Benghazi-gate…What Did They Know & When Did They Know It?

By 194 Comments 1,334 views

So Petraeus testified behind closed doors and lo and behold:

Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that “Al-Qaeda involvement” was suspected — but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.

Who took it out?

Who then decided to send Rice out with that misinformation?

Now if we had a Republican in the White House during this whole affair you know the media and the left would be howling for blood. It would be front page news for months on end.

But now? Not so much.

Funny how that happens.

It gets better:

Petraeus’ testimony both challenges the Obama administration’s repeated claims that the attack was a “spontaneous” protest over an anti-Islam video, and according to King conflicts with his own briefing to lawmakers on Sept. 14. Sources have said Petraeus, in that briefing, also described the attack as a protest that spun out of control.

“His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack,” King said, adding that he told Petraeus he had a “different recollection.”

Petraeus hides an affair, now he hides the truth it seems as well.

Is there a Bernstein and Woodward amongst our MSM ready to break this story wide open?

Seeing as how our colleges are now leftist indoctrination centers I kinda doubt it.

Example number 1…reporter Joy-Ann Reid:

The administration was given an assessment by the CIA. Susan Rice was the person who went to the public and gave that assessment to the public. When that information changed, the information was given to the public that was new. So I am really not sure what it is that Mr. Fournier and othe

rs are looking for because I don't know that there’s anything beyond that.

…So the issue is the word terrorism weren’t used to the public satisfaction? I’m not sure I understand what the scandal is.

I'm not sure what the scandal is?

Wow.

First, the attack itself. Why wasn't more security not authorized when they begged for it. During the attack why didn't Obama send in help during a 7-8 hour attack? Afterwards, even when they KNEW that this was a terrorist attack they deliberately lied to the American people and tried to blame it on a video, and that it was all a protest that got out of hand. How about the CIA annex itself? Was it used to jail and interrogate suspected terrorists?

And now we know that someone redacted the official story and changed it.

Who did it?

Roger Simon has a theory up from a reader:

Consider this possibility … the talking points came from the CIA, and they were altered by the campaign people in Chicago. The coverup has been about hiding the sharing of classified information with campaign officials who don’t have the proper clearance. This sharing of information could also be the source of the earlier leaks such as the virus in Iran’s nuclear program.

I’ve always wondered why David Axelrod appeared on news programs to talk about the administration’s official policies when he was a campaign official. Those of us old enough to remember Watergate will recall the mixing of official administration business with CREEP (Committee to Reelect the President) activities and the Democrat’s outrage at the time. Perhaps we are seeing the results of a similar improper mix.

Roger Simon continues:

I suspect too that, if true, this is more than just an “improper mix.” Legal lines may have been crossed here with a political campaign redacting or helping to redact classified material it should never have seen in the first place.

What may emerge is a kind of government by cabal, a super-government composed of David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, and possibly a few others who operated, in the service of the president, above and beyond our legal and constitutional systems — all the time thinking what they did was for the better good of our country.

Watergate anyone? Of course as we all know, no one died during that scandal.

zp8497586rq

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

194 Responses to “Benghazi-gate…What Did They Know & When Did They Know It?”

  1. 51

    Wm T Sherman

    I live in CA. I can stay here for the time being because I have a job in an industry that creates intellectual property – small molecule pharmaceuticals. The actual manufacture of the resulting drug products is of course, not done in California and as things stand, never will be. That’d just be stupid. They create problems for you here if you actually manufacture things.

    Larry has his medical practice and he’s doing OK. He probably mostly talks to other well-to-do people like himself and his rosy view of the state and the nation is never challenged. The term bien pensant comes to mind.

    I assume that at some point I’m probably going to have to leave the state. If you look outside the cocoon for a minute, you can see the implosion coming. People like me are considered cash cows who have to pony up our fair share, to pay for things like welfare, regulatory micromanagement, dysfunctional public schools, and a police force that will be neither able nor willing to protect my neighborhood when the sh!t hits the fan. Thanks to Prop 30, the taxes are going up again next year, and that’s just going to continue. The state will go bankrupt anyway. It’s already starting, one city at a time.

    The thing is though, the California death spiral disease is sort of going national. Even people in low-tax states who have tried to protect themselves financially are going to see their taxes effectively go up. The mechanism is that the federal government is printing money and it’s stealing value out of your cash holdings every day through inflation. This is their plan for making good on all the national debts and obligations — pay the bill with dollars printed on toilet paper.

  2. 52

    retire05

    @Tom:

    If you want to discuss my disputes with Larry, have the common decency to address me, personally, not taking the position of some junior highschool harpy taking with her friends, hand to their ear as if she is relaying state secrets, as she hides behind the school gym building.

    You say I have no interest in the truth; prove it. Where, in any of my posts, have I lied? As to my being a “viscerally, angry” person, along with “paranoid psychodrama”, please, provide your credentials for psychiatry. That comment, like so many of your others, is simply an opinion, not a fact, because I have no tolerance for b/s emitted from progessives like you and Larry.

    I am not the one who so callously , and dishonorably, I may add, Larry’s kids or my mother into the conversation. You seem to reject Larry’s arrogance, and playing the “education” trump card while you place blame on me for things I did not do nor say.

    Dispute my facts, not how I present them, if you can. And stop being a weasel who thinks it is cute to discuss someone as if they can’t read what you post.

  3. 53

    retire05

    @Wm T Sherman:

    You have my full sympathy. There is no denying that California is a beautiful state, but beauty does not put food on the table. And as other cities in California follow the lead of Stockton and San Bernardino into bankruptcy, you will see liberal city councils increase property taxes making the sale of homes even harder as those taxes are part of the monthly payment buyers will have to lay out. Cities will also increase their sales tax rates, thinking that will offset their demise. It will not.

    So while the leadership of California (Governor Moonbeam, et al) have figured out that higher taxes are the answer to the state’s fiscal decline, they don’t realize that the most mobile weath in the state is that of the 5% who will be affected by higher taxes. Hollywood elites can relocate to another income tax free state, buy a small home, claim residency and then deduct the interest on their California mansion as a second home, or simply move in toto to another state well within communiting distance. How many fleeing millionaires does it take to totally bankrupct a state?

    People vote on state politics with their feet. That is no more apparent than in California which is rapidly reaching zero population growth.

  4. 54

    Tom

    @retire05:

    That comment, like so many of your others, is simply an opinion

    Amazing. An opinion. On an online message board.

    Dispute my facts, not how I present them, if you can.

    How wonderfully ironic, the person who spews hatred and insult as a counter to every reasoned point is now wrapping herself in the mantle of reasonable intellectual debate. I must say, you impersonate a rational person quite well. Unfortunately, I really have no interest in debating you because it offers me nothing. While I grant you are intelligent and well-read – at least in the narrow sense of Right Wing talking points – you have – IN MY OPINION – very little in the way of critical thinking, no introspection and no empathy. So debating with you is like debating with a robot designed to react positively to any Far Right talking point, and negatively to anything else, regardless of context. No, I think I’ll save the debates for others, but perhaps we can continue our tradition of trading insults. Let’s be honest, that’s the best we have to offer each other.

  5. 55

    retire05

    @Tom:

    Let’s be honest? OK. It is not that we don’t have anything to offer each other; it’s that you have nothing to offer. Period. Unless one is interested in the offerings of someone who speaks from a political party viewpoint, and not from any real honesty.

    What you will get from me is not the talking points of any political party, since I view myself as a Constitutional conservative more than a Republican, but my own viewpoints. We cannot say the same about you. So while you sit in judgement of me based on some psychiatric evaluation that you are not qualified to make, I will continue to speak my mind on the direction of this nation and the absolute falsehoods put out by those of your ilk.

  6. 56

    Tom

    @retire05:

    Let’s be honest? OK. It is not that we don’t have anything to offer each other; it’s that you have nothing to offer. Period. Unless one is interested in the offerings of someone who speaks from a political party viewpoint, and not from any real honesty.

    You’re going to bring up honesty? Just two days ago you called another poster” a liar” here without a shred of reasonable evidence, and when called on it, you doubled down on the insult, twisted and turned, tried every patently dishonest rhetorical trick in the book to avoid just simply retracting the statement. (You sure slinked away from that thread, I must say.) That’s your MO. You react to any comment you disagree with in a petulant and aggressive manner and never, NEVER, admit when you’ve simply gone too far.

  7. 57

    retire05

    @Tom:

    I called someone else a liar because they took something, twisted it with a tinge of honesty, to make a point that was, in fact, a lie. Spin is nothing more than a lie laced with a bit of honesty.

    The comment was, as I am sure you recall:

    “Guess which state has the most food stamp recipients…Give up? Texas”

    That was a bit of truth designed to slam my state, when the greatest percentage of a state’s population that is on food stamps is not Texas.

    As to “slinking”, don’t judge me by your own standards. I have never “slinked” from anything, especially a fight with an arrogant, uninformed, less than honest progressive. As to your opinion on how I may respond to comments holds as much importance to me as the opinions of the garden slugs I pour salt on.

    You and Larry, both, seem to think that whatever you say is impressive. I speak for no one but myself, but it seems you fall short of that mark miserably.

  8. 58

    ilovebeeswarzone

    openid.aol.com/runnswim
    you cannot allow yourself to insult any one you alone made angry
    without any return which is hurting your ego,
    your choice of giving your name is safe here but we also are open to other on your side to take your name and hurt you, so don’t ask any one here to give their real name and naming them coward and get way with it,
    just look at RON H COMMENT TO another which he did like you demand the real name ,he got one name
    and came back to trash it,that;s just one example and one is enough,
    so you are risking your reputation by giving your name and it’s your own decision,
    but don;t insult anyone and brag about your name here ,it take only one lunatic to trash it.
    retire05 bring a lot of intelligence in her or his comment , you should appreciate the free info you get,
    and be thankful and take the rapt that you deserve by being a profile you give of superior democrate
    lecturing the TOLERANT CONSERVATIVES, who are very proud but very classy to let you sit on them on the day of the election with the other all coming to rub it on.
    you left alive but expect a retire05 to get back at you all, so you don’t think you got away with it
    sometimes but not all the time, and be prepare to take the,
    drink from the good TEXAN and drink it straight up

  9. 59

    Greg

    CNN just reported that Israel is rapidly moving ground forces to the Gaza border. It looks like a full scale invasion could be imminent. What else can they do?

    Let’s hope this remains localized.

  10. 60

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    Here’s what really puzzles me. Curt’s board made its name as a conservative blog, specializing (if I may say) on national defense issues. I’ve frankly been humbled by the breadth and depth of expertise and clear, incisive, analytical thinking relating to national defense, the war on terrorism, and national intelligence. When liberals like me criticized aspects of Bush’s “War on Terror,” we always received insightful, well researched, knowledgeable, logical rejoinders. That doesn’t mean that I always agreed with the positions and arguments put forth; it does mean that I always found them to be both reasonable and fair.

    I’ve been frankly astonished at the turnaround, regarding the Bengahzi affair. I’ve seen nothing of the high road, high level analysis that I saw here before. It’s simply been partisan hacksterism — frankly at its worst.

    Let’s take the three main pillars of the impeach Obama argument:

    1. Obama personally ignored requests for enhanced security, going back months before 9/11.

    2. Obama personally watched real time video of the siege and personally made the decision to let 4 people be slaughtered, simply to enhance his re-election prospects.

    3. Obama personally instructed Susan Rice to lie on the Sunday morning political shows and elsewhere, simply to promote a narrative that Obama personally had “Al Qaeda on the run.”

    Here’s an alternative narrative:

    1. The requests for increased security never made it up the food chain to Hillary, much less to the President. Based on everything I’ve read, I believe that this will, in fact, be shown to be true, once the investigation has been completed. This is also completely logical, unsurprising, and expected.

    2. The best evidence to date indicates that Obama was first notified of the siege at 11 PM local time and by 11:20 two people had already been killed. One of the remaining dead was, in fact, a member of a rescue team and not one of the besieged (contrary to the initial reports of Fox News). So this leaves, at worst, a single CIA agent (and ex-Seal) who was killed (or slaughtered, if you will). So Obama has, at most, the “blood” of a single American on his hands.

    What else do we know? First, Libya likes America. Unlike virtually everywhere else in greater Islamistan, including Iraq and Afghanistan, on behalf of whom we have lost so much blood (thousands of American lives; tens of thousands of Americans wounded, with grievous, permanent disabilities) and treasure (more than $3 trillion, by the time the last Veterans’ benefit is paid out).

    So the national defense team is evaluating the situation at 11 pm local time. They do not have crystal clear, real time images. They have a middle of the night fog of war. They know the lessons of the failed rescue mission of Black Hawk Down. They don’t want to send in Hell on Earth fire power, from a high altitude gun ship, which could cause major civilian casualties and turn both the government and people of Libya against us. They understand that the defenders under siege do have assets to protect themselves until morning. In the meantime, they do deploy a ground rescue team. In the end, a single defender loses his life, along with a single member of the rescue team. The loss of a single life is tragic, but many CIA agents have lost their lives in the line of duty. Ultimately, we end up with a Libyan government and people who remain pro-America.

    3. What about Susan Rice? I’ve made the following point before. When I made it, it was simply rational deduction, but now I have actual data to support my rational deduction. Put yourself in the shoes of the national intelligence experts. We suffer losses because of a terrorist attack. What do we want to do? We want to identify, apprehend, and punish the terrorists involved. We don’t have a lot of leads; so we want to flush them out. Within the first 24 hours, the President plays his cards close to the vest. He makes a vague reference to terrorism. Then greater Islamistan explodes, with massive demonstrations, clearly related to the movie in question. Intelligence sees an opportunity. Let’s make public statements to the effect that we are blaming it on spontaneous demonstrations, with the hoped for result being that either (1) those involved will drop their guard, thinking they are home free, and get careless, or, better still, (2) that those involved will actively claim credit for the attack (given that this is what these groups typically do, i.e. the “claim credit.”).

    Now, what have we learned in the last couple of days? We learned that Susan Rice gave the unclassified version of events, but withheld the classified version. This is entirely consistent with the perfectly logical synthesis of events which I’ve been laying out all along. What, you actually expect anyone to admit that the US government was intentionally withholding information in order to mislead Al Qaeda?

    With my interpretation of the way things went down, Obama is not only not guilty of having “blood on his hands,” he’s actually a profile in courage. He held his tongue, in the heat of a bitter, nail biting campaign, to protect a narrative devised by US intelligence and national defense.

    Can I prove the above, based on what we now know? Of course not. Can any of you disprove it? Not in the slightest.

    Which is why we all need to wait for the facts to emerge.

    I’m betting that my narrative is closer to the truth than yours. But, down the road, either you or I is going to be in the position of being able to say “I told you so.”

    The Texas vs California cat fight is Texas bringing a Bowie knife to a gunfight. That’s going to be yet another “I told you so,” but it will take a few more years to play out.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  11. 61

    retire05

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    Let’s take your post item by item, shall we?

    #1: It has been reported that Hillary Clinton requested additional security for the Benghazi compound, but that it was vetoed by the White House. Now, we can let Obama off the hook for the denial, but considering that Clinton is a Cabinet member, and her requests would have been dealt with in Cabinet meetings, that leaves us with only one of two possibilities: a) another Cabinet member (DoD) refused the requested additional security, overriding the authority of the President, in which case that person should resign, or the request was denied by Obama, himself, who had been pointing to Libya as an American success story while touting on the campaign trail how Al Qaeda was on the “run”. Take your pick. Neither one speaks well for this President.

    #2 We have photographs of Obama watching, in real time, the raid on Abottabad, and photographs of Obama watching the events unfolding due to Hurricane Sandy, so where are the photographs of Obama watching the real time video that was available during the Benghazi attack? Do you think that we don’t have the capacity to link the drone videos to the Situation Room, or that the White House is unable to get Al Jeezera as they filmed the attack in real time?

    #3 Obama stated, at his first press conference in ages, that he is responsible for sending Susan Rice out to the five Sunday news shows to give a “presentation.” What bull. But he also said that Rice was sent out with the information that she had been given. OK. So who gave her that information? The Ambassador to the United Nations doesn’t go on Sunday news shows blathering about something she had not been briefed on. Who briefed her? Who, from the White House, instructed Rice to make the claim that the Benghazi attack was due to a video? Who encouraged Hillary to make the same claim at Andrews when the bodies of the four Americans were returned to the United States?

    You said “the national defense team is evaluating the situation at 11:00 pm local time” Is this to muck up the waters, Larry? Our national defense team would have been evaluating the situation at the time it was learned the attack has started at 3:40 p.m. D.C. time. What was Obama doing after he was advised that the compound was under attack and the whereabouts of Ambassodor Stevens was unknown? We do know that he called Netanyahu just hours after the attack started, which lasted for at least six hours, and spoke with Netanyahu for over an hour. Why? Was he asking Israel to get involved, to stay out of it, what? Why was he not concentrating on those Americans being left to hang out to dry?

    We also know that at 6:02 p.m. D.C. time an email went out to all interested parties (CIA, NAS, DoD, FBI, Situation Room communications office) that a group attached to al Qaeda was claiming responsibility for the attack. How do you dismiss that? That email came just 2 hours and 22 minutes into the attack.

    Now, you seem to think that our purpose is to catch, and prosecute, the bad guys. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. Our purpose, should be, to KILL the bad guys. You on the left want to treat terrorism as if it were a simple bank robbery and a violation of the law. It is not. It is an act of war, and as such, we should kill the enemy, not put them up in some nice cell room as we wait for their trials ten years down the road.

    As to the Texas/California knife/gun fight; I thought you Californians didn’t like guns. We Texans do, and we are well armed and well stocked on ammunition. But again, your state has made the news:

    November 16, 2012

    California’s poverty rate of 23.5 percent is the highest of any state in the country, according to new information from the U.S. Census Bureau.

    The nearst three-year (2009-2011) poverty rate to California’s is the District of Columbia with 23.2 percent. The next highest poverty rate for a state is Arizona at 19.8 percent.

    Nationally, the new-measure poverty rate inceased by a full percentage point, to 16.1 percent, or nearly 50 million people in poverty.

    http://isun.mydesert.com

    Heck of a job, California. Heck of a job Obama.

    For a learned man, you sure try hard to make yourself look stupid.

  12. 62

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    I am not of a mind to argue Benghazi at this point. I will eagerly await the opportunity to revisit this, once all the facts come out. I will note that, as time has gone by, my point of view has received additional support, while opposing points of view have been weakened.

    What I’d really love to discuss is California versus Texas. The blogmeister in chief, by coincidence, lives in the very same city in California as do I — about 5 miles away, as the crow flies. He is in the unique position to either call out my “lies” on the forthcoming, or to remain silent, which all may appropriately view as being tacit endorsement.

    There’s a truism in real estate valuation: location, location, location. People have always paid a premium, for the privilege of living in the more desirable locations. Where the blogmeister and I live, we have — simply — the most desirable climate on the planet. We also have the most desirable geology. I live 500 meters from a blue Pacific Ocean bay and 900 meters from one of the greatest surfing beaches in the continental USA. Less than 2 hours away is better skiing than is available in Vermont, which is to say, better skiing than anywhere in the USA, outside of the high Sierras (also in California) or the Rockies. As a result, my little piece of real estate is valued at 4 times what it would sell for anywhere in Texas, home of armadillos, great blue northers, and oppressive humidity. And dust. And oil related air and water pollution.

    As a result of these facts, California is overcrowded. Unlike the case in Texas, there is no constituency for growth in California. Blogmeister (I ask), can you tell the Eastern masses: is there any serious constituency for growth in California? Orange County would be the third largest city in the nation, were it an LA-sized city in area, as opposed to the smallest county in California. We also have the largest population of Republicans. My neighbors, who, interestingly, put up Bush/Cheney lawn signs, but not Romney/Ryan lawn signs (interesting focus group), don’t want to see new businesses moving into town, employing more people, and attracting new residents. These Republicans fought against developing local wetlands and other open space. We have consistently elected city councils who have been opposed to developing open space — this keeps property values inflated and depresses the in migration of new residents.

    The most militant NIMBYs are conservative Republicans; not just here in Surf City, USA, but in Newport Beach, San Clemente, La Jolla, San Marino, Santa Barbara, Carmel, Santa Cruz, San Francisco , and points North. Don’t go West, young man. Go to Texas. And don’t look back at the sunshine and blue ocean waves and snow capped mountains, and sunshine, most days of the year, as you leave.

    Where do you suppose Mitt Romney has chosen to live, now that he’s unemployed? Did he buy a $10 M house in San Antonio or Dallas or Houston? Or did he buy said house in La Jolla, despite the tax disadvantages? Mitt, you see, has the determination to make it where it costs a little more, but where the rewards make it entirely worthwhile. People who can’t make it here go where they can make it, but everything has a price. You trade quality of life for greater affordability. We’ve got a beautiful country; if you want to live in Texas, by all means, do so.

    Latino in migration to Texas outnumbers Anglo in migration by a factor of 4 to 1. California’s venture capital investment outpaces that of Texas by 10 to one. I intend to live long enough to see Texas flip blue. The Texas economy will never approach the California economy. Our inflated real estate market is now starting to recover and this will lead to a booming economic recovery, as real estate recovery is always the harbinger of a broad economic recovery.

    California contributes $50 Billion per year – net – to the US treasury. Let us trade places with the average red state — net bottom feeders from the public trough — and we’d pay off state debt in less than a year. Red state conservatives should thank Californians for propping up their local economies.

    California has led the nation in economic innovation for the entire period of my life, and it will continue to do so, as far as the eye can see.

    Once Texas has pumped its last quart of oil, it will have less pollution but an economy based on outsourced industries and armadillo skins.

    You guys want to succeed from the union? Do so now, while you still have a “red” majority. And enjoy your retro culture of big hats, big boots, and longhorn cattle. While we — as always — blaze the trail into the future.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  13. 63

    Dc

    Openid….

    I think the point lost, is that this was an AlQueda attack, on anniversary of 9/11 (duh), that happened On Obama’s watch while he was running for re-election….campaigning that he had “Killed Osama and had AlQueda on it’s heals”. Obama believes (and wants others to believe) that his policies have rendered us safer because he’s “actually gone after the people who attacked us on 9/11 and dismantled them”.

    First…AlQueda fled Afghanistan when it was clear that it was no longer going to be a place they could operate after 9/11. We are now fighting Taliban and increasingly…local Afghan nationals…….neither one of which attacked us on 9/11. We are also using drone strikes at will across Pakistan’s border (and anywhere else in the world for that matter) to kill anyone on the “kill list” (something even democratic campaign operatives weren’t even aware of).

    I would ask…so is he creating more terrorists (since he’s fighting them and making them angry?). Hint: have you read the statements by the groups who carry out such attacks? No?

    The president (Obama) and his admin…have purposefully, and willfully made an effort to “remove” the word “terrorist” and “terrorism” from our conscience. They’ve removed such words from counter terrorism manuals. They’ve refused to use the word in reference to such attacks as Nidal who’s mentor was the “head” of AlQueda in Yemen…and was also an American.

    The thought was…once Bush was out/gone…and democrats took over…”smart power” would be engaged and we would no longer “over react” by addressing everything as terrorism. We’d approach things as “criminal acts” and use FBI, etc…instead of military. Don’t get me wrong..FBI is great . But, this Benghazi attack was an “AlQueda” affiliated terrorist attack. It may “also” be a criminal act, etc.. But, it’s obvious the admin is desperate to redefine what has already happened as something else. And I have to say Obama is a master at that. He just waves his hand and everybody goes stupid.

    That’s a different scenario than Bush. Bush didn’t try to play off the 9/11 attack as an accident or dispute that went awry or etc. He called it what it was. You might disagree with his response to it. But, there was NO disagreement in congress about what it was and what should be done. In this case…we’ve got another terrorist act that has implications. And the president wan’ts to play it off as a protest gone bad. It’s just denial. What is there to be done about a protest gone bad??? And how does that differ with African AlQueda being involved in this attack? It provokes different intel, different response, different thought process and different defense. Not to mention that he is…on the other hand….whopping muslim’s asses all over the world. So, on the one hand…he’s fighting them and making them mad (ie., creating more terrorists). Then when they attack us…he does everything he can to send all our intel, etc…off base to suggest it’s not a terrorist act.

    Further…I personally believe that the WH (Obama) wanted it this way…for the election (it was strictly political). And in my mind, that makes it all even worse.

  14. 64

    retire05

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    I am absolutely thrilled that you are so happy with your state. Nevermind that you can’t eat “climate” or “geology”, although you can go hungry if you happen to be in the way of the Delta Smelt. Therein lies one difference between Texans and Californians; we place more importance on people than we do catfish bait.

    Now, personally, I don’t care where Mitt Romney lives, but you seem to be rather impressed with his decisions. Odd, that didn’t bleed over into your vote.

    Now, I don’t know where you get that in-migration to Texas is 4 to 1 Hispanic, but in California, 51% of all children, under the age of 18, are Hispanic, and California has almost twice as many illegals as does Texas. The difference being that in Texas, migrants assimilate, in Calfornia, they don’t, as evidenced by the protest marches by Hispanics in California.

    As to your real estate market, it will never be healthy unless you abolish some of the oppressive land use regulations that you so seem to love. I highly recommend Dr. Thomas Sowell’s book, Housing Boom and Bust, but I am sure your ego will not permit you to admit that he just might have a bit more knowledge about economics than you do.

    As to red state contributions to the federal government (as if that were a goal to brag about), Texas gets back around 80 cents for every dollar it sends to a bloated, wasteful Washington, D.C. It also has done a pretty good job of stealing companies from Silicon Valley, only to see them relocate to Austin. And like all liberal elitists, you think that Texas is nothing more than a conglomerate of cows. Little do you know. High tech, medically exceptional (M.D. Anderson Cancer Research Center ring a bell?), cotton, fruit and vegetables from the Valley, vineyards in the Fredricksburg region that are giving California a run for its money, generates more power from wind turbines than does California, which by the way, buys a lot of its electricty from Texas, and, oh yes, cows, that provide you with t-bones and shoe leather. And let’s not forget all those oil refineries in California (pun intended). You see, Larry, without my state, you would be wearing out that shoe leather or riding a bike.

    Everyday some new article comes out about how not only is California headed for their own fiscal cliff, you are actually trying to imitate Thelma and Louise.

    But hey, I’m glad you don’t like my state. It means that you will never move here and bring your socialist views with you.

  15. 65

    Curt

    administrator

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    The blogmeister in chief, by coincidence, lives in the very same city in California as do I — about 5 miles away, as the crow flies. He is in the unique position to either call out my “lies” on the forthcoming, or to remain silent, which all may appropriately view as being tacit endorsement.

    Come on Larry…my silence is never an endorsement of one side or another.

    And yes, I would disagree with you a whole lot about this State. I was born and raised in this State and settled back here after discharging from the Marines at the age of 22. The weather CANNOT be beat, by any state in this union (for those of us on the coast of the State that is). Always mild, mostly sunny, never too hot nor too cold. My job and the weather keep me here. I love the ocean and most days I’m wearing shorts, a shirt and flip-flops. I love the beach lifestyle and don’t want to move. BUT….when I retire, I very well might. Not any cop that I know, be it friends or just co-workers of mine plan on staying. I have many cop friends who have already retired and left the state also. No one plans to stay. The over taxation, the liberal policies, all of it is just too much. Plus we see a side of Southern California that you don’t see Larry being cops in South Central. It ain’t pretty, and it’s only getting worse.

    I’m torn, because I dearly love the weather along with the beach, but when I retire it’s probably 80/20 that I leave. I just can’t take the liberals ruining this state.

  16. 67

    ilovebeeswarzone

    openid.aol.com/runnswim
    I think the CALFORNIAN REPUBLICAN have a point there to not want any more developments in your and their neighborhood, because they see how over crowded it has become, and they have the ability to know when a good place has to shut their door to influx of humanity,
    the CONSERVATIVES HAVE THE SKILL TO SEE FURTHER THAN THEIR NOSE THE POTENTIAL OF DESTROYING A NOW GOOD LIVING,
    AND I just love the mindset of TEXAS, where there is a saying;
    you don’t mess with TEXAS, they are full of braves fighting their illegals
    against OBAMA’S WILL TO ALLOWE THEM IN with his nefarious intent to change AMERICA FOREVER,
    and replace the WHITE BY ANY FOREIGNERS FROM 150 COUNTIES OF THE WORLD HATING THE USA,
    WHICH WOULD MAKE HIM A DICTATOR OF ONLY THE COLOR PEOPLE IN HIS NEW AMERICA
    WHERE THE UNITED NATIONS OF THE WORLD WOULD BE SCAVENGING THE TREASURES
    AND LANDS FOR THEIR OWN BENEFITS AND NOT YOURS ,IF YOU HAD SURVIVED THE INFLUX,

  17. 68

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Nan G
    good find, as always you do,
    how did it take so long for him to be found,
    and because he does it for only the wish of OBAMA, it make both of them guilty
    to suppress the truth, and does not in any way take OBAMA OF THE HOOK ,
    IS HE THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OR WHAT,
    why are CLAPPER COVERING OBAMA SCRUPLE, and that is his only job?
    how much is he getting pay for only intermediate cover up?
    and with the taxpayer money?

  18. 69

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    Item:

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-11-16/petraeus-believed-terrorists-behind-libya-attack

    Testifying out of sight, ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told Congress Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack but the administration withheld the suspected role of al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping them off.

    The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to alert them that U.S. intelligence was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended Petraeus’ private briefings.

    Just remember, you heard it here first (from me: weeks ago).

    Flopping Aces had a huge scoop, courtesy of one of your friendly neighborhood Democrats.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  19. 70

    ilovebeeswarzone

    openid.aol.com/runnswim
    yes SIR , that is a huge scoop from you,
    and thank you for it,
    that was very nice of you to give it to FLOPPING ACES,
    YOU ARE ONE OF US AFTER ALL TOO,
    BEST TO YOU

  20. 71

    Wm T Sherman

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    Note the date – September 13:

    Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack
    By Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister, CNN
    updated 11:40 AM EDT, Thu September 13, 2012

    (CNN) — A pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is the chief suspect in Tuesday’s attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say.
    They also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the death in June of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior Libyan member of the terror group.
    The group suspected to be behind the assault — the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades — first surfaced in May when it claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. The following month the group claimed responsibility for detonating an explosive device outside the U.S. Consulate and later released a video of that attack.
    Noman Benotman, once a leading member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and now based at the Quilliam Foundation in London told CNN, “An attack like this would likely have required preparation. This would not seem to be merely a protest which escalated.”

    […]

    Benotman, who had earlier warned of the likelihood of renewed attacks against U.S. interest in Libya, said the Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades is a prime suspect in the Benghazi attack Tuesday. He believes it is likely the deadly attack was also linked to a video statement released by al-Zawahiri on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. In the video, al-Zawahiri confirmed the death of al-Libi — a prominent member of the al Qaeda-linked group — adding: “His blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the crusaders.”

    The video released by the Brigades in June showed nighttime explosions around the consulate, interlaced with footage of Osama bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, along with images from the 9/11 attacks. At the time the Brigades claimed it had launched the attack in response to the first reports of al-Libi’s death in a drone strike in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html

    Al Qaeda wanted us to know it was them. An absurd claim from Petraeus. This Administration was not concealing anything from Al Qaeda, they were concealing something from the American public – that Al Qaeda is not on the run as they had claimed and their failed policies led directly to this disaster. It worked. Obama was reelected. As for the question of why Petraeus would spin for this Administration after resigning — why does this discredited man do anything? It would appear that there is more to hold over him than just the open secret of his affair.

    Just remember, you heard it here first (from me: weeks ago).

    Flopping Aces had a huge scoop, courtesy of one of your friendly neighborhood Democrats.

    Clean up the huge scoop please. Remember to sanitize the the floor.

  21. 72

    retire05

    @Curt:

    There is no doubt you live in a most beautiful state. Pleasant weather, nice beaches, majestic mountains, lush farm lands. But for most of us the question is: do I have more money left at the end of the month or more month left at the end of my money? Larry belongs to the small percentage of Californians that don’t seem to have to ask that question.

    And yes, there is that dark side, the side you see that Larry doesn’t, that is also California. I believe it was Victor David Hansen who wrote how his beloved California was changing. None for the better.

    So while Larry defends his poverty stricken state, with its low school test scores (the lowest in the nation) its high cost of living, its over regulation on businesses that pay the taxes, the fact that it has become a minority-majority state (Texas has always had a strong minority, it is not a new thing for us), land use rules that drive up the cost of housing to the point of absurdity, Larry wants to talk about climate and geology. As I said before, you can’t eat climate and geology.

    There isn’t much I don’t like about my state, except, perhaps, the number of people with Larry’s political views that are fleeing the high tax, oppressive state governements to move here. Larry said he will live to see Texas turn blue. I doubt it. The vote numbers just are not there to support that viewpoint. It is odd that when you no longer have to deal with something, you realize how much burden it put on you. People who move here realize that they have more money at the end of their month because that is the way the Texas economy is designed to be. They don’t pay state income tax, sales taxes are within reason, property taxes a bit on the high side but nothing compared with Californias, people don’t freak out if you have a long barrel in the front seat of your pickup, and small businesses have one form to fill out at the end of the year; sales, taxes collected on those sales, taxes sent to the state that were collected. I used to do business in a number of counties so I had a computer program that listed sales, taxes collected, and printed it out once every three months and sent the state a check for the sales tax I had collected. It took less than 30 minutes.

    I have nothing against your state, just as long as when it finally descends into total bankruptcy due to the liberal political policies, it doesn’t ask my state, along with the rest of the nation, to bail it out. I feel the same way about New York and Illinois. Your debt, your problem. I also think Texas refineries should refuse to mix special gasoline blends for California, which drives up the cost for all of us as that cost is spread. You want gas? Here are your choices; take what we produce (the three blends) or build your own refineries to produce your special blends.

    Perhaps there will be a miracle and the citizens of your beautiful state will wake up and realize that your politicians are selling you out. That would serve the entire nation.

  22. 73

    Richard Wheeler

    Texans “can’t eat climate and geology” but they sure can barbeque and drink Jack.
    Larry N.D.#1 IN THE NATION—thank you Baylor Bears

  23. 74

    Curt

    administrator

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: Oh come on….really?

    They lied to American people to avoid tipping off al-Qaeda, who had already claimed responsibility for it including emails to the White House, that we knew it was them.

    Oh man….just when I thought people couldn’t get more gullible.

  24. 75

    Wm T Sherman

    White House denies terror delete
    By PEDRO OLIVEIRA JR.
    From With POST WIRE SERVICES
    Last Updated: 11:35 AM, November 18, 2012
    Posted: 1:26 AM, November 18, 2012

    The White House yesterday denied it edited talking points about the terrorist attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya — contradicting remarks made a day earlier by disgraced ex-CIA chief David Petraeus.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/white_house_denies_terror_delete_jkRAKvrDhUdpKpqBU3tMrM

    Well, Larry, they can’t both be right, can they? Either your scoop-vindicating high level source Petraeus is lying, or your beloved White House is lying. Which one do you choose?

  25. 76

    Art

    My heartfelt thanks to the posters on this board. Without them I would be lost in the myriad of details I hear every nite on FOX. I can’t keep up. Just when you think the spigot is closed, there your are with more crap coming out from the high living pols in DC. As an average citizen and political observer, I am consumed with the hope that Obama will be impeached and deported as an illegal, and as partial retribution for the manslaughter of 4 who were mislead into thinking our government cared. There is little else in this world that angers me more than to listen to those, such as Beckel on The 5, defend Hussein Obama. They know the truth and that makes them immoral and forever disgraced.

  26. 77

    retire05

    U.S.m intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al=Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday.

    Based on electronic intercepts and human intelligence on the ground, the early briefings after the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya identified possible organizers and participants. Most were believed to be from a local Libyan militia grouop called Ansar al-Sharia that is sympathetic to al-Qaida, the official said, while a handful of toerhs were linked to a direct al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa know as AQIM.

    Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the President and other senior officials were intercepts showing some pof the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia, the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya, and the AQIM, whicgh is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in Northern Africa, the officials said.

    http://www.washingtonguardian.com/what-obama-knew-benghazi

    Got that? The president got a PDB within 72 hours (by the 14th of September) that clearly stated who the attackers were due to the intel, which would have included the drone videos, along with humintel on the ground in Libya. Three days into the intel, it was clear that there was evidence Benghazi was NOT a spontaneous attack over a video, and had identified the players, yet five days later the Oval Office sent Susan Rice to not one, but five, news shows to push the meme of a spontaneous attack over a little known video clip on YouTube. Susan Rice is the first U.N. Ambassador to have that position made into a Cabinet position. She reports directly to the Oval Office, and consequently, takes her marching orders directly from the Oval Office. For the administration to try to convince the nation that the attack was due to a spontaneous protest over a video is not only deceptive, but an insult to the American people.

    Again, we have only two options when it comes to the deceit pushed by Susan Rice; either she was out of the loop when it came to intel (which is hard to accept considering she is a Cabinet member) or she was dutifully parrotting what she was told by the Oval Office. There are NO other choices, no matter how liberals from California want to spin it.

    One other thing; a number of Congressmen said that after watching the videos of the Benghazi attack, there was NO doubt that the attack was a terrorist, pre-planned attack. The White House had access to those videos immediately. The White House KNEW the truth and they lied to the American people.

  27. 78

    James Raider

    @Curt: #76,

    Oh man….just when I thought people couldn’t get more gullible.

    LOL – well mannered and courteous observation which, just in case there’s any doubt, is defined as, “readily taken advantage of,” & “Easily deceived or duped,” & “easily taken in or tricked” & “A derivative of archaic gull, “dupe” or “simpleton.”

    As the old proverb says, “Quackery has no friend like gullibility.”

  28. 79

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    Hi Curt, Thanks for weighing in.

    The statement by Petraeus was clear and specific. I urge you to read it again.It’s in comment #71. It is entirely logical. Perhaps you think Petraeus was lying under oath. There is nothing in his statement which in any way contradicts what Rice said. A NY Post writer claims there is a contradiction. Number one, there isn’t any. Number two, the NY Post writer didn’t see the any of the “talking points” or other information in question. He’s just making it up.

    With respect to “Al Qaeda” and the early claim of credit — as I’ve written before, there is the “original” Al Qaeda (upper case) — the group responsible for 9/11 and the reason for the Afghanistan War. Those people are, indeed, on the run — undeniably so. Those guys had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, most likely. Then you have al qaeda (lower case), which is basically any group of copy cat Islamists which appropriates the name. After every attack, there are lots of groups and individuals which claim credit. Intelligence, I recall reading weeks ago, didn’t find the initial claims of “credit” to be believable. In other words, they felt that the true perpetrators were still out there — unidentified.

    Read what Petraeus said. It’s exactly what I suggested as highly plausible weeks ago. Intelligence and the White House know that it’s a terrorist attack. They don’t know who did it. They don’t believe the early claims of “credit.” They then take advantage of the undeniable fact that all of greater Islamistan is rioting OVER THE FILM. So, as suggested by me weeks ago and as confirmed by Petraeus on Friday, intelligence gets the idea to play along with this. They want throw the terrorists off their guard. They want the REAL perpetrators to emerge and claim credit. Read what Petraeus said. Read it.

    Now, with regard to Obama, he is, as I suggested, a profile in political courage. He’s getting pilloried from the Right, in the middle of a close election. He could have had someone in the White House leak the real story to the press, thereby taking the heat off of him, but ruining the intelligence plan in the process. As for Rice, she was given a briefing which consisted of non-classified talking points (the cover story that the Benghazi attack coincided with the pan-Islamic eruption over the film). But part of her briefing was said to consist of classified material. As stated by Senator Carl Levin on ABC’s “This Week” today, she’d have been guilty of an intelligence breach, had she released the classified material.

    About this “lying to the American people…” Good grief, you don’t think that this type of thing isn’t something which has gone on in every war we’ve ever had? It was hardly a “lie” which rose to the level of being substantive. It was based in truth; they (Rice and Obama) just didn’t reveal the full story — again, because it was CLASSIFIED — again for entirely logical reasons explained clearly by Gen Petraeus. Rice and Obama were dutifully carrying out their roles in a mission designed to identify and interdict the perpetrators.

    It’s a big nothing. A big zero. Much ado about ultimately nothing. You guys are the gullible ones, not me. In your haste to lynch Barack Obama (e.g. read # 78), you jump to conclusions, ignore logic, and then prove incapable of understanding a clear and logical explanation by the Director of the CIA, who happens to have also been the most esteemed army general of his generation, which is entirely consistent with the events of 9/11 and since 9/11 and which explains everything to everyone with a fair and objective mind.

    Getting back to California and “land use” restrictions, this is precisely the point on which I hoped Curt would comment. The most desirable areas of California. where everyone wants to live, for reasons nicely described by Curt, are already more congested than the big Eastern urban areas. Yes, there has been a lot of effort to preserve remaining wetlands and green areas. A lot of this has gone on here in Huntington Beach — where the efforts have been consistently supported by the largely conservative electorate here, who consistently elect anti-growth, open space protecting candidates for the City Council. Conservatives are the biggest NIMBYs. Perhaps Texas wants more people; California doesn’t. We have a people bubble and what we don’t want is more housing and more manufacturing and warehousing. What we want (as proven by the candidates we elect) are fewer people and less freeway congestion. And don’t dare to suggest that we’ve been remiss in building freeways and developing state of the art systems to facilitate traffic flow. We also raised our taxes, years ago, to pay for ever more road building, which goes on here at a pace unmatched anywhere in the USA. But it’s still not enough. We’ll never build our way out of freeway congestion. Many studies have made that abundantly clear. New roads and more traffic lanes invite ever more traffic and the freeways are soon even more crowded than they were before the latest construction project. Case in point for the locals — the 405 — but I digress.

    With regard to debt and bail outs, as I’ve explained, the debt to GDP ratio of CA and Texas are within margin of error of being the same. We also, as noted, contribute a net of $50B to the US treasury, to support many of the Red States, which tend to be net recipients of federal money (more money flows in from the US government, paid for by federal taxes on Californians).

    Yes, we can’t begin to take care of all the people we have. But it’s just like anything else; those that can make it here and feel the beauty and climate are worth paying a premium stay. Those that can’t make it and/or who are unwilling to pay a premium leave. What’s the problem, really? We just voted to raise our own sales taxes. The majority of people are fine with that. People that don’t like it can accept it or leave. I’m sure that there are liberals who live in Texas who don’t like the way the state is run. If they stay in Texas, it’s because they like living there and like their life there. Same thing for California.

    But, to quote a favorite phrase by a famous politician, make no mistake, the future of American innovation is going to continue to come disproportionately from California. The venture capital investment here guarantees that.

    MD Anderson is a big health care factory; it doesn’t have a particularly compelling record of breakthrough innovation.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  29. 80

    Skook

    editor

    A profile in courage, defined by an act that is a self-serving lie and so convenient, just before an election projected to be a close race. Is that the type of profile JFK had in mind when he wrote the book.

    A real profile in courage would require honesty; the willingness to level with the public and admit mistakes in judgement or incompetence. The public would have accepted honesty. The president could have fired everyone remotely connected with the debacle and Americans would have lauded him as a leader instead of a liar with dubious loyalties. Not everyone is gullible to the latest spin from the Oval Office; we have more than enough reason to doubt, especially after burying four American patriots while the president parties with his celebrities in Vegas.

    His behavior after the disaster solidified the contempt Americans feel about this president and his lack of concern for Americans.

    The fact that he castigated Americans for the existence of a film no one knew existed and for demeaning a great religion that will kill you if you insult the murderous tendencies of their fundamentalists, didn’t help cement his phony plea to America to accept partial blame for the tragedy. If we should change our Constitution to be Sharia compliant, he and the Left should come forth and state their views in a precise manner, but to falsely blame a terrorist attack on a stupid movie and expect Americans to doubt the validity of the First Amendment verges on un-American activity and far removed from any semblance of a profile in courage, Now, if we want to consider a profile in deceit, you might be on to something. The public isn’t buying the lies and we will not relent until we have the truth, is that too much to ask? Perhaps, but that is why we have hearings and investigations. The truth is all we expect.

  30. 81

    anticsrocks

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:

    He could have had someone in the White House leak the real story to the press, thereby taking the heat off of him, but ruining the intelligence plan in the process.

    You mean like he did with the OBL raid? Thereby ruining any possible intel gathered by announcing to the world that we obtained it, not to mention the imprisonment of the Doctor in Pakistan that aided the US.

    Or do you mean like he did with the cyber attack against Iran?

    Maybe you meant like he did about his “kill list?”

    Why would all of a sudden this administration decide to stop leaking HUMINT to make Obama look good?
    .
    .

  31. 82

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    The fact that he castigated Americans for the existence of a film

    He did no such thing.

    didn’t help cement his phony plea to America to accept partial blame for the tragedy.

    He didn’t do this. You are ignoring the fact that, whatever the genesis of the Benghazi events, there was an eruption all over the Islamic world over the film. Obama criticized the film. Go read Rotten Tomatoes. Film criticism is as much a protected First Amendment right as film making. By criticizing a film which richly deserved criticizing, Obama arguably calmed the roiling seas. The demonstrations burned themselves out very rapidly thereafter.

    Now, if we want to consider a profile in deceit, you might be on to something.

    Read what Petraeus said (comment #71). Read it. Then tell me who’s doing the “deceiving” and why.

    we will not relent until we have the truth, is that too much to ask? Perhaps, but that is why we have hearings and investigations. The truth is all we expect

    I couldn’t agree more. I am so going to look forward to discussing this in the future, AFTER the hearings and investigations (which the President promised to support from the beginning). But that’s not what you are doing. You have your mind made up, based on no consistent and vetted facts at all. Let’s demand hearings and investigations. Let’s get the facts out. THEN let’s discuss this, based on facts, not based on deductions and rumors and partisan hackery.

    Reagan went and partied with fundraising supporters right after a bigger terrorist attack than Benghazi. Successful political leaders walk and chew gum at the same time. It’s always been that way.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  32. 83

    ilovebeeswarzone

    openid.aol.com/runnswim
    I hope you don’t try to pin it on PETRAEUS,
    THE GENERAL is well known to never lie
    he has solid credence that he is not a liar
    you will have to find someone else, that has lied before,
    bye

  33. 86

    retire05

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Obviously, he doesn’t always tell the truth. You, and Larry, want to ignore that Petreaus testified earlier to Congress that the [non-existant] protest was due to an obscure video that no one ever heard of. Nevermind the dog and pony show of arresting the film maker who has now, conveniently, been sentenced to a year in prison.

    So, Petreaus says that he KNEW the attack was terrorist related, claiming the false story told was to not tip off the terrorists we were on to them. I can only assume that you think it is fine for the “most transparent administration ever” to lie to the entire nation.

    Obama made no effort to keep secret the details of the raid on Abottabad. Hell, within weeks, Hollywood was being given a grand tour of the CIA to make their movie glorifying Obama’s bravery in killing bin Laden. Here we are two months since Benghazi and it is still unclear exactly what happened because all we get is spin from the Oval Office.

    There was no protest over a video in Benghazi. There was no protest over a video in Cairo. The drone videos gave the White House, and our intel, a clear view of who was doing the attacking in Benghazi. Hell, Ansar al-Sharia even painted their emblem on the sides of the trucks they were using. Yet, we continue to get more lies, more obfuscation, more deceit from the Oval Office and you and Larry lap it up like a cat does milk.

    Useful idiots doesn’t begin to describe you two.

  34. 87

    Art

    This is an email just received from a friend and former boss in San Diego who in turn is in contact with the military there. As I said, I’m having trouble keeping up. I hope all of this isn’t old news and that it adds to the narrative. Email starts here:

    All this will come out in time and then we will see what happens. I believe the military people involved will come forward and will inform the public.

    A general with a set of BALLS GET FIRED, and they re-elect an IDIOT to the white house.
    — President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.

    Stars and Stripes says that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

    General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

    General Rodiguez will take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.

    More…
    The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.

    Another in command who doesn’t want to tow the Obama party line? Obama is busy purging military leaders for reasons related to trying to save Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi.

    ”On the ground annex sources” are reporting, when SEAL’s Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed orders to “stand down” they instead “walked” while under fire to the Annex compound. Woods and Doherty were not in an armored SUV as previously reported. They were on Foot and they were taking fire while doing so.

    When Woods and Doherty safely secured the 20 to 30 employees back in the annex they took up positions on the roof, and Woods engaged communication traffic proclaiming “Where the **** is the Spectre“, referencing the AC-130 Gunship he anticipated would be overhead by then. Obviously it was never sent.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  35. 88

    James Raider

    @Art: #89,

    Thank you for adding clarity to a story which is quite evidently ‘official fiction’ being attempted by the White House and by those who have been threatened by it.

    In this new world of total connectivity it will be refreshing to get the truth from insiders who have the will and courage of telling it. That truth may well be more bizarre than our minds are currently unwilling to suspect.

  36. 89

    ilovebeeswarzone

    ART
    THE MORE I READ that is I read that before but IT WAS VAGUE,you add up some info to it,
    MORE EXPLICIT AND PRECISE.
    thank you, I tell us of the one guilt more and more.

  37. 90

    Richard Wheeler

    Retire05 in #88 says “Obviously he doesn’t always tell the truth” Is that the same as lying?
    Who’s the idiot?

  38. 92

    Smorgasbord

    As Frank Burns of Mash fame one time said something like, “I don’t know anything about intelligence.” I don’t either, but I am guessing that every person who received the message had to log it after they received it. Would it be safe to say they would have to log it if they changed it before they sent it on? How long would it take to go through the logs and see who changed it, if it was changed at all? If this is correct, then I think it would be safe to say that SOMEONE is trying to hide something, and it would be very easy to find out who. The longer the investigation takes, the more time there is to change the logs and persuade EVERYONE to cooperate.

    I can believe that obama didn’t know anything about the attack until later. Keep in mind that he is just a marinate to his puppeteers. I don’t think he even reads some of his speeches before he reads them. Since he isn’t making any major decisions, there is no reason he should have to hang around while Hurricane Sandy hits, or stay up the night of the Benghazi attack. He always has to wait until he is told what to do and say anyway.

  39. 93

    ilovebeeswarzone

    retire05
    GENERAL PETRAEUS said that because he went to LIBYA to investigate at the very beginning,
    and needed the secrecy to be able to let them believe they where not being suspected,
    he said that first wording to be free to ask question in LIBYA,
    and came back to tell the real story of a terrorist attack,
    but after that it was out of his hand , the change of the wording was made by MISTER CLAPPER FOR THE PRESIDENT,TO RECEIVE, BECAUSE HE WORK SPECIFICALY FOR OBAMA, NOT THE AMERICANS,
    SO IT’S THE PRESIDENT WHO GET THE LAST WORD
    TO TELL AMERICANS, HE DIDN’T

  40. 94

    retire05

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    I quite understand all that. But here is the truth of the matter: Petreaus may have gone to Libya, but what power did he have to arrest, try or imprison anyone who had anything to do with creating the attack. NONE. It would have all been up to the Libyan government, not the Director of the CIA of the United States. And none of that eliminates the fact that either Petreaus lied to Congress when he told them the “protest” was caused by a video when he first testified before them, or he is lying now. So which is it?

    There were TWO fire fights; one at the compound, one at the CIA Annex. Ty Woods and Glen Dohorty were former Navy SEALs. Where are the dead bodies of the terrorists? Do you really think Woods and Dohorty were such bad shots they never hit their mark? And to say that there was doubt who the attackers were, when they had the Ansar al Sharia emblem painted on the sides of their trucks, well, that stretches credulity just a bit too far.

    But the fact remains that four Americans are dead, the President, and his inside staffers are not telling the truth about Benghazi, they blamed it on a film maker who has already been arrested, sent before court and sentenced to a year in prison, at the urging of our government, and we are still arguing over Nidal Hassan’s beard.

  41. 95

    Smorgasbord

    @retire05: #96

    …and we are still arguing over Nidal Hassan’s beard.

    And the terrorist world is laughing at us. They didn’t laugh under George Bush, although I didn’t care for some of the things he did and didn’t do. I’m guessing that none of this would have happened under his watch. He was on OUR side.

  42. 96

    Liberal1 (Objectivity)

    This topic has been pretty well run into the ground. Let me put my opinion this way: Roger Simon has a particular position, which he exposits with colorful anecdotes and language—all representing a right-wing bias, without any real evidence (he simply uses his imagination to create a fictionalized version of what could have happened). Unfortunately—as I learned decades ago—this kind of speculation is not fact.

    When Petraeus says his talking points were changed, the right wing rumor-mill, led by Rep. King, in this case, immediately, automatically begins laying the blame on Obama, without any evidentiary facts. When Petraeus says, “he immediately ‘suspected’ that Al Quaeda was involved in the attack”, he may have just been giving his personal opinion based on his personal experience, and was not necessarily fact-based—maybe this was the statement that was removed from the report given to Susan Rice’s talking points. But, the hyper-conservative media continues to speculate about what this material might have been—and their consumers of the conservative-entertainment-complex, (a term coined by Republican David Frum) continues to believe it as fact.

    Are these the people Bobby Jindal—Republican Governor of Lousiana—refers to as “dumbed down conservatives”?

  43. 97

    retire05

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    When you have to use phrases like “might have been; maybe” you are just grasping at straws, in your typical fashion.

    None of what you said eliminated the fact that four Americans were under attack, we knew it, they were slaughtered and our government did NOTHING to save them.

    So tell me, Lib1, what was so important that Obama had to talk to Netanyahu for over an hour while our interests in Libya were being attacked by radical Islamists?

  44. 98

    ilovebeeswarzone

    retire05
    yes many questions are coming to us all,
    but I base myself on the known profile of GENERAL PETRAEUS that is he is straight forward and not a liar,
    and that send me to the WHITE HOUSE who have lied before and can lie again if it save their necks,
    THE CIA CHIEF WENT HIMSELF TO LIBYA AFTER IT HAPPEN SO HE HAD TO COVER HIS TRIP SO TO KEEP IT SECRET, HE SAID HE QUESTION SOME, BUT I ASSUME HE COULD NOT ARREST THEM , MAYBE HE DID NOT HAVE THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT TO DO IT.
    bye

  45. 99

    Skook

    editor

    Larry, do you not see the implied guilt and the sympathies to Islam by this quote from our president:

    “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,”

    Does he ponder the fate of those who slander the Christian and Jewish faiths? Apparently not, he is using his bully pulpit to castigate Americans who lack compassion for those who wantonly kill Americans, how quaint!

    The Fundamentalists of the Religion of Peace are homicidal maniacs. It will be much easier to identify with their terror and insanity if they start the throat cutting atrocities in coastal cities, but until then, I suppose the atrocities are much more palatable and sensible if they only kill Jews and rabble on the far side of the world. Unfortunately, they have no intention of limiting their atrocities to geographical locations, and our president has told us we should only think well of these homicidal maniacs, by implying shared guilt for allowing our First Amendment to permit films that insult the pedophile, mass murderer, rapist, and destroyer of nations our president holds in such high esteem.

  46. 100

    Skook

    editor

    The quote says “must not” as if there is a way to prevent any negative reactions to the Prophet.

    “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,”

    Obviously Obama is neither a philosopher nor a great wit. He thinks in the visceral level of a street thug. The language “must not” implies that he will do what is necessary to protect the image of the Prophet. Frankly, we as a nation don’t give a damn about the image of the prophet or whether those who control the future think of a Prophet whose followers just butchered four Americans.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks