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…..


(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. BigMamaTEA says:

    SWEET! She’s gonna roll on The Won !!!!

    • retire2005 says:

      Warning to everyone; don’t get distracted by what seems to be an upcoming battle between the Clinton State Department and the Oval Office. And while what happened in Benghazi is extremely important (like there was no protest as claimed) don’t miss what is being shoved aside in the shell game that is this Administration.

      What is really important is this one question: why was Ambassador Stevens even in Benghazi on 9-11, and not at the more fortified Tripoli compound?

      Memo from the AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI to SECSTATE WASHDC on Aug. 02, 2012

      “(SBU) The security condition in Libya remains unpredictable, volatile, and violent. Though certain goals have been successfully met, such as the national election for a representative Parliament who will draft the new Libyan Constitution, violent security incidents continue to take place due to the lack of a coherent national Libyan security force and the strenght of local militias and large numbers of armed groups.”

      So, a month before 9-11, the embassy in Tripoli was warning that the situation on the ground was “unpredictable, volatile and violent”, and it was known that Benghazi was the biggest hot spot in Libya with even the Red Cross, and Great Britian, pulling out in June.

      So what was so important that Stevens would go to the hottest of all hot spots in Libya on 9-11, a day that is very symbolic to Jihadists?

      An armed attack by 200 jihadists capable of overrunning the Benghazi consulate and killing the Americans there was not created in a vacumn. It takes time. And the one thing we do know it that the streets of Benghazi were very, VERY quiet up to the time the attack started taking place. Think about that for a minute. The streets were quiet. Meaning that the locals knew there was something about to happen. How did the jihadists know in advance, long enough to plan for the attack, that Stevens would be in Benghazi that night?

      So here are some questions that need to be asked:

      Why was Stevens in Benghazi when it was known that the situation on the ground in Libya was volatile? Was Stevens involved in a deal to retrieve weapons, WEAPONS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PROVIDED TO LIBYAN REBELS WHO WERE LATER PROVEN TO BE AQ?

      There was a fire fight between the jihadists who attacked the consulate and the former Navy SEALs. Where are the dead bodies of the jihadists?

      When the FBI finally got to Benghazi, almost a month later, why did they only spend three hours there? Why were we told it was too dangerous for the FBI to go into Benghazi yet CNN reporters and Washington Post reporters wandered around there freely?

      Don’t get caught up in this shell game. The administration is trying to cover up the reason Stevens was in Benghazi and not at the safer Tripoli compound. There is where we need to be looking.

      • John Galt says:

        “How did the jihadists know in advance, long enough to plan for the attack, that Stevens would be in Benghazi that night?”

        Because Obama et al were retarded/corrupt enough to put Libyans on the security staff.


        • retire2005 says:

          John Galt, I do not deny that there were jihadist moles in the security staff. But come on, do you think that an attack of that magnitude could be organized in just a couple of hours since it was just hours before the attack that it was being noticed pictures of the compound were being taken?

          The attackers have been referred to as a “brigade.” A brigade is a combination of different groups, all needing to be coordinated for effectiveness. Again, this takes time. And don’t confuse what the U..S. considers brigade size. A brigade can be any size (200 or so) that is made up of different elements.

          Even so, it doesn’t alter the fact that it is important to know WHY Stevens was in Benghazi, and not Trlpoli that night. I personally think the BIG coverup is the fact that the Obama administration not only approved the arming of the Libyan rebels by both Egypt and France, but more importantly, probably had a clandestine operation to have the U.S. provide them arms. I think that was the reason Stevens was in Benghazi that night. Stevens had facilitated the arms supply in the first place, but those arms were now in the hands of jihadists and he was going to try to get them back to save Oval Office face.

          • boricuafudd says:

            There is also another question, the communication that was intercepted, that is being used as why they said it was a demonstration, specifically mentions the signal to go ahead with the attack. My question is, how come the Consulate was not informed of an impending attack, even if disguise as a protest. And why was the little tidbit that al-Qaeda was doing this not mentioned at all.

            • retire2005 says:

              boricuafudd, good point. Obviously, we (U.S. intel) were intercepting communications among these jihadist groups, yet no warning to the Ambassador or his U.S. security?

              I found it really odd that Lamb decided that the Libyan Ambassador did not need additional security after it was requested three times, and then pulled, in August, U.S. security forces that had expired their TDYs and not replaced them, knowing the situation on the ground, but felt obligated to then pay what was left additional hazardous duty pay that they had not gotten before.

              Like Lt. Col. Wood said, it was only a matter of time and we were the last flag standing. It wasn’t was it going to happen, it was when.

              • boricuafudd says:

                I’ll pose a hypothetical, what if the warning was sent to the WH and not relayed to the Consulate? Remember, the early reports all said no “actionable” intelligence, I always took it to mean the earlier warnings, but now I’m thinking it was this report.

                • Sharon says:

                  And maybe raises a curiosity as to what constitutes “actionable” intelligence? If they control the language and what words mean or don’t mean—they can mean anything they want or nothing at all. What do they mean when they say “actionable” and what examples are available, if any?

                  • boricuafudd says:

                    I can only go by what that meant when I was working for DHS, and that was an attack is imminent at this place, at or around this time. by such and such, maybe they would include using this weapon or weapons. In this case we were to take whatever precautions, and be on high alert. But even a lesser warning given to the Consulate, would have provided them time to prepare and plan an exit or defensive position. It looks in this case they had no warning, and were not in any kind of alert.

            • sybiljx1 says:


              …At least one document found amid the clutter indicates that Americans at the mission were discussing the possibility of an attack in early September, just two days before the assault took place. The document is a memorandum dated Sept. 9 from the U.S. mission’s security office to the 17th February Martyrs Brigade, the Libyan-government-sanctioned militia that was guarding the compound, making plans for a “quick reaction force,” or QRF, that would provide security.

              …The letter from Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (Utah) said Libyans working as private security personnel at the compound were warned by family members in the weeks before the attacks to quit their jobs because of rumors of an impending attack. The congressmen did not say how they had received the information.

              Sensitive documents left with little security at U.S. mission in Benghazi

              (Note: Page 2 of itinerary, 11 September, TBD 11:00 at the US Special Mission Benghazi looks to have been postponed, “Another day.”)


          • creeper00 says:

            Hogwash. How long does it take to co-ordinate an attack against an essentially undefended compound? This one wasn’t even particularly well co-ordinated. Stevens managed to escape the main house initally.

            You’re giving credit to the attackers for being far more organized than they were. If that attack had been well-planned, why did it take six hours?

            A bare bones plan for an assault on the embassy had probably been formulated long before. They were just waiting for an opportunity. We handed it to them when we sent Stevens to Benghazi.

            But you’re right about the primary question…why did we do that?

      • canadacan says:

        It is my understanding the trip Lee was in pretty bad shape as far as security was concerned also. That’s TRIPOLI .

      • Sonia says:

        Very interesting take on the situation. Are you a detective or CIA? If not, you should be.

      • Linda Fleegle says:

        All I can say is WOW. it seems to get more sinister by the day. This IS going to be another Watergate and history books will show just how corrupt and inept this administration has been.

        • Dagny says:

          Nobody died in the Watergate scandal, and it wasn’t international or dangerous. This SHOULD be bigger than Watergate. But with our MSM…let’s just say they have really big brooms and an even bigger rug.

        • I agree…I just hope the American People wake up to Nobama and his Chicago ways!! If you don’t educate yourself on this, and read up on what he has done, you are playing right into his hands!! Don’t be dumb and believe all his lies and they are lies and now we may have a cover up and our Four Heroes deserve better!! Think about it People they were over there because they loved America so much!!!..To much is at stake for America!!Please Vote this numskull out THIS NOV.

      • TonyEBaker says:

        What could the reason be? Try perhaps Ambassador Stevens was meant to be killed but rather “Captured” as a Hostage. Hostage for what? A planned deal with Morsi and the MBH for a public hastage exchange for the Blind Sheik! Then, days before the election, Obama can claim he SAVED the ambassador and sealed a new relationship with Egypt. Sound outlandish? Makes more sense than a damn YT movie doesn’t it?

        • ejarra says:

          Did you meant NOT meant to be killed? Otherwise, I don’t follow you. There is NO question in my mind that this was a kidnapping gone wrong. He was “smoked ” out and brought to a hospital. If they wanted him dead and made the death public, he would have been dragged out into the streets in the morning when the people would be up and awake.

          This was a botched kidnapping. No doubt about it.

          • ctdar says:

            They did not take him straight away to the hospital. Photos of AQ carrying him over their shoulders without his pants on tells us why his body was unaccounted for over 6 hours.

            • ejarra says:

              True, atrocities aside, him ending up at a hospital as opposed to being dragged through the streets that morning is proof enough for me that this was a planned kidnapping. I believe that this will get out in the days ahead; at least the question.

              • ctdar says:

                Just because there has not been any video available(yet) i believe Amb Stevens was dragged thru the streets as per the few photos available.
                You do not carry someone upside down over your shoulders naked from the waist down as form of goodwill transportation to a hospital. I certainly hope more answers are known prior to the election.

          • cali says:

            You hit the nail on its head!
            This has been floating around for about 10 days now.

        • Knuckledraggingwino says:

          My suspicion is that this was a botched kidnapping with the complicity of Obama and Hillary. You nail it about the election stunt to exchange the blind shiek for our ambassador. However; the fixation with that obscure, “Innocence of Muslims” suggests an even more sinister plot. Was Obama willing to facilitate the abduction of our ambassador so that the allegation that the film incited the attack could be exploited as a pretext to impose restrictions on speech that insults Islam? Aside from establishing a facet of Sharia law, it would set a precedent for restrictions n all political speech and religious expression.

    • John Galt says:

      So the upside is that she avoids the obstruction indictment, which leaves her merely incredibly stupid and incompetent.

      • GreatGrany7 says:

        John Galt, are you referring to HC with this remark? If so, you don’t have a clue. HC’s downfall was foreseeable when she declined the VP offer from Obummer. That just added fuel to his high state of paranoia regarding the Clintons. No, she was toast long before 9/11/12 but not being a fan of HC I will tell you, she has more moxie than any of the men standing in that government. If she lives beyond this present danger, it will be only by the Grace of God.

        I cannot begin to tell you the sadness I experience daily over the horrible situation of my precious country. We don’t need a civil war to break out that would devastate everything
        and everyone. Fighting against one another is not the answer. Holding the irresponsible
        government personnel’s feet to the fire is the only way out of this mess and then, speak up and fight back with your thoughts and ideals instead of watching it all unfold on TV. No one can convince me that Barrack Hussein Obama fooled everyone. No way! Voting because of party affiliations or promises these creeps make is no excuse. Common sense could have prevented the whole thing. Dig a little deeper and educate yourself on the truth.

    • John Galt says:

      “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.”

      Maybe she can say something like, “I did not have sex with that woman.”

      Hillary blaming attack on video:


  2. BigMamaTEA says:

    ps SDC, I have a TON of info on this mess and most others (political) Have captured everything I have. Going to sleep tomorrow, but will start posting sometime tomorrow.

  3. lovemygirl says:

    Loving the Clinton’s until 11/7

  4. kinthenorthwest says:

    Let the games begin…I will make a bet the winner will not be Obama on 11/7 LOL

  5. waltherppk says:

    How sweet it is ! The masterminds who have been pretending they were ever qualified to be the leaders and have responsibility of administering the government of the republic haven’t a single one of them the personal integrity to step up and say the words “I was wrong, I fouled up and I’m sorry people died because of my not doing my job”. The entire concept of personal accountability is alien to their prog ideology which professes life is a zero sum game. Incompetent job performance even when lives are lost as a consequence is a big “so what” to that crew of prog imbeciles who presently seek a workplace sacrificial lamb upon whom to cast all their sins involving collective non performance of their job duty. Now they are having a contest to see who gets thrown under the bus. However,..since the bus of state has already been driven off a cliff and is in the river …it should occur to the mastermind in chief that it is time for the bus driver for entire broken and faulty ideology along with all the rest of the other mastermind “progs on board” they all need to swim for it ….because the bus is caught in the current and headed for the rocky rapids and waterfall of the now less than a month away November elections. The progs should be jumping off the bus caught in the rapids like rats from a sinking ship. For this kind of fiasco there probably isn’t just one stupid prog responsible, but this fiasco was result of a collective effort ..it takes a village. Instead of “forward” maybe that campaign slogan should be “village idiots unite”, with a fist pump sign of mob unity ..uh huh.

  6. woohoowee says:

    Appears that Petraeus misled the House Intelligence Committee:

    “Yet a congressional source told Fox News that CIA Director David Petraeus, during a briefing with members of the House Intelligence Committee three days after the attack, also espoused the view that Benghazi was an out-of-control demonstration prompted by the YouTube video. According to the source, this was “shocking” to some members who were present and saw the same intelligence pointing toward a terrorist attack.”


    • I wonder if this is the “source” of the non-existent “CIA Benghazi memo” supposedly given to the Associate Press. It has multiple media mentions because it stemmed from the AP, but in actuality “THE MEMO” does not exist. :(

      • woohoowee says:

        I suspect it is the source of the non-existent memo. Better link for Petreaus (also includes FOX article I came across):


        • Knuckledraggingwino says:

          And to think that there was once a time when Conservatives respected Petreaus who you may recall was referred to as “Betrayus” by the liberal Democrats for his support of the surge in Afghanistan.

          While the mutual backstabbing is cause for amusement and confidence that BHO will be a one term President, the Arab Spring that Hillary, Susan Rice, and Humma Wiener nurtured is resurrecting the Caliphate. Romney has no expertise in foreign policy that would encourage one to believe that he has a cogent strategy to respond to this challenge. Ryan joined Sen McCain n supporting the Arab Spring and continues to support the jihadist in Syria. The only, nationally prominent, Republican leader who had the wisdom to speak out against US support for overthrowing secular, Arab governments who had been USallies was:
          Governor Sarah Palin!!!!

          • Menagerie says:

            I have no experience in foreign policy either, but I could have done a hell of a better job than Obama. Common sense is always a good thing to fall back on. Oh, and you could also actually attend your intelligence briefings and try to learn something, instead of arrogantly insisting you know everything already.

          • John Galt says:

            “The only, nationally prominent, Republican leader who had the wisdom to speak out against US support for overthrowing secular, Arab governments who had been USallies was:
            Governor Sarah Palin!!!!”

            Ron Paul has also been long opposed to this foolishness.

            • Knuckledraggingwino says:

              Ron Paul was against US support for the Libyan and Egyptian revelations because he is reflexively isolationist, not because he was able to judge who were the worst of two evils. Palin also cited the importance of honoring commitments. This fiasco has destroyed US credibility with everyone.

              . Sen Paul does have a cogent point. If you are too stupid to understand the dynamics, don’t get involved.

              • Sheryl says:

                It’s called “the law of unintended consequences”. You know, all those things that eventually end up in the “seemed like a good idea at the time” column…

      • sybiljx1 says:


        Article by: MAGGIE MICHAEL
        Associated Press
        September 17, 2012

        …On Sunday, Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif contended foreign militants had been plotting the attack for months and timed it for Tuesday’s 9/11 anniversary.

        However, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said it appeared spontaneous and unplanned, that extremists with heavier weapons “hijacked” the protest and turned it into an outright attack. She noted Libya is awash with weapons.

        A CIA memo sent to U.S. lawmakers this weekend, and obtained by The Associated Press, says current intelligence still suggests 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.”

        • Ahhhh the mystery memo again. :(

          • boricuafudd says:

            This is from Ace:
            The Administration claims it did have some basis for claiming this attack was somehow related to a “protest” about the YouTube video.

            There was no protest. But they claimed “intelligence” told them there might be some link to a protest. So they’re claiming they might have been wrong, but they weren’t deliberately wrong– also known as lying. In error, but not in deceit, they claim.

            Well, we now know the contents of that single strand of intelligence suggesting there might be a protest (which was incorrect intelligence).

            That strand of intelligence was a message from an Al Qaeda group saying they would go ahead with their planned attack, given there were protests erupting in other parts of the world.

            Thus, the very evidence they claim exonerates them from the charge of deliberately misleading the public in fact damns them — because this single strand of intelligence came from Al Qaeda, announcing it would go ahead with the attack!

            The administration tried to hide that al-Qaeda had planned the attack, beforehand. Is this intercept was before the attack began, then the intelligence community did in fact failed, they did not provide the Consulate a warning. All that talk about not having “actionable” intelligence is bunk. It would also explain, why the intelligence community is not saying more on the issue, since they knew ahead of time, and did not pass on the information, or did they?

          • ctdar says:

            Memo from the CIA; the “unnamed agency” mentioned repeatedly during the Benghazi hearing?

            • Has to be either Petraeus or Clapper. But it is only reasonable to believe that Clapper was repeating intel from Petraeus not vice-versa. “IF” the intel actually existed in the first place.

              I mean there might have been some prior mention of the movie presenting a “risk”, but if the CIA cover story for the White House is to be believed then somebody jumped to conclusions. I doubt that, fabrications are more likely than conclusions.

    • Sharon says:

      I don’t understand when and how was Petraeus co-opted by this gang. I remember feeling sorry for him and being outraged for the way he was treated by Hillary back when she was a Senator, insulting him in public hearings.

      • woohoowee says:

        Petraeus being compromised is disturbing. This whole thing is starting to remind me of Jamie Gorelick and Billary. The possible consequences for our great country are horrible to contemplate! Howie’s statement above about having a Pro-American policy is succinct.

        • cali says:

          Well, Petraeus’s wife was hired by elizabeth warren; he will move onto the Princeton Presidency; Petreaus was compromised the minute he took the job at CIA and, Panetta to the DOD. It should have been the other way around.

      • apachetears says:

        It most likely involved money.
        And the fact that the democrats held his leash and his pension firmly in their very dirty hands.

  7. ZurichMike says:

    Arkansas grifters versus Chicago thugs. I hope both lose. Big time.

  8. nobaddog says:

    The lying scum in Washington DC need to go to jail or in certain instances hang from a rope for the fraud committed against the American people for the past 4 years! Treason! There needs to be an investigation led by an honest man if they can find one in DC of the White House and Harry, Joe, Nancy and the rest of the rotten bunch. They cant even have an honest vote! The yeas have it.

  9. Menagerie says:

    I think Obama has maneuvered Hillary exactly where he wants her. No way does he not want to destroy her and Bill.

    • brocahontas says:

      If she doesn’t sacrifice herself, if she pushes back, he cant destroy her but it will cause a huge rift in the Democratic Party. I would personally bet on the Clintons side. Obama’s incredible incompetence should be obvious to everyone whereas the Clintons have mostly made it through unscathed, minus Bill’s extra curricular activities.

      • David Kelly says:

        Like any rat, once backed into a corner, she will fight and take that poser out. She’s a craft hag and there’s more than one body buried in the Whitewater era. She’s not about to take the fall for this illegal poser.

      • Sonia says:

        Clinton is too smart to be Obama’s fall guy. I bet that all of them in the communist party (democrat) will throw Patraues under the bus.

    • Sharon says:

      Reminds me of the fable of the frog giving the scorpion a ride across the river on its back, only to be bitten.

    • Sheryl says:

      I don’t know what to believe in terms of the “Clinton response” to this. The guy who wrote The Amateur (Klein) says Bill is consulting with his lawyers right now to defend Hilliary’s reputation, but I also read where Bill has just taken on a big role as an Obama surrogate, trying to attract the white male vote! See article here:

    • GreatGrany7 says:

      Never count on Obama over HRC. NEVER! And I wouldn’t vote for her if they threatened me. Know both of the C’s from my Arkansas days. Did anyone ever question why they didn’t return to Arkansas? Good question for someone to dig into.

  10. ctdar says:

    No way can Obama/Biden deny initial knowledge of terror attack, State Department is part of the Executive Branch. On the flip side, Hillary/State Department reports to the White House and Commander in Chief Obama….he knew exactly what happened and heard the warnings before. The video story was the narrative Clinton & Rice were told to give out. Obama, Biden, Clinton & Rice should all take a seat before the Benghazi commission to answer under oath.

  11. howie says:

    Operation Chaos III.

  12. griz1234 says:

    How arrogant and disconnected does Obama have to be to think that Shrillery would allow herself to be tossed under the bus?

    She’s not taking one for the One.

    • Sharon says:

      Since 1) Teh Won’s incompetence has never been thoroughly and publicly exposed by people who are not afraid of him (that includes Romney and Ryan here, as well as Billary) and 2) he’s never been up against merciless politicoes before who, like himself, are willing to completely destroy their opponents when it becomes necessary….I wonder if we are approaching the point where we can add “dis-oriented” to “arrogant and disconnected?”

      I don’t think he’s going to have, like Bill did, a bunch of career, insider types who are willing to take the fall for him. He’s a temporary tool, and he may be about to find out the ultimate implications of that phrase.

      It still astounds me that we almost never see him accompanied by another democrat currently holding office at any of his rallies. That’s very significant, isn’t it? He never made friends on the way up except thugs like himself, and honor-among-thieves appears to be almost nonexistent as he’s on his way down.

      Can you imagine the breakfast conversations with Michelle? Another thing he does not do nearly as well as Bill did: the almost-believable “righteous indignation” when publicly confronted on lies. Teh Won just gets out of control with blazing anger which is a dead giveaway. He is exactly like the little kid who, when he’s caught red-handed, throws himself on the floor screaming, “I hate you!”

      • Tami Lockhart Owen says:

        Sharon, you are a very wise lady. Are you on Facebook? I would love to read your posts.

        • Sharon says:

          I don’t do FB…but I have a blog at http://mailboxesandoldbarns.com/ There’s not much fresh writing on it right now…haven’t gotten back into the regular production since our move a year ago!… I started the blog just as a place for my own use to drop all of my family and heritage related writings, as well personal things that I would like my family to read if I get hit by a truck without notice, so the blog posts there are not time-sensitive. They were “old” when they were posted for the most part…. “Life things”…..lots of categories there where you could probably find things that interest you one way or another.

      • retire2005 says:

        Sharon, you’re correct. But this really isn’t about protecting Hillary. It is about protecting Bill.

        Bill Clinton, in spite of his failures, has acheived “senior statesman” status with the Democrats. He is considered the go-to guy for all things wise, a position Bill enjoys with great gusto. He is not about to forfeit that position for any guy who Bill once said would have been bringing him coffee a few years ago.

        And remember Valerie Plame? She had the support of a bunch of spooks who used the Langley address. These were all Hillary supporters, not Obama supporters. They are not going to let Hillary get run over by the Obama bus if they can help it.

        • John Galt says:

          “Bill Clinton, in spite of his failures, has achieved “senior statesman” status with the Democrats. He is considered the go-to guy for all things wise, a position Bill enjoys with great gusto.”

          Slick Willy also enjoys lots of gusto from speaking fees which may drop off substantially if Hillary loses all political power.

        • GreatGrany7 says:

          Listen up! The lovely couple in discussion are two of a kind. Here is the difference: SW is the Chiefest of the chiefs, educated by the likes of Bill Fullbright, Gov. Faubus of Arkansas, and many other gangsta types. Living in Hot Springs, Arkansas, it was just normal to be in close contact with the fellas from the other life style. What is all of this? The very perfect resume of survival for The Couple in discussion. My, my it will be interesting up until Nov. 7th. It won’t change my decision on who to vote for but it will be interesting until the 6th.

  13. Cocoabear says:

    I’ve always liked Hillary but can’t stand Obama. I’ll take it a step further and say that I can’t stand Obama supporters. They’re despicable.

  14. Auntie Lib says:

    Just my opinion, but I think we are about to see “Mutual Assured Destruction” writ small. I suspect that whatever advantage Obama may gain by throwing HC under the bus is completely offset by the information that the Clinton’s have on him (not eligible, gay, muslim, etc.), which in turn is trumped by the info the Chicago thugs have on the Clinton’s (Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm, God-knows-what-else).

    War Games. Who will be the collateral damage once it starts? Or will a truce be called – because mutually assured destruction is in neither group’s interest?

    • Sharon says:

      A truce would require that the Clintons either have some core place where they choose to trust him (because he’s like them) or that they saw some future use for him in their world. I don’t think the world stage is big enough for all three of these egos, especially considering that Bill never gave the impression that he actually believed Berry had actually earned his way (at ALL) and never paid his dues on the national stage (at ALL).

      Don’t Billary’s lifelong friends-of-a-kind trump Teh Won’s apparent complete lack of friends? Berry’s friends are always a friend-in-a-context, a friend-for-a-reason/a friend-for-a-season, it seems.

      • Auntie Lib says:

        Barry doesn’t have friends – he has handlers. And they don’t give a rip about anything but their own self interests. If necessary, they’ll throw him under the bus before they are compromised. I’m not entirely sure who Billary have in their corner any more, friend-wise.

  15. Pingback: Biden Bungled Benghazi (Updated) | Lady Liberty 1885

  16. 22tula says:

    “Putin To Harper: Embassy Attacks To Be Expected”
    by David Akin – September 13, 2012


    Trotsky vs. Stalin

    “Office Politics”
    by JR Nyquist – July 13, 2007

    “Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Russian Adventure”
    by JR Nyquist – July 16, 2002

    TFP Forum

    “Romney: Arms for Syria, More Sanction on Iran”
    By Jack Kenny – October 8, 2012

    “Given its history during the Iraq War, when Syria served as the channel for Libyans to move through and into Iraq, I’m sure there are some folks there who are likely falling back on old ‘bad habits,'” Paul Hughes, a retired Army colonel and currently chief of staff at the U.S. Institute for Peace, told the Washington Times. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who supports the Assad regime, recently mocked the United States for allegedly supporting in Syria the same brand of terrorists it is fighting elsewhere in the region. Speaking on Russian television during a visit to London last month, Putin suggested if the United States wants to aid the Syrian rebels, it “should unlock Guantanamo, arm all of its inmates and bring them to Syria to do the fighting.”

    Ironically, the overthrow of the Assad regime is a goal shared by the United States and al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who, according to an audio recording posted on the Internet on September 13, has called on all Muslims to back the rebels in Syria, saying the overthrow of Assad would bring them closer to the ultimate goal of defeating Israel.” – Jack Kenny

    “What Ahmadinejad Said at the U.N.”
    By JR.Nyquist – October 1, 2012

    “Ahmadinejad ended his speech with the following refrain: “Long live this spring, long live this spring and long live this spring.”
    Was he – perhaps? – referring to the Arab Spring?” – JR Nyquist

    “The Gods of Socialism”
    by Ion Mihai Pacepa – June 20, 2012

  17. Allfal says:

    The absolute number 1 mission of any bureaucracy is to increase it’s power and scope of influence. Giant bureaucracies tend to run themselves. Right up to the point where some responsible individual has to make some critical decision for which they will be held accountable . At that point, without adult supervision, things start to break down. This cabal has been mostly OK up to this point. Major mistakes such as health care, fast and furious, arab spring, green loans, etc have been able to be diverted, deflected or just plain stonewalled. When some small individual had to be thrown to the wayside, they were. This time it’s the Clintons, with their massive following and reputation for vicious political response. Clinton, with her eye on 2016, may calculate that its better for her to come out cleanly on this one, even if it means that zero takes a major hit, than it is to take the responsibility and clutter up her reputation even more for her next campaign.

  18. sybiljx1 says:



    Fri, 12 Oct 2012

    Fox military analyst Col. David Hunt checked in with us again after the revelation that there were multiple listening posts which heard the cries for help from the US Embassy in Libya and none of them did anything. The State Department says they still do not know what really happened in Libya.

    • woohoowee says:

      OMG! Then there’s the surveillance tape that the State Department never had. What did Teh Won know and when did he know it?

  19. elvischupacabra says:

    Bill and Hitlerly better watch out. In a Sh!tcago v. Little Rock Lights-Out Cage-Match, the rubes ain’t got a chance.

    • Allfal says:

      The Clintons were effectively managing coverups when zero was still using every mind altering substance known to man, skipping classes and engaging in discussion on how to further Marxist ideals. White water, cattle futures, the list is to long to type. people went to jail for some of their incidents. Nothing much stuck to them. Heck, even the impeachment ended up being a plus for them and a spring board to a Senate seat. Zero, as usual, is out of his depth when he plays with them.

  20. sybiljx1 says:

    Someone knows too much…


    Libyan police chief survives car bomb explosion

    “The car of Colonel Mohammed bin Halim, chief of police operations in Benghazi, exploded outside his home. No one was hurt,” an unnamed security official told AFP.

  21. cajunkelly says:

    So far I’ve not seen anyone here mention the undiluted IRONY between obama’s regime blaming “faulty intelligence” re the video, and the vile attacks on Bush and “faulty intelligence” re the WMDs.

    The vile libruls gave him no quarter. They should receive no quarter.

  22. boricuafudd says:

    The Obama Cabal must think that either he no longer needs the Clintons, or is too late for anything they do to affect him and his re-election. We shall see.

  23. Sharon says:


    Once again, based on their version of events, the White House is proving again that they don’t know how to manage communications that are necessary to doing their job

    …they didn’t know the extra security had been requested (maybe they could have transferred some from Barbados?) http://www.thepiratescove.us/2012/10/13/on-91112-there-was-a-marine-detachment-in-barbados-but-not-benghazi/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    ….they had information about a you-tube video that the State Department didn’t have?? Wonder if somebody will ask them to explain that angle.

    • boricuafudd says:

      The author makes a good point as the some decisions would definitely be made at the State Department, but there is one issue I have with that, there have been several previous attacks on the Consulate and other diplomats, which would surely be included in any security briefing. These incidents would normally bring the question of assets on the ground, to protect our interests. Oh, I forgot, O never read or attended security briefings, Nevermind!

  24. First shipment, one of many, of Depends has arrived at the White House

  25. labrat says:

    Hillary is up to her ears in this. What makes anyone think she doesn’t share in the culpability for our ME policies and foibles? She sold that video narrative just as convincingly as Rice, Carney and much greater than Obama (who always looks like he can’t wait to get back to being eye candy on The View). Now she trots herself out today and plays the “Investigation meme”. We won’t admit to knowing anything – we are conducting an investigation (a thourough one that will last way past the election) before we will know exactly what happened here, Never mind that stupid housewives sitting on their laptops in bumf*ck Maine have a pretty damn good idea already.

  26. No Name says:

    Hillary, I disagree with your politics, but if you have a chance to kneecap Obama over this Benghazi disaster, TAKE IT

    You can run against Mitt in 2016, and Obama will be pimping diet supplements on QVC

  27. rumpole2 says:

    “Blame the Video” is still ongoing. Ayman al-Zawahiri is now using it to rally more terrorist attacks… but IMO it’s the White House that gave him the idea.

    Al Qaeda leader Zawahiri calls for more Mohammad film protests

    In the recording, posted on Islamist websites on Friday, he called on “free and distinguished zealots for Islam” who attacked the consulate and protested outside other American embassies to “continue their opposition to American crusader Zionist aggression against Islam and Muslims”.

    The recording appeared on the Mujahedin al-Ansar website which carries statements from al Qaeda leaders.

    Zawahiri said U.S. authorities “permitted the film in the name of personal freedom and freedom of expression” but failed to practice those values in its treatment of Muslims imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    As I have posted before… the “Video” had around 20,000 hits when I first saw it after the Cairo attacks… it now has 5 Million hits… prompted by the publicity afforded it.

  28. akathesob says:

    Well this all went totally all wrong for “dear leader” now didn’t it…

  29. ctdar says:

    When will Consulate surveillance video gonna be available? also apparently a drone “eye in the sky” moved over the area during attack and has film on last hour or so.

  30. Sue says:

    Hillary is without excuse…she is head of the State Dept. and this was her oath…The Oath of Office for the Vice President, Secretary of State, and other federal employees is as follows:

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

  31. 4g8grandkids says:

    We’re fogetting something here……a “janitor” was murdered in Yemen at the US Embassy this past week. Was that “janitor’s” name listed as a friend of the US in the classified papers that were stolen out of the US Embassy in Libya? A lot of classified information was stolen by the Taliban during the terrorist attack. Has anyone asked Hillary about this?

    • According to the State Dept. Briefing “NO Classified” paper intel was located at the consulate, and the computer systems were “screen read only”. Therefore no-one needed to destroy intel during the breach. However, they never mentioned the “safe”.

  32. genomega1 says:

    Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
    Hillary Strikes Back: Attaches U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to Obama White House Propaganda Messaging

  33. Pingback: Hillary Strikes Back: Offers Ambassador Rice Up... - Old Hippie's Forums

  34. Glynn says:

    She stood over flag-draped coffins and blamed a film she never bought. Unfreaking believable lying bitch.

    • John McLachlan says:

      If this had happened under Bush, then the relatives of the dead would be shown on TV, 24/7 demanding to know what kind of evil people would blatantly lie, over the dead bodies, in front of the grieving relatives, merely to support the re-election of people who knew themselves to be unfit for office.

      • Remember, President Obama elevated UN Ambassador Susan Rice to a cabinet level position when he nominated her.

        The Ambassador to the United Nations is not a member of the United States Cabinet, but the position is frequently accorded cabinet-level rank. It held this status through the Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations but was removed from cabinet rank by George H.W. Bush, who had previously held the position himself. It was restored under the Clinton administration. It was not a cabinet-level position under the George W. Bush administration (from 2001 to 2009).[1][2] but was once again elevated under the Obama administration. Former U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton has publicly opposed the granting of cabinet-level status to the office, stating “One, it overstates the role and importance the U.N. should have in U.S. foreign policy, second, you shouldn’t have two secretaries in the same department.”

    • Sheryl says:

      couldn’t have said it better myself.

  35. Joseph A. Veca says:

    Reblogged this on The Vigilant Society and commented:
    There are time when you wondering who let the inmate run the asylum

  36. Pingback: Hillary Strikes Back: Attaches U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to Obama White House Propaganda Messaging « Albany's Insanity

  37. Hua Kul says:

    I suspect Obama’s people had a hand in CREATING the muhammad video. For being an obscure amateur video they sure knew about it quickly.

  38. A. Lawson says:

    It’s a good read and we know you would have to be a moron to believe anything the current administration has to say, but the pictures of Stevens I did not care for. Not because I don’t care for the truth but out of reverence for the deceased. It breaks my heart that those americans lost their lives and to have their deaths be covered up for Obama’s political gain. It’s sickening!

  39. Paul T. says:

    When all of this began, and they sent S. Rice out as theyr’e spokesperson, I heard it said ‘” i don’t think Condeleeza would lie about it.”. I realized thats not Condeleeza Rice, that’s some demoncratic look alike. I think some people primarily the elderly living in Assisted Living facilities, and anyone who doesn’t pay close attention, or with diminishing eyesight, is being led astray. I guess they really will stop at nothing, to lie, decieve and steal this election. God help us again please. Thank You.

  40. Pingback: Anonymous


  42. Pingback: Benghazi: Hillary strikes back | Fausta's Blog

  43. MaddMedic says:

    Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word… and commented:
    Infighting amongst Obummer and his underlings….Someone will die before the Clintons and Obamites are done with each other…

  44. Pingback: Has Obama Sign His Political Death Wish? | Citizens News

  45. Why was Stevens in Benghazi when it was known that the situation on the ground in Libya was volatile? Was Stevens involved in a deal to retrieve weapons, WEAPONS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PROVIDED TO LIBYAN REBELS WHO WERE LATER PROVEN TO BE AQ?

    There was a fire fight between the jihadists who attacked the consulate and the former Navy SEALs. Where are the dead bodies of the jihadists?

    When the FBI finally got to Benghazi, almost a month later, why did they only spend three hours there? Why were we told it was too dangerous for the FBI to go into Benghazi yet CNN reporters and Washington Post reporters wandered around there freely?

    The Clinton Intel Record
    Deeper failures revealed.
    By Mansoor Ijaz
    The unearthing of documents directly linking Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization to Saddam Hussein this weekend may have hermetically sealed the Bush administration’s case that dismantling Iraq’s Baathist enterprise was in part necessary to undo terrorism’s dynamic duo. But closing that case may reopen a Pandora’s box for ex-Clinton administration officials who still believe their policy prescriptions protected U.S. national interests against the growing threat of terrorism during the past decade. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/206745/clinton-intel-record/mansoor-ijaz

    • it is not a secret that “we” were purchasing back weapons provided by NATO [and including us] , to the al-Qaeda rebels. But their biggest weapons cache’s were from Gaddafi’s stockpiles themselves. The ones we were interested in were the shoulder fired surface to air missiles….. there were approximately 20,000 of those dispursed all over the region. We posted numerous reports from April through October of the dispursal. :(

      So yeah, he was buying back arms. No secret there.

  46. Sheryl says:

    There’s one very important question nobody is asking: WHO PLANTED

    The “movie” had about 5 viewings prior to Sept 11, so there’s not a chance
    it was spotted on Youtube by Islamic extremists — someone had to
    send them the link. My guess is the link was sent from the White House,
    after someone in the administration told some minion to “find something on
    Youtube we can blame this on, and then make it go viral in the Middle East”.

    • Sharon says:

      You’re exactly right. Thank God for the innertubz…..they can’t get away with it nearly as easily.

      • Sheryl says:

        yep. If we find out who sent the youtube link, we’ll have our culprit AND the smoking gun.

        • ctdar says:

          The 2 tweets dated 9/9/12 included in this thread above

          • Sheryl says:

            Maybe, but who is Sharief Farid, and why “plant” the idea with the US Embassy? More likely, I think that the information and/or link was probably posted somewhere where it would be seen by extremists. Unless you’re suggesting someone at the US Embassy in Cairo leaked it to the extremists?

              • boricuafudd says:

                Shaimaa Alawadi is a presenter on the Salafist Station EL-Nas which showed the video on 9-09 on his program. I had not seen the rest of tweeter feed but now that I have I recognize his name. There is an interview by a British media with Alawadi and it asks him about the video. I will try to find it, one of the questions was why did he and the station broadcasted the video in the first place.

                • Sheryl says:

                  very interesting! timing is intriguing too, as the video was put on youtube in June or July I think. Makes you wonder not only why he posted the video at all, but why he waited so long to post it.

                  • boricuafudd says:

                    He not only dubbed it in arabic but also he did a broadcast and discussion about the video on 9-09. A little background El-Nas is a Salafist tv station, its programing does not include any women or music. From what I have been able to find out his program is controversial, extremely anti-Israel and US. So it would come as no surprise that it would be shown there, but the thing is by him broadcasting this he could have been imprisoned, even killed, it is not permitted, period. To my knowledge no harm has come to him or the TV station, someone permitted this. To give an example back in 2005 a tv station in Morocco displayed the cartoons from the dutch magazine, the station was shut down, and everyone was jailed for a period of time. This to me points to government sanction, of the airing.

            • ctdar says:

              Remember Clinton & Obama first started the story of blaming attack on video, no chatter about it from Libyans.
              Video is the convenient scapegoat; for Obama administration to tell others not to jump to conclusion and blame a planned terrorist attack without intell they certainly made the circuit jumping on the bandwagon of blaming a video within hours

              • Sheryl says:

                yes. Perhaps the Cairo embassy contacted WH or State on or around the 10th to see if they knew anything about the video (after receiving the query from Farid) — which then gave the Admin the idea to use the video as a “convenient” tool to give them cover after Benghazi erupted the following day. I hope someone can find out if Cairo contacted State for an answer to Farid’s question, and if so – who they contacted in DC.

                Catherine Herridge seems to be the only journalist following the story with any real interest; in fact, she may be the only real journalist left in America! I’ve forwarded the Twitter link to her at Fox.

  47. Pingback: Clinton, and The Seeds of Obama's Destruction - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  48. Pingback: Benghazi: Hillary strikes back, UPDATED | FavStocks

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

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

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

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

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

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

  55. 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