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
MSM Bias … CBS Tries to Defend Withholding Key Part Of Obama Interview Where He Wouldn’t Call Benghazi A Terror Attack (Assassination of Ambassador Stevens)
More MSM bias and how the Corrupt Media Complex is nothing more than the Obama propaganda outlet meant to deceive the American public.
As reported at the Politico, CBS has been caught with their hand in the defend Obama at all cost cookie jar as they try and defend not airing a key portion of their ’60 Minutes’ interview where Obama wouldn’t call the Benghazi terror attack and the assassination of Ambassador Stevens a terror attack. This is the kind of interview that any media outlet dreams of … one with the president and the most important news of the day with an issue like terrorism. A sure fire ratings grabbers. Not for CBS, who inexplicably withheld the President’s comments so to protect their candidate.
Benghazi, the ‘Watergate” of our times and no MSM to hold a president accountable
Pic Hat Tip: Vanderbilt ’12
CBS News is continuing to draw fire for withholding footage of a Sept. 12 interview with President Barack Obama in which he said it was “too early to tell” whether or not the previous day’s attack in Benghazi, Libya, had been an act of terror.
That remark, which was not included in the “60 Minutes” package that first aired on Sept. 23, was also left out of a subsequent package that aired in the days following the second presidential debate, when President Obama said that he had called the attack “an act of terror” in his Rose Garden address on Sept. 12, which took place before the interview. The remark was not released until yesterday, a fact Bret Baier of Fox News called attention to earlier today.
In interviews with POLITICO, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said CBS had been “explicitly misleading” in order “to protect President Obama.” Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said he was “dumbstruck” by the network’s decision not to report on such a newsworthy item. On Fox News, Sen. John McCain said CBS was “not carrying out their responsibilities of informing the American people,” while conservative columnist Byron York wrote on Twitter that the network had “a scandal on their hands.”
Meanwhile, sources at rival television networks, who declined to speak on the record, expressed confusion over CBS’s decision.
“It’s surprising they held on to any of it,” one source said. “If [we had the interview], we would’ve put that stuff out the second it became news — again — after the debate. All of it.”
So what was the part of the interview that was cut from “We the People”? How about what might be the most key part of the interview in asking Obama whether the attack was a terrorist one or not? Shameful, simply shameful. But then again as Weasel Zippers sarcastically notes, it is not as though this was news worthy.
In the interview conducted on Sept. 12, Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” asked the president about his remarks in the Rose Garden: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?,” Kroft asked.
“Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans,” Obama said.
Hmm, I thought that Obama claimed, echoed by CNN’s Candy Crowley as she came to Obama’s aid, that Obama had called it a terror attack in the Rose Garden as he falsely stated during the 2nd Presidential debate?
Barack Obama is only at 48% in the polls because of a lying, deceitful and corrupt bias media that would do anything to make sure he was reelected including withholding important information from We the People.
As stated at Legal Insurrection, some one at CBS will most certainly be fired for this. However, not for withholding the clip, but for publishing it at all. Sadly, this is probably more fact than fiction. Is it any wonder why the MSM has not pressed Barack Obama on Benghazi and the murder of four Americans. We can only imagine how the story would have been pursued if the president was a Republican.
There is no question that the American people deserved answers and to be told by their president what he knew and when he knew it. However, with a bias MSM, those things do not pertain to democrat presidents and especially this one who the media feels the need to protect and coddle at all cost.
Benghazi-Gate: Unbelievable, Key Terror Task Force, Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG), Not Convened During Benghazi Consulate Attack
BARACK OBAMA … EPIC FAILURE AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
Is this the email that Newt Gingrich mentioned the other night that news outlets were rumored to have and they are damning to Obama and his incompetence and dereliction of duty in handling Benghazi.
As reported at CBS News, counterterrorism sources and internal emails express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack. The emails are said to have come from unidentified sources in the State department, the U.S. military and the Justice Department. Hmm, think these folks are tired of being thrown under the bus by Obama and his stonewalling of what really happened?
CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).
“The CSG is the one group that’s supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies,” a high-ranking government official told CBS News. “They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon.”
Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.
The question is, how could the Counterterrorism Security Group not be convened after such an attack at Benghazi that the WH et all saw in real time? As Weasil Zippers says, I guess the terror experts were not convened because Obama had decimated al-Qaeda. Sure he did.
As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News “From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses.”
Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. The official says the FBI received a call during the attack representing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and requesting agents be deployed. But he and his colleagues agreed the agents “would not make any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to maximize their success.”
Let’s remember Obama’s so called promise to get to the bottom of what happened, or did not as the case may be. Obama stated that people would be held responsible and that he has also claimed that “the minute [he] found out what was going on” he issued a directive to “make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do.” As reported at NRO, the latest reports, though, suggest otherwise.
On Friday, Fox News reported that CIA operators in a position to provide air support were told to “stand down.” Now, Eli Lake reports that the State Department did not request backup on the night the attacks took place. Why?
More from the Lonely Conservative, the CIA is now saying that they sent in operatives to Libya to save the diplomats. Hmm, why now are they saying it with mere days before the election?
Yes, Benghazi-Gate makes Watergate pale in comparison.
Posted November 2, 2012 by Scared Monkeys
assasination, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, CBS, Epic Fail, Islam/Muslims, Libya, Libyan Consulate - Amb. Stevens, Media, Misrepresentation, Murder, Obamanation, Politics, Radical Islam, Scandal, Terrorism, The Lying King, Transparency, US Navy Seals, War on Terror, WTF | 2 comments
LVRJ Rips Obama over Benghazi Terrorist Blunder, Lies and Cover Up … Obama unworthy commander-in-chief
No truer words have ever been spoken … the Las Vegas Review Journal reports that President Barack Obama is unworthy of being Commander in Chief.
The LVRJ blast Barack Obama for his handling of the Benghazi attacks that gave rise to the death of four Americans including US Ambassador Stevens. The Obama administration botched Benghazi before, during and after the attacks. We are always very critical of the MSM; however, we give kudos when it is deserved. It certainly is here.
The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday’s election.
I have to admit I am impressed by the LVRJ and their extremely truthful accounts of this story and Obama’s failure as Commander in Chief. However, the MSM has all but avoided it, namely the TV media. Instead of providing answers to things that he knows first hand, Obama has dodged the questions so the the outcome is done after the election. Is that what we need as a Commander in Chief, a president that would hold off on the truth of the death of 4 Americans for his own political gain?
Not only did the White House do nothing, there are now reports that a counterterrorism team ready to launch a rescue mission was ordered to stand down.
Read the full story HERE, it is an eye opener, especially coming from the MSM. Could this have an affect in Nevada voting? The end result is that Obama has lost the right yo be president.