Isn't it convenient that some CIA “informants” have come forth, five days before the election, for nearly identical stories by The WaPo and the NYT's regarding the Benghazi coverup?
So what’s going on here? The national-security staff in the Obama White House has a standard operating procedure. If a military action, such as killing bin Laden, succeeds, then immediately leak selected details to shape the narrative to the political advantage of Mr. Obama. If the action is botched, as in Benghazi, then say nothing and tell the quiescent press that there is no story worth pursuing. If questions persist, the second line of defense is an investigation that wlll drag on for months. For instance, bureaucrats in the Justice Department are still investigating the leaks last spring about the U.S. cooperation with Israel in the software sabotage — cyber warfare — of Iranian centrifuges.
If pesky Fox News persists in asking questions, then the third line of defense is to give the nod to the CIA to leak a diversionary story to favored news outlets and reporters. Thus the leaks to the Washington Post and New York Times showing that CIA operatives did try to rescue their comrades. Then authorize the CIA to go public with the same timeline, further throwing the press off the trail. The New York Times, the recipient of record for White House leaks, published on November 3 a diversionary story on its front page, fixating upon the CIA director, General Petraeus. This implied that the main issue about Benghazi centered around CIA secrecy — a tautology irrelevant to the real cover-up.how to get an annulmentquote>
They told completely blatant lies for a week after the attack and the MSM eat it up. When that story began to fall apart the MSM yawned. When it was proven to be a lie, they yawned. With each passing day new information has come out that proves that not only was this Administration, at the least, incompetent, but that they were also engaged in coverup of their failures. And still they yawned.
But NOW…a few days before the election two of the major newsmakers…er “newspapers”…have front page stories with anonymous informants backing Obama up. (Of course those calling for the Fox News anonymous informants to be outed will surely do the same for these informants correct?)
My, how convenient.
The intent is to cause the press and the public to lose interest in a story that seems exhaustively repetitive, while the key issues are never addressed:
1. Why did the State Department ignore repeated warnings that security at Benghazi was deficient?
2. Did operations centers in Washington receive or monitor requests for help during the attack on 9/11/12?
3. Did the president direct the military to use all means to save American lives?
4. If authorized to enter Libyan territory, why did the military not send a fighter aircraft overhead to frighten what the White House claimed was a mob? Why did the military not send an ad hoc rescue force from Sigonella Navy Base, while the CIA was sending six men as the rescue force from Tripoli, about equal distance from Benghazi? Is the U.S. military too rigid to do anything helpful during a seven-hour battle?
5. Why did the White House persist for weeks in spinning a false story about a mob enraged by a YouTube video, when no intelligence supported the story? Who gave our ambassador to the U.N. her “talking points” that emphasized the video? Our intelligence community says it did not come from intelligence agencies.
Simple questions but don't expect any answers until Nov 7th.
Btw…Security officials on the ground in Libya are disputing the CIA's account.
zp8497586rq
See author page