Tag Archives: Axelrod

Benghazi Biggest Political Scandal in Modern History; Main Stream Media Continues to Set False Narratives

20100503_axelrod_146x97

Watergate was a “cover-up” of a group of over zealous Nixon administration officials hiring 5 men to burglarize  the “Watergate” building where the DNC offices were located. Wiretaps and burglarizing the Democratic National Headquarters were the crimes.  This to date, is the biggest scandal and “cover-up” of modern politics.  It pales in comparison to the “Benghazi-gate” cover-up.   Four fellow Americans are dead, and the White House’s “official” statements following the attacks were lies .  Veteran Political “Operative”, for the Obama Administration, David Axelrod took to the airwaves Sunday October 14, and Fox’s Chris Wallace attempted to hold his feet to the fire.  Yet, we are left with the same questions.  From that interview we  learn just what Veep Joe Biden was talking about in regards to his explanation on Benghazi:

WALLACE: But, David, just the day before, several State Department officials testified under oath that there were repeated requests for more security that were rejected. What is the vice president talking about?

AXELROD: I think the vice president was talking about what the White House knew. There are embassies all over the world and installations all over the world, and these requests go into the security professionals at the State Department. And there is no doubt, some of these matters went into the security department at the state security agency at the State Department. But it didn’t come to the White House and that what is the vice president was responding to.

WALLACE: So, we’re now getting into a definition of what the word “we” means. When the vice president says “we” he’s not talking about the Obama administration, because, the question was not about what you knew, it is that there were requests for more security. Biden is not talking about the Obama administration. He’s not talking about the State Department.

He’s just talking about himself and the president?

AXELROD: No, I think, Chris. Again, he was talking about was what he, the president knew because these matters were being handled at the State Department.

What?  Axelrod answers “NO” and then in fact answers the question with a definitive “YES”.    And what he is admitting to is this–that the President didn’t know there were “requests” for more security in Benghazi.  How would he know?  Obama has not been attending these “Security briefings”, in fact the day after the attack, instead of cancelling his campaign trip to Nevada, the President again, skips the briefings.  Axelrod admits to this in the Fox interview.

WALLACE: The reason I ask this is because you say, well, the president made a statement. Yes. The president made a statement, and then he went off to a fundraiser or to a campaign stop in Nevada.

Question, before he went to the fundraiser in Nevada, did he meet with his National Security Council to try to sort out the shifting stories, because State said they never said it was a spontaneous demonstration and intel did, you are quite right — did he meet with the national security council before he went to campaigning in Nevada?

AXELROD: Chris, I assure you that the president was in contact with all those who had information and responsibility in the national security chain about this incident.

As the “spin” intensifies, enter the Main Stream Media.  Watergate had “Woodward and Bernstein”.  We have lost any real journalist on that level who will risk everything in pursuit of truth.  The NY Times editorial on Sunday October 14th entitled “No Shame” cites the Republicans and Darryl Issa as the hypocrites, who cut the budget for security personnel.  That’s interesting, since Susan Lamb testified under oath that “budget” matters had no bearing on the denial of the requests for added security.  In an article by “Time Magazine” entitled “After Benghazi, Is Al-Queda back?” addresses the “Arab Spring” and the Democratically elected new leaders in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia as examples of pillars of “Islamist” who denounce Al-Queda.  This is just plain spin, and the facts are anything but what this article in Time Magazine is implying!  Morsi in Egypt is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  He has asked for the release of the “Blind Sheik” and here is footage from the rally held the night Morsi was elected.    That video is a Muslim Brotherhood Cleric speaking at the same podium Morsi took to just a few minutes later.

Yet, these Muslim Brotherhood backed Candidates, who are sweeping elections in all these Middle eastern countries, according to Time magazine, are the good guys?  This is what happened as a result of this so called Arab Spring.   Just as in Iran in 1979, we have radical Islamist organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood who backs and is in fact the Party in which President Morsi is leader of, taking power and bolstering this radical agenda, which has ties to Al-Queda.  Make no mistake, what is going on in the Middle East is anything but the Democratic process,  as Lara Logan knows too well.

As the spin continues to add up, the headlines on Benghazi are no where to be found in any major “Main Stream” source.  The questions that remain unanswered, are these:

Why did the Obama Administration roll out Susan Rice with a false narrative about a YouTube video?  I myself, link this back to the UN Blasphemy Laws Rice signed onto back in December 2011, and spoke to this in my last article here.    Who within the Obama Administration came up with this false narrative about this YouTube video?  This question goes to the heart of the cover-up, and remains unanswered. 

It is “malarkey” Joe Biden, to think that NO ONE at the State Department , after witnessing in real time that barbaric coordinated attack, that no one called over to the White House?  Yet, that is what you are trying to sell us, right Joe?  You and Barack, just didn’t know a thing!    You didn’t know about any of what was going on in the Security Briefings, you didn’t know about any “requests”,  you didn’t know your own State Department was watching a massacre in real time, you didn’t know 10 days after it had nothing to do with a YouTube video, and you didn’t know what the  White House approved of Rice to say, was not the truth.  May I ask, do you Joe, or Barack know anything about running this Country?

This is and should be the lead story on every paper and website in the US.  There should be journalist outside the White House lining up demanding answers to these blatant lies, and false narratives.  Nixon resigned instead of face impeachment.  Many say we lost all faith in the office of President at that time.  Benghazi is the place we lost all faith in our “Fourth Estate”.   And we must realize its dead and gone.  Carry on my fellow Americans, we will continue to seek the truth, I know we will.

Where’s that Teleprompter When You Need It?

The inspiration for Obama's flag pin.

The inspiration for Obama’s flag pin.

Not only did Mitt Romney win the first presidential debate, he was also victorious in the battle of the flag pins. Compared to the horizontal flag pin Obama was wearing, Romney’s looked like the mainsail on a frigate.

Obama’s pin resembled those narrow, black eyeglass frames that geeks and hipsters wear to show their superiority to people who don’t know what “jelly bean” on an Android is. It had the same proportions as the gunport on a pillbox, only smaller.

Romney’s pin, on the other hand, was large enough to contain a mysterious dot that even on HD–TV didn’t have enough detail to allow one to identify it. Had the debate been in Orlando, I would have assumed it was Mickey Mouse, but Denver is not associated with any cartoon characters, unless you include Gov. Hickenlooper. Turns out that Romney’s pin is the one worn by members of the Secret Service and it was given to him by an agent on his protective detail.

I suppose Obama’s Secret Service detail thought it more fitting to give him golf tees or a bank bag, either of which would have looked out of place at the debate. And speaking of out of place, where do you think Obama would have rather been last night? He spent most of the evening looking like a petulant celebrant missing his big 20th wedding anniversary shindig.

The audience thought it was a joke when Obama began his opening statement promising Michelle they would not be celebrating next year’s anniversary on a debate stage. But based his frowny–face during the split–screen shots when Romney was talking, I think he was serious. He looked testy and put–upon all evening.

It was evident the Obama hadn’t faced any hostile questions from anyone during the past four years, assuming you overlook Michelle’s demanding when he intends to quit smoking.

The “yowza boss” attitude of the White House press corps is not conducive to making one fast on his feet.  Nor is becoming an alternate cast member of ‘The View.’ Maybe his schedule for the day read “9PM: slo–jamming the debate with your PBS homies,” because he was woefully unprepared.

Ann Romney may not like the questioning the campaign and her husband have undergone this year, but it sure made him sharper on his feet. Mitt was even mildly humorous at times, although he had a tendency to step on his own laugh lines. He needs to pause a beat after the punch line to give the audience time to respond. He could have made the “changing insurance companies” comment into a punch line and made himself look more like a regular guy, with just a bit of work. And Mitt went too fast when he accused Obama of only picking losers, so the impact was damaged. Unfortunately every comedian in the country appears to be on the Obama team, so it’s hard for Mitt to rehearse. I wonder what Drew Carey is doing?

Currently Obama spinmeisters are complaining about the replacement referee, er moderator. But the fact is when Obama the moderator and drones on FIVE MINUTES longer than Romney, yet still loses the debate, your candidate and your campaign are in a world of hurt.

As a result, I predict the Obama campaign will demand changes in the ground rules for debates two and three. First and foremost David Axelrod will be in charge of the visuals. This means no more cutaway shots or split–screen views when Romney is speaking. Obama will be able to chew Nicorette and stamp his foot with the audience none the wiser.

They may even demand Obama appear backlit behind a screen like 60 Minutes does when they interview a whistle–blower who doesn’t want to be recognized.

And all evidence points toward Obama’s team urging him to be more aggressive during the remaining debates, ready to pounce on Romney and his evil plans.

Fors fortus, as the Romans say.

He may be able to frighten the White House staff and startle the interns when Obama gets forceful, but I have an idea that during the debate it will only look bitchy.