Replies

I don’t think for a minute the cover-up had to do with enabling Obama to continue his election run-up mantra that “we have al-Qaida on the run”. When America is attacked, the people rally around the president, he could have reacted in a way that would have enhanced his chances for re-election. There’s something far more important to obscure here, perhaps sinister, perhaps not, so we should be very careful that we’re not being set up.

I have some different questions:

1-What could be so important to accomplish, that it would unite Hillary, Obama, and General Petraeus, all of whom have lied about this, Hillary under oath?

2-Why would weapons need to be funneled to Syrian rebels in a clandestine manner, when our President is contemplating openly today, to do the same thing?

3-Doing harm to whom, would have brought Petraeus in on the plan?

4-We now know that non-Libyans were brought in to carry out the attack. Who then, sent them?

5-It surprises no one that Hillary and Obama would lie, I can think of only one reason Petraeus would lie-national security. So who were we going to send those weapons to?

6-It defies imagination that the 30 survivors could be “muzzled” even by this administration. They were “in the loop” on the plan, could it be they’re not talking for the same reason Petraeus is lying?

7-If Turkey was involved, why does Syria have to be the only destination for the weapons being considered?

8-If the target regime discovered our plan, wouldn’t this explain the attack on the ambassador? Wouldn’t it also explain why the adminstration, after being informed our ambassador was dead, felt that the hostilities would cease, as the objective of our enemy was met, and the White House knew it?

9-For Hillary to say “what does it matter”, isn’t it an indication that there’s still a trump card to play?

10-Those who will testify Wednesday were not in the loop, and they’re all from the State Dept. Again, the survivors were largely CIA, and not one of them is coming forward. How can this be when they were the ones whose lives were endangered?

I just can’t get it out of my head that Petraeus was on board with whatever they were doing, and he was willing to lie to help the cover-up. I don’t believe this is a man who would lie for political reasons, but national security is another story. It’s entirely possible that Petraeus was lured to CIA because of the magnitude of the project. The appointment never made sense to anyone, and this may explain it, it’s something he wanted to be a part of.