Posts Tagged ‘security’

Once Again, We Find That Hillary Clinton Belongs In PRISON For Treason And Corruption – As Does Much Of The Obama Administration

December 2, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s emails once again show how truly treasonous and corrupt this woman is and how beyond dishonest and corrupt Democrats have become.

Here is the new story out on how the State Department is doing damn near everything it can to cover-up for Hillary Clinton’s CRIMINAL behavior:

Sources: Clinton email markings changed to hide classified info
By  Catherine Herridge
·Published September 01, 2015
· FoxNews.com

At least four classified Hillary Clinton emails had their markings changed to a category that shields the content from Congress and the public, Fox News has learned, in what State Department whistleblowers believed to be an effort to hide the true extent of classified information on the former secretary of state’s server.

The changes, which came to light after the first tranche of 296 Benghazi emails was released in May, was confirmed by two sources — one congressional, the other intelligence. The four emails originally were marked classified after a review by career officials at the State Department. But after a second review by the department’s legal office, the designation was switched to “B5” — also known as “deliberative process,” which refers to internal deliberations by the Executive Branch. Such discussions are exempt from public release.

The B5 coding has the effect, according to a congressional source, of dropping the email content “down a deep black hole.”

The four mails are separate and distinct from another group of emails identified by the Intelligence Community Inspector General as containing two messages with “Top Secret”  information.

A congressional source told Fox that a July 23rd letter to Congress from the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community made passing reference to the incident in the recommendations “…that State FOIA officials implement a dispute resolution process in regard to differences of opinion about classification levels and exemptions. State has not yet provided sufficient information for us to close this recommendations.”

According to recent congressional testimony, at least one of the lawyers in the office where the changes were made is Catherine “Kate” Duval, who was at the IRS during the Lois Lerner e-mail scandal and now handles the release of documents to the Benghazi select committee. Duval once worked for the same firm as Clinton’s private attorney David Kendall.

Fox News is told there were internal department complaints that Duval, and a second lawyer also linked to Kendall, gave at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest during the email review. A State Department spokesman did not dispute the basic facts of the incident, confirming to Fox News the disagreement over the four classified emails as well as the internal complaints. But the spokesman said the concerns were unfounded.

The whistleblowers told intelligence community officials that they did not agree with the B5 changes, and the changes had the effect of shielding the full extent of classified content on the server. The incident was referenced in a Washington Times report mid-August, but this is the first time fuller details have been available. Because the emails are now marked B5, or deliberative, it is impossible to know the content and relevance to the congressional and FBI investigations.

The internal State Department disagreement was so significant that it rose to the level of Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy, who is deeply involved in the email controversy, as Clinton’s server arrangement required his formal signoff or tacit approval. Asked who signed off on the private server on Tuesday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, “I personally don’t know.”

Conservative group Judicial Watch, which has more than a dozen civil suits in federal courts, is now seeking a deposition of Kennedy in a case scrutinizing Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s controversial status as a special government employee (SGE). “All these issues fall under his responsibility,” Judicial Watch investigator Chris Farrell said.

Asked to respond to the allegations, State Department spokesman John Kirby said, “the Department has complete confidence that its attorneys — who are almost exclusively career Department lawyers — perform to the highest professional and ethical standards, including in connection with the review and release of Secretary Clinton’s emails.” A State Department official added that the lawyers do not have the final say on the codes, emphasizing it is a “multi-step review.”

On the appearance of a conflict of interest, Kirby defended Duval as “an exceptional professional and has the Department’s utmost confidence … No one at the Department should, in addition to this burden, have her integrity or her excellent work ethic impugned.”  And on the connection to Clinton attorney Kendall, “the mere fact of working at a firm does not itself constitute a conflict of interest.  This is a large firm, and we are not aware that any counsel working on Clinton-related matters at the Department did so prior to joining the Department.”

A search of this week’s 7,000-page release found 694 emails with the B5 coding, about 10 percent of the total.

Fox News’ Pamela Browne contributed to this report.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

What’s funny, to begin with, is how the State Department is refusing to deal with the media and saying they’re only going to cooperate or talk with Congress WHILE AT THE SAME TIME DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM SEEING ANYTHING.

Now “the most transparent administration in history” is actively and openly trying to dump as much evidence of their wrongdoing as possible down a bureaucratic “black hole” to prevent ANY transparency or accountability whatsoever.  Obama is actually in point of fact WORSE THAN NIXON.  And it is simply a DOCUMENTED FACT THAT OBAMA IS THE WORST IN HISTORY AT PREVENTING ANY TRANSPARENCY WHATSOEVER.

It has already been DOCUMENTED that Hillary Clinton had someone on her staff ILLEGALLY wipe out the classification markers so she could have the “talking point” that there was no classification on the classified email she was bandying around for the Russians and the Chinese and the North Koreans to read at will.  The Los Angeles Times reported:

he Department of Justice said it is weighing whether to launch its own investigation after the inspector general for intelligence agencies notified the agency that classified information that went through the account appeared to have been mishandled. Administration officials and investigators declined to share details about the emails. But in a separate memo to lawmakers, the inspector general said that a review of just 40 of the 30,000 emails from the Clinton server found that four had information that should have been marked and handled as classified.

Clinton has made many assurances in recent months that she did not send or receive classified information on her personal server. Her campaign says the material in question had not been specifically marked as classified and, thus, Clinton broke no rules. The inspector general disputed that characterization in a statement late Friday, saying that the information in the emails was classified at the time, even if it wasn’t marked as such, and shouldn’t have been transmitted on a personal email system.

Even so, the revelation was an uncomfortable one for the candidate. And national security experts said the disclosure that that material that should have been marked classified made its way to Clinton’s personal email account at the very least fuels legitimate speculation about how the server was used.

“It tells us why this was such a bad idea,” said Stewart A. Baker, a former general counsel to the National Security Agency now in private practice. “It raises questions.”

Among them, Baker said, was whether staffers deliberately avoided marking sensitive emails to Clinton as classified so they could sidestep the bureaucrats who handle transmission of such material.

“She skipped the government circles and nobody was overseeing this and nobody was saying, ‘This info should not be on this system,’” Baker said. “If anything, there was an incentive for people to cross the line without making clear they were doing so.”

I pointed that article out and its obvious ramifications back in an article I wrote in September of this year.  Somebody clearly stripped the classification markers – an act of TREASON – to give Hillary Clinton “plausible deniability.”  Period.  We’ve known for MONTHS that criminal acts were committed by Hillary Clinton and by her staff of witches and warlocks.

The second thing – and frankly Herridge should have brought this little factoid up in her above article – is that THE STATE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNILATERALLY ALTER THE CLASSIFICATION OF A DOCUMENT FROM ANOTHER AGENCY, SUCH AS THE CIA.

It is NOT the State Department’s information; it is the CIA’s information that the CIA shared with the State Department.

I’ll get to how incredibly DANGEROUS to our nation’s security this Democrat trick is later.  But for now, let me continue on Hillary Clinton’s criminality and now the entire Obama State Department’s criminal cover-up of the clear future Democrat nominee’s criminality.

An article from the Daily Beast back in July put it this way:

Classified emails stored on Hillary Clinton’s private computer server contained information from five U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and NSA, McClatchy reported Thursday. One of the emails about the 2012 Benghazi consulate attack was even released to the public by the State Department in May despite it being classified. That email contained information from the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which uses spy satellites. Four other emails contained info from the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees all intelligence agencies. The inspector general for the intelligence community found the five classified emails out of a sample of 40 from the 30,000 emails Clinton gave to the State Department.

But perhaps the most troubling element in the McClatchy story is the assertion that “the State Department so far has refused to grant the intelligence-community inspector general access to the entire batch of emails on jurisdictional grounds.”

As Herridge reports, that number of “five” emails has now exploded into nearly 700.

Similarly, the Washington Times back in August of this year reported:

State is also refusing to accept the intelligence IG’s finding that some emails in a limited sample of Mrs. Clinton’s 30,000 delivered to State contained top secret material. The IG said it was specially compartmentalized to signify it pertained to communications intercepts and to military satellite imagery and, or, intercepts.

Said Mr. Toner on Wednesday “We have not seen anything at the TS [top secret] level yet.”

This directly contradicts a memo sent on Tuesday by I. Charles McCullough III, the IG for the intelligence community, which includes 17 agencies.

The memo to House and Senate Intelligence committee leaders said an unspecified number of Clinton emails contained top secret information.

Mr. Toner told reporters, “We’re working with the director of national intelligence to resolve whether in fact this material is actually classified.”

Mr. McCullough, and his counter part at State, Steven Linick, took the extraordinary step on July 24 of issuing a joint statement that questioned that defense.

“These emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today,” they said.

They directly rebutted previous State Department statements that the material is classified today, but not when in sat in her server, while she was secretary of State. She left State in 2013 and is now the Democratic Party frontrunner for the presidential nomination.

Mr. McCullough sent a referral to the FBI. Agents are now investigating the security breach and took possession of Mrs. Clinton’s server, which she had wiped clean after selecting the 30,000 emails.

What we are seeing is the entire Obama State Department machine directly and criminally covering up A CRIME for a PARTISAN POLITICAL REASON to the detriment of our national security.

This is the SAME Obama who very clearly ORDERED his appointees to alter intelligence that didn’t agree with the Obama political narrative.

You start to see the vile, cockroach bureaucrat tactics that Obama is routinely employing to cover up his crimes and the criminality of his thug-underlings:

One of the lawyers present during the review by State’s legal office was government attorney Catherine Duval, who was a key player in the controversy surrounding ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s missing emails related to the investigation of the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.

Duval, who is now spearheading the release of materials related to the 2012 attack in Benghazi, formerly worked for the same law firm as the Clintons’ private attorney David Kendall.

So we’ve got a DIRECT TIE-IN between the Obama use of the IRS as his own personal “Internal Revenge Service” to target conservatives during an election, along with a direct tie-in between that IRS crime and the Benghazi cover-up.  And now a direct tie-in between Obama’s IRS crimes and the Benghazi cover-up and Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.  And that tie-in directly ties-in to Hillary Clinton PERSONALLY.

Good luck getting to the bottom of anything when the President of the United States is a traitor and a criminal who is aided-and-abetted by traitors and criminals at high levels whom he personally put in their positions.

Now let me point out why this is so incredibly dangerous to national security.  During the Clinton years – and isn’t it funny how history starts to repeat itself – there were walls and barriers and interservice rivalries that prevented information from being exchanged by the various agencies that dealt with intelligence.   That was THE NUMBER ONE THING that came out of the 9/11 Commission Report.

And right now, as we speak, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are doing absolutely everything they possibly can to guarantee that those same walls, barriers and rivalries are created anew so our enemies can attack us while we are totally blind again.  Because right now, under Obama, and under Hillary Clinton, intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA absolutely CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT trust other agencies with their intelligence.  So the only alternative is not to share it.

Hillary Clinton all but said to the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Director of National Intelligence, “I frankly don’t give one flying DAMN about you or your intelligence or your sources or your security, and I’m going to use and abuse your product any damn partisan political way I want to.”  With the obvious result being they quit sharing their product as a climate of mistrust dominates.

The Clinton Administration – deliberately and intentionally (and yes, incredibly foolishly) – created a wall that prevented intelligence agencies from sharing what they knew with one another.   Clinton “intentionally erected to prevent intelligence agents from pooling information with their law-enforcement counterparts.”

Now we’ve got a NEW wall built on the very worst kind of mistrust based on Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s partisan political politicking.

And the next massive terrorist attack is inevitable.

And allow me to quote Obama’s “reverend” for 23 years who said “God DAMN America!”

Advertisements

Hillary Clinton Continues Liberal Pattern Of Thinking They Are Above The Law As They Impose The Law On Everyone Else

March 5, 2015

Why hasn’t Hillary Clinton been charged with the same crime that General David Petraeus was charged with?  Petraeus pled guilty to removing and retaining classified information.  Well, what the hell did Hillary Clinton do when she violated the Federal Records Act to use her own private email account on her own private server to a) avoid any oversight by Congress and by her own State Department; and b) remove herself from all the protections that would have and should have been available from the IT and security staff at the State Department to protect her emails from spying/eavesdropping?

Even the way, waaaaay left of center New York Times is all but branding Hillary Clinton a felon:

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.

Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Aside from ignoring the “serious breach”, Hillary Clinton has done two remarkably dishonest things: 1) she has essentially labeled this criticism a “vast, right wing conspiracy” and 2) she has laughably said that she has asked the State Department to release her emails.

As for the last, we had this:

Late Wednesday night, Mrs. Clinton tweeted: “I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”

I mean,holy crap, what are you even talking about, you Stalinist priestess?  YOU have all the emails.  You created your own damn SERVER in your damn HOUSE and NEVER had a State Department official account:

The move followed the revelation that Clinton had installed a private server at her New York home that allowed her, and not the State Department, to store her e-mail correspondence and later decide which ones to turn over as public records.

and:

But, agency officials said, the decision over which e-mails would be deemed public record fell to Clinton and her private advisers — not to government officials or archivists.

That last sentence ought to scare the hell out of you.  This is your Joseph Stalin, your Adolf Hitler, your Chairman Mao, Your Kim Jong Un – and yes, your Barack Hussein Obama and now Hillary Clinton – declaration that they are above the law because they alone get to decide what the law is both for themselves in pursuit of their own partisan and ideological axes and for everyone else.

And that vein keeps being mined by the article:

But government transparency advocates said the use of a private e-mail account and a private server meant that for years, Clinton’s e-mails were off-limits to public records requests filed with the State Department.

The long delay in turning records over to the State Department also places enormous power in the hands of her closest aides to decide which of her e-mails should be made public and which should be shielded from view.

“There’s no legitimate way to claim that there wasn’t a requirement, certainly to keep with the spirit of the law, to make real-time copies available to the agency,” said David Sobel, senior counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

In Congress, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said new subpoenas were a good step because lawmakers do not have confidence Clinton has turned over all of her relevant e-mails to the State Department.

Agency officials have said they have submitted 300 of Clinton’s e-mails to the committee investigating the Benghazi attack.

“The prime reason to set up an account like this is to skirt the law, avoid disclosure,” Chaffetz said. “The question isn’t the number of e-mails she has turned over, it’s the percentage. I want to know who decided what we could see.”

There is simply no question that an untrustworthy woman acted in a blatantly untrustworthy manner and covered it up the same way Benghazi was covered up.  Who gets to cherry-pick the record?  Hillary Clinton and her troupe of traitors, that’s who.

She doesn’t want the public to “see” anything but LIES.

The Washington Post article also points out that:

Meanwhile, government transparency advocates expressed concern over the level of control Clinton had asserted over her records. Security experts wondered if hackers could exploit weaknesses in the Clinton server to gain access to sensitive information.

Was that merely a possibility, or did something like that actual happen due to Hillary Clinton’s indifference to US security?  We find that Hillary Clinton exposed the United States of America to every threat you can imagine.  These paragraphs from MRC TV say it all:

A Romanian hacker currently imprisoned in Bucharest (alias “Guccifer”) is responsible for exposing Hillary Clinton’s secret use of a private email account to the world, and Clinton registered the domain “clintonemails.com” the day she was confirmed to be Secretary of State. Clinton used only this email address (hdr22@clintonemail.com) for her entire four-year tenure at the State Department. […]

The server that hosted Hillary Clinton’s email was run out of her New York home, according to the AP, and despite the Federal Records Act, no record was kept of her emails. Top Hillary aides also have @clintonemail.com addresses and have used them to conduct government business, Gawker reports.

Hosting email through one’s own server is typically the exclusive domain of technical experts, so Clinton’s move was highly unusual. It would give her “impressive control over limiting access to her message archives,” reported the AP, because investigators would have to go directly through her, and could not appeal to a corporate email host like Google or Microsoft.

So we have Clinton and her fellow Clinton goons having complete and total and solitary access to pretty much everything that Hillary Clinton did and no one else.  We have an intentional violation of the law from the very damn getgo of the debacle of the Hillary Clinton Secretary of State-ship.  We have an obvious callous disregard for the security of the United States in favor of Hillary Clinton’s pathological penchant for secrecy.

And for the record, this came out in the Benghazi hearings in which a criminal Obama Administration, in participation with a criminal Clinton State Department, criminally covered up a TERRORIST ATTACK during which the first U.S. ambassador since the failed CARTER YEARS was murdered as a result of shocking and disgraceful incompetence and shocking and disgraceful politicized foreign policy.

What else was happening?  What OTHER Clinton shenanigans were going on during this corrupt woman’s corrupt tenure as the corrupt Obama regime’s corrupt Secretary of a corrupt State?  This Washington Post headline says it pretty well:

Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger February 25 

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.

What are the chances that we will find Hillary Clinton offering quid pro quo conditions to foreign governments – including governments that have terrorist connections – in exchange for money to Hillary’s greedy foundation?  ZERO, because Hillary Clinton and her priestesses are the sole key-keepers to the Clinton secrets vault.

Hillary Clinton would be charged with federal crimes and be forced to plead guilty to avoid doing hard time in prison.  Because she did FAR WORSE than General David Petraeus did.

According to a 2009 federal law which applied during Hillary Clinton’s tenure, you have to archive any and all private emails with your government agency.  Hillary Clinton CLEARLY did not do that according to the above quotes from the above Washington Post:

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department.

Liberals are trying to raise dust clouds by saying Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did the same thing.  In fifteen words, let’s take that on by the horns: “Did either of them run for president either before or after their tenures as SecState?”  NO.  That fact ALONE obviates any comparison with Powell and Rice unless Hillary does NOT run for president.  Because if you run for president, you put yourself under a completely different standard and a completely different level of scrutiny.  And secondly, did the law change AFTER both Powell and Rice served their terms?  YES:

The Times article, by Washington-based reporter Michael Schmidt, stated that Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email address at the State Department “may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.” In reports and press releases, Brock’s groups argued that Schmidt’s article neglected to mention that the relevant portions of the Federal Records Act pertaining to such requirement did not go into effect until November 2014, after Clinton’s tenure at State.

Unfortunately for these pro-Hillary groups, the regulations that are relevant to Schmidt’s report – the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements – have been in place since at least 2009, when Clinton became secretary of state.

According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, which Schmidt provided in an email, “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”

In short, the State Department was required to ensure that Secretary Clinton’s emails, including those on personal accounts, were preserved in an agency record-keeping system. The failure to ensure such preservation would therefore likely be in violation of the federal requirements, though it’s not clear whether all of her personal emails – or just those related to official business – would be required.

Schmidt believes that all of Clinton’s emails would be required, and pointed to a 2008 definition from NARA that defines federal records as “documentary materials that agencies create and receive while conducting business that provide evidence of the agency’s organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and operations, or because they contain information of value.”

The law regarding emails dates back to 1995 stating that all such communications be archived.

If Hillary Clinton created a system whereby her private/personal and official emails were intermixed – which she clearly did by creating a server and an email account in her own home – then ALL of her emails become “official.”  And if ANYONE ought to decide which emails are off limits at this point, it ought to be the most rabidly partisan conservative tea party member in America.  Because she created this mess for HERSELF.

I submit that Hillary Clinton did not violate the Federal Records Act once; she violated it thousands and in fact likely tens of thousands of times.  Because every single time she sent an email from her private account and did not archive it with the State Department – EVERY SINGLE DAMN TIME SHE SENT A NEW EMAIL – she broke the law anew.  And we know as a FACT that she set out to break the law from the very moment she was foolishly and wickedly confirmed by the Stalinist Democrat Party.

So where’s Eric Holder spending the next three years investigating her and preventing her from even mounting a campaign the way he did to General David Petraeus?  Nowhere to be found.  Because under the criminal Obama administration the law has become a political weapon just like the IRS became a political weapon.

As for the Hillary Clinton team charge that this is nothing but a vast, right wing conspiracy – such as the one that someone managed to secretly insinuate Bill Clinton’s semen on a very young woman’s dress – this isn’t just Republicans anymore:

  • “There’s always another shoe to drop with Hillary,” said Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina who has said he hopes Vice President Biden runs. “Do we nominate her not knowing what’s in those e-mails?”
  • Don Paulson, chairman of the Muscatine County Democrats in Iowa, said he was disturbed by the Clinton Foundation’s practice of accepting donations from foreign governments at a time when Mrs. Clinton was preparing a campaign for the White House. He saw that as one reason why the party should vet her and other candidates in a competitive primary, rather than allow her to coast to the nomination without a real fight. “It’s a healthier thing all around if there’s competition,” he said.
  • Kim Weaver, chairman of the O’Brien County Democrats in Iowa, which holds the nation’s first presidential contest, said: “The questions need to be answered.” She added she would like to hear whether the personal email system Mrs. Clinton used carried adequate security protections. “If it’s no big deal, why not just come out and say what it is.”

Trust this radical disciple of leftist radical Saul Alinsky to your peril.

At this point, it is safe to say that another Democrat president means another fascist in the White House.

Hillary Clinton is a dangerous woman with a dangerous past who has dangerous future plans to finish off the United States of America for good.

She needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.  In her case, extinction is a GOOD thing.

 

When It Was 3 AM And The US Consulate In Benghazi Was Being Attacked, Where Was Barack Obama???

November 3, 2012

I thought this needed to be framed and took a screen shot. The last picture has a GIF animation that makes the picture worth clicking on to take you to the original.  Just hit the back button to come back here:

The guy that just nailed Obama right to the wall with this did one of those GIF animation jobs to provide priceless animation of Hillary Clinton furiously scrubbing the wall to clean the famous bloody handprints on the column:

The al-Qaeda-linked terrorist attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya began at 9:40 p.m. local time.  The battle that ultimately killed an American ambassador, two incredibly heroic former SEALs and one other American went on for an agonizing seven hours during which time the CIA support site nearby repeatedly begged for permission to go in and help their fellow Americans under attack and were ordered to stand down.  So it was 3 AM in Benghazi, and Obama was sound asleep and continued to sleep contentedly through the night while Americans died during an enemy attack on foreign soil.

And what did Obama do the next day (September 12)?  He climbed aboard Air Force One and took a trip to Las Vegas so he could do a fundraiser.  He really was in Las Vegas on September 12, all right.  Meanwhile his crew of Chicago thugs was already lying up one side and down the other that what happened was NOT a terrorist attack or any kind of preplanned act of war against the United States on United States soil.  Nope.  It was just a bunch of unfortunately-violence-prone Muslims going as nuts as a bunch of monkeys because they saw a video that had been made in America which proved that our First Amendment needs to be abolished.  And of course it was just out of the blue, and couldn’t be foreseen, and the fact that it happened on the VERY significant day of “9/11” clearly didn’t have anything at all to do with anything.  All their information, they claimed, said that’s all it was and they had absolutely zero information that terrorists had anything to do with it.

It turns out that the “spontaneous protest” that top White House spokespeople in fact never occurred.  It was a lie.  It never happened.  As history now records in Benghazi, Libya at the US Consulate according to the Associated Press:

Around 8:30 p.m.

Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests.

Around 9:40 p.m.

Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see large group of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away.

Obama’s people lied.  There was no spontaneous protest that went bad.  There was no protest at all, in fact.  And no stupid video that they kept talking about had anything to do with anything when it came to that attack in Benghazi where the first United States Ambassador since 1979 was murdered at his post.

Obama claimed in his third debate with Mitt Romney that he was claiming that he referred to the Benghazi attack was what he described as “acts of terror” in a brief statement he gave just before jetting off to fundraise in Las Vegas.  But a couple of “buts”: first he referred to “acts of terror” immediately AFTER referencing the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  Isn’t it kind of possible that he was referring to THAT attack?  And second when he gave his address to the United Nations on September 25 (two full weeks AFTER the attack on Benghazi), Obama clearly pooh-poohed “terrorism” as the cause of the Benghazi attack.  He never ONCE used words like “terrorist” or “terrorism” but SIX TIMES decried the Youtube video that was filmed by an American as being responsible for the attack that tragically killed an American ambassador.  So bullcrap to Obama claiming that he says that he clearly meant that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.  He’s a lying weasel doing what lying weasels do.

Where was Obama as the former SEALs who had violated their “stand down” orders to save the lives of thirty Americans at the ultimate cost of their own?  Yeah, probably on a golf course in Las Vegas talking crony-capitalist grease-my-palm shop-talk with some rich liberal bigwigs.  Just as the collage picture above says.

When we find out that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security team were BEGGING for increased security in a Libya that was in the process of INCREASINGLY falling to al Qaeda, the Obama administration was deciding to FURTHER REDUCE the security staff.  Why?  Because Obama wanted to sell the bogus delusion that Obama was the man who killed bin Laden (based on intelligence developed by George W. Bush), and that in killing bin Laden Obama had destroyed al Qaeda.  And in destroying al Qaeda Obama the messiah had won the war on terror.  And that meant “normalizing” relations with Libya and pulling our armed security guys out no matter that the country was falling apart and there were literally hundreds of “incidents” to prove it was falling apart.   That was the cynical political delusion that Obama was pimping.

The fact of the matter is that Obama keeps saying “no one gets left behind” when it comes to giving more people more socialism, but he was all too ready to let those Americans who perished in Libya get “left behind” as the orders from the Obama administration were to “stand down” and not help the Americans at the besieged US Consulate.

The fact of the matter is that Ambassador Chris Stevens had begged for more security from Obama.  And he got his security REDUCED in violent and chaotic Libya while his Svengali stand-in Valerie Jarrett got to enjoy the status of being the first political advisor EVER to get a full Secret Service detail when she was on vacation at Martha’s Vineyard.

The fact of the matter is that the intelligence and security professionals were warning Obama for MONTHS that sovereign US territory in Libya was under threat and that the United States Ambassador’s life was at riskAND OBAMA DID NOTHING that wasn’t incredibly stupid and even more incredibly wrong-headed during those months.

The fact of the matter is that we further learn that in fact Obama had THREE FULL WEEKS OF WARNING that the very attack by the very terrorists who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens was going to happenAND HE DID NOTHING.

The fact of the matter is that Obama has attempted a cover-up that is FAR worse than anything Nixon did during Watergate.

And the fact of the matter is that this will be God damn America until Obama is exorcised out of the American people’s White House.

Mother Of SEAL Murdered In Libya Terrorist Attack: ‘I Am Tired of The Obama Administration Lying About the Death of My Son!’

October 11, 2012

Given what we now know about the yes, TERRORIST attack on the US Consulate in Libya, given that we now KNOW that the Obama administration repeatedly lied a the very highest levels in repeatedly calling it a “spontaneous uprising” when there WAS no crowd prior to the attack that began on the compound, this grieving mother’s statement ought to be viewed as gasoline being poured on already burning Obama reelection chances:

MOTHER OF KILLED: I Am Tired of The Obama Administration Lying About the Death of My Son!
Washington : DC : USA | Oct 11, 2012 at 6:55 AM PDT
By agb100
October 11, 2012

MOTHER OF SLAIN STATE DEP’T OFFICIAL TIRED OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION LYING

Mom of Slain State Dept. Official Tired of Administration Lies Share

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Erin, thanks. Good evening, everyone. We begin tonight “Keeping Them Honest,” with a mother who is now asking the toughest question any mom ever can. Why is my son dead?

That is all Pat Smith wants to know. Her son, Sean SmithSean Smith, was one of the four Americans killed on September 11th in that terror attack on American facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Sean Smith, who is one of the computer specialists at the American consulate there. A month later — a month after she watched her son’s casket come off a cargo plane, a month after she says everyone promised her answers, everyone all the way up to the president of the United States. She says she is still waiting to hear. Still waiting for answers. Waiting for a call.

Congress held hearings today. We’ll talk about that shortly, but first, my conversation with Sean Smith’s mom, Pat.

[…]

Pat Smith did not speak about anyone’s political agenda tonight. She is, however, bitterly, bitterly disappointed with the State Department, the Defense Department and the White House tonight. You’re going to hear shortly about how the State Department is going to respond to her charges.

But first, though, more of my conversation with Pat Smith starting with her as yet unfulfilled search for answers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Who told you that they would give you information?

SMITH: You’ll love this. Obama told me. Hillary promised me. Joe BidenJoe Biden — Joe Biden is a pressure. He was a real sweetheart. But he also told — they all told me that — they promised me. And I told them please, tell me what happened. Just tell me what happened.

COOPER: So you’re still waiting to hear from somebody about what happened to your son? About what they know? Or even what they don’t know.

SMITH: Right. Right. Officially yes. I told them, please don’t give me any baloney that comes through with this political stuff. I don’t want political stuff. You can keep your political, just tell me the truth. What happened. And I still don’t know. In fact, today I just heard something more that he died of smoke inhalation.

COOPER: So you don’t even know the cause of death?

SMITH: I don’t even know if that’s true or not. No, I don’t. I don’t know where. I look at TV and I see bloody hand prints on walls, thinking, my god, is that my son’s? I don’t know if he was shot. I don’t know — I don’t know. They haven’t told me anything. They are still studying it. And the things that they are telling me are just outright lies.

That Susan Rise, what — she talked to me personally and she said, she said, this is the way it was. It was — it was because of this film that came out.

COOPER: So she told you personally that she thought it was a result of that video of the protest?

SMITH: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. In fact all of them did. All of them did. Leon PanettaLeon Panetta actually took my face in his hands like this and he said, trust me. I will tell you what happened. And so far, he’s told me nothing. Nothing at all. And I want to know.

COOPER: It’s important for you to know all the details no matter how horrible.

SMITH: Yes.

COOPER: Or no matter how tough they are to hear.

SMITH: Exactly. I told him, if it’s such a secret thing, fine, take me in another room, whisper in my ear what happened so that I know, and we’ll go from there. But no. No, they — you know, they treat me like — at first I was so proud because they were treating me so nice when I went to that reception. They all came up to me and talked to me and everything. I cried on Obama’s shoulder. And he — then he’d kind of looked off into the distance.

So that was worthless to me. I want to know, for god’s sakes. Or for Allah’s sake or whoever’s sake is there.

COOPER: You deserve — you deserve answers.

SMITH: I think so. I believe I do. I believe it. It’s my son. I had him for the first — I told Obama personally, I said, look, I had him for his first 17 years and then he went into the service, then you got him. And — I won’t say it the way I said it. But I said you screwed up, you didn’t do a good job, I lost my son. And they said, we’ll get back to you. We — I promise, I promise you. I will get back to you. COOPER: Some of the administration have said well, you know, we’re investigating, we’re still trying to find out answers. But you just want —

SMITH: They still are.

COOPER: You would still want them to contact you and at least keep you apprised of the investigation, of where things are. You would think that they would at least do that.

SMITH: That would be so nice. That would at least acknowledge that I have a right to know something, something other than, we’re checking up on it, or trust me. I like that one the best of all. Trust me. I will let you know.

Well, I don’t trust you anymore. I don’t trust you anymore. You — I’m not going to say lied to me, but you didn’t tell me and you knew.

COOPER: Pat Smith, thank you.

SMITH: OK.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Here is the key dialogue from the above:

COOPER: So you don’t even know the cause of death?

SMITH: I don’t even know if that’s true or not. No, I don’t. I don’t know where. I look at TV and I see bloody hand prints on walls, thinking, my god, is that my son’s? I don’t know if he was shot. I don’t know — I don’t know. They haven’t told me anything. They are still studying it. And the things that they are telling me are just outright lies.

That Susan Rise, what — she talked to me personally and she said, she said, this is the way it was. It was — it was because of this film that came out.

COOPER: So she told you personally that she thought it was a result of that video of the protest?

SMITH: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. In fact all of them did. All of them did.  Leon Panetta actually took my face in his hands like this and he said, trust me. I will tell you what happened. And so far, he’s told me nothing. Nothing at all. And I want to know.

Yeah, I want you to know too, Mrs. Smith.  Everybody wants you to know except Obama and his stooges.

The official record of what happened couldn’t be more crystal clear.  Obama’s political hacks have REPEATEDLY blamed this attack on the “video” because a) Obama hates America and deep down Obama believes that whatever happened had to be America’s fault and that video (that had actually been available since July) WAS made in America, after all; and b) because Obama has been campaigning on his messianic foreign policy and Joe Biden has been saying, “Ask Osama bin Laden if he’s better off than he was four years ago?” when Mrs Smith is out screaming, “Why don’t you liars have Ambassador Stevens and MY MURDERED SON ask him?”

Was there a “spontaneous uprising” rather than a terrorist attack as the Obama Administration at EVERY SINGLE LEVEL from Obama to Hillary Clinton to Jay Carney to Susan Rice repeatedly said???  NO:

Around 8:30 p.m.

Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests.

Around 9:40 p.m.

Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see large group of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away.

We now know that in spite of the FACT that there had been over 230 security incidents in Benghazi prior to the attack that murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans including Mrs Smith’s son that not only was security not strengthened as the US Consulate and security personnel were BEGGING for, it was actually CUT.

And yes, we now know that absolutely every single thing Obama and his incredibly cynical political appointees have said has been an outright lie from hell.

The Incompetence, Reckless Disregard For National Security And Post-Terrorist-Attack Cover-Up By The Obama Administration Is Coming To Light.

October 9, 2012

We now know that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attack on the US Consulate in Libya that resulted in an American ambassador and three other Americans was a terrorist attack.  But the administration chose to cover-up that knowledge by repeatedly pointing to a video and a “spontaneous uprising” in which people protesting the video brought heavy weapons, broke into three attack elements, coordinated their attacks with one another, and, oh, never bothered to actually even HAVE a demonstration before their “spontaneous demonstration” actually became a terrorist attack.

Fully FIVE DAYS AFTER the attack on the US Consulate and at least FOUR DAYS AFTER the administration KNEW it was in fact a terrorist attack, the Obama administration sent out US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to specifically LIE on all five major network Sunday morning political talk shows.  Again and again, on every single major network, the Obama appointee specifically and factually lied to the American people.

There is absolutely no question that the Obama administration lied and attempted a cover-up to avoid acknowledging a terrorist attack had occurred on American soil.  The only question is WHY did they lie and attempt such an idiotic cover-up?

The new developments that prove that the Obama administration was incompetent and reckless beyond belief may be a major part of this cover-up.  For instance (Note that Jake Tapper at ABC wrote a similar story):

Bombshell: US Security Teams Removed From Libya Prior to Attack, Over Stevens’ Objections
Guy Benson, Political Editor, Townhall.com
Oct 08, 2012 01:10 PM EST

In case this recent development wasn’t egregious enough, another shoe has dropped in the Benghazi scandal — adding more fuel to the speculative fire about why the administration seemed so motivated to coordinate a dishonest cover-up (read that link) after the fact.  CBS News takes the lead on this outrageous story:

[See video from CBS News embedded at sight here]

The former head of a Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for “more, not less” security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August – about a month before the assault in Benghazi – he felt, “like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff.”

“They asked if we were safe,” he told Attkisson. “They asked… what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they’re working on it – they’ll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that.” Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security. “We felt we needed more, not less,” he tells Attkisson. Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told “to do with less. For what reasons, I don’t know.”

ABC News has more:

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News. The embassy staff’s “first choice was for us to stay,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. “That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli.” But a senior State Department official told ABC News that the embassy’s Regional Security Officer never specifically requested that the SST’s tour be extended past August, and the official maintained there was no net loss of security personnel

When confronted with this damning report, a State Department official blames the lack of security on insufficient paperwork (security preferences were never “specifically requested”) and suggests that Washington believed there would be no “net” security loss on the ground.  If you believe either of those excuses, re-watch the CBS News interview above — or read this story from ABC News, which obtained a memo showing State rejecting specific security requests in Libya.  Essentially, the administration told our diplomats to do more with less and trust Libyan forces to replace the elite American security personnel.  Reporting from Newsweek’s Eli Lake highlights the problems with this strategy, which Amb. Stevens recognized and addressed in a diplomatic cable sent the very day he was assassinated:

Just two days before the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, two leaders of the Libyan militias responsible for keeping order in the city threatened to withdraw their men.  The brinksmanship is detailed in a cable approved by Ambassador Chris Stevens and sent on the day he died in the attack, the worst assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission since the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. The dispatch, which was marked “sensitive” but not “classified,” contained a number of other updates on the chaotic situation on the ground in post-Gaddafi Libya.  The cable, reviewed by The Daily Beast, recounts how the two militia leaders, Wissam bin Ahmed and Muhammad al-Gharabi, accused the United States of supporting Mahmoud Jibril, the head of the Libyan transitional government, to be the country’s first elected prime minister. Jibril’s centrist National Forces Alliance won the popular vote in Libyan elections in July, but he lost the prime minister vote in the country’s Parliament on Sept. 12 by 94 to 92. Had he won, bin Ahmed and al-Gharabi warned they “would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,” the cable reads. The man who beat Jibril, Mustafa Abushagur, lost a vote of no-confidence Sunday, throwing Libyan politics back into further uncertainty. The threat from the militias underscores the dangers of relying on local Libyan forces for security in the run-up to the 9/11 military-style assault.

Americans must ask themselves how these appalling failures were allowed to occur, and who is responsible.  The administration peddled several false tales to the public for many days after the attack, even though intelligence reports indicate that they knew better from day one.  Why?  Not only were requests for reinforcements declined, existing defenses were scaled back, in spite of numerous threats and attacks leading up to the 9/11 massacre.  Why? I’ve pondered whether the White House wanted to maintain a “light footprint” perception in Libya at all costs, rooted in political considerations.  If so, those costs were quite high, indeed.  I’ll leave you with a devastating video of the cover-up timeline, produced by Heritage.  This is slowly growing into a national scandal, but here’s why it should already be A1, above the fold every day:

UPDATE – In his wide-ranging foreign policy address in Virginia late this morning, Mitt Romney criticized the Obama administration for their serial opacity and misdirection regarding the Benghazi raid:

Last month, our nation was attacked again.  A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead—murdered in Benghazi, Libya.  Among the dead were three veterans.  All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both.  President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America.  And he is right.  We all mourn their loss. The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident.  They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia.  Our embassies have been attacked.  Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do.  These are the right questions.  And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.  The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts.  They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century.  And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself. The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long.  No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.

This is some of Romney’s strongest rhetoric yet on this subject.  One wonders if he’ll challenge the president even more forcefully during the final foreign policy themed presidential debate.  More on Romney’s speech later.

There are now so many examples of Obama completely screwing up prior to the murder of an American ambassador on US soil that it just makes you want to barf.

But aside from his criminal incompetence, there is yet another reason why Obama chose to cover-up this terrible terrorist attack:

Revolt of the Spooks
Intelligence officials angered by Obama administration cover up of intelligence on Iranian, al Qaeda surge in Egypt and Libya
BY: Bill Gertz
October 5, 2012 5:00 am

Weeks before the presidential election, President Barack Obama’s administration faces mounting opposition from within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies over what careerofficers say is a “cover up” of intelligence information about terrorism in North Africa.

Intelligence held back from senior officials and the public includes numerous classified reports revealing clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout the tumultuous North Africa and Middle East region, as well as notably widespread al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya in the months before the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

“The Iranian strategy is two-fold: upping the ante for the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against Iran and perceived cyber operations against Iran’s nuclear weapons program by conducting terror attacks on soft U.S. targets and cyber attacks against U.S. financial interests,” said one official, speaking confidentially.

The Iranian effort also seeks to take the international community’s spotlight off Iran’s support for its Syrian ally.

Two House Republicans, Reps. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), stated in a letter sent this week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that officials “with direct knowledge of events in Libya” revealed that the Benghazi attack was part of a string of terror attacks and not a spontaneous uprising against an anti-Muslim video produced in the U.S. The lawmakers have scheduled congressional hearings for Oct. 10.

Susan Phalen, spokeswoman for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), said the panel is “reviewing all relevant intelligence and the actions of the [intelligence community], as would be expected of the oversight committee.”

But she noted: “At this point in time it does not appear that there was an intelligence failure.”

Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administration’s apparent mishandling of intelligence. The ODNI statement said that “in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.”

Officials say the ODNI’s false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism.

Among the obvious signs of terrorism was the arms used by the attackers, who were equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles.

A U.S. intelligence official who disputes the idea of an Obama administration coverup said: “Intelligence professionals follow the information wherever it leads.”

“When there isn’t definitive information, it makes sense to be cautious,” the official said. “There has never been a dogmatic approach to analyzing what happened in Benghazi. Staying open to alternative explanations—and continually refining assessments as new and credible information surfaces—is part of the intelligence business.”

Officials with access to intelligence reports, based on both technical spying and human agents, said specific reporting revealed an alarming surge in clandestine al Qaeda activity months before the attack in Benghazi.

Yet the Obama administration sought to keep the information from becoming public to avoid exposing what the officials say is a Middle East policy failure by Obama.

Officials said that the administration appeared to engage in a disinformation campaign aimed at distancing the president personally during the peak of the presidential election campaign from the disaster in Benghazi, where numerous warning of an attack were ignored, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other officials.

The first part of the apparent campaign, officials said, was the false information provided to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on Sunday television shows after the attack to say the event was a “spontaneous” response to an anti-Muslim video trailer posted online.

Officials said Rice was given the false information to use in media appearances in order to promote the excuse that the obscure video was the cause of the attack, and not the Islamic concept of jihad.

Rice’s claims provoked concern inside the U.S. intelligence community that intelligence about what was going on in Libya and the region was being suppressed, and led to a series of news disclosures about what would later be confirmed as an al Qaeda attack using the group Ansar al Sharia.

After Rice’s incorrect statements, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated the false assessment of the Benghazi attack.

The final element of the campaign involved comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was the first to give a partial explanation of the intelligence when she said al Qaeda terrorists operating from Mali were possible culprits in the Benghazi attack.

“What she failed to mention was the cooperation of Iran and Egypt in supporting jihadists in Libya,” the official said, who added the events would be investigated in an apparent effort to stave off internal critics in government.

That has led to delays in getting FBI and other U.S. investigators into Benghazi, raising concerns that some in the White House wanted to delay the FBI’s efforts to uncover evidence about the attack.

The FBI did not reach Benghazi until Thursday, ostensibly over concerns about the lack of security to protect them.

“The Obama Administration is afraid to admit al Qaeda is running rampant throughout the region because it would expose the truth instead of what President Obama so pompously spouted during the Democratic Convention” said the official.

The president said during his nomination acceptance speech that “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat,” an assertion contradicted by the group’s rise in the region.

The administration, in particular, wants to keep hidden solid intelligence showing that the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans is now flourishing under the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Egypt was among the locations of Obama’s 2009 so-called “apology” tour, when the president criticized past U.S. policies based on what he said was “fear and anger” that prompted actions “contrary to our ideals.” He also promised “a new beginning” for the U.S. and the world’s Muslims and a radical shift in U.S. policy.

The rise of Islamists in the region instead has produced a surge in anti-American protests and riots, culminating in the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate.

Recent intelligence reports show that Egypt’s Al-Azhar University in Cairo is emerging as a covert base for al Qaeda organizational and training activities for a jihadi network consisting of many nationalities.

The Morsi government has turned a blind eye to both the increased jihadist activity and Iran’s support for it in the region, particularly in Libya and Syria.

However, the administration is keeping the intelligence under wraps to avoid highlighting Obama’s culpability for the democratic aspirations of the Arab Spring being hijacked by Islamists sympathetic to al Qaeda’s terrorist ideology.

Intelligence officials said in Egypt—currently ruled by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood—one of the key al Qaeda organizers has been identified as Muhammad al-Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Muhammad al-Zawahiri was released by Morsi in Marchafter having been sentenced to death for terrorist acts in Egypt.

In recent months Egypt-based al Qaeda terrorists were dispatched to Libya and Syria, where they have been covertly infiltrating Libyan militia groups and Syrian opposition forces opposing the Bashar al Assad regime.

In addition to Egyptian government backing, intelligence from the region has revealed that operatives from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, the main spy service, and from Iran’s Quds Force paramilitary group and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are also facilitating al Qaeda terrorists based in Egypt that are preparing to conduct operations to increase instability throughout the region.

The intelligence revealing that al Qaeda is growing in Egypt is said by officials to be one of the reasons behind Obama’s decision to cancel a meeting in New York with Morsi during the U.N. General Assembly meeting last month.

Other news outlets in recent days have revealed new internal U.S. government information that contrasts sharply or contradicts official Obama administration statements that appear designed to minimize the rise of Egyptian-origin terrorism.

The Daily Beast reported Sept. 28 that intercepted communications revealed terrorists belonging to the group Ansar al Sharia were in contact with the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb regarding the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and others.

Communications intercepts revealed that the terrorists in Benghazi bragged about the attack, the news outlet reported.

A group called Ansar al Sharia in Egypt was formed in April 2011 and advocates violent jihad and support for al Qaeda.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that terrorists linked to a former Guantanamo prison inmate, Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad, was one of the individuals who attacked diplomatic facilities in Libya on Sept. 11, and that intelligence reports showed some of the terrorists in the attack may have been trained in Libyan desert camps.

So we know that Obama lied and attempted a cover-up, and we pretty much know WHY Obama lied and attempted a cover-up.  The reason was basically to try to hide Obama’s incredible incompetence and the failure of his entire Middle East policy in general.

The thing we DON’T know yet is whether the American people, along with the Democrat Party, are so despicable that they frankly don’t care about the lies and frankly the treason that we have seen accompanying the incredible incompetence that resulted in the death of America’s top official in Libya and the abject humiliation of the United States as a result of the attacks against America from Muslim countries across the world.

Update, October 9, 2012: Let me add a P.S. here.

Remember Lara Logan, the CBS journalist who was raped and beaten in Egypt?  Well, they define neo-conservatives as those who have been “mugged by reality.”  Lara was raped by the reality that Muslim fundamentalists are godawful evil people.  Yeah, she just came out and said that absolutely EVERY SINGLE THING Obama is saying about foreign policy is a complete lie:

CBS’ Lara Logan Slams US Government And Says The Taliban Is As Strong As EverTiffany Gabbay, The Blaze

Blaze readers are likely familiar with CBS correspondent, Lara Logan, the wartime journalist who endured a horrific ordeal in Egypt last  summer when she was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob of angry  Egyptian men during their Arab Spring “celebrations.” Now, Logan has a  message for the public: “they” (the Taliban and other Islamic  operatives) are as strong as ever.

During a recent keynote address at the Better Government Association annual luncheon last Tuesday, Logan delivered what the Chicago Sun Times called “a provocative speech” to some 1,100 movers in government, politics,  media, and the legal and corporate arenas. She explained that the  Taliban, al Qaeda and its proxies haven’t gone away and are in fact  re-energized and coming back in force. Logan also informed the crowd  that a “lie” is being propagated by the American government.

“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a  major lie being propagated…” Logan announced. The lie is that the U.S.  military has tamed the Taliban.

“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two  years,” Logan began. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,“ who  claim ”they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban.”

“It’s such nonsense!”

The Sun Times continues:

Logan stepped way out of the “objective,” journalistic role. The  audience was riveted as she told of plowing through reams of documents,  and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan;  Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by  al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are teaming up and recruiting new  terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports. […] She made a  passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our  enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war.

Logan went on to say that people have been duped into believing that  the threat of radical Islam is merely a thing of the past, saying:

“You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say  about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”

The CBS foreign correspondent, who broke with her traditional  journalist’s role and actually shared her personal opinion with the  group, also called for retribution for the slaying of U.S. Ambassador  Christopher Stevens, two Navy SEALs and one additional U.S. civil  servant in Libya.

According to the Sun Times, Logan hopes America will “exact revenge  and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on  its own soil. That its ambassadors will not be murdered, and that the  United States will not stand by and do nothing about it.”

While the Sun Times article appeared to question Logan for delving  into opinion and “being” the story rather than “reporting” the story, it is difficult to imagine that someone who experienced atrocities in the  Middle East first hand and was in fact physically assaulted could  refrain from speaking from personal experience. After all, who better  than one who lived it is qualified to judge?

We’re now learning that Obama betrayed the Americans in Libya who were screaming for more security and begging for fortifications to protect their buildings.  And instead Obama gave them LESS security.  And why?  Because Obama wanted to create the false impression that he was normalizing relations with Libya so he could claim credit for it politically.  He’s done the same thing in Afghanistan with the Taliban, deliberately creating the false dichotomy between good Taliban and bad Taliban so he could negotiate with the good Taliban and then cut and run from Afghanistan.  And decent Americans and particularly Americans who have suffered the results of Obama’s stupidity won’t have any of it.

If Obama had represented himself honestly and told the truth, he NEVER would have been elected in 2008.  And in the same manner, the only way he stands to be reelected now is to lie and lie outrageously to the American people.

Obama To Release One-Third Of Gitmo Detainees AFTER Learning That Terrorist Who Led Attack That Murdered US Ambassador Had Been A Gitmo Detainee

September 24, 2012

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned very much (read: not at all anywhere but on Fox News), but the terrorist attack on American soil in Libya that Obama repeatedly denied for more than a week did not merely occur timed with the anniversary of 9/11; it also occurred along with Obama announcing that he was reversing the surge that he began and that all 33,000 American troops in that surge were now out of the country.

Not only did the Obama administration and many of its top officials – including US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney) explicitly deny that the terrorist attack which they now admit was “self-evidently” a terrorist attack had been a terrorist attack for well over a week, but now we find that in fact the United States Ambassador to Libya had been left without any armed security prior to his murder:

American Marines were not stationed at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli or the American mission in Benghazi, as would typically have been the case. In the spirit of a “low profile,” the administration didn’t even want an American company in charge of private security. Blue Mountain, the British firm the State Department hired, was willing to abide by the “no bullets” Rules of Engagement (ROE), so were a logical fit for the contract. These sub-standard protections for American diplomats were signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the ROE. 
 
In essence, the Obama Administration tasked an unarmed British firm with security responsibilities that should have been handled by armed American servicemen, and it was all approved by the Secretary of State. Needless to say, the plan failed and an Ambassador was murdered, along with several others.
 
As of now, the State Department has not disclosed the full State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya.

You want to talk about an administration being COMPLETELY and CRIMINALLY UNPREPARED for a threat that any FOOL should have seen coming (unless “9/11” is merely a date on a calendar)???

But now you find it’s far worse than that; Obama clearly doesn’t even CARE about American foreign policy.  After all, he’s the guy who got bin Laden (gag me); he’s invulnerable to criticism of his foreign policy.  It doesn’t matter if Iran is just about to get a nuclear bomb under his watch (and if Obama is reelected, there is ABSOLUTELY no question Iran WILL get nuclear weapons because of Obama’s weakness); it doesn’t matter if Vladimer Putin – very contrary to Obama’s ill-fated “reset” – is telling America to go to hell as Russia restores itself to its former Stalinist glory; it doesn’t matter if China is more aggressive under Obama’s weak foreign policy than it had been at any time since the Chosin Reservoir surprise attack of US forces during the Korean War; and it doesn’t matter if fully 33 Muslim nations – more than EVER in history – have burned America’s flag in their streets and attacked sovereign American territory.

Name just ONE Muslim country that the US has better relations with than the day Bush left office.  There ISN’T one.  You could have at least said “Libya” a few weeks ago (and that would have been the ONLY possibility); but then again a few weeks ago Libya had NEVER MURDERED AN AMERICAN AMBASSADOR PRIOR TO THAT, HAD IT?

Maybe you could say Egpt – but only because Obama is far more sypatico with the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood than he ever could have been with the Egypt that had been a staunch American ally until Obama helped topple that regime:

And now what do we have under this demon-possessed turd who has worked mightily to bring the world ever closer to that day the Bible described as “Armageddon”???

Obama to Release One Third of Gitmo Inmates
by AWR Hawkins22 Sep 2012

President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.
 
The large percentage of those scheduled to be released are Yemeni, according to a list made public by the Obama administration.
 
Obama stopped the release or transfer of Yemeni inmates in 2010, because the conditions in the country were viewed as too “unsettled” at the time.
 
A release or transfer of 55 inmates means Obama is moving out one third of the prisoners at Guantanamo. And while it doesn’t represent a shutdown of the facility, it’s certainly indicative of a move toward that end.
 
Could it be that Obama is trying to set himself up to campaign as the man who is taking steps to finally close Gitmo, just as he recently reversed the Afghanistan surge in order to campaign as the man who’s winding down the war in the Afghanistan?
 
The ACLU has praised the releases as “a partial victory for transparency.”

[CBS News video about former Gitmo detainee leading Libyan attack at site]

That and cutting the funding of the security for American embassies have got to be the two stupidest things that one can possibly imagine in light of the murder of a US Ambassador – the first since the failed Jimmy Carter days of 1979.

We’re showing the Muslim world all the weakness that Obama and Democrats falsely and stupidly promised the American people would make the Muslim world love us: we’re pulling out of Afghanistan; we’re refusing to protect our ambassadors lest we create some sort of “profile” that will somehow anger Muslims; we’re apologizing for our 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech as some sort of tragic mistake that Obama will surely remedy if he is reelected; and we’re releasing all the terrorist monsters who we’ve been holding at Gitmo.

What Obama has demonstrated is that he is the most nakedly cynical political weasel who has ever so much as VISITED the White House let alone lived in it.  He will exploit ANYTHING no matter how vital to America and no matter who has to die for him to get reelected.

As Israel faces a very urgent decision as to whether to attack Iran as its only hope of national survival, Obama refused to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu and then lied about refusing to meet with him.  Of course, he’s got plenty of time to meet with Pimp with a Limp and the cast of the view in lieu of doing any interviews where he might get asked questions about why his presidency has been such an abject failure.

You get the essence of this coward in two snapshots: snapshot one is where Obama goes before the United Nations to denounce the man who made that stupid practically homemade Youtube video attacking Muhammad; snapshot two is when “Piss Christ” comes back to New York with Obama’s complete silence.  And of course it was liberals just like Obama who forced Christians to not only accept a Crucifix of Jesus being placed in a jar of urine and calling it “art” but to subsidize it with their tax dollars in the name of free speech, just as it is liberals who are now desperate to denounce that same free speech to protect a hateful and murderous fascist political system masquerading as a “religion.”

The beast of the Book of Revelation is coming.  Democrats will worship him and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.  And someday very soon hell will swallow and devour them all.

Mainstream Media Pathological In Its Effort To Slant And Distort The News To Protect Their Messiah Obama And Defame Their Emmanuel Goldstein Romney

September 18, 2012

The Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz was driven to righteous anger yesterday:

September 17, 2012, 7:32 p.m. ET.
Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Fourth Estate, Still Thrilling to the Spirit of ’08
The spectacle of reporters over the past week hounding Mitt Romney for speaking his mind does not come as a surprise.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

After an astounding week of ardent media focus on Mitt Romney’s criticism of the initial U.S. response to mob assaults on American diplomatic outposts, the furor is dying down—but it’s not over by any means. Nor was the message that the furor sent a negligible one.

Condemnations of Mr. Romney had come thick and fast. He had been “crass and tone deaf,” in the view of MSNBC’s Chuck Todd. He had committed a “slander” against the president, according to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic.

Journalists in pursuit of this story—to the exclusion of virtually all else going on—were quick to point out that denunciations of Mr. Romney were by no means limited to Democrats, that criticism came from Republican commentators too. This fact was hardly surprising—the sanctimony of the virtuous knows no political bounds.

The spectacle of those hordes of journalists in single-minded pursuit of the Romney story day after day—days that saw the killing of four Americans, embassies burned and trashed, mobs of the faithful running amok—shouldn’t have been surprising either. It’s the most dramatic indicator yet that in this election the pack journalism of four years ago is alive, and well, and in full cry again.

Especially wonderful to hear were all the charges about Mr. Romney’s political opportunism and tone-deafness—this after three days of a Democratic convention distinguished by shameless, nonstop exploitation of the military raid that put an end to Osama bin Laden. It is impossible to imagine any other president in American history orchestrating even two minutes—much less three days—of the self-glorification and wallowing in a victory won by the nation’s armed forces that was on display at the convention. If any of this orgy of boasting in the interest of a political campaign caught the attention of those commentators whose sensibilities were so offended by Mr. Romney last week, we haven’t heard about it.

The governor’s offense, as the world knows, had to do with his blast at the eye-popping apologias that had come from our Cairo embassy while mobs of the faithful were gathering to wreak havoc over a crude YouTube video insulting to Islam—apologies that Mr. Romney linked to the general inclinations of the Obama administration.

For this he was pilloried as having criticized the president in a time of urgent crisis. Or, as Andrea Mitchell put it Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Romney had come out with his statement when the State Department didn’t know where Ambassador Chris Stevens was—”the body was missing.”

At the time of Mr. Romney’s initial statement, of course, no word had as yet come about Stevens’s fate or those of his murdered colleagues. Which didn’t prevent members of the press and pundits from proclaiming, all the rest of the week, that Mr. Romney had embarked on a political attack while the world was aflame and the president embroiled in the crisis. The same president who would, in the midst of that crisis, go tootling off to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser.

By the time the presidential campaign had ended four years ago, the media’s role in driving the outcome had become a fact too obvious to dispute. The impact of the journalistic horde’s devotion to the Democratic candidates was clear, the evidence vivid—especially in the case of reporters transported to a state of ecstasy over candidate Obama’s speeches. One New York Times reporter wrote of being so moved he could barely keep from weeping. Not for nothing did the role of the press become a news story in itself—an embarrassing one that might, serious people thought, serve as a caution during future campaigns.

In 2012 Barack Obama is no longer delivering thrilling speeches, but an unembarrassed press corps is still available, in full prosecutorial mode when it comes to coverage of the Republican challenger. If you hadn’t heard the story about Mitt Romney’s bullying treatment of another student during his prep-school days—1965, that is—the Washington Post had a story for you, a lengthy investigative piece. On the matter of Mr. Obama’s school records, locked away and secured against investigation, the press maintains a serene incuriosity.

Mr. Obama continues to receive the benefits of a supportive media—one prone to dark suspicions about his challenger. The heavy ooze of moral superiority emanating from all the condemnations of Mr. Romney last week, all the breathless media reports on those condemnations, did not begin with something he said last week. But the moral superiority was certainly on its gaudiest display. Mr. Romney’s tone was offensive, unpresidential, his critics charged.

Yet it is the president of the United States—the same one who presented himself as the man who would transcend political partisanship because we were all Americans—who has for most of his term set about dividing the nation by class, by the stoking of resentments. Who mocks “millionaires and billionaires.” Who makes it clear that he considers himself the president of the other—the good—Americans. How’s that for presidential tone?

No one could have missed the importance to Mr. Obama’s campaign of the class-war themes that reverberated continually during the Democratic convention speeches. The references to “millionaires and billionaires” are by now a reliable applause line for the campaign. Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm underscored the point with an address whose opening line declared, with a strange note of defiance—it wasn’t the only thing strange about the speech—that the heart of America wasn’t to be found in corporate board rooms.

But it is Vice President Biden who has been the most faithful purveyor of Mr. Obama’s class-war theme. Earnest, affable, with a bottomless cache of wise maxims from his mother and father, the persuasive Joe Biden excels at explaining, in his accomplished infomercial tones, how the other side wants to ensnare you, the poor and the helpless. And how, I promise you, folks, Barack Obama isn’t going to let them.

Mitt Romney isn’t going to have an easy time defeating a president with Mr. Obama’s advantages. A friendly press corps surpasses all wealth, sayeth the sages. The governor will stand a far better chance if he takes to heart the lesson of the past week, when he seems to have recognized, at last, that there are issues in addition to the economy—matters like foreign policy, Iran, America’s stance in the world—that he must address. In the weeks that remain to this election, he will have to speak to those matters in depth and in unflinching terms that set him apart from his opponent. And he’ll have to do it often.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

A version of this article appeared September 18, 2012, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Fourth Estate, Still Thrilling to the Spirit of ’08.

Bias is a function that emerges from the decision as to “what is news,” what’s considered news, what’s considered a gaffe.  And this was one amazing week.

Mitt Romney’s denunciation of a statement – the ONLY official statement from the Obama regime for 15 hours after the US Embassy in Cairo issued its famous “statement” and which was FINALLY likewise denounced by the Obama White House an hour AFTER Romney showed some leadership – was considered “news” more than the fact that the entire Middle East and Muslim world was melting down all around Obama’s weak foreign policy.

A US ambassador was raped and then murdered in a preplanned attack that the White House lied about because Obama failed to provide that ambassador with anywhere near adequate security.  The entire Muslim world was in flames.  But do you want to know what the media said the “news” was?  That Romney should have waited longer before issuing a statement. 

That Barack Obama’s “soft” foreign policy has utterly failed all over the world isn’t “news.”  That a US ambassador was raped and murdered isn’t “news.”  That Obama sent a good man to die in a dangerous hellhole without bothering to give him anywhere NEAR the security that he has provided his political adviser at Martha’s Freaking Vineyard isn’t “news.”  The fact that Obama is as we speak preparing to cut $131 million from embassy security isn’t “news.”  And the fact that the Obama White House and in fact the entire Obama regime have been caught repeatedly LYING about the cause of the Middle East meltdown isn’t “news.”

What’s the capital of Israel, President Obama?  Why are people in 33 Muslim countries burning our flag and burning pictures of YOU after your famous “new beginning,” President Obama?  Are all of these people at war with us or not, President Obama?  None of those embarrassing answers that Obama has no answer for is “news” so you can count on Pimp with a Limp (the only “journalists” Obama is willing to talk to these days) won’t ask such questions.

As for “gaffes,” how on earth is it NOT a MASSIVE gaffe that a sitting president of the United States declares than a country that has been an official ALLY of the United States for 23 years is in fact NOT an ally, only to be corrected by his own State Department which says that contrary to the president Egypt IS an ally?  Given the fact that Egypt is the heart of the Middle East, how is that not an ENORMOUS gaffe?  Egypt was declared a “major non-NATO ally of the United States” in 1989.  Is this a good time to make that kind of massive foreign policy error???  But that wasn’t really “news,” either; far better to attack Mitt Romney as often and over as many things as possible.

Nope.  Journalists will not look deeply at ANY of that because it hurts Obama, and Obama is the only messiah with whom they have to do.  And as much as “journalists” love their Big Brother, they hate Big Brother’s Emmanuel Goldstein.

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.

Obama Allows Still ANOTHER Terrorist To Almost Succeed

May 5, 2010

Remember 9/11/2001?  George Bush could have got lucky in all sorts of ways.  The FBI could have apprehended the Saudi Arabian flight school students who showed absolutely no interest in learning how to land, for instance.   A security screener could have caught the terrorists before they boarded the planes.  Passengers could have refused to allow terrorists armed with box cutters to take the plane.  A whole bunch of things could have happened – and 9/11 would have been a fairly minor story about a bunch of terrorists who had a grandiose plan that failed to work.

But that wasn’t happen.  Bush didn’t get lucky.  And the country got hit hard as a result.

Well, Barry Hussein has gotten lucky quite a bit.

He’s already got quite a list of “man-caused disasters” on his record.

Ultimately Obama’s luck is going to run out, and we’re going to get hit harder than ever.

Obama Admin Blows It Again? Person of Interest in Times Square Bombing “Familiar” to Investigators
Monday, May, 3, 2010 | KristinnCBS News is reporting the Pakistani-American allegedly tied by forensic evidence to the Times Square bombing attempt last Saturday is “familiar” to the Obama administration:

A source told CBS News that investigators are looking at a possible suspect, a Pakistani American, in the botched car bombing incident near Times Square. The source said forensic evidence uncovered in the vehicle led them to a Middle Eastern man’s name that was familiar to counter terrorism investigators.

Fox News reported the Obama administration knows the person of interest recently returned from Pakistan:

Federal authorities have identified a person of interest in Saturday night’s Times Square bomb attempt — a naturalized American citizen who was in Pakistan for several months and returned to the United States recently, investigative sources told Fox News.

…Sources say that evidence includes international phone calls made by the person of interest, who has not been identified publicly.

The Obama administration’s familiarity with the person of interest is in keeping with recent failures by the Obama administration to stop terror attacks on American soil by those known to the administration to have suspected ties to overseas Muslim terrorist elements:

Fox News, June 2, 2009:

A 23-year-old convert to Islam with “political and religious motives” killed a soldier just out of basic training and wounded another in a targeted attack on a military recruiting center in Arkansas, police said.

The suspect, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, reportedly had been under investigation by an FBI joint terrorism task force after he traveled to Yemen and was arrested there for using a Somali passport. The probe was in its early stages and based on Muhammad’s trip to Yemen, according to ABC News.

While there, Muhammad — a U.S. citizen from Memphis who is a convert to Islam and was previously known as Carlos Bledsoe — studied jihad with an Islamic scholar, Jihadwatch.org reported.

Muhammad told authorities that he approached the recruiting center in Little Rock by car on Monday and started shooting at two soldiers in uniform, according to a police report.

ABC News, November 9, 2009:

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that (Fort Hood massacre terrorist) Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with an individual associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

Washington Post, December 27, 2009:

A Nigerian man charged Saturday with attempting to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day was listed in a U.S. terrorism database last month after his father told State Department officials that he was worried about his son’s radical beliefs and extremist connections, officials said.

The suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was added to a catch-all terrorism-related database when his father, a Nigerian banker, reported concerns about his son’s “radicalization and associations” to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a senior administration official said. Abdulmutallab was not placed on any watch list for flights into the United States, however, because there was “insufficient derogatory information available” to include him, another administration official said.

Is the Times Square bombing attempt another example of the Obama administration’s failure to connect the dots and stop yet another terrorist attack on American soil on their watch? So far, the evidence does not look good for Obama and his administration.

What is amazing is that the Obama administration is endlessly surprised that terrorists actually carried out all the terrorist attacks.  Nidal Hassan shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he mowed down soldiers.  But that was just too sophisticated of a detail for Obama and his crack team of Inspector Clouseaus.

And here they are at it again:

It is too early to tell whether the incident in New York’s Times Square was a terror incident involving al Qaeda or another terror network, a federal official briefed on the situation told CNN early Sunday.

The investigation by the New York police “just started,” the official said.

The official cautioned that connecting any dots this soon will get “way ahead” of the investigation.

But based on the preliminary investigation, the official downplayed the impact of the car bomb, saying, “if it was real, it didn’t work.”

A second federal official also said there are no clear indicators that this is international terrorism.

Which is still better than where they started, when they dismissed the terrorist link altogether:

Officials said it was not considered to be a terrorist threat, and New York City police reportedly asked federal authorities to stand down.

We’re being “protected” by fools and incompetents.  And it’s only a matter of time before we massively pay for it.

Bu-Bu-But I thought Obama Was Making The World Love Us After Bush

January 6, 2010

The world just loves that Barack Obama, the lamestream media keeps telling us, and they love America because of Obama.

Other than the fact that they don’t.

Sarkozy cools toward Obama

Source: Global Times
December 29 2009]

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has gone cold on his US counterpart Barack Obama, the Financial Times (FT) reported Monday.

Sarkozy, whose pro-Washington stance has seen him nicknamed “Sarko the American,” stressed that France and the US were “the same family” during his first face-to-face meeting with Obama in April since the US elections last year.

But the French president has clashed since then with his US counterpart on a series of issues, raising the question of whether Sarkozy is reverting to the anti-US posture of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac.

“He has now shifted from a pro-Bush position to an anti-Obama position,” the FT quoted Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, international affairs spokesman for the opposition Socialists, as saying.

Obama’s irritation with his French counterpart began when Sarkozy tried to grab the limelight at the G20 summit in London in April and talked condescendingly of the US President in private.

Sarkozy told colleagues that he found Obama to be inexperienced and unbriefed, especially on climate change, according to The Times of London.

In September, the French president expressed his frustration over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the priority that Obama attaches to the long-term goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.

The French government also refused a US request to send more troops to Afghanistan, while several other European allies are planning to do so.

The French press often publishes Sarkozy’s unflattering comments about Obama’s lack of prior government experience, his alleged difficulty in reaching decisions or his domestic electoral setbacks.

“The paradox of the situation is that in terms of the relationship with the US, he can do a Chirac in that he can criticize the Americans but he can do it from a position that is 180 degrees different from Chirac,” the FT quoted François Heisbourg, an adviser to the Foundation for Strategic Research, a Paris-based think tank, as saying.

“He can play to a habitual anti-American standpoint but not from a position that is fundamentally anti-American,” he added.

Agencies – Global Times

“Pro-Bush position”?  “Anti-Obama position”?  Blasphemy!!!  “Objective” journalists across the nation tear their robes at this crime against He-Who-Makes-Their-Legs-Quiver.

This “anti-Obama position” didn’t just happen overnight.  It began with Obama’s reckless spending plan also known as the stimulus.  Many leaders of European countries that had already seen the socialist road to hell did not want to go over it again, as Obama demanded:

But it is not just Canada where the unemployed are faring better. Other countries, too, decided against a massive stimulus plan. In March, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel nodding in agreement at his side, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared: “the problem is not about spending more.” Later that month, the president of the European Union, Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek of the Czech Republic, castigated the Obama administration’s deficit spending and bank bailouts as “a road to hell.” The Washington Post wrote that there was a “fundamental divide that persists between the United States and many European countries over the best way to respond to the global financial crisis.”

The unemployment rate in the European Union was higher than in the United States to begin with even before the Obama administration’s spending. By January, the EU unemployment rate stood at 8.5 percent — almost a whole percentage point higher than ours.  So what has happened since the big U.S. stimulus spending spree was passed? We more than caught up with the EU’s high unemployment rate.  By August, the last month data is available for the EU, the U.S.’s unemployment rate slightly exceeded the EU’s — 9.7 versus 9.6 percent.

And of course the leaders of Europe were right, and Obama is an  inexperienced, unqualified, and incompetent socialist nincompoop.  And watching your fellow leader on the other side of the pond fail doesn’t inspire either confidence or camaraderie.

Another issue has been the unrelenting march of Iran toward nuclear weapons while Obama dithered, pontificated, and showed his weakness while many European leaders are after years FINALLY beginning to understand the threat of a nuclear Iran.  From an article I wrote months ago:

And Obama is displaying his steely resolve…

Western diplomats had initially said the international powers would not accept any attempt to drag out the negotiations beyond Friday.

However, the United States said that it was now prepared to wait for Iran’s reply.

… by showing even less resolve than France.  In answer to the question, “Why Is a World Leader Distancing Himself From President Obama?”:

One major sticking point has been President Obama’s softer stance on Iran, while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last month: “I support America’s outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.”

This on top of other remarks Sarkozy has made about Obama’s naivete and weakness:

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

Even pantywaist Europe is calling Obama a pantywaist.  And that is the definition of “pathetic.”

Our enemies have been smelling a weakling in the White House since Obama won the election.  Obama talked tough when he had to to win the election, but that tough talk was always a lie.

And of course Obama’s “deadline” for Iran to suspend its nuclear program has now come and gone without so much as a whimper from Obama.

With such profound differences on how to rebuild their economies and take care of their people (or not), and on how to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and protect their people (or not), you can see why the honeymoon might be over.  Just because a thrill goes up Chris Matthews leg doesn’t mean that one goes up Nicholas Sarkozy’s.

Well, at least the terrorists don’t dare attack us under the beloved Obama.

Oops, wait a second.  I guess we’ve had a dozen attempted terrorist attacks in 2009, including two that were completely undetected on Obama’s watch.  Versus years of being safe under George Bush after he took measures (which Obama dismantled) to keep the country safe.

Not to mention two successful domestic jihadist terrorist attacks in 2009 that resulted in the deaths of Americans.

Obama vowed to completely and fundamentally change the way the world views the United States, and inspire global cooperation.  But when it comes to Europe, Obama gets to talk to the hand.  Obama wants Europe to massively tighten its security.  But it appears he’s fixating on the splinter in Europe’s eye rather than the gigantic log in his own:

NEWARK (CBS) ― It’s a tale of shocking ineptitude: CBS 2 has learned a series of missteps unnecessarily added to the mayhem at Newark Liberty International Airport on Sunday. The six-hour delay stranded thousands of people, creating extreme crowding and chaos.

The mistakes made at the airport give new meaning to the term “domino effect.” It was a cascading series of missteps that cry out for action.

The sign at the Transportation Security Administration screening post at Newark read: “Premises Under Constant Video Surveillance.”

What it should add is: “If We’re Lucky.”

The Post and Courier has this to say about Dear Leader Obama’s handling of the war on terror – oops – make that the “overseas contingency operation” (sans the “overseas” part):

President Obama replaced the top intelligence professionals installed by President Bush on the grounds that they were tainted by what he considered the unethical practices of the last administration in fighting the war on terror. He damaged morale in the intelligence community by reopening a closed investigation of allegations of detainee mistreatment. President Obama has shunned the very concept of a war and has shown a preference for treating terrorist attacks as criminal acts.

Whether the president’s actions gave terrorists an advantage isn’t obvious, but this year for the first time in eight years there have been two undetected terrorist attacks on the United States. The first came on Nov. 5 at Fort Hood, Texas, when Army Maj. Malik Hassan killed 13 and wounded 30 in an attack apparently inspired by radical Muslim views. Hassan was known by U.S. intelligence to be in frequent contact with Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, the same man said to have counseled the unsuccessful Christmas Day bomber.

How’s that “the world loves us now because Obama is president” thing working for you?

I remember the words of Janet Napolitano as she changed “terrorist attack” to “man-caused disaster”:

“In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear…”

There’s still time to use replace “man-caused disasters” with the phrase, “bury-our-heads-in-the-sand-and-hope-it-all-goes-away.”

Maybe “the politics of fear” had the virtue of bearing at least some resemblance to reality.

Hmmm:

Or…