There is no question that the White House, the State Department and Intelligence declared the obscure movie trailer of a dopey Mohammad as the cause of the Benghazi attack from the outset, refusing to accept real responsibility and refusing to tell us the truth about it. They walked that back after two weeks, and now they are wafting between the two stories.
The President slyly manipulated semantics during the second debate and, with the help of left-leaning moderator, Candy Crowley, who apparently had the talking points in front of her, claimed he called Benghazi a “terror” attack from day one in the Rose Garden. He clearly did not. It is NOT open to interpretation as the media claims.
Candy Crowley claimed President Obama called it an act of terror from day one, and unacceptably injected herself into the debate instead of moderating as she was supposed to do:
What Obama first said in the Rose Garden was: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths . . We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”
In other words, he was setting up the false narrative about the Mohammad protest video even while he had to know what happened in real time.
Then the President went on to speak about Ambassador Stevens, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan and finally said, after mentioning all of these events: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
In other words, he slyly hinted that Benghazi fit in with these acts of terror without committing to the idea. It gave him wiggle room because he knew he’d have to change stories, hoping that it would be after the election no doubt.
Hillary Clinton gladly took minimal responsibility for the tragedy, and mentioned her large 60,000 member staff to minimize her guilt. Now she is hiding out in Peru.
What remained was the cover up. There was no protest and the president knew that in real time or within 24 hours, as we now know from documents released by the House committee and which I will publish shortly.
General Clapper, not particularly reliable or impressive as a political leader, then took his sword out of his hilt just the other day, and bought into Dianne Feinstein’s laying of blame on him. The talking points were not the fault of our president, the UN Ambassador, or the Secretary of State, they were his. Are they all parrots?
I like Dianne Feinstein. I admire her. But she is allowing her party’s interests to take precedence over truth. Jay Carney and other lower-level employees followed suit behind the Pied Piper in the WH.
That brings us to today. General Clapper, Director on National Intelligence, fell completely on his sword today, and the media cagily said the truth is probably somewhere in between. General Petraeus remains invisible, perhaps he is in Peru.
On September 28th, Clapper seemed to walk away from that theory, stating, “As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”
He made that statement despite the fact that he had real time information from the consulate.It’s better than nothing but it is disingenuous.
All that has changed for the worst.
Intelligence has modified their assessment, admitting it is a terror attack but there is no concrete evidence it was preplanned. They are still floating the obscure movie trailer story, used as an excuse in Egypt, as one possible cause.
Coincidentally, that is the ridiculous idea circulated by faux-Republican Geraldo Rivera yesterday. It is also the story of one of the murderers in Benghazi, Abu Khattala.
Khattala, who is seen on video attacking the consulate on 9/11, has a stake in the appeasement president returning to power.
On Friday, an Intelligence spokesperson told Fox News:
- They can’t seem to zero in on who committed the attack even though the murderers appeared on a Benghazi consulate video, a video that the FBI will NOT release to the Republican House Committee on Oversight & Government. [The reason is that the video clearly shows the al-Qaida/Taliban (they are all the same people) operatives during the assault.]
- The Intelligence official then told Fox, “there probably was a protest around the time of the attack.”
- While admitting there was no protest outside the compound in Benghazi, they think it might have still been related to the movie trailer protests AND there was evidence of little planning. “No one is ruling out the idea that some of the attackers may have aspired to attack the U.S. in Benghazi…”
- The official then said it took time to sort it all out.
- There will be revisions in the future as they learn more. [Obama can continue his feigned indignation whenever he is questioned. It is after-all, under investigation]
The official speaking on behalf of the Intelligence community apparently can’t put two-and-two together considering there were several attacks in the months and days prior to 9/11. I suppose the 9/11 date was merely coincidence as well.
They are no longer even admitting to RPG’s being used and are saying the assailants came with AK-47’s, which happens to be the type of high-powered rifle our government wants to ban from private ownership. If they didn’t bring RPG’s, the government can further the lie that it was “spontaneous.”
Testimony by Eric Norstrom and Lt. Col. Wood was clear – they were the last flag standing and al-Qaida wanted to drive them out because al-Qaida is taking over Eastern Libya.
All these shadings of the truth are being done prior to Monday night’s debate to provide more cover for President Obama. A vote for Obama is a vote for more of this – lies and coverups.
I want to trust my government. I want to believe the State Department, the President, the FBI, and Intelligence are working on the behalf of the citizens, not on behalf of the re-lection of a failed presidency.
Read the story at Fox News