Bill Whittle puts into words as only he can, the diabolical sequester scheme of the Narcissist in Chief, which he says is the most “petty, malicious, mean spirited, cowardly and hateful thing” he’s done, so far.
“He’s deliberately inflicting as much pain on the American people as he can possible muster so he can accelerate our way into bankruptcy,” Whittle says.
Obama and his cohorts are doing lasting damage to this country, and these ruthless Alinskiites won’t stop until the people wise up…and that probably isn’t happening anytime soon…
In remarks with Afghan president Hamid Karzai at the White House this afternoon, President Barack Obama said the U.S. has fallen “short of the ideal” in Afghanistan:
“So, you know, I think that, have we achieved everything that some might have imagined us achieving in the best of scenarios? Probably not. You know, there’s a human enterprise, and you know, you fall short of the ideal,” said Obama.
Note the use of the royal “we”. When things go bad, it’s a collective, “we” – The United States – all of us, and “you” fell short the ideal- not “I” as when Obama gave the gutsy call to kill Osama Bin Laden. Oh no….things aren’t “optimal” and it’s only going to get worse so it’s “we”.
But it was Obama himself who sealed Afghanistan’s fate when he announced to the enemy our peace partners a withdrawal date from the beginning of the surge in late 2009, ensuring that the over 2,000 US combat deathswould be for naught.
On Dec. 1, 2009, commander-in-chief Barack Obama orders 30,000 more Americans into battle in Afghanistan. But in the very next sentence, he announces that an American withdrawal will begin after 18 months.
Astonishing. A surge of troops — overall, Obama has tripled our Afghan force — with a declaration not of war, but of ambivalence. Nine months later, Marine Corps Commandant James Conway admitted that this decision was “probably giving our enemy sustenance.” This wasn’t conjecture, he insisted, but the stuff of intercepted Taliban communications testifying to their relief that they simply had to wait out the Americans.
What kind of commander in chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war while announcing in advance a fixed date for beginning their withdrawal? One who doesn’t have his heart in it. One who doesn’t really want to win but is making some kind of political gesture. One who thinks he has to be seen as trying but is preparing the ground — meaning, the political cover — for failure.
“The shari’a system for which Allah has ordered us, we are waging the struggle for the same shari’a, and the same shari’a teaches us to keep holding the rope of Allah; and the Prophet [Muhammad] also teaches that we keep the organization [i.e. Islam] united and follow it essentially. And one who left the organization [i.e. Islam], he separate for the fire…. Praise be to Allah that by consensus we put our trust on the respected emir [Hakimullah Mehsud] and we have trusted him as the head of the movement [i.e. TTP].”
Waliur Rehman: “Whether It Be Against Pakistan Or Against Afghanistan, We Consider Both As The War Against America And Are Fighting Against The Crusader-Zionist Alliance”
The Leaders [Obama and Karzai] said that they would support an office in Doha for the purpose of negotiations between the High Peace Council and the authorized representatives of the Taliban. In this context, the Leaders called on the armed opposition to join a political process, including by taking those steps necessary to open a Taliban office. They urged the Government of Qatar to facilitate this effort. The two Presidents reiterated that the outcomes of peace and reconciliation must respect the historic achievements that Afghanistan has made over the past decade, including protecting the rights that all citizens of Afghanistan, both men and women, guaranteed under the constitution. As a part of the outcome of any process, the Taliban and other armed opposition groups must end violence, break ties with Al Qaeda, and accept Afghanistan’s constitution.
“I’m not going to confirm John Brennan or anyone else until the administration shares information with the Congress about who deleted references to al Qaeda three weeks before the election. I think it was purposefully done and I want to know who did it and why before we move forward,” Graham told Brett Baier on Tuesday’s Special Report.
“And what did the President do during the seven hours?” Graham continued as he made the following point showing not a hint of sarcasm in his expression: “They’re making two movies about his strong leadership during the bin Laden raid – this administration leaked every detail about the bin Laden raid so the whole world would know how strong they are on national security, but when you have a major debacle like Benghazi, you can’t get the basic information four months later.”
Damn straight. And of course the truth is – Obama didn’t show strong leadership on the Bin Laden raid, at all. According to investigative journalist Richard Miniter, it was Obama’s Greatest Foreign Policy Failure.
Never mind the fact that he raced before the cameras to take credit for bin Laden’s death only hours after he was buried at sea, putting publicity above victory and security. As Miniter noted, “Obama forgot the two trash bags of papers, hard drives and thumb drives that the SEALs had dragged from bin Laden’s lair. Those documents and devices contained a treasure trove of intelligence: the whereabouts of al Qaeda’s senior commanders, the secret sources of funds, its hideouts, its sleeper cells, its pending plots.”
With a few weeks to translate and analyze those captured documents, the CIA and other services could have been providing actionable intelligence to guide commandos to the secret locations of al Qaeda leaders all over the world. With the element of surprise and clearly defined targets, nearly every al Qaeda leader could have been killed or captured.
The entire al Qaeda apparatus could have been wiped out. The terror organization could have been eliminated.
Never mind that he chose to have bin Laden executed rather than captured even though it would have been an tremendous military asset to have had the leader of al Qaeda captured and answering questions.
No, the best part is, regardless of what Dear Leader and his media toadies say – his so called “gutsy call” wasn’t so gutsy after all.
The Obama campaign has insisted on describing the bin Laden mission as a “gutsy call,” an example of the president’s leadership abilities. So far, the press has failed to probe the planning stages of the operation; preferring to stick with the White House’s official narrative that begins about 24 hours before the raid.
But career military and intelligence officials tell a different story.
In my new book, Leading From Behind, I document three times in 2011 in which the planning for the bin Laden raid was stopped or stalled.
Jack Cashill suggests that Republicans in the Senate ask Brennan about the 2008 passport breach in which his company played a role: Brennan must answer for passport breach
The Washington Post headlined the story on March 22, 2008, “Rice Apologizes For Breach of Passport Data; Employees Looked at Files On Obama, Clinton, McCain.”
The “Rice” in question was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The offended party in the Post story was Barack Obama. He told reporters that he expected “a full and thorough investigation,” one that “should be done in conjunction with those congressional committees that have oversight function so it’s not simply an internal matter.”
It was not until the 13th paragraph of the Post story that the reader learned that of one of the three contract employees caught in the act worked for the Analysis Corporation, the CEO of which was Brennan.
The Post did report that Brennan donated $2,300 to the Obama campaign but suggested no deeper tie. This information was offset by the revelation that the other two culpable contract employees worked for Stanley Inc., whose CEO, Philip Nolan, contributed $1,000 to the Clinton campaign.
Stanley, however, had been handling passport work for 15 years and had just been awarded a five-year, $570 million contract. The company had no reason to play favorites in the 2008 campaign. It promptly fired the two employees, neither of whom was likely working at the directive of Nolan or of the Clinton campaign.
Unlike Stanley Inc., a huge government contractor listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Analysis Corp. had fewer than 100 employees, and its one culpable employee apparently escaped discipline. The Post article told us only that “his or her employment status is under review.”
Nor was Brennan a casual donor to the Obama campaign. To its credit, CNN Politics saw the real news angle in the passport scandal: “Chief of firm involved in breach is Obama adviser.” Having made this point, CNN and the rest of the media fell silent.
Keep reading, but don’t hold your breath. Nobody wants to go there.
I Know… this is politicizing it, but Obama already did with his two weeks of obfuscation, spin, and lies.
Romney could/should ask Pat Smith to cut a commercial in which she says that the only way she’ll find out what happened to her son is when the man denying her the information is voted out of office.
It would seem that the only things President Obama thinks about is politics and his own personal pleasure. That much is clear from Obama’s latest appearance on The Daily Show, during which he described the Benghazi attack — which resulted in the slaughter of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American personnel by Al Qaeda in Libya — as “not optimal”.
The New York Times found the guy hanging out wearing a red fez in a luxury hotel in Benghazi. Maybe the FBI had a man behind the potted plant in the corner.
Witnesses and the authorities have called Ahmed Abu Khattala one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission here. 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.
Libya’s fledgling national army is a “national chicken,” Mr. Abu Khattala said, using an Arabic rhyme. Asked who should take responsibility for apprehending the mission’s attackers, he smirked at the idea that the weak Libyan government could possibly do it. And he accused the leaders of the United States of “playing with the emotions of the American people” and “using the consulate attack just to gather votes for their elections.”
If Khattala isn’t careful, he might find himself on the receiving end of an “October Surprise” in the form of a US drone. Actually, I think it’s just a matter of time.
And by time, I mean the next couple of weeks – as in – right before the election.
Ben Howe, of Revealing Politics, decided to correct that oversight with another excellent video: Unanswered Questions: Who Denied Security to the Benghazi Consulate?:
Just like he had done earlier in the day, he walked away from the question.
It was only through Crowley’s audacious interventions that Obama was able to come out of the debate not looking like the complete SCOAMF he is on national security.
This is the part of the debate where Obama’s repeated attacks on Romney’s wealth blew up in his face.
He flailed around helplessly, pleading with his debate partner, Crowley to step in and save him after Mitt asked him if he’d looked at his own pensions. Romney destroyed Obama by pointing out that through his own pensions, he has investments in Chinese companies, companies outside the United States and investments through a Cayman trust – a brutal line of attack that exposed Obama’s rank hypocrisy on the issue. Bam’s big comeback after stuttering and pleading with Crowley to change the subject was, “I don’t look at my pension – it’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long,” which provoked nervous titters among the audience, but didn’t make any sense…if your pension doesn’t take as long to look at, wouldn’t it be more likely for you to have seen what’s in it? Okayyyy… the supposed “zinger” was that “Mitt’s is bigger than mine” which is pretty pathetic but guess who loved it?
“You know, I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours, so it — it doesn’t take as long,” Mr. Obama retorted. His reply prompted laughter in the debate hall where the two men were squaring off — but across the way in the separate room where the press was stationed, a brief round of applause broke out.
Part 67,948,983 of why Americans don’t trust the media, anymore.
Tonight at the Hofstra Presidential Debate Candy Crowley did something that just may be unprecedented for a debate moderator. When Mitt took issue with Obama’s initial description of what was clearly a terrorist attack on Benghazi, she actually jumped in to take Obama’s side: “He did call it an act of terror,” she insisted.
As Romney correctly noted, for two weeks, the administration pushed the spontaneous protest/YouTube video story – the same falsehood that everyone in the Obama administration was pushing from the very beginning, and that Obama mentioned prominently in the Rose Garden speech.
Starting at 1:18 he talked about the YouTube video, at 4:18 he said “no act of terror”:
The Obama administration only started pushing the notion that he called it a terrorist attack on day one after the spontaneous protest story fizzled. That’s what Mitt Romney, and Ryan mean when they say, ‘it took him two weeks to admit that it was terrorism.’
Unfortunately, Obama has cover on this because the word “terror” does appear in his Rose Garden speech, as Joel Pollak noted a couple of days ago at Big Peace:
Obama mentioned the word “terror” once in his Sep. 12 statement: “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.” But the context of that statement suggests strongly that President Obama was referring to terror in general, not specifically to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi or the violent demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
Furthermore, Obama’s reference to “terror” came near the end of his statement. His initial description of the attacks, at the start of his statement, portrayed them as an excessive response to the anti-Islam video upon which the Obama relied for days and weeks thereafter: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence.”
It was characterized as “senseless violence” that came as a result of the awful, bad You Tube video – not a pre-planned terrorist attack marking the anniversary of 9/11.
If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” not terrorists. It’s also important to consider the context. For a week after this speech, the White House would not call it a terrorist attack. The official position was that Libya was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film, not a premeditated or preplanned act.
Some may wonder why it even matters. Maybe Obama really was referring to Benghazi as an “act of terror” in the speech, and he just failed to make that clear enough — so what?
Actually, this is much more than an issue of semantics. Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators. If he were serious about “bring[ing] to justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical.
Instead, we had the FBI sitting on their hands in Tripoli, unable to “investigate” the crime scene until October – after reporters had already picked through all of the rubble.
Pollak observed, in late Sept, the Obama administration began to make a subtle distinction: “the difference between terrorism as an action (or reaction), and terrorism as an independent motive or cause.”
On Sep. 20, for example, when the administration first began to backtrack, White House spokesman Jay Carney suddenly told reporters that it was “self-evident” that the Benghazi attack had been a “terrorist attack”–by which he meant specifically that “Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials.”
In other words, the attack was “terrorist” because it was violent–but not necessarily because it was carried out by terrorists.
Carney did not allow that the attack had been premeditated, leaving the administration enough wiggle room to continue to blame the video–as President Obama subsequently did again, five days later, at the United Nations on Sep. 25. In his speech, Obama failed to use the word “terror” or “terrorism” to describe the attack.
In the days that followed Obama’s speech, the White House and the State Department gradually and grudgingly acknowledged the reality that the attack in Benghazi had nothing to do with the video. Last week, on Oct. 9, the State Department finally stated unequivocally that there had been no protest outside the U.S consulate prior to the attack.
So the Obama White House, and the Obama campaign, had to change their story again. Having relied for weeks on the imaginary distinction between terrorism as a reaction to the anti-Islam video (a meaning that they had embraced), and cause of the attack (a meaning that they had denied), they began pretending that President Obama had referred to terrorism in the latter, broader sense as early as Sep. 12.
Mitt’s only mistake was not realizing that Obama had used the words “act of terror” in the Rose Garden to describe a reaction to a YouTube video, an explanation that they knew at the time, was untrue.
“Point blank: The president lied to the American people,” Priebus said when discussing Obama’s comments on whether he blamed terrorists for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. “I think the moderator might have helped that along.”
Say whatever else you want about the debate: seeing Romney have the sack to call out Obama for lying, to his face, was pure chewing satisfaction. As with the previous debate, I may have to trundle over to the Romney campaign site for a wee donation, I’m so pleased by this. And as for Candid Candy, I hope she doesn’t spend all 30 pieces of silver in one place.
The singular take away moment of last night’s debate was one that elevated Crowley from moderator to debate participant. Crowley shot from the hip and echoed a talking point from the Obama campaign regarding their handling of the Libya attack to criticize Mitt Romney mid-debate. What’s more? She was wrong. Crowley did her profession a disservice last night and confirmed many American’s deepest suspicions about the media in the process.
Candy Crowley, who was suspected of being one more liberal moderator in the tank for Barack Obama, was more than just in the tank for him; she dove in and sucked all the water out for him so he could pretend he walked on water.
In the Vice-Presidential debate, Martha Raddatz, no slouch at shilling for the Democratic Party, interrupted Paul Ryan 15 times and Joe Biden only five.
Crowley made Raddatz look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.
Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.
And even beyond the interruptions, there were numerous instances where Crowley’s obvious partisanship prompted her to treat Romney with great disrespect…
After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threw herself under the bus for President Barack Obama regarding the deadly assault at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the Washington Post’s Jen Rubin observed:
First Bill humiliates her and now Obama does.. Hillary no feminist, more like doormat
A Think Progress blogger also slammed Rubin, calling her tweets, “sexist” and “personal.”
Why the hyperventilating panic?
Because polls are now showing that Romney has closed the once-formidable gender gap.
One conservative insider mused that the new polling is causing Democratic operatives to lose their cool: “Obama was losing the women’s vote before this happened, so no wonder they are frantic. It is unseemly for the president to hide behind her skirt.”
So what will the regime do to stop this burgeoning narrative in its tracks?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly accepting blame for the security failures in Libya the night before a hugely important presidential debate might be nothing more than a fabricated set-up to allow President Obama to dig himself out of a hole. Hillary’s statement was obviously timed so that it would take some of the pressure off of Obama and swamp today’s pre-debate news — which it has. But the timing also pretty much ensures it will come up during tonight’s debate, and that’s where I smell a rat.
Is the Obama campaign playing a simple game of checkers where Hillary’s statement is meant to let Obama off the hook 24 hours prior to the debate? Or is the Obama campaign playing a more complicated game of chess that potentially sets up a powerful presidential moment for Obama?
Think about it: If Obama were to stand up before the American people tonight and thank Hillary for being The Greatest Secretary Of State In The History Of The Americas and then pull her out from under the bus and accept 100% of the responsibility himself, he’d look like some kind of hero.
A moment like this would be dramatic, make the president look good, and likely command a lot of the attention in post-debate coverage. Pulling a manufactured stunt like this also presents almost no downside (everyone blames Obama anyway) and almost 100% upside.
Remember – it only took one disingenuous “race speech” in March, 2008 to make the lapdogs in the media heel on the Reverend Wright matter, (oh – by the way: despite Obama’s 2008 claims, political relationship with Rev. Wright began as early as 1987), and I suspect the MSM is looking for any excuse to drop this story. Obama’s chivalry will be their signal stand down, and let the regime’s “investigations” run their course.
As Nolte says, there’s no downside to taking responsibility:
Obama’s already going to be held responsible regardless of what Hillary does or doesn’t say and accepting responsibility is not the same as saying the security failures in Libya were his fault. It’s a win-win.
What we can count on Obama not doing is laughing like a hyena at everything Romney says like Biden did with Ryan (women didn’t like that it turns out), and I predict Obama will try a little harder to control his body language and make eye contact with Romney, since that aspect of his first debate performance was viewed negatively by almost everybody.
I hope Mitt’s ready to make Obama feel the heat that comes with taking responsibility. And he should ask him directly, who in the White House sent Susan Rice out on the Sunday talk shows Sept. 16, with the false You Tube video narrative, and why he continued the charade at the UN.
In an interview with The Washington Post published on Tuesday, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said, according to The Post’s characterization, that “she relied on daily updates from intelligence agencies in the days before her television appearances and on a set of talking points prepared for senior members of the administration by intelligence officials.”
Since when do members of intelligence agencies give officials “talking points”?
“I take responsibility” for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru for a visit. The interview, one of a series given to U.S. television networks Monday night, were the first she has given about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions, Clinton said.
Last night three key Senate foreign policy gurus, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) made clear they were not buying a word of it. They released the following statement:
We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever.
However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.
Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.
From their perspective Clinton was forced to walk the plank for a cowardly president who should have stepped forward to take the blame. The buck stops, in Obama’s administration, at Foggy Bottom and not at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
But Da Tech Guy is under the impression that Hillary, rather than being “thrown under the bus” has been a master politician in all of this.
There has been a lot of back and forth about “Will Barack Obama Throw Hillary under the Bus over Benghazi?” or vice-versa this week .
It was quite a situation, If Obama threw Hillary under the bus would the Clintons work subrosa against him? (I maintain they already have been.) If Hillary threw Obama under the bus would the African-American community make her pay in 2016, it’s one thing for them to be pissed off at Obama, it’s quite another for some white lady to beat up on him.
What do you do? Well Hillary has threaded the needle in a way that accomplishes everything she needed to thus.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.
“I take responsibility” for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.
The moment I heard this I had one thought: This is the move of a political master. Consider what this accomplishes:
In any case, Clinton’s statements will be interpreted, for now, as her taking the blame. Come 2016, they will be re-interpreted as blaming the “security professionals” who let her down.
Does this take President Obama off the hook? No. First, he appointed Clinton as his Secretary of State, in what was probably his most important personnel decision as president.
Second, Clinton did not, and cannot, take the fall for the false statements by the Obama administration about what happened in Benghazi. The State Department, which was following events there in real time, knew that this was a terrorist attack, not a protest. Yet, days after the attack, the administration mischaracterized it as a protest that spun out of control against a movie. That’s on Obama, not Clinton.
Third, Clinton cannot take the fall for our failure, to date, to strike back at those responsible for the Benghazi attack. This too is on Obama.
The Obama administration has had the fog machine working on overdrive since the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton substantially contributed to the fog in her comments to reporters yesterday, including one as it appears in the notes of reporter Wendell Goler of Fox News. Commenting on Susan Rice’s infamous appearances on the Sunday news shows on September 16, Clinton had this to say:
On Rice “grew out of a protest” assertions: “the fog of war. The confusion you get in any type of combat situation. Remember this was an attack that went on for hours…there had to be a lot of sorting out…everyone said here’s what we know subject to change.”
Yet the State Department monitored the attack in real time. The attack never appeared to be anything other than a planned terrorist operation. There was no report of a protest. In this case the fog of politics is a helluva lot thicker than the fog of war.
Hillary is complicit in the bogus protest narrative, having peddled it herself initially, so she has every reason to hide behind a phoney “fog of war” excuse.
I don’t know how she makes a political comeback in 2016 with the taint of this administration all over her.
Off in Lima, Peru — at least it wasn’t Antarctica or the Aleutian Islands — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has fallen on the proverbial sword long distance, declaring the buck the stops with her on the Benghazi security debacle.
That’s all well and good, but where does the buck stop on all the lying and covering up that followed? Yes, I used the unvarnished “l-word” because that’s what it was. How else to characterize UN Ambassador Susan Rice running around telling everyone in earshot that the Benghazi events were caused by an idiotic and unwatched YouTube trailer when Occam’s Razor — not to mention rocket-propelled grenades, an ambassador dragged through the streets, and a safe house mysteriously under fire — pointed to a terror attack commemorating September 11?
And then the president, acting like an errant husband unwilling to confess his adultery (who do you believe – me or your lying eyes?), repeated the same swill on The View nearly a week later. Unconscionable.
Why did this happen? Why this bizarre need to obfuscate or push away such an obvious truth?
It’s a lot more significant than the usual election season blather. On the deepest level, Barack Obama did not want to be found out. He had something even bigger than Benghazi to cover up – his worldview.
Over at AoSHQ,Drew makes some very good points on how this hurts President Eye Candy:
How does this hurt Obama? Well tonight he will be standing next to Mitt Romney. Romney you might recall has made a rather big stink about Obama’s failure to lead and his own stellar leadership record.
Here’s how he might play this when Benghazi comes up (or he brings it up himself)…”It’s all well and good that Secretary Clinton is taking responsibility but my leadership experience has taught me that only the person at the top of the organization is truly responsible. President Obama is at the top of the Executive Branch and he’s ducking responsibility. I’d like to know if the President agrees with the Secretary and if he does, why hasn’t he asked for her resignation? If he doesn’t agree, why doesn’t he say who is responsible? Most importantly, why hasn’t he taken responsibility from Day 1. Harry Truman didn’t say the buck stopped at the Department of State, it stopped at his desk in the Oval Office.”
And then it will get ugly for Obama when Romney ads, “And who does the President blame for the failure of his policies to get this economy going? The Secretary of the Treasury? Maybe he blames you the voters for not paying enough in taxes. This country needs a President who accepts the responsibility that comes with the job and doesn’t blame his subordinates.”
Obama will have no answer to any of that. He also can’t fire Hillary because that would cause problems with Team PUMA and his administration would be in disarray 3 weeks before the election
He can’t suddenly say, “Oh no, it’s me not Hillary who is responsible” because A-he doesn’t believe that and B-It’s too late. She beat him to the punch, he’ll look like he’s scrambling to catch up (which he would be).
The exchange was first reported in the White House pool report, as Obama went to a debate prep session in Williamsburg, Va., before Tuesday’s presidential debate in New York:
Reporter: How are you feeling about tonight?
Obama, smiling: I feel fabulous. Look at this beautiful day.
Reporter: Are you aware Michelle voted for you yesterday?
Obama, turning to yell back: Thank goodness!
Reporter: Is Hillary to blame for Benghazi?
Obama: (Silence. Kept walking.)
For those of you wondering how the administration thought they could possibly get away with this outrageous cover-up, Charles Krauthammer has your answer.(hint: the MSM is a big part of the equation):
You should fast forward past the tedious introductions to :20 secs in:
In the words of Andrew Breitbart, “There are two paths,” which we must choose between in this election.
Which path will we choose? Will we choose individual freedom and the free market? Or will we choose socialism and a culture that expects government to take care of it? These are not pastel colors or shades of gray. These are two distinctly different choices with two distinct destinations.
The Washington Examiner is now reporting that a “national magazine” and a “national website” are preparing a blockbuster story on the donor fraud. They speculate that it may be why Obama was so rattled during Wednesday’s debate.
Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday.
According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.
The Obama campaign has received hundreds of millions in small dollar donations, many via credit card donations through their website. On Thursday, the campaign announced a record September donor haul of $150 million.
Media Matters is going to be up all weekend working on a viable spin to diffuse the story, but it seems to me that if the reporters investigated the story for nine months, they’ve been very careful to cross their Ts and dot their Is.
This has the potential to sink the Obama’s already listing ship.
MORE:
Allahpundit at Hot Air assumes like I do that the scandal has to do with the lax security on Obama’s campaign donation website.
No way to tell yet if this sort of thing is what the forthcoming scandal story is about, but the description in the excerpt sure sounds familiar. And if it is the same thing, then it’s essential to understand that people have been complaining about it for years. Team O is fully aware of the objections by now; if it’s still happening, it’s because they didn’t care enough to stop it. And if I’m wrong about all this and the story has to do with some entirely different donation scam, well, that’s even more interesting. To raise $150 million in a month, you need an awful lot of donors. And we know that when it comes to donors, Obama’s not picky.
(CNN) — Two days before Election Day on Nov. 6, a movie detailing the raid that killed Osama bin Laden will air on the National Geographic Channel, the cable network announced Thursday.
The film is being distributed by the Weinstein Company, owned by a Harvey Weinstein, a major backer of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.
Titled, “SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden,” the feature-length film will chronicle the raid in Pakistan, an event that Obama’s campaign touts as one of his crowning achievements.
The Obama campaign’s September fundraising numbers may give people a feeling of déjà vu.
In September of 2008, the Obama campaign also raised $150 million, which was a record at that time, and added 632,000 new donors then.
And as the Examiner noted, the Obama campaign in 2008 was hit with a similar scandal in which the campaign let donors use “largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity.”
The federal government’s unequal treatment of disaster victims vis a vis the Stafford Act was one of the central themes of Obama’s poisonous race-baiting speech to black Pastors in 2007 – his insinuation being, the black victims of Katrina were treated differently because they’re not considered “part of the American family.”
“Down in New Orleans, where they still have not rebuilt twenty months later, there’s a law, federal law — when you get reconstruction money from the federal government — called the Stafford Act. And basically it says, when you get federal money, you gotta give a ten percent match. The local government’s gotta come up with ten percent. Every ten dollars the federal government comes up with, local government’s gotta give a dollar.”
“Now here’s the thing, when 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act — said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you gotta put in. Well, here’s ten dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not gonna wait for you to scratch it together — because you’re part of the American family.’”
“What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money? Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”
The Hayride found this funny, but I’m too disgusted to laugh:
Well, turns out that just 10 days prior to Obama’s speech there was a vote in the Senate on HR 2206, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007. That House Resolution amounted to a $6.9 billion appropriation to the Gulf Coast which would waive the Stafford Act.And guess which way Obama voted?
He voted AGAINST IT. He was one of just 14 Senators to vote against appropriating $7 billion to Katrina relief with no strings attached.
And then he went to Hampton and said the federal government doesn’t care about black people.
Seriously, what a disgusting, phoney, disingenuous demagogue.
A clearly agitated Mark Levin covered the story on his show, last night. He wondered, “what kind of a mind works that way? What kind of a psychology does someone have to have to knowingly lie like that?”
I would love to be a fly on the wall of the Obama White House as increasingly, mainstream media outlets (other than “Faux” News) cover stories that are (let us say) *unhelpful* to his reelection. There are almost certainly behind closed doors screaming fits, and lamps flying while President Creature Comforts and Commander of Me-Time kicks back in Las Vegas.
President Barack Obama arrived in Nevada last night to begin three days of debate preparation at the Westin Lake Las Vegas Resort, a luxurious golf community just a few miles from the Las Vegas strip.
Cool as a cucumber, I’m sure, and kept away from unpleasantness like this:
While the Obama regime was using bogus talking points about an out of control mob upset over an internet video, CNN’s sources weren’t corroborating any of it. Where was the regime getting its “information”? Did they really think they would get away with such an outrageous coverup so close to an election?
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform announced tonight that they will be holding a hearing on the Benghazi attack and cover-up.
A letter will be sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday. The hearing will focus on the previous attacks in Benghazi leading up to the consulate attack on 9-11.
Mark your calendars, the hearing is set for October 10.
Almost entirely missing from the debate surrounding the anti-U.S. attacks in Libya is the administration’s policy of arming jihadists to overthrow Mideast governments. But in the case of Libya, the arming of jihadists may have directly resulted in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the subsequent murder of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, private security employees and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
After changing its story multiple times, the White House finally conceded the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate was a planned attack linked to al-Qaida, as per information released by national intelligence agencies.
The admission prompted Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., to call for the resignation of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for pushing the narrative that the attacks were part of a spontaneous uprising.
King may instead want to focus his investigative energies on the larger story: How the Obama administration armed Libyan rebels who were known to include al-Qaida and other anti-Western jihadists, and how the White House is currently continuing that same policy in Syria.
During the revolution against Muammar Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.
At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi boasted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida gunmen, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
White House sources confirm that in the run up to the decision to involve U.S. military personnel, President Obama was fully briefed that a large portion of the Libyan rebel forces most active in areas around such critical cities as Benghazi had ties to al Qaeda, particularly Al Qaeda in Iraq, the wing of the terrorist group that killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq.
“He was warned that should we reach a point where NATO needs to re-arm the rebels — it appears that time is coming now — we will be arming the very enemy that we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan,” says a career employee at the State Department. “Secretary Clinton knows it, the White House knows it, but we’re working with these thugs anyway because the President thinks it’s the moral thing to do in the face of Gaddafi.”
Someone should ask President Eye Candy if it still feels like “the moral thing to do” in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.
In the mean time, Mexico’s government has put Holder’s death toll at over 200 dead, not to mention U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was killed by Mexican drug smugglers armed by Holder’s Justice Department.
What had happened was Jose Antonio Acosta Hernandez, or “El Diego,” the onetime leader of the Juarez Cartel’s La Linea, sent his team to the birthday party to kill what he thought were members of the rival Sinaloa Cartel.
La Linea is the “enforcement arm” of the Juarez Cartel. According to the El Paso Times, El Diego told Mexican authorities after his capture that La Linea’s mission was, among other things, to “eliminate the members of the Sinaloa cartel in Ciudad Juárez.”
“Regarding the party in Villas de Salvarcar, I was informed that there were some who belonged to the Sinaloa Cartel,” El Diego said in police interrogation videos. “I send the boys, and when they are there, they tell me that they have already located them, and so the order to start working is given.”
When El Diego gave the order, Univision said “seven vans blocked the streets so that nearly 20 hitmen from the Juarez Cartel could unleash the bloodshed with R15 rifles and 9mm pistols.”
“What no one in Mexico ever knew was that some of the weapons used in this massacre were part of a secret gun tracing operation ran by the ATF, according to this exclusive document obtained by Univision News,” Univision reported.
That document was a Mexican Army document that stated, according to Univision: “[t]hree of the high caliber weapons fired that night in Villas de Salvarcar were linked to a gun tracing operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).” That operation was Fast and Furious.
An onlooker who went solely by “Gloria” told Univision, “It looked like a war. A war where one only side was shooting.”
Luz Davila and her husband then “rushed down the street,” Univision said, to find out what happened. “Everything went dark,” Davila said. “I could only say that it wasn’t possible.”
“I went inside the house and the first thing I see is the older one, he was face down,” Luz Davila said. “And right ahead was the younger one. He was still alive.”
Both ended up dying. Univision said one of Luz’s sons died on scene and the other died 14 hours later at the hospital.
I’ll stop there – the next line is kinda hard to take…
Not the sort of story the regime wants coming out a month before election day, right?
…Obama appeared on a Univision program Thursday night and faced tough questions over Fast and Furious, which reportedly led to many deaths in Mexico, and not just the killing of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. He defended the refusal to give Congress relevant documents by describing them as “internal communications that were not related to the actual Fast and Furious operation.”
As Horowitz’s comments make clear, this is dishonest spin. On Fast and Furious, the president has zero credibility.
Graham and other Republicans were livid after the Obama administration issued the guidance on Friday telling contractors that their legal costs would be covered due to canceled contracts under sequestration, but only if they did not issue layoff notices before sequestration occurs — and before the November election.
“I will do everything in my power to make sure not one taxpayer dollar is spent reimbursing companies for failure to comply with WARN Act,” Graham told The Hill in a phone interview Monday. “That is so beyond the pale — I think it’s patently illegal.”
Gee, ya think, Senator?
So there are several major scandals bubbling up as the Preezy of the United Skeezy prepares for his big debate, which apparently everyone (including he himself) expects him to lose.
“Early this morning Tucson Sector Border Patrol agents assigned to the Brian Terry Station were involved in a shooting near Naco, Ariz. Preliminary reports indicate one agent has died from his injuries and another sustained non-life threatening wounds. The injured agent has been airlifted to the hospital. Names are being withheld pending notification of next of kin. More updates will follow as appropriate. The incident investigation is being led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office.”
WASHINGTON — Investigators looking into lavish spending for a pair of Veterans Affairs training conferences in 2011 found evidence that department employees improperly accepted gifts, wasted hundreds of thousands on unneeded expenses and exhibited “serious management weaknesses” in handling taxpayer dollars.
The investigation report released Monday by the VA Inspector General’s office also says that the department’s top human resources official, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration John Sepulveda, “failed to provide proper guidance and oversight to his senior executives” and lied to investigators about details of the conference.
Sepulveda resigned on Sunday, a VA spokesman confirmed. He had served in that position since May 2009, as the department’s top advisor on administrative and employee management issues.
VA officials released a statement saying “misuse of taxpayer dollars is completely unacceptable” and calling the actions cited in the report “serious lapses in oversight, judgment, and stewardship.”
Citizen D. of Occupy White House Videosunleashed a hellstorm of fiery approbation on his blog, today, and his disapproval wasn’t directed at our corrupt President, or his Democrat minions in Congress or the MSM…
It was directed at fellow conservatives for posting and reposting a link to Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary 2016: Obama’s America, with the headline: “Now online in its entirety on Youtube”, this weekend.
The blogosphere raced to watch and download (and upload?) 2016 for free. Meaning, of course, that Dinesh D’Souza and everyone else involved with this film, a film so incredibly important to history, to this election, a film that was 3 years in the making, received no royalties for the viewings.
When I followed the link to the video yesterday it had roughly 13,700 hits. At a $10/movie ticket price, the filmmakers lost $137,000 via that youtube link alone, assuming only 1 viewer at a time watched it. Of course there’s no way of calculating how often the film was downloaded and the exponential number of viewers and lost income resulting from that.
Citizen D. asks, “is watching 2016 without paying for it, without legal permission, some kind of conservative entitlement?”
Where was the honor, the honesty, the morals so often touted?? What happened to PAYING SOMEONE FOR THEIR WORK rather than stealing it because the opportunity presented itself?
Dinesh points out the importance of the theater release:
“We want people to go to the theater, by the way, we want people to go to the theater because it’s so important, particularly for this kind of film that’s against the grain to demonstrate that it can do well at the box office, so we’re not done with that by any means.”
My husband and I actually went out to our local theater to watch the film, yesterday afternoon, and while I think D’Souza gives Barack Obama Senior way too much credit in forming the younger Obama’s worldview than I would, it’s an important film, and one I strongly recommend. If you haven’t seen it yet, go see it while it’s still in theaters, and take an independent or open minded Democrat with you. The scene in which D’Souza speaks with Paul Kengor, the author of The Communist, the definitive biography on Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, should be a deal breaker for any potential Obama voter who loves his country.
Father Z, in a post about Obama’s creepy new flag,recommended D’Souza’s book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage.
That’s what the Obama campaign is offering you: empty visual rhetoric harking to his prediction of the end of global warming and the rolling back of the oceans, or whatever that hogwash was. This is the same guy who, having been honored at Notre Dame, promised to seek common ground with the Church. This is the same gay, aggressively pro-abortion and even pro-infanticide, who lied to Card. Dolan.
And the first comment is one I could have written myself (typos in all).
The pretender president is doing everything we could ask him to in terms of not getting re-elected. He flaunts his narcissism, demonstrates his ineptness when it comes to foreign policy, insults and endangers Israel, continues to destroy the economy, etc etc. Yet surveys and polls show this race to be extremely close and, most disturbing, show that he still retains a high percentage of “catholic” votes. One must wonder why. Is it the entitlement mentality which has swept this once self sufficient nation? Is it the silence of Church leaders when CINO’s mouth heresy in support of this obamination of a leader? Have we desended into the same sort of complacency that allowed Hitler to rise to power? Is it a combination of all of the above? All I know is it is time for intense prayer because the futue of the country depends on a regime change after the November election.
We know that the polls are skewed in Obama’s favor – but this thing shouldn’t even be remotely close. It should be a blowout.
For me – the greatest disappointment I ever experienced in politics was in the American electorate in 1992. I felt that we citizens knew enough about “Slick Willie’s” character that he should never have been elected. I was sick when I woke up, that Wednesday morning after the election. Even sicker than I felt in 2008 because we so saw that one coming. I don’t know how I’m going to feel, this November if the Chicago Jesus manages to squeak this one out. I’m past despairing for my fellow countrymen. Now I despair for my children.
The movie showed up on YouTube over the weekend as rumors spread it would also be shown free on the Fox News Channel.
The filmmakers behind 2016: Obama’s America are claiming a coordinated attack engineered by supporters of Barack Obama to suppress the box-office results of the movie, which is a critical look at the president.
But but but but… “we were just trying to get the word out”, say conservatives who participated in the attack by watching and sharing online.
Red State’sBen Howe thought it would be a good idea to remind voters of who Jeremiah Wright is, and why Obama’s relationship with him so threatened his candidacy in the Spring of 2008.
If you remember, in March of 2008, Obama gave a BIG SPEECH to explain his relationship with Wright. It explained nothing, but the MSM was enthralled by it, and the matter was dropped like a hot potato. John McCain inexplicably took the issue off the table in what could only have been some gentleman’s agreement with the O campaign, or his own irredeemable incompetence.
Four and a half years later, it would appear to be a dead issue. Obama’s been “vetted” on that. Not really.
He never adequately explained why he sat in a Marxist, race-baiting, anti-Semitic church for 20 years.
