Talking Points – the cover-up begins

My aim here is to play devil’s advocate to some extent. By doing that, I want to be able to draw out all possible scenarios as to why Susan Rice went on those talk shows and lied about what happened. My initial conclusion has been reduced to one word and that word is “POLITICS”.  I think it is also essential to view this through the political prism yet in doing that, I want to play devil’s advocate in order to try to get to the truth.

I do think that the truth is a lot nastier than anything that we can imagine, yet I hope that I am wrong about what the truth might be. At the very least the actions or rather the non-action was a display of incompetence. Yet, this conclusion is hard to accept for a variety of reasons.

The evidence being provided by the whistleblowers of high calibre such as Eric Nordstrum and Gregory Hicks tells me that there is a lot more to be told, and that we have not yet heard the truth. Then there is the evidence coming from the families of the dead men. That evidence points a finger directly at Hillary Clinton with her blabbing about some stupid documentary that had barely any views on Youtube.

Once again I point out to you that Muslim Brotherhood is SHIA and that the insurgents were members of Ansar Al-Sharia and other Al Qaeda operatives, who happen to be Salafists and Salafists are aligned to Yemen and Saudi Arabia, thus they are SUNNI. I point out again SHIA and SUNNI hate each other. I also point out that the civil war in Syria is Sunni vs. Shia. I will also point out that when Libya was going through its civil war, there was no Sunni vs Shia but it was anti-Gadhafi vs. pro-Gadhafi and there were strange bedfellows on the anti-Gadhafi side. I will also point out that in Libya both Shia and Salafists are in the minority. The majority in Libya are Sufi. The Sanusi (a mixture of Sufi and Wahibi) had been on the decline especially with Gadhafi destroying their mosques. (that action was meant to destroy the power base of the followers of king Idris).  I will point out that Muslim Brotherhood was not involved with the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. That attack was carried out by Salafists, not Muslim Brotherhood.

At the same time I point out the harm that is being done because CAIR and other Muslim organizations have been gaining a strong foothold in the USA. I do believe it is dangerous and I do think that Huma Abedin should be sacked from her job.  What I am also wanting to point out here is that Iran was not involved in the plot unless Iran was playing its own double game because Iran is pissed over losing a sphere of influence when Gadhafi was toppled from power.

I have no doubt that there was a plot involving the very poor low-grade documentary. However, that plot did not involve Benghazi. I believe that the plot involved inciting riots in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East and the timing was meant to make the incumbent in the White House look good as he once again began his farting as he was bending over to kiss the butts of Muslims in an apology tour. The fact remains that he went ahead with these apologies. He made an ass of himself at the UN when he gave that speech blaming this documentary that in fact initially had nothing to do with Mohammed. Whoever dubbed the video that was uploaded to Youtube was in on the plot. The words were changed such that there were “insults” against the cattle thief and pedophile founder of Islam.  One must never forget that “Islam” is Arabic for submission. It does not mean peace in the way that either Judaism or Christianity understands the word peace. Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and all of their offshoots are after one thing, and that is SUBMISSION.

Now here is my guess as to what really went down. The plot regarding the Youtube video documentary had already been put in place. The riots had already begun in Cairo and they were spreading. At the same time as this political plot  hatched, Al Qaeda sympathizers had come up with their own plot that involved sacking the consulate in Benghazi. Now this other plot could have had something to do with the work being done to recover weapons, or it might have been an attempt by the leader of the attack to assert himself within the Al Qaeda hierarchy. All possibilities need to be laid out on the table because there is no simple answer. This Al Qaeda plot did in fact give some cover to the other plot.

The first talking points that I saw actually mentioned things like there had been a protests that suddenly got out of hand. The report was not true. I cannot remember the source for that report, but I do remember seeing it, and I remember writing about it in this way initially.

However, word did get out from the Libyans themselves, and they were people who were on the ground, that this was an Al Qaeda attack. The people tasked with guarding the consulate were the first to debunk the protest, but as I recall the initial reports, it was stated that the guards on duty had melted away, except that is not what happened, and the guards on duty have stepped forward with their version of events – they were overwhelmed and they hid themselves on the roof. They did not have enough fire power to be of assistance. Still, there were others who belonged to the group responsible for guarding the consulate and they were involved in the attack. You simply cannot trust any Salafist no matter what country they live in. The President of Libya was the first to state outright that it was a terrorist attack.

According to the testimony that came from the whistleblowers, the staff in Tripoli knew that there was an Al Qaeda attack going on, and that they had notified Washington that there was an Al Qaeda attack. It makes no sense at all that people in Washington refused permission for the rescue mission to take place.  The people in the situation room always knew that this was an Al Qaeda attack.

The White House Administration plays by the rule of grabbing every opportunity to promote their agenda. On that afternoon, when the attack began, a group of people met in the Oval office to work out how they would respond to what was taking place.  They saw this as an opportunity to show to the public that they could handle a crisis. They already knew about the protest in Cairo, and they decided to use that protest as the reason for the attack in Benghazi except that what they talked about never happened and they knew that what they proposed was a lie. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State was one of the plotters. Susan Rice was probably at the same meeting. She was “just following orders”.

Now this is where the whole thing gets messy because once they had decided to use the demonstration in Cairo as an explanation, they then took a series of decisions that had deadly results.

Barack Obama is the world’s worst ditherer. He never wants to lead anything. He has no leadership skills and he is not fit to be POTUS.  He does not have the ability to lead the USA. The things he is good at are corruption and lying about everything. Barack Obama is the most corrupt President ever. He makes Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy look like choirboys, and he makes FDR look like a Boy Scout leader. On that afternoon he failed decision-making 101.  The question that I have is: did Barack Obama make the decision to not allow assistance? If the answer is NO then that means someone else made those decisions. This was a decision that only the President could make, and the finger is pointed right at him.

So, we then get to the talking points given to Susan Rice and promoted by Hillary Clinton as well as Barack Obama. Yes, each of them engaged in those talking points.

The talking points directly contradicted Magarief the Libyan President, causing him to lose face, not just in Libya, but all over the world. He was steamed over what Susan Rice did. As a result of decisions that were no doubt made in the Oval Office, there was a delay in getting an investigation under way.

The plot could only succeed if the MSM continued to cover for Barack Obama, and thus on the night of one of the debates, when Mitt Romney had made what should have been a killing thrust, Barack Obama said “Help me Candy”.  That was the point when Candy Crowley pulled out her own talking points and she helped to cover up what had happened immediately after the attack, and she lied.

(To be continued)

3 responses to “Talking Points – the cover-up begins

  1. As usual, WELL DONE. Thoroughly researched and elegantly argued. But like I have mentioned before, while often on the right track and pointed in the right direction, you remain one step away from driving a dagger into it. On the other hand, and in your defense, all of the facts are not in yet and you may be right to avoid too much speculation.

    HOWEVER, I would bet a fair amount of my wealth (such as it is) on the theory that The Obama is deeply involved in this and that The Answers are just another part of his pro-Muslim and anti-American agenda.

    And I firmly believe that Huma Abedin is a terrorist and a mole. Research her background and credentials. She has no business whatsoever being so highly placed. And there is no way she could ever legitimately get a security clearance. She needs to be investigated, tired, and appropriate punishment meted out. If I am right, that would involve far worse than just being fired.


    • I thought that I was doing a good job leading people in the direction of the Oval Office.

      I think that had to be a meeting where Obama and Clinton were present. I am betting on involvement of Valerie Jarret, more so than Huma Abedin.


  2. Good stuff here, Aussie. Thanks!