You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Benghazigate’ tag.

President Donald Trump has replaced Rex Tillerson with Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State.

Tillerson is likely to remain in the post until March 31.

Mike Pompeo has been the director of the CIA since last year. Prior to that, he was a congressman for Kansas’s 4th district. He served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and questioned Hillary Clinton — then Secretary of State — about Benghazi in 2013.

Soon, Pompeo will be in the same office that was once Hillary Clinton’s. How interesting will that be?

This is the video, which includes recordings of Pompeo’s questioning of Clinton during the Benghazi hearings:

Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton says that Rex Tillerson’s State Department would not conduct damage assessment on Hillary’s emails:

Soon we will have someone who will have the gumption and desire to see that justice is done. Imagine what Pompeo can — and will — uncover.

In the meantime, expect the media to pile on Pompeo.

On December 11, 2017, Politico published an extensive interview with former CIA head Mike Morell, ‘Ex-Spy Chief: Russia’s Election Hacking Was An “Intelligence Failure”‘.

This is an important admission:

So, I don’t think it was a mistake. I think there were downsides to it that I didn’t think about at the time. I was concerned about what is the impact it would have on the agency, right? Very concerned about that, thought that through. But I don’t think I fully thought through the implications.

One downside could have been not expecting Donald Trump to win the election.

Not thinking through the implications could be a way of saying that Americans now know that the CIA (like other security agencies) is politicised.

Here’s another interesting admission:

So, I think there was a significant downside to those of us who became political in that moment. So, if I could have thought of that, would I have ended up in a different place? I don’t know. But it’s something I didn’t think about.

No, because Hillary Clinton was a dead cert to win.

There is a bit more history to Mike Morell. Remember how, after 9/11, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the US government had received intelligence briefings weeks before but did not act on them? I do.

National Interest published an article in January 2017 about Mike Morell. This is what it says about 9/11:

On August 6, 2001, Morell served as the CIA debriefer for President Bush’s most critical ever Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB); the one that read, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.” It was essential that he impress upon Bush the importance of the memo. But he didn’t. Morell recollected in his memoir that NSC staffer Steve Biegun, who accompanied Morell to the Crawford Ranch where Bush was vacationing, apparently relayed to others that he, Morell, had indicated to the president, “there was no need to worry about an Al Qaida attack on the homeland…” Morrell himself directly observed that in retrospect, “I did not treat it as a ‘hair on fire’ or action-forcing piece and the president did not read it that way either.”

Surely Bush was not given the assessment that Morell’s colleague, counter-terrorism expert, Cofer Black, gave to Condoleezza Rice weeks earlier: “An attack is impending” and “this country needs to go on a war footing now.” On 9/11, close to 3,000 people perished in attacks on both New York and Washington.

Despite that, Morell’s career continued its ascent:

The 2003 Iraq War provided an opportunity for Morell to advance his career. Leading a group of CIA analysts, he was assigned to help prepare Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 5 U.N. Security Council speech.

Justifying the forthcoming invasion of Iraq, a passage in the speech affirmed that Iraq possessed “biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.” False! We still don’t know who was directly responsible for leaving this passage in Powell’s speech. However, Morell was in charge of the CIA analysts who were vetting it. In 2015, Morell apologized to Powell.

Then came Benghazi in 2012:

Morell, then CIA Deputy Director, quickly learned it was a well-planned terrorist attack. However he also discovered the President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the 2012 November election in mind, were pushing a different interpretation—a “spontaneous demonstration” over an anti-Muslim video. Given his status as a high-ranking official, it would be surprising if he did not receive, or was unaware of, an email from Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes: “The goal: To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of [our] policy.”

Then Morell was asked to review an important document—the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was to disseminate to the media explaining the attack. Morell complied. He altered the talking points. The doctored, scrubbed and bogus video story was presented by Rice to the U.S. public on TV stations, helping to save Obama’s presidency. Yet, even after the elections, Morell, accompanied by Susan Rice, continued to defend his altered product with three GOP heavyweights, John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-NC).

[Senator Lindsay] Graham later reported Morell “did not accept responsibility for changing the talking points. He told me the FBI had done this. I called the FBI—They went ballistic. . . . Within 24 hours, this statement was changed where he [Morell] admitted the CIA had done it.”

Good grief.

This short video explains a lot about CIA activity in recent years, complete with newspaper sources. This is not fabricated:

The description reads:

How do you start a fight when your opponent doesn’t want a fight with you? You force it… you create fear… you create fear and sell another stinkin’ pile of lies til the body count meets your project goals.

There is more analysis on Morell and the CIA at Liberty Blitzkrieg.

On January 2, Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse posted an excellent article about America’s Gang of Eight.

I’m sharing the link and excerpts here because Sundance says:

My spidey senses are telling me that understanding these facts, and understanding the construct of this oversight, will be an important reference point for all Americans in the very near future.

The Gang of Eight, comprised of Democrats and Republicans alike, are the reason why nothing ever gets properly investigated. Benghazi is one such event.

First, who are the Gang of Eight?

A position within the Gang of Eight comes as a result of holding one of the following eight positions: 1. The Speaker of the House, 2. The Minority Leader of the House, 3. the Majority Leader of the Senate, 4. the Minority Leader of the Senate, 5. the Chairperson of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence, 6. the minority leader from the same committee; 7. The Chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee and 8. the minority leader of the same committee.

Why Americans should pay attention (emphases mine):

It is important to understand that everything the White House, CIA, NSA, and U.S. State Department does is approved by these eight members who are accountable to the U.S. electorate.  These eight representatives are the intelligence oversight “check” within the constitutionally established check and balance inside our federal government.

It is also important to understand that nothing ever happens without these eight members of congress being briefed on the occurrence.  If the United States are carrying out a covert CIA mission in Benghazi, these representative would know about and have approved.  If the United States is carrying out a covert CIA effort in Syria, these eight members would have to approve.

They are also capable of covering things up:

In the modern UniParty era, this construct also means neither party has any objective toward truthfulness.  Both parties are at risk.

This UniParty construct is why we knew the House Select Committee on Benghazi was never going to go anywhere

When you consider all of President Obama’s foreign policy failures, it is critical to remind yourself of the Republicans who held oversight on every CIA endeavor.

Never forget this undisclosed motive to advance cover-ups.

There are two Republicans in the Gang of Eight who are not particularly keen on Donald Trump. They are Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. I now understand why they would not want him to be president.

Also of note is this:

♦There are only three Gang of Eight members remaining from the time of the September 11th 2012 Benghazi attack in Libya (Pelosi, McConnell and Feinstein).

Five of the 2012 Gang of Eight members have resigned or retired from Congress (John Boehner -R, Mike Rogers -R, Harry Reid – D, Charles Ruppersberger -D,  and Saxby Chambliss – R).   This is not accidental.


Trump will have a field day later this month. He sent a message in a recent press conference about notional Russian hacking. Stay tuned:

Speaking of hacking, I wonder how much Trump knows about real hacking that has taken place during the Obama years. Computer World wrote about it in 2014:

The State Department joins the White House, the United States Postal Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on a growing list of hacked government agencies. Expect to hear of more government networks infiltrated as a Georgia Institute of Technology report on emerging cyber threats in 2015 (pdf) states, “Low-intensity online nation-state conflicts become the rule, not the exception.”  

There’s more at the link. If this occurs during a Trump administration, you can be sure it would be front page news for months. However, because Democrats have been in charge, the media have chosen to remain silent.

Stand Firm is a traditional Episcopalian/Anglican site with excellent articles not only on the Episcopal Church but also on American politics.

A S Haley is a regular contributor to Stand Firm and wrote a great column which I recommend to all my readers. Excerpts and a summary of ‘The Professor Is Right Again’ follow.

This is why so many American voters are happy (emphases mine):

Professor Helmuth Norpoth of Stony Brook University on Long Island correctly called this election for Donald Trump back in February, when everyone—and I mean everyone—was confident that Trump would lose by a big margin. Later in the season, he was joined by a different professor using a different model, but who went contrary to the popular trends and predicted the same result.

The biggest loser in this election was not Hillary Clinton. She lost, and lost decisively, to be sure—but the professors’ models predicted she would lose, and they’ve been infallible in past elections for decades.

No, the biggest loser—actually, losers (to use a term beloved of our President-elect)—are (1) the Beltway elite; and (2) the mainstream media—who gave it everything they had, and still fell way short.

Haley posted his article on November 9 and prepared his readers for what we see now: the narratives that Trump will be harmful to America.

He then reminded us of what we can look forward to:

the mainstream media will lose ever more and more of their readers and listeners, to the point where they, too, will have to look around for other lines of work.

And last but not least, James Comey’s stalwart agents in the field may finally be able to investigate some people worthy of their attention: start with Comey’s former boss, Loretta Lynch, and her attempts to squelch the ongoing investigations into Hillary’s violations of our secrecy laws; move on to Patrick Kennedy and the whole corrupt bunch at the State Department who lied about Benghazi and then have been enabling and hiding Hillary’s outrageous and dangerous disregard for our security; then to the IRS and its illegal targeting of conservative non-profit groups; then to Eric Holder and his scheme of gun-running, while also letting others get away with voter intimidation; and …  oh, yes—did I mention a certain former Secretary of State? And her husband? Who together enriched themselves by selling access and favoritism at this country’s expense? And broke all the laws about charitable organizations in the process?

Who knows where all this is going to lead, indeed? Certainly not the entrenched elite, nor their lapdogs, the mainstream media.

That said, whilst Trump’s victory is a blessing despite his imperfections:

And no one can assure us that a shakeup of this magnitude will be totally beneficial in all ways—some things that are truly good may perish along with so much else that is so bad, and deserves to come to an end. As I have maintained throughout this campaign, America is under God’s judgment—which is why we were presented with the Hobson’s choice we had. We are not out from under that judgment yet, because America has not yet turned back from its ways, and repented of its manifold sins and wickedness. Whether it will do so under its new government remains to be seen.

So fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a riveting ride.

It will indeed be a riveting ride. I, for one, can hardly wait.

I predict with confidence based on what I have been reading outside Big Media that 2017 will be the year of evil exposed in the United States and beyond. Good people, especially devout Christians, will find these exposés unbelievable because they will be so utterly disturbing in content.

I will post on one of these soon in more detail. For now, if you have not already read FBI Anon parts 1, 2 and 3, please do so when you can because they will prepare you for what is coming next year.

What a week for interesting news going all the way back to Abraham Lincoln!

Here’s a selection of what was in the media. Emphases mine below.

Prolonged childhood problematic

Charlotte Gill, a young woman writing for The Spectator, deplores games such as Pokémon Go and Candy Crush as well as games franchises, e.g. Nintendo. These products distract too much from real life which young adults should be embracing:

I genuinely believed that my generation would get over Pokémon – that there would be a collective ‘growing up’ – but I was wrong. Data shows that 49 percent of Pokémon Go users are 25 or over

Such games are viewed as ‘a bit of fun’ – a nice distraction from the world. After all, who thinks about Isis when they’re searching for Pokémon? But I can see a wider issue about Generation Y and its obsessions; a huge denial about being adults. Frankly, it’s all a bit sad.

The trouble with all these baby hobbies is that they distract twentysomethings from doing something good with their lives. And, I know, we all deserve to have downtime and can even turn passions, like gaming, into a career. But for many young people, these enterprises become hugely absorbing, and steal the best years of their lives. The irony is that they will not know that this is happening; franchises with cute, sweet animals come across as harmless and nostalgic.

As a generation, we need to grow up. The world is becoming a more frightening, competitive place all the time; it has never been more important for young people to buck up, get some skills, even set up their own businesses, instead of indulging in the toys and franchises we should have left behind years ago …

The strange thing about all of these pursuits is that young people take pride in them. They think it’s funny to be trivial. It’s ironic, they say. In reality, it seems ignorant. Girlfriends complain to me about men who won’t commit in relationships; it’s no wonder, given that they live in a society that wants to immortalise childhood

Such pastimes are bread and circuses on a small scale. We could be approaching Idiocracy sooner than we think.

London Tube: attempted murder – terrorism or state of mind?

In December 2015, Muhiddin Mire attempted to slit a man’s throat at Leytonstone Tube station in east London.

He was given a life sentence on Monday, August 1 and will have to serve a minimum of eight-and-a-half years.

Law enforcement, barristers and doctors disagreed as to whether the cause was extremism or his mental state. During the attack, he yelled:

This is for my Syrian brothers. I’m going to spill your blood.

Police said that, given some of the content on Mire’s phone, he could have been influenced by extremist propaganda. However, the court heard that he was also suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the attack. Was his state of mind exacerbated by the extremist material?

In any event, he will start his sentence at Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire.

Over the past few weeks I have read several letters to the editor in the UK and in France from mental health workers on recent terrorist/extremist attacks. These people are asking for an investigation into any psychotropic medication that those carrying out the attacks might have taken in the weeks and months beforehand.

It is a legitimate question, one that needs further investigation, especially in light of the American lady who met with a tragic and terrible death in Russell Square the night of August 3. Although police are no longer considering terrorism as a motive:

The Met Police’s assistant commissioner for specialist operations, Mark Rowley, said the investigation was increasingly pointing to the attack being “triggered by mental health issues”.

A 19-year-old is in police custody. Originally from Somalia, he lived in Norway before moving to the UK. Police say he is a Norwegian national.

Sky’s report proves what my late mother often said about London — it is the crossroads of the world. It’s worth reading to see the variety of names and nationalities.

Saturday night scare in London’s Camden Town

On Saturday, July 30, an alert member of the public contacted the Metropolitan Police about a suspicious vehicle in Camden Town, London’s nexus for young adults and hipsters.

At 10:50 p.m. police evacuated several pubs and clubs. The Mirror was one of two (that I can see) news outlets to carry the story. Their story pointed out:

It was a major operation on one of London’s busiest high streets at its peak time.

The Met sent in one of their police robots to investigate the car. The London Evening Standard story has a photo.

Fortunately, the car presented no threat. Police allowed night spots to reopen around midnight.

Well done to the quick reaction of the member of the public and the police.

Burger chain, bogus papers and bugs

The UK has several trendy burger chains, one of which is Byron. Its founders sold the business to an investment firm, Hutton Collins, for £100m in 2013.

On July 27, news emerged that immigration officials carried out a raid on several branches. That was on July 4. A Spanish newspaper in London, El Iberico, reported the story before MSM did. Over the past week, leftists bombarded certain branches of Byron with bugs and protests.

The Home Office had contacted Byron to say officials would be going in to their premises on July 4. Byron management sent notifications out to staff that health and safety training was going to take place that morning. As such, staff attendance was mandatory. The restaurant chain refused to comment on whether the health and safety training was set up under false pretence.

The Guardian published Byron’s statement on the incident:

It said: “We can confirm that several of Byron’s London restaurants were visited by representatives of the Home Office. These visits resulted in the removal of members of staff who are suspected by the Home Office of not having the right to work in the UK, and of possessing fraudulent personal and right to work documentation that is in breach of immigration and employment regulation.”

A Home Office source told the newspaper that 35 people were arrested in connection with the raid. They had come from Brazil, Nepal, Egypt and Albania.

The Left went into overdrive online and on the ground.

On Friday, July 29, two central London branches of the chain had to close. Activists smuggled in bags of insects into the Holborn and Shaftesbury Avenue sites. The Guardian reported:

In a joint statement published on Facebook, London Black Revs and Malcolm X Movement said the direct action was in response to the chain’s “despicable actions in the past weeks having entrapped waiters, back of house staff and chefs in collaboration with UK Border Agency”.

“Many thousands of live cockroaches, locusts and crickets [have been released] into these restaurants. We apologise to customers and staff for any irritation, however, we had to act as forced deportations such as this and others are unacceptable, we must defend these people and their families from such dehumanised treatment,” the statement said.

Obviously, these people do not believe in borders. No doubt, there are any number of anarchists among them.

The activists invited Huck‘s Michael Segalov along for the occasion:

On Thursday evening my phone vibrated, a number I’d never seen before had sent me a text.

“Dear Journalist, this is a tip-off”, it read, “info: 8000 locust, 2000 crickets, 4000 cockroaches. See you tomorrow night.”

The bug barrage went as planned. Customers scarpered. Those who were there might have left in panic, without paying. The rest of the night was one of lost income and massive clean-up. The manager of one of the branches was, quite rightly, angry. Segalov wrote:

I get it, sort of. This was his place of work, which was now a shambles, it wasn’t his fault that the raids had happened (he probably didn’t even know they were planned) and now his team were going to spend the night chasing crickets and picking cockroaches out the red-onion relish.

Outside, a female passerby reminded him that staff and the manager were going to have to deal with the mess, no one else. That said, this woman and Segalov think it was still worthwhile.

Why? The people arrested had forged paperwork. They entered the country illegally.

A huge protest of no-borders lefties took place on Monday, August 1 outside the Holborn branch. The Evening Standard reported that the branch was closed after they heard 1,300 protesters might attend. Police were on the scene. The Standard reported:

Byron said in a statement: “In response to the recent Home Office investigation, we would like to reiterate the following.

“Byron was unaware that any of our workers were in possession of counterfeit documentation until the Home Office brought it to our attention. 

“We carry out rigorous ‘right to work’ checks, but sophisticated counterfeit documentation was used in order to pass these checks.

“We have cooperated fully and acted upon the Home Office’s requests and processes throughout the course of their investigations: it is our legal obligation to do so. 

“We have also worked hard to ensure minimal impact on our customers while this operation was underway.”

Well stated.

Taking legitimate citizens’ jobs through forged papers is theft.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s little black book

The EU’s most disliked bureaucrat, Jean-Claude Juncker, told Belgium’s Le Soir that he has a little black book with all his enemies’ names in it.

The Guardian reported on the interview. Le Petit Maurice, as Juncker calls his notebook, serves as more of an aide-memoire than anything else. He thinks it is also a useful deterrent:

He would tell people attacking him: “Be careful. Little Maurice is waiting for you.”

On UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, Juncker:

claimed he respected the Ukip leader and found him “very funny” and erudite.

Yet, he said that he had not embraced Farage during the last European Parliament meeting in Strasbourg:

I whispered something in his ear that was not a compliment. The photos gave the impression that I embraced him.

Juncker has no plans to go anywhere. Juncker has no regard for European citizens. He wants an EU army to cope with the migration crisis, a perfect way to impose more control over us. He is upset that EU countries have not taken in more migrants and despises the reimposition of border controls in the Schengen Zone. I wrote at the end of May:

People like Jean-Claude Juncker are the reason why many Britons will vote for Brexit. Juncker and Co’s arrogance is unsurpassed.

In June, two days before the EU Referendum, I reminded readers of two of his most outrageous quotes:

On EU monetary policy

“I’m ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious … I am for secret, dark debates”

On British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty

“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”

Jean-Claude Juncker: another reason to be happy Brexit won.

The Khan controversy

For my readers who do not live in the United States, an attorney by the name of Khizr Khan spoke at the Democratic National Convention last week in Philadelphia, flanked by his wife in traditional dress.

The Khans came to the US from Afghanistan via the United Arab Emirates, where their son, Humayun, was born. The family became American citizens once they were eligible.

Humayun became a captain in the US Army and was killed in 2004 in Iraq when he was investigating a car fitted with an explosive device. Americans can be grateful for his honourable and courageous service.

At the DNC, Khizr Khan sharply took issue with Donald Trump’s policy on restricting or temporarily banning Muslim immigration until Homeland Security figures out what is going on.

Trump politely responded in television news interviews by saying the Khans would have been vetted — current policy — and admitted, were he in the Oval Office. However, the polemic continued from Democrats and Republicans, including Khan and Trump.

On July 31, Trump tweeted:

I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!

Charles Hurt defended Trump’s position in a July 31 article for The Hill. Hillary supporters should note the following:

Stop for a moment and ask yourself how exactly the Clinton campaign arrived at the decision to trot out the Khan family in the middle of their highly-choreographed, exhaustively produced convention?

Were they just looking to give voice to the parents of a soldier? That would be a first. Did they want parents of anyone who had died abroad in the defense of their country? Gee, why not pick the parents of one of the fallen warriors who died defending the U.S. consulate in Benghazi? Oh, that’s right. They would have called Hillary Clinton a liar. Can’t have that.

No. Politicians like Hillary Clinton do not see people like Capt. Humayun Khan as a soldier who made the ultimate sacrifice on a foreign battlefield in defense of his country

Politicians like Hillary Clinton see him only a demographic, a dispensable political pawn to be scooted around an electoral map, the way generals used to move armies across giant maps of the lands they were invading.

Here’s the kicker:

Perhaps a better testimony from Khizr Khan would have been for him to talk about how Hillary Clinton was in the U.S. Senate when she voted to invade Iraq. Years later, after that position became politically unpopular, she changed her mind and joined new political forces to vacate all the land across Iraq that so many great American patriots like Capt. Humayun Khan had died for.

It was her vote that sent Capt. Khan to his death. And then it was her decisions later to render that sacrifice worthless.

Of course, the media will run and run with this one, whilst continuing to deprecate Patricia Smith who spoke at the Republican National Convention about her son Sean who died during Benghazi. Mrs Smith is right in saying that Hillary Clinton must come out with the truth. Mrs Smith said she was not even allowed to talk to people at the State Department; they told her she was not ‘immediate family’!

Abraham Lincoln’s letter to his stepbrother

And finally, a fascinating letter from Abraham Lincoln to his stepbrother John Daniel Johnston appeared on Real Clear Life this week.

Lincoln’s stepbrother had asked him for $80 in 1850, the year the letter was written. $80 in today’s money is a sizeable $2,424.24!

Lincoln minced no words in refusing the request. He reminded Johnston this was not the first time he had given him money:

but in a very short time I find you in the same difficulty again. Now this can only happen by some defect in your conduct. What that defect is, I think I know. You are not lazy, and still you are an idler … This habit of uselessly wasting time, is the whole difficulty; and it is vastly important to you, and still more so to your children, that you should break this habit. It is more important to them, because they have longer to live, and can keep out of an idle habit before they are in it easier than they can get out after they are in.

A shorter version should be printed on billboards (hoardings, for my British readers) and posters. It should be displayed on public thoroughfares and in schools. We have way too much idleness today. Idleness brings trouble. Remember when our parents and grandparents used to say, ‘The devil makes work for idle hands’?

He went on to acknowledge Johnston’s kindness to him and proposed that, if Johnson worked over the next five months, Lincoln would match the sum of his earnings dollar for dollar.

Kindle owners can find a book of Lincoln’s letters on Amazon. Maybe that has a follow-up.


That’s all the news you might have missed over the past seven days.

Have a great weekend! May it be non-newsworthy except in the best possible way.

A brief post to advise that General Petraeus’s resignation because of an extramarital affair has, from what I have been reading, to do with a smokescreen over what happened in Benghazi (Libya) on September 11, 2012, where one ambassador and two Navy SEALs met with horrifying deaths.

The longer the General’s ‘sex scandal’ stays in the forefront of the mainstream media, the less chance the real Benghazi story has of coming out into the open. The scandal is likely to be a cover up for something much broader and deeper at the heart of Washington, DC, and some Islamic nations.

Please pray that this story is revealed in full and that everyone required to give testimony is kept safe from harm.

Stay tuned to ex-CIA employee Larry Johnson’s posts at No Quarter. The Ulsterman Report is also helpful, particularly from the Republican Insider’s perspective.

On November 13, Johnson wrote (emphases mine — and much more at the link):

What most of the media have missed (not Fox) is the so-called CIA annex. Consider this. What if the activities at that site contained both CIA and a separate entity, foreign owned, that was being used to move weapons to Syrian rebels. Why use a foreign group? If the operation involved a U.S. organization or U.S. personnel, then Barack Obama would have had to sign off on a Presidential Finding authorizing the covert activity.

But what if the Saudis were funneling money for weapons to a foreign entity in Libya that was under the control and direction of the White House? That is called political dynamite.

We already know that the United States via the CIA was helping arm the Syrian rebels. According to the New York Times in a 14 October 2012 article:

Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats. . . .

Note the date. By October 14, more than a month after the attack at the so-called “Annex,” the Administration was putting out the word that it was perplexed and puzzled by the weapons falling into the hands of jihadists.

Guess what? U.S. concern was heightened after its operation based in Libya to help the Saudis funnel weapons to the rebels was destroyed.

Dave Petraeus was right in the middle of this. He went to Turkey on 2 September 2012

Ambassador Chris Stevens was meeting in Benghazi, just prior to the attack, with a Turkish Ambassador

It is no coincidence that Stevens is meeting in Benghazi with a diplomat from Turkey while Petraeus was doing the same in Turkey. They were delivering a message to the Turks that more control over the weapons being funneled out of Libya had to be in place.

Did Congress get a Presidential Finding authorizing the movement of weapons? The answer on that front is probably no. That’s what Obama and his team are desperate to cover up.

Ulsterman’s Republican Insider said on November 14:

Won’t waste time going over the talking points garbage that Barack Obama is so good at delivering.  Only two real Benghazi/Petraeus questions that the president spun.  He knows the issue isn’t going away quite yet.  I can confirm for you there are Republicans saying it’s time to “go long” on this issue.  But they really want someone affiliated with the administration to back up an investigation and I have no idea if they have that or not … 

Now you know why this did not come out before the election. Most Americans, even some of the low-info voters, would have been shocked.

How this will unfold with the Electoral College meeting within a couple of weeks is unclear. It could be the reason why the sex scandal is being pushed to the media right now instead of the truth behind Benghazi.

Benghazigate should, by now, be telling us everything we need to know about Obama.

The timing of the weird weather patterns on both coasts of America right now might well be a providential message. Not only did Hurricane Sandy devastate parts of the East Coast, but on Sunday, October 28, tsunami warnings (subsequently lifted) were issued for both Alaska and Hawaii after an earthquake of 7.7 on the Richter scale occurred off the coast of British Columbia in Canada.

Meanwhile, an angry Democrat advisor, Pat Caddell, made his disgust clear on Benghazigate and also blamed the media (video available at Right Scoop‘s link above):

In a clearly emotional moment, Pat Caddell says he feels outrage and shame for his country after listening to Tyrone Woods[‘] family speak out over the handling of the Benghazi attacks by the Obama administration as the way the media is ignoring it. He says they have no honor and repeats his statement that the MSM has become a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people.

Fourth Estate or Fifth Column, one might ask.

Right Scoop reader Mike Lee reminds us:

The POTUS went to a FUNDRAISER less than 24 hours after an attack on a consulate that left 4 men dead. When I saw him do that, I was just speechless. Can you imagine if Bush had done that? And the media went after ROMNEY for rightly criticizing the Egyptian embassy’s message! We are living in dangerous times.

Yes, if that had been on Bush’s watch, all MSM guns would have been blazing 24/7. With Obama at the helm, we hear nothing.

If casual readers, perhaps like many Obots, think this is just a minor event, take a look at the number of military casualties that have occurred under Obama’s watch. Keep in mind that he is the Commander in Chief.

Under Bush II’s eight years in office, fatalities totalled 1,049. Remember leftists and the media crying, ‘Bush lied! People died!’

Under Obama’s four years, fatalities totalled 2,164. Odd. I don’t hear anyone screaming about double the number of military deaths compared with Bush II’s eight year period.

What sort of man is Obama? Who is he really? Many Americans and most Westerners do not know who he is. They know only the image the media set up for them.

Having been introduced to this site by ex-Democrats, I highly recommend that you read Don Fredrick’s Obama Timeline. The entire content was posted starting in 2008. Those interested in defeating Obama four years ago read every instalment. Fredrick has now put these into a book, but you can read the salient points from the controversy surrounding the incumbent’s birth to the present as the 44th President of the United States. Of note is Fredrick’s page on so-called coincidences in Obama’s life.

Whilst I cannot speak for Fredrick’s other work, I can say without doubt that his Obama Timeline is spot on and useful for anyone in the world interested in American politics. It should be required reading for every American voter.

Grab yourself a bowl of popcorn. You won’t be disappointed.

Please forward the links to anyone you think might benefit from reading them.

On Tuesday, October 16, CNN’s Candy Crowley acted more like Obama’s personal secretary than as an unbiased moderator during the second presidential debate.

She ended up being the Gwen Ifill of 2012. Those who remember the 2008 presidential debates recall the PBS journalist’s adoration of Obama. Ifill moderated one of the debates that year to nauseating effect and a few months later produced a book about the President.

As a bit of information for younger readers who might not know, debates are supposed to be unbiased and impartial — like a job interview. The moderators are not there to help, jolly along or give extra time to a candidate. In the UK, happily, the moderator will still announce at the beginning ‘You have three minutes to answer this question’, followed by ‘You have thirty seconds left’ and ‘Sorry, but your time is up’.

So far, Obama has been allowed three or four minutes more speaking time than Mitt Romney.  Martha Raddatz also let Vice President Joe Biden speak a few minutes longer than Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan.

On Thursday, October 16, 2012, Romney had four minutes’ less speaking time than Obama in the town hall debate held at Hofstra University on Long Island (New York).

Yet, what really took the biscuit was Obama’s saying to Crowley during a discussion of Benghazigate, ‘Get the transcript’, which she immediately pulled out from her papers. This assistance on the part of a moderator left many Americans aghast. She then compounded the error by agreeing to a misquotation of what Obama had said.

It also transpired that Crowley issued a public apology the next day (of her own volition), acknowledging that — yes — Mitt Romney was right in recalling what Obama actually said in the White House Rose Garden about the incident.

That and Crowley’s having the transcript in the first place — no doubt slipped to her by one of the Obama team — shocked many viewers around the country.

This could be the decisive moment when The One quickly turned into The Once.

With the exception of the final debate last night in Florida, Mitt Romney (and Paul Ryan) showed exceptional ability in debating two people instead of one during these travesties. (Fortunately, last night [October 22], Bob Schieffer moderated rather well, although he also let Obama speak for three or four more minutes longer.)

By the end of the week after the Crowley-moderated debate, Romney had jumped five points ahead of Obama in Real Clear Politics’s projected Electoral College votes. He also broke away from Obama in Friday’s Gallup poll by several points. The race appears to be opening up.

Whilst there might not have been a conscious association on the part of the public with Crowley’s actions which showed bias against Romney, one would have to wonder if her help given to Obama and misquotation had a subliminal and detrimental effect on the President’s chances as the public finally saw the mainstream media’s unwavering support for the Left. Millions of Americans simultaneously witnessed the extent to which the media are in the tank for the incumbent.

Kevin DuJan of HillBuzz has once again — as he did in 2008 — provided a forensic examination of the presidential campaign. Long may he continue to write about high-level US politics seasoned with insider information. He lives and works in Chicago, which is also Obama’s campaign HQ.

What follows are excerpts from DuJan’s ten takeaways from the Hofstra debate, a lengthy and informative post (the photo credit goes to him as well).

The ninth point alluded to possible drug use on the part of the incumbent. I do not think that DuJan’s hypothesis of cocaine stands up to the endurance test of such a long debate. However, one of his readers whose husband is a physician wrote in to say that certain mood-altering prescription drugs could have produced the blinking and agitation. In any event, to think that the leader of the ‘free world’ (I use the term advisedly) could be resorting to this is … scary. Some American observers have been asking since 2008 if Obama is well. Should it transpire that he isn’t in good health, one has to wonder who could be leading the ‘free world’ at this very moment.

Emphases in the original from some of DuJan’s other ten points:

8. Democrats have given up on Independents and Moderates and are now pushing a solely base-turnout election. 

This is something that should be obvious if you look at both Joe Biden’s performance at the VP debate and how Barack Obama conducted himself last night:  these people have given up on independents or moderates and are now just trying to get their base to stay enthused and turnout in this election …

But independents and the purposefully noncommittal “undecideds” out there are severely turned off by a Democrat who is not presenting a nonthreatening, calm, and reassuring facade.  Negative attacks from Democrats never work because the public punishes the Democrat Party for being too much like Occupy Wall Street on the national stage.  You’ll see exactly what I mean on November 6th …

7. Obama’s lie about Benghazi is going to come back to haunt him in a big way. 

I referenced this above in regards to Candy Crowley’s gross unprofessionalism and … behavior during the debate, but the fact is that Obama’s lies about the Benghazi attack are going to do him serious damage.  Democrats aren’t paying any attention to this today and seem oblivious to it but let’s just think about the ramifications of what really happened last night.

Americans know little about the Libya situation besides the fact that people died in what they think is the embassy there (it was just a consulate, but that point is lost on most people because Ambassadors live in embassies, they think, and most know the gay Ambassador to Libya was killed on September 11th, 2012).  Today, they also know that Romney and Obama got into a fight over what Obama said the day after the Ambassador died …  I think about 80% of the public at large is very uninformed about politics and finds most of this stuff boring…but they’ve watched enough tee-vee to know when someone is lying and something’s been covered up.

Last night, they clearly saw Candy Crowley race to cover something up for Obama…and today a lot of them are wondering what that was about.  They’re seeing people talking about some YouTube video and how everyone in the Obama White House kept going on about that video for weeks…and they don’t remember hearing anything about a terrorist attack.  When did a terrorist attack happen?, they wonder…all I heard about was some movie that Muslims hated and then rioted over.

I doubt 80% of the voting public will invest the time needed to fully understand what went wrong in Benghazi but most of them will believe in their hearts that Barack Obama is lying about something, even if they don’t know why he’s lying or what exactly he’s lying about.  This is very bad for Democrats just three weeks before the election.

Being caught lying is one of the things that drive the public against Democrats.  A lot of people who believed the hopeychange, feel-good stuff of the 2008 campaign will now feel duped that “Obama ended up being a big liar just like the rest of them” and they will either vote for Romney or sit home on election day.  This will result in disaster for Democrats on November 6th.

People died.  Obama lied.  And that Creepy Crawley creature at the debate tried to help cover it up!

6. Obama’s lies about him not being at war with oil, gas, and coal production will be easily exposed in coming days. 

This one’s pretty simple, but at the debate Barack Obama tried to claim that high gas prices are a good thing…when no consumers feel that way.  He also tried to say that low gas prices were responsible for the economy collapsing, which is absurd.  Obama later tried claiming that he is not at war with oil, gas, and coal production.  I can assure you that in Pennsylvania and Ohio and any other state that produces coal everyone affiliated with that industry knows that if Barack Obama gets a second term that coal production will be eliminated in this country.  Mines will be shut down.  The EPA will force the closure of all coal-burning plants.  Millions will lose their jobs.  And then the same thing will be done to the oil and gas industries.

Democrats actually believe — as in, really and truly believe with a good amount of wishful thinking — that destroying the fossil fuel industry in this country will not only force people to invent “renewable energy technology” that is probably hundreds of years beyond our current abilities but it will also redistribute wealth globally because we’ll lower the standard of living in the United States so that it’s more in line with Africa or South America.  Democrats really believe that if the third world countries can’t be improved after years of trying then equality on a global scale can only be achieved by reducing America to a third world status as well…then social justice will exist for all and a new socialist utopia will appear on the Earth as magically as that “renewable energy technology” that will replace fossil fuels if we’d just declare all out war on oil, gas, and coal today.

Reason #4,567 why I will never vote for ANY Democrat for elected office again for as long as I live …

5. Mitt Romney presented himself as presidential to the extent that one woman actually called him “President Romney” last night. 

This really happened during the debate.  A Hispanic woman asking about immigration actually addressed Mitt Romney as “President Romney”.  She also giggled and got nervous talking to him, the way people do around the sitting President.  There was no such aura or presence to Barack Obama.  He came off, instead, like some coked-out junkie attacking wildly and lying to cover his bare butt as much as possible.  It was remarkable to see just how different Romney and Obama were last night. Republicans really did select the best candidate possible to run against Obama this year.

Romney’s mere presence on the stage made Obama seem unpresidential at times…while at others he made Obama completely disappear on his stool, as if he was just a member of the audience and not a fellow debater.

4. There are no McCain 2008 voters who are undecided this year or switching to Obama; the audience last night was only Obama 2008 voters who are now undecided or voting for Romney. 

This was FASCINATING, folks, but repeatedly I heard that Gallup actually had great difficulty finding people to sit in the audience for this debate or be questioners who participated in the Town Hall.  That’s because only undecided or “uncommitted” voters were allowed to participate.  Normally, these people are culled from those who either voted for the Democrat last time but don’t know if they will do so again or who voted for the Republican four years ago but don’t know if they will repeat that.  Gallup could not find people who voted for McCain in the last election but weren’t going to necessarily vote for Romney this time.  It really does appear that Mitt Romney is going to get all of the votes from people who supported John McCain, with no one switching sides or being undecided this time around …

Incumbents only win reelection if they find new supporters to replace those they alienate during their term in office.  Obama has clearly not done that and will lose this election as a result …

3. Frank Luntz’s [Las Vegas] focus groups ran screaming away from Obama after this debate and confidently said they will vote for Romney. 

… I’ve never seen anything like it, frankly.  Even Luntz was stunned.  These people were ANGRY at Obama for lying to them in 2008…for promising the moon and the stars as a candidate but then mooning them from the White House for four years in which their lives all got worse and nobody saw a lick of hope or change.

If the low-information casino dwellers are this angry and Obama’s lost the former showgirl/prostitute and pregnant male vote in the Luntz’s Dunces demographic then November 6th is going to be a super mega jackpot for Mitt Romney.

1. Obama’s Ministry of Truth is working hard for him, but it is no longer powerful enough to deliver him this election.  

It’s too early to tell, of course, but my gut is that what Candy Crowley did last night in service to Obama will be a breaking point for a lot of people in the long run.

I talked to a friend of mine in California late last night after the debate and she very astutely said that few people ever remember what was actually said in these things, but they remember the demeanor and behavior of the people involved.

The takeaway from last night was that Romney was serious and professional and seemed optimistic.  He would not back down and he had fight in him but his tone was always positive and he presented himself as someone who was capable of fixing the problems we’re facing.

Obama was belligerent, caustic, and abrasive …  He interrupted, was petulant, and played to his base that loves that sort of behavior.

The moderator was clearly on Obama’s side and actually injected herself into the debate to help him when he got in trouble…and then afterwards she was called on it and had to admit she was wrong to behave like that.

I think it’s going to be hard for anyone to claim that the national media is not a Ministry of Truth that exists to help Democrats.  This was painfully obvious last night.

Constitution-loving Americans cannot rest easy until Mitt Romney has been inaugurated. So, before November 6, please circulate Romney positives and ads to friends, families and neighbours. Make sure you vote and, if you can, please take a friend or two with you.

Also, please pray for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. They’ve had a shedload of stuff dumped on them by the media and the Left. Pray that they, their families and advisors stay well and safe.

Keep calm and carry on.

This can — and will be — won for America, the great Republic!

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):


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

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

Join 1,533 other followers


Calendar of posts

September 2021
2627282930 - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,658,943 hits