The Islamist-in-Chief’s Taqiyya-Driven Hand In Resurrecting The Ottoman Empire & Its Geo-Political Knock-On Effects…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

There are many pieces to the Islamist-in-Chief’s (seemingly) inexplicable foreign policy disasters which are, for the most part, swathing across the Mid East. And even though the stage was set for certain realignments before he soiled the People’s House, his reign has ushered the necessary chess pieces into place. “Magic-like”, the generally volatile regime has exploded into incendiary chaos and resultant fires. 

As indicated in previous commentaries, geo-politics should be viewed as partially an outgrowth of designing a chess board towards an eventual outcome, but oftentimes said master plans are delayed due to happenstance. But there was nothing coincidental about the Islamist-in-Chief’s dictates to Mubarak – GO NOW –…and it was designed to set the chain reaction elicited below.

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 –

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 –

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:

Its intrinsic essence has been shored up by officials who admitted they knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack from the onset – Holy smokes…as the scandal steps up through Rep Issa too –

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 – 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 –

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 –

UPDATE: Whistleblower Hicks gets demoted; punishment for spilling the beans –….see this video too –

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 – 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. – Faster…faster…