Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Hillary Clinton's Dilemma On Benghazi - Protect The Obama Administration or Herself

As Rep. Darrel Issa's House Oversight Committee began its investigation of the shameful events in Benghazi and what appears to be a clumsy attempt at an Obama Administration cover up, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in the hot seat.

It's pretty obvious by now that virtually everything the Obama Administration told the American people after the deadly attacks was a lie.The above ad from the Heritage Foundation ad above does a pretty good job of laying out the timeline and showing what we were told versus the actual facts as they were revealed.

So we now have a congressional committee investigating what has become a normal situation with the Obama regime - who knew what and when did they know it.

Even though there's now conclusive evidence that the State Department knew withing 24 hours that this was a terrorist attack with al-Qaeda elements, the Obama Administration continued to lie and mislead the American people about that for over a week, insisting that the Benghazi assault was a 'spontaneous protest' directed at an obscure YouTube video. The political context in the middle of an election, with President Obama chest thumping about his supposed foreign policy expertise is obvious.

Mrs. Clinton and President Obama,both of whom made a point of promulgating this fiction sat down this morning to attempt to craft what's obviously a new political strategy to give to the president's spokesmouths and shillmeisters in an effort to tamp down a growing scandal, at least until after the elections.The new line is quite obvious.

Now,people like UN ambassador Susan Rice 'were working on the best intelligence they had available at the time' and spokesmouth Jay Carney insists he never said Benghazi wasn't a terrorist attack, in spite of numerous clips from September showing him doing exactly that:

What all this doesn't explain is why Ambassador Steven's concerns about security for the consulate were consistently denied, why no personnel inside the consulate were armed, including two ex-Navy SEALS, why even a request for a barbed wire fence was turned down and warnings from the Libyan government itself were ignored,or why a 16 man Special Forces Security Team and a six member mobile security team were removed from Libya one month before the easily predictable flash point of the anniversary of 9/11.

Today, Eric Nordstrom, a regional security officer who left Tripoli about two months before the attack, told the committee that Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene Lamb wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi “artificially low.”

And Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the head of a 16-member special operations team that left Libya in August, said Stevens wanted his team to stay in the country. As I mentioned previously, he was appalled , and said it was unbelievable to him that the State Department withdrew the security teams when they did because of the 13 security incidents before 9-11.

Secretary Clinton is on a major hot seat here.

Rep. Issa has not called on her to testify yet, and indeed he's compared her desire to cooperate quite favorably with that of Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice on Fast And Furious. But sooner or later, some awkward questions are bound to be asked.

Since the State Department knew within 24 hours that this was a highly organized and planned terrorist attack, why did Mrs. Clinton repeat an obvious lie about a spontaneous protest and a reaction to a video? Were she and other administration figures taking direction from President Obama and pushing a false narrative to shield him from taking a well-deserved political hit?

Or, if she claims she was unaware of the intel the State Department she runs was fully aware of, doesn't that call to attention her incompetence and unfitness for the position she holds?

If the president and administration figures knew that their story about the YouTube video was false, aren't they guilty of giving it extra publicity and thus exacerbating the assaults on our embassies after the Benghazi attack?

Why has there been no mention by the Administration of the fact that Ambassador Stevens body was sodomized and mutilated after his death? Are they afraid that the truth might outrage Americans and destroy the carefully nurtured  narrative of the Arab Spring and pragmatic, peaceful Islamists?

Why were the security teams removed leaving the consul and its personnel defenseless? Why were their lives and safety entrusted to a small group of  rag tag Libyan security that appears to have been infiltrated by al-Qaeda and their affiliates?

None of these are going to be easy questions to answer, and Secretary Clinton may very well be put in a position to either admit that President Obama and his team asked her and other administration figures to lie for political purposes to protect his candidacy or to fall on her sword and take a bullet by appearing naive and incompetent.


louielouie said...

it's 3 AM.

Anonymous said...

Hillary is as big a liar as her husband. All they'll get out of her is double-talk, misrepresentaion, sophistry, & slippery evasions. These Leftists are brazen shameless liars.
The only way to get the truth out of her is by physical torture, LOL.

Lucas said...

I still don't get it. Why take away the security when they knew something was going on?

There is more here and we are missing it. Maybe Obama wanted to destroy Hillary?

From whatever angle you look, something seems to be missing.

B.Poster said...

From Mrs. Clinton's past actions, it should be rather obvious how she will behave, she will do every thing she can to protect and advance the interests of Mr. Obama. This is what she has always done and this is always what Mr. Clinton has done. They will support the Obama's interests ahead of their own. This is what they have always done and it seems unlikey they would change now.

Why would Obama want to destroy Hillary? She is one of his most loyal supporters dutifully doing every thing he wants her to do. The Clintons are arguably Mr. Obama's greatest supporters. It would make no snese for him to destroy either of them.

I agree that something is missing here. Based upon prior actions of the US government I think we can come up with what most likely happened. First of all it is known by anyone who is paying attention and is not letting ideology blind them that the US is heavily infiltrated by Islamists and their sympathizers. Furethermoe it is also known that officials in both major political parties, the media, and acedemia would not dare offend such a powerful group even if they felt so inclined, which many of them don't feel so inclined. This brings to mind an old teaching on how to manipulate someone against their will and making them like it!!

Now with that said what very likely happened is important officals within the US government had advanced knowledge of the attack and chose not to warn anyone because they were/are working for the Islamic terrorists. Furthermore these same officals wanting to ensure the attack was successful ordered the evacuation of security personnel.

Was Mr. Obama part of this group? I'd say most likely not. For an organization of any size, the chief executive must delegate certain functions. The US government is MASSIVE!! As such, functions such as embassy security and the personnel that would be used for this function are in the hands of someone else. This someone else was/is likely working for the Islamic terrorists.

Part of how such people cover their tracks is by propagating a myth of a powerful Jewish lobby, the myth of Muslim persecution, and the myth of a you tube video as the root cause of the attacks.

As for the you tube video, even though the state department seems to have backed off of this as the cause somewhat the narrative has been set and little is being done to actually challenge it. Socre one for the Islamic terrorists.

As for the myth of a Jewish lobby, this is part of a war fighting strategy to get one to divert their attention from the real enemy to a harmless group and get them to focus their energies on that. Anti-Semitism is on the rise in the US. Essentially the Islamic terrorists, the nations who support them, their agents in the US, and their "useful idiots" in the media and acedemia have successfully diverted our attenion. Socre another one for the Islamic terrorists and the nations who suport them.

B.Poster said...

There is a solution to the problem of Islamist penetration within the US government. It would begin with completely purging the State Department of every one currently there and starting over from scratch. The new applicants would need to be properly screened and vetted. It would take some time. also, the new personnel would lack experience in certain key areas. Hopefully we have some allies who could help us build a new State Department from scratch.

The next step would be to completely purge the CIA of all personnel. The personnel currently there are a combination of incompetent boobs, ideolouges, and agents of Russia, China, Islamic terrorists, and the nations who support them. We will need to develop a new intellegence agency from scratch. Perhaps we have allies who might be able to assist here. While the new intellegence agency is being created, we will likely have to rely on the intellegence of these allies.

Additionally, the US military is worn down, poorly led, poorly trained, and whatever useful equipment it has is obsolete for 21st century warfare. The fact that our warriors are poorly led, poorly trained, and have inferior and worn out equipment is NOT their fault. It represents a massive failure in leadership. They need and deserve much better in this area.

The military inustrial complex should be put to work on developing weapons and weapons systems that are relevant to the battlefields of the early 21st century. In order to do this, this will require a radical rethinking on how Americans have been taught to view the military industrial complex. Americans have been taught to view this group as a bunch of greedy war mongers who take money and resources from everyone else who control the government for their own nefarious ends. Instead of such false thinking Americans need to view the military industrial complex as a vital part to the defense and interests of a free nation.

Lastly, it needs to be understood that the threat posed to America by Islamic terrorists is far greater than the threat that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan ever posed to America or ever could have. While the threat is greater, it is not the same threat nor is America the same country today that it was in the early 1940s. As such, the strategies used to defeat this enemy will likely be very different than the ones used to win WWII Once this is understood, we can begin crafting policies that make sense for our national security. Whenever the threats posed by enemies such as Russia and China are factored in, the threats we face become even more dire!!