Tag Archives: Benghazi

And the Arrogant Benghazi Obfuscation Continues

20 May

What is still amazing to me is that, with all the lies and just plain stupid stuff Obama Admin members have said (and been caught at, yet still persist in saying anyway), I am sometimes still stunned when they reach new lows of honesty and new highs of arrogance. One would think I had become too jaded, too cynical for this to happen any more, and yet members of the Obama Admin still surprise…..and grossly and gravely disappoint.

It’s long been contended by some that Obama has NPD (narcissistic personality disorder), which is a real mental disorder and one ascribed by others to explain why Obama appears at times so detached and/or aloof from what’s happening around him — in the White House, in his federal agencies, in the country at large, to everyday Americans, etc. After all, when you’re so self-abosorbed, it takes a lot of your time and attention away from everything else.

Others, however, among Obama defenders, say his apparent aloofness is due to his professorial detachment, while his “brilliant” mind is working on whatever the current problem seems to be, despite that he has never been a professor of any type but was only an unpaid lecturer or that his so-called brilliant mind seems to understand liberal, left-wing ideology much more clearly than how Economics 101 works.

But, when one of his henchmen or handmaidens makes outrageous statements with not only a straight face but some amount of arrogance on national TV, I wonder if they ALL have NPD, too. Either that, or they arrogantly and dismissively think the American people are just stupid enough to believe almost anything just because they say so or are too stupid to understand how “right” the Obama Admin is about everything, facts to the contrary notwithstanding.

And that brings me to one of Obama’s top advisors (read: spinmeisters) who appeared on all the regular Sunday talk shows this past weekend, to include Fox News Sunday (as UN Ambassador Susan Rice so infamously also did), to continue pushing back on the Benghazi debacle being worthy of any further investigation. When asked directly by Fox’s Chris Wallace where Obama was and whether he was in the White House Situation Room the night of the Benghazi attack, Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s Senior Advisor and long-time Obama apologist and “explainer” dating back to being Obama’s 2008 campaign communications director, brazenly answered that it was irrelevant what room the president was in, suggesting also that it was equally irrelevant what Obama was doing during the long hours of the Benghazi attack.

WHAT?! Dan, you must really believe that a big enough lie, told often enough and with enough chutzpah (as in bald-faced lying), will eventually be believed — move along, folks, nothing to see here — and that Obama’s Benghazi debacle can finally be put behind this Admin, so you liberals can breathe a sigh of relief. Or, as your boss most recently claimed, “There’s no there, there.”

It doesn’t matter where the president was during the Benghazi debacle? Really? You think even low-info Americans will swallow that garbage? Of COURSE, it’s relevant!

You Obama enablers made sure to allegedly get him off the golf course in time for the Situation Room photo op pic of him watching SEAL Team 6 take down bin Laden, so why couldn’t you wake him up long enough for such a photo op pic the night of the Benghazi attack? Was it because he had to be well rested for his trip to Vegas for a fundraiser the next day, after briefly appearing with co-conspirator Hillary for the no-questions-allowed Rose Garden press briefing, in which Obama denounced “acts of terror” but not the Benghazi attack as “an act of terror,” as he and his various spin doctors have since so often claimed?

If it was important to ask where was the president, what did he know and when did he know it in the cases of Reagan’s Iran-Contra, Nixon’s Watergate or Bush’s (pick one from the liberal Left’s menu), it’s certainly important to ask regarding Obama’s Benghazi.

It’s not enough to say Obama was “being advised of the situation and updated” by his National Security Team:

(a) when some of that same team have since come under question;

(b) when we now know, regarding military assistance being rendered, there were multiple stand down orders issued, which orders could have only been given by Obama himself or at the least by his SecDef Leon Panetta, now the former SecDef who went on national TV and claimed assistance wasn’t sent because of “the fog of war” making the situation on the ground confusing and unknown (but no real answer as to why a fighter jet flyover, or, better yet, an unmanned drone wasn’t sent);

(c) when we now know that two former key military players in the region that night, AFRICOM’s General Carter Ham and NAVAF’s Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, were suddenly and summarily temporarily relieved and replaced by their deputies in the hours following the Benghazi attack and both, I think, have since retired;

(d) when we now know that the original CIA talking points were changed so much as to obscure the truth at the insistence of Sate Department former mis-spokesperson Victoria Nuland, speaking on behalf of her “leadership in the building” (former SecState Hillary Clinton) and with the complicity and compliance of “someone” in the Obama White House, no doubt at least a member or members of that same questionable National Security Team;

(e) when we now know that a key player on that National Security Team is now Obama’s former Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, a long-time CIA careerist and “fixer” and the mastermind of Obama’s drone kill list, also allegedly a Muslim convert, who was picked to replace the publicly disgraced former General Petraeus as Director of CIA;

(f) when we now know that a video of the attack exists (not just an anti-Muslim Internet video which almost nobody saw), or at least did at one point, but which has not been produced for anyone in Congress to see;

(g) and, when we now know that some CIA whistle blowers also want to come forward. (That should be interesting.)

[Editorial note: The emphasis on the word “former” as an adjectival description of many of the Benghazi players noted above is to highlight what’s known in politi-speak as “moving the deck chairs on the Titanic,” or moving viable targets of inquiry “out of range” by moving them to other jobs.]

And, how and why do we now know all these (to the Obama Admin, inconvenient) things, among others? Because, Mr. Pfeiffer, (a) the much-hated-by-the-Left Fox News and its notable reporters Catherine Herridge and Jennifer Griffin, among others at Fox, have kept up the drumbeat these last eight months for real answers, (b) because the Congress has investigated and continues to pull hen’s teeth just to get info from the supposedly but laughably most transparent White House Admin in history, (c) because State Department whistle blowers have come forward, despite threats to their careers and possibly more, and (d) because the American people don’t like being lied to, even by a super cool, super smooth, first black president, much less a snot-nosed and supercilious Georgetown grad, like you, who’s all too full of himself. Members of the Obama White House in particular and the Obama Admin in general give the words hubris and arrogance whole new meanings.

So, while your boss says (and hopes against hope) there is no there, there, Mr. Danny Boy Pfeiffer, the Republican House and many other Americans think there is some here, here, and we want to know exactly what it is.

Where was your boss, what did he know, when did he know it, and what did he do, or not do, about it on the night four brave and abandoned Americans died?

9/11 — never forget! Benghazi — always remember!

[For an excellent rundown on Benghazi so far, see a Washington Times article at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/16/benghazi-the-anatomy-of-a-scandal/?page=all#pagebreak%5D


Media Coalition Complaint Letter to DOJ

15 May

Within virtually hours of the Obama/Holder DOJ’s overreaching and probably illegal confiscation of communications of about one hundred AP staffers (some of which may include privileged attorney-client information), when only about five AP-ers were working on any story the Obama Administration wanted to either monitor or quash, the Media Coalition sent a lengthy letter to AG Eric “Stonewalling” Holder and his Deputy AG, on whom Holder laid the blame right out of the gate, indicating that neither he, Holder, nor Obama, of course, knew anything at all about, well, almost anything to do with the Associated Press.

(There seems to be a larger and larger boatload of things Holder and Obama don’t know anything about, refuting the meme about how smart each of them allegedly is and furthering instead the Hogan’s Heroes Sargent Shultz characterization — “I see n-o-t-h-i-n-g, I know n-o-t-h-i-n-g.”)

Anyway, see how fast the media can react when they really want to?

Here’s a quote from the Media Coalition letter: “The scope of this action calls into question the very integrity of Department of Justice policies toward the press and its ability to balance, on its own, its police powers against the First Amendment rights of the newsmedia and the public’s interest in reporting on all manner of government conduct, including matters touching on national security…” (emphasis added)

To which I say: This begs the question, where the hell have you all been on other matters of national security, like all the leaks of classified information to the press by the Obama Amateur Hour Administration, the Fast & Furious fiasco, the Benghazi debacle, the Extortion 17 chopper shoot down and killing of SEAL Team 6 members, the Obama Administration and especially the DHS being intentionally infiltrated with Muslims, the DHS buying almost a trillion rounds of ammunition and 2,700 MRAP armored vehicles, with gun ports, no less?

I guess it takes your own ox being gored before you awaken from your liberal lapdog, sycophantic stupor and start calling out the Obama Administration on all of its abuses of power and authority. Well, welcome, all of you Johnny-come-latelys. Better late than never, but it has taken most of you almost six years (since 2008) to wake up.

So, now that you’ve finally been roused, start once again being the media watchdogs of the government for the People, instead of the mere propagandist lapdogs that you’ve been for Obama since 2008.

For any of you who want to read all of the Media Coalition’s DOJ letter and see all of the signatories thereto (many of whom are hypocrites for not doing their jobs up to now), here is the link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/141488656/Media-coalition-letter-to-Attorney-General-Eric-Holder.

The Benghazi Talking Points, ABC News and Faint Praise for Real Journalism

11 May

The Daily Caller has “reported” that:

“ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack. That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012. ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.”

Hey, Daily Caller and ABC, get with the program! First, “ABC reported,” my sweet patootie! Talk about late to the game! All ABC has done is finally get on the bandwagon that FOX News and its excellent reporters, most notably Catherine Herridge and Jennifer Griffin, have been continually driving since the Benghazi debacle first began.

And remember that September 15, 2012, was the day before State Department UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on five, different Sunday morning talk shows and repeatedly spread the lie that the cause of the Benghazi debacle was an Internet video which almost nobody had even seen but which was alleged to have sparked a “spontaneous demonstration” which then “erupted into an attack,” rather than the real truth, so inconvenient for Obama, who was running for a second term and had repeatedly claimed al-Qaeda was on its heels, that it was al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists, armed with RPGs, mortars and other heavy firepower, all along.

And much of what ABC is “reporting” about the talking points is based on emails discovered and first revealed by Stephen Hayes of The (conservative) Weekly Standard about a week earlier. But, I guess at ABC, no pride in authorship, as well as no credit where credit is due, right?

And, of course, Jay “Smarmy” Carney, Obama’s mouthpiece who wants us all to think of Benghazi as merely something which happened a long time ago, is coincidentally married to Claire Shipman, currently the senior national correspondent for the ABC program, Good Morning America — just in case that’s from whence you’ve been getting your “news.” And NBC and MSLSD we don’t even need to talk about, because their Obama bias has been all too obvious for oh so long.

So, bottom line, anyone getting their “news” from ABC, or any of the other, liberal, lapdog, lamestream media, Obama propaganda outlets is just now finding out what FOX News viewers have been informed about for months. Put that in your liberal, so-called “Faux News” pipe and smoke it, libtards.

The fact is that ABC has just finally been forced, probably by the May 8th’s explosive whistle blower testimony to the House committee, into no longer ignoring the Benghazi story, as they and most of the other liberal, lapdog media have been doing for eight months. And, lordy, lordy, Miss Claudy, the fish wrap of record, the Noo Yawk Slimes, is now even “reporting” that the emails proving how the Benghazi talking points were scrubbed at the repeated requests of Victoria Nuland, State Department mis-spokesperson, and by the Obama White House are damaging and causing Carney to have to tap dance around the truth a little faster all the time. No more soft-shoe shuffle, Smarmy. Time for some hard tap dancing now. Earn your money and lie even bigger for your boss Obama.

But I guess news is not really “news” until one of the alphabet networks or the NYT “reports” it, even if it is largely based on other people’s work and is about as timely as three-day-old fish.

And if the only CBS reporter who has been trying to investigate Benghazi, Sharyl Attkisson, has had trouble getting her reports on air at CBS and is in danger of being fired over it by Ben Rhodes’ brother David, then I’m sure FOX News would probably hire her — and she, like many others, would find a better, freer climate in which to practice real investigative journalism as well. By the way, in case you’ve forgotten, it was Sharyl Attkisson who exposed Hillary Clinton’s fake Bosnia sniper fire story a few years ago, too. Sounds like a good candidate for FOX News to me.

Additionally, it is beyond ironic and so apropos that one of Obama’s top advisors and speech writers, the one who is probably not only behind the scrubbing of the Benghazi talking points but also the fake “It’s all about the video” meme, has a masters degree in FICTION. You just can’t make this stuff up, folks,

So, Hillary finally, finally “testified”

1 Feb

This one may be a long one, folks, ’cause I’ve got lots of points to make and lots of venting to do.

Over four months after the horrendous attack on our facilities at Benghazi and after multiple, conflicting stories by various members of Team Obama, Hillary Clinton, our illustrious Secretary of State, who probably wants to run for president (again) in 2016, finally “testified” (quotation marks explained later) before Senate and House congressional committees, respectively in the morning and afternoon of the same day last week — how “exhausting” that must have been (almost like drinking beer and dancing the night away in Belize, or wherever the latest place she visited was) — and what a letdown it all was, too.

I could only watch part of the proceedings in the morning and then in the afternoon, not because I was too busy with other things but because, like with Obama, I have a gag reflex which sets in after just so much bald-faced disingenuousness, or what we Southerners call flat out lyin’. For more on Hillary’s abilities and record in shading the truth, see a good article, “Hillary Clinton — Habitual Liar,” by Dan Calabrese at: http://www.caintv.com/watergate-era-judiciary-chief. Dan reveals that she’s been at the lying game for a l-o-o-o-n-g time.

For my part, I’ll just remind those of you who are either too young or may have forgotten about them over the years of the following stories in which Hillary was deeply involved and, which, over time, as she and others hope is the case with Benghazi, were “forgotten” and/or never really pursued by — guess who? — the liberal, lapdog, lamestream media: (a) Vince Foster’s sudden “suicide” death, (b) Sandy Berger’s theft of classified documents, (c) her “lost” law firm records, which later “turned up” on a table in the presidential quarters, (d) the Whitewater land deal scandal, (e) Bill’s serial infidelities with one abused/assaulted woman after the other, and many other occasions on which “The Hill” has exhibited her adroitness and adeptness at fabrication, evasion and full-on, feigned sincerity.

And, that’s why I said Hillary “testified,” because, although she was under oath (for whatever that means to a career politician), she actually just danced faster than the committee members could manage to whistle. She was much more prepared to parry than they were to probe. Her “testimony” was specious and committee members’ interrogations were spotty. Many of the questioning congressmen may have also been lawyers, but they definitely did not evidence much skill at eliciting short responses with pointed questions to conserve time or at cross-examination and followup questions. Disappointing all around — she wasn’t forthcoming enough and they weren’t confrontational enough. Besides, Hillary wore her “I’m a really serious person” glasses, which were later revealed to be special glasses to correct her concussion-induced double vision. Too bad they couldn’t also correct her double-talking.

By the way, speaking earlier of feigned sincerity, do you know of anyone who “does” faked self-righteous indignation any better than Hillary? Well, besides Obama, I mean. They both seem to have faked sincerity and false indignation down pretty pat.

Jake Tapper, who I actually like despite his working for CNN, has it almost right about the stress over Benghazi wearing on Hillary, but it’s more probably the stress of lying about Benghazi for so long, starting with “it was all the video’s fault” and including up to now, which has actually taxed our facile-tongued (or is that forked-tongued?) Secretary of State.

[Editorial note: Just giving credit where it’s due, some information hereafter is based on a CNS News article by Terence P. Jeffrey, dated January 23, 2013.]

So, Hillary also doesn’t know why her own ambassador was meeting with a Turkish rep in Benghazi just hours before the terrorist attack, either? Maybe to facilitate some weapons out of Libya, through Turkey, and into Syria? So, who was Ambassador Stevens working for, the State Department, or the CIA, or both?

And, nobody asked what I call the “origin question” — where, from whom, did the “it was all the fault of an Internet video” meme originate in the first place? Whose idea was that? We may never know, but it gave Team Obama cover until after the election was over, so I guess that was the most important thing, despite that the only person currently (still) actually in jail over the whole Benghazi brouhaha is the guy from California who exercised his First Amendment rights and made the much-talked-about but little-seen video and who was perp-walked on national TV over a parole violation. When’s the last time you saw anyone perp-walked over a parole violation? Probably all part of the Team Obama kabuki to show, “See, we don’t like this guy who offended all of you Muslims, either.”

And, yes, the “talking points” which our UN Ambassador Susan Rice used were originally composed by the CIA, but changed by someone in the White House and used by Rice without her, supposedly such a smart and accomplished woman, doing any checking of her own of their accuracy, although she had access to classified intel which she could have used to do so.

Please, stop trying to make excuses for something that smells fishier than a 3-day-old fish left out on the kitchen counter on a hot, summer afternoon. If it smells that fishy, it is that fishy.

Benghazi-gate was a mistake which shouldn’t have been allowed to happen in the first place, which exposed as false the Obama reelection narrative of al-Qaeda being decimated, and which has been covered up and lied about by multiple members of Team Obama ever since. There are at least five, on-the-record and different versions of what happened at the State Department, at the White House, and within the National Security Council on the day of the attack and since. All of them can’t be true, which raises the legitimate question if any of them are.

Under questioning from Senator Ron Johnson, Wisconsin Republican, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Secretary Clinton revealed that she has spoken to only one of the American survivors who was evacuated from Libya after the Benghazi attack. Presumably, this was one of the five Diplomatic Security officers who fought off the terrorists at the State Department’s Benghazi Special Mission Compound and who lived to be able to report as eyewitnesses about what had happened there that day.

Yet, the Obama Administration has not yet publicly named a single one of these five surviving State Department heroes.

In fact, the only American witnesses to the Benghazi attack who have been named by the Obama Administration are Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were working for the CIA, not for Clinton’s State Department, and they are all — tragically for them and their families but I suspect conveniently for the Obama Administration — dead and can’t testify.

There were over 20 survivors of the Banghazi attack. More important than the fact that Hillary only talked to one of them is that the Senate and House congressional committees should be interviewing all of them, not just an experienced liar like Hillary. Or do we have to wait for all of them to be on an outdated helicopter which mysteriously crashes and kills everybody, as were inexplicably many members of SEAL Team 6 who actually got bin Laden?

The committees should also be getting testimony from the Army general and Navy admiral who were suddenly and mysteriously relieved within hours of the Benghazi debacle. That might reveal why no military assistance was sent in time to save at least the two former Navy SEALS who were killed in the last hour or so of the 7-hour, 2-wave, heavy weapons, terrorist attack.

Clinton also claimed in her exchange with Senator Johnson that it would have been inappropriate for her to talk to the surviving State Department officials — who worked for her, and who had been deployed to Benghazi under her authority — until they had been interrogated by the FBI. I am getting so tired of Team Obama using an “ongoing” FBI investigation as an excuse not to answer the few, probing question from the press which they do get.

Because Clinton testified that she has only talked to one of the survivors, she could not possibly have even personally thanked, let alone heard the eyewitness accounts of, four of the five Diplomatic Security officers who put their lives on the line to protect Ambassador Stevens and the US facility in Benghazi.

She did not reach out to them in the hours or days after the attack to get their personal accounts of what had happened — information that clearly would have been valuable to her and her subordinates as they explained to the nation what actually happened that day. (Oh, but wait, what if she and her subordinates never really intended to explain to the nation what actually happened that day? Then, there would be no need to “reach out,” would there?)

As it was, rather than getting the eyewitness accounts of the State Department’s own people there — accounts that would attest to the fact that the terrorist attack was a sudden assault on the State Department compound and was not in any way preceded by a protest — Clinton and her department for days put out the false story that the attack had arisen from a protest against an anti-Muslim video which almost no one saw.

Clinton told Senator Johnson that there were approximately 25-30 survivors evacuated from Libya after the attack, but does not know precisely how many “because of our other friends,” a reference to the CIA. Well, Hillary, Obama said, in his first press conference in eight months, during which he took only ten questions, at least two of which were real softballs, but in which he staunchly defended our UN Ambassador Susan Rice, that he would do whatever he could to provide answers to the American people about Benghazi, so don’t you think, if he really meant that, that he, as president, could call everybody together and find out how many were yours and how many were “other friends,” as well as settle once and for all who started the “it’s the video’s fault” lie in the first place? Of course he could.

Most of the US personnel in Benghazi that day apparently worked for the CIA. Other than the five State Department Diplomatic Security agents who were at the State Department’s Special Mission Compound at the time of the attack and survived, the only other State Department personnel in the city were Ambassador Stevens and Information Management Officer Smith, who were both killed.

“Did you personally speak to those folks?” Senator Johnson asked Clinton of the American survivors of the attack.

“I have spoken to one of them,” said Clinton, “but I waited until the Accountability Review Board (ARB) had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising an issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB had conducted its investigation.”

The ARB report had been published more than a month prior, on December 18, so I guess if you don’t get enough delay, or political distance, by waiting on the FBI, wait on the ARB for over a month after they publish their report.

Later, when Senator Johnson pressed Clinton on why our UN Ambassador Susan Rice had said on national television five days after the attack that the attack had arisen from a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video, Clinton said that “we” did not believe it was appropriate to talk to the survivors of Benghazi until after the FBI had.

“As I said, I still have a DS agent at Walter Reed seriously injured,” said Clinton. “Getting them into Frankfurt Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over to immediately start talking to them — We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews.”

The ARB later reported that one of the State Department security officers at the Benghazi mission, watching a video monitor, saw the attack begin at about 3:42 p.m. Washington, D.C., time on September 11, when dozens of armed terrorists swarmed through the main gain of the compound. He immediately sounded an alarm in the compound. He then used a cell phone to notify the CIA Annex down the road and the US Embassy in Tripoli. The US Embassy in Tripoli then immediately notified State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C.

“I was notified of the attack shortly after 4:00 p.m.,” Secretary Clinton said.

Later that night, before 11:00 p.m. Washington time on September 11, Clinton issued a statement linking the still-ongoing Benghazi attack to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

The Associated Press published a report quoting Clinton’s statement even before former Navy SEALS Woods and Doherty were killed by a terrorist mortar strike on the CIA Annex in Benghazi. Earlier that evening, CIA security personnel from that Annex had gone to the rescue of the State Department personnel at the Special Mission Compound, and helped get the five surviving State Department security officers out.

Clinton’s testimony indicated that she has never talked to at least four of the five State Department security people who bravely defended the department’s mission in Benghazi and survived the attack — and that she claims she did not speak to them earlier in deference to an FBI investigation.

She did not explain why she believed her contact with her own State Department employees could in anyway taint or disrupt an FBI investigation that is reportedly aimed at discovering the identity of the terrorists who attacked the US facilities in Benghazi, not in finding fault with anyone who worked for State.

Would Clinton have talked to Ambassador Stevens or Sean Smith had they survived the attack? Or would she have waited to speak to them, too, until after the FBI had interviewed them? No one asked Secretary Clinton those questions in the congressional hearings. As I said, she was more prepared to obfuscate than committee members were prepared to make her elucidate.

Republicans argue the August 16 cable from Ambassador Stevens to the State Department was rather high priority. As Senator Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, put it, “Libya has to have been one of the hottest of hot spots around the world.” He claimed that not knowing about their security requests “…really, I think, cost these people their lives.”

Paul added, “Had I been president at the time, and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it’s inexcusable.”

There are some things which Senator Paul says with which I disagree, but on this subject, I not only whole-heartedly agree but will go even further.

Despite what she disclaimed during her congressional appearances:

ONE, Hillary joined in with the rest of Team Obama on the “it’s the video” meme from the git-go, because that was used to distract from the facts and maintain the Obama reelection narrative that al-Qaeda was decimated, when it clearly was not. In fact, al-Qaeda and its affiliates were known to be in nine countries when Obama took office and are in over thirty now.

TWO, Hillary, as Team Obama has in the past, used the “ongoing” FBI investigation as cover for not herself investigating what happened to her own State Department people and for her spokespeople to also use in saying they couldn’t comment on what few, probing, press questions were asked because of the “ongoing” investigation.

Aside from the question of why it wasn’t a joint DOD/CIA task force investigating the Benghazi debacle in the first place, this is the same FBI which couldn’t put its agents into Benghazi for almost three weeks because of “personnel security issues,” when a CNN reporter was there retrieving Ambassador Stevens’ journal within four days of the attack and a FOX News correspondent spotted one of the alleged terrorist leaders having a smoothie at a sidewalk cafe in Benghazi within several more days after that.

The same FBI which has yet to interview another of the alleged terrorist leaders, who was only made available for press interview by Turkish authorities because a US senator, Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, requested it, not Hillary’s State Department, and who has now been released from custody but is still being “monitored,” whatever that means, but is still “uninterviewed” by our hard-charging and interminably investigating FBI. Next thing we’ll hear is that Turkish authorities have no idea where he is. Or worse, “Prisoner Who?”

More and more delay, and getting closer and closer to the reelection, and now afterward, when Team Obama thought and thinks the American public — some of which do seem to have the attention span of a cocker spaniel puppy — will “forget” all about Benghazi. Well, I’ve got news — some of us will never forget, not until we get a lot more, and a lot more honest, answers.

THREE, although the ARB was headed by two distinguished and supposedly independent individuals, chaired by former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and vice-chaired by Admiral Michael Mullen, the board itself was in fact handpicked by Hillary, was in fact a part of the State Department investigating another part of the State Department, and, conveniently (and incestuously) enough, found that any and everything which had gone wrong occurred at the Deputy Secretary of State level and below, to include laying some of the blame on our dead ambassador, Chris Stevens, for even being in Benghazi when he should have known better. Always convenient to blame the dead guy, because, you know, he can’t talk back. Again, I refer to Hillary’s history re Vince Foster’s mysterious “suicide.”

FOUR, so Hillary also used the ARB “findings” to deflect any real responsibility from herself, although she had previously fallen on Obama’s sword for him (because he can never admit any wrong) in announcing that she accepted “full responsibility” but didn’t even offer to resign over Benghazi, which amounts to a statement of accountability without any consequence of accountability, which is akin to a politician’s “apology” for you not understanding what he/she clearly said, which is the same as nothing at all — a non-apology is no apology and accepting responsibility without being responsible is just, uh, irresponsible.

FIVE, Hillary’s sympathetic appeal during questioning from Senator Johnson when she talked about dead State Department personnel, got that well-practiced little tremor in her voice and that tear drop which no one actually saw (Obama’s a master at this also) and then her faked outrage at “What difference does it now, after the fact, make?,” and we should focus on how to prevent this from happening again, and blah, blah, blah. Senator Johnson, instead of being put off by her bluster, should have interrupted her tirade and simply said, “Yes, Madame Secretary, we all want to do what’s necessary to keep something like this from ever happening again, but the purpose of these hearings right now is to ascertain why you let it happen in the first place and why the Obama Administration has told so many different stories about it ever since.”

And, SIX, in her last days at State, the eighth terrorist attack on a US foreign mission, embassy, consulate, etc., on her watch just took place in Turkey, a NATO ally, with the bombing of our embassy there. Of course, it’s suspected that this was not the work of an al-Qaeda affiliate, for a change, just some in-counrty, radical Marxist group who also hates, disrespects and does not fear the US, as our enemies used to do.

Good job with all that “soft power” diplomacy, “reset” (regret) relations, and American apologist appeasement, Hillary. Now, almost nobody fears us enough to even respect us a little. You know, those of us who are and have been in the military have another name for “leading from behind.” We call it “following,” and, unfortunately, I don’t see your successor John “anti-war protestor” Kerry doing much better than you have.

Yet, Hillary is who the Democrats might run for president in 2016. Really? Well, they already got another serial liar, Obama, elected — twice — so why not give it a shot? Evidently, the American people will believe almost anything — at least once every four years. Evidently, the rest of the time, the sheeple, at least politically,  just sleepily go about their personal business with that cocker spaniel puppy attention span.

Another “Historic” Election Results In — Status Quo Ante

13 Nov

Well, after about 18 months of campaigning, including the Republican primary season, a lot of political rhetoric, nearly three billion (yes, with a B) dollars collectively spent by both campaigns, three presidential debates, dirtier attack ad after dirty attack ad, countless robo-calls to countless households, not to mention all the political mailbox clutter and front door hangers, plus much angst on all sides of the political spectrum, the 2012 presidential election is finally, thankfully over. And the result after all that? Well, aside from all the robo-calls and mailbox stuffers finally and mercifully stopping, it’s status quo ante — pretty much the same as things were before.

So, Obama’s back in the White House, Democrats made small gains in retaining control of the Senate and Republicans made small gains in retaining control of the House. What’s new, Pussycat? All and sundry will claim this election gave them a “mandate,” but although Obama tromped Romney in electoral votes, the popular vote difference of only about two million votes, yielding a mere margin of 50 to 48, and 58 million-plus Americans voting against Obama, despite this year’s turnout being overall less than in 2008, all means no one really has any kind of mandate.

Obama will say, as he already has, that his winning means “the American people approve of my approach” and that he has a mandate to perhaps go even more liberal crazy than we’ve already witnessed. House Speaker Boehner will say, as he already has, that the American people still want fiscal responsibility and less big government interference. Obama will play his hand as if he and his ideology have been validated by winning reelection, whereas Boehner and Republicans would be wise to confront Obama with the fact that now he must make changes to get any cooperation from them and to enhance his presidential “legacy.” Obama’s first four years were largely spent on retaining his own job. His next four years, if he serves all of them, will determine how he is remembered as a president.

Political pundit and former Bill Clinton advisor Dick Morris, who predicted a Romney blowout, now says this: “Obama is the first president in modern times to win re-election by a smaller margin than that by which he was elected in the first place. McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all increased their re-election vote share significantly. Obama’s dropped from a 7 point margin over McCain to a 1 point margin over Romney. That he could get re-elected despite his dismal record is a tribute to his brilliant campaign staff and the shifting demographics of America. This is not your father’s United States and the Republican tilt toward white middle aged and older voters is ghettoizing the party so that even bad economic times are not enough to sway the election.” Gee, Dick, wish you could have told us all this before the election. Then, we would really believe you had a crystal ball.

“Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.” (Barack Obama, Democratic Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech, Denver, Colorado, August 28, 2008).

Exactly what Obama denigrated in that 2008 speech is what he, in fact, did to win the 2012 election. He never offered any fresh ideas, only incessant attacks and fear mongering about Romney. He knew he didn’t have a real record to run on, so he hardly mentioned it, instead distracting the public with this or that shiny object, making the election about small things — Romney’s taxes, Romney’s wealth, Romney’s wife’s horse, Big Bird, Binders of Women and Bayonets.

I don’t know if Obama’s success in getting reelected is due as much to his “brilliant campaign staff and the shifting demographics of America,” as Dick Morris said, or, more sadly, to the dumbing down of the electorate who are so easily distracted from the real issues by this or that shiny object and seemingly so increasingly enthusiastic about entitlements and “free stuff.” JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” seems not only long ago, lost in the media’s mystical mist of a Camelot which never really was, but also all but forgotten in today’s entitlement tipping point society.

The only “good” things about Obama getting reelected are that all and everything which Team Obama and its compliant, complicit, liberal lamestream media kicked down the road or hid until after the election are all back on the table now, out from behind the curtain now, and Obama’s got four more years to have to deal with them, while at the same time now having to worry more about his “legacy” as a president than his previous concern of constantly campaigning just to hang onto his own job.

The anemic economy he has to deal with now is his own economy, no longer Bush’s, if it ever really was instead of that of the 2006-2008 Democratically controlled Congress, and Benghazi-gate looms on the congressional investigation horizon and is even finally creeping into the liberal lamestream media coverage, especially now that it’s taken the salacious turn of CIA Director Petraeus’ alleged affair and subsequent resignation, the evolving details of which are equally as conflicting and confusing as Team Obama’s ever-changing Benghazi-gate story.

It’s a shame, after Fox News’ Pulitzer prize worthy and consistent reporting on Benghazi-gate over the last two months, that it seemingly required Benghazi taking a “bimbo turn” for the mainstream media to start showing some interest. Of course, the other reason was that they had to wait until after Obama was reelected, but now they will try to treat it more as a mere sex scandal than the national security breach and possibly criminal negligence incident that it actually was. Just watch the slant of their coverage to see what I mean.

However, I personally don’t think Obama will get to serve out his second term, but we’ll see. Remember, though, you heard it here first as an early “prediction.”

And, if you want to get more “down in the weeds” about why Obama won and Romney lost, Real Clear Politics gives a pretty good and objective rundown of 21 reasons at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/07/21_reasons_for_obamas_victory_and_romneys_defeat_116090.html.

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.

%d bloggers like this: