Did Leon Panetta Offer Clues Of Obama Administration Benghazi Cover-Up?

During his testimony this week regarding the Benghazi Massacre that left four dead Americans including the firt U.S. Ambassador to be killed in the line of duty in over 30 years, outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta offered some subtle distinctions between what he states as fact, and what the Obama White House told the American public in the days and weeks after the Benghazi attack.

___________________________________

Here are excerpts of Panetta’s testimony from The Washington Times:  LINK

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta on Thursday revealed he personally broke the news to President Obama that the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was under attack last yearbut he and the president didn’t speak the rest of the night as the assault on the compound unfolded.

Now place that very clear statement by Leon Panetta against Barack Obama’s own description of his actions the day after the attack during his now infamous Rose Garden speech on September 12th:

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.  LINK

Leon Panetta indicated this week to Congress that after the president was informed of the Benghazi ATTACK, Barack Obama went to bed.  That is a far cry from the description Obama gave of himself the next day.  I have emphasized the word attack by Mr. Panetta as well – he stated he informed the president  that the U.S. diplomatic post was “UNDER ATTACK”.  That is a very important descriptive term when placed alongside the fact Barack Obama then ignored the event and went to bed.  It indicates the action was ongoing – that those ultimately killed in Benghazi were fighting for their lives.  The attack against them and against the U.S. consulate represents an attack against the United States – and Barack Obama DID NOTHING.

Also, note another important part of the Obama Rose Garden speech.  That was a speech dedicated to the four American lives lost in Benghazi – and yet, the language of Barack Obama makes it very clear he was still maintaining the silly YouTube video as the cause of the attack when he delivered the teleprompted line “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others”.  This line would of course be followed up and repeated by United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice – who was given the script to do so by the Obama administration.  The only time Barack Obama used the term “terror” in his Rose Garden speech was when he was remarking on the anniversary of September 11th, 2001.  He went on to openly lie about this during the presidential debates of course – given strong aid to do so by moderator Candy Crowley of CNN.  When speaking on the actual Benghazi attack – Barack Obama NEVER used the word terrorist attack in the days after it took place.

 

Now back to another comment by Leon Panetta this week that once again suggests Barack Obama’s repeated lies on Benghazi:

Republicans said they were dismayed that the Defense Department’s top officials and Mr. Obama didn’t speak again over the next six hours, during which two attacks claimed the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

“Did he ask you how long it would take to deploy assets, including armed aviation, to the area?” asked Sen. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire Republican.

“No,” answered Mr. Panetta.

“He didn’t ask you what ability you had in the area and what we could do?” Ms. Ayotte asked.

“No,” Mr. Panetta responded again.

 

Panetta again reinforced the image of a detached and largely unconcerned Barack Obama in the hours following the Defense Secretary telling the President of the United States that a diplomatic outpost (considered American soil) was under attack.

Toward the conclusion of Leon Panetta’s testimony, the reality of a White House cover-up was being openly presented:

“What I think is worse is the cover-up,” Mr. Inhofe said, adding that even as the events in Benghazi were unfolding, there could be no denying that the second wave of the attack, on the annex near the diplomatic post, was “unequivocally a terrorist attack.”

Mr. Inhofe said that Mrs. Rice knew this but went on a string of Sunday morning talk shows anyway to say “something that was completely false.”

“That’s something that can’t be ignored,” he said. “We sit around all day long and talk about the resources that we should have and don’t have. … [But] the big problem here is the cover-up, and nobody talks about it, and that’s a tragedy.”  LINK

 

Unlike the testimony given by Hillary Clinton earlier, which was an exercise in deflection and denial (Panetta himself noted the Secretary of State was not “in the loop” in the hours after the Benghazi attack took place), Panetta’s testimony gave a tepid at best endorsement of Barack Obama’s role as Commander in Chief both during and after the Benghazi Massacre, and opened up clear examples of contradiction between the words of the president and the words of Secretary Panetta regarding Benghazi.

Sadly, as Senator Inhofe expressed, the seemingly obvious fact a full on White House cover-up continues to be engaged on the issue while too few are willing to discuss it, is and will remain, the lasting tragedy of Benghazi – and that lack of discussion, of outrage, is not entirely the fault of Congress, or even the Mainstream Media – but of the American people, far too many of whom continue to ignore important events in favor of mindless entertainment and Barack Obama’s never-ending teleprompted soundbites…

 

436 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

18 Comments to Did Leon Panetta Offer Clues Of Obama Administration Benghazi Cover-Up?
      • SBSpecks
      • “All that bad” and “good” are very, very different things. I think in this case he has reached a place of incompetency and a full-blown case of “Idontgiveaf*ck-itis”
        He knows he’s done, and by done I mean a dead man. The cover up was so long ago there is no way they can keep their stories straight on point, some truth will leak through. I can guarantee it.

      • E.A.B.
      • Don’t get me wrong. Panetta would probably sell his own mother to get something he wants.

        But that’s compared to the rest of the people in this administration, most of whom would sell their own mothers just because they can do it.

    • Perceptible Future
    • I’m sorry, but I, like Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions incredulously stated during the Libya hearings that he was “Breathless” upon Secretary of State Leon Panetta’s response to his question: “Does the United States follow Congress or default to the United Nations and NATO?” and Leon stated that “We (meaning: the U.S.) support the NATO decision to invade”.

      No, Leon is a company man, tried and true. He’d sell out me and he’d sell out you.

      I’m sorry to say that he was my new elected congressman when I lived in his district in Monterey/Carmel in 1976. He was a good congressmen then but became corrupt as most do. The man lost his soul…

    • AmericaTheBeautiful
    • Nice work UM. Please consider the Cruz-Panetta exchange.

      Panetta stated they could not get to Benghazi in time to help our people. Senator Cruz posed a set of questions that asked Panetta if hypothetically he could go back in time and redo the events of Benghazi, ….knowing what he knows now…what would he do differently?

      Panetta answered that in retrospect he would have tried to save our two Seals.

      This raises the question…Did those in the WH… that sent no help after the initial attack on our Ambassador at the safe house….believe they knew,… it was only supposed to be the single attack on Stevens in the safe house…thus believed they knew the timeline of events as they were to unfold …in advance…and thus believed the attacks were now over…and so confidently sent no help.

      This goes to prior knowledge of the event with Stevens…(and makes one consider the rumor that a planned kidnapping of Stevens for a capaign issue was known in advance)…and that attack was the only one that was planned prior to it happening…that the attack that took place 6 hours later was not planned, was not supposed to happen…thus help was not sent….because the planned attack was over…and nothing more was planned in advance…so no help was sent….

      This goes to prior knowledge of the first attack…confidence of what someone had fore knowledge of–of a planned event…that was to remain contained…Only the second attack was a surprise. Their confidence in prior knowledge is why…no one moved in to help our people, and were told to stand down, and not to help our people in harms way…Prior knowledge of a contained attack in a single time frame…Is why no help was sent.

      Senator Cruz then asked Panetta if knowing what he now knows, he would have sent help?

      Panetta answered he did not have permission to send help. “No one told us to”
      Revealing he too was told to stand down. No help was ever put in motion.

      Only one person could have issued that command to Panetta, the head of the Pentagon…The President.

      This points to the President as one who had prior knowledge…..

      JC General Dempsey had a parting comment on why no one moved in…that he thought this was a kidnaping of the Ambassador and didn’t know where he was for hours

      “for a period of time we thought we were going to be entering a hostage rescue”

      So perhaps the rumors of a planned kidnap of Stevens for a campaign issue for Obama…as he negotiate the rescue were true…

    • AmericaTheBeautiful
    • For your reading pleasure …particularly for our liberal brothers and sisters who may be snowed in on the East Coast…Perhaps Jonescu’s well written pieces will open their eyes and provide some truth for consideration….Americans were once known for their critical thinking and their love of freedom and truth.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/hillary_gives_away_the_game.html

      Hillary Gives Away the Game
      By Daren Jonescu

      Hillary Clinton’s angry flip-out at Senator Ron Johnson during her Benghazi testimony was a charmed moment. All at once, before the whole world, one of the highest rankingprogressive authoritarians on the planet spilled the beans — all of them — about the left’s modus operandi.
      The revelation might be overlooked, however, if we focus too closely on Clinton’s easily quotable “What difference does it make?” The line as quoted merely shows Clinton to be a trapped liar trying to fake her way through an awkward moment with pomposity and bravado. In truth, however, “What difference does it make?” is merely a media-friendly ellipsis of her actual words. What she actually said, without the convenient editing, is far more telling.
      Here is the exchange:
      Johnson: We were misled that there were supposedly protests and then… an assault sprang out of that. And that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days — and they didn’t know that.
      Clinton (shouting, glaring, and waving her arms): 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’d 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 ever happening again, Senator.
      Note in passing the obvious contradiction in saying that it makes no difference what happened, and then immediately saying that “our job” is “to figure out what happened.” Clearly, in her flustered state, Clinton confused her talking points, the intended gist of which was presumably that the job of finding out what happened is the responsibility of the administration’s own internal investigators alone, because only the administration itself will be able to construct a tale that “gets to the bottom of things” without incriminating anyone in the administration.
      All contradictions aside, however, let us turn to Clinton’s central point. Johnson’s question was a straightforward one, and the one people have been asking since the first days after the attack, when, thanks to foreign media sources, Americans were learning that there was no evidence of any video protest anywhere in Libya on September 11. That question gained force and significance when the world learned that the assault had lasted for seven hours, and that throughout the battle, administration officials in Washington were receiving live communications from those under attack, as well as real timeimages from a U.S. drone on the scene. It gained further urgency when Clintonpromised Tyrone Woods’ father that the government would hunt down… no, not the terrorists who killed his son, but the maker of the video that supposedly ignited the non-existent protests.
      The simple question Senator Johnson revived gained a fever pitch of relevance when President Obama went on television, and to the United Nations, to condemn an anti-Islamic video which by that time he had to know was in no way related to the attacks. (See here.) And of course the precise context which heightened the relevance of this “video protest” lie was on display when, during a debate, Obama refused to answer questions about what he had done to help the Americans under attack, instead glaring condescendingly at Mitt Romney while delivering a carefully prepared (and frequently repeated) diatribe about his supposed “three orders,” none of which addressed the actual question as to what he had done during the assault to rescue the victims.
      The context, and the brazenness of the lie, provoked many speculations as to what the Obama administration was hiding, and why. The kindest, most generous interpretation, given what we now know, is that the administration was running a sophisticated smokescreen operation to evade damage to the Obama campaign’s talking point that by “getting bin Laden” while endorsing the “democratic elements” of the Muslim Brotherhood, Barack the Avenger was freeing America from the threat of Islamic extremism. The video protest story, tarted up by the administration as “understandable outrage” about a “disgusting” case of “religious intolerance,” was (minimally) designed to deflect blame from a foreign policy that, with its projection of weakness and its moral support for the global caliphate movement, was an invitation to aggression.
      It is in this light that we must view Clinton’s angry outburst, and particularly her most revealing declaration: “Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference — at this point — does it make?”
      Notice that her first question carefully avoids the true option, namely “a planned assault by well-armed Islamists affiliated with al-Qaeda.” Had she included that one among her list of hypotheticals, the absurdity of her rhetorical question would have been crystal clear, even to her. Obviously, in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the answer to this question — why were the men killed? — made all the difference in the world. The administration’s lies, obfuscations, and contradictory half-stories about the events were the crux of the issue — at that time.
      But that was months ago. As Clinton so pointedly says, “What difference — at this point — does it make?” Clinton, the administration official most closely linked to this catastrophe, chose not to be available for questioning in September, when Susan Rice, who (conveniently) had nothing to do with any of it, was sent out to the Sunday talk shows to deliver the administration’s lies. Clinton chose not to be available the first time she was asked to testify before Congress, due to an urgently important trip to Australia. And then, of course, she was unavailable for her second invited appearance, due to having reportedlyhit her head after fainting.
      Now, four and a half months after the murderous assault on a woefully under-defended diplomatic staff by a well-known terrorist group; two and a half months after the presidential election was won by the man who made the unthinkably brutal decision to leave American government employees under attack for hours without taking any action to help them; months after the administration’s point-man in its initial cover-up, Rice, was safely cordoned off from scrutiny on the inscrutable grounds that she was a complete naïf “just delivering the information that was given to her” (by whom?) — after all this time, Clinton can simply bury the central question, and the main reason for the congressional investigation itself, by wailing, “What difference — at this point — does it make?”
      “At this point.” That is, and has always been, the underlying strategy of the Obama administration on Benghazi: stall for time until they’ve reached a safe distance from the horrors they perpetrated on the ambassador and his brave defenders, on the American people, on an insignificant amateur video maker, and on the many Arab Muslims killed during real protests stoked by the administration’s repeated citing of an “outrageous,” “disgusting,” “intolerant” video which in fact had nothing to do with anything. From this distance, they hoped, all the important questions would begin to seem less urgent, and all the ugly facts begin to drift into the dark recesses of public consciousness.
      Had Hillary Clinton, during any of those September Sunday shows she avoided, said “What difference does it make what actually happened?” even her mistresses of the robes in the mainstream media would have had a hard time carrying her train.
      Had Obama himself, during his re-election campaign debates, said “What difference does it make what really happened?” even Candy Crowley would have been hard pressed to leap to his defense.
      Now, at last, believing they have successfully run out the clock on the public’s infantile attention span, the progressives can offer their only real defense of their terrifying inhumanity — the argument they undoubtedly used privately from the beginning, but which they dared not utter in public while many were still disturbed about the details of the attack: “What difference does it make?” What’s done is done.
      Furthermore, Hillary Clinton’s angry blurting out of the truth is applicable to much more than just the Benghazi fiasco. With that revealing little qualification — “at this point” — she actually gave away the entire progressive game that has been played on Western civilization for more than a hundred years, and has now all but shut the door on the five hundred year adventure the West has dubbed “modernity.”
      This is the big secret at the core of the progressives’ conception of “progress”: You cannot justify the unjustifiable in advance, or persuade people of the rationally unpersuasive. Rather, you must simply push “forward” into ever-deepening waters, repeatedly building reserves of social pressure and then releasing them in little thrusts of propelling energy to carry civilization ever nearer the vortex — all the while promising to save men from the frightening depths, if only they will hold on tight, and follow you, the progressive, just a little farther forward, just a little farther forward.
      The key to the progressive “ratchet,” as it is often, correctly, called, is that no step forward may ever be retraced. Each stage of degradation is to be rationalized after the fact, precisely by the means exemplified in Hillary Clinton’s stark question: “What difference — at this point — does it make?”
      Was modern public education conceived as a tool for preventing the development of individualism and exceptional men, in favor of a morally and intellectually stunted “workforce” of the compliant to support an entrenched oligarchy? “What difference — at this point — does it make?” say the defenders of public education. “After all, we can’t just abolish an education system we’ve come to depend on for generations to raise our children.”
      Would ObamaCare’s individual mandate stand up to the judgment of the framers of the U.S. Constitution? “What difference — at this point — does that make?” says the Supreme Court. “After all, it was passed by a duly elected Congress and president of today, so who’s to say James Madison himself would not have approved, had he seen Barack Obama’s well-creased pant leg?”
      FDR rammed New Deal legislation through an intimidated Supreme Court, and against strong Republican and public outcries that it betokened the thin edge of the socialist wedge. “What difference — at this point — does it make?” say subsequent generations of Americans when the question of “Social Security reform” is tentatively raised. “After all, we can’t just unravel programs that have come to be taken for granted by generations of Americans, even if theyare bankrupting the country.”
      Throughout the dilapidated West, the same now goes, or soon will go, for wealth redistribution, government-controlled medicine, abortion, affirmative action, the abolition of private property, government-ordered euthanasia, gay/transgender/bi-species marriage, a ban on private gun ownership, anti-industrial “green” legislation, restrictions on soft drink serving sizes, government-mandated molestation at airports, the outlawing of all forms of private education, and mental health assessments for those showing excessive reverence for individual liberty.
      The key to the success of Western socialism’s “progress” is not the periodic lurches toward the abyss. It is the art of effective stalling. All of today’s political and moral outrages will be rationalized with a shrug tomorrow: “What difference — at this point — does it make?”

      February 8, 2013
      The Twisted Truth on Obama’s Benghazi Response
      Daren Jonescu

      According to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, as reported at The Weekly Standard, President Obama was completely aloof from the events in Libya on September 11. He neither asked nor ordered anything. He did not respond to information sent to the White House. He was not involved at all, during the seven-plus-hour attack that resulted in the deaths of four American government employees, including an ambassador.
      A few months back, when, for the sake of argument, we were all giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on being human, albeit wretchedly so, I felt compelled to qualify a critique of the president’s conscienceless handling of Benghazi with this:
      Was the president aware of these events during the first few of those seven long hours? Obviously, he would have been notified of such events immediately, were he available. Equally obviously, the president is always, in theory, available. If he could not be “reached” during those first hours, then the answer to the natural follow-up question — “Why not?” — is too twisted to contemplate.
      Under questioning from Senator Kelly Ayotte, Panetta has at last set the record straight. We may all dispense with the niceties and call it as it is: Obama is too twisted to contemplate.
      Repeatedly, in answer to Ayotte’s probing about communications between Panetta and the White House, Panetta explains plainly that, apart from a scheduled meeting in the afternoon of September 11, he had no contact with Obama that day. The president was not involved, and did not wish to be involved, in the communications and decision-making processes of that day. An ongoing terrorist attack on his administration’s diplomatic mission in a volatile region on the eleventh anniversary of September 11, 2001 was not considered worthy of his direct involvement.
      Ayotte: Did he ever call you that night to say, “How are things going? What’s going on?”
      Panetta: No, but we were aware that as we were getting information on what was taking place there, particularly when we got information that the ambassador — his life had been lost, we were aware that that information went to the White House.
      Ayotte: Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?
      Panetta: No.
      Ayotte: No one else called you to say, “How are things going?”
      Panetta: No.
      Through it all, Obama’s White House simply did not respond or engage. Given the auspiciousness of the date and the seriousness of the attack, we must now ask, with the utmost gravity, “Why not?”
      Remember that we are not talking about the president’s weak response after the fact; the issue is what he was (or was not) doing in real time, as the event unfolded. An attack was ongoing. Distress calls were coming in. At that point, presumably, neither Obama nor anyone else in the U.S. government could have known for certain that this attack was an isolated case. It might, after all, have been one stage in a possible series of attacks. And while it was ongoing, there was, presumably, no way of knowing how the situation would develop, how large the attack force was, whether the Libyan government was complicit in the assault, or how many Americans might be in jeopardy.
      And yet in spite of all this uncertainty, mayhem, and danger, Obama remained disengaged, neither responding to nor initiating any communication with his national security apparatus.
      If Panetta is to be believed — and we can only assume that if he is lying, he is doing so to protect his boss from even worse revelations — then Obama was either completely unavailable that night (September 11!) or completely unwilling to take steps to help Americans who he knew were in the process of being killed in Benghazi.
      In a semi-rational world, no government could withstand the exposure of such inhumanity, not to mention such a total failure to carry out its primary duty — namely, to protect its citizens against foreign aggression. In our current, thoroughly irrational world, there remains little doubt that Obama will emerge unscathed from Panetta’s testimony, just as Hillary Clinton will remain untarnished after openly declaring, during her own belated testimony, that the clock has run out on any attempt to unravel the administration’s web of lies about Benghazi, since “What difference — at this point — does it make?” (I explained this here.)
      Heavily armed terrorists carried out a planned attack on a U.S. ambassador. Four Americans, including the ambassador, were killed. The attack lasted for more than seven hours. The U.S. government was aware of the attack from a very early stage and was monitoring events with surveillance technology.
      The secretary of defense and his military commanders did nothing. The secretary of state did nothing. The president never called to ask, “How are things going?” His previous evasions of questions about his orders and actions at the time revealed that he took no direct action in response to the attacks. We now learn that he was not even in the communication loop that night.
      Thanks to Panetta’s testimony, we have once again been forced to drop the veil of humanity we sometimes hold up before this administration in order to keep our sanity. (“Surely he was aware, surely he didn’t simply let people die without a thought.”) At last, sadly, we have been reduced by Panetta to having to wonder where Obama was that night, what he was doing, and why he was apparently unavailable to involve himself in the biggest national security emergency of his presidency.
      Finally, Hillary Clinton’s grotesque plea seems appropriate: “What difference — at this point — does it make?” Do you really want to know? Or isn’t this all just too twisted to contemplate?

    • Barry Soetoro the MOSLEM
    • Folks, don’t pester UM about moderating your comments before they appear on his website.

      Moderating is a normal practice.

      For example, how happy would you be if somebody posted those black and white porno magazine photos of Obama’s mother posing for Frank Marshall Davis?

      You’d be busy vomiting instead of complaining.

      • ebysan
      • @ Kay112

        Thanks !! I removed my second liknk; but, UM won’t post my comments….. I am just trying to pass on information to help Save the Country I Love from this corrupt administration.

    • Essa
    • I agree with the contents of the article. It really is the fault of many Americans who settle for the sludge coming from the entertainment industry and the State run TV sewage pipe. For example TLC, acronym for The Learning Channel used to offer some decent programming that was somewhat educational, and now there are only so called reality shows which have zero educational value nor entertainment value for that matter. Most of the programs on TV are merely suitable for the continued dumbing down of America.

      Even the well known most powerful name in news has slipped into the realm of liberalism and has become unwatchable in my opinion. We do not get the truth from any media outlets except in tiny bits here and there, but never the complete story from any broadcast source including radio.

      Thanks to new media, the truth is starting to reach more and more people as they turn to their tech devices or computers for news. It is just a shame the truth did not reach enough people before the election. Unfortunately a lot of people are not going to care until their pocket book takes a direct hit or the feds come calling for their guns and ammo.

      Hopefully more people will realize if they do not take a stand now, it will be too late in the not to distant future.

    • AmericaTheBeautiful
    • Panetta stated he, Hillary and Dempsey wanted to send help into Syria..to arm the rebels…but Obama would not give permission…This is a set-up…..and. Another LIE

      They were gun running and Missile running out of the Benghazi Annex.
      British papers are reporting weapons from Benghazi are showing up in Syria and in Algeria….being used by AlQaeda……Which is why Panetta is erecting a wall saying Obama would not agree to arm the rebels….

      BECAUSE he already was ILLEGALLY SELLING ARMS TO OUR ENEMY ALQAEDA ….and Benghazi was the point of sale for arms running…Lockheed COO resigned the very day Petraeus did for the same BS reason ….which stinks ……because he had tripled arms sales, yes 3x the arms sales in 2011….

      Guess we know where those 40,000 missing missile and Man-pads came from that Congressman Jason Chaffetz referred to that were missing out of Libya…

      Obama armed the Middle East for the Arab Spring that turned it over to the IsalmoCommunists, The Muslim Brotherhood. Do we have no military who will stand and tell the TRUTH

    • CHHR, VA
    • Look, I don’t have all the answers… but I still do have the ability to reason.

      Guard pushed out the window in the safe room, went back and couldn’t find Stevens… really? Such a small room.

      Bloody handprints on the walls… someone injured made it out of there.

      Stevens rushed to the hospital… cheers heard when the doctor announced Stevens was still breathing… but alas, he died. How did Stevens get from a locked safe room into the hands of the terrorists anyway? Poor Stevens, talk about taking “one for the team!”

      THREE HOURS later, the attack on the annex begins.

      Painting targets… must have had air support that was pulled or painting could not have happened.

      Two very high level military commanders relieved of duty… interesting.

      Seems more than a failed hostage plan was taking place… and Obama slept like a baby as visions of “got ya” danced in his head.

    • Francesca
    • I was just over at Glen Beck’s site, where I haven’t been for months, and he has quite a theory about Panetta’s testimony being a cover for Obama as something much worse is about to come out about Benghazi. Read the comments, also.

Leave A Response

* Required

-->