Another aspect of the Benghazi debacle….
We all are coming to realize that the Øbama regime displayed remarkable stupidity in the way they covered up the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others in Benghazi. Clearly, despite Øbama’s false outrage at debate #2, the coverup was clearly political, designed to keep the story suppressed and the blame off of Øbama prior to the election. The facts and the timelines support this. We now know what they knew and when they knew it.
But consider another side effect of this coverup: did the focusing of blame on an otherwise completely unknown anti Muslim movie to cover the regime’s incompetence in an election season spark all of the violent protests in the Middle East and beyond? So what was the real trigger?
As far as I can determine, the offending movie was posted on YouTube back on July 1, 2012 and nothing happened. No violence, no comments, no nothing. It didn’t go viral on the internet. Nothing. Then the preezy and his minions use it as a scapegoat to cover their incompetence. Then the violence begins. Øbama and his mouthpieces continue to blame the movie for his fecklessness for the next two weeks, even apologizing at the UN, and the violence increases.
If there is one thing we know about Muslim outrage, it is that it can be turned on like a light switch. So why the apparent delay?
I submit to you that there was no delay: nobody knew or cared about the movie until Øbama and his mouthpieces came out and put it out as the reason for their lousy support for our ambassador. That is when the troubles began. All the violence started after the preezy blamed the “protest” on the movie, not before. A look at Wikipedia on “reactions to Innocence of Muslims” show the violent protest, injuries and deaths as occurring on or after 9/11/12.
Did the Øbama regime scheme to use the hyper sensitivity of Muslims to cause the Middle East to blow up as it did to lend credence to their fabricated story, or was it just more rank incompetence? It really doesn’t matter at this point, as the effects are the same: people are dead, property destroyed and the image of the United States further besmirched by the clowns in the White House and the State Department.
It is my contention that the Øbama administration is to blame for the rash of post Benghazi violence and deaths in their haste to cover up the mess in Benghazi. The inescapable fact is that they bear full responsibility for all the collateral damage, both political and in lives and property.
Øbama says the buck stops with him. Let him prove it.
24 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
This is the result of having rank amateurs in the White(wash) House. The media is also complicit in this sordid affair. Without their acquiescence, The Obama Regime would not be able to dodge the responsibility of their foreign policy failure. Clinton taking responsibility for Benghazi is ridiculous. That’s analogous to? Reno taking responsibility for Waco.?
Yes, you are right. Team Obama has been in perpetual campaign mode and also in CYA mode since he was elected. They sought to shield Obama from a TERRORIST ATTACK on his watch. They elected to shift blame to some obscure anti-Muslim video that no one knew about and fewer have seen. The result, trumpeted by the media, was that EVERY Muslim in the world then knew about the freaking video. What happened after that is entirely Obama’s fault. He and his advisers can lie all they want, but the truth is out there for all to see.
Barry’s uninvolved approach to foreign policy and his campaign’s desperate need to keep him free of admitting to a terrorist attack while he was president, have come home to bite him in his CYA.??
We deserve a real leader, not this amateur.
close
He and his ilk have yelled “Fire !!” in a theater.??At the cost of many innocent lives.??
Torqued up?Muslims.
Reneged on a commitment?to the Catholic church.
And in all the mayhem that will come of it, they will do as they please.??And perhaps by design.
No respect.?
Reckless.?
Worse than dangerous.
Murder by incompetence . . . and then, covering up the complicity.
closer
?With the proof that Obama didn?t even want to take out Bin-Ladin. Every two-bit terrorist wants to slap the face of the USA. He?s proved that he will not retaliate ?& they want to get their licks in before Romney gets into office.
Reminiscent of the Carter Administration being impotent and held hostage — as our embassy was held hostage for 444 days. Regan came into office and the Ayatollah suddenly sought? to release the hostages.
Hmmmmmm . . .
?
(Sarc) Could it be that Obama is really soft on terror? Meetings with the Brotherhood, etc.
Exactly
Regardless of whether he wanted to or not, his repeated “spiking the football” in campaign speeches and such is likely inciting the dangerous radicals more than a movie someone posted on YouTube.? I do not buy into the premise that he is clueless, most likely Treasodent Obama doesn’t care who he endangers with his careless rhetoric.? The singular aim is to get reelected- consequences be damned.
“Spiking the football” is a reference to his repeated bragging about having killed Bin Laden.
We have a Commander-in-Chief who is an incompetant, lazy slacker.
To put it nicely….
Drawing attention to the movie on YouTube and its creator exposes that individual to reprisals by militant Islamists.? Treasodent Obama has singled out an American citizen to take the heat in the midst of a giant smoke screen to cover his own behind in a bungling policy of appeasement.? From a historical perspective, appeasing our enemies is Kennedy-like; not JFK, but his dad, Joe- who as Ambassador to Great Britain under FDR favored appeasing the Nazis prior to WWII.? Roosevelt was having none of it and it ended up being the end of Joe Kennedy’s political career.? I can only hope the same proves to be true for Treasodent Obama.
Obviously we need another war on the credit card. The war which is winding down should be replaced with another. Is this another “100 Year War” period? The US has been in one war or another since 1939.
Well, not sure where that came from, but what will increase the likelihood of conflict in the region, recognition that the incompetence of the ?bama regime got Stevens killed, or the artificial ignition of yet another insult of the “prophet”?
We need to defeat the Islamists the same way the Dems have conquered the USA! ?Booze and porn available 24/7 in every store, give them food until they forget how to work, gun control, political correctness, the lifetime channel. ?In 20 years they’ll end afraid of espousing their faith for fear of offending someone.
It is coming out that the administration knew in real time when the attack was happening that it was a planned terrorist attack and that they failed to call in nearby assets to assist when there was still time to save s couple of the lives that were lost.
?
If Bush were in office there would be ceaseless MSM calls for investigations and “Benghazi scandal” would become an election year buzz word.
“Bumps in the road” and “not optimal,” whatever that means. To have the consulate in Benghazi alert dozens of people and agencies that they were under attack, shy it off and then fly off to a fundraiser? If this was Bush — or any Republican administration, the MSM would be all over this and relentless. Without a doubt, they are keeping coverage low key and passing. They are much more interested in assisting their chosen one in staying in office.
?
But, why? What does the MSM get out of going soft on Obama and the Democrats?
?
It is one thing to say that the media is liberal, it is another for them to not do their jobs. I’d love to really know just why the media is soooooooooo liberal and, as a result, won’t press these Libya/Egypt terrorist attacks for the scandal that they are. It’s as if they would choke if they reported on something bad for the Obama regime — report a negative about the regime and, who knows? Where would their ratings be? Would they never get the big break to go national?
?
Whatever! My opinion of the MSM, in particular, is pretty low. I’d nominate used car dealers and commissioned sales people as more trustworthy than media types…
I finally saw the bloody hand prints from when Americans were dragged out of the embassy; ?clearly, these Americans did not want to go to the hospital! ?I wish there was as much liberal outrage ?as when Cheney shot his friend, a wealthy lawyer, in the face with bird shot!
I think this matter has had plenty of air time and print ink. Nevertheless it will keep on going.
Exactly what I thought when the Bush TANG story which continued ad nauseum for six months right up to the election, while John Kerry’s Vietnam/Swiftboat exploits were literally blackballed by the liberal media until the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth finally pushed the matter into the public eye.?
?
Same timeframe, quite similar issues, quite dissimilar coverage.? If it were about a President Romney in the same situation, the liberal media would be pounding the issue day and night.? And you know it.? The issue would have been over if ?bama and his mouthpieces just admitted what they knew at the beginning, but they made it political.
Who is paying attention? This has been on this blog for 6 days. Nothing better to talk about? I thought the election was all about the economy!!
Isn’t that something you should be telling your guy?
Good point… more should be paying attention.? The Obama admin. has weakened the US by inflaming the very foe it seeks to ignore in pursuit of the “we have vanquished terrorism” reelection narrative while “establishing daylight” between us and our ONE strong ally in the area, Israel.? This has rendered both countries more subject to threats by extremists who have vowed to wipe Israel off the map and are dedicated to attacking US interests.
trea?son (n)
a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
By weakening the country for little more than political gain, Obama has effectively used his office to commit treason.? Treasodent Obama must go.