Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Barack Obama Covering Up Facts in Ambassador Stevens Murder

Knew in 24 hours it was a terrorist attack, blamed "mob" and "video" for over a week.

 It is now being reported that US Intelligence, and therefore the White House, knew within 24 hours of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a terrorist attack with links to Al Qaida.  Despite this knowledge, the Administration continued to blame a film no one had heard of, and fewer had seen, for the attack.  So lax were they in following up on the attack, CNN was able to waltz in and take Ambassador Stevens' personal diary.

This is not your normal kind of cover up.  Nothing is gained by claiming a "mob" is responsible when we know that terrorists are.  Admitting it was a terrorist attack would not be showing any cards.  It would not be giving away any intelligence, or intelligence sources.  It would, however, have been embarrassing for the SCOAMT in office.  The first successful terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11 happened on his watch, less than 4 years after taking office, and just months after his administration provided assistance to the Islamist governments which now control both Egypt and Libya.

But even that does not explain covering up that fact.  Everyone knew it was a terror attack as soon as it happened.  Mobs don't carry mortars and RPGs.  So covering that fact up still makes no sense.  Unless there's something else that we don't know.

Rumor is spreading on the internet that part of the reason for the attack was that Ambassador Stevens was openly gay.  Christians just don't want same-sex couples to marry, Muslims think they should be beheaded.  Was that part of the reason for the attack?  If so, do Hillary Clinton (who personally appointed Ambassador Stevens) and Barack Obama (her boss) bear some amount of the direct blame for the attack?  If it was part of the reason, it would seem theirs is a more proximate relationship than some YouTube video, wouldn't it?

Or maybe that's completely wrong, and there was some other reason behind the attack.  Certainly it's true that Islamic terrorists love themselves some anniversaries, and the first 9/11 when they had a real opportunity would have been too good to pass up- but that wouldn't explain the cover up.

So what is the Administration hiding?  What dark secret won't survive the light of day?  What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?

1 comment:

  1. IMHO, Occam's Razor applies here, and my take on it is that is is just that simple. Obama was hoping that by never saying "terroist" he'd never give that soundbyte, it'd never be aired on TV and the media would just play along.
    Queue the Low Info Voters who just sheeple along, and won't realize the lies. (They'll get the Libya incident confused with the Egyptian one, or miss details like RPGs that those of us more engaged pick up.)
    Heck, even my wife (who should know better) initially believed the government account (because of the complexity with the situations and lack of attention). It's just unfathomable to believe that security could be so lax, you don't want to believe it, so you supress it (and digest the narrative). Obama was relying on these things Only when more and more news outlets began picking up the angle that it was pre-planned and running with it, did Barky's narrative fall to pieces (but now he's committed, tangled webs and whatnot.)