Posts Tagged ‘Stevens’

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

October 19, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

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.