Do Terrorist Attacks CHANGE Elections? YES.
October 15, 2012
Obama Administration Real War On Women? Exploiting their own appointee to LIE about Libya on the national stage. UN Ambassador Susan Rice was ordered onto network talk shows with a LIE.
David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s scrupulous campaign manager must be getting daily calls, e-mails, and tweets from UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Because she knows now, that she was USED and put out in front of the American people to sell a LIE.
Read this painfully-accurate article by international legal affairs expert Robert C. O’Brien and New York Times best-selling author Brad Thor, which spells out how the attack on our Benghazi, Libya Consulate, should be a deathblow for the President’s campaign for re-election. Equally important, how terrorists are becoming players in international elections:
Ambassador Susan Rice on Sunday morning talk shows:
“Based on the best information we have to date … it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began
An amateur video did not spark a premeditated, scheduled attack by al Qaeda.
outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent. … We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
From the Pajamas Media article, “Is the Benghazi Attack Obama’s Madrid Train Bombings?”
“Based on extensive reporting by CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News, there is not only no longer any doubt that Benghazi was a sophisticated and pre-planned terrorist attack against the United States. Indeed, the Obama administration very likely knew this at a much earlier stage than they have admitted.
In the face of congressional hearings, the State Department asserts that it never concluded the consulate attack in Benghazi arose from protests over the video. When asked about the Obama administration’s initial explanation linking the attacks in Benghazi to protests over the video, a State Department official said, “That was not our conclusion.” The implication being that those talking points had come from the White House.
The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” Glenn Kessler, wrote that “[f]or political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over
Movie-maker of amateur Islamic attack video, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, arrested for violating parole…but had nothing to do with al Qaeda attack on Libyan Consulate.
anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube.” The political reasons for the Obama administration’s portrayal of the attack arise from the fact that Benghazi fundamentally undermines White House claims that “leading from behind” resulted in success in Libya, that extremely conciliatory gestures to the Muslim World would defuse Islamic extremism, that the global war on terror is over and al-Qaeda defeated with the killing of Osama bin Laden, and that the administration had given proper consideration to the safety of American diplomats operating in Libya.
On Monday, in his speech at VMI, Governor Romney gave voice to what Americans already knew to be true:
The attack on our consulate in Benghazi on September 11th,
Mitt Romney came out strong, and came out first, telling the TRUTH about the Libyan Consulate being the work of terrorists.
2012, was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.
Compare the sloppy and damning response from the Obama administration to another terror attack, which also proved to be game changing in 2004:
“On March 11, 2004, bombs ripped through Madrid’s commuter train system killing 191 people and wounding an additional 1,800. The terrorist attack took place three days before Spain’s general election and completely turned it upside down. The ruling People’s Party lead by then-Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar chose to cast blame on Spain’s Basque separatist organization ETA, while the Socialist opposition pointed to al-Qaeda as the culprit.
By blaming ETA, Anzar’s camp hoped to curry votes by drawing attention to their leader’s tough campaign against the Spanish terror organization. The Socialists, on the other hand, hoped voters would hold Aznar responsible for having incited Islamic extremists by his support of America’s war in Iraq, which was exceedingly unpopular in Spain.”
The unanswered question? What was the Obama administration’s response? Also a strategy of deceit? Or another chapter of incompetence?
Read the entire piece of remarkable reporting on Pajamas Media:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-madrid-train-bombings/
Follow @TKC_US
Recent Comments