BREAKING: White House Told During Benghazi Attack That It Was Terrorism

MITT ROMNEY CENTRAL

This reported tonight by Reuters, CBS, Fox and others.

Watch Fox’s report here:

Reuters reported:

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

Three emails were obtained.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

Were these just a few emails lost in the rush? Nope. According to the Examiner:

“Fox is told that approximately 300-400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding,” van Susteren added. One of the addresses that received the emails “is the White House Situation address,” she said.

What else do we need to know? Hundreds received these emails, including the White House situation room. There’s no room for confusion. Immediate reports did not suggest a spontaneous protest to a YouTube video. They clearly indicated a terrorist attack.

While I have a hard time calling anyone a liar, it’s getting harder and harder to come up with plausible excuses for how the White House could possibly have maintained in all honesty a position that the attack in Benghazi, which they watched through military drones, was a reaction to the YouTube video. It’s getting nigh impossible to come up with any possible explanation other than utter incompetence or dishonesty. For all Obama’s bluster in Monday night’s debate about “one thing [he] learned” is the need as Commmander-in-Chief to send clear messages and avoid changing positions, his record on this point is disastrously inept.

With this information, how can the White House get to a place where it blames an irrelevant YouTube video for 2 weeks rather than saying it was a terrorist attack? How can it send out the UN ambassador to perpetuate this story with such certitude?

While officials did [early on] mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

It would be one thing to come out and say “we just don’t know what happened, we are investigating and will let you know when we know something.” But it’s clearly another to blame a cause the evidence before you indicates is wrong.

Here’s CBS’ video report:

If, as this report suggests, the president really thought terrorists were behind the attack, why didn’t the administration slow down and say they just didn’t know? Why take such a definitive position contradicted by the evidence?

Something’s really off here, and the president needs to come clean. Was it that the White House truly believed the CIA report mentioned by the Washington Post that suggested the Benghazi attack was a result of the video? If so is this a case of willingly believing the story that suits you best despite significant evidence to the contrary? What does it say about the president or his administration that he’s willing to ignore facts staring him in the face? My bottom line is that it’s getting tougher to find ways to let the White House off the hook here.

About Paul Johnson:

Paul Johnson is an attorney for venture capitalists and their portfolio companies by day, husband and father of three teenage boys by night. He’s an avid supporter of Mitt Romney for president and, as a graduate of Brigham Young University, a BYU football and basketball fan. Paul also enjoys competing in triathlons. Because he’s in the “Clydesdale” (over 200 lb.) class, he has even had podium finishes from time to time. Paul also has the distinction of being a big enough U2 fan to be willing to travel to Dublin to see them in their native environment.

Bayonets and Horses, redux

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

ELDER OF ZIYON

Yesterday I excerpted an older article by JE Dyer on how important the US Navy is to national security and pax Americana as a response to President Obama's sarcastic comment to Mitt Romney during the last debate.
 Now, she wrote her own direct response. Read the whole thing, but here are parts:

What is it we are trying to do with these naval forces? Mitt Romney’s approach is to assume that we intend to exercise control of our ocean bastions – the Atlantic and Pacific – and effectively resume our position as the primary naval influence on the world’s strategic chokepoints: the approaches to Central America; the maritime space of Northwestern Europe; the Mediterranean; the chokepoint-belt from the Suez Canal to the Strait of Hormuz; and the Strait of Malacca and South China Sea. Being well briefed, Romney no doubt has in mind as well the increasingly maritime confrontation space of the Arctic, where Russia and Canada are competing, but the US – with our own Arctic claims – has in recent years been passive.

Romney thus sees the Navy as a core element of our enduring strategic posture. For national defense and for the protection of trade, the United States has from the beginning sought to operate in freedom on the seas, and, where necessary, to exercise control of them. We are a maritime nation, with extremely long, shipping-friendly coastlines in the temperate zone and an unprecedented control of the world’s most traveled oceans, the Atlantic and Pacific.

We have also chosen, since our irruption on the world geopolitical stage a century or so ago, to project power abroad as much as possible through expeditionary operations and offshore influence. Indeed, seeking the most effective balance between stand-off approaches, temporary incursions, and boots-on-the-ground combat and occupation has been a perennial tension in our national politics and our concepts of war throughout the life of our Republic. We have always naturally favored offshore influence and quick-resolution campaigns, from which we can extricate ourselves just as quickly.

The character of these preferences and military problems has changed with the passage of time – but in comparison to the United States in 1916, they are all bigger today, as well as faster-moving and more likely to be our problem than, say, Great Britain’s.

...If you want to control the seas, you still need surface combatants. And since the seas are the pathway to most of what we do outside our borders, there is no such situation as one in which we will only need to do what aircraft carriers do, or only what submarines do, or only what minesweepers or oilers or merchant ships do. If we do not control the seas, we do not control our security conditions or our strategic options.

...In the end, the difference between Romney’s approach and Obama’s isn’t a difference between buying a 328-ship force and having no Navy at all. It never is; the difference is always between one policy and another. Obama’s policy is to cut defense spending, even when that leads to the decommissioning of some of our best ships. Yet in 2010, the Navy could only fulfill 53% of the requirements for presence and missions levied by the combatant commanders (e.g., CENTCOM, PACOM). Cutting this Navy will reduce further its ability to fill war-fighter requirements.

Given the constraints of Obama’s budgetary priorities, DOD envisions eventually sustaining a Navy whose size averages 298 ships through 2042. Romney has articulated a national-security policy that emphasizes building faster and having a larger Navy, one that can better meet the requirements of US policy and the combatant commanders for naval power. Obama has used sophomoric sarcasm to imply that Romney’s approach is ignorant and outdated. That pretty much sums up the choice the voters have between them.

When reading things like this analysis, you realize that most so-called "experts" that we see in the media have no clue of what they are talking about.

Maybe there are good arguments against Dyer's position, but all we have heard so far is dismissive, not substantive.

Was Obama Wearing An Earphone During Debate With Romney (You Decide)

NorCalBlogs

By Gate on October 23, 2012 11:00 AM | 2 Comments

There is no doubt that Obama has done much better in the second and third debate then he did in the first. However, for those who were still undecided by the time the debates started, Obama lost them all. In the first debate, Obama needed to come out strong, aggressive, and on fire. Unfortunately he came out flat, unresponsive, and cold as a dead fish. That can happen to individuals who are so bad at speaking that they need teleprompters when speaking to 6th graders. Well the debate rules do not allow teleprompters to be used, which left Obama at a huge disadvantage against a man who speaks from his heart. Thus the accusation by some that Obama was using an earphone to get the edge he needed.

It's not a secret that Obama uses ear pieces, because there are numerous photos that show him wearing one at various functions.(photos below) Sadly for Obama, he could have been given the use of a computer with online access and he still would be losing big to Romney. Most Americans know the difference between a person speaking to them from their heart, and when their trying to scam them. That's why the MSM pundits have said that Obama won the second and third debates, but the viewers at home have said Romney won. Now that the charge is out there that Obama may be using an ear piece, even more voters will have had enough of Obama's ineptness.

(Obama adjusts ear piece in photos above)

Looking at Obama last night showed how he seemed attentive to something at his side but his eyes weren't moving or focused on anything. In other words, he wasn't trying to read something, but he was definitely paying attention to something to his side. I suppose listening to an earpiece would do that, since one's response might be to turn towards the sound. As I watched the debate, I almost expected him to adjust the ear piece for better hearing as he does often, as the photos above show.

That said, I do think those who support Obama will claim the photos are either photo shopped or from some other time when Obama needed an ear piece like at the United Nations when most politicians need them to hear the translators. For those on my side of the political isle, they will look at the photos and think it makes perfect sense.

After all, we are talking about a guy the Government Accountability Institute reported had attended less then half of the daily intelligence briefings. These are daily briefings that inform the president about the most critical intelligence threats to the country. Meetings by the way, that every president since before Lincoln attended. That is why it makes sense that he would be using an ear piece during a debate on foreign affairs where a teleprompter is not allowed, he has no clue what is going on over seas. All he ever does when he visits other leaders is continue his apology tour as the video at the bottom shows.

Check out the photo below from the third debate, and tell me if you think he is wearing an ear piece or not. I myself am not yet convinced he is wearing one of those clear earpieces. However, I do remember how the left went nuts over an accusation in 2004 that George Bush was wearing one and their evidence was a bulge in his jacket. I also remember the left accusing Sarah Palin of wearing an earpiece in 2008. Then there is this report about Romney possibly wearing one during a debate in 2008.So now it comes full circle with the speculation about their man, Obama, wearing one based on his performances in the second and third debate.  As FOX News says, I report, now you decide.

Obama apologizes to the world for Americas so-called evils

Tags:

 

• Ear Pieces,
 
• Obama

Happy Halloween, Mr. President....

....  We rearranged a few of your Halloween decorations. The Romneys.

https://www.facebook.com/ObamaWorstInHistory

and here are a few more:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/23/rush-limbaugh-rips-into-claims-obama-didnt-conduct-an-apology-tour/

Apology Tour

Romney Shines in Third Debate - Foreign Policy

Gen. Michael Hayden: America Saw a "Presidential" Romney at Third

Another Obama debate blunder-Allen West: We used bayonets in Iraq and horses in Afghanistan

(click here ...  for story)

and listen to this ............

Report: US Had Predator Drone Over Benghazi as Terrorists Attacked Embassy

Report: US Had Predator Drone Over Benghazi as Terrorists Attacked Embassy….Did Nothing as Americans Were Killed

October 20, 2012 by Scotty Starnes

Obama’s WaterGate just got serious. A US drone watched from above as the US embassy in Benghazi was attacked and did nothing to protect the American diplomats and staff. Team Obama will go to full spin to cover up their cover-up.

They lied about what they knew and when they knew it. They lied and blamed a YouTube video. They lied and called it a spontaneous mob attack. They sat and watch as Americans were killed.

(CBS News) The closer we get to the election, the harder Republicans in Congress are pushing for answers to a big question: What really happened in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya last month that killed the U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans?

Some lawmakers are asking why U.S. military help from outside Libya didn’t arrive as terrorists battered more than 30 Americans over the course of more than seven hours. The assault was launched by an armed mob of dozens that torched buildings and used rocket propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.

CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.

The State Department, White House and Pentagon declined to say what military options were available. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies.”

But it was too late to help the Americans in Benghazi. The ambassador and three others were dead.

Retired CIA officer Gary Berntsen believes help could have come much sooner. He commanded CIA counter-terrorism missions targeting Osama bin Laden and led the team that responded after bombings of the U.S. Embassy in East Africa.

“You find a way to make this happen,” Berntsen says. “There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments. They made zero adjustments in this. They stood and they watched and our people died.”

The Pentagon says it did move a team of special operators from central Europe to the large Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy, but gave no other details. Sigonella is just an hour’s flight from Libya. Other nearby bases include Aviano and Souda Bay. Military sources tell CBS News that resources at the three bases include fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships, which the sources say can be extremely effective in flying in and buzzing a crowd to disperse it.

…Add to the controversy the fact that the last two Americans didn’t die until more than six hours into the attack, and the question of U.S. military help becomes very important.

Continue reading>>>

http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/report-us-had-predator-drone-over-benghazi-as-terrorists-attacked-embassy-did-nothing-as-americans-were-killed/

BOB SCHIEFFER'S 2008 PRO-OBAMA DEBATE RECORD

BOB SCHIEFFER'S 2008 PRO-OBAMA DEBATE RECORD

HERE WE GO AGAIN... ANOTHER TWO ON ONE...Thank God Romney has shown us he is able to handle these two on one debates and still come out winning. It gives me even more confidence in his ability to stand his ground against our enemies. 
Make no mistake, Obama and his mainstream propagandists are the single biggest threat to our nation today. 

Bob Schieffer, the moderator for the last of the three presidential debates in 2012, needs to be watched carefully; he has a clear partisan agenda that favors Barack Obama that was evident even in 2008. When he moderated the last presidential debate that year, he didn’t flinch from his Democratic Party mission.

In 2008, Schieffer asked 9 questions. Look at how he slanted some of the questions and his interjections:
1. “We found out yesterday that this year's deficit will reach an astounding record high $455 billion. Some experts say it could go to $1 trillion next year. Both of you have said you want to reduce the deficit, but the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget ran the numbers on both of your proposals and they say the cost of your proposals, even with the savings you claim can be made, each will add more than $200 billion to the deficit. Aren't you both ignoring reality? Won't some of the programs you are proposing have to be trimmed, postponed, even eliminated? Give us some specifics on what you're going to cut back.”

Obama evaded the question entirely:
Obama : “We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don't work. And I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page, programs that don't work, we should cut. Programs that we need, we should make them work better.”

But then Schieffer demanded McCain get specific, after McCain had barely started his answer, interrupting, “The question was, what are you going to cut?” McCain did get specific, mentioning the marketing assistance program and subsidies for ethanol.

2. An obvious example of Schieffer’s partisanship was the question he asked about whether either candidate could balance the budget in four years. When McCain stated succinctly, “I will balance our budgets and I will get them and I will...” Schieffer blurted out unbelievingly, “In four years?
Then, when McCain finished, Schieffer turned to Obama and asked, “Barack?” Not Senator Obama, but Barack. To cap it off, Obama never answered the question.

3. Schieffer, who hated Sarah Palin (we’ll come back to that later) asked Obama, “Senator Obama, your campaign has used words like "erratic," "out of touch," "lie," "angry," "losing his bearings" to describe Senator McCain.

Then he asked McCain, “Senator McCain, your commercials have included words like "disrespectful," "dangerous," "dishonorable," "he lied." Your running mate said he "palled around with terrorists." Are each of you tonight willing to sit at this table and say to each other's face what your campaigns and the people in your campaigns have said about each other?

Notice - not a word about Joe Biden, who during the campaign had vilified President Bush, saying Bush’s comments attacking Obama were "truly disgraceful," "outrageous," "disturbing," "ridiculous hypocrisy. " What had Bush said?

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement."
(Of course, Bush was correct, Obama now negotiates with the Taliban.)

4. Two weeks before the debate, Schieffer had sliced Sarah Palin apart on Face the Nation, saying “The Palin factor... a campaign that's turned down and dirty. Down in the polls, the McCain campaign has found a new attack dog." After the opening music, he knifed her again: “She took after Barack Obama in a style reminiscent of Spiro Agnew when he was Richard Nixon's running mate." He asked if the Republicans were going to get "nastier and nastier."

Then in the debate, Schieffer asked:
“I want to ask both of you about the people that you're going to bring into the government. And our best insight yet is who you have picked as your running mates. So I'll begin by asking both of you this question, and I'll ask you to answer first, Senator Obama. Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president rather than his running mate?”

After Obama answered Schieffer asked him: “Do you think she's qualified to be president?” Not Governor Palin. Just “she.” But when Schieffer asked McCain, it went like this: “Do you think Senator Biden is qualified?”

5. Parroting Democratic Party talking points, Schieffer turned a question about education into a question on national security:
“The U.S. spends more per capita than any other country on education. Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries of the world. The implications of this are clearly obvious. Some even say it poses a threat to our national security.”

Schieffer’s bias is so obvious that you have to be a liberal not to see it. The question for the last 2012 debate is not whether Schieffer will bias the moderating, but how much.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/21/Bob-Schieffer-Obama-lackey

Using Obama's own words against him

Bee's note:  Before tonight's last debate between Romney and Obama, I believe it is important to remember a few things about Obama's lack-luster history since he first became President of the U.S.  Everyone has a memory or two of policies that were and still are disturbing about this man called "Barack HUSSEIN OBAMA. 

I remember his first two years working on nothing else but ignoring America's wishes and ramrodding a health program that he alone built - yup, he owns Obamacare, much to the objections of the majority of Americans.  And of course, there was the takeover of private industry; allowing the Palestinians (a non-state) to fly their despicable flag in Washington DC; and how can we forget his apology tour of America, beginning with a phone call to his best buddy in Turkey?!  Strange that the last person Ambassador Steven's met with before his own murder was an Ambassador to Turkey!  

Are there any true allies of America left who trust this administration?  Ask Israeli's supporters, the ones who have witnessed the on-going, insulting and mocking of this administration's words to PM Natanyahu and Israel.  Ask Obama what the Capital of Israel is - expecting a double-tongued, idiotic response like the ones his Press Secretary has given to reporters.  Does he need a damn map?  Or perhaps a Middle East 101 for Idiots book?!

Before we go to  American Thinker's article (below), I would like to add a few of Obama's own words to remind all of us exactly what runs through that pea-brain of Obama.  Not much was made of it during his first campaign, but time has allowed us to re-think exactly who and what Obama represents - and it isn't America that he represents!  Is anyone actually worried about tonight's debate?

Video One:

Barack Obama Mocks And Makes Fun Of The Bible - No Christian would do this!

Video Two:

Jeremiah Wright - Obama's mentor - Hate speech

VIDEO THREE:

The audacity of an idiot; Obama speaks

______________________

October 22, 2012

Using Obama's own words against him

AMERICAN THINKER

Ed Lasky
Monday night's debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will focus on foreign policy. And Mitt Romney has a golden opportunity to score points against the president by using his own words against him.

I wrote an earlier column (see "Romney's Trump Card for the Foreign Policy Debate") suggesting Romney leverage his image as a person who would be a good steward of our economy to point out how Obama's handling of the economy has weakened our foreign policy standing.

In Obama's 2006 speech from the Senate floor, he scored political points against George Bush by declaring, "Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally."

Since becoming President, Obama has increased our debt by 5 trillion dollars and counting. The deficits under his policies are projected to total trillions more.

This provides an opening for Romney by pointing out not just how Obama has weakened America but how hypocritical he has been. His words and promises are meaningless and not to be trusted.

There are few campaign tactics as potent as using an opponent's own words against him.

Obama called such "reckless fiscal policies," deficit spending and debt increases a "failure of leadership" and that America deserved better.

Indeed we do.

Our foreign creditors have been scathing in their criticism of Obama's own reckless fiscal policies in ways that escape our own media outlets.

Vladimir Putin called America a "parasite" that is "living beyond their means and shifting a part of their problems to the world economy."

The Chinese spoke up to say that they had "every right" to demand that Washington safeguard China's dollar assets. China called for America to 'come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making our finally gone...to cure its addiction to debt, the United States has to re-establish the common sense principle that one should live within its means."

Yes...communists are lecturing America on how to run our affairs. Welcome to Obama's fundamental transformation of America.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/using_obamas_own_words_against_him.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#ixzz2A2krWrmg

Egyptian President Morsi Joins Preacher in Prayer for Destruction and Dispersal of the Jews

Obama's Foreign Policy Fraud has Come Undone!

Published on Oct 21, 2012 by MEMRITVVideos

Here are a few comments left on this You Tube video:

• Proud ISRAELI !

  but it must hurt them sooo much knowing that there are muslims in the IDF fighting next to jews xD

  TheZion1948 23 minutes ago
• ...." I will Bless those who bless you,But I will curse anyone who curses you; and by you all the families of the earth will be blessed. " Genesis 12:3

  Baron Eshed 26 minutes ago
• Hitler's ghost hangs around every Mosque with a sly smile on his face...

  CharmingLordSausage 32 minutes ago
• I am Israel - believe and proud - in my people. In one God. In God of Israel, and I always came for the blessing ,and not for curse.

  Baron Eshed 32 minutes ago
• We do not call for the death of someone, do not want to say how much fraud and lack of logic is there in the people of our neighbors, or never We do not publish anything about their faith, but if we do it, the Arabs will not stand against it.

  Baron Eshed 35 minutes ago
• All the people will see your comment. You From "religion of peace" Respect that. Respect yourself,

  Enough to explode in our buses, enough to kill From hatred. You are the 65 percent Arab acceptance From Israel's territory for peace. And you distribute to murder. What heart do you have? From what you have made​? What is your education? How dare you say that about Israel? Say good one, tell here, that you make to the world .. It is your faith? Destroy another one?

  Baron Eshed in reply to remco db (Show the comment) 38 minutes ago

  
  

  • shame on all jews motherfucker!!!

    the world hate jews

    europe hates jews

    fuck jews

    remco db in reply to Baron Eshed (Show the comment) 1 hour ago
  • Shame on you !!!!!

    . If you have one drop of blood of a human being, shame on you.

    Baron Eshed in reply to remco db (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Ambassador Stevens was involved in gun-running to Al Qaeda - video

Bee's Note:  Good morning!  Count-down to November 6th elections are just 15 days away!  Are you ready, America, to take our country back from an Administration that has worked these past FOUR years to "transform America" .. into a transformation FOREIGN to the United States of America!  

This evening, at 9 PM (EST) the last Presidential debate will be televised and before the biased Media begins to lie about Obama's brilliant responses to Romney's comments and before this same Media has the world believing "Obama is the winner", I hope you take a moment to listen to the following video.  Why?  Because even though Obama will attempt to proclaim that since Osama bin-Laden is dead and his policies are the best since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, what happened in Libay that contributed to the deaths of four Americans (video), this video will demonstrate that Obama and his entire administration has lied to the American people (and the world!).  The cover-up continues, leaving our nation in dire straights - unsafe and insecure from present and future terrorist attacks.

Foreign policy failure costs lives; Clinton fails and Obama is AWOL

COURTESY OF The Washington Times

Obama has chose our very enemies to be called "allies", while stripping our long-term friendships with our true friends and allies of the ability to trust America.  The "free" world is depending upon our wisdom to elect trustworthy leaders and that, dear friends, means voting Obama out of Office on November 6th - Election Day.
Fast and Furious is one cover-up this administrations.
The attacks in Libya is another cover-up.  And, if this video (below) is correct in its information about arming our Islamic enemies, I would suggest that Romny tie these two horrific incidents together - as both are dealing with arming the criminals/terrorists and that seems to be the norm for Obama and his administration.
They say you "mirror" your associates .... Obama's mirror has many cracks in it - all of which are un-American and criminal in nature.  Executive Orders and demands to drop Congressional investigations should be made to cease and desist immediately!  
Remember, Nixon's "Impeachment" due to lies and cover-ups, while criminal in nature, did not involve the deaths of Americans.  If it were not for the upcoming elections, Obama should be under investigation for Impeachment proceedings.
Now, if you aren't aware of this Conservative blogger, CAN-YOU-HEAR-US-NOW, please take a moment to visit there site and "subscribe", or "follow" on their Facebook page for updated information, videos, and news.  I just came across their link this morning and consider it an amazing Conservative blog.

Now, to their video, where we learn exactly who Ambassador Steven's met with on the night of his murder ... can anyone say "Turkey"?!!

___________________

CAN YOU HEAR US NOW

October 21, 2012

WHOA, SERIOUSLY?! ... Beck: murdered Ambassador Stevens was involved in gun-running to Al Qaeda - YouTube

WHOA, SERIOUSLY?! ... Beck: murdered Ambassador Stevens was involved in gun-running to Al Qaeda - YouTube