Don't believe me? Exhibit 1: "journalist" Eleanor Clift still trotting out the "protest against a video" meme that even the administration abandoned long ago and claiming that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wasn't "murdered" in the attack in Benghazi because he died of smoke inhalation. Caused by the fact that the well-coordinated, mortar-supported terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate set the damn place on fire. Totally coincidental, thereby proving that he wasn't killed by terrorists.
Of course, Stevens wasn't the only American killed that day, and the evidence indicates smoke inhalation wasn't the cause of death for at least one of them:
Looks like somebody didn't want to be dragged out of the consulate, hmmm? Of course, we've seen no information releases from the administration on how the other three Americans killed that night died, nor has the administration let any of the survivors testify before Congress, nor have we heard an explanation of why there was no attempt at a military response. The list goes on. Fuck, we don't even know where Obama was when all this was going on:
Just outside the Oval Office is a room called the Outer Oval, where the president’s secretary and personal aide sit and through which all visitors coming to see the president pass. Staff members in the Outer Oval keep track of the president’s location at all times. They carefully record the names of all individuals who walk into the Oval Office — when they entered, how long they stayed, what the topic of discussion was. They keep a record of all calls made and received by the president, including the topic, participants and duration. They even record the president’s bathroom breaks (they write “evacuating” into the log).Do you seriously believe that where Obama was, who he was with and what he was doing are unimportant? Fine, go vote for him for a third term. But it seems to me that something being so carefully hidden from view by the Most Transparent Administration Evah might be important.
This and other data on the presidents’ whereabouts are collected by a career National Archives employee whose title is White House diarist. This individual preserves them as a minute-by-minute historical record of the presidency for future use by presidential scholars.
What this means is that there exists a minute-by-minute record of where the president was and what he was doing for all eight hours of the Benghazi attack.
So how is it that the White House has failed to give a full account of the president’s whereabouts during that eight-hour period? The White House knows precisely where he was and what he was doing, yet it is refusing to share that information with Congress and the American people. This is unacceptable. Imagine if 20 months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the George W. Bush White House had still refused to account for where the president was or what he was doing that day. There would be outrage and constant demands from the press, Congress and other investigators demanding to know the answer to a simple factual question: Where was the president?
Then, of course, there are the emails that show the White House was coordinating the lies that were fed to the public about a "protest over a video" crap that Susan Rice trotted out on five different Sunday morning talk shows five days after the attack -- roughly five days after the administration knew no video had anything to do with the Benghazi attack:
Previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that a coordinated effort was made in the days following the Benghazi terror attacks to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.”
Emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans.
Rhodes sent this email to top White House officials such as David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack.
The “goal,” according to these emails, was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
Rice came under fierce criticism following her appearances on television after she adhered to these talking points and blamed the attack on a little-watched Internet video.
The newly released internal White House e-mails show that Rice’s orders came from top Obama administration communications officials.
Hell, the White House tried to pretend the emails weren't even about Benghazi, despite the explicit references to Benghazi in the emails:
Jay Carney is, of course, a mendacious prick who would lie about anything because he gets paid to. But still.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R-S.C.) a former prosecutor who will be chairing the select committee investigating Benghazi, laid out in USA Today a fairly succinct case for why the investigation is necessary:
Why was security for our facility in Libya inadequate, and why were repeated calls for additional security unheeded and, indeed, explicitly rejected? Was our military response during the pendency of the siege sufficient? And in the days and weeks after the attack, was the Obama administration transparent and forthright with our fellow Americans in describing the impetus behind the attack?
Moreover, no one has been arrested, prosecuted, or punished for the murders of our fellow Americans. These outstanding questions, and others, are legitimate, and seeking the answer to these questions should be an apolitical process.
Haven't heard much about Benghazi? No surprise, since the mainstream media are trying desperately not to cover it to protect their Democrat partners. I think a refusal to cover legitimate news is a problem.
Unless, of course, you don't mind being lied to. In which case, I can assure you that absolutely nothing untoward or unexpected will happen in your mouth. Promise.
No comments:
Post a Comment