You are currently browsing the daily archive for October 22, 2012.

In days of yore back when photography was new and one had to go to a professional photographer for a piccie, the man always said before he was about to take a picture, ‘Keep your eye on the birdie!’

The birdie was a bird, a stuffed bird or another object placed just where you were supposed to look in order to get your gaze straight for the photograph.

I grew up on that saying, even though, by then, everyone had his own camera and the birdie had long been obsolete. However, my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles had grown up with the birdie, so it continued in much the same way that smiling and saying ‘Cheese!’ did.

With regard to the US presidential campaign, we would do well to follow — and pass on to our friends and neighbours — what is happening with Benghazigate, about which I previously wrote here.

Contrary to what Anglican bishops in North Africa think, an anti-Islam film was not responsible for the deaths of the Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, his staffer and two Navy SEALs.

That was the simple part. Now it gets complicated, because no one really knows yet what happened. Some of the documents, possibly related to the attack, are said to have been destroyed. We might never know the truth, even though a CNN journalist happened to gain access before American intelligence sources could.

You might say, ‘So what? No one even knows where this place is, much less how to pronounce it.’ Perhaps.

However, the deception and duplicity behind it could ruin Obama’s re-election chances.

Could Benghazigate be an October Surprise (beginning in September) which backfired?

We’ll go through some theories here. Some think it was all about politics: Obama winning re-election in 2012 by staging some scenario which made America look powerful, although behind that staging might have been a goal detrimental to American interests. (The staged event would have been a whitewash to cover something nefarious.) Others think that it has something to do with 2016 and another Hillary Clinton run for the presidency. Still others point to an old news article from 1979 — written by Valerie Jarrett’s late father-in-law, left-wing journalist Vernon Jarrett (1918-2004) — which said that the United States was on course for a Muslim president in 30 years’ time. Would deep connections with Muslim countries have had anything to do with the Obama administration? A President with the middle name ‘Hussein’ and far-left family connections who had to be urged to join a Chicago church?

Warning: this video contains graphic images of Ambassador Stevens being dragged along the ground. Fox’s Sean Hannity presents a brief summary of the White House’s announcements in the days that followed:

However, no one knows for sure what’s been happening behind the scenes in Washington since September 11, 2012.

Let’s start with a straightforward account from October 16, 2012, The American Spectator. Jed Babbin walks us through the big picture (emphases mine):

The White House and Obama’s media cohort believe they now have the Benghazi consulate attack story under control. They have, they think, established two foundation points of the narrative that relieve Obama of any responsibility for the events and their aftermath.

The two points are, first, that the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others were the result of bad decisions by low-level people in the State Department, not bad policy choices by Obama. The second point is that by doing nothing about the attack — leaving it to the FBI to investigate and Libya to prosecute the perpetrators in non-existent Libyan courts — is preferable to doing anything like, well, turning whatever terrorist cells we can find in Libya into smoking holes in the ground. Both points are patently false

Let’s start with the fact that none of the four would have been in Libya had Obama not chosen to follow [then-French president] Nicolas Sarkozy into war there despite the advice of then-defense secretary Robert Gates that we had no national security interest there.

If we hadn’t intervened, it’s not likely that the small and not very capable French-British force would have been able to topple Gaddafi, so there would have been no U.S. ambassador in Libya, nor would his staffer have been there to be murdered with him.

And if we hadn’t intervened, there would have been no need to send the two former SEALs who were killed into Libya to try to locate the thousands of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles Gaddafi had which have now gone missing. The four men’s deaths were a proximate result of Obama’s decision to intervene.

The second bad policy choice by Obama is the one that led to the cover-up that is exploding in Obama’s face. Obama has chosen to prostitute U.S. foreign policy on the bed of the so-called “Arab spring.” Obama would have the world believe that the toppling of the Egyptian and Libyan governments of Mubarak and Gaddafi are leading to an outburst of Jeffersonian democracy in the Middle East, the Arab nations blooming with freedoms hitherto unknown in the region and elevating Obama to a Reaganesque status as the liberator of millions.

Now, Babbin writes, we come to Obama’s own ‘liberator’ role in this story:

Which brings us around to the worst, and final, of Obama’s bad policy decisions. It is better, he has determined, for the terrorists to escape than to drop the curtain he has erected around the “Arab spring” and let the nation see just how absurd is the entire concept that Obama has brought freedom and democracy to Egypt and Libya. The lives of four Americans are far less important to Obama than the façade he has erected around the “Arab spring.”

Which, inevitably, led to the cover-up of the events in Libya which is best illustrated in the Fox News timeline.

There is more at the link.

Let’s now move on to The Ulsterman Report. Since 2010, Ulsterman has been in contact with someone known only as White House Insider (WHI). Several months ago, WHI introduced him to an older man, Wall Street Insider (WSI).  WSI introduced him to a Military Insider (MI). WHI seems to communicate the most with Ulsterman.

This is WHI’s take on Benghazigate, using the timeline published at The Hill. WHI inserts his own comments after The Hill‘s events (I am sanitising the language somewhat for you). This post came out just before the second presidential debate between Obama and Mitt Romney on Tuesday, October 16, 2012. Excerpts follow, with much more at the link.

First, an important comment from Ulsterman, based on information WHI gave him (emphases in the original and much more at the link):

(Our White House Insider indicates senior adviser Valerie Jarrett takes great pleasure in being known as the “defacto president” of the Obama White House – though she was recently enraged at campaign staff for Barack Obama’s failure during his first presidential debate against Mitt Romney.  The following is the most recent communciation from this longtime D.C. political operative who helped elect Barack Obama in 2008, and has been working tirelessly for the last three years to correct what they since have described as a “Terrible mistake for America.”)

Now to WHI and the timeline (emphases mine in the text, except for dates and words in upper-case):

• April 5, 2011: Special envoy Christopher Stevens arrives in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to forge ties with the forces battling Moammar Gadhafi. President Obama appoints him as ambassador to Libya on May 22, 2012.

(NOTE: Now I want to make it real clear here.  America just helped take out a leader who had ruled a country for over 40 years.  That’s a big … deal.  You can’t tell me the safety of an American ambassador into the region right after that should not be a huge concern to any administration. So when they say they didn’t know about all the worries about safety that were shared in the months before the attack …  THEY KNEW)

• March, 2012: State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sends a cable to Washington asking for additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, later says he received no response. He does so again in July, with the same result.

(NOTE:  So who do we believe?  The on the ground guy who is risking his damn life or Barack Obama and the assh-les surrounding him who are now saying they didn’t know?  Nordstrom has no reason to lie.  No reason to risk his own future by speaking out against the administration.  I’ll say it again.  State knew.  Obama knewTHEY ARE ALL LYING.  Yeah.  Hillary?  …  We told her to stay away from these people.  2016 huh?  Good luck with that now.)

• June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through.” Four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade.

(NOTE:  Take this June 6th event and put it up against what the White House will say after the September 11th attack that they had no “actionable intelligence” regarding a pending attack.  This was clearly a test run.  We got people in the White House who are purposely ignoring threats to the United States.  Their entire foreign policy is a bunch of new age talk nice [rubbish].  Period.  Terrorists blew a huge hole in the wall of the consulate four months before September 11th and the White House will say they had no clues there was a situation brewing? )

• July: Anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” posted on You Tube.

(NOTE:  There was already several attacks against American personnel prior to this video being released.  How then is the video to blame for those and subsequent attacks?)

• Aug. 14: SST team leaves Libya. Team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood has testified that Stevens wanted them to stay on.

(NOTE:  My understanding is the man begged them to stay on.  Stevens was afraid.  Really worried.  Borrowed time worried.  And the Obama White House could have given a sh-t.  Or, they were up to some weird save the day plan like you forwarded me earlier.  I am not pushing away any conspiracy on this thing.  It stinks all the way.  Top to bottom this thing stinks like week old road kill in July.)

• Sept. 11: Protesters converge on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, scale its walls and replace the U.S. flag with the Islamist banner. The protests eventually spread to 20 countries around the world. That night, Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticizes an embassy statement denouncing the video before the events unfolding in Libya are known to the world. Late that night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in a statement that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

(NOTE:  Mitt Romney was RIGHT.)

• Sept. 12: Media outlets report that Stevens and three other Americans have been killed in an attack by well-armed militants. Obama denounces an “outrageous and shocking attack” without mentioning the video or terrorism. Reuters reports for the first time that some administration officials believe the assault “bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”

(NOTE– within 24 hrs media reports indicated the Benghazi Massacre was clearly a coordinated attack while the Obama administration aggressively pushed the “not our fault it was the video” excuse.  The cover-up is fully engaged at this point.  The question I still have is WHY?????????  It’s got to be more than they just didn’t want Obama to look dumb.  He does that enough all on his own.  What the [he]ck was going on in Libya? Why was Stevens flying into Benghazi when all the warnings were screaming to do the exact opposite?  Who ordered him to go?  No way he does that on his own.  The guy was afraid.  He was ordered in.  Who made that call?  And why?)

• Sept. 13: White House spokesman Jay Carney says the protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie.”

(This is about 48 hrs after the Benghazi attack.  Intelligence in Libya and back to DC knew by then it was most likely terrorists. You asked if it was possibly something that had been staged by Obama operatives and it went bad?  I’ve run that scenario around and around and there are some missing pieces that I can’t quite fit together.  But I’m not saying it isn’t possible.  With these people, not possible no longer applies.  That would be a huge … risk though.)

It wouldn’t be right to copy and paste much more of WHI’s insights here, however, on September 14, Jay Carney — White House spokesman — said that there was ‘no actionable intelligence’ in Libya requiring precautions. Of this WHI says (emphases his):

WHY ARE THEY SO WILLING TO LIE LIKE THIS WHEN ALL THIS EVIDENCE POINTS TO A TERRORIST ATTACK???  HAS TO BE SOMETHING BIG THEY ARE COVERING UP.  BIG.  BIG. BIG.

Of Susan Rice’s [American Ambassador to the UN’s] statement on September 16 that the video — again! — was to blame, when the interim Libyan president says the attack was premeditated, WHI says:

Susan Rice was directly prepped by the Obama White House.  She was told EXACTLY what to say when she went on television and repeatedly LIED to the American public. And she doesn’t answer to Hillary.  She answers to Obama/Jarrett.

Again on September 20, Obama said ‘natural protests’ occurred over the video (no!). Some of you by now are probably saying, ‘Well, it must be the video, then. Nothing to see here’. But recall the attacks that took place previously and Ambassador Stevens — who was also raped in addition to losing his life — had asked for increased security beforehand. WHI, at hearing this, was

screaming at the TV asking why????  Why did Jarrett send him out there to lie like this?  Why risk that kind of damage?  Are they that stupid?  That confident?  And lots of people are asking these questions at this point.  Talking Senators starting to ask some tough questions of the administration.  Behind the scenes still. But pushing for answers.  Obama is looking like he really could be one and done

Within 24 hours, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the event a ‘terrorist attack’. Her husband Bill, a former two-term President, has been out on the hustings the past few weeks, serving the Democratic Party by campaigning for Obama. However, anyone who has lived through and watched the machinations of Clinton’s eight years as President will know that silence and smiles do not necessarily mean all is well in the camp. WHI surmises:

I got little to no sympathy for Hillary.  But I am watching Bill’s reaction to this. Real close. So far it’s been very quiet and if I was Obama and Jarrett, that would make me very very nervous.  I have known very few people that can snap a leash as hard and unexpected as Bill Clinton, and he’ll be smiling ear to ear and look like the nicest guy you could ever know while he does it. That first debate, BC had a hand in some of that.  How Obama was left hanging a few times.

Things aren’t always what they seem.

WHI goes on, after more timeline events, to relate an altercation between Valerie Jarrett — ‘de facto President’ — and another White House woman (not Mrs Clinton) over the first debate. All hell broke loose verbally. You can read about it at the link near the end of WHI’s post. Two other White House staffers interrupted them on separate occasions to break up the discussion.

Early in the week of October 15, Hillary Clinton claimed Benghazigate was all her fault. However, on October 16, three Republican Senators — John McCain (Arizona), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Kelly Aylotte (New Hampshire) — said that many American legislators and citizens would not allow that to happen. Part of their statement read (italics in the original):

If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.

Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.

That same day, ‘a’ Military Insider (it’s unclear as to whether it was Ulsterman’s MI from a few months before or another), had a go at a later comment from Susan Rice that she relied on updates from American intelligence and ‘a set of talking points’ (italics in the original):

prepared for senior members of the administration by intelligence officials.

MI took strong exception to this (emphases in the original):

We provide intel.  We don’t tell an administration how to sell that intel to the public.  We don’t do “talking points”.  Any talking points received came directly from administration.  They packaged it.  They delivered their version of it.  Rice just admitted to that.  Confirmation of Obama White House lie.  Will forward to committee with assessment.

Well, all I can say is — there’s trouble ‘t mill. Big trouble. Right now, there are no clear answers, only questions.

But isn’t it better to know well before November 6 than after?

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,529 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,654,356 hits