Posts Tagged ‘Libya’

Undeniable PROOF That Barack Obama Entirely To Blame For The Collapse of Iraq And The Rise Of Islamic State.

April 18, 2016

Let me just get straight to the facts.  It is an amazing thing the way Bush got blamed for the wars but Obama cut and ran AFTER BUSH WON HIS WAR and now the terrorists as a direct result of Obama’s stupidity are far stronger than they EVER were when Bush was president.  While the dishonest leftist propaganda mill otherwise known as the mainstream media has never done it and never will do it, this is an easy thesis to document:

  1. Obama HIMSELF announced we were victorious in Iraq: “Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.” — President Barack Hussein Obama, February 27, 2009.  That wouldn’t have happened if Iraq was still in chaos.  Because Bush won his war.  As point 2. further documents:
  2. Vice President Biden went further and called Iraq “one of the great achievements of this administration.”  You explain to me how he could say that in 2010 and Bush be to blame now.  Because if Bush had ruined the world in 2008, what is Biden doing calling it a “great achievement” in 2010???  No, rather, Bush handed Obama a peaceful, stable Iraq that Obama proceeded to flush down the toilet with his idiotic stupidity as he failed to listen to his own generals and foreign policy experts and ruined the world.  Here’s Biden’s quote: “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”  — Vice President Joe Biden, 2010
  3. Our enemy in Iraq announced themselves that they were defeated (until Obama gave them life with his treason): “By the end of 2008, in the beginning of 2009, President Bush’s surge strategy led by General Petraeus and General Odierno, now the chief of staff of the Army, defeated the al Qaeda in Iraq.  I saw the transmission because I was advising Petraeus on the ground in Iraq. They showed me the transmissions from al Qaeda that they were intercepting. They said we are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters.” — General Jack Keane
  4. Obama ignored all of his generals and advisors in pulling out of Iraq:US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
    By Gareth PorterWASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon.The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was “open to alternatives”.The Times reported that Odierno had “developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama’s campaign timetable” and had suggested in an interview “it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly”.The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama’s withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama’s pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would “increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months”. He asserted that it would jeopardise the “stable political situation in Iraq” and called that risk “not acceptable”.
  5. In fact Obama has ALWAYS ignored all military advice.  Allow me to quote that Washington Times headline: “Obama ignores generals’ advice on troop levels for unprecedented sixth time.”  Obama is the worst kind of fool, and such fools cannot learn wisdom.  Obama in fact has never ONCE listened to a single decent expert who knew what the hell he was doing.  Obama’s own leaders as well as the military advised him what he needed to do; Obama ignored their wisdom over and over and over again.  And the very hell those generals and leaders predicted came to pass just as they predicted it.  It is a stupid, pathetic, trivial and demonic mind that blames Bush for that.
  6. Furthermore, Bush was RIGHT and Obama was demonically WRONG:  George W. Bush predicted EXACTLY what would happen if we listened to Great Satan Obama:Bush, as discussed on “The Kelly File,” made the remarks in the White House briefing room on July 12, 2007, as he argued against those who sought an immediate troop withdrawal.  “To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.  He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U.S. left too early: “It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.”  [Bush could not conceive that Obama would give birth to an even MORE vicious monster Islamic State that made al Qaeda look, well, “JayVee” in comparison]. “It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.”  [Yep, that sure happened thanks to Obama].  “It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan [Yep, check again: for the first time in the history of the world we have a true terrorist army that has created its own giant CALIPHATE.  We never saw anything close to that when George W. Bush was president.  That is simply a fact].  “It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”  [Check yet again.  And since Obama stupidly gave Russia hegemony over the region, it would mean risking World War III.  All because Barack Hussein Obama is the worst fool who ever lived].  I DEFY anyone to explain to me how Bush wasn’t COMPLETELY CORRECT in his warning and Obama wasn’t an abject FOOL not to heed it.  Because absolutely EVERYTHING Bush said would happen turned out to be completely true and everything Obama said would happen under his policies turned out to be completely false.
  7. Now add to that unmitigated disaster, that totally unforced error, Obama’s “red line fiasco” in SyriaJohn Kerry admitted that Obama “altered perceptions” of both our friends and our enemies when he declared a red line in Syria and then backed away from his red line and even outright lied about having given it; both Obama’s Secretaries of Defense Robert Gates and Leon Panetta declared it destroyed American credibility; Obama’s Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said the same, adding that Obama micromanaged the Defense Department with arrogant know-nothing idiots and tried to destroy him when he decided he had to do what was right for America.  The president of the foremost foreign policy think tank in the world – the Council on Foreign Relations – said American credibility took a major hit after Obama’s red line fiasco.  As a result of Barack Obama, our enemies have been rabidly emboldened and know for a fact that the United States WILL NOT act in its interests or protect its allies against tyranny and even hostile attacks (think Ukraine, think Egypt); and our historic allies are dismayed, uncertain and looking anywhere other than America for a strong power who will support them.  Every single one of those people is an Obama appointee and even THEY admit that Obama’s foreign policy was beyond foolish.
  8. Both military leaders, civilian leaders of the military and national security and foreign policy, and numerous conservatives such as MYSELF stated that Obama’s idiotic plan to pull out of Iraq would lead to disaster.  In any valid scientific laboratory, we were verified to be 100 percent scientifically proven RIGHT and Obama and every fool who believes in Obama was proven to be a demoniac jackass who hates the United States of America and is plotting its destruction.  In August 2008, I predicted, and I quote: “A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for forfeiting Iraq, and then having to come back in a few years to do it all over again – this time against a determined Iranian insurgency.”  You tell me I was wrong, you demon-possessed Nazicrat Party liars, because all you have is a demonic delusion in your fool minds and I have all the actual facts.
  9. And as a result, I have with all those facts and evidence and history itself behind me written articles like this one: ‘The Tide Of War Is Receding’: Barack Obama Is ENTIRELY Responsible For The Disastrous Meltdown In Iraq And Across The Middle East and Iraq: Bush’s Victory, Obama’s Despicable Defeat.
  10. And therefore Iraq has been in meltdown, Syria is a shambles, Libya is a shambles, Yemen is a shambles (and CONSIDER the debacle in Yemen given what Obama stupidly said), Egypt is a shambles, etc. etc.  Obama guaranteed Iran would have nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them to us and so terrorize us from acting in the region.  Russia and Iran are now without any question have hegemony over the Middle East.  And Israel is isolated and abandoned.  Which is why Israelis say Obama is the WORST American president in history.  And as I document three paragraphs below, Obama has cursed the world with more refugees than it has ever seen in all of human history.

I defy anyone to argue with ANY of those points.  And those ten truths directly lead to an abundantly obvious conclusion: that Barack Obama failed America and failed the world and that the Democratic Party has become the party of treason and literally the extermination of not only Western Civilization but our very existence.

You are a Democrat for one reason and one reason only: because you are a citizen of hell; because something deep within you knows that you should be screaming in hell and you therefore have an innate psychological need for self-destruction.  And you are voting that into reality culminating in your vote for and worship in the coming big government beast of the Book of Revelation.  It becomes the only rational explanation for obvious deranged insanity.

You prove what 1 Corinthians 2:14 says: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”

And that is why you are blind to reality when you should see and deaf to reality when you should hear.  Which is why the words of Isaiah 28:15 so completely apply to you:

You boast, “We have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave. The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.”

Which is EXACTLY your strategy in the war on Islamic terror that you so wickedly and foolishly deny a) is a war or b) is Islamic or even c) is terror (’cause it’s just workplace violence!!!).

This is an incredibly important thing to report the FACTS on.  Because if you listen to Democrats, George Bush is somehow responsible for all the evils of the world both BEFORE he became president (when Bill Clinton allowed in EVERY SINGLE 9/11 terrorist AND allowed them to get funded AND allowed them to get trained before Bush took office so they could attack us eight months into Bush’s presidency) and AFTER he left office.  Under Obama – who looked the American people in the eye and promised them that his way was so much better and told us that he would END the war on terror – terrorism has skyrocketed under any metric you want to name; be it the number of terrorist organizations, the number of attacks those terrorists have launched, or the lethality of those attacks in sheer death toll.  Terrorism under Obama DWARFS anything that existed under Bush.  And we now have the worst, the most violent, the most extreme, terrorist group in the history of the world under Obama.  Which basically did not even EXIST when Bush was president.  When Bush left office, ISIS was a hundred bitter guys who had split off from al Qaeda in Iraq THAT BUSH HAD BROKEN when HE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ.

Now we have THE largest AND worst refugee crisis in the entire documented history of planet earth.  UNDER OBAMA.

Somehow Obama took a profoundly and fundamentally different path than George Bush took and the world has exploded as a result: but it’s “Bush’s fault.”

Bush And This Is MY Fault

Bush's fault

But whose fault is it, seriously?  Well, the liberal narrative that a mainstream media that is so dishonest that only SIX PERCENT of Americans believe is actually credible “report” is that Bush “destabilized” the world when he invaded Iraq as SIXTY PERCENT of Democrat Senators (including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer) supported.  Because, you see, the world was “stable” throughout the Clinton years as Islamic terrorism began to ascend and Clinton did NOTHING: such as: the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.  But particular focus ought to be on Clinton’s incredible failure in Somalia, which he first escalated and then retreated from.  It was as a result of that failure in 1993 that a hitherto unknown figure named Osama bin Laden boasted:

“After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians,” bin Laden said. “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda … about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”

Osama bin Laden and the terrorist movement he gave birth to were EMBOLDENED and INCITED by American weakness.

Just as Islamic State was given birth to by Obama, al Qaeda was given birth to by Bill Clinton.  The very first al Qaeda attack occurred after the election of Bill Clinton. And their second and third attacks were directly against the United States.  And Bill Clinton did NOTHING.

They smelled blood.  Just as they smell blood now.

But while all that was happening, America was “stable,” according to Democrats.  That is such a demonic lie to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear, given the fact that there was a crystal clear trajectory of increasingly bold and big attacks.  Until 9/11/2001.

It’s interesting how we had the same scenario unfold when Obama took office, but in reverse.  I vividly recall reading 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed give a statement after his capture that the US response to 9/11 was so massive and so devastating that he personally doubted that terrorists would ever dare launch such an attack again.  Even the reliably leftist New York Times put it this way:

Yet for all his professed wisdom about the United States, Mr. Mohammed later admitted that he had completely misjudged what the American response to the Sept. 11 attacks would be. He did not expect the American military campaign in Afghanistan, and he did not anticipate the relentless hunt for Al Qaeda leaders throughout South Asia and the Middle East.

He even misjudged his own fate. When he was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, he thought he would soon be traveling to New York, where he would stand trial under his indictment for the Bojinka plot.

Instead, he was hooded and spirited out of Pakistan by C.I.A. operatives, who took him first to Afghanistan and eventually to a former Soviet military base in northern Poland.

Mr. Mohammed’s initial defiance toward his captors set off an interrogation plan that would turn him into the central figure in the roiling debate over the C.I.A’s interrogation methods. He was subjected 183 times to the near-drowning technique called waterboarding, treatment that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has called torture. But advocates of the C.I.A’s methods, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, have said that the interrogation methods produced a trove of information that helped dismantle Al Qaeda and disrupt potential terrorism attacks.

Mind you, they totally misreported the entire thing about waterboarding.  For example, they got the number of times that K.S.M. was waterboarded completely wrong: he was waterboarded FIVE times, and that process was so tightly controlled that in those five waterboarding sessions they counted 183 times that a little water was poured over him.  They knew what they were doing; but waterboarding a terrorist five times was quite reasonable; so they had to manufacture and fabricate a bogeyman to make the reasonable seem unreasonable.  Hence the liberal [and therefore dishonest] narrative that we were waterboarding these guys 200 times and that it obviously didn’t work.

When it DID work.  And according to people who were NOT liberal bogeymen who could be summarily dismissed the way the left could do with Dick Cheney.

For the record, KSM’s waterboarding directly led to the U.S. finally learning where Osama bin Laden was hiding.  Obama’s own CIA Director acknowledged that a waterboarded terrorist gave up the name and location of Osama bin Laden’s courier (Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti).  And tracking that courier directly led the U.S. to bin Laden’s location in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

“The first indication that he (al-Kuwaiti) was close to bin Laden and was a serious player came from (Sept. 11 architect) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), right after he was waterboarded. Before that, KSM basically gave up nothing. After he was waterboarded, KSM gave an answer on the courier. This put the courier on the map. That was the first time they saw that he was close to bin Laden…”

If Democrats had been running the show, we NEVER would have found Osama bin Laden.  Period.  And Obama getting bin Laden was no different than Obama ending the war in Iraq; because his BETTER did it FOR him so HE could falsely take credit – only to utterly ruin every positive effect with his own despicable and pathetic incompetence if not treason.  Because WATERBOARDING got bin Laden.  And Obama vilified and even attempted to criminally prosecute what GOT bin Laden.

Interestingly enough, for the first couple of years after Bush left office, terrorism was minimal.  Because Bush had substantially defeated it.  Al Qaeda in Iraq admitted they were defeated.  In Iraq, state terrorist dictator Saddam Hussein was dead.  In Libya the state terrorist dictator – AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE OVERTHROW OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN IRAQ – cooperated with the United States for the first time in decades.

But just as with Clinton, under Obama the terrorists realized they had a weak, pandering coward who would not stand up to their attacks.  And so the attacks began again, and grew worse, and worse, and worse.  We’ve been attacked by Islamic terrorists over and over again since Obama took office.  But amazingly, Obama not only denies the “Islamic” part but even the “terrorist” part, claiming all the “Allahu Akbar” screaming Muslim terrorists are actually merely perpetrators of “workplace violence.”

It’s hard to directly track how massively terrorism has skyrocketed because of the profoundly dishonest way the media reports it.  For example, I can tell you that terrorist attacks increased by 35% and fatalities due to terrorism increased 81% between 2013 and 2014.  And we keep getting these reports comparing last year to this year.  So I can tell you what this headline sums up comparing Obama’s 2015 to Obama’s 2014: “2015 Global Terrorism Index: Deaths From Terrorism Increased 80% Last Year to the Highest Level Ever; Global Economic Cost of Terrorism Reached All-Time High at US $52.9 Billion.”   So I can tell you that, under Obama, deaths from terrorism increased 81% year-to-date in 2014 and under Obama, deaths from terrorism increased another 80% year-to-date in 2015.  But good luck finding anything that tells us what has happened from the moment Obama took office compared to when Bush was president.  The media won’t give you that because we’d be screaming for Hussein’s impeachment if they did.

And you tell me what you think will happen when we compare 2016 to 2015 when that report comes out in about seven months (most likely right after the election).

Meanwhile, Barack Obama has our warriors walking around in women’s high heels. I kid you not.  Because he is not merely morally insane; he is truly evil.

Seriously, what do you think Islamic State thinks of this image:

soldiers high heels

Do you seriously NOT think this is part of their recruiting, that America is such a wicked – and WEAK – place, that even our WARRIORS are weak, pathetic, effeminate females?  They’ve been wiping our faces with FECAL matter, and we’re strutting around in women’s shoes???

For Obama, our military has nothing to DO with our defense; this man literally WANTS us defenseless as a people (hence the hatred of the 2nd Amendment) and as a nation (hence his contempt for the military).  For Obama, the military is nothing short of a cultural laboratory, where the left can impose their hateful values on a people who have signed away their liberties over to the commander-in-chief to serve their country.  Obama has cynically exploited their patriotism and forced them to do things they would NEVER have otherwise done.

So Obama has been hell-bent on imposing homosexuality and transgenderism on our military.  What has he done for our defense?  It’s best explained by Leon Panetta, lifelong Democrat and Obama appointee to head the CIA:

“Facing such large reductions, we would have to reduce the size of the military sharply. Rough estimates suggest after 10 years of these cuts, we would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history.”

Here are the facts which even the leftist Politifact acknowledges are true:

This is the lowest number of soldiers since 1940. Before the draft went into effect later that year, there were about 264,000 troops in the Army.

Turning to the Navy, there are currently 289 deployable battle force ships. According to the quadrennial review, there will be an estimated fleet of 234 ships in Fiscal Year 2019.

That is the lowest number of ships since 1915 — two years before the United States got involved in World War I.  That year, the Navy had 231 deployable ships. In 2016, it jumped up to 245 ships.

But these leftist fools precede to tell us with actual straight faces that technology never existed before Obama.  As if when Bush was president we were living in caves afraid of fire, but Obama has led our military into the glorious light such that one ship under Obama is more powerful than all the ships in the fleet under Bush.  It is ASANINE and only the worst kind of fools believe it.

Let me ask a common-damn-sense question: if the leftist thesis is true – and just one ship under Obama and one soldier under Obama and one plane under Obama is so  much more powerful than anything that Bush fielded such that we can gut our numbers, WHY IS IT THAT WE CAN NO LONGER FIGHT TWO WARS AT THE SAME TIME which we have been able to do since Reagan rebuilt the military after the LAST roach liberal gutted it???

We’ve got the worst threats facing us in all of history, and Obama’s response was to GUT a military that was the most powerful in the history of the world when he took office.

With that in mind, now let me talk about some other stuff that isn’t in my title, but it’s just such an all-encompassing trend of WEAKNESS in the face of our ENEMIES.

I haven’t even discussed all the other myriad ways that Obama has failed the world and failed America, such as his now REPEATEDLY forcing the American military to abjectly cower while Russia intimidates our once-all-powerful Navy by sending frequent Russian bombers to simulate attack runs right over them.  As I write this, Russia just flew dangerously close in an obviously aggressive and provocative manner FOR THE THIRD TIME THIS WEEK.  America is looking weak and foolish and impotent all at once.  Putin KNOWS Obama will do nothing just as the terrorists who are murdering us both here and overseas know Obama will do nothing.  And just as our dismayed former allies know Obama will do nothing.  That’s why Putin seized Georgia in 2008, when a Democrat-demonized George Bush was leaving office and Obama was on the verge of becoming president.  Obama responded with Hillary Clinton’s infamous and laughable “reset” of relations.  In other words, he didn’t respond at all other than to say, “Why not seize more territory because it’s not like I’m going to do a damn thing about it.”  And so in 2012 Obama sent signals to Putin that he would be “have more flexibility” in assuming various postures in bending over America’s foreign policy to be sodomized.  And so Putin seized Crimea.  And again, no response whatsoever.  And so now Putin is preparing to seize all of Ukraine.  Because the same kind of abject moral coward who gave us Hitler’s seizures until World War II was necessary is in office in America.

Meanwhile, in the South China Sea, China is making “acts of war” a daily event, first building an artificial island in the strategic center of the most economically powerful sea lane on earth; then placing warplanes on that island which shouldn’t exist in a sea lane that isn’t theirs to begin with, and now placing missiles on that island which places China in control of that sea lane because Obama yielded control to them.  China’s State-controlled media is officially threatening America with further acts of war, declaring that China ought to ram US ships and fire missiles in further act of war.  And they do all this because they KNOW Obama will do NOTHING.  They know Obama is an abject moral coward who doesn’t fear killing US soldiers but rather only cravenly fears his wicked, vile, treasonous liberal base turning on him.

And now China is doing the same thing all over again in a different place it has seized:

The question now is whether China is planning to build a military base in the Scarborough Shoals similar to its bases in the Spratly  Islands. Admiral Harris, head of the US Pacific command has said that China’s “complex of missile sites, fighter jets and surveillance stations based on newly constructed artificial islands will give China de facto control of the South China Sea in any scenario of war.”

According to Bonnie Glaser of the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “A base at Scarborough would have enormous significance for China, especially in combination with the other facilities they have built on Mischief Reef and Fiery Cross. The Chinese will be able to extend control over larger swaths of air space and water.” Glasser believes that the Chinese “intend to dredge at the Shoal and build another base.”

THIS is what Obama just HANDED China with little more than a whimper:

The South China Sea functions as the throat of the Western Pacific and Indian oceans — the mass of connective economic tissue where global sea routes coalesce.

Here is the heart of Eurasia’s navigable rimland, punctuated by the Malacca, Sunda, Lombok, and Makassar straits.

More than half of the world’s annual merchant fleet tonnage passes through these choke points, and a third of all maritime traffic worldwide.

We will ultimately HAVE to fight World War III because Barack Hussein Obama failed America and failed the world.  And we will fight with a diminished military from a strategically far weaker position having given up strategically-critical geography to our enemies that Obama refuses to understand are our ENEMIES.  Obama has given Russia a naval stronghold and direct access to the Black Sea and therefore the Atlantic in rebuilding its Soviet powerbase; and Obama has given China an economic stranglehold over the most prosperous sea lane on earth.

Do you remember what Obama stupidly said when he mocked Mitt Romney?:

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years….When it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s.”

You wretched, wicked FOOL.

And it will ultimately cost us millions of lives to take BACK what Obama wickedly and foolishly just gave away.  Both of these countries have now proven time and time again that they aint stopping.  And by the time we finally have a leader with the resolve to fight them we will have no other choice BUT to fight them.  Because just like Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, after our pathetic display of weakness they won’t believe we have regained our resolve to be strong.  And so we will now have to repeat the lesson of World War II all over again in terms of what happens when you give vicious dictators the perception that we won’t stop them.

Meanwhile, Obama gave terrorist state Iran $150 billion to get them to agree to a deal that was quite simply suicidal for us.  And Iran is using Obama’s money to massively increase its military arsenal including ballistic missiles from our good friends in Russia.

Thanks to Obama, we will NEVER be able to restore a United Nations embargo against Iran (Russia and China will simply veto it).  The cat is out of the bag, and it turns out the kitty is a vicious tiger bent on devouring American and Israeli flesh.

And thus Obama either intentionally if he has a scintilla of intelligence or incredibly foolishly just massively intensified an arms race in the craziest part of the world.  Again, absolutely guaranteeing that World War III WILL be fought.

Too late, the most profoundly stupid and wicked man in the history of the world seems to realize the consequences of what he has so stupidly and wickedly done:

With Russia blocking sanctions at the United Nations, the Obama administration is looking at other international avenues to rein in Iran’s ballistic missile program.

The White House insists it has all the unilateral authorities it needs to slap new sanctions on Iran for defying the spirit — if perhaps not the letter — of the UN Security Council resolution implementing the nuclear deal. That resolution “called upon” Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

Russia insists that language is not a legal prohibition, in effect ruling out more missile-related UN sanctions. But the Obama administration, eager to calm jittery lawmakers, insists it has a number of other multilateral tools outside of UN action that it can use to counter threats from Iran’s missile program.

Obama is a weakling and a coward and he can do nothing but TALK meaningless gibberish that no one is listening to.

Thomas Sowell said this back in 2010 (and I quoted him in a September 30, 2010 article titled, “On How Obama Will Damage America For Decades To Come“:

Of course, the one that trumps them all is on the international scene. That’s where Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons. I’m just staggered at how little attention is being paid to that compared to frivolous things. If a nation with a record of sponsoring international terrorism gets nuclear weapons, that changes everything and it changes it forever.

Someday historians may wonder what were we thinking about when you look at the imbalance of power between the U.S. and Iran, and we sat there with folded hands and watched this happen, going through just enough motions at the United Nations to lull the public to sleep.

Iran has threatened to withdraw from Obama’s stupid, evil, demonic deal: they got everything they wanted and all they had to give up in return was a promise that everyone who wasn’t insane knew they would break the moment it suited them.

So they tested their new missiles and they’re threatening to walk away from Obama’s deal that Obama and his Stooge of State John Kerry blathered about with so much pompous grandeur.

It’s hilarious in its own way: right after they signed this stupid agreement, Iran accounced that it had just “discovered” a massive new supply of uranium.  Surprise.

Now they feel strong because Obama MADE them strong.  And they are joining the Russian and Chinese parade to directly threaten and intimidate us with their new arsenal that Obama funded for them:

There used to be a time when the Islamic Republic showed some discretion with regards to its regional hegemonic and ideological ambitions, or skirting and breaching international laws. At least the ruling clerics of Iran preferred soft power and were more covert about these issues.

But not anymore.

Iran’s partial discretion was limited to the period before the nuclear deal was reached between P5+1 and the Islamic Republic, and before President Obama began pursuing appeasement policies with the ruling clerics in order to secure the agreement.

Currently, Iran’s blatant aggression and provocative attitude has reached an unprecedented level, ranging from launching ballistic missiles in the middle of the day, to publicly supporting Bashar Al Assad, militarily and financially, and galvanizing the Shiite proxies to engage in war.

But Iran wants more. More recently, Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff Brig. Gen. Maassoud Jazzayeri was quoted by the Fars News Agency as warning the United States to stay away from Iran’s redlines- one of which is Iran’s ballistic missiles. Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh was also quoted by the ISNA agency as stating, “The reason we designed our missiles with a range of 2000 km is to be able to hit our enemy the Zionist regime from a safe distance.” Iran has increased its short and medium-range ballistic missiles, and currently has the largest ballistic missile stockpile in the Middle East.

Just as Bush RIGHTLY warned us what would happen if a fool like Obama were allowed to destabilize – because HE is the fool who actually destabilized the world – Iraq, Bush warned the world about the nuclear threat posed by Iran.  And Democrats running for president in 2008 mocked and attacked him for it:

“DES MOINES — Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.”

I’ve been warning about the fact that Iran’s yoking of its nuclear bomb program with its ballistic missile program since 2008 when I concluded in an article:

I kid you not.  Even as the Russians are basically tearing new orifices into Georgia on an hourly basis, and setting up the toppling of a previously democratic government in favor of a puppet, Iran is busily working on developing their nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.  Given their ability to stop traffic in the oil-critical Strait of Hormuz at will, and given their penchant for terrorism and insanity, a nuclear-armed Iran is absolutely unacceptable.

If they are allowed to develop nuclear weapons and the corresponding delivery systems, Iran will be able to launch destabilizing terrorist attacks or drive up oil prices to stratospheric levels with impunity.

In January 2010 I put it this way in the conclusion of an article:

When Iran gets its nukes and the ballistic missiles to deliver them (and they are very close to both goals), the world will become a different place.  They don’t have to launch atomic Armageddon to use their nuclear weapons; all they have to do is block the Strait of Hormuz and drive up oil prices tenfold, or send out a wave of international terror attacks.  Will we go to war with them, knowing that if we do they will destroy several of our cities and kill millions of our people?

In other words, we haven’t even BEGUN to see the fruit of Obama’s failures in his “man-caused disasters.”

So Obama makes this suicidal deal with Iran THAT DIDN’T EVEN MENTION IRAN’S BALLISTIC MISSILES.  If that isn’t insane, there is no such thing as insanity.

A point which Iran has driven home: Iran mocks Obama deal with another ballistic missile test

And as I’ve already documented, the most profoundly stupid and wicked man in the history of the world finally realized the consequences of what he has so stupidly and wickedly done.  Just too damn late to matter.

Iran ALREADY HAD the uranium to manufacture when Obama came to officeCNN reported that Iran reached “nuclear weapons breakout capability” in February 2009. And by 2012, they already had enough to build at least five nuclear bombs.  What do you know, that awful George W. Bush was RIGHT and every single Democrat should scream in hell forever for how WRONG they were.  It was actually ALREADY too late when Obama “negotiated” his stupid deal that has now obviously already completely collapsed in every way it is meaningful for such an agreement to collapse.  Iran ALREADY had what it needed in terms of nuclear research.  All Iran needed at the time of this stupid deal was the intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver their nukes they could have already built at any time.  There was never any point for Iran to go all the way UNTIL they had the delivery system.  And once they get that ICBM, they will be IMMUNE from ANYTHING.  Unless an American president wants to kiss away a few – or maybe a few dozen – major American cities.

And Obama gave them $150 billion to either fund their ICBM research or just buy the damn missiles from Russia.  And what the hell is Obama going to do about it?  You know, SINCE IT’S HAPPENING RIGHT THE HELL NOW.

That’s IF the terrorists don’t detonate a nuclear bomb here first.

It truly is an amazing world we live in, isn’t it?  How there can be such massive failure and such massive treachery in reporting such failure.

 

Advertisements

Not With A Bang But A Whimper: LA Times Admits That Obama’s (And Hillary Clinton’s) Intervention In Libya Was A MAJOR Disaster

June 27, 2014

We hear all the time from liberals that George W. Bush broke the law when he attacked Iraq and that Bush turned Iraq into a hellhole with his warmongering.

It’s time to point out a few things.

Number one, no, Bush DIDN’T break the law when he attacked Iraq; he actually passed “the Iraq War Resolution” that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, etc. voted for.  And when George Bush attacked Iraq, he did what nearly sixty percent of the Democrats in the US Senate authorized him to do.  And number two, when George Bush LEFT Iraq, he left a safe, stable region that prompted Joe Biden to say:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

… and for Barack Obama to boast in 2011:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

and:

“[W]e will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists.”

Bush left behind a safe, stable Iraq.  And all Barack Obama had to do was keep a small US force there to keep safe and stable what we had fought to make safe and stable.  Obama failed as only the worst kind of FOOL can fail by ignoring his top general’s urgent warnings and pleas to keep a force in Iraq:

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Do you want to know who broke the law and then left a ruined country that is completely going to pot now?

Barry Hussein Obama, that’s who.  Even the fool’s own damn LAWYERS told him that what he was doing was illegal and criminal.  But the thug in chief was above the law.

Obama’s reckless action in Libya prompted even a DEMOCRAT to say this about false messiah Obama:

Representative Lynn Woolsey charged the President of showing “contempt” for the Constitution, and insulting the intelligence of the American people.  Woolsey made the following statement: “The Obama Administration’s argument is one that shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive’s co-equal branch of government, the United States Congress.  To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ‘hostilities’ flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  This act must not stand, because we can’t afford another full-blown war—the ones we’re already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally.  Let those who support the military campaign against Libya make their case, in an open debate culminating with a vote in the U.S. Congress.  The American people deserve nothing less.”

And yes, the criminal fascist thug Obama DID what he ACCUSED George Bush of doing when he attacked Libya without bothering to get ANY Congressional approval:

Senator Obama, taking a cheap shot at then-President Bush:

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Do you remember being attacked by Libya?  Did the Libyans invade us?  I mean, maybe I was just asleep when it happened or something.  Otherwise, Barack Obama ought to be impeached, and the single witness against him should be … Barack Obama.  Barack Obama trampled all over the Constitution according to none other than … that’s right, Barack Obama.

George Bush got Congress’ approval before BOTH of his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not only did Obama’s adventure in Libya NOT have the approval of Congress, but it also has less approval than ANY US military action in the last four decades going back to Vietnam.

And just what in the hell made our Idiot-in-Chief decide to be the first president in the sorry history of Gaddafi’s forty-plus years of abusing his own people to shake hands with the monster?

Do you see what a meandering idiot this guy is?

So having just taken that trip down memory lane, let’s see what the uberliberal leftist snot rag the Los Angeles Times has to say about the hellhole that Libya has become under Obama’s hypocritical and incompetent watch:

U.S. intervention in Libya now seen as cautionary tale
By Paul Richter,  Christi Parsons
June 27, 2014, 4:00 AM|Reporting from Washington

  • SHARELINES
    3 years after U.S. military intervention, Libya has become what U.S. officials dread most
    As the U.S. considers a limited intervention in Iraq, the experience in Libya is seen as a cautionary tale
    More than 50,000 people, including refugee and migrants, have flooded to Europe through Libya’s porous borders

A group of U.S. diplomats arrived in Libya three years ago to a memorable reception: a throng of cheering men and women who pressed in on the startled group “just to touch us and thank us,” recalled Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security advisor.

The Libyans were emotional because the U.S. and its allies had toppled leader Moammar Kadafi in a military campaign that averted a feared slaughter of Kadafi’s foes. Obama administration officials called the international effort, accomplished with no Western casualties, a “model intervention.”

But in three years Libya has turned into the kind of place U.S. officials most fear: a lawless land that attracts terrorists, pumps out illegal arms and drugs and destabilizes its neighbors.

Now, as Obama considers a limited military intervention in Iraq, the Libya experience is seen by many as a cautionary tale of the unintended damage big powers can inflict when they aim for a limited involvement in an unpredictable conflict.

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

Though they succeeded in their military effort, the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies fell short in the broader goal of putting Libya on a path toward democracy and stability. Exhausted after a decade of war and mindful of the failures in Iraq, U.S. officials didn’t want to embark on another nation-building effort in an oil-rich country that seemed to pose no threat to Western security.

But by limiting efforts to help the new Libyan government gain control over the country, critics say, the U.S. and its allies have inadvertently helped turn Libya into a higher security threat than it was before the military intervention.

Libya has become North Africa’s most active militant sanctuary, at the center of the resurgent threat that Obama warned about in a May address at West Point. A 2012 terrorist attack against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Arms trafficking from Libya “is fueling conflict and insecurity — including terrorism — on several continents,” an expert panel reported to the United Nations Security Council in February. Weapons smuggled out of Libya have been used by insurgents in Mali, by Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria and by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

More than 50,000 people, including refugees from Syria and migrants from North Africa, have flooded into Europe through Libya’s porous borders, sharpening the continent’s immigration crisis.

The latest U.S. State Department travel warning portrays Libya as a society in near-collapse, beset by crime, terrorism, factional fighting, government failure and the wide availability of portable antiaircraft weapons that can shoot down commercial airplanes.

U.S. officials, now scrambling to reverse Libya’s downward spiral, say blame rests with the Libyans who took control of a country that has proved more dysfunctional than expected.

[…]

Some observers are warning that the administration eventually may be forced to do more. A Rand Corp. report this spring predicted that if Libya’s problems continue to worsen, another NATO intervention might be required.

“Libya is a lesson about the risks,” said Robert Danin, a longtime U.S. diplomat in the Middle East who warned about the risks of ensuing chaos. “With nation-building in disrepute, there’s a tendency now to want to declare victory and move on. But interventions can’t be done neatly.”

Here’s the money quote:

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

That’s precisely what Obama did across the Middle East: he declared victory and moved on.  It’s what he did in Iraq in spite of the fact that he refused to deploy ANY security force whatsoever; it’s what he did in Libya after he bombed the country into rioting and terrorism that led to the Benghazi debacle and Obama’s cover-up of that debacle; it’s what he did in Syria after his weakness-personified “red line” and his deal with Putin that secured Assad’s power-grip and ultimately led to the rise of ISIS that is owning Obama right now.  Again and again, Obama declared victory and moved on, having done little or nothing.  He assured us that al Qaeda – which is now larger, more powerful, wealthier and controls more territory than EVER in it’s history – was “decimated” and “on the run.”  But they WEREN’T running; they were running their FLAG up over OUR embassies!!!  And Obama declared that ISIS was “JV” and that just because they dressed up in Laker’s uniforms didn’t make them Kobe Bryant.  When we can now see that it’s OBAMA who is “JV” and ISIS is looking like Kobe Bryant at the very top of his game in comparison to anything our weak president is doing.

Obama lied to you, America: you can’t eat your cake and have it, too.  We either fight to win or we lose and ultimately we die.  Those are out choices.

Whether in Iraq, or Libya, or anywhere ELSE you want to name, “worst-case scenario” is now becoming the normal state of affairs under this spectacularly failed presidency.

The point is this: Bush went on the offensive and there are those who argue that he failed.  Mind you, Bush left office with a JUST A SMALL FRACTION OF THE FORCE that Obama escalated Afghanistan into and was responsible for about a fifth of the casualties suffered in Afghanistan and HE WON IN IRAQ UNTIL OBAMA PISSED VICTORY AWAY (see also here and here).  And here for what I predicted back in 2011.

Obama’s “red line” fiasco turned into a bloodbath in Syria.  Obama’s complete withdrawal from and abandonment of Iraq turned into the largest terrorist caliphate the world has ever seen.  And it will be coming at us soon because they’ve SAID it would be coming:

[The United States] intercepted a letter written from Al-Zawahiri to the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The letter described four stages that they would engage in: drive the Americans out, establish a caliphate in Bahgdad, use that base to attack other countries, attack Israel.

And as Obama has – as a result of his “policy” – utterly abandoned the Middle East to chaos and terrorism and murder – it is now obvious that Obama has failed FAR WORSE than Bush or any other president who ever lived.

Did you notice that Susan Rice was there again, she who is Obama’s top liar of choice first in Benghazi and more recently in the Bowe Bergdahl trade-your-soul and your five captured terrorist generals for a worthless turd deal???

I also can’t help but laugh that the same damn fool president who caused such a humanitarian crisis in Libya has also caused a similar one on our very own border with his ridiculously failed morally idiotic policies.

Somehow I remember the mainstream media propaganda that is our “journalism” today going ape poop over the Bush administration prediction that “we’ll be greeted as liberators” line.  But where have they been in the three years since Obama’s reckless, criminal and incompetent action in Libya broke down all civilized structures in Libya?  NOWHERE.  Because if you’re a reporter today, you view yourself as serving your messiah Obama and the Ultimate Cause of liberalism and secular humanism.  And you are willing to lie for your god and for your cause because you believe the ends justify the means.

George Bush essentially won the Iraq War in 21 days.  That’s how long it took for the air power to cripple Iraq’s ability to wage war and for US troops to largely secure the most vital parts of the country.  The rest of it was the attempt to “build and hold.”  Obama didn’t bother with that in Libya.  Hell, he didn’t even bother with it in Iraq.  As Jonah Goldberg pointed out:

Hillary Clinton has defined leadership in a democracy as a relay race: “You run the best race you can run; you hand off the baton.” Obama was handed a baton he didn’t want, so he dropped it.

Which is to say that even by Hillary Clinton’s standard, Barack Obama was a complete, unmitigated FAILURE who screwed America horribly in Iraq.  Obama lost what had been won at great cost because he didn’t like the baton he was held and threw it away like it was a piece of trash even as he claimed credit for the victory that he was about to piss away with his abject fool stupidity.

When you secure something, you stay there to make sure it STAYS secured.  That’s one of the great lessons that we learned in Vietnam.  We would take a hill at bloody cost, like “Hamburger Hill, and then withdraw a day after we took it to allow the communists to occupy it all over again.  We learned not to do that by paying a terrible price for our stupidity.  Only to have Barack Obama UN-learn it for us so we get Vietnam all over again.

At this point I submit that there is only one thing left to try regarding the Middle East: the World War II strategy.

In World War II we did not concern ourselves with “collateral damage.”  If you were a civilian and you were sitting on a Nazi tank, too damn bad for you.

We FIREBOMBED Dresden.  We killed something like 135,000 people.

We FIREBOMBED Tokyo.  We killed about 100,000 people – nearly as many as both the two atomic bombs combined did.

We were able to do that because we were a people who had something to live for, something to fight for, and therefore something to kill our enemies for.

We HAVE to respond to terrorist attacks.  And frankly at the same time, we’re simply not prepared any more – for various reasons including sheer exhaustion – to conquer, hold and rebuild.

All that is left is to bomb the populations that allow terrorism to fester into the stone age.  And if they start to get nasty again, bomb the rubble into smaller particles of rubble.  And DON’T GO IN.  LEAVE THEM to the consequences of their evil ideology.

Turn Afghanistan into “Lake Afghanistan” if that is what it takes to end the scourge of Islamic violence.  Because at this point, if these people are going to act like cockroaches, they need to be STOMPED like cockroaches.  And we don’t need to send in troops as long as we’ve got a big enough fly swatter from the air and our naval platforms out at sea.

I truly believe that if the message – the clear, consistent message regardless of president or party – was, “If you threaten us or our interests, we will bring the fire of hell to you, to your women and to your children,” terrorism would become a lot less popular.  All these Muslims would have to see is that yes, we DO mean business and we mean it in a very painful way.  But as it is now, there is no down-side to fostering terrorism whatsoever.  We do these precise, surgical strikes to avoid actually hurting anybody.  And all our enemies have to do is put a hand-lettered sign that reads “Baby milk factory” and our destruction of a weapons-of-mass-destruction facility becomes a war crime:

One of [CNN reporter Peter] Arnett’s most controversial reports during the Gulf War was a report on how the coalition had bombed a baby milk factory. Shortly after the report, an Air Force spokesman stated “Numerous sources have indicated that [the factory] is associated with biological warfare production”. Later the same day, Colin Powell stated “It was a biological weapons facility, of that we are sure”. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater stated “That factory is, in fact, a production facility for biological weapons” and “The Iraqis have hidden this facility behind a façade of baby-milk production as a form of disinformation.”

The image of a crudely made hand-painted sign reading “Baby Milk” in English and Arabic in front of the factory, and a lab coat dressed in a suit containing stitched lettering reading “BABY MILK PLANT IRAQ” only served to further the perception that purportedly civilian targets were simply being made to look like that by Saddam Hussein, and that Arnett was duped by the Iraqi government. The sign appeared to have been added by the Iraqis before the camera crews arrived as a cheap publicity ploy. Newsweek called the incident a “ham-handed attempt to depict a bombed-out biological-weapons plant near Baghdad as a baby-formula factory.”

Arnett remained firm. He had toured the plant in the previous August, and was insistent that “Whatever else it did, it did produce infant formula”. Described as being a veritable fortress by the Pentagon[citation needed], the plant, Arnett reported, had only one guard at the gate and a lot of powdered baby milk. “That’s as much as I could tell you about it … [I]t looked innocent enough from what we could see.” A CNN camera crew had been invited to tour this plant in August 1990. They videotaped workers wearing new uniforms with lettering in English reading, “Iraq Baby Milk Plant”.

If we’re not going to fight back – and fight back like we really mean it – we truly deserve to die.

I mean, my God, you pathetic, apathetic coward herd animals, just bleat until you die like the sheep you are.

Here’s another thing: the terrorists ARE fighting for a cause that they believe is very much worth dying for.  Versus us: what the hell are WE fighting for?  Are we fighting for Obama?  Are we fighting for political correctness?  Are we fighting for the determination to not allow God or any transcendent cause whatsoever to interfere with our abortion and our homosexual sodomy???

If I had a son, I would urge him with all the passion I had not to waste his life for this country at this point.  I served, as did my father, my father, my grandfather and my grandfather’s father before me.  But we served a very different nation which did not piss in the Eye of God.

We are losing the war on terror because secular humanist liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have eradicated ANY reason whatsoever to actually fight for our own worthless lives – and if you believe in abortion your life is worthless by definition because you acknowledge that you began as the kind of thing that could have and even SHOULD HAVE been killed as a parasite or a disease – and our own worthless values.

We need to either figure out what it is that is worth fighting for in our age of secular humanism or we need to go out “not with a bang but a whimper” as the T.S. Elliot poem predicted we would.

Because in the age of Obama, a whimper is about all we’ve got.

Obama’s policy of inaction, of too-little-action-way-too-late, of bogus “red lines,” of retreat, of withdrawal, of apologizing, of weakening America and broadcasting the message of weakness to the world, has resulted in the world erupting into a firestorm that we now cannot put out with our meaningless and frankly depraved values.

Our own pathetic secular humanist values have been used against us and turned into a weapon of our own mass destruction.  We COULD fight, but as morally insane secular humanists we put on a strait jacket – and now we’re helpless while our rabid enemies are coming at us with the passion that comes from having a powerful cause that we long-since abandoned as a post-Christian culture.

And that’s why Armageddon is coming.

 

Obama’s God Damn America Is WEAK: Obama Wants To GUT Army To Weakest Level Since BEFORE World War II

February 24, 2014

Fools never learn.

Weakness is the ultimate provocation.

Barack Obama wants to superintend the final destruction of America as he economically implodes us on the one hand and leaves us weak and blind to enemy attack on the other.

Realize that what you are about to read will actually make us even worse than we already ARE.  Because under Obama only TWO BRIGADES in the US Army are actually ready to fight.  And that will be down to zero pretty damn soon.

Let me just quote it for the record: “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America.”  — Obama’s “reverend” for 23 years, Jeremiah Wright

US Army to Shrink to Pre-World War II Levels
Luis Ramirez
February 24, 2014

PENTAGON — U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has unveiled the largest cuts to the U.S. Army since before World War II.

The Obama administration has for years spoken of a need for a smaller, more agile force. On Monday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel laid out the budgetary blueprint for it.

He said this is a time for reality at the Department of Defense, which now is required to bring its budget down to $496 billion from a high of nearly $700 billion at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

“This will be the first budget to fully reflect the transition DoD is making after 13 years of war, the longest conflict in our nation’s history,” he said.

But the cuts go far beyond what the Pentagon was spending before the two conflicts.

They include slashing an entire fleet of Cold War era (A-10) attack jets – originally meant for striking Soviet tanks – and trimming the number of Army troops from the post-9/11 peak of 570,000 to between 440,000 and 450,000 – the lowest since 1940.

In addition to the Army, other services including the Marines are taking cuts.

At the same time, Hagel told reporters the Pentagon wants to continue to shift its focus to the Asia-Pacific region, and to boost special operations forces and cyber defenses.

“We chose further reductions in troop strength and force structure in every military service – active and reserve – in order to sustain our readiness and technological superiority and to protect critical capabilities,” he said.

Hagel’s recommendations come despite opposition by some generals who argue the U.S. still needs the infrastructure to be able to fight two wars at the same time. Veterans groups also oppose reductions to soldiers’ benefits.

The proposed cuts still need to be approved by Congress, where Hagel is likely to encounter stiff resistance by those who argue that such deep reductions will result in a weaker military that is unable to deal with rising threats from adversaries like China and a continuing war against militants in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia.

Everywhere you look at every turn you take and in every way you take it, Barack Obama has weakened and undermined America.

Barack Obama is a weak coward who is pathologically incapable as a rabid ideologue from doing anything other than issuing executive orders and fearmongering and demagoguing and demonizing his opposition.  He cannot lead.  He does not love America.  And he has FAILED.

What is Obama saying?  That he has decimated America’s enemies and made us safe?  As this Liar-in-Chief was saying he had decimated al Qaeda even as they were kicking our ass in Libya and raising the al Qaeda flag on U.S. territory around the world???

Obama has already fled like a coward from Iraq.  And he gave away EVERYTHING that American warriors earned in blood as a result.  He’s crawling away like a coward the same way from Afghanistan, where the Taliban and even Afghanistan’s own government openly mock us.  Again, everything America fought for and sacrificed for will be pissed away by Obama.  Obama issued his famous “red line” warning in Syria and he is a laughing stock and a poster boy for weakness and cowardice as a result.  Where is the famous deal Obama’s savior Putin arranged?  It’s gone nowhere.  While Syria’s dictator Assad has since murdered ANOTHER 100,000 of his own people since Obama displayed what a joke he is.  And now here we have Obama “warning” Russia not to send troops into the Ukraine – ON THE VERY DAMN DAY THAT OBAMA JUST STATED FOR THE WORLD THAT AMERICA IS A WEAKENING NATION THAT IS FLEEING.

Vladimer Putin has wiped Obama’s nose in his own feces every single time U.S. and Russian interests have clashed.  And Obama still thinks a weaker America will somehow give us a better bargaining position.  Because he is a weakling, a coward and a naive fool and all he understands is the rhetoric of victimhood.  And all Putin understands is the politics of strength and confrontation.

Obama’s top intelligence official James Clapper recently said this:

 “In my almost fifty years in intelligence, I do not recall a period in which we confronted a more diverse array of threats, crises, and challenges around the world.”

And what is our Fool-in-Chief’s response?  To weaken America to the most pathetic level since American weakness prompted our worst enemies to ignite a world war that cost us hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.

Russia and China, emboldened as they smell the noxious stench of Obama’s weakness, are rebuilding their militaries and modernizing their nuclear arsenals while Obama weakens our military and guts the diminishing and aging nuclear arsenal that we have.

How on earth can anybody think that we will have anything other than a diminishing influence in the world as we continue to become less and less relevant under Obama???

Obama just slapped a “kick me” sign to America’s back.  I wonder whose going to start kicking our sodomy-loving butt first?

Documents Continue To Prove What Lying Weasels Obama And His Toxic Administration Are In The Libya Attack

October 20, 2012

Barack Obama claimed that he referred to the Libya attack as an “act of terror” in a short speech he gave at the Rose Garden just before he flew off to do a fundraiser in Las Vegas.  It’s bullcrap, of course (and if memory serves, George W. Bush did NOT run off to do a fundraiser the day after the previous 9/11 attack), and as I document here, Obama HIMSELF – not to mention his entire administration – proves that he did NOT call the Libya attack a terrorist attack.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s say Obama DID call the worst terrorist attack on American soil since that last devastating 9/11 attack that the more recent one was timed to mock “an act of terror.”  You know, just before jetting off to do a fundraiser.  Let’s say that Obama DID call it an act of terror.  Then the jackass-in-chief instructed his Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice to go to all five major network political programs and repeatedly say the exact opposite.  And then Obama sent out his press secretary Jay Carney to say the exact opposite.  And then he sent out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to say the exact opposite.  And then two weeks later after being asked on both The View and on Univision whether it was a terrorist attack Obama refused to answer the question that Obama now says he’d actually already answered and instead said, “We’re still investigating.”  As bizarre and as dishonest as that is, let’s say that Obama actually DID call the attack on sovereign US territory in Libya an “act of terror.”

How in the hell would that excuse him for his abject failure of leadership that resulted in the murder of the first United States ambassador since Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe way back in 1979?  And just why the hell is it that two of the last three Democrat presidents have killed US ambassadors versus ZERO of the last three Republican presidents, anyway???

We now know for a fact that not only did murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens ask for more security – only to have the inadequate security that he had CUT by Obama – but we now that in fact Ambassador Stevens was begging for more security at least forty days before his murder.  And in fact for SEVEN MONTHS prior to this attack security professionals were telling Obama there was a very big problem in Benghazi:

Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack
By James Rosen
Published October 19, 2012
FoxNews.com

Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents — released Friday by  a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more  answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack — slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris  Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded  alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and  violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On Sept. 11 — the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed — the  ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted  “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the  part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces.  These  forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier  with local militia commanders.  These men boasted to Stevens of exercising  “control” over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed  candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya’s internal political  jockeying, “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi.”

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled  “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.”  Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time,  “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent  incidents has dominated the political landscape.” He added, “The individual  incidents have been organized,” a function of “the security vacuum that a  diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative  impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of  opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on  the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until  authorities are at least as capable.”

By Sept. 4, Stevens’ aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong  Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the  Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies  about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against  western interests.” “Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively  deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely  to continue and worsen.”

After the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised  explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that  an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had  “described the attack as targeting the Christians supervising the management of  the consulate.”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the  ambassador wrote, adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times  flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

The documents also contain evidence that the State Department’s denials of  requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to the  attack may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their  assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.

“I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot,” said Eric A. Nordstrom, the  regional security officer who testified before a House hearing last week, in a  Feb. 12 email to a colleague, “when the ambassador (Gene Cretz, at that time)  that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD (a mobile security  detachment) there and been advised that DS (Diplomatic Security) isn’t going to  provide more than 3 agents over the long term.”

“DS is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this  has severely hampered operations in Benghazi,” wrote Karen Keshap, a State  Department manager, to main State in Washington the day before. “That often  means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS (Department  of State) personnel present.  That often also means that outreach and  reporting is non-existent.”

Earlier that day, Feb. 11, a colleague of Keshap’s, Shawn P. Crowley, had  apologized to her and other officials in an email for “being a broken record” on  the subject of inadequate security in Benghazi.  Crowley added: “(T)omorrow  Benghazi will be down to two (DS) agents. … This will leave us unable to do  any outreach to Libyan nationals … and we will be extremely limited in the  ability to obtain any useful information for reporting.”

These exchanges followed a dire report to top DS officials a few days earlier  from Nordstom.  In a Feb. 1 memorandum, the officer warned that “Al-Qaida  affiliated groups, including Al-Qaida In the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), and other  violent extremist groups are likely to take advantage of the ongoing political  turmoil in Libya.  The U.S. Government remains concerned that such  individuals and groups … may use Libya as a platform from which to conduct  attacks in the region.”

By Feb. 20, Nordstrom was noting the easy access that neighborhood militias  enjoyed to “military grade weapons, such as RPGs and vehicle mounted,  crew-served machine guns or AA weapons (23mm),” as well as “AK-47s, heavy  weapons, and vehicle mounted weapons.”

In the days leading up to Sept. 11, warnings came even from people outside  the State Department.  A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis,  confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since  the revolution, I am scared.”

The documents were released by two lawmakers who have been active in probing  the Benghazi case, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House  Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.   In a letter to President Obama, dated Oct. 19 and accompanied by the  documents, the lawmakers faulted the administration both for providing  inadequate security before Sept. 11, and for allegedly obfuscating the nature of  the events on Sept. 11.

“Multiple warnings about security threats were contained in Ambassador  Stevens’ own words in multiple cables sent to Washington, D.C., and were  manifested by two prior bombings of the Benghazi compound and an assassination  attempt on the British ambassador,” the congressmen wrote.  “For this  administration to assume that terrorists were not involved in the 9/11  anniversary attack would have required a willing suspension of disbelief.”

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, in response to the latest  documents: “An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault  on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what  happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”

At the State Department briefing Friday, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined  to comment on published reports alleging that an official working for the  Central Intelligence Agency had informed the Obama administration on Sept. 12  that the Benghazi murders were an act of terrorism.

Oh, yeah, that statement from the CIA station chief in Libya WITHIN HOURS OF THE ATTACK ON THE CONSULATE that it was IN FACT A TERRORIST ATTACK.  Keep in mind that Obama had instructed his administration to blame US intelligence for his administration’s lying to the American people for more than two weeks.  Note that the VERY FIRST SENTENCE utterly refutes the White House lies that were told to the American people over and over and over again:

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.

You had to be a brain-dead dumbass (i.e., even DUMBER than a regular garden variety dumbass) not to immediately conclude that an murderous attack from three sides utilizing heavy weapons on the anniversary of 9/11 was NOT a planned terrorist attack.  And there is absolutely zero question that the White House did not want to acknowledge the disaster that they had just presided over, which is why they lied their asses off and are STILL lying their asses off.

The Watergate cover-up led to President Nixon resigning from office.  And this is so much worse than Watergate it isn’t even funny.

I am preserving here another report from ABC on the damning Stevens memos that indict and convict Barack Obama and his entire administration:

Oct 19, 2012 3:22pm
Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi
By Jake Tapper

Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have released new documents backing up claims by security personnel previously station in Libya that there was a shortage of security personnel in Benghazi.

The documents contain previously unreleased cables from Ambassador Stevens and his staff reflecting concerns about safety in the country.

The U.S. State Department did not have an immediate comment.

One signed by Stevens and titled “LIBYA’S FRAGILE SECURITY DETERIORIATES AS TRIBAL RIVALRIES, POWER PLAYS AND EXTREMISM INTENSIFY,” dated June 25, 2012, assess the increase in violence. ”From April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organizations and foreign interests,” Stevens wrote, describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, and IED at the mission in Benghazi, and RPG fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.

A Libyan government national security official told Stevens “that the attacks were the work of extremists who are opposed to western influence in Libya. A number of local contacts agreed, noting that Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya and that the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities in Derna,” a village to the east in Benghazi. Other contacts disagreed with that assessment, however.

Another cable from Stevens, titled “The Guns of August; security in eastern Libya” and dated August 8, 2012, states “Since the eve of the (July) elections, Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday.” Stevens describes the incidents as “organized, but this is not an organized campaign.” The Supreme Security Council, the interim security force, he says, “has not coalesced into a stabilizing force and provides little deterrence.”

Stevens wrote that the people of Benghazi want a security apparatus but “inherently fear abuse by the same authorities. This debate, playing out daily in Benghazi, has created the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

A cable signed by Stevens on the day of his murder, September 11, described a meeting with the Acting Principal Officer of the Supreme Security Council in Benghazi, commander Fawzi Younis, who “expressed growing frustration with police and security forces (who were too weak to keep the country secure)…”

The documents also included an “ACTION MEMO” for Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy dated December 27, 2011, and written by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. With the subject line: “Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya,” the memo states: “With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees.”

This would seem to suggest that Undersecretary Kennedy had approved a plan for five permanent security agents in Benghazi, but that never happened. It should be noted that there were ultimately a total of five Diplomatic Security Agents in Benghazi that night since there were two stationed at the Benghazi compound, and three escorted Ambassador Chris Stevens to the compound.

In a letter to President Obama, House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chair of the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations, note the Obama administration response that “two extra DS agents would have made no difference. This misses the point. These agents would have provided the added cover to fully evacuate all personnel from the compound – not just those who survived.”

One of the key conversations in the documents begins on February 11, at 5:29 pm, when Shawn Crowley, a foreign service officer at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, writes: “Apologies for being a broken record, but beginning tomorrow Benghazi will be down to two agents…We have no drivers and new local guard contract employees have no experience driving armored vehicles…”

On February 11, 1:13 pm, Regional Security Officer of the Libyan Embassy Eric Nordstrom emails State Department officials, cc-ing then-Ambassador Gene Cretz, saying he’ll try to send personnel from the Security Support Team to Benghazi. “I’ll speak with our SST personnel to se if they can free up 1 or 2 bodies for Benghazi….While the status of Benghazi remains undefined, DS” – Diplomatic Security – “is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi. That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS personnel present. That often means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.”

Norstrom notes that the British have “a 5 person team assigned to just their head of mission, so they have made a commitment to maintain a larger presence in Benghazi than the USG,” the U.S. government.

At 8:53 pm. James Bacigalupo, the Regional Director Near East Asia Bureau of Diplomatic Security DSS for the State Department, emails Nordstrom, “Call me, I am surprised at your statement that ‘DS is hesitant to devote resources as I (you) have indicated previously that has severely limited operations in Benghazi.’”

Norstrom responds on Sunday, February 12: 8:58 pm “we have had multiple times previously had no movements in Benghazi because we had only 2 DS agents on the ground. Havingno movements for upwards for 10 days severely limits operations in Benghazi. I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot when the Ambassador tells me that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD” – Mobile Security Detachment – ” there and been advised that DS isn’t going to provide more than 3 DS agents over the long term.”

Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com

Nordstrom adds at 9:00 pm: “the last time we had only 2 agents at post, suspending outside movements for approximately 10 days.”

Meanwhile, security on the ground became increasingly precarious.

A March 2012 memo (mistakenly cited as 2011) from the Research & Information Support Center titled “Progress Elusive in Libya,” based on open-source reporting, states that in late December 2011 “reports indicated that al-Qa’ida leadership in Pakistan had sent ‘experienced jihadists to Libya to build a new base of operations in the country. Between May and December 2011, one of these jihadists had recruited 200 fighters in the eastern part of the country. Documents seized in Iraq indicate that many foreign fighters who participated in the Iraqi insurgency hailed from eastern Libya. This small batch of fighters would have been dealt with quickly by a central authority, were it in place. Until a stronger national army or guard force is developed, rural Libya will remain fertile territory for terrorist groups such as al-Qai’da in the Islamic Maghreb.”

The committee also released some photographs of the Benghazi compound, before and after the attack.

Issa and Chaffetz say they’ve “been told repeatedly” that the Obama administration not only “repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels,” and did so “to effectuate a policy of ‘normalization’ in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war.”

This “normalization,” the GOP congressman write, “appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse. The administration’s decision to normalize was the basis for systematically withdrawing security personnel and equipment – including a much-needed DC-3 aircraft – without taking into account the reality on the ground. In an interview with Mr. Nordstrom, he maintained that the State Department routinely made decisions about security in early 2012 without first consulting him.” The congressmen submit ten questions for the president to answer.

-Jake Tapper

.

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

October 19, 2012

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.

FACT: Obama Regime Completely LIED About The Riots Burning The Muslim World That Prove The Obama Foreign Policy A Catastrophic Failure

September 20, 2012

As I easily document below, the official Obama position was that the violent anti-American riots that began across the Middle East (and which have now spread to 33 Islamic countries) were “spontaneous” outbursts that were – and this was what the Obama White House said – “in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people.  It is in response to a video.”

We now know that that was an outright lie.  And it is a lie that was spawned not because of any inability to understand the facts, but rather because Obama’s reelection has resulted in EVERYTHING – including American foreign policy – to be cynically and deceitfully politicized.  Obama could not face these attacks having been in any way preplanned or coordinated, because then he would have to answer for his administration’s abject failure to be able to see such attacks coming and prevent them or at least limit the damage.  Obama failed in his most basic duty to protect America and protect her territory and her interests at home and abroad.  But as a political weasel, he demanded his appointees fabricate and conflate his political interests with American foreign policy concerns.

We now know for a FACT that the very first protest (read “riot” given that they overran the walls of our American embassy and not only destroyed the grounds but took down the American flag and put up a sharia/al Qaeda flag in it’s place ON UNITED STATES TERRITORY) had absolutely NOTHING to do with the movie/video that Obama’s goons repeatedly cited:

Report: Riots Actually About Release of Blind Sheik
Alana Goodman | @alanagoodman 09.12.2012 – 2:20 PM

USA Today reports that the riot at the U.S. embassy in Cairo appears to have been planned well before the Egyptian media reported on the anti-Islam YouTube film that was blamed for sparking the protest. The protest was reportedly announced on August 30 by Gamaa Islamiyya, an Egyptian terrorist group, to call for the release of its leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman — aka the blind sheik, who is serving a life sentence for the first World Trade Center bombing:

Days of planning and online promotion by hard-line Islamist leaders helped whip up the mobs that stormed the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and launched a deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya that killed an ambassador and three others. …

The protest was planned by Salafists well before news circulated of an objectionable video ridiculing Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, said Eric Trager, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was announced Aug. 30 by [Gamaa Islamiyya], a State Department-designated terrorist group, to protest the ongoing imprisonment of its spiritual leader, Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Based on the report, it sounds like the anti-Islam YouTube video was a secondary issue — a way for Islamist leaders to stoke anger and draw more bodies out to the embassy protest. If the storming of the embassy was organized by Gamaa Islamiyya — as opposed to a spontaneous uprising — why hasn’t the State Department’s response reflected that? It’s hard to imagine they’re not aware of the group’s activities. In June, the State Department actually issued a visa to a member of Gamaa Islamiyya — again, this is a designated terrorist organization — and met with him in Washington, as part of a delegation of Egyptian leaders. During the meeting, he reportedly asked White House officials to release the blind sheik. Here was the State Department’s defense at the time, which is even more astonishing in light of the latest news:

“We neither had then, nor do we have now, any reason to believe that this particular individual — who at the time of his application was a member of parliament — would pose a threat to the United States,” [State Department spokesperson Victoria] Nuland told reporters.

Nuland pointed to rapid changes in the Middle East, where an Islamist was declared the winner Sunday of Egypt’s first democratic presidential elections a year and a half after street protests toppled strongman Hosni Mubarak.

“It’s a new day in Egypt; it’s a new day in a lot of countries across the Middle East and North Africa. So new political personalities are coming to light,” Nuland said.

“We have more folks who want to come here, want to know us, want to learn about the US, want to develop relationships with us. We have the same interest with regard to them,” she said.

Apparently State miscalculated on that “develop relationships” part.

It was previously documented that the worst attack which resulted in the murder of a US ambassador (the first time since the pathetic CARTER was president) had nothing to do with the movie/video.  I wrote on September 18:

Obama White House, State Department LIE Exposed: There Were NO Demonstrations Over Movie Clip Prior To Terrorist Attack On Consulate In Libya

An article ran on Yahoo News cuts right to the gist of the crucial issue about this story:

The Obama administration’s claim that the murderous Benghazi attack was a unpredictable byproduct of a spontaneous protest gives White House officials a short-term way to fend off media questions.

Any investigation may create a damaging pre-election scandal for the president, who touted his ability in 2008 to build peace between the United States and conflict-prone Muslim countries.

But accumulating media reports — and Libyans’ statements — suggest the administration severely underestimated the danger of jihadis in Libya, many of whom have seized weapons from the armory of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. (RELATED: Susan Rice, US ambassador to the United Nations: ‘We’re quite popular in Libya’)

It is frankly amazing that no matter how much information has come flooding out that proves the White House and the State Department completely wrong and in fact flat-out lying, they are holding to that same story nevertheless. White House Press Spokesman Jay Carney had this to say:

JAKE TAPPER: [unintelligible] that the anniversary of 9-11 would be a time when you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, there, we, are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9-11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on the precautions being taken. [crosstalk] But let’s be clear. This, these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region. [crosstalk] We don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned…attack.

More from Jay Carney:

This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.”

Obama’s handpicked U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice had this to say:

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.”

The facts scream that these people and the administration itself are simply LIARS.

There were NO demonstrations going on prior to the attack on the US Consulate in Libya, as Obama’s “cover story” demands you believe. Rather, the attack was a pre-planned and coordinated terrorist attack that displayed command and control, coordinated movement, direct and indirect fire, all in a multi-pronged and well executed attack. Oh, an attack that by “coincidence” just happened to occur on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

No demonstration before attack on US Consulate, source says
Published September 17, 2012
FoxNews.com

An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week’s attack — challenging the Obama administration’s claims that the assault grew out of a “spontaneous” protest against an anti-Islam film.

“There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous,” the source said, adding the attack “was planned and had nothing to do with the movie.”

The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG’s and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.

The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack.

“There wasn’t a single ant outside,” the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital, said in the interview.

These details appear to conflict with accounts from the Obama administration that the attack spawned from an out-of-control protest. The Libyan president also said Sunday that the strike was planned in advance.

U.S. officials, in response to the claim that there was no demonstration at the time of the attack, told Fox News there was a small protest earlier in the day — but they did not dispute that there was no significant or sizeable demonstration at the time.

But a senior Obama administration official told Fox News on Monday morning that the Libyan president’s comments are not consistent with “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community,” which has been investigating the incident, and are accordingly not credible.

“He doesn’t have the information we have,” the U.S. official said of Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif. “”He doesn’t have the (data) collection potential that we have.”

The Libyan leader told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the government in Tripoli harbors “no doubt” that the Sept. 11 attack that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was “preplanned, predetermined.” That assessment conflicted directly with the preliminary conclusion offered on Sunday by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who appeared on all five Sunday morning talk shows.

There, Rice maintained that the Benghazi incident “was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video,” and that after the protest outside the U.S. consulate gathered steam, “those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”

Asked if the timing of the Benghazi incident – the eleventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks — was simply a coincidence, the senior U.S. official said on Monday: “It is coincidental. All evidence we have points to this video being the spark of these events. In all of the intel and traffic, there was no one out there saying, ‘Oh, it’s September 11th, we must avenge…'”

The senior U.S. official added that this is “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community at this point,” and that Rice “was not out there volunteering her own opinions.”

The official also discounted as “not accurate” reports that staff at U.S. embassy in Egypt warned the State Department — in a cable purportedly sent on the afternoon of Sept. 10 — about the effect the anti-Islam video was having, and the likelihood of violent protests in Cairo, but received no response from Washington.

“There was cable traffic, involving discussion of the video and the potential for protests, the Embassy was aware,” the U.S. official told Fox News. “There were discussions about protests between the relevant agencies — intel and State — but the idea that there was no response from State is false.”

Officials at the State Department and the White House continue to express satisfaction with the cooperation they are receiving from foreign governments in the protection of American diplomats and their families. This is said to be especially the case in those instances where President Obama has reached out to foreign heads of state, namely Egypt, Yemen and Libya.

Still, the State Department over the weekend — in a shift of plans that occurred sometime after Friday evening — announced the evacuation of diplomats’ family members and “non-essential” personnel from U.S. Embassies in Tunisia and Sudan, sites of some of the most violent scenes on Friday.

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, James Rosen and Pamela Browne contributed to this report.

The president of Libya – who as president of his country would probably be surprised to learn that he has nowhere near the knowledge of what is happening in his own country than the CIA has – couldn’t have been much more clear:

“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told the liberal National Public Radio network.

Instead, the killing was a military-style attack, he said.

And if that isn’t clear enough:

On Sunday, Libya’s president refuted the White House’s claim that the Benghazi attack was a simple anti-video protest that went berserk.

“We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate,” el-Megarif said.

There are now anti-American protests going on in 33 different Muslim countries.

Anti-Obama? Yep. The mobs of demonstrators in Cairo, Egupt chanted, “Obama, Obama, there are still one billion Osamas.”

And they burned pictures of Barack Obama in effigy in cities like Karachi, Pakistan. While Obama watched lots of football. And tweeted about Beyonce and Jay-Z, you know, to show “he was in touch.”

In fact, they burned American flags and pictures of Obama pretty much all over everywhere.

It would be inappropriate for me to suggest that all Obama did while the Middle East burned was to watch football games and tweet about Beyonce and Jay-Z. He did more than that.

He also squeezed in an interview with a radio host who calls himself “Pimp with a Limp” (although he had to skip some more of those silly Daily Intelligence Briefings) to do so.

As was the phrase, “Death to America!”

I’d say that Jay Carney is about as documented a liar as you can get with his “not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people.” And both he and Susan Rice are just so full of crap and so dishonest when it comes to declaring that an obviously preplanned attack was “spontaneous” that it is beyond unreal.

Caught in so many transparent, documented lies that its beyond belief, Obama has now instructed his State Department to play his “Fast and Furious” game and refuse to answer any more questions.

The mainstream media have a plan, though: cover for their failed messiah at all costs and make sure to demonize Mitt Romney at every single opportunity.

We now now that al Qaeda in a preplanned attack – not a “spontaneous mob” that erupted as the result of some stupid cheap basically homemade movie clip – was behind the attack on the US Consulate in Libya that resulted in the targeted murder of an American ambassador.  We now even know the name of the al Qaeda terrorist who led the attack.

Obama and his entire administration lied like the vicious weasels they are.

This is now also out as a confirmed FACT: that the Obama administration had TWO DAYS OF WARNING PRIOR TO THESE ATTACKS AND DID NOTHING:

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

Everything about Obama and his failed foreign policy is just lie after lie after lie.  The entire Obama administration lied and lied and lied for an entire week in an attempt to deceive the American people to cover up their pathetic ineptness.

Obama and his supporters HAVE to lie about EVERYTHING – whether it be his failed foreign policy or his failed domestic policy – because if Democrats told the truth for once in their lives, they would lose in a landslide.

WHEN Is This Evil Clown Going To Be Done Destroying America? With An Ambassador Murdered, Obama Plans To Cut $131 Million From Embassy Security

September 17, 2012

This is just so far beyond nuts I have nothing to say aside from letting the story speak for itself:

Obama to Cut 131 Million Dollars from Embassy Security
Posted by Daniel Greenfield on Sep 16th, 2012

You have to give Obama credit, this is a man who knows how to deal with a crisis. Some nut like Mitt Romney would run around shooting Muslims from the hip, but Obama meets with his advisers and dutifully studies ways to make each and every crisis that much worse. Because that’s what good government is.

Obama’s Sequestration Plan Would Cut $1.084 Billion From The State Department’s Diplomatic And Consular Program, Including $2 Million For The Protection Of Foreign Missions And Officials, And $129 Million For Embassy Security, Construction, And Maintenance. (“OMB Report Pursuant To The Sequestration Transparency Act Of 2012,” Office Of Management And Budget, pp. 135-136, 9/14/12)

Err what do embassies need security for anyway? What are the real odds of a bunch of Muslim Jihadists deciding to carry out a series of embassy attacks timed with September 11? Also who needs 20,000 Marines, let’s cut that money and put it into Solyandra and free condoms for Catholic schools.

But that’s okay. Stop looking at the negative and focus on the positive.

I know the images on our televisions are disturbing. But let us never forget that for every angry mob, there are millions who yearn for the freedom, and dignity, and hope that our flag represents. That is the cause of America – the ideals that took root in our founding; the opportunity that drew so many to our shores; and the awesome progress that we have promoted all across the globe.

There’s a silver lining for every cloud. For every Muslim who is burning an American embassy, there’s a Muslim yearning to move to America and bomb our bars, planes and Christmas tree lighting events.

Who needs security anyway?

Do you know who DOES get a full security detail?  Obama’s political adviser.  For the first time in history.  Because unlike Chris Stevens, Valerie Jarrett is trying to get Obama reelected.  And that makes her important.

I’m guessing that Ambassador Christopher Stevens would vote differently, if he could vote:

Fortuntely for Obama, Christopher Stevens can’t vote any more.  Because he’s too dead to vote.

He’s the first US ambassador to be murdered since … get ready for this: since the damn CARTER ADMINISTRATION:

Before Tuesday, five U.S. ambassadors had been killed in the line of duty, the last being Adolph Dubs in Afghanistan in 1979, according to the State Department historian’s office.

Because the lesson of history is that abject pathetic weakness invariably repeats itself.

An American ambassador who had been forced to flee American territory because there was no protection was raped before he was murdered.  Then his body was dragged through the streets in shame.  Not his shame – mine.  Yours.  America’s.

All of the above happened because Obama’s State Department rules banned the Marines from being in Libya.  Which was why all Ambassador Stevens had to protect him was magic unicorn fairy Obama messiah powder.  Like his country, he needed hope and change in the worst way and Obama failed to deliver.

But don’t worry.  Obama had his State Department working overtime to scrub their website of evidence of what a pathetic fool he is.  And the mainstream media worked even harder to demonize Mitt Romney for speaking out about what a gutless piece of filth Obama was instead of bothering to report any of the damn story.

As Obama’s Foreign Policy Completely Melts Down Two Months Before Election, Desperate Mainstream Media Propagandists Gang Up To Slander Romney Statement

September 14, 2012

The most blatant way the mainstream media engages in bias is their answer to the question, “What is news?”  Because their answer INVARIABLY undermines conservatives and strives to support liberals.

As an example, what was the story two days ago?  Was the story about a planned, coordinated attack on the US consulate in Libya that resulted in four Americans (including the United States Ambassador) being murdered?  Was the story about the fact that Obama had information about the attack plans on the US Consulate in Libya for 48 hours and did NOTHING? Was the story about a coordinated mob of AstroTurf Muslims overrunning the United States Embassy in Cairo, Egypt while Egyptian security forces conveniently vanished, with the United States flag torn down and desecrated and replaced with a flag that al Qaeda has flown?  Was the story about how on Obama’s watch and just two months before he comes up for reelection the name “Osama bin Laden” is now written on the United States Embassy entrance or how under Obama that entrance now states, “There is no God but Allah”?  Nope.  The media says that wasn’t the story.

Obama demagogued Mitt Romney for “shooting and then aiming.”  In an eery repeat of Jimmy Carter before the American people fired his incompetent ass.  Read this to see HOW eerily similar Obama is to the failed Jimmy Carter.

Do you know what they say the story was?

Let’s look at what all the journalists from all the various media outlets coordinated with one another to make sure that Mitt Romney would get attacked no matter who he picked (we know know the CBS reporter was Jan Crawford and she was sharpening knives with NPR correspondent Ari Shapiro):

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: …pointing out that the Republicans… *unintelligible* …Obama….

CBS REPORTER: That’s the question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: *unintelligible*

CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?

CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on…

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*

CBS REPORTER: You can’t say that..

**Later**

CBS REPORTER: I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?

And so, sure enough, the story, the “news”, was NOT about the meltdown of Obama’s entire foreign policy which had famously even been criticized by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden during the 2008 Democrat primary race.  The “news” was NOT that for more than nine hours the ONLY official American statement coming from the United States government was this:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

 Now, that statement is so gutless, so cowardly, and frankly so un-American that it is beyond unreal.  And THAT was the ONLY official statement for half a damn day after it was issued.  Note that it literally agrees with the people who are attacking American soil by climbing over the walls of our embassy and tearing down our flag and burning it.  Note that it decries not the despicable ACT-OF-WAR actions of the Egyptians but rather an American who is practicing his constitutionally (at least up to now) right to free speech.

I note that that official statement from the US Embassy in Cairo was so despicable that it has since been taken down “like it never even happened.”  The Daily Caller, in citing the statement by the embassy, provides the official link The Obama cowards who run the government have now scrubbed that link so the statement is no longer officially available.  Nothin’ to see here, folks.  Because under Obama the 1984 “Ministry of Truth” is now itself a truth.  That’s how despicable that statement was.

The “news” was not about the fact that Obama denounced the same statement that had motivated Mitt Romney to come out as the White House finally – FINALLY!!! – issued a statement saying that the Embassy had not cleared the statement before issuing it.

I provide the timeline in an article here that itself has PLENTY to slam about Obama’s pathetic failure.  At the time Romney spoke the embassy statement above was the only official US government statement.  As you can see by looking at the timeline, the initial embassy statement came out around noon EST, and there had been no other statement other than a subsequent statement from the embassy confirming its initial gutless statement documented above.  Romney’s statement came out at 10:25 pm EST; Obama disavowed that embassy statement – 11 hours after it had been issued – at 11:04 pm EST.  And then at 12:11 AM EST the very same Obama who disavowed the statement that Romney attacked and the very same Obama who purged the despicable thing from the internet has the tiny little balls to demonize Mitt Romney for being the first man who wants to be president to repudiate it.

So Mitt Romney comes out and attacks a despicable, weak, pathologically gutless statement that had been the ONLY official statement for half a day while Obama continued to campaign.  And the mainstream media want to make the story – the “news” – about Mitt Romney being the only man to show any kind of presidential leadership whatsoever.  Particularly given that since Romney made the statement, his prescience has only been confirmed.  Because the disaster that he correctly saw on Tuesday is FAR, FAR worse than any of these insipid liberal turds thought it was.  We’ve got the murder of an American ambassador. 

Now, when you consider the fact that an AMERICAN AMBASSADOR WAS MURDERED IN A PLANNED ATTACK, does that statement from the United States Embassy in Cairo look strong or does it look WEAK????  Do you know that information and STILL think that we ought to be criticizing an American citizen for exercising his right to make a stupid Youtube video or do you think that maybe some outrage to be directed at the murderers of our ambassador???

As stated, we now know that the Youtube film had NOTHING to do with the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya where our ambassador and four other Americans were murdered.  We now know that what happened was a deliberate, planned, carefully coordinated attack timed to correspond with the 9/11 anniversary that employed the AstroTurf mob as a diversion.  And we now know that Libyan government officials were complicit in the murder of the US ambassador and literally told the murderers where to find him after he relocated to escape the compound.

Does that development make the embassy statement that Romney rightly attacked look bolder, or does that development make it look all the more gutless and cowardly???  Which one???

For the mainstream media to try to make the story about Mitt Romney – who again exercised LEADERSHIP – in attacking the utterly indefensible – is the most blatant and most snivelling and most desperate act of media propaganda that I have ever seen.  And you can search over my blog and see that I’ve documented a BUNCH of media propaganda.

This was Mitt Romney’s statement on a statement from the US Embassy in Cairo that became official Obama policy by his sheer failure to issue anything to replace it with:

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Now, who should have come out and issued a statement immediately denouncing that gutless, weak, frankly un-American statement from the US Embassy in Cairo?  It should have been the president.

But instead it was Mitt Romney who exercised presidential leadership.  But the media chose to attack him in a coordinated “gotcha” moment with the pretense and pretext that somehow unlike candidate Obama when HE was running for president Romney doesn’t have the right to criticize the president’s foreign policy.  THAT is what the media chose to focus on to make “the news.”

Did they make the news about the fact that Obama chose to continue campaigning as if nothing had happened?

Obama’s Going to Las Vegas
By Fred Lucas
September 12, 2012  

(Update: In a second schedule update issued around 10:42 a.m. on Wednesday, the White House indicated that President Obama would continue with his campaign trip to Las Vegas after issuing a statement on events in Libya and Egypt in the Rose Garden.

The only change in the updated schedule is this: “Shortly after (the Rose Garden statement), the President and Secretary Clinton will visit the State Department in Washington, DC. This visit is closed press.” The updated schedule still states that “In the afternoon, the President will depart the White House en route Las Vegas, Nevada.”)
 
(CNSNews.com) – On the day after the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, the White House on Wednesday morning released a schedule showing that President Obama would continue with his planned campaign trip to Las Vegas.
 
Before he leaves, the schedule indicated, Obama will “deliver a statement” in the White House Rose Garden at 10:35 a.m., the White House said.

As bad as that is, even THAT story turns out to fail to reflect just how cynical and disinterested Obama is in the unfolding disaster involving our embassies/consulates in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and all across the Middle East.  Because it turns out that Obama chose to skp the intelligence briefing, too:

Unreal: On Day Following Libya Assassinations, Obama Skips Another Intel Briefing
Guy Benson, Political Editor, Townhall.com
Sep 13, 2012 03:11 PM EST

Is anyone surprised by this revelation? Our Commander Campaigner-in-Chief has made his priorities crystal clear:

How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States. According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.

On Monday the same Washington Post columnist, Marc Thiessen, reported that the president has missed 62 percent of his daily in-person intel briefings in 2011 and 2012. President Bush almost never missed a briefing after 9/11. I recognize that a president’s schedule is extremely demanding, especially in the teeth of a campaign, so passing on these meetings occasionally would be understandable. I cannot, however, fathom how the president could justify canceling and not re-scheduling his intelligence briefing the day after an active US Ambassador was murdered in the line of duty, and as an international crisis continues to spread. The White House offers a two-fold defense on this: First, make snide remarks about President Bush, then insist that Obama is so sophisticated that he doesn’t need experts to brief him:

As the article title says, this is positively UN-FREAKING-REAL. 

Why isn’t THAT the “news”???  Other than the fact that this is the most propagandistic media since Joseph Goebbels ran the “news” for his buddy Adolf???

Here are some MORE “Why isn’t THAT ‘news'” questions:

Why isn’t it “news” that NO Marines were guarding the United States Consulate in Libya where US Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WERE DOCUMENTED AND CREDIBLE THREATS??? 

Why isn’t it “news” that Obama’s and Hilary Clinton’s State Department had forbidden the Marines at the United States Embassy in Cairo, Egypt from carrying live ammunition – again, in spite of documented and credible threats???

Why isn’t it “news” that due to Obama’s pathetic failure to protect American assets in spite of documented and credible threats, a US Ambassador was raped BEFORE being murdered???

Why isn’t it “news” that the safe house that the ambassador fled to devoid of any Marine guard???  Not that it would have mattered if they couldn’t have live ammo.

Whyisn’t it “news” that Egypt warned Obama on September 4 of an attack against the US Embassy???

Why isn’t it “news” that Obama said that Egypt – a country that had been an ally for going on forty damn years before Obama toppled Mubarak – was no longer a US ally?

President Obama says the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian government an ally, “but we don’t consider them an enemy.”

Why isn’t it “news” that the US State Department almost immediately issued a correction saying the president of the United States is an idiot fool and that yes, Egypt is in fact contrary to what the dumbass in chief said, an “ally.”

(CNSNews.com)  State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confirmed that Egypt remains a U.S. ally, despite a statement from the White House that the country is not an ally.

“Yes,” Nuland said during a news conference Thursday, when asked if Egypt was still a U.S. ally.

Why isn’t it news that the Obama Administration frantically tried to put their idiot president’s babbling tongue back into his fool head by doing their own blathering and saying:

“‘Ally’ is a legal term of art.”

The distinction by the White House was so byzantine in trying to argue that Obama WAS TECHNICALLY NOT AN IDIOT that their own language would rule out ISRAEL as an ally:

As Politico’s Byron Tau points out, that would mean other designated major non-NATO allies — including Israel — aren’t technically “allies,” at least according to Obama’s “legal term of art” definition. Complicating matters further is the fact that the term “ally” is in the title of the designation.

Which makes the entire White House idiots.

Why isn’t the Obama acts of dhimmitude (his apologize for America tour, his bowing down before the King of Saudi Arabia, and his increasing the payment to Egypt to $2 billion a year AFTER that country elects the Muslim Brotherhood, and his refusing to cut off that aid even as they openly piss on America “news”???

The MSM had over ten minutes of “coverage” on the “wrongness” of Mitt Romney’s statement versus 20 seconds of “analysis” of Obama’s Middle East policy, Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center reported last night on Hannity.  It is beyond amazing.

The US embassies in Egypt, in Libya, in Yemen, and in much of the Arab world were well-known to be particularly at risk during the period around the 9/11 anniversary.  But Obama was too damn busy campaigning to protect them.  He was too damn busy campaigning to bother to show up at critical intelligence briefings after they were attacked.  We find that Obama was instrumental in the undermining and overthrow of American ally Hosni Mubarak and that he stupidly declared first that the Muslim Brotherhood would not take over and later that it would not be a bad thing that they had.  Which is to say that the REAL “news” is that Obama should be wearing this ensuing disaster like an albatross around his skinny little weasel neck.

THAT would certainly be the story if George Bush or any Republican were president.  And it would be the story if the mainstream media hadn’t become a pathologically dishonest propaganda machine.

While all this is going on, Obama has refused to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu – and then lied about refusing to meet with him – during a period when Israel is just about to be forced to attack Iran because Obama failed to deal with their nuclear program in any way, shape or form.

I remember well when Obama was constantly demonizing Bush as “the bogeyman” on the one hand and constantly promising that under his messiahship there would be “a new beginning” on the other.  Obama was going to make our enemies love us with his lofty words by repudiating the Bush doctrine of confrontation through strength against America’s enemies.  It’s past time to ask as we look at the entire world erupt into flames how that messianic Obama doctrine is working.  It sure doesn’t seem like it to me.

The Cowardice And Dysfunction Of Obama On Prominent Display As A United States Ambassador Is MURDERED And The Obama Administration APOLOGIZES

September 13, 2012

Why the hell did Obama not place our embassies on high alert prior to the anniversary of 9/11?  Does it have anything to do with the FACT that Obama doesn’t bother to attend more than half of his intelligence briefings???

I reported the facts as they became available yesterday.  The facts are far, FAR worse than the initial reports suggested.  We heard yesterday that an American may have been killed in Libya; make that FOUR Americans INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR.  Second, the report was that the attacks were the result of a video that was produced by an American in America exercising his rights to free speech.  That is now known to be false; as there is simply no way the incredibly coordinated attack on the US consulate in Libya could have been pulled off without careful advance planning (see also here and here).  Even the damn MOB was part of the plan, with the terrorist attackers using it as a diversion.  The planning was so extensive, in fact, that the Libyan government itself is now implicated; and further in the aftermath of the attack, it is now being reported that Libyan intelligence officials who should have been protecting the ambassador were instead tipping off the terrorists to the ambassador’s new location after he fled (see also here and here).

What I reported about Barack Obama = Jimmy Carter STANDS:

I’m trying to remember if anything like this ever happened before: our embassy being attacked and overran, our economy in the toilet, and a pathetic failed Democrat president doing nothing. Does that bring back any memories? Hmmm:

The timeline is astonishing.  Notice the pathetic weakness of initial responses by the Embassy – which is under the control of the White House – and then by the White House itself.  Notice also that Mitt Romney denounced those responses and that AFTER THAT the White House issues an “us too” walkback of the previous statements.  Notice also the initial statements condemned the free speech of an American citizen far more than they denounced the acts of violence which resulted in the murder of four Americans including a US Ambassador:

September 12, 2012, 1:29 PM
Who Said What: Timeline of Statements on Libya, Egypt Attacks
By Danny Yadron

Here is a timeline of the news reports, official statements and Twitter posts regarding the attacks on the Cairo, Egypt, embassy and Benghazi, Libya, consulate. All times are EDT.

Tuesday midday: Hours before protests escalated at embassies in Cairo and Benghazi, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued a statement that appeared to condemn an anti-Islam movie promoted by Florida pastor Terry Jones, whose previous burning of Qurans sparked deadly protests. “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions,” it said in part.

Tuesday afternoon: The Cairo embassy stands by its original statement. “This morning’s condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy,” it posts on Twitter. That post has since been deleted but has been preserved on sites including Buzzfeed and Twitchy.

Tuesday 4:29 p.m.: After the Cairo embassy’s Twitter account acknowledged that “protestors breached our wall and took down flag,” it posted this string of Twitter posts: “1) Thank you for your thoughts and prayers. 2) Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this. 3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry. An example:

2) Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this.

Shortly before 7 p.m. ET Tuesday: Wire services report that one American official was killed in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Shortly after 10 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirms that a U.S. official was killed in Libya.

Tuesday 10:10 p.m.: Mitt Romney’s campaign emails reporters a statement, embargoed for midnight. “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” the Republican presidential candidate said. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

10:25 p.m.: Romney campaign lifts embargo on the statement.

11:04 p.m.: The White House distances itself from the Cairo embassy’s original statement, telling ABC News, “no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government.”

Wednesday 12:11 a.m.: President Barack Obama’s campaign spokesman emails reporters: “We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.”

Around 5:30 a.m.: Wire services report that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was killed Tuesday in a mob attack. In all, four Americans are reported dead in the attack, which is later confirmed by the State Department.

Around 7:22 a.m.: White House emails out statement from the president on the attack in Benghazi. It reads in part: “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

10:20 a.m.: In televised remarks, Mr. Romney stands by his criticism of the White House’s handling of the administration, noting that U.S. embassies are part of the administration.

10:44 a.m.: In Rose Garden remarks, Mr. Obama, with Mrs. Clinton at his side, condemns Libya attacks in “strongest terms.”

If you don’t see how convoluted and weak the U.S. response to this was, you are plainly and simply a moral and an intellectual idiot.

I pointed MONTHS AGO that Barack Obama 1) took credit for the ouster of Mubarak – who happened to be the strongest ally of the U.S. and of Israel in the entire Middle East:

Let’s not forget that Barack Obama took complete credit for the Arab Spring and the Mubarak exit by rushing out to put himself right in the middle of it. The left cheered Obama for his messianic leadership:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, gentlemen, I’m a little bit jubilant right now, a little bit frisky so I’ll say something that will bother people. But if you have, a lot of the people in this country think the President of the United States is Muslim, which he’s not, he’s Christian. They think he’s foreign born, which he’s not, he’s American born. But they have this attitude about him, the people on the right a lot of them, right? And here he is, and he comes into office, and this jubilant situation in Eqypt, with the first time in our lives we get to see people from the Arab world in a very positive democratic setting. Not as terrorists or not as people fighting Israel, or whatever. Not mouthing epithets against the West, but people like us.

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Right, celebrating.

MATTHEWS: In a way it’s like it took Obama to have this happen, or it’s just so serendipitous.

“It took Obama to have this happen.” Praise him! Worship him! Our blessed messiah! Of course, a lot of people – like Israelis – were arguing from the outset that “this” actually wasn’t a good thing. At all. Conservatives like Sean Hannity predicted from the very outset that the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists were going to take control of Egypt – just as they did.

But who cares about reality? Praise Obama! Praise him! Worship him!

Honk if you think that Chris Matthews is going to point out that what is happening now is the result of Obama the way he was claiming glorious credit for Obama for the same damn terrorist regimes taking over above.  And honk twice if you think that the pathological liberal hypocrite liar somehow won’t bother to mention Obama being responsible.

But Obama didn’t just take credit for Mubarack being gone.  He did much more.

Obama also 2) assured the American people that the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood was going to be a force for peace and that what was going on in Egypt would turn out swell for America:

Obama also erroneously massively downplayed the role that the Muslim Brotherhood would come to have (you know, unlike Sean Hannity and a lot of other conservatives who were RIGHT):

Mr. Obama downplayed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could take power and install a government hostile to U.S. interests.

I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don’t have majority support in Egypt but they are well organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti U.S., there is no doubt about it,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama said he wanted a representative government in Egypt that reflected the country’s broader civil society.

The fool was wrong, wrong, WRONG about that:

Though the current upheavals in the Middle East were not initiated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist parties in Egypt, as in Tunisia and Libya, have been the chief beneficiaries of the collapse of long-standing authoritarian repressive regimes across North Africa.

In Egypt itself, the two largest Islamist groups, the Brotherhood and the Salafists, won about three-quarters of the ballots in the second round of legislative elections held in December 2011, while the secular and the liberal forces took a battering.

The Brotherhood, an organization founded by Egyptian schoolteacher Hassan el Banna back in 1928, has never deviated from its founder’s central axiom:

“Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Koran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

It is this radical vision, which animates all those in the region who seek a fully Islamic society and way of life.

The Muslim Brotherhood has always been deeply anti-Western, viscerally hostile to Israel and openly anti-Semitic — points usually downplayed in Western commentary on the “Arab Spring.”

In spite of the fact that Obama was actually giving aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama demanded that America give a billion dollars in aid to Egypt. You know, to the country that is now using RAPE in its war on women.

And now the same fool is making the same mistakes in Syria.

First of all, do you remember the justifications for going to war over Libya, which also aint working out that great? We were told that “Barack Obama’s war in Libya bears the intellectual imprint of Samantha Power.” And what was that “intellectual imprint”? This:

“She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”

That’s just GREAT. So Obama went to war with Libya to remove a dictator who threatened to kill his own people but has refused to go to war with a dictator who has ACTUALLY murdered over fourteen thousand of his own people. But apparently radical liberal Obama is on the same page as doctrinaire liberal Barbara Walters – because they’re both helping this vicious dictator.

Libya has not worked out very well. At all. Aside from the fact that Libya has descended into complete anarchy, there is the fact that terrorists have used that anarchy to turn Libya into another Afghanistan/Yemen-style haven.

Oh, and Obama also supported and trained Egyptian activists to undermine and overthrow Mubarak. Just to complete the picture of who supported all these rapes that are now going on.

Like I said, Obama was, is, and will continue to be, a fool.

Here’s another clear proof that Obama supported the terrorists who are now stabbing us.  From the LA Times:

U.S. open to a role for Islamists in new Egypt government
But the Muslim Brotherhood must renounce violence and support democracy, the White House says.
January 31, 2011|By Paul Richter and Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington — The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government. […]

Conservatives almost unanimously said this would lead to disaster.  And we were right.  The Muslim Brotherhood president Muhammad Morsi blew his dog whistle and ginned up a riot that overran our walls.  The Muslim Brotherhood terrorist regime government KNEW this was about to happen and did NOTHING:

The Egyptian government knew the time of the demonstration and the participants — it was all publicly announced — yet Egyptian security forces did not protect the embassy. And so the demonstrators scaled the wall, entered the compound, tore up the American flag, and put up the historic revolutionary flag of Islam (the eighth century black one, not the seventh century green one) in its stead. Why didn’t Egyptian security forces stop them? It was a deliberate decision no doubt taken at the highest level.

For over nine hours after the fecal matter hit the rotary oscillator, the ONLY statement from the Obama administration was that initial statement from the embassy apologizing for and expressing regret that the United States is a nation that allows free speech.

By the way, prior to the Egyptians hearing the Muslim Brotherhood Government blowing a dog whistle and calling hundreds of Muslims to overrun the United States Embassy and desecrate and burn the American flag, we actually had Christians being beheaded ON NATIONAL EGYPTIAN TELEVISION under this same government.  And the Brotherhood that Obama welcomed is now literally CRUCIFYING its opponents.

Syria has continued to degenerate to an astonishing degree under this Obama turd administration.  Over 31,000 civilians are now DEAD in Syria.  And what has the “Arab Spring” president who took so much credit for the destruction of the Egyptian pro-Western and pro-Israeli government and the end of the Libyan regime done about it?  Where is Samantha Powers and her “liberal, even radical, values” now???

Now, let me address Mitt Romney getting demonized by the Obama administration and by the Obama propaganda mainstream media machine.  First of all, OBAMA HIMSELF ultimately drove the bus over the very same statements that Romney had attacked.  So the media getting all sanctimonious about Romney being the FIRST guy who wants to be president in 2013 SHOWING LEADERSHIP is a sick joke.  Four Americans, including a US ambassador, are murdered as two US embassies are attacked.  Our flag is torn down and desecrated.  We apologize and that apology is the only thing that the United States officially says for half a day.  And Romney isn’t supposed to decry that???  To make that sick joke even sicker, though, find just ONE area that Barack Obama didn’t demonize about the Bush presidency policies when it was OBAMA who was running for president.

Again, to be a liberal is to be a pathological hypocrite.  Which is made particularly clear given that the “objective” media was literally caught on tape coordinating their questions with one another in order to frame a narrative in a clear attack on Mitt Romney.

Why is it that Christians get mocked all the time – with the most offensive cartoons imaginable being directed against their Lord – and somehow they have the dignity to not start murdering innocent people???

Meanwhile, while all of this disgrace and abject failure to lead – when he isn’t leading America into DISASTER – on the part of Obama is going on, WE ARE GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO AN ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN AND OBAMA REFUSES TO MEET WITH ISRAELI P.M. NETANYAHU!!!

Muslims Overrun US Embassy In Cairo, Replace US Flag With Al Qaeda Flag. Also Overrun US Consulate In Libya. Obama Apologizes As American Is Murdered

September 12, 2012

God damn America is starting to fall apart.  And all this on the anniversary of 9/11 in the world that Obama “fundamentally transformed” after that evil Bush:

Egyptian Protesters Climb Walls Of U.S. Embassy, American Flags Taken Down And Replaced With Black Al-Qaeda Flags – Update: Obama Admin Condemns Individuals Who “Hurt The Religious Feelings Of Muslims”…

Keep in mind these are the same protesters Obama backed during the Arab Spring uprising against Mubarak.

Via CNN:

Angry protesters climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and hauled down its American flags, replacing them with black flags with Islamic emblems.

The incident prompted U.S. security guards to fire off a volley of warning shots as a large crowd gathered outside, apparently upset about the production of a Dutch film thought to insult the Prophet Mohammed, said CNN producer Mohammed Fahmy, who was on the scene.

An embassy operator told CNN that the facility had been cleared of diplomatic personnel earlier Tuesday, ahead of the apparent threat, while Egyptian riot police were called to help secure the embassy walls.

Update: More pictures.

Update: Insanity rules the day. From the State Department’s Egyptian embassy website:

Here’s one more of Old Glory going down in humiliation with the al Qaeda flag being raised:

But don’t worry, anybody.  Obama raced out to immediately apologize for our embassy being an offensive symbol of a hated Great Satan State:

Let’s look at that statement again:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

BEFORE Obama’s sincere apology to the Muslims that just stormed our embassy and burned our flag, here is what had occurred:

The statement comes after a mob of Egyptians climbed the walls of the embassy and tore down the American flag. Reuters reports:

Egyptian protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and pulled down the American flag during a protest over what they said was a film being produced in the United States that insulted Prophet Mohammad, witnesses said.

In place of the U.S. flag, the protesters tried to raise a black flag with the words “There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger”, a Reuters reporter said.

Once the U.S. flag was hauled down, protesters tore it up, with some showing off small pieces to television cameras. Then others burned remains.

This movie must be banned immediately and an apology should be made … This is a disgrace,” said 19-year-old, Ismail Mahmoud, a member of the so-called “ultras” soccer supporters who played a big role in the uprising that brought down Hosni Mubarak last year

Don’t worry.  Nobody apologizes for America’s sins better than Obama.  Primarily because he agrees with the people who say we are so damn evil.  It’s important that terrorists have more rights to attack our embassies than that American citizens in the US should have free speech.

You don’t think Obama is going to apologize to me if I’m offended by what the Egyptians did and storm their embassy and piss on their flag before burning it, do you?  Oh, it only works in one direction, and Obama’s apologies are only for those who hate America.

I’m trying to remember if anything like this ever happened before: our embassy being attacked and overran, our economy in the toilet, and a pathetic failed Democrat president doing nothing.  Does that bring back any memories?  Hmmm:

At least Jimmy’s a happy man right now:

There are reports that an American has been killed at the US Consulate in Libya.

I sure hope Obama has a good apology for the Libyans.  How dare Americans think they should have the right to breathe on what international law defines as U.S. soil?  I mean, dang, we should thank them for not murdering more of us. 

Wasn’t the world a dark and evil place when Bush was president?  And didn’t Obama heal the planet?  That was the damn rhetoric we kept hearing from Democrats.

I was mocking that lie almost immediately after Obama took office.  Another guy beat me to the punch by mocking Obama’s asinine rhetoric even before the future abject disgrace took office.  And the sheer idiocy of the “Obama as world transformer” has become a more and more ridiculous lie ever since.

Everything – and I mean ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING – Obama promised was a lie from the devil.