Politics Caused Benghazi Tragedy and its Cover-Up

It was Obama himself who denied additional security to the embassy in Benghazi, Libya not Hillary Clinton as many had suspected. New emails and documents have shown that not only did the President and the administration know that this was a terrorist – while it was still happening – bit that absolutely nothing was done about it. The security was denied only because it would be admitting that the world was a more dangerous place. There was an election coming up and if they admitted this, it might hurt his re-election chances.

The State Department had even issued a traveled advisory warning people that Benghazi was dangerous with real threats of political violence and assassinations in August. Yet the White House continued to allow the Benghazi mission to be almost completely undefended. Intelligence e-mails before and after the attack have surfaced that show that the situation was well known.

When Barack Obama was informed of the violence at the Benghazi mission he went to bed. The attack lasted between 6 and 8 hours. During that time, an unarmed drone was reportedly launched, allowing real-time images and video to be seen by intelligence officials and the White House. Still, nothing was done through the assault and murder of 4 Americans including Ambassador Stevens.

The next morning challenger Mitt Romney openly wondered why the administration was silent on the attack and condemned the terrorism in Benghazi Libya and why the Cairo embassy seemed to apologize to the attackers. The White House went after Romney, saying he didn't know what he was talking about. This was the first instance where the administration seemingly denied that an attack took place.

For days the Obama administration kept the attention of a compliant press on the Romney “gaffe” as they worked on their next distraction. They could not politically allow the issue to become a foreign policy disaster.

The President then boarded Air Force One for a trip to Las Vegas for a multi-million dollar fund-raiser, giving the President hours to review the information on Benghazi. If the reports of the drone over Benghazi are true, then he likely had access to that aerial video as well.

Within days the administration would be openly castigating the Youtube video “Innocence of Muslims” and blaming it for causing a large protest that turned violent in Benghazi. We now know that there was no protest in Benghazi before the attack.

On September 16, five days later, UN Secretary Susan Rice on CBS saying …

“But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

SUSAN RICE: –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.”

Two days later Jay Carney said “MR. CARNEY: No, I’m saying that based on information that we — our initial information, and that includes all information — we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence — not supposition — concrete evidence that we have thus far”

“Based on the information that we have now, it was — there was a reaction to the video — there was protests in Cairo, then followed by protests elsewhere, including Benghazi, and that that was what led to the original unrest. The other factors here — all factors — but the other factors here, including participants in the unrest, participants in the violence, are under investigation”

The President himself, in front of the United Nations, continued the theme almost two weeks after the attack. “The future does not belong to those who blaspheme the prophet of Islam” - a clear reference to the Youtube video.

So why did the administration continue to go down that road when they clearly knew it was not true? Their actions and accusations about the video likely sparked deadly riots in other countries, like Pakistan. 23 people reportedly died in Pakistan riots while a paid TV ad by Obama and Hillary Clinton apologized to them for the offensive video.

So the admin had to keep downplaying the events and the impact. The four deaths were simply “bumps in the road” or it was “not optimal”. Anything to keep from having to answer the hard questions of why it had spiraled out of control.

Was it all a cover-up of their failure to provide more security to the embassy, which might affect his chances at being re-elected?

It was not optimal, it was OPTIONAL!

They watched them die.

They spent months denying them additional security.

Their first reaction after they watched this unfold was to bash Romney for pointing it out first, blaming a Youtube video to prove Romney was wrong. Politics took priority. Every day for 2 weeks they doubled down on the story.

Their blaming the video likely sparked riots in Muslim countries, governments around the world and even the UN condemned free speech, even Obama at the UN condemned those who blasphemed Islam.

ONLY later did they admit there was no protest over a video, only later did they admit it was a planned and coordinated terrorist attack. Then they tried to pretend none of this happened, that they NEVER blamed a video, then they accused Romney of making this a issue. Then Obama jokes on late night TV that it was "not optimal".

DID I MISS ANYTHING??

They watched them die

http://nypost.tumblr.com/post/34098192321/new-york-post-cover-for-sunday-october-21-2012

NY POST front page on Sunday

He knew

Who would have ever believed that a US President would be able to watch live drone feed of a savage terrorist attack on a US embassy where 4 Americans were brutally murdered and spend 2 weeks blaming a Youtube video and an innocent man? Possibly causing riots around the world by his actions?

Stupid People: A Global Pestilence

Everyone has seen third world countries collapse their economies like Zimbabwe, Argentina and the way Venezuela seems to be doing. We all have seen how fiscally irresponsible Europe and the United States have become. Rushing head-long into brick walls over and over and expecting different results.

.

France is ready to jump-start economic collapse by electing a President who immediately launched the 75% income tax. You can hear business owners and wealthy individuals scramble for the exits. The result is going to be less money moving around, less money invested, fewer jobs, less revenue and a lowering of the standard of living. It is as obvious as rain.

Then you have the European sovereign debt crisis as countries try to get a handle on the runaway spending. Or at least pretend to. They could easily become Zimbabwe writ large.

You have China, its government knows it is in trouble. With exports down due to the global economic slowdown they did the worst possible thing they could have done. They went on a "stimulus" spending spree building entire cities that lie dormant, massive public works projects. The result is that their hollow-shell economy is cracking like a Fabergé egg being stepped on by a horse.

Imagine that you live in a country under the gun of a hostile neighbour, literally miles from embedded artillery emplacements. You see the world in a death spiral due to unconstrained debt spending, especially spent on the unproductive sectors. Your hostile pal to the north is a "workers paradise" where 99% of the population live in grinding poverty without access to suitable healthcare or even food and water.

Meanwhile your nation is a top-7 economy. Your nation enjoys freedom. Your leaders are elected. Your media is free to criticize them. Your people are free to choose their own education and employment opportunities. A country where 97% graduate from high school.

But somehow, after just a few years of recession you are willing to chuck it all for the "feel-good" notion of "welfare for all". You have to understand that this is how the totalitarian state to your north came to be. You have to know that this idea is unworkable in the long-term. You have to know that this will change your nation for the worst for decades to come, at least.

This simply proves that stupid people can exist everywhere. That people exist who will toss common sense and sanity for catchy slogans and shallow, hollow ideals of "equality" or whatever.

But hardly anywhere will you see such rank stupid on display as this one:

Tax the 1% Rich; Welfare for the 99%

Does anyone really think it is possible for 99% to be on welfare? Seriously? Don't they know that people try to escape from countries that attempt these idiotic ideals? ....

Will Obama bomb Syria to change the topic?

Editorial: DIVERSION: US to Launch Strikes Against Syria?

DENVER, Colorado – After a dispiriting debate performance almost universally banned by media pundits on both sides of the aisle, President Obama rushed off the stage while his opponent basked in the glow of an obvious victory with his family. The President seemed to be in a confused, disinterested mood, not looking at Mitt Romney or the camera very often.

Many of the assertions made by the President were quickly rebutted by the media, such as claims to have trimmed the deficit by $4 trillion when no such planned existed. Indeed in his first term the budget deficits added around $5 trillion to the national debt and interested close to a trillion. His assertion that he cut taxes on small business 18 times was also quickly debunked.

Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad has a lot on his plate with the rebellion, terrorism run amuck and Turkey shelling and bombing Syrian position along the border, but he has to be even more worried now that President Barack Obama needs to change the subject from the campaign to something else.

Deflection, Diversion and Demagoguery has been a regular tactic for President Obama every time some failure or scandal threatened to erupt. When his administration apologized after their Cairo embassy was breached, not understanding that not far away in neighboring Libya the US Ambassador was being brutalized, assassinated and dragged through the streets the White House immediately pummeled Mitt Romney for jumping the gun. Then the administration denied there was terrorism involved for more than a week, instead blaming a Youtube video no-one had heard of before.

The debate has been panned by Democrats and opposition alike in the United States, making it the maybe the biggest embarrassment of this administration. Obviously President Obama will stay true to form and change the subject to something else. With his foreign policy in shambles maybe a bombing campaign against Syria's regime is just what his re-election campaign needs. No matter that it could easily become another Libya, Tunisia, Egypt etc where radical Islamists are coming to power. Only the short term political gains are important in this equation.

Bashar Al-Assad should probably be hiding far from Damascus in a secret bunker right about now.

Lawless State?

Can you imagine living in a lawless society, because that is the kind of thing we are getting from President Obama. His administration is asking federal contractors to violate the WARN Act and not send out layoff notices (before the election), promising to pay their fines for them.