The "Benghazi Killings Scandal":
A Short Information-and-Status Report
Victor Edward Swanson,
The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan 49721
The United States of America
copyright c. 2013
October 24, 2014
On September 11, 2012, four Americans, one of whom was an ambassador (Chris Stevens) and some of whom were CIA-associated men, were killed by a terrorist mob in Benghazi, Libya. Right after the event took place and for a number of days afterward, Barack Obama and his close associates pushed out the idea that the incident was inspired within people in Libya to get back at Americans for a video (Innocence of Muslims) about Islam and Allah that had been made in the United States of America, but it was later proven, such as in hearings in Congress, that the video (or the trailer for the video), which almost no one in the U.S.A. saw, let alone in the world, had had nothing to do with the killings and other rioting in the Middle East that went on at the time; also, while the attack was in progress (and it was about a seven-hour event), the federal government new the attack was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the video. In addition, the Barack Obama administration actually spent U.S. taxpayer money on commercials that aired in the Middle East that were designed to applogize for the video and report that the federal government of the U.S.A. had had nothing to do with the making of the video (in fact, the commercials featured both U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. President Barack Obama).
I have to make an aside here. Between January 20, 2012, and September 11, 2012, Barack Obama violated The United States Constitution several times, and Barack Obama had took the State of Arizona to court to stop the State of Arizona from enforcing federal immigration laws, and the Barack Obama administration (which is Barack Obama ultimately) was involved in selling guns to Mexican thugs through U.S.A. gun shops so that a press campaign could be made to have more gun-restrictions laws put in place in the U.S.A. and the what event ("Fast and Furious") resulted in was the deaths of dozens (especially innocent Mexicans), and the Barack Obama adminstration was involved in advertising on Mexican television shows how Mexicans could get food stamps (free stuff) from the federal government, and Barack Obama supported, in essence, the Iranian dictators (Muslim or Islamic radicals) over the protesting citizens of Iran related to an election, and the Barack Obama administration was involved in secretly and no secretly meeting with the management of the radcial Islamisc terrrorist group known as the Muslim Brotherhood around the time of the fall of a president of Egypt and what happened ulimately was the Muslim Brotherhood gained the control of Egypt, and there is more crap tied to Barack Obama.
During the week of Monday, November 5, 2012, Barack Obama was elected to a second term as the U.S. President, even though it was public knowledge that Barack Obama was a communist, was a habitual liar, and was surrounded by as close associates tax cheats and terrorists and lovers of Mao (the mass killer of China), and David Petraeus resigned as the head of the CIA, and the resignation came a few days after the election had been held and came as few days before hearings would be held in the U.S. Congress to understand, for example, what happened during the Benghazi attack and killings and what the U.S. government did to try to protect Americans in Benghazi.
Between September 11, 2012, and November 9, 2012, there was no report from the federal government about what Barack Obama was doing during the Benghazi attack and killings and where Barack Obama was during the Benghazi attack and killings. Normally, a President of the United States of America comes out and reports, such as in a press conference, what was done or what was tried to protect Americans in foreign countries, and such a report is made even if something like a rescue attempt fails. Basically, all that Barack Obama did was appear in public and condemn the video (or the video trail) and sort of condemn those who had done the killings.
Certainly, on September 11, 2012, I was already aware Barack Obama was a rotten man, as I show in number documents that I have available at the web site for The Hologlobe Press, and I was already considering him an enemy of the United States of America and even a traitor, and then the "Benghazi Killing Scandal" showed up, in which the Barack Obama administration (from Barack Obama to the U.N. Ambassador and others) has told lies about the Benghazi attack and killings, and at time that this document was published, it was still unknown what Barack Obama did and where Barack Obama was during the Benghazi attack and killings, and that smells, as does the timing of the resignation of David Petraeus. Even without taking into consideration the "Benghazi Killings Scandal," it can be said that a rotten man is occupying the office of the U.S. President, and when you add in the "Benghazi Killings Scandal," which is a big, big coverup event, there is more proof that Barack Obama is dangerous to the United States of America.
Here would have been a good place to end this document, but I must continue on with information that will show more of what nonsense and evil is in the mind of Barack Obama for those who are naive and those who wish not to believe a U.S. President could work against the interests of The United States Constitution, the United States of America, and good American people (those who hate communists and radical Islamists and such), and this part deals with two main problems related to the "Benghazi Killings Scandal." I have to present some background information, given I have to go on the assumption most Americans are unaware of the background information that I am about to give or have their heads so filled with propaganda from the people of the Democratic Party (especially the heads of the party) that they have avoided listening fully to the information that I have about to relate. When international treaties are signed by the U.S. President, those treaties can supersede U.S. law, even The United States Constitution, even the parts about having free speech (the ability to speak about against politicians, especially bad politicians) and about owning guns. You should see that a bad man who is the U.S. President could do harm to the country by signing international treaties. Now, let me get back to the heart of the matter. There are people in the United States of America and people in other countries of the world who would like international rules put in place throughout the world that would ban "hate speech" (which would have a vague meaning and probably ever more restrictive in definition each day and which would very likely put restrictions on speaking out against political leaders and could lead to punishment, such as jail time or imprisonment), and, in fact, within days after the attack in Benghazi, people in the United States of America were pushing for laws that what would, in essence, restrict speech, and their push was all based on the the lie that "the video" the underlying cause of the rioting in the Middle East and the killings in Benghazi. On January 10, 2010, the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court shut down the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (which was informally known as McCain-Feingold Act of 2002), and communists and such in the United States of America (such as Barack Obama) soon thereafter were pushing that the idea of removing the act now stopped the little people from having more of a say in elections (because they did not have big money to spend), but, really, the decision came down to stopping the federal government from having the ability to ban at least some types of books and movies or DVDs in the country (You can find more on this subject by reading my document entitled Fairness?: A Guide for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, which can be reached by using this Fairness link]. When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (which was informally known as McCain-Feingold Act of 2002) was knocked down, Barack Obama--a communist and worse than a communist is--lost a law that, in the future, could be used to block books and movies and DVDs that were about him from being distributed in the country, at least in the last days or months right before an election. Incidentally, communist-type countries, such as China, North Korea, and Cuba, have highly restrictive speech rules, and people can be put in prison or killed for speaking out against the countries. So, the attack at Benghazi took place on September 11, 2012, and the attack had nothing to do with "the video," and for a number of days the Barack Obama adminstration--Barack Obama and his close associates--pushed the idea that it was, in essence, "hate speech," that was the spark of the attack (and the other rioting and protesting that went on around the time). Barack Obama was lying for days! I say that "the video" was used to push for laws to restrict speech focusing on religion or, in the case of Sharia, a harsh political system, and Barack Obama was consciously involved in the political press campaign, which, for example, was directed at the American people, who, it seems, he wanted to side with him and help him push for more restrictive speech laws in the United States of America, which he might be able to get put in an international treaty, which could result in person in the U.S.A. ending up in court in another country, even a Third World-dictatorship-type country, controlled by truly defective people. Incidentally, while Barack Obama was lying about "the video," he was out on the campaign trail, telling nothing about what was really done to try to protect or save the Americans caught in trouble in Benghazi or telling nothing about where he was and what he actually did (for example, one day after the attack, he was off to Las Vegas (Nevada) and other places, and he showed no real concern for the Benghazi attack (though there would be what came off as a staged presentation with the arrival of coffins a little after the killings had occurred). It seems very likely to me Barack Obama was not really engaged at the time the attack was occurring (a reason that has yet to be determined), and after the attack had taken place, Barack Obama used the opportunity to push a lie--and that lie seemed aimed at drumming up support in the United States of American and elsewhere for censorship, especially on people who would dare speak out against bad political systems and politicians. Remember: Four Americans died in Benghazi on September 11, 2012!
Incidentally, Barack Obama gave a speech at the United Nations on September 25, 2012, and he brought up the subject of "free speech," which seemed odd to me, since one thing that he said seemed to show his disappointment about "free speech" in the United States of America, and to see what he said, you should see the entry for "Tuesday, September 25, 2012 (at the United Nations)" in my document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document. During the speech, by the way, Barack Obama referred to "the video" six times.
I can expand the train of thought beyond that of Barack Obama's only getting an attack on "free speech" as part of what he gets. A person must remember what the nature of Barack Obama is and what a man does during a lifetime to feel he is accomplishing something. Barack Obama is a agitator, such as under the heading "community organizer," and Barack Obama has been known for attacking companies and businesses or making others attack companies and businesses, and he has even worked to get people to dislike doctors. Barack Obama sees his like worthwhile when he is agitating and making other agitated. It is very likely that the Barack Obama administration's pushing the idea that "the video" sparked the incident in Benghazi was to agitate people in the Middle East and make them dislike the United States of America (or at least the people of the United States of America and not him, given he put out the commercial shown in Pakistan that said that the federal government of the United States of America--in essence, Barack Obama--had nothing to do with the making of "the video"). It must be kept in mind Barack Obama has been working against Israel--by at least showing not so much support of Israel and showing support for the Palestianins in the Middle East--and so it seems very like his promoting the idea that "the video" was the spark of the attack was done to drum up more hate for Israel in the minds of Muslims in the Middle East, maybe getting them ready for war against Israel (it would be on Thursday, November 15, 2012, that rockets/missiles were fired into Tel Aviv, Israel, by militants in the Gaza area, making it the first such attack on the city since the 1970s).
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012, Barack Obama held a press conference, and he gave answers to questions, one of which was about U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice (for the U.S.A.), who had talked up the idea on five political talk shows on September 16, 2012, that the spark for the Benghazi attack was "the video," and the question focused on a recent statement made by a prominent Republican (John McCain) in the U.S. Senate who was not eager to confirm Susan Rice to a new job, given she seemed to have passed along a lie about "the video." During the press conference, Barack Obama got angry that someone (the Republican) was questioning the character of Susan Rice, and Barack Obama pushed out the idea that Susan Rice, during the interviews of September 16, 2012, was only passing along what she had been told, and Barack Obama noted that Susan Rice--as the U.N. ambassador--had nothing to do with the Benghazi incident on behalf of the U.S. The question is--If Susan Rice had nothing to do with the Benghazi incident on behalf of the U.S., why was she a spokesperson about the incident and why was not someone with knowledgeable about the incident made the spokesperson (such as someone tied to the U.S. State Department)? Oh, during the press conference, Barack Obama avoided answering the general thought--When he was told about the attack. [You are urged to see the entry for "Wednesday, November 14, 2012" in my document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document.]
The question that I once again ask is--Why has it not been made clear what Barack Obama was doing during the attack? (I know Barack Obama has used illegal drugs (such as cocaine) in the past, and I would not be surprised if he still uses from time to time illegal drugs, and I would not be surprised if he was in a drug-induced bad state when the attack was going on and could not make a decision about the event.) For some reason, it cannot be reported where he was and what he did. Oh, maybe Barack Obama simply did not want to be involved or maybe he wanted the attack to occur.
That is about it for now (or for at least this version of the document).
I do have to cover some topics that a person might come across while trying to learn about the Benghazi attack. Some people say that Barack Obama said soon after the attack had taken place that the attack was an act of terrorism, but he did not really say that it was; on September 12, 2012, Barack Obama did make a statement about acts of terror--not really a statement about the Benghazi attack being a terror attack--in the Rose Garden of the White House, and the sentence that he said is: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." Soon after that attack some people thought that the attack might have been an incident that was set up to give Barack Obama an "October Surprise" (which is something out of the blue that would help him or make him look good right before an election), and the idea was that the attackers were trying to kidnapped the ambassador so that the ambassador could be exchanged for one of their leaders, and the exchange could take place before the election and be attributed to good work done by Barack Obama, but the idea dies because a such a kidnapper would work very hard not to kill the victim if the kidnapper truly wants to give Barack Obama something good to show (but, of course, the attackers could have been people who have no mental restraint and could not help but kill the ambassador if something a little wrong took place). It seems an anti-Islam video was shown on Egyptian television on September 11, 2012, and it may have or may not have been "the video," and then there were protests in Cairo, Egypt, because of the video, but the protesters were not using RPGs against Americans and such in their protest, and although it is well known "the video" did not spark the attack in Benghazi, the showing of a anti-Islam video (maybe "the video") on Egyptian television could have sparked the Barack Obama administration to use the idea that an anti-Islam video was to blame for the attack in Benghazi. Some people might say that the attack was a "spontaneous" event driven by "the video," but a person who hears that thought has to keep in mind "the video" existed for several months before the attack would take place. (By the way, keep in mind, if the attack was a "spontaneous" event, why was there no real protesting by a lot of people at Benghazi before the real attack and why did the attackers have high-powered weapons?) When Nakoula Basseley Nakoula--the man tied to the making of "the video"--was arrested on Thursday, September 27, 2012, it was a big-deal media event, which was like a media circus event, especially as conducted by "liberal" members (such as communist members) of the media and supporters of Barack Obama, and it looked as if many in the media were purposely working to support the Barack Obama administration's push to blame "the video." Some people say that the Barack Obama administration has the belief that terrorism is not so much of a concern since Osama bin Laden was killed, but a person with commonsense should understanding the killing of one terrorist leader is not going to stop terrorism, especially from Islamic radicals and terrorists, which have been doing their work for decades, and, anyway, the British pulled out of Benghazi, Libya, in June 2012, after there had been an assassination attack on a British ambassador (and, by the way, the British left weapons behind at Benghazi that would go missing after the Benghazi attack), and that assassination attempt was public knowledge, and to a person with commonsense, that assassination attempt is certainly only one sign that terrorist attacks in the Middle East are yet very likely, and it seems very unlikely the Barack Obama administration was unaware the assassination attempt had taken place, meaning the Barack Obama administration was well aware terrorist attacks were possible in the future in Benghazi, and yet the Barack Obama administration did not heed calls for extra security from the Americans in Benghazi shortly before the attack would take place.
Here is side information. I do not believe, during the five or so months before the attack, Barack Obama and his associates (such as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) believed a terrorist attack was not very likely to happen at Benghazi, given, for example there had been an assassination attempt on a British ambassador and there had been fighting going on in Syria, and it must be remembered the Barack Obama administration was well aware the Muslim Brotherhood was a terrorist group around the time that the Muslim Brotherhoot got control of Egypt (which on Thursday, November 22, 2012, became a dictatorship when President Mohammad Morsi (of the Muslim Brotherhood) made edicts or decrees like those from a dictator, one of which made all laws and rules from him final and not subject to repeal). [If you ever thought the "Democracy Movement" in Egypt, which was supported and pronounced by the Barack Obama administration, was a move toward "democracy," you are an idiot.]
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012, the real reason why the Barack Obama administration pushed the idea that the video was the spark for the terrorist attack had yet to be known. In fact, on that day, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice was interviewed privately for about an hour by such persons as U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (a Republican related to South Carolina), John McCain (a Republican related to Arizona), and Kelly Ayotte (a Republican related to New Hampshire). Shortly after the meeting was over, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said "...Bottom line, I'm more disturbed now than I was before...." (as was reported in newscasts by America's Radio News, a news entity for radio stations around the country), and U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte said "...Ambassador Rice said today absolutely it [the video having anything to do with the attack) was wrong. I don't understand the CIA said clearly that that information was wrong. And, dah, they knew by the twenty-second [of September] that is was wrong. Yet, they have not cleared that up with the American people to date...." (as was reported in newscast by America's Radio News).
Finally, on January 23, 2013, Hillary Clinton testified before the U.S. Congress about the Benghazi attack incident, and, officially, she testified before U.S. senators of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At one point, U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (a Republican related to Wisconsin) was interviewing Hillary Clinton, and the focus of the interview got to wondering why the video was promoted by the Barack Obama administration as the spark for the attack for quite a while (even though it had been known the video was not the spark), and one of the things that she said is: "...With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they go kill some Americans--what difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from every happening again...." I say that it matters why the Barack Obama administration lied about the video, especially when the Barack Obama administration seemed to take up using the video idea to push for censorship, and I say that it matters that we have yet to understand what Barack Obama was doing during the seven-hour attack. A person can see that, during the interview between Hillary Clinton and U.S. Ron Johnson, Hillary Clinton passed on crap and worked to avoid giving a worthwhile answer, which the American public should learn.
On Thursday, February 7, 2013, U.S. Senators were interviewing some people, such as Leon Panetta, who was leaving his job as U.S. Secretary of Defense, about the Benghazi attack during a U.S. Senate hearing. Through the hearing, the public learned that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not contacted during the entire roughly seven hours of the attack and was not involved in working to get help to the Americans who were under attack. In addition, it was reported that Barack Obama, early in the event, was only reported to with information for about fifteen minutes (at about 5:15 p.m. Eastern Time], and Barack Obama never later was concerned about what was happening. I have five parts of testimony to present to you that show the facts, and I also have other information that you must see, which will show you that Barack Obama is a bad U.S. President, a bad "Commander-in-Chief," who, in essence, let down Americans in battle.
Leon Panetta: "...He [Barack Obama] relied on, ah, on both, ah, myself as Secretary and on General Dempsey's, ah, capabilities. He knows generally, ah, what we've deployed in the region. Ah, we presented that to him in other briefings. So he knew generally what was deployed out there, but, dah, as to specifics about time et cetera et cetera, no he just left that up to us."
U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (a Republican related to New Hampshire): "Did you have any fur, further communications with him that night?
Leon Panetta: "No."
Kelly Ayotte: "Did you have any other further communications, did he ever call you that night to say--How are things going, ah, what's going on, where's the consulate?"
Leon Panetta: "No. But, ah, we were, we were aware as we were getting information on what was taking place there, ah, particularly when, ah, we got information that, dah, the ambassador, ah, his, his life had been lost, ah, we, we, we were aware that information went to the White House."
Kelly Ayotte: "Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?"
Leon Panetta: "No."
Kelly Ayotte: "No one else called you to say--Wha, wh, how are things going?"
Leon Panetta: "No."
Kelly Ayotte: "Okay. And, um, since then, has the President asked you--Why weren't we able to get, ah, in light of this second attack that occurred seven-hours later, ah, armed assets there in order to help those who were left and attacked in the annex?"
Leon Panetta: "Th, The Pres, the President has made, dah, very clear to both myself and General Dempsey that, ah, with regards to, ah, future threats we, we have got to be able to, ah, deploy forces in a position where we more can rapidly respond."
Kelly Ayotte: "But just to be clear, that night he didn't ask you, ah--What assets we had available and how quickly they could respond and what we could.... "
Leon Panetta: "No."
Kelly Ayotte: "...do to help those individuals?"
Leon Panetta: "...The biggest problem that night, Senator, was that nobody knew what really was going on there." [Note: I say that they knew because the consulate was being watched in real time in Washington, D.C., and that means Leon Panetta lied here.]
"Kelly Ayotte: "And there was no follow up during the night at least from the White House directly?"
Leon Panetta: "No."
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (a Republican related to Texas): "...In between 9:42 p.m. Benghazi Time, when the first attack started, and 5:15 a.m., when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what conversations did, did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?"
Leon Panetta: "Ah, we, we did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton."
Ted Cruz: "...And, General Dempsey, the same is true for you?"
Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey nodded his head affirmatively.
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (South Carolina): "...Was any DOD asset--aircraft or individual soldier--ever sent, put in motion to help these people before the attack was over?"
Leon Panetta: "Wel, well, if I could...as, as soon we knew there was an attack, the national mission force and the advanced teams began...."
Lindsey Graham: "My question is--Did anybody leave any base anywhere to go to the aid of the people under attack in Benghazi, Libya, before the attack ended?"
Leon Panetta: "No. Because, ah, the attack ended before...."
Lindsey Graham: "Thank you...."
Leon Panetta: "...they could get off the ground."
Lindsey Graham: "...Okay, and we didn't know how long it would last?"
General Martin Dempsey (answering a question from U.S. Senator John McCain (a Republican related to Arizona): "Because never never received a request to do so [to send people], number one. And number two...."
John McCain: "Never heard of, of the Ambassador Stevens' repeated warnings about...."
Dempsey: "I had, sir, through, though General Ham. But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put..."
John McCain: "...So, it's the State Department's fault?"
Dempsey: "I'm not blaming the State Department...."
Lindsey Graham: "...So, when Secretary Clinton testified a few weeks ago that she had clear-eyed assessment of the threat we faced in Libya, is that really a credible statement, if she didn't know about the ambassador's cable on August the fifteen, saying we can't defend this place?"
Dempsey: "Well, I don't know she didn't know about the cable."
Lindsey Graham: "Well, she didn't."
Dempsey: "Then, that's a...."
Lindsey Graham: "Are you stunned that she didn't?"
Dempsey: "Ah, I would call myself surprised that she'd didn't."
The five interview parts that I present in text versions come from audio clips that I got while listening to the nationally syndicated radio show called The Mark Levin Show on February 7, 2013, though I had heard the audio clips earlier in the day (when I was doing long-distance traveling in Michigan), and while Mark R. Levin was presenting the audio clips, he talked about some things that you should keep in mind. For one, Mark R. Levin said--"...I'm telling you right now, as somebody who worked for Ronald Reagan [when Ronald Reagan the U.S. President], Reagan would have known what assets are out there, how quickly can we act. Go protect those. Do whatever the hell you have to do...." In addition, Mark R. Levin said: "...A U.S. Navy carrier group was three-hundred miles of Libya shore. Three-hundred miles--that's all! Fast-moving jets could have easily be there [to Benghazi] in little over an hour. They weren't sent...." Also, Mark R. Levin said--"...I'll repeat this one more time. Only the President can authorize a cross-border military operation--that is, the sending of military forces into another country. And the Bin Laden case is an example...."
On October 26, 2012, a KUSA-TV reporter (Kyle Clark) was able to question Barack Obama about the Benghazi attack, and based on the five parts of interviews that I have just given, you can see that Barack Obama lied on that day about the Benghazi incident and what he did. On February 7, 2013, Mark R. Levin reminded listeners of what Barack Obama said to Kyle Clark and the American public by playing a portion of what Kyle Clark said and what Barack Obama said. Study what the two men said (as given in text form):
Kyle Clark: "...Were they [the people in Benghazi] denied requests for help during the attack?"
Barack Obama: "Well, we are, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you as I've said, ah, over the last, ah, ah, couple of months, since this happened, that, the minute I find out, found out was going on I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we're gonna investigate exactly what happened to make sure it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring 'em to justice. And, you know, I guarantee ya that everybody in the State Department, our military, ah, CIA, you name it, ah, had number-one priority making sure that, ah, people were safe...."
So, what the United States of America has is a man as the U.S. President--and a Commander-in-Chief--who cannot be trusted by Americans, especially U.S. military personnel. All the persons in the military--black personnel, white personnel, Asian personnel, Hispanic personnel, Native American personnel, et cetera--have a leader who has shown he cares nothing for this troops and he will let them die in battle, which is a "first" and is "historic" for a U.S. President. In essence, Barack Obama killed the Americans in Benghazi, Libya, by doing nothing!
Remember: When a man does nothing during the time of a bad event, even though it is his duty to to have done something since it fits his job description, the man's inaction can be seen as at the very least dereliction of duty, and if the man purposely avoided doing anything, the man's enaction can be a sign of something really bad, such as an enemy of the country.
P.S. #1: Since I know Barack Obama's actions of his term as the U.S. President and since I know how big federal laws that he signed into law are going to purposely hurt the country and citizens--mentally and physically--I am getting to the point of pronouncing in a document that there is a killer in the White House--Barack Hussein Obama.
P.S. #2: Sometimes, television reporters have to present to viewers information about things, especially bad things tied to politicians, in ways that are not normal, and one way is to present a source of information--an informant of some type--in silhouette, and the presentation may include disguising the voice of the source of information, and the presentation is done to, for example, protect the health of the source of information. On April 20, 2012, Fox News--particularly a reporter named Adam Housley--offered viewers a news report (the first of a three-part series) that had a "special operator" or "special ops" member talking about the Benghazi incident, and the "special op" member, who was a man, had his identity concealed. A person who saw the report should have come up with the idea that it seems the "special ops" member was worried about being harmed by high-ranking members of the U.S. military, which could include Barack Obama (who is the "Commander-in-Chief" of the military). Some of what the "special ops" member said is: "...I know for a fact that C-110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise not in, in the, the region of northern Africa but in Europe, and they had the ability to react and respond...." and "...We have the ability to load out, get on birds, and fly there at a minimum stage. C-110 have the ability to be there--in my opinion--in four to six hours from their European theater to react." and "They would have been there before the second attack. Ah, they would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that could facilitate their exit out of the, ah, problem, ah, situation. Nobody knew how it was goin' to develop. And you hear a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of advisors say--Hey, we wouldn't have sent them there because, you know, the security was unknown situation." and "If it's an unknown situation, at a minimum you send forces there to facilitate the exit or medical injuries. We could have sent a C-130 to Benghazi to provide medical evacuation for the injured...." and "...The problem is, you know, you got guys in my position, you got guys in, in special operations community who are, are still active, still involved, and they would be decapitated if, if they came forward with in, information that could affect high-level, um, commanders...." [Housley, Adam. "Special forces could've responded to Benghazi attack, whistle-blower tells Fox News." FoxNews.com, 30 April 2013.]
[Note: on April 30, 2013, Barack Obama had a press conference, and he was asked about Benghazi and the idea that people are being threatened into not talking, and Barack Obama said: "...And I'm not familiar with this notion that, dah, that anybody's been blocked from testifying. So, ah, what I'll do is I will find out what exactly you're referring to. Ah, o, what I've been very clear about from the start is that, ah, our job with respect to Benghazi has been to find out exactly what happened to make sure that U.S. embassies not just in, in, ah, the Middle East but around the world are safe and secure, ah, and to bring those who carried it out to justice. Ah, but I'll find out, ah, what exactly you're referring to...."]
P.S. #3: Finally, on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, hearings about the "Benghazi Killings Scandal" were started in the U.S. Congress, particularly the U.S. House of Representatives (which is controlled by Republicans), and during this first day of hearings (held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform), a featured witness was Gregory Hicks (then the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya at the time of the attack and the second-highest-ranking U.S. government official Libya at the time of the attack), and Gregory Hicks confirmed that, for example, the president of Libya labeled the attack as an "attack with possible terror links" (officially saying in response to the question about the topic--"Yes, Sir, that's what I recall.") and confirmed the president of Libya did not mention anything about a spontaneous protest linked to a "video" (officially saying in response to the question about the topic--"No, Sir!). In response to a question focusing on how Susan Rice went on American television the Sunday following the attack and blamed the attack on a "video," Gregory Hicks said--"I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed." In addition, Gregory Hicks noted that, although he had been the second-highest-ranking U.S. government official in Libya at the time of the attack, Susan Rice never talked when him about the attack before she went on American television on the Sunday following the attack.
[Note: I leave the job of reporting all that took place at the hearings on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, to other persons, such as those who might write books about the "Benghazi Killings Scandal," and there is much to tell, such as the proof of lies told by Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton.]
P.S. #4: I urge you to see T.H.A.T. #121, which opens by showing some testimony given before the Oversight Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives by Brig. General Robert Lowell on Thursday, May 1, 2014, and to reach the document, use this link: T.H.A.T. #121.
P.S. #5: On Thursday, October 22, 2015, a special committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, a committee chaired by Trey Gowdy (a Republican related to South Carolina), had Hillary Clinton (a Democrat) as an interviewee, and the topic of the interview was the Benghazi incident, and during the incident, Hillary Clinton was proven to be a liar and a rotten woman. For example, at one point, U.S. Representative Jim Jordan (a Republican related to Ohio) was interviewing Hillary Clinton, and Jim Jordan noted in a process to present a question to Hillary Clinton that, within hours of the attack on the Americans in Benghazi, the "experts" knew the truth that the video was not the cause and that the attack was a terrorist attack and her spokesperson knew the truth that the video was not the cause and that the attack was a terrorists attack and that she she knew the truth. While Hillary Clinton looked at some evidence, Jim Jordan said--"...You're looking at an email that you sent to your family. Here is what you said. 'Eleven o'clock that night'--approximately one hour after you told the American people it was a video, you said to your family--'Two officers were'--were--'killed in Benghazi by an al-Qaeda-like group...' You tell, you tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story.". Yet another thing that Jim Jordan said was--"And, finally--and most significantly--the next day within twenty-four hours--you had a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister. You told him this--'We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.'". When Jim Jordan was done presenting the lead-up material to the question and the question, Hillary Clinton answered with--"Well, if I think you look at the statement that I made, I clearly said that it was an attack, and I also said that there were some who tried to justify....". Hillary Clinton answered with crap! Keep in mind--Hillary Clinton was conducting business through emails around the time of the attack in Benghazi, because email-evidence was talked about by Jim Jordan. Also during the interview process, Susan W. Brooks (a Republican related to Indiana) got to ask Hillary Clinton questions, and Susan W. Smith brought up the idea that Hillary Clinton--a U.S. Secretary State--was not able to be contacted through email, according to Hillary Clinton, and, for instance, Hillary Clinton gave this answer at one point during the procedings--"Well, Congresswoman, I did not conduct most of the business that I did on behalf of our country on email. I conducted it in meetings. I read, ah, massive amounts of memos, great deal of classified information. I made a lot of secured phone calls. I was in and out of the White House all the time. There were a lot of things that happened that, ah, I was aware of and that I was reacting to. If you were to be in my office in the State Department, I did not have a computer....". I note that history shows that Hillary Clinton had a special computer server set up in a residence, and, in fact, before the interviewing of Hillary Clinton was done on October 22, 2015, there had been fights between committee-investigation entities of the U.S. House of Representatives and Hillary Clinton to have Hillary Clinton turn over the server to the U.S. House of Representatives and make emails on that server available to the persons of the committee-investigation entities, and history shows that Hillary Clinton did indeed use the server for government business. It is publicly known that emails from Hillary Clinton's server have disappeared. And a smart person knows a politician who purposely avoids conducting business by email through a government system (though the person is a person who does use email) or sets up things so that the politician can avoid using the government-email system is very likely to be a person with underhanded or corrupt intentions, hoping to hide from the public what would certainly be considered rotten behavior or even criminal behavior.
"Benghazi Hearing: Gregory Hicks Describes Consulate Attack" (video). ABC News, 8 May 2013.
"EXCLUSIVE: Special Ops, Benghazi Whistleblower Claims Obama Could Have Intervened." Fox Nation, 30 April 2013.
"The Fog of Benghazi." The Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2012, 6:41 p.m. ET.
"Israeli tanks, troops move toward Gaza." Detroit Free Press, 16 November 2012, p. 2A.
"Panetta knew of attack 50 minutes in." Detroit Free Press, 10 November 2012, p. 2A.
"Petraeus resigns as CIA chief after affair." Detroit Free Press, 10 November 2012, p. 6A.
"US security 'cut' before Benghazi consulate attack." BBC News, 10 October 2012, 19:29 ET.
Ackerman, Spencer, and Noah Shachtman. "Feds Hired British Security Firm to Protect Benghazi Consulate." Wired, 09.17.12, 2:38 p.m.
Bader, Hans. "Disturbing Calls For Censorship In America By Professors, Jounalists, U.S. Diplomats, And Egyptian Government." Openmarket.org (of Compeitive Enterprise Institute), 13 September 2012.
Chomiak, Catherine. "US spends $70,000 on Pakistan ad denouncing anti-Muslim film." NBCNewscom, 20 September 2012, 5:20 p.m. EDT.
CNN Wire Staff. "CNN Fact Check: A day after Libya atack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror.'" CNN.com, 17 October 2012, 12:30 p.m. EDT.
Dorell, Oren. "Petraeus said CIA saw Benghazi attack as terrorism." USA Today, 17 November 2012, 6:53 a.m. ET.
Elliott, Steve. "USDA uses Spanish soap operas to push food stamps among non-citizens, citizens [AUDIO]." The Daily Caller, 12 July 2012, 12:39 a.m.
French, David. "Benghazi: Don't Fall for the Misdirection." National Review Online, 2 November 2012, 12:23 p.m.
Dozier, Kimberly, and Nedra Pickler. "White House withheld terror info on Libya, Petraeus says." Detroit Free Press, 17 November 2012, p. 2A.
Griffin, Jennifer. "EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say." FoxNews.com, 26 October 2012.
Housley, Adam. "Special forces could've responded to Benghazi attack, whistle-blower tells Fox News." FoxNews.com, 30 April 2013.
Kiely, Eugene. "Benghazi Timeline: The long road from 'spontaneous protest' to premeditated terrorist attack." FactCheck.org, 26 October 2012 (updated November 6, 2012).
Kelly, Kevin J. "US embassy bombing in Kenya haunts Rice." Daily Nation, 29 November 2012, 02:51.
Kim, Victoria, and Jessica Garrison. "Filmmaker behind anti-Islam video is arrested." Los Angeles Times, 28 September 2012.
Levine, Mike. "Petraeus resigns after affair with biographer turned up in FBI probe, ox News confirms." FOXNews.com, 9 November 2012.
McCormack, John. "Obama Admin Outsourced U.S. Security to British Contractors." The Weekl Standard, 1 October 2012,10:54 a.m.
Michael, Maggie, and Aya Batrawy. "Egyptians clash over president's moves." Detroit Free Press, 24 November 2012, p. 2A.
Osborne, David. "Obama team 'to blame for Benghazi embassy deaths.'" The Independent (the United Kingdom), 11 October 2012.
Pecquet, Julie. "Sen. Collins 'troubled' by Rice comments in Benghazi attack." The Hill, 28 November 2012, 12:02 p.m. ET.
Pfarrer, Chuck. "Why Benghazi Matters." Breitbart.com, 18 October 2012.
Pillai, Geetha. "Barack Obama Counsels Israel Restraint as Benjamin Netanyahu Threatens Wider Gaza Offensive." International Business Times, 15 November 2012, 6:45 a.m. GMT.
Sanchez, Raf. "Libya: British guns unaccounted for after Benghazi consulate attack." The Telegraph (the United Kingdom), 11 October 2012, 4:40 p.m. BST.
Volakh, Eugene. "Prof. Peter Spiro on Why 'Hate Speech' Should Be 'Ban[ned]' in the U.S.--and how It Might Be Done, Using International Law." The Volokh Conspiracy, 13 September 2012, 11:27 a.m.
Note: On Saturday, November 17, 2012, I saw the YouTube-available video called "Fox News Extensive Report On The Benghazi Cover-Up By the Obama Administration," which had been posted on YouTube by 68Truthseeker (on September 22, 2012, at 7:50 p.m.) and which was a Fox News Channel report.
Note: On Saturday, November 17, 2012, I saw the YouTube-available video called "Obama Linked to Benghazi Attack," which had been posted on YouTube by WCJournalims (on October 25, 2012) and which was a report from www.westernjournalism.com (or The Western Center fdor Journalism, which had been founded in 1991).
Note: On Saturday, November 17, 2012, I saw the YouTube-available video called "White House Covers Up Benghazi Terrorist Attack" (featuring the reporter known as Bret Baier), which had been posted on YouTube by Daniel Frawley (on October 10, 2012) and which was a Fox News Channel report.
Note: This document was originally posted on the Internet on November 10, 2012.
Note: This document is known on the Internet as www.hologlobepress.com/benghazi.htm.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Fairness?: A Guide
for the Individual Woman and the
Individual Man in the United States
of America, which can be reached by
using this link: Fairness.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Conservatism for
Children and What Conservatism Means,
which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Madness in a President
and Other Matters of a Defective Mind,
which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see my
document entitled Nonsense Statements
and Quotations of Barack Obama, which
can be reached by using this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Never Forget These
Media "Darlings" ?: A Guide for the
Individual in the United States of
America, which can be reached by
using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled A Little History of
Barack Obama Events: A Show of
Deconstruction, which can be reached by
using this link: History.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Lessons for Children
about Politics and Dangerous People,
which can be reached by using this
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled The Next Elections:
What Has to be Done to Protect the
United States of America, which can
be reached by using this link: Elections.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled World Tyranny:
Warnings about the Insane Who are
Trying to Create a Communist World
Country, which can be reached by
using this link: World.
Note: Many other documents exist at the
Web site for The Hologlobe Press that will
give you information about the bad that Barack
Obama and his associates are doing to the
United States of America, such as the Michigan
Travel Tips documents and the T.H.A.T.
documents that have been published since
the fall of 2008.
To get to the Site-Summary Page for The
Site-Summary Page for The Hologlobe
Press, you may use this link: Summary.
To get to the main page for The Hologlobe
Press, you may click on this link now: