By AG

WHEN Egypt had initially put in MORSI, with the pressure from Obama and Valerie Jarrett due to her involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood. The plan was that Egypt after receiving the Tanks and Fighter Jets sent from Obama to Egypt, this was the first stage. Than it was Morsi that was going to join forces with Hamas; due to the affiliation with the muslim Brotherhood. However that all went sour, when Morsi tried to force his hand on the Egyptian people with Sharia law;

  At that point the Egyptian people that have been Americas ally's for many many years, was now in a catch 22. So they did what any Sovereign nation would and should do, they removed the cancerous tumor Morsi. And in time the truth will come out that Morsi was in fact involved in the attack on Benghazi.

Obama famously failed to act when warned that ISIS was preparing to mount an offensive in Western Iraq. This left ISIS free to conquer, with virtually no resistance, city after city in the defense of which American soldiers have shed blood.

Now Obama is receiving new warnings, this time from the Kurds in Northern Iraq. In fact, according to the Washington Post, the Kurds are “pleading for U.S. military aid.”

Unlike the Iraqi government, the Kurds possess a viable military that is prepared to fight ISIS. Indeed, they are fighting ISIS, and fairly effectively.

However, the Kurds now have a 650 mile border to defend, thanks to the abandonment of the area by Iraq’s military forces. Thus, the Kurdish forces are stretched extremely thin.

The Kurds should be receiving a share of the weapons the U.S. is supplying to the Iraqi government. But that, of course, isn't happening. Mansour Barzani, the Kurdistan Regional Government’s intelligence and security chief, told the Post that Baghdad hasn’t provided “a single bullet.

Meanwhile, says the Post, the ISIS forces attacking the Kurds have seized weapons worth hundreds of millions of dollars from retreating Iraqi soldiers. In effect, Baghdad is supplying ISIS while providing the Kurds with nothing.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Obama administration has rejected Kurdish pleas for arms with which to fight ISIS. Its rationale is that assistance must come through the central government.

But the central government is (a) dysfunctional and (b) unwilling to lift a finger to help the Kurds in any case. In fact, the Iraq government’s unwillingness to “play nice” with the Kurds has been part of the Obama administration’s rationale for not doing more to help the government.

Unlike the government of Iraq, the Kurds are ready and willing to inflict defeat on ISIS. With assistance from the U.S. in the form of weaponry, the Kurds would probably be able to inflict that much-needed defeat.

It seems criminal for Obama to deny this assistance in the name of defending the interests of a central government that Obama has condemned for its dealings with the Kurds (among others).

ISIS is looking to establish a caliphate, and making good progress toward that end. Meanwhile, Obama dithers, using the Iraq government’s poor treatment of the Kurds as an excuse for not doing more to help it fight ISIS, and the Kurd’s natural animosity to the government as an excuse for not helping them.

It’s almost as if Obama is indifferent to the progress of ISIS and willing to embrace any excuse for standing idly by in the face of that progress.

“It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video."

This statement is part of Hillary's 36 page "fog of war" chapter on Benghazi in her forthcoming memoir, a chapter obtained at least in part by Politico's Maggie Haberman, and it appears to be indicative of how she filled those 36 pages without answering any of the crucial questions about the events of that night and the following day.

This line refers to the killers.

And this line is of course a straw man, easily recognized after the president's straw man Woodstock at West Point earlier this week. It is also "inaccurate to state" that the whereabouts and actions of the president, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense that night are well known or even understood in general outline. That Hillary even bothers to spend time on the laughable "the video made them do it" argument tells us that the chapter is an exercise in space-filling, an effort to appear to be transparent and forthright about the most obvious, tragic failure of her trail of tears tenure at State. This chapter appears to be just another part of the ongoing refusal to come clean about what happened that night both in Benghazi and much more importantly for Hillary's future political ambitions in D.C.

“I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans," Haberman quotes Clinton as writing. "It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”

Read More; http://townhall.com/columnists/hughhewitt/2014/05/30/memo-to-journalists-quote-hillary-to-hillary-it-is-our-job-to-figure-out-what-happened-n1845386?

Bill O’Reilly and Univision’s Jorge Ramos agreed with one another completely on the notion that the press in the United States are too “cozy with power.” However, the Friday interview quickly became more rigid when Ramos accused O’Reilly of displaying “bias” in his news coverage.

“We all have biases. You have your own biases, I mean whenever you are covering Obamacare or Benghazi or supporting the Republican Party more than the Democratic Party,” Ramos said.

“Whoa, whoa, whoa,” O’Reilly interrupted. “Have you ever seen me do a softball interview with anybody?”

Ramos admitted he had seen some of the host’s “tough interviews,” but said “I’ve also seen you support more Republicans than Democrats.”

“Maybe editorially, never in an interview,” O’Reilly shot back.

The real problem with American media, O’Reilly said, is that big news corporations are willing to compromise its objectivity in order to maintain “access” to politicians and those in power.

The two also discussed immigration reform in the interview:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/30/bill-oreilly-doesnt-back-down-when-univisions-jorge-ramos-accuses-him-of-political-bias-woah-woah-woah/

‘Some look at it as treason,’ stated former CIA officer Wayne Simmons.

The Citizens Committee on Benghazi, an independent group of former top military officers and CIA members stated on Tuesday that if the U.S. hadn't been arming AL-Qaeda militias the Benghazi attack that killed 4 Americans could have been prevented.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ stated Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer.

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez also claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

‘Some look at it as treason,’ stated former CIA officer Wayne Simmons.

Basically, Obama armed al-Qaeda to topple Gaddafi, WHILE Gaddafi was verifiable succumbing to US demands. Obama preferred to give arms to his terrorist buddies, which they used to kill Americans, rather than allowing for a peaceful resolution that was already in progress.