State Dept. Rejected Benghazi Compound Security Requests To Avoid Alarming The Terrorists Next Door

I can picture Benghazi Special Committee Chair,  Trey Gowdy looking at this latest information and just shaking his head. Multiple sources that were on the ground in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012 have revealed to Fox News more facts about what happened in Benghazi on that fateful night.

According to these sources, the Consulate notified the State Department that the Islamic militia Ansar al Sharia had moved next door to the Benghazi compound less than a year before the attack, and the State Department’s response was something akin to, “and your point is?”

And when the Ambassador responded with, “um okay, can we at least have some uh – sandbags and um –  weapons so we can protect ourselves?” the response was, “no, that might upset the neighbors” (aka TERRORISTS.) Wish I were kidding.  So do the loved ones of the four dead Americans who were on the ground, there.

This is more of that amazing “smart diplomacy” we were promised in 2008. Oh yeah – the Obama brain trust were totally going to show up the Bushies with their “smart power.”.

A couple thoughts:

1. If you’re thinking no, no, no….NO administration – not even a Democrat one –  can be this weak and pathetic – congratulations, you are correct.

2. I know I’ve said this before, but does Hillary really think she’s running for president with this clusterfark under her belt? No, she’s done.







Video: Hillary, Presented With Hard Choice, Demurs

Anyone who’s watched Jason Mattera in action over the years already knows he has big brass ones. His specialty is getting in liberal politicians’ faces and asking embarrassing questions.

I really think he outdid himself, this time.

Watch and squirm:


Gateway Pundit: You Betcha! Palin’s Book Outsold Hillary Clinton’s Book by 381,883 Copies in It’s First Week

Rush: Benghazi Perp Set Up to Blame Video (Audio)

Rush is right. This Khattala guy has already blamed the video in his frappe-sipping interviews in Benghazi following the attack on 9/11/2012.

As Limbaugh says, “he’s gonna get a Regime lawyer.  He’s gonna get an Obama donor lawyer.”

And let me ask you a question. If the trial ever happens, let me ask you, Mr. Snerdley, do you think that an Obama administration prosecutor will aggressively try to prove the video was a phony excuse used by Obama to win an election?  No way, right?  No way whatsoever.  The government itself prosecuting the guy will not say that the video was a trumped up excuse.

No, they won’t. Khattala’s trial will serve as Rice’s Revenge. Get ready for it.

But we know the video was not the cause of the Benghazi terror attack — nor the Cairo embassy riot. In Cairo, they were agitating for the release of the Blind Sheikh – which at the time, the Obama administration was reportedly considering.. The Benghazi attack was a pre-planned and organized attack by Ansar Al-Sharia with heavy weaponry and mortars. Yet the alleged ringleader has been telling people the Susan Rice version of events – “the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.”

People really need to adjust their thinking on this because this whole clusterfark about the video was community organized by the Regime. It’s a hideous thought – but once you realize that everything this White house does in manufactured BS – it begins to make sense.

Warner Todd Huston reported on the violent Cairo riot at on September 14, 2012.

Just before the crowd in Cairo, Egypt erupted in violence against the U.S. embassy there, CNN’s cameras were in the capital interviewing protesters who said that the main purpose for their protest was to have Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman (known as the ‘Blind Sheik’) released from a U.S. prison. Yet as soon as the riots began, CNN began to push the false story that the riots were sparked by some low-budget American movie that denigrated the Prophet Muhammad.

CNN’s Nic Robertson filmed an interview with a handful of Islamists right outside the U.S. embassy. One of those protesters that CNN interviewed was the Blind Sheik’s brother, Mohamed al Zawahiri.

The Blind Sheik’s brother had an absurd “peace plan” proposal that he thought would end the blood shed between Muslims and the west and it was this so-called plan for peace that formed the basis for CNN’s report. But what is more interesting about the interview was that it serves as proof that the riots that happened hours later were not about any movie but were started in order to push for the release of the Blind Sheik.

Now, it is absolutely true that there was some buzz about a YouTube video on the ground in both places – but it was manufactured buzz. These Islamic militants were being community organized – perhaps without their knowledge.

Khattala, however, seems to know things. If you listen to him talk,  he sounds like he could be a member of the Obama administration – perhaps his Muslim Outreach Director.

Like I said, Rush was analyzing this on his show, today, and marveling at the similarities between some of the things Khattala was quoted as saying – and what the average Democrat might say.

In the 2012 New York Times article, the Benghazi suspect accused the leaders of the United States of, quote, “playing with the emotions of the American people,” and, quote, “using the consulate attack just to gather votes for their elections.”  It sounds just like what Obama said that the Republicans were doing.

And then he said, “Why is the United States always trying to impose its ideology on everybody else?  Why is the United States always trying to use force to implement its agendas?”  Now, forgive me, folks, but that sounds exactly like the way Democrats look at this country.  I’ve been following these people for 25 years, and they refer to us as imposing our will on foreign countries.  And the thing is, I’ve never looked at freedom as an imposition, which is what we do.  We liberate people.  We bring them freedom.  And this guy, “Why is the United States always trying to impose its ideology?  Why is it always trying to use force to implement its agenda?”

My favorite Khattala quotes come from a Reuters report from that October 18, 2012 Frappe session with reporters at the luxury hotel in Benghazi. (By the way, who organized that meeting?)

“The film which insulted the Prophet was a direct attack on our values and if America wants good relations with the Muslim world it needs to do so with respect,” Abu Khattala said, sounding like a speechwriter for  Obama’s speech at the United Nations on Sep. 25.

Khattala also told Reuters “he had only heard he was a suspect through news media and was surprised that officials had told journalists he was at large.” 

Really. He said that.

So what really happened? Like so much that has happened during Obama’s ill-fated reign – we may never know the entire truth.

Walid Shoebat is one journalist who has been looking outside the box for answers. When it comes to Obama administration puzzles – Ocamm’s Razor does not apply. Anyone who still thinks it does, hasn’t been paying attention.

Based on what we know about the Benghazi scandal, it’s likely the one the administration most fears based on new information that points to the entire video narrative and marketing being part of a carefully crafted strategy  as revealed by One of the actresses in the anti-Muhammad video – Cindy Lee Garcia – has come forward to claim that the maker of the video – Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – told her twice that he is a Muslim.

We have been led to believe he is a Coptic Christian.

This claim isn’t just a stand alone charge. It corroborates nearly all of our research since the attacks. If Khattala is going to blame the video, he will be pointing to a Muslim filmmaker as the culprit.

As has reported on extensively, Nakoula was a federal informant for Eric Holder’s Justice Department beginning in June of 2010. The stated purpose for him becoming one involved his assistance in helping the Feds catch his partner in crime – Eiad Salameh. Nakoula received a reduced prison sentence after being convicted on that 2009 bank fraud charge. The problem is that Eiad was apprehended in 2011 in Canada and the Feds didn’t want him.

So, what was Nakoula given a lesser prison sentence for if not to help the Feds get Nakoula?

Stay tuned – and pray that Trey Gowdy has the testicular fortitude to get to the bottom of this.

The Regime Captures Benghazi Terrorist Who Was Hiding In Plain Sight For Two Years


In the days and weeks after the Benghazi terrorist attack, Obama repeatedly vowed that he wouldn’t rest until we tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.

We’ve known who the ringleader was for two years. Why is he only now being held accountable?

Yeah, I question the timing.

Everything this Regime does is community organized from the top. If you haven’t figured that out by now, you never will.

Today, Obama announced the capture of the ringleader of the Benghazi attack – one Ahmed Abu Khattala – who was captured on Sunday in Libya by U.S. forces.

“I recently authorized an operation in Libya to detain an individual charged for his role in these attacks, Ahmed Abu Khatallah,” President Obama said Tuesday in a statement.

“The fact that he is now in U.S. custody is a testament to the painstaking efforts of our military, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel. Because of their courage and professionalism, this individual will now face the full weight of the American justice system.”

I don’t want to minimize the efforts of the American military, here. They just do what they’re told. As for our law enforcement and intelligence efforts? Please.

Everybody (but Dana Milbank, apparently) knows that Khattala was sipping frappes in juice bars with journalists one month after the attacks.

Via The NYTs 10/18/2012:

 But just days after President Obama reasserted his vow to bring  those responsible to justice, Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.

Why was he scoffing at threats? He told reporters that he had no plans to go into hiding. Why did he know he had nothing to worry about? I’ve always wondered that.

The Washington Examiner’s ASHE SCHOW questions the timing, as well.

How convenient that the capture came just days after it was discovered that the Internal Revenue Service “lost” former official Lois Lerner‘s emails that pertained to the agency’s targeting of conservatives. And the announcement comes right as the furor over the lost emails has exploded.

And how convenient that the capture came amid a plethora of other scandals, including an imploding Iraq and the still-simmering Bowe Bergdahl trade. Oh, and don’t forget the scandal over care at Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities — that hasn’t been fixed yet.

Let’s not forget Obama’s manufactured crisis on the border.

Schowe notes that David Kirkpatrick of the Times reported last December that “plans had been drawn up to capture Khattala, but the administration held back, ‘fearing that unilateral United States military action could set off a backlash that would undermine the fragile Libyan government'”

So Khattala was a known suspect in the Benghazi embassy attack, the U.S. knew where he was all this time, but only now captured him? And then waited two days to announce that capture?

Yeah, whatever. Rush signed off his show today saying that he wouldn’t be surprised if Khattala spins some yarn about a YouTube video.

Speaking of which.

Walid Shoebat has a new exclusive: SHOCKING: Company That Created Obamacare Website LINKED To Benghazi Video.

In a SHOCKING discovery, CGI Federal – the Canadian Company that built the Obamacare website – appears to have a connection to the “Innocence of Muslims” video the Obama administration blamed for the Benghazi attacks.


Keep in mind that has made the case that “Innocence of Muslims” was about agitprop and that the Obama administration was involved – to varying degrees – in the production and covert marketing of the video. In a exclusive, Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress who appeared in the video, told us that the filmmaker – Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – informed her that he is a Muslim, not the Coptic Christian he was portrayed to be.

Putting something up on the internet in the hopes of it going viral can be a futile endeavor, even when it’s an excellent product… or… video. When it’s a third-rate, two-bit video – as “Innocence of Muslims” was, a substantial delivery system would almost definitely be necessary. That’s where NewsPoliticsNow comes in.


American Power: New York Times Claims Abu Khattala Launched #Benghazi Attack in Retaliation for ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Video

The story is from the same reporter who wrote the widely scorned “clear the decks for Hillary” piece back in December.

Linked by The Right Planet, thanks!

Fox News Bombshell: Regime Knew Benghazi Was A Terrorist Attack While It Was Happening

In an explosive interview on Fox News’ Special Report, Wednesday, Eric Stahl, a retired major in the U.S. Air Force, told Bret Baier that  U.S. spy agencies were able to hear terrorists making phone calls to their superior commanding officers while the attack on the consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi was taking place on September 11, 2012. The reason the communications were easily intercepted is because the attackers were using State Department cell phones they had seized during the attacks.

It wasn’t weeks, days, or even hours before the “fog of war” had cleared and the Regime could piece together what had happened. They knew in real time - as it was happening – that it was a terrorist attack because they heard the terrorists themselves talking on their own State Dept cellphones.

Eric Stahl, who recently retired as a major in the U.S. Air Force, served as commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft that was used to transport the corpses of the four casualties from the Benghazi attacks – then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – as well as the assault’s survivors from Tripoli to the safety of an American military base in Ramstein, Germany.

In an exclusive interview on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.”

Stahl also told Baier that his crew could have reached Benghazi in time to have played a role in rescuing the victims of the assault, given their alert status and location – but they were never asked to do so.

“You would’ve thought that we would have had a little bit more of an alert posture on 9/11,” Stahl added. “A hurried-up timeline probably would take us [an] hour-and-a-half to get off the ground and three hours and fifteen minutes to get down there. So we could’ve gone down there and gotten them easily.”

What more, Stahl contends that a C 1-30 had been requested a month prior to 9/11 to be on stand-by at the airport, but that request had been denied.

Watch the video – as Major Stahl explains it, you can actually picture these CIA guys looking at each other and going “WTF?” while the Regime was pushing the YouTube video narrative.

Of course, it took nearly two years for anyone to interview any of these guys.

That sham Accountability Review Board, of course, somehow missed them.


I can’t believe Hillary Clinton would even think of  running for president with this FUBAR cover-up on her record. What nerve.

As for Obama… #IMPEACH

The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results


Alea iacta est…the Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and we have the results  for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

“What did the President know and when did he know it?” – Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker (R-TN), 1974

“Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi — why aren’t we talking about something else?” - Rep. Nancy Pelosi, May 1, 2014

“Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. -Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov


Benghazi refuses to go away, it rots and festers like an open wound. Speaker of the House John Boener was finally forced to name a select committee to investigate it fully, and the Obama Regime’s defenders lost no time in surfacing to spin the unspinnable and defend the indefensible. This week’s winning entry, The Left’s Forked Tongue Brigade Continues To Circle The Wagons On Benghazi over at Joshuapundit is my reaction. Here’s a slice:

The Professional Left continues to try and disparage the Benghazi select committee investigations with all its might, and the Obama media are certainly doing their best to help by ignoring the actual facts as much as possible.The Forked Tongue Brigade is out in all their putrid glory.

Two old Leftist camp followers conveniently provide us with an overview of the sort of talking points being used to attack the committee in advance, so that its findings can be ‘discredited’ before they surface. Lets look at them, shall we?

Eleanor Clift is simply an old line, loudmouth Marxist whom the Daily Beast inherited from News-weak.She hasn’ has an original thought in years, but pretty much parrots the usual talking points going around. However, when she does improvise, it’s a real doozy. On PBS’ The McLaughlin Group the other day, she actually managed to come up with one – That Ambassador Chris Stevens wasn’t murdered in Benghazi..he, umm, died of smoke inhalation:


The fact that Chris Stevens may very well have been clinging to life when he was raped and beaten (we have no way of really knowing) and the violent way the other three Benghazi victims died doesn’t seem to make an impact on Eleanor Clift. Using her logic, I suppose if someone sneaked into her penthouse digs, tied her up and put duct tape over the nose and mouth on her heavily botoxed face, we could say she wasn’t murdered was, you know, respiratory failure.

After discussing her faux pas with the usual suspects and getting a fresh briefing on the proper talking points, Ms. Clift decided to double down today in the Daily Beast (I refuse to link to this garbage but I’m sure you can easily find it).

Now her story is that she was taken out of context (she wasn’t) that it was the CIA’s fault, and that it was Chris Steven’ fault because he ‘took risks he shouldn’t have’.

Next, she puts out some cock and bull tale she’s sourced to an unnamed ‘ambassador’ about the reason for the attack being an attempt to free prisoners being held at the CIA annex. Of course, that fable doesn’t account for why the consulate was attacked, rather than just the annex. And even if that was remotely true, what about all the lies on ‘it was the video’? And why the subsequent cover up?

After that it’s time to play ‘look at Reagan’. She cites an article written by a fellow Leftist shill that calls what happened in Beirut in the 1980′s ‘Reagan’s Benghazi’. She relates how the Democrat majority House investigated and found ‘very serious errors in judgment’ and recommended additional security measures, but ‘did not see it as an opportunity to score political points’.

Actually, there’s a pretty good reason for that. The ‘serious errors in judgment’ had nothing to do with the president or anyone else in DC, but the judgment of the house committee that the commanders on the ground at a time before this kind of tactic was common should have somehow foreseen that some Hezbollah jihadi would drive a truck though the barriers and set off a suicide truck bomb.

And the reason the Democrats failed to ‘score political points’? Well, that’s another difference between Benghazi and Beirut, Ronaldus Maximus and Barack Obama. The Left didn’t score political points because they couldn’t. From Day One, President Reagan was completely cooperative with the investigation. He allowed Congress complete access to all information, and instead of lying and stonewalling, the Reagan Administration was an active partner in wanting to get to the bottom of what happened.

There were no lies for partisan political purposes, no documents hastily reclassified in an effort to hide them, no witnesses or survivors hidden away. And could anyone even remotely imagine President Reagan leaving our people to fight to the death for nine hours and doing nothing to save them because he was busy resting up for a fundraiser?

A different kind of president and a different kind of man entirely. Someone the Forked Tongue Brigade could never understand.

I’m taking the time to deconstruct this because trust me, you’re going to hear this kind of horse manure again and again.

As a matter of fact, none other than the junior Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, came out with her version of White House talking points today on the always amusing Huffington Post.

Good old Senator Babs is no quiz kid as anyone familiar with her record knows, but she has at least a few IQ points on Eleanor Clift, and of course, much better staffers.

The senator starts out using the standard Democrat slogan for the select committee, calling it ‘a political witch hunt’. She calls it that because ‘the committee ‘rejected House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s offer to have a fair panel with equal representation from Republicans and Democrats’ and because a few Republicans are ‘fundraising off this tragedy’.

I’ve already dealt with that previously, but it obviously bears repeating. The ‘even split’ San Fran Nan wanted is something she would have rejected outright when she was Speaker after she stopped cackling. Actually, no select committee in history has ever been set up in that manner. And does anyone recall how Democrats instantly sent out fundraisers after Sandy Hook, Katrina, Columbine,the Gabby Giffords shooting and every other tragedy you can imagine? Pot, meet kettle.

Much, much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Iowahawk with an absolutely hilarious piece, Iowahawk –In New York, Scrappy Local Newspaper Struggles For Survival submitted by Joshuapundit. You are hereby warned not to drink coffee or other liquids near the keyoard while you read it.

Here are this week’s full results. Only TheIndependent Sentinel was unable to vote this week, but was not subject to the usual by the 2/3 vote penalty:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! Don’t forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week’s Watcher’s Forum, as the Council and their invited guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day and weigh in…don’t you dare miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that!

Dismantling the Left’s Dishonest Obama-Defense Strategies

o scandals

Kudos to Kyle Becker of IJ Review for doing the fact-checking on the left’s ’13 Benghazis That Happened Under Bush’ Viral Meme.

Many of us have seen the narratives refuting “Benghazigate.”

“Where was the outrage about all those embassy attacks under Bush? What about all the people killed in those attacks? Where was Fox News then?”

Let’s put aside for now that this line of questioning has nothing at all to do with why people are concerned about what happened during and after the Benghazi terror attack.

All 13 false equivalencies are picked apart, here.

Of course there were attacks on US Embassies in terrorist hot spots throughout the world during the Bush era. We were fighting two hot wars as part of what used to be called – “the global war on terror.” But there were major differences between these attacks and Benghazi, including the fact that in most of the examples no Americans died, there were no requests for more security that were  ignored, and there was no active cover-up after the attack. They were not “just like Benghazi” at all.

Bush readily admitted that we were fighting a global war on terror. But Obama wanted the nation to think that he had decisively won the war after  Osama Bin Laden was assassinated. The war on terror was over. Now, we just had overseas contingencies and workplace violence and demonstrations over Youtube videos.


The left  uses dishonest defense strategies to protect Obama and they have used them time and time again to explain away his scandals. They mischaracterize past events to draw some sort of moral equivalency – which often involves blaming Bush.  It looks good on the surface, but falls apart upon close scrutiny. But it doesn’t matter how weak their false equivalency is, because the strategy is geared toward BDS-ridden O-bots who are inclined to agree with them and not do any independent fact-checking. They just want to be spoon-fed what to think, and the Alinskyites running the show right now, are happy to provide them with the nonsensical pablum they need to fulfill their preconceived notions about a world in which every enemy has an R after his name.


Perhaps the first time the left used this strategy to protect Obama came after Holder’s DOJ dropped the charges against the New Black Panthers in what one Justice Dept lawyer described as a slam dunk case –  the clearest case of voter intimidation he had ever seen..

The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force — one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.

Believe it or not – the left tried to blame Bush for the decision – forcing conservative bloggers like Delroy Murdock to waste time slapping down their idiotic false narrative:

Olbermann, recently fired Washington Post analyst Dave Weigel, and The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer have all crowed that Bush’s Justice Department dropped a criminal case against the NBPP. In fact, there never was a criminal case to drop. The NBPP faced a civil lawsuit prepared by Justice’s Voting Rights unit. This is exactly what career prosecutors recommended in the first place.

With respect to all but one defendant, Justice abandoned its civil case under Obama, not Bush — no matter what Olbermann and his comrades would like to believe.  


During the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal, in which thousands of high powered guns were allowed to fall into the hands of criminal gun cartels, Democrats constantly tried to argue that the Obama administration’s Operation F & F,  was a continuation of  “Wide Receiver”, a failed gun-tracing operation that the ATF briefly tried under George W. Bush. Democrats often used the Wide Receiver narrative during Congressional hearings, and Jay Carney used it when questioned by reporters during press briefings.

They were lying.

Besides the fact that they were two separate operations,  Wide Receiver actually made an attempt to track the guns that were headed into Mexico – guns  were implanted with RFID chips and were tracked electronically. The ATF in Phoenix also implemented aerial surveillance tactics in an attempt to follow the weapons.

Obama’s ATF  took no such steps to track the walked guns other than recording the serial numbers before allowing them to cross the border into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.  ATF agents involved with Fast and Furious would later testify that they were ordered to stand down and not track the weapons even when interdiction was possible.  The objective was to get them into the hands of drug cartel bandits only to be interdicted after they had killed people – at which point, they were  traced back to the gun shops that sold the guns to straw purchasers (at the ATF’s behest.) It was not a “botched operation. It was totally effed up from the start.

The Bush administration also worked in cooperation with the Mexican government. When about 200 guns were lost track of – the operation was terminated in 2007.

Mexican authorities were kept in the dark over Fast and Furious and were outraged when the details about the criminally insane operation were revealed. The operation started in the Fall of 2009 and not terminated until Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered with one of the Fast and Furious Guns in December of 2010.

A good question for Eric Holder would be why would the DOJ resurrect a program like Wide Receiver after it failed  –  but he would tell you he had no idea about it or Operation Fast and Furious.  He testified that he didn’t even know about Fast and Furious until well after Brian Terry’s death in Dec. 2010.  Any emails that might say otherwise have been protected by Executive Privilege.

There are still liberal drones out there who will knowingly tell you that Fast and Furious is a GW Bush scandal because it was a continuation of a Bush era gun-walking operation.


Remember Solyndra? The solar company that went belly-up after the Obama administration awarded them with an ill-advised half a billion dollars  loan? That was Bush’s fault, too, you know.

After spending months touting the Obama administration’s decision to loan $535 million to the California solar energy upstart Solyndra, top officials took a new tack Wednesday while testifying before Congress about the company’s abrupt shut-down and bankruptcy: the loan, they said, was actually the Bush administration’s idea. The Energy Department’s top lending officer told Congress that the Solyndra loan application was not only filed during President Bush’s term, but it surged towards completion before Obama took office in January 2009.

“By the time the Obama administration took office in late January 2009, the loan programs’ staff had already established a goal of, and timeline for, issuing the company a conditional loan guarantee commitment in March 2009,” said Jonathan Silver, who heads the Energy loan program.

It was a key part of the Democrats’ pushback over the Solyndra scandal. Dems argued that the loan guarantees made to the solar panel company were just as much the doing of the George W. Bush administration as they were of the Obama administration.

This argument has been pushed repeatedly by the Democrats on the Energy and Commerce committee, by liberal groups like Media Matters and even by the Energy Department itself, which has been emailing reporters regular press releases spinning the scandal.

For example, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce investigation subcommittee, asked Friday, “Whether the Bush and Obama administration conducted due diligence on the loan guarantee.”

But the facts don’t justify this claim. The bottom line remains that the Bush Administration did not approve the Solyndra loan guarantee. And just before they headed out of town, Bush officials ordered the project back to the drawing board.

Democrats argue the Energy Department first received the loan request in December 2006. By January 2009, it was still under consideration. That month, the department’s Loan Guarantee Credit Committee put the project on hold.

IBD concluded, “there were two administrations involved in this project. One, after more than two years of consideration, was still sending it back for further review. That was the Bush administration. The second was placing “intense pressure” on department staff to approve loans from the moment it walked in the door and even had the energy secretary himself personally reviewing each loan. That was the Obama administration.”

It would be like a Republican administration coming into office after Obama, immediately approving the Keystone Pipeline, and when something horrible goes wrong – trying to share the blame with Obama because he’s the one who  “established the goal” of approving the pipeline.


The IRS Scandal: One  defense strategy the left has employed to defend the Obama Regime  is the laughable “Progressive groups were targeted too!” false narrative. I’ve actually seen them try to argue that progressive groups were targeted even more than conservative groups. I mean if you’re going to lie – go big, right?

 NO progressive groups were unfairly targeted by IRS

This would already seem obvious given the fact that absolutely no progressive groups have come forward with horror stories about the abuse they supposedly endured as a result of being targeted and unfairly scrutinized. Congressional Democrats had every opportunity to let this alleged multitude of “progressive IRS victims” testify before various committees during several hearings that have been held on Capitol Hill on the scandal. Not-so-shockingly, no progressive victims have been identified and none ever testified..  Because they don’t exist.

There are still liberal drones who spread that particular brazen lie in the comment sections of our nation’s newspapers.


Be on the look-out for this particular defense strategy. Now that we see the pattern, it should be obvious when we see them employing it.

The VA scandal is in its infancy, but I fully expect the left to blame the scandal on Bush era policies that Obama is heroically fixing. If they haven’t done that already.

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,624,655 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 520 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: