Within hours of Rep. Issa's Oct. 19 letter to Obama, demanding answers about the take-down of security in Benghazi and the lying cover-up of the terrorist attack, the Obama gang started shooting back, making up lies and threats as they went.
* On the afternoon of Oct. 19, two unnamed Obama administration officials told Foreign Policy magazine that Issa's release of "sensitive but unclassified" State Department communications had endangered the lives of U.S. collaborators in Libya [Al-Qaeda?-ed.], and our "security cooperation" with them. A spokesman for Issa's Oversight Committee shot back that this was hypocritical, to say the least: "Where was their outrage and urgency when all that [the attack on the consulate] was happening?"
* On the evening of Oct. 19, the Los Angeles Times published an article that was enough to make Susan Rice blush, headlined "No evidence found of Al Qaeda role in Libya attack," and which quoted unnamed "U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya" to the effect that the attack on the consulate "appears to have been an opportunistic attack, rather than a long-planned operation."
* On the morning of Oct. 20, Sen. John Kerry, the man co-responsible for the Libya atrocity, blustered against Issa: "This is irresponsible and inexcusable, and perhaps worst of all, it was entirely avoidable."
Lyndon LaRouche emphasized that there is no seriousness to these Obama administration responses, or to anything coming from the administration, for that matter. The point is that Obama is capable of anything, LaRouche stated. There is no importance to any specific action: you cannot derive the future from the past. Statistical thinking never works. You have to look at the future independently of current trends. All important things that happen in history come as a surprise, from the standpoint of current trends.