The Obama administration twists and squirms, seeking to protect the Teflon President from the blowback of the Benghazi affair.

We know that Obama and his fellow travelers got caught with his pants down. Not only did they not provide adequate security for the outpost where Ambassador of Libya was killed along with three other Americans, they apparently denied prompt aid to the station which was under attack.

It is not like Obama and his cronies did not know about the attack because real-time, live intelligence was streamed into the Department of State, the Defense Department, the CIA, the NSA and the White House Situation room.

So now that the Administration has their friendly media-flacks obsessing who removed some of the words from a briefing paper given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice – floated as the replacement of a “tired” Hillary Clinton as the head of the State Department – why won’t the issue die?

What do we know from published reports?

• The outpost where the Ambassador died was not a diplomatic consulate because consular activities were being handled by the Embassy in Tripoli.
• The outpost and the nearby annex were part of a classified CIA operation to funnel guns through Turkey to various Muslim extremist groups.
• That the Ambassador’s last meeting was with the Turkish Ambassador – perhaps delaying the attack because the terrorists did not want to embarrass or involve a Muslim Turkey who has been making anti-America, anti-Israel noises.
• That despite unambiguous calls for assistance, orders were given to “stand down” and deny aid to stricken Americans.
• That General Ham and Admiral Charles M. Gaouette were relieved of command and reassigned – possibly preparing to defy “unlawful orders” to deny aid to the Americans.

What does Obama want to keep hidden from the American public?

Now that the election is over and Obama has managed to convince a majority of Americans to allow him to remain in office, why all of the resistance to disclosing the facts? Why is the Obama Administration and his fellow travelers lying to Americans about a video and protest that never happened? What does Obama fear?

The short answer.

Not only does Obama fear the official revelation that he may have been complicit in the deaths of four Americans and that he was engaged in a Watergate-style cover-up of the circumstances surrounding those deaths, it appears that Obama does not want to take the responsibility for a failed foreign policy decision that has inflamed the Middle East and Africa; and emboldened Iran to thumb its nose at the United States while attacking Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah. He does not want to take responsibility for the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power and then spreading their poison to additional Muslim counties in the region.

He does not want to be seen as the President who armed Muslim extremists with the weapons that allowed them to take over crucial portions of the Middle East and Africa. He apparently was played like a cheap fiddle – providing arms in return for promises that these Muslim groups would give Obama concessions for a more peaceful Middle East and which he could use to validate his unearned Nobel Peace Prize. And when the whole thing backfired because of his (and his fellow travelers) incompetence, he wants to misdirect the public into believing that the situation was caused by protests over a video.

And he certainly does not want to be impeached for issuing unlawful orders, covering up a failed CIA affair or lying to Congress.

And it is beginning to unravel …

According to published reports, General Petraeus – under oath – apparently repeated the President’s story about the video and the non-existent protest. At a time when he was under investigation by the FBI – controlled by Obama’s close friend, the corrupt Eric Holder – one wonders if his testimony before was coerced. A crime that could lead to impeachment. Now that the affair has been exposed, Petraeus has claimed that his talking points had references to terrorist and al Qaeda … but who cares what was in the talking points – the most significant issue is who insisted on the video protest story and inserted the information about the video and a protest that never happened into Susan Rice’s presentations. And why was it repeated by the President of the United States before the United Nation? Why did Hillary Clinton go along with a story she knew was false and misleading? Was it Valerie Jarrett trying to protect the President from political fallout prior to the election? Or was it the top-level advisors trying to cover-up a CIA arms running scheme that went terribly wrong.

Bottom line …

The American people need to know what the President knew and when he knew it. They need to know why the General and Admiral were reassigned. They need to know if the CIA gunrunning was poor public policy that lead to the flame that now threatens the Middle East. And they need to know if this was a staged event to provide the rationale for the United States to participate in Israel’s attack on Iran.

But more worrisome … he has damaged our relationship with Russia and the American people need to know what he is willing to give Russia to heal that rift before the American people learn the truth. He has already indicated that he is prepared to be “more flexible” with Russia in his second term. Does that mean he is willing to sell out the safety and security of the United States to preserve his position in history?

We know the mainstream media will not speak truth to power and demand answers. So who is protecting the safety and security of the United States?

-- steve