It was not the break-in, it was not the blow job….


A comment seen on another website is a reminder that Nixon was in trouble not because of the break-in of the Watergate Hotel, but for the cover-up that followed. Well, the same is true regarding why Bill Clinton was impeached, it was not the blow job that was the cause of the fuss, it was the lying under oath, otherwise known as perjury that was the reason he got himself into trouble.

As an outsider I lived on the other side of the world and read about both of these actions taken against two sitting Presidents. I am a lot kinder to Nixon than most Americans because I do not consider him to be all that bad, especially in comparison to the current corrupt incumbent.

Nixon was in the wrong because he conspired to cover up for those responsible for the break-in. He was caught on tape and that meant he had no option but to admit to his error and to resign as President.

On the other hand, I am extremely harsh where Bill Clinton is concerned. I have never understood why it was possible for that man to get elected when his affairs were being broadcast all around the world. Yes, we were told about Gennifer Flowers and the other women, but it seems that voters were on auto-pilot. I have never changed my POV that the election of Bill Clinton was one of the worst mistakes made by the American electorate… and a much worse one has been the election and then re-election of the fraud and corrupt Obama-Soetoro.

The more I have been learning about what really took place during the Al Qaeda attack on the consulate in Benghazi, the more I recognize that all of those who were in any way involved in a cover up belong in jail.

Yes, there has been a cover up. From the get-go it was obvious that what took place was an attack by Al Qaeda or sympathizers of Al Qaeda. I am personally less harsh about some of the Libyans who had been selected to guard the consulate because I do think that most of them were people who are on the level, but a minority were involved in that other Ansar-al-Islam and they assisted in the attack. There is no other way to explain the numbers of those present.

Was it purely coincidental that in Egypt there was a protest about a third rate documentary? The story is that an Egyptian imam got hold of the Youtube documentary and that he played it on his nightly spot, declaring that it was blasphemy.  There were protests in Egypt and they took place before the attack. This was then used as a covering reason for the attack…. BUT WAIT A MINUTE….

Let’s just have a think about some other possibilities here. A man who is said to be a Coptic Egyptian was supposed to have been behind the documentary. This man by the way remains in jail and he has not faced the court system. That means he remains a political prisoner in the USA (I hate using that term and I do so with a heavy heart). Should we not ask who asked him to create the movie? Should we not ask who financed the documentary? I have heard a name being bandied about and that name is John Brennan…. but I have nothing to substantiate that particular suspicion.

What if the documentary had been done exactly as the “actors” had claimed, and that it was never about Mohammed? That would mean that someone dubbed the video in Arabic and that they altered the words so that it became blasphemous in the eyes of the oh so sensitive Muslims. Did that Egyptian cleric do the dubbing with the intention of fanning the flames? Remember there were protests before and after the Al Qaeda attack in other Middle Eastern countries, and in Tunisia the US embassy was also attacked.

So what is with the name of John Brennan? Well, that ties back to Valerie Jarrett and her links with Iran. BUT….. IRAN IS SHIA…. and AL QAEDA is SUNNI.  If you do not know what this means then please do some research because the distinction is very important. The people behind the attack in Benghazi were Sunni insurgents. They were not like the majority of Libyans who are Sufi, and they were not the remnants of the Sanusi. On top of that there is sufficient evidence that many of the insurgents that took part in the attack were foreigners and not Libyans at all…. but there were some Libyans involved……..

So what is troubling me about this Benghazi situation? Let’s start with the issues relating to security in Libya. Why did the State Department downgrade the security in Libya? Why did they refuse the requests for extra security personnel from Ambassador Chris Stevens? This is a nagging question. The response given do not make any sense.

Next, is the use of the Libyans to guard the consulate. What background checks were made on those who were tasked to be the guards? Some of those men were involved in the security breaches at the Benghazi consulate. Wait there are more questions to ask: why did the State Department ignore information regarding attacks on the British embassy staff prior to the attack? Why did the State Department ignore the attack on the consulate prior to the Al Qaeda attack when the wall was first breached? Why was it that the Libyan guards did not have proper weapons to defend the consulate? The two who were on duty did not have the means to be of assistance in repelling the attack. They are lucky to be alive!!

This is only the beginning of my questions on what took place, and especially in the aftermath of the attack.

What has now come to light is that the drone that was over Benghazi was not armed. Who insisted that the drone was not to be armed that night? If the drone had been armed, then it was more than probably that the drone could have engaged the Al Qaeda operatives on the ground and repelled the attack.

However, the lack of arming the drone is only a part of the story. Who gave the order for the “troops” in Tripoli, who were ready to board the aircraft being sent to Benghazi to stand down?

Somebody at the very top of the tree aka in the White House gave that order. If the anointed one had gone to bed, then it was someone very high up who had been given specific directions who gave the order to stand down. Was it Leon Panetta? Was it John Brennan? Was it Valerie Jarrett? Or was it the occupant of the Oval Office who gave that order that there was to be no assistance given.

This does not take into account the role of Hillary Clinton. She is implicated because as Secretary of State it was her duty to ensure the safety of all embassy staff. She did the exact opposite. One accusation that has surfaced is that she interfered to take the counter-terrorism branch out of the loop. Why? Who told her to do that?

The investigation carried out by Department of State has been nothing but a sham. People who were directly involved in the events were not called upon to testify. It will be interesting to see if David Petreus steps up and starts giving further evidence. I do not believe that he would have jeopardized his staff in that manner. Let’s just wait and see…..

This whole issue is way more serious than any break-in, or even the cover-up of that break in….

And I have one more question: Who killed Vince Foster, because he did not commit suicide even though that is the official explanation of his death.

Advertisements

Comments are closed.