It takes a nation to protect the nation
Glenn Beck asked "Why" about so many things regarding Benghazi and the death of Ambassador Stevens. Here is why!
Note from Admin:
Danny later made a compilation of all the latest info:
'PHONY SCANDALS': CNN TO AIR BENGHAZI SPECIAL
On Tuesday, August 6th at 10PM ET, CNN's Erin Burnett will host “The Truth About Benghazi: An Erin Burnett Outfront Special Investigation.” The program follows the recent revelation that 35 CIA agents were on the ground in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.
Burnett’s colleague Jake Tapper revealed this bombshell on his show The Lead on Thursday night.
The press release did not reveal much information beyond the fact that Burnett will revisit “the night of the attack, the US military response, the latest on the investigation, and the political firestorm in Washington, DC.” CNN senior international correspondent Arwa Damon and chief national correspondent John King will join her.
Included in the special will be Damon’s interview with one of the key suspects in the attack, Ahmed Abu Khattala. Khattala has not been interviewed by anyone in the US government, which has caused many GOP lawmakers to ask FBI Director James Comey why CNN could talk to the suspect while the FBI has not questioned him yet.
Burnett will also interview the families of the four slain Americans: Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Stevens is the first American ambassador murdered in over 30 years.
Denial, evasion, “Let me be perfectly clear” — is this 2013 or 1973?
The truth about Benghazi, the Associated Press/James Rosen monitoring, the IRS corruption, the NSA octopus, and Fast and Furious is still not exactly known. Almost a year after the attacks on our Benghazi facilities, we are only now learning details of CIA gun-running, military stand-down orders, aliases of those involved who are still hard to locate, massaged talking points, and the weird jailing of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
We still do not quite know why Eric Holder’s Justice Department went after the Associated Press or Fox News’s James Rosen — given that members of the administration were themselves illegally leaking classified information about the Stuxnet virus, the Yemeni double agent, the drone program, and the bin Laden document trove, apparently to further the narrative of an underappreciated Pattonesque commander-in-chief up for reelection.
Almost everything the administration has assured us about the IRS scandal has proven false: It was not confined to rogue Cincinnati agents; liberal and conservative groups were not equally targeted; and there were political appointees who were involved in or knew of the misdeeds.The NSA debacle can so far best be summed up by citing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has now confessed that he lied under oath (“clearly erroneous”) to the U.S. Congress. Even his earlier mea culpa of providing the “least untruthful” statement was an untruth.
Yet the truth does come out. None of these scandals so far has been as ignored as the initial Watergate break-in and associated Nixon-administration misdeeds. If the doctrinaire press is now leading from behind, instead of launching a full-scale attack as it did in the Watergate years, the media as a whole are far more diverse than in 1973, with so many different venues and agendas that it’s difficult to suppress the truth for long.
Remember, between when the Nixon operatives drew up their initial plans to commit illegal acts in early 1972 and when the media furor over cover-ups and lying forced Nixon out of office in late summer 1974, the time elapsed was over 30 months — a period as long as or longer than the gestation of the present scandals. Recall also that no one died in Watergate; that the IRS resisted, not abetted, calls to go after critics of the president; and that Attorney General John Mitchell did not lie under oath to Congress. Scandals wax and wane, but until the truth is told, they never quite end.
There is also nothing new in administration denials. Both President Obama and his press secretary, Jay Carney, characterized the Benghazi, IRS, AP, and NSA allegations as “phony.” So too Nixon’s press secretary, Ron Ziegler, characterized the Watergate break-in as “a third-rate burglary attempt” and insisted that “Certain elements may try to stretch the Watergate burglary beyond what it is.” In August 1972, when news of the break-in first got out, Nixon himself assured the nation, “I can say categorically that . . . no one in the White House staff, no one in this Administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident.” The Obama administration’s variation on outright denial is “What difference, at this point, does it make?” And when Jay Carney declares, “I accept that ‘stylistic’ might not precisely describe a change of one word to another,” I am reminded of Ron Ziegler’s quip, “This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative.”
By the summer of 1974, Richard Nixon was almost alone. His attorney general, John Mitchell; his closest two advisers, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman; his White House counsel, John Dean; and a score of others — some of them directly involved, others only tangentially mentioned — had resigned, had been fired, or had been indicted. Those not involved simply wanted out of the administration, lest they suffer from guilt by association.
Less than a year after Benghazi, all the chief participants in reacting to the attack are gone from their positions: Susan Rice left the U.N. ambassadorship and is now a very quiet national-security adviser; Hillary Clinton is no longer secretary of state; we have both a new defense secretary and a new CIA director; the ranking military officer responsible for the area around Benghazi, General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command, has retired.
Likewise there have been several resignations and suspensions from the IRS. I don’t think James Clapper will last long as director of national intelligence — such a high-ranking official simply cannot confess to lying under oath to a congressional committee and expect ever again to be taken seriously. Eric Holder may prove to be Obama’s version of a steadfast-to-the-very-last General Haig; yet, like the mostly silent Susan Rice, he has been so tainted with scandal as to have little reputation left other than for being loyal to the president, and is thus irrelevant.
I think it is a fair guess that had the public learned the truth about the Benghazi deaths — that a videomaker had no role in the violence and that the administration was paranoid about drawing attention to an ascendant al-Qaeda, U.S. missile-running, and lax diplomatic security — or about the IRS targeting or the NSA surveillance or the AP/Rosen monitoring, Barack Obama would have lost a close election. All these scandals had their geneses before the 2012 election, and all were adroitly hushed up until after Obama’s second inauguration.
Whereas Nixon suppressed the truth and won big in 1972, by the 1974 midterm elections there had been enough blowback from the Watergate scandals that the Democrats picked up four Senate seats and 49 House seats. In other words, 2014 is still a long time away.
The Obama administration’s methods and aims — going after political opponents, monitoring a supposedly leaking press, fingering fall guys, soiling the IRS — are likewise Nixonian to the core.
Nixon tried to use the IRS to punish his enemies, although Lois Lerner and William Wilkins appear to have had far less integrity than did Nixon’s IRS chief, Johnnie Walters, who resisted rather than abetted Nixon’s illegal efforts. As in the case of doctoring CIA talking points and pressuring CIA operatives, so too Nixon tried to cloak misdeeds as “national security” operations. Nixon went after members of the press; Obama had the communications of James Rosen of Fox News — and even those of Rosen’s parents — monitored. Mr. Nakoula was the poor soul the authorities almost immediately jailed for his supposedly right-wing, Islamophobic film. He proved a sort of updated version of the caricatured crazy Cuban burglars and the unhinged Gordon Liddy, whose freelancing zeal allegedly caused the Watergate problem in the first place. The only difference is that the latter really did commit relevant illegal acts, while Nakoula’s videomaking was uncouth, not criminal — and irrelevant to the Benghazi deaths.
Lois Lerner’s resort to the Fifth Amendment is not new and will not be successful in covering up her record at the IRS. During the Watergate scandals, almost everyone from Charles Colson to John Dean took the Fifth at one point or another while under oath in front of various committees and grand juries. Such stonewalling delayed but did not stop the investigations. I expect more participants in the Obama-administration misdeeds will invoke the Fifth, and the dodges will ultimately have little effect, other than to remind us that many in the administration have lots to hide.
Nixon left office with historic low poll numbers and the economy a wreck. His successful feat of Vietnamization was undone by Congress’s refusal to make good on American promises of aid. His foreign trips were seen as failed efforts to regain political stature back home.
So too already with the unraveling of Obama. Cap-and-trade, green energy, and the idea of global warming are politically dead. So is a new gun-control initiative. The president, not his critics, is dismantling key elements of Obamacare, his signature achievement. Cabinet posts resemble musical chairs. About all we can expect is a new Nixonesque war on someone — post–Trayvon Martin “bigots,” conservatives supposedly waging a “war on women,” “nativists” who sabotaged “comprehensive immigration reform.” In other words, there will be no positive initiatives, just attacks on Them.
The president’s poll numbers are tanking, and even some of the liberal press feels increasingly betrayed. The Middle East is a mess: Syria a charnel house, Egypt pure chaos, Libya the new Somalia, Iraq abandoned, Afghanistan ignored. Al-Qaeda is on the run — toward Westerners everywhere.
The common denominators are perceived presidential weakness, and inattention. But whereas Richard Nixon was seen as a brilliant foreign-policy realist, Obama prior to his scandals was already struggling to overcome the reputation of being a naïf abroad and cool, distant, and inept at home.
Because something terribly wrong occurred in Benghazi, with the IRS, with the treatment of the Associated Press and James Rosen, and perhaps with Edward Snowden and the NSA, and those involved are seeking to mask their culpability, the scandals grind on. They will not end until the truth sets us all free. So expect a long-drawn-out and sordid saga.
If the administration continues to stonewall and taunt its critics, there will soon appear updated Obama versions of diehard Nixon defenders like Rabbi Korff and Representative Sandman — with plenty of the same old “Let me be perfectly clear” and “Make no mistake about it” presidential denials.
Read the entire article, and consider the implications if true.
I don't take much interest in American politics. But the few Americans I knew on FB (via my fake ID) were saying all of this within 3 days of Benghazi. There is NO WAY that American journalists didn't also hear these things within days of Benghazi. The only part that is new to me, is the aliases business.
And people think that the mass media are not in cahoots in providing narratives that suit the power elite...
Alan Lake said:
Paul I did not read the above. I saw 'Before Its News' and that was enough for me. That is the biggest hoax site in the U.S.
The story was posted on b4 its news, but does not come from from them. Read it, its a genuine story that is being well reported at the moment, via Sun News.
The footage from CNN I have seen before, but did not realise the importance of it at the time.
The story is out on Pat Dollard, Conservative Byte, and Palin has also be onto it.
Danny Jeffrey said:
Paul I did not read the above. I saw 'Before Its News' and that was enough for me. That is the biggest hoax site in the U.S.
Paul Collings; Ok I read it and it is from Before Its News. Odd name for a site as they are reporting old news as being current to generate evermore profit from the hits they receive. The report from Sun News was posted to You Tube on 28 October 2012...
Sarah Palin is not involved. That is from Barracuda Brigade, an independent sensationalist site making money by pimping her name. Note their Bi-line 'Like Gov. Sarah Palin we are 100% committed to common sense conservative principles! Join our fight to save America"
As for Pat Dollard, I am really not all that familiar with him but have found that he writes extensively for Before Its News...
And I read his autobiography, also on Before Its News, where I found a most interesting quote he made about himself..."I was a Hollywood pimp with a seven figure income and Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh as my flagship client" That came from this link:
Yes the story was released last year, but is being pulled out again in response to the NYT story http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/29/new-york-times-benghazi-in... that again blames the Anti - islam video for causing the riots around the Islamic world on 9/11.
I shall look into the Barracuda site.
And I shall ask PB about his exploit's and get back to you.
Sarah Palin has made quite a few comments on the cover up by the media on Bengharzi, she says the media have deliberately lied. I've been watching a couple of interviews she has done. One was with Greta, but I don't seem to be able to paste it here. so i'll paste the link.
I will see if I can find one where she points directly to a media cover up. It looks like at the time of all this she (sarah Palin) made a comment about the Prez on her face book page (Suck and jive?) which was deemed racist and took all the publicity.
As for the Barracuda site. Bit touchy..
Urban dictionary gives a brief history of the term 'shuck and jive' and concludes with the following line. "It has been adopted into non-Afroamerican speech, with a reference to behavior adopted in order to avoid criticism." The actual phrase she used was "shuck and jive shtick" The last time I checked, 'Shtick' was a Yiddish term. Why then is HuffPo not coming to the defense of Jews? After all she managed to assail not only black Americans but Jews as well and only used three words. Sammy Davis Jr. adopted the Hebrew faith and he should be turning over in his grave right now..
Progressives are masters of hit and run tactics with semantics being one of their weapons of choice, their goal being that of distraction. They scored a touch down, switching the topic from Obama's behavior to Obama being racially attacked.
Anyone willing to admit the truth already knows that Benghazi had nothing to do with the piece of trash video and the NYT will still not let it rest. It is all distraction, and feeding the culture war taking place in America. Anything to keep people's minds busy with trifles and off of current dangers.
Saul Alinsky would approve.
this has been a bit of an eye opener as regards the attacks on Sarah Palin. The one comment she made, Shuck and jive, sorry my bad spelling, is a term I've never heard, and it seems a term not known by many.
The abuse Mrs Palin got because of that one term fills pages and pages of web content. It also shows you the attempted character assassination of Mrs Palin by the left. It was relentless. And yet it could be that, that phrase was the worst thing she said. And I doubt she (like most people) didn't understand the term in the way the left want us to understand it.
During the time of Benghazi She was highlighting the truth about the attacks , and rubbishing the narrative coming from the White House. The truth was lost in a hail spite aimed at Mrs Palin, you'd have thought she personally went and shot the ambassador herself.
The Democratic Party seemed to realise this was a battle that could seriously damage them just before an election. They behaved like kamikaze pilots, flying head first into the Assault on Mrs Palin. A lesser person would still be receiving treatment.
After hours of looking at the interviews and speeches given at the time it is obvious Mrs Palin was well aware of all the facts, it is fully obvious that she, as well as the media knew of the threats to the embassy on 9/11, and its quite obvious the President, Clinton and all the kings men knew of the true reasons for the Attacks. And its quite obvious that the present administration with the help of the media covered it up and manufactured the story of spontaneous rioting due to an anti mohhamad movie.
It makes me think of the movie Invasion of the Body snatchers.