Showing posts with label Holding Paper - Obama and Benghazi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Holding Paper - Obama and Benghazi. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

For me, the worst moment of the Obama presidency was when Obama threw the First Amendment under the bus.

Now we have clear evidence from Leon Panetta of how much of a loathsome lie that was.

And has anyone ever interviewed the "film-maker"?  If this was a Republican administration, that guy would be giving speeches at colleges just like a certain convicted cop killer.

Host Andrea Mitchell asked Panetta, “You wrote in the book that you disagreed with David Petraeus and told the situation room he thought it was a spontaneous demonstration outside the consulate that night. Why did you disagree. What didn’t ring true about that?”

Panetta fired: “I didn’t have any specific information, but the fact was that when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration, something else is going on. From the very beginning I sensed that this was an attack, a terrorist attack on the compound. I remember saying look, based on the ones I see and the nature of the attack, I think this was a terrorist attack. He said look, the information we are getting from intelligence sources is that it really was a demonstration. I said you know, David, i don’t see it that way.”

Both President Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the protest point of view. For weeks after the attack both Clinton and Obama blamed the attack on an obscure YouTube video. The producer of that video was later arrested and spent a year in prison on parole violations.

Up to now, Panetta’s criticisms of Obama’s handling of foreign policy, in particular his handling of Iraq and the rise of the Islamic State, could be seen through the lens of Panetta tearing away at Obama to help his longtime friend Hillary Clinton distance herself from the unpopular president as she gears up to run for president in 2016.

But Panetta’s Benghazi comments are different. Clinton stood before the bodies of the four Americans who were killed in the Benghazi attack and blamed the protest. She reportedly told the parents of one of the slain Americans that a video was to blame, and its producer would be prosecuted. He was.//


Friday, May 16, 2014

Benghazi - Where was the President?

Answer: Sleeping so that he could be rested when he hit up Democrat fatcats for donations.

In short, President Obama told Panetta and Dempsey to do what was needed, and then retired for the evening. Vietor said last week that Obama and Clinton spoke by phone at 10 p.m., and that the president was in the private residence, not the White House Situation Room.
The president’s defenders can accurately state that the only way the president’s bedtime on the night of September 11, 2012, is relevant is if the military required his authorization for a particular act — say, entering Libyan airspace without permission from the host government. At this time, there has been no indication that was the case.
But even if the president’s bedtime wasn’t particularly consequential to the events on the ground on Benghazi, it certainly makes for an unflattering portrait of the president, heading to sleep as the battle raged, making sure he was sufficiently rested for the next day’s campaign rally in Las Vegas. This administration made sure the public knew how plugged-in and riveted President Obama was regarding the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound. Leaving the response to the events in Benghazi to subordinates while he slept offers a portrait strangely disengaged, even callous, about the lives of the men who carry out his orders in dangerous lands. Obama’s absence from the Situation Room may not have been decisive, but it can still prove embarrassing and politically damaging.
We know where President Obama was the night of September 11, 2012, but not why he was where he was.

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Good questions...

....to the media.



Powerful statements by Trey Gowdy that ought to shame the media.

More on same.

Eleanor Clift demonstrates that people want to buy the lies.

Friday, May 02, 2014

Where was Obama during Bengazi?

He wasn't in the situation room:

Former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor appeared last night on Bret Baier’s Fox News Channel program Special Report, in an attempt at damage control, but only made things worse for the Obama Benghazi cover-up. Two pieces of actual news were generated, but perhaps the greatest damage was done by Vietor’s immature self-presentation, revealing the low level of qualifications necessary for high responsibility in the Obama White House.
First, the two pieces of actual news:
President Obama wasn’t in the Situation Room the night of September 11, 2012, as our ambassador to Libya and three other men were being attacked, captured, and eventually killed after being dragged through the streets of Benghazi and tortured in hideous fashion.
And:

 Vietor may have been the person who changed “attacks” to “demonstrations” in the talking points, in other words, going from a planned attack to a spontaneous demonstration-orientation in the story fed by the White House, ultimately to Susan Rice’s now legendary 5 show Sunday deception. He doesn’t remember, and expressed himself in way that makes some kind of history, a former senior official employing the word “Dude.”
But, wait! It gets better:

 
Now, on to the real news: the grave affairs of state in the Obama administration are in the hands of incompetent, inexperienced people who are not up to the responsibilities they wield. If you are wondering how someone so callow came to such a position, read this and weep. He started as a van driver. Jonathan Karl, Richard Coolidge, and Jordyn Phelps wrote over a year ago:
Tommy Vietor started working for Barack Obama when he was still Senator Obama--well before he became a presidential candidate--and until Friday, the 32-year-old Vietor hadn't stopped. His first job for Obama was as the driver of a press van, and he rose up the ranks through the 2008 campaign, and then the White House press office, to become the National Security Council spokesman.
Now leaving the White House to open a political communications firm with the president's departing speechwriter Jon Favreau, Vietor says it's been the privilege of a lifetime to work for the president.
"It's been kind of a front seat at some historic events--killing bin Laden, ending the Iraq war, a whole bunch of things--so it's been extraordinary," Vietor says.

And:

 

In 2010, Ed Lasky examined the appalling lack of qualifications of Ben Rhodes, now at the center of the storm:
Who is Ben Rhodes and what qualifies him to be the Deputy National SecurityAdviser?
He was Barack Obama's speechwriter (albeit, on foreign policy topics) during the campaign. He also played a role in the Cairo speech that presented a highly fictionalized history of both Islam (praised it for accomplishments that were not Islam's) and Israel (a legacy of the Holocaust guilt).
Maybe he has a certain talent for fiction. After all, it was only  a few years ago that "he was an aspiring fiction writer working on a novel called "The Oasis of Love" about a megachurch in Houston, a dog track and a failed romance.
Rhodes has enjoyed a rapid rise -- because why?
Granted he is quite the wordsmith. That must qualify him for one of the top jobs involving our national security. It must have been a symbiotic relationship -- a talented speechwriter with a talented speech reader.
Does Rhodes have any educational experience or military experience or, for that matter, international experience? No... on all three counts.
His brother is president of CBS, however.

Do we care?

Shouldn't we care since no one tried to rescue Americans, maybe we should?


The entire thinking world and one person at the State Department go it right.

Beth Jones should be promoted for simply being right among a legion of incompetents.

A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame.

The private, internal communication directly contradicts the message that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated publicly over the course of the next several weeks. They often maintained that an anti-Islamic YouTube video inspired a spontaneous
demonstration that escalated into violence.

The email is entitled “Libya update from Beth Jones. ” Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.

“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.

There is no uncertainty assigned to the assessment, which does not mention a video or a protest. The State Department provided the email to Congress in Aug. of 2013 under special conditions that it not be publicly released at that time. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sought and received permission to release it Thursday. //


Thursday, May 01, 2014

If Obama is losing David Gregory....

Gregory is puzzled.


Wednesday, April 30, 2014

The lying Presidency.

Sheryl Atkinson on Benghazi.

The surreal White House.

Brett Baier employs common sense:

Fox News’ Bret Baier called Jay Carney’s performance on Benghazi in today’s White House press conference “surreal” Wednesday on The Real Story.
ABC reporter Jonathan Karl and the White House press secretary engaged in a ferocious back-and-forth over yesterday’s revelation that White House national security advisor Ben Rhodes prepped Susan Rice prior to her Sunday show appearances to attribute the September 11, 2012 attack to an anti-Islam video.
Baier said the White House press secretary’s contention the email in question had nothing to do with Benghazi “strains credulity.”
Full remarks:
BRET BAIER: This was a surreal answer from Jay Carney. Now, this is a prep session with Susan Rice, getting ready for five Sunday talk shows. This is three days after 9/11 when four Americans, including the American ambassador to Libya, are killed. Everybody in the chain has said it’s a terrorist attack, everyone in the chain is saying there’s no protest. And yet this email, if we’re to believe Jay Carney at the White House, had nothing to do with Benghazi. It was more about the broad scope of the region. Now, imagine that. What are they going to ask about on five Sunday talk shows when you have four Americans who were killed just days before? They’re not going to ask about the other protests that didn’t see any Americans killed. They’re going to ask about that. So then he said that the reason they didn’t originally put forward this email to the committee — they eventually got it to the committee redacted — was because it didn’t deal with Benghazi. Now, that really strains credulity, I mean it is really out there.

It seems, according to Jay Carney, that the White House never said that the Benghazi attack was the spontaneous actions of Muslims outraged by a video....

....and if it did, it relied on the best information available, but not from the CIA or the information that Fox News and other sources, who actually got the story right, were pointing to from day one.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nszcn0-9eTM

Remember how Obama went to the UN to tell the world that the Prophet of Islam must never be insulted?

What was that all about?

Apparently, it was totally unrelated to the Benghazi attack.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Obama lied...

...the First Amendment died (just a little more.)

From the Washington Free Beacon:
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.”
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.
Here’s more from the Free Beacon:
Also contained in the 41 pages of documents obtained by Judicial Watch is a Sep. 12, 2012 email from Payton Knopf, the former deputy spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
In this communication, Knopf informs Rice that senior officials had already dubbed the Benghazi attack as “complex” and planned in advance. Despite this information, Rice still insisted that attacks were “spontaneous.”
The newly released cache of emails also appear to confirm that the CIA altered its original talking points on the attacks in the following days.
Then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell is identified as the person who heavily edited the critical fact sheet.
“The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable … because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy,” states one email. “Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.”
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.

This was disgraceful.

But even more disgraceful was the media's silence.

ROGER SIMON: New Benghazi Emails Mean Obama Impeachment Trial Must Be Launched.
For me, the worst part was sending a filmmaker to jail for no reason other than self-protection at election time.
Justice in Obama’s America — it’s what’s convenient for the narrative at the moment.


Thursday, April 03, 2014

Nonetheless, blaming free speech was politically the correct thing to do.

Obama lied, someone went to prison for exercising free speech.
Former CIA deputy director Mike Morell, who also served a stint as acting director of Langley, is testifying before House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence today. The hearing focuses on the Obama administration’s response to the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Cutting through all of the back and forth, the most important point is this: The U.S. intelligence community knew right away that al Qaeda was involved in the attack.

“The analysts said from the get-go that al Qaeda was involved in this attack,” Morell said.

The former CIA man was asked why, then, was “al Qaeda” edited out of the administration’s now infamous talking points.

“The only way we knew that anybody who was involved in that attack that night was associated with al Qaeda was from classified sources,” Morell claimed.

Minutes later he reiterated the point: “The only way we knew that some of the people who were involved in the attack that night were associated with al Qaeda was from classified sources.”

According to Morell, if the CIA had included a reference to al Qaeda in the administration’s talking points, then it would have had to declassify that sensitive intelligence.

This is doubtful. The Obama administration could have made a general reference to “al Qaeda” in its earliest explanations of the Benghazi attack without exposing any specific intelligence. It was not a stretch to link al Qaeda to a terrorist attack on the anniversary of September 11, 2001.

The bottom line is that the U.S. intelligence community knew from the “get-go” that al Qaeda was involved in the attack. And the Obama administration’s narrative, at first, excluded al Qaeda entirely. //




Monday, January 20, 2014

Obama and the Control of the Media.

This is a disturbing story.

On Thursday, Greta Van Susteren wrote at her blog, “After Benghazi on 9/11/2012, the Obama administration tried very hard to discourage Fox News Channel from reporting on it. The effort was obstruction – pure and simple.”
“They tried to prevent the truth from coming out and the Administration tried just about everything to discourage Fox from investigating and reporting,” she continued. “All the American people wanted, and all I ever wanted, was just the facts – why did 4 Americans die? What happened?”
“The Obama Administration put out that phony video story — but who could not have been suspicious of the Administration after hearing that?” Van Susteren asked. “Frankly, if they had been candid on day 1, the Benghazi story would have been over in short order. It would not be to the point we are now: with a Senate Bi Partisan Intelligence Committee report with the very painful conclusion that the murders at Benghazi could have been prevented.”
Van Susteren gave examples of how the Administration tried to prevent Fox from telling Americans the truth:
In the early days after Benghazi, the State Department omitted only Fox News Channel from its conference call to all the media when it claimed to be answering questions about Benghazi for the media. Our friends in other media outlets were scandalized that Fox was not included and told us all about it. They were suspicious of State Department forgetting us/Fox and courageous to tip us off. The State Department claimed it was accident and not intentional.
And then shortly thereafter, there was the CIA briefing about Benghazi at the CIA for all the networks – except one: Fox News Channel. The CIA would not let Fox News Channel attend. [...]
And there were many times in the months and years since September 2012 when Obama Administration officials would make comments to suggest that Fox was just doing the Benghazi reporting for political reasons. The Administration was doing what it could to deter and demean the Fox News Channel investigation. They did not want to give us the facts — so their strategy was to attempt to belittle and demean our reporting.
After taking a swipe at the New York Times for issuing an analysis that has since been completely debunked by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, Van Susteren wrote of attempts by a friend of hers within the Adminstration to get her to silence Fox’s Jennifer Griffin:
[M]y friend told me that my colleague Jennifer Griffin, who was aggressively reporting on Benghazi, was wrong and that, as a favor to me, my friend in the Administration was telling me so that I could tell Jennifer so that she did not ruin her career. My friend was telling me to tell Jennifer to stop her reporting. Ruin her career?
In 20 plus years, I have never received a call to try and shut down a colleague – not that I even could – this was a first.
Knowing Griffin to be one of the best investigative reporters in the business, Van Susteren demanded her friend offer proof that her colleague was wrong. None was forthcoming:
I got no proof. Zero. I smelled a rat. Favor to me? Hardly. My friend was trying to use me. I feel bad that a friend did that to me, tried to use me for a dirty reason. I knew then — and it is now confirmed by BIPARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committee — Jennifer was getting her facts right. I think it is really low for the Administration to stoop this low.
To be sure, the Administration should be ashamed of how it’s behaved since September 11, 2012. But it wouldn’t have been able to behave this way if other news organizations covered this story as aggressively as Fox News did.
Sadly, Obama and Company knew from the start that their accomplices in the media would parrot anything they said, and go along with their contention that this was a “phony scandal” ginned up by the President’s enemies which of course include Fox News.
Since a junior senator from Illinois first threw his hat into the presidential ring in February 2007, we’ve watched America’s media totally abdicate journalism for his benefit.
Benghazi is just another example.
With three more years left of this presidency, it likely won’t be the last.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

People died; Obama lied.

Austin Bay writes:

According to the now-available congressional transcripts, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey (after speaking with AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham) informed President Barack Obama that the consulate had suffered a terror attack. Panetta and Dempsey told the president within an hour after the first assault began.

Yet Obama Administration officials continued to peddle the "video did it" canard for almost two weeks after the assault. Why peddle a blatant falsehood? Because "the video did it" narrative advanced a propaganda campaign supporting central Obama re-election political themes. Obama claimed his presidency would dramatically change Arab Muslim perceptions of America. Though he never equated killing Osama bin Laden with defeating al-Qaida, he implied al-Qaida was fading fast. The Benghazi disaster countered these touts. Obama had to leave the American public with the definite impression that the Benghazi assault was spontaneous. Why, that nasty video incited inexplicable anger!

The president calculated carefully. As his spokespeople blamed the video, Obama hedged and fudged by referring to Benghazi as "an act of terror." His goal was -- and still is -- rhetorical wiggle room to blunt charges of deceit. However, at least three times during the campaign, Obama refused to call Benghazi an attack by terrorists.

The transcripts leave President Obama and his minions with a lot more deceit to blunt.

The transcripts also indicate that this administration gave security for U.S. diplomatic facilities lip service, not executive attention. Inter-agency security coordination was, at best, slap-dash. Take this exchange between Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Joint Staff vice-director of operations, Major-General Darryl Roberson.

Mr. Chaffetz: General, following up, I just want to make sure I heard this absolutely right. You said, quote, everything requested from State we provided them. This goes back from 2011 when -- after the (Libyan) air campaign.

General Roberson: Yes, sir.

Mr. Chaffetz: To the best of your knowledge, there was nothing else for the security prior to the attack, prior to the attack that State Department asked for that you denied.

General Roberson: That is correct.

Chaffetz then added that he asked the question because many apologists for the Benghazi fiasco alleged that the consulate lacked security "because we (Congress) didn't provide certain funding for the embassy. And I think we find that argument is totally false and without merit. They simply didn't ask in many ways. And these assets were available and were there previously, but those on the ground were not able to keep those assets."

Chaffetz' conclusion will be disputed. Alas, long passages of key testimony remain classified, blotted from the transcripts with thick blocks of gray and black ink.


Wednesday, January 15, 2014

The nice thing about having a Democrat in the White House is that there is never any bad news.

Obama's lies about Benghazi are now exposed.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has released a bipartisan report on the Benghazi attack that finds that the assault could have and should have been prevented. The Obama administration should have stepped up security at the facility, but failed to do so. The committee concluded that the threat environment in Benghazi leading up to the attack should have caused the State Department to make up for the known security shortfalls at the U.S. facility in the city before the attack. The report does not explore or explain why the State Department consistently denied field requests to beef up security.
And:

The committee’s statement regarding confusion and protest does not line up with classified testimony given by Gen. Carter Ham, then commander of AFRICOM. Ham testified in a closed session that the military knew that the violence in Benghazi was a terrorist attack just 15 minutes after it began. Ham testified that while there was some sidebar discussion among top administration officials about the possibility that a movie had sparked it, it was clear from the outset that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, not a riot gotten out of control. Ham told the House that he, Gen. Dempsey and then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta knew shortly after the attack began that Ambassador Chris Stevens was its target. Ham ordered an unarmed drone positioned over the attack just 17 minutes after it began, providing Washington both reports from the ground and visuals from the air that showed that the assault was a pre-planned, coordinated attack. Ham’s and Dempsey’s testimony demonstrate that the military was not confused in the least about the nature and origins of the attack, and neither was Panetta.

The Media is hunkering into its second day of news blackout.

Are there no other Americans they can arrest to distract attention?


Monday, October 28, 2013

Our Country is in the Best of Hands.

A year after the election, 60 Minutes - known for running with whatever was convenient to slander George W. Bush - confirms that there is a real scandal about Obama's handling of Benghazi:

60 Minutes had an absolutely devastating report on the Obama administration’s failure to protect Ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi.
I’ll post the video when available (update – available and added), but the heart of the report is that there were clear and unequivocal warnings which were ignored, and the Obama administration lied about these warnings after the attack.
Hillary and Obama blamed a video and stood by the caskets perpetuating that lie.
And remember how almost all of the media obsessed with Mitt Romney’s statement over Benghazi, and colluded to ask Romney gotcha questions while downplaying and obfuscating what really happened.
60 Minutes said its investigation took almost a year.
Stories about whether George W. Bush evaded the draft get run out just before the election.


Thursday, August 15, 2013

The media silence on this is shameful

"Innocence of the Muslims" Filmmaker released from prison:

One person for whom time has not flown, however, is the video’s American producer, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, also known as Mark Basseley Youssef. He has spent the past year in federal prison. Nakoula has been in jail for violating parole on a prior fraud conviction, but there can be little doubt that as a practical matter authorities seized him because of the controversy over the video.


Thursday, August 08, 2013

This really needs an explanation or to be addressed by Obama.

According to Leon Panetta, Obama ignored the attack on America's Libyan embassy.

The outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed on Thursday that President Obama was absent the night of the lethal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya - despite being told that the attack was occurring.
Speaking in front of senators investigating the terror assault which saw four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens lose their lives, Panetta said that Mr. Obama did not call or communicate with his defense secretary that night either.

According to his testimony, Panetta said that he met with the president at 5.00 p.m. on September 11th and went through a meeting that lasted 30 minutes during which he informed Mr. Obama of the incident before he left the Department of Defense for the evening and did not check back in.



Tuesday, August 06, 2013

10 months later and the only person arrested was this guy....

....and it took this long to get an interview.

In his first interview since his supervised release from prison, the filmmaker behind “Innocence of Muslims” told The Daily Caller that he “has no regrets” and promises more films and books about Islam.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is the only person who has been imprisoned in the aftermath of the organized Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which the ambassador and three other Americans were killed. He was wholly unconnected to the attack and was imprisoned on technical probation violations.




America - now with more hope and change...

...and scapegoats.

THE SCAPEGOAT SPEAKS: Imprisoned “Innocence of Muslims” producer Nakoula Nakoula: ‘I want the world to see the truth.’

UPDATE: From the comments:
By the way — Nakoula Nakoula is in hiding, through no fault of his own. George Zimmerman is in hiding, through no fault of his own (because the police questioned him, they let him go, and then the politicians decided that wasn’t good enough). The Benghazi survivors are in hiding, through no fault of their own.

Is this the hallmark of the Obama era?

It seems to be. How’s that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for ya?


 
Who links to me?