October 28, 2012

Senator Ron Johnson said it 3 times today: "The American people have the right to know."

On Fox News Sunday today, the Wisconsin Senator made it all about Benghazi. The moderator gave him the last word after a long colloquy, including him and Senators Warner, Udall, and Portman, and he said:
Chris, the American people have the right to know. And that is what they are demanding here in Wisconsin.

Let's face it. What was the president doing, during those seven hours? Did he give that directive? Or didn't he? Did Leon Panetta directly defy him? I mean, what happened?

Who sent out? Who sent Ambassador Rice out five days later when they knew it was a terrorist attack that was preplanned, sent her on Sunday talk shows to say in fact it was a spontaneous reaction to, of course, the video. This administration purposefully misled the American people for weeks. This president misled the American people for weeks.

And, I think the American people have the right to know.

It was either misleading or is incompetent. I think we are finding out it was probably both, misleading and incompetence on the part of this administration. The American people have the right to know.
"That directive" refers to what Rob Portman was talking about earlier:

Chris, I got to tell you, I am member of the Armed Services Committee and I appreciate what my friend Mark Udall just said about not politicizing this.

This is not about politics. This is about a huge national security issue that affects all of us and there was a shocking break down, operationally, not to have the security there in the first place and not to respond to these guys, in their pleas for help for seven hours, during a firefight. It's unbelievable.

And now, we are hearing that the president of the United States, based on his own words, issued a directive immediately after he found out about the firefight, saying, he wanted to be sure those people on the ground were safe and they were getting what they needed. It didn't happen.

This means either that the president's order was not followed, which would be a break down in terms of the White House procedure, or, it means the order wasn't issued. We need to find out about this, it's not about politics. It's is a very serious situation.

After the fact, of course, there has been a lot of confusion about what happened and why it happened. I think the bottom line for us, it shows a lack of leadership. And it shows the policy in disarray and I think it's perfectly appropriate to ask these questions.

As you know, John McCain and I sent a letter more than two weeks ago to Secretary Panetta asking for some of these answers. We haven't heard anything. We sent another letter yesterday, with the additional information. We're now hearing directly from the president about this order that he issued.

Why wasn't it followed? This makes no sense.

161 comments:

Ali Karim Bey said...

The Official Response from the WH, NYT, Wash-Post, Huff-Post, Daily-Beast, NPR, MSNBC, etc. on "Benghazi" is ---

Go F*** Yourself.
(adapted from the new movie, Argo)

" You keep lyin' when you oughta be truthin' "
(from Nancy Sinatra, These Boots Are Made for Walkin')

Shouting Thomas said...

Well, the guy's a Republican and it was Fox News.

Story is still not going anywhere.

edutcher said...

Short version:

This ain't goin' away.

The longer it lives online, the more people hear about it.

Bob Ellison said...

What will happen if Obama is re-elected? The GOP, not wanting to look like Clinton-hunters again, might shy away from proceedings that threaten impeachment. This doesn't seem to me like impeachable stuff. It seems incompetent, and driven by politics when stewardship was required.

Was Obama a jerk, or just an incompetent? Can't he be both?

Damon said...

Amazingly, of all the issues this one makes my blood boil. I am accepting of policy differences, but lying and deceit... I guess I know now how the anti-war liberals felt about WMD, though I believe that was done in good-faith since we had the dove, Powell make the case.

Conserve Liberty said...

The president has canceled his campaign appearances for Monday and Tuesday and will be in Washington instead, ostensibly to handle matters Presidential related to Hurricane Sandy. That's the story, anyway.

How much do you want to bet blades are spinning up and a truckload of manure is backing into the White House right about now?

Conserve Liberty said...

This doesn't seem to me like impeachable stuff

Treason.

Oso Negro said...

It is difficult to believe that America will go for the mellifluous mulatto a second time.

McTriumph said...

As I post Obama is on TV updating the American people on hurricane Sandy, but he won't update us on Benghazi, he's got no time for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXDlwkuInBY&feature=related

SunnyJ said...

Lt Col Tony Shaffer: "sources tell me Obama was in the Situation Room watching real time & making decisions"

When asked what Ty Woods would be last thinking up on roof with laser pointed at morter location waiting for help, he said, "I thought they would come. They're not coming."

On MTP/NBC Gregory asked 1 conservative of 6 on panel, about campaign and she talked about Obama talking "trust". When she started on Benghazi, he quickly cut her off, "We'll get to that". Guess what, he never did.

Dem pollster and long time campaign operative Dr Pat Cadell, "The MSM is now an enemy of the American people".

To Mr ShtTom: Why would you ever be proud of "story not going anywhere" when people have been left to die? Free speech is for opposition not what we like. I am thankful for FOX and MSNBC so the truth comes out, regardless.If everyone felt like you and acted like Obama administration towards deaths of those serving...we'd be speaking Japanese right now. No man left is blood promise of ALL those that serve. Obama as C-I-C is moral coward and failure. He'd leave you out there just the same.

Paul said...

Obama feels you only have the right to know what he wants you to know. And the main stream media (MSM) feeds you only what he wants you to know.

And if re-elected expect the stonewalling to get even worse.

AaronS said...

If this story had any kind of reasonable explanation wouldn't we have it by now? I mean the trickle of info/disinfo from the administration is obviously intended to string us along until after the election. If the responsibility for these terrible decisions fell on a fireable person they'd have been fired already. Democrats should be concerned what could happen if Obama wins.

I propose that a Romney administration create a Firing Czar. That's one civil servant I'd be glad to pay for.

Original Mike said...

Obama knows the answers to these questions. No investigation needed.

rhhardin said...

It seems like just more of the same to me.

Everything is always a lie from Obama.

It was outrageous the first time, years ago.

Mogget said...

I don't want to go through the investigations that this situation requires. Pain and more pain; the only people who will "enjoy" it will be the rabid partisans as they tote up the score each night.

That said, I prefer that it be centered on a former, rather than a sitting, president. If Obama is still in the WH, it will paralyze DC for the next four years.

I wish I thought there were some Wise Men of the Dem persuasion who had also made that same calculation and would do what is needed.

gk1 said...

I think what we regard at the east coast establishment press is burning its own meal ticket here. They know in their gut they should be following this as if a republican was in office, but they won't do it because they are partisan democrats with bylines, every last one of them. The truth will out, and we will eventually find out what happened from leakers and other political critters.

Original Mike said...

The discomfort of Warner and Udall was telling.

Bob Ellison said...

It seems like this to me:

1) Obama failed the 3:00 AM call test. If he could take that call back, he'd send in the military. He's incompetent.

2) Obama lied, right from the start, and ordered all of his people to lie, for several days, about what happened. He's a liar.

3) Obama came up with a fake scapegoat. He's a bad liar, a failed liar. An incompetent liar.

4) Obama, so far, has failed to go to the podium and say "I failed. Sorry." So far, he's a failed, incompetent, feckless, lying liar who won't admit to his lies.

garage mahal said...

TEN QUESTIONS. TEN ROUTERS.

Dante said...

O Mike,

From your link:

. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.

So at the "minute he knew what was happening," attacks that warrant finding out who did this was already on mind. To me that sounds like that minute occurred after the damage had occurred.

wyo sis said...

What happened in Benghazi is a disgrace. It keeps getting worse. There is no answer that will absolve this president from one or all three of the following: incompetence, cowardice or complicity with our enemies.
Obama is not a person who should be trusted. If he is reelected this country will deserve exactly what it gets.

EDH said...

Who sent out? Who sent Ambassador Rice out five days later when they knew it was a terrorist attack that was preplanned, sent her on Sunday talk shows to say in fact it was a spontaneous reaction to, of course, the video.

"What did you do? You put that lying bitch on the stand!

...'Maybe it was your time to lose?' You didn't think so."

Cedarford said...

Cedarford said...
Jack said...
On Meet the Press - during a roundtable with 3 libs (yes David Brooks is a lib) David Gregory says let's talk "trust" he takes Maddow and Dionne answers slamming Romney as Carly Fiorina starts to speak about Libya and trust he stops her in the middle of her 2ND SENTENCE...and says " well let's talk trust about the economy...uh uh and turns for help from another protectionist lib.

Absolutely appalling and very dangerous for our country
=================
David Gregory and most MSM talking heads, NY Times and Washington Post journalists and commentors are under apparant orders from their liberal and progressive jewish masters to keep silent on the BEnghazi cover-up and steer all conversations away from it.

Protecting the Black Messiah is worth everything to the puppet masters.

Even if they are on the wrong side of the White House "stonewall" this time around.



Coketown said...

I don't think we have a "right to know." What are the limits on that right? Do I have a right to know EVERYTHING going on in the government? No. But it would be nice to know--nice to know the extent to which the Situation Room resembles the He-Man Woman Haters clubhouse, stocked with children making comical miscalculations and hyperventilating about everything. And remember when Spanky and Alfalfa dressed up as ballerinas to infiltrate Darla's dance recital? That's sort of what's going on with that anti-Islam film. Heeeey, wait a minute! You're not really little girls! And that terrorist attack wasn't really an impromptu airing of grievances over an obscure YouTube video!

It's children all the way down. I just count my blessings Obama's first test of competence happened eight thousand miles away. Can you imagine if it were a terrorist attack here? Holy shit. They'd probably STILL be trying to revive him with smelling salts.

Shouting Thomas said...

David Gregory and most MSM talking heads, NY Times and Washington Post journalists and commentors are under apparant orders from their liberal and progressive jewish masters to keep silent on the BEnghazi cover-up and steer all conversations away from it.

There are no orders. They just agree on the way they see the world.

And, they don't see it as in their interests to criticize and disable a president with whom they agree in most thing.

Original Mike said...

We now have the answer to Althouse's question of a few days ago: Why would Obama tell this ridiculous "video" story that had little chance of holding up? The real story (he personally declined to send aid, for fear of what it would do to his re-election prospects) was so explosive anything else was preferable.

BDNYC said...

He could say it a million times. Nothing will happen before the election. No hard questions will be asked. The truth might come out, but only after Obama has secured another four years and the threat of a Biden presidency mitigates against impeachment.

garage mahal said...

If I don't get the answers I demand I'll just make up my own answers.

Your move, Barry.

Coketown said...

Hahaha, on second thought and keeping with the Little Rascals theme, it's more like when Alfalfa and Darla are on that date INSIDE THE CLUBHOUSE and the rest of the He-Man Woman Haters show up, so Alfalfa collapses the candle-lit lunch into a cabinet and rushes her out an escape hatch. The perfect cover up! The evidence is tucked away and all that meets the eye is perfectly innocent.

But wait! The evidence is igniting inside the cabinet as we speak! It eventually erupts and burns down the entire clubhouse.

Better to come clean and admit you were having lunch with a giiiiirl rather than try to cover it up and have it blow up in your face.

For the slow: lunch with Darla is a terrorist attack and stuffing it into a cabinet is the anti-Islam film.

Shouting Thomas said...

Obama is not going to be impeached.

He's really bungled the Benghazi thing, but I don't see an impeachable offense in that.

Impeaching the first black president would be a move of stupefying idiocy on the part of the Republicans. And, it's not going to happen unless, in his second term, Obama commits a truly criminal offense.

Let it go.

Coketown said...

The more I'm reminiscing about the movie, the more I'm seeing uncanny parallels between it and this election cycle.

Ohio is Alfalfa's cowlick. Which candidate is on the hood of the race car? Who will win the race by a cowlick? Only time will tell.

Coketown said...

Impeaching the first black president would be a move of stupefying idiocy on the part of the Republicans.

You're right. He needs to be imwatermeloned. Maybe a half-watermelon, half-peach concoction since he's only half-black.

Cedarford said...

Lets just say the right wing has not been too intelligent about pursuing the Benghazi thing from the right angle.

1. First, they made their main talking point about the 1st Amendment martyr - a scumbag that said his intent was to incite Muslims to harm and kill Americans. The same right wingers wanted Al Sharpton tossed in jail for inciting riot to harm and kill Americans. So the general public had a big WTF??? about the right's crusade to make Nakoula a hero.

2. Two, and this is more justified..but in a sense worse because it distracts from the most important matter...the right has tried to make this about THE 4 DEAD HEROES! THE DEAD HEROES!!
(When the public has already assimilated the Neocons gave us 4583 DEAD HEROES in Iraq and Afghanistan so 4 more dead at the hands of Islamoids isn't exactly stop the presses stuff.) Nor is RESCUE!! something they can opine on until after the election when more details are known.

The ONE huge thing?

Al Qaeda and affiliates launched the 1st successful large scale attack on America since 2001. The White House principals, CIA, Military, State Dept people ALL KNEW it was an organized attack and they watched it in real time.

THEY KNEW WITHIN HOURS IT WAS NOT "SENSELESS VIOLENCE" from a random mob angered by the scumbag's provocation.
To help reelect Obama, they lied and lied in the next two weeks. And blasted Romney with full complicity of media liberals and progressive jews, that Romney had blundered tremendously in saying we should not apologize for a video that resulted in American deaths!

Shouting Thomas said...

First, they made their main talking point about the 1st Amendment martyr...

You are very confused, Cedarford. You've been carrying on about this for a while.

An American citizen does not have to be a "hero" or a "martyr" to be entitled to his First Amendment rights.

So, you got off to a bad start there. Drop this stuff and start over.

sdharms said...

What Obama said he said right after the attack was he gave a directive to "make sure our other embassies are safe" -- he said nothing about the people in Benghazi. Lets see the directive, surely he put it in writing.

Shouting Thomas said...

The same right wingers wanted Al Sharpton tossed in jail for inciting riot to harm and kill Americans.

Talk about a magnificent, jewel encrust strawman!

Perhaps you can tell me where you found this bullshit.

Coketown said...

The same right wingers wanted Al Sharpton tossed in jail for inciting riot to harm and kill Americans.

Interesting. Are there free speech limits to yelling "racism!" in a crowded ghetto?

Bob Ellison said...

Cedarford said 'First, they made their main talking point about the 1st Amendment martyr - a scumbag that said his intent was to incite Muslims to harm and kill Americans. The same right wingers wanted Al Sharpton tossed in jail for inciting riot to harm and kill Americans. So the general public had a big WTF??? about the right's crusade to make Nakoula a hero.'

My President told me the video was the cause, and he apologized to the world for the video, and said he didn't make it. I guess I'm naive. I thought my President was trying to tell me, and the world, what happened. My natural reaction was "what an asshole! Don't apologize for freedom of speech; uphold it!"

Turns out Obama was a multi-faceted asshole. Don't blame me. I was just naive.

gk1 said...

I wouldn't get to overfeavered thinking this is a watergate level of screwup. It just confirms what I always thought that the job is simply beyond the means of this president and we are doing ourselves a disservice pretending otherwise.

Bob Ellison said...

And Cedarford, be careful with the "the same people" talking point. It doesn't work, no matter where you stand.

wildswan said...

They left them to die. That's the issue.

RiverRat said...

Well, if this doesn't go away in the next few days by electing Romney and Republicans retain the "House" which is likely, we're looking at an impeachment vote early next year. I guarantee it!

Solve the problem...vote Obungler out!

RiverRat

Levi Starks said...

Obama said that is administration would set a new standard for openness.

I'm thinking closedness might be a better word. if it existed.

LarsPorsena said...

It's at these sort of times that it is best to reflect on Napoleon's maxim "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence".

Kansas City said...

Portman has exactly the right issue -- Obama has been bragging on the campaign trail that he "immediately" gave an order. He said yesterday:

"I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.... And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe."

It seems to me that there are only two possibilities....(1) Obama is not telling the truth about his order (which should have been reduced to writing); or (2) Panetta did not folow it or, with or without the approval of Obama, concluded as he now claims that he could not put military into harm's way without real time intelligence of the situation. I find that very weak, for among other reasons, it does not keep you from putting a rescue force in the air to get on site or sending planes/drones up for a possible strike.

Romney probably should personally raise it. He could say:

I have stayed quiet about Benghazi for the past week in the hope that the administration would simply provide the facts and the issue would not be politicized. I can no longer do so because President Obama has been politicizing the issue. He is going around the country - and really has been for the past month - bragging that the minute he found out about the attack he ordered that the military do whatever needed to be done to protect our people. Now, it turns out, our military sent no rescue force and took no other action to rescue our people. We need to know the truth. I am not accusing President Obama of doing anything wrong. But we need to know what happened at the White House. Did President Obama issue the order as he has said. And if so, why did Secretary of Defense Panetta not carry out that order by sending military to rescue the Americans under attack. The president knows the facts. There is no need for any investigation. There are documents regarding any order he gave. He and the VP personally met with Secretary of Defense Panetta wihtout ___ hours after the attack started. We need to know the truth prior to the election regarding what order was given by the president and why no military rescue was sent to Benghazi. We could have had a rescue force on the ground in Benghazi within two hours. We could have had aircraft there within one hour. Instead, the military did not put forces in place for a rescue. We need to know how that happened.

ricpic said...

Based on how shocking the early days of the Clinton Administration were, the constant shape shifting, this has the marks of Hillary all over it. My guess is that Barry went limp and essentially ceded the presidency, at least the Benghazi coverup aspect of it, to liar extraodinaire Hillary, who then orchestrated the whole brazen attempt to tough it out, which has been her lifelong speciality (cattle futures, bimbo eruptions, Marcy Park and on and on).

Original Mike said...

Yeah, it's time for Romney to raise this.

Michael Haz said...

"The minute I found out what was happening...."

When was that minute, exactly? While you were watching the live feed from the drone, on AF1 winging toward the fund raiser in Vegas, or when?

And the "minute I found out", was that the minute you made up that bullshit about a spontaneous reaction to a video, even though you knew it was a lie?

dreams said...

The American people don't like how Obama has handled Benghazi and the polls are reflective of their displeasure along with their displeasure of his arrogant condescending behavior in the debates.

Mogget said...

Nah, Romney needs to keep on doing what he's doing. The sort of questions that need to be asked must be answered under oath, in front of Congress.

Trashhauler said...

From upthread:

"under apparant orders from their liberal and progressive jewish masters to keep silent on the BEnghazi cover-up and steer all conversations away from it.

Protecting the Black Messiah is worth everything to the puppet masters."

Is this a false flag post? Why should anyone use the terms "progressive jewish masters" and "Black Messiah?" when unobjectionable options are available? These offend me and I ain't no liberal. So what gives?

Kansas City said...

I still don't understand the administration's emphasis on the video. Was it just a distraction to buy time? If so, it was pretty conniving and effective in buying some significant time. They are within 10 days of the election and the failure to rescue is just gathering steam. But, has time now run out?

yashu said...

Mealymouth extraordinaire:

According to Politico,

President Obama vowed Saturday to hold the right people accountable if it's found that there was breakdown in communications within the intelligence community ahead of last month's attack in Benghazi.

"What my attitude on this is is if we find out there was a big breakdown and somebody didn’t do their job, they’ll be held accountable," he said in an interview with "Morning Joe" hosts [to be aired Monday].

"Ultimately as commander-in-chief I am responsible and I don’t shy away from that responsibility," he added.


I am so disgusted with this man, this POTUS, that words fail me.

Titus said...

He is an incredible senator, one of the best. Wisconsin is lucky to have him.

Freder Frederson said...

Why should anyone use the terms "progressive jewish masters" and "Black Messiah?"

Because he is a racist Nazi?

You must not spend much time on this blog, "progressive jewish [sic] masters" and the "Black Messiah" are two of Cedarford's favorite obsessions (along with "welfare Mamas")

creeley23 said...

I think everyone -- Obama, his administration, his campaign, and the media -- has done the math. They have nothing to lose by resisting every step of the way and so they will.

They won't be able to stop the Benghazi story but they can, to a point, delay it. With the aid of the hurricane and other squirrels, they may be able to keep most of it at bay until after the election.

These are corrupt, immoral people looking out only for themselves.

virgil xenophon said...

Look, we can waste band-with until the proverbial cows come home, NOTHING is going to happen pre-election. The MSM is ALL about OMERTA 24/7 in the service of "the cause." We are now rapidly accelerating our descent into nascent neo-Fascism--a process that began the very day of Obama's inauguration..

Tim said...

The president is lying.

For if the president issued the directive, and it was not followed, the senior most person in the chain of command who made it not happen would have been fired, post-haste, with an explanation as to why that person was fired.

No president accepts subordinates not following orders, especially orders designed to save the lives of Americans. As awful and as incompetent as Obama is, even he would not tolerate this kind of insubordination.

The fact this has not happened suggests, in great probability, that Obama never issued such an order, and is holding his breath for ten more dies his crutches in the mainstream media can keep the story at bay.

After all, is there any evidence better than the comments from the Obama-trolls that they'll happily swallow any explanation Obama shoves down their throats?

JAL said...

As Kansas City writ @ 2:38

Romney Campaign -- you getting this guys??

I listened to the interview the local news guy in Colorado did the other say. Obama the Weasel.

"... the minute ..." Yeah. Right. He mouths off about "stupid Cambridge" cops and a Florida shooting without the facts, so yeah, I guess he right away ordered everything done for the Americans in Benghazi. (<--- As I type and read that it screams "liiiieeeeesss" at me.)

Then why the week after week of stinking lying and obsequious self-righteous apologies acting like he could strip Americans of our right of free speech just to try to impress his global audience?

Rats -- abandon ship, quick.

JAL said...

@ Michaek Haz 2:47 pm

Yeah that was one of my other thoughts... PARSE!


These are people one has to parse.

Put that "minute" on a time line for us, President Obama.

PatCA said...

I really think Obama knew these questions would come. He knew he screwed up bad and that good people in the service of their nation died, possibly unnecessarily. (If you want a taste of their seven hours of agony, go see Argo.)

I think he knew all this going into the first debate and that's maybe why he was so subdued. Guilty conscience, and fear of being outed.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

"The president is lying.

For if the president issued the directive, and it was not followed, the senior most person in the chain of command who made it not happen would have been fired, post-haste, with an explanation as to why that person was fired."


Yeah, this one doesn't take the proverbial rocket scientist (no disrespect, Tim).

dreams said...

"What happened in Benghazi is a disgrace. It keeps getting worse. There is no answer that will absolve this president from one or all three of the following: incompetence, cowardice or complicity with our enemies."

Obama should have stayed in the senate where voting present as in lacking the courage to make a decision has no consequences.

Cedarford said...

Shouting Thomas said...
First, they made their main talking point about the 1st Amendment martyr...

You are very confused, Cedarford. You've been carrying on about this for a while.

An American citizen does not have to be a "hero" or a "martyr" to be entitled to his First Amendment rights.

So, you got off to a bad start there. Drop this stuff and start over.

===============
No, I am saying that for the last month, the right has been championing the scumbag's right to incite foreigners to kill Americans.

A great thing, of you want the heat off Obama.

The general public is highly interested in learning what Obama knew and when, along with all the others - regarding the 1ST SUCCESSFUL LARGE SCALE TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICA since NYC and the Pentagon had planes fly into buildings 11 years ago.

Enough that if that was the focus, and not some esoteric libertarian bullshit about how precious the rights of Al Sharpton and Nakoula are to incite riot with no repercussions - the public might actually pay attention and votes would be swayed.

1st major victory for Al Qaeda since 9/11.
And to this day, the coverup is good enough you still have people out there thinking it was spontaneous mob violence and "Obama handled it".

Even the digression to 4 DEAD!! 4 DEAD!! - is not as attention-getting as right wingers want it to be, as we have 43,550 dead and maimed Americans in the last 11 years at the hands of Islamoids. Men and a few women, who also went into a risky duty for America.
Yeah, four more dead.
In a better cause that a good chunk of the Iraq and Afghan War casualties that were wasted on people that hate us and reject our nation-building.

virgil xenophon said...

Obama keeps talking about an investigation to "get to the bottom" of it all and "find out if there was a big breakdown and if somebody didn't do his job." Right... Obama doesn't need somebody to "tell it like it is"--what he really is looking for--as in every other case when his policies have come a cropper--is somebody who'll "tell it like it isn't."

Sammy said...

That's why the media went after Romney disproportionately and so aggressively to his statement on the Embassy attacks .
Why Obama went to his scheduled rally in Vegas
and why they blamed the video and their bullshit story about demonstrations getting out of hand, for as long as they could get away with.


1) to make sure Romney understood, he would pay a political price if he delved too deep into what happened on Sep 11 2012 or used it in the campaign against Obama.

2) to bring a sence of normalcy, would the President really go to a rally if Al Qeada just attacked our Embassy and killed an American Ambassador, especally if he saw the attack in real time and did nothing to help aid our men in mortal danger because of political expedience .

3) well obvious, pretend it wasn't a terrorist attack on the anniveristy of 911, in a nation that Obama used our miltary assets to assist one side to win in a civil war .
deflect from asking questions:

"why was there not more security for diplomats in a unstable hostile foreign country"

WHAT the Ambassdor himself wanted more security, knew he was on a Al Qeada hit list.

WHAT the security operatives for State, requested more security for diplomats in Lybia, and they were turned down repeatly.

WHAT there was a live feed and the White House watched it happen and it lasted for over 7 hours ..

WHAT they could have aided and ignored repeated calls for help from special ops on the ground...

And let us not forget the man blamed for all this, a amateur moviemaker, a American citzen who has had the power of our government brought down on him , used him as a convenient scapegoat, and is still in jail on trumped up charges.



If this wasn't a democrat President and Hollywood's own candidate ... The left wing assholes who make up Hollywood would be having a organism , this whole sad, corrupt episodes is what they have been warning Americans in their movies , this is what Presidents and people in power are capable of ....well republican Presidents.

Livermoron said...

What excuses can they manufacture?Seems that one of the known facts is that there was at least one drone in the area. So, Obama, PBUH, cannot reasonably maintain that he was concerned with Libya's sovereign airspace. Wouldn't pass the smell test except for chronic butt-sniffers like gm and inga.

What had the President been doing that evening? I seem to recall a pretty lavish soiree that he and the little lady were attending that evening. Had he had too much fun? Was he temporarily incapacitated?
Did he tell Panetta to handle it?
Did he even get his ass out of bed?

Shouting Thomas said...

No, I am saying that for the last month, the right has been championing the scumbag's right to incite foreigners to kill Americans.

The video was not the cause of our diplomatic corps deaths.

garage mahal said...

Wouldn't pass the smell test except for chronic butt-sniffers like gm and inga.?

This.

dreams said...

There are going to be a lot of silent majority Dems inside the voting booths November 6 vote for Romney thanks to the secret ballot because they can't be pleased with the Benghazi cover-up.

creeley23 said...

Those who are cynical that the story won't go anywhere are right to be cynical, but wrong to be certain. Benghazi is too big to be ignored, though they will try.

This will be a game fought by inches. Over time the media will run out of delaying tactics. The constant mentions of Benghazi on Fox and other venues will keep Obama and his people on the defensive until election day, thereby ensuring their defeat.

That's no small thing.

After Romney wins, there will still be a mess to clean up. I imagine it will be quick and more generous than deserved, but it's important that the nation then move on.

With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.

-- Abraham Lincoln

Maguro said...

Even the digression to 4 DEAD!! 4 DEAD!! - is not as attention-getting as right wingers want it to be, as we have 43,550 dead and maimed Americans in the last 11 years at the hands of Islamoids. Men and a few women, who also went into a risky duty for America. Yeah, four more dead.

Ah, so now anything that results in less than "43,550 dead and maimed Americans" is small potatoes and unworthy of discussion?

How very convenient for Barry!

AprilApple said...

It was the video! It was the video!

AprilApple said...

psst

Darcy said...

If I don't get the answers I demand I'll just make up my own answers.

Funny.

May I suggest: Is my President aware of who denied the security requests and who denied the requests for help during the attack, and if so, why isn't he telling us?

I would follow up with: If you believe that he doesn't know the answers to these questions right now, wouldn't that belief recommend his firing?

Just a couple of niggling questions I have, garage. Your mileage may vary.

Dr Weevil said...

Sammy:
Just wondering: did you think of your 2:39pm comment all by yourself, or did you plagiarize it the way you plagiarized my comment for the Des Moines Register Endorsement thread? Your comment there was copied word-for-word and comma-for-comma from a comment of mine on Ace of Spades, without attribution or quotation marks - and it wasn't all that great a comment. So what's going on, Sammy?

sleepless nights said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tim said...

"Yeah, this one doesn't take the proverbial rocket scientist (no disrespect, Tim)."

@Original Mike,

None taken, at all.

Given the moron trolls on the board, I thought it best to break it down into the simplest possible terms.

No doubt I failed to make the necessary impression, but that's about the intelligence and honesty of the moron Obama-trolls.

What is really shocking is how many of them there are, and how many vote.

I fear for the survival of the Republic. It cannot withstand a majority of voters being terminally stupid.

creeley23 said...

I really think Obama knew these questions would come. He knew he screwed up bad and that good people in the service of their nation died, possibly unnecessarily. (If you want a taste of their seven hours of agony, go see Argo.)

I think he knew all this going into the first debate and that's maybe why he was so subdued. Guilty conscience, and fear of being outed.


PatCA: I think you're on to something. People said many things about Obama's staring down at his notes, but I primarily read it as despair though I couldn't figure out why.

In the later debates, his grinning death's head snarkiness also seemed weird.

Benghazi explains a lot about Obama's distance from the press, his retreat into childish campaign attacks, and his appearances on comfortable, unserious media venues.

I think Obama is in trouble.

Coketown said...

I wonder if the press corps is secretly rooting for Romney, so that they can get back to reporting the news after a four-year hiatus. There has to be a not-insignificant number of reporters wriggling in their chairs all I-shoulda-used-preparation-H style, jonzing to cover this story the way it should be covered instead of just flatly ignoring it. I bet it might even be Pulitzer material!

Darcy said...

Given what I believe about Benghazi, I do hope Obama is feeling remorse/guilt. It would give me a heart for him. Not enough to vote for him, but good, decent people make horrible mistakes all the time.
Acknowledgement and remorse kind of defines the "good and decent" part.

sleepless nights said...

If Hillary could actually If approve the midnight-knock-on-the door arrest of the small-timer who made that video (perhaps the lamest attempt at a coverup in history), then look the Tyrone Woods' parents in the eye and say, "We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video" like she's Shirley Temple talking to freaking Santa Claus, she needs to be removed from Office for crimes against the Constitution right now. We also now know that she will definitely not be running for President ever because she destroyed any chance she may have had.

Cedarford said...

Shouting Thomas said...
No, I am saying that for the last month, the right has been championing the scumbag's right to incite foreigners to kill Americans.

The video was not the cause of our diplomatic corps deaths.

==================
Yah, no shit. The scumbag just incited riot and attack at 11 US embassies - many which had Americans in justifiable fear for their lives from militant Islamists using Prophet blasphemy to rev up huge, violent mobs.

In several of those embassy attacks, the mob TRIED to kill Americans, but failed. In Yemen - internal Yemeni police and military called to protect the Americans killed 22 in gunfights.

Since the meth lab , bank fraud, and ID theft felon violated his parole in the worst way, I am happy he is in jail - where 1/3rd of those jailed are also probation violators. The fact that he is in the deep darks may actually help the country to learn who his financiers were, and the scumbag not go back for more well-deserved years on his felony sentences - cut a deal with the Feds. Cooperate so we learn if his financiers were Christian nutballs, radical Islamists using him as a false flag op, same with the Israelis, Rissians...

I am saying meanwhile, if the focus is on Nakoula, it is off the fact of the big successful terrorist attack and All The Presidents Men (and women) in the coverup.

Alex said...

garagey doesn't care.

Alex said...

Nate Silver says Obama is going to win, so fuck you ignorant sluts.

garage mahal said...

Is my President aware of who denied the security requests and who denied the requests for help during the attack, and if so, why isn't he telling us?

You don't know either of these things happened.

Shouting Thomas said...

Yah, no shit. The scumbag just incited riot and attack at 11 US embassies - many which had Americans in justifiable fear for their lives from militant Islamists using Prophet blasphemy to rev up huge, violent mobs.

The Islamists have a general bitch about YouTube not being censored to satisfy their anti-blasphemy laws.

Yes, they pull out a specific video whenever they want to incite their followers. No, that specific video is not the cause.

They've got a long list of videos on YouTube that they want censored. Are you in favor of censoring YouTube to satisfy the Jihadis? Unless you are, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

All around censorship of YouTube in compliance with Sharia is one of the constant Jihadi demands.

Big Mike said...

Variations on the phrase "the people have a right to know" was the Washington Post's mantra when they were investigating Watergate. I like Johnson throwing it back at the 21st century MSM. It's laying down the gauntlet in a critical way.

You have a good senator there, Madam Professor.

jdniner said...

Watergate versus Fast and Furious
Abu Ghraib versus Benghazi.

Where does the information dollar flow and why?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


This isn't original with me, but imagine that this was the case: Obama was not opposed to a hostage situation with the NOT-dead Ambassador, creating both a wonderful bright-shiney-object for the rest of the campaign, and perhaps even an eventual swap for the Blind Sheik - something he would not mind doing anyway, I'm sure, as outreach to the Muslim world.

Seeing Red said...

--In several of those embassy attacks, the mob TRIED to kill Americans, but failed. In Yemen - internal Yemeni police and military called to protect the Americans killed 22 in gunfights.--

No laser-guided mortars like in Benghazi?

How can you attack without the good stuff?

Gunfights are sooooo passe.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

I should have added how that theory explains:

Watching things unfold and not wanting to escalate (the stand down orders).

No extra panic when the Ambassador was unaccounted for (that would be according to plan)

Th shout of joy when they pulled the Ambassador out - they thought he was still alive, which would be hostage mission accomplished.

The 2 seals fucked it up and killed 60.

After it collapsed, Obama finally said Fuck it, and went to Vegas .

And the cover up began, because no matter how transparent and risable, still better than the Truth.

R. Chatt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

This is all the fault of those damned ex-SEALs. I they hadn't fought so well, they wouldn't have embarrassed garage's wonderful president.

To paraphrase Jeremy Thorp about Harold MacMillan,"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his life"?

Of course, the ex-SEALs weren't friends of Obama but he doesn't really have any anyway.

Coketown said...

I'm starting to believe the bigger scandal here is Dr Weevil's purloined comment from Ace of Spades.

R. Chatt said...

What has Obama been up to, in addition to his drone attacks and secret surveillance? Arming jihadis in Libya and now in Syria. Why was Stevens attacked? We still don't know.




October 17, 2012 ZOA Calls Upon Pres. Obama to Cease Support for Supplying Muslim Brotherhood Syrian Rebels




2012.10.22 - TheBlazeTV - The Glenn Beck Program - Libya--The Real Story... What was Amb. Stevens doing in Benghazi?

Darcy said...

The Case of the Purloined Comment!

I'm all about mysteries.

Trashhauler said...

Regarding the non-response on the part of the US military, Secretary Panetta spoke accurately. We do not put people in a dangerous situation without intelligence. Sometimes, this tendency will cost lives, because it takes time to get everyone up to speed with actionable intel. Other times, it just gets ridiculous, as in commanders refusing to land aircraft at airfields we used to operate but haven't visited recently. Somebody (usually in J2, but sometimes in J3) will ask when the last time the place was surveyed and everything stops until we can get a sergeant on the ground to say everything is cool for aircraft to land. Frustrating.

Even the special ops types are not immune to this kind of thinking. Nobody wants to be scapegoated for losing lives unnecessarily.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dreams said...

"And the cover up began, because no matter how transparent and risable, still better than the Truth."

What might have been? If only Obama would have had the courage to step up and do his job, the American people would have rallied to his side in support of our troops and country. Romney could only have been a me too, as in good job Mr President thus assuring Obama's reelection.

But it didn't happen that way and Romney will win the election by a landslide.

Rusty said...

Benghazi explains a lot about Obama's distance from the press, his retreat into childish campaign attacks, and his appearances on comfortable, unserious media venues.



it explains a lot more about his lack of character. And the lack of character of those that defend him.

Levi Starks said...

If Obama looses the election, he's not going to have much of a Christmas. It's going to be pretty much nonstop shredding, and deleting. I'm sure he was hoping to have another 4 years before he'd have to take on what will be a monumental task.

Seeing Red said...

Off of Rantburg from a poster:

One comment on a news chan about 3am by a man who was presented as very recent ex-CIA: 15,000 Russian Man Pads disappeared from our storehouse in Benghazi after the fire fights.

David said...

Glendower:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

Glendower:
Why, I can teach you, cousin, to command
The devil

Hotspur:
And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the devil—
By telling the truth. Tell truth and shame the devil.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

Appalachian vote, Bye-bye

Hagar said...

I just sat through the PM re-run of Fox News Sunday. A case of dueling talking points, with Senators Portman and Johnson flying at a lower altitude than Senators Udall and Warner. Particularly Senator Udall could have used oxygen at the altitude he was flying.

It may be that it will take some time to sort out exactly what happened on the ground at Benghazi and the administraton's reactions to it. It is to be hoped that this will be done.

However, what is certain that whatever happened, it was not what this administration has claimed happened (and did not happen) for 7 weeks now, and I do not see anything wrong with "politicizing" this.
As Senator Johnson said, "The American people have a right to know!"

Dust Bunny Queen said...

This ain't goin' away.

The longer it lives online, the more people hear about it.


Only for people who, like us, spend time on line.

You would be shocked at how ignorant and uninformed most people are. They get their information, when they bother to look, from the MSM or their local newspaper.

We just spent yesterday and today out of town and except for Fox News, not a single peep about Bengazi on the Tee Vee. The local newswrap....nothing at all.

So, it we were not connected to the world via the internet, this would not even be on our horizon. A total non-story that maybe in a few years people will hear something about.

But....even then, the majority of the people will continue to be happy to be treated like mushrooms by the MSM and Dear Leader.

DADvocate said...

Maybe all this goes a long way in explaining Obama's poor performance in the first debate. He knew the truth and he knew the lies they were telling to cover the truth. It takes a lot of effort to keep the lies straight, distracting him from the debate.

Hagar said...

When the President and his cabinet lie to us, that is "politics!

Kansas City said...

Trashhauler is the one person I have read who supported Panetta's explantion for sending help.

He said "we do not put people in a dangerous situation without intelligence." But here, we were talking about Benghazi, where we had been for months and we were getting live reports. We could have moved a force to Benghazi or planes to be available there to use in a rescure/support role.

Marshal said...

garage mahal said...
Is my President aware of who denied the security requests and who denied the requests for help during the attack, and if so, why isn't he telling us?

You don't know either of these things happened.


Revealing that the left is doing everything they can to keep anyone from finding out isn't it? Even more revealing that the left is attacking those those trying to find out. When you add the fools grasping a straws to protect their money train even at the cost of American lives the left has lost all sense of decency.

Seeing Red said...

--He said "we do not put people in a dangerous situation without intelligence." --


Hillary asked for more security, if State could see it, why couldn't Defense?

Unknown said...

What I know is, we are one election away from several more yet more Federalist Society types on the Supreme Court and the abrogation of a good bit of the 20th century. What happened in connection with Benghazi cannot begin to approach the duplicity and malfeasance of the run-up to the American invasion of Iraq. Pardon me if I am as non-plussed about it as so many Republicans were and are (except, I read the other day, John McCain now re. Colin Powell's UN testimony! Ha!) about that war. The election in November cannot be reduced to a lot of threats and faux-outrage about such an event coming from people who are either actively partisan, naive, or willing dupes.

Maguro said...

I don't know how Panetta can claim "lack of intelligence" as an excuse for inaction when we had a drone on scene, providing a live video feed.

How does that make any sense?

Penny said...

"The American people have the right to know".

Guess what, Senator Johnson?

Way too many Americans are taking to their beds, pulling the covers over their heads, then wrapping their pillows over their ears while chanting the all-too-familiar meme, "Bring our troops HOME!"

A good number may even believe we can balance the budget, create jobs and continue to provide government sweet treats if we bring our troops home and tax the rich.

Assuming Fox News cares about the outcome of the election, they can't get back to "It's about the ECONOMY and our economic policies" soon enough.

Right now they're sounding absolutely "hawkish". Not about war, but a topic that relates to the Middle East...WARS in the Middle East. America's Sasquatch in the Middle East.

HUGE mistake.

yashu said...

So much bullshit from the liberals/ Dems here, in this and the previous Benghazi thread.

Fine, fair enough, disbelieve all of the FOX news reporting on Benghazi. Mock all the rumors circulating in the blogosphere, which inevitably come to fill an almost absolute White House/ MSM vacuum.

The fact remains, 40+ days after the fact, your beloved POTUS has failed to give any straight answers at all, anything close to a satisfactory account, on/ of the events of 9/11/12. On the contrary, for weeks they pushed a cover story that was (and has been confirmed to be, by the White House itself), manifestly false. We now know-- do you still doubt it?-- it was a serious pre-planned terrorist attack, not a spontaneous protest against a silly youtube video.

And they were well aware of that at the time of the attack itself.

Fog of war/ lying cover-up; tomato tomahto, right?

I would encourage the Dems/libs here to watch Obama's interview with the local Colorado reporter, if they haven't already, here. (The only interview Obama has subjected himself to in ages in which he actually got tough questions.)

Repeat: this is 40+ days after the events in question. Do Obama's answers satisfy you?

You don't have to believe anything any right-winger says about Benghazi. Discount Fox news, entirely. (NB We haven't gotten any straight denial of FOX news reportage, any concrete statement or account from the White House that disputes or refutes any of it. Just radio silence or vague prevarication.) Ignore the awful biased right-wingers who in your view are just "politicizing" things; just focus on Obama's answer(s) to the direct question(s), and that alone.

Do you think your POTUS has given Americans a straight answer on and honest account of the events of 9/11/12 (e.g. what he himself knew or didn't know and when, what he did or didn't do and when) or not?

garage mahal said...

Revealing that the left is doing everything they can to keep anyone from finding out isn't it?

Indeed. I've been on horn all day with my best press contacts trying to suppress this story. I have an action briefing at 09:00 with Barack and Hillary titled "hey".

Bryan C said...

"We just spent yesterday and today out of town and except for Fox News, not a single peep about Bengazi on the Tee Vee. The local newswrap....nothing at all."

I know, it's disgraceful. And the bigger and more outrageous the situation becomes, the harder it is to explain to someone out of the loop without sounding like some sort of a freeper conspiracy nut. Which, I suspect, is exactly what they're hoping for.

And it scares me, to be honest. What else has happened in this administration - or is still happening - that we've never heard about? If there's a second Obama term, what new heights of disaster and incompetence will be hidden from us during the next four years?

pm317 said...

yashu said...

So much bullshit from the liberals/ Dems here, in this and the previous Benghazi thread.
--------------------

Yes. If we had such intellectual honesty that you seek from the Dems/liberals and the mediawhores, Obama would be done by now.

jr565 said...

Obama wrote;
Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.

Insofar as the goal is to prevent anyone from ever attacking an embassy ever again, that's not going happen. Our embassies will be attacked if those attacking them find lax security in place or simply want to attack us.
But if the goal is to investigate what happened in terms of why no one came to the embassies aid and ensure it doesn't happen again that shouldn't reallly require much of an investigation.
If presented with such an opportunity you...pull the trigger, jackasses. It's not hard. If you get a report that an embassy is being attacked and one of the two heroes on the ground is targeting the enemy, you take the shot.
as to finding out who did this so we can bring them to justice, I agree. Was it Panetta, clinton, Biden, obama?
We should find out so that they can be held accountable.

EMD said...

Sandy will wash away all remnants of Benghazi.

jr565 said...

garage mahal wrote:
Is my President aware of who denied the security requests and who denied the requests for help during the attack, and if so, why isn't he telling us?

You don't know either of these things happened.

We kind of do know actually. protocol would dictate that those in the know would know almost immediately. IS it your assertion that nobody who could make a decision was aware that they had to make a decision - for SEVEN hours?!?

Marshal said...

garage mahal said...
Revealing that the left is doing everything they can to keep anyone from finding out isn't it?

Indeed. I've been on horn all day with my best press contacts trying to suppress this story. I have an action briefing at 09:00 with Barack and Hillary titled "hey".


Indeed, some of you are so small the best contribution you can make to leftism is being an asshole on a blog.

Simon Kenton said...

Trash-hauler:

"Regarding the non-response on the part of the US military, Secretary Panetta spoke accurately. We do not put people in a dangerous situation without intelligence."

Interesting that that would be true of our military. I'm just a low-grade volunteer firefighter, and we do not refuse structure, MVA, wildfire and med calls because we don't have intel. We NEVER have solid "intel" from the calls and the little we do know when the call comes always has to be supplemented, and sometimes is wholly false. Nonetheless, we go. Every time. As for "intel," we develop that on scene.

At the nationals I compete against riflemen and -women from all the branches of the Service and their reserves. Most are from the respective Marksmanship Units. Some are Rangers and Special Forces types. I'm trying real hard, and I'm just not able to convince myself these people are actually delicate little flowers.

creeley23 said...

Repeat: this is 40+ days after the events in question. Do Obama's answers satisfy you?

I'll repeat yashu's question, and ask a few more:

When can we expect Obama to determine what happened on 9-11-12? In another six weeks? six months? six years?

How hard can it be, really, to determine what orders were given by whom and on what basis in response to the requests for help on that terrible evening?

These are straightforward, even routine, questions.

The only hard part is that the political price will be very steep for some to pay.

creeley23 said...

Jonah Goldberg at NRO has some excellent questions too:

But there are two problems bigger problems with the Panetta doctrine. First, Panetta says they didn’t have real-time information. Uh, if having a live video feed and real-time reports from assets on the ground for hours doesn’t count as real-time information, what does?

If the circumstances in Libya didn’t meet the “enough information” threshold for a rescue attempt or some other form of intervention, then what does? And, note, Panetta & Co. make it sound as if the decision to let the Americans on the scene twist in the wind was sort of a no-brainer, not a difficult decision.

Original Mike said...

Embassy under attack for seven hours and nobody told the President.

Yeah. I believe that.

Penny said...

"Do you think your POTUS has given Americans a straight answer on and honest account of the events of 9/11/12 (e.g. what he himself knew or didn't know and when, what he did or didn't do and when) or not?"

NOT!

And I can accept that, yashu, provided I trust that our current President, and all the Presidents representing BOTH parties who went before, see their primary duty as keeping America "safe".

So far, so good, and in that, we are blessed.

The internet's good for a lot of things, but we don't really want to leave the safety of America in the hands of ALL its denizens.

With THAT kind of truth, you're not likely to enjoy apple pie ala mode any time soon.

One bite of the "tasty" apple in the Garden of Eden seems to have given way to that one ... that ONE bad apple in the bunch.

garage mahal said...

Actually that was just a fundraising email from Obama.

The sad truth is I don't have any press contacts, or know anyone in government for that matter.

Penny said...

That's not "sad" truth, garage. It's generally true for all us folks trying to make the best of a sometimes sad and sometimes bad situation.

If we get sad and bad enough, we're forced to trust somebody, and with luck, many more than one.

Penny said...

Trusting the press, or the government, aren't high on my list.

But hey! Mileage may vary.

JAL said...

@ Darcy 3:58 Acknowledgement and remorse kind of defines the "good and decent" part.

Not going to happen.

No there there.

Dante said...

Where is the Main Stream Media on this? Why do I have to go to non-traditional sites to get this knowledge?

Does the press not want Americans to have the raw information on which we can make our decisions?

I can't imagine Bhangazi isn't interesting to people, and that it wouldn't sell newspapers. Has the NY Times ever been shy to release sensitive material before, or is it only that material that is damaging to the US that's allowed?

traditionalguy said...

The depth of the enemy activities originating through Obama and his minions in the Democrat Party is so amazing that Washington itself is close to losing command of the military and the citizens of the USA.

No wonder they have recently put aside millions of rounds of wad cutter ammo in Federal Agencies and erected concentration camps at the end of RR branch lines across the country...to guard Public Safety.

Michael The Magnificent said...

I don't care; Obama is awesome! /sarcasm

Michael The Magnificent said...

Oh, and yes, it's Bush's fault.

Original Mike said...

"I can't imagine Bhangazi isn't interesting to people, and that it wouldn't sell newspapers."

They have a higher calling, Dante.

Seeing Red said...

--Right now they're sounding absolutely "hawkish". Not about war, but a topic that relates to the Middle East...WARS in the Middle East. America's Sasquatch in the Middle East.

HUGE mistake.




Ummm, so Americans have forgotten the significance of 9/11/01?


Dante said...

Mmm, mmm, mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Put our trust in you
and elected you too
Mmm, mmm, mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Now that four lives are gone,
you sing us a song

You gave no protection
it would hurt your re-election

Do not belie
we want to know why

Where was your helping hand
to make America Strong Again?

cf said...

Upstanding Democrats, how are you not critical of the open gate for contributions that allow anyone in the world to claim a faux identity? Your Party's Graft, suitcases of Chinese cash -- traded for what? -- metastasizing ever since Clinton/Gore/Emanuel/Summers cooked all book$ 1998Hot.

Screw you if you aren't shattering this leadership of Pirates and skeletal 1930s Zombies, Pelosi and the Mormon and his Nevada machine in the Senate, and the fat cow beasts that follow and report, New York Times, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, HuffingtonPost and AOL, Clinton whoring his connections in the alleys, really are you such Idealogues AND thieves? You would sell us all out?

Be Damned then. If you choose to enslave this amazing nation under dull-eyed Tax Reviewers instead of unleashing us as the great engine of maximum free enterprise, go to Hell.

You should go read Russell Meade on Liberalism 5.0 and see anew.

and go to some church and pray to your most High God.

And take a hard good look at #benghazi.

Dante said...

O Mike:
They have a higher calling, Dante.

Actually, I see a post by Ann on this subject I somehow missed.

But what is going to be the fallout, though? Can the press keep a lid on this? Are they so certain they can spin there way beyond the election?

I almost think they must now believe Obama is not going to be re-elected.

I can't see how the press could spin this. I think, if Obama knew, and did nothing, it isn't only going to be a referendum on the president, but on the press.

It seems suicidal on their part. Or at least, it should be.

Original Mike said...

"Are they so certain they can spin there way beyond the election?"

They've been doing it for years. Why will it be any different this time?

SDN said...

Anyone who thinks impeachment will happen is delusional. The Republicans aren't going to waste the effort as long as there are 34 Treasonocrats in the Senate to block it.

Retired Prosecutor said...

The Administration and its cheerleaders just don't get it: even if they win re-election, the lies that have been told about Benghazi are going to be a cancer on Obama's second-term Presidency. And the mainstream media needs to stop aiding and abetting the Administration's Benghazi coverup.

Colonel Angus said...

The MSM had a field day over Valarie Plame but doesn't seem to care when four American foreign service personnel are killed in a coordinated assault on our consulate.

creeley23 said...

Retired Prosecutor: I agree that Benghazi is terrible, but I don't see what price Obama and the media pay by continuing the coverup.

Doubling down doesn't make them look much worse than they already do, and ignoring Benghazi might make all the difference between victory and defeat next week.

If Obama wins, it's just one more headache out of many next term. With the media in his back pocket, he will not be nearly as vulnerable as Nixon was to Watergate.

Henry said...

Another take on this horrible mess:
It's going to come out that it's much worse than this. It appears that Obama was actively in collusion with the "rebels" through some intermediaries (probably the Russians) -- the plan was to snatch the ambassador, anticipating no armed resistance. A sort of replay of the 1981 Iranian embassy takeover. Then Obama would "negotiate" their release before election day. Happy ending, he's reelected. This is why Obama refused any support to the embassy. But it went south when the two Navy SEALS disobeyed orders and went to save the embassy. This is why Obama refused to call in air support, which was waiting in the air, on station, and why he fired General Ham, head of Africom, the moment he said he was ordering in the air support anyway. The SEALs killed over 60 of the Jihadis, who weren't expecting the opposition. This put the Jihadis in no mood to have hostages. Obama then fled to Las Vegas.

JAL said...

This is the final straw.

Tell us again why does BHO insist he is going to get to the bottom of what happened and who did it?

If you parse his "answer" you see he might not be talking about what happened in DC -- because he *knows* what happened in DC.

"We're going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again..."

"...the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do."


That last definitely qualifies him for that bullsh*t award he tried to bestow on Romney.

It is impossible for him not to know what happened in DC that afternoon / evening.

Ambassadors involved in fire fights are not low level flunky calls.

There just are not that many people in the position to call the shots on this situation and if he didn't give the military guys the go ahead to do what they knew they could do it is his responsibility / fault.

If he deferred to someone else he knows damned well what happened. And it is still his responsibility / fault.

So what is this crap about finding out what happened (after Sandy, after the election)?

wyo sis said...

Henry
I'm outraged by what happened, but offering up that kind of conspiracy theory is red meat for the left. The facts we KNOW are damning enough. If you have any proof, I'd love to see it, but I suspect your scenario is just a wild hair. (hare?)

JAL said...

Just found this on Yahoo.

When I went back a couple minutes later to check something I found it had been re-written. This is how it appeared before it mentioned the Fox claim that requests for help had been denied. Both stories are there ...

Obama rebuts claims he’s lying about attack on US Consulate in Libya

By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News
White House Correspondent
The Ticket – Fri, Oct 26, 2012..


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-denies-misleading-benghazi-vows-capture-plotters-184349903--election.html

President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully denied deliberately misleading Americans about the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi, telling radio host Michael Smerconish, "I've always been straight with the American people."

[snip]

Asked whether the administration's shifting explanation for the September 11 strike reflected the intelligence he was receiving, Obama replied: "What's true is that the intelligence was coming in and evolving as more information came up.

"And what is true," he continued, "...This is something that the American people can take to the bank—is that my administration plays this stuff straight. We don't play politics when it comes to American national security," the president said. "As information came in we gave it to the American people. And as we got new information, we gave that to the American people."

[snip]

"Ultimately, though, any time there is a death of an American overseas, I want to find out what happened, because my most important job as president is keeping the American people safe."

[snip]

He also said he takes "full responsibility" for the circumstances in the attack, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

[snip]

"My biggest priority right now is bringing those folks ["folks"??] to justice. And I think the American people have seen that's a commitment I always keep," the president said, an apparent reference to the bin Laden raid.

[snip]

Obama harshly criticized Romney for his response to the crisis. The former Massachusetts governor, in his first statement, implied the administration had sided with the attackers. Smerconish asked whether Romney's criticisms of the changing explanation for the attack were "disingenuous," given he started getting intelligence briefings himself (though they only began roughly one week later, on September 17).

"He certainly understood that when our diplomats are still under fire—not just in Benghazi but around the world, in Cairo, in Pakistan, etc.—that if you aspire to be commander in chief you don't release a political press release.," Obama said. "You don't have a political press conference that tries to take advantage of that opportunity that is so reckless that even members of your own party criticize you for it."

[snip]

Asked whether Romney had toned down his sharp criticisms on Libya because of what he learned in intelligence briefings, Obama said he doubted his rival was "constrained" by facts. "

[snip]

Obama was not asked about, and did not bring up, a report by Fox News Channel that American officials repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups. A spokesman for the president's National Security Council did not acknowledge a request for comment on that report.

==================================

Some stuff I haven't seen before.

I have found Yahoo to be quite left of center when it comes to Obama & Co.

Cindy Martin said...

http://connect.freedomworks.org/node/313166?source=tweet-event

Operation Benghazi accountability...One million calls

Cindy Martin said...

http://connect.freedomworks.org/node/313166?source=tweet-event

Operation Benghazi accountability...One million calls

creeley23 said...

JAL: I read that earlier today and found it unsatisfying -- not to mention being annoyed by Obama's nasty and disingenuous swipes at Romney.

Again: How can Obama not know what happened?

Note that Obama focuses on the question of who the attackers were, rather than why the Ambassadors and three other Americans received no help over the course of seven hours from the most powerful military on the planet.

yashu said...

What a despicable man.

It's staggering.

Romney has conspicuously refrained from referring to Benghazi or attacking Obama on Benghazi for over a month now-- pretty much since the beginning. In fact, Romney has barely addressed Benghazi at all (his original statement concerned the Cairo embassy emails, and his only charge re Benghazi occurred in the 2nd debate, regarding the White House's contradictory stories on whether it was a terrorist attack-- a truthful criticism, conveniently shut down by Candy Crowley through pettifoggery).

Yet, when called to account for his own administration's actions in an intensifying scandal, one which his administration has misinformed and stonewalled on for 40+ days, one in which his administration has failed to provide the most basic of answers to the most basic of questions, the POTUS even now considers it a priority to criticize, blame, attack, and insult Romney.

Asked whether Romney had toned down his sharp criticisms on Libya because of what he learned in intelligence briefings, Obama said he doubted his rival was "constrained" by facts."

What an asshole.

I find it inconceivable that anyone halfway informed could vote for such a man.

Chip S. said...

I find it inconceivable that anyone halfway informed could vote for such a man.

Apparently ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS feel the same way.

creeley23 said...

What a despicable man.

That's where I've landed. I never liked or trusted Obama, but I did figure he wasn't a bad sort, past his confused leftist worldview and his penchant for narcissism.

But now I realize Obama is also something of a monster like Ted Kennedy who can allow others to die and cover it up to defend his political career.

yashu said...

I really hate to feel such contempt for a POTUS.

I've never felt that way toward a POTUS before, from either party.

NB Though I was strongly opposed to Obama in 2008, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt after he won the election. I hoped-- really hoped-- he'd pleasantly surprise me. Maybe, I figured, Brooks/ Althouse/ etc. were right-- at least about his "temperament." Ha.

I hope, after Obama, for all my indignation and objections and political partisanship with respect to future candidates and POTUSes, I won't feel this way-- to this extent-- again.

NB Obama wouldn't be quite so horrible (as a phenomenon) if not for the conduct of the MSM during his administration. So I'd also hope that post-Obama the MSM will never again be as horribly corrupt and derelict as they are now.

Ha.

Kirk Parker said...

Garage,

"If I don't get the answers I demand I'll just make up my own answers... Your move, Barry."

Heck yeah. There are some people, in regard to whom the wisest course of action is to assume the worst.


Trashhauler,

You new around here? Cedarford is an long-time reprehensible anti-Semite who hangs around here for some reason G*d only knows. I sometime enjoy taunting him as a moby, but the odds are he really believes the crap he's spouting, alas.

People mostly just ignore the despicable part of what he says, and dump on his other stellar qualities (he's got a bad case of the stupid form of populism, too) but every once it a while it's good to whack him for his Joooooooish obsession just so lurkers and newcomers don't think his rantings are actually appreciated by anyone else.

X said...

of course after the election they'll say it's old news and that the voters had all the information. their playbook doesn't change.

JAL said...

Apparently "true" is another one of those three letter words the left loves.