Frank Gaffney at the Washington Times assembles evidence that the Obama administration's initial attempt to portray the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as the result of a protest that got out of hand was a piece of disinformation designed to conceal the support that the U.S. government has been providing to jihadist groups in both Libya and Syria.
If this turns out to be true, then Obama will have proved that his competence in the area of foreign policy is on the same level as his competence on the economy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
That's the most sensible explanation of Benghazi so far. But it still doesn't answer the question of why the State Department (presumably with the administration's consent) continued to refuse additional security to our personnel there. Unless, of course, they were afraid the security people would notice what was going on, and word would get out.
C-in-C: Criminal-in-Chief.
Deborah Leigh said...Why doesn't any of this qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors? Glenn Beck has been exposing more of this.
Today, Beck mentioned that Germany has now requested that the US provide that their (German) gold is still in the vault. They would like it returned. Disturbing. First to go? Maybe this is why Bernanke is bailing.
Deborah Leigh said...Once again, Obama is descending on Los Angeles today to appear on Jay Leno's show. It is his fifth appearance! Too busy to do a face-to-face with the national security folks, but Jay, Babs, Whoopie, and Joyless, and he's Johnny-on-the-spot.
Anyone who understands what's going on must be completely ho-hum, like me. Once again, the US is supporting the "supposed" enemies of their own enemies.
What's the Arabic for "sucker, and thanks for the Sidewinders"
Robert,
Allahu Akhbar.
Post a Comment