Obama and Benghazi; Incompetence or Malfeasance, What’s the Difference?
Finally, after eight months, the mainstream media is up to speed on Benghazi. The whistleblower’s testimony last week has opened the floodgates. Only hard core Obama apologists (most of the Democrats in Congress and Jay Carney) are refusing to accept that the official statements from the administration were deliberately altered to deceive the American people.
The self obsessed media has focused on this deception. How dare anyone deceive them? I hate to break it to them, but this isn’t news. Obama has been operating a misdirection exercise since before he set his sights on the White House.
Unfortunately, most people in this country are yawning. Liberals actually gloat about Obama’s adeptness at manipulating the press. A Fox News poll last week revealed that only 46% of Americans believe there was a cover-up. In other words, most people don’t, facts be damned.
The main stream press is so focused on the change of the narrative after the attack that they ignore the real story about why people died and why rescuers were ordered more than once to stand down. If the cover up was all about maintaining the narrative that Al-Qaida is diminished, why do you deliberately allow four people to die when you might have been able to save them? If you wanted to reduce the political consequences of a terrorist attack, you would do everything to prevent deaths. Then, you could blame it on a video and say you were on top of it and protected your people. That would be a political plus; you would look tough. Nobody dies; no investigation.
There was a question asked of Mr. Hicks which has not received much attention by the clueless media. Hicks was asked why, in light of security concerns, Clinton was sending Stevens to Benghazi. He hesitated. His response was guarded. He said that Clinton wanted to establish a presence there. Lame!
The purpose was to funnel weapons to Al-Qaida. That is what his last meeting was about. Actually, there has been much more known about all of this since even before the attack on Benghazi occurred. In August of 2012, the Washington Times reported that Obama was arming Al Qaeda. As early as October of last year, one month after the raid, Frank Gaffney reported in the Washington Times that Obama was shipping arms to jihadists in Syria from Libya and that Ambassador Stevens was involved in arranging the shipments. The Times reported that,
Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group … It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj. We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria.
