... the Benghazi fraud hinges on the success of the Cairo fraud.

4est_4est_Gump

Run Forrest! RUN!
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
89,007
Why would Carney claim, with a straight face, that Rice was being prepped “about protests around the Muslim world”? Because, other than Benghazi, the “protest around the Muslim world” that Americans know about is the rioting (not “protest,” rioting) at the U.S. embassy in Cairo a few hours before the Benghazi siege. When Benghazi comes up, the administration — President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, et al. — loves to talk about the Cairo “protests.” Why? Because the media, and thus the public, have bought hook, line, and sinker the fraudulent claim that those “protests” were over the anti-Muslim video. Obama & Co. shrewdly calculate that if you buy “Blame the Video” as the explanation for Cairo, it becomes much more plausible that you will accept “Blame the Video” as the explanation for Benghazi — or, at the very least, you will give Obama officials the benefit of the doubt that they could truly have believed the video triggered Benghazi, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

You see, the Benghazi fraud hinges on the success of the Cairo fraud. If you are hoodwinked by the latter, they have a much better chance of getting away with the former.

But “Blame the Video” is every bit as much a deception when it comes to Cairo.

Thanks to President Obama’s policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacists in Egypt, post-Mubarak Cairo became a very hospitable place for jihadists. That included al-Qaeda leaders, such as Mohammed Zawahiri, brother of al-Qaeda emir Ayman Zawahiri; and leaders of Gama’at al-Islamia (the Islamic Group), the terrorist organization led by the Blind Sheikh — Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist I convicted in 1995 for running the jihadist cell that bombed the World Trade Center and plotted to bomb other New York City landmarks.

In the weeks before September 11, 2012, these jihadists plotted to attack the U.S. embassy in Cairo. In fact, the Blind Sheikh’s son threatened a 1979 Iran-style raid on the embassy: Americans would be taken hostage to ransom for the Blind Sheikh’s release from American prison (he is serving a life sentence). Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground — a threat that was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 “protests.”

The State Department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on September 11, the eleventh anniversary of al-Qaeda’s mass-murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It was well known that things could get very ugly. When they did, it would become very obvious to Americans that President Obama had not “decimated” al-Qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail. Even worse, it would be painfully evident that his pro–Muslim Brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al-Qaeda’s capacity to attack the United States in Egypt.

The State Department also knew about the obscure anti-Muslim video. Few Egyptians, if any, had seen or heard about it, but it had been denounced by the Grand Mufti in Cairo on September 9. Still, the stir it caused was minor, at best. As Tom Joscelyn has elaborated, the Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were agitating for the Blind Sheikh’s release and who had been threatening for weeks to raid and torch our embassy. And indeed, they did storm it, replace the American flag with the jihadist black flag, and set fires around the embassy complex.

Nevertheless, before the rioting began but when they knew there was going to be trouble, State Department officials at the embassy began tweeting out condemnations of the video while ignoring the real sources of the threat: the resurgence of jihadists in Muslim Brotherhood–governed Egypt, the continuing demand for the Blind Sheikh’s release (which underscored the jihadists’ influence), and the very real danger that jihadists would attack the embassy (which demonstrated that al-Qaeda was anything but “decimated”).

The transparent purpose of the State Department’s shrieking over the video was to create the illusion that any security problems at the embassy (violent rioting minimized as mere “protests”) were attributable to the anti-Muslim video, not to President Obama’s policies and patent failure to quell al-Qaeda.

Because there was a kernel of truth to the video story, and because the American media have abdicated their responsibility to report the predominant causes of anti-Americanism in Egypt, journalists and the public have uncritically accepted the notion — a false notion — that the video caused the Cairo rioting. That acceptance is key to the administration’s “Blame the Video” farce in connection with the lethal attack in Benghazi.

At about 10 p.m. Washington time on the night of September 11 — after they knew our ambassador to Libya had been murdered and while the siege of Benghazi still raged — Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama spoke on the telephone. Shortly afterwards, the State Department issued a statement from Secretary Clinton blaming the video for the atrocity in Benghazi. That was the beginning of the fraud’s Benghazi phase — the phase Susan Rice was prepped to peddle on nationwide television. But it wasn’t the beginning of the fraud.

Secretary Clinton’s minions at the State Department had started spinning the video fraud hours earlier, in Egypt. The sooner Americans grasp that, the sooner they will comprehend the breathtaking depth of the president’s Benghazi cover-up.
Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO
 
Yesterday The Regime was caught redhanded lying to the American people on national TV. Nobody is stupid enough to believe Carney's ridiculous explanation, but it won't matter. The Fraud's supporters won't care. He gets away with murder. This won't go anywhere.

Looks like Fox News was right about Benghazi all along.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yesterday The Regime were caught redhanded lying to the American people on national TV. Nobody is stupid enough to believe Carney's ridiculous explanation, but it won't matter. The Fraud's supporters won't care. He gets away with murder. This won't go anywhere.

Looks like Fox News was right about Benghazi all along.

Sadly, I have to agree, the Obamanation is pulling the old Clinton stunt of "that's all old news, it's been thoroughly investigated, there's nothing to see here, we have real problems to work on (like last quarter's economic growth), this is just politics, we reacted to the best information we had at the time, how does this feed one starving child?"

I expect rage, rudeness and ridicule to be the main response.
 
Sadly, I have to agree, the Obamanation is pulling the old Clinton stunt of "that's all old news, it's been thoroughly investigated, there's nothing to see here, we have real problems to work on (like last quarter's economic growth), this is just politics, we reacted to the best information we had at the time, how does this feed one starving child?"

I expect rage, rudeness and ridicule to be the main response.

Kudos to Jonathan Karl from ABC News who didn't give Jay Carney a pass for lying and ripped him a new asshole on national TV. Carney looked like a complete fool. They really think people are going to believe them!

If lying to the American people were a felony, Obama would be serving a life sentence. He's far worse than Nixon.
 
How's the job search going, Chief?

I expect rage, rudeness and ridicule to be the main response.

Oh look, teh Chief is trying to go with a pre-emptive strike to forestall criticism.

Sure, he's just regurgitatin' old Benghazi talking points, and has no new information, but hai, he has a Skyfather Damned Right to freedom of speech, which of course is defined as "freedom from criticism"

#DerpWithoutEndAmen
#UnfitToAdoptAmericanChildren
 
I doubt he even know what we're talking about, but that won't stop him from publicly wetting his pants.

Yeah, he sees smoke and while others man the barricades...


;) ;) ... he's crawling through the sewers ready to find opportunity.
 
Ain't it a laugh?
Ain't it a treat?
Hob-nobbin' here
Among the elite?
Here comes a prince
There goes a Jew.
This one's a queer
But what can you do?
Paris at my feet
Paris in the dust
And here I'm breaking bread
With the upper crust!
Beggar at the feast!
Master of the dance!
Life is easy pickings
If you grab your chance.
Everywhere you go
Law-abiding folk
Doing what is decent
But they're mostly broke!
Singing to the Lord on Sundays
Praying for the gifts He'll send.

M. and Skiddles Thenardier
But we're the ones who take it
We're the ones who make it in the end!
Watch the buggers dance
Watch 'em till they drop
Keep your wits about you
And you stand on top!
Masters of the land
Always get our share
Clear away the barricades
And we're still there!
We know where the wind is blowing
Money is the stuff we smell
And when we're rich as Croesus
Jesus! Won't we see you all in hell!
 
Ain't it a laugh?
Ain't it a treat?
Hob-nobbin' here
Among the elite?
Here comes a prince
There goes a Jew.
This one's a queer
But what can you do?
Paris at my feet
Paris in the dust
And here I'm breaking bread
With the upper crust!
Beggar at the feast!
Master of the dance!
Life is easy pickings
If you grab your chance.
Everywhere you go
Law-abiding folk
Doing what is decent
But they're mostly broke!
Singing to the Lord on Sundays
Praying for the gifts He'll send.

M. and Skiddles Thenardier
But we're the ones who take it
We're the ones who make it in the end!
Watch the buggers dance
Watch 'em till they drop
Keep your wits about you
And you stand on top!
Masters of the land
Always get our share
Clear away the barricades
And we're still there!
We know where the wind is blowing
Money is the stuff we smell
And when we're rich as Croesus
Jesus! Won't we see you all in hell!

Fits him perfectly. Dirty face and clothes....missing teeth...greasy hair.

A foul human being.
 
Aqualung comes to mind too...


;)

Sitting on a park bench
eyeing little girls with bad intent.
Snot running down his nose
greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes.
Hey, Aqualung!
Drying in the cold sun
Watching as the frilly panties run.
Hey Aqualung!
 
MSNBC Is Now Admitting There MAY Be Something To This Whole Benghazi Thing!


What will they discover next??????
-------------------------------------

MSNBC host Alex Wagner — who for months, if not years, routinely denied there was anything to Republican allegations of a White House coverup on Benghazi — now admits there may actually be a problem with the Obama administration’s response to the 2012 attack.

“There probably is something for Republicans to complain about,” she said regarding Benghazi, “for the American public to perhaps be distressed or dismayed about.”

But she hastened to add that Republicans “have effectively ceded all legitimacy on the issue” by refusing to budge on such a “fringy” topic — leaving out her role in pushing the story to the fringe.

On Tuesday, government watchdog Judicial Watch released emails between top White House advisers and former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, documents earlier withheld by the Obama administration and only released after a lengthy fight in federal court.

The emails coached Rice on talking points for an upcoming Sunday show blitz and ordered her to explain that the attacks were the result of an isolated YouTube incident unrelated to President Obama’s broader anti-terror policies.

The YouTube story soon unravelled, but the White House refused to admit that they politicized the talking points in the weeks leading up to the 2012 presidential election. And for years MSNBC — including Wagner herself — provided the president cover for his claim.

“What we now are dealing with is a group of conservatives and a Republican Party with whom facts are fungible,” she told Chris Matthews in February, claiming that an official Senate report and a now-debunked New York Times story on Benghazi are “actual facts” that clear the administration of wrongdoing.

That tune changed Wednesday. “That is the question: Why did this email only come out now?” Wagner asked. “The mere existence of this email that wasn’t in the original binder full of emails is going to give fuel to this . . . The White House has not done a stellar job of managing this.”

Former White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor agreed. “I don’t totally understand why [the email] wouldn’t have just been thrown out with the rest,” he claimed — although he still said this new round of Benghazi stories are about “basically nothing.”

Politico reporter Glenn Thrush thought he understood, however. “The one thing I would quibble with my good friend Tommy on is that there’s no political context,” he noted. “We were right in the middle of a presidential election campaign. We were in the heat of the debate season. I think clearly everyone was watching it also in mind.”

After months of denying any politicization of the Benghazi talking points, Wagner felt compelled to agree. “And isn’t there something to be said about just wearing the scarlet letter?” she said smilingly. “As Glenn points out, this was a few weeks before a presidential election.”

“Yes, there was a practical reality that this was happening six weeks before an election,” she noted, “and also any administration wants to convey control.”
Report Post Edit/Delete Message
 
Back
Top