Obama Frets Over Big Bird, But He, His Administration, and the Obama Media Lie About Benghazi And The Deaths Of Americans
Today congressional hearings commence on the Benghazi attack; consequently, the State Department decided to tell the truth, everything the administration reported on the terrorist attack in Libya has been an outright lie. President Obama, Ambassador Susan Rice, White House Spokesman Jay Carney and the president’s news service, the Main Stream Media, told the American public and the world, nothing but lies.
We were told over and over by Obama that a two-bit video was responsible for inflaming Islamic passions and resulted in the deaths of an American Ambassador and three embassy employees. He lied, but why?
Could it be, he was humiliated because of his speech in Charlotte; he declared al-Qaeda to be emasculated and a few days later, on September 11, they launched a coordinated attack on the consulate in Benghazi with heavy weapons and butchered four Americans. Obama didn’t want to look like a fool, and perhaps he didn’t know the late Ambassador Stevens had requested security and the consulate had already been attacked 13 times this year, since he had attended less than half his daily security briefings and none in the preceding week.
There is no doubt he would still be blaming the film and creating unending speculation with his lies, but it was inevitable, the truth was going to emerge at the congressional hearing on Benghazi and the lies were going to be exposed.
United States security officer Eric Nordstrom, based in Tripoli until two months before the attack, requested more security in Benghazi, but was told by Obama State Department official Charlene Lamb, they wanted to keep security “artificially low,” based on a memo of his comments now before a congressional committee.
He also mentions over two hundred security breaches in Libya, from militia gunfights to bombings in Libya, forty-eight of them in Benghazi, during the 2011 to 2012 time frame in a chronologically based report, as reasons for more security. His requests were ignored.
Nordstrom was interviewed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on October 1, and the memo was a summary of Nordstom’s testimony prepared by the committee’s minority Democrat staff.
Nordstrom’s requests for security will likely be an important point in Wednesday’s hearing of what caused the failures in Benghazi.
The State Department has maintained there were no problems after conducting an internal review: despite the results of this internal review, congress is conducting its own investigation and hearings.
The State Department has refused comment on Nordstrom’s testimony, saying instead, the testimony will come out at the hearing.
The seemingly witless Director of National Intelligence, General James Clapper, told a conference on Tuesday, there was no advance warning of the Benghazi attack.
He was indignant of the media portrayals of him as “hapless and hopeless” after the administration’s change in analysis of the Benghazi attack from a spontaneous demonstration to coordinated terrorist attack.
Clapper maintains it is unrealistic to expect U.S. intelligence to have an “a God’s eye, God’s ear certitude” immediately after an attack like Benghazi.
It is also more difficult to have God’s help when you are expected to follow the lies of the administration.
Not only was security compromised or ignored by Obama’s Administration, but the entire administration and the Obama Media have been involved in a universal cover-up. It is one thing to make a mistake in judgment, concerning security, but to be involved in a cover up is another issue. There were no lies spun to protect American interests. These lies have been spread to protect the image of President Obama before an election.
Competency, integrity, and honesty are all key issues now that the president has complained about the death of an American Ambassador and three employees being “bumps in the road” to his reelection efforts; but he has underestimated the compassion and intelligence of the American people. Americans realize the atrocities in Benghazi didn’t need to happen; unfortunately, by the administration’s overt efforts to make Libya seem like a major foreign policy success, and thus by refusing to use due care and diligence by using adequate security measures, four Americans are dead. The fact that the president, his administration, and the media were willing to lie about the disaster, until the moment of exposure by congress, reflects on the competency and integrity of the President and those involved.
The president is now expressing his concern for the future of Big Bird after ignoring the pleas for help in Libya, before and during the attack. It has become obvious, the president is first and foremost a president of celebrities, and after all, Big Bird is a popular celebrity.
We are led by a culture of dishonesty. It is now considered acceptable to lie if it suits a purpose and our freedom of the press has become a mockery; since their interpretation of the Bill of Rights has become the freedom to lie in defense of a dishonest president.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
This is great!! Mitt suckered 0-blama to take the bait and boy did he. 0-blama is such an idiot!!
Common Sense, it must be one of the most humiliating blunders by a president in our history; it would be outrageously funny, if there wasn’t those “bumps in the road.” Now PBS is telling the president to quit using Big Bird in his campaign. Big Bird is a millionaire, not a trust fund baby, but a celebrity who brings in millions every year. However, Big President is a celebrity president and he is determined to keep Big Bird on welfare. Mean old Mitt wants to kill Big Bird, but Obama the knight on a horse will defend Big Bird in the trenches, in the air, and on the water. He might let al-Qaeda burn our embassies and kill our ambassadors and staff, but Mitt will not pluck one feather from Big Bird’s plumage. Obama is a martyr for celebrities and Big Bird.
Next the democrats will move to lower the voting age to 16, or maybe 12. That’s the level of thought their ideology can survive.
Absolutely everything we were told by our government — by Obama, by Clinton, by Rice by Carney, and all of staffers and surrogates — was 100% false.
There were no protests, no benign crowds exploited by local militias, and nothing had anything to do with a video!
Biden will have to look the fool tomorrow night.
Or he will make Obama look bad (like he did when he jumped ahead on gay marriage) by jumping ahead of the narrative and telling the truth.
Either way, Obama/Biden cannot win.
Anyone else notice how quiet Hillary’s been lately?
Trying to rehabilitate her shattered image, I guess.
I never thought I’d see the day Obama would make his own ”October Surprise” as a disaster for his own chances.
Now, there is one way he can come out of this OK.
Say he was covering for some black-op by the CIA through Stevens’ to buy up weapons from Libya.
It tars a perfectly good dead white man, but I bet Obama is weighing doing just that.
We will see.
@Nan G, #4:
The initial White House and State Department appraisal of events turned out to be incorrect, once additional information came to light. An incorrect appraisal does not equal a deliberate lie. Nor does waiting to change that assessment until subsequent information has been fully evaluated equal a cover-up.
Maybe Hillary is not tough enough to live knowing she is responsible for a man’s murder. Then again, what about Vince Foster!
@Greg:
So, you’re saying it was an Administration, getting together and claiming, in essence, ”the police acted stupidly.”
Right?
THEN, when the facts came out they could ALL retreat from their 100% wrong remarks.
Have each one of them apologized and taken back their false remarks?
Nope.
In fact Obama was out stumping just yesterday using his same old 2011 comment that Osama is dead and al Qaeda is on the run!
@Skook:
As Ben Shapiro put it on the radio this morning: “He’s too Big Bird to fail.”
@Greg:
Good God, Greg; Charlene Lamb just testified that they were watching the Benghazi consulate on video when Ambassador Stevens went outside to say good by to a visitor and THERE WAS NO PROTEST. There was no spontaneous protest over any video. You, and the rest of America WAS lied to. And you want to defend that?
You are just as pathetic as the rest of the apologists for the lying of this Administration.
Yes, it is standard Obama strategy to deny the consulate’s calls for help when air power was only two hours away and the firefight lated eight hours, and claim an absolute lie about a spontaneous demonstration got out of hand and the bastards pulled out their RPGs, mortars, and automatic rifles to mount a coordinated attack. It is easy to see why the two are so similar to be confusing to the average president. Somehow, the film that no one watched became part of the narrative, over and over and over…, but alas, that was just a way to stall for time while the Obama team tried to get their lies all in a row. If it wasn’t for these damn congressional hearings, a president could continue on with the lie until after the election, but now everyone knows he is a liar and a fraud, and the whole administration and media complex is willing to continue on backing the lie for Obama, until the truth is exposed and after.
Who needs the truth, Obama is allowed to point the finger of blame at others; he has an election to win.
@Nan G, #7:
That would seem like an entirely accurate assessment.
Osama bin Laden is still dead, so far as I know, and anyone identified as a significant al Qaeda player is trying to keep one step ahead of a Hellfire missile. Saeed al-Shihri, al Qaeda’s No. 2 man in Yemen, was blown off the map just one day before the Libyan embassy attack. Five additional suspected al Qaeda terrorist met a similar end in Yemen only 5 days ago.
Meanwhile, republican sappers here at home are trying to undermine Obama’s credibility by alleging that he’s been ineffective in dealing with our enemies.
Word #8, that one cracked me up. We need some humor in these dark times, but I can’t keep from thinking of those bumps in the road causing Obama to have a rough ride.
Yes, they were on the run for eight hours, before they finally killed the two former SEALs who stepped in on their own to provide the security that the Obama administration denied to the consulate. Just think how long they could have held out with five more security men like those brave former SEALs who realized Obama was a complete ass and took it upon themselves to cover for the United States. No one questions where their loyalties were, they stood for America and the fact that Osama was dead along with his #2 man, mattered little to them as the bullets continued to rip through their bodies as they defended the U.S. against impossible odds. To keep Obama on time to sit on the View and pretend to be eye candy for the hens, and attend his fund raiser in Vegas, and flirt with JayZ and Beyonce. Yes, it is obvious al-Qaeda is on the run; otherwise, a president wouldn’t have the nerve to make an ass of himself after the American flag had been desecrated and Americans had been butchered. But this is Obama, the celebrity president; we don’t really expect to much from him, it is a matter of class.
@Greg:
Yes. And so is Ambassador Stevens.
@Greg: Greg, the part your missing is that the Whitehouse blamed a video for what they called a demonstration. Turns out there was NO demonstration and it wasn’t the video. The choices are clear, either it was a cover up or this is the most incompetent administration in history. Either way 0-blama has proven he is a failed President!! If they didn’t know then why didn’t they say so instead of time and time again blaming a video??
IF HEADS DON’T ROLL AS A RESULT TO THIS COVERUP AND BLATANT LYING, SOMETHING IS MORE THAN WRONG IN OUR NATION. (RICE, CLINTON, AND UP THE LADDER)…THE PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING!!!!
Carole, I agree with you, but the biggest liar and instigator of malfeasance is at the top, and everyone cowers at the thought of calling him a liar and a fraud, even if the truth is out in front of everyone in the United States and the world. It is one of the fundamental problems with a celebrity president. No one wants to kill Big Bird and no one wants to call Big President a fraud and a liar. If we let up our legislature will let it be swept away. We need to bring it up everyday and shove it in their faces like a puppy who craps on the floor.
Romney seems to be getting the idea, but he is not in a position of authority. It’s our congressmen who need to bring this liar and fraud down and unless we keep the pressure on they will worry about the color of their newest ties and Hillary’s latest Mao Jacket and whether it makes her butt look even bigger than it is while she slobbers over some young staffer or celebrity. This is not what government of the people, by the people, and for the people is all about.
@Skook, #13:
We don’t have a clue what opinion the former Seals who died in Benghazi held of the President of the United States. I don’t believe it’s appropriate for anyone to attribute such opinions.
Obama’s lies are unraveling faster than they can make up new ones. All the assertions in this article are being proven true. Today is just the beginning of the end of the Obama Administration. Inadequate security, ignoring requests for more security, lies after the attack, lies during the attack, the Obama Administration and the media is caught in deep water buffalo dung and getting out is going to be difficult if not impossible.
@Greg: Nothing alleged about the incompetence. The facts prove out that 0-blama is incompetent and a liar. Remember cutting the deficit in half?? Remember unemployment at 6% by now?? Now you can add the lies being told about Lybia!!
Greg # 18, they were professionals who knew security was compromised. They knew they were covering for a lack of leadership with their lives. I doubt they were singing praises to the president as they were being shot to rag dolls, but if you want to believe they were caught up in the Obama Hoax, you are not alone. They kept up a firefight for eight hours and they might still be alive if the request for five security men was not ignored. They fought to save a few lives and gave their lives, because Obama wanted to project an image of success in Libya.
They knew the requests for security measures like bullet proof glass and walls were ignored, they knew the requests for five men like them were ignored; yet, they covered for this president or at least they saved an undetermined number of people. Would the president go to such lengths for other Americans, BWHAAAAA what a joke. He expect Americans to die for his image and so he can make up lies while the bodies are still draining blood. Yes it is obvious they were Obama faithful, but not many more will be when they realize what will be expected of them in the future.
Not quite correct, Nan G. I’ve been listening to the either/or argument by both sides on this, and both sides are embellishing the truth for their own respective political reason. Haven’t much taken the time to point out the source, but I finally did on another thread. I’ll repost the pertinent data here.
Eli Lake, at the Daily Beast, has been doing some of the best reporting on Benghazi. And what we do know is that in the hours after the consulate attack, there were communication intercepts between Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb)…. in which the former was bragging about their success.
As reported by both Eli, in the link above, and even by MSNBC, the intel in the possession of the CIA indicated that the attack was, indeed, a plan by AQ affiliated militants, but that they had only decided to go ahead with it after watching the uprising in Cairo.
From Eli Lake, discussing how the CIA decided to construct their talking points from the intel:
The MSNBC version:
The CIA is overseen by both Congress and the Executive branch. In the latter, they report to the National Security Council, which includes the POTUS, the Veep, the SOS and the Defense Secretary.
So… we have the intel intercept that the attack was a plan that they decided to implement during the protests, possibly as cover or as an excuse.
This means one side is in error when they state the film is totally irrelevant, and the other side is in error with the claims the film is solely responsible. The fact is, it is both… a preplanned event that was given the green light under the cover of chaos. All of this has been available via various news reports in the week or two following the attack, and was part of the reason I suspect that “the film” may have been a creation of terrorists themselves.
So where’s the cover up? The CIA reports directly to Obama and Hillary. Who chooses how to construct the public talking points for this intel? Would Petraeus, Director of CIA, hold back intel and counsel from Hillary and Obama, and issue talking points without their guidance? Don’t think so. Especially with what we know of Petraeus. He’d be more likely to announce from the start that it was an act of terrorism, with details to come later.
Thus the reason for the criticism of intel being “cherry picked”. Obama, Hillary and peers decided to seize upon the green light of the film protest, and totally discard the confirmation that there was a planned attack on the shelf, ready to go. A half truth at best.
And why would they leave out facts about a planned, AQ affiliated planned attack on Sept 11th? Political inconvenience during an election year. You can’t be touting that AQ is gasping for breath, or that the US is on top of terror attacks when the US just got successfully nailed on the 11th anniversary of Sept 11th.
This admin hasn’t thwarted squat. Fort Hood happened, despite warning signs. The Times Square and Christmas bomber? All stopped by alert citizens.
What is apparent is that the film was not only an excuse for Muslim protests, attacks and violence against US interests in over 40 nations, plus for Ansar al-Sharia, but for this WH administration as well. Each for their own, carefully crafted reasons.
Obama will, however, attempt to lay the blame for the talking points on the CIA. His lackeys are attempting that today, hoping that Petraeus will play the scapegoat. Hillary has no out. And Obama always goes the extra mile to make sure the buck never stops at the Resolute desk.
I was just thinking, if there would have been seven former special forces types like the SEALs who volunteered to keep the consulate from being overrun within a few minutes: the five that were requested and the two volunteer former SEALs, the consulate might have held on for a day or two and Obama could have dispatched a commercial jet with a company of Marines from North Carolina. They could have gone through customs and had their passports processed for visas and Obama could have still been on the view posing as eye candy, he still could have partied with Beyonce and JayZ, and he could have still flown to Vegas to party with the donors. The Americans might still be around, and Obama could have bragged about killing more al-Qaeda, but no, no one wanted to pay the request any attention; after all, Obama had an election coming up. Of course he might have been able to send in one of the drones someone flew to Iran and shot the Hell out of the spontaneous demonstration, but someone might have had to make a decision in the middle of the night. We all know, dithering and choking the chicken is more preferable to Obama as opposed to making decisions. Decisions have consequences, let’s take those former SEALs for instance, their decisions to volunteer had consequences.
Honestly, Skook, I don’t think that even the extra security could have stood up against the attack. However their presence prior to that day may have deterred the militants, since their plan seemed to count on lax security presence. Also, had the intel been heeded, perhaps none would have been present at that location that day.
Then there’s the problem that the Libyan provided security gave up the safe house/consulate to the militants. Again, there are some citations that they abandoned their duties because they were PO’ed about “the film”.
Yes Mata, the film was probably a manufactured instigation, especially after consideration of the multiple real demonstrations in Cairo and Pakistan.
Although the president and his administration could have leveled with the country and told the truth. He would have enlisted a lot of support, because many Americans would have been tempted to sympathize with the president, but he went for broke and told the big lie: al-Qaeda is on the ropes and the film messed up his game plan. Of course people must be willing to forget the administration wanted security to be artificially low, thus making the consulate vulnerable to terrorist attack.
The film is a minor pivotal issue; a smokescreen used by al-Qaeda as a diversion, an excellent bit of military strategy by a paramilitary organization, supposedly in its death throes. Again we are left with the question: why did Obama lie when the truth would have served him better. It is a rhetorical question; Obama is not that bright and he doesn’t employ intelligent advisors, but he has the most proficient propaganda bureaus in the history of the world.
@Greg: Gregory, this was not an incorrect appraisal, it was a deliberate lie. Now, had they qualified what they said as ‘the best information we have seems to indicate’ bla bla bla then they might be allowed to skate. But NOOOOOOOO, they stated unequivocally that it was a protest and that it was unplanned, yada, yada. Whether they ‘knew ‘ the truth or not is not important. What they told ‘as the truth’ was a bold faced lie. They are still trying to ‘cover it up’
@Greg:
LOL, do you really think anyone needs help to undermine Empty Chair’s credibility? Look, he knew where Bin Laden was for many many months before the was forced to order the strike that killed him. He used ‘every excuse’ to weasel out of it. If it had been solely left to EC to order the strike, bin laden would still be alive. He is a poor excuse for a CIC.
@Skook, there is no way the truth would have served Obama, or Hillary, better. Thus the reason they decided to run with the “half truth” that the film protests (in Egypt) became the catalyst for the conveniently-unacknowledged implementation of a planned terrorist attack, made possible by inadequate security and ignoring threats and requests by the Ambassador. There were protests also in Benghazi, in front of the hotel (not at the consulate), but I believe that was days later.
The person I’d most like to hear from is Petraeus.
@Redteam, #26:
What would have been the point of that, when there would be no possibility whatsoever that such a lie could be maintained?
Don’t you read, Greg? Why would the admin and/or the state department cherry pick the intel, and deliberately discard the terrorist attack section?
2012… POTUS election year.
How could such a lie be maintained? Because they have made efforts to delay hearings, investigations and results until after the Nov election… convenient, eh? Already the press is whining about the timing, accusing both sides of exploiting it for partisan purposes. Politico is doing their fair share in the whining department as well.
Apparently, we shouldn’t be investigating administration failures when the outcome of that investigation just may affect an election. If not now, and especially if the admin is inept, when?
Lying, because of election year concerns? That makes no sense. As was noted in a much earlier post, it was being publicly reported that there were no Benghazi protests preceding the embassy assault by September 12, the very next day. There had been eyewitness accounts to that effect. The crowd that was reported to have assembled around the embassy before the attack was the attacking force.
It’s the current republican story line that has to do with lies and election years.
This is just a back story that’s been cultivated by the right wing media for a few week to give traction to Darrell Issa’s attack in the House. Damaging Obama in preparation for the 2012 elections has been that particular weasel’s primary mission since he was given control of the House Oversight Committee.
I see. So you acknowledge that the admin’s “it was just the film” story is a bald faced lie. Well, we’re getting somewhere.
So why don’t you tell us why Obama – as you, yourself, admit – told a bald faced lie when the CIA had intel that was contrary?
Obama has been fairly proficient at damaging himself for the elections, with no help from anyone else.
Charlene Lamb, the State Department official who refused the request for security at Benghazi, refuses to acknowledge the attack on the consulate was the act of terrorists. Oh boy, a new set of talking points for the Benghazi attacks. Perhaps it was work place violence like Fort Hood, but with a lot more weaponry and participants.
Oh, and by the way, Romney has now clarified today’s clarification that anti-abortion legislation will not be part of his agenda. No mistake should be made by listening to what he actually said. He’s definitely anti-pro-choice, and supports every zygote’s right to own a handgun from the moment of conception.
His running mate has confirmed that he agrees with whatever it was Mitt said.
@MataHarley: It was the altitude! Obama was high!
But now we’d have to assume that the guy who wrote the talking points speech, and loaded his TOTUS, was also “high”, Randy? LOL
No one ever stated that “it was just the film.” It was a reasonable conclusion that the film was a precipitating factor, however, since that had already led to anger across the Muslim world and a serious incident at the Cairo embassy that could have easily turned deadly.
Fortunately we had Mitt to pour oil upon the troubled waters and to get in there and support the besieged Cairo staff, handling the situation with the same sensitivity and deftness he has demonstrated again and again.
Would you mind linking us to an explanation by the admin that it was a planned attack, prior to being cornered by facts, Greg?
@Greg:
Greg, Romney isn’t president; Obama is. And what happens on his watch is soley his responsibility.
The Administration, as I told you before, was fully aware there was no “protest” in Benghazi, according to the testimony of Charlene Lamb who said they were watching events unfold on the ground in Benghazi in real time. She admitted today that the streets were empty.
So, explain why Hillary, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and Obama himself, all tried to blame the events in Benghazi on an internet video, even going so far as to run TV commercials in Pakistan saying “It ain’t our fault?” Susan Rice said on the Sunday talk shows that the Benghazi attact was, IN FACT, based on objection to an anti-Mohammed film.
You see, you can’t come up with a reasonable excuse so you redirect to Mitt Romney, who isn’t president [yet]. That is called deflection and you are a master at attempting deflectin (although you fail miserably).
While the argument on the film has value. The main premise of the article is the strange contradiction of the president worrying over the welfare of the fictional cartoon character Big Bird, but refusing to be concerned over the lives of Americans in Harm’s Way. It’s nice to see the president stand for something, but Big Bird? However, he managed to go to sleep without worrying over the lives of Americans as they struggled to survive; after all, he had public appearances with celebrities to attend. A president must pay attention to priorities or get caught up in the details.
@retire05, #39:
The right can keep on the attack with that point if they wish, but they’d better be getting ready to deal with the issue of abortion rights, which I suspect is about to move to front and center. This all has to do with the gender gap among Romney’s supporters and the state of Ohio. Both Biden and Obama will force them to make clear statements of position on national television. This should be easy, because both have taken clear, inflexible positions in the past. If they try to shift, they’ll lose the pro-lifers. If they don’t, they’ll not have enough women voters for an Ohio win.
Romney screwed up today when he tried to take a moderate stance by asserting anti-abortion legislation won’t be part of his agenda. Finally, a contradiction that’s too big to get away with.
Greg this isn’t an Open Thread or a Straw Man Thread; if you want to pursue the abortion issue, I suggest you write an article and submit it to Curt. He’s a hard dude, but he will give anyone an opportunity. Otherwise stay on topic or I will pull the flush cord.
@retire05:
Criminally belated, but I’m glad to see you finally giving Obama credit for the death of Bin Ladin.
@Skook, #42:
Noted. I’ll leave off on that topic.
@Greg: Greg just keeps making my point. The left must blame someone else. Mitt was right. No one had even seen the film. It was an administration excuse. They needed to blame someone else. Even the Lybian officials said it was not the film on the day of the killing. You lefties must always blame someone else!
@Greg: Greg, Greg, I thought this election was about Big Bird and Elmo!
@Skook:
Today I watched the entire Congressional hearing. Every minute of it. It was absolutely disgusting. Charlene Lamb described, in all its gore, what happened in Benghazi. The only part she left out was how Ambassador Stevens was tortured and raped. But photos have surfaced that shows Ambassador Stevens with his pants pulled down. There was only one reason for that. The same reason that we saw photos of Gaddafi with his pants pulled down to his ankles. Rape.
Lamb tried to avoid answering why additional security was denied to Benghazi, althoough it had been requested three times. She also said that she stood by her decision to pull out what little security Benghazi had, leaving the Ambassador open to attack. Lt. Col. Wood stated “It was a matter of time. We were the last flag standing.”
Everyone else, including the Red Cross had pulled out because the situation in Libya has rapidly deteriorated.
Ambassador Patrick Kennedy was equally disgusting. When pressed with hard questions, he got his feathers in a ruff and went on some diatribe about how he had worked under a number of presidents, how he was a dedicated public servant, yada, yada, yada. Four Americans are dead and he was worried about HIS reputation.
But the most shocking of all was when Lamb testified that State was aware of what was happening on the ground in Benghazi, both before and after the attack started, because they had real time video. The Administration knew, or should have known, from the git-go that there was no protest over any video. It was a planned, coordinated attack and within 24 hours the President knew, or should have known, perpetrated by AQ backed terrorists.
Remember how the left got their Hanes all in a wad over a non-covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame, and demanded that people be prosecuted for outing a non-covert agent? Remember the witch hunts, how the left said Karl Rove was going to be frog marched out of the White House, how they went after Scooter Libby just to have a victim? Remember how the left took down a sitting president over an office break-in where no one died?
How many scandals can the press protect Obama from?
@Tom:
It would be nice to do so, if indeed Pres. Obama did so.
Obama’s Strange Dependence on Valerie Jarrett
Four times is the charm?
maybe not …
Obama hesitated, Panetta ordered Bin Laden killed
Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault.
SKOOKUM
ABOUT THE FILM , WE READ THAT last year the MUSLIMS IN EGYPT NEW GOVERNMENT,
HAD CRUCIFIED AND KILLED MANY COPTICS CHRISTIANS,
THERE WAS NO PUBLIC OUTRAGE KNOWN FROM OBAMA about that massacre,
and GREG MENTION OF THE TRIGGER WHICH MADE THEM MAD,
AND THE AUTHOR OF THE FILM WHO IS A COPTICT, SURELY MADE THAT FILM
TO ANSWER TO THAT MASSACRE, THEY MUSLIMS DID,
SO IF SOME USED THAT FILM AS EXCUSE TO KILL THE FOUR AMERICANS, THEY ARE REALLY EVIL , BECAUSE THEY DID THE KILLING, THEMSELVES
WE DID NOT HEAR ABOUT IT , EXCEPT HERE ON THIS FLOPPING ACES,
NO OUTRAGES FROM ANYWHERE I know beside here.
so this killing tell us it was not about the film, and the fact that those mention the film prove they did not know about the crucifiction of the COPTICS CHRISTIANS, THEREFOR DID NOT SHOW ANY STRONG DISAPROVAL TO THE EGYPT MORSI ABOUT IT
@Tom:
I have two choices when it comes to the SEAL team taking out ObL:
first choice: Obama didn’t know that it was going down and was blindsided by Panetta, Clinton and Gates. That is why he showed up in the Situation Room in his golfing duds after being called off the golf course because the SEALs were landing in Abottabad.
second choice: Obama knew about the raid having ordered it, knew the SEALs had lifted off from Afghanistan to head for Abottabad but knowing he had sent Americans into the belly of the beast could go play golf anyway, making him a cold, heartless bastard.
Which choice should I take?
@ Mike,
So to complicate the garden variety hypocrisy regarding Obama’s defense record, it’s your belief Obama should be held responsible for “almost” not making the call to eliminate Osama (what others might refer to as debating a difficult decision), but deserves zero credit for the actual decision? So now we’re blaming Obama for hypotheticals that never came to pass (and that are basically nothing more than hearsay) while denying credit on reality? Intereresting. This is even more illogical and laughable than the standard FA conceit that Obama has nothing to do with a success that only he could order, because it was the biggest call of the last four years; but has everything to do with micromanaging security at every US embassy on Earth. There are many questions that should be asked about what happened that night in Benghazi. They just shouldn’t be asked by people who long ago burned to ashes any credibility they have on the subject of Obama. Reality isn’t a buffet to be picked over, sampled and discarded if you don’t like the flavor. There are basic rules of logic. This one is pretty simple: he can’t deserve a shred of responsibility for Benghazi if, under the same understanding of his role as POTUS, you claim he had no responsibility for the death of Bin Ladin.
@Tom:
Tom, I have said before, and will repeat here again, I don’t blame Obama for the mistakes this Administration is making. I simply don’t believe he is in control of anything, except for being eye candy for the harpies on The View, and is nothing more than Howdy Doody to Valerie Jarrett’s Buffalo Bob.