FOX News Poll: 67% Support Creation of Benghazi Special Committee … 51% Believe Obama Admin Knowingly Lied About Blaiming Video Tape for Political Purposes
The Obama White House, Hillary Clinton and Democrats are overwhelmingly on the wrong side of the American people when it comes to finding the truth as to what happened in Benghazi and who covered it up.
According to a recent FOX News poll, an amazing 67% believe that a special committee should be created in order to investigate the Obama administrations decisions and activities surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of four Americans, including US ambassador Chris Stevens. This as Barack Obama, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Peleosi and the rest of Democrats scoff at the idea of a special committee as a conspiratorial witch hunt. Sorry, but 67% is hardly a minority of people just out to get Obama. The poll also finds that 51% of respondents believe that Obama administration “knowingly lied” about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya “to help the President Obama during his re-election campaign” against Mitt Romney.
Complete FOX News Poll can be seen HERE.
Fully two-thirds of the public endorses the propriety and necessity of forming this select committee, which all but seven House Democrats opposed. Fewer than 30 percent have embraced the official White House line on the matter — and by a 16-point margin, Americans say the Obama administration’s general goal has been to deceive, rather than elucidate the truth, regarding Benghazi.
More numbers lay bare the depth of the public’s cynicism over this entire episode: A majority (51/39) believes Obama’s team “knowingly lied” about the cause of the attack to boost the president’s re-election bid, and a similarly-sized majority (50/40) says Hillary Clinton has been deceitful about the raid. Seventy-two percent of respondents believe the Obama administration bears at least some responsibility for what happened, with another super-majority (68/27) blaming the administration for the fact that nobody has been brought to justice for the assassinations.
Eleanor Clift Ludicrous Comments on Benghazi Terror Attacks … “Ambassador Stevens Wasn’t Murdered, He Died Of Smoke Inhalation”
Some Liberal moonbats will go to no ends to protect Hillary Clinton from her actions, or lack there of in Benghazi, including making an ass of them self.
Eleanor Clift has said some pretty ignorant things over the years, but this one might just take the cake. Not so much for her partisan, liberal, progressive partisan Democrat view point, but for the fact that she would continue to propagate a lie, a cover-up and a tape at the expense of a deceased US Ambassador. Eleanor Clift actually said on The McLaughlin Report, “I would like to point out that Ambassador Stevens was not ‘murdered, he died of smoke inhalation in a safe room in that CIA installation.”. SICK, SICK, SICK!!!
WOW … can we just say, LIAR!!! It is safe to say that no one can ever take this fool seriously anymore. She has been a liberal apologist for years, but this is beyond the pale and crazy talk. Of course her main liberal agenda was to protect Hillary Clinton, the presumptive 2016 Democrat presidential nominee. Clift ended her nonsensical ramblings by saying, “and its still a CIA and if you are going to put people on trial we should put David Petraeus on trail, not Hillary Clinton.”
Clift went on to continue to blame the video tape, which has all but been debunked at this point. Way to be kept in the informational loop Elenore. It is time to put Elenore out to politic pundit pasture. As Red State opines regarding the misguided Clift, “Next she’ll tell us that the 30o girls in Nigeria weren’t kidnapped by Islamic terrorists..they were actually just out on a school field trip, and are lost in the woods.”
Get used to this folks, defend, deflect, detract and lie to at all cost to protect Hillary Clinton from her record.
ELEANOR CLIFT: I would like to point out Ambassador Stevens was not murdered. He died of smoke inhalation in the safe room in that CIA installation.
SUSAN FERRECHIO: I don’t think that’s a fact, Eleanor.
CLIFT: I think that is a fact.
FERRECHIO: I’ve heard a drastically different story from people who are also in the know about that. So, I don’t think it is –
PAT BUCHANAN: It was a terrorist attack, Eleanor. He was murdered in a terrorist attack.
CLIFT: It was an opportunistic terrorist attack that grew out of that video.
BUCHANAN: The video had nothing to do with it.
CLIFT: There were demonstrations across the world.
ABC’s Jon Karl Hammers WH Spokesman Jay Carney On Revisionist Benghazi Talking Points, Susan Rice Interviews & Smoking Gun Email Linked to Obama White House
Baghdad Bob Jay Carney grilled by ABC’s Jon Karl over new explosive emails linking the Obama White House over Benghazi untruthful talking points. Watch Jay twist, turn and spin … What does the Obama administration do when caught in a lie … Lie some more.
In the wake of Judicial Watch gaining a “smoking” email via FOIA lawsuit, the Obama administration is trying to explain away the obvious … they put politics over the death of four Americans, including a US Ambassador, in an attempt to distract from the truth during an election. ABC’s Jon Karl was relentless with WH spin-man Carney and just grilling him on the faux Benghazi talking points. Karl asked Carney why the Rhodes email is only now being made public? Carney actually said that the document (email) was not about Benghazi. Will the MSM finally do their job and go after the Obama administration?
Yup, not a smidgin of coverup in Benghazi whatsoever. What is being overlooked though, as Carney and Karl argue over whether the talking point email had to specifically do with Benghazi, which it did, Hugh Hewitt makes an important point in that every one of the Rhodes email goals, Not “The Truth” Every One Of Four Goals Urges A Lie.
More from Powerline on the absolutely ridiculous answer given by Jay Carney to the White House reporters regarding the email and that it was not about Benghazi.
Carney’s answer is ridiculous. Of course the email bears more broadly on conditions across the Middle East, but it relates most specifically to Benghazi. Why was Susan Rice appearing on every Sunday morning talk show? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why was the administration’s top political team gathering to prepare her for those appearances? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why does the email begin with the stated goal of conveying that the Obama administration is doing everything it can to protect its people abroad? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why is the group talking about “bringing people who harm Americans to justice”? The only place where Americans were harmed was Benghazi. Obviously, the email relates to Benghazi. And equally obviously, its reference to “underscor[ing] that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy” was intended to deflect blame for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.
Bad Day for Obama & Hillary Clinton: MSNBC Guest from the Daily Beast Columnist Michael Tomasky Says … Invoked “That Word That Starts With ‘I’” … Benghazi Scandal Makes White House “Look Terrible,” Possibly An “Impeachment Issue”
You know its bad for Barack Obama when the LIBS at
MSNBS MSLSD MSNBC start bringing up “Impeachment” as a result of their Benghazi cover-up and Benghazigate.
Even the LEFT is at a loss for words and defense when it comes to the way the Obama White House has handled Benghazi before, during and after the Benghazi consulate attacks. The news that Benghazi talking points had been edited 12 times and scrubbed of all references of terrorism have left the LEFT in a quandary. Just when you thought you had seen it all, even the ultra-liberal MSNBC folks appear to be using the “I” word when it comes to President Barack Obama and “impeachment” over the White House’s handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi terror attacks that left four Americans dead, including US Ambassador Chris Stevens. Playing politics games to win the 2012 presidential election, could come back to bite Obama. MSNBC, that has made a living off of defending, deflecting and just not covering Barack Obama’s disastrous presidency, both foreign and domestic, has now been forced to question the Obama presidency and even use such descriptive words as impeachment and compare his handling of Benghazi to ‘Watergate”. As Maggie’s Farm states, this is beginning to look much worse than “Watergate”. In fact, it is. No US ambassadors died during Watergate. Actually, no one died during Watergate, only political careers.
Unlike Watergate, an unremarkable political dirty trick with a dumb and unnecessary White House cover-up (if a handful of people had been fired it would have been a big nothing), in this case American public servants died seemingly because of State Dept and possibly White House incompetence or indifference, and both may have been complicit in an attempted cover-up a few weeks before a national election. Possibly the CIA too. People have been intimidated about speaking out, but maybe no longer.
It is not joust Barack Obama who is in trouble, but so is former Secretary of State and 2016 Democrat presidential nominee wannbe Hillary Clinton. She comes across looking terrible, possibly even worse than Obama. As Washington Post reporter Nia-Malika Henderson said, “I think, for Clinton, it looks Clintonian.” Yes she does. Hillary looks like all the worst parts of the Bill Clinton years, something that will not be lost by the GOP or Democrat primary challengers in 2016. The politicization of talking points when four Americans died is beyond disgustingly sick. Before, during and after, Clinton’s State Department failed miserably and looked to cover up … is that what the US needs as a president in 2016?
“This is quite the window into what is usually the hush-hush process about how to deal with these types of attacks and the spin that irrevocably comes afterwards,” NBC reporter Luke Russert opined.
“This is not good for the White House right now,” Russert said to BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith. “Does it stick?”
“Well, sure,” Smith replied. “They look terrible.”
Smith said that the emails indicate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been directly involved in the process of “scrubbing” references to Islamic terrorism from her department’s talking points.
“Does this become then an election politics thing?” Russert asked. He said that the Republican Party has been trying to link Clinton to the Benghazi scandal for some time.
The Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky said it does. He invoked “that word that starts with ‘I’” to describe the potentially significant political fallout that could result from the Benghazi scandal.
“It becomes a potentially impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House,” Tomasky added.
“I think, for Clinton, it looks Clintonian,” submitted Washington Post reporter Nia-Malika Henderson. “It also, I think, reminds us that there is only one person that the far right-wing hates more than Obama, and that’s Hillary Clinton.”
Beghazi-Gate: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions … Scrubbed of Terror & Al-Qaeda Reference … Obama White House Initially Said Only One Word was Edited
BENGHAZIGATE = WATERGATE … File this one under better late media investigation than never. It is obvious that Benghazi was one big Obama administration lie for political convenience because of the 2012 Presidential election.
Remember when the Obama White House and their mouth piece minions like Susan Rice came out after the attack on the Benghazi consulate that resulted in the death of four American including Ambassador Stevens and blamed it on a video tape? Of course any normal, common sense thinking person knew that was BS at the time and it was later proved to be complete BS. Benghazi “whistle-blower” witness Greg Hicks stated in from of Congressional hearings this week … “I Was Stunned. My Jaw Dropped. I Was Embarrassed.” The Obama White House said that they relied entirely on CIA talking points. NOT SO FAST … ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show that they were dramatically edited and scrubbed by the Obama Administration. The initial CIA talking point draft to the final one used by the White House and distributed to Congress was scrubbed of all references to terrorism, Al-Qaeda. The story goes on to say, in an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? So Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson wanted to sanitize the talking points so the State department did not looks incompetent and derelict in their duty? Who thinks that Secretary of State was not aware of these changes? Seriously America … the 2016 wanna be Democrat frontrunner candidate knew it all.
So where would the directive come from to scrub the references to terrorism to a talking point of a terror attack just months before the 2012 Presidential election? Who was “The One” who’s narrative was Al-Qaeda was on pat to defeat and Bin Laden is dead (VIDEO)?
Click on pic to watch the ABC News VIDEO
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Hmm, this is a far cry from the “only one word was edited” from the talking points spewed by Obama White House spokesman, Jay Carney. The White House has denied accusations that they mislead the American public and did not mischaracterize the White House and State Department’s role in developing of talking points regarding the attack on the American diplomatic post in Benghazi. Who are you going to believe America, Obama’s chief spin-meister Jay Carney, or your lying eyes and ears?
Carney on Friday was responding to an ABC News report that the talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about Benghazi underwent 12 rounds of revisions with extensive input from the State Department, seemingly contradicting Carney’s claims in November.
During a White House briefing then, Carney said that the talking points “originated from the intelligence community” and the only adjustment from the White House and State Department was “changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility.’”
Mitt Romney Will Regret this for the Rest of his Life … The RNC Benghazi Ad that Never Ran “Benghazi 3 AM Phone Call” (VIDEO)
ABC News has reveled the RNC Benghazi ad that never ran during the 2012 Presidential election. According to accounts, RNC leadership approved the ad but it was spiked at the last minute because of objections from the Romney campaign. Brilliant move. They thought that it would distract from their message on the economy. HUH? What, the Romney campaign could not walk and chew gum at the same time? As stated at the American Spectator, so what if it distracted from the economic message, “Are you trying to win an election or not?” Of course hindsight is 20/20, but how can a candidate seeking election not go after a sitting president for such a debacle? Being president means handling domestic and foreign policy, not just the economy. When a president gets economic policy wrong, people lose their jobs, money and their homes. When a president gets foreign policy wrong, people lose their lives.
Watch VIDEO by clicking on above picture
It was the Benghazi attack ad the Republican National Committee created but never aired.
ABC News has obtained an ad the RNC made last fall and approved to air in the final weeks of the presidential campaign. The ad begins with a replay of Hillary Clinton’s famous “3 a.m. phone call” commercial from the 2008 campaign and then cuts to video of the burning U.S. consulate in Benghazi Libya.
Over the images of the attack–in which four Americans were killed–words appear on the screen:
“The Call Came … On September 12, 2012.” As the screen goes black, the words continue: “Security Requests Denied. Four Americans Dead. And an Administration whose story is still changing. The Call Came.”
Hot Air wonders whether this VIDEO will harm Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in 2016?
How bad of a call was this by the Romney Team? The ad could be run today and still have meaning. That is how much of a screw up this was. What were these people thinking?
Venezuela’s Acting President Maduro Urges Barack Obama to Stop Plot by Pentagon & CIA to Kill His Pro-Democracy Opponent Henrique Capriles
Why would the “Socialist” in Chief plot to kill a pro-democratic opponent?
Nicolas Maduro, the acting Venezuela president, is urging President Barack Obama to stop the assassination plot by the Pentagon and CIA to kill Maduro’s pro-Democracy opponent, Henrique Capriles. Madura insinuated that the Pentagon and at the CIAwere behind a plan to assassinate the right-wing presidential candidate to create chaos.” Crazy huh? Doesn’t Maduro understand that Obama is a fellow socialist? Although Obama as a community agitator likes his chaos, he likes his socialism better. As Weasel Zippers states, “That’s no way to treat a fellow comrade.”
Socialism … the bonds that bind
Venezuela’s acting president urged U.S. leader Barack Obama to stop what he called a plot by the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency to kill his opposition rival and trigger a coup before an April 14 election.
Nicolas Maduro said the plan was to blame his opponent’s murder on the OPEC nation’s government and to “fill Venezuelans with hate” as they prepare to go to vote following the death of socialist leader Hugo Chavez.
Maduro first mentioned a plot against his rival, Henrique Capriles, last week, blaming it on former Bush administration officials Roger Noriega and Otto Reich. Both rejected the allegations as untrue, outrageous and defamatory.
“I call on President Obama – Roger Noriega, Otto Reich, officials at the Pentagon and at the CIA are behind a plan to assassinate the right-wing presidential candidate to create chaos,” Maduro said in a TV interview broadcast on Sunday.
Maduro, who is Chavez’s preferred successor, said the purpose of the plot was to set off a coup and that his information came from “a very good source.”
Obama White House: Obama ‘Is Not Particularly Concerned’ Whether Susan Rice Misled the American People
Just a note to the American public, four Americans were murdered by terrorist as they pleaded for help and none came … The Obama Administration does not care.
Yesterday, White House Spokesman Jay Carney told reporters, in a response to a question from Major Garrett on whether the Obama administration’s mishandling of Benghazi raises “core questions of basic competency,” that the Obama administration “is not particularly concerned” about misleading the public on the attack of the Benghazi consulate. Making matters worse, not only does Obama “not particularly concerned”, he is rubbing America’s nose in the ground by praising Ambassador Rice. claiming he could not have been prouder. Obama called her “extraordinary”.
From The Weekly Standard. Just curious, how can one be concerned about what happened in Benghazi, if you purposely sent people out to mislead the American public as to what happened in Benghazi? Hmm?
“What the president is worried about, Major, is what happened and why in Benghazi. He is not particularly concerned about whether the ambassador or I went out and talked about the fact that we believed extremists might have been responsible. And whether we named them as al Qaeda or not does not–no, it certainly doesn’t have any bearing on what happened and who was responsible as that investigation was continuing on Benghazi.”
Rice extraordinary? What else would one expect from Obama, except doubling down. Benghazi-gate, a lie at hand and a scandal waiting to explode, only if the MSM actually decided to do their job. Republican Senators Kelly Ayotte, John McCain and Lindsey Graham all met with Ambassador Rice and left the meeting more troubled than before. But wait, it gets worse. Even uber-RINO Senator Susan Collins of Maine met with Rice and said, she remained deeply troubled that Ms. Rice did not seem to have a good answer for why the White House did not immediately classify the attack as an act of terrorism.
Face it America, Barack Obama does not care that four Americans died, does not want to get to the truth and will continue the cover up because it all points back to him and shows him to be incompetent and a non-leader. It was all about Obama’s reelection, not leadership.
Posted November 29, 2012 by Scared Monkeys
Amb. Susan Rice, assasination, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, collusion, Corruption, Government, Leading from Behind, Libya, Libyan Consulate - Amb. Stevens, Misrepresentation, Murder, Obamanation, Quid Pro Quo, Scandal, Terrorism, The Dodger in Chief, The Lying King, War on Terror, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 3 comments
CBS News: Office of the Director of National Intelligence Edited al Qaeda References from CIA Benghazi Attack Talking Points
BENGHAZIGATE … The mad scramble by Obama White House and lapdog media to find a scape-goat.
CBS News is reporting that it was he Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) that cut the ”al Qaeda” and “terrorism” references from the Benghazi, Libya consulate attacks that left four Americans dead including Ambassador Stevens. The same James Clapper DNI that has previously denied making any such edits. However, as aptly stated by the Ace of Spades, Clapper is the perfect Obama
appointee stooge to make such political changes to the Benghazi talking points to scrub any references of terrorism at the request of the Obama White House.
CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack – with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.
There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.
As stated at Michelle Malkin, the inevitable conclusion of the editing mystery is that it was “Colonel Mustard in the study with the candlestick.” Here is the insanity and obvious politicization of the Benghazi talking points. Supposedly the DNI says it struck the references to Al Qaeda from the talking points because that connection was “too tenuous.” However, they added references to the YouTube video and a spontaneous protest, when there was no evidence at all that indicated this and to the contrary, there was evidence debunking this narrative.
America, the buck stops with who? One really has to question why Barack Obama is not more upset and does not want to find answers as to Benghazi. Four Americans were murdered and it as if he could care less.
Posted November 21, 2012 by Scared Monkeys
al-Qaeda, assasination, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, collusion, Conspiracy, Corruption, Government, Libya, Libyan Consulate - Amb. Stevens, Media, Media Bias, Murder, Radical Islam, Terrorism, The Dodger in Chief, The Lying King, Transparency, War on Terror | 3 comments
CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns Over ‘Extramarital Affair’ … Petraeus will not Testify Before Congressional Oversight Committees Next week on Benghazi
ALL THE PRESIDENTS CONVENIENT RESIGNING MEN, THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HMM …
CIA Director, General David Petraeus has resigned from the Obama Administration over an extramarital affair. What interesting timing. Petraeus was set to testify before Congress next week on the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya. Are we supposed to believe that the Obama White House did not know of this resignation prior to the 2012 Presidential election? Or was this just another scandal that was hid from the American public and the play clock run out on so that Obama could be reelected? I am sure even the MSM would have asked some questions if Petraeus resigned prior to the election and what that meant for Obama foreign policy.
Just two days after President Obama’s re-election, General David Petraeus, the CIA Director, has resigned from the administration over an extramarital affair. Petraeus was slated to testify before Congress next week on the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya. Bret Baier of Fox News just tweeted, “With Petraeus’ resignation effective immediately, he will not testify next week & lawmakers are said to be ‘stunned’ by the announcement.”
This is only the latest in a string of groundshaking events demonstrating that the Obama administration hid information vital to the American people during the last days of the 2012 election cycle. The fact that the most respected soldier of his generation, Petraeus, would be leaving the administration during an Obama second term, had to be known by the White House prior to the election. And they said nothing in order to run out the clock. The fact that Attorney General Eric Holder was considering stepping down from the administration had to be known by the White House prior to the election. Meanwhile, during the election cycle, the Obama administration claimed executive privilege in order to shield Holder from questions about Fast and Furious.
Talk about an Obama administration of convenient timing. As LT. COL. RALPH PETERS (VIDEO) stated, the timing is just too perfect for the Obama administration. The Benghazi terror attack on the 9-11 anniversary and now a resignation a week before he was set to testify under oath in front of Congress. Hmm.
As stated at the Weekly Standard, the timing of this announcement is some what suspect. It is being reported that Petraeus will not testify next week before congressional oversight committees on Benghazi as initially planned. How absolutely convenient for Barack Obama and his continued stonewalling and cover up of what happened before, during and after in Benghazi.
Congressional Republicans were furious with Petraeus for what they described to THE WEEKLY STANDARD as “misleading” testimony he gave to the House Intelligence Committee on September 14. In that session, Petraeus pointed to a protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video as a primary reason for the attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, despite an abundance intelligence pointing to a preplanned terrorist assault on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex there. Other members of Congress were particularly interested in questioning Petraeus about why crucial details about those attacks were left out of “talking points” the CIA prepared for lawmakers and executive branch officials. Among those details: the existence of a communications intercept between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks. The level of frustration with the CIA and Petraeus had led several top Republican lawmakers to consider calling for his resignation in late October. Obama administration officials have told reporters that Petraeus’s resignation means he will not testify before congressional oversight committees next week, as planned. This will not sit well with Republicans, who believe Petraeus is in a unique position to shed light on the intelligence on Benghazi before the attack, the decision-making during the attack and the misleading stories told after it.
Just curious, how would the news of Petraeus’ resignation have played if this occurred prior to the election?
Posted November 10, 2012 by Scared Monkeys
2012 Elections, al-Qaeda, assasination, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, CIA, David Petraeus, Government, Islamofascist, Libya, Libyan Consulate - Amb. Stevens, Murder, Obamanation, Presidential Election, Radical Islam, Resignation, Scandal, Terrorism, The Dodger in Chief, Transparency, War on Terror | 9 comments