Why is the White House hiding the fact that it was a terrorist attack?

Who would ever think that the Libyans would be more truthful than the White House? I, for one never thought that it was possible that a country such as Libya could possibly be truthful. However, the attack on the consulate at Benghazi has proved me wrong!! The first information that I read on the attack gave me the Clinton or State Department narrative, and only then did I learn about that picture of a dead Chris Stevens.I am not certain that some details have ever been verified, or that Stevens was alive when he was pulled from the house. On top of that I am not certain that the blood stains on the walls belong to the Americans. This is because more than 10 Libyans were either killed or wounded during the attack as they were protecting the consulate staff. Someone within their midst was a traitor to the cause, and yes it hurt the people of Benghazi and of Libya. What I did learn very quickly though, is that the Department of State, the White House, and the Obama Administration were once again caught lying about what took place.

Let’s start with the early narrative regarding a documentary of extremely poor quality that had been pasted on the Internet. How many people would have even looked at this extremely poor documentary if it was not for the White House narrative? My feelings on the matter (and yes they are only feelings, not truth) is that the documentary itself was psy-ops, a set-up. If anything it might even be that it surfaced too soon to be of use to Obama in his re-election efforts. Adding to my suspicions on this subject is the fact that it appeared on Egyptian TV with Arabic subtitles. Can no one smell the possibility of a set-up?

Keeping within the subject of the narrative here is the fact that this c- grade documentary has caused riots all over the Middle East, and it has led to the trashing of various embassies and consulates.Rage Boy was let out of his cage again!!  I note here that Obama continues to stick with this narrative, no matter what, and that he is using it in an attempt to restrict the freedom of speech of non-Muslims. His speech to the UN on this very subject was disgusting. The narrative itself was supposed to be that there was a protest happening outside of the US consulate and that what happened there was somehow spontaneous.

However, within a few days of the death of the US Ambassador to Libya, the narrative began to unravel. The first hint of fraying came from the UK where a Libyan, a former member of the LFG, and now a member of a think tank declared that the attack itself had the hallmarks of Al Qaeda. The man knew his subject because of his own association (now repudiated) with Al Qaeda in the old days of fighting against the Russians in Afghanistan. The next fraying came when the Libyan President also remarked on the same subject, and that was followed by eye witnesses to the attack (the people who were guarding the consulate) who stated that there was no protest at the time. One such witness has given quite a bit of detail that has totally shattered the narrative.

As time moves on, we are learning more and more about the intelligence reports, and the lack of response from Washington. Yes, it turns out that the POTUS has not been bothering with intelligence debriefs, and on top of that when he knew that the consulate was under attack, took himself off to bed!!

The actions of Obama are so reprehensible, that I believe people should be extremely angry over the way that he is continuing to endanger the lives of Americans, as well as the lives of those allies who have been in the field helping in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The path forward for Libya should be a lot smoother, but the fact remains that there are elements in and around Benghazi that were always of concern. Obama and Clinton should have known that there was real cause for concern in Benghazi and the State Department should have been ensuring that the building in which the consulate was operating was indeed safe from this kind of attack. It is not just Al Qaeda loyalists and affiliates, there are other sub-groups, some of them Islamists, but others are pro-Gadhafi. I have mentioned this previously, that I continue to see the Gadhafi family as a threat to Libya. So long as the other sons and daughter remain on the loose, then there are threats to Libya. This means that Libya remains unstable.  Libya is not associated with Iran, and it is foolish to even think that the people in charge would associate themselves with Iran. This is because Iran back Gadhafi but Iran did take an each way bet – Iran gave munitions to Gadhafi and medicinal aid to Benghazi during the civil war. From the point of view of those currently in charge, though, you can be sure that they are not going to fall over backwards supporting Iran. There is another reason as to why they would not align themselves, and that is Libyans are either Sunni, Sufi or Sanusi rather than being Shia. This is also why Muslim Brotherhood does not have a real toe-hold in that country. Claims that Muslim Brotherhood are in charge in Libya are simply nonsense spread by people who are ignorant with regard to the people of Libya.

To understand Libya you must study the period between the second world war and the usurpation of king Idris by a very young Gadhafi. During that period Idris was not quite pro-Israel, but certainly neutral. Gadhafi took Libyans in a different direction. Gadhafi turned Libya into a Socialist State, which was something that irked older Libyans. NO, they were not grateful that they had money in their bank account every month, or that they had free medicine, free hospital etc. They were resentful over their country being made into a Socialist State. In that pre-Gadhafi era Libya was a Sharia law country. Nothing changed when Gadhafi was in charge, except that he destroyed their various mosques and he would not allow the Berber to speak their own language.

As more and more information emerges regarding the attack on the US consulate, the more it makes the White House, and Obama look incredibly foolish. The President of Libya has contradicted the White House and he has firmly stated that it was an Al Qaeda attack, and on top of that there is the fact that there was no demonstration.

What does this mean? My mind, which does not normally run to conspiracy theories is having a bit of a field day on this one. I am starting to think that this attack was not only planned, but that the video was meant to cause the kind of mayhem that has taken place in the Middle East and elsewhere but that this was a video that was funded by people associated with the DNC and the Obama campaign. Since Obama is in the tank with Muslim Brotherhood, I am fast forming the opinion that there was a plot that has gone wrong, in that the attack on the consulate was not supposed to happen, but the other scenes from Egypt through to Pakistan were supposed to happen. How come Al Qaeda was prepared to attack at the right moment? Something smells really, really fishy about the whole thing.

3 responses to “Why is the White House hiding the fact that it was a terrorist attack?

  1. Indeed!

    Welcome to MY world!

    I have always said you are too nice. You want to believe that there are a lot of Moderate Muslims. You lean more towards the Massive Incompetence (otherwise known as the Affirmative Action Overpromotion Syndrome) and have not wanted to embrace the idea that Zero is an infiltrator and a foreign agent. You have wanted to believe that Zero is Leftism/Progressivism taken to a harmful extreme rather than that Zero actually wants to destroy America.

    Call it what you will – Socialism, Anticolonialism, Progressivism – Zero’s fundamental belief is in the zero sum global game – economically, politically, and culturally. This theory says that the only way any one or any thing can become above average – or especially, exceptional – is to push down some one or some thing else. Which leads directly to:

    1. America is evil (“the great satan”) – and especially, our friend, Israel

    2. Western Civilization is even worse (having raped the third world for centuries)

    Can you see that in Zero’s words and actions???


    • Carlyle I have always had my own views on the subject of Affirmative Action… and no I do not lean twoards such a thing because it means that some people are more equal than others. It also means that the Peter Principle is in play.

      My views on Obummer have never deviated in the slightest. He is the usurper in the White House. I have always had strong views on the subject. Since his putative father is from Kenya then he is not a Natural Born Citizen, in the same way that my cousins from Detroit are not Natural Born Citizens because their mother, when they were born was an Australian citizen.

      My views on Muslims remains pretty much the same. The ones I have personally known have shown me that there are many who do not believe in jihad… but they will always denigrate a Jew. I saw that in action in the workplace when I worked with a Muslim male and a Jewish woman. At the time I did observe that the Muslim was inclined to learn more about Christianity. There is hope… but that hope is a long way off.

      I continue to see Libyans in a different light from Egyptians. There are certainly Salafists among them, but most Libyans are neither Salafist nor Muslim Brotherhood. There are two other types of Muslims Sufi is one and the other is led by the Aga Khan. In both cases there is little inclination to be involved in military jihad. On the other hand my interaction with Pakistanis has taught me to be vary wary of Muslims.

      What I am finding is that too many people jump to the wrong conclusions about people in general. I simply cannot move away from the fact that God remains the prime motivator and because God is the prime motivator I see people through that lens. There are Muslims who sincerely believe in God. People equate Allahu Akbar which means God is Greatest as some kind of war cry. However, there is always a need for context. I saw that during the civil war in Libya, where I read about a doctor who was killed by Gadhafi goons in the field. They opened fire on the ambulances that were there to take away the dead and the wounded. The Gadhafi goons did not care. The doctor in question was wounded but still alive and the goon wanted him to give allegiance to Gadhafi. His response was indeed that he would not give allegiance to the dictator but only to God. For this response the doctor was executed.

      In Libya there are people who behaved like animals, and there were atrocities as well.. Most of the atrocities happened on the Gadhafi side, but there were some others that gave cause for concern. Except for those tied to military jihad, I try to look for reasons as to why such responses occurred. People speak about the ones who lived near Misrata and who were driven away, as well as some being dragged from their hospital beds. It sounds horrific. Open the Bible, read the Old Testament and read about the same kind of atrocities. They are not new. The fact is that in that particular case these people earned their own disrespect because they were loyal to Gadhafi, and they had been responsible for the bombardment of Misrata, the killing of women and children in the streets, as well as the rape of young women from Misrata. They deserved the treatment meted out to them after the fall of Gadhafi because of the things that they had done. I felt no pity for any of them.

      I remain on the side of those who have been oppressed. I have never supported the action of the Egyptians. In fact I like them even less now than I did previously. When it comes to the Syrians I remain suspicious about the truth of the matter. However, one thing impressed me about the Syrians and that was their plaintive banners that wanted to know Muslims were up in arms about a bad movie, but were not enraged over what was taking place daily in Syria. I remain with them in spirit, if nothing else.

      You see, I look upon these people not as Muslims, but as members of the human race who have been oppressed over a very long period of time. They rose up against the oppression only to face more of the same oppression and suppression.

      I do not endorse anything done by Obama. Even before he won the election race I was against him and feared that he would be another Jimmy Carter. I had other reasons for loathing him, none of those reasons have anything to do with race. His vileness comes from his attitudes about abortion on demand and especially partial birth abortion. I have learned a lot about this horrible man since my first apprehensions. I learned about his corruption and the fact that he is a closet gay with a beard (Michelle). and I learned that he was somehow implicated in the murder of Donald Young. There is much I have learned, and nothing that would endear me to that horrible person.


  2. What do you think of THIS?


    It is another one of those things that may seem too preposterous or to big to be true. Yet, like with Zero himself, the deliberate hiding of information just serves to fuel all kinds of speculation.

    Besides, there is enough peculiar stuff going on that fits this formula so exactly, it does not require a very strong dose of paranoia at all to believe this.