Thursday, October 18, 2012

Cover-up *** Update ***

H/T The Blaze

Journalist Ed Klein, formerly of Newsweek and the New York Times Magazine, and a contributor to Vanity Fair and Parade has some very interesting things to say about Benghazi. On The Blaze, Mr. Klein has stated that his sources indicate that Secretary of State Clinton had requested additional security for the Ambassador and diplomatic staff prior to the attack and that it was denied. Further, former President Clinton has been urging Hillary to release documents exonerating her of responsibility for Benghazi.

That is interesting indeed. There has always been a tense relationship between the Clinton's and President Obama and with Hillary's neck on the chopping block it may turn into a wide chasm. As for the denial of additional security, that can only come from the President of the United States presumably. The President has said that he always runs such decisions by Valerie Jarrett and it is likely that the President ran Secretary Clinton's request for additional security in Libya prior to the September 11th attack on our Consulate with her and that hints of politics coming into play regarding decisions that had a direct bearing on our Ambassador's safety and the safety of those assigned to the diplomatic mission in Libya.

Expect subpoenas, Congressional hearings, and the appointment of an independent Counsel to investigate this matter. This is just the beginning.

*** End update

The attack in Libya against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi which resulted in the death of the U.S. Ambassador and three Navy SEALS was a tragedy. It was also terrorism, a fact that the majority of Americans and Republican politicians were aware of on September 11th and that the White House sheepishly admitted to weeks later. In fact, the intelligence community was aware that the Benghazi attack and the murders of four Americans was a terror operation either linked to or led by Al Qaeda within the first 24 hours of the incident. However, there seems to be some confusion at the White House and Department of State regarding who knew what and when.

Small signs lead to ever greater revelations about the fact of Benghazi and it is readily apparent that the White House chose to cover-up the attack in an effort to hide the political embarrassment with the election so close. But what exactly is being hidden?

How about the fact that the Ambassador's security team requested reinforcements on numerous occasions and was denied by the State Department. Is there a possibility that the security personnel were being frivolous in asking for additional help? Not hardly, there had been several incidents in the months leading up to the attack on September 11th including terror attacks against British Embassy personnel  and the Red Cross. The British closed their offices as did the Red Cross, but the U.S. personnel remained despite an IED ripping a gaping hole in the consulate's wall. We also know from Ambassador Stevens personal journal that he was in fear for his life. Yet nobody at State thought that any of the preceding was a problem that required additional security.

So why didn't State get the message that something bad was brewing in Benghazi? Why did Mrs. Clinton's personnel fail to protect the U.S. Ambassador? Was there linkage between the denials of additional security and the White House? What did the White House know and when did they know it? Additionally, while the U.S. State Department couldn't cough up the extra security to safeguard the Libyan Ambassador's life in an area that was known for terrorism, the White House found the funds to provide a full Secret Service protective detail for Valerie Jarrett. Ms. Jarrett, you may recall, was the Chicago slum lord who guided the careers of both the President and Mrs. Obama. Why did she warrant such protection, but not the Libyan Ambassador? Was her life judged to be in greater danger than a diplomat with a target painted on his back? If so, what was the threat to Ms. Jarrett?

Valerie Jarrett has been at the center of controversy for having allegedly disapproved of previous missions to kill Osama bin Laden and was overruled by the President when the SEALS finally did take him out. So we know that she is involved with foreign policy and national security. Is it possible that Ms. Jarrett was involved in the shenanigans regarding Benghazi? Given her involvement with bin Laden it seems likely. What about other politically motivated White House personnel such as David Axelrod? Did politics come into play in failing to protect American lives? Were Valerie Jarrett or David Axelrod involved in the ever changing stories about what happened and if so, what was the nature of that involvement?

There is a reason that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice traveled to five news shows and explicitly stated that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous and related to a Youtube video. Even in the face of intense questioning by FOX News interviewer Chris Wallace, Ambassador Rice stuck to her story that Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a poorly made Youtube video. That also raises troubling questions. Who told her to do that? Was she aware that she was misleading American citizens? If she was aware, then why did she do so? Was there any linkage between her statements and the White House? If so, who at the White House gave her direction and what specifically were those directions?

In the second Presidential debate with Romney, the President said that he did in fact know on September 12th that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. If so, then why did the government of Libya say that President Obama was mistaken in his assessment of Benghazi being related to a video and directly said that Benghazi was a terrorist attack? To make this issue crystal clear, the President claims that in the Rose Garden on September 12th he said that Benghazi was a terrorist attack and meant that in no uncertain terms. If that is true, then why did his U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice contradict him on five news programs days later? Which is it? When somebody gives conflicting stories it is a clear indicator that someone is lying.

That begs the question that if someone is lying, then why are they lying? What are they trying to hide? Who is involved in this lying? Was there a conspiracy to cover this up and why was it necessary to be covered up? That's why Denmark stinks to high heaven on this issue. What's worse is that the U.S. news agencies are complicit in the cover-up.

It's one thing to be in the tank for a politician, it's quite another to subvert the American government for political gain. I really wasn't surprised when Candy Crowley sided with the President and defended him from Romney when he called the President out on his statement. She insured that Romney couldn't get him and that is exactly what the U.S. media has been doing in reference to Benghazi as well as the economy. Soledad Obrien was recently asked by Rudy Giuliani if she were a member of the President's campaign staff so strong was her defense of the President's cover story regarding the Benghazi attack and her open scorn of there being a cover-up. When the press buries their heads in the sand and steadfastly refuses to report the facts or to even to seek the facts they have abandoned their role as the public's last line of defense in favor of becoming nothing more than political hacks and lackeys. Once the press had its pride, now it has none as the official mouth piece of the DNC.

Since the American press has shed any illusion of objectivity and fairness they have become shameless in their support of leftist politics and politicians. Donating to political candidates despite any rules against so doing, providing false names with a wink and a smile at Democrat souvenir booths, and by tossing Obama life preservers when his critics score a goal and by acting as his attack dogs. Such behavior is far more than a breach of journalistic ethics, it is shameless propaganda in the style of Leni Riefenstahl. The only difference between the American news media and the famed propagandist is that Riefenstahl was at least entertaining.

The situation with the news media is so bad, that I wouldn't be surprised if it were discovered that there was some linkage between the President's campaign and Candy Crowley to jump in and protect the President should he find himself against the ropes. Regardless, if Ms. Crowley proved anything during that debate it is that the American people can no longer trust their news media for accurate and unbiased information and that the fourth estate is no longer functional as a guarantee of liberty and that should scare the hell out of any American.

Will we ever get the true story of what happened in Benghazi and why the State Department failed to protect the lives of those who were serving their nation? Yes, but the official answers will be delayed until after the election. Secretary of State Clinton fell on her sword in an effort to stem the rising tide of suspicion regarding the President and the White House. In so doing, she has likely abandoned all hope for a run for the Presidency. Mrs. Clinton's act speaks volumes because Hillary was there for Watergate.

As a young attorney, Hillary Clinton helped to make the case against President Nixon for the Watergate cover-up. When you are on the inside of something like that, you know that when the hounds catch a sniff of a cover-up the end is not very far behind. Knowing that the truth is destined to be revealed she may have sacrificed herself in an attempt to protect Obama. In the end, her sacrifice will only delay the inevitable. If we actually had a functional fourth estate, the Obama administration would be forced to assert privilege in order to drag out the investigation and that is exactly what is going to happen if someone gets too close to the truth.

There are times when you can feel that something is in the air. Benghazi has that feel. The Feds are all over the map on what happened, the U.N. Ambassador directly lied to the American people, the Secretary of State fell on her sword in an effort to divert attention away from the President, and four Americans lie dead because somebody would not defend them in a foreign land that was hostile territory. I think that when we learn the truth about what happened we are going to be shocked and I believe that this goes to the highest levels at the White House and I wouldn't be surprised if Valerie Jarrett's fingerprints are all over it.

When the U.N. Ambassador is sent by someone to five news programs to say that the events in Benghazi were the result of a video and that the attack was spontaneous that raises questions. To be clear, this is what Ambassador Rice had to say: "The best information we have at present, first of all, there’s an FBI investigation that’s ongoing and we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo. Almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted of course by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya and it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s our best judgment now."

That was a lie according to Secretary of State Clinton. According to the State Department they knew almost immediately that the Benghazi incident was a terrorist attack, yet Mrs. Clinton attempted to blame the deaths of our Ambassador and three Navy SEALS on a video as did the White House. Additionally the FBI was delayed in getting to the crime scene and during that delay a CNN news team arrived there and recovered the Ambassador's journal. What else CNN may have recovered or tampered with is unknown. These are the facts as we know them and they are far more serious than Watergate ever was.

President Nixon covered up the criminal acts of his team members. He had no prior knowledge of their activities and he certainly never approved of them, but he did protect them and covered up their activities after they had been arrested. That was enough to get him impeached which lead to his resignation from our highest office. President Obama is in far deeper because Nixon didn't have to contend with four murdered Americans in addition to a cover-up and this isn't the first cover-up that the Administration has participated in. President Obama invoked executive privilege regarding Fast and Furious and the Federal government's role in supplying small arms to drug kingpins in foreign nations as a result.

We are Americans and we deserve better than this. We deserve a government that does not lie to us. We deserve a government that is competent and that does not allow politics to interfere with protecting American lives. We deserve to know when our government has done wrong so that we may correct it. We are not the servants of government, government is our servant and we had damned well better take the reins in hand and retake control of the Leviathan before we find that it has turned on us.

Mark my words, this is going to get ugly.


christian soldier said...

all the admin would have had to do was send a AC 130 - and to have had a fully armed unit at the site--
I am calling the in- action both before the terrorist attacks and after- TREASON--

As always - love coming here- don't always comment--

I am swiping the Marine video from post below---

christian soldier said...

would have had to have done--

geez-it is time to close

William Stout said...

You are most certainly welcome to swipe it Carol, I can't think of anyone who would care more for our boys. At 3:49 you see the Marine that stepped on a land mine in Iraq and lived to tell about it, at 3:51 you see the pilot of Marine One, and at 4:06 you see Chesty Puller himself. General Puller's hometown is West Point, Virginia which is 15 minutes from me. He's a legend in the Corps and he is the one that said "Remember, you are the 1st Marines! Not all the Communists in Hell can overrun you!" at the battle of the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. Chosin was one of the toughest fights in the Korean War. The Marine lines were collapsing, there were casualties all over the place, and the Marines were in deep. Chesty rallied his men and fought his way out of an impossible predicament destroying seven Red Chinese divisions in the process and holding a rear guard so that the rest of the Marines could withdraw to safety. The Red Chinese must have felt like they had tangled with a pack of wolverines on steroids.

While Puller was a great leader, he was just one man and his victory highlights the valor and dedication of the average Marine. It is the same valor and dedication that can be found in any Marine today.

christian soldier said...

RE: Chesty Puller-
an history lesson- that is why love coming to your site--
It only takes one visionary- focused leader to rally the " troops" - in each battle- whether it be political- or military- or educational--