Tag Archives: Susan Rice

Video: Obama’s Watergate

By Kris Zane

The story of what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 has been narrated by a schizophrenic.

Or so it seems.

On September 11, 2012, four Americans were murdered in Benghazi: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Communications Specialist Sean Smith, and former SEALS Ty Woods and Glen Doherty.

For weeks, the Obama administration blamed a “protest turned violent” over an amateurish anti-Muslim YouTube video.

Susan Rice hit the Sunday news show circuit with this story—five news shows in one day!

Hillary Clinton crooned for the State Department hit parade, even co-starring with Barry Obama in a $70,000 commercial apologizing to “our Muslim friends in Pakistan” who were rioting and tearing apart their countries because they hated America so much.

And our own rock star President took his “protest turned violent” road show to the United Nations, delivering a long-winded speech about how evil it was for an American citizen to exercise his right to free speech by making the “anti-Muslim” YouTube video.

And as a cherry on top, they imprisoned the producer of the video for so-called “probation violations.” Where the producer of the videoNakoula Basseley Nakoula—now is, God only knows. Obama probably whisked him off to some rendition camp in Karachi.

Well, it turned out that it was a terrorist attack, except no one seemed to know who told Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and the President of the United States that it was caused by a YouTube video.

It turned out that Obama was informed that the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack within two hours.

It turned out from a series of hacked emails from Bill Clinton crony Sidney Blumenthal to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Ansar al-Sharia attacked the consulate and CIA annex in retaliation for the CIA’s involvement in the Libyan civil war—on Muammar Gaddafi’s side. We also know from a Blumenthal February 16, 2013 email that the attack on the consulate was funded by our so-called allies, the Saudis.

And it turned out that Benghazi was a hub for funneling weapons and cash to the al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels.

But this only scratched the surface. There was something much more nefarious going on in Benghazi—if that’s possible—and the Obama administration wanted to keep a tight lid on it.

What was the Obama administration doing in Benghazi that was so top secret, in which the thirty odd survivors have been kept under lock and key, prohibited from speaking to Congress or anyone else for that matter?

We know from the recently published book, Benghazi: The Definitive Report, that Obama’s chief counter terrorism officer at the time, John Brennan—now CIA chief—had been secretly involved in the Libyan civil war. Through a secret black ops unit—operating not only outside the purview of Congress, but outside the purview of the Pentagon and the CIA—John Brennan, like an errant knight over his own fiefdom, conducted his secret war in Libya. And that was just one of the secret wars he was involved in. This while he was a lowly chief counter terrorism

From: http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-watergate/

If You Work For Obama, You Are Under Orders To Shut Up

By Jim Emerson

Obama MLK Content Of Character Gauge SC If you work for Obama, you are under orders to Shut Up

Survivors of the Benghazi attack were told to “shut up” by the Democratic leadership with the clear purpose of protecting the inept elected and appointed Democrats of this administration. This regime cannot be embarrassed. Never. It’s the Chicago way.

In a rare display of courage, a mortified Senator Lindsey Graham said Senate Republicans are generally being denied access to the survivors of the Benghazi terror attack of September 11, 2012. In an interview with Fox News, the South Carolina Senator said he was able to meet with some of the survivors. He told Bret Baier “the bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet.”  The only thing missing was the “or else.” The Senator admits that this White House is trying to cover up the truth about Benghazi.

When asked about Benghazi survivors being told to keep quiet, White House Press Clown Jay Carney assured reporters that “…the White House is not preventing anyone from speaking.” Even Baghdad Bob would find this difficult to believe. To date, all of the Benghazi spin has been debunked. Susan Rice has been exposed as a liar; and as a reward for her loyalty, Mr. Obama will appoint her his national security adviser.

Hillary “What does does it make?” Clinton was AWOL during the Benghazi attacks. But to the low information voter and Organize America crowd, that makes her the front runner for 2016. Like Obama, Hillary was completely indifferent about providing aid to Ambassador Stevens and his staff both before the attack AND while they were being murdered. As long as you have a “D” by your name and swear allegiance to Saul Alinksy, you are, in Mafia terms, “Made” and therefore untouchable. To date, the Lame Stream Media ignores the cover-up while accepting the Don Obama talking points. The Pulitzer Prize committee must not grant awards for taking down Democrats. It’s just another example of how the Chicago regime rewards its people for making The One look good.

If Senator Graham puts forth a good faith effort to get the facts surrounding that evening’s raid on the Benghazi mission, how long will it be until Obama declares the matter one of national security to be shielded by executive privilege?

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Clinton On Benghazi: ‘What Difference Does It Make?’—A Lot, Madame Secretary

By Dale Cox

Hillary Clinton on the Hill Clinton on Benghazi: What Difference Does it Make?—A lot, Madame Secretary

What difference does it make?

Well, Madam Secretary – a big one.

When Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, sat before the Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearing on the Benghazi attacks, her conviction on the matter was certainly not in question. The questions came hard and fast and her answers escalated in kind with frustration. Eerily similar to famous exchange at the climax of the movie A Few Good Men when the “You can’t handle the truth” line was delivered, when questioned repeatedly regarding the misinformation that was delivered to the public via both Susan Rice, ambassador to the UN and the White House, she finally delivered the soon-to-be-infamous line “What difference, at this point, does it make!”

I have no argument with the premise that emotionally charged and pointed questions with the goal of her to admit failure are pointless, but the difference that it makes is this: if during the execution and aftermath, the event was so blatantly blamed on inconclusive and arguably concocted evidence (i.e., a “protest turned violent over a YouTube video, instead of a coordinated terrorist attack) to the point the President actually took that defense to the UN himself —what is it that they were hiding? She’s right, Benghazi was a mess. She admitted and took responsibility for the security and adopted all twenty-nine measures recommended by the investigation, but the clover and clean up—that is the problem.

How is it that the same administration that had a play-by-play seat in the world’s most sophisticated war room during the Bin Laden raid couldn’t review simple surveillance camera feeds and figure out what happened weeks later? The White House made this Benghazi-gate, not the Republicans, by the way they handled it. The American people simply do not like being lied to—it is a matter of trust—and it’s a big one. This is notably not the first time Hillary  Clinton has had to cover for a man in the White House who is not being truthful, and understandably, she’s getting a little tired of it. So are we, Madam Secretaryso are we.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism