BENGHAZI: OBAMA AND HILLARY LIED AND FOUR AMERICANS DIED...

It was two years ago that four Americans were simply left to die in Benghazi. While not only were their calls for assistance left unanswered, worse still those that could have helped were told to stand down. And why was it that these men were left to die on foreign soil? The answer to that is a very simple one. To have sent in help would have been an admission by Barry "Almighty" that the terrorist group that he had claimed had been decimated or forced to go on the run, was still very much alive. And at a time he was quite busy trying to get himself re-elected. So these men were not the priority.

But Barry wasn’t the only one to play a role in the death of these four men. Men who we were repeatedly told died because of some anti-Muslim video. Long after the fact we were finally told by our then Secretary of State, and future Democrat Party presidential candidate, Hitlery Clinton, that it really made no difference why it was that these men were left to be murdered. We were also told, repeatedly, that the perpetrators would be brought to justice, and yet two years later we’re no further ahead in doing just that than we were back in 2012.

THE DEMOCRATS AND BENGHAZI…

Now if there is one thing that we all know for certain, it’s the fact that Democrats, and that would include Barry, Hitlery and of course Nancy, care very little about how it was that four of their fellow Americans came to be brutally murdered on the night of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. Nor do they care who was responsible. But what we also know, and with the same degree of certainty, is that they do care, and very much so, about all things related to politics. Hence the latest dilemma to be faced by the party. Because, you see, Democrats remain quite divided on whether to participate -- and if so, how much -- in the Republicans' select committee on Benghazi.

Democrats now find themselves in a bit of a quandry, and oddly enough one of their own making. Many political experts are describing as one that could actually allow the Republicans to make the most substantial gains that they have been able to make in some 20 years. And you can imagine that if the shoe were on the other foot, so to speak, and the Benghazi attack that resulted in the death of Americans had actually taken place on, say, George Bush’s watch, old Nancy would have zero qualms about holding all manner of hearings and right up to the election. But the attack didn’t happen on Bush’s watch, it happened on Barry’s and it could also serve to tarnish the perceived Democrat frontrunner to replace him.

So, because of that little problem, Democrats have been very determined in their efforts to downplay the ‘need’ for anymore hearings, making the claim that there is no there, there, and that it’s now nothing more than old news. That we have been down this road ‘so many’ times already. To use Nancy’s words, she says, "The fact is, that this is a stunt -- this is a political stunt," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a news conference on Friday. "Issa just -- is damaged goods. They had to move from him to another venue with another chairman. That's what this is. We've been there and done this over and over again." Now had Barry & Co. not been dragging their feet for the last 20 months, that assessment might be accurate.

According to Pelosi the Democrats have several options. Some Democrat don't want to participate in the select committee at all, while others say just appoint one Democrat to the panel to keep an eye on what the Republicans are doing. Pelosi said for now, they've chosen the third option, which is to avoid making a decision until Republicans explain how they intend to run the committee. And in doing her best to sound sincere, Pelosi said, "It's very sad," in naming the four Americans who were killed in Benghazi. And then unable to resist a little storytelling, she claimed, "Two of their families have called us and said please don't take us down this path again. It's really hard for them. Very sad." But who does Nancy think it’s sad for?

Pelosi said Republicans have given up on Obamacare, so they've seized on Benghazi as the next distraction. "Now they have to find something else to talk about that isn't about how we create jobs, how we build the infrastructure of America." Pelosi said Republicans "don't believe in governance, they don't believe in science, and they want to stop Barack Obama at every step. So I don't think this is about Hillary Clinton at all, I think this is about the Republicans in 2014." In other words, if I may interpret, Republicans don’t believe in government controlled healthcare or in bogus climate change or climate ‘disruption’ of whatever the Democrats are calling it this week. In that respect, Nancy would be correct.

And yes, most importantly, it’s imperative that Barry ‘the socialist’ be stopped wherever he can be! As it is, much of what he and the Democrats have been able to do over the course of the last five years may never be able to be undone. And our country will be much the worse because of that fact. The sad fact of the matter is that our children have now been robbed of the future that they might have had. And as far as I’m concerned that is the most egregious atrocity yet committed by this man and his party. And far too many seem to be perfectly accepting of that fact. These hearings must go forward and in a responsible manner, the truth must be brought out. This charade cannot be allowed to continue, because it does make a difference!

OBAMA LIED…AND PEOPLE DIED…



I’m sure we all remember quite well how it was that Barry, along with then secretary of state Hitlery Clinton as well as then U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice were all quite willing to tell us all, ad nauseam, about how it was that the terrorist attack that occurred on Sept 11, 2012, was all because of some YouTube video that was slamming Islam. Barry even went before the U.N. General Assembly and proceeded to spew the same idiotic bullshit, that he knew was bullshit. And it was a lie that this group refused to let go of for weeks after the attack.

But according to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, we now know that Barry was informed in his earliest briefing about the Sept. 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that the event was, in fact, a terrorist attack, and not some anti-American demonstration gone awry, as the administration told the public in the days and weeks following the event that resulted in the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens along with three other Americans. You know, the same deaths, that seemed to matter so little to Hitlery Clinton.

And it’s according to transcripts that we also find out that that old "Slick Willie" Clinton retread, Leon Panetta, then-Defense Secretary, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee which is still conducting the Benghazi investigation, that they briefed Barry directly, as the event was actually unfolding, that the incident was a terrorist attack. Panetta said in testimony that it was he who informed Barry that "there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi."

When asked further by Sen. Jim Inhofe, Republican, whether Panetta believed "unequivocally" at the time that it was a terrorist attack, Panetta said, "There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack." Other defense officials involved in the earliest briefings of the incident also reported the incident was an attack, including Gen. Carter Ham, then-head of AFRICOM who broke the news to Panetta, and Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM's Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region, the testimony shows.

The transcripts underscore that in the earliest hours of the attack, every Pentagon and defense official who briefed the White House referred to the incident as a terrorist attack. The testimony reinforces ongoing questions about how and why the White House developed a public narrative that the event was an assault that grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America. The Armed Services subcommittee has conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, according to Fox.

Personally, I’m just not sure how much of this even matters anymore to most Americans. After all, it’s been a year and a half since the attack took place, and this, which was supposed to be the most transparent in history, administration has expended a great deal of effort to keep the truth from ever seeing the light of day. From the very beginning this was a matter that should have been immediately handed over to a special prosecutor who would have been much better equipped to get to the bottom of things. It’s sad really that four Americans were allowed to be butchered while the perpetrators remain free and very much alive.

AND YET WE'RE TOLD THAT THIS MAN HAS AN AXE TO GRIND?

NOT TO WORRY FOLKS, JOHN KERRY-HEINZ "WILL LEAVE NO STONE UNTURNED"...

Ok, so even though every single Democrat, when asked about it, has done absolutely nothing but lie when it comes to the event of Sept. 11, 2012 in Benghazi, we're now supposed to somehow believe John Kerry-Heinz when he tells us that he will leave no stone unturned in trying to get to the bottom of what happened that terrible night. And so it was then that amid potentially damaging new revelations coming out about the State Department’s early assessments regarding attribution for the Benghazi consulate attack, that our current Secretary of State John Kerry-Heinz pledged on Thursday, that if any disciplinary action is found to be necessary, he will ensure it happens. IF?

Kerry-Heinz told reporters in Rome as he wrapped yet another one of his trademark foreign trip fiascoes, "I am absolutely determined that this issue will be answered, will be put to bed, and if there’s any culpability in any area that is appropriate to be handled in some way with some discipline, it will be appropriately handled." The senile old fart went on to say, "But that judgment awaits me in a report that will be forthcoming, and I’m confident that any recent evidence will be a component of that consideration." Ya know, this boob is about as worthless as they come. The only guy more worthless than Kerry-Heinz is at doing his job is Barry "Almighty" at doing his.

So it was then in responding to questions about claims made during Wednesday’s congressional hearing on Benghazi, Kerry-Heinz said, "The State Department will leave no stone unturned." RIGHT! This moron went on to claim, "I’ve already made it crystal clear to the chairmen of the relevant [congressional] committees that I have assigned my chief of staff, David Wade, to be responsible for liaisoning with them to answer any questions that they have." Oh ya, now doesn't that just give everybody that big fat warm and fuzzy feelin? Well I don't know about you, but I don't trust this loser any father than I could throw him. Which I figure isn't too far.

But Kerry-Heinz blabbered on saying that thus far he had only "seen the most cursory headlines" about the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing and said he would need to get back to the U.S. before he could "catch up to the full measure of what took place." Blah, blah, blah, he's talking but he's not saying anything. Which when speaking about Kerry-Heinz, is usually the case. And then, of course, we have numerous other Democratic lawmakers as well as any number of administration dolts out there continuing to do their level best to mischaracterize the hearing as being nothing more than a politically-motivated rehash. Ah, but not so fast.

Because in amongst the information revealed publicly, and for the very first time, on Wednesday was this little email that appeared to challenge directly the administration’s choice of defense regarding its early claims about responsibility to the deadly September 11, 2012 attack. Addressed to senior State Department officials including then-Secretary of State Hitlery Clinton's chief of staff, bimbo Cheryl Mills, the email from acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, Beth Jones, sent one day after the attack, makes clear that Islamic terrorists, not Muslims angered by an amateur online video satirizing Mohammed, were being blamed. Well imagine that?

This inept clown wrote in the email that, "I spoke to the Libyan ambassador and emphasized importance of Libyan leaders continuing to make strong statements." Jones went on in the email, "When he said his government suspected that former Gaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Shari’a, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists." Yet, strangely enough, four days after Jones sent that email, the administration put Susan Rice out front to tell the Sept. 16 Sunday talk shows that the attack, according to the 'best information currently available', was a "spontaneous reaction" to the video clip. Hmmm.

Administration officials have since essentially lied, and repeatedly so, in making their claim that they have cooperated fully with Congress over the Benghazi issue. This attack cost the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith and Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Stevens was the first American ambassador to die in the performance of his job since Jimmy Carter was president. And we all can remember what a brilliant foreign policy genius he was. And yet all that our smug, egomaniacal, narcissistic president, and his team of anti-America zealots can do is to accuse the other side of playing politics with the issue. DISGUSTING!

In questioning foreign service officer Gregory Hicks, who happened to be the number two official at the embassy in Libya at the time of the attack, and who was also one of the recipients of the Jones email, Gowdy asked: "Why in the world would Susan Rice go on five Sunday talk shows and perpetuate a demonstratively false narrative?" To which Mr. Hicks replied, "I cannot provide an answer, but perhaps you should ask Ambassador Rice." Gowdy responded by saying, "I would love the opportunity to do just that." But even if he did have that opportunity, it's pretty much a given that all she would do is to tell even more lies. That's what these people do.

House Speaker John Boehner told a press briefing on Capitol Hill Thursday that there would be more hearings on Benghazi, accusing the White House of doing "everything possible to block access to the information that would outline the truth." He called on the administration to produce previously-unreleased unclassified emails, including the one sent by Jones on Sept. 12. State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told a briefing soon after Boehner spoke that the department was "following up with the House directly" regarding the request for emails. Ya, sure they are, let's see how it takes. This group has done nothing but stonewall since day one.

If there's one thing that this whole Benghazi fiasco proves, it's that, once again, the Democrats, in general, have shown that they care far less about the future of the country than they do about their party's political future. Look, we have an administration guilty of abusing its power and of telling all manner of lies to the American people, and yet because it's a Democrat administration we're all just supposed to ignore the fact that four Americans were allowed to be murdered and without a finger being lifted to prevent it. This is a very dark time for this country, and yet most Americans either don't seem to notice or they simply don't care. But we all should expect better from our president.

DESPITE WHAT DICK MORRIS SAYS, BENGHAZI HEARINGS GOING NOWHERE...

I'll tell you what, after the last election and how he repeatedly claimed it was going to be a blow out in favor of Romney, I've pretty much given up on believing anything that comes out of the mouth of Dick Morris. So when he says that this Benghazi mess will most assuredly lead to the downfall of one Barack Hussein Obama, I'm very confident when I say, he's talking out his butt. Both he and Karl Rove just have no credibility anymore when talking about anything having to do with today's political situation. Barry is a liar, and I think anyone with an ounce of commonsense is able to recognize that fact. But those are not the people who voted for him. The ones who did vote for him are bothered by such things as Benghazi and the death of four American about as much as they're bothered by a cloudy day. The ONLY thing that matters to these people is that they keep getting their government check on time and in the highest amount possible.

In the latest entry on his little website, Morris makes the claim that, "Americans can stand pretty much anything, but not being lied to by their president. When Bill Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, his personal favorability ratings dropped 20 points and never recovered for the duration of his presidency." Well while old Dick may be right in his claim, let's not forget that this is not the 1990's and Barry is not "Slick Willie." Barry really is the first black president, and as such is being provided with an inordinate amount of cover from what's described as being our mainstream media. A state-run media complex that, rather then being interested in digging for the truth in this matter, is far more interested in seeking ever more inventive ways of providing cover for Barry. And they do this by either ignoring the matter completely, criticizing these 'whistleblowers,’ or regurgitating the administration's talking points ad nauseam.

Morris continues, "As the Benghazi hearings unfold, it will become more and more clear that President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied to the American people when they both pretended that the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were just a demonstration against the anti-Muslim video gone violent — even as the State Department wrote an intelligence assessment that said "we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda" were involved in the attack." But sadly it will all fall on deaf ears. But then, unless folks are listening to Talk Radio or to Fox News, the revelations now coming to light are unlikely to even reach the ears of most Americans. Most will be left to hearing only the many lies that they will ultimately be fed by those whom they selected as being their primary source for 'news and information.' So in the end, they will essentially be nothing more than mushrooms, fed shit and kept in the dark.

Morris first posits and then answers his own question, "Is it possible that the president and the secretary of State were denied access to this information? Is it possible that a low-level employee at State decided to alter the intelligence report and did not consult with his higher-ups about doing so? Is it possible that Clinton and Obama did not know the truth? No, it is not possible. They had to have known. And that makes their remarks for two weeks after the attack out-and-out lies." Again, while he says may be true, do enough people even care at this point? As I said before, I seriously doubt it. And I think that it's rather naïve, even foolish, to think that the fact we had four Americans literally butchered by a pack of Islamic psychopaths matters all that much to many Americans. And the fact that we have members of one political party saying nothing more than that those who died knew the job was dangerous when they took it, is really pretty sad.

But Morris keeps on swinging, "Beyond the cover-up lies the question of why we were not more robust in our military intervention on the ground as the attack was being waged. Special forces nearby in the country were apparently ordered to "stand down" from responding to the attack. Is it possible that this order was given without consulting with the president or with the secretary of State? While possible, it is most unlikely. This was no minor attack, and the use of American forces eight weeks before an election would certainly need to be cleared with the commander in chief." He then asks, "Are Obama and Hillary really going to stake their future political credibility on the idea that they were out of the loop during this crisis? Are they really going to try to sell the idea that they were not informed by their own employees?" Morris misses the point entirely. Neither of these hacks are worried in the slightest. They know the media has their backs!

And yet he insists, "Even if they try to sell this bill of goods, it won’t succeed. For Americans to believe them, we would have to believe that Obama was so distracted by the presidential campaign that he was practically out of office when it came to crucial national security issues — as if he should have invoked the 25th Amendment citing as his disability the fact that he was busy running for a second term." But still determined in his effort to convince us that any of this will make even an iota of difference, he goes on to say, "The reality, which will become more and more apparent to everyone, is that he was busy claiming credit for extinguishing terrorism by killing Osama bin Laden and that he was not about to compromise that claim by admitting that al Qaeda could pull off an attack in Benghazi. He wants us to ignore the curious timing of the attack on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

Morris wraps things up by making the claim, "This attempt is, of course, doomed to fail. Once we learn — as we have already — that the intelligence reports were doctored, and that the military actions were aborted, it is only a matter of time until the blame filters up to Obama and Clinton, ruining one presidency and possibly preventing another." He closes with this assessment, "Presidents fail when they get "stuck," when their past statements tie them down and deny them the freedom of maneuver that presidents need to survive. Former President Nixon got stuck in Watergate. Former President Reagan got stuck in Iran-Contra. Former President Clinton couldn’t get around his lie about Lewinsky. Former President George W. Bush, who did not intentionally lie, was stuck by his claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now Obama is stuck also. Hillary, too. They will not be able to free themselves or save themselves. The die is cast."

I will end this piece pretty much the same way I started it, by saying that these days I buy very little of what it is that Morris is selling. While in my heart I wish he was right in everything he says, the truth of the matter is that it's all nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those who would like nothing better than to watch both Barry and Hitlery go down in political flames. But in this day and age we're not going to be so lucky. These two will manage to successfully dodge a big bullet with much assistance being provided by those who long ago abdicated their responsibility of actually keeping the public informed regarding the rather questionable behavior exhibited by their elected officials. There are very few sources these days that can be counted on to provide to us the truth with respect to what our elected officials are really up to. We've essentially been left to fend for ourselves, and sadly too many people just aren't willing to expend the necessary effort.

THIS TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT BENGHAZI...

OBAMA AND CLINTON BOTH AWOL DURING BENGHAZI ATTACK...

 

 

Remember back early in the 2008 campaign the question that was asked in a Hillary campaign ad, "It's 3 a.m, and your children are safe and asleep," and the narrator continues, "Who do you want answering the phone? Well apparently the attack carried out on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya last year on September 11, would seem to prove beyond the shadow of any doubt, that neither Hillary or Barry can be entrusted to take such a call. Because when that call did come, neither one of these incompetent boobs was anywhere to be found to take it. At least that's what seems to be the case according to testimony that was provided by Leon Panetta. Mr. Panetta, arguably the worst secretary of defense to come along since Harold Brown, stated that our less than stellar Commander-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, was absent the night four Americans, including our ambassador, were murdered in Benghazi. Panetta also said that though he did meet with Barry at a 5 o'clock prescheduled gathering, Barry left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us." Boy, now is that an open ended statement, or what?

 

I mean what the Hell kind of way is that to run a railroad? In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. Huh? Remember now, this attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Barry did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that entire night. There were no calls about what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in. The 5 o'clock meeting was a pre-scheduled 30-minute session, where, at least according to Panetta's best recollection, and we know how reliable that is, they spent about 20 minutes talking a lot about the American embassy that was surrounded in Egypt and the situation that was just then unfolding in Benghazi. So how then is it that the Defense Department gets to unilaterally decide whether it's too risky or not to try to rescue CIA operators, or to violate another country's air space? Either way, Panetta didn't seem to think it was important enough to raise the question of what to do when he met with the national security adviser and the president at 5 p.m., nor to then stay in touch with the White House after he returned to the Pentagon.

 

But, strangely enough, Barry was able to, that same night, afford himself enough time to make a political call to the Israeli Prime Minister. The purpose of this very important call to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to defuse a controversy about his refusal to meet with Netanyahu two weeks later at the U.N. General Assembly, and in so doing, at least according to the White House announcement that evening, he spent an hour on the phone with him. So, while Americans were under assault in Benghazi, Barry found the time for a non-urgent, politically motivated, hour-long call to Prime Minister Netanyahu. And his senior national security staff had to find time to arrange the call, brief Barry for the call, monitor the call, and then provide an immediate read-out to the media. Call me silly, but I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu, of all people, would have understood the need to postpone or shorten the phone call if he had been told that Americans were under attack while he and Barry chatted. But for Barry, a politically useful telephone call—and the ability to have his aides rush out and tell the media about that phone call—came first. What a guy! What a leader! What a disaster!!

 

 Also, neither did the Secretary of Defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff speak to our eminently unqualified Secretary of State at the time, Hitlery Clinton, at anytime during the entire 8-hour attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. At the recent hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Panetta and Martin Dempsey, "In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what conversations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?" Old bonehead Panetta responded, "We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton." Sen. Cruz than asked, "And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?" To which Dempsey responded that it was. So what is it, exactly, that we have being revealed here? Is it another example of what has become Barry’s typical 'Keystone Cops' approach to foreign policy? Or might it be something more sinister? Like maybe an attempt to lay the ground work which will latter provide to both Barry and Clinton some level of plausible deniability regarding the death of four Americans including an ambassador? You decide.