Skip to content

The White House Disinformation Campaign of Libya…

October 30, 2012

Something else the left wing media aren’t telling you about Benghazi

Witnesses who live near the U.S. Consulate report that Islamic terrorists were sealing off streets and setting up checkpoints two hours before the attacks began.

Debate has raged about who is responsible for the attack, which led to the deaths of four Americans, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Fingers have been pointed at Libyan Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, which increased in strength during the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and has a similar ideology to al-Qaeda. But the group has denied involvement, instead suggesting the attack was the result of a protest against the US-made, anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims”.

A longtime Military Insider gives a brief and searing response regarding whether or not U.S.military could have successfully been deployed in time to save Americans under attack by terrorists on September 11th at the American consulate in Benghazi.

MILITARY INSIDER:  How soon could we have gotten to Benghazi?  All that was needed to send those  -deleted-  scattering was one single F-18.  Range of app. 2k.  TS of over 1000mph.  Do the math.  We had that capability less than 500 miles away.   NASSIG would have had full armed deployment inside of 20.  From time of initial report to arming, to takeoff.  I’ve seen it done in less.  ETA  to consulate in less than hour.   Would have ripped a hole in the sky to get there.  This is exactly what we are trained for.  Just one flyer would have lit those  -deleted-  up inside of 10. Coordinates known.  That’s all our guys need.  Would have been precision termination.  Clean.  In/out.

Instead,  left on own to die out there. 

Not the first time.

WHC coordinating with State, others  to TS classify everything.  EVERYTHING. 

Shutting it all down. 

Significant activity out of NLSO on this as well. 

Have eyes.  Have ears.  Need mouths.

F-cking politicians.



If Obama Ordered Military To “Secure Our Personnel,” Where Is Proof Of That Order?

Former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Marine Bing West crushes the “fog of war” excuse laid out earlier by the Obama White House – namely challenging Barack Obama himself to show proof of the directive he told to the American people that he gave as terrorists were attacking the Benghazi compound.  Either Barack Obama lied, or his own military leaders refused to follow his directive.  Either way, he is unworthy to be given the responsibility of four more years as America’s Commander in Chief.

(Persistent questions remain as to why no help was given to Americans under attack by terrorists at the Benghazi com For hours these American fought back and waiting for that help to arrive.  It never did.  Barack Obama publicly claimed to have given a directive to “secure our personnel” – but no proof of that directive has yet been shown, and members of the American military are stating no directive was ever received.)


Our ambassador to Libya was killed in our own consulate in Benghazi on the night of September 11. For the next six weeks, President Obama repeated the same talking point: The morning after the attack, he ordered increased security in our embassies in the region.

Suddenly, on the campaign trail in Denver on October 26, he changed his story. “The minute I found out what was happening . . . I gave the directive,” he said, “to make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and military knew the number-one priority was making sure our people are safe.”

Notice the repeated use of the present tense, implying that he gave the order during the attack. Mr. Obama met with his national-security team, including the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at 5:00 p.m. Washington time. 

…The SecDef and the president have issued contradictory explanations. Either Mr. Obama ordered the Secretary of Defense to “do whatever we need to do,” or he didn’t. And either the secretary obeyed that order, or he didn’t. And he didn’t.

…Yet the general in charge of the Africa region has allegedly said he received no directive from Washington to dispatch military aid. Members of the mutual protective society of generals are offering the bizarre defense that our Africa Command could do nothing because it has no military assets; it’s some sort of ghost command. Even if that is true, the most powerful nation in the world has sufficient forces and flexibility to send fighter aircraft over a consulate in flames, or to land some troops at the secure airport east of Benghazi. After all, our embassy in Tripoli, 400 miles away, sent an aircraft with six Americans to fight in Benghazi. But our base in Sigonella, 480 miles away, sent no help.

Surely it is in the president’s best interests to release a copy of his order, which the military would have sent to hundreds in the chain of command. And if the president did not direct the NSC “to do whatever we need to do,” then who was in charge? When the American ambassador is attacked and remains out of American hands for over seven hours as a battle rages — and our military sends no aid — either the crisis-response system inside the White House is incompetent, or top officials are covering up.

Please read the entire article by Bing West  HERE  @ National Review

(ht/BareNakedIslam and of course, Ulsterman..

Father of Slain Benghazi SEAL: The White House Watched My Son Die & Did Nothing ..


  1. JanH permalink
    October 31, 2012 11:16 pm

    Clinton Seeks Fundamental Changes in American Foreign Policy (Washn)

    Wednesday October 31, 2012,
    Associated Press
    (c) 2012, Bloomberg News.

    WASHINGTON — Images of the charred U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, flashed around the world as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton entered the Treaty Room in Washington and spoke about the deaths of four Americans there.

    “Today, many Americans are asking, indeed I asked myself, how could this happen?” Clinton said. “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and at times how confounding the world can be.”

    As she visits Algeria and the Balkans on what may be one of her last overseas trips as the nation’s top diplomat, Clinton is also confronting her legacy, and whether it will be framed by the Benghazi tragedy or her vision that American foreign policy in the 21st Century must utilize social media, coalition- building and export promotion as well as military power.

    “It’s no longer enough to be strong,” Clinton wrote in July in the New Statesman. “Great powers also have to be savvy and persuasive. To do that, we need to expand our foreign policy toolbox, integrate every asset and partner, and fundamentally change the way we do business.”

    She has been one of the world’s most recognizable figures for more than 20 years. She turned 65 on Oct. 26, and the end of this phase of her public life is prompting questions about whether the next one might include a longer stay at the State Department or another run for the White House.

    While her energy and endurance — more than 918,000 miles to 112 countries over 384 travel days counting her current trip — in the face of personal and political trials have made her one of the nation’s most admired figures, her tenure now will be examined for lasting accomplishments.

    Her longer view, though, is obscured by the short attention span and limited peripheral vision of the Internet Age, and by the partisan politics of the presidential campaign.

    “With the Arab Spring came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation, an opportunity for greater participation on the part of women in public life and in economic life in the Middle East,” said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the Oct. 22 debate with President Barack Obama. “But instead we’ve seen in nation after nation a number of disturbing events.”

    Clinton critics, such as Hoover Institution senior fellow Fouad Ajami, don’t see how Clinton’s extensive travels have advanced U.S. interests. Clyde Prestowitz, president of the Economic Strategy Institute in Washington, questions her shift of resources to Asia and a trans-Pacific free-trade accord she promotes. Others say a control-conscious White House has shut her out of some top-drawer policy decisions on Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror.

    Clinton admirers, such as Leslie Gelb, a former State Department and Pentagon official, say the negative reviews ignore more than 717 White House meetings, her push for military intervention in Libya and how she has handled the strained U.S. relationship with Pakistan. They say the miles she travels — more than 30,000 to Russia and the South Pacific in September alone — are an investment in rebuilding ties essential to U.S. interests.

    The debate reflects a fundamental division in Washington and beyond over what constitutes American power in the 21st Century, how it’s evolving and how it should be wielded as other countries grow stronger and new players arise.

    New players include state-backed hedge funds along with cybercrime and cyberespionage, transnational threats such as piracy and climate change and the unpredictable “hive-mind” of restive populations linked by social media.

    Clinton thinks the “real power drivers” now go beyond military strength to include social media such as Menlo Park, Calif.-based Facebook Inc., said Jake Sullivan, the State Department’s director of policy planning. They also include managing the resentments of millions of unemployed young people worldwide, using aid to help stabilize shaky nuclear powers such as Pakistan and building coalitions, he said.

    Clinton and her advisers say that through new partnerships, old alliances, and innovative tools, not just military might, they aim to shape U.S. foreign policy for many years.

    Those represent “major changes in the way State does business,” Sullivan said. “The results of that will be measured over a generation. They won’t be measured over four years.”

    The new global dynamics, Clinton says, require that U.S. power be used in more creative ways. That vision will shape her legacy long after news cycles cease to be dominated by the Benghazi attack, her aides say. Clinton’s longer view is shared by Richard Armitage, who was deputy secretary of State under President George W. Bush.

    “When Mrs. Clinton came into office, it had been quite clear that the U.S. had been overly dependent on our hard power and neglected other aspects of our power, whether it’s sports, trade, education exchanges,” Armitage said in an interview.

    Clinton understands that “smart power” means “we’ve got to be active not just with servicemen and women, but we’ve got to be active with our ideas and values,” Armitage said.

    If persuasion is one of Clinton’s yardsticks for success, though, it’s been a tough three and a half years.

    Iran continues to pursue a suspected nuclear weapons program in the face of U.S.-led sanctions, heightening tensions between the White House and Israeli leaders, who say the window for diplomacy and sanctions is closing.

    Longstanding efforts to induce North Korea to renounce its nuclear program have failed so far. The 2009 attempt to “reset” relations with Russia hasn’t dispelled persistent friction over issues such as missile defense and the conflict in Syria.

    In Pakistan, billions of dollars in aid and three years of pushing leaders to crack down on the militants who target NATO troops in Afghanistan have produced only modest progress.

    Afghanistan remains bedeviled by the Taliban, and State Department efforts to curb corruption, improve governance and better the lot of women have moved slowly, officials acknowledge.

    The Middle East peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is moribund. In Iraq, ethnic and sectarian violence and Iran’s new influence undermine administration claims that the U.S. has left the country stable enough to thrive on its estimated 143 billion barrels of oil reserves.

    There’s no clear administration strategy for coping with unrest in nations such as Syria, Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. Traditional allies such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan are deeply unsettled by the U.S. backing for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster.

    “I’ve seen plenty of Gulf Arabs nervous, but never more so when we were perceived to have thrown Mubarak under the bus,” said veteran diplomat Strobe Talbott, a member of Clinton’s advisory board. “It was not a thing of beauty diplomatically.”

    Clinton is working within an administration that Gelb calls “highly centralized” in its decision-making. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor’s emailed description is that “foreign policy decisions are ultimately made by the president, but this is very much a team sport.”

    Gelb and others say Clinton has great freedom abroad and within her agency. She’s reorganized the State Department and forged closer ties to the Pentagon by adding more personnel exchanges. She’s had State work closely with the Treasury Department and the U.S. Trade Representative, including on China policy and boosting American exports.

    Continuing a trend that the first Bush administration started at the end of the Cold War, she has pushed U.S. embassies to make trade and promoting American business a greater part of diplomacy, taken over some tasks that used to be Commerce Department business and hired a chief economist.

    Because Clinton sees social media as a way for the U.S. to bypass leaders and speak directly to people overseas, she has stressed the importance of new media and information technology. Her department and its embassies now have 195 accounts with San Francisco-based Twitter and 290 Facebook pages with 15 million subscribers and tens of millions more visitors.

    Her department has spent $75 million on training and technology contracts for entrepreneurs to help activists in repressive countries communicate and avoid detection. In August, the department challenged the public to submit ideas on how smart phones can support arms-control efforts.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski, U.S. national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter, credits Clinton for her focus on the “new and very difficult, complex dispersed reality of power,” which he said differs from “the previous century, where the enemy was clearly defined and the challenge was self-evident.”

    Many of Clinton’s themes came together in a January 2011 address to the Arab world in Qatar, where she told leaders they had to heed the frustrations of unemployed youth and the calls for greater political freedom, opportunity and economic reform.

    “In too many places, in too many ways, the region’s foundations are sinking into the sand,” she said. It was less than a month after a Tunisian fruit vendor had set himself on fire, and a day before the country’s president was ousted. Two weeks later, protests in Egypt erupted.

    Even supporters such as Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, acknowledge that Clinton has no major foreign policy achievements — no deal with Iran or North Korea, no Mideast peace agreement.

    Still, said State Department official Sullivan: “When people look back 10 or 15 years from now, they’ll say, OK, she saw the trends coming and she did something about them.”

    Some of Clinton’s foreign policy challenges have erupted unexpectedly — so-called Black Swans in financial slang. At times, veteran diplomat Talbott said, there have been so many that they have seemed more “like a black cloud.”

    Clinton applies an intense work ethic to this cloud, using long hours on flights to work through encyclopedia-thick briefing binders or confer with Washington and other capitals. One former aide confessed he often found reasons to fly to foreign events early to get a respite from the nonstop work on the secretary’s plane.

    The relentless travel is about “building personal relationships,” said Anne-Marie Slaughter, Clinton’s former director of policy planning, now a professor at Princeton University in New Jersey.

    That attitude is the legacy of more than 40 years in retail politics with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, also a master at creating networks, showing up and showing you care.

    The secretary of state’s investment of time and energy in Southeast Asia has “made a difference,” particularly in the opening of Myanmar, where former political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi now sits in parliament, said Mathews.

    After the crisis over blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, Clinton told Bloomberg Radio that a resolution was possible because of work she and others had done with China to “create a level of personal relationships and understandings between individuals and our government institutions.”

    Personal ties don’t always yield benefits, though. Clinton has known Hamid Karzai since her days as a senator from New York, yet the Afghan president has sometimes been a prickly partner, at one point accusing the West of fraud in his country’s elections and threatening to join the Taliban.

    Still, Clinton sees value in dialogues she created with India, Brazil and China, and in forming an alliance of small Southeast Asian countries along the lower Mekong River.

    Those networks will last long after Clinton is gone, her aides say. “These are the types of things it will now take an affirmative decision to turn off,” said Andrew Shapiro, the State Department’s assistant secretary for political-military affairs. “And why would you?”

  2. November 1, 2012 12:01 am

    If Obama gains re-election, there is a fundamental change looming on the horizon for America. It involves freedom of speech and many other freedoms we take for granted.

    Egypt’s Brotherhood: Shariah Must Be (Egypt’s) Constitution’s Base

    Associated Press


    Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood said Wednesday it is committed to enshrining Islamic Shariah law as the main source of a new constitution, seeking to mollify ultraconservative Islamists who accuse the group of not advocating strongly enough for Islamic rule.

    Islamic influence in Egypt’s governance is the most inflammatory issue following last year’s ousting of longtime President Hosni Mubarak. Islamists have swept elections since then, and the Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi is the president _ but the Brotherhood faces criticism from even more stringent Islamists as much as from liberals.

    Ultraconservatives known as Salafis have pushed for firm language in the new constitution to ensure implementation of Shariah, even calling for demonstrations on Friday. Top Salafi clerics threatened to rally voters against the constitution when it is put to a vote in a referendum before end of this year, if their demands are not met.

    Together, Salafis and the Brotherhood dominate the 100-member assembly writing the new constitution.

    The controversy centers on the phrasing of key articles that expand the role of Islamic Sharia laws.

    The previous constitution said “the principles of Shariah” are the basis of law in Egypt. Liberals favored such phrasing, which they say allows greater leeway, meaning legislation can meet the broad ideas of Islam.

    Salafis wanted that changed to “the rulings of Shariah,” implying Egypt’s laws would have to abide by the strict letter of what clerics say is meant in Islamic law.

    Liberals fear that could bring heavy restrictions on many rights and would forge a new role for religious scholars similar to clerical rule in Iran.

    In its statement, the Muslim Brotherhood appeared to try to accommodate liberals’ demands by keeping the phrase “principles of Shariah,” while adding an article explaining what that means: the principles would include “the juristic rules” of Shariah agreed upon by scholars and the “accepted sources” of the Quran’s interpretation.

    Yousseri Hamad, spokesman of Al-Nour party, the most popular political arm of the Salafi movement, commented on the phrasing by saying, “this satisfies us and we agree on it.”

    Critics fear such wording could make it easier for hard-liners to challenge laws they feel don’t adhere to Shariah and empower legislators to pass laws that could impose heavy-handed limits on freedoms of expression, worship, faith and other civil liberties.

    The Muslim Brotherhood repeated its stance that the Shariah penal code should not be implemented for now by saying that the penal code determines punishment according to the crime after “preparing society first to understand Shariah and accept it.” However, it is not clear who would decide on when society would be ready for Shariah punishment for crimes, and such vague phrases spark more concerns.

    Many Egyptians fear the implementation of Islamic penal code as they watch neighboring Saudi Arabia punishing people convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape, adultery and armed robbery with execution, usually with a sword, cutting off limbs or stoning to death.

    The Brotherhood also defended its hard-line position on an article related to women rights.

    The proposed article, supported by the Brotherhood and Salafis, states that “women are equal to men without violating the laws of Islamic Shariah.” Liberals and rights advocates fear that would enable Islamist legislators to pass laws that violate women’s rights, such as lowering the age of marriage or permitting female genital mutilation.

    A new constitution would be a key step in establishing a democracy to replace the Mubarak’s regime, ousted last year in an uprising led by progressive, secular activists.

    But in the nearly 20 months since then, Islamists have emerged as the strongest political force. Morsi was elected president after the Brotherhood and the Salafis swept parliamentary elections, leaving the liberals with minimal representation. The parliament was later disbanded.

    The panel drafting the constitution said it could be ready for public discussion as early as the first half of November. The new constitution then would have to be put to a public referendum within 30 days.–Shariah-must-be-charter-base

  3. November 1, 2012 12:39 am

    Benghazi… and the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave…

    America will March Through Flood Water, Sewage and hell to Throw Obama out on Election Day

    “Regardless of the weakly excuse or sound bite, Obama has nowhere else to hide. The Zombies and Goblins are in every room. The Hurricane doesn’t even give him enough broken boards to hide behind. He is standing in front of us all naked, as a traitor, coward and failure of a President. He is shrinking smaller and smaller as the Wicked Witch of the East did when water hit her also in the Wizard of Oz.

    The largest branch of Government is on call, Hurricane or no Hurricane, voter intimidation, games and threats, we are on deck and called to vote like a ‘Brave heart’ this election and boot this evil traitor out of the White House. Let us ALL do it without pause.

    Romney and Ryan have a bold, conservative and liberating plan for America and her people. They aren’t perfection and we can all scream and yell about the details on the fringe, but they are the leaders that God has provided to give our country a real path for a comeback. They have said what they support. It is up to us to remind them of their commitment to the people, their word, our God and Constitution. They must undo the health care bill, restore freedoms, pull back draconian regulations, build back our energy systems and create real jobs.

    Americans haven’t been used to a Presidential team that leads, but rather destroys. Now, we must reset our buttons, put a real leadership team in the White House and co-lead and make them accountable.”

  4. November 1, 2012 3:45 am


    Excellent news from Ohio….

    Early voting

    Adrian Gray, who oversaw the Bush 2004 voter-contact operation and is now a policy analyst for a New York investment firm, makes the point that as of Tuesday, 530,813 Ohio Democrats had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot. That’s down 181,275 from four years ago. But 448,357 Ohio Republicans had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot, up 75,858 from the last presidential election. That 257,133-vote swing almost wipes out Mr. Obama’s 2008 Ohio victory margin of 262,224. Since most observers expect Republicans to win Election Day turnout, these early vote numbers point toward a Romney victory in Ohio. They are also evidence that Scott Jennings, my former White House colleague and now Romney Ohio campaign director, was accurate when he told me that the Buckeye GOP effort is larger than the massive Bush 2004 get-out-the-vote operation.

    That is not even factoring in independents which are expected to vote in numbers for Romney.

    The youth vote : Democrats explain away those numbers by saying that they are turning out new young Ohio voters. But Kelly Nallen, the America Crossroads data maven, points out that there are 12,612 GOP “millennials” (voters aged 18-29) who’ve voted early compared with 9,501 Democratic millennials.

  5. November 1, 2012 3:46 am

    Excellent news coming out of Washoe County, Nevada…The Dem early vote is way way behind what it was in 2008…..

    In the 12 days of early voting so far its

    Dem 41.3% Gop 40.3% (D+1), How significant is this, at this point in 2008, the gap was Dem 48.5%, GOP 34%(D+14.5)

    The GOP has erased a 14% advantage from 2008 in this county that is important for Romney.

  6. November 1, 2012 4:40 am

    Looking at what i see so far, early voting seems way down than what is was in 2008.

    In 2008, the total early vote was 30.6% of 132,653,958…….at present with early voting due to end in the next 2 days, that figures is currently 14.8% of the total of 2008′s total vote, some 50%. Unless we see a surge in the next few days, it would seem the Dem drop off is very very real.

    In Florida, the early vote in 2008 was 54% of the total, so far with 5 days before the election it is 31%.

  7. November 1, 2012 6:37 am

    moon- that is good news. We also need to put the word out to be watchful of votes for Romney being counted for Obama. That seems to be their answer for stealing votes in the battleground states.

  8. November 1, 2012 6:46 am

    A Presidency Fades Away…


  9. November 1, 2012 6:50 am

    When They Called; President Obama failed on Benghazi

  10. November 1, 2012 6:53 am

    Women United: Benghazi is Failure of Leadership, Call on President Obama to Tell the Truth


    New York, NY, October 30, 2012 — Today, Women United launches “When They Called,” which addresses President Obama’s failure of leadership in his highest duty, that of commander in chief. Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were abandoned by their commander in chief, who took credit for the SEAL operation that killed Bin Laden and made it a centerpiece of his political campaign, but who repeatedly stood before the cameras after the Benghazi attack and blamed the deaths of heroic Navy SEALs on a video that insulted Islam.

    We now know that the White House was monitoring the attack and was aware of events as they unfolded in Benghazi in real time.

    We now know that, in fact, the White House was told within two hours after the attack began that it was pre-planned, and carried out by heavily armed Islamist militia groups who publicly took credit for the attack.

    We now know that, over a period of seven agonizing hours, as the attack continued, our people on the ground pleaded desperately for help and were repeatedly denied.

    We don’t expect a perfect president, but we demand an honest one. We expect a president who will step up, make the tough decisions, and take responsibility. When it comes to the Benghazi massacre, President Obama has failed by every measure.

    It is in times of crisis, usually after lives have been lost, when the paramount importance of national security is brought home to the American people. We know—as the mothers, wives, sisters and daughters of the men and women who volunteer to serve in harm’s way—that their security and the security of our country depends on clear-eyed, unfaltering leadership.

    Today, we release “When They Called,” as a demand for President Obama to come clean with the American people, and as a call for Americans to rise up and elect a new commander in chief.

  11. November 1, 2012 6:59 am

    Gingrich: Senator Told Me Networks Have Emails From White House Ordering Team to Stand Down on Benghazi Rescue

    UPDATE: ​The Obama administration has denied that anyone at the White House nixed any requests for assistance in Benghazi.

    ​Original story below:

    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Tuesday a U.S. senator told him that at least two news networks have emails from the White House ordering a counterterrorism team to stand down on a rescue mission at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

    “There is a rumor — I want to be clear, it’s a rumor — that at least two networks have emails from the National Security Adviser’s office telling a counterterrorism group to stand down,” Gingrich told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “They were a group in real-time trying to mobilize Marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House ‘stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action.’”

    He continued, “If that’s true, and I’ve been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that’s true and that comes out in the next day or two, I think it raises enormous questions about the president’s role, Tom Donilon, the National Security Adviser’s role, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoulders, that he said don’t go. And I think that’s very dubious, given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to do everything they could to secure American personnel.”

    Gingrich said if accurate, it leaves two conclusions: that the the secretary of defense usurped the commander in chief or that Obama never gave the order.

    “I think you are going to see this come back tomorrow and the next day,” he said.

    Gingrich said he thinks Benghazi will be “enormous in terms of the election,” saying that he’s been to multiple places where voters want to know what happened.

    “[Benghazi] was suspended for two days by the storm coverage, which dominated everything, but I think tomorrow as the storm begins to recede, you’ll see Benghazi come back,” he said

    Watch below, via Fox News. Relevant portion begins at the 9:55 mark: (video w/Greta)

  12. November 1, 2012 7:01 am

    from a commentator at Gateway pundit:

    The evidence that has come out against this administration’s and their media’s best efforts is damning. It looks for all the world that Obama wanted Stevens dead, and watched him die while he commanded others not to interfere. Whether Obama was gun running between Libya and Syria and Stevens knew, or whether he is sadistic who knows. He had better come clean because most Americans can’t stomach this kind of outrage.

    And the media is unforgiveable at this point as well.

    If you are a registered Democrat voting for Obama, you’re either an absolute idiot or a cold, heartless scum.

  13. November 1, 2012 8:26 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: