Obama White House Sharpens Blade Upon The Neck Of Clinton State Department

A highly defensive and finger pointing David Axelrod pushed off claims President Obama knew the real story of the Benghazi Massacre before the president and his administration repeatedly told the American people and members of Congress otherwise.  The question now appears to be who within the State Department will be given up as the sacrifricial lamb – all in the effort to insulate Barack Obama himself from any and all responsibility for the deaths of four Americans -  including the first U.S. ambassador to be killed since the Carter administration.

During on interview with Fox News this morning, Axelrod first further defined what Vice President Joe Biden said earlier this week when remarking  “we didn’t know they wanted more security” – a reference to multiple requests by American Benghazi personnel asking for enhanced security measures to be implemented in the months and weeks prior to the Benghazi Massacre on September 11th.  Those requests were either refused or ignored by the Obama administration.  Regarding that point, David Axelrod made it clear the blame is to be placed upon the State Department and not the Obama White House itself:

“These were judgments that were made by security folks at the State Department.”

I await information from inside sources regarding the current relationship between the Clintons and Team Obama.  Surely this relationship is far more divisive and untrusting than just a few weeks ago.






551 days ago by in News | You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
About the

Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. -G. Washington

32 Comments to Obama White House Sharpens Blade Upon The Neck Of Clinton State Department
      • Perceptible Future
      • US ELECTION: Clintons & Obama at daggers drawn as Romney lead hardens.

        Lucky bounce for Romney as Top Ten polls show him three points ahead.

        A bitter feud is going on between State and the White House as to who gets the lion’s share of blame for the death of Ambassador Steven in Benghazi. And Bill Clinton is rushing to the aid of his embattled wife.

        Relations between Barack Obama’s White House and Hillary Clinton’s State Department my be about to rupture publicly over the growing Benghazi scandal….and thus damage Obama’s re-election chances further. Some pollsters last week had Romney gaining 5 pts following the first candidates’ debate.

        Former President Bill Clinton is apparently so concerned about White House moves to dump responsibility for the Libyan atrocities onto Hillary, he has hired a team of lawyer and media volunteers to work all hours on protecting his wife’s reputation. Sourced close to the Clintons suggest he may advise the Secretary of State to threaten resignation now if the Obama administration tries to make her the fall guy for Benghazi.

        This isn’t just paranoia on Slick Willy’s part. Last Friday, the White House press secretary Jay Carney, when asked if Obama and Biden knew security was lax in Libya, suggested they didn’t by observing that “matters of security personnel are appropriately discussed and decided upon at the State Department by those responsible for it.”

        This came just 24 hours after Vice President Joe Biden flatly stated that the Obama administration did not know U.S. interests in Libya needed more security before the attacks.

        What has been a long running Clinton-Obama feud. It dates back to the 2008 Democratic Convention, when Obama’s advisers only narrowly managed to persuade the cocksure Obama that Bill Clinton needed a prominent role at the convention.

        It heated up a few weeks back when Bill – on hearing that Obama was being over-confident about his first Romney debate – placed a phone call offering to give the President some advice. The Black Dude didn’t return the call. Clinton’s astonishment quickly turned to anger and suspicion when the White House started briefing against Hillary.

        If the Romney team can grasp this opportunity, and suggest that a political civil war is getting in the way of US foreign policy at a crucial time, then the challenger could open up his lead further still.

        “Neither [Democratic] camp has anything to gain from this,” says a trusted Washington source, “be that Obama now or Hillary in 2016. If she even threatened to resign now, Romney would pick up votes on the basis that the President’s foreign policy would’ve lost it’s rigour. But Obama’s antennae are not, shall we say, the best in town.”

        The arrogance of Barack Obama in private is rapidly becoming the stuff of legend, a trait thus far kept out of the public eye and hugely softened by the open, relaxed style of his wife. But to date in this campaign, the President has not handled things well against an opponent who, until a fortnight ago, was heading for the political footnotes.

        On the other hand, the Romney team tends to fumble the ball time after time, and Mitt’s bold promise to up the Middle East ante may prove to be a double-edged sword in a country becoming more isolationist by the month.

        Meanwhile, the release of the latest Gallup poll yesterday (Saturday) confirmed an average 3% lead for Romney in all ten national surveys. This clean sweep represents a come-back of stunning proportions. With the Obama team very much on the back foot, the last thing the White House needs now is self-inflicted damage.


        • VTX
        • Note: Obama doesn’t return calls; he’s like a kid who has to be prodded endlessly by mom to send a thankyou note to Granny for that swell sweater. That’s also what people have been saying about him on the Hill, but it has never gotten such wide notice as when he wasn’t able to say anything to Mitt’s face, waiting instead for a day to pass to reply to Romney.

          Conclusion: Obama is a coward. Or maybe a coweird is a better spelling.

    • Jim Daly
    • We didn’t know they wanted extra security, we didn’t know what happened during the attack, the president went off to Vegas, we told the wrong story for two weeks, when we did know we continued with the lie to the American people and at the United Nations. I’m not sure saying ‘we didn’t know, we weren’t told by State’ doesn’t sound better than the truth.

    • Essa
    • These two quotes fit right in with the current election strategy and narrative in order for Zero and his handlers to gain a 2nd term in office.

      “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” – Adolf Hitler

      “It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them.” – Adolf Hitler

    • Obeline
    • It would appear everyone in this treasonous administration bears responsibility one way or another – from the White House all the way through the cabinet and agencies.

      What about Huma? Where does she REALLY fit in?

      • e. scott
      • just-saying, The Axle probably called and begged FOX to let him on (behind Obama’s back, mind you.) because he knows that none of us would see him on the lame stream “news?” reports. He trolling.

    • charlotte
    • TWO THINGS: this is the real scandal:

      Obama and /Hillary got the February 17 Martyrs Brigade to provide security for the embassy. BUT: Meanwhile, Ansar al Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law”), the al-Qaida-linked militia believed to have led the consulate assault in September, is a spinoff of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, but that didn’t scratch the lacquered political surface, either. And even as reports remind us of ties among February 17 Martyrs Brigade leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood and the web of jihad-poison spun by Qatar’s Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Libya’s Ali al-Salabi — the latter having been tapped by the Qatari dictatorship to distribute $2 billion to Libyan “rebels” — the focal point remains elsewhere.”

    • AmericaTheBeautiful
    • TTLG? Can you comment on Hitler’s Doppelgänger? Why does Axelrod close his eyes for too long, seemingly cringing at certain question but beyond that…The odd belching? The serpents tongue thrust? Just bizzare….Is there such a thing as tells of evil? Possession? The facial tics, burping and repulsive tongue motions on Axe are certainly weird and I notice them whenever Axelrod is interviewed .and .not only on Fox.

      Will there be another debate ? Sympathy card being played….?


      Will they distract from the upcoming debate..which Obama cannot possibly handle without a TelePrompTer by some nutty threat? Yes, says LameCherry

      • truthandjustice
      • Re Axel – I’ve studied “demonology” (demons and the manifestations in people they possess, etc.) and indeed, they can exhibit the particular characteristics of that demon. One of the most common is from the one that is like a “snake” – have been documented cases where they will “hiss”, do the tongue thing, etc. No kidding folks. Of course most of the time they keep themselves from manifesting like that and “hide”. My personal opinion is, whether those manifestations are from a demon, I don’t have much doubt that he and all the rest of them are “possessed”. When I say they have demonic ideas, etc., I mean it literally.
        I also wonder about the upcoming debate. Interesting to see what happens. But I’d guess they are at least contemplating some way to avoid it. Getting more and more desperate and time running out – polls looking bad for him, as is about everything re him and the Admin. Now we can say to not only expect the unexpected, expect the expected.

        • Essa
        • Axelrod looked like an evil ghostly apparition. I don’t know if that was a camera issue or are we seeing true evil right on our screen. Zero and his closest allies all have eerily similar demonic looks about them, with the most prominent examples being David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Eric Holder, who all look like they have been possessed by demons and all look snake like in appearance.

        • truthandjustice
        • Yes, all of them….they are/were probably all laughing themselves silly about how they have duped the American people so greatly, with their “useful idiots”, while the truth is they are the ones that have been the useful idiots for the hordes of demons doing satan’s bidding…….

          • Jules
          • Mooch does have eye problems. Her right eye, her whole right brow too, droops. She must use temporary “lifting” skin products or have had a small facelift surgery, but I think the former.

            Her left eye has scleral show. You can see too much white of the eye between the iris and the lower lid.


            In any case, the whole gang is really creepy, whether they can help it or not.

            • ThroughtheLookingGlass
            • She may have had that fixed since the picture was taken. Scan through the images of her…she’s had what looks like quite a bit of work done on her face. Not all can be fixed with 22 personal servants to work hair and makeup magic on her!

      • VTX
      • Did you see Devil’s Advocate, the movie?

        I’ve made several references to the movie in past posts – and the demon-faces that appear from time-to-time in the movie on various characters’ faces are…straight from this administration. Jarrett and Axelrod and the First Chupacabra especially, but Obama too – especially when it looked like a demon was peering out from behind his eyes, and smoke was about to pour out of his ears in one segment of the debate.

      • ThroughtheLookingGlass
      • AtB: The Rat squints to narrow his perception of CW in order to minimize CW in his mind, to narrow the field of vision and keep CW in focus, to zero in on him. The slow blinking– closing the eyes–I think is an unconscious movement to ‘read’ the manuscript he has imprinted in his mind’s eye, as if he has a photographic memory, checking to make sure he’s covered all the lines in his script. The tongue movement is almost like licking his lips? are they dry or is he savoring the lies he’s swallowing? Or is his tongue flicking like a lizard’s tongue, used as a sensory device? At one point it was like he was spitting out the words…on the tip of his tongue. Or is he trying to lick that sour taste/bitter words (lies) out of his mouth? Then there are the lies he’s swallowing hard and trying not to choke on. Or is it the rancid foul taste of his words that he’s belching back up? Most of the time when Wallace asked him a question, he would nod like a bobble-head doll then quickly go into his propaganda narrative of bringing the perps to justice, get to the bottom of this investigation and “make the necessary adjustments” which translates to “we’ll spin this to our benefit regardless what the investigation reveals.” The rest of his interview was a spin of not answering the questions, presenting Barry as the quintessential president doing everything he can to bring this crime to justice (meaning absolving himself of all guilt) and blaming Romney for being Romney and bringing this to the attention of the world when he (The Rat) would rather they sweep it under the rug. If they don’t talk about it, it is as if it didn’t happen, but if it did happen, then it must be someone else’s fault. So he closes his eyes to block out what he doesn’t want to see, swallows the bitter truth in order to lie (speak with forked tongue) while nodding to give the illusion that he is in complete agreement with Wallace and doing Wallace a favor by talking with him.

        When he touched his nose–he’s making a point to reinforce what he says in a dismissive way. The verbal pauses (ahhhhh’s, uhhhhh’s, aaaaaaaands) are place holders while he searches for what he wants to say. This is all about politics. He is making Romney’s statements of interest and concern about Libya a ‘political’ issue, while Barry’s main concern is “to get to the bottom of it as a personal responsibility.” That is what he is saying. But his mannerisms, gestures and ‘tics’ say just the opposite. Four times he brought up making whatever ‘adjustments are necessary’. He scripted his words and memorized his talking points to belabor and repeat. Several times he did the slow blink/closed his eyes (to conceal an annoyed eye roll, perhaps?) pursed his lips and flicked his tongue while nodding in a condescending way, as if to say “do I really have to listen to you/answer these questions. He was there, not to be interviewed but to spout talking points and reinforce the memes. He was sent out to cover Barry’s ass, promote the lies and avoid the issues. He didn’t answer a direct question! More than once his slow blink and nod seemed more like a punctuation to what he said, as if cuing Wallace for his next question. More than once, he seemed almost like he was going to sleep while Wallace was asking a question, the lowered eyelids, the nodding of his head, sticking out his tongue. He seemed almost bored. I think he was grimmacing to dismiss what Wallace was asking before he opened his mouth while thinking of the same lines/lies to repeat in response. When greeted at the beginning, he shook his head while saying “it’s nice to be here.” Of course he’s lying. His mouth is moving! Do not forget that Axelrodent is the Propaganda Minister.

        Did I answer your questions? I watched the video link twice and then caught the repeat of Fox News Sunday. I can’t stand the Rat. He has ‘devious’ and ‘duplicitous’ written all over him. I think he is repulsive…not sure about possessed…but obsessive and manipulative, for sure. And creepy, weird, untrustworthy. These are my impressions and opinions. Don’t know if they are accurate…more intuitive, FWIW.

    • charlotte
    • Questions on Benghazi
      By Jennifer Rubin

      Where is CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus? He seems to be the missing man in the unfolding Benghazi debacle. It is his agency, among others, which is being fingered by the White House for getting the Libya attack wrong. However, we know that within a very short time after the murder of our ambassador (an extraordinary occurrence) and others, our intelligence community did have the story straight: This was an organized al-Qaeda attack. Is he to preside over a witchhunt? Or is he, who to date has been one of the most respected national security officials, going to be instrumental in shining light on the Libya fiasco and thereby truly serving the national interest and the memory of those killed?

      That’s one of the many pending questions bubbling over in the Libya scandal. But we finally be getting some answers. On Friday Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold hearings on the Benghazi debacle. Those hearings can’t come a moment too soon. The questions are multiplying:

      1. When, if ever, did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton become aware that there was a request for more security in Benghazi before 9-11-2012?

      2. Who participated in briefing Ambassador Susan Rice before she went on the Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16?

      3. Was the White House aware of the August Library of Congress report documenting the deteriorating security situation in Libya?

      4. Was the Libya security situation included in any presidential briefings?

      5. Did the CIA within a day or so determine there had been a planned terrorist attack? What did it do with this information? Why did President Obama continue to insist the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim movie?

      6. When did the president learn there was no mob in Benghazi protesting the film?

      7. Who reviewed the president’s U.N. speech delivered on Sept. 25, wherein he continued to connect the attack and the anti-Muslim film?

      8. When was the State Department’s Charlene Lamb, who followed the attack in real time, questioned about what she knew? Who did that, and what happened to that information?

      9. Why didn’t National Security Adviser Tom Donilon ensure that the president and other senior officials had up to-date information on the attack?

      10. And, as we started, why has Petraeus not stepped forward to defend his agency, make clear we knew promptly that this was an organized terrorist attack and correct the misrepresentations by political leaders?

      • truthandjustice
      • Re Petraeus, in case you missed it on previous thread, I posted this:

        “Two weeks ago, I wondered whether CIA Director Petraeus was politicizing the intelligence after a source told Fox News on September 27 that three days after the Benghazi assault, Petraeus briefed the House Intelligence Committee that “Benghazi was an out-of-control demonstration prompted by the YouTube video. According to the source, this was `shocking’ to some members who were present and saw the same intelligence pointing toward a terrorist attack.”

        Knowing Petraeus’ sensitivities to the faux-stimulus of what he has called in Senate testimony “Arab anger,” such politicization, or, perhaps better, such Arabizing of the intelligence would likely come naturally to him. No stranger to politicking, Petraeus as CENTCOM commander engaged in what was described as an “unprecedented” political push in early 2010 on behalf of Islam’s Israel-centered demonology in order to enhance Americas’s military standing in Iraq and Afghanistan. This dovetailed neatly with his perhaps surprising take on Gitmo — close it, its “existence has been used by the enemy against us” – and his really shocking take on Hezbollah: “Hezbollah’s justifications for existence will become void,” Petraeus told the Al Hayat as reported in the Lebanese Daily Star, “if the Palestinian cause is resolved.” Given this Arabist sensibility (and don’t forget one of his thesis directors at Princeton was Stephen Walt of Walt & Mearsheimer), it’s no stretch to imagine the man taking up cry of Islamic video-rage as well.

        Now, with so many of the adminstration’s bald lies about Benghazi being exposed, PJ Tatler’s Bryan Preston is asking not whether Petraeus was politicizing the intell, but whether he is “among the sources of the Benghazi deception.”

        In a post called “You Know Who Still Hasn’t Called Benghazi a Terrorist Attack?” Preston reprises some of Petraeus’ appeasement of Koran Rage back in Afghanistan. Preston also notes that several senators sent a letter on October 9 to Petraeus, DNI Clapper and White House CT advisor John Brennan asking for a specific timeline on the Benghazi intelligence They haven’t received an answer.”


        Unfortunately, think we have another “problem person” ……..

    • Paloma
    • Nero Zero fiddled while Romeghazi burned. He is still fiddling, dodging, lying and covering up. Covering up facts, videos and timelines that the public desperately needs to know about this charlatan. What about the report that there was a drone overhead in Benghazi, taking pictures of the action below? Has anyone seen the film? And the fact that this morning Brit Hume nailed Chris Wallace, asking how it happened that Ambassador Rice got onto the Sunday shows, to cover for Obama – who coordinated that? Was it the White House?

      Wallace said yes. Bingo.

      Zero, his thugs and the media are lying, trying to cover for him, and pointing fingers in every direction except in the direction of the real culprit. How much more will this traitorous bunch be allowed to get away with, before they completely dismantle America?

      Obama has Valjar, (with close ties to Iran) – faux president #2, who is apparently ‘in charge’ while he is campaigning and fund raising. Hiliary has Huma Abedin, also with very close ties to Iran and the Muslim Bros. Enough is enough.

      • ThroughtheLookingGlass
      • Barry is asleep at the wheel. He only gets the info, intel, briefs, memos that Valdemort forwards to him during the 15 minute show and tell first thing in the morning. Period. Valdemort runs that White House. Where is Barry’s Chief of Staff in all this? Hiding from Valdemort? As for Donilon & Brennan…weren’t they the ones targeted for the leaks that came out about the Bin Laden take down? These rats…and others…are scurring around the White House like cockroaches in the light trying to cover their own asses while making a pretense to cover Barry’s. It’s beginning to look more like “who didn’t know what and when didn’t they know it?” Personally, I think the one person who has yet to “meet the press” was more likely the one who knew exactly what happened when it happened and is knee deep in it and can’t see the way out. So everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else. And Clapper? What an incompetent moron. Diane Sawyer outed him and he’s been sitting on his hands ever since. This all begins and ends at the State Department and White House Senior Advisor who have entertained the Muslim Brotherhood as official guests on more than one occasion. I firmly believe that this was a “Wag the Dog” that blew up in their faces and Barry and Joe are in plausible deniability with no need to know.

    • Jules
    • Their whole response is just a mass of contradictions. They don’t have the facts, but they’re sure someone else, “acted stupidly.”

      “It isn’t clear/We don’t have all the facts” = We haven’t figured out a way to hang it on the Republicans or Romney. When we come up with our final lie, then we’ll have gotten to the bottom of it. You people in the press are supposed to wait around and play along. Your faltering compliance is annoying the ValJars and Axelratchiks

      It is too late for them though. Barry’s ship of fools has run aground.

      • Jules
      • p.s That ghastly blue-grey hue, filter, or film over Alexratchik is not UM’s special effects. It was there all along. It makes him look like death warmed over – must be intentional.

    • PapaSparky
    • If ever the term “circular firing squad” described a situation any better than the current Obama reelection effort, I’m not aware of it.

      Hopefully, the outcome will be the last man standing will need an English version of the Hari Kari manual on how to correctly fall on your sword.

Leave A Response

* Required