Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Benghazi-gate?


(hat tip to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS for the above graphic of Susan Rice)

I remember when the news broke about what later became the Watergate Scandal, a scandal that ultimately forced President Nixon to resign the first and only time that a United States President has resigned in the face of mounting evidence of malfeasance.  Little did even political wonks on mid-June of 1972  realize the significance of the arrests.

During the televised hearings, we heard over and over again the following: "What did you know, and when did you know it?"

To no avail, President Nixon tried all sorts of ways to cover up his own involvement in the Watergate Scandal.  His mantra of "Deny, deny, deny!" couldn't save him, and he resigned on August 9, 1974.

Right now, it seems as if the White House is getting ready to throw U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice under the bus.  After all, Obama does have a history throwing supporters and adherents under the bus.  He is all about saving himself.

Now, let's consider the words of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on October 12, 1972 at a press conference. Please watch the entire clip:


The Daily Caller story is HERE.

Furthermore, we have this from Obama himself on September 18, 2012 (hat tip to Mike's America):


What did Obama know and when did he know it?

As one who lived through all the Watergate Scandal mess, I can tell you that the hallmarks are lining up for throwing anybody but Obama under the proverbial bus.

Will Obama attempt to throw Secretary of State Hillary Clinton under the bus in attempt to divert his own responsibility regarding the murder of Libyan Ambassador Stevens on September 11, 2012?

Maybe.

If  Hillary is targeted, however, she won't go alone under the wheels of the Obama Bus. No, siree. She'll take Obama with her.

If this information is accurate, Hillary is already preparing to save herself.

29 comments:

  1. Well, it's natural that there be confusion in the fog of war. Everyone was initially reporting that this was a demonstration over the so called film.

    As Juan Cole points out as soon as we learned rocket propelled grenades were used in the attack and the safe house was mortared the situation changes.

    So, the task is to put that into a timeline. Bit of a tempest in a teapot here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are conflicting reports in the media about Bill and Hillary Clinton and their relationship with Obama. One side says that Hillary and Bill are turning against Obama (have always hated him), consulting attorneys as to Hillary's position. The other side says all is well, Bill will continue to shill to get Obama re-elected.

    Should be interesting viewing if the Clintons do turn on him.

    Debbie
    Right Truth
    http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. Duck,
    Bit of a tempest in a teapot here.

    At first, that's how Watergate seemed to. The situation turned out otherwise, didn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Uh oh!

    The Clinton’s are clearly on a divergent path than President Obama. Hillary just Judo’d Obama in this informative article posted in the UK Daily Mail.

    In this report Secretary Clinton separates U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice from her State Department, and instead says that Rice was selling the message, and following orders, from the White House, not from the State Department. President Obama made Susan Rice (UN Ambassador) a cabinet level position - not part of State Dept.

    Hillary goes on to say that THEY (State Department) NEVER felt it was a video movie that caused the Benghazi attack.


    Read the whole thing, including the embedded links Also, notice the dates! Before the debate last Thursday!

    Something is afoot. I know that much. I can't totally predict where that something will lead.

    But I KNOW that Hillary isn't stupid. She's protected herself. Count on it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Either Susan Rice was seriously ignorant of the facts or she flat-out lied on those Sunday shows, at the behest of the White House.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Viewing this one way says to me, notwithstanding the tragic circumstances which have lead to the problems: Clinton, B.O. and Rice now face, such problems couldn't befall more deserving scum!

    OK,while this situation is, potentially, much more serious than "Watergate" which was festering prior to the 1972 Election. Under that cloud Nixon, nevertheless, was re-elected. When "Watergate" blew wide open Nixon was forced to resign. At least there was one redeeming result, Gerald Ford was there to assume the Presidency. Now imagine, just imagine,what will or should happen with this issue! While there was never good reason to elect B.O., in the first place,it would be an act of mass insanity to re-elect him. Even worse (if that's possible); what happens if he resigns??? Hint: We got a taste of that the other night.

    ReplyDelete
  7. God forbid Obama would be forced to resign. We'd be stuck with Crazy Joe as President. What does need to happen is to have this issue raised in the next presidential debate on Tuesday and Romney hammer home the demand that we know who it was that told Rice to spread these lies.

    Hillary Clinton will not allow her reputation to be soiled by this scandal. She survived Whitewater, Cattle Futures and all of Bill's scandals. She's too experienced in handling situations like this to take the fall. Even if she were to blame and that is unlikely.

    The point about Susan Rice betraying Hillary to go with Obama in 2008 is also something to consider.

    P.S. Duck called this a "Bit of a tempest in a teapot." Is that what you call it when an Ambassador and three other Americans are murdered on September 11th?

    You might as well laugh off the whole thing like Crazy Joe Biden.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, it's natural that there be confusion in the fog of war.

    By all means, Ducky ... elaborate for us about all your experiences in war.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why is anyone surprised that Barack Obama is attempting to dodge responsibility for the murder of four Americans? As for Clinton, I agree with John Bolton that she is at least criminally negligent in these deaths. The Teflon Clintons, as it were. In no way will this incident preclude Clinton from running for the White House in 2016, and there is no way this shameless demonstration of the Obama administration’s incompetence will lessen him in the eyes of his idiotic and totally shameless supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Valerie Jarett gets 24/7 Secret Service protection...

    Are terrorists throwing molotov cocktails at her in Georgetown 3x a month?

    The funding argument is a complete sham...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gee Axelrod has Secret Service protection, too. I guess that the poor guy needed a chauffer...

    Meanwhile, the diplomats in the ME unprotected...

    tsk- tsk

    ReplyDelete
  12. Someone will surely be the scapegoat over this, but it sure won't be Hillary.

    I'll bet you a donut she's already made it clear to BHO that she's taking him with her if he tries it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Brooke said.......

    "I'll bet you a donut she's already made it clear to BHO that she's taking him with her if he tries it."

    Isn't the position that B.O. is being placed DELICIOUS!!! It couldn't happen to a bigger fraud. How is he going to slither out of this? I just heard Axelrod get grilled by Chris Wallace; he sounded nervous.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Brooke,
    I'll bet you a donut she's already made it clear to BHO that she's taking him with her if he tries it.

    I imagine that she has.

    BUT

    Obama is, well, headstrong. I doubt that he believes that she can do him any damage.

    His ego is that inflated.

    Furthermore, he's intractable.

    I read somewhere that Rahm Emanuel complained about Obama's intractability.

    And the longer that BHO has been POTUS, the more intractable he has become -- even in the face of the Dems' defeat in the 2010 elections.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jon,
    I just heard Axelrod get grilled by Chris Wallace; he sounded nervous.

    Oh, yeah?

    Well, take a look at THIS?

    What's going on? Hmmmm?

    ReplyDelete
  16. AOW: In that case, I hope he does try it.

    I'll make the popcorn.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AOW,

    "Well, take a look at THIS?"

    I bet the last thing Gibbs want's is a REAL investigation!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Four dead Americans is much, much more than a tempest in a tea pot. And the only fog here is that man-made fog the administration is putting up in a vain attempt to hide the truth from the public. It may take a while for the entire truth to emerge, but just in watergate the truth will become know and heads will roll.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @AOW -- At first, that's how Watergate seemed to. The situation turned out otherwise, didn't it?

    -----
    What benefit is there to hiding the truth?

    The only thing going on here is that the fringe right absolutely needs a dose of "scary Muslims" to feed their lust for more aggression. That's all.

    The fringe is still living in this la-la land where nothing bad ever happens to American.
    They should be able to do whatever they like and respond militarily if anyone objects.

    That silliness is long past and gone and the fringe right needs to figure it out and adjust.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I assume Ducky intended his question, What benefit is there to hiding the truth as rhetoric. He has either elevated naiveté to an entirely new level, or he attempts to obfuscate at a level only Francis Fox Piven can appreciate.

    Rhetoric requires neither logic, nor proof; truth demands both. One can always tell when Ducky is spinning; it is when he overuses such terms as “fringe right,” and “scary Muslim,” and “silliness” in the same tiresome narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Duck,
    What I'm saying here has nothing to do with "scary Muslims"!

    Nor does what I'm saying here having anything to do with la-la land where nothing bad ever happens to American.

    A U.S. consulate is supposed to be afforded protection by the United States as sovereign U.S. territory. It is the duty of the United States to secure that territory and NOT to ignore requests for more security. Why the refusal of so many requests for security? Why, why, why?

    It is a fantasy that the nation hosting such a facility is going to protect it.

    If -- and I'm saying IF the situation, for whatever reason, is that of not being able to secure the facility, then the facility should be closed and a cyber facility established.

    As for your comment about responding militarily, I do not advocate responding militarily over what happened in Benghazi. I DO advocate the administration to tell the truth about what happened there on September 11, 2012. The benefits to hiding the truth is high: the upcoming election here in the United States and suppressing freedom of expression with regard to criticizing Islam. The movie lie is gaining traction all over the place.

    In my view, what happened in Benghazi indicates the failed foreign policy of the Obama administration. That admission will never happen, of course. But repercussions of the denials about the truth in Benghazi will continue -- in large part, because of the Benghazi cover-up, a cover-up using a stupid film as a scapegoat. I won't give it the dignity of calling it a movie!

    It is la-la land to believe that the Arab Spring is a great improvement over the previous governments and policies there. The Arab Spring has left those nations more unstable -- for how long, I cannot begin to estimate.

    There are four dead Americans. Their families deserve a true explanation instead of lies and obfuscations.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Good grief!

    I just read this comment over at Mike's America:

    the Administration was spending more money to provide U.S. embassies in Europe with charging stations for the Chevy Volt that Obama insisted they buy rather than security for places like Libya

    Can that be true? Well, I suspect that it is true. **sigh**

    ReplyDelete
  23. Either these people in command are:

    A) incredibly NAIVE

    B) incredibly STUPID

    C) incredibly INCOMPETENT

    D) incredibly WICKED

    or a combination of any two, any three or all four -- take your pick.

    It doesn't matter. In ANY case NONE of them BELONGS in HIGH OFFICE.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  24. I realize I got to this discussion late. But seriously fog of war. I have no access to cable TV. The first report I heard about the attack was likely by radio and my first thought was terrorist attack. To think anything else about an attack near/on 9/11 on 2 embassies with heavy weapons means you are an idiot. Defending such a notion means you are niave to believe government under any admin will not lie to you.


    The facts are even more disturbing. The guy basically had 1 guy from the host country. Magically his 2 American bodyguards were in a differrent location. They ran into the fight and died try9ing but who the hell ordered them to leave? Damn curious.

    I am looking forward to the day when Obama is voted out. Maybe on that day the various employees of the various agencies will start to come forward and tell us what really was goin on in the most transparent government in history.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "If Hillary is targeted, however, she won't go alone under the wheels of the Obama Bus. No, siree. She'll take Obama with her."

    OOPS. Wrong on that one, sorry to say. She threw herself under the bus this morning. I just did a post on her "Fog of War" story.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Black Sheep,
    Hillary is no dummy.

    Of course, I wrote this post before Hillary threw herself under the bus.

    But I still believe that there is more to her strategy than is obvious.

    We shall see.

    Will check your post when I can.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective