Is Obama hiding the truth about Benghazi because the truth would impeach him?
This was Obama’s non-answer to Fox News reporter Ed Henry’s simple question at the White House yesterday:
“I wanted to ask about the families of these four Americans who were killed. Sean Smith’s father Ray said he believes his son basically called 911 for help and they didn’t get it. And I know you said you grieve for these four Americans, that it is being investigated, but the families have been waiting for more than two months. So I would like for you to address the families, if you can. On 9/11, as Commander-in-Chief, did you issue any orders to try to protect their lives?”
“Without providing a yes or no answer, the president went after his critics who question whether the U.S. government did everything it could to save the Americans under attack in Benghazi. (Fox News, Nov. 14, 2012).
“If people don’t think that we did everything we can to make sure that we saved the lives of folks who I sent there, and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don’t know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department thinks or our CIA thinks,” Obama said. “Their number one priority is obviously to protect American lives.”
“As Henry raised his hand to follow up, Obama interrupted him and continued with his answer.
“I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they’re safe. And that’s the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger — whether they’re civilian or military — because that’s our number one priority.”
But even in the outrageous coverup and the smokescreen set up to shroud it, the truth of Benghazi can be seen through the shadows.
As 50% of the American voting population were recoiling in bitter disappointment with the news of Obama’s reelection on Nov. 6, a soap opera-like smokescreen had already been been put in place to cover up a coming post-election Benghazi investigation. While the Obama Election Team was gleefully counting up votes, the investigation was heading down a tawdry road cheapened by a sex scandal ruining the careers of America’s Obama’s appointed CIA director and the US Commander of Forces in Afghanistan.
During the presidential election campaign, Benghazi had gone buxom bosom with a media feeding frenzy chasing down soap opera players that include Petraeus ‘spy’ mistress Paula Broadwell and Tampa self-made socialite Jill Kelley.
Giddy with the sex angle that jumps down bosoms, the mainstream media won’t be back from play anytime soon.
Former CIA Director David Petraeus, who has already blamed Benghazi on an obscure YouTube in September 13 testimony before a Congressional Hearing, and who has agreed to testify before a House Committee again on Friday, was already under FBI investigation for his alleged affair with Broadwell when he testified back in September.
Susan Rice, erroneously identified by Obama yesterday as UN Ambassador rather than U.S. Ambassador to the UN (Mark Levin) had been sent pre-presidential election to five television networks to spread the disinformation that a YouTube was to blame for the death of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans—a message approved even yesterday by Obama.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defence Secretary Leon Panetta were dispatched to Australia for an “annual” Security Summit in Australia.
That leaves only Petraeus, whose testimony is not likely to change on Friday and whose character remains in tatters, as the left man standing.
Barack Hussein Obama, who now has four years as an executive order-wielding dictator, has no reason not to tell the truth to the loved ones of the slain Americans in Benghazi and to America at large, other than this one: the truth would impeach him.