Hillary Strikes Back: Attaches U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to Obama White House Propaganda Messaging

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:

The State Department’s insistence it never bought the story – expressed by the White House and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations – that a crude anti-Islam film made in California triggered the attack gives ammunition against Obama both to the Romney campaign and congressional Republicans.

State Department sources have said that Clinton has never forgotten that Rice, who served in her husband Bill’s administration, was an early supporter of Obama. Rice has ambitions to take over from Clinton if Obama is re-elected but the Benghazi debacle could scupper her chances.

In a briefing on Tuesday, State Department officials said ‘others’ in the executive branch concluded initially that the attack was part of a protest against the film, which ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the State Department’s conclusion, reporters were told.   (read more)

What Hillary will have to answer for now is why “she”, as an individual, was repeating the storyline -up to and including Pakistani commercials- about a U-Tube video.   However she will probably be able to say she was just doing the job the White House needed to, or said had to, be done.   After all, President Obama is essentially her BOSS.

Oh man, this is getting better by the minute.

The article also lists the blow-by-blow account of what actually took place in Benghazi.  It is a must read.    READ IT HERE

So obviously the conclusion is the White House was the origin of the negative U-Tube movie about Prophet Muhammed talking point.

From inside this early (9/13) CNN article we find the following:

[…]  Senior administration officials called the conditions inside [the safe room] “awful,” describing “incredibly thick smoke and fire.”

The officials, while still trying to piece together the details of how the Tuesday night consulate attack unfolded, began Wednesday to give a clearer picture of events.

The violence began around 10 p.m. Tuesday amid a protest by the radical Islamist group Ansar Al-Sharia against a film mocking Islam’s prophet.

Four hours later, the consulate was destroyed, its walls blackened by shooting flames. Four Americans, including Stevens and Smith, were dead. […] 

Libyans said bystanders had helped carry an unconscious Stevens to a hospital. However, U.S. officials could not confirm that account.

“We are not clear on the circumstances between the time he got separated from the rest of the group inside the burning building to the time we were notified that he was in a Benghazi hospital,” the senior administration official said. “We were not able to see him until his body was returned to us at the airport.”

Also unclear Wednesday was the significance of the timing of the attack, which fell on the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington and coincided with a violent protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt.

State Department officials said the two incidents at the diplomatic missions were not related and said they believe the Benghazi violence was a “clearly planned attack.”  (link) 

*Note:  CNN’s Tom Cohen, Elise Labott and Jill Dougherty contributed to this report.

So who were these “Senior Administration Officials” who spoke to CNN on 9/13 and placed the blame on the U-tube video ?   Find that out, and we will have a better understanding of “why” they felt it necessary to create a false story.

…… And someone needs to explain this contradictory excerpt from the Daily Mail story:

[…]  A concurrent CIA memo obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi ‘were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo’ and ‘evolved into a direct assault’ on the diplomatic posts by ‘extremists’.  (link)

Oddly the USA Today picked up the same excerpt:

The AP reports Wednesday that a concurrent CIA memo obtained by the news agency cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi “were spontaneously
inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” and “evolved into a  direct assault” on the diplomatic posts by “extremists.”  (link)

But guess what?   No article has an internal link to the AP report, AND when you try to confirm at AP…..

THERE ISN’T ONE !!!!!

(or any version of one with a host of different search engine feeds and keywords)

It appears the report of the supportive CIA report is BOGUS, yet it was spread in various news sources as factual support for the White House assertion by Susan Rice.  Remember, with Obama he changed the status of UN Ambassador to “Cabinet Level“;  meaning Susan Rice reports to him, not Hillary.

Are y’all getting this?

The White House sent Susan Rice out to sell a story of a video/movie.   To support the assertion a bogus AP report was formulated saying that CIA intelligence apparatus had provided the same information.   But it doesn’t exist.

To the contrary the entire intelligence apparatus, sans OUR MAN CLAPPER, has said there was no intelligence even alluding to a movie, a protest, or an impetus of a movie spurred protest in either Cairo (at the embassy) or Benghazi (at the consulate).

On Friday September 28th James Clapper provided the White House with cover and plausible deniability when he said:

WASHINGTON DC – Extremists from groups linked to al Qaida struck the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in a “deliberate and organized terrorist attack,” the top U.S. intelligence agency said Friday, as it took responsibility for the Obama administration’s initial claims that the deadly assault grew from a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam video.

The unusual statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence appeared to have two goals: updating the public on the latest findings of the investigation into the assault, and shielding the White House from a political backlash over its original accounts. 

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which coordinates and sets policies for the 16 other U.S. intelligence agencies, is led by retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in August 2010.   (link)

Y’all still getting this?

So the White House trotted out Susan Rice to sell a false story, unbeknownst to Hillary Clinton, who was then told to toe-the-line.    To provide elbow room, and cover for the White House, a bogus AP report mentioning the CIA was seeded to, and picked up by, the press thereby providing enough space and time to coordinate with James Clapper, so that he could arrange a bogus intelligence mistake story to back them up.

All of this before the “discovery” of U.S. officials on the ground in Libya asking for more security help.   Which, unfortunately for the White House, became a bigger story than the false “movie” explanation.

The failure to provide the requested security creates the White House back in a position of blaming the State Dept.   The same State Dept who was providing cover for the false “movie” explanation.

Hence the ping-pong ball back and forth.

While Hillary might have been willing to cover for the White House movie story “coverup” under the guise of faulty intelligence, which she did diligently, she ain’t gonna take being thrown under the bus for the lack of security protection.

Hillary was a loyal soldier and provided cover for the “movie” fiasco.   But now that the narrative, and attention, has switched to the personal security issue she’s pissed that the quid pro quo cover only goes one way.

What is an Ambassador? An Ambassador is the highest-ranking diplomatic representative of one government to another or to an international organization. As formally defined and recognized at the Congress of Vienna (1815).   Ambassadors are regarded as personal representatives of their country’s chief executive rather than of the whole country, and their rank entitles them to meet personally with the head of state of the host country.

Originally, only the principal monarchies exchanged ambassadors; the U.S. did not appoint ambassadors until 1893. Since 1945 all nations have been recognized as equals, and ambassadors or their equivalents are sent to all countries with which diplomatic relations are maintained.

U.S Ambassadors are the duly appointed representatives of The United States President. In Libya, Christopher Stevens WAS the personal representative of President Barack Obama.

Ambassadors are regarded as personal representatives of their country’s chief executive.

1.  How come no reports of any dead bad guys?

2.  Susan Rice is a Cabinet level position per Obama directive.   Why do reporters keep referencing her as part of the State Dept apparatus?   She’s not.  Obama changed it and made her part of his cabinet.

3.  Where are the autopsy reports that were conducted at Andrews with the FBI ?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Benghazi-Gate, Clinton(s), Egypt & Libya Part 2, Election 2012, Islam, Obama re-election, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

184 Responses to Hillary Strikes Back: Attaches U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to Obama White House Propaganda Messaging

  1. Pingback: Hillary strikes back at Obama. - HCS Snowmobile Forums

  2. Pingback: Larwyn’s Linx: Bob Woodward Slams Obama’s Benghazi Lies | Preppers Universe

  3. Pingback: American lives and National security above Obama’s pay grade « moralmatters.org

  4. Pingback: The Columbus Dispatch: (Benghazi) Preventable tragedy - Page 3

  5. Pingback: Monty Pelerin's World » Watergate Was A Pimple Compared To Libya

  6. Pingback: Hillary takes the fall for “take no responsibility” Obama « moralmatters.org

  7. Pingback: Obama’s huge terrorism debate lie: Moderator Muppet Crowley’s Infatuation with Obama the Frog « moralmatters.org

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s