click to enlarge
Of course the memo was changed.
Of course Susan Rice got the changed version.
If it’s not terrorism, the U.S. won’t be allowed to bring to trial the terrorists, or, you know, the “folks” as Obama calls them.
But all this does not mean that Obama was not told about al-qaeda and the other “folks” of Libya from the get-go in the situation room.
In every way, it looks like the entire terrorist action in Benghazi was set up beforehand as a permitted “payback” for the taking out of Osama bin Laden.
Doesn’t it? Just askin’
Everything consistently points to this, doesn’t it?
Accompany me, Father George David Byers, S.S.L., S.T.D., as I begin life as a Catholic Priest-Hermit by choice. Holy Souls Hermitage is dedicated to the sanctification of my fellow priests, bishops, deacons & seminarians going through the purgatory of this life or the next. Prayer and sacrifice go up, of course, for both Benedict XVI and the next Successor of Saint Peter. 
Nah. That would require a kind of Machiavellian competence that this administration just doesn’t have. I’ve been saying it for a while. This thing has more in common with Iran-Contra than Watergate. Stevens met the Turkish Ambassador the day of the attack. Turkey was holding a ship full of weapons that had come from Libya on its way to Syria. On its way to a al Qaeda affiliated group.
The U.S. Ambassador was facilitating shipments of arms from Libya to Syria to overthrow al-Assad’s government. That is why Obama and his administration tried to cover up what was going on. They didn’t want to admit that their Libyan policy was failure by sending in the military and having to explain what Stevens was doing in Benghazi.
If Stevens was dealing guns with al Qaeda in Syria why would al Qaeda in Lybia attack him. Because were not dealing with some coordinated international criminal organizations like Thrush or SPECTRE. In real life these terrorist tend to be relatively small, loosely connected groups. I suspect the terrorist in Libya have no idea what the terrorist in Syria are doing.
Rice was most likely lied to and sent out as a sacrificial goat, so that none of the main line administration characters would have to go out and bald face lie. Then if she was caught, like she was, the plan was to give her plausible deny-ability.
The administration just never expected that a Democrat like Dianne Feinsein would also be indignant that Congress was lied to. I expect her to be called into the White House any day and get the riot act. That will give us a better idea of how this will play out. If they can muzzle her they might be able to play it out as the bad old Republicans trying to get even for the lost election. If she sticks to her guns on principle they might be in trouble.
I don’t expect it to bring down the president though, just like Iran/Contra didn’t bring down Reagan. They might offer Axelrod up though. After all Barry doesn’t need to win any more elections.
The trouble with all that is he is just that Machiavellian, but with the brute determination of a Marxist. It’s all about power. Obstacles are never considered to be anything more than a bump in the road, which is what he called the deaths of our four Americans, “a bump in the road on the way to better relations with the Arab states.” Which brings us back to my theory.
Is it like Watergate? It is absolutely impossible that Obama would not have known everything in real time with 2 1/2 dozen witnesses in the situation room in the white house alone. We need only ask all of them: “Who gave the order to stand down?” The only one who could have done that is the president. The next question is why? Any talk of our military not being able to negotiate through confusing flash mobs and confusing youtube-ette films will just not be acceptable.
Affairs are unimportant. Rice’s statements are unimportant. These little things are being taken care of first. Then it will be Obama’s turn. It’s what Obama himself said which is important.
It’s already been said that the administration needs to testify. But if he pulls executive privilege, that still doesn’t matter. There are witnesses. There is always someone like Olson who will be honest. That’s all it takes.
I can’t wait.
I can’t stand when the deaths of anyone are used for political ends. Do it with them, you can do it with anyone. It’s the old principle of “You understand nothing! You don’t understand that it’s better that one man die than that a whole nation perish.”
I don’t think Israel would be thrilled that any weapons were headed into Syria for anybody. sure, Iran and the Syrian government are both shiite-like, and, sure, al-qaeda is not absoulte best friends at the moment with Iran or Syria, but would we really want to arm an al-qaeda take over of Syria (with domino Lebanon and Iran next)? Wouldn’t Israel just about declare war on the U.S.A.?
But maybe you’re right. Strange that Stevens was only there since June though, right when all the security was plummeting at the consulate, etc… Just sayin’
Most politicians just want power, it’s true. I remember the feminist professors I had while in law school who just wanted power–they didn’t want to make things better for the average woman.
They wanted to teach us younger women how to put condoms on bananas, when we really needed to see them avoiding exploitatative relationships, embracing motherhood, and making the most of their lives with a sense of gratitude and humility. Well, such virtues were nowhere to be found at UCLA Law School, I’ll tell ya. “Yikes” is right!
Frankly, most of the male professors were no better. Barak Obama reminds me of the type who would be a law professor. I’m not surprised that that’s what he used to do. They preach law but secretly practice anarchy. If it’s good for them, there’s no need to explain to the rest of us common folk. We just “don’t understand.” Perhaps we’re not bright enough. Yeah, right!
When I was a very young teenager and Geraldine Ferraro ran as vice-president, I told my mother that Ms. Ferraro was doing such a wonderful thing for women’s rights, blah blah blah. I can hardly believe from my perspective as a middle-aged woman that I bought into all that Ms. Magazine nonsense!
Anyway, my mother corrected me. She said, “Geraldine Ferraro doesn’t care about other women. She is doing it for herself, to get power. Only for herself.”
My mother really understood. I hope that I can show my own daughter from my example about living as Mary would have us live. Does that make sense? I had never really thought about Mary before, but now I can see how important she is.
Any idea why she is often pictured wearing blue?
Jen
Jennifer: Eastern Rite iconography has various meanings for blue and red. However, I think Mary is depicted wearing blue because this reflects her name, which refers to the sea, which refers to salt, which refers to bitter grief, which comes from love: “Oh all ye who pass by the way: look to see if there is any sorrow like my sorrow.” Something like that, from the book of Lamentations. This is usually cited with a depiction of Mary holding Jesus just lowered from the cross. Yikes!