How many times does a “gift toss in the mouth” come along ( directed at the general public, thereby, giving them a golden opportunity to pressure their reps to perform their due diligence), especially when it concerns matters of top national security considerations? Rarely, if ever. Why not? Because officials at the highest levels have many handy helpers to cover their wayward/illicit tracks.
So, along comes the Liar-in-Chief doing what he does best, that is, lie…lie…and lie some more. The trail ( to just some of his many lies ) can be found at this blog – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/13/the-liar-in-chief-his-many-tall-tells-end-game-purposefully-tearing-the-u-s-from-its-constitutional-roots-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/. But certain lies offer unique opportunities to ferret out important truths, and Bengazigate should be a major exhibit to prove said thesis.
Some issues are worthy of heavy lifting. This is one of them.
On the one hand, Hillary Clinton, in her capacity as Sec of State, is in charge of embassies around the world, plus other tasks. Nevertheless, there is enough circumstantial evidence pointing to the Islamist-in-Chief, for his failure to secure the safety of the embassy’s staff in Libya. Besides, the buck does stop with the POTUS, whether Democrat or Republican.
Back to the gift toss.
Readers are familiar with this blog’s “kinship” with Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to gal pal, Hill. It is legitimate to ask: what has she done this time, to bring her back into the spotlight? Not a damn thing, other than be who she is - an Islamist Muslim Brotherhood Mafia operative; joined at the hip with each and every decision coming out of her boss’s office – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/16/uncovering-the-tip-of-huma-abedins-islamic-spear-the-house-of-al-saud-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/.
Why is this relevant to Bengazigate? Consider: now that the POTUS threw Hill under the bus ( aren’t you all thoroughly shocked?), surely an official inquiry will require her to testify on all related matters. Far be if for this American-Israeli to take a quantum leap in logic, but isn’t it logical to assume, that a corroborating witness will be called upon to testify? And who is more qualified than the one person who shadows her each and every official (and some might suggest, unofficial ones too) move?
It is gratifying not to be alone in one’s mental meanderings, simply because the above theory was formed BEFORE Walid Shoebat’s was brought forth, and he knows the score way better than most! Clearly this track of thinking opens up many delicious possibilities…manna from heaven.
‘Oversight Committee should call Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin to testify over Benghazi-gate’ - by Ben Barrack on OCTOBER 16, 2012
“With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly accepting ‘responsibility’ for the security of all State Department diplomats stationed at the various outposts all over the world – including at the Benghazi consulate – shouldn’t the matter of her closest adviser, Huma Abedin become relevant again?
Hillary’s acceptance of responsibility should also come with a requirement to testify in front of the congressional committee that has decided to take the lead in investigating what happened at Benghazi.
That would be the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).
Testimony given by four State Department officials at an Oversight Committee hearing on October 10th revealed that security – which Hillary has said she is ultimately responsible for – in Benghazi was woefully inadequate, despite repeated requests for additional security assets in Libya. Regional Security Officer (RSO) Eric Nordstrom was so frustrated with the State Department’s refusal to release assets that he said it felt like “the Taliban was on the inside of the building”. Lt. Col. Andrew Wood said of his own attempts to acquire additional security assets:
“We were fighting a losing battle. We couldn’t even keep what we had.”
The failures in Benghazi are becoming painfully obvious. They were political, cultural, procedural and the result of very bad policies implemented as a result of incompetence, negligence, or malice.
In October 10th testimony, Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary for international programs at the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomat Security said in response to Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) that she did not have sole authority to deny requests for security assets. When Adams demanded the names of who did, Lamb begrudgingly provided them:
The two men Lamb singled out as being responsible for having the authority to deny security assets should also be called to testify.
However, while many may consider it admirable for Secretary Clinton to inform us all that the buck stops with her, any such admiration should come with an expectation of transparency and forthrightness. Responsibility without accountability isn’t worth a wooden nickel.
On June 13th, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other congressmen sent five separate letters to five separate Inspectors General. One of those letters went to the Deputy Inspector General at the State Department. The primary concern expressed in the letters was the possibility that there has been Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government. The most controversial name mentioned by Bachmann, et. al. was Huma Abedin, who was singled out in theletter to the State Department. Abedin, Secretary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and closest adviser, has extensive and irrefutable familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and an al-Qaeda financier named Abdullah Omar Naseef.
It has now been widely acknowledged that the attack in Benghazi was either perpetrated by al-Qaeda or entities sympathetic to al-Qaeda.
Remember, al-Qaeda is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Though each group has shared goals, preferred means of achieving them are quite different.
That brings us back to Huma Abein. For twelve years, she worked as an Assistant Editor with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), leaving in late 2008 to take a job with Hillary Clinton at the State Department.
Again, the IMMA was founded by none other than al-Qaeda financier Naseef, who served on the IMMA advisory board for many years while Huma sat on the Editorial Board.
While it may not be common protocol to call advisers to testify in front of congressional committees, the case of Huma Abedin does seem to present a unique set of circumstances. Her her mother and the wife of Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi being close colleagues in the Muslim Sisterhood.
By accepting responsibility for the security of all State Department diplomats, Hillary Clinton has welcomed the spotlight of scrutiny whether she wants it or not. As her closest adviser, Huma Abedin should not escape that spotlight in light of both her background and her significant influence on Hillary.
Based on Abedin’s connections to entities and individuals that have shown support for al-Qaeda’s agenda in the past, she should be required to testify as well.”
http://www.shoebat.com/2012/10/16/oversight-committee-should-call-hillary-clinton-and-huma-abedin-to-testify-over-benghazi-gate/ …and some more to chew on - http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/video-reality-check-hillary-clinton-accepting-responsibility-for-benghazi/
Most significantly, the attack in Libya, by AlQaeda offshoots, was hardly unexpected, except maybe to the academically challenged, affirmative action college student. For heavens sake, embassy staff PLEADED for more security. More to the point, Obama & gang have some explaining to do - http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/07/further-untangling-of-the-video-the-islamist-in-chiefs-tailor-made-excuse-for-islamic-murder-mayhem-where-the-truth-lies-addendum-to-unraveling-the-video-commentary-by-adina-kutni/.
In concert, the very fact that the Islamist-in-Chief called for Qadaffi’s overthrow (prepping the ground via Samantha Powers R2P template, similar to his ousting of Mubarak; thus empowering the Brotherhood Mafia & its Salafist counterparts…how stupid do they think regular folks are?),understanding full well that the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia, the progenitor of AlQaeda would fill the void, lends a people’s indictment straight back to his door. He indeed set the Islamist train wreck in motion. Similarly, would giving bank robbers the keys to the vault ring any alarm bells?
Thus, not only should Barack HUSSEIN Obama be judged for his own wrongs (through his “assistance” to Islamists, whether overt or covert), but Huma Abedin’s less than six degrees of separation, to the attendant terror organs, must finally come to the public fore.
If not now, then when?