Thread: [Graphic Video] How Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton committed TREASON

[Graphic Video] How Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton committed TREASON

Posted on 4 May, 2014 by AmyElizabeth



By Amy Elizabeth

The Obama Administration’s scandals so rampant that they are hard to name in a single breath, they are so grave that it’s difficult to pinpoint which of all is worst. That having been said, the Benghazi attack and subsequent cover-up by the White House is a strong contender for Obama’s most treasonous move as Commander In Chief. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton gave $500 million for weapons to Al Qaeda terrorist used on our four dead American’s in Benghazi. Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi. Their rise to power, the group says, led to the attack in Benghazi. The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit.
The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot.Four-Star Admiral James Lyons claims Obama conspired with America’s enemies to stage a phony scandal to kidnap Chris Stevens to boost his polls for up coming 2012 re- election. US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot.
Anybody who has followed this story has always suspected that blaming the YouTube video was a political ploy. It was obvious, actually, just as it remains obvious why Hillary Clinton did everything she possibly could to keep any notion of accountability for her own decisions at arm’s length. That’s political, too. She has a crown to run for in 2016. It won’t do to have her negligence that resulted in four dead Americans become a speedbump on her path to power. Why let a little thing like incompetence stand in the way of ambition?

Emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans.

Rhodes sent this email to top White House officials such as David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack.
The “goal,” according to these emails, was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
The “goal,” therefore, was to lie convincingly enough to get the president re-elected. It takes a special coldness to tell that lie with the bodies of the dead in coffins behind you. Hillary Clinton managed that without a trace of a conscience to slow her down.
Rice came under fierce criticism following her appearances on television after she adhered to these talking points and blamed the attack on a little-watched Internet video.
The newly released internal White House e-mails show that Rice’s orders came from top Obama administration communications officials.
“[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it,” Rhodes wrote in the email, which was released on Tuesday by the advocacy group Judicial Watch.
“We reject its message and its contents,” he wrote. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.”
It’s well to remember at this point who Ben Rhodes is. According to the White House, he is assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications and speechwriting. That sounds nice, but he has no career in the military or intelligence. Rhodes is a career partisan Democrat and Obama loyalist who was put on the National Security Council because he is a loyalist to the man. Not the nation. Or the facts on the ground in Libya or anywhere else. Rhodes’ loyalty belongs to Barack Obama.
He needs to be compelled to testify under oath about all this.
The Pentagon had determined early on that Benghazi was a pre-meditated and planned terrorist attack. They told administration officials that. They were overruled by Barack Obama’s loyalist political officer, and administration officials from the president down lied to the American people and assaulted our freedom of speech so that Obama might win re-election and Hillary could succeed him.
Ben Rhodes the speechwriter coldly orchestrated a cover-up. Also contained in the 41 pages of documents obtained by Judicial Watch is a Sep. 12, 2012 email from Payton Knopf, the former deputy spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
In this communication, Knopf informs Rice that senior officials had already dubbed the Benghazi attack as “complex” and planned in advance. Despite this information, Rice still insisted that attacks were “spontaneous.”
The newly released cache of emails also appear to confirm that the CIA altered its original talking points on the attacks in the following days.
Then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell is identified as the person who heavily edited the critical fact sheet.
“The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable … because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy,” states one email. “Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points. Tatler readers know that there had been a specific warning regarding the embassy in Cairo, Egypt the day before both it and the facility in Benghazi were assaulted. That warning destroys any notion that a YouTube movie motivated either attack, as Cairo preceded Benghazi, and the motivations for the attack in Cairo were clear. It was not about a movie. The terrorists who attacked the embassy in Cairo wanted to force the U.S. to release the blind sheikh who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center attack. What did the terrorists who attacked Benghazi shortly thereafter want? Why did they attack that facility, and did they know that the U.S. ambassador was there? Where was Barack Obama while Ben Rhodes was directing a cover-up? Why was the military not allowed to respond??
Ambassador Stevens was tortured, raped, cattle prodded and burned, FOR 7 HOURS, while Hillary and Obama ignored his cries. Obama and Hillary told the Benghazi family members this was caused by an internet video as four dead coffins laid behind them.
Never forget these four brave dead Americans that were left to die by this corrupt Obama administration. Never forget the democrats who walked out on the Benghazi family members. The democrats and the mainstream media are enablers of the Obama administration so determined to keep the American people from knowing the truth about what really happened in Benghazi. Where was Obama and Hillary? Why wasn’t military sent to rescue our Americans? Why would we care about offending Muslims vs our own Americans?
Just this week Bat Shit Crazy House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Republicans are engaging in “diversion, subterfuge” by continuing to talk about the attack in Benghazi.
“Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi,” Pelosi said to reporter
Well, Mrs. Pelosi I got news for you Trey Gowdy is going to spring a can of Whoop Ass on Obama , Hillary and the rest of you libtards who sold our four brave dead Americans out for the Muslim Brootherhood.

[Watch]Exclusive- Raw Video of US Ambassador Chris Stevens body Dragged In Benghazi Libya – GRAPHIC.







http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/05/0...itted-treason/

Obama Gave $500 Million In Weapons To Al-Qaeda Terrorists In Benghazi

The Citizens Committee on Benghazi, an independent group of former top military officers and CIA members stated on Tuesday that if the U.S. hadn’t been arming al-Qaeda militias the Benghazi attack that killed 4 Americans could have been prevented.
‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ stated Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez also claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’
‘Some look at it as treason,’ stated former CIA officer Wayne Simmons.
Basically, Obama armed al-Qaeda to topple Gaddafi, WHILE Gaddafi was verifiably surcumbing to US demands. Obama prefered to give arms to his terrorist buddies, which they used to kill Americans, rather than allowing for a peaceful resolution that was already in progress.
Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report.
Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.
‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’
The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.

The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’
‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.
Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, another commission member, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now ‘all in Syria.’
‘Gaddafi wasn’t a good guy, but he was being marginalized,’ Kubic recalled. ‘Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate’ shortly after the beginning of a 2011 rebellion.
‘But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce,’ the commission wrote, ultimately backing the horse that would later help kill a U.S. ambassador.
Kubic said that the effort at truce talks fell apart when the White House declined to let the Pentagon pursue it seriously.
‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize,’ Kubic said, ‘but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours.’
In March 2011, Kubic said, U.S. Army Africa Commander General Carter told NBC News that the U.S. military was not actively targeting Muammar Gaddafi. That, Kubic revealed, was a signal to the Libyan dictator that there was a chance for a deal.
Gaddafi responded by ‘verifiably … pull[ing] his forces back from key rebel-held cities such as Benghazi and Misrata.’
Gaddafi wanted only two conditions to step down: permission to keeo fighting al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and the lifting of sactions against him, his family, and those loyal to him.
The Obama administration’s unwillingness to help broker a peaceful exit for the Libyan strongman, ‘led to extensive loss of life (including four Americans)’ when al-Qaeda-linked militants attacked U.S. diplomatic facilities in the city of Benghazi,’ the commission told reporters.
The White House and the National Security Staff did not immediately respond to questions about the group’s findings.
‘We don’t claim to have all the answers here,’ said Roger Aronoff, whose center-right group Accuracy in Media sponsored the group and its work.
‘We hope you will, please, pursue this,’ he told reporters. ‘Check it out. Challenge us.’

http://www.truthandaction.org/obama-...ists-benghazi/

Benghazi Attack Was Unprecedented & So Was its Coverup

The Common Constitutionalist 10 hours ago
2 Comments

Liberals are asking us not to care so much about Benghazi. I've read many articles over the last few months telling us that the attack was nothing new and asking what difference does it make now.
One such posting was by Ben Cesca of the Daily Banter.

In it, he writes of the "republican persecution" that, "Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation — turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins."
Yes, the dreaded Fox News, a favorite target of the left.
He continued: "The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they're being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009."
He then goes on to list 13 separate Embassy and consulate attacks during the Bush years.
To be sure, all those attacks were terrible, perpetrated by heinous Islamic jihadists. No one denies that. After all, we were/are at war with Islamic jihadists, and they have no code of war and no conscience or remorse for killing innocents.
But Mr. Cesca, I'm here to tell you that you, and all the other Obama apologists are dead wrong. Cover up aside, the Benghazi attack was indeed unprecedented.
However, in order to get the truth, one must leave the U.S. and look for it in the foreign press.
There you would have found this from the UK Daily Mail posted on April 22nd and updated on April 28th – just a week ago.

"The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn't been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier. 'The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,' Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline."

She blamed the Obama administration for tacitly approving the diversion of half of a $1 billion Qatari arms shipment to al-Qaeda-linked militants.

Where have we heard that before? Oh, that's right – others and I posted articles about the attack, highlighting the movement of weapons to terrorists. Mine was up on October 26, 2012 entitled "Benghazi…The Cover Up"
Mailonline continues: "The intelligence community was part of that [the weapons diversion], the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this."
"Some look at it as treasonous moves," said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission's research. "And our men and women had to follow what many purport as, qualify as treasonous moves."
Now how could anyone look at arming our enemies as treasonous? That's just hyperbole. Right!
"Gaddafi wasn't a good guy, but he was being marginalized," Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic recalled. "Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate shortly after the beginning of the 2011 rebellion. But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce, ultimately backing the horse that would later help kill a U.S. ambassador."
That "horse" being al-Qaeda. It would be like FDR authorizing a weapons transfer to the Japanese. It should be absolutely unthinkable – but evidently not for this administration.
So when a lefty buffoon like Bob Beckel says, "Let me finish by saying with what I think Hillary Clinton says — we know Islamic radicals killed these people, what difference does it make anymore?"
"Because they covered it up, Bob," Eric Bolling shot back.
"So what?!" Beckel screamed. "Every administration covers things up."
Nothing like this Bob…nothing at all like this!
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/be...ented-coverup/