Thread: Obama and Benghazi; Incompetence or Malfeasance, What’s the Difference?

Obama and Benghazi; Incompetence or Malfeasance, What’s the Difference?

By Rick David / 13 May 2013 /


Finally, after eight months, the mainstream media is up to speed on Benghazi. The whistleblower’s testimony last week has opened the floodgates. Only hard core Obama apologists (most of the Democrats in Congress and Jay Carney) are refusing to accept that the official statements from the administration were deliberately altered to deceive the American people.


The self obsessed media has focused on this deception. How dare anyone deceive them? I hate to break it to them, but this isn’t news. Obama has been operating a misdirection exercise since before he set his sights on the White House.


Unfortunately, most people in this country are yawning. Liberals actually gloat about Obama’s adeptness at manipulating the press. A Fox News poll last week revealed that only 46% of Americans believe there was a cover-up. In other words, most people don’t, facts be damned.


The main stream press is so focused on the change of the narrative after the attack that they ignore the real story about why people died and why rescuers were ordered more than once to stand down. If the cover up was all about maintaining the narrative that Al-Qaida is diminished, why do you deliberately allow four people to die when you might have been able to save them? If you wanted to reduce the political consequences of a terrorist attack, you would do everything to prevent deaths. Then, you could blame it on a video and say you were on top of it and protected your people. That would be a political plus; you would look tough. Nobody dies; no investigation.


There was a question asked of Mr. Hicks which has not received much attention by the clueless media. Hicks was asked why, in light of security concerns, Clinton was sending Stevens to Benghazi. He hesitated. His response was guarded. He said that Clinton wanted to establish a presence there. Lame!


The purpose was to funnel weapons to Al-Qaida. That is what his last meeting was about. Actually, there has been much more known about all of this since even before the attack on Benghazi occurred. In August of 2012, the Washington Times reported that Obama was arming Al Qaeda. As early as October of last year, one month after the raid, Frank Gaffney reported in the Washington Times that Obama was shipping arms to jihadists in Syria from Libya and that Ambassador Stevens was involved in arranging the shipments. The Times reported that,

Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group … It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj. We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria.


So, we know that the administration was selling arms to al-Qaida through Stevens. We know that the State Department was informed that security was deficient and that their response was to reduce American security personnel. Instead, in Benghazi, the State Department hired local Libyan security that most likely included al-Qaida members. We know that once the attacks began, orders came down from somewhere high in the administration to stand down. That is either a tale of colossal incompetence or some dirty dealings.


I suspect malfeasance because of the type of people that Obama and Clinton are. You can know a lot about a person by the people that they associate with: Frank M. Davis, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Kalidi, Tony Rezko, Rahm Emmanuel, Van Jones, George Soros, Andy Stern, etc. We’ve learned that anybody that gets in the Clinton’s way ends up dead (Vince Foster, Ron Brown). Bad people do bad things. A cover up implies that one is hiding something. I think he’s hiding something evil.

Obama or Clinton will never be held to account for this because it doesn’t matter to most people, especially his friends in the media. The lesson that we can learn from this is that we are fighting evil. The media pursued Nixon because they perceived themselves to be crusaders against an evil force. The Republicans lack that conviction. They politely battle a nice guy who just has some wrong policies and is incompetent.


We need discernment to understand what we are fighting. This lesson is important for those of us interested in preserving our freedom. Unless we can expose Hillary as the criminal she is, she will most likely be our next President. We need crusaders who understand that they are fighting evil people. When we investigate, suspect and look for the worst. We just might find it.

In so many ways, the Benghazi scandal is a picture in microcosm of the entire Obama presidency. Is it incompetence or malfeasance? The administration response is, “What difference does it make?” It doesn’t matter to the liberal Machiavellians. The end, the agenda justifies the means. So what if he lied? He won. The Benghazi victims are collateral damage; they gave their life for the cause of “fundamentally transforming America once and for all.” And all that Elijah Cummings can say is, “Death is a part of life..” Happy Mother’s Day, Mrs. Woods.

Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/05/obama-...#ixzz2THulDVQA
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.


Gee I don't know "what is the difference" Ask Hillary!!!!!

Moved to General Discussion.

Bring in the Clowns: Obama Calls Benghazi Investigation a “Sideshow”


Published on May 13, 2013
5/13/13 - During a joint press conference with the British Prime Minister David Cameron this morning, President Obama went off on his political opponents and the press for the controversy over his administration's Benghazi talking points, calling the entire ordeal a "political circus" and "sideshow" with "no there there." Asked by the Associated Press about the unfolding controversy, which included last week's House Oversight Committee hearings with several State Department whistleblowers as well as revelations that the administration repeatedly revised its talking points in the wake of the attacks to omit key facts, Obama proceeded to scold his opponents:

By Clash Daily / 13 May 2013


President Obama delivered a defiant defense Monday of his administration’s response to the Benghazi terror attack, calling the revived controversy over the matter a “sideshow.”


The president addressed the issue during a press conference alongside British Prime Minister David Cameron, who is visiting Washington. Obama denied any suggestion that there was a cover-up, questioning recent reports that showed a State Department official trying to water down the administration’s initial story-line on what happened the night of Sept. 11.


“There’s no there there,” Obama said. The president, further, reiterated prior arguments that he called the attack terrorism from the start, dismissing claims that the administration intentionally downplayed that element.
But Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called Obama’s latest comments “revisionist history.”
Read more: foxnews.com



Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/05/bring-...#ixzz2THwpnL4S
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Who's on First
by (Lou Costello

Abbott: Strange as it may seem, they give ball players nowadays very peculiar names.
Costello: Funny names?
Abbott: Nicknames, nicknames. Now, on the St. Louis team we have Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third--
Costello: That's what I want to find out. I want you to tell me the names of the fellows on the St. Louis team.
Abbott: I'm telling you. Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third--
Costello: You know the fellows' names?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: Well, then who's playing first?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: I mean the fellow's name on first base.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The fellow playin' first base.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy on first base.
Abbott: Who is on first.
Costello: Well, what are you askin' me for?
Abbott: I'm not asking you--I'm telling you. Who is on first.
Costello: I'm asking you--who's on first?
Abbott: That's the man's name.

Costello: That's who's name?

Oh definitely bring in the clowns!!!!!