Archive | October, 2012

Some Salient Snippets — II

29 Oct

Once again, some items worth noting, in no particular order of importance, but not worth devoting a whole blog article to:

++ Obama’s Labor Department May Not Release Latest Jobs Report On Time ++

The latest in the Obama bag of dirty tricks to conceal as much of his bad record on the economy as possible from the American public right before the election is that his Labor Department now says it may not be able to release the latest jobs report because of government offices being closed this Monday and/or Tuesday due to Hurricane Sandy. Uh-huh.

As Dana Carvey’s Church Lady used to say, “How con-veeeeen-ient!” Haven’t the folks at Labor known as long as the rest of us when this storm was coming? Haven’t the necessary numbers already likely been collected and crunched by now? I mean, I don’t think they can do it all at the last minute, do you? And couldn’t they have done something proactive to fulfill their job requirement in preparation for this office closing eventuality? I mean, it’s not like the storm just sneaked up on them, is it?

Not only does the Obama Administration illegally tell all government contractors to violate the WARN Act and not issue lay-off notices because of the pending sequestration (which Obama flatly said wouldn’t happen (and then his minions have to walk that back to “shouldn’t” happen) and also because of the resulting fiscal cliff, but that they also will use our tax payer money to “defend” the contractors if they subsequently are sued by workers who didn’t receive the notice they deserved.

And now, Obama’s Labor Department all of a sudden can’t publish last month’s (probably abysmal) jobs report because of the storm? Really?

We already know that the last report before this one was only as artificially good as it was because of more taxpayer money than usual being dumped into federal jobs all of a sudden.

So, is there ANYTHING the Obama Amateur Hour Administration will NOT do to help this failed president limp across the reelection line for another term? I know the Chicago way is the cheating way, but puh-leeze!

As I said, “How con-veeeeen-ient!” It’s not very “speee-shul,” though.

++ VOTE!! Get out and vote AND Get out the vote! ++

Bottom line this year, don’t let ANYTHING keep you from voting for Romney! Not being swayed by an Obama-centric media which is already “predicting” Obama will win, not voting for Ron Paul, not voting for some third party, not apathy, not laziness, not ANYTHING.

This is the most important election of our lifetimes. Do NOT leave it up to OTHER people! Your children and grandchildren will have to live with the legacy of what you do, or don’t do, in this year’s future-course-of-America election.

Do you want them to have the “restored America” which Romney-Ryan will bring us, the kind of America you grew up in, or the “transformed America” Obama-Biden will continue to push us into, a more European-style nation? If you’ve noticed, a lot of European countries are not doing too well right now

Vote for a restored and resurgent America. Vote for Romney-Ryan.

++ 2012 Vote Monitoring ++

The highly respected Pew Center reports that 1.8 million dead people are still on the voting rolls. And with an electorate so closely divided, vote fraud could easily swing key races and even determine who sits in the Oval Office in January 2013. But, remember all those Democrats who incessantly rail against states passing voter ID laws and claim there is no voter fraud?

The problems have become so systemic that a 100-member observer mission for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, is flying in monitors to see if our elections are still fair. It seems more than just a little ironic that some of these so-called monitors come from countries which have plenty of “fair election” problems of their own.

The Moscow Times (no less) reports that among the observer mission are Communists such as Olga Alimova, who is a member of the Russian Duma. This will be the second time that Alimova has worked as an election observer; having recently watched the parliamentary elections in autocratic Belarus.

Some say, how embarrassing for America that Communists like Alimova have to come and watch our elections. I say, (a) we should clean up our own mess, and (b) I hope not to see anyone wearing light blue berets or looking a little too foreign anywhere near my polling place in Northern Virginia on election day. I might just have to ask them for their damn papers.

++ Why Recent Congressional Bills Are Too Long to Read ++

The birth of multi-thousand page laws under the Obama Administration was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they, and not Congress, would subsequently write.

For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare, there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they “shall” do something and more than 200 times when they “may” take, at their sole discretion, some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the “Secretary determines.” In essence, one person, appointed by and reporting only to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.

The same is true in the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, which confers nearly unlimited power on various agencies to control by fiat the nation’s financial, banking and investment sectors. The bill also creates new agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not subject to any oversight by Congress. This overall process was repeated numerous times with other legislation, all with the intent of granting unfettered power to the executive branch controlled by Barack Obama.

++ More of Obama’s Oil Shell Game ++

IBD (Investors’ Business Daily): “The move (Obama recently further restricted drilling in Alaska) is typical Obama sleight of hand: Take credit for increased oil production on public lands that you had nothing to do with, lock up resources on federal lands with the exception of places the oil companies find unprofitable or unpromising, then blame them, not your administration, for driving up prices.”

++ More on Obama and Benghazi ++

++ Economics in Kitchen Table Terms ++

From Phillip Cide, posted October 26, 2012

The Economy in Simple Terms

This cuts through all the political doublespeak we receive and explains the problem in a logical, common sense way. (Although the figures are a little dated, for example, the national debt is now over $16 trillion, the example itself is still valid.)

Lesson # 1:

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros from each of the figures and pretend it’s a household budget.

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $385

Got it?

OK, now Lesson # 2:

Here’s another way to look at the Debt Ceiling: Let’s say, you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood — and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceiling. What do you think you should do? Raise the ceiling, or pump out the sludge?

++ General Ham Relieved of Duty Over Benghazi ++

It has now been reported that General Carter F. Ham, Combatant Command Commander, AFRICOM, one of our nine combatant commands world-wide and the one responsible for all of North Africa, except Egypt, was suddenly and unceremoniously relieved of duty over the Benghazi attack. Combatant command commanders report directly to the Secretary of Defense, who reports directly to the president.

Allegedly, General Ham had forces at the ready to respond to the attack in Benghazi but was told to “stand down” (where have we heard that phrase before? — oh, yeah, that’s what the former Navy SEALS who were on the ground in Benghazi during the attack were also told). Like those former SEALs, who finally decided to go anyway, General Ham evidently resisted being told to stand down, to not send any help, and was suddenly and wlthout notice relieved by his next-in-command, a General Rodriquez, and put under arrest (in the military called being apprehended).

Now, since he’s a general, I’m assuming General Ham has put in his 26-plus years and is therefore entitled to his full retirement and benefits. And, having been relieved of duty, especially of command, rightly or wrongly, is such a blotch on one’s record in the military, which can be very unforgiving of its officers at times, that his military career is over anyway.

So, what I would like for General Ham to do is resign immediately and then “go public” and tell all he knows about what was and was not done about Benghazi and why. If it was Obama’s fault, Ham should “out” him for it, and the sooner, the better.

++ And, speaking of Benghazi and sooner rather than later… ++

Why are there no more Congressional hearings on Benghazi-gate scheduled, so far as I can ascertain, until November 15th, after the election? Just wondering. Maybe something to ponder. Maybe something to contact your Congressional representatives about, too. Tell them inquiring minds want to know — not later, but right now!


Obama’s Benghazi-gate — Conspiracy, Coverup, Cowardice and Criminality?

26 Oct

About Obama’s Benghazi-gate, let me refer you to some scripture: “None are so blind as those who would not see.”

Liberals may derisively call it “Faux News for ignorant people” all they want, but if not for the excellent and daily reporting on the Benghazi terrorist attack by Fox News, especially breaking news by Homeland Security reporter Catherine Herridge, Special Report anchor Bret Baier and Pentagon reporter Jennifer Griffin, we would not know what happened at all. The liberal, lamestream, lapdog media, protecting Obama as usual, surely haven’t given the scandal much, if any, coverage.

Now, today, because of Fox News:

(a) we know that our people on the ground in Benghazi made three separate requests for backup during the 6 – 9 hours of that attack and were denied,

(b) that State Department officials, and likely the White House Situation Room, watched the attack in progress in real time on video,

(c) that such requests for help and one of our consulates being under attack would have gone up the CIA chain to Langley and into the White House Situation Room,

(d) that there was a meeting among Obama, Biden and Secretary of Defense Panetta in the White House while the attack was underway, and

(e) that military assets were in positions where they could have been used to make a probably life-saving difference, yet were never given the “go” order.

Leon Panetta’s pathetic claim a few days ago that no military assistance was sent because of the “fog of war” and the caution of not sending more forces in until the situation on the ground was more clear is blatantly belied by today’s revelations of our people on the ground (and who should know better?) describing the on-the-ground situation during the attack, even to include that they, acting as Special Ops FO’s (forward observers) often do, had laser targeted the mortar positions which were shelling the consulate annex and which subsequently killed some of our people.

That means aircraft could have been sent in (instead of just to make loud noise or possibly just cause collateral damage to innocents, as one Obama official said) to make precision target strikes on those mortar positions and the terrorists manning them.

So, apparently, although they well knew what was happening on the ground in Benghazi, to include that our people were being attacked and likely killed, and that make-a-difference military assets were available to be used in a timely manner, the Obama people in the White House, in the White House Situation Room, at the State Department and at the CIA watched and waited, hesitating or not desiring to not only do anything to help but also not to do the right thing.

However much liberals and the lamestream media may want to protect Obama or defend the indefensible, I’ve got a new, proposed headline for you: “Obama’s Benghazi-gate — Conspiracy, Coverup, Cowardice and Criminality?” Whether before or after the election, Benghazi-gate will hopefully bring down the Obama presidency, as so well it should.

Obama’s Benghazi-gate — Bigger Shovel, Mr. President?

24 Oct

There’s an old saying pertaining to lying which goes something like this: “Is that hole you’ve dug yourself into deep enough now, or would you like a bigger shovel?” Maybe that’s the question which should be posed to Barack Obama over Benghazi-gate.

First, giving credit where credit is due, keep in mind, if not for the excellent, daily reporting on Fox News, especially by Catherine Herridge from the Pentagon and Bret Baier on Special Report, Team Obama might very well have gotten away with a coverup over the Benghazi attack and the killing of our ambassador and three other brave Americans, and you in the American public would have been none the wiser. Obama could have maintained his reelection campaign “narrative” that “leading from behind” in Libya had worked and that al-Qaeda had been essentially decimated and was in retreat.

The facts are (a) that “leading from behind” is what those of us with some military experience call “following,” (b) Libya was left “free” but, striped of its former military, government offices and security forces and thus unable to protect itself from resurgent and roaming al-Qaeda militias, much less provide normal host country security to embassies, consulates and their personnel, and (c) the al-Qaeda franchise was so “decimated” that it had metastasized from 9 countries when Obama took office to about 30 countries today.

That’s likely what happens when Islamists, who at least are hardcore realists, see a US president who has trouble saying the words “terrorist attack(s),” a Secretary of Homeland Security who engages in the tortured language of calling them “man-made disasters,” and a president who refers to them as “overseas contingency operations.”

It was the persistent drumbeat of Fox News reporting:

(a) which led to a Congressional investigation,

(b) which led to State Department officials admitting that lack of funding had nothing to do with security of our consulate on the ground (take that, Joe Biden),

(c) which revealed that State Department officials had watched the attack in real time and knew it was not the video, it was not the result of some larger demonstration “spun out of control,” as so long claimed by Team Obama,

(d) which led to some in the lamestream media finally having to run stories on it, and

(e) now, today, Fox has obtained same-day emails from Benghazi to approximately 400 officials at State, the White House Situation Room and Obama’s National Security Council saying that Benghazi was under attack, that a local al-Qaeda group was claiming credit for the attack, and that they needed help, which was never sent by Leon Panetta at the Pentagon or anyone else in the Obama Administration, although I think we had an aircraft carrier, with a contingent of Marines aboard, in the vicinity of Libya at the time.

So, out of all those officials to whom those emails were routed, we are to believe that none of them told Hillary, none of them told Obama and/or Biden? Really? I mean, really? And, what about all those Team Obama claims (lies) for over two weeks or more that “we’re investigating, we didn’t know, fog of war, it was the video, it was a larger demonstration ‘spun out of control,’ it was the, um, ah, hey, Harry, what’s the story today?”

Boy, if Obama hated Fox News before, as has been alleged, he must surely hate them now. Awww, they’ve spoiled his reelection campaign narrative of successful foreign policy, and about the only thing truly successful about that is that Osama bin Laden is (still) dead, albeit alleged that it was Leon Panetta who gave the “go” order, because Valerie Jarrett (who really runs the White House) had three previous times prevented Obama from doing it, and Obama had to be gotten off the golf course (where else?) in time to come to the White House Situation Room for the photo op of watching Navy SEAL Team 6 take bin Laden out.

So, you Kool-Aid drinking liberals out there can oh so cleverly call it “Faux News for limited thinkers” all you want, but my real question to you is: are you so determined to protect Obama’s butt and be blind to what is now his obvious coverup attempts over Benghazi that the killing of four Americans, which could have been prevented, matters less to you than that? If so, you are a sorry SOS, and shame on you.

If Nixon could be driven from office and forced to resign over Watergate and the subsequent coverup, which was, after all, only an illegal break-in of DNC offices at the Watergate, with no one even being injured, much less killed, then Obama’s lies and coverup of Benghazi-gate, in which Americans were killed, which was likely preventable, should also be a NATIONAL OUTRAGE over which Hillary Clinton should have to resign, Obama should have to resign, and they and all their henchmen and handmaidens foisting the coverup on the American people should be criminally prosecuted.

We know we cannot count on Obama’s liberal, lapdog media to adequately cover this shameful outrage, as they literally hounded Nixon and his officials for weeks and weeks over Watergate, even often camping out at their homes, so write your local newspaper editors, write your congressional representatives and demand they ensure a full and swift investigation and accounting. Use parts of this article if you like, even without attribution, but take some action! The families of four brave, murdered Americans cry out to you, to all of us, for justice.

Third Presidential Debate — First Impressions

23 Oct

Obama played checkers. Romney played chess. Obama played tactics. Romney played strategy. Obama went small ball. Romney went big picture. Obama sometimes went petty. Romney stayed the happy warrior throughout. Obama, especially during the last half of the debate, looked so intently at Romney (possibly overcompensating from looking down too often in the first debate which he lost so badly) that he almost seemed like a cobra coiled to strike at the first opportunity, but Romney just wouldn’t really give him one. Romney looked pretty relaxed throughout. Obama sometimes seemed defensive, whereas Romney seemed aspirational and optimistic for a restored America and her people.

I was one of those who wanted Romney to just bloody Obama about Bengahzi-gate, the security failures before and the coverup after, but Romney’s strategy of avoiding it, although Obama even tried to pull him back into it at one point, was probably the better idea. Romney probably knows that enough about Benghazi-gate will have to come out in even Obama’s liberal lapdog media now, because of Congressional investigations and Senatorial letters to Obama demanding answers, that Romney himself didn’t need to push it tonight.

So, Romney on style and, surprise, surprise, likability (happy warrior) and Obama on debate points, although some of them were small and petty. Romney also on a strong economy being the basis for projecting strong foreign policy, delivering the same devastating analysis of Obama’s failed economic policies as in other debates, for which Obama had no answer.

Romney, too, on laying out in more detail what he would have done differently, even about what Obama has already done on foreign policy, plus other measures and considerations in dealing with Iran and Pakistan, whereas Obama was left with simply stressing more of the same, much of which we know hasn’t worked.

Romney also on not allowing Obama to draw him into seeming to be some crazed warmonger, which Romney knew was part of the Obama strategy for this debate. So, overall, Romney. He did what he needed to do to sustain the momentum he gained in the first debate and sustained in the second debate.

Oh, and the post-debate fact-checkers? Obama got it wrong more than Romney and even what Romney got wrong was only partially wrong.

As to Obama’s condescending comments about Romney not understanding how our military works, that the days of horses and bayonets are gone, etc., suffice to say the post-debate tweet by one Marine, that Marines still use bayonets (as do Soldiers, by the way), shows maybe Obama also doesn’t understand all he pretends to about our military and its warrior ethos.

Embarrassing (and Revealing) Benghazi Timeline

21 Oct

Sep. 12 – Obama – “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” One day after the attack, Obama mentions Benghazi as a tragedy but, with the “acts of terror” phrase, alludes to 9/11 in general, not Benghazi, which would have been “an act of terror” or “this act of terror.” Also, the two references are eight paragraphs apart in his comments and not connected.

Sep. 12 – Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” This may be the genesis of it all allegedly being caused by the YouTube video. The question is, who first came up with the “it’s all because of the video” meme? Was it Hillary, or did someone else tell her to say that?

Sep. 13 – Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney – “The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.” So, the Administration apparently has zero responsibility for this?

Sep. 13 – Senior U.S Official – “This was a clearly planned, military-type attack.” Ah, the fresh air of honesty.

Sep. 16 – Obama’s UN Ambassador Susan Rice – “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” This is when Rice also propagated the false story that the attack resulted from a larger demonstration which “spun out of control.” As with Hillary and the “it’s the video” theory, who told Rice to say what she said? No ambassador speaking for the Administration goes on national TV without clearance, if not actual talking points, from the White House.

Sep. 18 – Jay Carney – “Our belief, based on the information we have is, it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere.” Again, the attack was because of the video.

Sep. 20 – Jay Carney – “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” Oh, so now, only two days later,  it is a terrorist attack? Smarmy Carney should have whiplash.

Sep. 20 – Obama – “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.” So, it’s still the video, plus “natural protests” now?

Sep. 21 – Hillary Clinton – “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” Now, it’s a terrorist attack, again?

Sep. 25 – Obama – “We’re still doing an investigation.” So, it’s still unclear? Video? Larger demonstration spun out of control? Terrorist attack? Natural protest? What the frick?!

Sep 27 – U.S Senior Official – “From day one, we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack.” Oopsie! That’s pretty clear!

Oct. 10 – Senior State Department Officials – Testified that spending cuts in the Department’s security funding had nothing to do with security on the ground in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Oopsie, again!

Oct. 11 – Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden – In the VP Debate: “Maybe their security would have been better if Congressman Ryan and the Republicans hadn’t cut their funding…” See immediately previous comment.

“But we weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security there.” On October 10, just the day before, multiple State Department employees testified that many requests for extra security were denied. Who did Biden’s debate prep, or did he just “wing it” on his own, as he so often appears to do?

Oct. 12 – Jay Carney – “President Obama and Vice President Biden did not know about the extra security requests.” This “clarification” is meant to explain that Biden’s “We did not know…” meant only him and Obama, not the White House, and that’s plausible — but for only a day or two after the attack. However, if they still didn’t know after State Department officials also watched the attack in real time via uplinked satellite video and knew right then, on 9/11, that it was a terrorist attack, then somebody at State and/or the White House didn’t do their job to ensure Obama and Biden both (a) not only knew about the denied security requests but (b) also ensured that they saw that State Department video of the attack in progress.

Oct. 15 – Alleged maker of infamous video – On or about this date is when the alleged maker of the infamous video, which actually was a 17-minute trailer for the amateur movie and had only 300 viewing hits as of 9/11 and which, in fact, was an exercise of his First Amendment rights of free speech, after all, is arrested in California by a whole squad of police officers and perp walked on national TV for an alleged parole violation. My only questions are: when’s the last time you’ve seen someone perp walked on national TV for a mere parole violation, and might there not have been some Team Obama motivation (or influence) to be able to show, “See (Muslims) , we don’t like this guy either”?

Oct. 17 – Obama – In the second presidential debate, tried to allege that he had called Benghazi a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden on 9/12 and the not-so-moderate moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, sided with him in cutting Romney off from pointing out the hypocrisy, if not outright lying, that the Obama Administration had been doing about Benghazi, only to have her own CNN fact-checkers correct her right after the debate — see comments at first entry, top. Besides, if Obama did call it a terrorist attack on 9/12, why was his UN ambassador saying on 9/16 and the rest of Team Obama saying for the next two weeks that it was all about the video and a larger demonstration “spun out of control”?

Oct. 18 – Obama – Appears on the comedian Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, of all places, defends his position on Benghazi and contends that the death of the four Americans at Benghazi was “not optimal.” By the next day, murdered Ambassador Stevens’ mother makes a statement that her son’s death might not have been “optimal,” but that he is still dead and she wants answers about how and why.

Oct. 21 – On this eve of the last presidential debate of this campaign season, which is supposed to be totally focused on foreign policy, it seems to me that, while Osama bin Laden may (still) be dead, al-Qaeda is more resurgent than Team Obama want to admit and Obama bin Lyin’ is seemingly very much alive.

Second Presidential Debate — Some Factoids and Discussion

19 Oct

I’m not going to “analyze” the debate, who won, who didn’t, what the instant polls said, what later polls said, what this or that focus or impression group thought, how much of a “bump” who will get, and blah, blah. Plenty of other people have done that and are continuing to do it. I’m just going to share with you some factoids and related discussion about the debate.

According to CNN’s own timekeeping (and remember the debate moderator Candy Crowley is from CNN), Obama got 44:04 minutes of speaking time, while Romney got 40:50. That’s a difference of three minutes, fifty-four seconds, or almost four minutes. Considering the debate format severely restricted each candidate to only two minutes of unfettered speaking time per question asked, that’s an advantage of about two, entire speaking periods which the moderator allowed Obama.

The “unbiased” Candy Crowley is CNN’s chief political correspondent and anchor who said Romney must have had a “death wish” when he picked Paul Ryan as his running mate. ‘Nuff said.

Candy Crowley, “the moderator,” interrupted Romney 28 times and Obama 9 times, a ratio of more than 3-to-1. No further discussion necessary.

The “moderator” did an on air, instant, “fact-check” supporting Obama calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror in his 9/12 Rose Garden remarks, when in fact he did not. Both Romney and Obama may have law degrees (and Romney has an MBA as well) but so do I, as well as a minor in English, and I can parse words with the best of them.

Obama’s comments about ACTS of terror (like 9/11), not AN ACT of terror, and his comments about the Benghazi attack are separated by EIGHT PARAGRAPHS in his Rose Garden remarks and are not connected. Crowley was even corrected by her own CNN fact-checkers right after the debate. Since then, she has tried to walk back her comments but is still receiving harsh (and justified) criticism from both sides of the political spectrum for injecting herself into the debate, and for being wrong on the facts when she did.

Many contend Romney missed an opportunity by not immediately drawing the contrast between Obama’s Rose Garden comments (even if we admit just for the sake of argument that he did call Benghazi an act of terror) and subsequent, repeated comments over a TWO WEEK period thereafter by his UN ambassador, his press secretary, his secretary of state, his various other spokespersons and surrogates, as well as himself in his UN comments, that it was all about the video and a larger demonstration which had “spun out of control.”

No one on Team Obama called Benghazi what it was, a terrorist attack, in all that time. Yet, we now know (because of Congressional hearings, not anything admitted by Team Obama) that State Department officials watched the attack in real time via uplinked, satellite video and knew there was no larger demonstration which “spun out of control.” That’s not 24 hours later or 48 hours later. That’s at the time it was happening.

Of course, those who blame Romney for that missed opportunity may not have noticed that right after Crowley’s erroneous “correction,” then Obama asking her to repeat it, and the smattering of supposedly disallowed applause for them both, Obama, seeing that Romney was going to persist in commenting on it, quickly asked Crowley to move things along, so as to get more questions in (yeah, uh-huh), and Crowley then cut Romney off about Benghazi.

Oh, and here’s another little known factoid: when Crowley “corrected” Romney and Obama asked her to “Say that a little louder, Candy,” despite the previously announced debate rules that both the on- and off-stage audiences would remain quiet throughout the debate, there was a smattering of applause for Crowley’s so-called “correction” and Obama’s encouraging comment. But, do you know who started that applause? Why, none other than Michelle Obama, sitting off-camera in the larger audience, that’s who. Guess she just couldn’t contain herself over Crowley’s “help.”

However, Romney had already made sure to say during the debate, on national TV, that he was glad to get Obama “on the record” with his claim that he called the Benghazi attack an act of terror on 9/12, and not only that, but also now has a “bonus” of Obama on video demonstrating some of his fake indignation that any suggestion that he or any of his people would misrepresent things to the American people was offensive and then peevishly added, “That’s not what we do.”

Also there’s also the bonus debate video of Obama claiming that he evidently did answer that 3AM phone call, much touted by Hillary’s campaign when she was running against him, and immediately called his national security team and directed them to do three things: beef up security all across the region (kind of like after the horses already left the barn), find out who committed the attack (maybe State should have shown him their real-time video), and bring them to justice (the alleged mastermind of the attack has now supposedly been identified but they can’t find him anywhere). Of course, I guess there’s no way to prove if Obama actually answered that 3AM phone call or not, or what, if anything, he directed his national security team to do, or not do, so he’s probably safe with that claim. But then, he also evidently went back to sleep until the next day.

It’s now thirty-eight days since the attack and, although Obama has had time to campaign, fundraise and appear on Univision, ABC’s The View, CBS’ David Letterman’s Late Show, some obscure radio show where he weighed in on some feud between Mariah Carey and Nicky Minaj, and most recently on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, and he’s been repeatedly asked about Benghazi even in those “soft” venues, he has yet to find the time to sit behind his desk in the Oval Office and, as president and commander-in-chief (both of which he so often likes to remind us that he is), look directly into the TV camera and explain to the American people what happened and why, when he knew what, what he’s done about it and what we should be doing about it going FORWARD, to quote his own campaign slogan.

If Romney doesn’t come loaded for bear on Benghazi-gate in the next, last debate, which is totally focused on foreign policy and hopefully has a more moderate moderator, shame on him. Then, he really will have missed an opportunity. But he doesn’t have to actually call the president a liar about Benghazi-gate on national TV. All he has to do is show that he is. Then, merely insinuate that if Team Obama have lied to us about this, what else have they lied to us about?

Obama’s “reset relations” policy with Russia not working, his open mic comment that the Russians give him more time until after the election, his “America apology and appeasement” tour with Muslims not working, his so-called “soft power” and sanctions with Iran not working, his distancing of himself from Israel, what arms we are finally sending into Syria going to al-Qaeda groups (Middle East Fast and Furious anyone?), instead of the real rebel, Syrian freedom fighters, and the resurgence of al-Qaeda all across Northern Africa and into Indonesia, as well as his foreign policy unraveling all across the Muslim world, with our embassies being demonstrated against, our flag being desecrated and him being burned in effigy — all these things, and more, show Obama’s foreign policy is a failure……and why, in this election season full of so many inconvenient truths for this president, he has to lie about it in order to try and salvage it. But a pretty bow and fancy wrapping paper on a package of monkey dung do not change what it is, or make it smell any better, either.

Romney should methodically and persistently tick off such a foreign policy failure list in the next debate, just as he has on Obama’s failed domestic policies in the past debates. If Romney does that and no more, he wins — Obama’s own failed record will sink him for all who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

However, that latter category evidently does not include college students at a recent Obama event who had not even heard of Benghazi and probably couldn’t find even Libya, much less Benghazi, on a map if their lives depended on it, or recent on-the-street interviewees who were interviewed the day of but before the night of the second debate, yet still said Obama had won. Unfortunately, some of the voting public are beyond hope — and maybe even change. That’s the reason all the rest of us must vote on November 6. We not only can’t let Obama win. We also can’t let the ignorant and the uninformed win.

Hillary Finally Falls on Obama’s Sword

17 Oct

Now, finally, thirty-five days after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, the murders of our ambassador and three other brave Americans and countless confused, confusing, and contradictory coverup stories put out by various members of Team Obama, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s outright lies within five days to VP Biden’s obfuscation during the recent debate, Hillary Clinton, Obama’s good, little soldier and stalwart Secretary of State, mans up more than Obama and has now accepted “full responsibility” for the security failures which led to our being successfully attacked on our own soil (our embassies and consulates are US property anywhere in the world) for the first time in eleven years and our first ambassador in thirty-three years being killed.

So, in addition to making sure to say the on-the-ground security (or, I guess, really, the lack thereof) was determined by State Department “security professionals,” as a subliminal way of distancing even herself, and that everything is being investigated and examined to ensure nothing like this ever happens again, my first question is, not so fast, WHY did it really happen THIS time, and my second question is, then, WHEN are you going to RESIGN, Madame Secretary, and my third question is, okay, if Hillary accepts responsibility for what happened BEFORE the attack, who accepts responsibility for what’s happened SINCE the attack, that is, since the coverup began?

By the way, hasn’t Obama in the past quoted one of my favorite Democratic presidents, using Harry Truman’s “The buck stops here”? It seems more likely in Obama’s case, the buck always stops, not here but over there somewhere. But, I digress.

If Hillary doesn’t at least resign, her “acceptance of responsibility” will be without real consequence, except perhaps for some of those unnamed “security professionals” deep in the bowels of the State Department, who were obviously, for one reason or another (and quite possibly and shamefully for politically dictated reasons), so inept at their jobs.

In fact, so inept, or otherwise restrained, that an attack on that same consulate in April 2012 and again in June 2012, in which a gapping, 12-foot hole was blasted in the compound wall, coupled with known al-Qaeda terrorist militia operating in the area, were all insufficient signs of impending trouble, especially as we approached the anniversary of 9/11, annually celebrated as the most significant date to al-Qaeda terrorists all over the Muslim world. Or how about the multiple requests for additional security from the Regional Security Officer (RSO) and quite probably, judging from his personal, CNN-recovered journal, from Ambassador Stevens himself? Or how about the Brits and the Red Cross pulling their people out of the area prior to 9/11 because of attacks by known al-Qaeda militia in the area?

Big, red, frickin’ warning flags anyone? Or was it that no one was paying close enough attention to little ole Libya on the eve of 9/11? Or perhaps that Obama had missed 62% of his daily intel briefings at which some of this info might have been shared or at least the allegedly most “brilliant” president we’ve ever supposedly had could have asked some pertinent questions to elicit the info? Or perhaps that the Obama reelection campaign “narrative” precluded allowing any indication that our “lead from behind” victory in Libya had resulted in a Libyan government too weak to help protect our interests and people in the area and that al-Qaeda, rather than being defeated and in retreat as persistently claimed by Team Obama and all the Democrats in general at their recent national convention, was instead resurgent not only in Libya but also all across Northern Africa and into Indonesia? Or that Obama’s feckless foreign policy of “reset relations,” “apology and appeasement,” and “soft power” was unraveling, as demonstrations at our embassies all across the Muslim world erupted, with Obama himself being burned in effigy? Very inconvenient for a president who’s supposed to be so good at foreign policy and especially during a reelection campaign. You know what I’m sayin’?

As one who was in the security business while in the Army for over 25 years, including everything from the physical security of facilities and personnel of an Army brigade spread all over a combat zone in Vietnam, to physical security of facilities and personnel (to include VIP security of the commanding general and visiting dignitaries, including the Secretary of Defense) of a NATO air defense command of several brigades spread all over West Germany, to operational security for the US side during the 1988 Olympics in South Korea, I think I, too, can safely call myself a “security professional.”

And anyone — anyone — who is supposed to be a security professional and who missed or, for whatever reasons, ignored as many red flags as there seem to have been in this case (and we still don’t even know the full story yet) would have not only been fired but also, in the military, probably court-martialed. And that’s what needs to happen here. Not only apologies, not only “acceptance of responsibility” without any real consequences, not only “we’re investigating it,” not only resignations, but criminal prosecution and possibly imprisonment — for all and any involved. Remember when there was a time when Democrats and other liberals loved repeating over and over about the war in Iraq that “Bush lied and people died”? Well, regarding Benghazi-gate, people also died and then it seems Team Obama lied, and lied, and lied.

I won’t waste much of my time here about where the so-called mainstream (lamestream) media have been on the whole Benghazi-gate story. It’s disgusting how the members of our Fourth Estate have so actively avoided their jobs on this scandal, except those occasionally shamed into commenting on it by the excellent, daily and unrelenting, breaking news coverage by Fox News. This still didn’t stop the New York Times, AKA the Fishwrap of Record, from recently thinking an above-the-fold, front-page story on South Korean crop failures was evidently more important than the Benghazi-gate scandal, which, if mentioned at all in that issue, was buried on some inner pages of the paper (suitable, in the case of the NYT, for lining the bottom of bird cages).

Remember Watergate, the illegal office break-in and subsequent coverup by the Nixon Administration? The scandal which demonstrated that, in DC, the coverup is often worse than the crime? The scandal which gave us the whatever-gate reference in the first place but in which, by the way and unlike Benghazi, no one was killed?

And remember the way in which the media were like sharks smelling blood in the water and camped out at Nixon officials’ homes and hounded that president from office? Well, that was the 1970s, when even our admittedly liberal media weren’t as liberal as they are today and therefore not as biased, either. And that was a Republican president and not the Democratic and media created and adored president of today. If one ever needed any more convincing proof of the liberal media bias and selectively abdicating their jobs, Benghazi-gate is it. Heard of any media so-called reporters hanging out at Susan Rice’s residence lately and hounding her for why she so blatantly lied and, more importantly, who told her to lie? No? Yeah, didn’t think so. Obama’s slavishly sycophantic lamestream media are instead in full protection mode of Obama for his reelection and therefore complicit in the coverup as well.

If you want a good timeline of the Benghazi-gate scandal as it has actually unfolded, even if you don’t like Fox News, or despairingly call if Faux News, or claim that its viewers are less educated, informed or whatever, the timeline done by Fox News’ Bret Baier is the best and, because of the lack of other media interest, much less actual coverage, perhaps the only one you will find: View the timeline and make your own conclusions.

To me, in rough summary, Obama appeared in the Rose Garden with Hillary on 9/12, the day after the attack, and alluded to “acts of terror” in talking about 9/11 but did not say, as some in Team Obama have subsequently tried to claim, that the Benghazi attack was one of them, nor did he call Benghazi a terrorist attack outright. He then took no questions from the assembled press and quickly departed for a fundraiser in Las Vegas. That’s what’s called “bad optics” in the political game.

On 9/16, five days after the attack, UN Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on all the Sunday TV talk shows and repeatedly insisted that there was “no evidence” the attack was “pre-planned or premeditated” and that it was the result of a larger demonstration over a little seen video (a 17-minute trailer with only 300 viewing hits as of 9/11) which had “spun out of control,” as allegedly the demonstrations at our embassy in Cairo and later elsewhere were also.

On 9/25, when Obama spoke at the UN General Assembly but had no time to meet with any other world leaders (again, in a hurry to get back on the fundraising and campaign trail), Obama referred to the video six times as the cause of all the demonstrations and still never said Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

I don’t have exact dates, but somewhere in the mix here, Team Obama began saying it all happened because of faulty intel, then because the State Department screwed up, and after days and days of saying it was unknown and an investigation was ongoing (when it took the FBI three weeks to even get on the ground in Benghazi because of, er, ah, security concerns for their personnel), all of a sudden Obama’s mouthpiece Jay Carney was saying, and with a straight face, too, that it was “self-evident” that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Huh? What? Honest to goodness, I don’t know how Smarmy Carney avoids whiplash sometimes.

Then, on 10/10, Congressional hearings began to investigate the Benghazi-gate brouhaha and, interestingly enough, not because of anything revealed by Team Obama but because of what’s come out in the Congressional testimony and through other leaks, we now know State Department officials watched the attack in real time via a satellite uplinked video and knew there was no larger demonstration which “spun out of control.”

Think about that fact alone for a moment. So, since a UN ambassador doesn’t go on national TV to speak for the Administration without clearance, if not talking points, from the White House, then how do we explain Susan Rice’s false claims five days after the attack? Did State Department officials who witnessed the attack in real time not tell their boss Hillary, not tell the White House, not tell anyone on Obama’s National Security Council, not tell Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI), not tell anyone, all while Obama and his team were in the news still so assiduously insisting the genesis was the video and a larger demonstration? Joe Biden claimed that “we,” meaning him and Obama, didn’t know anything about requests for extra security for Benghazi, and that may be true, but shouldn’t someone have told them somewhere along the line? What does their national security team do for their taxpayer salaries anyway? Even James Clapper, Obama’s DNI, was late to the party, remaining in seclusion for weeks before finally coming out as a backup man to further alibi Team Obama with the old “as intel has evolved” story.

We also now know that repeated requests for additional security were made by our people in Benghazi, which were repeatedly rejected by State Department personnel, and that, by State Department personnel’s own testimony, it was not, as falsely claimed by VP Biden during his debate with Congressman Ryan, because of any funding cutbacks by mean ole Republicans, or anybody else, much less by Ryan himself, as alleged by Biden. Besides, our embassy in Paris, for example, had a 50-Marine contingent — but none for Benghazi, in what many just might view as a more dangerous place in the world than the mean streets of the City of Lights, especially on the eve of 9/11? That is, as some of us from the South say, a puzzlement.

We also now know that, but for the testimony which has come out in the Congressional hearings run by those “mean old, partisan and politically motivated Republicans,” Team Obama might have gotten away with a coverup of Benghazi-gate altogether and even Hillary wouldn’t have had to finally admit some fault, albeit like most politicians’ apologies, which usually say something like, “I’m not sorry for what I said or did but I am sorry you didn’t understand what I said or did.” Again, accepting “full responsibility” without at least resigning is merely a political ploy without real consequences.

Since it should now be fairly obvious Team Obama hasn’t and won’t tell us the real truth about this, I hope more Congressional investigation gets to the bottom of the Benghazi-gate scandal and its coverup, and that all of those responsible are fully and criminally prosecuted — because people died, and apparently unnecessarily.

But one must also wonder, if Team Obama lied to us about something this important, about our ambassador and three others being killed in a terrorist attack, because it was politically inconvenient to admit during their reelection campaign, what else have they already lied to us about which we don’t yet, and may never, know? What else might they lie to us about in the future, especially if they’re given another four years on November 6? Many things to ponder, beyond just rising gas prices, in the next two-and-a-half weeks.

[Related articles: My “Obama’s Bungled Benghazi Brouhaha” on September 25 and my “I Wondered Where the Clapper Was” on October 2 also at:

%d bloggers like this: