Pat Caddell: John Boehner Aiding Obama Cover-Up of Benghazi

[Red James Cash]

Pat Caddell: John Boehner Aiding Obama Cover-Up of Benghazi

Speaker of the House suppressing information on weapons transfers to Syrian rebels

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 5, 2013

Pollster Pat Caddell charged Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner of aiding the Obama administration in its cover-up of the Benghazi scandal, claiming Boehner knew about weapons being smuggled out of Libya into the hands of Syrian rebels by the CIA.



“We have John Boehner who is purposely suppressing anything on Benghazi because he knew what we found out this week and he had approved it, these sales, these CIA teams on the ground which were sending weapons from Libya through Turkey to Syrian rebels without congressional approval,” said Caddell during an appearance on Fox News.

“We have a President who has suppressed the truth,” he added, noting how the CIA is now subjecting its operatives working in Libya to polygraph tests at least once a month in order to prevent them from leaking information to lawmakers or the media.

“The Congress won’t act in its own defense,” complained Caddell, with fellow Fox News guest and former Congressman John LeBoutillier agreeing that a cover-up was in full swing.

Boehner has faced mounting criticism from conservatives in recent weeks who are increasingly viewing the Congressman as a hindrance rather than a help in getting to the bottom of the Benghazi scandal. Last month, radio host Mark Levin accused Boehner of having, “cut some kind of deal with Obama.”

Last week, the mainstream media confirmed what Infowars.com and numerous notable political figures had been saying for months – that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was linked to a CIA arms smuggling operation being run out of an annex situated near the consulate, with the weapons being sent to FSA rebels in Syria who are fighting alongside Al-Qaeda militants.

The notion that arms, including surface to air missiles, were being sent from Benghazi to militants and terrorists in Syria was voiced as far back as last November by Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer during an appearance on the Alex Jones Show.

Despite such contentions repeatedly being voiced by prominent lawmakers such as Rand Paul, the story has only now garnered traction following CNN’s “exclusive” August 1st story which merely mimicked what was already in the public domain to a large extent.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Monday, August 5, 2013 at 9:01 am

Tags: government corruption, terrorism

Related Articles

Former Special Forces Commander: Was U.S. Running Guns to Syrian Rebels Via Benghazi? CIA: No
Congresswoman: Obama Gave Benghazi Stand Down Order
CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’
Man Behind Syrian ‘Chemical Weapons’ Claim Is Fiction Writer Who Ran Benghazi Cover-Up
John Boehner Can’t Think Of A Single Government Program He Would Cut

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Fletch88]

First, I'm wondering Red are the current measures in place around the world regarding our embassies enough to satisfy you? Secondly, there were the equivalent of 13 Bengazi attacks under George W. Bush and not a peep about that fact has been mentioned in your posts. Where was the hypersensitivity back in the days of previous administration. I'm thinking there wasn't any.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

First, I'm wondering Red are the current measures in place around the world regarding our embassies enough to satisfy you? Secondly, there were the equivalent of 13 Bengazi attacks under George W. Bush and not a peep about that fact has been mentioned in your posts. Where was the hypersensitivity back in the days of previous administration. I'm thinking there wasn't any.

Little things like,.......

How about the fact none of them were part of an adminstration major attempt to coverup. They were all acknowledged for what they were, there were no ambassadors or Navy Seals killed and most importantly there were NO stand down orders given when we could have had boots on the ground there.....

Public was not fed bogus lies by President and Sec of State over the cause, nor refuse to talk about it afterwards.....

Requests for additional security was not denied, then lied about the denial. None of the attacks took place on an important terrorist anniversary date either which alone would have been grounds for beefed up security.


"But the answer is actually pretty simple: yeah, there were x-number of embassy attacks under Bush and they did not require investigations. For that matter there were all of these attacks on embassies and American interests under President Clinton, and they didn’t require investigations, either.

Why not? Well, because under Bush the embassy attacks were taking place mostly in Iraq, and during a time of acknowledged war — right in the thick of it, in fact — and no one tried to argue that they were anything but planned and executed attacks.

And during the Clinton years, the attacks — which took place an average of every 18 months — were recognized as planned, organized attacks and no one tried to argue that they were anything different, either.

And while our embassies were attacked under these presidents, and others, none of our Ambassadors were murdered (along with Navy Seals) while multiple stand-down orders were given against mounting a rescue.
Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations sought to mischaracterize the attacks on their embassies.

Neither of them disseminated weirdly vague stories that was “really” took place was a spontaneous protest over an unseen, stupid video. And it was not the Bush (or Clinton) administration that — even after acknowledging a terror attack had occurred — repeated those lies to grieving parents or (weeks later) in a speech to the UN where the “video” was blamed six times
Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations first claimed that it was too early to talk about the attacks, and then too late.

None of their Secretaries of State first flatly said — two days after the event — that they would not talk about the attack, declared to congress “what does it matter” or fell back on stereotypical behavior of yelling and emotionalism to distract the press and scare her mostly-male congressional inquisitors into silence. And none of their Secretary of State’s successors started out his term by quickly announcing that he didn’t intend to talk about the attacks, either. "

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanc...assy-attacks-under-bush-clinton-investigated/

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[VERDE]

Very Good Point TH!! Well Documented!! Poor George, not that I was a great fan of his last 4 years, before it's over they will be blaming the Fall Of The Roman Empire on ole Bush!! Incredible!! VERDE!!

 

[civil_war22]

Bush may have been following in his dads footsteps but the man took us to war against an enemy who has no heart nor cares about loss of life. He had his faults but he was also very transparent. And we knew about his birth certificate and his past. Hell his daughters got drunk and was always in the news for something so obviously they weren't trying to cover up anything. Course he was republican and not a democrat so all his faults would be shown. But the fact of the matter is Obama knew about the Benghazi threat prior to it occurring he received word 2 weeks of the additional need for added security and again 2 days before the attack. He denied them the security on an American embassy but yet granted himself added security during the rest of his term and after. Those men two of whom were close friends of my uncle 35 year retired navy seal were massacred. All because Obama decided that the need for additional security did not meet his threat level warranted for extra troops. Tight wad and an idiot