Tag Archives: Watergate

The Benghazi Memo Points to a Crime

benghazi_coverup

The newly dislodged memo from the Obama White House is effectively the smoking gun proving that President Obama’s handlers sought to deceive the American electorate in the run-up to the 2012 General Election on the issue of Benghazi. Even the refined spin and disinformation skills of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney weren’t enough to “play in Peoria”; the White House Press Corps audibly giggling at his insistence that the issue is a Republican conspiracy theory focused on “talking points.” That the Obama Administration has no problem lying to the American people in the pursuit of its agenda should be troubling enough, but now we have the issue of their complicity in covering-up the deaths – the murders – of four Americans. Anyone else executing the same rhetorical maneuvers would be charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and accessory to murder.

The memo, dated September 14, 2012 – now being referred to as the “smoking gun” memo – shows that then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes not only notified political operatives David Plouffe and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (among others), on the email, but that all involved knowingly launched a disinformation campaign about the cause of the Benghazi attacks. In the memo Rhodes writes:

Subject: RE: Prep Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET

Goals:

▪ To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad;

▪ To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;

▪ To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests;

▪ To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

The rest is recent history.

Forget for a moment that points one, two and three are absolute and bald-faced lies, rooted in the slash-and-burn political tactic of “say anything to get elected” Progressive politics, and that point four is the stuff of a political campaign memo and not a national security memo meant to inform the American people about the assassination of a United States Ambassador and his security contingent; an act of war. Forget all that for a moment.

What is of note here is: the date of the memo; who was included in the memo; and the fact that the instructions of this memo were carried out over 12 hours later.

That the date of the memo preceded now-UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s Sunday talk show circuit appearances proves that the effort was, in fact, a disinformation campaign. That then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney were included in the email proves that there was an illegal coordination between the political and operational offices of the Obama White House. And since the actual deception was executed, just prior to a General Election where there was no clear front-runner, proves that everyone with any weight in the Obama White house – including David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and President Obama himself – signed off on the execution of this disinformation campaign.

These three points clear, it would, to borrow a phrase from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, require a “willing suspension of disbelief” to believe that the erroneous information championed by the White House in the early days after the Benghazi attacks was both as fully informed as it could have been and not politically calculated. In other words, you would need to have the I.Q. of a fig to believe what is currently being shopped by Jay Carney.

The only conclusion possible for any thinking person is that the Obama Administration got caught with its pants down on the issue of al Qaeda-related terrorism by way of the assassination of a US ambassador and his security detail in Banghazi on September 11, 2012, and that in order to support its re-election political narrative – that al Qaeda was “on the run” – they knowingly and willfully lied to the American people. Again, the President of the United States and his handlers willingly lied about the murders of a US diplomat and three security personnel for political purposes.

A side note. The word “murder,” by definition, means:

1. Noun – Law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law…

5. Verb – Law. To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

On August 9, 1974, facing the prospect of impeachment, President Richard M. Nixon, resigned the presidency of the United States of America. His “high crime and misdemeanor”: His knowledge and suspected complicity in a cover-up of a politically motivated crime that took place at the Watergate. The History Channel sums it up thusly:

“Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several burglars were arrested inside the office of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate building in Washington, DC. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising ‘hush money’ for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members. In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he ‘committed or may have committed’ while in office. Although Nixon was never prosecuted, the Watergate scandal changed American politics forever, leading many Americans to question their leadership and think more critically about the presidency.”

Of note, the burglars at the Watergate were seeking to facilitate the gathering of information that would give Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President (known derisively as CREEP), an advantage over Democrat nominee George McGovern.

I bring up Watergate in the context of the Benghazi attacks for several specific reasons.

What Did Mr. Obama (and His Principles) Know and When Did He Know It
Just as in Watergate, there are legitimate questions as to when Mr. Obama knew: a) that the attack even occurred; b) that the attack had taken the life of a US ambassador (an act of war); c) that an al Qaeda associated group was responsible for premeditating the attacks; d) that operatives within the CIA, State Department and Pentagon with knowledge of the attacks knew from the first moments that it was a terrorist attack; and e) that approval was given by senior White House staff to deceive the American electorate to shield the President’s reelection bid.

Both Events Resulted in Crimes
Aside from the fact that – both morally and ethically – the Obama State Department was guilty of ignoring critical security assessments for the Benghazi compound calling for tighter and upgraded security before the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks, three specific crimes have striking parallels when Watergate and Benghazi are examined honestly.

Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of Justice is usually a term used when a criminal or collaborator tries to thwart the investigation of a criminal act. In Watergate, the Nixon White House sought to withhold, destroy, alter and otherwise conceal evidence of wrong-doing from the FBI. With regard to the Obama White House’s response to the Benghazi attacks there was a carefully concerted effort to not only withhold, alter and otherwise conceal evidence of a crime – the murders of four Americans – from an investigative committee of the US House of Representatives, that effort extended to the dissemination of a false narrative – a lie – about the murderous events to the American people in an effort to win an election. Both acts of obstruction of justice – in Watergate and in Benghazi – were executed strictly and exclusively for political purposes.

Accessory to Murder
An accessory charge centers on “a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.” This charge applies to a plethora of illegal actions, including murder. It is indisputable that US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were “murdered” (see the definition of murder provided above). As a point of order, the Obama Administration, by its own declarations, see the application of justice where terrorism is concerned as a “law enforcement issue,” so much so that the Holder Justice Department has sought to try 9/11 suspects in United States courts. That understood – and by their definition – they have implicated themselves via the purposeful cover-up, for political purposes, in four murders.

Perjury
Perjury is the “willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.” In the Watergate scandal, the Articles of Impeachment consist of three articles: “Obstruction of Justice,” “Abuse of Power,” and “Contempt of Congress.” All three of these articles alleged the act of perjury, whether to an empowered investigator or to congressional committees. All three of these “charges” would be applicable to the actions of some of the most senior members of the Obama Administration, including, Mr. Obama himself, regarding the Benghazi attacks.

In all of these comparisons, the parallels are legitimate. Senior members of the Obama White House – if not the President himself – are, with the advent of the Rhodes memo, implicated in obstruction of justice, accessory to murder and perjury. The only thing that separates Watergate from Benghazi is this: no one died in the total of the Watergate event. Four Americans did die in the Benghazi event; an event tantamount to an act of war; an event diminished and manipulated for political purposes.

I have always asked Mr. Obama’s detractors to “dial back” on the more intense charges against the man; charges that often served the Progressive disinformation and smear machines in maligning honest Constitution-loving Americans. Instead, I begged them, please stick to his policies and actions, because, just like his brethren Progressives of yesteryear, if we allow his actions and policies to play out, eventually he will weave enough rope with which he (or they) will eventually hang himself.

Mr. Obama’s Progressive, oligarchic, elitist, political greed has woven that rope. And no, this is not about the color of his skin. It’s all about the “color” of his politics.

“ARTICLE 1

“In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

“On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

“The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following…”

– Articles of Impeachment adopted by House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974

Newsman leaves crucial detail out of burglary account

gabriel amadeus (CC)
gabriel amadeus (CC)

gabriel amadeus (CC)

Newsman leaves crucial detail out of burglary account

Somehow, Dan Rather is still able to find an audience despite his very public ouster from CBS in 2004 after reporting falsified and unsubstantiated information about President George W. Bush.

Of course, his audience has been decreased exponentially, but the holdover from a bygone generation of news anchors continues to exercise his First Amendment rights via his own virtually unwatched program and as a guest on other leftist news networks.

Appearing on the Rachel Maddow Show recently, Rather was able to reach an audience likely in double digits. Unsurprisingly, he used the opportunity to decry Republican administrations of yore.

As three major scandals converge on the White House, MSNBC remained true to form and the conversation between Maddow and Rather naturally navigated toward the topic of Richard Nixon.

Rather shared the personal account of a residential burglary he said was the work of  “the notorious plumbers’ operation,” referring to the group Nixon used to halt White House information leaks.

“It was a long time figuring out who did it,” he said, adding, “this became common during the Nixon administration.”

His nostalgia was uneventful by MSNBC standards, though one detail included in his autobiographical account of the story was suspiciously missing from his on air narrative. In his memoirs, Rather claimed he “did what any Texan would do,” describing that he “made sure the family was safe, then grabbed the shotgun.”

I must admit I’m surprised the detail about a gun even made it into his book, but he described the incident in detail through the written word. On camera, though, looking into the wild eyes of Rachel Maddow, Rather neglected to mention that he pointed a loaded and chambered shotgun at a group of what he later learned were GOP operatives.

Honestly, that might be the one target for which Maddow and her deranged audience feel gunfire is warranted.

Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Confederate Corner with George Neat – Benghazi, Watergate and Guns

confedcornercdnlogo

confedcornercdnlogo

When: Tuesday, May 14th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about Benghazi and Watergate, because you know… And as usual, there will be a few words about guns, or it just wouldn’t seem like a real show. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Did Hillary Clinton damage 2016 presidential run with Benghazi attack cover up

Will Hillary Clinton damage 2016 presidential run with Benghazi attack cover up Congressional committee testimony

 

Typically, when most liberal political kingmakers pontificate about the next Clinton to grasp the presidential mantle, it is done with an air of obvious entitlement.  Hillary Clinton has positioned herself for this office ever since her days as a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee, which was investigating Watergate.

It was in the congressional backrooms that Hillary, began a pattern of alleged deceitful behavior that would serve her through many a state and federal prosecutorial investigation.  These investigations followed her and her husband, Bill Clinton from Arkansas to the White House, and now beyond.

Yet, the most onerous of Hillary claims has been linked to a web of mangled White House storylines concerning Benghazi Consulate security, attack, murders and what the president knew and when did he know it.

Fabrication of events is not new for Hillary Clinton, and according to her former boss Jerry Zeifman, who was “counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee,”  Hillary Clinton was fired from her position on the committee as a staff attorney for lying.

The mainstream media kept this embarrassing side note out of the public eye when her husband, Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992 and in her own run for the U.S. seat from New York in 2000.

Yet, Jerry Zeifman, seemed compelled to alert the nation about Hillary Clinton, who in 2006 was making coordinated moves to run for President in 2008.  In his book, “Hillary Pursuit of Power,” he stressed, while working on the Judiciary Committee, Clinton, … engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.”

Therefore it should be of surprise to no one that she was caught up in purported lies while First Lady of Arkansas as well as First Lady of the United States.  These scandals included in Whitewater illegal activities, the Travelgate cover up and her conveniently manufactured lie about coming under attack while visiting Bosnia.

Even though scandal and cover-ups seem to follow her like a bad penny, it is the string of Watergate style congressional performances which may actually be informative as well as the undoing of her presidential aspirations.

Fast forward to September 12th when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared in the White House Rose Garden with President Barack Obama to spin yet another web of tangled storylines.  This time, Hillary Clinton was joining another president who was involved in denying the truth about the murders of Americans in Benghazi, and not just a break in or a presidential fling.

This time, Hillary Clinton was not manufacturing lies against President Nixon’s ability to obtain legal counsel.  Nor was she trying to think up strategic avenues for covering up her sexual predator husband’s dalliances.  Americans died!  This time, it is congress that is in the driver’s seat, not the mainstream media or liberal pundits trying to cover up the truth.

In December Hillary Clinton will go before congressional committees to investigate what the president knew, when did he know it and what did he do about it.  This third time, it may very well be not only Hillary’s presidential aspirations on the line. Perhaps after nearly forty years since the Watergate hearings, she will learn to tell the truth and say, “No, Mr. President, I will not continue to promote a false narrative, because it is illegal and it is wrong to lie to the American people.”

( Click to let me know what you think )

Ambassador Rice Defends White House Watergate Style Lies on Benghazi Cover Up

How could Ambassador Rice explain an attack that she had no personal knowledge of?
Smells like a Watergate style cover up.

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has resurfaced after she told America that the attacks and subsequent murders of four American at the U.S. Benghazi Consulate was due to a spontaneous attack because of a You Tube video on five Sunday network news shows.  The nation now knows, and the White House knew then that the story Ambassador Rice spun for America was totally fabricated by the White House.  White House intelligence officials knew the truth within 24 hours.

Could her reemergence into the public eye be due in part to the increasing opposition in congress to her possible nomination by Obama for the soon to be vacated Secretary of State position?  With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, early attempt to fall on the sword for the president, Rice’s loyalty may yet be her own undoing.

Secretary Clinton had pushed the You Tube narrative and it fell flat after Matthew Olsen, President’s own Director of National Counterterrorism admitted that the attacks on the Benghazi consulate were terrorist and possibly related to Al Qaeda activities. Most importantly, as it turns out, those White House officials as well as State Department and others were quite possibly watching the terrorist attack live via an overhead unmanned drone.

In December, Secretary Clinton will be appearing before congressional intelligence committees to explain her role as well as her and other State Department or White House Benghazi inconsistencies.

Then there are the president’ comments last week when he admitted in a White House press conference that Ambassador Rice was selected because she knew absolutely nothing about the chain of events.  Why would the president of the United States send someone who he admitted, knew absolutely nothing about the security, the attack, the pleas for help and the murders?  How could she explain an attack that she had no personal knowledge of?  Smells like a Watergate style cover up.

This play has been seen before by Americans who endured Watergate and the “long national nightmare which ensued. The nation saw how an administration could hide the truth, deny the act, and then cover up the illegal actions by stonewalling.   Yet in all of the intrigue, congressional investigations and articles of impeachment voted against President Richard Nixon, not one single American citizen lost his life!

So Ambassador Rice, you may feel that mainstream media networks will continue to provide ground cover for your “yes sir, anything sir,” attitude that is totally incredulous, but Americans want accountability.  Obama jetted away for a campaign fundraiser to Las Vegas the very next day, while the families of four Americans were being lied to by the White House.  The president left his credibility in the wind.

So, now Ambassador Rice surfaces in what seems to be an attempt to regurgitate the exact same inconsistencies and cover up narrative as if, telling a lie often enough will suddenly become the truth.  Not this time Ms. Rice.  Not good enough!.  Your oath of office should have more value than protecting a cover story.  Just ask the White House officials who went to jail because they lied to congress about their own culpability in the Watergate cover up.

Again, what was she thinking?

Did Susan Rice truly believe that after the Presidential election, America, the news networks and the congress would go on as business as usual?  Well, Ambassador Rice, America’s business is to find out what the truth really is and why the administration would allow a series of lies to fester in a climate of White House CYA political theatrics.

Four Americans, who had families and had loved ones, only, asked that their Commander in Chief would act like one and defend their lives. The administration reneged on its solemn duty.  The families that saw their loved ones return in coffins deserve more, far, far more than a circle of lies.

Maybe Ms Rice you need to be reminded that these were real people with real families. Their names were: Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. 

These were brave men and not the consequence of “bumps in the road” as President Obama alluded to when discussing the attacks in Benghazi and emerging governments in Arab Spring countries during a Sixty Minutes on September 23rd.  This is not only tragic, it is pitiful.  The families are left this holiday season with more questions, and even more lies about how their decent and honorable family members tragically died.

The truth of Watergate did eventually emerge, a tireless Washington Post and two reporters, relentlessly pursued the truth, when other news organizations did not see a story.  Fox News is that current news organization that is tirelessly pursuing the truth about the White House Benghazi inconsistencies. They are matching up the administration’s changing timelines about what happened, when it happened and why no help arrived on the 11th anniversary of the worse terrorist attack in American history.

History has a way of repeating itself.  Forty years ago, Richard Nixon was reelected president of the United States.  Congress then went to work. Articles of Impeachment were voted on, and well, you know the rest of the story.

Fast forward to 2012, where Obama is doing victory laps and Ambassador Rice is apparently aiming for the Secretary of State seat now being kept warm by Hillary Clinton.  Well if conventional wisdom serves, perhaps, Ambassador Rice should be setting her sights more toward a congressional investigation witness seat.

Congress, the ball is in your court.  Call Ambassador Rice to testify in open hearings to tell the American people what she knew about the talking points, and who gave them to her and what the president knew.

Then after the dust and the lies have settled, The House of Representatives must do its solemn duty and call the president of the United States to testify to congress to tell the truth or face open charges of Impeachment.  

After all, it was Obama who threw down the gauntlet at his November 14th White House press conference and defiantly said, for those, “who has been critical of Rice’s comments, should “go after me.”  Well, Speaker John Boehner, there’s your cue!   America and the families are waiting Speaker John Boehner for the truth!

(  Click – Let me know what you think )

Fast and Furious and Further Proof That the Obama Administration Is Delusional

Yes, we’ve been saying it all along that Obama and the three-ring circus, otherwise known as his administration, and the Democrats on the Hill, are absolutely delusional. In what should be a futile attempt to protect Attorney General Eric Holder, Nancy Pelosi stepped in it yet again.

Yes, she really is that stupid. No, Nancy, this doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the latest manufactured nonsense from the Democrats about voter suppression. This is about the fact that there is a mother and father out there that wants to know the truth about what happened to their son. But hey, I guess we can give you a pass on the finer points here, since the Obama Administration in general can’t seem to remember that border patrol agent’s name in the first place.

His name is Brian Terry, and he was killed with weapons that Attorney General Eric Holder authorized to be sent across the border, and handed to drug cartels in Mexico. It’s one name, and it’s been repeated countless times in the past 18 months. We all know you’re all a little mentally inept there in the White House, but really? Well, maybe you should get a pass on that as well, since even your own mouthpieces in the press can’t get the story straight.

I guess we can take at least a little solace in the fact that AG Holder was finally cornered on his little blame game. Yes, he finally did acknowledge under oath that “Fast and Furious” was not the same as “Wide Receiver”, but given the history of this administration so far, don’t expect that is the end of the “Blame Bush” meme on this case.

Now, if we expect the Obama Administration to be honest about this case, we’re just as delusional as they are. Perhaps the most disturbing fact in all of this is the apathy surrounding the situation. While it should be, it is not being compared with Watergate. We should be listening to men like Fred Thompson, and more importantly, acting. No, “Fast and Furious” is not a distraction. Yes, the Romney campaign should be focusing primarily on the economy, however some time should be dedicated to this case. It is not just about getting closure for Brian Terry’s family. It is about an administration that has overstepped the bounds, and placed our border patrol personnel in jeopardy. It is about a pervasive arrogance that has consumed not only this administration, but also the political left in this country in general.

I’ve only barely scratched the surface here with this little round-up of information and clips this week. It probably isn’t the last time I’ll say anything about this, but in the meantime, I strongly suggest that you educate yourselves, and read Katie Pavlich’s book below.