Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: kgbsquirrel on October 19, 2012, 09:07:42 PM
-
Benghazi Edition.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/libya-attack-cia-discovery-us-consulate-killings_n_1984429.html?icid=maing-grid7|aim|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D222984
The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.
It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went.
I know some people are going to scream opsec at me about this, but I really can't hold my tongue on this. Regarding the following types of reports I am about to describe I can state that I worked with them directly, and originated (ie, wrote) several myself as both training and real world events while I was in the Navy.
I can say unequivocally that everyone at the top knew, and here's why: An event such as the killing of a U.S. Ambassador meets the requirements for a Critical Intelligence Report to be formed. This is known in intel parlance as a CRITIC. Initial CRITIC's are followed up with supplemental information as it comes in. If no additional information comes in, an addendum is appended every hour at the maximum stating such. This continues until the event concludes and the final follow-up is appended. The CIA digging up information pertaining to the origins of the attack would qualify as necessary CRITIC followup material and would be included in the running CRITIC report.
Now here's where it gets fun. CRITIC's by their nature have the highest priority rating of any report in the intel business. This is called Flash Override. The neat thing about this priority rating is it shoves every other message in the pipe aside and goes first, no matter what. The timeliness requirement for a flash override message (aka any and all CRITIC's) is 10 minutes. 10 minutes from the time it is sent to when it is in the hands of (drum roll please): The Director of National Intelligence, DIRNSA (Director National Security Agency), NSA (National Security Adviser to the President), and, ta-da, the President of the United States.
They knew, and they knew in less than 15 minutes after the CIA ground pounders knew.
ETA:
Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack.
Man, this is a hard one. Oh, wait. Pick any crypto weenie working at the NSA, all the way down to the lowliest enlisted person, have them walk their ass over to the classified terminal, or more accurately, just slide their sit-and-swivel 3 feet to the right because that terminal is an essential component to their job, log on to intelink, pull up the NSA's critic archive, select the one for the Benghazi attack and print that bastard off! Look at that, you now have a document that details everything the intel agencies knew, and in a nice concise timeline of critic followups. And all this would take literally less than 5 minutes. I'm not sure I can adequately express how much this whole thing is pissing me off right now with the obscenity filters in place. :mad:
-
Candy Crowley's got this one. He reads slower.
-
They knew, and they knew in less than 15 minutes after the CIA ground pounders knew.
Agree and well said,
I've seen CRITIC reports in Iraq and you are dead on!!
SGT B
US Army
-
KGB, you don't have to be familiar with the inner workings of the system to realize that there are some sick political shenanigans afoot with the Benghazi attack. It just makes sense that serious situations like this would get shoved through the pipe faster and go all the way up the ladder.
I'm pretty t'offed at this as well. That it's happening .... and that it isn't a bigger scandal in the media than it is. ONE OF OUR AMBASSADORS IS DEAD!!!! And he died horribly. :mad: :mad:
I wonder how tall headlines would be if the president during this had been a republican. :mad:
-
Well, Tommy, if he were a Republican, we'd see a lot of tall headlines about the president's "rush to war" with Lybia.
On a related note, I suddenly realized that something is missing. I don't recall hearing any of the usual noises from our betters in the media/government complex, counseling us not to go around killing anyone we see wearing a turban. That's odd. But I'm not hearing about a spree of Middle-Easterner lynchings, either. =|
-
Ambassador dead?
That's not optimal.
-
kgbsquirrel, can I copy that post to post on Facebook, if for no other reason than to get to my Obama-supporting SIL?
-
I'm also hearing things that the WH was in real time communication with the Ambassador as the attack was happening.
And as someone pointed elsewhere it's approx. a 1 hour flight time for F-16's at Aviano to Benghazi. While one minute is a helluva long time when someone is lobbing mortar rounds at you, knowing that the Cavalry is on it's way makes enduring that a little easier. (The attack lasted over 4 hours, wonder how they know how long it lasted?)
If there were any reporters worth their chops, this would make Watergate look like a panty raid at an all-girls school.
And Americans died because of a massive failure at the WH. Completely unacceptable. It's criminal.
-
kgbsquirrel, can I copy that post to post on Facebook, if for no other reason than to get to my Obama-supporting SIL?
Yes you may.
-
Yeah, but still not near as significant as a hotel break in.
-
Thank you, kgbsquirrel.
-
BHO is content to play the Whack-a-Mole game with drones, but that's just camouflage for his support for Pan-Islamism across the MENA.
-
KGB: I'd like to post it too. I can think of a few people it would torque off...
-
By all means, twist those tails.
-
http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019492493_libyatimeline.html
Interesting article on the whys and wherefores of the changing assessment of the Libya consulate attack.
-
Interesting article on the whys and wherefores of the changing assessment of the Libya consulate attack.
I'd read a few days ago that the intelligence community was going to be "modifying" their story about the timeline, to better coincide with the administration's explanations. Would this article be one of the new, improved stories?
Here's the real issues, though. First, we have an embassy in a country that is emerging from an overthrow of its government, a condition that doesn't usually lend itself to stability. When the ambassador requested additional security, his request was declined. I haven't read a credible reason for the declined request, but there's a whole host of reasons why he could have been turned down. One would simply be negligence on the part of whoever received the request initially. Another, and more ominous reason, would be the same reason that Bill Clinton denied General Garrison his request for AC-130's and armored vehicles in Mogadishu in 1993, which was "appearances". If the reason for declining Ambassador Stevens request was the latter, and it became a news story, Obama wouldn't get 40% of the vote in November.
Even if the reason for declining additional security is valid, the response to the attack is not. As kgbsquirrel has already noted, planes could have been scrambled from Italy and been there in an hour to scare protestors/Al-Queda.
Beyond that, though, there's the question of why President Obama, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and other administration officials kept insisting that this was a protest in response to a 2 year-old Youtube video. Spontaneous demonstrations usually don't involve RPG's and machine guns. Obama and others kept attributing the assaults on our embassies across the Middle East to this video even after State Department and intelligence agency officials had said that the attacks were al-Queda, and not spontaneous demonstrations.
It's nearly impossible to attribute the actions of this administration to anything but pre-election political CYA, and that is the scandal. As Newt Gingrich said over the weekend, President Obama's taking offense at Mitt Romney's question about all of this during the debate was itself offensive. Romney asked a legitimate question about an important incident. For all of Obama's bluster in his answer, he never answered the question. Maybe he'll be forced to answer tonight.
-
Beyond that, though, there's the question of why President Obama, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and other administration officials kept insisting that this was a protest in response to a 2 year-old Youtube video. Spontaneous demonstrations usually don't involve RPG's and machine guns. Obama and others kept attributing the assaults on our embassies across the Middle East to this video even after State Department and intelligence agency officials had said that the attacks were al-Queda, and not spontaneous demonstrations.
In defence of the administration, there are many little mobs running around Libya now that do have RPGs and machine guns and they do like to kick things off - there were attacks earlier that week by these mobs against Sufi sites in Benghazi, and attacks by groups against Western targets earlier in the year. There are also quite a lot of differences between the classic Islamic terror attack and what happened in Benghazi (and indeed, what happened afterwards - certainly I cannot think of that many occasions where locals have demonstrated in favour of the US after an attack, and then gone after the militias themselves).
Where the adminstration has goofed is that they let the personnel stay there, relatively unprotected, despite everything that had been happening in Benghazi and the wider region.
-
When the ambassador requested additional security, his request was declined. I haven't read a credible reason for the declined request, but there's a whole host of reasons why he could have been turned down.
Republican budget cuts. It's the only possible answer. ;/
-
In defence of the administration, there are many little mobs running around Libya now that do have RPGs and machine guns and they do like to kick things off - there were attacks earlier that week by these mobs against Sufi sites in Benghazi, and attacks by groups against Western targets earlier in the year. There are also quite a lot of differences between the classic Islamic terror attack and what happened in Benghazi (and indeed, what happened afterwards - certainly I cannot think of that many occasions where locals have demonstrated in favour of the US after an attack, and then gone after the militias themselves).
Where the adminstration has goofed is that they let the personnel stay there, relatively unprotected, despite everything that had been happening in Benghazi and the wider region.
Maybe you're right. But it insults my limited intelligence to have Obama blaming a Youtube video for nearly two weeks. It's Youtube's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's everybody's fault but Obama's.
-
And Ms. Lamb from the State Department testified that there's a video of the attack (taken of the realtime feed that was being watched by ???) somewhere floating around the State Department.
I find it hard to believe that Obama, Hillary, et al, could watch the killing of Bin-Laden in realtime, yet, were shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, to find out that Al-Qaeda was using crew served weapons on our consulate and ambassador and it took two weeks to figure out what happened. (although our Egyptian embassy and the head of Libya called it a terrorist attack the next day.
-
What do you reckon the ambassador did to annoy Obama?
-
I've seen stated in several reputable sources that Ambassador Stevens was homosexual. If this was the case perhaps stationing him in a muslim country wasn't the best choice. The fact that the video cover story was prepared by the next day would lead me to believe that the violence was not unanticipated.
What do you reckon the ambassador did to annoy Obama?
Perhaps his repeatedly asking for security and putting in writing the fact that he feared for his life and the safety of his staff was running the risk of making Obama's ME policy look ineffective ... There is no question he was hung out to dry by Hillary and Obama w/ a prepared cover story ... I doubt we'll ever know why.
-
Delete
-
Wasn't there also a story that a number of people were removed from that consulate and flown out of the country who were supposedly CIA personnel using the site?
-
I'm also hearing things that the WH was in real time communication with the Ambassador as the attack was happening.
And as someone pointed elsewhere it's approx. a 1 hour flight time for F-16's at Aviano to Benghazi. While one minute is a helluva long time when someone is lobbing mortar rounds at you, knowing that the Cavalry is on it's way makes enduring that a little easier. (The attack lasted over 4 hours, wonder how they know how long it lasted?)
If there were any reporters worth their chops, this would make Watergate look like a panty raid at an all-girls school.
And Americans died because of a massive failure at the WH. Completely unacceptable. It's criminal.
And that right there throws a monkeywrench into the whole deal regardless of the arguments about prior security. Hillary can fall on her sword as much as she likes but there is no way the white house wouldn't know about a consular office under siege and the SecState cannot authorize an airstrike on a foreign country. So, who can....?
It only has to be done correctly once. Find an embassy under siege, drop in the FAST company with extra ammo, draw a circle around the place with an AC-130. You think people leave us alone for awhile?
-
Possibly quite a bit and fairly early on. These clearly show that the "Youtube Video made them do it excuse" is a bunch of crap.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/?tag=fdleft;fdmodule
(Note: This is CBS News, methinks that the press, despite their infatuation with Obama, hates being lied to and played for suckers.)
-
http://soundcloud.com/thelarslarsonshow/charles-woods-father-of-former
dead seals dads got a question
-
Rush remarked this morning that if you compare this to Watergate, then the press is Woodward & Bernstein helping Nixon cover it up.
I pretty much concur.
-
http://soundcloud.com/thelarslarsonshow/charles-woods-father-of-former
dead seals dads got a question
Taking this at face value, so there were mayday calls, and the only response was the personal initiative of two ex-SEAL's. How is it again that we could support Libyan rebels with air strikes, but we couldn't/wouldn't send some strike fighters quick, fast and in a hurry to protect an Ambassador?
Seriously, this stinks the same as the USS Liberty. McNamara and Johnson actually ordering planes on their way from the carrier group to save the ship to return to the carrier.
-
Rush also noted recently that the media constituted a de facto "commune" with leftist leanings. The sooner we fully recognize that we are dealing with a sub-culture that has little in common with the founding precepts of America the sooner we will realize how we need to respond.
-
I know we have some Glenn Beck hater here, just listen to the interview! :'(
Glenn interviewed Charles Woods whose son Tyrone Woods, a former Navy SEAL, was killed during the attacks on the Libyan embassy in Benghazi.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/25/updating-glenn-talks-to-father-of-navy-seal-killed-during-assault-on-libyan-embassy/ (http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/25/updating-glenn-talks-to-father-of-navy-seal-killed-during-assault-on-libyan-embassy/)
-
Many of you are familiar with Matt Bracken, author of the "Enemies Foreign and Domestic" novels.
He is a retired SEAL and has used his knowledge of the inner workings of the machinery that puts trigger pullers on the ground in case of episodes like Ben Ghazi to write a damning indictment of the President.
Reposted with permission of the author.
OBAMA WENT TO BED
Matt Bracken 10-25-2012
The biggest stench from the Benghazi fiasco is that it is beginning to smell like Obama went "nighty-night" to rest up for Las Vegas, instead of manning up in the Situation Room and seeing the crisis through and (had he only been awake) ordering a rescue mission.
In Benghazi, after 6-8 hours enduring a few “Fort Apaches,” with running street battles in between, (like a mini Blackhawk Down), the living Americans must have been thinking, “Any minute now, here come the helicopters! Just hang on!”
But they didn’t. So even though Delta had forward staged to Sigonella Sicily (rumint) from base in Germany, nobody was willing or able to pull the trigger and send a rescue force. Or even a few F-18 supersonic flybys, to bust windows and warn, “Here comes American airpower, and you camel jockeys know what that means.” Just as a morale booster it would have helped the besieged staffers.
But it was never sent, not even a lousy supersonic low-level flyby. One hour from bases in Italy, max.
Here is the deal. The military automatically does a lot on its own, under standing orders and SOPs. The minute they see that the consulate is under attack, and the ambassador and others are in a "safe room" hiding, it becomes TOP priority. Every other mission aborts or slaves over to support any possible rescue.
At that moment when the critical incident alarm messages start ringing, military steps happen on autopilot in real time. Everybody in the Navy and USAF chain of command swings into a crisis contingency plan mode. What ships are closest? Helicopters? Marines? Delta is in Germany? Get them moving right now. Where is closest? Sigonella, for now. It’s NATO, no permission needed, just fly.
En route in C-17s, the D-boys would even be prepping for an immediate action rescue mission, that is, the C-17s will fly directly to some desert road outside of Benghazi, and here comes “The Raid On Entebbe,” done in crisis mode, canned actions, but they would do it. They practice for these exact scenarios, and leave gear staged for them.
They would coordinate with fighters out of Italy, mid-air-refueling platforms start shifting, it's a huge show that swings into action for thousands of miles around Behghazi. The ongoing consulate attack is JOB ONE, the only job. VIPs will be tossed off of planes at remote runways if they need that platform.
Or Marines on amphibious ships in the central Med, (if any were available), would also be put on the real-time options board. We used to have a "Amphibious Ready Group" of about 3-5 USN gator freighters, including a helo carrier like a Tarawa class. They carry an entire battalion of USMC, plus SEALs etc, with helos and Ospreys to carry them all. (But not at once.) Where was our ARG? Does our Navy have enough ships for that mission any more?
But while all of that military staging would have happened/did happen during the 6-8 hour battle at the consulate and annex, what the military cannot do on their own say-so is cross an international border without an order from the NCA, the National Command Authority, and that means POTUS, Obama.
Only POTUS can authorize a cross-border hostile mission. That is, guns clear, no official permission from the Tripoli govt (if it really exists outside State Dept fantasies.)
Only one man can pull that trigger and say, "GO!" Obama.
(But for America to act "unilaterally" would have meant the bogus Libyan Arab Spring and so-called new Libyan Unity Govt. that we were propping up didn’t really exist. Libyan sovereignty must be held sacrosanct, even the false image of one, where in reality, Al Queda is top dog in Libya. Even when an Al Queda offshoot is your external "security," namely, "The 17th of February Martyrs Brigade." IOW, the White House thought they had a "deal" with AQ in Behghazi, since we were helping to run weaponry from Libya to their pals in Syria. So there was an "institutional bias" at State against crossing the border on a rescue operation sin permisso.)
Anyway, be that as it may, no General or Admiral will order the Marines ashore, or a Delta raid or even an F-18 or F-16 low-level supersonic flyby. They can not and will not cross a border without a clear-cut order from POTUS via the NCA. Not even Hillary can make that decision. Only Obama.
But no order came, as of midnight in DC. And then none would come. Because the POTUS retired for the night with a “do not disturb” sign on his door, punted, and went to bed, to be well rested for Las Vegas.
While his ambassador was off the U.S. radar, missing, at that moment possibly being dragged down a Benghazi street or even raped. But that is when Obama went to bed. Midnight in DC is 0600 in Beghazi.
That is the greatest scandal of Benghazi. The POTUS slept through it, while all around the world, military forces were poised for the Raid on Entebbe or any other damn thing the POTUS ordered them to do. (And the were raring to go, believe me.)
But the POTUS said, “We’ll discuss it further in the morning,” and then he went to bed around midnight in DC, 0600 in Benghazi, with a missing ambassador and a full-blown crisis in full mega flap.
He punted. He went to bed.
God help us.
I think that’s the big secret they are keeping. The President went to bed, with his lost Ambassador being dragged through streets.
Obama went to bed.
-
Obama went to bed.
Yes he did. Panneta and company are towing the company LIE, saying they didn't know enough about the situation to send in help. The fact they needed help should be enough!
This should be Obama's Watergate but, the lamestream media is only giving the story about 5 minutes a day.
What the hell is Congress doing?
-
The biggest stench from the Benghazi fiasco is that it is beginning to smell like Obama went "nighty-night" to rest up for Las Vegas, instead of manning up in the Situation Room and seeing the crisis through and (had he only been awake) ordering a rescue mission.
Obama? Man up? :rofl:
-
We also use to have a carrier battlegroup in the Med. Where was that at? They generally have FA-18's ready to launch within 5-10 minutes (if not sooner) notice, in addition to the ones they generally have flying around at all times.
The point is: Obama had military options. Were any "ideal" or "optimal"? No, but the US military is good at improvising on the fly and accomplishing the mission. In this case being, "Save the Americans". Hell, he could have at least order airstrikes to give those Americans on the ground breathing room to scoot and move to other hiding places.
But failing to do anything, and letting Americans die is simply criminal. There needs to be impeachment hearings, THERE IS NO EXCUSE.
And I think Hillary released or had released the e-mails showing that State notified the EOP (Executive Office of the President, i.e. someone in the Situation Room). She's not going to fall on her sword for Barak.
-
It's time to set a new precedent: First sitting or ex-president of the United States to be incarcerated.
-
It's time to set a new precedent: First sitting or ex-president of the United States to be incarcerated.
I'm OK with this in principle, but the street-level consequences would be ugly. Not enough people know or care about the truth or magnitude of this situation to readily accept such a judgment.
-
I'm OK with this in principle, but the street-level consequences would be ugly. Not enough people know or care about the truth or magnitude of this situation to readily accept such a judgment.
So, do we let people get away with murder because it's just too inconvenient to see justice done?
-
So, do we let people get away with murder because it's just too inconvenient to see justice done?
We sure do... All the time in Afghanistan and Iraq
-
We sure do... All the time in Afghanistan and Iraq
Ought we?
-
As more information comes out, the worse this gets.
There were three calls for help.
THREE.
The rage within me grows.
We don't leave anyone behind.
I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient
in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.
-
Obama is a Democrat, and thus will never be held accountable. Our supposedly Republican House of Representatives does not have the stones to do the the right thing.
-
So, do we let people get away with murder because it's just too inconvenient to see justice done?
As a practical matter, yes we do. Should we? Of course not. Understand, my anger is as red hot now as when I posted in the original thread on this topic, and I want justice every bit as much as you.
An indicted, tried, and convicted Obama will provoke more death, presumably of some innocents, in the ensuing chaos. I'm saying that's why, among other reasons, it won't happen. A humiliating electoral defeat and retreat into ignominious obscurity is the best punishment we can hope for.
-
A humiliating electoral defeat and retreat into ignominious obscurity is the best punishment we can hope for.
I'm not getting my hopes up.
-
Me, either.
-
A re-elected Obama will have a very, very hard time governing this America.
The fact that something is Unthinkable does not mean we should not think it. In fact, we are going to have to.
Obama is forcing the issue.
Either we have a Republic built on Law or we do not.
-
A re-elected Obama will have a very, very hard time governing this America.
But little trouble jaunting about to exotic golf vacations on AF1 and surveying the damage he's wrought from a safe distance...
-
We'll see. Somehow I don't think it's going to be business as usual.
-
There was a Spectre ready and waiting for the word GO. It was never received.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-benghazi-obama-admin-refused-to-let-it-fire/ (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-benghazi-obama-admin-refused-to-let-it-fire/)
-
There was a Spectre ready and waiting for the word GO. It was never received.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-benghazi-obama-admin-refused-to-let-it-fire/ (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-benghazi-obama-admin-refused-to-let-it-fire/)
That aircraft could have made all the difference. Wow, just Wow.
-
A humiliating electoral defeat and retreat into ignominious obscurity is the best punishment we can hope for.
You're an optimist. He will have a comfortable life as an academic or consultant, until he is appointed to U.N. Ambassador by the next Democrat administration.
-
You're an optimist. He will have a comfortable life as an academic or consultant, until he is appointed to U.N. Ambassador by the next Democrat administration.
I deliberately wrote hope for, not expect.
-
There was a Spectre ready and waiting for the word GO. It was never received.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-benghazi-obama-admin-refused-to-let-it-fire/ (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-benghazi-obama-admin-refused-to-let-it-fire/)
................................................
I'm going to walk away now before I do something rash.
-
I sometimes wonder if the ambassador might have done something to piss off Obama and got Uriah'd
-
I sometimes wonder if the ambassador might have done something to piss off Obama and got Uriah'd
Sadly, that's probably a more comprehensible explanation than the truth. I was mad before. Now, hard to quantify the reaction.
-
I've just started seeing some interviews with Tyrone Woods' father. If accurate, behavior of the administration in their interactions with him is pretty darn deplorable, and someone should smack Biden upside the head with a 2x4.
Sample:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/father-seal-killed-in-libya-says-clinton-vowed-to-arrest-and-prosecute/
-
The more I hear about this the more infuriated I become. Leon Panetta says they did not know enough about the situation to take action. They had realtime video and 2 drones photographing the action, along with reports from CIA operatives on the ground, yet he said they did not have enough intel to deploy rescue teams to the site. How much intel did he freakin need!?
This is a travesty of justice and heads should roll.
The only ones really questioning the operation ( or lack of) is Fox news. This should bury Obama, but the faithful will follow him no matter what.
I am so frakking pi$$ed!
-
Panetta sa;s they didn't have enough info to act.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/panetta-military-lacked-enough-information-to-intervene-during-benghazi-attack/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/panetta-military-lacked-enough-information-to-intervene-during-benghazi-attack/)
Bullshat!
You had US personnel calling for help.
THAT is enough info to act.
-
You had US personnel calling for help.
THAT is enough info to act.
This. When Americans call for help, we send it. American troops are smart enough and trained enough to improvise on the fly and accomplish the mission.
That being "Save the Americans."
Why do I feel that the NCA/POTUS did not want the possibility of a "Desert One" or "Blackhawk Down" and then they (being the NCA and his "team") came up with the cockamamie Youtube video story to cover-up his failure to act.
Again, I will bet that Hillary had the e-mails and other information leaked, so she won't have to fall on Barak's sword.
Say hello to the "October Surprise". Four dead Americans, denied support, and story to cover-up why they died.
Enraged doesn't begin to describe it.
-
Panetta sa;s they didn't have enough info to act.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/panetta-military-lacked-enough-information-to-intervene-during-benghazi-attack/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/panetta-military-lacked-enough-information-to-intervene-during-benghazi-attack/)
Bullshat!
You had US personnel calling for help.
THAT is enough info to act.
Lets pause for a second.
Lets give them the benefit of the doubt.
"Not enough info to act".
Okay, fine. Not enough information to act.
But then cover it up for over 2 weeks? Refuse to call it a terrorist act? Blame it on some half assed video nobody ever heard about?
:facepalm:
This is plain and simply an obvious political calcuation so that the president didn't look weak in the month leading up to the election. No, he slept like a baby while his people were dying in Lybia, and then when everyone realized how that was going to look, they covered it up.
*expletive deleted*ing disgusting.
-
This is plain and simply an obvious political calculation so that the president didn't look weak in the month leading up to the election. No, he slept like a baby while his people were dying in Libya, and then when everyone realized how that was going to look, they covered it up.
*expletive deleted* disgusting.
That's exactly what it is. :mad:
-
He ends up looking like what he is, only to only half the nation. That's our future, I'm afraid.
-
The PRESIDENT went to bed is the only reasonable explanation for this fiasco. Dereliction of duty! There is simply no explanation that is acceptable and it goes right to the President. Presidential authority was necessary for our planes and interdiction forces to cross into Libya as I understand it. I don’t know how THE president can look at himself in a mirror. But he does.... that should tell you something about THE MAN.
If this would have been George W. Bush, all of the press would be climbing all over his butt and he would have lost his re-election bid over this one event.
Not “optimal”? That term does not do any justice to what happened. Even if the Ambassador was still killed, the correct response is to take immediate action even if there are casualties.
The debate on foreign policy should have been a total blow out against Obama. The problem was that there was not enough factual information available yet to people outside the White House.
I think it's time for a very serious campaign ad by Romney that points out Obama foreign policy.... Obama sleeping....
This whole ordeal really pisses me off. Words simply do not capture my feeling of disgust.
-
Slingshot, Romney, and the Republican leadership in general, are too 'nice' to run a serious campaign ad of that sort. Historically, they have shown an overwhelming, totally unrealistic and rather pathetic desire to be liked by those that will never think well of them under any circumstances. Romney and the Republican leadership are afraid to upset or offend anyone.
-
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/10/27/if-reelected-obama-should-be-impeached-over-benghazi/
High drama ensues.
-
Slingshot, Romney, and the Republican leadership in general, are too 'nice' to run a serious campaign ad of that sort. Historically, they have shown an overwhelming, totally unrealistic and rather pathetic desire to be liked by those that will never think well of them under any circumstances. Romney and the Republican leadership are afraid to upset or offend anyone.
If Romney were to go on the attack on this issue, it would set back the image he's trying to portray on foreign policy (especially to women) as being thoughtful, and not rash. It would also remind everyone of the Candy Crowley moment in the first debate.
What could work is having an outside group run ads attacking Obama on this, with no mention of Romney.
An even more effective strategy, but harder to pull off in less than two weeks, would be a nationwide grassroots drive that would force the media to cover this issue in depth. I don't think a petition would cut it (do they ever?). Something like tens of thousands of people in front of the White House would be something that couldn't be ignored. If there were enough conservatives left who subscribed to the NYT, a mass cancellation of subscriptions could force their hand. The media can be forced to cover stories if the right tools are used.
-
The PRESIDENT went to bed is the only reasonable explanation for this fiasco. Dereliction of duty! There is simply no explanation that is acceptable and it goes right to the President. Presidential authority was necessary for our planes and interdiction forces to cross into Libya as I understand it. I don't know how THE president can look at himself in a mirror. But he does.... that should tell you something about THE MAN.
If this would have been George W. Bush, all of the press would be climbing all over his butt and he would have lost his re-election bid over this one event.
Something to keep in mind is the time scale and time zone differential.
When this attack started, it was about 4:00 PM in Washington DC. The attack went on for about seven hours. The president didn't go to bed until after 11:00 PM, DC time.
In other words, the president was awake for the entire action.
There would be NO PLAUSIBLE WAY for him to have been ignorant of the action or its circumstances or the requests for support and their denial.
Just, you know, to set the record straight on the "slept through it" concept.
Not “optimal”? That term does not do any justice to what happened. Even if the Ambassador was still killed, the correct response is to take immediate action even if there are casualties.
The debate on foreign policy should have been a total blow out against Obama. The problem was that there was not enough factual information available yet to people outside the White House.
I think it's time for a very serious campaign ad by Romney that points out Obama foreign policy.... Obama sleeping....
This whole ordeal really pisses me off. Words simply do not capture my feeling of disgust.
Smartest thing Romney has done with this was to NOT engage on it during the debate.
If he had taken this on, given the state of the known information at that time, then the continuing story would be "well, Romney said this," and the spin on the phrasing, whether it was ill-informed, premature, etc. and the story would have gotten lost in that noise.
Instead, the fact Romney didn't engage on that became the topic in the days that followed, providing a stage for the developing story, and Romney has no exposure in the developing story at all.
Dumb luck or genius execution, I don't really care which, I'll take it.
Every expert under the sun is now making it clear that the president HAD to know within minutes, had to have a real-time feed, and had to have known everything he needed to know to issue a "go" order for a rescue.
Patraeus has now made it clear that the CIA leadership issued no order to "stand down." He didn't embellish, which is telling in itself.
Father of Tyrone Woods has made it clear that Obama and Hillary both lied.
Romney has no need to engage on this further. He can focus on the economy and jobs, and let the public wave of outrage do the rest.
-
Obama slept, widows wept.
-
I'm not one to post RUMINT, but I've been hearing bits and pieces about General Carter Ham getting relieved of command of AFRICOM. Also raising an eyebrow is the Stennis Battlegroup's Admiral being relieved today as well. Does anyone have access to a credible source?
-
I'm not one to post RUMINT, but I've been hearing bits and pieces about General Carter Ham getting relieved of command of AFRICOM. Also raising an eyebrow is the Stennis Battlegroup's Admiral being relieved today as well. Does anyone have access to a credible source?
Conflicting narratives at this time.
The Admiral really can't be all that related, since his group departed for the Middle East via Pacific Ocean with stops along the way, all of which started AFTER the 9/11 thing, so I don't see any connection.
Ace of Spades is poo-pooing the Gen. Ham thing as likely not relevant.
Steve Shippert (Threats Watch) is less sanguine about Gen. Ham, and finds it plausible that there may be some "disagreement with stand-down orders" shenanigans going on.
No definitive information at this time.
-
Wouldn't the mass resignation of every US ambassador just be a gut buster? :rofl:
It's not like they are going to get any support from the Obama admin.
-
Wouldn't the mass resignation of every US ambassador just be a gut buster? :rofl:
It's not like they are going to get any support from the Obama admin.
Or protection? =|
-
[Biden] Hey, who ya gonna trust? [/Biden]
-
I've just started seeing some interviews with Tyrone Woods' father. If accurate, behavior of the administration in their interactions with him is pretty darn deplorable, and someone should smack Biden upside the head with a 2x4.
Sample:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/father-seal-killed-in-libya-says-clinton-vowed-to-arrest-and-prosecute/
Hillary assured him that they would arrest the film-maker. There is no facepalm graphic sufficiently large enough to suit that.
-
Yesterday:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/playing-the-petraeus-card/article/2511908
the CIA put out a statement that “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
Today:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/
urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command
Hmmmmm...... :mad:
ETA: Just something to point out that seems to get lost in the whole "the seals went to help and died thing." They, reportedly, didn't die trying to reach the ambassador, those two seals were, again reportedly, killed by a mortar "while manning a machine gun nest on the roof of the CIA compound." Said compound was about a mile from the consulate where the ambassador was killed. So, trying to piece their movements together, they went out to try to get the ambassador, came back, decided to man an MG nest on the open roof of the CIA compound during a mortar attack, and were subsequently killed?
-
That's my understanding from Jennifer Griffin's reporting on FOX News. They violated orders not to act, went on foot to the consulate, rescued some survivors but could not find the ambassador and returned to the annex, to be killed later by mortar fire on the annex. They had laser designators which could have let air assets take out the mortars, but no air assets were deployed because, according to SecDef Panetta "we didn't have enough information."
-
If Romney were to go on the attack on this issue, it would set back the image he's trying to portray on foreign policy (especially to women) as being thoughtful, and not rash. It would also remind everyone of the Candy Crowley moment in the first debate.
What could work is having an outside group run ads attacking Obama on this, with no mention of Romney.
An even more effective strategy, but harder to pull off in less than two weeks, would be a nationwide grassroots drive that would force the media to cover this issue in depth. I don't think a petition would cut it (do they ever?). Something like tens of thousands of people in front of the White House would be something that couldn't be ignored. If there were enough conservatives left who subscribed to the NYT, a mass cancellation of subscriptions could force their hand. The media can be forced to cover stories if the right tools are used.
The mass civil rights movement for liberty will come. It will have to.
-
Romney is being very careful about bringing up the Benghazi issue. I think he's right. The SuperPacs can handle any political ads that might be deemed beneficial to Romney. Then he can simply say, I didn't approve that just like Obama did on a number of ads.
I believe approval for outside the country force support had to come from Obama personally.
Obama is stalling until the election day.... after the election, Obama will have a press conference and say that changes are being implemented for the security of our people over seas. Again, it will be first person on the changes and any comments on the details will be third person... they did this or didn't do that. He's only in charge of successes.
-
Excuse me, careful why exactly?
To not scare suburban liberal housewives with the truth? To not make Karl Rove get prickly heat?
We are in the Illegitimate Government zone. Does that matter? Why is Obama being given wiggle room to escape?
-
Excuse me, careful why exactly?
To not scare suburban liberal housewives with the truth? To not make Karl Rove get prickly heat?
We are in the Illegitimate Government zone. Does that matter? Why is Obama being given wiggle room to escape?
The point he's making is if Romney goes after Obama about this, the MSM and Obama's lackeys (but I repeat myself) will turn the whole thing into a big circus about how Romney is attacking Obama, and the real message about the blatant dereliction of duty and treason will get lost in the storm.
-
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/69545_498339856864291_1428511150_n.jpg)
-
Excuse me, careful why exactly?
To not scare suburban liberal housewives with the truth? To not make Karl Rove get prickly heat?
We are in the Illegitimate Government zone. Does that matter? Why is Obama being given wiggle room to escape?
I think it's because Romney basically has no foreign policy record, except for that comment he made about Benghazi. By leaving it alone in the debate, he didn't give the Obama anything to criticize him on.
-
Romney doesn't have to attack Obama about this....the super-PACs, talk radio, & the Internet will do that for him.....
....Romney just has to show that he would do better.....
-
Romney doesn't have to attack Obama about this....the super-PACs, talk radio, & the Internet will do that for him.....
....Romney just has to show that he would do better.....
yes^^
and short of going over there and shooting those 4 guys themselves anyone could do better.
i'm thinking the micromanaging left no one with gnads to take action.
-
if this is true i am at a loss http://www.theblaze.com/stories/retired-lt-col-my-sources-say-obama-was-in-the-room-watching-benghazi-attack-happen/
unless he was thinking election consequences only and badly
-
this is kinda a recap http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lack-of-strike-force-impeded-benghazi-response/
-
if this is true i am at a loss http://www.theblaze.com/stories/retired-lt-col-my-sources-say-obama-was-in-the-room-watching-benghazi-attack-happen/
unless he was thinking election consequences only and badly
You beat me to it, though I was still digging to see if I could get any other sources for that bit.
-
You beat me to it, though I was still digging to see if I could get any other sources for that bit.
you know often in life doing the right thing and then accepting consequences is usually best course. this case might illustrate it very well
-
The point he's making is if Romney goes after Obama about this, the MSM and Obama's lackeys (but I repeat myself) will turn the whole thing into a big circus about how Romney is attacking Obama, and the real message about the blatant dereliction of duty and treason will get lost in the storm.
And my point is that the GOP is the ringmaster-in-waiting if they are not part of the clown crew.
OF COURSE Big Media will spin the thing. But we know that and have known it for years. What I don't see is a brave strategy to deal with this fell reality head-on. Big Media are NOT invulnerable on any level, but you'd think they were. You might also be excused if you suspected that on some level a lot of the GOP hierarchs are in fact complicit.
-
I think it's because Romney basically has no foreign policy record, except for that comment he made about Benghazi. By leaving it alone in the debate, he didn't give the Obama anything to criticize him on.
This and other posts assume that people in general know what Benghazi is and means. Trust me, a LOT don't. I know smart, educated people--not crazily partisan--who have little or no concept of what went down there or what it signifies. Ignorance is not bliss in electoral matters--or what follows therefrom.
All this electoral craftiness will, win or lose, hit the wall of reality after the election. The **** will stay ****. And no one is going to pull any miracles out of any hat.
-
Romney doesn't have to attack Obama about this....the super-PACs, talk radio, & the Internet will do that for him.....
....Romney just has to show that he would do better.....
Romney may win without "Benghazi," but to assume that most people really get it when there is de facto "radio silence" on the matter by Big Media is to me way off the mark.
-
There is also the matter of "legacy". Should Romney pull this off, Benghazi should not go away. Not trying to find a way to help the Ambassador: cowardice. The ensuing cover up during an election cycle: Treasonous.
An example should be made of President Obama so that future Presidents think about how they respond to the aftermath of simliar crisis.
-
This and other posts assume that people in general know what Benghazi is and means. Trust me, a LOT don't. I know smart, educated people--not crazily partisan--who have little or no concept of what went down there or what it signifies. Ignorance is not bliss in electoral matters--or what follows therefrom.
Do you think the people who don't know about Benghazi are the same people that watch debates?
Also, your comment assumes that I am defending Romney's strategy. That would be incorrect.
-
Do you think the people who don't know about Benghazi are the same people that watch debates?
I do. There are plenty of people that are going to make their voting decision based on the debates alone, or else along with whatever sound bites they pick up here and there on the MSM. Too few people actually read and research before they vote.
Also, side note, Geraldo Rivera is an idiot. I saw him three different times this weekend on Fox News trying to "debunk the uproar" over Benghazi. He even found some dumbass General to interview that said that the Administration did everything they could, and there's no way they could have responded based on the "limited information" they had, because too many innocent civilians could have been hurt. Apparently he thought the only possible response would be some big air strike or something that would take out half the block. Rivera fell all over himself thanking the General for his "common sense". Those are the kind of sound bites the uninformed use when they vote.
-
The funny thing is, BHO could have bombed the block around the embassy & CIA safehouse into churned up rubble and the attackers into chum...and been awarded accolades up and down the political spectrum. BHO's opponents would praise supporting Americans in peril and his supporters would praise him for
taking a morning constitutional breathing on his own.
"I determined that I must protect American lives, defend our lawful ambassador, defend American territory, and uphold the longstanding international accords regarding ambassadorial status." Even a non-interventionist can support that.
Instead, he chose to abandon the men and lie about it.
One last thing. All this talk about "Former SEAL" and such. Yes, that is true. Thing is, when he was killed after trying to rescue the ambassador and the other staff, he as a contractor. It is almost as if he didn't shed his fundamental character when he went to work in the private sector. Oh, we know that civvie gov't elected/appointed/hired types(1) can do so, but you'd think ex-military folks turn into raving child-raping UN mercenaries after they process out the way they are spoken of in the MSM.
(1) Pass legislation or write regulations, leave gov't, get hired by the industry you regulated to help navigate the new legal/regulatory waters. Or, get a sinecure at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac as a reward after doing yeoman's work as a political appointee for one's party. Next time the Dems come to power, you'll be tanned, rested, ready, and RICH and ready to serve your party again. Without being called a mercenary.
-
On my way to ride some trails this afternoon I allowed myself the guilty pleasure of listening to Rush. Half the time I listen to him he boors me, the other half of the time he is discussing something worthy.
Today he was talking about reports that one of the killed SEALs was painting the source of the mortar attack with a laser. This allowed the bad guys to in turn dial in his location and eventually kill him.
The interesting point here is Rush was informed that the only time a laser designator is used is if there are already assets in place ready to fire missile(s). That would indicate someone refused to order a strike or gave a command to stand down.
Thoughts on this line of reasoning/facts?
-
On my way to ride some trails this afternoon I allowed myself the guilty pleasure of listening to Rush. Half the time I listen to him he boors me, the other half of the time he is discussing something worthy.
Today he was talking about reports that one of the killed SEALs was painting the source of the mortar attack with a laser. This allowed the bad guys to in turn dial in his location and eventually kill him.
The interesting point here is Rush was informed that the only time a laser designator is used is if there are already assets in place ready to fire missile(s). That would indicate someone refused to order a strike or gave a command to stand down.
Thoughts on this line of reasoning/facts?
Aren't GLD's typically IR spectrum? (ie. only NVG's could see it)
Edit:
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/gltdiii/assets/gltdiii.pdf
1.064 micrometer wavelength, so near-IR. As an example, my IR laser designator I built is 904 nanometers, and that's considered the upper edge for Gen-3 NVG's and out of band for Gen 1 or 2.
-
I'd heard about the laser painting as well, which would refute Geraldo's General, as that would indicate the ability for a precision strike. I'm sure the administration will just say that no one in the Intel community told them about the target being painted.
-
I heard heard over the weekend someone say there was an AC130 gun ship in the area ready to go in for support, but was not allowed. I don't know who said it or how accurate that is.
-
The funny thing is, BHO could have bombed the block around the embassy & CIA safehouse into churned up rubble and the attackers into chum...and been awarded accolades up and down the political spectrum. BHO's opponents would praise supporting Americans in peril and his supporters would praise him for taking a morning constitutional breathing on his own.
"I determined that I must protect American lives, defend our lawful ambassador, defend American territory, and uphold the longstanding international accords regarding ambassadorial status." Even a non-interventionist can support that.
Instead, he chose to abandon the men and lie about it.
I agree with this. Even if he would have overreacted and flattened the hell out of the entire area, I doubt I would actually be complaining a whole lot. Doing nothing and allowing bad things to happen due to inaction sucks. I feel like we saw some of this when they took out Osama. The Democrats tried to brag about it and play it up to show how strong and tough Obama was. They KNOW what the American people want them to do.
Also, I think it would nearly always be wise to err on the side of overreaction when dealing with many of these majority Muslim nations. The leadership of these nations seem to respect strength more than being nice.
-
I heard heard over the weekend someone say there was an AC130 gun ship in the area ready to go in for support, but was not allowed. I don't know who said it or how accurate that is.
I heard the same.
-
Also, I think it would nearly always be wise to err on the side of overreaction when dealing with many of these majority Muslim nations. The leadership of these nations seem to respect strength more than being nice.
this^^^ a thousand times!
caligula is quoted as saying "if they are going to hate you add a lil fear to it"
it would make folks more likely to inform on terrorists and less likely to harbor them
-
Do you think the people who don't know about Benghazi are the same people that watch debates?
Also, your comment assumes that I am defending Romney's strategy. That would be incorrect.
I wasn't assuming that. But Romney doesn't need a foreign policy "record" to criticize the events of Benghazi any more than you or I do. That said Obama's foreign policy experience is, to me, a catalogue of negatives with the one exception of Osama Bin Laden and that one was, well, odd and, for some, suspect. Obama's "smart diplomacy," carried on under the skirts of Hillary, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power, has proven to be smart only if you are rooting hard for the Muslim Bro'hood and a Pan-Islamic Caliphate. Perhaps Romney is wise to emphasize by omission, but even if that is politically correct it is morally bankrupt. "Politics" is what got us here; it won't get us out of here, not even Romney's politics.
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/has_general_ham_been_fired.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/benghazigate-general-ham-no-order-to-protect-consulate-video/
-
I sometimes wonder if the ambassador might have done something to piss off Obama and got Uriah'd
Other people are starting to ask the same question (without the biblical reference)
http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/display.aspx?p=37144547&pg=3
The word "treason" gets used way too much. I think this might rise to the constitutional definition. (if only someone would investigate it)
[voice="Hank Hill"]Does wanting to see Obama go down in history as the first American president to be executed make me a racist?[/voice]
-
Well that was an interesting read. [tinfoil]
-
IMO, Obama is doing more to sink himself with inconsistent responses amid the various leaks. Also, there really is almost no hard information aside from released emails. Romney would need to walk a fine line. I think he is better off letting them hang themselves for now at least.
-
It's not Romney's job to "get" Obama on Benghazi. The press and Congress have the obligation to investigate and inform the American people. The former won't do it *cough* Candi Crowley *cough*, and the latter are only beginning (but being in recess for the election makes that job hard, although REP Chaffetz and a few others are asking hard questions by the President is not answering.
We do know that:
1. American forces were not ordered to assist.
2. The NCA was getting a real-time feed of the events.
3. A cover story of protesters and a youtube video was floated out by the Administration and the President himself.
4. Abuse of power in the arrest of a person associated with the aforementioned video.
5. Refusal of the President to answer any questions about Benghazi.
-
Thomas Sowell has a devastating article today about the cover-up. Without even getting into the "stand down" controversy, he makes clear his opinion that Obama is a con man who is just trying to buy time:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/10/30/cooling_out_the_voters
-
Looks like the Washington Times is now repeating the current rumor about General Carter Ham being relieved.
http://times247.com/articles/is-a-general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi
-
and hes retiring
-
and hes retiring
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/29/general-center-benghazi-gate-controversy-retiring/
Yes he's retiring. And yet he (the General) still hasn't just come out and said "no, I wasn't fired, I'm leaving on my own volition." It's always been some "source" or "insider" or "representative" from the government who has made different claims. And then there's still the issue that, according to Congressman Chaffetz in speaking with General Ham, the General stated that he was not requested to send in any force. This stands in stark conflict with SecDef Panetta's statement that Ham was part of the decision making to not send anyone into Benghazi.
Rep. Chaffetz talking about his discussion with General Ham (http://youtu.be/e4W1LDSs5X4)
Oh what tangled webs we weave, when we practice to deceive.
-
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/bing-west-on-the-record/
Obama: "I immediately told the military to do whatever they needed to do to save our people."
Panetta: "Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and myself decided not to do anything."
Dempsey: *no comment made*
Ham: "I received no instruction to send in our people."
Petreaus: "I never told our people to stand down."
When the music finally stops quite a few people are going to be without chairs. :mad:
-
When the music finally stops quite a few people are going to be without chairs.
In a just world that would probably be true.
-
In a just world that would probably be true.
In our world, they all join Jamie Gorelick at Sallie Mae or Freddie Mac for a couple million dollars per year as a reward for their service to the country the President their party and party leader.
-
It's clear that the Obama position - aided by the media - is to delay and obfuscate at least until after the election.
Some theories that are being bandied about now . . .
1. We didn't want to send in forces as it would undermine Libyan sovereignty.
2. They hoped the Ambassador would be captured, not killed, so Obama could be a hero and exchange him for some prominent terrorist.
3. We couldn't identify enemies during the attack. (Looks like a trial balloon - all an AC130 needs to know is where OUR people are.)
4. Someone wanted the Ambassador dead.
Here's an interesting quote, coming from John McCain - it seems the gloves are coming off as the story unravels:
"The president is either engaged in a massive cover-up deceiving the American people or he is so grossly incompetent that he is not qualified to be the commander-in-chief of our armed forces,"
-
Here's an interesting quote, coming from John McCain - it seems the gloves are coming off as the story unravels:
"The president is either engaged in a massive cover-up deceiving the American people or he is so grossly incompetent that he is not qualified to be the commander-in-chief of our armed forces,"
It's a good thing we have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency.
-
It's a good thing we have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency.
Irony cat is ironic.
-
It's a good thing we have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency.
Yeah, I might just vote for him out of pique at the GOP for not selecting Ron Paul Fred Thompson Herman Caine Michele Bachman some other dood as their candidate.
-
It's a good thing we have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency.
:O I had to look that up. I do NOT remember him saying that. :O
-
:O I had to look that up. I do NOT remember him saying that. :O
No? My wife and I yelled at the TeeVee for several minutes. I would have thought you heard that hollering.
-
Yeah, I might just vote for him out of pique at the GOP for not selecting Ron Paul Fred Thompson Herman Caine Michele Bachman some other dood as their candidate.
:facepalm: That would truly be an evil thing to do.
-
In our world, they all join Jamie Gorelick at Sallie Mae or Freddie Mac for a couple million dollars per year as a reward for their service to the country the President their party and party leader.
Unfortunately, this is more than likely...
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/exclusive-us-memo-warned-libya-consulate-couldnt-withstand-coordinated-attack/#ixzz2Aw4EFeI3
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/glenn-beck-to-media-outlets-sitting-on-damning-benghazi-emails-release-them-or-be-exposed/
Consider posting some profanity to express my current mental state, but I figure you guys already know what it is in relation to this, so I'll just stick to posting links of updated info.
-
Video of the Benghazi Attack
http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-video-of-consulate-attack-surfaces-on-youtube-video
It appears the footage first aired in Al Jazeera television and re-aired on Sky News. However, none of the major television networks in the United States have aired the video.
-
Thomas Sowell has a devastating article today about the cover-up. Without even getting into the "stand down" controversy, he makes clear his opinion that Obama is a con man who is just trying to buy time:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/10/30/cooling_out_the_voters
I suppose a black man calling another (sorta)black man a con artist can't be really racist, so does that make Sowell an Uncle Tom?
-
A con is a con, race notwithstanding. Obama or Corzine, what's the diff?