Hillary Clinton skipping Benghazi hearings...again.

Boy, it's such a good thing there was a mass shooting on Friday, so that the media complex can have an excuse for completely ignoring this pile of horse manure spewing out of the Obama Administration. As I recall, Hillary couldn't make the first hearing either because she was at a wine tasting with friends in Australia.

Now this load of mularky (as Joe Biden would put it) is her excuse?? She fell down and hit her head so, sorry Congress, you can't get any answers about why American diplomats are dead. Hillary has taken all the responsibility, you remember, but she won't say what exactly she actually knows. Why should the peons that are the American populace need to be informed about anything their government does? It's become totally acceptable for our government to lie, hide, and obfuscate facts in order to do their work in the dark. We in America still hold the fallacy that our government is beholden to us...but our leaders are quickly making that notion a thing of the past. How long until they just start telling Congress "no, we won't answer you" instead of making up not-so-clever lies? It shouldn't be long at this rate. I mean, they are giving her a pass for a "concussion."

Now maybe most people don't know, but I've had at least one concussion when I was younger. It was just a mild one, but I wasn't in bed a week later ignoring the world. Heck, I've known guys who had serious concussions when I was in highschool and two days later, they were back in school, headache and all. Professional athletes PLAY with concussions (though I wouldn't recommend that). Yet Hillary is unable to sit in a comfy chair for two hours in order to answer some questions about the life and death of brave Americans because she has a headache!? Take some damn tylenol!

And she is going to be our next president!? Is Russia accepting American refugees? At least there they understand that their leaders are corrupt...plus they've already done the Socialism thing so you know they won't go back to the mess we are heading straight towards!

BREAKING: Petraeus testifies CIA references to "Al Qaeda involvement" removed from talking points

Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified before a closed-door hearing today that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points. Corroborated by other intelligence officials, this information strikes another blow at the Obama Administration's handling of the Benghazi Massacre. Now we know for certain that the CIA indicated in it's original memo that the attack was an "al qaeda related terrorist attack" and that they knew right away it wasn't because of a protest over a movie!

The officials were unable to say who changed the talking points. They went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department, and White House. Rep. Peter King told Fox News, "I'd say it was somebody in the administration that had to have taken it out. That, to me, has to be pursued."

While it is a "smoking gun" that they were told it WAS a terrorist attack from the beginning by the CIA, proving that Jay Carney, Susan Rice, etc., were spreading a false story about the protest over a movie, I seriously doubt it will be pursued. Who's going to pursue it? The Republicans in the House? They're already being portrayed as "sore losers" in order to discredit them. The Obama Administration is beyond reproach at this point. Even if impeachment proceedings were begun by the House, the Harry "I can't" Reid led Senate would never impeach Obama no matter how damning the info is. Obama is safe.

And why did they lie about it being about a protest over an anti-Islam movie? Because they support blasphemy laws and need to begin to soften the public up over them. They can't get around the First Amendment without help from the sheeple.

The new Cheka hard at work discrediting McCain

Earlier I wrote about the new Cheka and how their goal is the same as the original Cheka in Soviet Russia: silence the opposition. As I wrote, the new Cheka isn't a secret police force; instead it is the people themselves who have been indoctrinated with leftist/Marxist drivel since 6th grade. Well no group in America embodies the new Cheka quite as well as the media...who, over generations, have been bred to repeat leftist ideas instead of critically thinking up any of their own.

Today, the media Cheka are hard at work trying to silence anyone pointing a finger at President Obama or his woefully inept administration concerning the Benghazi massacre. The new object of their ire: Senator John McCain. McCain, already hated by the left for being a war hero (to them there is no such thing as a war hero; anyone involved in war is inherently evil), is now being viciously and repeatedly attacked by the talking heads in the media for questioning Susan Rice's involvement in the incident, her response to it (which turned out to be straight lies), and her part played in trying to obfuscate the facts. Rice, who may be in line to become the new Secretary of State once Hillary retires to focus on her presidential campaign, was the one who took her message of deceit to five morning talk shows 5 days after the Benghazi massacre. You'll remember, she said it was all caused by a protest gone wrong and that there was no proof that it was a premeditated attack.

Well now, Senator McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, has said that he will filibuster Rice's nomination as Secretary of State until the Benghazi incident has been fully investigated in public hearings. McCain is calling for Watergate-style hearings into the White House's handling of the incident, including the decrease in security leading up to the attack and the lie about it all being a protest that was spread for two weeks after the attack (before they all agreed that it was indeed terrorism, and that is what they had said all along!).

This incursion into the Marxist regime plan has not been taken lightly by the new Cheka, and the media has responded in scathing, and somewhat predictable, fashion. They are now painting McCain as an Ahab-type figure, who, consumed with his loss to Obama in the 2008 election, is now taking any chance to try and "get back" at Obama. They are saying that his criticism of Susan Rice, as well as the whole Benghazi incident, is simply because he is a sore loser that just won't accept that he lost. Now I am not a huge fan of McCain, but this attack, being repeated at all levels of the media, is completely disingenuous and disgusting. (Not that I should expect different from the "state media.") First off, the Benghazi massacre is not just some "bump in the road," as Obama put it. It's a major, historical event. The death of an ambassador is nothing to sneeze at, and the idea that the death of 4 Americans is not really important is of such anathema to me that I feel that anyone making that case needs a good punch in the nose! I know in America today we are more concerned with who got voted off of Dancing with the Stars than anything that is happening in other parts of the world...and also that life is cheaper than once believed...and that if it doesn't affect me I shouldn't care. I do believe that is what is wrong with America today. A lot of people need punching in the nose!

But to attack John McCain as a sore loser 4 freaking years after he lost seems like a bit of a desperate measure! However, I do know that the American public will eat it up, as anything said on TV is taken as truth by most people who can't be bothered to come up with their own thoughts. This is why the new Cheka is winning in reshaping America into a socialist paradise, and why more and more Americans are becoming a part of the new Cheka. And as mentioned in my last post, this attack on a Republican is all part of the plan. The media are complicit in this plan, and this story is just one example of it. McCain, as well as other Republicans who continue to make trouble for the new Socialist Regime in Washington, will be phased out of the American consciousness over the next 4 years by a lying and traitorous media complex.

Full story
here.

Hillary skipping Benghazi hearings to go wine tasting

America is dead.

The democratic republic that many (too) good people fought and died for is no more, replaced now by a semi-totalitarian government that "wins" elections through massive fraud and where elected officials are no longer accountable for their actions. You don't have to look any further than Hillary Clinton to see that. The Secretary of State (you know, the Department dedicated to Foreign Affairs...Libya counts right?) will be skipping the Congressional hearings on the Benghazi incident in order to "visit friends" in Australia. According to one report, she may even attend a wine tasting event. How nice.

We've reached the point of no return in America, proven to many (including myself) by last weeks "elections." You know, the ones where Obama won certain precincts in places like Philadelphia and Cleveland by an 100% margin. Yeah. Not one person in those places voted for Romney...even by accident. No wonder all those Democrat Elections Supervisors were kicking all Republicans out of those precincts.

And the biggest proof that America is dead is that no one cares. I mean, 4 people lost their lives (2 at least probably unnecessarily) in Benghazi. But with wine to be tasted, why would Hillary need to concern herself with that? She's only probably in line to be the next president. Why would dead Americans matter to her or the majority of Americans? I mean...I didn't know them, so it doesn't matter to me. Now where's my TV guide?? I have WAY more important things to be concerned with than dead Americans and what our leaders have done about it....American Idol is on tonight!

Moscow Politics

The New America was shocked today by the sudden resignation of Gen. David Petraeus as head of the CIA. Gen. Petraeus claimed his resignation was due to an extra-marital affair. While anyone privy to classified intelligence is expected to be removed from power immediately upon the revelation of an affair (for security reasons anyone able to be blackmailed loses their security credentials...or is supposed to), the timing of this resignation raises serious questions. One, while as mentioned, an extra-marital affair should always lead to a resignation of security clearance, this does not always happen within the Washington D.C. sphere. Numerous politicians, pundits, staffers, and governmental workers who have certain security clearance have had affairs that didn't lead to them losing their jobs. Do we need to look any further than Bill Clinton to make that point? If the president of the United States can do it, lie about it under oath, admit it, and come away more popular than before...then how the hell can it be a serious cause for anyone else to resign over!? Again, I get the security concerns...but again, Clinton could also have been blackmailed. Once the affair is made public, the ability to blackmail goes away and the issue dies, at least it did in Clinton's case.

Also, David Petraeus was the highest ranking official to challenge the reports made by the White House over the Benghazi incident. Remember that Petraeus himself said that the CIA gave no orders for anyone to "stand down" that night 4 Americans were murdered. The implication is that either the report from people who were in Benghazi that night was a lie...or that the order to stand down came from somewhere else. The other place it could've came from was the White House itself. (Btw, can I start calling it the Black House, not because Obama is black, but because I'm convinced whoever resides there from now on will be an agent of evil, or will I only be called racist for it??) So now that Petraeus has resigned, guess who won't be testifying at the congressional hearings about Benghazi?? That's right...the highest ranking official who could give an unfavorable account of President Obama's actions. Coincidence? I suppose it's possible...the way that a meteor could possibly fall on my head and crush me in the next five seconds.....nope, didn't happen, I'm still here!
And Andy Levy brought up a great point on RedEye tonight. He said, using his Army background as a reference, that when an official is compromised, they are stripped of command IMMEDIATELY! A currant Special Forces soldier backed him up on that. So if this affair was known about before, then why did it take until now for him to resign/be fired. No, no...the whole thing doesn't make sense. Unless.....

A lot of people have taken to referring to Barack Obama's politics as "Chicago Politics," a term used to denote the cheating, swindling, lying, do anything to win political attitude characterized by many Chicago-bred politicians. However, I don't think that's quite right in it's scale. Obama, while as corrupt as any Chicago politician, is bigger and badder than any dude coming out of Illinois...and that includes Jake Blues! No, Obama's politics are more akin to those of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, of Soviet Russian infamy. His politics are more closely aligned to his Communist philosophies than to any Chicago scandal. (Did you know if you look up the Wikipedia series on Communism, the second person on the list of "Leading Individuals" is Barack Obama?? Seriously. Go check it out before it's removed by one of the new Cheka. I have no idea how that slipped past the Obamunists, but it's pretty funny that it did.)

Obama's new government is more akin to Lenin or Stalin than anything from past America. They're not Chicago politics; they're Moscow politics. And remembering that Marxism was understood and applied differently by different socialist leaders, Obama's new socialism will probably also look different than Lenin's or Stalin's. It already does in many ways, with the slow revolution and indoctrination rather than the quick ones of the past. However, some policies will be the same. Take, for instance, the Petraeus resignation. Joseph Stalin, when he came to power consolidated more power in himself than Lenin did, and he also accused past compatriots of crimes in order to justify silencing them. Trotsky himself, a leading figure in the socialist revolution, was banished (and eventually murdered) at the will of Stalin. Many former leaders met the same fate. Fast forward to America today: Petraeus resigns, the press pounce all over the "scandal" even though their idol Billy Clinton was praised for the same thing. Petraeus now has no credibility to testify against the White House. Hillary Clinton, the second biggest name in the Benghazi scandal, has stated she will also resign early next year. Eric Holder, head of the Justice Department and chief figure in the Fast and Furious scandal, has announced he will resign as well. Notice a pattern here? Any known incident that could be pointed back at Obama will go down on those people's shoulders, far from his own. And they won't be brought up again. Stalin, in what was called "The Great Purge", blamed all his failures on others and had those others removed from office. Sound familiar? Get used to it. Because we've only just begun the second round of Moscow politics. Look for Obama, in this term, to blame all his failures on others in his administration and the Republican Party. Through that, he will simultaneously keep himself clear of any blame, and he will discredit all of his opponents until there is no chance the "mob" will ever believe in or admire a conservative again. The Republican Party will assimilate into Obama's government, or cease to exist. In this term, look for the opponents to be crushed, either by scandal (real or otherwise) or by the new Cheka (the head of Planned Parenthood has already told the GOP to lose the Pro-Life crowd). Look for the new "Great Purge," already begun by the firing of Rear Admirals and Generals who were known to disagree with the White House, to increase in this term until the security of the Democratic-Socialist Party is well in hand for the foreseeable future. That's the next step in the Communist playbook, and so far Obama has been following it all the way. There's no reason to believe he'll stop now.

Obama: "Election has nothing to do" with deaths of Americans in Libya

Friday was a bad day for Barack Obama. First, the news comes out that CIA operators were told to "stand down" when they wanted to go to the consulate in Benghazi to try and help the Ambassador and other Americans there...then in an interview with an NBC affiliate in Denver, the president, when asked about those reports, responded by saying:

"The election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened."

Um...excuse me, Mr. President?? The election has nothing to do with a terrorist attack that took the lives of 4 Americans, your inability or unwillingness to send in rescuers who might've been able to save them, your lies about the attack which lasted for weeks (which you yourself have now confirmed), and your subsequent coverup/dodging of the issue as more reports come out?? What DOES the election have to do with, Big Bird and birth control?

I'm increasingly distraught that ANYONE in America continues to support this man. Some people would support him no matter what...he could strangle a puppy while kicking a baby in the head on national television and there would still be some morons gushing about how great he is! What worries me is that it seems like that number is astronomically high. Either that or an astronomically high number of people just don't pay attention to anything he says or does. Which is why my Facebook page has been drowned recently with articles and stories of his atrocities. But how can this election even be close? I'm beginning to believe an article I read a while ago that said Obama is trying to lose the election; that he hates the responsibility and is passive aggressively trying to derail his re-election by speaking and acting stupidly. That, at least, is a good explanation of how he can be so flippant about important issues. The sad thing is that it isn't dissuading people like it should. If Romney doesn't win this election big...I will lose heart about the state of America and it's future. Because either there are way too many idiots here, or there are way too many people so self-absorbed that nothing that doesn't affect them matters to them. Either way it's bad for America.

But back to this "Libya thing"...because it DOES matter to millions of Americans. Among them are Charles Woods, the father of one of the ex-Navy SEAL's, Tyrone Woods. He is beginning to speak out against the president and his response to this attack. Mr. Woods also has been talking about his meeting with President Obama and Hillary Clinton when his son's body was flown into Andrews Air Force Base. His description of the meeting is disturbing, to say the least. He says President Obama didn't look him in the eyes and merely mumbled some words about being sorry which, to Mr. Woods, sounded insincere and forced. He says Clinton's apology also sounded hollow and forced and that...and this is shocking...she told him that they would find the man who made the anti-Islam film and HAVE HIM ARRESTED! There's almost too much there to properly analyze. First, it was a misguided response. How about getting the terrorists who actually did the killing!? Second, saying you're going to have an American citizen arrested for making a movie is INSANE and against everything America stands for! And the fact that he was, in fact, arrested is disturbingly scary. He was arrested on charges of probation violation, so I had no ground to complain on because he may have very well violated his probation. However, NOW knowing that Hillary said this before he was arrested either means A) they (meaning the federal government) had already begun researching this man to know that he was on probation or B) they had planned to arrest him ILLEGALLY based simply off his making this film.

I'd say someone needs to look more closely at who that man is, what he had done to get on probation in the first place, and who decided he had violated his probation. Because pledging to arrest a man ONLY based on the knowledge that he produced a movie is unconstitutional and illegal. I doubt that we'll get an answer to these things as he's almost become an afterthought. He's also still in jail. How long will he stay there for a "probation violation?" We need to keep an eye on that.

This has gotten long (because there's just SO many things to discuss about it!) so I'll end it now by talking about Tyrone Woods. He was stationed at the "annex," about a mile from the consulate where Ambassador Stevens was killed. When he heard the shots and explosions happening at the consulate, he (along with other unnamed heroes) requested to go to the consulate to help their countrymen. They were denied that request at least twice. But they ignored it, and Tyrone Woods was one of a few men who made their way to the consulate, secured the area for a time while they evacuated personnel, and made their way back to the annex...where, in a mortar attack about 4 hours later, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed. Those two men should be alive today. They died about 6 hours after the assault began...more than enough time to get larger response forces there. Charles Woods said he received an email from one person who was in the consulate that night. It said that his son, Tyrone, saved his life. Tyrone Woods ignored his orders to stand down and went to that consulate...saving lives. Tragically his was lost as others made decisions antithetical to his: they chose to ignore his peril. Tyrone Woods is a real American hero. And I, for one, will never forget his story. Nor will I forget Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, and Glen Doherty. And that's why their death DOES and SHOULD matter to this election, despite the president's insistence that it doesn't.

Tyrone Woods, Real American Hero

BREAKING NEWS: CIA Operators were denied requests for help 3 times during Benghazi attack

I've been saying for weeks that this whole thing just doesn't make sense. The White House could have claimed ignorance and that might have been believable. After all, you can't question stupidity. However, they've now backed themselves into a corner by saying they DID know it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Now we KNOW they lied about it for two weeks. Something is fishy about it. And while this report doesn't prove anything, it does throw a gallon of fuel on the fire. Something doesn't make sense. If I was an investigative reporter I'd be all over this. What we're being told just doesn't make sense, and we deserve to know why. 4 dead Americans deserve it even more.
.........................................................................................

Courtesy of Monkey in the Middle
Hat tip to Texas Fred (With a plea for everyone to cross post and spread the word.)


Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

Full Story Here:
EXCLUSIVE: CIA Operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

To ALL of my friends, family and readers, this is the REGIME that has given our nation away and has caused the deaths of Americans, not only in Benghazi, but in the USA via Fast and Furious as well.

I am asking ALL of you, PLEASE share this post via any and all social media, email, instant messenger, whatever it takes. America MUST see this story and know the truth.

This entire EVIL administration must be removed; they must be subjected to the most intense scrutiny and then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They are, ALL, either directly or indirectly, guilty of MURDER!

Here is MORE from the original story:

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

America, for the love of God, our families and this nation,please share this story with everyone you know, even hard-core libbers! They may be on the other side of the fence but they are NOT stupid, just severely misguided. Maybe THIS will open their eyes!

Rape! Rape! Rape! (Libya?)

Big news today: Richard Mourdock, an Indiana Republican candidate for Senate, said he thinks God wants women to be raped!

Ok...he didn't actually say that. But that's how it's being reported across the country. What Mr. Mourdock actually said was that he believes every life is a gift from God, even one resulting from a rape is God's will. The story being reported, however, is one of just another Republican who hates women. I actually saw a headline earlier (though I can't remember where) that read, "Republican candidate says rape is part of God's will." I mean...seriously? Is this what passes as news nowadays. Take one white male Republican, add in a religious belief about abortion, spin, stir, and obfuscate, then serve to the public with a dash of feminism. This dude said what most true Christians believe; that life begins at conception and since all life is precious, even a life caused by a horrible thing such as rape, then that life is a precious part of God's will. And that's EXACTLY what Richard Mourdock said. Yet the way it's being reported is absolutely astounding and ridiculous.

While searching for where I saw that headline...because I always like to be accurate about what I say here...I came across another equally astounding and ridiculous headline about rape in the Huffington Post. (I believe that's where the Mourdock headline was as well, but can't find it now so I could be wrong.) As I was scouring the website I noticed the word Pennsylvania, and being a Pennsylvania resident, I took notice. This is the headline:

"Pennsylvania Bill Includes
Provision Requiring Women
To Prove They Were Raped"

That IS a shockingly terrible thing to have to make a woman prove. Then I read the first line of the article:

"A bill in the Pennsylvania House proposing the reduction of welfare benefits for low-income women contains a provision requiring a woman who became pregnant from rape to prove that she reported her assault."

Prove what? Prove that she was raped? NO! Prove that she REPORTED the rape! How can news organizations get away with so twisting things and, in this case, lying outright in the headline!? Is there no such thing as journalistic integrity anymore?? The article goes on to explain that the bill is about cutting or reducing welfare, and that mothers who became pregnant as a result of rape will not be discontinued from receiving welfare. Hence, so someone can't come out and take advantage of that by saying they were raped when they weren't, they have to have proof they reported the rape. Doesn't seem so barbaric and insensible if it's reported correctly does it?

This whole faux outrage over some people's comments about rape and abortion is outrageous. All the more outrageous is that it only seems to be directed towards Republicans! President Obama even used Mourdock's statement as another example of his phony war on women. Yet...Breitbart.com reported that a Democratic Congressman, Jerry McNerney from California, wrote a novel in which one character explains that men evolved to be able to rape women because it prevents inbreeding. Yet no one, NO ONE, is talking about that. Because he's a Democrat. Hypocrisy bothers me.

You know what else bothers me. The fact that 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Libya and the Obama Administration has been lying about it and covering things up about it...and yet the news is about rape and abortion and the phony war on women. And not just making that the top news stories, but twisting it to make it sound so much more worse than what it actually is....I mean, I know it's not news, but the media has become absolutely pathetic.

Special Report on Benghazi/Attack Timeline

How is it that Fox News and CNN can get this information, but no one in Washington can!?!

I especially appreciate the attack timeline. Before this I heard nothing about the attack on the second location, in which the two ex-Navy Seals were killed by mortar fire. Why aren't we hearing these things from the Administration? Where is the leadership?

Did President Obama really say it was "an act of terror" on September 12th?

Last night's presidential debate had one very interesting moment that will surely be discussed a lot in the coming days. Once the terrorist attacks in Libya were brought up (which took far too long and lasted far too short for my liking) President Obama said something that made Mitt Romney do a double-take. He said that the day after the attack, while making a speech in the Rose Garden, that he called the attack "an act of terror." Mitt Romney seized on that and tried to get him to repeat it (which for some unknown reason he would not do) but it was moderator Candy Crowley who spoke up to say that those indeed were his words. (How she managed to get the transcript only a few seconds after he said it is unknown to me.) President Obama seized on the moment and asked Candy to repeat that, which she did...to applause from the pro-Obama portion of the crowd.

This has caused countless people to go back and re-read or re-watch the president's speech from that day. I'll include it here so everyone can watch it for themselves. While no one really remembers the president saying anything about the attack being terrorism, he does indeed say the words "acts of terror." It happens toward the end of his speech. After making some remarks about how September 11th was already a painful day, the president said this:

"As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No ACTS OF TERROR will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."


Now it is all but impossible to tell from the context of the speech whether the words "acts of terror" were meant about the Beghazi attack directly or whether they were simply meant as some generic message about any terrorist attacks. There will be arguments supporting both. And since there's no actual way of knowing, both arguments will be deemed as "correct."
(In a move of political genius, Obama may have used the term ambiguously on purpose, so that he could later choose to acknowledge it as one way or the other to fit whichever narrative he wanted. I wouldn't put it past him.)

However, whether President Obama meant it one way or the other or both doesn't really matter one bit at this point. The president can spin the story whichever way he wants to now. What he can't do is erase the past month.

He can't ignore that on September 13th...two days after the attack, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this during a press briefing:

Q. "At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi --"

MR. CARNEY: "We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have NO INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS A PREPLANNED ATTACK. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, IT IS NOT A REACTION TO THE 9/11 ANNIVERSARY THAT WE KNOW OF, or to U.S. policy."

A few questions later Mr. Carney reiterated this:

MR. CARNEY: "I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. WE DO NOT, AT THIS MOMENT, HAVE INFORMATION TO SUGGEST OR TO TELL YOU THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT ANY OF THIS UNREST WAS PREPLANNED. "

Now while Mr. Carney insists that the event is still under investigation, he leaves no doubt that, as far as the White House is concerned (i.e. President Obama) on September the 13th...that TWO DAYS after the attack there was NO EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION to suggest the attack was pre-planned!
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR THE DAY BEFORE!

He also cannot ignore that 3 days later, on September 16th, FIVE days after the attack, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, went on all 5 of the Sunday morning talk shows where she basically repeated this line:

RICE: "Our current best assessment, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AT PRESENT, is that, in fact, what this began as, IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS — NOT A PREMEDITATED — RESPONSE to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but THAT'S THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE AT PRESENT."


While Susan Rice also insists that the event is still under investigation, she also makes it clear that the "best information they have at present" indicates that "IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS - NOT A PREMEDITATED - RESPONSE...IN REACTION TO THIS VERY OFFENSIVE VIDEO..."
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR 4 DAYS EARLIER!

He cannot ignore that 4 days after that, on September 20th, while being interviewed by Univision, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said, when asked directly if it was a terrorist attack:

“Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. 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.”

5 days after that, while asked if it was a terrorist attack on The View, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said:

“We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

And on that same day, during a speech to the United Nations, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF made NO mention of the words "terrorism," "terrorist act," or "act of terror." The closest he came to discussing the attack was this:

"That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

President Obama does not directly say that the video was the cause of the attacks...but he also does NOT say they were an "act of terror" either. As a matter of fact, he makes it sound more like the attacks were caused by the video than not, as he goes on a diatribe about free speech and how it must be protected even though it may insult, and in how he declares that "no speech justifies mindless violence...no words excuse the killing of innocents.
ALL OF THESE RESPONSES SEEM TO DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THE STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR ON SEPTEMBER 12TH!

The question that begged to be answered about all of this rhetoric was this: was the death of four Americans and the resulting campaign of misinformation caused by incompetence or was it deliberate deception?

Up until now, the president and his entire administration could play the game of ignorance. They could blame the falsely made statements on the "fog of war" as Hillary Clinton did. They could say that they made statements based on "incomplete information." They could say that the exact details were "unknown" and that the investigation was "ongoing." They could insist that all of the information given to them at that time pointed to an "unplanned" attack. They could get away with simply saying that they made those statements based on the information they had at that time and then the information changed.

But not anymore. Now that President Obama said last night that he called it an "act of terror" on the VERY NEXT DAY, thus implying that he understood it was a terrorist attack as early as September 12th...it takes incompetence right off the table. It takes confusion and "evolving information" right off the table. IF President Obama believed it was an "act of terror" on September the 12th...then WHY did White House Press Secretary Jay Carney say there was no information to support that!? WHY did Ambassador Rice say the same 5 days later!? If the president of the United States believed it was an "act of terror" the day after it happened, then WHY did it take OVER TWO WEEKS for the Administration to finally admit it!? IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then the story about there being NO information or evidence supporting a terrorist act as the cause and focusing all attention on the movie instead was NOT simply confusion due to the "fog of war." IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then removing all rhetoric about terrorism and placing the blame on a "spontaneous protest" was a downright lie! If the White House Press Secretary isn't speaking with and for President Obama, then there is incompetence on a massive level going on in that administration. And if he is...then WHY did he say something that the president himself didn't believe? WHY DID HE LIE? WHY DID THEY ALL LIE??

So which is it, Mr. President? Did you truly believe and understand it to be an act of terror on September 12th as you said last night? Because if so...you've got a lot of explaining to do on who made the decision to lie about it for two weeks, and why that decision was made. You've just painted yourself into a pretty sticky corner, and I'm not sure even you can get out of it.

It will be a very interesting next few days and weeks as the election approaches, and as President Obama tries to answer the questions he himself raised by stating that claim last night. It will be interesting to see if he sticks with it now or if he tries to change the story again. The questions remain either way...but I think he just made it a lot harder on himself. Yes, should be interesting indeed.

Hillary Clinton accepts responsibility in Libya attack

Hillary Clinton finally came out from the rock under which she's been hiding to accept "responsibility" for the terrorist attack that took the lives of four Americans in Libya over a month ago. During a trip to Peru, Clinton gave her first interview in over two weeks in which she claims that as Secretary of State, she is responsible for the over 60,000 Americans around the world and the "buck stops with her" concerning the Benghazi attack.

She also said that conflicting reports about the attack were to be blamed on the "fog of war." "Remember, this was an attack that went on for hours," Clinton said in an interview with Fox News during a trip to Peru. "There had to be a lot of sorting out. Everyone said, here's what we know, subject to change."

Her admission of responsibility seems to be an attempt to deflect blame from President Barack Obama at a time when many are wondering who is to blame and just who, exactly, is in charge of the Executive Branch of our government. During the Vice Presidential debate last week, Joe Biden said that neither him nor President Obama knew anything about security concerns at the Benghazi consulate. The narrative being spun in the Administration is that Barack Obama has no culpability in the attacks. Clearly there is an attempt to shield Barack Obama from any blame so close to the election. The only problem with that is that he IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! You can't get all the credit and take none of the blame...which is exactly what Barack Hussein Obama seems to want. It's absolutely preposterous that the president of the United States would not be kept in the loop about an attack that killed 4 Americans, including our own ambassador. Now it is being reported that intelligence officials suspected terrorism almost immediately, and if that is true (which it certainly seems like it would be), why would the president not be told about it?? How could it be possible that the man at the top of the food chain wouldn't be kept in the loop about a possible terrorist attack??? Even if the complete details were "foggy," the deaths of four Americans would seem to be serious enough to warrant more attention from the president. Although he did fly to Las Vegas for a fundraiser the day that it happened, so I guess he wasn't too interested.

Concerning security requests, it's absolutely believable that the president was not privy to those, and that DOES fall right into Secretary Clinton's lap. Concerning security she herself admits in the interview that, "We knew there were security breaches and problems throughout Libya. That's something that came about as the aftermath of the revolution to topple Qaddafi, with so many militias formed, so many weapons loose....It was taken into account by security professionals as they made their assessments."

Well their assessments were wrong. And people need to answer for it. There is more than enough blame to go around. It's impossible to believe that President Obama bears no responsibility for the way this incident was handled. I've said from the start that this is either a case of gross incompetence or flat out nefariousness. Either way, President Obama needs to answer for his actions...or lack thereof. He simply cannot be allowed to push this all off onto others and claim ignorance, because that points to incompetence and ineptitude. As president, he bears some responsibility for this mess...and he needs to be held accountable for it. And as for Hillary Clinton...well she needs to be fired or resign. You cannot simply apologize for this and have it be forgotten. If you're going to invite the full responsibility for this, then you need to accept the full depth of punishment as well. And the punishment for four dead Americans needs to be nothing short of someone's job. I don't expect it to be Obama's (but it SHOULD cost him his in November) but I do expect it to be Hillary's. It should be. And you can forget about her bid for president in 2016 now as well. People's lives were lost...and her political life should end because of it. Especially if she is going to accept blame in order to shield Obama.




Full story here.

Breaking News: White House contemplates covert military operations in Libya...then makes it not so covert by leaking it

On the eve on the second presidential debate, the Associated Press is running a story that the U.S. is "considering" covert military operations against those involved in the deadly terror attack in Libya on September 11th. The article attributes the story to four anonymous officials within the Administration...including one "former" official and also an outside analyst.

Now there are a few issues with this "news."

The first is the timing. It's been over a month since the attacks occurred. Since that time, the Obama Administration has repeated the now known falsehood that it was not, in fact, an orchestrated terrorist attack and instead was all a result of a protest. For two weeks afterward, that was the story repeated by numerous officials, including President Obama himself. The reason for that was, I believe, an opportunistic response to instill the idea set forth in UN Resolution 16/18 which criminalizes all speech that denigrates a religion if that speech incites violence. (Basically if anything insults a religion and causes others to react violently, the thing said or done will be punished for inciting the violence. This resolution was helped pushed through the United Nations by our very own President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.) It only makes sense then, that they believe in such a law and would like to see one put in place in America. Of course, people won't give up their free speech easily so you have to prove to them that it's the right thing to do. This was the perfect opportunity to try it out. By insisting the violence was caused by a movie, the idea that we shouldn't do or say anything insulting to Islam could be propigated. This is why I believe they continued to stick to the story about the protest for so long after everyone else knew it was terrorism.
The other problem with the timing of this announcement is that it takes place one day before a presidential debate in which the question of Libya will inevitably come up. It doesn't answer all of the questions the president needs to answer about the attack, but it does give him an answer to the question about our response.

And that brings up the other problem about this announcement. 22 days before a presidential election this story is "leaked." Now that it's been leaked, the president has no need to keep it a secret. He may well say that he cannot respond about classified or covert missions...however, since it's no longer covert he could talk about it all he likes. It doesn't really matter whether he brings it up for political gain or not. It's already out there and so he can simply sit back and watch his media cronies spread the story. He may look better if he says that he can't talk about it on the grounds that it's covert...because it's not covert anymore and he knows people will hear about it anyway. Anyway you slice it, the timing of these "leaks" seems oddly suspicious.

Which brings me to the 3rd problem. Any such "covert" military action against terrorists doesn't work very well IF THE TERRORISTS ALREADY KNOW ABOUT IT! Covert action leaked becomes overt action...and overt action is decidedly more risky to the military forces engaging in such actions. Now, of course, there's no way these leaks can be traced back to the president himself. But there is no question that these leaks help the president politically. And it is also not the first time leaks have come from the White House. Earlier this year a group of retired special operations soldiers made a video criticizing President Obama and his Administration for leaks concerning the details of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and other "covert" military activity. I think I'll add that video at the end of this post.

There is no question that leaks can cost lives. And there is no doubt that many leaks have been good for Obama politically, including these leaks. So the question being raised is this: are these leaks intentionally made by the White House in an attempt to make Obama look better? There may be no way to get that answer, or no one brave enough to try, but the timing of these leaks raises enough suspicion to make me wonder.

Full story here.

How's that "Arab Spring" working out??

16 days after the terrorist attack (yes, President Obama, we all know it was a terrorist attack even if you refuse to say it) that killed the American ambassador to Libya and 3 other Americans in Benghazi, more embassy personnel are being removed from Libya.

A State Department official, speaking on a condition of anonymity, said that even more American personnel would be removed from the embassy in Tripoli, Libya for security reasons. The embassy has already been running on a skeleton staff since the September 11th attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. The official also said that the security situation would be reviewed early next week "with an eye toward restoring the staff as soon as conditions allow."

As soon as conditions allow? So basically what that means is that Libya has become a terrorist hotbed that is increasingly being filled with Islamofascist zealots. Why do I come to that conclusion? Because it's the only conclusion that makes sense. You would only pull out more Americans if there is a realistic fear that more attacks are a legitimate threat. And to pull out more people instead of increasing security means that the Libyans who are supposed to be in charge of securing foreign embassies will not be able to do this. Of course, even our State Department and President admit that Libya has no real government at this time, and that the direction Libya will go in has yet to be decided. The fact that we need to pull out people who are in place to help the Libyans form a secular, democratic leadership is a bad sign that Libya is slipping closer to a fanatically religious leadership, one that will not discourage terroristic idealogies, but one that will encourage, and even possibly support, such idealogies. The truth is that there is a battle for power in Libya right now, and religious fanatics are swaying that battle. With the removal of dictators in many Middle Eastern countries, Islamic extremists see an opportunity to not only infiltrate governments, but to take over and form their own governments. The "Arab Spring" that was supposed to let democracy flourish may end up causing an Arab Winter where entire countries are run by extremists like in Iran. Think about that. An entire region of Irans. That's where the extremists would like to take these newly free countries like Libya, and the removal of our personnel there is a scary sign that they are getting closer to it.



Full story here.