Tag Archives: Susan Rice

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

Advertisements

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.

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.

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: http://video.foxnews.com/v/1892704860001/reexamining-the-timeline-of-events-in-libya/?intcmp=obnetwork. 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: https://myconservativeperspective.wordpress.com.%5D

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?

Obama’s Bungled Benghazi Brouhaha

25 Sep

Now, I’m just a regular American who gets his news from a couple of TV outlets, one conservative and another not so much, some online subscriptions to both conservative and liberal, as well as French and UK, news sources and who does his own, independent research on the Worldwide Web. (Well, maybe I’m not so “regular” in that regard after all, because, unfortunately, I don’t think many Americans are all that engaged in what’s going on in the larger picture.)

Anyway, I’m not privy to the type of intel to which, say, someone in the State Department, the UN, the White House or in Congress would have access. Just like most of you, I am largely dependent on our government to discover and tell us the truth. But what the Obama Administration has been telling us about the attack in Benghazi for two weeks now has been, to say the least, confusing, if not downright contradictory, confounding, if not a cover up.

So, just based on common sense and what’s been put out by the media in the public forum since September 11, 2012, let’s see what we can piece together, not from inside intel or some diplomatic information to which only the Obama Administration is privy, but just from what are called “open sources.”

First, the United States was successfully attacked on its own soil (all of our consulates and embassies in foreign countries are considered US territory) for the first time in 11 years, when our Libyan consulate was overrun, our first ambassador in 33 years was killed, along with three other members of our foreign service corps, by what was first reported to be about 20 but more recently reported to have been as many as 100 radical Muslims with links to al-Qaeda, in a military style, 2-wave attack, with heavy weapons, including rocket propelled grenades (RPGs), over a 4-hour period. This included not only attacking the consulate compound itself but also the safe house located some distance away, the existence and location of which were supposedly known only to selected consulate personnel.

The next day (whatever happened to answering that 3AM phone call?), President Obama appeared, with Secretary of State Clinton by his side (perhaps for support or perhaps to share in any blame later), in the White House Rose Garden, where he decried the attack but indicated it was caused by a little-seen, 17-minute, amateur video trailer against the Prophet Muhammad, which had been on the Internet since June, and refused to take any questions from the gathering of reporters, ostensibly because he didn’t have time, as Air Force One was warming up on the tarmac for a trip to a Las Vegas fundraiser at the time. Talk about bad optics, appearing out of touch, etc. An ambassador of ours has been killed in a terrorist attack for the first time in over 30 years and it’s give a brief statement to reporters, take no questions, give no reassurances and then it’s back to reelection campaign matters and saving your own job?

Later, presidential candidate Romney also held a press conference in which he said a message released by the Cairo embassy, trying to distance the US from the video, was a mistake and we should not be apologizing for anything. Subsequent to that, Romney held another press conference, at which it’s since been shown the liberal mainstream media (MSM) colluded and ambushed him with everything from “shouldn’t such critical remarks stop at our shoreline?” (they certainly didn’t raise that issue about Obama’s apology tour and Cairo Muslim appeasement speech in 2009) to seven out of the eight questions asked of Romney just being variations of “gotcha” questions (when did you stop beating your wife?), simply rephrased over and over.

My own view is that Romney should have waited a day or two, so as not to appear to politicize the issue and to give Team Obama time to make more mistakes (which they did in spades), but certainly, as a candidate for president, Romney had every right to comment and I think his initial reaction was the correct one — WE were the ones attacked, so what the hell were we APOLOGIZING for? If he had not commented, it’s fair to surmise the MSM would have been all over him for NOT commenting. Where’s Romney on all this? — and blah, blah, blah.

Then, aside from some releases from the Obama State Department, not denying the claim that the video caused the attack but mainly saying they couldn’t comment because the Benghazi attack was under investigation by the DOJ and FBI (again, with the law enforcement attitude about terrorism, instead of the DOD and State Department investigating, and using the same dodge used by AG Holder in the Fast and Furious investigation), there was basically radio silence from Team Obama.

That is, until Obama’s UN ambassador Susan Rice went on all the main Sunday TV talk shows on September 16th, where she gave full throated voice, and with a straight face, no less, that it was all the video’s fault and they had no information that the consulate attack was either premeditated or preplanned, but just part of a larger demonstration over the video. By then, however, enough had leaked out in bits and pieces to the public at large that such a claim was patently false on its face, including the organizer of the Cairo embassy demonstration, which desecrated our flag and flew a version of the al-Qaeda flag instead, saying he had not even seen the video, and I would contend that most in the rioting Muslim world have not.

For at least nine days following the attack, until about September 20th, Team Obama, including his UN ambassador, Hillary and her State Department, Obama’s Press Secretary Jay “swarmy” Carney and other Team Obama players, maintained the mantra that the video caused it all and that the Benghazi attack was just part of a larger demonstration.

In the meantime, the Libyan president said it was not only a terrorist attack but that it was preplanned and carried out by al-Qaeda. Hillary’s State Department seemed of the opinion that they knew more than the president of Libya, who, you know, lives there and is the president, and basically threw him under the bus for his comments (just another mistreated and discounted ally).

Then, video came out which showed there was NO large demonstration, of which the attack could have been a smaller part, at our Libyan consulate at all. There was only the attack itself and scenes of the attackers themselves, with the consulate and vehicles ablaze behind them. Oops.

Also, in the meantime, Jay “swarmy” Carney more recently said that it’s “self-evident” that it was a preplanned, premeditated attack. I don’t see how Jay Carney doesn’t get whiplash, but, gee, Jay, to some of us with a dab of brains and with only what was being publicly reported within a day or two of the attack, it was “self-evident” from the beginning. Obviously not included among us was Obama’s UN ambassador, whose credibility is now equally as low as Obama deputy campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter’s, who claimed she didn’t know anything about the laid off steel worker’s story after hosting him on a conference call in which he told her his story and she thanked him for sharing). Too bad it took Team Obama over nine days to come to the same conclusion, er, unwilling admission? Still, however, Team Obama maintained it was the video which caused the attack.

Then, we saw video of the alleged maker of the infamous and little-seen video, covered up to hide his identity, being perp walked by police on national TV, ostensibly for a parole violation (when’s the last time you saw someone perp walked for a parole violation?). You think there might have been some, uh, pressure from the White House to show that, see Muslims, we don’t like the guy, either. Obama has repeatedly characterized the video as not only the cause of the Muslim rioting but also as disgusting.

That may be, but where’s anyone in the administration standing up to the world, to include the Muslim world, in defending the guy’s right to make it anyway? After all, isn’t freedom of speech one of our most precious, enumerated rights and the one we most preach to the rest of the world? Islamists don’t want anyone to have freedom of speech if it includes anything negative, or even honest, about their prophet, their “religion,” or their Sharia law. Also about this same time, we learned Obama had spent another $70,000 of our taxpayer money to run TV ads in Pakistan condemning the “hateful” video, even while Pakistanis burned Obama in effigy. Another wise investment of our tax dollars, no doubt.

Also, in the meantime, the Muslim Brotherhood’s newly minted Egyptian president, the one who did not use his security forces to stop the initial protests at our Cairo embassy and the one who, more than 24 hours later and only after a phone call from Obama, finally condemned those protests, felt he has sufficient power to dictate to the US the terms for our sending him billions in foreign aid. Egyptian President Morsi should perhaps remember that it is his military which keeps him in power and it is we who fund his military. No funding, no military. No military, no more Morsi. It would be interesting to see how the Muslim Brotherhood could do all on its own in a country as large, and poor, as Egypt.

Then, CNN found Ambassador Stevens’ journal among the consulate rubble four days after the attack (where were our own embassy people and/or the FBI who’s supposed to be investigating the attack in securing and clearing the “crime scene”?) and, after holding its contents for another four days out of respect for the ambassador’s family, CNN released info which clearly indicates the ambassdor was concerned about embassy security and his own personal safety long before the 9/11 anniversary on which he and three others were murdered.

It’s difficult to believe, but still not yet admitted by Team Obama, that Stevens did not send his concerns about security up the chain to the State Department. And that raises the questions: (a) with the anniversary of 9/11 approaching, with known al-Qaeda terrorist militia in the area, and the ambassador’s concerns, why was security not beefed up, not only in Libya but all across the region, (b) why are there stories of what Marines were on deck not being allowed live ammo for their weapons, and (c) why did the local al-Qaeda militia have obviously better intel about the safe house than we evidently had about the militia and its plans?

Was Team Obama just caught off guard because of a lack of intel, or were they just not paying sufficient attention? Hopefully, a full congressional investigation will find the truth which the Obama Administration seems not only reluctant but recalcitrant to tell us. And, here I thought the Obama Administration was supposed to be the most transparent ever, too.

And, also in the meantime, since his brief address in the Rose Garden on September 12, two weeks ago, Obama has not once addressed the American people directly, say, from the Oval Office (where he’s supposed to work), to provide any more information, any assurances, or anything more about the killing of our ambassador and his colleagues, or the demonstrations against us across the Middle East and even into Indonesia, where Obama attended Muslim school as a boy.

All this while his feckless foreign policy of reset relations, appeasement and apology and so-called “soft power” seems to be unraveling across the Muslim world, with Obama himself being burned in effigy, among shouts of “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama, Osama.” He does not have time to meet with the prime minister of Israel, our closest Middle Eastern ally who is under existential threat from Iran, when both are either in New York or Washington. He has toured throughout the Middle East but has yet to visit Israel as an incumbent president in almost four years, which he says he will do when he’s reelected.

He addresses the UN General Assembly, still maintains that it’s all about the “crude and disgusting” video, calls what happened in Benghazi an “assault” rather than a “terrorist attack,” which even others in his own administration have now finally admitted, and refuses to meet with other world leaders (first time in two decades for a US president). However, he has had time for appearances on The View and with Letterman, Jay Z and Beyonce and their Obama tribute tower of champagne, Pimp with a Limp, still another interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes, and campaign speeches and fundraisers.

Obama — out of touch, just doesn’t care, or just wants to ignore everything until after the election? Whatever it is, it’s what’s called in the politico trade “bad optics” all around. It makes it look like he and Team Obama are either incompetent, don’t care that Rome may be burning, aren’t telling us what they know, or some mix of all of that.

An American president has two main areas for which he is responsible: domestic policy and foreign policy.

In Obama’s case, his domestic policy boat has all but sunk, promising to cut our debt in half in his first term but instead increasing it in less than four years by more than all other presidents in our history combined, leaving us with crippling debt and deficits for our children and grandchildren, no constitutionally mandated federal budget for over three years, over 40 months of unemployment above 8 percent, 23 million Americans out of work, the most people on food stamps than any other time in our history and the most in poverty in decades, and declining manufacturing capacity compared to China, to just mention a few domestic failures.

And it seems his foreign policy boat is rudderless and adrift on the tides of the Arab Spring turned Arab Winter and the violent vicissitudes of those who want our money but who hate us and all we stand for, and who have repeatedly slapped away his naive hand of friendship, if not repeatedly bitten it.

%d bloggers like this: