On the night of September 11, 2012, the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and overrun by Muslim Terrorists, who murdered 4 brave Americans in the process. The Administration’s curious reaction was to blame it on a Youtube video, which no one in the Middle East had ever seen. Eight months later, the truth of that horrible night is finally, slowly being revealed.

A Fox News Poll, released yesterday, shows 62 percent of voters believe that President Barack Hussein Obama could have done more to help the four Americans murdered at the consulate in Benghazi on that horrible night

Even Democrats are about equally likely to say the president could have done more (44 percent) as to say he did all he could (43 percent). Eighty-four percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents think Obama could have done more.

Nearly two-thirds of voters who have served in the military think Obama could have done more.

…Overall, 27 percent think the president did everything he could to help.

…A 60-percent majority says the administration is covering up what happened. That’s more than twice as many as the 28 percent who say the Obama administration is being open and transparent.

Sixty percent of independents and a third of Democrats (33 percent) think the administration is hiding something on Benghazi. Almost all Republicans think so (88 percent).

Who should get more of the blame for what happened in Libya? About equal numbers say Obama should get more of the blame (32 percent) as say former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (31 percent). About one in six volunteers the response “neither” (16 percent) and about one in 10 says “both” are to blame (11 percent).

Republicans are more likely to blame Obama than Clinton by an 18 percentage-point margin. Democrats are more likely to blame Clinton by 12 points. Independents divide the blame evenly (28 percent Clinton, 27 percent Obama).

During Congressional hearings, Clinton was asked about who caused the violence in Benghazi. She answered with her now famous rhetorical question: “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?”

A 56-percent majority disagrees with her. Thirty-three percent of voters agree with Clinton’s assessment.

Voters were also asked why the Obama administration changed the CIA explanation about the attack to remove references to al Qaeda. Half of voters (50 percent) think the administration made the change for political reasons to bolster the president’s campaign claim that al Qaeda was “on the run.” On the other side, 37 percent think the changes were made for security reasons related to the on-going initial investigation.

The administration initially said the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest sparked by a controversial online video. Later the White House acknowledged it was a planned terrorist attack and not a protest or a demonstration.

In general, a 53-percent majority disapproves of how the administration has handled the response to the attack in Benghazi. That includes about one in four Democrats (24 percent disapprove) and over half of independents (54 percent).

About a third of voters (32 percent) approve of the administration’s handling of Benghazi.

Interest in this story is high: 75 percent of voters say they are following news about Benghazi. That includes 35 percent who are following it “very” closely and another 40 percent “somewhat” closely.

According to PJ Media, several whistleblowers will be coming forth shortly, as soon as they have procured legal counsel. They have to, since they work in areas where they are not fully protected by the Whistleblower Law.

Two diplomats relayed this information to PJ Media. and they claim that what these new witnesses will reveal will be more explosive than what we already have learned from the testimony of previous whistleblowers.

The information revealed is supposed to be very damaging to President Obama and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is presently the Democratic Front-runner for their Presidential Nomination in 2016.

These new revelations are supposed to reveal that Amb. Chris Stevens was in Benghazi to buy back Stinger missiles from the Libyan Rebels , which our idiot State Department, headed by Mrs. Clinton, sold to them.

Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

The other part of the revelations will involve pressure which was put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

An article by John Griffing,  published on AmericanThinker.com, on November 17, 2012, reported that

…Already uncovered in the [Benghazi] controversy is how there had been pleas for more security for the Americans in that location, how forces who were nearby could have responded, and how there were orders stopping that from happening.

It is within this context that questions are being asked about the scheduled replacement of General Ham, head of Africom, only a few years before his mandatory retirement date, especially since his replacement occurred so close to the consulate attacks. Africom is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. This command encompasses all of Africa and its adjacent waters except for Egypt.

It is notable that Ham is to be removed from a post with a three-year rotation after only one and a half years.

When announcing Ham’s replacement, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta praised Ham’s service. A report from the department said leaders remain “fully confident” in Ham’s performance.

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said that Ham “has the full confidence of the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” Little attributed the change to Ham’s “decision to retire,” which he described as “an entirely personal decision.”

Officials have denied there were other reasons for the change. “Gen. Ham’s departure is part of routine succession planning that has been ongoing since July,” said a government statement.

So…where did the “pressure” on Gen. Ham come from? 

My guess? The top of the Food Chain.

In the wake of Fast and Furious, the White House could scarcely afford another gun-running scandal.

Only, this would be worse. Stinger Missiles???!!! People who are supposed to be looking out for US, gave a bunch of Muslims Terrorists Stinger Missiles? What if some of those “toys” found their way back to America? Can you even imagine what kind of destruction Muslim Terrorists could achieve with those things?

What the He!! were Obama and Clinton thinking? Are they both that cotton-pickin’ stupid and naive?

Ambassador Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, and Glen Doherty would probably answer with a resounding “Yes!!!”…if they could.

Stay tuned. The revelations are only going to get worse. 

Until He Comes,

KJ