Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts

Thursday, May 08, 2014

Veteran Rep. Tom Cotton Destroys Democrats and Their Fake Outrage Over the Politics of Benghazi

As The Right Scoop observes, Cotton should have dropped the mic when he finished decimating the disgusting tactics of the Left.

Mr. Speaker, couple lessons I learned in the Army were you moved to the sound of gunfire and the most important step in the troop leading procedures is to supervise the execution of you orders.

When Americans were fighting for their lives in Benghazi, Barack Obama did neither. He sent no quick reaction force and didn’t even stay in the situation room to supervise the execution of his orders. We expect more from the lieutenants in the army than our president gave us that night.

For two years he’s covered up this failure of leadership by stonewalling. Not anymore. We will now get to the truth.

But what do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say to this? They express great outrage at politicizing this matter.

When I was leading troops in Iraq in 2006, men and women who were being shot at and blown up by al Qaeda, where was the outrage as they fundraised endlessly off the Iraq war?

Where was the outrage as they viciously attacked our commanders?

Where was the outrage when they said soldiers were war criminals?

Where was the outrage when they said the war was lost?

Where was the outrage when they said only high school dropouts join the Army?

Forgive me if I don’t join my democratic colleagues in their fake outrage. Four Americans lost their lives that night in Benghazi. They deserve justice and the American people deserve the truth.

One other lesson I learned in the Army is that we leave no man behind. And we will not leave these four men behind.

That's what these disgusting losers on the Left don't seem to understand.

Men were fighting for their lives, fighting for hours against hundreds of Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, screaming into comm systems for help because they knew -- they knew -- a Commander-In-Chief would never leave anyone behind.

But they were wrong.

The President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were AWOL. It was 3AM in Benghazi... and no one answered their calls for help.

Where the hell were they?


Hat tip: BadBlue News

Wednesday, May 07, 2014

SUH-PRIZE, SUH-PRIZE: Hillary Clinton Wants the Benghazi Scandal to Just Disappear

Of course, one would expect this kind of response from miscreants who left American heroes to die on the battlefield awaiting help that would never come.

...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday there’s “no reason” to continue making inquiries into the 2012 terrorist attack.

“Of course there are a lot of reasons why, despite all of the hearings, all of the information that’s been provided, some choose not to be satisfied and choose to continue to move forward,” Clinton said. “That’s their choice. And I do not believe there is any reason for it to continue in this way, but they get to call the shots in the Congress.”

A select committee has been formed in Congress with seven Republicans and five Democrats, led by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) to try to get to the bottom of the assault and any White House cover-up to shield President Obama and Clinton herself, who was Secretary of State when the attack happened.

Hillary Clinton is trying to position herself as a moderate, but she is anything but.

She is the Grandmother of Obamacare and her past involves in so much skulduggery that her closet contains a whole damn mausoleum.

She is a radical Leftist whose policies would be every bit as corrupt and destructive as those of Barack Hussein Milhaus Obama.


Hat tip: Weasel Zippers

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

TED CRUZ: Dude, The Truth Isn't Partisan

Guest post by Rob Bluey

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is frustrated by the Obama administration’s “stonewalling” on the Benghazi investigation – and he wants answers about the 2012 terrorist attack.

Speaking to Fox News’ Neil Cavuto yesterday, Cruz said: “We have four dead Americans. We have the first dead U.S. Ambassador killed in service since 1979. In the 19 months that have followed, we don’t have a single dead terrorist or a single terrorist apprehended, and what we have seen from the president and Senate Democrats has been stonewalling.”

Here are the four questions Cruz wants the Obama administration to answer:

  1. Why did the State Department repeatedly refuse to provide additional security as was requested by personnel on the ground?
  2. Why did the United States not have military assets in place to protect American men and women on Sept. 11, 2012, when there was increased terrorist activity in the region?
  3. During the Benghazi attack, why didn’t the United States send in forces to protect the four men who lost their lives?
  4. In the 19 months that have followed, why has no one been apprehended, and no one been brought to justice?

Last year, Cruz introduced a Senate resolution calling for a joint select committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks. The House of Representatives is moving forward with its own select committee, which will be led by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

“The truth shouldn’t be partisan,” Cruz said. “Finding out what happened, finding out how we could have prevented it, and acting to actually apprehend these guys, should not be partisan.”


Related: Q&A: Does a Benghazi Select Committee Matter?

Attkisson: Former Obama Officials and the Media--But I Repeat Myself--Trying to ‘Controversialize’ Benghazi

Guest post by Havilah Steinman

Former CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson suggested today that those in the White House orbit were involved in a “well-orchestrated strategy to controversialize” the recent coverage about the Obama administration’s e-mails regarding the Benghazi talking points in the immediate aftermath.

Two former Obama administration officials, Tommy Vietor and David Plouffe, have appeared on Fox News and ABC News in recent days to downplay the attention surrounding the Benghazi-related e-mails.

After watching a clip that included Plouffe, Attkisson told Fox News today, “The key words they use, such as ‘conspiracy’ and ‘delusional,’ are in my opinion clearly designed to try to controversialize a story — a legitimate news story and a legitimate area of journalistic inquiry.”

“I see that as a well-orchestrated strategy,” she added, “to controversialize a story they really don’t want to hear about.”



Hat tip: BadBlue News

Monday, May 05, 2014

A BOYCOTT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI? For Democrats, Party Always Comes Before Country

Guest post by Investor's Business Daily

Scandal: A Democratic member of the House intelligence committee called Sunday for his party to boycott the newly announced select committee that will probe the Benghazi terrorist attacks, calling it "a colossal waste of time."

Almost as soon as "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi" had fallen from the lips of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — a reprise of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "What difference at this point does it make?" — Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" that he thinks the planned select committee to investigate the 2012 Benghazi attack is a "colossal waste of time" and suggested that Democrats not participate in it.

The congressman responded to Speaker John Boehner's announcement that a special committee to investigate Benghazi, and the cover-up that followed, by dismissing claims that new emails were "smoking gun" evidence that the inflammatory video excuse was concocted to safeguard President Obama's re-election and Hillary's future candidacy.

Calling the yet-to-be-approved committee a "tremendous red herring," Schiff said: "I don't think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate." After all, we got the maker of the video, as Hillary Clinton promised the parents of the dead while their son's casket arrived at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, D.C.

Former White House adviser David Plouffe, speaking on ABC's "This Week," called the committee "bogus." He was one of the recipients of a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, discussing the prepping of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before her whirlwind tour of five Sunday talk shows to specifically and emphatically blame an Internet video for the attack.

YET ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS: White House Suggests It Will Ignore Select Committee on Benghazi

I've lost count. How many Constitutional Crises does this make?

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney today indicated the White House will refuse to cooperate with a new House committee tasked with investigating Benghazi.

“We have always cooperated with legitimate oversight,” Carney said this afternoon during the daily White House briefing. Asked whether the panel qualified as “legitimate,” he said: “I think if you look at what even some Republicans have said, it certainly casts doubt on the legitimacy of an effort that is so partisan in nature.”

“You know, at some point, you just have to assume that Republicans will continue this because it feeds a political objective of some sort,” he added. “At the same time you have to ask, ‘What about the American people who want to see Congress work for them?’”

What about the American people who wanted to see the Commander-in-Chief attempt to rescue them from a half-day long terror attack? You know, all of the dead and grievously wounded at Benghazi waiting for military back-up that would never come?

Simple question for the Democrats:

Has a president ever gone AWOL for 10 hours (that's 100 My Pet Goats, fat boy) after a U.S. Ambassador was reported missing and dozens of American diplomats were facing imminent death during a terror attack?

That's a rhetorical question for you drones: the answer is no.

If Obama does indeed refuse to cooperate with Congressional oversight, it will be more than past time to initiate impeachment proceedings. More conservatives in the House and Republican control of the Senate will go along way towards making that a reality.


Hat tip: BadBlue News

Sunday, May 04, 2014

A TRUTHFUL VERSION OF THE OBAMA 2012 SLOGAN: "Chris Stevens is Dead and Al Qaeda is Alive"

Stephen F. Hayes offers an incisive summary of the fraud perpetrated against the victims' families and the American people regarding the Benghazi attacks.

At the same time the White House was putting the video at the center of the Benghazi story, intelligence professionals and U.S. officials on the ground in Libya were describing a precise attack carried out by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. The Weekly Standard has learned that an analysis from the Defense Intelligence Agency produced a day before Rhodes sent his email assigned blame for the attacks to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al Sharia Libya. The DIA analysis did not mention a video. It adds to the still-growing body of memos and warnings from top U.S. officials. The top U.S. intelligence official on the ground in Libya repeatedly told officials in Washington that the Benghazi attacks were part of a planned assault by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. The top diplomat in the country said the same thing. Last week, a top intelligence official for AFRICOM told Congress that he shared that view.

We are left with this reality: Top diplomats and intelligence officers in Libya offered assessments of the Benghazi attacks that were true when they made them and remain true today. But top Obama administration officials ignored those assessments. Six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, those officials—at the direction of White House communications and political strategists desperate to maintain the fiction that al Qaeda was “on the run”—lied to the public about how four Americans were killed in a sophisticated attack carried out, on the anniversary of 9/11, by terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda.

Andrew C. McCarthy rolls back the fraud even further, painting a compelling case that the unknown filmmaker's video was not the cause of any of the 9/11/12 violence, including that which occurred in Cairo.

POLL: What was Barack Obama doing for 10 hours after learning of the Benghazi attacks?

A new poll courtesy of @BiffSpackle:



Remember all of the liberal criticism of George W. Bush reading My Pet Goat (I'm talking to you, fat boy) after being alerted by aides that the World Trade Center was under attack? Never mentioned by the liberal loons: Bush was asked by the Secret Service to give them some time to secure an evacuation route to Air Force One. So he read the book to the schoolkids for a total of six whole minutes.

The criticism from the Left was deafening.

Yet, in Benghazi, we can't even find out what the President was doing for 10 hours after learning of the attacks, leaving Americans to die awaiting a rescue that would never come.

10 hours, or 100 My Pet Goats.

Talk amongst yourselves.


Saturday, May 03, 2014

LIMBAUGH: Watergate is Benghazi. Except this time, Woodward and Bernstein are helping Nixon cover it up.

Rush Limbaugh:

What we’re watching here today is the equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein helping Nixon cover up Watergate. The mainstream media is Woodward and Bernstein. Watergate is Benghazi. Except this time, Woodward and Bernstein are helping Nixon cover it up.

The media are not interested in this at all. They don't really think there is anything, and those of them who do know that there's something here want to cover it up. Now, the media are made up of a lot of stupid people. And the media are made up of a lot of uninformed people and the media are made up of a lot of people with a lot of prejudice. And there are a lot of reporters who will discount Benghazi simply because of who is interested in it. For example, Fox is interested in it and it automatically is nothing. If I'm interested in it it doesn't rate any interest, because Fox and me, all we want is to get Obama.

That's how prejudiced they are and short minded. You have some of the media who know full well what they're doing and they're working with the regime to cover it up. Then you have real activists in the media who know exactly what happened and who fear the truth coming out and are going to do everything they can to protect Obama, including trying to lay the blame off on Republicans somehow or the military, or the video that nobody ever saw...

The memo shows that the White House knew exactly what happened and was trying to protect Obama from it, with Susan Rice being briefed. And Dr. Krauthammer says that's the equivalent of the Nixon tapes being discovered.

The Nixon tapes were big. The 18-minute gap, Rose Mary Wood, the secretary, Nixon taping all the people, Haldeman and Ehrlichman. It's what enabled Woodward and Bernstein to go. I still like my comparison that the Drive-Bys of today are the equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein helping to cover it up. When Dr. Krauthammer says the other media are somewhat embarrassed because they allowed themselves to be stoned spun and rolled for a year and a half. Now the memo appears, it's obvious they missed the story....

The media and the administration official in the White House were both ragging on Fox. They were watching Fox. They were watching the O'Reilly Factor and they were e-mailing each other back and forth. O'Reilly was going back and forth how Benghazi was a big thing and the media was missing it and clearly the video had nothing to do with it. And these two people, one a Drive-By reporter, the other an administration official, were both writing back and forth about what B.S. Fox was talking about...

AP reporter Matt Lee and Regime official Victoria Nuland, State Department, were writing back and forth. E-mails to each other about what a bunch of B.S. is on Fox as O'Reilly is discounting the Regime theory on the video explaining why there were protests in Benghazi and that's why the Ambassador is dead. So the point is you have a State Department official writing back and forth with a news media person, Matt Lee. If you read it, it's clear that Matt Lee from the Associated Press is offering his assistance to the regime.

My only point in bringing this up is the media didn't have to be spun. The media didn't have to be rolled. I'm not criticizing Krauthammer, please don't misunderstand. I'm disagreeing with the role of the media here. They're totally already in the Obama camp. They are Obamaites first and journalists second. They're liberal Democrats first and journalists second. They're not even journalists anymore. So you have Victoria Nuland at the State Department and this Matt Lee guy and they're watching O'Reilly and O'Reilly is making all the sense in the world about the video not being responsible for anything here, and these two people are writing back and forth about what a bunch of B.S. is on Fox.

Now, the AP reporter, he doesn't know from anything. He's not asking the State Department babe, "Hey, is what I'm hearing on Fox right?" He's not asking the government official, "Hey, could O'Reilly have a point here? Maybe the video doesn't have anything --" No, the AP reporter was already in bed with the State Department official, and they were already conspiring with each other on how to make sure nobody believed the Fox report or the Fox version of things. They wanted to make sure that the Fox version of things remained marginalized and isolated. I don't think the media has to be spun, and I don't think they're embarrassed now. I don't think there's any regret that they missed this story.

The regret is they weren't able to successfully cover it up. If anything, the Drive-By media is gnashing its teeth over the fact that the original Fox and anti-standard media version of this, my version, is the one that's real, that the regime has been lying. They're mad that that has been learned. So now they've gotta cover it up. So we're into the cover up of a cover-up now. The media is not interested in the truth of this story. They never have been. This has been a circle the wagons event from the get-go. From the night of the Benghazi attack, this has been a circle the wagons moment. Now they've gotta do it again.


Hat tip: BadBlue News

ANOTHER NEW LOW FOR JOHN KERRY: "We need another intifada" to force Israel to surrender its sovereignty

And you thought John Kerry had already hit rock bottom, n'est ce pas?

In anonymous briefing to top columnist, members of Kerry’s team slam Netanyahu, empathize with Abbas, warn Palestine will rise ‘whether through violence or via int’l organizations’


American officials directly involved in the failed Israeli-Palestinian peace process over the last nine months gave a leading Israeli columnist a withering assessment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the negotiations, indicated that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has completely given up on the prospect of a negotiated solution, and warned Israel that the Palestinians will achieve statehood come what may — either via international organizations or through violence...

...One bitter American official told Barnea, “I guess we need another intifada to create the circumstances that would allow progress...”

...In a rare attribution of some blame to Abbas, the Americans said they “couldn’t understand why it bothered him so much” to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. But here too, ultimately, the Americans were empathetic to Abbas: “The Palestinians came to the conclusion that Israel was pulling a nasty trick on them. They suspected there was an effort to get from them approval of the Zionist narrative.

...Israel can expect to face international isolation and possible sanctions from countries and companies across the world if Netanyahu fails to endorse a framework agreement with the Palestinians, Obama cautioned in an interview with Bloomberg at the time. If Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach,” Obama said then. “There comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices,” he said.

The president went on to condemn Israel’s settlement activities in the West Bank, and said that though his allegiance to the Jewish state was permanent, building settlements across the Green Line was counterproductive and would make it extremely difficult for the US to defend Israel from painful repercussions in the international community. “If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction — and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time — if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited,” Obama warned.

Late last year, Kerry -- whose face has been distorted by repeated failed plastic surgeries and now resembles that of Mr. Potato Head -- lashed out at Israel and mentioned the possibility of a "Third Intifida" (i.e., a wave of mass murders of innocent women and children).

Never before, to my knowledge, has an American diplomat hoped for a wave of mass murder on the civilian population of an ally.

I placed the map of Israel above for a reason. The purple borders illustrate how Egypt and Jordan could tear down their security walls and thereby allow Palestinians freedom in Arab lands.

Why doesn't John Kerry talk about that? Why doesn't Barack Obama mention that?

We know why. Indeed, we know exactly why.


Hat tip: BadBlue News

Friday, May 02, 2014

BEN RHODES HITS THE QUADFECTA: Email Breakdown

Thanks to JudicialWatch (PDF), we have the original email from White House propagandist Ben Rhodes regarding the Benghazi cover-up.

Check out the four talking points, annotated by @BiffSpackle:


Oh, my.


Related: May 10, 2013: Ted Cruz has 12 Questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

JAY CARNEY: Man Without Shame

Guest post by Investor's Business Daily

Benghazi Cover-Up: The administration's tangled web of deceit now includes lying about prior lies as the White House press secretary tries to cover up its cover-up of why four Americans died in a terrorist attack.

No, that was not Winston Smith, the rewriter of history working for the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's classic novel "1984," tap-dancing once again before a no-longer-sycophantic White House press corps. Rather, it was that master storyteller, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

Carney shamefully continued to insist that when then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on five Sunday talk shows days after the 2012 attack to offer an untrue story that Benghazi was the result of an inflammatory video, she was acting on the best intelligence offered by the intelligence community.

Carney said this knowing that Mike Morell, CIA deputy director two years ago, testified before Congress and said the video story did not come from CIA analysts.

As for the emails that showed the administration's motives for the story were political, to protect a president running for re-election and a secretary of state that wanted to be his successor, Carney offered his entry for 2014 Lie Of The Year: The emails obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch in a lawsuit specifically seeking Benghazi documents weren't really about Benghazi.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview on TheBlaze TV that the newly released emails bring questions about the slaughter "into the White House, and it shows that the idea that the CIA created the talking points that Susan Rice was using is a big fat lie."

In an argumentative exchange between Carney and ABC News' Jon Karl, Carney insisted that "if you look at the document in question here, it is not about Benghazi; it is about the protests around the Muslim world outside of U.S. embassies" and it was the general situation in the Middle East that Rice was being prepped for.

To his credit, Karl asked all the right questions in response to Carney's song and dance: "Why were you holding back this information? Why was this email not turned over to the Congress? Why was it not released when you released all the other emails?" and, of course, if what Carney was saying is true, why did it take a court case to get the unredacted email released?

Thursday, May 01, 2014

The Two Brothers at the Center of the Benghazi Cover-up

Guest post by Rob Bluey

The disclosure this week of a White House document on Benghazi has thrust CBS News into the spotlight for its coverage in the aftermath of the terrorist attack.

CBS News President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser who drafted the newly released document about Benghazi just days after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed four Americans. Ben Rhodes’s involvement was first revealed Tuesday when Judicial Watch obtained the document as part of a court case.

Last night, “CBS Evening News” did not cover the latest developments on the story, even though reporters peppered White House press secretary Jay Carney with questions earlier in the day.

The Washington Free Beacon reports CBS was the only evening newscast not to cover the latest details on Benghazi. The program instead covered “the weather, Oklahoma executions, and the arrest of a former Irish Republican Army operative.”

Earlier yesterday, Glenn Beck interviewed Sharyl Attkisson, a former CBS News investigative reporter, about the Benghazi disclosure and the Rhodes brothers. Attkisson revealed that she sought the same Ben Rhodes document that Judicial Watch eventually obtained. CBS News, however, would not take the matter to court.

“CBS wasn’t willing to file a [Freedom of Information Act] lawsuit when I was there to try to get some of these documents,” Attkisson said.

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Obama's 3-Part Benghazi Strategy: Lie, Lie, and Lie Again

Guest post by Investor's Business Daily

Scandal: Newly obtained emails on Benghazi show then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was coached by a key White House aide to lie and ignore the facts known and reported on the ground to make the administration look good.

The fish rots from the head, as the saying goes, and no further proof is needed than a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, contained in more than 100 pages of documents released by Judicial Watch and obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request.

That email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 p.m. ET," was sent to other key White House staffers such as then-Communications Director David Plouffe and Press Secretary Jay Carney the day before now-National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her whirlwind tour on five Sunday news show appearances to specifically and emphatically blame an Internet video for the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other nationals were killed.

One of the goals listed in the emails was the need for Rice "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy." She was also to "reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges." Her job was not to tell the truth, but to put lipstick on the Obama administration's Benghazi pig.

INTERNET SMACKDOWN O' THE DAY: Benghazi Edition

Over at The Daily Beast, investigative journalist Eli Lake has been doing yeoman's work exposing the Obama administration's scandals to otherwise clueless Newsweek readers (Lake is responsible for the Beast's inclusion on The Top 150 Conservative Websites, an admittedly controversial move on my part).

Lake's reporting on the latest Benghazi revelations is articulate, factual and damning. As any rational observer could have predicted -- and the latest emails now prove -- the White House lied to the faces of the Benghazi victims' families, lied to the American public, and lied to Congress about the nature of the attack.

Oh, and as an added bonus, President Obama and Hillary Clinton tossed an innocent filmmaker in the clink to reinforce their cover story.

No matter. The point of this particular post -- I'm rambling, I know -- is the commentary following Lake's revelations. An ever-dwindling number of Obama defenders, drones, sycophants, and other miscreants are still attempting to defend the indefensible.

Like this schmuck, who goes by the handle "Leftcoastnative" (a liberal in California? Who knew?):

Here's what republicans would have said if the Benghazi attack had happened on a republican president's watch, and if the Secretary of State's name hadn't been "Clinton."

(crickets.........crickets..........crickets........ crickets.........)

Somewhere deep in the recesses of congressional republicans' digital trash cans, are the deleted e-mails that said: "Whatever you do, don't mention the fact that we cut the State Department's security budget by half a billion dollars in the two yeas before Benghazi, and be sure we keep calling it a consulate even though we all know it was a CIA station."

"And just for the heck of it, let's not mention that Stevens was our point man with the Libyan rebels before he was Ambassador. It might muddy the water. Oh.....if someone asks what the heck the ambassador was doing at a lightly defended CIA station in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 instead of tucked away safe and sound at the embassy in Tripoli, just pivot to the IRS or Fast and Furious."

Regarding the State Department's security budget, that tired canard -- first marketed by the dumbest Vice President in American history -- was long ago refuted by the State Department itself:

In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats.

But the funniest smackdown of Leftcoastnative's central contention was proferred by "F_this_State":

@Leftcoastnative: I think it's amazing that so many liberals know what would happen in this imaginary alternate universe where a republican got elected instead of obama. You should all really go find a scientist, tell them you can see into alternate realities, and then prove that you can. You'd win a nobel prize for sure, and advance humanity into a new golden age.

It's just amazing that so many people have access to all the multiple universes and never told anyone. The physics community is going to be ecstatic.

And as it pertains to Benghazi, my primary question remains unanswered.

The same Leftist twits who reveled in George W. Bush reading My Pet Goat for seven minutes during the 9/11 attacks (as it turns out, at Secret Service request to prepare for a safe evacuation route to Air Force One) haven't once asked what Barack Obama did for 12 hours after being notified his Ambassador was about to be kidnapped or murdered.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Krauthammer on the sad, amoral, and pathetic excuse for a human being known as Hillary Clinton

Dr. Krauthammer about sums it up.

I find the most scandalous element of this from purely just a human point of view, is the fact that the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the bodies of the dead lying in front of her and with the families there, brought up the video and said a video with which we had nothing to do, and then according to one of the family members, when she went over to console that family member, she said ‘We’re going to get the guy who did the video.’


Now, that to me, if she knew that this was a phony story and I’m not sure I can understand how it would be otherwise, is a form of deception that I think is truly scandalous.

The back-story, for those who may have missed it, is here.


HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS: Administration's Benghazi Lies Were an "Effort to Protect, Re-Elect Obama"

The cover-up is confirmed.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”  Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.

Cold-blooded lies invented to hide the fact that American heroes fought and died while awaiting a rescue that would never come.

Previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that a coordinated effort was made in the days following the Benghazi terror attacks to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.”

Emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans.

Rhodes sent this email to top White House officials such as David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack.

The “goal,” according to these emails, was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Bryan Preston well summarizes the implications for the Beltway Elite.

The “goal,” therefore, was to lie convincingly enough to get the president re-elected. It takes a special coldness to tell that lie with the bodies of the dead in coffins behind you. Hillary Clinton managed that without a trace of a conscience to slow her down...

...It’s well to remember at this point who Ben Rhodes is. According to the White House, he is assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications and speechwriting. That sounds nice, but he has no career in the military or intelligence. Rhodes is a career partisan Democrat and Obama loyalist who was put on the National Security Council because he is a loyalist to the man. Not the nation. Or the facts on the ground in Libya or anywhere else. Rhodes’ loyalty belongs to Barack Obama.

He needs to be compelled to testify under oath about all this.

The latest revelation is, in Roger L. Simon's opinion, the lynchpin for an impeachment trial.

The levels of criminality involved in this are mind-boggling. Everyone from Ben Rhodes to Hillary Clinton to Jay Carney to Susan Rice to Mike Morell to Barack Obama and on and on must explain themselves minute-by-minute. American “liberals” and their media consorts should search their souls. People died here...

...Anyone who now considers Benghazi a “fake scandal” is a either a complete liar or a moron. This new release of emails thanks to Judicial Watch is literally a call to arms. We will now see if there is even a figment of honesty in our mainstream media and if our elected representatives are to be trusted in any way.

It is our duty as citizens to put as pressure on those representatives as possible to carry through this investigation to its natural conclusion — impeachment.

In light of this discovery, will the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, finally name a Select Committee on Benghazi?

Will Darrell "Inspector Clouseau" Issa explain why a watchdog group like Judicial Watch -- and not his unfocused and possibly incompetent Oversight Committee -- is doing all of the heavy lifting in this investigation?

Will the media finally admit that they are co-conspirators in the cover-up?

As Preston concludes:

It was not about a movie. The terrorists who attacked the embassy in Cairo wanted to force the U.S. to release the blind sheikh who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center attack. What did the terrorists who attacked Benghazi shortly thereafter want? Why did they attack that facility, and did they know that the U.S. ambassador was there? Where was Barack Obama while Ben Rhodes was directing a cover-up? Why was the military not allowed to respond?

I have my theories.


Hat tip: BadBlue News

RESET: The Obama administration opts for fake sanctions on Putin

Guest post by George Friedman

The United States announced new sanctions on seven Russian government officials April 28. A long-used tactic, sanctions can yield unpredictable effects or have no effect at all, depending upon how they are crafted. It is commonly assumed that sanctions are applied when a target country's actions are deemed unacceptable. The sanctioning nation presumably chooses sanctions to avoid war when war would be too costly or could result in defeat.

Sanctions' stated purpose is to induce behavioral changes in a target state by causing economic pain. To work, sanctions must therefore cause pain. But they must not be so severe that they convince the target state that war is more desirable than capitulating to the demands of the sanctioning nation.

When Sanctions Work Too Well

In July 1941, when the Japanese invaded Indo-China, the United States responded by freezing all Japanese assets. The United Kingdom and the Dutch East Indies (today's Indonesia) followed suit. The sanctions were quite effective, and Japan wound up cut off from the bulk of international trade, losing 90 percent of its imported oil. Japan had to respond, but instead of withdrawing from Indo-China, it attacked Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese example is worth considering. The United States placed Japan in a situation where its oil supplies would be depleted in months, at which point Japan would cease to be an industrial power. Tokyo could have accepted the American terms, but once it did this, it would have established a U.S. veto over Japanese decisions.

The Japanese did not trust the United States and were convinced that any capitulation to sanctions would simply lead to more U.S. demands. Tokyo understood the risks of war but calculated that these risks were lower than the risks of complying with U.S. demands (though the Japanese might well have been wrong in this calculation, and Franklin Roosevelt might well have known that Tokyo would choose war over capitulation). Faced with sanctions that would cripple the nation, Japan chose war.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

THE REAL REASON FOR THE BUNDY RANCH TAKEOVER ATTEMPT: Solyndra on a Massive Scale

Guest post by James Simpson

Speaking to a local TV news program Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada declared: “This isn’t over.” And he is certainly correct. The showdown between BLM and Cliven Bundy – the last rancher in Clark County, Nev. – was but the latest battle in a long-running conflict.

Supposedly at issue was the desert tortoise, a reptile on the endangered species list that purportedly could not coexist on the land with Bundy’s cattle. But why, many asked, would the turtle suddenly be threatened by animals it had cohabited with for the 100-plus years the Bundy ranch has been in operation?

A BLM document unearthed last week discusses mitigation strategies for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, just southwest of the Bundy ranch. The “mitigation strategy” proposed to use the grazing lands near the Bundy ranch as a kind of sanctuary for the desert tortoise, because the entire region is slated for a large number of solar, wind and geothermal energy generation facilities.

The solar projects will obliterate most of the turtle’s natural habitat.

Bloggers quickly made a connection between the effort to remove Bundy’s cattle and a solar energy project in Southern Nevada financed by the communist Chinese energy firm ENN. It was to be the largest solar farm in the U.S.

Reid had lobbied heavily for the company’s business, even traveling to China. Reid’s son, Rory Reid, formerly a Clark County commissioner, became a lobbyist for ENN, and the Senate majority leader’s former senior adviser, Neil Kornze, now leads the BLM.

But the solar energy complex financed by the communist Chinese was not at the heart of the Bundy Ranch fiasco after all. The project died last year.

However, the BLM’s library of renewable energy projects revealed it was only one of more than 50 solar, wind and geothermal projects planned for Nevada, California, Arizona and other Western states. Reid was focused on at least one, and maybe more, of the projects, much closer to the Bundy ranch.