Author Topic: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate  (Read 6846 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« on: October 13, 2012, 06:27:39 PM »
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/13/whoooah-hillary-strikes-back-attaches-u-n-ambassador-susan-rice-to-obama-white-house-propaganda-messaging

Hillary Strikes Back: Attaches U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to Obama White House Propaganda Messaging

Posted on October 13, 2012




The Clinton’s are clearly on a divergent path than President Obama.   Hillary just Judo’d Obama in this informative article posted in the UK Daily Mail.
 
In this report Secretary Clinton separates U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice from her State Department, and instead says that Rice was selling the message, and following orders, from the White House, not from the State Department.
 


Hillary goes on to say that THEY (State Department) NEVER felt it was a video movie that caused the Benghazi attack:
 
The State Department’s insistence it never bought the story – expressed by the White House and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations – that a crude anti-Islam film made in California triggered the attack gives ammunition against Obama both to the Romney campaign and congressional Republicans.
 
State Department sources have said that Clinton has never forgotten that Rice, who served in her husband Bill’s administration, was an early supporter of Obama. Rice has ambitions to take over from Clinton if Obama is re-elected but the Benghazi debacle could scupper her chances.
 
In a briefing on Tuesday, State Department officials said ‘others’ in the executive branch concluded initially that the attack was part of a protest against the film, which ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the State Department’s conclusion, reporters were told.   (read more)
 
What Hillary will have to answer for now is why “she”, as an individual, was repeating the storyline -up to and including Pakistani commercials- about a U-Tube video.   However she will probably be able to say she was just doing the job the White House needed to, or said had to, be done.   After all, President Obama is essentially her BOSS.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2012, 06:29:45 PM »
Despite their mutual lack of trust, Clinton and Obama have managed to keep their personal feelings under control — up to now. But in the wake of the fatal attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Clinton is concerned that the White House and Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago are moving to dump political and legal blame for the Libya mess on the State Department and, by definition, on Hillary Clinton herself.
 
My sources tell me that Clinton is working on a strategy that will allow Hillary to avoid having Benghazi become a stain on her political fortunes should she decide to run for president in 2016.
 
Bill Clinton has even gone so far as to seek legal advice about Hillary’s liability in terms of cables and memos that might be subpoenaed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which this week launched an investigation into the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The committee will also examine the apparent Obama administration cover-up that followed the Benghazi attack.
 
Finally, I’m told that Bill is playing with various doomsday scenarios, up to and including the idea that Hillary should consider resigning over the issue if the Obama team tries to use her as a scapegoat. That seems unlikely to happen. But if relations between Obama’s White House and Hillary’s State Department rupture publicly over the growing Benghazi scandal, that could damage the Democratic ticket and dim Obama’s chances for re-election.
 
Edward Klein, author of The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, is a New York Times bestselling author of numerous books including The Truth About Hillary. He is the former foreign editor of Newsweek, former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine, and a contributing editor of Vanity Fair.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/12/the-clinton-obama-rift/#ixzz29EUJ4gUQ





Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2012, 05:21:51 PM »
Hillary Clinton reveals what REALLY led to Benghazi massacre - and demolishes White House claim
 Daily Mail UK ^ | Oct. 12, 2012 | Toby Harnden In Washington

Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:06:17 PM by COUNTrecount

The State Department has said that it never believed the September 11th attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was the result of a protest over an anti-Islam movie - directly contracting the rest of the Obama administration.

By trying to distance her department from the inept and deceptive handling of the Benghazi attack, which left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officials dead, Hillary Clinton could help herself politically for a 2016 presidential run.

A dramatic new account by the State Department reveals that Stevens was locked inside a 'safe room' choking to death from diesel-heavy smoke as the building around him burned to the ground.

Alongside him was a security guard, tasked with the impossible choice between staying in the deadly room - or facing the rocket-propelled grenades and machine-guns outside.

Eventually the guard slipped through the window (cut)

No-one saw the ambassador alive again - another agent tried desperately to enter the safe-room, but could not find him anywhere.

The State Department's insistence it never bought the story - expressed by the White House and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations - that a crude anti-Islam film made in California triggered the attack gives ammunition against Obama both to the Romney campaign and congressional Republicans.

State Department sources have said that Clinton has never forgotten that Rice, who served in her husband Bill's administration, was an early supporter of Obama. Rice has ambitions to take over from Clinton if Obama is re-elected but the Benghazi debacle could scupper her chances.

In a briefing on Tuesday, State Department officials said 'others' in the executive branch concluded initially that the attack was part of a protest against the film, which ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the State Department's conclusion, reporters were told.


(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2012, 05:57:05 PM »
Posted on October 13, 2012 by John Hinderaker in Libya, Obama Administration Scandals, Obama Foreign Policy
 
What Happened In Benghazi
 




The State Department has released a transcript of a briefing that two high-ranking department officials gave to a number of reporters via conference call on October 9 (Tuesday). I am not certain about this, but I believe the transcript was only made public today. You should read it in its entirety; it is the most detailed description I have seen of the events in Benghazi on September 11.

While this is by no means clear, it appears that the State Department may have released the transcript as part of the escalating conflict between Barack Obama and Joe Biden and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. In their desperation to avoid responsibility for the Benghazi debacle, Obama and Biden have pointed fingers in two directions: at the intelligence community for reporting incorrectly that the incident was a protest over a YouTube video clip, and at the State Department for not providing adequate security for the Ambassador.
 
Here are some excerpts from the narrative:
 

A few minutes later – we’re talking about 9 o’clock at night – the Ambassador retires to his room, the others are still at Building C, and the one agent in the [Tactical Operations Center]. At 9:40 p.m., the agent in the TOC and the agents in Building C hear loud noises coming from the front gate. They also hear gunfire and an explosion. The agent in the TOC looks at his cameras – these are cameras that have pictures of the perimeter – and the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound. One special agent immediately goes to get the Ambassador in his bedroom and gets Sean, and the three of them enter the safe haven inside the building. …
 
They turn around immediately and head back – or the two of them, from Building B, turn around immediately with their kit and head back to Villa C, where the Ambassador and his colleagues are. They encounter a large group of armed men between them and Building C. I should say that the agent in Building C with the Ambassador has radioed that they are all in the safe haven and are fine. The agents that encounter the armed group make a tactical decision to turn around and go back to their Building B and barricade themselves in there. So we have people in three locations right now.
 
And I neglected to mention – I should have mentioned from the top that the attackers, when they came through the gate, immediately torched the barracks. It is aflame, the barracks that was occupied by the 17th February Brigade armed host country security team. I should also have mentioned that at the very first moment when the agent in the TOC seized [sic -- apparently should read "sees"] the people flowing through the gate, he immediately hits an alarm, and so there is a loud alarm. He gets on the public address system as well, yelling, “Attack, attack.” Having said that, the agents – the other agents had heard the noise and were already reacting.
 
Okay. So we have agents in Building C – or an agent in Building C with the Ambassador and Sean, we have two agents in Building B, and we have two agents in the TOC. All – Building C is – attackers penetrate in Building C. They walk around inside the building into a living area, not the safe haven area. The building is dark. They look through the grill, they see nothing. They try the grill, the locks on the grill; they can’t get through. The agent is, in fact, watching them from the darkness. He has his long gun trained on them and he is ready to shoot if they come any further. They do not go any further.
 
They have jerry cans. They have jerry cans full of diesel fuel that they’ve picked up at the entrance when they torched the barracks. They have sprinkled the diesel fuel around. They light the furniture in the living room – this big, puffy, Middle Eastern furniture. They light it all on fire, and they have also lit part of the exterior of the building on fire. At the same time, there are other attackers that have penetrated Building B. The two agents in Building B are barricaded in an inner room there. The attackers circulate in Building B but do not get to the agents and eventually leave.
 
A third group of attackers tried to break into the TOC. They pound away at the door, they throw themselves at the door, they kick the door, they really treat it pretty rough; they are unable to get in, and they withdraw. Back in Building C, where the Ambassador is, the building is rapidly filling with smoke. The attackers have exited. The smoke is extremely thick. It’s diesel smoke, and also, obviously, smoke from – fumes from the furniture that’s burning. And the building inside is getting more and more black. The Ambassador and the two others make a decision that it’s getting – it’s starting to get tough to breathe in there, and so they move to another part of the safe haven, a bathroom that has a window. They open the window. The window is, of course, grilled. They open the window trying to get some air in. That doesn’t help. The building is still very thick in smoke. …
 
Okay. We’ve got the agent. He’s opening the – he is suffering severely from smoke inhalation at this point. He can barely breathe. He can barely see. He’s got the grill open and he flops out of the window onto a little patio that’s been enclosed by sandbags. He determines that he’s under fire, but he also looks back and sees he doesn’t have his two companions. He goes back in to get them. He can’t find them. He goes in and out several times before smoke overcomes him completely, and he has to stagger up a small ladder to the roof of the building and collapse. He collapses. …
 
The agent in the TOC, who is in full gear, opens the door, throws a smoke grenade, which lands between the two buildings, to obscure what he is doing, and he moves to Building B, enters Building B. He un-barricades the two agents that are in there, and the three of them emerge and head for Building C. There are, however, plenty of bad guys and plenty of firing still on the compound, and they decide that the safest way for them to move is to go into an armored vehicle, which is parked right there. They get into the armored vehicle and they drive to Building C.
 
They drive to the part of the building where the agent had emerged. He’s on the roof. They make contact with the agent. Two of them set up as best a perimeter as they can, and the third one, third agent, goes into the building. This goes on for many minutes. Goes into the building, into the choking smoke. When that agent can’t proceed, another agent goes in, and so on. And they take turns going into the building on their hands and knees, feeling their way through the building to try to find their two colleagues. They find Sean. They pull him out of the building. He is deceased. They are unable to find the Ambassador. …
 
At this point, the quick reaction security team and the Libyans, especially the Libyan forces, are saying, “We cannot stay here. It’s time to leave. We’ve got to leave. We can’t hold the perimeter.” So at that point, they make the decision to evacuate the compound and to head for the annex. The annex is about two kilometers away. My agents pile into an armored vehicle with the body of Sean, and they exit the main gate. …
 
[T]hey take fire almost as soon as they emerge from the compound. They go a couple of – they go in one direction toward the annex. They don’t like what they’re seeing ahead of them. There are crowds. There are groups of men. They turn around and go the other direction. They don’t like what they’re seeing in that direction either. They make another u-turn. They’re going at a steady pace. There is traffic in the roads around there. This is in Benghazi, after all. Now, they’re going at a steady pace and they’re trying not to attract too much attention, so they’re going maybe 15 miles an hour down the street.
 
They come up to a knot of men in an adjacent compound, and one of the men signals them to turn into that compound. They agents [sic] at that point smell a rat, and they step on it. They have taken some fire already. At this point, they take very heavy fire as they go by this group of men. They take direct fire from AK-47s from about two feet away. The men also throw hand grenades or gelignite bombs under – at the vehicle and under it. At this point, the armored vehicle is extremely heavily impacted, but it’s still holding. There are two flat tires, but they’re still rolling. …
 
As the night goes on, a team of reinforcements from Embassy Tripoli arrives by chartered aircraft at Benghazi airport and makes its way to the compound – to the annex, I should say. And I should have mentioned that the quick reaction – the quick reaction security team that was at the compound has also, in addition to my five agents, has also returned to the annex safely. The reinforcements from Tripoli are at the compound – at the annex. They take up their positions. And somewhere around 5:45 in the morning – sorry, somewhere around 4 o’clock in the morning – I have my timeline wrong – somewhere around 4 o’clock in the morning the annex takes mortar fire. It is precise and some of the mortar fire lands on the roof of the annex. It immediately killed two security personnel that are there, severely wounds one of the agents that’s come from the compound.
 
At that point, a decision is made at the annex that they are going to have to evacuate the whole enterprise. And the next hours are spent, one, securing the annex, and then two, moving in a significant and large convoy of vehicles everybody to the airport, where they are evacuated on two flights.
 
Barack Obama, meanwhile, was jetting off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.
 
It was obvious to the reporters on the call that this narrative blows Obama’s evasions sky high:
 

First question is from the line of Anne Gearan with the Washington Post. Please go ahead.
 
QUESTION: Hi. You said a moment ago that there was nothing unusual outside, on the street, or outside the gates of the main compound. When did the agents inside – what – excuse me, what did the agents inside think was happening when the first group of men gathered there and they first heard those explosions? Did they think it was a protest, or did they think it was something else?
 
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The agent in the TOC heard the noise, heard the firing. Firing is not unusual in Benghazi at 9:40 at night, but he immediately reacted and looked at his cameras and saw people coming in, hit the alarm. And the rest is as I described it. Does that help?
 
This exchange is priceless:
 

OPERATOR: The next question is from the line of Brad Klapper with AP. Please, go ahead.
 
QUESTION: Hi, yes. You described several incidents you had with groups of men, armed men. What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?
 
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound.
 
So Hillary Clinton and the State Department unequivocally reject the account that Barack Obama and Joe Biden have given. It is hard to imagine what “intelligence” reports Obama could have received that blamed the YouTube video. He is lying, evidently.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2012, 06:18:23 PM »

Administration plays confusing blame game with Libyan attacks
Libyan attack
October 14, 2012
By: Anthony Martin
Subscribe






 .

Hillary Clinton fires back at the White House over its continually changing tale of what led to the attacks in Libya.


 Credits: 


(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)














12 Email
 .



Get Republican alerts!
 



+










. .







Related topics
•Libyan attack
•Libya
•Obama Administration
•Hillary Clinton
•Joe Biden
•Susan Rice
.

Advertisement

 





A confusing array of contradictions concerning the murders of four Americans, one of which was a U.S. ambassador, was made worse by Vice President Joe Biden's remarks during the debate with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan Thursday evening.
 
Today the confusion only worsened yet again when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that her agency was not the source of misinformation concerning the attacks, charging instead that the White House was the source of the false mantra that the murders were spurred by an anti-Muslim film made in the United States.
 
Clinton told reporters that when Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her rounds on every Sunday morning news show to claim the film motivated the attacks, the information had been fed to her by the White House and not the intelligence community in the State Department or the CIA.
 
Not only does Clinton's statement contradict early White House accounts but directly contradicts statements made by Vice President Biden during the debate.
 
Biden claimed that the White House had only repeated the information provided by the intelligence community and that no one had been informed of the facts concerning the nature of the attacks and their connection to al Qaeda terrorism.
 
The claims of Biden are further debunked by the testimony of State Department officials before Congress, who stated that the situation on the ground in Libya had been monitored in real time and that no protests against the film had been noted prior to the assassinations.
 
In addition, State Department officials state that U.S. ambassadors are appointed by and operate under the jurisdiction of the White House, not the State Department. For the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to go on national television to claim that the attacks were motivated by Muslim outrage over a film is a direct indication that the White House itself is the source of the false mantra that the film led to the assassinations.
 
Ambassador Rice would not have the authority to speak for the administration in such a sensitive matter of national security except under the specific direction of the White House.
 
The confusing blame game being played by the administration took yet another odd turn when Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter claimed that the only reason the Libyan assassinations are a major issue is the fact that the Romney-Ryan campaign is stirring it up.
 
Cutter's remarks were immediately condemned by those who note that Ambassador Chris Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador to be assassinated in over 30 years and that the families of the slain diplomats deserve answers concerning the events that led to their deaths.
 
The seriousness of the situation is compounded by the fact that intelligence officials report that on at least three separate occasions Ambassador Stevens and others had made official requests for added security in light of growing anti-American sentiment in the region.
 
The administration's retort concerning the requests is that the reason such added security was not provided was due to budget cuts the House made to the overseas security of U.S. embassies.
 
However, no budget has been approved by Congress in nearly four years due to the failure of the Democrat-controlled Senate to pass a budget. Thus, there was no budget that supposedly cut anything. Senate Democrats also signed off on the reductions in funding to overseas security for diplomats.
 
The administration further had no problem finding the money to provide Chevy Volts for diplomats overseas. Yet it claims it had no money to provide extra security for a U.S. ambassador who felt his life was in danger for months prior to the assassinations.
 
ALERT!

flipper5470

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1401
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2012, 09:00:48 PM »
The constant stream of lies and obfuscations about the attack and security situation leading up to it are bad enough...and by bad enough I mean bad enough to cost everyone from Obma on down thier jobs...but the fact that Obama just turned his back on the situation to go to bed and fly to Vegas is truly apalling.   The man has no concern for the well being of Americans HE'S placed in harms way?  Fuck him...may he burn in hell.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2012, 09:19:34 PM »
hilary protecting her political future and her legacy.

obama needs to own up - "we ignored the warnings" and allow a true investigation from an INDEPEDENT source.   Any time a govt investigates themselves with people they appoint, you already know the result.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2012, 11:54:22 AM »
And Now He's Ticked Off Hillary (State Dept. vs the White House ... Break out the Pop Corn!)
 Townhall ^ | 10/15/2012 | Mark Baisley


Posted on Monday, October 15, 2012 2:09:56 PM




I am imagining that Hillary Clinton is spending a great deal of time with close advisors and political strategists this week.  She has been a very good soldier for Barack Obama for four years now.  But there is no way that Hillary Clinton is going to allow her own presidential ambitions for 2016 to be spoiled so that Barack Obama can be re-elected in 2012.


An inevitable gunfight has been building between the Chicago Democratic machine and the Arkansas Democratic royalty for weeks now.  And President Obama can thank his short-sighted Vice President for expediting the inevitable shootout to begin at the same time as early voting.


President Obama has escaped disaster time after time with scandals and cover-ups that would have taken down the cleanest Republican president.  The abuse of the National Labor Relations Board in an attempt to force Boeing to place its 787 plant in union-controlled Washington State left no chinks in Obama’s armor.  Bribing Lockheed Martin with covering of legal expenses if they will postpone required layoff notices until after the election does not seem to have raised a single liberal eyebrow.  Even invoking Executive Privilege to withhold information from Congress regarding the murders of an American Border Patrol and hundreds of Mexican citizens has not shaken the President’s loyal following.


But while the yellow-tinted, main-stream media is blatantly positioned on the side of the Democratic Party, they did not count on having to choose sides between Barack and Hillary in the final days of the 2012 presidential election.


It all started innocently enough.  The President and his Secretary of State set out on an international tour beginning in 2010, sharing enlightened American liberalism to a welcoming world.  Cultures who once hated America would naturally embrace the new oneness with a Presidential bow. 




The State Department’s mission now includes promoting the agenda of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community worldwide.  Or, as Secretary Clinton put it, “So here at the State Department, we will continue to advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We are elevating our human rights dialogues with other governments and conducting public diplomacy to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons.” (See http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/06/143517.htm)




We could certainly expect that asserting the LGBT acceptance message to other cultures, especially to muslim countries, would be the Obama Administration’sdaisy in the gun barrel milestone.  To quote Secretary Clinton’s closing line in her address calling on every State Department bureau and every embassy to participate in the advancing of worldwide LGBT tolerance, this is “one of history’s great moments.”




Even Hollywood’s international ambassador, Madonna, did her part in carrying out the mission on an informal basis this summer.  Last month, while entertaining a crowd in Washington, D.C., the pop star included this supportive mention of the President’s program, “Y’all better vote for f_ _ _ _ _ g Obama, OK?  For better or for worse, alright?  We have a black muslim in the White House.  Now that is some s _ _ t.  Some amazing s _ _ t.  It means there is hope in this country.  And Obama is fighting for gay rights.  OK?  So support the man, G_ _ _ _ _ mit!”  This heartwarming message was delivered to an American audience shortly after returning to the U.S. from her tour in two decidedly Islamic countries, where she treated her muslim audience to a flash of her right mammilla during a concert in Istanbul.




After softening up the militantly modest sensibilities of Islam’s religious police through messaging, supported by Madonna’s indecent exposure tour, the Obama Administration got down to some thoughtful personnel deployments.  In an apparent act of altruistic hope and change, the State Department dispatched a gay man as Ambassador to Libya.  What could possibly go wrong?




The murder of Christopher Stevens and three other Americans took place just three months after Stevens arrived as America’s Ambassador to Libya.  In response to this horrific act, the Obama Administration and Clinton State Department jointly concluded that Libyans must simply have become impulsively emotional over a YouTube video called The Innocence of Muslims (see the trailer HERE).  After all, it was produced by a Coptic Christian who lives in California, USA.




Now here’s where the story gets weird.  The Obama Administration went all-in with the YouTube video as the sole impulse for Ambassador Stevens’ death.  They dispatched Susan Rice, America’s Ambassador to the United Nations, on a persuasion tour across television talk shows to convince U.S. citizens that an offensive video was the Libyan Ambassador’s actual cause of death.  The President himself even asserted the story on David Letterman’s nighttime show.  Every other spokesperson for the Administration stuck to the script.




The State Department even created a television ad (linked HERE) to calm down Muslims who may be prone to violence as a result of the YouTube video.  They paid Pakistani television outlets $70,000 to play the ad, which features both President Obama at the White House and Secretary Clinton saying, “Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video.  We absolutely reject its contents.  America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”  One week later, the Coptic Christian filmmaker was arrested in California.




Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter struggled awkwardly in a live interview with Brett Baier to defend the Obama Administration’s storytelling.  Once off-air, she cried, “Help me, Brett.  I’m too pretty to be a Democratic Party hack.  I should be a Fox News girl!”  (OK; That last part is not true.)




But Congress has called on State Department personnel to testify under oath about the Libyan embassy attack.  And nothing from testimony is consistent with the Obama Administration’s contention that the murders were a spontaneous mob response to an amateur video.  Nor does the State Department support Vice President Biden’s debate claim (repeated by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney) that the lack of security personnel was due to funding cuts implemented by Congressman Paul Ryan “for the wealthiest 2%.”




The Obama-Biden team seems very willing to let Hillary Clinton become the scapegoat for their poor handling of foreign affairs and for covering up the real story of a loyal American left shamefully vulnerable by a president who blows off intelligence briefings daily.  Secretary Clinton will not take the fall for this president.  And if Bill Clinton chooses to weigh in on behalf of his wife this month, Mitt Romney will walk across the finish line on November 6.  In the worst timing for an administration up for re-election, a dithering media may actually choose to investigate the truth - out of not knowing what else to do.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2012, 08:35:12 AM »
Hillary Throws Obama Under The Bus
 Ace of Spades ^ | 10/16 | Ace of Spades

Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 10:40:41 AM by RummyChick

Last night from the relative safety of Lima, Peru Hillary Clinton announced that when it comes to the Benghazi disaster the buck stops with her (sort of).

Many have taken this as a sign Hilary is taking the fall for Obama and letting him off the hook. I have a a different theory....David Axlerod tried to throw her under the bus and she tossed it right back on him and Obama.

What Hillary has done is basically say, "the damn phone is ringing and President Creased Trousers isn't answering it so give it to me. She comes off as the grown up who said, look I'm in charge here and for good or ill that makes me responsible".

People tend to admire others who stand up and take the hits. Hillary looks like A-the loyal soldier and B-the only one who is going to stand up and say, "something awful happened on my watch and I'm going to look in the mirror to see who is in charge and not like some other people I could name, look around for scapegoats".

Hillary isn't taking the blame, she's taking the credit.

Now a lot of this is hypocritical because Hillary already tried casting the blame elsewhere but when all else fails, it's sometimes better to own it in the end.

How does this hurt Obama? Well tonight he will be standing next to Mitt Romney. Romney you might recall has made a rather big stink about Obama's failure to lead and his own stellar leadership record.

Here's how he might play this when Benghazi comes up (or he brings it up himself)..."It's all well and good that Secretary Clinton is taking responsibility but my leadership experience has taught me that only the person at the top of the organization is truly responsible. President Obama is at the top of the Executive Branch and he's ducking responsibility. I'd like to know if the President agrees with the Secretary and if he does, why hasn't he asked for her resignation? If he doesn't agree, why doesn't he say who is responsible? Most importantly, why hasn't he taken responsibility from Day 1. Harry Truman didn't say the buck stopped at the Department of State, it stopped at his desk in the Oval Office."

And then it will get ugly for Obama when Romney ads, "And who does the President blame for the failure of his policies to get this economy going? The Secretary of the Treasury? Maybe he blames you the voters for not paying enough in taxes. This country needs a President who accepts the responsibility that comes with the job and doesn't blame his subordinates."

Obama will have no answer to any of that. He also can't fire Hillary because that would cause problems with Team PUMA and his administration would be in disarray 3 weeks before the election

He can't suddenly say, "Oh no, it's me not Hillary who is responsible" because A-he doesn't believe that and B-It's too late. She beat him to the punch, he'll look like he's scrambling to catch up (which he would be).

Mitt's been running a campaign based on his leadership and Obama's unwillingness and inability to lead. The second most popular (maybe the most popular) Democrat in the country, who happens to be Obama's own Secretary of State, just co-signed that charge by stepping into the vacuum Obama's cowardice created.

What Hillary has done is hand Mitt a baseball bat, turned him in the direction of the giant Obama pinata on stage tonight and said, "Have at buddy. Maybe I'll see you in four years".

And what's the downside to Hillary? None. No one is really going to hold her responsible. The DMM (Democratic Machine Media) won't. The GOP certainly won't (update: as predicted) and Obama can't. She'll be hailed as "presidential", "the one official willing to stand up and take responsibility" and ironically enough, a "good soldier".

Don't forget, Hillary has seen a variation on this play work before. Remember Janet Reno taking the blame for Waco? Clinton looked weak and Reno owned him for the rest of his presidency.

Sure it's kabuki theater and there are still plenty of outstanding questions (who said "hey, let's blame a protest about some tape" among them) but the story will be the debate and if Romney can use it to put Obama back on his heels. By the time Hillary gets back in the country the story and the campaign will have moved on and the damage to Obama will be done.

Maybe Hillary didn't do all of this on purpose (but why wait until now to do this?) but intentionally or not, she's teed this up for Mitt. Will he hit it?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2012, 05:45:22 PM »
Aide: Obama takes responsibility for Libya attack
Journal Review ^ | 10/16/12

Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:09:44 PM by Libloather

Aide: Obama takes responsibility for Libya attack
Associated Press
Posted: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 5:48 pm



A top campaign aide says that President Barack Obama takes responsibility for the consulate attack in Libya that killed four Americans.



Deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter tells The Associated Press in a phone interview Tuesday that, quote, "every time an American dies abroad, everybody takes responsibility, from the top down."



Asked whether that includes Obama, Cutter says, quote, "Absolutely ... He's the president of the United States."


(Excerpt) Read more at journalreview.com ...




LOL - now both want the blame.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2013, 03:34:45 AM »
Clinton sought end-run around counter-terrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say
FoxNews.com ^ | 5-5-2013 | James Rosen, Chad Pergram
Posted on 05/05/2013 6:04:51 PM PDT by servo1969

On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a "whistle-blower" witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.

That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau -- independently of Thompson -- voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Click to Add Topic

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2013, 12:17:46 PM »
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks



This was while obama slept on the night of the attack. 

FUBO!!  Kenyan communist scum 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2013, 12:23:08 PM »
I hope this stuff isn't true.  If it is, heads should roll. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2013, 12:25:37 PM »
I hope this stuff isn't true.  If it is, heads should roll. 

Of course its true! 

And heads won't roll.   This is the new USA under the communist junta w a crack head traitor pos at 1600 Pa Ave.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2013, 05:26:59 AM »
Skip to comments.
Is Benghazi Becoming a Watergate, or Iran-Contra, or Both?
 National Review ^ | 5-6-2013 | Victor Davis Hanson - Commentary

Posted on Monday, May 06, 2013 11:07:08 PM by smoothsailing

May 6, 2013

Is Benghazi Becoming a Watergate, or Iran-Contra, or Both?

Victor Davis Hanson

Benghazi cannot be dismissed with “long ago” or “what difference does it make” exasperation, given it may have the cover-up and civil-liberties aspects of Watergate and the weapon-transfers and foreign-policy implications of Iran-Contra.

1. Can a State Department be credible that on its own accord seeks to alter intelligence synopses, and deny facts to maintain a pre-election narrative? For all the criticism of the State Department under most Republican presidents, at least the tension between State and the administration kept State honest and independent. But Benghazi shows that State has now almost descended into an arm of the 2012 reelection effort, in the manner of the media itself, as we saw in Candy Crowley’s exasperation over the Benghazi dispute in the third presidential debate. In Watergate, intelligence and law-enforcement officials were pressured to change their assessments to reflect pseudo-national security concerns; but in this case, the State Department and/or administration officials themselves willingly refashioned them as the political situation apparently demanded.

2. Civil libertarians should be concerned about the free-speech/due process implications in the fate of the otherwise petty criminal Mr. Nakoula, who was summarily jailed — coincidently right after the president had alluded to his video at the U.N. with, “The future must not be determined by those who insult the prophet of Islam.” But so far there is no evidence that Mr. Nakoula’s amateurish YouTube trailer had anything to do with the violence in Benghazi. Instead his crime seems to have been offering an ideal scapegoat for a pre-election narrative of a right-wing, bigoted Islamophobe, whose extremism prompted an understandable pushback against innocent Americans abroad, and who could make amends to the Muslim world by going back to jail, while offering a rhetorical occasion for the president of the United States to remind the Muslim world that we all suffer from the excesses of common enemies such as intolerant reactionaries like Nakoula.

3. Usually an administration errs on the side of caution in cases of potential violence at embassies and consulates. But did the pre-November narrative of a moribund al-Qaeda in the aftermath of the bin Laden raid, and a Libyan spring blooming after the “lead from behind” American-aided removal of Qaddafi, trump on-the-ground worries about the safety of our diplomats? In other words, both before and during the attacks, did the State Department and/or the administration decide that the dangers to our diplomats were outweighed by greater fears of a possible embarrassing Mogadishu-like shoot-out? Were military recommendations ignored, or massaged before being voiced?

4. What exactly were we doing in Benghazi, with both a consulate and a CIA compound, and what if any were the connections between the late ambassador, Libyan weapons, Syria, arming rebels, Turkey, etc.? And who exactly were the terrorists working for, or what exactly were they trying to achieve?

5. Why did not Secretary Clinton or President Obama simply come out and say that they misread the requests from Libya and should have beefed up security, and that al-Qaeda remains a deadly foe that tries to attack us and our Libyan allies? Had they just been honest, the public would probably have forgiven their laxity. The subsequent resignations of the secretaries of state and defense, and the director of the CIA will make reconstruction of events much more difficult.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2013, 06:51:07 AM »
Benghazi Ghosts Haunt White House
 Townhall.com ^ | May 7, 2013 | Mona Charen

Posted on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:46:46 AM by Kaslin



My iPhone buzzes on a regular basis with "news alerts" from Politico, The Hill and other sources. Politico provides breathless, this-cannot-wait-till-you-get-to-your desk "breaking news" sirens on every hiccup emanating from the White House. On April 22, for example, the news flash permitted me to learn without delay that "President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will on Thursday attend a memorial service for the victims of last week's explosion in West, Texas."

When three career employees of the State Department announced their intention to testify before Congress -- contradicting the Obama administration's carefully constructed storyline about events in Benghazi, Libya -- my phone was silent. News is very much in the eye of the beholder.

One of these whistle-blowers, Gregory N. Hicks, was the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya and reportedly the last American to see Ambassador Chris Stevens alive. His testimony about the nature of the Benghazi assault should be illuminating. Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator for the State Department's counterterrorism bureau, will apparently testify that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was keen to obscure the terror links of the attackers in Benghazi and accordingly kept the counterterrorism officers at State out of the loop in planning the response to the attack.

In anticipation of the hearings, which begin Wednesday, a few basic questions ought to be on the minds of members of Congress.

President Obama claimed repeatedly in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack that he would do everything in his power to ensure that the perpetrators are "brought to justice." During the second presidential debate, Obama said, "We are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I've said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them." Oh? For three weeks, American officials did not even visit the scene. On Oct. 18, The New York Times reported that one of the ringleaders of the attack, Ahmed Abu Khattala, was sipping a strawberry frappe on the patio of a luxury hotel and scoffing at the idea that he should go into hiding.

He was right. No one has been brought to justice, and there's little evidence that the Obama administration has made any effort. Just this past week, eight months after the attacks, the FBI released photos of three suspects. The Tashkent municipal police department could have moved faster.

If reporting by Stephen Hayes in The Weekly Standard and accounts of what the whistle-blowers will say are correct, the shaky edifice of lies that the Obama administration erected about Benghazi is about to collapse.

Whistle-blowers will confirm what has been reported before -- that the administration knew within hours of the attack that it was a terrorist act. The CIA station chief in Libya said as much. Yet -- Candy Crowley to the contrary notwithstanding -- the president and his spokesmen concocted a fairy tale about an Internet video that insulted the Prophet Muhammad and a demonstration that got out of hand. This narrative was peddled most prominently by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, but it also was mentioned by Clinton and the president himself.

White House emails released to Congress show that an interagency group, getting direction from the White House, altered the CIA's talking points to remove references to al-Qaida, jihadis and five previous attacks by terrorists on Western interests in Libya. Does anyone remember the phrase "politicizing intelligence"?

When Clinton testified before Congress on Benghazi (and ran circles around the panel), she referred repeatedly to the "ARB," the Accountability Review Board, to prove that her department had been blameless in failing to provide additional security to the consulate and in handling the aftermath. But that piece of the wall is now in danger of coming loose, as well. State's inspector general is investigating the ARB and may inquire as to why the secretary of state herself, among others, was never interviewed during its investigation.

Clinton's demand -- "What difference does it make?" -- deserves a reply. The public deserves to know if the mistakes the administration made -- conceptual, tactical or both -- contributed to the deaths of four Americans. The public also deserves to know whether the president and his agents audaciously and brazenly lied about a national security matter for political gain.


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2014, 12:19:50 PM »
Of course its true! 

And heads won't roll.   This is the new USA under the communist junta w a crack head traitor pos at 1600 Pa Ave.

Of course it's true.  And heads WONT roll because repubs aren't pushing the issue. 


IMPEACH.   Wimp ass repubs and their "Oh, we can't punish obama, let's just give him 28 more months in office..."

They disgust me.  Obama LET those brave americans die... and they're allowing him to stay in office, not face impeachment or charges because Rush tells them they might win more seats in 2014.   Fcking traitors, trading justice for political gain.   

Dos Equis/Beach Bum,
many of us believed from minute #1 that Obama monitored it, and refused to let those forces stationed ONE HOUR AWAY go help them, as they battled for 8 hours to save their lives. PLENTY of time to help them.

obama didn't want a massace of 200 bad guys + whatever women and children they sprinkled in the crowd, all over the world's papers, right before election, so Romney could say "look, another obama failure, another massacre, blah blah".

Bout time Dos Equis and the rest of the "let's not impeach" crowd stopped denying the FACT that obama let them die that day :(

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39450
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Hillary - neither wants the blame for BenghaziGate
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2014, 12:22:26 PM »
F impeachment - im on the deportation band wagon now

Of course it's true.  And heads WONT roll because repubs aren't pushing the issue. 


IMPEACH.   Wimp ass repubs and their "Oh, we can't punish obama, let's just give him 28 more months in office..."

They disgust me.  Obama LET those brave americans die... and they're allowing him to stay in office, not face impeachment or charges because Rush tells them they might win more seats in 2014.   Fcking traitors, trading justice for political gain.   

Dos Equis/Beach Bum,
many of us believed from minute #1 that Obama monitored it, and refused to let those forces stationed ONE HOUR AWAY go help them, as they battled for 8 hours to save their lives. PLENTY of time to help them.

obama didn't want a massace of 200 bad guys + whatever women and children they sprinkled in the crowd, all over the world's papers, right before election, so Romney could say "look, another obama failure, another massacre, blah blah".

Bout time Dos Equis and the rest of the "let's not impeach" crowd stopped denying the FACT that obama let them die that day :(