BENGHAZIGATE About To Be Blown Wide Open: General Petraeus Has MEGA Scores To (Rightfully) Settle…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

How many times has this blog used the metaphor, “beat like a dead horse”? ( https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/17/the-radicalislamist-in-chief-his-forward-march-towards-a-green-red-tyranny-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ …ditto…  https://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/11/john-brennan-obamas-cia-pick-is-a-muslim-convert-brotherhood-mafias-infiltration-near-complete-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/). Well, too many times, but it is not for nothing. And when the stakes are so high there is no room to quibble.

Kal v’chomer (as is said in Israel), even more so, when it comes to Benghazigate, the BIGGEST scandal in U.S. history, it is incumbent upon all of us to beat this horse’s essence into the public’s consciousness. No crevice should be left unmolested, so listen to Beck’s clear timeline, but it is not as if this is news herein – http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j_Oqm6xCCyU#!

In this regard, General Petraeus was front and center at this blog, understanding full well what his ouster entailed. Moreover, the background surrounding his (forced) resignation had much more to do with political payback, than with the hotties caught in his midst. In fact, those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and the diddlers in Washington (some even swing both ways) hardly have a moral leg up on the General. Infidelity aside, to retrace this blog’s steps, re the General’s unceremonious dumping, start herein:

Exhibit Number One – six months ago, the General starred as a centerpiece of this blog – https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/27/benghazigates-petraeus-testimony-will-ensnare-the-potus-his-gang-addendum-to-covering-up-benghazigate-exquisite-political-timing-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ …and it was “predicted” that he would ultimately ensnare the POTUS in his web of lies. Hmm…

Exhibit Number Two – stage left…as Benghazigate’s hotties entered the mix, not incidentally intertwined with both the General and the attendant political intrigue –  https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/18/benghazigates-femme-fatales-not-just-smokin-hot-chicks-addendum-to-covering-up-benghazigate-exquisite-political-timing-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ …but pay particular attention to the Lebanese femme fatale…this blog has mega reasons in pointing the readership in her direction.

Exhibit Number Three – do take a look-back into the political timing of throwing the CIA Director under the bus – https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/13/covering-up-benghazigate-exquisite-political-timing-sacrificing-a-cia-director-to-boot-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/… but in retrospect, surely they are kicking themselves for their ill conceived game plan. Every dog(s) has its day…

Exhibit Number Four – is really the first one out of the gate tying in the General to Benghazigate’s downfall –  https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/11/benghazigate-theory-revealed-at-this-blog-shored-up-by-lt-col-ralph-peters-overall-theory-leading-to-petraeus-resignation-too-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ …but for purposes of clarity, sometimes it is necessary to place the timeline in backwards order, but the readers are more than capable of assessing the damage.

So now that we are up to speed, others in the know are jumping on this blog’s bandwagon. Welcome aboard!

‘General Petraeus To Testify On Benghazi This Week’

Monday, May 13, 2013
 

(Before It’s News)

Yep, I’m going to beat Benghazi Like A Dead Horse.

DeadHorseTheoryamplido

OK,   This article looks like things are going to rock and roll when

General Petraeus Testifies this week. Seems he may have an ax to grind with skippy. I’d like to pull one paragraph out and highlight how Jay Carney answers a reporter’s question. It just amazes me how these people can say so much and not even come close to answering your question..LOL

I’ll run the whole story after the pull out. Am I confusing you? Cause I’m sure as heck confusing myself.           ~ Steve~

OK,  This is reporter’s question.

“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked“what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”

And this is Carneys response.

“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”

Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

Just what in the hell is he saying? I know he did not answer the question, and seems he threw the C.I.A. under the bus. Now if memory serves who was the director of CIA at time of Benghazi? Hmmmm-

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/05/general-petraeus-to-testify-on-benghazi-this-week-2640810.html?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=verticalresponse&utm_content=beforeit39snews-verticalresponse&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2Fi4ax&utm_source=direct-b4in.info

————————————————————————————————”

NOT to be outdone, the Washington Times joined in on the “spin cycle’s” rapid-pace undoing, something which this blog has been hammering from the get go – https://adinakutnicki.com/2013/05/07/benghazigate-reaches-fever-pitch-whistle-blowers-testifying-hill-huma-once-again-share-the-spotlight-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

‘Watch out for Petraeus in Benghazi  scandal’

By their second term “inside the bubble,” presidents have completely lost touch with reality: Aides and confidants conspire to keep the chief executive insulated from the real world — the bad news, the worse press coverage. They think it’s their job, and lounging on the Oval Office couches, they nod along with the president’s every musing.

But this presidency has taken OOCS to new heights. Mr. Obama has only a few trusted aides, and occasional leaks from the West Wing show a paranoid president suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Supremely confident, convinced by the fawning minions at his feet that he is untouchable, the president dismisses all controversy as partisan attacks by an overzealous opposition. A pliant press corps of stenographers follows in lockstep.

Not surprisingly, every president in the past 60 years has had a major scandal in Term 2: Dwight Eisenhower had the U-2 “incident”; Richard Nixon had Watergate; Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton had Monica (literally); George W. Bush had Katrina (and let’s not forget those WMDs that never turned up); and now, this president has Benghazi.

Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal. Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.

For months before, there were warnings about weak security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya; no one paid attention. During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.

And after? That’s when the Obama scandal falls into the predictable second-term pattern his predecessors all learned the very hard way. Faced with a crisis, the Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up.

So little is known about what happened in BenghaziWhere was the commander in chief that night? No pictures from the Situation Room this time. Why didn’t the Pentagon authorize a quick-response team to swoop in? Members of the military say they were ready — burning — to go. The call came in: Stand down. Let them die. There were dozens of witnesses to the attack that night: Where are they? What do they know? What really happened that night?

And who forced the heavy-handed redactions of those infamous “talking points,” the ones that sent Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations onto the Sunday talk shows to declare that the attack was just the culmination of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube?

Carnival barker Jay Carney looked almost ashen Friday as he took the podium to face a suddenly invigorated press corps. Of course, the public briefing came after a private session with “reporters who matter,” a sure sign the White House is in full hunker-down mode — and, more precisely, terrified.

“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”

“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”

Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

Speaking for the White House, the flack said the CIA was fully to blame for the talking points. Fully. “That is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA,” he said.

“Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants.” That line was stricken: Everything was fine there — fine fine fine.

And: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That line, too, was deleted by … someone. Instead, this was inserted: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning. And the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat: the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.

With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.

A warning to those West Wing sycophants suffering from acute OOCS: Don’t walk down any dark alleys.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/?page=2#ixzz2TB1BiC00and the bombshells will keep exploding, as the General seeks revenge, as well as setting the CIA record straight – http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/22258258/ex-diplomat-is-asked-to-answer-benghazi-questions#axzz2TP7BakWk

As many of this blog’s dedicated readership already recognize, there is an affinity, as well as an appreciation, herein for those who shoot straight and take no prisoners, in the metaphorical sense. But this does not obviate a similar penchant for a literal interpretation; those who gun for the west should NEVER be left in an upright position, to live to harm us another day. And it is for this reason why the (politically-infused) smackdown to Petraeus must be rectified. Most significantly, if the good General helps to bring down Obama Inc., a criminal-bent regime, it will be a most auspicious outcome. 

Waiting in anticipation….with bated breath…payback IS a bitch!

BENGHAZIGATE Reaches Fever Pitch: Whistle Blowers Testifying & Hill & Huma, Once Again, Share The Spotlight…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

This blog, from the get go, hammered home the Islamist-in-Chief’s and Hillary Clinton’s central part in Benghazigate. However, equally central to the biggest scandal (alongside Fast & Furious) in U.S. history is her Deputy COS, “body double”, Huma Abedin. You know, the “mobbed up” Muslim Sisterhood diva, as well known for her sultry, pouty, come hither good looks, as for her joined-at-hip attachment to Hill at State. And though Hill is a mega political force to be reckoned with, it is also the case that Huma called the big shots at State. Let’s chalk it up to Hill’s libido getting the best of her, and it is not as if middle-aged men haven’t been known to throw caution to the wind over a young hottie, as demonstrated within –https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/18/benghazigates-femme-fatales-not-just-smokin-hot-chicks-addendum-to-covering-up-benghazigate-exquisite-political-timing-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/.

Be that as it may, the lies are unraveling faster than most thought, and much of its fall out should be credited to alternative media pushing it to the forefront, thus allowing outraged Americans to pressure their Reps for action. And the latest update at this blog can be revisited here – https://adinakutnicki.com/2013/04/29/solving-benghazigate-via-its-underlying-calculus-will-illuminate-bostons-jihad-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/.

Along comes the most recent “talking points”, but this time ones which are high up on the truth meter, and the public would do well to pay attention to its attendant implications.

‘The Difference it makes: Hillary Clinton’s spokesman involved in altering of Benghazi Talking Points?’ – (embedded video links)

by  on May 4, 2013 
As Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) – powerful member of the House Oversight Committee – puts it, there are ‘three tranches’ when it comes to the larger scandal known Benghazi-gate.

  1. The decision not to provide security beforehand
  2. What happened during the siege, why assets were not employed
  3. Why Susan Rice mislead all of us on five Sunday talk shows

When it comes to tranche number three, an article by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard sheds some bright light on what problems the Obama administration will be facing. In essence, despite prior protestations, it is now crystal clear that there were forces at work – particularly in the State Department – who did not like the language in the talking points put forth by the Intelligence community on Friday, September 14th, three days after the attacks in Benghazi.

Demonstrable evidence seems to suggest that the CIA’s original talking points were more closely aligned with witness accounts from individuals on the ground in Benghazi. Remember, witness accounts are being headlined as the reason for compelling hearings on May 8th.

Via WS:

A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported thateyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.

Fast forward to Friday, September 14th. That evening, officials at the top of various departments and agencies received the CIA community’s version of the talking points that were distributed internally earlier that day.According to Hayes, it didn’t take long for Hillary Clinton’s mouthpiece to object:

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

Ain’t it interesting that it took the State Department less than one hour to respond to Benghazi talking points it didn’t like but neglected to respond to the Benghazi attacks themselves, which went on for several hours? It’s also interesting to note that earlier that day, at the White House Press Briefing, Obama spokesman Jay Carney implied – quite overtly – that the video was responsible for those attacks. When pressed, he deferred to asking the reporter to prove a negative:

Hayes then writes about the reaction of Nuland (Hillary’s mouthpiece) later that evening, after the CIA created version two of the talking points:

…in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.”

Questions: If Nuland was the official voice / mouthpiece of the Secretary of State, who were her superiors? Was there someone between her and Hillary? If so, who? Then again, does it really matter? Nuland was either Hillary’s spokesman or she was not. If she was, wasn’t she necessarily speaking for Hillary when she said her superiors were not happy?

According to Hayes, the next day – Saturday, the 15th – administration officials would get to work on those talking points.

…according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above).Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.

Though not mentioned, it’s at least conceivable at this point – one day prior to Susan Rice going on those Sunday shows – that CIA Director David Petraeus was becoming persona non grata (remember his affair with Paula Broadwell was made public very shortly after the election).

Check out what was attributed to Petraeus on the afternoon of September 14th, via ABC News,presumably after Carney pointed to the video earlier that day:

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

We are left to conclude that when Nuland said her superiors were ‘not happy’ on the evening of September 14th, much of that displeasure was likely attributable to what Petraeus said earlier that day as well as what his agency put forth in its initial version of what happened in Benghazi on the night of the 11th.

Again, if the spokesman for the Secretary of State had ‘superiors’, who were they? Did they not include Hillary Clinton herself? Her advisors? Her Deputy Chief of Staff, whose family would most assuredly not want the Benghazi attackers identified as al-Qaeda or Ansar al-Sharia – offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group to which the mother of Hillary’s Deputy Chief of Staff belonged? The spokesman for the Secretary of State is the equivalent of a ventriloquist dummy with the hand in its back being the Secretary of State.

It should indeed be clear why the misleading statements of Susan Rice on September 16th constitute a significant ‘tranche’ of this investigation.

For some reason, this (embedded) clip of Hillary just becomes more relevant by the day:

http://shoebat.com/2013/05/04/the-difference-it-makes-hillary-clintons-spokesman-involved-in-altering-of-benghazi-talking-points/.

Its intrinsic essence has been shored up by officials who admitted they knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack from the onset – http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/. Holy smokes…as the scandal steps up through Rep Issa too – http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/RepIssa-Cover-Up-Benghazi/2013/05/05/id/502828?s=al&promo_code=13607-1

And, additional heat is heading to a feverish burn, as whistle blowers are finally coming out of the shadows, now that enough pressure is bearing fruit, in effect, warning White House/State/CIA honchos: threats will no longer be tolerated, as the public and a tiny fraction of courageous Repub leadership are determined to exact the truth – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/04/benghazi-names-whistleblower-witnesses-revealed/. Yet, more specifically, no one should think that Huma is not up to her diva eyeballs in the cover up & its original plan, as Hill’s Number One aide – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/.

DO let it sink in what a retired Navy SEAL, deeply in the fray, had to say….but this blogger makes sure to point out that Hill & Huma are two sides of the same betrayal. BOTH are guilty of grave malfeasance, and worse.

Retired Navy SEAL Billy Allman Is Making A Stunning Accusation… In His Own Words: “Americans Were Deliberately Left There To Die.” 

Based on evidence compiled from his contacts in the Special Ops Community, Allman’s revelation seems to confirm what far too many of us have suspected all along… that’s it’s entirely possible that Team Obama left people to die in Benghazi as part of a much larger cover-up.

In his report, Allman concludes: “Our team compiled 42 pages of information. When the entire report is read, one can ONLY conclude that these Americans were deliberately left there to die, due to the criminal negligence and inaction on behalf of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.”

In no small realm, an Islamist-in-Chief Allah-bent on extricating Islamists from jihad, thus declaring the “war on terror” over (even as Americans are blown to bits), in tandem with an Islamist Sisterhood hottie from State – who more than influenced her boss – left Americans to die in the streets in Benghazi. 

IF their actions (or lack thereof) do not rise to collusion to murder, then nothing will. And if Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Hill & Huma, Valerie Jarrett, and the rest of their conspiring crew do not end up behind bars, then let us all declare: the “law of the land” is dead and buried, and average Americans should feel free to bury it six feet under. That’s all folks.

UPDATE: readers will recall (or may not) this blog’s prognostication that Obama Inc. will (eventually) fall over Benghazigate, but that it is just a matter of enough pressure points coming to the fore. Now this does not mean that it will happen right away, but it does mean that a REAL possibility does exist, pipe dreams aside – http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/05/devastating-cbs-publishes-benghazi-investigation-pummels-administration-2450450.html?utm_campaign=&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2Fa3jd&utm_content=beforeit39snews-verticalresponse&utm_source=direct-b4in.info&utm_medium=verticalresponse

UPDATE: Whistleblower Hicks gets demoted; punishment for spilling the beans – http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/benghazi-whistleblower-i-was-demoted-after-questioning-susan-rices-talking-points?f=must_reads….see this video too – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZHsVhXB-Pk&feature=youtu.be

UPDATE: Much has been mentioned about Obama Inc and its umbilical link to the media. Of course, we are all familiar with the “buy up” of news outlets via George Soros’s tied-tentacles. But what is news is the DIRECT linkage between news chief heads and Obama’s top staff – http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/11/fox-abc-and-cbs-news-presidents-have-siblings-working-white-house-tie. and incestuous relations doesn’t begin to cover the story. After all, we are not just talking about an inappropriate relationship between family members but the fate of western civilization, if not uncoupled.

NOT sure about anyone else, but this American-Israeli is already starting to count the (inevitable) “head rollings” from Obama Inc. –http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/10/benghazi-whistleblower-attorney-i-have-more-people-who-want-to-testify/ Faster…faster…