Petraeus Recants Obama’s Benghazi Fiction

Former CIA Director David Petraeus told Congress he never believed the Obama administration’s claim that the attack on a U.S. mission in Libya was a spontaneous mob action prompted by a crude anti-Islam video.

In closed-door testimony Friday, Petraeus said that he believed all along that Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. In so doing, Petraeus recanted his previous account two months ago of that terrible day that left four Americans dead in which he promoted the Obama administration’s official storyline.

“General Petraeus’ testimony today was that from the start he told us that this was a terrorist attack, that terrorists were involved from the start,” King said after the House Intelligence Committee sitting. “I told him in my question I had a very different recollection of that.”

“The clear impression we were given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack … he has, I think, a different impression of the impressions he left on Sept. 14.”

A CIA analyst also testified that the intelligence agency’s talking points for the White House immediately drafted after the attack specifically stated that al-Qaeda played a role in the attack that claimed the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Somehow the passage about al-Qaeda disappeared from documents. “After it went through the process … that was taken out,” King said.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice monopolized the Sunday TV talk shows on Sept. 16, regurgitating the official version of events which blamed the attack on an obscure YouTube video that few around the world had actually seen at the time of the attack.

Critics say Rice was part of a pre-election cover-up and that she knowingly deceived the public. For a fortnight after the attack the Obama administration strenuously maintained the fiction that the incident in Benghazi, a known terrorist stronghold, was an organic popular uprising somehow inspired by an Ed Wood-quality anti-Islam video. Eventually the administration was forced to admit that what happened in that Libyan city was carried out by Islamic terrorists.

The lie about the true nature of the attack helped to prevent a spectacular implosion of President Obama’s claim that al-Qaeda was on the run and virtually irrelevant thanks to his policies. Weeks before this past election Obama bragged, “al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead.”

Benghazi could easily become Obama’s Watergate, potentially a presidency-ending scandal far worse than President Nixon’s cover-up of a bungled burglary.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could be called to testify on the events in Libya. In 1974, she was part of a legal team advising the House Judiciary Committee. She may have participated in drafting the three articles of impeachment approved by the committee that accused President Nixon of acting in a manner “subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.”

Obama almost certainly knew what was happening on the ground in Libya as it was happening and yet he did nothing, preferring instead to fly off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. And if Obama didn’t know, that in itself is a devastating indictment of his presidency.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is determined to nip any talk of impeachment in the bud. On Friday, he dismissed three Republican senators’ demand for the creation of a Watergate-style congressional committee to investigate the attack in Benghazi.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had written Reid a letter on Nov. 3 that was co-signed by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)

“[I]t is essential for the Congress to conduct its own independent assessment of the attack in Benghazi … the complexity and gravity of this matter warrants the establishment of a temporary Select Committee that can conduct an integrated review of the many national security issues involved, which cut across multiple executive agencies and legislative committees – including Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Armed Services, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.”

Justifiably confident that the mainstream media wouldn’t cause any trouble, Reid told the senators to take a long walk off a short pier.

In a Nov. 16 reply Reid said he won’t allow the Senate to become a “venue for baseless partisan attacks.” Several committees in the House and the Senate are already investigating the attack and a Watergate-style panel “may serve to further politicize an issue that has already been manipulated by Members of both the House and Senate in service of partisan agendas.”

Reid then accused Republicans of playing politics with the Benghazi scandal and putting American lives at risk.

“In the weeks following this terrorist attack, members of the Republican Party in both the House and Senate have misrepresented the facts as presented in numerous briefings by the United States Intelligence Community through a constant stream of falsehoods, exaggerations, and leaks of sensitive national security information.”

McCain “has gone so far as to make the outrageous claim that this event was ‘worse than Watergate’ – despite the fact that there is no evidence that any crime was committed, no evidence of any cover-up, and no evidence that the administration has characterized the incident in any way that has not been consistent with the Intelligence Community’s contemporaneous assessments.”

Reid also blasted House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) for “undertak[ing] a deeply flawed and partisan investigation with a clear intent to politicize this tragedy.”

Meanwhile, left-wingers are stepping up their attacks on Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) for daring to criticize a senior member of the administration who happens to be black and female, two important victim groups in the Marxist catechism.

Setting the cause of civil rights and feminism back decades, a group of far-left lawmakers smeared McCain who said Ambassador Rice was “not qualified” to be secretary of state based on her statements about Benghazi. McCain said he would “do everything in my power to block her” from becoming America’s top diplomat. “She has proven that she either doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face.”

With her racism and sexism decoder rings turned to maximum sensitivity, Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), said, “There is a clear, a clear in my opinion, sexism and racism that goes with these comments that are being made by, unfortunately, Senator McCain and others.” Fudge is the incoming chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Where were these people when then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was being savagely attacked as an Uncle Tom and as a “skeezer” during the Bush administration? Oh wait, they were the ones doing the name-calling.

Rice, along with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), are reportedly under consideration to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

Given President Obama’s micromanaging tendencies, it may not matter much who succeeds Clinton in Foggy Bottom.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Mary Sue

    Harry Reid and his Democrat colleagues can go ___s up a rope.

    • John

      Listen to me: Oblamer watched them to die, then made a senario , his agents told muslims that someone made a video against you so they protest, and then he lied to the world this attack was an accident and due to that video, then he arrested an innocent man who made that video created 2 months before.. disgusting..

      Let others know

      • Mary Sue

        Yeah, but I'm surrounded by idiots that won't listen :(

  • Arlie

    So now there is NO one left to trust in DC. The Progressives and in with the Bolseviks and Islamists on the Left and the Progressives on the right are crying WOLF. YIKES!!
    How does America ever get out of this alive? I have not clue, it's freaking scary.

    • Endyr

      Reset button….. otherwise known as a Constitutional Convention.

      • Rich

        Endyr: I respectfully agree & disagree with your suggestion. We do need to hit the reset button & return to the fundimental principles of the original Constitution. However, a constitutional convention will only be dominated by Progressives, socialists, & Marxists who will produce a documnent stripped of God-given rights to free speech, religion, press, privacy & right to self-protection, & replace them with "rights" to food, clothing, work, housing, pensions, cellphones, internet, & other materials, all provided by government & funded by "the Rich." A constitutional convention will complete the "fundimental change of America." What America needs is to return to its fundimentals.

    • Arius

      Exactly right, there is practically no one in the government or media that can be trusted. The way I get through the Information Cloud of Unknowing is to find two or better three independent sources that correlate. I never use a single source unless it is from someone that has a long track record of being objective. The government has agitprop and disinformation feeds into the MSM.

  • truebearing

    Maybe someone in the media should point out the irony that Susan Rice was instrumental in talking Clinton out of accepting the Sudan's offer of capturing and delivering the leadership of Al Queda, including Bin Laden, to the US. if she wasn't always defending radical Muslims, 3000 Americans would still be alive and Obama wouldn't be able to brag about killing Bin Laden.he'd have to scrounge around for another accomplishment he had little to do with.

    • concerned citizen

      You make a excellent point, but your comment contains the answer: there is no longer a competent and independent press corps around to put together such relevant facts for our increasingly gullible and ill-informed public. May God continue to bless America during our long and sad downward trajectory.

  • Gene W 1938

    Cris Stevens knew too much about the elimination of rulers who are 'one world independant' and the intercepted arms shipped from Libya. He was assinated by al-Qaeda agents … pure and simple. Al-Qaeda was trained by USA in the early 80's to fight russia and we have maintianed good ties with them since. They were hired to guard our embassies !!!

    The promised rewards of Jihad and bonuses to their surviivors can hire these fanatics to do anything the Bildgerberg owners of the UN control, World Bank and IMF wish.

    The problem with us readers is that we do are poor to remember history and have poor investigative logic. We are duped fools

    • Ghostwriter

      Please tell your conspiratorial nonsense to those who cares,Gene W 1938 because I don't.

  • pierce

    I have known all along that Obama lied about the events in Benghazi. It was a complete cover up of the true events of that day to protect the President, that he was only concerned with one thing, his trip to Las Vegas to raise funds, and his reelection. Both he and Hilary knew the facts and blatantly lied.
    Had the american electorate known this very revealing fact, would they have reelected, no one will ever know. But now, He, in my mind, will never be know as THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, but THE LIAR IN CHIEF.

    • Johnconrad

      Did you actually trust him before that?

    • Angela

      No longer trust him?? I never did…wouldn't have mattered if this would have come out before the election. Most Americans could care less about whether or not their president is a liar, as long as they think they are going to get their handouts. And when everything falls apart in January, they'll blame the Republicans anyway…..

    • aspacia

      pierce, not only do I mistrust zero, I fear him. Fast and Furious was an attempt to take our guns, and with this latest massacre he will try again. I have no doubt he will issue another Executive Order restricting freedoms, just as he did at midnight, New Year's Day allowing him to arrest citizen and hold them indefinitely for possibly being terrorists. Zero will do anything to stay in power.

  • DonRo

    That General/CIA Director Petraeus lied the first time around is now common knowledge. What has not been exposed is the fact that Petraeus was being led around by the "you-know-what" by an Arab woman recruited by the Muslims to get Petraeus and General Allen to do their bidding. No wonder Muslims are still entrenched in the military and are telling the FBI how their training manuals must be re-written to exclude references to Islamic or Muslim terrorists.

    Every agency in Washington, D.C., is rotten to the core.

    These Generals cannot be trusted to make decisions favoring the lives of American servicemen or the United States of America.

  • Kevin Stroup

    Petraeus is a proven liar. He cheated on his wife and lied about it. It does not matter what Petraeus says that contradicts Obama. He is a liar. That is the problem with being a liar. When you do tell the truth, nobody will believe you. Hope Broadwell was one awesome piece of ass.

    • JamesJ

      Bill Clinton is a convicted liar. Why is he still giving advice?

      • A 22 Year Old Man

        Because he's a Leftist. The ends justify the means to the media. And Clinton's an expert politician. In other words, "magick!"


      The problem, Kevin, is that it’s not only Petraeus who’s contradicting the Obama Administration’s claim; they can’t find anyone at CIA to back up their claim that the “spontaneous demonstration” theory was ever believed by anyone there. By the morning of Sept. 12, the White House, the CIA, and the State Dept. all knew it was a terrorist attack, probably carried out by al-qaeda or its affiliates, yet Rice went out four days later and told what the higher-ups knew was a lie (whether Rice knew it herself is still not clear).

      • A 22 Year Old Man

        This is good. It means Petraeus isn't lying now, but if he said it was a demonstration before, then he lied -then-. Unfortunately. I'm not saying he should be thrown under the bus, I'm just predicting that that's what the Left will try to do, regardless.

    • A 22 Year Old Man

      I agree with the sentiment in Stroup's comment above. Coming from a Biblically Christian perspective, it's entirely accurate. An unfaithful husband cannot be trusted to be a faithful leader. And we all know that the Left exercises selective morality when it comes to politicians who sin. They excuse Clinton and condemn Petraeus on the same charge. They show that the law of God is written on their hearts, but they're filthy hypocrites in how they choose to respond to the pricks of their conscience. Unfortunate, but totally true. They'll argue that Petraeus can't be trusted because he went back on his word. It's just the way it is. Keeping that in mind, don't stop fighting for justice and righteousness!

    • SoCalMike

      But look at how many naive foolish otherwise intelligent brainwashed things still believe Obama after the avalanche and tsunami of lies that flow from his mouth every time he opens it.
      Petraeus had nothing to lose so why lie? His incentive to lie has been removed by the Boy Liar and Parasite in Chief who you voted for with the enthusiasm of a religious zealot.

  • Robert

    But who told our guys to "stand down" ? Why is this question not being asked to Petraeus or the President? The result was Americans left unprotected and dead like our ambassador and Tyrone Woods!

    • A 22 Year Old Man

      Apparently Panetta didn't give the order, according to him (source: previous FPM article), so that means only someone who outranks the military leadership could have–which fingers the CIC, Barack Obama, as the one who gave the order.

  • victor

    The problem is that we no longer have a government of the people, for the people and by the people, we have a government for the corrupt politicians, by rthe corrupt politicians and by the corrupt politicians. The founders assumed that we will have statesmen who had the country's best interest at heart being elected to govern. Boy they were wrong on this one. May be it is time to change the government to a Parliamentary system whereas a vot of no confidence would topple the government in order to form another one. It works better than the corrupt system we have right now whereas politicians are liars and hypocrits and once they get in it is impossible to dislodge them regardless of how corrupt they are, as they consolidate and build power during their tenure. We have to realize we no longer have MEN OF HONOR.

    • aspacia

      We have impeachment and possible removal. You are correct, there are no men or women of honor in our leadership.

  • Steve Chavez

    LET'S HOPE GENERAL BETRAY US remembers when Senator's Obama and Clinton were SPITTING on him, with Clinton even calling him a liar to his face, and now he SPITS BACK TO BETRAY THEM!

    The CIA has to know what Obama is up to and his ties to terrorists, directly and indirectly, using insiders like Jarrett, Huma Abedin, and even JILL KELLY AND BROADWELL, who were both invited to the White House without their lovers, his KGB PUTIN secrets plans, IRAN STALLING, and most of all, his birth certificate lie. When the birth issue came about, many said that they would overlook the Constitution since Obama was voted by the will of the people. Even David Horowitz wrote he would overlook it. Now Obama is bypassing Congress with his numerous Executive Orders again spitting at the Constitution and our Supreme Court does nothing.

    THE CIA KNOWS ALL! THEY TOOK AN OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE GENERAL, AND OTHERS, WILL BEGIN TO REVEAL ALL ABOUT THE TREASON BY OBAMA AND CLINTON. Will there be riots when Obama is impeached, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for his numerous crimes? SURE, AND OBAMA WON'T BY LIKE RODNEY KING: "Can't we all get along" since they are rioting for him and he'll let the U.S. burn. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

  • @quegley

    There is a cancer on the presidency. Its growing. Four Americans needed our help and we let them down. Someone must answer why we didn't hear the warnings of the assessments in Libya. There needs to be a full investigation. These charges are serious.

  • Horace

    Obama is not going to have any "Watergate". Watergate was a media lynching of Nixon. The mainstream media are attatched to Obama's butt like lampreys on a shark and arent going to say anything bad about him. Forget it.

    • Jim_C

      Watergate was criminal conspiracy that Nixon was actually involved in.

      Benghazi is neither scandal, nor criminal–only tragic.

      • Cynic

        ” Benghazi is neither scandal, nor criminal–only tragic. ”

        So leaving 4 Americans out to dry is only tragic?

      • One_Blade_of_Grass

        If BHO was gun-running, it was criminal.

        If BHO plotted to have the ambassador kidnapped, it was criminal.

        If BHO denied security for the consulate in the weeks beforehand and purposely sent the ambassador to Lybya on 9/11, it was criminal.

        If BHO LIED and directed others to lie about the attack being caused by a video to cover any of his schemes, it was criminal.

        The ambassador and three other Americans were MURDERED. If the president was responsible for their murders, I would suggest that's slightly more serious than Nixon's Watergate.

  • Horace

    The Generals were listening to their privates.

    • Mary Sue

      I see what u did there! LOL

  • tagalog

    Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that since the election, President Obama seems to be kind of secondary to the thrust of events? Kind of on the side of everything?

    Can it be true that the American federal political world is going to go on with little or no attention paid to our Dear Leader?

    Surely I'm kidding myself on this, but it really does look as if President Obama is being treated like he's a bit out of it.

    • mlcblog

      I believe he is a puppet.

    • nina

      It could be that his seemingly being on the sidelines is done on purpose because of the Benghazi affair. The idea being that if he is inconspicuous, it will all blow over. But the fact of the matter is that if all the allegations of misconduct are true, it is much worse than Watergate. But let's hope that the people whose job it is to investigate this affair are smart and understand that the Democrats and the left had and still have a powerful PR machine which can mow down almost anything. To get to the truth, and even to get to an impeachment they have to learn from the Democrats behavior in the Watergate scandal, which is no comparison to what could transpire here.

    • truebearing

      The Soros Shadow Government wrote Obamacare. They control the agenda. Obama was chosen because he is soulless, but seems likeable. He's too lazy and self-indulgent to actually work. He's there for the applause, and of course, more power.

      Obama doesn't need to work hard. Destroying things takes far less time and effort than building them. His purpose is to destroy things, whether it is our economy, alliances, race relations, or energy sector.Obama's domestic and foreign policy can be described as Sequential Expendability. Everything good about this nation is expendable, and necessarily so for Obama's ideology(s) to gain supremacy.

  • Matthew Vadum

    Interesting observation, tagalog. The Dear Leader isn't much of a leader and it really shows, especially since Election Day.

    • tagalog

      Maybe he's "leading from behind."

      • pagegl

        For someone like Obama, that can be the safest place to be.

  • peachteachr

    Could we spend just a moment on the sexism charge? It is the red herring that is being used to distract the public. Amb. Rice was the victim of sexism and Obama was the one who used her sex to defend her. He assumed she needed his paternalistic intervention and protection since she was just a woman.
    How sexist is that?

  • boon doggle

    No, he's in the middle of a circle that goes down if he goes down. He is being protected, while he heads off around the globe on another apology and foreign aid tour. First Burma, where the military dictators ran out of money and popped their political icon back in the govt back seat to attract funds off any likely useful idiots before they went bankrupt, then off to Cambodia, no doubt to apologise for Vietnam. All part of the coverup. You'd need the someone with the nature of the Honey Badger crossed with the Tiger to take the whole lot down, and you find that in foggy bottom!

  • Jim_C

    You guys wrote off McCain long ago. Now he's your hero.

    You wrote of the people killed in Benghazi as useful idiots for Obama's policy–until they became a handy bludgeon for your post-election malaise. Now you're oh-so concerned as you pathetically try to drum up controversy.

    Do you guys have any principles left? Is there anything decent that you stand for, anymore?

    • A 22 Year Old Man

      Regarding McCain:

      A broken clock is still right twice a day.

    • truebearing

      I guess the undefended deaths of four Americans, including an ambassador, is insignificant to you. Islamists attacking Americans on US soil is immaterial to you. A president who told premeditated lies for weeks doesn't bother you. A Commander-In-Chief who brags ad nauseam about killing Bin Laden, but won't defend those who serve under him doesn't concern you. Besides goose stepping around to totalitarian fantasies, what does concern you?

  • Matthew Vadum

    Who thinks McCain is a hero? He is cited in the article because he did the right thing.

    • trickyblain

      I do. He's a hero in that he served and sacrificed for this country.

  • popseal

    The general's wife scored a $190K a year job in the Obama regime…..! !

  • Jim_C

    What is "right" about this? The investigations aren't being touted as information gathering, they're being spun as something with which to bring down the president. The idea being that the president essentially allowed the attacks, that he decided they weren't worth his time, and that they may even have been a sop to his "Islamist friends," or some such nonsense. All to serve the absurd and dimwitted narrative that Obama is really rooting for America's enemies–a narrative so dumb, created by people of so little scruple and honor, it hardly deserves to be mentioned.

    People are frantically scrambling to connect Petraeus's pecadilloes with Obama's machinations. HOW? WHY? What on earth would be the point?

    And most importantly, what does it have to do with justice? Four people tragically lost in a brutal attack. Could the misinformation in the days following the attack have been linked to an effort to find the planners of the attack? Were there other assets in danger? Is there a coverup regarding our use of contractors?

    But all people care about is the HOPE–the WISH–that Obama somehow heard of these attacks and yawned.

    Why in God's name would you WANT so badly for that to be true?


      Obama is clearly implicated in two instances of malfeasance, the failure to rescue the besieged and the subsequent cover-up (the Benghazi scandal has two other facets, the denial of additional security and the likelihood that Petraeus was allowed to remain at CIA after he was known to be a security risk, that Obama may or may not have been aware of).

      First, Obama's failure to produce a copy of any miilitary order he might have given the night of the attack leads to a strong presumption that there is no such order; thus, he either ordered the "stand down" or by his inaction allowed it to be given. Either way, he failed to take the action a President should have taken.

      Second, somebody very high up in the WH made the decision to lie to the American people about the nature of the attack, clearly motivated by the concern that it might harm Obama's chances in the election. It strains credibility that someone like his chief of staff would make this decision and not inform Obama; thus, there is a strong probability that Obama himself was in on the cover-up from the very beginning. I feel we're entitled to proceed on that assumption, unless and until someone confesses to having fabricated the "video" story and can credibly testify in public that Obama was never told.

      Finally, Obama IS rooting for America's enemies, just as every other Leftist does. That's one of the reasons why the Left is evil.

      • Jim_C

        nahalkides–the "lie" is your presumption.

        I always say Obama's about as "left" as Nixon and Eisenhower. Different man, way different background–policies very similar.

        Anyway, I appreciate the explanation.

    • gosha

      “…Why in God's name would you WANT so badly for that to be true?” Jim_C, I do respect your desire to rely on solid facts and to view this administration as “innocent until proven guilty”, but thing is that there are no solid facts. Obama’s administration does everything possible to bury the truth. People that read FPM do not trust official information and who can blame them? People use bits and pieces of information they find to be credible and rely on writers in FPM and other conservative media as a source that is proven to be right many times. We view this president and his administration as evil bent on reversing founding values of this country that will eventually lead to its destruction. This is why we look for every piece of information that looks trustworthy to us that may be used in eventually removing this president and his administration from power. I know, it may sound childish, but it’s all we can do so far. Also, some people here are not the brightest bunch or are too ingrained into their own point of view in order to entertain other opinions, but I think you would find conservatives much more tolerant then their liberal counterparts, even on this blog.

      • Jim_C

        gosha, I appreciate the reply.

        As for liberals/conservatives–it takes all kinds, and I know we libs have the same turkeys too.

    • tagalog

      People who post here want him out badly. They look to Benghazi as possible grounds for impeachment. They're rightfully indignant about the death of four diplomats and staff, and about President Obama referring to their deaths as a "speed bump" in some delusional "peace process" that doesn't exist. They think of President Obama -not without some justification- as an apologist for radical Islamism. So it's not entirely beyond the pale for people to see President Obama as being in the pocket of those who want to kill us.

      But impeachment isn't going to happen, not while the Democrats dominate the Senate. The Petraeus testimony just isn't fatal to the Obama administration. Petraeus seems to have been lying in his first statements, but his lies (if that's what they were) were pretty innocuous and not likely to do much harm to the president.

      Your posts suggest that you think the loss of those four lives is a tragedy of errors. I suspect that interpretation is the one that will prevail. No one in his right mind wants the president to be that much of an amoral monster no matter how much they dislike the person who fills the post.

    • truebearing

      There is a simple solution, jimmy. All Obama has to do is open up the records of e-mails, etc and reveal the sequence of events and executive decisions. He needs to allow the military and CIA to restify freely, instead of smearing them when they disagree with him or don't want to take the rap. All he has to do is explain why he told the world that an idiotic video caused the killings, or why he actually bought ads in pakistan to apologize for a video they didn't know existed.

      Oh, and he should explain why he didn't defend sovereign US territory or act as the CIC in defense of his diplomatic corp.

      I never realized how many things you need explained. Maybe if we could get you out of denial and free from your ideological straightjacket we could get somewhere.

  • Willy Rho


    Barack Obama made a "Secret Plan" with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. The Plan was for Obama to reduce the Security at the Consulate in Benghazi and allow the Muslim Terrorists to Kidnap Ambassador Stevens. Then the Muslims would trade to Obama Ambassador Stevens for the Blind Sheik.

    The Mob Action, introduced in Egypt and other embassies and its claimed cause was to be an Anti Muslim movie trailer. That was the planned cover for the Kidnapping in Benghazi. The action at Benghazi was supposed to be blamed on the same mob action as in Egypt.

    Question: Does anything done by "Any Actor" make any sense, except in the context of "The Secret Plan".

    A few questions that can be explained completely by the "Secret Plan".
    1. Did Obama want to release the Blind Sheik, but had no justifiable reason to do so?
    2. Why were 3 MST and 1 SST security details removed from Libya.
    3. Why did Hillary request/demand more security, but Obama denied more security, several times?
    4. Why were ex-Seals, Doherty and Woods, told to stand down 3 times?
    5. Why did Obama tell the CIA to NOT help defend the Consulate.
    6. Why did Obama and his minions watch live video of the attack and not act?
    7. Why was an American Drone flying over the consulate recording video BEFORE the attack began?
    8. Predator Drones carry Hell Fire Missiles, why were none fired?
    9. Why were the Seals Lazing a Target, giving away their position and no Hell Fire missiles were fired?
    10. Why did Obama blame it on a video that no one (it had only 17 views on YouTube) had ever seen?
    11. Why did Obama fire General Ham for moving to assist the Consulate.
    12. Why was an AC-130 Gunship, 90 minutes away, not sent to aid the Consulate.
    13. Why were the F-16's only 20 minutes away not sent to help the consulate.
    14 Why is Obama Delaying, Obfuscating and Lying?
    15. Why did the plan stick with the plan's excuse of the "Mohammed is an Idiot" Movie Trailer?
    16. Why did the Ansar al-Sharia try to save Amb. Stevens by taking him to a Hospital/Emergency Room.
    17. Why did Ansar al-Sharia surround the Hospital where Ambassador Steven's body was taken and not let anyone in or out?
    18. Why was a Libyan Military person photographing the Consulate before the Attack?
    19. Why could the President not get an interview with a participating Terrorist for weeks when Senator Lindsey Graham got Tunisia to let the FBI interview him within 24 hours of the request?
    20. Why were Senior counter terrorism personnel cut out of the Loop, the Foreign Emergency
    Security Team was not called.
    21. The Embassy in Egypt was attacked by a Mob Action and the motive was the Film Trailer. This was part of the Plan and does not make sense, except if it was a part of the Kidnapping Plan with the joint actions in
    Egypt and Benghazi.
    22. Why did the Idiots in the White House stick with the Planned Motive of the Film Trailer starting the attack at Benghazi?

    The Not Known Unknown; a Fly in Obama's Treason Plans; Two Brave American Heroes, Navy Seals.
    They should both receive, posthumously, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, presented by Mitt Romney after Obama's Conviction for: High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Murders and High Treason.

  • Maxie

    Now the Obots are desperately emotionalizing this whole issue by screaming Racism! and Sexism! in the case of Susan Rice. Emotionalising the dialectic is SOP for the MarxiCrats to win-over the clueless Khardashian/The View watching numb$kulls to their side. Rice, knowingly or not, was sent out to l!e and she did. The 'stand-down' order came from the White House. The only question is who gave it? Jarrett? Axelrod? 0bama? Regardless 0bama is POTUS and is responsible. He i$ an inc0mpetent st00ge POTUS and sent back to Choom-ville.

  • Maxie

    ". . . and should be sent back to choom-ville."

  • Larry

    To rework a favourite leftard meme, "People died, Obama lied".

  • cynthia curran

    Well at least ike deported 2 million illegal immirgants think if Bush did that we would have been a hero instead of a cheap labor adovcate or kissed the Mexician goverment butt. Ike was’t that liberal the only liberal thing in his day was high marginaal tax. The welfare state was lower under Eisenhower than Reagan and the two Bushes.

    • Mary Sue

      That's because the "Welfare State" didn't really get going until LBJ's "great Society".

  • mlcblog

    1. I had no idea Susan Rice was black before this debacle.

    2. When I first heard Petraeus spout the party line, I got a check inside my mind that he was not for real, that something was amiss. I give him credit for resigning and becoming free to speak his piece.

  • pierce

    I have got an addendum to my earlier comment. Not only is Obama a Liar, but he has to be one the most naive presidents this great country has ever had, furthermore he has surrounded himself with people who have never had a real job, all academia, and I have a very low opinion of profs who try to influence young minds. Most of them are idealist, with no common sense what so ever. Do as I say, don't do as I do.

  • cynthiacurran

    Well this was to be expected by one of obama's temperant. He usually has a poor world view ,after the cold war Dems were kick out of the party the remaining Dems don't know how to handle the situation. Clinton had it easy he had to deal with a chridtian thug in the Balkins which is easier than Islamic thugs.

  • Dennis Habern

    I have just received a notice by some left-wing individual, that I should slow-down in my

    insertion of my comments. Are they attempting to violate my First Amendment rights?

    In other words, is this website, also owned by George Soros and company and is nothing more

    than a left-wing rag?