Category Archives: Benghazi cover-up

In a nutshell


Trey Gowdy has been consistent with his questions relating to Benghazi and unlike some others, he has managed to distill the issues in a meaningful way. Why does it matter? This is a question that only a progressive liberal would ask, yet Trevor Gowdy provides a thought provoking response. I am not talking about the cracks regarding the fact that the NYT and other LSM have no idea about how to spell Benghazi, but I am talking about the way in which he has distilled the reason why this is so important.

In Gowdy’s own words, you do not leave people flapping in the breeze after sending them into a dangerous situation. You make an effort to get them out again. This, in a nutshell is one of the things that was so very wrong during the Al Qaeda attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.

However, that fact is only a portion of the full story. There are many unanswered questions. Hillary Clinton has been less than honest in her answers. The “investigation” conducted by Thomas Pickering was a sham. At least one of the State Department employees removed from his/her position had nothing at all to do with the security issues relating to Benghazi and he has been unfairly punished. The question is why was he removed?

From the earliest days after the attack, we knew that the security officers who were with Ambassador Stevens were there to try and track weapons that were floating about the area. In those early days there was talk about an AQ training camp and that people were aware of this training camp. The weapons issue is in my opinion a bit of the iffy side and the reason for my expression of “iffiness” is due to the fact that Gadhafi had a large cache of weapons that included the rocket launchers etc. My question here is whether or not those weapons had already been rounded up so that they could not end up in the wrong hands.

My next issue relating to the weapons is who did the supplying when Qatar was doing the buying. To refresh your memories in relation to the weapons, oil money was used to pay Qatar for shipments of weapons. These were shipments that ended up being used in Misrata. There must have been other weapons that were also shipped in because there was no shortage of the supply of rocket launchers and the like as that war had dragged on. However, what also needs to be pointed out that the French and the British also supplied weapons. The French dropped weapons into the mountains in the region that was closest to and outside of Tripoli. The group who received those weapons were not Al Qaeda affiliated but they were Bedouin, and they belonged to a minority group inside of Libya. (This group had a particular beef against Gadhafi because he had banned them from using their own language). One commander of this group had a book where he noted the serial numbers of the weapons and who they were issued to before they set out on what was a successful campaign that led to the downfall of Tripoli.  What I do not know is whether or not those weapons were collected and returned to the French, as agreed.

Another issue to keep in mind is that Gadhafi also armed those who were loyal to him, and this means that there was a separate group that also have weapons. Amongst those Gadhafi loyalists are the Touareg, and it is this group that had been active in Mali. Please keep this in mind, because it means that it was Gadhafi money that had been used to launch the attack on the government in Mali. It is also a possibility that the Touareg had helped themselves to some of the weapons caches within Libya. There was ample evidence immediately after the end of the civil war in Libya that weapons were missing from some of these weapons caches. The question remains who took them? The members of LIFG were too busy fighting to have had the time to have taken the weapons and sent them across the border hundreds of miles away from where they were fighting. The question I think remains open.

Despite my above comments, I accept that there is also ample evidence of weapons remaining in the wrong hands in Benghazi after the war ended. The real problem was Ansar al-Shariah who were acting as though they had the right to dictate to the population of Benghazi with regard to how they conducted themselves. Some of these individuals were responsible for the flag of AQ flying over the ministry of justice building, yet the people of Benghazi did not welcome them.

Looking back at the timeline of events does not reveal much about the identity of those involved in the actual conflict. The February 17th brigade seems to have been made up of a disparate group – those who were “good” and those who were Islamists and had other motivations. If you did not follow the conflict you would not be aware that a lot of the young men were getting themselves wounded and killed because they had absolutely no experience with warfare. If they were shot at then they would run away. In those early days the “rebels” would advance, gain a small victory, and then when Gadhafi’s loyalists hit back they would run away. Eventually they were taught how to deal with the situation. This group of young men I would classify as the “good”. They were fighting for their lives and not a cause. Ansar al-Sharia joined with them but they were also the ones that seem to have committed most of the war crimes that were done by the rebels.

A big risk was taken when this particular group i.e. Ansar al-Sharia was supplied with weapons such as the rocket launchers. From what I understand, Ansar al-Sharia is not the same organization as LIFG but there can be some intermingling because LIFG had the political motivation to be rid of Gadhafi. That leaves open the question as to whether or not members of LIFG took part in the AQ attack on the US consulate.   It does appear that it was Qatar who was doing the funneling of weapons that were supplied by the USA, Great Britain and France in particular.

Whilst the civil war in Libya was winding down, the civil war in Syria was winding up. Certainly in the early days of the conflict the rebels had been a mixture of Islamists and others opposed to the Assad regime.  Turkey was dragged into that conflict and remains on the periphery because Syrians fled across the borders and they remain in the refugee camps on the border between Syria and Turkey.  It must be kept in mind though, that with the Libyan conflict, Nigeria, Algeria and Tunisia were also dragged into the conflict in the same way. There was always the opportunity for the weapons held by the Gadhafi regime to end up across the border. It really is that messy.

There are many questions that need answers including:

1. Did Obama secretly agree to supply weapons to the Libyan rebels? Did Libya pay for the weapons via Qatar?

2. Did Obama make a secret agreement with Turkey to supply the Syrian rebels with weapons?

3. At any stage did Obama consider the risk of these weapons ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda sympathisers?

4. What was the real reason for Ambassador Stevens to be in Benghazi? I have heard several versions including the tracking of weapons, and the latest version was the talk of making the consulate a permanent feature.

5. Why did the Department of State ignore the requests for greater security?

6. Why did Obama persist in the lie about a C grade documentary that had nothing to do with the AQ attack on the consulate? In other words, what were the ulterior motives for the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi? How much bigger is the cover-up?

I note here that I have seen some interesting speculation regarding the truth about the use of the c-grade documentary, and yes that speculation revolves around the issue of Muslim supremacy and the fact that Muslims want to shut down our ability to state the truth about Islam.

Which scandal will bring about impeachment?


The reality is that Barry Soetoro is embroiled in a series of scandals, not just one, that have the potential to bring about impeachment proceedings. In each case it is the lies and the cover-up that is important. The Republican Congressman Chaffetz is probably the most keen to consider impeachment over the stonewalling regarding the Al Qaeda attack at Benghazi. I do think that by the end of his investigations he will be even more keen to see the impeachment process put in place. Yet there are other scandals, each with their own importance and each of them attacks the very freedoms that are gained from the U.S. Constitution.

1. The attack on the First Amendment. The reality of the scandals that indicate attacks on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is only just beginning to hit. There are at least three scandals involved:

– IRS harassment of conservative groups

– the collection of AP records via DoJ

– the attack on Fox News and in particular James Rosen also via DoJ.

I have no doubt that this list will increase in the coming days as more and more things come to light. It is early days where each scandal is concerned.  The IRS one has some legs with so many lies being told that it seems obvious that the instigator of the harassment was in fact POTUS. The smoking gun has to be in the White House logs… and no I do not believe the story about the forum being the reason that the head of the union was at the White House. The log actually indicates that she was there for a meeting with POTUS. (developing)

2. The attack on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

– Fast and Furious which is still being investigated and there continues to be a situatin where Eric Holder is in contempt of Congress and the White House refuses to hand over documents relating to that matter claiming executive privilege. At this stage I am willing to state that Barry Soetoro was aware of Fast and Furious and that he was the instigator because he wants to be able to ban guns.  I have no doubt that Eric Holder is in collusion with Barry on this subject.

3. Benghazi. I cannot properly classify this one, but I see it as tied up with the attack upon the First Amendment. My reasoning is based upon the attitude of Muslims with regard to the Freedom of Speech…. but that is only one very small portion of this particular subject. Benghazi is a multi-part scandal because there are many issues to take into account including talk of gun running (this is not proved). The real scandal is of course the cover-up and there is where the free speech component surfaces, because of the false claims that a third rate short documentary was somehow to blame for what took place. The person who was responsible for the documentary is in jail, allegedly because of parole violations. Yet, it goes deeper because this is also an attempt to stop anyone criticizing Islam. The speeches of Barry Soetoro to the UN on the subject is ample evidence that this story is about anti-free speech motives.

Now I am one who supported the people of Libya as they fought to free themselves from the yoke of Gadhafi. It did not bother me that some of those fighting were Islamists. What Gadhafi had done through the years was sufficient reason to not support him in any way. I will continue to point out that the Libyan government is elected and it is not run by Islamists (even though Islamists are trying to get control). There are lots of issues remaining in Libya and the situation remains fluid. What I want to point out is that those governing Libya were not responsible for the Al Qaeda attack upon the US consulate. I will also point out that the Libyans would have been more cooperative if it had not been for the amateurish stuff ups that followed the attack including Susan Rice going on TV and contradicting President Mogharief of Libya. She caused him to lose face in Libya and abroad because of the contradiction.  I do not support the Islamists in Libya and I believe that those responsible for the continuing violence in that country, especially in Benghazi need to feel the full force of the Libyan law. However, that is a Libyan internal matter and is not necessarily related to the AQ attack.

The real issue is the cover-up and the refusal to acknowledge that Al Qaeda is not in demise as proclaimed. There has been a refusal to acknowledge terrorism in the USA and that has led to the harming of the survivors of the Ft Hood jihadi attack by Hussein Nidal. It also led to the refusal of the FBI to take warnings about the Tsarnaev brothers seriously, even though it did not stop the FBI doing surveillance on a journalist by the name of James Rosen who was just doing his job.

4. This leads me to the AP scandal again because it is one that is developing legs since it was first revealed. Once again I see this in terms of an attack upon free speech.

At least 3 of these scandals are tied to the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. From that point of view, I can see that there is an overkill, an overreaction in regard to that decision. In that decision, certain things were struck down that affected to a very small extent campaign donations.  What it did not do was to make it easier for corporations to donate to political parties or individuals. Neither did that case make it easy for overseas individuals to donate to political figures. In fact Barry Soetoro has been guilty of accepting those oversease donations (yet another scandal) and hiding the information via bundling. The parts of McCain-Feingold that specifically stayed in place were those parts that forbid foreign donations. The case itself dealt with the chilling of free speech, and this was something brought out in the opinion of Clarence Thomas. It was an issue that 5 of the justices took seriously. For this they were attacked by Barry Soetoro.

Each and every one of these particular scandals could lead to impeachment. We just have to see what develops because in each instance there has been intimidation of individuals that has been in place to stop them talking. It is not just Gregory Hicks who has complained about such intimidation.

A few names keep springing up in regard to these matters. One of them is Lois Lerner, another is Cheryl Mills who is a close associate of Hillary Clinton.  The name of Cheryl Mills keeps cropping up as underlings in the State Department have been “punished” and without just cause.

40 years ago Woodward’s name was household


The other half of the Woodward-Bernstein team has continued to speak out about the Benghazi affair. It seems to me that after being dissed by the White House Woodward has suddenly found his journalistic mojo once again. Yes I am being sarcastic, because I believe that Woodward should have used his talents at least 4 years ago to do investigative reporting and he failed to take any notice over what was happening. Only Andrew Breitbart was willing to take on the corrupt White House Administration.

So what exactly is Woodward saying about the Benghazi scandal? Hot Air has the scoop on the Woodward comments and yes I think that they are well worth repeating. Woodward has cast his mind back to the Nixon era to find a parallel (everyone seems to be doing that these days!!) to what took place with the Benghazi terror attack talking points. Bingo. There is a very strong parallel and comparison to be made and if anyone knows the facts it is Woodward.

I hope you noted that the IRS scandal took off at the same time that the emails relating to the talking points were released to the press. I hope you note that two days worth of emails are in fact missing from the release. Why?

What Woodward is saying is that Nixon did the same thing with the transcripts that he was told to release. He went through each and every one of them and he removed certain details. Well, it seems that the White House and the State Department have done exactly the same thing and with the same net effect – lying to the people.

I also note this from the same Hot Air article:

USA Today’s Oren Dorell lists a few more questions raised by the e-mail release:

Dozens of e-mails released by the White House reveal that Obama administration officials were behind the crafting of a false narrative about the attack in Benghazi, Libya. The communications raise questions about who called the shots and why, say an analyst and a lawmaker involved in the investigation. …

Among the unknowns:

•Why were the revisions made?

•Why did Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testify before Congress that the edits were a product of the intelligence community when State officials had made many of the requests for alterations?

•Why did the White House say it made no substantive edits when the e-mails show officials there helped lead the process for changes?

•Where did the story come from that the attack grew from a protest against an anti-Islam video? The video was mentioned once in 100 pages of e-mails, but it was a central theme of Obama’s and Clinton’s description of the event.

Why were they demonstrating in Cairo on September 11?


There is a saying “never let a good crisis go to waste”. In light of that saying, it might be time to revisit some of the things we have heard about what happened on September 11, 2012 in the Middle East.  The purpose here is to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the use of the excuse of a C-grade documentary.

First of all, there is an alternative reason for the demonstration in Cairo. That alternative is probably the truth behind the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo. The movement to try to free the blind sheik had been ramping up. On top of that it was known that Obama was prepared to negotiate for the release of the blind sheik. Now, in order to negotiate for the release of this man who deserves to remain in the penitentary for the rest of his life, there must be hostages. Right? Maybe….. This alternative theory could in part be one of the many false flags created to provide a story about what happened that day. It is also behind the held belief by some that the purpose of the seige at the consulate in Benghazi was to take Americans as hostages…  I just do not think that this is a viable explanation at this point in time.

Yet we need to continue focus on that C-grade documentary because there is yet another reason as to its importance and the use of it as an excuse for the attack on the consulate in Benghazi.

It is called in the USA “The right to Freedom of Speech” or the First Amendment. Australia has its own version of the same thing, and yes we value our right to say what needs to be said. Anything that chills or attempts to curb our right to free speech is something that needs to be seen as menacing, and against everything that we believe in with regard to our freedoms. If you try to take away any one of those vital freedoms then you are taking away every one of those freedoms. It really is that chilling.

What are some of the most insidious ways in which our right to freedom of speech has been attacked?

1. the development of PC or being politically correct. Political Correctness serves to prevent people expressing their point of view on a number of subjects. I will use an Australian example because it dovetails best with this subject: we are not allowed to call illegal immigrants by that name. Under PC we must refer to them as asylum seekers, even though that is not true. Many of the people attempting to get to Australia come from Iran where there is no war, Iraq – where the war finished years ago, as well as Sri Lanka (no war), Burma (yes there is strife but the refugees have been behind that strife in Burma), as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan (there is no war in Pakistan either). The majority of these boat people, who are illegal immigrants are Muslim.

There are genuine refugees who enter Australia by normal means after they have been assessed in the camps that have been set up for refugees in various nations. Their usual mode of entry is by Air. The most absurd comment that I have ever seen claims that the illegals are on the same level as those who enter Australia by legitimate means, and that they are not illegal at all (well that is b.s. and I am calling out that person for writing b.s.)

The purpose of not allowing us to talk about these illegals as illegal immigrants is to deflect upon the nature of how they have entered Australia, and it is meant to shut us up. We are simply not allowed to refer to them as illegal immigrants.

2. The other most insidious way has been forcing us into not speaking the truth about Mohammed the pedophile.  Over the years we have seen the demonstrations and we have seen Rage Boy losing his cool and going on a rampage. The real purpose of stirring up these bozos is an attempt to silence all critics of Islam permanantly. It is all part of the Dhimmi process. We are not allowed to tell the truth about Mohammed and the way that he butchered people who would not buckle under to his rule.

The means by which there are attempts to stop us from having our right to free speech are many and varied. Yet there is one way that involves the world at large. It is:

3. The United Nations which has been leaning more and more towards the Arab States. This focus has meant that our very freedoms have been threatened by the same body that was set up as an alleged protection against future wars.

What happened shortly after the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi? Barack Obama gave an address in the United Nations. In that address he decried a C-grade documentary that very few people had actually seen. Those who have seen the trailer have stated that it was really bad. At the time lies were told about the producer of the movie who claimed to be one person, but turned out to be another one. This did not stop Barack Obama from making certain statements in the UN about protecting those who are followers of Islam. Quite frankly, looking back, that speech was very insidious.  It was a direct attack on the right to freedom of speech of all individuals who refuse to buckle down and be governed by Islam. There is very little doubt in my mind that this particular UN speech should be regarding as very chilling.

The false narrative about the C-grade movie became a deflection from the truth about the fact that the US consulate was attacked by Al Qaeda and their Libyan sympathizers. It was also meant to be used as a means of curbing the free speech of not just Americans, but people all over the world who speak out against Islam.

Who’s the boss?


I am not talking about the TV series because I never watched that show!!  Although I can tell you that Tony Danza was the star of the TV show, it is true I never watched it because the voices irritated me.

In fact I am referring to the chain of command in the latest round of point/counterpoint relating to the scandal of the biggest cover-up since the break-in at the Watergate Hotel (and I continue to not understand why that was so important a President had to be brought down). Yes, I am once again pointing fingers at the incumbent in the White House.

The title of this piece should say it all about that chain of command, because once again we see the White House administration attempting to deflect away from the accusations. The latest in the controversy that keeps surfacing is focus on the talking points. Who is responsible?

I probably see the chain of command in a very simplistic fashion (being a foreigner and all that stuff, there is no doubt that I would have a simplistic understanding of such weighty matters as “who is the boss?”).

Ambassador Stevens was the US Ambassador to Libya. His second in command was Gregory Hicks, who assumed command when Stevens died. Here we can establish the first of the relevant boss relationships. Hicks spoke to Hillary Clinton when the attack was underway, since he assumed the role of US Ambassador to Libya upon the death of Chris Stevens. Here we have the second of those relationships – Hillary Clinton is the boss of Chris Stevens and the US embassy staff in Libya. The failings regarding security prior to the attack are her failings. Ultimately Hillary Clinton is responsible for that lax security.

Within the State Department though, there are other players – Victoria Nuland and Patricck Kennedy are two of those players. It seems that Victoria Nuland had a direct hand in how the talking points were handled. However, Victoria Nuland is not the top of the managerial tree – Hillary Clinton is her boss.

If Hillary Clinton wanted the truth to surface then she would not have been demanding that there were changes in the talking points. However, Hillary Clinton is not the top of the managerial tree, although she was a political appointment at the Department of State. Who is the boss of Hillary Clinton?

Yes indeed, there is one person at the top of the political tree and that person is has the worst case of dithering that I have seen in a President since the time of Peanut Jimmy Carter.

Hillary Clinton deserves to be castigated over her role in this whole affair. However, aside from Hillary Clinton there is another who is even more deeply responsible, and that person is Barack Obama-Soetoro.

It is important to keep this in mind when reading articles about the talking points and the massive cover up that there was in fact a jihadist attack upon the US consulate in Benghazi.  Fingers are being pointed all over the place, but ultimately, the buck stops being passed when it reaches the Oval Office.

 

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)