Blame Barack Obama And Failed Democrat Policies For North Korea

Let’s see.  Under the Obama presidency and under his regime, North Korea has had two nuclear tests, repeatedly tested ballistic missiles, threatened America more times than in ANY previous administration, and just moved missiles to threaten South Korea.  Right after re-starting a nuclear plant that they had shut down under Bush.

Generals and foreign policy experts are saying that North Korea – under the Obama regime’s handling, mind you – is a greater threat than it has EVER been.

Meanwhile, under Obama’s failed presidency, we had the meltdown that the mainstream media liberals so idiotically called “the Arab Spring.”  We had violent revolutions across the Arab world as the governments of vital U.S. allies were toppled by terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  With Egypt now instituting sharia law to complete the insult.  We have incredible bloodbaths under Obama with Syria’s death toll now numbering over 70,000.   We have Iran on the verge of getting their nukes and their ballistic missiles and their Armageddon.  And where are the hypocrite Democrats now who teed off so viciously on George W. Bush???  Where are they in decrying Obama for a far, far worse and more unstable world?

Let’s get in our memory trains and take a little ride, when Obama’s future Secretary of State was demagoguing Bush in the most savage way imaginable:

Democrats blew it on North Korea
Now they should join Republicans to force changes in the country’s behavior
October 15, 2006 12:00 am
By Jack Kelly / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

If Democrats went after America’s enemies with the ruthlessness with which  they attack Republicans, the Axis of Evil would be toast.

No sooner had North Korea completed its (botched or faked) nuclear bomb test  last weekend than Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Clinton,  D-N.Y., were blaming it on “the failed policies of the Bush administration.”

That annoyed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.:

“I would remind Sen. Clinton . . . that the framework agreement her husband’s  administration negotiated was a failure,” he said. “Every single time the  Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something — not to kick out  the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor — they did  it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with  further talks.”

Media commentators spun Mr. McCain’s remarks as jockeying with Ms. Clinton  for the presidency in 2008, but in fact Mr. McCain had been speaking out against  her husband’s Agreed Framework deal with North Korea since May of 1994.

Here is the history Democrats would like you to forget: The CIA began  worrying in the late 1980s that North Korea was trying to build an atomic bomb.  President Clinton attempted to head them off by offering a massive bribe. If the  North Koreans would forgo their nuke plans, the United States would provide them  with 500,000 tons of free fuel oil each year, massive food aid and build for  them two $2 billion nuclear power plants. The deal made North Korea the largest  recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia.

Mr. McCain was against the deal from the get-go, because it was all carrots  and no sticks, and there were no safeguards against North Korean cheating.

North Korea took the bribes President Clinton offered, and kept working on  its bomb.

Two experts told a House committee in April of 2000 that North Korea was  producing enough highly radioactive material then to build a dozen bombs a year,  but it is unclear when the North actually built a bomb (if yet) because our  intelligence on the reclusive regime there is so poor.

Most experts think North Korea restarted its nuclear weapons program between  1997 and 1999, said Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association. But the  Congressional Research Service thinks the North began cheating in 1995.

Signs of cheating were abundant by 2000. Secretary of State Madeleine  Albright flew to Pyongyang that October to put lipstick on the pig. She offered  dictator Kim Jong Il a relaxation of economic sanctions if he’d limit North  Korea’s missile development. Kim took those carrots too, but kept building  missiles.

The Bush administration called North Korea on its cheating and suspended fuel  aid pending an improvement in its behavior. North Korea declared (in 2002) it  had the bomb, and the United States organized the six-party talks to try to  persuade it to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Like Mr. McCain, I thought the Agreed Framework was a bad idea from the  get-go. But I don’t blame the Clinton administration (very much) for trying.  Massive bribery hadn’t been tried before, and if it had worked, it certainly  would have been preferable to war. And, since as far as we know, serious  cheating didn’t begin until 1997 or 1998, it can be argued the deal did buy us a  little time.

But even though the ultimate failure of the Clinton policy of appeasement is  excusable, the refusal of Democrats to acknowledge that failure is not.

Democrats tend to view foreign policy crises through the narrow prism of  their impact on domestic politics. But the villain here isn’t Bill Clinton or  George Bush. It’s Kim Jong Il. And what’s important here is not which party  controls the House of Representatives. It’s whether we can prevent a second  Korean War.

Democrats ordinarily make a fetish of “multilateralism,” which is what  President Bush has been pursuing through the six-party talks, the only format  that offers hope of reining in North Korea short of war, because only China is  in a position to force North Korea to behave.

Kim wants direct negotiations with the United States, both to undermine the  six-party talks, and because he wants to return to the good old days when the  Clinton administration was providing him with aid in exchange for, in effect,  nothing. Democrats, astoundingly, want to give him exactly what he wants,  without first insisting upon a change in his behavior. They would rather restore  a failed policy than admit a mistake.

If tragedy is to be avoided, Democrats must stop putting their partisan  ambitions ahead of the security of the United States.

And, of course, to this day, if Obama were to attack North Korea with as much vile as he has repeatedly attacked Republicans, the Axis of Evil “toast” would be a pile of burnt ash.

I contemplate Kim Jong-Un’s fearmongering rhetoric and have a hard time telling the difference from Obama’s rhetoric on issues such as the sequester.  Both men seem to very much have in common a complete lack of grasp on reality when they are dealing with their political foes.  Just as both men’s national press corps’ seem to have the same determination to present whatever the hell their “dear leaders” are saying with as much deceit.

Democrats, who were of course nearly completely responsible for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, attacked, backbit, undermined, slandered and demonized George Bush at every turn in his attempt to hold talks that would include China as the ONLY country that could reign in North Korea.

Let’s go back and remind ourselves of that, as well:

The radioactive glow had barely worn off Kim Jong Il’s face when liberals began to lay the blame for North Korea’s detonation of a small nuclear device (maybe) at George W. Bush’s feet. But their criticisms have left many of us downright confused.

On North Korea, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid complained, “the Bush administration … [has] made America less secure.” His remedy? “Speak directly with the North Koreans so they understand we will not continue to stand on the sidelines.” Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concurred that “the strategy must include direct engagement with the North [Koreans].”

Potential Democratic presidential aspirants also want the U.S. to assume the lead role in this unfolding drama. Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) demanded that the Bush administration jettison its “hands-off approach to North Korea,” because “the stakes are too high to rely on others.” And Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) noted that “for five years, I have been calling for the United States to engage in direct talks with North Korea” and “for five years this administration has ignored them.”

But, rather than ignore the metastasizing cancer in North Korea, the United States has expended considerable diplomatic capital on the so-called six-party talks — the long-running effort by the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to convince Kim Jong Il to abandon his nuclear program. This multilateral process, moreover, grew out of the failed Clinton-era effort to engage the North Koreans directly. Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) recently described that process in scathing terms: “Every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something –not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from the reactor — they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks.”

President Bush abandoned the one-on-one approach when he learned that the North Koreans violated their agreement not to enrich uranium (in exchange for a cool $350 million in fuel), opting instead to invite China and the other regional powers into the process. Thus began three years and five frustrating rounds of six-party talks. At first North Korea participated. Then in February 2005 it withdrew in a huff, only to re-engage a few months later for two more grueling rounds. Finally, Kim Jong Il sent a clear message about these talks when he launched two short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan in March of this year, then seven more over the 4th of July weekend.
Kerry and his allies dismiss this aggressive form of multilateral diplomacy as nothing more than “cover for the administration to avoid direct discussions.”

Hence the confusion. We thought that one of the major foreign policy fault lines separating liberals from conservatives has been whether the United States should reserve the right to act unilaterally to protect its national interests (the conservative position favored by Bush) or whether we should act only after securing the support of our allies (the liberal position embraced by Kerry and virtually all Democrats).

As a presidential candidate, John Kerry summed up the multilateral approach: “Alliances matter. We can’t simply go it alone.” We must exhaust all avenues of diplomacy, persuade rather than bully, and “assemble a team.” The Bush administration’s “blustering unilateralism,” he concluded, is “wrong, and even dangerous, for our country.” And nowhere, Kerry said, is the need for multilateral action more “clear or urgent” than when it comes to preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction.

And that leads us to North Korea. It appears Kerry favored the multilateral approach before he opposed it. In a major foreign policy address at Georgetown University in 2003, he actually praised Bush’s engagement in the six-party talks: “Finally, the administration is rightly working with allies in the region — acting multilaterally – to put pressure on Pyongyang.” And, he added, “the question is why you’d ever want to be so committed to unilateralist dogma that you’d get on [that merry go round] in the first place.”

So what gives? Isn’t it time for lawmakers to transcend the finger-pointing and focus on the real issue?

Let’s give Sen, Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) the last word: “The president’s political opponents attack him for a ‘unilateral’ approach to Iraq. Now they attack him over a multilateral approach to North Korea. Listening to some Democrats, you’d think the enemy was George Bush, not Kim Jong Il.”

Mike Franc, who has held a number of positions on Capitol Hill, is vice president of Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation.

North Korea is now a more psychotic threat than ever before.  But where’s all the denunciations of Obama from the ideologues who used to reign blame down on George Bush???

Remember how the president of the United States was responsible for absolutely everything that went wrong when Bush was that president?  Now we have a president who absolves himself as being responsible for ANYTHING while we’ve got a media that has actively covered up for his failures.  And where are we now?

Our greatest statesman today seems to be Dennis Rodman.

We are watching rogue nation after rogue nation rearing its ugly head and rising to threaten the world because they know that a weakling and a coward is the pathetic failed leader of once-great America.

We are also watching the United States of America degenerate into a banana republic under this failed presidency.  Our welfare roles are rising even faster than the nuclear-armed dictators who shake their fists at us.

Here’s one for you: if Republicans were even a FRACTION as treasonous and willing to undermine America’s national security for cynical political advantage as Democrats have been, they would be demanding that Obama hold one-to-one talks with Kim Jong-Un the way Democrats did when Bush was president.

You probably wouldn’t want me as president: what I would have done – whether in 2006 or today – would be to arm Taiwan with nuclear weapons (to the frothing and rabid outrage of China, which claims that Taiwan is part of China).  And I would simply tell China: “North Korea’s nuclear weapons are every bit as unacceptable to the United States as Taiwan’s having nuclear weapons is to you.  Disarm North Korea’s nukes and we’ll disarm Taiwan’s nukes.”

Liberal Fascist Hypocrite Joan Walsh Says It’s ‘Racist’ To Go After Obama’s Family – After Viciously Slandering Bush’s Family In 2001.

Joan Walsh is a typical liberal hypocrite.  She literally says it’s racist to do what she herself did.  Only of course it wasn’t racist when she did it.

Here’s her article attacking George W. Bush as a father and then attacking his daughters back in 2001 (note that the picture of Bush’s daughter below was a prominent part of the Salon.com piece) back when it was wonderful to demonize the president:

Thursday, May 31, 2001 01:00 AM PDT
The first family’s alcohol troubles
President Bush downplayed his own drinking problem and hid a DUI. Now his daughters are making news for underage drinking. Is there a connection?
By Joan Walsh

Enlarge

I don’t envy Jenna and Barbara Bush, going off to college under the watchful eye of the Secret Service and the international media. But the sudden flurry of headlines about the first twins’ alcohol-related mishaps raises new questions about the way their father handled his own “young and irresponsible” past.

I always thought it was a bad decision for Bush, as a politician, to refuse to acknowledge his wild youth — which, by his own account, lasted until he was 40. But now it seems it was a bad choice for Bush as a father. After his 1976 drunken-driving arrest was revealed last year, Bush said he didn’t admit it when he decided to run for president because he didn’t want his daughters to know about it. That was a mistake, and the twins’ recent run of bad behavior seems designed to let him know that.

There’s no evidence either twin has a drinking problem, but the string of news items involving their partying and scrapes with the law in the last few months can’t be ignored. First came the tale of Secret Service agents ferrying home Jenna’s boyfriend after he was arrested for public drunkenness. Then there were randy National Enquirer photos of Jenna, a University of Texas freshman, and a beer-drinking pal, and a story about her alleged marijuana use. Yale freshman Barbara, supposedly the studious twin, had a false I.D. confiscated at a New Haven, Conn., bar. In April, the Enquirer featured a lurid tale of Barbara’s drunken spring-break binge in Mexico, and by the end of the month all major newspapers were carrying a story about Jenna being cited by police at an Austin bar for underage drinking, while Secret Service agents waited outside.

Now, barely a week after a court appearance to deal with that alcohol citation, Jenna has been caught again using a false I.D. to buy alcohol at an Austin restaurant, with sister Barbara at her side.

Of course, many of us would have provided lively tabloid fodder in college if we’d been subjected to the scrutiny Barbara and Jenna Bush must endure. And their college drinking doesn’t mean they’ll turn into alcoholics as adults. Most teenage party girls become responsible citizens, eventually. Still, their recklessness in the first months of their father’s presidency suggests their parents screwed up by downplaying and even denying President Bush’s own drinking problem.

Bush’s he-man decision to quit drinking cold turkey is the stuff of legend. The morning after a boozy 40th birthday party in 1986, he woke up at Colorado’s tony Broadmoor Resort and decided, on his own, to get sober. Alcohol had begun to “compete for my affections,” Bush said later. Certainly he didn’t need Alcoholics Anonymous, he told the Washington Post: “I don’t think I was clinically an alcoholic; I didn’t have the genuine addiction. I don’t know why I drank. I liked to drink, I guess.”

But his close friends tell a slightly different story: “Once he got started, he couldn’t, didn’t shut it off,” Bush’s buddy Don Evans, now commerce secretary, told the Washington Post last year. “He didn’t have the discipline.” That sounds a lot like an addiction, though only Bush himself knows for sure.

He refused to discuss details of his drinking or rumored drug use throughout his political campaigns, relying on the stock excuse, “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” His parents have also repeatedly denied he had a drinking problem, even after several family crises involving his drinking came to light: an ugly Christmas confrontation with his father in 1972, after Bush drove drunk with his brother Marvin, crashed into a neighbor’s garbage cans and offered to fight “mano a mano” with his father; and the 1976 DUI incident near the family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, with his then-teenage sister Dorothy in the car.

We know Bush’s problem drinking, including the DUI, was a family secret. The night a reporter broke the DUI story, Laura Bush called both daughters, in Austin and New Haven, to break the news to them. “I made the decision that as a dad I didn’t want my girls doing the kinds of things I did, and I told them not to drink and drive,” Bush told reporters. But he didn’t tell them about his own arrest.

The secrecy, of course, was a mistake. Anyone who works with alcoholics and their families knows honesty is crucial: The drinking parent needs to come clean about his or her problems, and kids need to understand the family dynamics that were established around the drinking. And as teenagers, they need to know that alcoholism is a disease — whether because of psychology or physiology or some combination of the two — that is remarkably hereditary, and think about their own drinking in that context.

“We know for a fact that [Jenna's] father had a long history of alcohol use and abuse,” Lynn Ponton, a psychiatrist who studies teenage risk-taking, told Salon. “And this is an opportunity for the Bushes … to talk honestly with their children about risk-taking and really provide guidance and increase communication. And I would wonder what type of communication is actually taking place.”

I wonder, too. I’d bet there hasn’t been enough communication in the WASP-y Texas Bush family, and it looks as if the first twins are acting out as a result. Even with a Secret Service detail, there are ways for young women to party, if they’re discreet. Clearly, the first twins aren’t. Their blatant risk-taking and public partying (the Secret Service waits outside the bars where they drink illegally?) seem designed to force a family reckoning that their father’s drinking never triggered.

I’m reluctant to play family therapist for a family I’ve never met, but I’d say that Bush may have gotten past voters with evasiveness about his drinking problem, but he hasn’t satisfied his daughters. And if he sticks to the sanitized, up-from-Broadmoor version of the story, he may someday find he won the White House at the cost of an honest relationship with his daughters.

An earlier version of this story appeared in Bushed! last month.

That was then.  As liberal fascism always declares, it can’t be fascist when we do it.  So liberal roach-thug Walsh apparently gets pissed off about what is actually a pretty straightforward piece at Breitbart and writes this stinking pile of crap that these days passes as “journalism” (note the considerably more flattering picture of Obama’s daughters in which they look considerably less drunk than their choice for Jenna’s pic above).

For the record, I read over the Breitbart piece.  Somehow I missed the parts that Walsh alleges are there about a) the color of Obama’s skin; b) the unfitness of Obama as a parent; or c) the disgracefulness of the president’s daughters.  Please note, however, how Walsh just flat-out poured hate on George W. Bush as a father and slammed his daughters even after acknowledging that she had any actual factual basis for doing so:

Tuesday, Mar 26, 2013 09:51 AM PDT
How not to seem like a racist
A tip for right-wingers angry about charges of racial bias: Try treating the Obama daughters with decency
By Joan Walsh

EnlargeSasha and Malia Obama(Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

Writing my piece on Andrew Breitbart and Tucker Carlson, I missed a huge example of overlap between their two sham-empires: the reporter who broke the Caller’s now-disgraced “scoop” about Sen. Robert Menendez patronizing prostitutes, Matthew Boyle, now works for Breitbart.com. And on Monday he penned the ridiculous story revealing the location of Malia and Sasha’s spring break vacation (which is now at the top of the Drudge Report).

On Twitter Monday and Tuesday, Breitbart fans attacked my focus on their hero’s bizarre racially driven crusades. They continue to insist that they’re being unfairly tarred with the charge of racism, when they’re the real “post-racialists” who just don’t like Barack Obama because he’s a liberal. I have some advice for right-wingers who don’t want it to seem like their anti-Obama animus is racial: Try treating his daughters with respect.

You’ll remember back in December, the NRA went after Sasha and Malia with an ad insisting that the fact that they have armed protection, when the administration was supposedly blocking armed security at America’s schools (actually, it wasn’t), was the height of hypocrisy – ignoring the many threats to their safety faced by the children of presidents and the tradition of Secret Service protection, for all of them.

The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper went even crazier, with a piece alleging that the girls’ school, Sidwell Friends, a Quaker school, had armed guards, too. Anyone familiar with the Quaker tradition of nonviolence found that claim strange, and of course, like most claims about the Obama family that come from the right, it turned out not to be true.

Unfortunately for the untalented Mr. Boyle, journalists have a consensus about not revealing the location of the presidents’ children’s vacations. Reporters don’t write about minor first children except when they’re attending “official or semi-official events.” It’s considered a security risk. As the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi reported last year:

The ban on such coverage has existed through many administrations by informal agreement with the White House Correspondents’ Association, which represents the interests of journalists who cover the president.

“There’s a general feeling among the press corps that it wants to be respectful” of the president’s children, said Caren Bohan, the White House reporter for Reuters who is president of the WHCA.

When Agence-France Presse wrote about Malia’s trip to Mexico last year, a few U.S. outlets picked it up, and the administration tried to get the details removed. Then an earthquake in Mexico made the first daughter’s vacation newsworthy, and other sites, justifiably, reported it.

A year later, along comes the brave Matthew Boyle, fresh off his Menendez humiliation, to tell Breitbart readers about the Obama girls’ vacation. The news hook seems to be that it’s a waste of money.

“It is unclear how long the first daughters will be staying in the Bahamas, or what the cost will be to taxpayers,” Boyle harrumphs. “Earlier this month, the White House canceled public tours as a result of the recent budget sequester, citing Secret Service staffing costs.”

Esquire’s Charlie Pierce put it better than I can:

What possible interest does this serve, except to titillate the dark and envious nether parts of Boyle’s 22 readers? (No link, because fk that pudgy little monster.) There is no possible news value to this. Sooner or later, the frolicks of what my pal [Eric] Boehlert calls the “rightwing entertainment complex” are going to get someone killed.

The theme of most right-wing stories on Sasha, Malia and Michelle Obama’s vacations and leisure-time activities seems to be that they’re entitled princesses, when they do exactly the same kinds of things other presidents’ families have done throughout history. There’s only one difference I can see.

Drudge is also hyping the president’s vacation with the blaring headline “A vacation a month.” That’s another racially tinged trope on the right, that our first black president seems to be a little, well, lazy, because he can’t stop taking vacations. Of course, Obama is on track to take about a fifth of the vacation days George W. Bush did over his two terms. Obama took 131 vacation days in his first term – which would amount to 262 if he kept that pace in his second term. Bush took a staggering 1,060 vacation days over eight years, by far the most vacation in history (he also took the longest single presidential vacation in the modern era, a full five weeks.) Can someone explain why Obama is supposedly the vacation-hog?

Oh, and the comments on Boyle’s Breitbart.com story are pretty awesome, too. Here’s a good one:

They will indeed grow up to be monsters. Very, very, angry and vengeful monsters. Just like momma… Especially after they are forced to visit their obamination of a father in a federal penitentiary following his impeachment and conviction for Treason… Although I’d far prefer they visit his plot occasionally following his hanging for treason.

Boyle is perfect for his new employer (although he was a pretty good fit for the Daily Caller, too). In a post explaining why he jumped ship (which didn’t mention the higher salary he got), he bragged about “enlisting in Andrew Breitbart’s army … I’m shipping out today. It’s time to go to war.”

A war on the president’s daughters? Boyle ought to talk to some veterans of actual war. What a putz.

Paul Farhi’s story on the media’s traditional treatment of first children quoted Democratic pollster Celinda Lake on the political appeal of Obama’s family: “The value of the family is enormous. The more you know this family and the more you think of Barack Obama in these terms, the harder it is to vilify him.”

That’s true for the vast majority of Americans. But not the haters and racists who belong to Breitbart’s “army.”

The galling, appalling hypocrisy of liberals and liberalism is disgusting beyond belief.

Hey, maybe if Barbara and Jenna Bush had jetset all over the world on other people’s money the way Obama’s daughters have, they wouldn’t have, they wouldn’t have ever had any issues with alcohol.  That and the fact that the Bush daughters were in their college years rather than their grade school years like Sasha and Malia.

I have documented in the past that being “white” is no more a defense against “racism toward whites” than liberals accord to black conservatives for being immune to racism because they’re black.  Do I seriously need to post articles of liberals going after conservtive blacks in a racist manner?  Condoleeza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Michael Steele, Stacey Dash, Dr. Benjamin Carson, pretty much ANY black person who has ever expressed conservative views in his or her life, is labelled “Uncle Tom,” Oreo Cookie and far, far worse.  So blacks can’t be “racist” because of the color of their skin on liberal theory unless they’re conservative blacks – in which case they are the quintessential ESSENCE of racist bigotry regardless of the color of their skin on the view of these self-refuting turds.  And then these hypocrites declare themselves inpeccable – i.e. incapable of sin – while they define their opponents as ONLY capable of nothing BUT sin.

Facts get in the way, of course.

Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew who actively despised Jews in his writings.

If you can be a self-hating black, as liberals assert conservative blacks are by definition and if you can be a self-hating Jew, as Karl Marx clearly was, then just how the hell is it impossible to be a self-hating white???

Thus, by liberals’ vicious attacks against black conservatives as being self-hating blacks, and literally by her own diatribe, Joan Walsh is a far-leftist intolerant racist bigot.  She is a self-hating racist race traitor according to her own demonic views.  In addition to being a truly crappy excuse of a human being.

This is what pisses me off about the left above all else: they constantly drool out the most vicious and self-righteous slanders while demonizing everyone on the other side for doing the tiniest FRACTION of what they hypocritically do.  Unless you actually want to defend her attack against Bush relative to the innocuous piece that she poured her hate on in Breitbart.

It’s time to go, Walsh, you Nazi.  That that your fellow jackbooted stormtroopers right out of the Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda mold will ever make you leave.  Becuase they’re all as hypocritical and as fascist as YOU are: they’re just not as STUPID as you are in your glaring obviousness as a biased ideologue useful idiot.

Note: AJ Delgado took on the hypocrite Joan Walsh first.

Fascist Alert: Did Nixon White House Threaten Bob Woodward During Watergate? Because Obama White House Just Threatened Bob Woodward.

I don’t know which is more amazing: the mainstream media’s worship of Obama, or Obama’s thin-skinned, petty, vindictive nature revealed against the very few journalists who refuse to treat him the way TASS treated Stalin.

As most of you know, Richard Nixon was a very bad guy.  He was a creepy monster who had an enemies’ list.  The word “Nixonian” describes a political thug.

The question I have is whether Nixon ever used his White House to threaten Bob Woodward while he and fellow reporter Bernstein were building the case that would topple him.

It’s an interesting question, given that a president of the United States is threatening one of the most famous journalists in the world:

February 27th, 2013
Bob Woodward says he was threatened by White House
Posted by CNN Political Unit

(CNN) - Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Wednesday he was threatened by a senior Obama administration official following his reporting on the White House’s handling of the forced federal spending cuts set to take effect on Friday.

“They’re not happy at all,” he said on CNN’s “The Situation Room,” adding that an e-mail from a senior administration official – who he would not name – communicated a message which caused him great concern.

“It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this,” he said.

Woodward penned a 2012 book reporting that the idea for the spending cuts, known as the sequester, originated with the White House. It’s a claim President Barack Obama originally denied, but the White House has since acknowledged.

But it was language that he used in an op-ed published over the weekend in The Washington Post that drew what he said was the Obama administration response.

“[W] hen the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts,” Woodward wrote. “His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.”   Headlined “Obama’s sequester deal-changer,” it was widely cited by Republicans seeking to avert the across-the-board cuts without a tax increase.

“The fundamental question here the president has to decide – does he wanna be president of a political party or does he want to be president of the United States?” House Speaker John Boehner asked at a Tuesday news conference. “It is time for leadership.”

Obama, however, has argued for an approach that “balances” spending cuts and tax increases.

“I’ve laid out a plan that details how we can pay down our deficit in a way that’s balanced and responsible,” he said at an event in Virginia the same day. “We have the plan right on a website, the White House website. Everybody can go see it. It details exactly how we can cut programs that don’t work, how we can raise money by closing loopholes that are only serving a few, as opposed to the average American.”

While the days now turn to hours before the cuts kick in on Friday, Republicans and Democrats have not engaged in the sort of negotiations they have held before deadlines in previous fiscal crises.   Woodward said on CNN that the White House objection to his reporting has no basis in facts.

“It’s irrefutable. That’s exactly what happened,” he said. “I’m not saying this is a moving of the goal posts that was a criminal act or something like that. I’m just saying that’s what happened.”

CNN extended multiple invitations to the White House to appear on the “The Situation Room,” including after Woodward began his interview, but the invitations were not accepted.

But a White House official who would not speak if named said late Wednesday, “Of course no threat was intended.”

The official said the email Woodward referenced “was sent to apologize for voices being raised in their previous conversation. The note suggested that Mr. Woodward would regret the observation he made regarding the sequester because that observation was inaccurate, nothing more. And Mr. Woodward responded to this aide’s email in a friendly manner.”

The e-mail had Woodward “very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters you’re going to regret doing something.”

“Let’s hope it’s not the strategy,” he said.

I wonder what would have happened if George Bush had ever threatened a journalist like that.  Betcha the media would go ballistic and demand his impeachment for his assault on the 1st Amendment freedom of the press.

I actually had the gumption to write a long, LONG – because Obama had done so many things that were blatantly fascist – article on Obama as a fascist.  And it’s amazing to how much fascism this tyrant demagogue has been up to since.  Obama is a petty tyrant who uses law enforcement as a way to reward his friends and punish his enemies.  His blackshirted and jackbooted thugs raid at will.  He is a fascist who routinely places himself above the law and above the Congress.  In fact he just bypasses Congress altogether when he is not abrogating their authority completely.  Obama recently dictated that the Congress was in recess when Congress’ own rules said they were NOT in recess.  And in so doing has already dictated that all other branches of government are irrelevant under his Fuehrership.  The judiciary shouldn’t feel neglected; Obama has abrogated their authority and undermined them, too.  His healthcare takeover very much DOES include death panels among other appalling lies, thank you very much.  Obama routinely uses executive orders to grant himself and his regime unprecedented powers.  And he and his fascist crony capitalist buddies have put America into so much debt that benefits so few Obama-connected rich that it is beyond unreal.

I don’t even have to venture into the “Obama is a far worse fascist than Bush EVER was” statement regarding foreign policy.  I’ll just let Obama’s kill list which allow him to murder American citizens without trial and without any due process speak for itself.  Liberals would have been catatonic with outrage if Bush had done this, but then again to be a liberal is to be a hypocrite as much as it is to be a fascist.

If you look into Obama’s civil liberties record and compare it to Bush’s, Obama is so much more a fascist than Bush ever was it is positively unreal.  But liberals LOVE their dictators to be fascists, no matter how much they hate the other side and no matter how much they slander and demonize them.  And they love it even more when their soon-to-be-fascist-dictators use demagogic rhetoric to demonize their predecessors.

But anyway, threatening the press – which means threatening the four or five reporters who are actually trying to report the truth to the American people – check.

The beast is coming.  And Obama paved the way for his arrival as no other human being ever has.

Two Ways Sequestration Battle Proves That America Is A Headless Chicken Lurching Toward The Mark Of The Beast

Do you know what the absolutely most hilarious thing about the sequestration issue is? It’s that Democrats and media elites are saying, “The Republicans voted for these sequestration cuts…”  And, yes, they did vote for the bill that came from the Obama White House that had the sequestration cuts in it; as did Democrats.  But here’s the funny thing about it: if Republicans DON’T vote Obama’s way, they are “obstructionists.”  If they DO vote Obama’s way, well, they become completely to blame for the disaster that came from the mind of Obama, as far as the mainstream media and the Democrat Party are concerned.

The sequestration battle reveals two ways that the war is over, and America lost.

And it’s like that famous Pogo line: “We have met the enemy… and he is us.”

Two things going on right now blatantly show America is doomed.  There is simply no coming back from these things.

The first is the level of propaganda and lies coming from our mainstream media and from our White House.  There simply has never been a president who has ever been so in-your-face dishonest; and there simply has never been a media refusal to cover the truth like this before.

Barack Obama has now repeatedly said that sequestration – which he now says is a “meat cleaver” that would have “brutal consequences” that would destroy America - was “Congress’ idea” (with the implication that it was therefore the Republicans’ idea.  He said back on October 22:

“The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

But Barack Obama is a documented liar in claiming that.  Because WHO actually proposed sequestration again?

Let’s see what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was forced to concede during an interview with Fox News anchor Brett Bair (note: I added the first remark by Jay Carney to the transcript after transcribing it from the video):

Jay Carney: Somehow, what they [Republicans] liked then, they don’t like now and they’re trying to say that it was the president’s idea.

Bret Baier: Fair to say, but it was the president’s idea… You concede that point, right?

Jay Carney: What I will concede is that we were looking and the Republicans were looking for a trigger around which to build the mechanism to get us out of default possibility and the sequester was one of the ideas yes put forward, yes, by the president’s team.

Who’s to blame for sequestration?

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

It is a documented historical fact that it was BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S White House that proposed sequestration, NOT Congress and most certainly NOT Republicans.

So, yeah, it was the president’s idea.  It was Obama’s plan that Obama put forward.  If the Republicans agreed to it in order to get something done on the last debt ceiling fight.  And after all  the time you’ve spent labelling Republicans as “obstructionists” for not agreeing with you, NOW you demonize them as evil after they DO agree with you???

Barack Obama is a documented, proven liar.  Even the überliberal Washington Post acknowledges that Barack Obama is a liar.  But the rest of the media is largely disinterested, uningaged, uninvolved in this story – aside from presenting Obama’s deceitful spin on reality as “the news.”

We also have Barack Obama’s very own words to examine regarding the automatic spending cuts of the sequestration his White House proposed:

“I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts,” said Obama from the White House’s briefing room, adding “the only way to get rid of those cuts is to get Congress to come together and work on a deal.”

We literally have him saying it on video:

Obama has said the same thing again and again:

“Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No,” Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room Monday evening. “I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending.”

Barack Obama is a documented liar and slanderer and demagogue and fearmongering demonizer for all the world to see.

When he now says:

“Would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our entire economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that benefit only the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations?” Obama asked of the GOP during a White House event.

What he is actually saying is that it was actually HIS idea to “put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our entire economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that benefit only the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.”   You DO know that GE – which paid zero taxes last year – is a liberal and pro-Obama corporation, don’t you?  You DO know that Facebook – another liberal pro-Obama corporation - is not only not paying federal income taxes but is actually getting a huge tax refund of nearly half a billion dollars in tax money???

When Obama now says:

At one of his countless anti-sequester events, Obama warned that the budget cuts will “gut critical investments,” “weaken America’s economic recovery” and “weaken our military readiness.” He said tens of thousands of parents will scramble to find child care, and hundreds of thousands will “lose access to primary care and preventive care.”

Whenever you hear Obama explain how the sequestration cuts are absolutely evil and would basically kill everybody in his current slandering fearmongering, realize that Obama is the source of that evil and is responsible for all the evil things he says will happen.

And do you REALLY want to talk about the cronyism of the Obama administration????  Obama is literally SELLING access to his White House to the highest bidder.  Obama’s mindset is to be the most shameless peddler of chutzpah the world has ever known, to demonize and slander his opponents while actually doing far WORSE than the opponents whom he is routinely demonizing.   While the media dishonestly “reports” whatever the hell their Führer wants them to.  And I say “Führer” because you’ve got to go back to Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda to see this kind of shameless media dishonesty.

What Barack Hussein Obama is actually saying is that to whatever extent the sequestration cuts are evil, HE is evil.  To whatever extent that sequestration will hurt the economy, HE is the one who hurt the economy.  And to whatever extent sequestration cuts will hurt the American people, HE is the one who hurt the American people.  Obama is literally on the record having said that he would not allow ANYTHING to undo the spending cuts that he today dishonestly says is demonically evil.

But the world doesn’t CARE that Barack Obama is a slandering liar and a pathologically dishonest and dishonorable human being.  And that’s largely because the mainstream media are a bunch of pathologically dishonest and dishonorable human beings who now rely almost exclusively on propaganda rather than “news” or “journalism.”

It’s an inconvenient truth that the sequestration cuts that Barack Obama is now fearmongering and demonizing came from Obama.  It is an inconvenient truth that Barack Hussein Obama actually threatened to VETO ANY EFFORT TO UNDO THE SEQUESTRATION CUTS THAT HE NOW SAYS ARE SO DAMN EVIL and will be so damned harmful to the American people.  So the media doesn’t report the inconvenient truth.  And instead reports Obama’s slandering lies and fearmongering in PLACE of the truth.

When a nation is as blinded by lies and as willing to participate in lies and deceit as the American people now are, it is time for that nation and that people to go the way of the Dodo bird to extinction.  But it’s more than just extinction, because we face divine judgment: any nation that is so deluded by lies that it would vote for a liar without shame, without honor and without decency in 2008 and then vote to re-elect that shameless liar four years later deserves the Antichrist, deserves to worship him, deserves to take his mark and deserves to burn in hell for all eternity.

And that is coming because of what we have done.  That end is coming because when we needed to be confronted by the truth, the American people were the sort of people who preferred lies and slander and demagoguery and fearmongering.

The truth no longer matters in America.  And God DAMN America for that, to quote Obama’s racist reverend Jeremiah Wright.

What I point out above isn’t the only Obama lies regarding sequestration.  Like I said, this man is a liar without shame or honor or decency.  And literally everything that drools out of his mouth is a lie.  Bob Woodward also documented that Barack Obama, in demanding tax hikes (“revenue”), is not only dishonestly moving the goal post but in fact shamelessly reneging on a deal he made:

In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.

Again, that is the reporting of Bob Woodward, one of the most famous journalist’ alive whose reporting brought down Nixon, stated from his access to the White House during the very time the sequestration deal was going through.

But again, the mainstream media and the wicked American people will not allow Barack Obama to be held responsible for his shameless lies or his constant deceit.  So the fact that Obama’s constant demand for “common-sense” “balanced approach,” he is in fact saying he should be rewarded for making promises, agreeing to deals, and then dishonestly reneging on those promises and deals.

Anyone who negotiates with such a dishonest man as Obama is is a fool who deserves his own destruction.  Which is why the Republican Party is in such terrible shape as they’ve tried to compromise again and again with a shameless, craven, dishonest liar.

They have gone down this path again and again and again.  Obama makes a deal only to break his own deal.  And then demonize and slander the Republicans whose sin was trying to deal with a devil:

The book, “The Price of Politics,” on sale Sept. 11, 2012, shows how close the president and the House speaker were to defying Washington odds and establishing a spending framework that included both new revenues and major changes to long-sacred entitlement programs.

But at a critical juncture, with an agreement tantalizingly close, Obama pressed Boehner for additional taxes as part of a final deal — a miscalculation, in retrospect, given how far the House speaker felt he’d already gone.

Who killed that infamous Grand Bargain deal in which Boehner had agreed to concede higher taxes in exhange for spending cuts?  Obama killed it by having a deal and then demanding even more concessions after he had already agreed on a deal.  And dishonest Democrats, which pretty much is all of them, have perverted the truth ever since by falsely claiming Boehner walked away from a deal.  All Boehner walked away from was the destroyed engine of a deal after Obama dishonestly threw a monkey wrench into it after they’d already agreed to a deal.

When Barack Hussein Obama pissed on the deal and killed it, he and his vast army of lying cockroaches were ready to point the finger at the victim of Obama’s dishonest dealing.

Democrats are every bit as happy to go off the fiscal cliff of sequestration as the most right wing Republican.  And Obama has been doing a whole lot of moving the goalposts while he dishonestly goes back on agreements he made.  But the dishonest media refuses to report the truth.  Because the truth is the first thing to go before God truly begins to judge a nation for its wickedness.

That’s one.  The dishonesty of the American people in their leader, in their dishonest, false messiah are alone enough to constitute God Damn America until this nation fades away from its status as a world power in humiliation and shame.

But the sequestration debate reveals a far more dangerous cancer at the dishonest, wicked heart of Barack Hussein Obama and the American people he leads to their damnation.

The other fact is the fact that there will NEVER be anything remotely CLOSE to true spending cuts as long as there is one Democrat who has not been hunted down with dogs and burned alive.

Do you know what the sequestration fight is really over?  Of course you don’t, if you get your “news” from the mainstream media!  It is over a 2.4% reduction in the rate of projected spending:

How much is to be “cut”? $85 billion on a budget of $3.6 trillion. That’s 2.4%. As of August household income was down 8.2% under Obama and the country had to make do. Now Obama tries to tell us that government can’t do with 2.4% less? Seriously?

He has been lying about the sequester since the debates.

And:

Federal spending will explode from $3.6 trillion to $6 trillion over the next 10 years, but the much-maligned sequester will cut only 2.4 percent of this spending.

Sequestration represents a relatively small cut in projected spending. So why are so many in Washington wringing their hands over a two-and-a-half percent reduction?

Do you know that the coming budget will spend more than last years budget EVEN WITH the sequestration “cuts”???  Because the fact of the matter is that we will actually be spending $110 billion MORE in this budget even when the sequestration “cuts” are factored in.

I want you to understand: Democrats are literally becoming hysterical and rabid over the fear of not a 2% cut that ANY bureaucracy ought to be able to easily make – but a 2.4% cut in the rate of growth of that spending.  This is another way of simply pointing out the fact that we can’t make ANY cuts of ANY kind at all.

The sequestration “cuts” are mindless, stupid and evil – which is exactly what I for one would expect from anything coming out of Obama’s White House as these sequestration cuts did – but Republicans are beginning to express a willingness to “go off the cliff” with sequestration simply because it is now glaringly obvious to anyone possessing a faculty for comprehending reality that Barack Obama will NEVER allow any other spending cuts of any kind during the next four years.  And if Republicans want ANY cuts to the budget, the deficit, or the debt at ALL, this is their only chance to get them.

That’s the fact.

And the fact is that Democrats – in spite of their frequent lip service to reducing spending, reducing the deficit, reducing the debt – are shameless liars who say one thing and keep doing another.  They will NEVER allow ANY spending cuts.  Period.

Obama slandered George Bush for his $4 trillion debt over eight years.  He has now presided over $6 trillion more in debt in only four years.  Which is to say that the nation’s crushing, bankrupting, extinction debt is tripling under Obama beyond what Obama demonized Bush over.

Again, Barack Hussein Obama is a pathologically dishonest man.  And this hellbound world longing for the Antichrist loves him for it.

What Obama did was load up the 2008 federal deficit with TRILLIONS of dollars in his own spending, then slanderously and dishonestly hold Bush responsible for Obama’s own wicked spending.  As if it was Bush who imposed the Obama stimulus, and Bush who imposed the Obama Omnibus bill, etc.  The deficit that Bush handed Obama for 2008 was $400 billion.  And what Obama did was deceitfully assert that HE ended the war in Iraq – which Bush actually ended and signed the final status of forces agreement for – and that somehow without Obama the Iraq War would have gone on forever and so Obama should somehow be credited with eternal savings for ending a war that Bush actually won and ended.

And that is why this nation is utterly doomed.  Either money is nothing – in which case nobody needs any more of it and Democrats are idiots for trying to redistribute the wealth like the Marxists they truly are – or money matters and our $228 trillion fiscal gap will bury us and smother this nation to death.  It’s one or the other.

Our true fiscal gap was documented by the International Monetary Fund at $222 trillion as of August of last year.  It is growing by nearly a trillion dollars every month.  Which means it is now well over $228 trillion in unfunded liabilities that will bankrupt this nation.

And Obama is literally coming unglued at saving $84 billion in cuts not in our spending but only in our rate of growth - which is a drop of piss in a giant ocean of bloody-red debt???

Democrats won’t allow America to cut its spending in any way, shape or form.  And America is going to die because of that.

The Democrat Party stands for the extinction of America.  It is crushing America with lies and crushing America with debt.  And America cannot survive with either scourge, let alone both.

So it should be no surprise that the same Obama administration that has gone so completely deranged predicting national disaster and even holocaust if the sequestration that Obama proposed, that Obama signed into law and that Obama threatened to use his veto to protect was put into effect is also the administration that is about to intentionally try to make those cuts as painful to as many Americans as they possibly can.

Want an example?  Obama cabinent appointees are already releasing a wave of CRIMINAL illegal immigrants as a way to inflict harm with the sequestration cuts in order to say the Republicans did what in fact OBAMA did.  I say “criminal” not just because it is a damn CRIME to enter the United States without going through the legal immigration process, but because the “immigrants” being released are “immigrants” who have already been convicted of crimes in Los Estados Unidos.

So basically, what Obama is saying is that you either agree with my new deal after I broke my word with you on our last deal, or else I’ll threaten you with huge numbers of criminal illegal immigrants.  And according to Obama, that’s a “balanced compromise” rather than terrorist extortionism.

Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor put it this way:

“President Obama has said that unless he gets a second tax hike in eight  weeks, he will be forced to let criminals loose on the streets, the meat at your  grocery store won’t be inspected and emergency responders will be unable to do  their jobs,” Cantor said in his statement.

“These are false choices. We are faced with the negative effects of the  sequester because Democrats have not been able to take even the smallest step  towards controlling spending.”

False choices have been all we’ve had for Obama’s entire presidency.

Could Obama lay off his scheduling secretary so he’d have a harder time going on a golfing vacation with Tiger Woods just before coming back to say that what clearly wasn’t a big deal before he went on vacation is suddenly about to kill America if he doesn’t get his way?  Yes, but it’s so much more fun for Obama to fire firefighters and police officers instead.  Because that’s just the kind of wicked man he is.

When the beast comes, there is not a doubt in my mind that he will honor Barack Hussein Obama as the man who made his arrival possible.

And the American people will burn in hell for all eternity as a result of both of these wicked men.

Gasoline Most Expensive In History Of America Under Obama. That’s ANOTHER Tax On The Working Man Obama Has You Paying.

Given that Obama – who demonized George Bush for accumulating less than $5 trillion in debt over eight years – somehow managed to rack up more than $6 trillion in only four years, it is frankly amazing that you actually have liberals out there who are demon-possessed enough to argue that Bush really spent more.  And this demon-possession of liberals is so pervasive that it extends even to gasoline.  Yes, that’s right: no matter how ridiculously obvious the truth is, liberals despise truth and demand that they be entitled to replace the truth with lies.  So in spite of the fact that U.S. gasoline prices set a record last year to shatter George Bush’s 2008 record, and in spite of the fact that Obama in 2012 shattered his own 2011 record for highest gasoline prices ever, liberals continue to live in their own stupid little world while the actual world around them goes to hell.

Take a look at this:

California’s 2012 average gas price was $4.028 a gallon
The 2012 average for a gallon of regular gasoline in California shatters the previous record — set in 2011 — by 21 cents.
By Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times
January 1, 2013

Californians had a bad year at the pump in 2012, averaging a record $4.028 for a gallon of regular gasoline, according to AAA.

That shattered the previous record, set in 2011, by 21.3 cents a gallon. The jump was so big that it surprised even people who review fuel prices on a daily basis.

“I can remember when the California average for the year in 2008 was $3.525 and we thought we would never see it go that high again,” said Marie Montgomery, spokeswoman for the Automobile Club of Southern California.

She noted that $4.028 “over a full year is a lot of money out of our pockets that we can’t spend on other things.”

California’s gas prices in 2012 also helped kick the national average for a gallon of regular up to a record $3.603, which broke the previous record, set in 2011, of $3.510, AAA said.

The increase in California fuel prices in recent years is startling. In 2008, the year oil prices shot above $147 a barrel, the state averaged a then-record $3.525 for a gallon of regular gasoline, according to AAA.

The California average fell to $2.687 a gallon in 2009, then climbed back above the $3 threshold to $3.100 in 2010. In 2011, the state’s average for the year jumped to $3.815 a gallon.

Since 2009, the average price that Californians pay for a gallon of regular gasoline has jumped nearly 50%.

California has some fuel factors that are unique. It’s an isolated market that does not have access to cheap crude flowing from the oil boom in states such as North Dakota, Texas and Oklahoma.

Its only regular source of domestic crude from outside the state is Alaska’s dwindling North Slope oil fields. That means California has to import more and more foreign oil, which is substantially more expensive than U.S. crude.

California’s clean-air rules also mandate a special formula of gasoline that is more expensive to make and is produced by few refineries outside the state.

Analysts have cited many reasons for the 2012 prices, including one of the worst years ever for refinery outages in California. A fire in August, for example, knocked out part of Chevron’s Richmond facility, one of the state’s biggest refineries.

In October, a power failure at an Exxon Mobil refinery helped send California’s average price up to a record $4.671 for a gallon of regular.

But a lot of people aren’t buying those explanations. Consumer groups and California’s U.S. senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, have called on the state attorney general and the Justice Department to investigate California’s volatile fuel prices.

California refineries were also exporting fuel in 2012, and an analysis by Oregon-based McCullough Research indicated that some of them may have misled the public about the amount of fuel they were producing.

I italicized the bold-face type describing how liberalism is stupid and counter-productive and makes living impossible until everybody flees to states that actually AREN’T fascist.  And it is pretty damned amazing that California would blame its sky-high prices on “foreign oil being more expensive” given the fact that California has PLENTY of oil if it were just legal to obtain it.  Sadly, California is dominated by liberals, and liberals are truly stupid people, so they’ve largely banned offshore drilling.

I just wish that Californians would vote to personally bankrupt themselves and then commit hari kari and get it over with.  But California liberals are a slow, stupid people who apparently want to linger, and prefer a slow, torturous death by liberal stupidity.  So they voted for Obama even though he has utterly screwed them.  You know, the way the North Korean people kept voting for Kim Jong-il and then his son Kim Jong-un.  And hang the pictures of these murderous dictators in their homes.  And worship them as “Dear Leader.”  While their country and their children are ground into dust.

In another article I proved that Obama had made gasoline 85 cents a gallon more expensive than George Bush ever did.  Not that actual facts matter any more as America careens idiotically toward complete national collapse.

Under Obama, and due to his stupid and frankly evil gasoline policies by which he attacks the fuel the American people absolutely need to get by in the modern world, gasoline is now MORE than fifty cents a gallon more than it was in 2008 when Obama was slandering George Bush:

Every single working American is going to pay shockingly more this year than he ever has before. Because Obama just hiked his Social Security taxes for the middle class and because Obama passed the largest tax hike on the middle class in American history in the form of ObamaCare. And because Obama imposed bigger and costlier regulations than any president before him. And yes, because Obama made gasoline more expensive than any president who ever lived.

This is God damn America, pure and simple.  And in God damn America, God allows stupid and greedy people to elect and then re-elect a lying demagogue who will bankrupt and implode America.

All the rest of us can do is try to prepare as best we can for the crash that is coming.  And in the meantime try to keep documenting why America fell while we still have the freedom to do so.

What I’d Do To Resolve Stalemate Between Republicans And Democrats On Taxes Targeting The Rich

We seem to be in a real fix.  Obama won reelection and seems to think he had a mandate.  In reality, Obama is the first president in American history who got reelected with a SMALLER percentage of the vote and electoral college majority than he did in 2008.  Very much like hated Republican boogeymen such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who were both reelected with larger majorities than they first got into office with.

And yes, the same electorate that gave Obama a “mandate” also reelected an overwhelmingly Republican House of Representatives and gave THEM a mandate.  If Obama has a damn mandate, then the Republican House has every damn much as big of a mandate as Obama has.

For the record, if you want to see what an actual “mandate” really looks like, click here.  Because Ronald Reagan had a mandate.

That versus Obama’s “food stamp mandate” is all you should need to know which side has had a plan to truly build an America that can increase in size and power and which side has a plan to bring America to its knees and ultimately to extinction via unsustainable welfare spending to buy off voters as jobs are destroyed.

So if Obama wants, he can have a pissing contest and insist that Republicans betray their most deeply held convictions about what creates job growth and what STYMIES job growth.  And the only people who will lose are the American people.

The simple, repeatedly historically-proven fact is this: Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.  It is a simple fact of history that when Calvin Coolidge cut the income tax rates, we got an economic boom and increased our tax revenue by increasing economic growth.  When John F. Kennedy cut the tax rates, voilà, we got more revenue.  When Ronald Regan cut the income tax rates, we got a twenty-year trajectory of economic growth.  And yes, when George W. Bush cut the tax rates, guess what?  We got significantly higher tax revenues than we had had before Bush cut taxes.  And to this day the highest year of tax revenues was NOT in the early 1960s when the top marginal rate was 92% and we had a godawful tax revenue problem, but in 2007 under George W. Bush.

Bill Clinton increased taxes in 1993.  And the economy responded with such weakness that the American people decided to elect the largest Republican majorities that took over both the House AND the Senate in history just to show you how well the Clinton tax hike worked.  Do you want to know when Clinton got real economic growth?  After the Republicans were elected, after Clinton said “The era of big government is over” and after he signed the Republican-originated and Republican-passed Taxpayer Relief Act in 1997 which massively cut the capital gains tax rate.

Obama simply does not have the instinct to compromise that Bill Clinton did.  Which is why we have this exchange with ABC anchor Charles Gibson:

MR. GIBSON: You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.”

It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

In that exchange, Obama officially admitted, “I will not collect as much revenue by attacking the rich.  But I don’t care.”

Obama wants to target the rich, demagogue them, punish them, gin up the kind of class warfare rage that Karl Marx ginned up in his day.  And we just saw, as morally depraved as it is, it’s apparently goooood politics with an amoral American people.  The problem is that what will happen if Obama gets his way is that we’ll see LESS revenue, NOT more.  The rich will increase their rate of withdrawing money from the economy, from investment and from job creation, and instead shelter it and spend it on tax attorneys to keep as much of their money as they can.  We’ve seen this over and over again.

If you actually wanted more tax revenue, i.e., money that could actually help the poor, the smartest thing you could do would be to cut the tax rates and allow investment and business growth to increase the size of the economy and the tax base.  And the very stupidest thing you can do would be to listen to Obama.

Well, the American people are stuck on stupid.  And here’s the fix the Republicans are in: Obama will keep demagoguing and claiming that the answers to America’s prosperity are found in Marxist class warfare.  The implicit message is that the communists got it right; and the means to prosperity is to seize the wealth and redistribute it.  I mean, you can take out the words like “socialist” and “Marxist” and “communist,” but what you can’t do is describe what Obama wants to do and not realize that it’s fundamentally Marxist in approach.  Both want to seize the wealth and redistribute that wealth.  Period.  And so if the Republicans don’t give Obama his tax attack on the rich, we’ll go off the fiscal cliff and Obama – even though the fiscal cliff was HIS idea – will blame the Republicans for it.  And he will succeed, because the mainstream media is nothing more than leftist propaganda these days.  And as we fall off the cliff and into recession, Obama will keep explaining “why”: because Republicans are obstructing and protecting the rich at the expense of the rest of the people.

As completely wrong as Obama is, it his course is by far and away the easiest to demagogue.  When you realize that if all the people who got food stamps voted for Obama, there’s 75% of all the people who voted for him right there with just that, you see how politically powerful Obama’s course is.  At least until America fiscally collapses under the sheer massive weight of its debt.

So what do I propose?  Let Obama have his way.  IF.

Obama says that attacking and devouring the rich is the path to American prosperity.  Prove it, Mister President.  Tell us how much your tax increase will increase tax revenue.  Put a specific number on that claim into the version of the bill that Obama must sign.  And if tax revenues do not go up by the amount you said that they would go up, THEN YOU ARE WRONG.  No excuses.

As an example, consider what the Bush Tax Cut did:

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Do you notice that not only did tax revenues massively increase, but in fact the percentage of taxes paid by the rich also massively increased?

Read what even the New York Times was forced to acknowledge about the FACT that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.” The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

You can say whatever the hell you want, liberal.  But the Bush tax cut resulted in a fifteen percent increase in tax revenue.  According even to the New York Times.

Allow me to interject here that liberal “intellectuals” are actually the stupidest people in the world.  Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”  And what makes Forrest Gump an authority here is that he was a mentally retarded man who listened to the common sense wisdom of a mother who was determined to teach her son to succeed in the real world.  And the story teaches us that Forrest listened to his mother’s wisdom and lived his life according to her proverbs – and he flourished while all the “smart” people around him either lived like fools or came to embrace Forrest Gump’s wisdom.  In the same manner, liberal intellectuals are profoundly stupid people because they hate the world as it actually is and are determined to replace reality with their various “-isms” – such as communism and fascism and existentialism and postmodernism and nihilism – instead.  They refuse to see the world as it is and constantly seek to impose morally idiotic theories that are utterly false.  And that is precisely what they are doing now with their tax demagoguery.  Because “redistributionism” is every bit as stupid and unrealistic of an “-ism” as all the other “-isms” I just listed.

Getting back to point, what numbers do YOU have to “put your money where your mouth is,” Obama???  Are you prepared to make specific guarantees that your tax plan will increase revenues and increase the size of the economy such that if those numbers don’t materialize, YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG AND YOUR TAX HIKE WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE ENDED ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS IN THE BILL?

Republicans should force Obama to produce hard numbers predicting the revenues his tax hikes will generate by a specific time.  And also demand to know up front exactly how much Obama’s tax warfare plan will reduce the debt.  And Republicans ought to demand that if those hard numbers and dates aren’t met, that Obama’s tax warfare will automatically end and the Bush tax cuts will automatically take their place.

At the very least, that would at least give some demagoguery to the Republicans for a change.  Because if Obama says, “Well, my Marxist tax war on the rich won’t actually have very much effect even in my best case scenario,” then Republicans can rightfully ask, “Then why the hell have you spent most of the last four years harping on it, you demagogue?”  And if Obama wants to make grandiose predictions, then those predictions can and should be hard-baked into the legislation which should also include triggers to kill it if those grandiose predictions aren’t actualized.

Republicans control one-third of the government.  But Democrats clearly have the ball.  The trick is to hold Democrats RESPONSIBLE for their grandiose claims such that if those claims aren’t fulfilled, they are disgraced officially and for the permanent historical record.

Give Obama what he wants – but make him and the Democrat Party pay dearly for it if what happens isn’t what they say will happen if they get their way.

And if Obama won’t agree to these terms, well, then, simply tell Obama’s supporters that if you people want tax increases, well, you should damn-well GET your tax increases.  And you will therefore get to pay the high taxes that you hypocritically and dishonestly wanted to force on somebody else now.  Because the people who ought to be paying the highest taxes in this country are the people who say that somebody ELSE ought to pay higher taxes while they get off scott free.  So to hell with it: let EVERYBODY pay high taxes and be done with it.

And we’ll be able to find out that way that Democrats are liars and that you can’t tax your way into prosperity, too.

I write this because the tactic of fighting over every mole hill shouldn’t be our tactic any longer.  We just lost that battle, I would argue.  If the Democrats demand something like these tax hikes and promise it will fix the economy, oppose it philosophically, demand language within the legislation itself that will officially make the Democrats completely responsible for their false promises, and then let them destroy themselves and as much of America as it takes to finally realize that Democrats are a bunch of pied pipers who are leading us to our national extinction.

The REAL Political Legacy Of Bill Clinton Is NOT What The Left Wants You To Know

I responded to a typical weasel comment with enough facts and frankly enough words to turn the truth about the Clinton presidency into an article.  Here’s the typical weasel comment:

This post is a bunch of lies.. Clinton left a surplus

And my response:

Just can’t get away from stupid people, can I?

U.S. National Debt

09/30/1993    –    $4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1994    –    $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/29/1995    –    $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1996    –    $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/30/1997    –    $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1998    –    $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1999    –    $5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/2000    –    $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/2001    –    $5,807,463,412,200.06

These are official Treasury Dept taken from the Treasury’s site.  The numbers between 1993 and 1999 are here and the numbers from 2000 to 2001 are here.

I want you to notice, you deluded dumbass, that every single year of the Clinton presidency the national debt went UP.  THAT IS A FACT.  In the very real world, Bill Clinton never left us with so much as a penny of “surplus.”  Every single year of Slick Willie’s presidency, we got more debt and then more debt.

Bill Clinton assumed office in 1993.  Two years later, in 1994, the people were so angry at the fact that “Clinton gold” turned out to be Iron Pyrite that they voted overwhelmingly for Republicans in the greatest historic asskicking of all time.  Clinton lost both the House and the Senate to Republicans, and in fact never got either back for his entire presidency.

Bill Clinton said “the era of big government is over” in January 1996, which put the kibosh on liberal ideas for the rest of the Clinton presidency as Clinton governed as a moderate Republican from that point on.

In 1997, the Taxpayer Relief Act was passed by the Republican House and the Republican Senate before being signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a result of those REPUBLICAN TAX REFORMS, federal income tax revenues surged just as they ALWAYS surge when the American people are allowed to keep more of their own money and invest that money far better than bureaucratic government EVER has or ever WILL.  And as a result, we actually briefly got to a federal budget surplus.  Because of Republicans and because “the era of big government was over” and because Democrats had had their asses kicked and ONLY because of those things.

It’s interesting.  Republicans controlled both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate when we actually got our “balanced budget.”  And yet historically somehow the mainstream media gave Bill Clinton and the Democrat Party ALL the credit and the Republican majorities that had actually passed all the legislation that created that balanced budget zero credit.  It’s particularly amazing given the fact that Barack Obama controlled the White House, held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, AND controlled the House of Representatives his first two years in office, but the failure of the Obama economic policy is blamed on the fact that for two of Obama’s first four years Republicans held the House.  Basically, Democrats can never be blamed and must be given all the credit; whereas Republicans cannot receive any credit and must be given all the blame.

The same people who constantly lecture the Republicans about “obstructionism” somehow never recall the years when George Bush was confronted with massive Democrat obstructionism.  Obstructionism, was, of course, good and noble when Democrats were blocking virtually every single thing Bush tried to accomplish.  It is only evil if Republicans try to block anything their messiah Obama wants to do.

Now, sadly, 9/11 happened because Bill Clinton left America weak and blind.  Why did America get attacked on 9/11?  Because Bill Clinton showed so much weakness in 1993 in Somalia that a man we would one day know very well said:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden began to prepare for a massive attack on America.  Oh, yes, he and his fellow terrorists hit America again and again: they hit the World Trade Center for the first time in 1993.  In 1996 they hit the Khobar Towers where hundreds of American servicemen were living.  In 1998 two embassies in Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) were bombed and destroyed by terrorists.  And in 2000, terrorists hit and severely damaged the U.S.S. Cole.  And Bill Clinton proved bin Laden’s thesis correct by doing exactly NOTHING.

Meanwhile, all throughout the Clinton presidency, al Qaeda was preparing to strike us.  They brought in all the terrorists who would devastate us with their second attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001 during Bill Clinton’s watch.

America was both weak and blind due to Bill Clinton’s gutting both the military and our intelligence capability.  And of course, being blind and unable to see what was coming would hurt us deeply:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”  The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

And so we were hit on 9/11 and were completely blindsided by the attack because Bill Clinton gutted the military and the intelligence budget leaving us weak and blind.  And of course our spending skyrocketed because of the DotCom economic collapse that Bill Clinton left for George Bush that happened on Clinton’s watch but gutted $7.1 trillion in American wealth (almost as much as the Great Recession, btw) and which collapsed the value of the Nasdaq Valuation by fully 78% of its value as Bush was still trying to clean all the porn that the Clinton White House had left on the White House computers.  And so Bill Clinton handed George Bush a massive recession and like whip cream on top of his economic disaster he handed George Bush an even more massive terrorist attack.

But, hey, don’t worry.  Barack Obama is making all the same mistakes that Clinton made and then a whole bunch of even dumber mistakes that Clinton didn’t make.

Anyway, as you keep hearing that Obama will pave the streets with gold because Bill Clinton paved the streets with gold, please realize #1 that Clinton hardly ever paved the streets with gold and #2 realize that Barack Obama has not and will not govern the way Bill Clinton governed.

Do you know what bothers me the most about Obama’s reelection?  It’s that we have entered a profoundly different reality as a nation.  Barack Obama did NOT get reelected because he gave us a strong economy.  And both the polls before and AFTER the election document that many of the people who actually voted for Barack Obama believed that Mitt Romney would have given us a better economy.

Obama’s economic policy was a complete unmitigated disaster.  But what you need to understand is that a terrible economy makes for good politics for Democrats.  Because the worse the economy gets the more that increasingly amoral Americans will demand a stronger government safety net and welfare state.  Such that the worse Obama does economically the better he and Democrats will actually fair politically.

The beast is coming.

A New Smoking Gun In Benghazi Terrorist Attack Fiasco Proves That Obama Had THREE WEEKS WARNING Prior To Actual Attack – And Did NOTHING.

Allow me to introduce this story by citing the words of one of the few honest journalists left in the “profession”:

“I really believe, having read it, that it is the smoking gun warning here. You’ve got this emergency meeting in Benghazi, less than a month before the attack. At that briefing, the people are told that there are ten, ten, Islamic militias and al-Qaeda groups in Benghazi. The consulate can not sustain a coordinated attack and they need extra help. This information goes directly to the office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So, again, you have the culpability of the State Department. This is a very specific warning that they’re in trouble, they need help and they see an attack on the horizon,” FOX News’ Catherine Herridge reported on FOX News’ “On the Record” Wednesday night.

Smoking gun.  This story amounts to a HUGE smoking gun.  Liberals looked and looked for evidence that George Bush knew or should have known about the original 9/11 attack but did nothing to prevent it.  They never found it because it never existed; and the fact is that Osama bin Laden declared America a “weak … paper tiger” and vowed to attack America as a result of Bill Clinton’s policies and COMPLETELY under Clinton’s watch, planned the 9/11 attack entirely under Clinton’s watch,brought in all the terrorists who attacked us entirely under Clinton’s watch, financed the operation entirely under Clinton’s watch, and completed virtually ALL of the necessary training for the attack under Bill Clinton’s watch.  It was never anything but vile to blame the attack on George Bush – whose only crime was being blindsided by the extent of the failure of the Clinton national security shambles that he left behind for Bush to inherit.

But we now have the same smoking gun proving that Obama either knew or should have known about this NEW 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that occurred on United States soil and that resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador since 1979: 

Exclusive: Classified cable warned consulate couldn’t withstand ‘coordinated attack’
By Catherine Herridge
Published October 31, 2012
FoxNews.com

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
 
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
 
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
 
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
 
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
 
In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
 
As for specific threats against the U.S., the cable warned the intelligence was not clear on the issue, cautioning that the militias in Benghazi were not concerned with any significant retaliation from the Libyan government, which had apparently lost control in Benghazi. A briefer explained that they “did not have information suggesting that these entities were targeting Americans but did caveat that (there was not) a complete picture of their intentions yet. RSO (Regional Security Officer) noted that the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal from the (government of Libya.)”
 
While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.
 
In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
 
Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.
 
The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.
 
“An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi,” Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner said in written statement. “Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”

FactCheck.org – normally a left-leaning organization – has a devastating timeline to document just how incoherent and dishonest the Obama administration has been regarding this attack almost from the moment it happened until the present.

We now know that Obama had THREE WEEKS OF SPECIFIC WARNING ABOUT AL QAEDA ATTACKING THE U.S. CONSULATE IN LIBYA AND HE DID NOTHING.

We now know that the two former SEALs who laid down their lives did so by refusing the Obama administration’s orders to stand down because they lived – and the United States had until Obama always lived by – the doctrine that when Americans are under fire you go in and you save them from the enemy.

We now know that the US Ambassador and his staff in Libya were PLEADING for more security and that not only did Obama refuse to GIVE them more security but he actually CUT the insufficient security that they had prior to the attack (see also here).

And we now know that the reason that Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi to begin with was because of his role in what would clearly amount to a bigger scandal than the Iran-Contra affair if the media were honest; because we have details of secret White House arms transfers THAT HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED BY CONGRESS.

We most certainly know that there was NO “spontaneous protest” prior to the well-coordinated and preplanned terrorist attack that featured multiple phases/waves as well as both direct AND indirect fire, and that all Obama did for the first three full weeks PLUS was offer nothing but deceitful fabrications intended to stave off scrutiny until AFTER Obama was elected and there was no longer any way to throw his weasel ass out of office.

We now know that Obama had to have been briefed on the deteriorating conditions and potential 9/11 attacks at least the day before the attack.  And given that we KNOW that Obama knew this, and given that we KNOW that Obama repeatedly brought up “spontaneous protests” and “the video” when he KNEW FOR A FACT that he was lying to the American people and to the entire world.  There is NO question that Obama fabricated a linkage to a protest that never even happened and to a video that had nothing to do with the attack.  And he cynically and deceitfully lied and slandered our First Amendment freedoms to give himself political cover to try to conceal his massive failure to govern and to lead.  And what has been unfolding ever since was an incompetent cover-up to try to obfuscate incompetent presidential leadership.

And yes, now we know that the Obama administration had three weeks of credible and specific warning describing exactly who was going to attack the consulate and exactly how they were going to do it.  And Obama decided to go campaign instead of dealing with it both before and immediately after the disaster.

Obama has now thoroughly demonstrated that he will NOT come clean with the facts.  Because he knows the American people would vote him out if they knew just how terribly and despicably he had failed.

The best way to judge Obama is to judge him by his own party’s attacks against George W. Bush.  And Obama fails wildly by that metric in a way that Bush did not.

CIA Begged For Help THREE TIMES And Were Denied Help THREE TIMES By Obama Administration As Terrorists Murdered Americans In Benghazi, Libya

This story gets worse and worse and proves Obama is more and more despicable every single day.

BREAKING: CIA Requested Help During Benghazi Battle, Were Denied Three Times (Updated)
by Bryan Preston
October 26, 2012 – 8:29 am

Fox’s Jennifer Griffin deserves a Pulitzer for the work she is doing to uncover what really happened during and after the assault at Benghazi. In her latest blockbuster, she reports on how American personnel were left without aid during the battle.

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to “stand down.”

Who gave those stand-down orders? Was the CIA director, Gen. David Petraeus, aware of them? Did he approve them? Who specifically took any part on this decision?

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.

According to sources on the ground, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.

“There’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” Panetta said Thursday. “But the basic principle here … is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

“Monday morning quarterbacking”? They had a laser on the target. An F-18 could have reached the scene from Sigonella in about an hour and destroyed it.

The denial of aid is criminal. Whoever gave those multiple stand-down orders may be an accomplice to manslaughter, at least.

The notion that there was nothing they could have done is absurd. The military has binders and binders — note that word — of contingency plans to deal with breaking security issues and attacks. But our troops, according to Sen. John McCain, were not even put on alert, and field operators on the scene were ordered to stand down.

More: When the 3 AM crisis phone call came in, Barack Obama hatched a plot to attack American free speech rights. And then he went to bed.

Update from Bob Owens: There was an AC-130U gunship on the scene in Benghazi, but it was not allowed to fire.

Update: The CIA denies Fox’s report.

Clearly we need hearings with the president and his relevant cabinet officials either testifying or submitting comments, before the election.

You need to keep understand that the CIA denying this report is bad for Obama, because what we find out is that the CIA denies the report (that officials in the CIA chain of command ordered a stand-down with Americans being murdered by terrorists in Benghazi).  And we find out that CIA Director David Petraeus states, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”  Given that we further learn that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had asked for more security in Benghazi prior to the attack but the request was denied.  The obvious question becomes, “Then who the hell DID order that stand-down?  Who DID deny that request for more security?”

And there is one and ONLY one answer: Barry Hussein, the first demon-possessed president.  The Predator drone video of the attack – that went on for seven damn hours – was shown to the White House.  There is VERY good reason to believe that Obama himself saw it; he certainly would have been notified that an American installation was under direct attack.  You have to ask yourself: how many people are authorized to go into a foreign country shooting that we are not at war with?  The president and who the hell else???  That is a crucial question because only somebody who had the authority to make that decision could have made that decision.  The White House is asserting that Obama didn’t make that decision not to send help to Americans under fire who desperately needed help.  Okay, then who the hell DID make that decison???  Who the hell ELSE apart from Obama was even authorized to make that call to send in the cavlary to start shooting Libyans in Libya???  Furthermore, CIA personnel had already wisely repositioned assets to make it as quick and easy as possible for Obama to give the order to rescue the Americans trapped in Benghazi and have that rescue effort be successful.  But no order was given.  Nothing was done.  And had it not been for the heroism of Tyrone Woods, the death toll would have been thirty rather than four.

Remember how much credit Obama gave himself for being in the White House Situation Room when the previously-supersecret-until-Obama-blabbermouthed-their-official-existence SEAL Team Six went in to kill Osama bin Laden???  Where the hell was THAT Obama???  Because he for damn sure won’t admit he was in that room when it mattered the most now.

From the very beginning, this White House, this administration, this president and this president’s stooges, have lied to the American people about a terrorist attack on American soil that resulted in the murders of four Americans including the first ambassador to be killed since 1979 when Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe.

Amazingly, Obama began to lie and instructed his top officials to lie immediately and concoct a “spontaneous protest” in place of a planned and well-executed terrorist attack and a stupid video in place of a completely failed president completely failing to listen to repeated warnings that the situation in Libya was massively deteriorating.  Obama – who has been campaigning the last four years – rarely ever bothered to attend his daily intelligence briefings and frankly couldn’t be bothered with anything that didn’t directly help him get re-elected.

Obama lied and lied and lied.

With all due respect to the truth, conservatives such as myself and such as John McCain immediately came out and pointed out what the attack was: a TERRORIST attack by al Qaeda.

Then the questions started to flow: why did Obama make Valerie Jarrett the first adviser to have a full secret service security detail even on her vacation to Martha’s Vineyard while the United States Ambassador in Libya was denied a Marine contingent???

We found out that there were 230 security incidents in Libya prior to the attack that resulted in our ambassador being murdered and the United States being humiliated.  We find that Britain wasn’t stupid and closed their embassy after repeated warnings that the situation was spiralling out of control.  We found out that before he was murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens BEGGED for increased security but was repeatedly denied.  We found out that on the very day that he was murdered Ambassador Stevens was begging for more security.  But rather than give him the security he needed, OBAMA ACTUALLY CUT THE POOR SECURITY AMBASSADOR STEVENS HAD.

We found out that the denials of increased security in Libya were completely unrelated to budget considerations:

Though Democratic members of the committee blamed Republicans throughout the hearing for cutting security State Department security spending, Lamb clarified for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who was invited to sit on the committee for the hearing, that the staffing denial was not linked to budget shortages, just the result of evaluating conditions on the ground.

And we know that Obama did all this because he was trying to deceive the American people with a completely bogus narrative that, by killing Osama bin Laden, Barack Obama had won the war on terror and shattered al Qaeda:

8:21PM EDT October 19. 2012 – The Obama administration rejected requests for more security in Benghazi amid growing signs of terror threats because it wanted to portray Libya as a calm country and foreign policy success, according to leaders of the House Oversight Committee.

The administration “made a policy decision to put Libya into a ‘normalized’ country status as quickly as possible,” starting in November, stated a letter to President Obama from Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and National Security Subcommittee Chairman Jason Chaffetz.

The apparent aim of this policy was to convey the impression that the situation in Libya “was getting better and not worse,” states the letter released Friday.

That policy was why State withdrew security personnel and resources from Benghazi, including a DC-3 aircraft, the letter says, citing an email from Miki Rankin, a State Department post management officer for Libya and Saudi Arabia.

The policy of “normalization” was described to committee members by Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs. And late last year, a State Department diplomat issued an “action memo” on why the Benghazi consulate should remain in place.

Then-Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman wrote Dec. 27 that the U.S. presence in Benghazi was having “a salutary and calming effect” on people in Eastern Libya.

The normalization policy was being pursued at a time when al-Qaeda affiliated militias were becoming increasingly active in and around Benghazi, according to Issa and Chaffetz.

The committee members said the normalization policy trumped security concerns expressed by professional security officials working for State.

Obama lied and Americans died.  The attack on the US Consulate compound in Benghazi went on for seven agonizing hours.  Had the United States acted quickly and decisively, this horrifying and shocking disgrace to America would have been defeated.

If this had happened under George Bush’s watch, and there emerged the kind of evidence tying a cynical political policy to an abject national security and foreign policy disgrace and disaster, you can bet that the mainstream media would have been crawling all over it.  You can bet that EVERY SINGLE TIME Bush did an interview with ANYBODY this would have been the ONLY subject he was asked about.  You can bet that all the late night talk shows would have mocked Bush for this oh, the way they mocked Bush for Abu Ghraib.  You can bet that the networks would have figured out ways to include the shocking failure and debacle in Libya in their popular television dramas.  Like they did with Abu Ghraib.  And like they DIDN’T do with “Abu Ghraib moment” after “Abu Ghraib moment” when those moments were OBAMA MOMENTS.  It would have been the goal of the mainstream media and the networks that every single American be repeatedly told that George Bush had failed America, much the same way that virtually every single American had repeatedly heard the George H.W. Bush words, “Read my lips, no new taxes” in order to guarantee Bill Clinton’s election.

Instead it’s Obama, and so when Obama says the election has “nothing to do” with the Americans murdered in Libya, the mainstream media politely drops the subject rather than embarrass their messiah.

Charles Woods, the father of heroic former SEAL Tyrone Woods – the one who was making those requests for help that Obama repeatedly denied - had this to say about the Disgrace-in-Chief:

The grieving father also described his brief encounter with President Obama during the ceremony for the Libya victims.

“When he finally came over to where we were, I could tell that he was rather conflicted, a person who was not at peace with himself,” Woods said. “Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish. His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye, his eyes were over my shoulder.”

“I could tell that he was not sorry,” he added. “He had no remorse.”

Tyrone Woods is a hero who ignored Obama’s orders to basically let the thirty Americans in the US Consulate in Benghazi die.  He heard the gunfire and he sacrificed his own life so that other Americans could live. 

This disaster – and the cover-up of this disaster that has followed – is so much worse than the Watergate scandal that brought down Nixon it isn’t even funny.

The American people have a chance to hold Barack Obama responsible and accountable for this disgrace on November 6.

CIA Station Chief In Libya Reported Within HOURS That US Consulate Attack Was A TERRORIST Attack. So Why The Weeks Of LIES???

You need to understand why Obama was willing to lie and lie so outrageously about the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Libya.  A lot of people simply cannot understand why Obama would lie about a terrorist attack.  Here’s why:

Obama had based his ENTIRE foreign policy “triumph” on just ONE event: the killing of Osama bin Laden.  Everything else – EVERYTHING ELSE – amounted to Obama’s foreign policy being a disaster that was in shambles: China’s rise as a major military power that directly threatens the United States and its control over the Pacific under Obama’s nose; the asinine “Russian-reset” that proved such a debacle as Russia again and again thwarted virtually every single thing the United States tried to do in the United Nations that Obama almost exclusively relies upon; Iran now almost imminently away from nuclear weapons; the disastrous euphemistically titled “Arab Spring” that has brought violence and anti-American Islamist regimes in place of stable ones in vital Arab countries like Egypt that had been allied with the United States for decades.  I mean, a terrorist organization captured the Egyptian election and is now running the country; well over 30,000 civilians have been murdered in the Syrian bloodbath while no one has done anything to even stop Iran from arming the Syrian regime.  And if Obama wanted to call the intervention that removed Gaddafi from power in Libya, that is now gone as a major al Qaeda-linked terrorist attack resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador to be murdered since Carter screwed up the universe in 1979.

What did Obama want to do?  How did he want to posture?  He wanted to bury his head in the sand and pretend that the killing of Osama bin Laden essentially amounted to the killing of al Qaeda.  “Bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run,” Obama said over and over.  As if the former event ipso facto had resulted in the latter conclusion.  And Obama was desperately hoping that his total fabrication, his grand illusion, would last him past the election.

But it didn’t.  Instead, a devastating terrorist attack linked closely to al Qaeda occurred on sovereign United States territory in Libya that resulted in the murder of a US Ambassador and three other Americans.  And what we found out since has been an equally devastating indictment against Obama’s foreign policy leadership.  We have found out that the murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens had been pleading for increased security even as the Obama administration proceeded to take away what little security he had in the most dangerous state in the world.  We have found that there had been more than 230 “security incidents” in Libya prior to that withdrawing of security that cost Ambassador Stevens and three other great Americans their lives.  In two incidents, an explosive device was used – and in one a giant hole had been blown in the wall protecting the Consulate.  We found that both Britain had closed down its embassy and the Red Cross had closed down its presence in Libya because of that growing buildup of terrorism that Obama was so obvlivious to because he’d chosen to skip 60% of his daily intelligence briefings.

As bad as these things are, it gets worse.  Because they say that the worst thing an administration can do – the very worst thing – is to try to cover-up a scandal.  And the cover-up is almost always worse than the scandal itself.  In this case that is debatable; Watergate, for instance, did not result in the murder of Americans and it did not result in an enemy attack against United States territory and the humiliation of the nation with terrorist flags going up around half a dozen of our embassies in addition to our ambassador being murdered.  But we find that cover-up is exactly what Obama did.

Let’s look at what the Obama administration said to describe the attack first.  Note they did NOT refer to it as a preplanned and coordinated “terrorist attack,” but rather as a “spontaneous” one that resulted from some stupid video.

The Obama administration trotted out the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to ALL FIVE major network political programs and had her tell what we now know to be an outright lie over and over and over again (see here for another link with more):

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

Republicans called her dishonesty out from the moment she came out and so ridiculously lied that even Nancy Pelosi agreed that the Obama administration was completely full of crap.

An ad is pretty damning, as it packages up the lies told throughout the Obama administration rather concisely:

In hindsight, there can be absolutely no question that the Libyan president who called the attack what it was is far more trustworthy than the Obama administration.

We now know that there NEVER WAS a spontaneous protest in Libya prior to the terrorist attack.  And that Susan Rice directly lied to the American people.  We now know that murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens was BEGGING for more security for well over a month prior to the attack that was timed to commemorate the 9/11 attack anniversary.  We now know that there were ZERO Marines in Libya when we have Marines “guarding” many of the very safest and most secure embassies in the world instead.  We now have emails of the Obama administration via the State Department specifically rejecting those pleas for more security.  We now know that contrary to the deceitful Obama claims al Qaeda was GROWING rather than “being on the run.”  And we know now that when the Obama White House blamed faulty intelligence for their disastrous weeks of saying something that is now well-known to be a documented lie it was just another lie.

You can start to see why Obama would demand a cover-up.  And instead wanted to run on the fiction that “my messianic killing of bin Laden won the war on terror and changed the world.”

Now we find out that the CIA station chief in Libya reported within HOURS that the attack against our sovereign territory in Libya was a planned, coordinated terrorist action:

CIA Found Militant Links A Day After Libya Attack
By Kimberly Dozier – Associated Press     Friday, October 19, 2012

WASHINGTON — The CIA  station chief  in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of  last  month’s deadly attack on the U.S.  Consulate that there was evidence it  was carried out by militants, not a  spontaneous mob upset about an  American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet  Muhammad, U.S. officials  have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw  the cable outside the CIA  at that point and how high up in the agency  the information went. The Obama  administration maintained publicly for a  week that the attack on the diplomatic  mission in Benghazi that killed  U.S. Ambassador Chris  Stevens and three other Americans was a result of  the mobs that staged  less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around  the 11th anniversary of the  9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Those  statements have become highly charged political fodder as the   presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House  committee  questioned State  Department officials for hours about what GOP  lawmakers  said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist   Islamic militants in North Africa.

And in their debate on Tuesday,  President Barack Obama and Republican  challenger Mitt Romney argued  over when Obama first said it was a terror  attack. In his Rose Garden  address the morning after the killings, Obama said, “No acts of terror  will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that  character  or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

But  Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn’t specifically call   the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the  president and  other key members of his administration referring at first  to the anti-Muslim  movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating  event.

Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding  documents to show  what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during  and after the attacks.

The White House now says the attack   probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked  group, with no public  demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary  RodhamClinton blamed the “fog of  war” for the early conflicting accounts.

The  officials who told the AP about the CIA  cable spoke anonymously because  they were not authorized to release such  information publicly.

Congressional  aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this  week to  build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare   that to what the White House was telling the  public about the attack.  That could give Romney ammunition to use in his  foreign policy debate  with Obama on Monday night.

The two U.S. officials said the CIA  station chief in Libya compiled intelligence  reports from eyewitnesses  within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate  that indicated militants  launched the violence, using the pretext of  demonstrations against U.S.  facilities in Egypt  against the film to cover their intent. The report  from the station chief was  written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached  intelligence agencies in  Washington the next day, intelligence  officials said.

Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points  sent by the CIA  to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi  were  spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S.  Embassy in Cairo and  evolved into a direct assault.”

The briefing points, obtained by  the AP, added: “There are indications that  extremists participated in  the violent demonstrations” but did not mention  eyewitness accounts that  blamed militants alone.

Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA  on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the  headquarters in  Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other  intelligence derived from  eavesdropping drones and satellite images.  Only then would such intelligence  generally be shared with the White  House and  later, Congress, a process that can take hours,  or days if the  intelligence is coming from only one or two sources who may or  may not  be trusted.

U.S. intelligence officials say in  this case the delay  was due in part to the time it took to analyze various  conflicting  accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because  he  wasn’t authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that “it  was  clear a group of people gathered that evening” in Benghazi, but that  the early  question was “whether extremists took over a crowd or they  were the crowd,” and  it took until the following week to figure that  out.

But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.

“I  think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very  good  individual, put out some speaking points on the initial  intelligence  assessment,” said Senate intelligence committee chair  Dianne Feinstein,  D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5  in California this  week. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”

“The  early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are   hearing now,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. “It ended up being  pretty far  afield, so we want to figure out why … though we don’t want  to deter the  intelligence community from sharing their best first  impressions” after such  events in the future.

“The intelligence  briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent  with what the  administration was saying,” said Rep. William Thornberry,  R-Texas, a  member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees.   Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA  report but  voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA  Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original  account when they  briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“How could they be so certain  immediately after such events, I just don’t  know,” he said. “That raises  suspicions that there was political  motivation.”

National  Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The  Office of  the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for  comment.

Two officials who witnessed Petraeus‘ closed-door  testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that  during  questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts   who disagreed with the conclusion that a mob angry over the video had  initiated  the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not  mention the CIA’s  early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that  the account could change  as more intelligence was uncovered, they said,  speaking on condition of  anonymity because the hearing was closed.

Beyond  the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s  also  proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently   killed Stevens and his communications aide  or launched the mortars that  killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as  contract security guards at  a fallback location. That delay is prompting  lawmakers to question  whether the intelligence community has the resources it  needs to  investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight   against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.

Intelligence officials  say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi  militia, Ansar  al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but  is known  to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida  in the Islamic  Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan  locals  at the consulate during the  violence, and intelligence intercepts show  the militants were in contact with  AQIM militants before and after the  attack, one U.S.  intelligence official said.

But U.S. intelligence  has not been  able to match those reported sightings with the faces of  attackers caught on  security camera recordings during the attack, since  many U.S.  intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the  aftermath of the  violence, the two U.S. intelligence  officials said.

Nor  have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was   preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers  used,  setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the  backup compounds, then  attacking the main entrance to distract, while  sending a larger force to  assault the rear.

Clear-cut answers may  prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to  bring about  relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a   post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is  so new  it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the  location of  U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.

How do you think the press would have covered it had George Bush essentially stated that the war on terror was over due to his policies and triumphs?  How do you think the press would have covered it if an event such as the one described above had rather catastrophically proven that Bush was a lying sack of cockroach turds?

This was NOT the result of poor intelligence, as the dishonest Obama administration is deceitfully demagoguing; this was NOT the result of a failure of intelligence, it was the failure of Obama policy.  Period.  The intelligence services were warning about an attack well before one actually occurred; specifically Ambassador Chris Stevens’ security team was screaming that the terrorist threat was growing and they were dangerously exposed.  No.  You can’t blame that on poor intelligence, unless you want to blame it on the poor intelligence of the commander-in-chief who couldn’t be bothered with such intelligence developments.

I’ve come to realize how the game is played: if a Republican is president, and says ANYTHING that isn’t the absolute unvarnished truth, he is decried as a liar by the media.  If, on the other hand, a Democrat is president and tells a thousand lies wrapped in a half-truth, well, he is praised for his integrity and transparency.

What is ironic, and possibly even funny depending on the outcome of the election, is that in doing the above in the case of Libya, the media may have fatally wounded their own messiah.  Because had they come out after Obama hard right away the way they would have come after Bush, they kept allowing Obama to have more and more rope to put around his neck with his lies and cover-ups – whereas Bush would have been smashed in the face with the very first appearance of deception and forced to come clean.  And what is happening now is that very pissed off intelligence professionals who don’t like being slandered are going to keep a story alive just before an election that otherwise likely would have been put to bed a month ago.  And by their refusal to go after Obama they have allowed him to fatally wound his own reelection.

The same thing happened with the first debate: the media sheltered Obama and Obama himself went only on friendly media territory where he would never be challenged.  And as a result he suffered the most disastrous first debate performance of any sitting president in history, losing by a catastrophic fifty freaking points because he was so ridiculously unprepared.