Is There More Evil Lurking Behind the Benghazi Terror Attack?

CONSIDERING THE UNTHINKABLE

by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 17, 2012) — The Western Center for Journalism has reported that it has received information which could implicate Barack Hussein Obama in the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Referencing an October 15 article in which the author describes a phone call received from someone “fairly well-connected politically,” he states that the caller was told by a White House operative that Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed after the consulate was set on fire on September 11, 2012, was instead supposed to have been kidnapped by members of The Muslim Brotherhood.

The caller imparted an alleged plot to rescue Stevens and become “a hero,” which would presumably have won him another term in the White House.

Also on Monday, a second source suggested that there could be another explanation for the low security and subsequent attack on the Benghazi outpost [Warning:  explicit and obscene language; not for children.]  The White House Insider, who has been giving interviews to a blogger named Ulsterman, said it gave him “chills’ that Stevens flew into Benghazi on September 11 rather than exiting the city in the wake of rising violence over several months Stevens’ and others’ requests for heightened security.  “My gut telling me there is something there and they want it buried so deep now they are willing to look like idiots doing it.  Better to look like idiots than murderers?????” the Insider said.

During Tuesday’s presidential debate, Obama did not answer a question from an attendee as to why the story changed on the cause of the attack.  The Obama regime had first stated unequivocally that the violence was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video which had been available on the internet since July. Obama had called the video “crude and disgusting.” It was later made clear that the intelligence community knew within 24 hours that the outpost had been targeted with a terror attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.  Members of Hillary Clinton’s State Department have recently asserted that they “never believed” that the video was the cause of the violence, despite that explanation coming from their boss and the White House.

Contrary to his contention in the debate, falsely supported by the moderator, on September 12 in the White House Rose Garden, Obama referred to the deadly incident as “an attack” but did not use the term “terrorist attack.”  On September 13 at a campaign stop, he called it an “act of terror.”  However, United Nations Amb. Susan Rice, who is a cabinet member reporting to Obama, as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, continued to insist that the video had been the catalyst.

The debate moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, was forced to admit on Wednesday that she was incorrect in asserting that Obama had called the incident a terror attack in the Rose Garden.  On a show entitled “Staring Point,” Crowley said that she had wanted to “move this along” despite providing false information to the audience and validating Obama’s apparent command of the situation.

Both campaigns had filed complaints with the Commission on Presidential Debates prior to the debate over Crowley’s plans to “play an active role in the debate.”  However, White House Insider’s report on Monday suggests that the White House might have been looking to the debate moderators to help Obama if necessary.  In 2009, Obama’s communications director, Anita Dunn, stated that the campaign had “controlled the media.”

Did the Obama campaign file a complaint only to make it appear as if it objected to Crowley’s planned moderating style?  Was Obama looking to Crowley on Tuesday night for help when he was unable or unwilling to answer a question?

CNN, and Crowley in particular, are known for their left-leaning views and support for Obama.  Why is CNN still displaying a link to an article stating that Obama leads in the polls four months after the poll was taken?

Crowley had reported on September 30 that the Obama regime did not release the true cause of the attack for “17 days.”

Does Obama control CNN and the information it puts out?

Roughly two weeks after receiving his party’s nomination, Mitt Romney began receiving national security briefings. Normally presidential candidates begin receiving such intelligence directly after their nomination.  Romney was officially nominated on August 30, 2012.  The time during which he did not receive the briefings included September 11.

On September 12, the day that Obama spoke in the Rose Garden and called what happened in Benghazi “an attack,” Romney gave an address which referred to an early statement from the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt after the embassy grounds were overrun with Islamics who removed the American flag and replaced it with an Islamic flag.

Obama had allegedly had a one-hour telephone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on September 11 during the early evening hours EDT, as it was reported to have been in the middle of the night for Netanyahu.  Israel is six hours ahead of the United States’ East Coast.  Obama had publicly refused to meet with Netanyahu about Netanyahu’s trepidation over Iran’s nuclear capabilities while he planned to be in the United States during the third week of September, citing scheduling conflicts.

In his remarks delivered on September 12, Romney referred to the constitutional rights to free speech which Americans cherish but also used the words “violence” and “extremism.”  Even lacking a national security briefing, did Romney already know or sense that the attack in Benghazi was committed by terrorists?

Why have Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice felt the need to lie about the cause of the attack?  Why was a cover story seemingly readily available?

A third source which has proved very reliable has suggested to The Post & Email that there was an underlying reason for the incident in Benghazi, but, like The Western Center for Journalism, we have no solid evidence.

According to Western Journalism, Obama could have entered into an agreement with The Muslim Brotherhood to release the Blind Sheikh, who was convicted in 1995 and sentenced to life in prison for conspiracy against the United States, in exchange for Amb. Stevens and any other staff members with him following the alleged kidnapping.  Obama has met with members of The Muslim Brotherhood this year at the White House and expressed support for Islam generally since taking office.  Recent news reports reflected the regime’s consideration of “relocating” the Blind Sheikh upon Egypt’s “demands.”

Did Obama make a “treasonous deal with” the enemy?

Obama was named in the commission of treason nearly four years ago by a retired military officer, but no law enforcement entity or member of Congress would take action.