Posted on 10/10/2012 11:16:24 AM PDT by CaroleL
Today the House Oversight Committee is holding a hearing on diplomatic security; specifically the lack of security that facilitated the September 11 murders of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Most often these investigations center on the question 'What did a government official know and when did they know it?' but in this case we already have those answers.
Hours before the congressional hearing began, the State Department briefed reporters on the facts of the case saying it never determined that the deadly attack on the US consulate stemmed from protests over an anti-Islam YouTube video as administration officials claimed for over a week. So the question which needs to be answered is not what did Obama & Company know and when did they know it but rather, why did they blatantly and repeatedly lie to the American people?
The possible answers:
A. A terrorist attack on US soil that resulted in the death of four Americans including an ambassador does not substantiate the administration's assertion that President Obama's foreign policy has been a success. The fact that four years of apologies and appeasements did not result in the new era of mutual respect Mr. Obama promised; but rather in more hate and terror will not assist the president in winning a second term.
B. The administration wanted to cover-up the fact that it denied and/or ignored requests for additional security in Libya. In the weeks after the Benghazi attack, multiple requests from US officials in Libya have been uncovered which show concern over the lack of security there. Ambassador Stevens himself repeatedly asked the Obama administration for more security in Benghazi but his requests were denied. US Security Officer Eric Nordstrom asked his State Department superiors for more security agents months before the Benghazi attack but got no response.
C. Blaming the ridiculous YouTube video for the attack in Benghazi gave the president another opportunity to apologize for American values rather than defend them. The day after the murders, Mr. Obama condemned the violence but also condemned criticism of Islam. This attempt to morally equate murder with the exercise of free speech was such an obvious political disaster that the president had to quickly release a statement asserting that the First Amendment "is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I'm sworn to uphold, and so we are always going to uphold the rights for individuals to speak their mind."
D. They thought they could get away with it. With the mainstream media tucked comfortably in Mr. Obama's pocket for years, there was good reason for the administration to believe that if they repeatedly lied about what happened in Benghazi, the lie would be reported as the undisputed truth. In the most blatant case, US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on numerous television programs stating the attack was "a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo" and that what transpired in Cairo "was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video." The dutiful media aired what we now know to be brazen lies without challenge.
As the State Department begins to reveal the truth and the Congressional investigation moves forward, it looks like the answer is most likely E. All of the above.
I don’t have to presume anything; in your own Post 10 in this thread you demonstrate that you don’t know how impeachment works.
Obviously the TRIAL is where the rubber meets the road. An impeachment means little or NOTHING. It is the TRIAL which matters. Since the TRIAL is in the Senate the fact that the RATs control the place of the TRIAL it is assured that an impeachment of The Disaster would not end in a guilty verdict in the TRIAL.
Is that clear enough for you or should I detail more important facts about the TRIAL?
Or do you also assume incorrectly that there are actually Democrat Senators with integrity?
Congratulations on finally doing the research to learn how it actually works.
Welcome to the Land of the Informed.
OK so far so good Obama is the savior of the Middle East. We won't point out all the American Soldiers that keep dying (We being the media) but when you have your own Ministry of Truth to morph the narrative for you, you don't worry about the "little" things.
So then comes 9-11-2012 and bang-o out Embassies are attacked. In fact in the following days our embassies are attacked all over the globe. (Funny how you hardly seen any live footage of the events though isn't it. Imagine if this had been the Bush admin. There would have been news crews live at every scene with in-depth interviews of those poor people who were being oppressed by the EVIL BUSH REGIME!!! But since it was the Obama admin you got the "Meh" coverage of the event.
When its revealed the Ambassador is killed the Obama admin and the Ministry of Truth go into overtime trying to nudge the narrative onto the "Youtube Killed the Ambassador" song and dance (Sung to the tune of Video Killed the Radio Star)
This was working fine until a few disgruntled Ministry of State denizens realized that soon the music would stop and someone was gonna be short a chair. See the State Department knows the skinny. They know there was "Real Time" intel of the event in Libya (They were in touch with the Consulate by phone while the attack was in progress) and there was no mob protesting. BUT they have been instructed to say so and stick to the narrative.
But everyone in the State Dept realizes that eventually the story is going to get out so then bits of truth leak out here and there. Finally the damn breaks when disgruntled Security guys reveal that not only was there no "help by friendly Libyans to aide the Marines to defend the compound." (Obama claimed such in one of his statements) There weren't any Marines either. In fact we find out eventually that two security forces were removed from Libya in August and the Ambassador repeatedly requested more Security due to increased attacks in the months prior to the attack that killed him.
So then what happens? Hillary has a conference call (that FNC wasn't invited to somehow) And basically she is calling the "Youtube Killed the Ambassador" story a bunch of Barbara Streisand.
So now we know how this story is gonna end. Axelrod has the Bus all warmed up and Obama and the Media are marching Hillary towards the curb. BUT it dawns on Obama that he has a Problem.
Like I said, See, Obama has a problem. There are people in the media who like Hillary and think she is running in 2016. If she gets chucked under the bus for getting an Ambassador killed then its game over ala Teddy "the Swimmer" Kennedy as far as Presidential aspirations go. Further we all know "Hil" ain't going quietly and Bill is gonna be front and center riding the ramp-up the Hillary lovers in the media will attempt.
And that is the problem. If he throws Hillary under the bus before November 6th he will suck all the air out of his campaign AND give Romney a huge opening to skewer him for mishandling the situation. However Hillary knows this and now she has fired the first shot over the bow of the SS Barry Hussein with the conference call.
Obama has a problem and her name is Hillary and she plays hardball. Someone is going down for the Ambassador dying. Eventually it will be Hillary but she will not go alone AND she knows that if she is going to take him down for sure it must happen BEFORE Nov. 6th
Bottom line. Get the popcorn folks and break out the beers. This is going to be political theater at its finest.
Hillary vs Barry.
And it ain't gonna be pretty!
Excellent analysis!
That, and State Department employees all of a sudden see a "Black Swan" - being an ambassador isn't just white wine and brie in exotic foreign capitals with exotic foreigners speaking exotic languages; it can actually get you killed.
I watched the hearing. Something was missing. No Hill on the grill on the Hill.
Roast Lamb with Kennedy sauce is not much of a luau.
You’re an idiot.
You’ve bored me enough.
AMF.
How could you be bored since you make up whatever you want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.