By Polly Davis Doig Among the six Americans killed in Afghanistan yesterday was 25-year-old foreign service officer Anne Smedinghoff, reports CNN , the first US diplomat to be killed since Chris Stevens died in September. John Kerry led the mourning for her today, saluting the “vivacious, smart” up-and-comer who assisted him during a visit just… …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Newser – Home
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Newser – Home
By Mark Russell 
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Newser – Home
By Jim Emerson
“What difference,at this point, does it make?”
In the throes of her faux outrage, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made this phrase famous. She uttered it while being questioned about the lies this administration told after four Americans were killed in Benghazi. She acted like a child who was caught in a lie trying to find a way out of any consequences. Whether she realizes it or not, this will register with the low information voter and thus will become her legacy. If you don’t think of this being her legacy, what is the first thing you think when someone mentions her husband Bill?
Why does it matter?
During the months leading up to the murders at Benghazi, Chris Stevens and the Ambassador in Libya were begging for the increased security that was denied by all levels of the State Department; and no one was held responsible. The White House pressured Twitter to pull the Libyan embassy tweets during the murder spree and forced CNN to surrender the Ambassador’s diary they found at Benghazi murder scene. Hillary’s minions hid the survivors of Benghazi from the public and Congress. They denied the existence of any real-time audio and video feed from the compound. This White House ordered military commanders to stand down from launching a rescue mission. The administration blamed a video when the world knew that it had nothing to do with the pre-planned attack. Now she is lying to Congress when she said she always said that it was a terrorist attack. But why should that matter?
Why does it matter?
With no fear of retribution from America, al Qaeda forces raided a natural gas plant in Algeria to capture Westerners and most likely was planning to take them to Libya before the Algerian security forces could react to their presence. The Algerians did manage to contain and kill the terrorist, but not before the hostages were killed. Why does it matter? Terrorist organizations affiliated with Al Qaeda will continue to target Americans whereever they are. They want something, and this White House knows what it is.
What do they have in common?
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt made it clear to Barack Obama that they wanted the release of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman. Most likely, the attack on Benghazi was part of al Qaeda’s efforts to kidnap Americans as an exchange for the Blind Sheikh. The Algerian kidnapping attempt was most likely a secondary consideration to punishing the French for their involvement in Mali. The Congressional Democrats’ and their lap dog media’s response is “What difference at this point does it make?” We can’t make the President look bad, even when he ignores the obvious.
Photo credit: terrellaftermath
AFP / Getty Images
Source: FULL ARTICLE at AOL
By Kris Zane
Hillary Clinton was on the Hill this morning, four months after the Benghazi consulate attack; Congress is still trying to find out what happened on September 11, 2011.
Obama vowed to get to the bottom of it; but instead, we got “Pin the tail on the anti-Muslim YouTube video” and a “Benghazi Accountability Report” authored by Islamic apologist Thomas R. Pickering that didn’t actually find anyone accountable.
Congressman Jason Chaffetz, after months of having state department official after state department official testify, asked the innocent question “Where are the survivors?” “I don’t know who they are. I don’t know where they live. I don’t know what state they’re from. I don’t even know how many there are. It doesn’t seem right to me.”
The whole business stinks of a cover-up. And cover-ups give rise to conspiracy theories.
Enter the “conspiracy theory” that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was an Obama-orchestrated “October Surprise” to kidnap ambassador Chris Stevens and trade him to the Muslim Brotherhood for the Blind Sheikh and prop up his dismal 43% approval rating by acting the hero.
Except a retired four-star Admiral says this is exactly what happened:
The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: “the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi…was the result of a bungled abduction attempt…the first stage of an international prisoner exchange…that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheik’…
Enter the Algerian hostage crisis. Again, the Blind Sheikh enters the picture. Again, the kidnapping operation hits a snag. Again, the militants seem to have inside knowledge of the facility. The militants, headed by the al-Qaeda-linked “holy warrior” Mokhtar Belmokhtar, demand the release of the Blind Sheikh in exchange for the Americans being held. And again, there is a massacre.
Except this time, instead of four Americans dying, everyone dies (hostages and militants, eighty-one at last count), mowed down by a fleet of Algerian military helicopters.
And lo and behold, among the dead bodies, among the militants reportedly heading the mission are several blond-haired, blue-eyed westerners.
America, Obama is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama is in bed with terrorists. Obama is in bed with the enemy.
When exactly America will wake up to this fact, however, remains to be seen.
By Ron-Reale
What if there was a plan afoot to return the Blind Sheik to his terrorist Islamist brethren? A plan so outrageous might exist that no one would believe it, unless it was said to come from this administration. What if the Benghazi offices had no security because it was part of a plan to trade the “captured” American attache Chris Stevens for the convicted, unrepentant terrorist, (no, not Bill Ayers, the OTHER American hating terrorist).
What if that was why the military was told to stand down during the initial attacks? Suppose the only reason everyone was killed is because of the unexpected heroic efforts of two real American heroes, whose resistance was thought by the attackers to be a breach of the deal which was supposed to allow for the easy capture of the American diplomatic officials! The idea was to trade the terrorist sheik for the American Diplomats safe return to their families.
Now suppose Algeria is the second stage of this attempt by the terrorists to recover their brother terrorist. Except this time, the Islamists are acting unilaterally. After Benghazi, they feel they cannot trust any deal their Muslim connections in the American administration offer. The Blind Sheik is going home. Sooner or later. Obama and his Islamist handlers did not have the stones to make the case for his release directly to the American people. Instead, we will watch him struggle with this “terrible decision” to negotiate with the Islamists. In the end, Obama will release the Blind Sheik.
There are only two things wrong with this theory:
1) While there is no evidence to prove or disprove it, any logical theory must be considered, and this is what I believe:
2) No one would be surprised if it came from this administration. Unfortunately, I don’t believe there will be any concessions towards the Americans in this crisis. I believe Obama will “lead from behind” while Americans die under the protection of his Islamist handlers.
I pray I am wrong.