Tag Archives: CIA

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.

I Wondered Where the Clapper Was

2 Oct

James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI), that is his very top intel guy, was, I thought, mysteriously missing from making any public pronouncements for more than two weeks after the Benghazi attack and the murder of our ambassador and three other brave Americans. And now, I think I know why.

Normally, in situations like this, it would not be our UN ambassador, or not even so much the Secretary of State, but someone like the CIA Director, the Director of Counter Terrorism, the NSA Director, or the DNI himself who would address the intel issues and explain to the public about what happened in Benghazi and why.

Well, of course, along with the president addressing the nation from the Oval Office to let us know what happened and why and what we’re going to do about it. You know, actually showing that he is the commander-in-chief and reassuring us that he is on top of things for us. But then, there have been so many fundraisers and campaign speeches, so what’s one man to do? Busy, busy, busy.

Team Obama, obviously playing election year political tactics rather than being good at national security strategy, probably first asked Hillary to go on the Sunday TV news shows and she declined, so they turned instead to Obama’s UN ambassador Susan Rice and put her out there to lie to the American people — it’s all about the offensive video, it was all part of a larger demonstration which spun out of control, it was spontaneous and not pre-planned or premeditated, and blah, blah, blah.

Of course, it’s since been revealed (a) that the offensive video only had about 300 viewing hits as of the 9/11 attack, that is, before Team Obama started advertising it by saying it was the cause of all the trouble and paying $70,000 of our tax dollars to distance itself from the video in Pakistan, while Pakistanis nonetheless burned Obama in effigy, (b) that the organizer of the Cairo demonstration against our embassy said he had not even seen the video, (c) that there was no larger demonstration in Benghazi at all, (d) that the attacks on our Benghazi consulate and safe house were done by about 20-100 radical Muslims, in a two-wave attack, over a four hour period, with heavy weapons. I heard all that within two days of the attack and, as a retired Army guy, I knew it was a terrorist attack right then.

It seems Team Obama was counting on generating enough “fog” to distract us from the first successful attack on the US on its own soil (as all our embassies and consulates are) in eleven years and the first murder of one of our ambassadors in thirty-three years having happened on Obama’s watch, and right in the middle of an election year, and on the 9/11 anniversary, too, oh my. How unlucky for Obama, but how deadly for our ambassador and the three killed with him. But then, they’re just “bumps in the road,” after all.

Then, as the days and now the weeks have worn on and Team Obama began to be challenged on its false “narrative,” Obama’s and Hillary’s State Department’s game then became, “We can’t comment on this any more because of the ongoing FBI investigation in Benghazi, so you have to ask the FBI.” Well, the fact is that, after 20 days now, the FBI still hasn’t even begun its investigation on the ground in Banghazi. Why? Well, because of security concerns for its personnel, that’s why.

Hmmm, security concerns didn’t stop someone from CNN going to the consulate site and retrieving Ambassador Stevens’ personal journal from among the rubble four days after the attack, though, did they? Maybe real journalists are just braver than the FBI. Or maybe the whole “FBI investigation thing” is just another stall tactic by Team Obama. And why the FBI anyway? It’s not only a crime scene. It’s the scene of a terrorist attack. So, why isn’t DOD or CIA taking the lead on investigating what happened and why?

Again, it’s Team Obama treating a terrorist attack as if it were merely a law enforcement matter, like the Fort Hood shooting massacre in November 2009 or the foiled underwear bomber over Detroit in December 2009. Yes, those terrorist attacks also took place on Obama’s watch but were treated as law enforcement matters, which the liberal lapdog media compliantly went along with, so no big deal, right?

This all seems too much like the Fast and Furious stalling of Eric “withholding” Holder that his own IG’s investigation must proceed before we would know all we needed to know about F&F and the death of Border Agent Brian Terry and a number of Mexicans, while Holder used stonewalling and finally Obama’s tenuously tendered and probably illegally proffered executive privilege to keep thousands of pages of applicable documents from the Congressional investigating committee.

And now, after months and months, Holder’s IG’s report is out and it’s all ATF and some DOJ officials’ fault but not any of Holder’s himself, and those guilty may be fired, allowed to “retire” or reassigned, but none of them seem to be going to prison, which is where Holder belongs for committing perjury and being incompetent, along with the others who, either through malfeasance or misfeasance of office, allowed the F&F deaths to occur. And still no definitive answers for Brian Terry’s family since he was killed in December 2010, eleven miles inside the United States. What a shame.

Of course, it’s since been revealed (a) that Team Obama knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack within 24 hours, (b) that they internally labeled it as such to release certain national security assets, and (c) that they may have even had a 48-hour advance warning of the impending 9/11 attack in Benghazi in particular and of a need to increase our embassy and consulate security there and all across the region in general even much prior to 48 hours before.

It has still not come out whether our assassinated ambassador, Chris Stevens, sent the security concerns he had about Benghazi and his own personal security, expressed in his CNN-recovered journal, up State Department channels or not, but it would stretch credulity to think that he did not. And, if he did, who received it, when did they receive it and what did they do about it? It’s pretty obvious at this point to say they didn’t do enough, but those other questions still need answering.

It seems that Team Obama may have purposefully held DNI Clapper back in case their narrative didn’t fly, so they could use him and he could come out later, just as he’s finally done now, to tie up any “loose ends” and clean up the mess which the Obama Amateur Hour Administration has made of the whole Benghazi brouhaha. Clapper now “explains” to all of us (gullible) members of the public that the intel has changed, that Rice reported what was surmised at the time (remember, her appearance was September 16 — five days after the Benghazi attack) and that more recent intel shows that it was clearly a terrorist attack. Yet, they still cling to the falsehood that the “disgusting” video caused it all. Ha and ha!

Remember this is the same DNI Clapper who, in a December 2010 interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC News, was completely unaware that 12 would-be terrorists had been arrested in the UK earlier that same day. That “intel” was broken to him by Ms. Sawyer when she asked him about it and got the classic “deer in the headlights” look in response.

The same DNI Clapper who, when mass demonstrations were bringing down Egypt’s Mubarak in February 2011, told a House Intelligence Committee hearing that the term “Muslim Brotherhood” was an umbrella term for a variety of movements, a very heterogenous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence, decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam, which has pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt and which has no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence.

Then, the Muslim Brotherhood ran a candidate in their first “free elections” and elected one of their own, Mohamed Morsi, as prime minister. The same Mohamed Morsi who recently failed to use his security forces to protect our embassy in Cairo and who, only after a phone call from Obama, even spoke out against the demonstrations at all. The same Mohamed Morsi who afterward thought he could dictate the terms of how much of our taxpayer money Obama sends him to fund the Egyptian military which keeps Morsi in power. With “friends” like Morsi, we don’t need enemies.

And also remember, this is the same DNI Clapper who, in March 2011, was wrong, wrong, wrong in commenting at the Senate Committee on Armed Services that “over the longer term” Gaddafi “will prevail” in the 2011 Libyan civil war. The Obama White House subsequently and resoundingly “qualified” his statement as a “static and one-dimensional assessment.” He was also questioned, rightly so, by committee members at the same hearing about why he had failed to list either Iran or North Korea among those countries who posed a nuclear threat to the United States. Duh!

Yeah, that DNI Clapper. He’s exactly THE guy to “explain” to me all the confusing and contradictory claims about Benghazi coming out of Team Obama over the last 20 days, as we also witness Obama’s feckless foreign policy of apology and appeasement in collapse all across the Muslim world. How about you? Who among Team Obama do you trust to just tell you the plain truth for a change?

%d bloggers like this: