6 May

The Expendables

                                       

benghazi ghosts

The Obama regime official story about the events that transpired on 9/11/12 continues to unravel, and despite Jay Carney’s insistence that it was “a long time ago” facts keep crawling out from under the rubble of the consulate.

Testimony of those involved directly with the Benghazi disaster conflicts sharply with the position of the Obama regime.

A stand down order

The Obama regime has repeatedly denied that a stand down order was issued but the No. 2 Libya embassy official disputes it.

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

Aid could not have gotten there in time

A special operator claims otherwise

A military special ops member who watched as the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi unfolded last September told Fox News the U.S. had highly trained forces just a few hours away, and said he and others feel the government betrayed the four men who died in the attack.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, and appearing in a Fox News Channel interview with his face and voice disguised, the special operator contradicted claims by the Obama administration and a State Department review that said there wasn’t enough time for U.S. military forces to have intervened in the Sept. 11 attack in which U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, an embassy employee and two former Navy SEALs working as private security contractors were killed.

“I know for a fact that C-110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise in … not in the region of North Africa, but in Europe,” the operator told Fox News’ Adam Housley. “And they had the ability to act and to respond.”

Hicks also believes help could have timely

In the interview, Hicks said the administration could have saved the lives of its diplomats if it had dispatched just one aircraft from nearby Souda Bay, about an hour away.

“I believe that if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split,” Hicks said. “They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

The hard fact is that unless the Obama regime knew about the attack and how it was going to end they could not possibly know if help would have arrived in time or not.

Clearance for an air strike?

Q: But do you think, you know, if an F-15, if the military had allowed a jet to go fly over, that it might have prevented [the second attack]?

A: Yeah, and if we had gotten clearance from the Libyan military for an American plane to fly over Libyan airspace. The Libyans that I talked to and the Libyans and other Americans who were involved in the war have told me also that Libyan revolutionaries were very cognizant of the impact that American and NATO airpower had with respect to their victory. They are under no illusions that American and NATO airpower won that war for them. And so, in my personal opinion, a fast-mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.

Q : The theory being, the folks on the ground that are doing these — committing these terrorist attacks look up, see a heavy duty airplane above, and decide to hightail it?

A: I believe that if — I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.

******

Q: I just wanted to ask, you mentioned permission from the Libyans. Why is that important? What did you mean by that?

A: Well, it’s their country. And for an American military aircraft to fly over their country, we have to have permission from them to do so.

Q: So what would have been the risk of — do you think it would have been risky for us to send someone, do you think it would have been counterproductive for us to send a fighter pilot plane over Benghazi without that permission?

A: We would have certainly wanted to obtain that permission. I believe we would have gotten it if we had asked. I believe that the Libyans were hoping that we were going to come bail them out of this mess. And, you know, they were as surprised as we were that American — the military forces that did arrive only arrived on the evening of September 12. Yeah.

Somehow, this makes no sense to me. Obama did not seek Gaddafi’s permission to bomb Gaddafi into oblivion, but Obama would need it to conduct a rescue mission?

Uh-uh.

Security assistance was requested repeatedly

A diplomatic security office lowers the boom on Hillary Clinton’s State Department

Nordstrom offered some of the most pointed criticism of the security deficiencies in Libya when he testified before Issa’s committee last year that State Department officials in Washington were denied repeated requests for more protection for the mission. The other two officials have not been heard from publicly before.

“The takeaway … for me and my staff, was abundantly clear — we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,” Nordstrom testified in October. “And the question that we would ask is: How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?”

“For me,” he said, “the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department].”

Still another source, Mark Thompson, will testify that Hillary Clinton put her thumb on how the event was reported:

Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to — and characterize — the Benghazi attacks.

“You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night,” the second official in State’s counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson’s forthcoming testimony.


“Greg, we are under attack”

Stevens did not say “Greg, we are under protest.” He said “We are under attack.”

Obama blamed a video.
Hillary blamed a video.
Susan Rice blamed a video.

They all lied.

The man who made the video was slammed into jail and is rotting there this very minute.

Why did the Obama regime lie, repeatedly, about what happened in Benghazi?

They are hiding something.

And the million dollar question: Why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi? A couple of theories have been offered- both suggest it was about weapons.

One:

“The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation,” officials briefed on intelligence told the Wall Street Journal, and there’s evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to Syrian rebels.

WSJ reports that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission, which involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals. These weapons are presumably from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles, the bulk of which were SA-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles.

What’s odd is that a Libyan ship—which reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7s—docked in southern Turkey on Sept. 6 and its cargo ended up in the hands of Syrian rebels. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution.

Stevens’ last meeting on Sept. 11 was with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi “to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.”

And how did those SA 7 ground to air missiles get into the hands of Libyan extremists? Well, that would be courtesy of Barack Obama, when he bombed the crap out of Muammar Gaddafi.

Two:

So what was Ambassador Christopher Stevens doing? According to my Benghazi insider they were shutting down Libya and prepping guys to go into Syria. Benghazi was all about moving arms from Libya into Syria via Turkey and elsewhere to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the next stop, after Egypt and Libya that has put the Muslim Brotherhood in power. Obviously there are several actors who are not happy with what the U.S. is doing with Saudi Arabia. “If President Obama didn’t know that then that means he’s not really in charge and somebody else is running the operation,” the Benghazi insider source added.

One way or another this is about Obama once again setting weapons loose upon the world. It could be that he doesn’t want you to know that he is responsible for the stingers that are in the hands of Al Qaida and/or that he is supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels (also Al Qaida in part). When a passenger plane is shot down with a Al Qaida stinger, Obama doesn’t want you to remember he put it in their hands.

And this goal made Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty expendable. They died to protect Obama’s ass. The video was the canard- the head fake- to take your eyes off the ball.

He was able to manipulate the press to ignore all this before the election but it going to have a tougher time now.

Maybe Mitt Romney losing the election wasn’t so bad. Maybe it will be more entertaining to watch Barack Obama twist in the wind for the next few years.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Africa, American Intelligence, Barack Obama, Culture of Corruption, Deception and Lies, Global Regions, Libya, Politics, propaganda bureau, Uncategorized, WtF? and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Monday, May 6th, 2013 at 6:27 pm
| 724 views

28 Responses to The Expendables

  1. This one says: 1

    Really now, you’ve got to give this BS up, your credibility is diminishing. They’ve even lost Fox and Fools:

    GOP Claims Of Benghazi ‘Cover Up’ Collapses:
    Fox News’ morning show, Fox & Friends, is taking a surprisingly skeptical approach to GOP claims that the Obama administration and the entire U.S. government engaged in a massive cover-up of the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya in an effort to re-elect the president and protect him from scrutiny.
    http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/05/06/1966061/theyve-lost-fox-and-friends-gop-claims-of-benghazi-cover-up-collapses/

    Fox News chief ordered Geraldo Rivera’s mic cut for defending Obama on Benghazi: report
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/06/fox-news-chief-ordered-geraldo-riveras-mic-cut-for-defending-obama-on-benghazi-report/

    Rep. Chaffetz Accuses State Department of Threatening Benghazi Witnesses, But Can’t Name Any
    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rep-chaffetz-accuses-state-department-thre

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 2

    Geraldo, himself put to the lie about the mic being cut.
    Google him and see for yourself.

    That Rep. Chaffetz did not name the whistleblower who has been threatened does not equal it not happening.
    Victoria Toensing, the lawyer for Benghazi “whistleblower” Gregory Hicks, is hinting the State Department threatened her client with retaliation if he kept insisting the assault on the U.S. Embassy in Libya was known to be a terrorist attack “from the get-go.”

    She plans to reveal at a Congressional hearing on Benghazi Wednesday the pressure Hicks has been under since pressing his case that federal officials knew all along the massacre was staged by terrorists.

    She added, “People don’t threaten, they don’t come up and say you better not testify. What they do is they say, ‘You know that job assignment that you had scheduled in June? It just got eliminated.'”

    BTW, that’s a threat.
    Most union shops will go after a boss who pulls that.

    As for anything from ThinkProgress.org…..not even dignifying it with a response.
    Talk about your slanted article!
    Comparing it to the transcript show almost criminal editing!
    As usual for TP.org.

    Also…..
    Recall when Obama and State Dept finally allowed our Senators to even look at classified Benghazi documents?
    Thurs Nov. 8th and Fri Nov. 9th ONLY.
    And where were our Senators?
    Out of town on holiday recess!
    Staffers were NOT allowed to see these papers.
    One staffer said this:
    “Funny since no member is in town. The timing and limited access clearly demonstrates the administration cares more about playing politics with the tragedy than accepting responsibility.”
    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/08/benghazi_documents_available_to_senators_only_when_they_are_out_of_town

    ReplyReply
  3. Ditto says: 3

    Q: I just wanted to ask, you mentioned permission from the Libyans. Why is that important? What did you mean by that?

    A: Well, it’s their country. And for an American military aircraft to fly over their country, we have to have permission from them to do so.

    Um… So; it was not OK to violate Libyan national airspace (without their permission) to save the lives of Americans on American Embassy soil from a violent AL-Queda attack. But it was OK to violate Pakistani national airspace (without their permission) to raid Osama Bin Laden’s compound?

    ReplyReply
  4. Nan G says: 4

    @Ditto:
    Lest we forget, one of Obama’s brilliant strategists claimed the reason they couldn’t go in and stop the attack in Benghazi was that they didn’t know EXACTLY what their troops might be getting into!
    Also Obama never did authorize what is called a cross border order so that help could have been sent in.
    Instead Obama went to bed so he’d be fresh for his Vegas campaign stop.

    ReplyReply
  5. drjohn says: 5

    @This one:

    You call them Fox and Fools and then suggest we should regard their opinions as facts?

    Seriously?

    When did I last cite Fox and Friends?

    You have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, President Obama, Admiral Mullen. Would all of these people go to bat just to get President Obama reelected?

    KILMEADE: What about David Petraeus?

    Would Obama go to bat to get Obama elected? You bet. Rice? Hillary? You bet.

    Petraeus?

    The same Petraeus who famously resigned immediately after this incident because of an affair? You can’t imagine a motive here? Hello?

    YOU tell us why they insisted it was a movie when they all obviously knew it was not.
    YOU tell me why Stevens was even in Benghazi.
    YOU tell me why Nakoula is still in jail.

    You are also arguing, as they did, that they somehow KNEW the plans for the attack and exactly how long it would go on because that is the ONLY way anyone could know that they would not get help in time.

    ReplyReply
  6. DrJohn says: 6

    @This one:

    And please tell us why the talking points were altered.

    ReplyReply
  7. This one says: 7

    Whose ‘talking points?’ The GOP certainly invented their own, lol!

    And yes drjohn, you know it’s time to give up the ghost when even the dolts on Fox and Friends won’t perpetuate ridiculous myths.

    ReplyReply
  8. drjohn says: 8

    @This one:

    Let’s take this one thing at a time.

    You’re asserting that there were no State talking points and that they were not altered.

    Have I got that right?

    ReplyReply
  9. drjohn says: 9

    @This one:

    Why should anyone follow what dolts do?

    Pickering and Mullen can only work with what they know. When you control the information flow you control everything.

    Still waiting on that movie thing- and for why Stevens was even there.

    ReplyReply
  10. Randy says: 10

    @drjohn: Dr John, when you try to argue with a fool, you only seem foolish. “This One is obviously a fool. You do not need to defend your post. It is becoming obvious you are right. The Obama administration let these 4 Americans die for political gain. My fiancé is now on diplomatic status in an Arab country along with several dozen Americans. I fear for her life every day because this president will not protect the lives of Americans working in foreign countries doing this countries work. Not even Jimmy Carter would have stooped to this low level to gain political advantage.

    ReplyReply
  11. Blake says: 11

    The President allowed these four men in Benghasi to die, but I have the feeling that they might have actually been targetted for kidnapping, and the plan went awry, as is often the case when you work with fanatical ragheads who have no discipline. If Stevens had been kidnapped, and THEN successfully rescued by the Seals or Delta force, well, then, O’bammy would have had the “gravitas” of a successful CINC- and waltzed into the WH for a second term, instead of getting 51%, and squeaking by.
    But oops- the dogs they used were undisciplined and let their emotions get away from them- now someones gotta try and cover this excrement up. But that is like a cat on a vinyl floor. This crap won’t cover up.
    And the reason for THAT is FOX News.

    ReplyReply
  12. retire05 says: 12

    @Randy:

    Not even Jimmy Carter would have stooped to this low level to gain political advantage.

    Carter at least designed a plan, albeit ill conceived, to try to free the hostages in Iran. It cost him the election. Obama was not going to make that mistake. Remember, Obama had been bragging how ObL was dead and AQ was on the run. The lives of four Americans was a cheap price to pay for Obama’s re-election and the ability of all the yes men, and women, to hang on to their jobs. And don’t sell Shillary short; she knew the whole “dispicable movie” meme was a lie, but she wanted to protect her own rear end for 2016. And she knew she was leaving thinking the eventual fall out would not land on her.

    We, the U.S. armed these very people who murdered our Americans. And while the UK press reported, repeatedly, that the Libyan rebels were members of AQ, and AQ spin-off groups, the American press ignored that little tid-bit of information. I firmly believe that Ambassador Stevens was trying to recoup those arms, knowing whose hands those arms were in, but to facilitate the shipping of those very same arms to the Syrian rebels.

    None of Obama’s Middle East policy has worked out well. Egypt was supposed to be a lesson in how democracy could be achieved in the ME. Instead, it is now in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood as Morsi declares in his acceptance speech that “jihad is our way.” So what do we do? Send them fighter jets and more arms. Libya was going to be Obama’s stellar piece of diplomacy. And we got four dead Americans. Let the cover-up begin.

    ReplyReply
  13. jainphx says: 13

    @This one: Where do you hide from the facts? Do you lie in bed and pull the covers over your head. You sure have a knack for making up stuff, but none for seeing the truth. An Embassy in ANY country is American soil, they don’t need permission to protect the ambassador and staff. You sir are a fool and idiot that the truth either eludes or willfully escapes. Your kind sicken me, you are that ignorant.

    ReplyReply
  14. Dc says: 14

    Since it happened…there’s been a lot of strange things surrounding Benghazi. Most of those strange coincidences…involve things that have tended to bury information about it or misdirect it. If it was a simple matter of miscommunication in the beginning….then this would have been simple to clear up, and there would not have been the continual effort to push the “wrong” information, nor would there be continual seepage of additional information that keeps undermining the meme that the WH and State Dept have been trying to push.

    And if the initial internal investigation had been thorough…we would already know the answers to these questions and things that the committee has been after for months. The story has been shifting. And shifting in ways that again…coincidentally appears to be obscuring information.

    Nobody has talked yet about the additional US personnel that were injured during that fight and sent to Walter Reed. That also was a “secret” for some reason. Or at least..not something that was offered up readily…but had to be “discovered” and confirmed. Why? is the question. Why was it necessary to hide the fact that there were additional casualties from this attack? If it was something innocuous, ie., their mission there was classified, etc….it’s easy enough to offer that up front and dismiss the questions about it. But, what it looks like…the way things have come out…is more like a series of misstatements and misinformation that is continually being corrected as we go…with the WH and State…trying to insist and push the “old” information to keep people from going to other conclusions about what happened.

    The evidence that is trickling out all along..shows, if anything, that the summary investigation was not thorough (at best). The fact that even in light of that…some are pushing to move on and not look any further…should be a stink up the nose of “any” investigator that something else is waiting to be uncovered. Whether or not that merely turns out to be something embarrassing, or something more…I simply don’t know. And neither does anyone else.

    The president has said repeatedly….that he wants to get to the bottom of this. But, his words don’t match his actions. When asked about the new witnesses who say they were not called to testify and/or were pushed away, the president claimed he didn’t know anything about it….and would look into it…and again reiterated that he wants to get to the bottom of it, find the people who did it, and bring them to justice.

    I think logistically, this is Hillary’s F’up and they are all trying to do what they can to help her skate through this with as little marring as possible…so she can run in 2016. They’ll find more people to fall on the sword in front of her…and it may save her from the fires enough to run. But, the story of Benghazi is going to spread more, and with it…start to light fires around the edges of everything from questions about this admin’s foreign policy to readiness/response. I think they just hoped most people would just move on and it would go away from it without actually thinking about it…and saying…hey, wait a min? That doesn’t jive?

    Leon P. has already suggested that you don’t send forces into an area that you don’t have intelligence on? Really? We’ve had assets and intel in Libya since the rebels we were supporting were fighting there. When Americans are on fire…you don”t send people to help? That’s utter BS. They do it all the time. Our own fire dept and police locally do it all the time. Something is not right there. The other part is…they are going to try and deflect this by suggesting that long standing rules of engagement in host countries, etc…require a certain protocol or procedures resulting in permission from the host country to act or fly planes over, etc. Which again…is BS when your consulate is on fire and your people under attack and dieing. In other words….”political correctness” killed these people.

    I think they will follow….Bush did it too…response. And the lack of security was Republicans fault. But, I don’t think it’s going to work. I don’t see anything in this yet…that could remotely bring down Obama. Hell…he’s not responsible for anything! He basically told the generals…you guys handle this. I’m going to Vegas for a fund raiser. If you need anything…you’ve got my number. Great leadership!!

    Hillary suggests….none of it really matters at this point and could not possibly make a difference. And the WH corp suggests….this was a long time ago…and it’s already been decided what happened. I think there will be more to come…and it will be embarrassing and leave a few scars on Hillary. And If I had to guess…ole’ Billy Boy is up there right now trying to cut deals…to see if they can find a way to get Hillary through this. The problem is…I’m not so sure the president is going to go along for the full ticket ride. He’ll do his party/politics part. But, if worse comes to worse…and the sewage starts to seep backwards into the oval office….you can bet Obama will hang the ole girl out to dry in a Chicago min.

    ReplyReply
  15. Tibby says: 15

    I tend to agree Dc, Hillary did after all, say at first that it was her responsibility. The Obama administration will, when pushed to cover their azzes, cheerfully shove her under the bus. They don’t care if she gets elected next! They just want to finish their presidency with out getting impeached and move on to the good life.

    ReplyReply
  16. Dc says: 16

    I don’t think the president is in any position to be impeached. He has complete deniability for everything he’s ever done or heard or seen or written. The only buck that stops with him is lip service. I also don’t believe they are going to be “quick” to throw Hillary under the bus. I think that’s the entire purpose of this exercise — to avoid having to throw Hillary under the bus and bring critical thinking/eye and judgement to the WH foreign policy initiatives/failures.

    They also don’t want to do that because she’s the DNC next front runner for President…and she planned on using this State Dept experience to fill in the big giant HOLE she had before where her only qualifications for being president were that she was the wife of a former president. They’ll line up a hoard of DNC/liberal suicide minions to fall on swords until they run out of swords. And democrats will do what they always do when one of their own gets caught….they’ll work as hard as they can to get them re-elected. There’s no crook, like your own crook. Obama is gonna side step this whole thing…and not get involved.

    If it gets bad enough however, like I said…and the sewage from it starts to seep under his door….you’ll see his wrath unfold on Hillary faster than you can say….Chicago. Obama has his own power brokers in the DNC. Old school, rough house, power brokers. Even Bill won’t be able to save Hillary if she steps in it too bad. And as vocal as all our past DNC presidents have been in media (particularly about foreign policy issues)….don’t hear a peep from Jimmah Carter or Bill do you. Why aren’t they making the rounds talking about our policy failures in the ME? Oh…I know…cause there’s a democrat in the WH.

    Bill “could” make it nasty for Obama. Go on TV and snidely mention that Obama has misjudged his own ability to bring certain initiatives to the fore. Or that he’s actually “created more terrorists” in the ME with efforts in Libya, etc. and made is “less safe”. Bill could destroy Obama’s narrative about AlQueda on it’s heals. Point to the hard fought gains we made in Iraq slipping because of a political withdrawal, etc. He could make it hurt and make it personal (his specialty).

    But, truthfully, I just don’t see it really doing much but sliding off Obama. People know he’s a failure already. They just love him and re-elect him anyway. Because in their minds…even their/democratic crooks and/or failures are better than voting for a “republican”. They like Robin Hood economics and all the class warfare stuff really appeals to them. They trust him. It doesn’t matter what he said before…or that he’s changed his position or mind, etc. or even that he’s lieing. So long as it doesn’t help some republican somewhere….they are happy.

    ReplyReply
  17. Nan G says: 17

    @Dc: Your comment reminded me of how easily Bill Clinton took over from Obama.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bfbNsk9IbA
    Bill could destroy Obama simply be being himself and siding with Hillary against Obama IF Obama tries to go that route.

    ReplyReply
  18. Ditto says: 18

    @Dc:

    I don’t see anything in this yet…that could remotely bring down Obama. Hell…he’s not responsible for anything!

    That Obama never takes responsibility for anything, doesn’t resolve him of this. Obama’s public statements that this was due to a YouTube video, and that it was a protest, were lies to the American Public. If his staff gave him incorrect information/talking points, he is responsible because he personally approved them and is their supervisor. This is true even if Valerie Jarret (Obama’s manager) told them to lie to the President. When it became clear that members of his administration were responsible for releasing false information, it his his responsibility to call them to task and set the record straight. Obama has not and is not doing that the continual spinning of the facts and coverup is continual, therefore, he is either incompetent for not demanding the truth, or he is involved. The Sergeant Shultz defense does not apply to commanders. (One would expect that lying to the President about national security and defense issues would be a punishable act, and it behooves the President to immediately bring the hammer down.) And, finally, the President is Commander in Chief and responsible for the duties and responsibilities of that office. He would have to have been informed of the attacks on our embassy, and would bear the responsibility for his inaction along with the credit for successes. Carter was responsible for the botched rescue attempt, and it helped to sink his re-election bid.

    As far as the American people are concerned, the same standard applies to both Republican and Democrat Presidents, whether the MSM and party sycophants want it to or not. (Which is why a vast majority of the public doesn’t trust the MSM to tell them the truth.)

    ReplyReply
  19. Dc says: 19

    Can’t argue with you there Ditto. I’m not suggesting that the President of the US “should” be a delegator in chief who’s observing them the sidelines to stay out of the fray so he can’t be connected to what he “knows” is a screw up politically. I’m just suggesting that he “is”.

    ReplyReply
  20. CharlieGee says: 20

    Is there such a thing as a ‘total’ birth abortion?

    ReplyReply
  21. drjohn says: 21

    @This one:

    Fox News chief ordered Geraldo Rivera’s mic cut for defending Obama on Benghazi: report
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/06/fox-news-chief-ordered-geraldo-riveras-mic-cut-for-defending-obama-on-benghazi-report/

    It should surprise no one that Jonathan Alter is a liar:

    Geraldo Rivera maintains that Fox News has always let him speak his mind.

    “Contrary to published accounts no one at Fox News ever either cut my mic or told me what to say But I do advocate cutting Eric Bolling’s mic,” the Geraldo at Large host tweeted yesterday in response to a claim in a new book that the plug was purposely pulled on him during a November 2012 discussion on Fox & Friends about the fatal attack on U.S. officials in Benghazi, Libya.

    “Specifically to Jonathan Alter,” he added, referring to the author of the book in question, The Center Holds: Obama and His Enemies, “I like you mate, but you never spoke with me about Benghazi and you never asked if Roger Ailes cut my mic.”

    http://www.eonline.com/news/415829/geraldo-rivera-not-cut-off-by-fox-news-while-discussing-u-s-handling-of-benghazi-attacksid=rss_msn_news

    ReplyReply
  22. drjohn says: 22

    @CharlieGee:

    Is there such a thing as a ‘total’ birth abortion?

    There is and Obama voted for it four times.

    ReplyReply
  23. CharlieGee says: 23

    @drjohn: 5 times; and the 5th time involved aborting 4 people in Benghazi.

    ReplyReply
  24. Dc says: 24

    @CharlieGee:

    But, that was after he said it was “above his pay grade”

    ReplyReply
  25. Pingback: The Expendables - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  26. REMEMBER “john” well ” this one is the same person as JOHN,
    so you know how despicable both are exactly the same,

    ReplyReply
  27. Blake says: 26

    You see, its my contention that this (Benghasi) was akidnapping gone wrong.
    Follow me on this- The Ambassadour Stevens is told to go to Benghasi by Hillary, who had her orders from the WH- and once there was supposed to be kidnapped by “jihadis”, or, as I call them, ragheads- the idea being that Obama would then send in a SEAL team to “rescue” the Ambassadour, and clinch his election.
    But you can’t keep a raghead’s finger off of a trigger, and that plan went south, prompting a “circle jerk” of deniability among the asshats in government- Hil went back to sleep after that famous “three a.m. phone call”- Obama was probably not even disturbed by his lackeys, and deniability was the order of the day.

    ReplyReply
  28. Blake
    yes,
    and he went to make some bets in LAS VEGAS with the MAFIA,
    and he woke up screwed losing everything,
    his revenge was deadly, his guy had to be killed, he knew to much
    so the ALQAEDA own the hospital, dragged him out bloody,
    his fingers left a clue on the wall showing the red lines on OBAMA logo,
    painted with bloody figers,
    and at the hospital he died following the order to make sure of it,
    the other did not know where he was, until someone said it and where specificly,
    with the ALQAEDA probably trying to get him to talk and reveal secrets, under torture I do not doubt

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>