Saturday, October 20, 2012


Obama's 9-11 was Benghazi, he has no way out of it. Remember Pres. Bush faced fearsome criticism  in regards how much  ** the Bush Administration knew of the 'terrorist' plot to hijack airlines , we had a 9-11 commission report that underlined exactly who , how the plot was 'hatched' by Osama bin Ladin . More than a month after terrorists attacked the US embassy in Libya on Sept. 11 and assassinated the US ambassador and three others, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now takes full responsibility for the security failures that permitted the attack.  But the questions remain as to why a YouTube video was blamed for an obvious terror attack.For any neutral person with no stake in this election , it’s disgusting to hear baseless, sinful accusations of a cover-up. If everyone in the government admits 1 month after the attack that it was the work of Al Qaeda, then it only shows that they are incompetent.   (Mrs. Clinton cannot take responsibility for the president's "The Video Made Them Do It" screenplay, nor can Susan Rice be made the fall-gal for the president. He made those statements, and he made them long after he ought to have known better --and probably did.) We probably shouldn’t make comparisons between the lies and cover-ups surrounding the Benghazi massacre and Watergate. After all, nobody died in Watergate. Watergate was a low-rent break-in and a moronic decision by a paranoid presidential administration to attempt to run up the electoral score by rifling through the Democrat National Committee’s files. Nowadays, the Watergate break-in would happen as a result of hacking into the DNC’s server, and if anybody really believes the parties don’t do that to each other regularly you guys are a lot less cynical than we are. Benghazi is a lot different than Watergate. Benghazi was an administration that treated foreign policy as though reality was a function of what they wanted to believe rather than what it was. And as a result they deliberately ramped down security around our ambassador in Libya because they wanted the Libyans to perceive that everything was normal there; armored American convoys traveling through the streets would have upset the situation, so we’d go without them. @ That was a decision made in Washington, and it was a decision neither requested nor appreciated by the folks on the ground there, who knew their lives were forfeit to Libyan perception. And the Libyans perceived it, all right. They recognized what a juicy, easy target our people were. And as a result there were security incidents on an ad nauseam basis until finally, on September 11, the local Al Qaeda affiliate decided they’d just run a full frontal attack at us. Which they did, and as a result we ended up with a dead ambassador and three dead support people – two of which were former Navy SEALS there on a mission to get back the very weapons the local Al Qaeda affiliate used in the attack. Because we had armed these people in the first place. The Watergate investigation brought down the President of the United States. The Watergate break-in took place during the election year of 1972, and was swept under the rug until after Nixon defeated McGovern. But, here is one big difference: four men died in Benghazi. No one died in Watergate.Lies were told by the White House in both situations. Cover-ups occurred in both situations. congressional hearings were held in both situations. Nixon tried to protect his top aides to the very end of his presidency. From Michael Hastings at BuzzFeed: “The jaw-dropping testimony at the House Oversight Committee Wednesday completely shredded the  ## Obama Administration’s original story about what happened in Benghazi, while offering damning evidence that the State Department ignored multiple, urgent requests for better security at the American outpost in eastern Libya.” , But the nit-picking over whether Obama said the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" reminds me even more of several other abortive "scandals" from the last couple of years. For example, when President Obama announced that the United States and European countries were joining the Libyan rebels in attacking Khaddafi, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Right over the way he made the announcement: "He didn't abort his South American trip!"  "He didn't address the nation from the Oval Office!"

the fact that the Bush administration had been explicitly warned that al qaeda was planning to take down the WTC with planes and did nothing about it.

## it is supremely important to find out what Obama was hiding by waiting for an investigation, but I just don't see what the issue is.

The latest in a string of damning information now indicates that the State Department even rejected embassy staff’s request for additional security prior to the attack and that security threats were present in Libya for months prior to September 11, when U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, two Navy SEALs and another American civil servant were killed.

No comments:

Post a Comment