As of November 1, 2012, Barack Obama had told the country 32 times that Al Qaeda was “decimated.” He’s also declared the war on terror “over.”
These claims were pivotal to his re-election campaign. Unfortunately they were lies. Al Qaeda was not defeated, it was gaining strength, especially in Africa:
As President Obama ran to election victory last fall with claims that al Qaeda was “decimated” and “on the run,” his intelligence team was privately offering a different assessment that the terrorist movement was shifting resources and capabilities to emerging spinoff groups in Africa that posed fresh threats to American security.
Top U.S. officials, including the president, were told in the summer and fall of 2012 that the African offshoots were gaining money, lethal knowledge and a mounting determination to strike U.S. and Western interests while keeping in some contact with al Qaeda’s central leadership, said several people directly familiar with the intelligence.
The gulf between the classified briefings and Mr. Obama’s pronouncements on the campaign trail touched off a closed-door debate inside the intelligence community about whether the terrorist group’s demise was being overstated for political reasons, officials told The Washington Times.
Many Americans believed when they voted in November that the president was justifiably touting a major national security success of his first term. After all, U.S. special operations forces succeeded in May 2011 in capturing and killing the al Qaeda founder and original leader, Osama bin Laden, in Pakistan.
But key players in the intelligence community and in Congress were actually worried that Mr. Obama was leaving out a major new chapter in al Qaeda’s evolving story in order to bend the reality of how successful his administration had been during its first four years in the fight against terrorism.
A terrorist strike could unravel that theme, and upset the Obama re-election apple cart.
It should have, but for the lies.
It is now absolutely clear that a cover-up took place on the night of September 11, 2012. In the wake of the attacks on the US compound in Benghazi, the Obama regime scrambled to hide the facts. They knew full well that it was a planned attack. Everyone knew.
The CIA station chief testified that the attacks were not preceded by a protest.
Africa Command knew in real time what was happening and knew it wasn’t a protest but a planned attack and they knew who the perpetrators were.
“We felt it was Ansar al-Sharia,” a group affiliated with al Qaeda, Lovell said; and he said he came to that conclusion “very very soon” after the attack, “when we were still in the very early, early hours of this activity.”
The State Department knew it wasn’t the result of a protest.
“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.
“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Megarif told NPR. “We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate.”
Astonishingly, then-Deputy Director Mike Morrell inexplicably dismisses all the eyewitness and real-time accounts and knowledge and instead changes the narrative to “protests” allegedly based on what the “analysts” said despite the fact none of them was on the ground.
According to Morrell, he decided to buy into press accounts over his own station chief.
Morell said CIA analysts on Sept. 13 – two days before he received the email – came to the conclusion that the attack spun out of an anti-American demonstration. After receiving the email, he said he didn’t find the station chief’s arguments definitive because some press reports said there was a protest while others said there was no demonstration.
This does not pass the smell test.
Morrell also admitted lying to Congress about editing the talking points:
“In retrospect, what I wish I would have done was to say to you, Chairman, I do not know who took al-Qaeda out of the talking points, but you should know that I, myself, made a number of changes to the points,” Morrell said. “That’s what I should have said; I didn’t.”
The CIA previously had warned the White House about potential attacks. Victoria Nuland was worried less about the truth than the political fallout and subsequently the language was removed from the talking points because they “could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to [C.I.A.] warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill.”
Lying has been a common thread all through the Benghazi debacle.
As to who edited the talking points, fingers were been pointed in all directions. Dan Pfeiffer didn’t want to talk about it, insisting it was “irrelevant.” We learned the talking points were altered 12 times, including the removal of a reference to “terror.” Congressman Peter King said David Petraeus told him the reference to terror was ermoved to downplay the issue. It appears that Victoria Nuland had the biggest role in diluting the talking points and exculpate the Obama regime. She objected to this point in particular:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
This might lead one to correctly surmise that there was considerable danger to the consulate and they ignored it.
We have also learned that Barack Obama was not in the situation room during the attack. Where he was we still don’t know because the thoroughly juvenile NSC spokesman, Tommy Vietor believes that to be, like, so two years ago, dude.
Former White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor went on Fox News on Thursday, and after host Bret Baier grilled him over the issue of the talking points used after the attack, he finally responded with “Dude, this was like two years ago.”
At the moment the most likely person to have steered the topic away from the truth and to the video meme is Ben Rhodes. Rhodes sent the email that stated the goal:
“to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
as well as make sure we make the boss look good.
“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
But it’s virtually impossible that he made the decision on his own.
The Obama regime sets new standards for audacity and disregard for the law. When they don’t approve of a law, they simply ignore it. When accountability is sought, they simply shrug their shoulders and deflect and delay as though if you ignore the cancer long enough it’ll just go away.
The House has finally found enough gumption to throw a roadblock in the fascist Obama steamroller. They have properly called the smothering of these emails “criminal.” John Boehner will be appointing a Select Committee to investigate Benghazi and Darryl Issa has subpoenaed John Kerry to explain what State did.
This is my analysis of how it all went down.
Obama wakes up one morning and decides he’s going to take Gaddafi down because he needs a foreign policy notch in the belt for the 2012 election.
President Barack Obama sought on Saturday to cast himself as a strong leader on foreign policy, highlighting a pullout from Iraq and the death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi as success stories.
In a message Obama is likely to push in his 2012 re-election campaign, he said his leadership had made it possible to turn the page on a decade of war and refocus on bolstering the economy and paying down the national debt.
He undertakes the illegal action and bombs Gaddafi to hell finally driving him into the arms of the rebels who sodomize him with a knife and then kill him. In the act of toppling Gaddafi 20,000 stingers go missing and most likely into the arms of AQIM and AAS among others. Along with the 20,000 stingers go RPG’s and heavy weapons (like mortars). Now Obama has a problem on his hands. He wants to send weapon to the Syrian rebels to help topple Assad but he also needs to try to retrieve the missing weapons. Assets (i.e. Doherty and Woods) are enlisted to help locate and destroy the missing MANPADS.
The CIA had an outpost in Benghazi. It had a number of purposes, not the least of which was….
Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at [the] rented villa where Stevens died.”
Chris Stevens is dispatched to Benghazi to broker arms for the Syrian rebels:
The official position is that the U.S. has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.
But there’s growing evidence that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group — a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.
In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.
Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.
Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.
The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.
That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between him and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.
In August of 2012 Stevens cables the State Department that there are about “ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi.”
Benghazi is hot but Obama and Clinton keep Stevens there. Also bear in mind that Zawahiri had promised revenge for Bin Laden’s death the day before the attacks.
Ayman al-Zawahiri mourned the death of a leading commander from Libya and urged his followers to puncture the “arrogance” of the “evil empire, America”.
This taped missive first appeared on jihadist websites on Monday. On Tuesday, an armed assault claimed the lives of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his colleagues.
The Libyans claim to have warned the US about the impending attacks two days prior:
The Independent has reported diplomatic sources who said that the threat of an attack against US interests in the region was known to the US administration 48 hours before it took place. The alert was issued by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but not made public. A State Department spokesman maintained: “We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”
But President Megarif told the American station National Public Radio: “We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the US Consulate. A few of those who joined in were foreigners who had entered Libya from different directions, some of them definitely from Mali and Algeria.”
A senior official of the biggest militia in Benghazi, the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he had warned US diplomats of a rapidly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi three days before the attack. “The situation is frightening, it scares us,” he said he had stressed during the meeting. Mr Stevens had been back in Libya for only a short time before US security officials decided it would be safe to make the journey to Benghazi during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador, in which his bodyguard were injured. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross offices had been bombed and there had been a spate of political assassinations.
On September 11, 2012 the attacks take place in Benghazi. No one knows where Obama is. Greg Hicks takes a phone call from Chris Stevens with Stevens saying
“Greg, we’re under attack.”
As noted above, almost immediately everyone knows it is an Al Qaeda-related Islamist militia attack. The truth would be a severe blow to the re-election aspirations of one Barack Obama since he regaled America with stories of Al Qaeda being “decimated” and “on the run.” With the election but weeks away a head fake is desperately needed. Sorry about those four dead “bumps in the road” but Obama’s personal wants are more important. There’s a lot here which could derail the Obama campaign train. It would have been fatal for Americans to learn that Chris Stevens was killed with the weapons Obama put into the hands of the Al Qaeda-linked militias. It would have been fatal to have Americans learn Obama was sending arms to Syrian rebels when the official policy was no lethal aid. Blaming the video was the solution.
Obama, Rhodes and probably a few others have a confab in which that the official response of the regime will be to blame the video for the attacks, occurring just coincidentally on 9/11. There’s simply no way that Ben Rhodes makes the decision to change the Benghazi theme from a well planned coordinated series of attacks conducted by Al Qaeda-linked militias in which four Americans are killed to a rag tag spontaneous protest over a video complete with RPG’s and mortars and the ability to use them accurately. Only two people have the juice to do that.
Valerie Jarrett and Barack Obama.
One or both made the decision to blame the video.
It’s rather breathtaking that the Deputy CIA Director could overrule the Director of the CIA as to information fed to the public, which makes me think David Petraeus was set up- a right wing icon put in a high profile position so he could be abused.
So let’s recap. Obama the narcissist topples Gaddafi to look like a hero. He wants also to knock off Assad and was employing Chris Stevens as an arms broker to furnish Syrian rebels with heavy weapons. A boatload of weapons falls into the hands of Al Qaeda linked militias and those weapons are used to kill four Americans in Benghazi, including a US Ambassador. If the news breaks that Obama is trafficking in weapons for Syria he’s got a major problem. If the Benghazi attack is seen for what it really was- a policy f**k-up Obama’s re-election goes down the toilet. If word gets out the Al Qaeda isn’t defeated as Obama proclaimed and the war on terror isn’t over as he bragged about he loses the election. So Obama’s minions laundered the talking points to take out any references to terror and any references to Al Qaeda. Obama and/or Jarrett concoct a bizarre scheme to frame a video maker and ultimately send him to jail as a scapegoat. Then, disgustingly, over the bodies of the dead Hillary promises the parents of the dead Americans that she’s gonna get that nasty video maker.
If you think this is a fake scandal, then you have to believe that Nixon got screwed. If you still believe that a protest took place in Benghazi (how could they know Stevens was there???) while nothing happened in the capital Tripoli you are an idiot.
They all knew immediately what this was- a terrorist attack- and they all knew who it was- AAS- and they told us it was a video. All to save Obama’s ass.
That’s a scandal. An honest to goodness, impeachable scandal.
Now watch the frenetic, shrieking nature democrats take on now. Jay Carney’s street-facing edifice crumbled yesterday as his Benghazi story disintegrated. Nancy Pelosi wants to talk about “something else.”
Buckle up.
Exit question: Could this be the first impeachment in history that the major networks wouldn’t even cover?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Redteam:
That might be, but I don’t think that should have any bearing on whether or not the drinking age should be 21. If this is true, then raising the drinking age to 82 would also lower the number of fatalities on the nation’s highways. But that wouldn’t be proper either.
I don’t really care what it is either, only that it be the same as the age of adulthood. In fact I’m inclined to prefer a raising of the age of adulthood to 21, and a repealing of the 26th amendment, to lessen the impact of naive youth culture on the nation.
Although at the same time I think there are legitimate cases to be made for having no drinking age at all.
@Greg:
So let’s be clear Greg, you are saying you are offering an opinion on first hand knowledge of the effects of hallucinogenic drugs?
You’re confusing me. You say not to give an opinion without first hand knowledge, then you tell us about ‘opening doors that reveal’ that those that have not passed through can’t begin to understand then you encourage no one to test that assertion. So have you tested it or not and if not, how can you know?
I think most people are quite willing to believe that drugs do more than just affect your ‘feeling’. In many cases it damages permanently brains and body parts. That’s why I’m concerned about having admitted druggies operating the US government, such as Obama.
@Kraken:
I’m beginning to think that age might need to be closer to 25. I don’t believe people reach maturity as early in life now as they did in the past.
@Redteam:
The idiot thinks he’s gone on some mystic Native American vision quest because he vomited cactus in the desert. But while he was running his fingers through the puke on his shirt and dreaming about dancing on the Moon, the Greatest Generation actually accomplished it.
Meanwhile in 2014, his Jesus Freaks are now freaking out over statues of Jesus. How progressive.
@Redteam:
I can understand the sentiment because the trend seems to be to empower smotherhood and extend adolescence indefinitely. But I don’t think raising the age eliminates immature people, there’s plenty of people over the age of 25 that are immensely immature, just look at the American left. The only thing that raising the age does is eliminate a certain portion of the population.
You could pass legislation saying that no one can drink from age 28 to 31, and I bet the reduction of highway fatalities would be comparable to the numbers from raising the age from 18 to 21.
@Kraken, #99:
Better direct experience with spirit than a bunch of sanctimonious, hypocritical hucksters pitching the message of The Republican Jesus to make some bucks and win some elections.
@Greg: I guess I wonder what is proved or disproved by an article on organic chemistry altering drugs used on and in the human body.
There is no proof that the human body can remain unaltered under the barrage of mind and chemical altering drugs on the human body. I surely get no satisfaction that we have many of these drug users from the hippie days in the college classrooms today attempting to encourage todays young people to believe that mind alterations is a good thing. Some of the fruitcakes running the federal government today is ample proof that it has not benefitted mankind.
@Greg:
I suppose this comment was designed to annoy me, but I’m agnostic so it mostly just makes me shrug my shoulders and shake my head.
@Redteam:
He’s attempting to legitimize the Collective’s prolific drug usage by elevating it to some kind of enlightened spiritual journey because some primitive tribes used hallucinogenics as a religious sacrament once upon a time. It’s a hoot. Talk about sanctimonious, hypocritical hucksters. It doesn’t get any more sanctimonious or hypocritical than that. Tomorrow he’ll be accusing Republicans of hating science while looking up Zolar’s astrological charts for the day.
@Kraken. #109:
Yeah, right. The “Collective’s prolific drug useage…” Half of mainstream America is on mind-altering prescription pharmaceuticals of one sort or another, if not an assortment of multiple psychotropics. Sometimes they’ve even got their kids on mind-altering prescription medication. Not to mention America’s conspicuous consumption of enormous quantities of alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine. And they’re still not happy.
I’m not so sure you understand who’s got the real drug problem in this culture of ours. Or who is the most out of touch with reality.
@Greg:
Yeah, another gift from the Worst Generation.
@Greg:
Greg, you’re attempting to avoid stating whether you have actual experience with these powerful brain altering drugs. You spoke of the importance of understanding the real experiences but now seem to be attempting to avoid answering the question. Have you, or have you not used these powerful brain altering drugs?
@Redteam, #112:
Sorry. I thought that was clear from post #96. The answer is Yes, on a number of occasions. First in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and then again 35 years later. What a person can get from them depends largely on what’s taken to them to begin with. Psychedelics aren’t something to casually mess around with. They can be potentially dangerous. People who think of them as recreational substances are making a mistake. People who insist there’s no potential for profound personal growth as a result of the experiences they can provide are also making a mistake. It all depends on the person, and a lot depends on the circumstances.
I think that’s probably enough on the topic. The only reason I brought it up as because of the highly negative comments someone else made.
@Greg: Thanks for the answer. I have no personal experience as to whether it is bad or not. I’ve never tried any drug, except alcohol. Not even Pot, so I can’t speak from experience. But then I’ve never killed anyone either, everything doesn’t have to be experienced for the knowledge. I do think, from what I’ve read or heard on the subject, that some drugs permanently alter minds, etc. That seems to be the persons that got into teaching in universities and on the left wing of the government.
@Greg: So, did you ever meet with Timothy Leary?
I did.
We had lunch together.
He was a powerful charismatic of his day.
And he handed out his various sugar cubes and ”tabs” willy-nilly to all and sundry who came up and asked.
I doubt he cared if people had good trips or bad ones.
Over the next few days the campus medical clinic had tons of trippers coming in to get helped.
How did they act?
Today a video has been played on news channels showing the leader of Boko Haram standing, speaking and waving a few papers.
He looks totally on drugs.
They acted like him.
Who knows what was going on in their heads.
@Nanny G:
I was around back then. Every time I saw him, I got the impression he was stoned and didn’t know where he was. Maybe I was fooled, maybe that was Charisma, but I never was impressed by him and he was no one that i would have followed. Maybe I’m just not impressed by charisma.
While on charisma, the last politician I remember with charisma was Ronald Reagan.
@Redteam:
You make an excellent point.
Perhaps he wasn’t so charismatic as he was in demand because of all the freebies he handed out.
I didn’t notice much charm or attractiveness in him at all.
But we were interrupted almost 30 times in a 45 minute lunch meeting.
Was he ”deep?”
Not the day I met with him.
If anything, he was forgetful.
Always repeating himself over and over.
Iwas in a gathering some times ago, and two young girls arrive,
I happen to be close to them after a while, close enough to look in each their eyes,
and to my surprise i saw the middle of their eyes move up and down, both of them,
i ask them if they had taken drugs at their youth party,
they said the boys made them take it, AND I TOLD THEM ABOUT THEIR EYES,
they got so scared, they start to cry, they where in the 15 YEARS OLD,
i beg them to not take any of drugs,
@Nanny G, #115:
I never met the man. I think it was an error for LSD to have been promoted so strongly and widely. The predictable result was that paranoid authority figures felt terribly threatened, and imposed a total prohibition that ended nearly all legitimate research for decades. I’ve always suspected that Dr. Leary might have been a little too fond of the spotlight.
I did meet his associate Dr. Richard Alpert, after he had stopped being Richard Alpert, abandoned psychedelics, and become Baba Ram Dass. (The name was given to him by his teacher in India.) Now there’s a guy with charisma who isn’t concerned with ego gratification. There was something about his presence that was tremendously calming and reassuring. He’s definitely a person on an upward path. You can feel that around him.
Steve Jobs was another notable person who came out of those times. He had this to say:
@Greg:
Where did you get that info from? Jobs wasn’t even born until 1955. He might have gotten into drugs, but it didn’t have anything to do with the hippie generation or Leary or Baba, he was way after their time. Leary’s fame faded fast after about the time Jobs was 10 years old after he was fired from Harvard. I’m not saying Jobs didn’t take dope, just that it wasn’t associated with Leary, based on their ages. Never heard of that Ram Dass guy, but sounds like a wasted life, devoted to doping. I have never been enthralled by dope heads, not enough time to waste life on such meaningless things.
@Redteam: Good [points.
Sachi Sai Baba was popular before Steve jobs was 13.
He fooled crowds into thinking he had spun ”vobodi” out of his own essence (really out of false sleeves.)
Vobodi was a powder just like the perfumed powder used in incense, but of a singular scent.
He gained many followers from on campuses, including a criminology professor I had taken classes from.
I remember leaving this PhD’s office shaking my head because he honestly believed he could breathe out of the (imaginary) gills he was sure were on the sides of his neck!
But he was tenured, so he was kept on for a while with less and less to do until he just stopped dropping onto campus completely.
Steve jobs either took drugs very young OR he took them despite all the gang warfare over each campus.
By the time I graduated in 1970 (Steve would be 15) people were getting their heads blown of just off campus over college drug territories.
LSD by then was cut with all sorts of nasty things.
Pure LSD was getting pretty rare.
@Redteam, #121:
It’s a direct quote. You can find numerous sources if you want to check that. It’s mentioned in his authorized biography. Jobs was very open about his past experience with psychedelics. He’s said to have often asked employees about their own experiences.
The time frame isn’t so narrow as the period when the drug was getting a lot of media attention might suggest. LSD was available in the United States by the late 1950s and remained so through most of the 1990s. Ken Kesey, who was very prominent in the San Francisco psychedelic scene, first had experience with it in the late 1950s, as a volunteer subject in the CIA’s MKUltra project. LSD wasn’t even an illegal substance until October 1966.
@Nanny G, #122:
Sachi Sai Baba wasn’t connected with Ram Dass. Ram Dass’s teacher was Neem Karoli Baba, also known as Maharaj-ji. A completely different guy.
I’m always highly skeptical (to put it politely) of anyone who tries to pass cheap stage magic off as special powers. It seems like there are always many people who want to be deceived.
Psychedelics have never really been part of gang culture. Their effects aren’t something that most people would want to experience very often. They can certainly be misused, but they don’t really lend themselves well to habitual abuse.
Good for you, Greg.
But recall that scene in Close Encounters of the huge crowd in India?
Sachi Sai Baba drew bigger crowds than that!
Literally hundreds of thousands flocked to him.
You talk about LSD as if it isn’t dangerous.
But I had known two excellent students who were destroyed by LSD for life.
One day they were fine, one more ”trip” and they were institutionalized and on anti-psychotics for life.
I also knew a mom of a soldier who was experimented on while in the military.
He was a walking zombie because it took powerful drugs for him to even be out of a mental ward.
We had a death on campus of a trippy guy who choked on something.
While tripping (his last of many) he became obsessed with swallowing different things, including whatever finally choked him.
An autopsy found all sorts of weird stuff in his stomach….pica…..brought on by LSD.
The gangs I was referring to were not the ones you might have thought.
The nicest-looking hip couple (both blondes) were convicted of murdering a competing drug dealer (he happened to be Japanese) just blocks from campus.
LSD territory was at the heart of it.
@Greg:
when Jobs was 10 years old. Don’t know what his point was, but apparently he was dealing with dope heads when he was talking about taking drugs and they weren’t capable of doing the math. Think I’ll check what wiki says about Jobs drug years.
Wiki says Jobs said he took LSD between 1972-74 or about 16-20 and has not been high since then(on drugs) Does anyone know if he finished high school or not?
@Redteam, #126:
Although LSD became illegal in 1966, it was readily available for another 3 decades. The media just lost interest in it.
As I understand it, what’s represented as LSD now can’t be trusted. There are a couple of far more potentially dangerous synthetic chemicals out there that are being misrepresented as LSD. They’re part of a family known as the NBOMe series. Unlike LSD, they can be pharmacologically dangerous. In other words, there’s not just a danger of harm as a result of unwise behavior while under the influence; these drugs can actually produce dangerous biological effects. The problem is that you can’t tell what’s there without performing a chemical test.
Here’s what wiki says about that period for Jobs.
As anyone can see, what was going on at the time does not agree with the dates that Jobs said he used drugs. That was a point I made, that if he was on drugs, maybe he didn’t know when it was or what age he was. (according to official statements, he used LSD from 72-74) according to this Wiki, he didn’t even start using it til after returning from India in 74. Doesn’t fit. I think there is some fiction here somewhere. As Kraken said, don’t believe Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs
@Greg: Thanks for that info Greg, but I’m not going to be using any of those drugs so they are of no interest to me except to know and understand that a lot of the people that are teaching young people today have had their minds screwed up with these drugs. The ones that couldn’t get teaching jobs went into politics. Obama likes to brag about taking drugs. Screwed his mind up for sure.
Randy
you wont believe it but before i came here to check the comments,
the same thing cross my mind, and i read your comment, and thought ,
I am not the only one thinking, what gave me the thought is they told the two other to stand down,
and knowing the love for his people is not the why he said to stand down, it prove me right when ,
he failed to send rescue for them,from the start, as a first thought should have been lets get someone there this minute, seconds where precious, so this should have been the first move, instantly,
instead it was a stand down order, to those who could not bare doing nothing for the attack,
they died HEROS, BUT LIVING BY DOING NOTHING THEY ARE THE BREED WHO WOULD NOT HAVE LIVE WITH THEMSELVES KNOWING THEY DIDN”T TRY,