I know many are talking about the bombshell of Obama’s speech in 2007, which I really don’t see as that big of a deal: we knew back then that Obama hadn’t divorced himself from Jeremiah Wright, that he was (and still is) a race hustler, and that he attempts to divide people. I find this a bigger bombshell than a 5 year old video
(Reuters) Within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said.
Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups.
It was not until last Friday that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office issued an unusual public statement, which described how the picture that intelligence agencies presented to U.S. policymakers had “evolved” into an acknowledgement that the attacks were “deliberate and organized” and “carried out by extremists.”
So, within hours the Obama administration had reports that it wasn’t a video, it was a preplanned attack resulting in the death of our ambassador and 3 others. And what did Obama do? He went on a fundraising trip to Vegas. Then some more trips over the days following as his administration pushed the notion that it was all a spontaneous response (with RPGs and heavy weapons) to a stupid video that none had seen.
The stream of intelligence flowing into Washington within hours of the Benghazi attacks contained data from communications intercepts and U.S. informants, which were then fashioned into polished initial assessments for policymakers.
Officials familiar with them said they contained evidence that members of a militant faction, Ansar al-Sharia, as well as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, were involved in the assaults.
The officials did not allege the attacks were a reaction to the anti-Muslim film, but they acknowledged it was possible that the attackers sought to use an outbreak of violence in Cairo over the film, which insulted the Prophet Mohammad, as a pretext for attacks.
The big question is why did the Obama admin. decide to go with the “it was a film” talking point instead of terrorism? Essentially a cover up. There are many theories, but the only one that truly makes sense is that by labeling the attack as a growing out of the protest allowed Obama to continue campaigning at will since September 11 and then hoping that enough of the real information would stay off the media radar till the elections. Obama even blamed the attack on the Mohammed video during his United Nations speech, before blowing off world leaders to go on The View.
In other words, the Administration purely lied to the American public.
And they have no intention of being honest with the American Public. The FBI still hasn’t accessed the scene of the attack. The Washington Post has. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is stating that they’ll have a report on this attack….(via Allahpundit)
Clinton asked Issa to withhold any final conclusions about the Benghazi attack until the review board finishes its work and reports to Congress, which could come as early as November or as late as early next year. She pledged to work with Issa’s committee and asked him to submit any requests for information or witnesses at hearings to the State Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs.
So, after the election. Foot dragging, stonewalling, and coverup.
Allah also posts this video about the sorry state of the security at the Behngazi site
The big question is will the media do their job and investigate? It used to be that the media were sharks, and something like this would be a pool of blood in the water.