening is the administration is reaching out and saying, "They're not telling the truth." Well, you guys weren't on the ground. And all they're doing is telling what happened on the ground.

STU: Yeah, they're the ones being shot at, not you.

GLENN: Right. They were the ones. So I'm going to listen to you about what their story is. Because they're not saying what your story is. You're saying what their story is.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Which one am I going to believe? But, again, that's why you really -- you just really will not get anybody from the left to go see this movie. Because it's an out-and-out indictment on them.

Featured Image: Jack Silva, played by John Krasinski. Photo courtesy thirteenhoursmovie.com.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep