Don’t Blow It on Benghazi: The Focus Must Be Obama, NOT HILLARY CLINTON!
America could be on the cusp of a great victory–a victory for accountability and truth. The Benghazi debacle is, at last, breaking into the public consciousness. Indeed, in its outlines, finally visible as the coverup unravels, Benghazi is starting to look like a scandal, bringing up memories of an earlier scandal, Watergate.
Yet the Republicans could still blow it, not only for themselves, but much more importantly, for the country. They could blow it, that is, if they make the terrible mistake of turning an honest and necessary inquiry about the events of 2012 and 2013 into a contrived exercise in political positioning for 2016.
Yes, I am looking at you, Karl Rove. After your abysmal campaign performance in 2012, it’s painfully evident that your too-clever-by-half tricks in 2013–injecting your presidential-campaign-style attack spot into the Benghazi investigation–could undercut your own party yet again.
We’ll get back to Rove in the third installment, but first, let’s assess where we are on Benghazi.
As we all know by now, the Obama administration bungled everything about Benghazi on September 11, 2012, leading to the tragic death of our ambassador and three more brave Americans. Yet at the same time, we must admit that the administration was successful in covering up its own fecklessness–at least well enough to get through last year’s presidential election.
Yet in the last few days, that coverup has been uncovered, as all Americans can now see. [snip]
Speaking of coverups and the obstruction of justice, I might add that for me, as someone who experienced Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal firsthand back in the 70s, the memories of that sordid mess have all come flooding back as I think on this new sordid mess.
The cliché of scandals is that it’s usually not the incident itself that’s so serious, but rather, the cover-up of the incident. That was certainly true of Watergate; yes, it was a criminal conspiracy from the outset–a conspiracy to rig the re-election of Richard Nixon–but it’s not clear that Nixon knew about it in advance. Yet he did know soon after the June 17, 1972 break-in, and instead of cleaning house, he helped to cover it up. That’s what turned Watergate from a election scandal into an impeachment scandal. [snip]
But of course, then Obama would have had to cancel his campaign events, hunker down in the White House, and prove himself to be a real commander-in-chief. [snip]
It never seems to have occurred to Obama, or anyone else in his administration, that the Benghazi tragedy required some sort of midcourse correction, away from campaigning and toward governing. No, the campaign strategy had been set in Chicago long before: The Obama re-election campaign was predicated on the idea that the 44th President had killed Osama Bin Laden and won the war on terror.
So Obama’s team was all assembled for that famous photo in the White House Situation Room as they awaited the news of the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan on May 1, 2011. But then, more than a year later, a new attack by Al Qaeda on a new 9/11 simply wasn’t part of the carefully laid out campaign script. And since campaigning was paramount,the Al Qaeda role in the Benghazi attack had to be airbrushed out by the White House–with the aid, of course, of an adoring media.
Thus the terrorist assassins became, in the Obama narrative, just an unruly mob, fired up by some dumb Mohammed video made in California. Once that cover story was settled upon, that was the beginning of the cover-up of Benghazi.
As the rubble in Benghazi was still smoldering, the President declared, on September 12, 2012, “We will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” And then he was aboard Air Force One, off to Las Vegas, for a rally and fundraiser.
The immediate question, of course, is what Obama left behind in Washington D.C. that day. Increasingly, it appears that he left his underlings in Washington to work out the new and dishonest Benghazi narrative–the cover-up. The goal was to insulate the President from all this bad news–he had nothing to do with it. Isn’t it interesting, for example, that no photos were ever released of the President working on the Benghazi crisis on the night of the attacks? Nope, with the November election just six weeks away, the White House strategy was clear: The President was to kept far, far away from anything that might make the votes wonder if they had the right commander-in-chief.
Thus we come to the more important question–the ultimate question: What did the President know? (and when did he know it?)
Everything else, in the long run, flows from that. Obama might not know it or think it, but he is, as JFK said more than a half-century ago, “the responsible officer of this government.” That is, the President is primary in the Benghazi saga; inquiries into the role of anyone else–including the former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton–are decidedly secondary or even tertiary. In an investigation such as this, we shouldn’t be looking to the capillaries, or even the arteries; we should be going right to the heart–Obama. If others wish to obscure his role, well, we must seek to clarify his role.
Yet even as we keep our focus on the President, we still have to understand how his men and women acted on his behalf.
The first document of the cover-up, of course, were those dozen-times rewritten Benghazi talking points, the ones that Susan Rice used to mislead the nation on September 16, 2012–five ways to Sunday, one might say. We might immediately note that the Mohammed video never appears in those “talkers.” It was only in the days to come that the blame-the-video narrative was repeated by not only the President, but also the Vice President, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and everyone else in the administration. So there’s a mystery to be unraveled? Who dropped the Mohammed video argument into the national dialogue?
So who was ultimately in charge of those talking points? Not Hillary Clinton, nor her State Department. Instead, the buck seems to have stopped at the White House–but nowhere near the President, of course.
Instead, it was a second-tier functionary at the National Security Council who took the lead. The key figure seems to be one Ben Rhodes, whose title is deputy national security adviser for strategic communications and speechwriting–which should be translated to, “spinning and talking-point massaging.” He was the main rewrite guy.
But here’s where the cover-up gets even more interesting. How so? Because, after all, Rhodes is not in charge of the NSC. And if the actual head of the NSC doesn’t leap to mind, well, that’s proof that the plan is working. What plan? The plan to keep Tom Donilon out of the news and out of the line of fire.
The Benghazi cover-up at the White House was, in fact, a double cover-up. As we have seen, the President was to be insulated from Benghazi. But so, too, was someone else. That someone else is Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser at the White House, who is, of course, Ben Rhodes’ boss at the National Security Council. So if Rhodes is doing something as vital as managing the Benghazi message, we can be reasonably sure that Donilon was all over it. We can be reasonably sure of it, that it, but what we can’t actually see it, because Donilon has chosen to become politically invisible. Yes, if you and I haven’t heard much of Donilon lately, that’s not an accident; even though he is very ambitious, he has always been a behind-the-scenes player. And he’s been very behind-the-scenes for these past eight months.
I consider Donilon to be the greatest spinner and string-puller working in Washington today, and those talents have been good for his career. He started out as a political hack who then parlayed those talents into a gig that made him millions at Fannie Mae . And while the Fannie scandal has destroyed many Beltway careers, and deservedly so, Donilon managed to worm his way up into the highest rung of US national-security policymaking.
Yet not surprisingly, Donilon’s rise has been terrible for the country. I have warned about Donilon extensively in the past, noting, in particular, his skill as a master-leaker and news master-manipulator. In particular, Donilon has been in the middle of the Stuxnet leaks from last year–the leaks designed to make the Obama administration look tough against Iran. And although many Washington leaders, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein(D-CA) were forthright in expressing their concerns about the leaks, and in suggesting that the White House was involved, nothing happened to anyone in the White House–certainly not Donilon. So perhaps that’s how Donilon developed the hubristic arrogance to think that he could leak and spin anything, even Benghazi.
As an aside, to see Donilon in action, we might take another look at that famous Sit Room photo from May 1, 2011. Look closely at the picture: Who’s the dominant figure? It’s not Obama; he’s hunched down on the side. No, the alpha male in the shot is the bluff fellow in the blue-green shirt, his arms sternly folded across his chest–Tom Donilon. These things don’t happen by accident; it’s Donilon, not the others, who runs the Sit Room, and he is smart enough to know where to stand. Does that seem petty? Sure it does. Is it petty? Sure it is. Welcome to Washington.
However, Donilon’s skills seem to have stopped there, with his ability to look commanding in a photo. By contrast, his command of American foreign policy and national security is considerably weaker–more like atrocious.
Donilon could have gone to the President after Benghazi and suggested that course-correction. Donilon could have said, “Mr. President, the situation has changed. You must face up to the challenge of terror and confront it head on.” Once again, not only would such a new and resolute course of action have been the right thing to do, but it would have proven to be, as a residual result, good politics for Obama, as well. Yet Donilon, whom I have known for 35 years, isn’t that smart. If he ever knew that JFK had said, in the wake of the Bay of Pigs back in 1961, “I am the responsible officer,” he obviously failed to grasp the positive impact of forthright candor.
Lacking any larger vision of his own job, Donilon just defaulted to what he knew best–conniving and cover-upping. And conniving and cover-upping not only for Obama, but also for himself. Instead, he was the offstage orchestra conductor, and the maestro; he orchestrated a campaign to of minimize, marginalize, misdirect, and mislead the country.
Yet even Donilon could also see that the Benghazi cover-story effort was not going to be a particularly happy experience for anyone. And so Donilon himself went underground–a hard feat for a national security adviser. Yet Donilon, the “invisible man” when he wants to be–and with the help of a dependent and subservient press–has so far gotten away with it. Thus it’s Ben Rhodes getting kicked around, not his boss.
If the only issue were who is getting credit when things are good (Donilon and Bin Laden), and discredit when things bad (Rhodes and Benghazi), then West Wing power games would be, well, a somewhat amusing little game.
However, as we know, the stakes are much higher than any mere game, In fact, the echoes between Benghazi and Watergate are eerie, indeed. Yet the stakes are, in fact, much higher because they go to not only the credibility of the presidency, but also to the security of the country.
Yet as we learned in Watergate–or should have learned, anyway–a complicated cover-up conspiracy cannot succeed. So Tom Donilon and his tactics are not only a cancer on the presidency, but they are also, by now, a threat to Obama’s credibility and legacy.
Most of all, though, Donilon and his ways, now metastasized across the federal government, are a threat to the United States of America.
***
Next: The Eerie Parallels Between Benghazi and Watergate
You can read Cadell’s very enlightening article in it’s entirety here:
………………………………
Yes, there is more than one scandal brewing in a White House cauldron of LIES! Let’s begin at the beginning. What was Amb Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place with little or no security just the bare minimum of locals providing protection?
In order to get to the bottom of this mystery, the daily news reports are forced to work backwards until they arrive at the beginning. In my opinion, we must establish why Christoper Stevens was asked to go to Benghazi (at the May 2012 Correspondent’s Dinner) by Obama? That answer has been bandied about in several reports but nothing concrete has yet been established except for the fact it was about GUNS- Were those gun made in the USA? Were they leftover guns from Kadaffi’s storehouse? Why was it imperative to use the Ambassador to collect those guns? Obama asking him to accept the mission at the Correspondents Dinner? (these questions have yet to receive clear concise answers. So they remain at the forefront of our questions list until they are answered as the beginning of the ‘Benghazi Odyssey” of Chris Stevens.)
Here is a recent compilation posted in The New Yorker by Alex Koppelman, entitled “Spinning Benghazi”. I suggest you open the links (as you go) for the details before you continue reading if you are not aware of all the facts as this story is pieced together.
“Spinning Benghazi”
It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.
On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.
From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)
Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.
But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “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.”
Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:
quote:
“The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.”
This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.
For reading about the incestual press aiding in the coverup read here:
Obama’s blood trail from Benghazi to Boston
If we persist on taking a myopic view of the incidents happening over the last seven months, we are missing the totality of the transformation of our country under a globalist agenda. I know, it’s as stretch taxing our minds connecting these dots but as painful as it has been for us over recent months, it must be done to understand the metamorphosis taking place in our country before our very eyes.
Are you still wondering why it seems there is no opposition to our democratically controlled government? Where is the outrage from Republicans over the safety of the country? Where is the deafening roar of outrage we heard during the Lewinski scandal?
Why the branding of Bill Clinton by Republican minions as unfit for the presidency shouted from the rooftops and the sordid details of the affair played out 24/7 on tv by Big media in special reports, as the country was in a state of so called peril, triggering the House of Representatives to call for Impeachment proceedings to begin immediately?
Was Bill Clinton guilty of attempting to shred and break the Constitution by taking our guns from our cold dead hands? Was he demanding citizens say nothing negative about the Irish out of fear we were offending their sensibilities or insulting their beliefs in their lifelong Catholic/Protestant religions?
Hardly- He had an affair people. Like so many members of Congress, the very people who condemned him. Later on one by one they confessed to their so-called youthful indiscretions..example [sic] House Manager, Henry Hyde.. (keeping a mistress and supporting a child out of wedlock.)
(the Clinton comparison is strictly for gaining a perspective to the current threats before us and the unrelenting undoing of our Constitution by Executive fiat)
What do the murders of four Americans in Benghazi have to do with the murders of three in a terrorist attack in Boston? Plenty, if you understand what you are seeing in the abstract expressionism of the Jackson Pollock painting is actually a blood trail, and the Pollock painting you are closely studying is an exact reproduction of one of his earlier works. It is a reproduction of a reproduction. We’ve seen this picture before, a bloodstained tangle of lies being sold to us as an artistic masterpiece. But you have to step farther back, not closer to the painting, to actually see the blood trail.
(the illustration at the link is a Pollack painting revealing traces of blood after a forensic examination by art experts.) I will defer to this article helping you gain a much wider perspective written by By Doug Hagmann @ Canada Free Press.
Read it until you realize we are under attack while we sleep- Benghazi and the Boston Bombings are the overt examples that have to be explained away by our government as diverse unrelated events that are unfortunate but do happen occasionally but under the watchful eye of Homeland Security “we will ensure they never happen again.”
Does anyone still remember the terror attack and murders of Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? Does anyone still care?
In the wake of the bombings in Boston and amid information the government and media does not want you, the average American citizen to know, motive and causation make a lot of difference. Compare Clinton’s terse response to questions surrounding Benghazi with that of Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, whose testosterone levels rose sharply as she decided that she would not even dignify Congressman Jeff Duncan’s questioning last week about the reported involvement of a Saudi national identified as Abdulrahman Ali Isa al-Salami al-Harbi, a/k/a Abdulrahman al Harbi.
The Saudi connections
In the event you don’t recognize that name associated with the Boston bombing, the media initially reported that a Saudi national, later determined to be al Harbi, was under guard at a Boston hospital after being injured in the attack. He was seen running from the explosions and tackled by police a short distance from the bombing site. During the normal investigative process of al Harbi, investigators learned that he was reportedly the subject of an alleged deportation order under Section 212 3B Immigration & Nationality Act regarding “Security an”, but completely unrelated to Boston. To get on this list requires some pretty substantial evidence. To be removed from this list is practically impossible, short of detention or death.
Amid the flurry of media reports that followed, however, his name and status at the hospital were gradually and methodically being erased from news reports and people’s memories. An intentional government and media brown-out turned into a noticeable blackout, even while federal authorities were searching his fifth floor apartment at 364 Ocean Avenue, Revere, MA and removing various items for forensic analysis.
Before the last items were taken from his apartment, I am told, orders were given to immediately stop any investigation of al Harbi. Suddenly and inexplicably, al Harbi became off limits, and a few federal agents are angry and want to know why.
His status under Section 212 3B was reportedly rescinded about 5:30 p.m. ET Wednesday, and he suddenly enjoyed protective status on orders from the ‘highest levels of our government’, but not before Congressman Duncan had a copy of the 212 3B status of al Harbi. Additionally, it is reported, not only was the order rescinded, but his file was made to appear as if the order never existed in the first place.
According to sources close to this author, al Harbi became the primary focus of a high level diplomatic meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal on Tuesday morning, the day after the marathon bombing and the day before his status suddenly changed. The 10:00 am meeting was abruptly closed to the media with only minutes notice, something that rarely happens. The reason, according to sources with “knowledge” of the matter, is due to the classification of al Harbi as a person of interest in the marathon bombing and his status as a Saudi “elite”.
The aforementioned file alteration and status were changed following this meeting, and arrangements were reportedly made for him to leave the United States. As all of this reportedly took place in such a very short period of time, it is important to understand that the alleged changes had to have the approval at the level of the U.S. Secretary of State, or higher. It was done on behalf of the Saudis, with approval and direction from the highest levels of our own government. Why is this important to the events in Boston and Benghazi?
Benghazi to Boston: the Saudi agenda & shielding the truth
First, don’t get stuck in the minutia of al Harbi, just be aware of it and who is behind it. Instead, look at the larger picture. To be clear, al Harbi himself is not the main story here. It’s bigger than that, and the problem is that people are not thinking big enough. It’s about an agenda to shape the world power structure. The Obama regime is in place to finish what was started long ago. Now, the players under Obama and a complicit press are shielding the truth from the American people. We are not being told the truth about anything, from Benghazi to Boston, and the common factor in all of this is Saudi Arabia.
Our intimate relationship with Saudi Arabia began in earnest (most recently) under George Herbert Walker Bush, and was further expanded by George W. Bush, a/k/a ‘Bandar Bush,’ a name earned for his intimate relationship with Prince Sultan bin Bandar of Saudi Arabia. It should be clear by now that the continuity of this globalist, Pan-Islamic agenda that existed under Bush was further solidified and even expanded by the Obama administration. It is not a political agenda, but a globalist one. We do not have elected leaders who favor the U.S., but internationalists that favor the globalist agenda. Understanding this should explain that the right-left paradigm is a historical artifact, and provide prospective in terms of how the government is pushing this agenda towards completion. We’ve been overtaken and captured from within.
We’ve learned from the 2001 attacks that the Saudis are the largest exporters of terrorism, yet we continue to work for them, providing our military assets and our troops to doing their dirty work. Through the Muslim Brotherhood, they have infiltrated many, if not all levels of our government. As stated, this did not begin under Obama, but was expanded under him. And what better presidential candidate was there to accomplish this objective? Now does his meteoric rise from a community organizer to state senator to President make better sense? (do notice the lack of complicity and inclusion of one name…Clinton)
We still cannot even have any intelligent conversation about Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy to hold the Office of President without being marginalized by both sides of the political divide. Why then, would we expect the truth about Benghazi? And yet, Americans believe what they see and hear about everything from Benghazi, Boston, and even to matters of our economy? We are a captured operation.
Just as the situation involving al Harbi provides us with a window into this agenda, Benghazi provides us with that same window. Unraveling the truth from the lies in both instances will show just how deep the U.S. is involved with expanding the Saudi Kingdom of power across the Middle East, even at our own national peril. Of critical importance, this relationship is leading us on the path to World War III.
Remember this? Obama bowing to the Saudi King? Now you know why!
Before the marathon bombings, Russian intelligence officials warned the U.S. about the Islamic terror threat posed by Islamic terrorists in the U.S., including the older brother of the Boston bombing duo. The FBI KNEW the identity of the elder Boston bomber a year ago. Yet, the U.S. DHS, under the Obama regime, deliberately ignored the warnings. We’re spreading and actually sponsoring this radicalization through this Pan-Islamic agenda, yet most people cannot see the bigger picture.
Putin warned us that our policies were the equivalent of playing with dynamite, and continuing to play would result in a direct confrontation with them. During the so-called Arab Spring, Putin also warned the U.S. not to destabilize the Middle East, and warned Obama not to meddle in the affairs of Syria, which he described as their ‘red line in the sand’. Syria holds strategic military and economic importance for Russia and China, and is the backdoor to Iran, another country of importance to both superpowers.
Despite these warnings, the U.S. set up the largest weapons running operation in Benghazi, a location from where weapons were shipped under U.S. operational command to the Islamic terrorists in Syria to topple the Assad regime. The Saudis were the paymasters for this operation, but are duplicitous.
Benghazi was the direct result of this operation, and we now find ourselves in a proxy war with Russia-and soon to be China-with no peaceful end in sight as the U.S. continues to do the dirty work for the Saudis, the internationalists, the international bankers, and the global elite. The terror attacks in Boston were the latest blowback from our foreign policy, and there will be more.
Janet Napolitano, and the entirety of the Obama regime are refusing to provide Americans with any truths about what is actually taking place, whether it is about a sole Saudi citizen or the attacks in Benghazi, and complete Saudi agenda. Meanwhile, clueless Americans cheer as the younger bombing suspect is arrested after one of the most unprecedented manhunts in U.S. history, but fail to see all of the entanglements of the Pollock painting. We are willfully and almost gleefully giving up our rights because of the globalists who are running the foreign and domestic policies.
The path to WW III
Like the Pollock paintings, people must be able to see the connections—the blood trails—that connect the terrorist attacks in Boston to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. We are emboldening the Muslim terrorists by our foreign policies. We are training them, arming them, and in some cases, siding with one faction over another. We are not exporting peace or freeing people from oppression, but creating a new world order.
Time and again, from the first World Trade Center Bombing to 9/11, from Benghazi to Boston, we see the same template reproductions of the paintings, yet don’t recognize it.
We are not dealing with Americans with an American mentality. No, we are dealing with Americans in name only, driven by an internationalist, global mentality.
The ‘elected’ are the ‘elect’ vying for a future seat at the global table. They are hidden amid the entanglements of the Pollock work. They are the very ones who will lead us into global conflict.
So when you see the next massive manhunt that closes a city, understand that this is of our own doing. This is part of a larger agenda that you must step back from the painting to identify. While we surrender our rights domestically, we advance on the path that takes us into WW III. Boston was an indirect blowback from Benghazi, but the truth of the matter will continue to remain hidden unless we demand and receive answers to the proper questions. That is assuming, of course, there is anyone left to ask such questions.
Step back and look at the larger picture. See the blood trail that extends among the continents.
It you want the Truth of what is happening to our country, you won’t find it on American TV. You will have to search out the Truth yourself from overseas reports or read here for new postings.
The ‘Uncle Tom-ing’ of Ben Carson Begins:
by Larry O’Connor
MSNBC host and commentator Touré fired a clear and distinct shot at Dr. Ben Carson Friday, hammering the African-American Presidential Medal of Freedom winner for daring to challenge the Obamadoxy parroted by Touré and progressive journalists bent on supporting the President’s policies at all costs.
Dr. Ben Carson splashed onto the national stage with his blistering criticism of ObamaCare last month at the National Prayer breakfast, with President Obama seated just a few feet away. Carson is a heroic surgeon, Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, who performed groundbreaking medical miracles at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is a brilliant and passionate advocate for free market principals, individual responsibility, and the freedoms and liberty embodied in resistance to bloated big government programs like ObamaCare. He also happens to be black. Therefore, he must be stopped, now.
Like Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Colin Powell (until he got the message) and Herman Cain before him, Carson will now be the target of the most vile and reprehensible kinds of criticism from black progressives like Touré and his colleague Al Sharpton. A black man who doesn’t blindly support the president and the big government programs that has created a dependency on government that has crippled America’s underclass is susceptible to name calling that, otherwise, would not be tolerated in American political discourse.
On his show, Touré said this of Carson:
“Carson is a brilliant medical thinker but he’s got intellectual tumors like a flat tax, which is regressive, and ignorant in the face of wealth inequality where the top 1% own 35% and the bottom 60% own 2.3%. I doubt Jesus would tax them equally. Just as I doubt the GOP would entertain a white non-politician with unserious ideas. But Carson has joined the GOP’s version of affirmative action, where blacks that can speak conservative game get raced to the front of the line because then people get to put a bumper sticker on their car that say, ‘How could I be racist? I would have voted for Carson!’ Which would fit nicely over the bumper sticker saying, ‘How could I be racist? I would have voted for Cain?’ Which fit nicely over the bumper sticker saying, ‘How could I be racist? I would have voted for Allen West!’”
Yes, any black friend will do, no matter how far outside the political system they emerge from and no matter how unserious their ideas are. Because it’s all make believe. None of them will ever get a nomination for the Presidency, just as the GOP will never get black votes, because the only thing they care about is winning and not the economic or social needs of black people. But in the meantime, imagine away you guys.
At CPAC Carson said, ‘Let’s say you magically put me in the White House.’ But, my brother, no magic is required to accomplish that. As soon as the sequester ends, you could take a White House tour.
Let’s be clear: Touré holds black men up to a different (lower or higher, not sure) standard when they criticize the President. He expects black people to think a certain way and pounces when they step out of line and express a different set of ideas than what Touré believes they should believe, due to their skin color. Because Carson is a black man, he is therefore the beneficiary of affirmitive action, in Touré’s mind, and if he dares to present an opposing view from MSNBC’s Obamadoxy, he is an Uncle Tom and betrayer of his race.
In short, Touré has a special contempt for black men who criticize President Obama. There may be many different interpretations of the definition of racial prejudice and/or racism, but my understanding of racism is that it is the belief that humans are divided into distinct groups based upon their skin color and genetic make-up, and those groups are expected to behave and think in certain ways (inferior or superior) solely based upon their race. Touré’s special loathing of Dr. Carson may not be based upon his race, but it certainly appears to be. And if that doesn’t fall under the description of racism, then I would really appreciate it if Touré could explain the distinction to me, because I’m having trouble seeing it.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/03/23/The-Uncle-Tom-ing-Of-Ben-Carson-Begins
Court Slaps Down Obama for Hip Pocket Ilegal Amnesty…
Court Rules Obama DHS Violated FOIA with Stealth Amnesty Secrecy
Meaning: As was said by a former Secret Service Agent..Obama and Napolitano released thousands of illegal aliens who should have been deported..
Judicial Watch recently earned a major victory against the Obama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in its efforts to uncover records detailing the Obama administration’s “stealth amnesty” initiative. And with DHS releasing thousands of illegal alien criminals onto the streets, it could not have come at a better time.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently ruled that the Obama DHS had failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a Judicial Watch lawsuit seeking records related to the agency’s policy of suspending some illegal alien deportations. The opinion was issued by The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
Our FOIA lawsuit concerns a DHS policy, implemented by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which led to the reduction of the deportation docket in Houston, Texas, by dismissing pending enforcement proceedings against illegal immigrants who DHS claimed did not have serious criminal records. (Now we know this was a lie. Judicial Watch uncovered records showing that multiple deportation cases were dismissed against illegal immigrants who had committed serious felonies. But more on that in a moment.)
In the old days–and by the “old days” I mean 2010–this was called “stealth amnesty.” But there’s nothing “stealth” about the Obama administration’s amnesty campaign now. According to the Associated Press, since mid-February, the Obama administration has openly and proudly released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants facing deportation from jail. Reports indicate that it plans to release 3,000 more this month.
Regarding our lawsuit and the court victory, we filed our original FOIA request with DHS on August 30, 2010, and a subsequent lawsuit on March 23, 2011, after the DHS refused to release the requested records. On January 27, 2012, the U.S. District Court denied a DHS motion to dismiss in part, chastising the agency for its inadequate explanations and giving it one “final” opportunity to establish the applicability of certain privileges in withholding the information from Judicial Watch.
In the February 28, 2013, decision, the District Court ruled that with respect to a substantial number of documents at issue, DHS had continued to withhold information improperly under the “attorney-client” and attorney “work-product” privileges:
Regarding DHS attempts to withhold information under an attorney-client privilege, the court ruled in favor of Judicial Watch, declaring, “[E]ach of these documents appears to concern nothing more than the implementation of an agency policy, the withholding of which runs counter to the [DC] Circuit’s [earlier] admonition that a government attorney’s ‘advice on political, strategic, or policy issues [is] not … shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.’” (The court drew a similar conclusion regarding the DHS effort to withhold information in order to protect attorney “work-product.”)
The records at issue concern internal DHS controversy over how the Houston ICE officials were interpreting the Obama administration’s narrowed immigration enforcement priorities.
Documents previously uncovered by JW show that DHS officials misled Congress and the public about the scope of its immigration enforcement policy change, which gave wide latitude to local immigration officials to dismiss illegal alien deportation cases–including the dismissal of charges against illegal alien criminals convicted of violent crimes. So don’t believe the Obama administration’s lie that public safety is not at issue here. I believe people will die as a result of this new policy. (I cited my reasons for pessimism in last week’s update.)
But this ruling is good news at a time when the country really needs it.
It proves the Obama administration is willing to go to any extent–including gaming the courts–to continue stonewalling the full story of its lawless release of illegal aliens. Now, with the prison floodgates being thrown open to illegal aliens under the phony pretense of abiding by sequester cuts, it is more important that details of this threat to the public safety be revealed.
We’re pleased the court would not allow DHS to continue its contempt for FOIA law. We look forward to getting those records.
…………………………….
How Obama Turned America into Venezuela; tout de suite..
by Daniel Greenfield
Hugo Chavez’s death was met with tributes from Iran, Bolivia, China and El Salvador. The Western left did not waste much time adding their withered roses to El Comandante’s coffin. George Galloway called him another Spartacus. Jimmy Carter described him as a leader who fought for the “neglected and trampled.” Michael Moore praised him for declaring that the oil belongs to the people.
Whether or not the oil belongs to the people is a matter of some debate considering how much of it ended up in Chavez’s pocket.
Chavez died with an estimated net worth of 2 billion dollars making him the 4th richest man in Venezuela and the 49th richest man in Latin America.
While the Bolivarian Spartacus lined his pockets with oil money, Venezuela’s middle-class was struggling to get by in a country where the private sector had imploded. Income increased on paper, but decreased in reality. Around the same time that Comrade Hugo was launching the third phase of his Bolivarian Revolution, inflation had decreased household income 8.8 percent while consumer goods prices increased 27 percent.On his deathbed, Hugo Chavez devalued his country’s currency for the fifth time by 32 percent, after tripling the deficit during his previous term when the national debt had increased by 90 percent. From 2008 to 2011, Chavez’s oil-rich government increased the debt by nearly 50 billion in a country of less than 30 million. That same year, The Economist speculated that Venezuela might go bankrupt.
Chavez had swollen the ranks of Venezuela’s public employees to 2.5 million in a country where the 15-64 population numbered only 18 million. With 1 public employee to every 7 working adults, the entire mess was subsidized by oil exports and debt. When the price of oil fell, only debt was left.Those public employees became Chavez’s campaign staff with no choice but to vote for him or see their positions wiped out to keep the economy from crashing. And they won him one last election.
The dead tyrant leaves behind the lowest GDP growth rate and highest inflation rate in Latin America. He leaves behind an economy where more than half the population depends on government benefits or government jobs. He leaves behind a giant pile of debt for the people and 2 billion dollars in misappropriated oil money for his heirs.
But we don’t need to look to a leftist banana republic south of the border to see how profitable fighting for the poor can be.
7 of the 10 richest counties in America are now in the Washington D.C. area. Arlington County alone added $6,000 to its average income in one year alone. D.C. and its bedroom communities got rich at twice the rate of the rest of the country and in the last election; Obama won 8 of the 10 richest counties in the country.
Washington D.C. is richer than Silicon Valley. Median income in the D.C. area hit $84,523 despite the city itself having horrendous unemployment and poverty statistics. The top 5 percent in D.C. earns 60% more than the top 5 percent in other cities and 54 times what the bottom fifth earns in that same city.
This wealth of government money isn’t a rising tide that lifts all boats. Income inequality in Washington D.C. is one of the worst in the nation. For families with children, the income inequality level in D.C. is double the average for the rest of the country.
But when you concentrate the wealth of the land in a single imperial city, then you end up with a sharp gap between the poor and the fighters for the poor. Mid-level jobs are disappearing, but high-level jobs continue to grow. Small businesses are going out of business, but lawyers and consultants are being hired at a breathtaking rate.
Washington D.C. has the highest concentration of lawyers in the country. 1 out of every 12 city residents is a lawyer. 1 in 25 of the country’s lawyers lives in Washington D.C. In 2009, the Office of Personnel Management reported that there were 31,797 practicing lawyers in the Federal government earning an average salary of $127,500 a year. Or to put it another way, the taxpayers were spending double Hugo Chavez’s 2 billion dollar net worth each year just to pay the lawyers.
That was in 2009. The numbers have undoubtedly gotten much worse since.
That same year there were 383,000 federal civilian workers with six figure salaries. Multiply that and you get all the debt that Hugo Chavez dumped on Venezuela being dumped out in a single year on American taxpayers.
The number of Federal civilian employees is only slightly higher than in Chavez’s utopian Socialist paradise, but average Federal employee salary clocks in at a mean $75,000.
Federal civilian employee wages and benefits run around $200 billion. The cost of the Federal workforce in a single year is more than double Venezuela’s entire national debt. During Nixon’s first year in office, $200 billion would have covered the entire Federal budget. Now it’s just the paychecks. In the United States Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees welfare and food stamps, among other things, 1,461 of HHS’ 64,750 employees earn over $155,000.
While the Obama Administration fires marines, it hires more civilian employees. 101 new Federal employees have been hired every day of Obama’s first term in office. In 1962, there were more American military personnel than Federal civilian employees. The number of military personnel has dropped sharply, but the number of civilian employees is higher now than it was then. And their salaries have become much higher.
But the civilian employees are only part of the picture. The massive deficit spending has turned Washington D.C. into a treasure trove of government grants and stimulus plans on the favor train. The national debt grew by 6 trillion dollars in one term of Obama adding $50,521 in debt per household. That money was used to buy favors and support across the country.
While Obama ran on a platform of taking care of the poor, he was raiding the social safety net to buy support from a coalition of billionaires that paid him back with bundled contributions and SuperPACs. Green Energy tycoons got rich on loans and grants, while the middle class imploded. Billions in taxpayer money was traded for millions in contributions in one of the dirtiest deals to take place outside an actual banana republic.
Like Chavez, Obama presides over a poorer country whose poor are convinced that he is the only thing standing between them and absolute poverty. Deficit spending and high debt has destroyed any potential for GDP growth leaving America looking like an oversized version of Venezuela.
The new America is not a booming economy, but a political power structure built on unsustainable spending. Like Chavez, Obama has created an impossible trap that leaves half the country dependent on him and leaves his opponents with no alternative but to propose some form of austerity. It is an economic kamikaze maneuver that invariably ends with economic or political destruction.Obama, like Chavez, has made economic recovery structurally impossible, perpetuating poverty in order to profit politically from the national state of misery. Chavez died before the consequences of his economic policies caught up with Venezuela. Like Chavez, Obama won a contentious election, but he has no easy escape from the economic destruction coming up on the road ahead.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/how-obama-turned-america-into-venezuela/
……………………………………………………….
Hillary WILL run in 2016, claims wealthy Greek donor (who says Bill told him)
By Leslie Larson
13 February 2013
A wealthy Democratic donor is fanning the flames of speculation that Hillary Clinton is indeed running for president.
Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos says Bill Clinton has confirmed the presumed plan that the former Secretary of State will make a bid for the White House again.
The millionaire told the Greek Reporter that Clinton’s husband revealed his wife’s political ambition, as the power couple gear up for a 2016 race.
Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos (left) was a key fundraiser for Team Hillary during her first presidential bid.
‘Hillary will be our next President and she will be a great one,’ Mr Tsakopoulos told the Greek Reporter at a private gala event in California over the weekend.
His daughter, Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, was appointed Ambassador to Hungary in 2010
‘I talk to her husband, and he confirmed it. She will run,’ he added. Reps from the Clinton camp have publicly addressed his statements.
Hillary Clinton’s political plans are considered the worst kept secret in Washington.
Though the 65-year-old, who left the State Department in January, claims she has no set agenda for the future it has been widely thought that she still has her eye on the Oval Office.
Just days after she handed over the reins of the State Department to former Mass. Sen. John Kerry, she launched a new website with the mysterious web address http://www.hillaryclintonoffice.com.
The website features a glamorous photo of the diplomat but provides no information on its purpose, other than the option for a visitor to enter their contact information.
She has long stated that she would be taking time to rest and not focusing on her long-term plans.
In December, she suffered a concussion and was hospitalized briefly for a blood clot near her brain.
She previously sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, against then Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)
She and her husband fought tooth and nail against the rising Democratic star, who ultimately proved victorious.
Though the indefatigable political pair had to lick their wounds when Mr Obama secured the Democratic presidential nomination, they eventually got in line to support the party and then Sen. Clinton (D-NY) was appointed Secretary of State under the 44th president.
But she has maintained a powerful circle of supporters who have continued to express their hope that she would run again.
Exclusive: Hillary Clinton Will Run for President in 2016 – Confirmed
…………………………………………………..
Obama Campaigns Delays Budget Release by a Week…. And Then..
Obama Sequestration Request Calling For Short-Term Budget Fix To Delay Automatic Cuts
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is asking Congress for a short-term deficit reduction package of spending cuts and tax revenue that will delay the effective date of steeper automatic cuts now scheduled to kick in on March 1. Obama said the looming cuts would be economically damaging and must be avoided.
The president reiterated his insistence on long-term deficit reduction that combines taxes and cuts, a blend that faces stiff resistance from anti-tax Republicans in Congress.
Obama made his case Tuesday afternoon in the White House briefing room, just minutes after the Congressional Budget Office released revised budget projections that showed the deficit will drop to $845 billion this year, the first time during Obama’s presidency that the red ink would fall below $1 trillion. The budget office also said the economy will grow slowly in 2013, hindered by a tax increase enacted in January and by the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect this spring.
It is those cuts that Obama is seeking to put off with less onerous measures. Neither the president nor White House aides specified what those measures should be.
“There’s no reason that the jobs of thousands of American who work in national security or education or clean energy, not to mention the growth of the entire economy, should be put in jeopardy just because folks in Washington couldn’t come together to eliminate a few special interest tax loopholes or government programs that we agree need some reform,” he said.
Obama said Congress needs more time to work out a 10-year plan worth more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction. Obama did not place a time span or a dollar amount on the short-term plan. Officials said he will leave that to Congress.
His request comes as some congressional Republicans were signaling that they might allow the automatic cuts to kick in as the only viable means of achieving deficit reduction, even though it cut into programs they support, such as defense.
The president’s request would continue what has become a common practice in Washington – dealing with fiscal issues in small steps in hopes that over time Congress and the administration are able to agree on broader and more lasting policies. In his remarks, Obama alluded to the incremental nature of the work ahead.
“Let’s keep on chipping away at this problem together, as Democrats and Republicans, to give our workers and our businesses the support that they need to thrive in the weeks and months ahead,” Obama said.
read the rest :
…………………………………..
The Obama administration announced January 23rd it will release its proposed budget Feb. 13, a week later than scheduled.
“As in previous years, the date was determined based on the need to finalize decisions and technical details of the document,” said an announcement from the Office of Management and Budget.
(OMB also announced it will not be providing free bound copies of the document to the media, calling it a cost-saving measure.)
Congressional Republicans blasted the delayed budget. Under federal law, the president must submit a budget by the first Monday in February. As a result, that last day before the deadline has become the de facto date.
But Obama violated the law last year with a one-week delay, and he’s doing it again this year.
“This will mark the third time in four years the president has missed his statutory requirement to present a budget on time, while trillion-dollar budget deficits continue to mount,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee.
Ryan added: “As the President announces another missed deadline, tomorrow marks the 1,000th day Senate Democrats have gone without any budget at all.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, called it “an inauspicious way to launch his State of the Union address.”
“In this, the final year of his term, one would think he would be ready and eager to lay out his detailed plan for our nation’s financial future,” Sessions said. “He speaks of the American people’s economic suffering, yet he would, at such a time, delay fulfilling this fundamental duty on their behalf.”
And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a former White House budget director in the Bush administration, suggested Obama get off the campaign trail.
“I’m incredibly concerned that, with a record national debt now equal to 100% of our GDP, the president is unable to put forward a plan to address Washington’s out of control debt and deficits,” Portman said. “If I were advising President Obama, I’d recommend less time campaigning and more time spent addressing the impending fiscal crisis. We need a budget with a responsible spending restraint and pro-growth reforms, and WE NEED IT NOW!
Closer look at the president’s role in Libya aftermath
What was he doing during and after attack?
GRETA ASKS WEST:
McCain Presses Hillary for More Information:
…………………………….
@ minute 5:22 on the Greata video… West explains in clear concise language the chain of command when the president gives an Execute Order to the Joint Chiefs. The Generals are saying this Order was never given to them to send help to the distressed Americans in Libya.
Although now, Obama is saying HE GAVE the ORDER to send HELP.
West says the chain of command goes this way : “The president “GIVES THE ORDER”, the ORDER is written down by the National Security Council Adviser”… and the Joint Chiefs follow through deciding what assets from where will be sent to help out Americans in distress.
What Bing West is saying is, He wants to see the written order to execute the president’s directive to send HELP to Benghazi… supposedly, now, what Obama is claiming IS, he did GIVE THE ORDER to send HELP when our Ambassador was pleading for help.
All West is saying is …WHERE IS THAT WRITTEN ORDER? WE WANT TO SEE IT! Mr. President.. produce the ORDER!
West also let the cat out of the bag- @ 4:33 Hillary did send help (in spite of the stand down order) The State Dept did send a plane carrying 6 Americans to help the distressed Ambassador and the 3 former Seals who risked all to protect the Ambassador. (I just knew it..I just did.. I hope this shocker puts all the judgmental naysayers to SHAME!)
NOW THIS VIDEO NEEDS TO GO VIRAL!
anyone reading this… PLEASE, send this video to every blog you know and get this information out there… The military is willing to stand up to OBAMA.. PLEASE HELP THEM DO IT!
……………………………………
MEDIA IGNORE HILLARY’S BOMBSHELL BENGHAZI CLAIM
by Aaron Klein
Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio.
JERUSALEM – During the Senate hearing on Benghazi yesterday, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. special mission attacked on Sept. 11 was involved in gun-running.
The remarks were perhaps the most important and telling of the entire hearing since they address a possible motive behind the jihadist attacks.
Yet Clinton’s answers were largely unreported by U.S. news media.
The exchange on the subject took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?
“To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”
Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”
Clinton replied, “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”
“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.
“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”
That section of the exchange with Paul was almost entirely ignored by media, which instead focused on the Republican senator’s earlier statement that if he were president he would have relieved Clinton of her post.
WND has filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security officials who describe the mission in Benghazi as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East.
In September, WND also broke the story that the slain U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.
In November, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.
Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with countries, most notably Turkey, on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Assad’s regime, the security officials said.
According to the 39-page report released last month by independent investigators probing the attacks at the diplomatic facility, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was set up without the knowledge of the new Libyan government, as WND reported.
“Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility,” the report states. “This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB).”
The report, based on a probe led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a “Special U.S. Mission.”
During the Libyan revolution against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.
At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi acknowledged in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”
Media cover up?
From the beginning, U.S. media reports on the events in Benghazi have been misleading.
The vast majority of media coverage worldwide refers to the U.S. facility that was attacked as a “consulate,” even though the government itself has been careful to call it a “mission.”
A consulate typically refers to the building that houses a consul, who is the official representative of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli.
Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports and citizen information.
On Aug. 26, about two weeks before his was killed, Ambassador Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the Tripoli embassy.
The main role of a “consulate” is to foster trade with the host and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation.
Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state.
However, according to the State Department investigation, the building was a “U.S. Special Mission” set up without the knowledge of the Libyan government.
Withholding, misleading
Two days before the November presidential election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 “60 Minutes” interview in which Obama made statements that contradicted his earlier claims about the attack.
In the released portions of the interview, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden on the day of the attack, he had declared it an act of terror.
Reuters was also implicated by WND for possibly false reporting.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Reuters quoted a purported civilian protester by his first name who described a supposedly popular demonstration against an anti-Muhammad film outside the U.S. building.
Immediately following the attack, President Obama and other White House officials claimed anti-American sentiment fueled by the obscure anti-Muhammad video on YouTube sparked civilian protests outside the U.S. mission that devolved into a jihadist onslaught.
However, vivid accounts provided by the State Department and intelligence officials later made clear no such popular demonstration took place. Instead, video footage from Benghazi reportedly shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, officials said.
………………………………
……………………………….
