The 3 am call came and Obama didn't answer.
Virtually nothing this administration has said about the attacks in Benghazi is true.
They lied about what happened, they lied about who was responsible, they lied about the cause.
They watched them die.
On Fox News this morning, Rep. Louie Gohmert said that an attack on a US Ambassador is the equivalent of an attack on a four star general. It's something that a President knows about. And there is really no doubt Obama knew what was going on.
When the consulate came under attack there were at least three requests for help.
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
It is simply mindboggling to think that an administration would give orders not to defend an Ambassador and the Americans around him.
Who gave these orders? The Fox report suggests it was the CIA “chain of command.” But word comes from David Petraeus, the head of the CIA, that those orders did not come from the CIA.
Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
Then Kristol suggests those orders had to come directly from Barack Obama.
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?
Obama was asked directly about this and he refused to answer the question:
In an interview with a Denver TV reporter Friday, President Obama twice refused to answer questions as to whether the Americans under siege in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, were denied requests for help, saying he’s waiting for the results of investigations before making any conclusions about what went wrong.
After being asked about possible denials of requests for aid, and whether it’s fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and won’t be released until after the election, the president said, “the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened tha
n I do.”
President Obama told KUSA-TV’s Kyle Clarke large that “we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I have made a commitment to the families impacted as well as to the American people, we’re going to bring those folks to justice. So, we’re going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again but we’re also going to make sure that we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.”
Clark pressed again.
“Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” he asked.
“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”
The President seems to be the only person on Earth who doesn't know what happened in Benghazi.
There seems little doubt that the stand down order came from the White House. The question is why?
I suspect that what we're going to hear is that Obama did not want to violate the sovereignty of Libya.
That would prove to be indefensible. Obama would be seen as having no objection to violating Pakistan's sovereignty to get Bin Laden but unwilling to violate Libya's sovereignty to save a US Ambassador.
The story continues to get worse. A former Delta operator made this remark at Blackfive:
Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.
One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.
Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.
If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.
If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!
From what we know to this point, it appears that Obama did not just watch them die, he let them die.
A father of a slain SEAL wants answers. He wants to know who made the decision not to try to save his son.
Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).
Over at Fireandreamitchell a great point is made. When Obama needed the SEALs they were there for him, When the SEALs needed Obama he let them die.
Barack Obama is not fit for the office he occupies.
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.
told you all for the last three years this man was garbage and his administration is completely dog shit quality. Told you all a long time ago to impeach him..never learn..
Obama knows he will go under the bus unless he can convince America someone else (big enough) ought to go under his bus as propitiation.
It has to be Panetta (Sec Defense) or Hillary Clinton (Sec State).
No one lower down the food chain will do.
Sadly, one of them will probably sacrifice themselves for the ”cause.”
Obama did the deed (or, rather, didn’t do it).
But Affirmative Action means always having a way opened for you despite your own incompetence.
We know Gen Ham (head of operations for Africa) was replaced for not following orders (he said he authorized action.
Now we learn that Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group, has been removed from duty for allegations of “inappropriate leadership judgment” and stressed it was not related to personal conduct.
In other words, he must have also been for doing something.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/navy-replaces-admiral-leading-mideast-strike-group-because-of-ongoing-investigation/
The total lack of curiosity by our main stream media is just outrageous. We all know if this were a republican president they would be all over this.
Our country really is in danger if our own media will not act in a proper manner. They are in business to inform and be curious. Instead they protect their favorites and badger those with which they disagree.
You speak of the “food chain”. There is no one in this administration who will or ever tak responsibility for anything they screw up. panetta is a political whore and the slut is not far behind him. The idiot put him as director of the CIA-he did not have the brains or the tools to run this agency. Now dod, joke. His mother should have traded him for a monkey and a pound of basturma when he was born. hillary the slut, she had destroyed our state department. The world perceives this country’s state department as a department of whores and pimps.
Anyone notice the phone??? typical of the idiot.
Too bad no one was in the wipe house on Sept. 11, to heard the phone ring from Libia
The best is yet to come! The best thing we could do is cut the IC in half and work backwards.
@Mulligan22, #4:
It isn’t so much a total lack of curiosity as an unwillingness to convey as news information that is based entirely on politically motivated rumor and speculation.
Rupert Murdoch’s media empire is engaging in a blatant attempt to make Mitt Romney president. If you want to hear or read anti-Obama, pro-Romney propaganda, they’ll provide as much as you could possibly need.
FOX is part of the mainstream media as much as any other news outlet. Collectively, FOX outlets are probably the single biggest part of it, considering the total size of their national audience. Essentially you’re complaining that everyone isn’t climbing aboard Rupert’s merry wagon.
It is past time for our General Officers to stand up for the troops and do the right thing instead of the PC thing. They are the men and women military members and the country look or should look up to as far as determining integrity. God knows politicians do not display integrity. The best example is our current administration. I wonder how many Senior officers will be replaced because they did the right thing instead of the Obama thing? The military didn’t take anoath to defend POTUS. They took an oath to defend our country and the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Looks like we now have as many domestic enemies as foreign. (Maybe the major enemy is both foreign and domestic!)
Here is the sumation of Obama’s accomplishments. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/osama_martyred_gm_dying_al-qaeda_alive.html
Oddly, as of October 16, 2012, Obama’s campaign donations from active duty military personnel are running ahead of those to Mitt Romney by nearly 2 to 1. Apparently the military isn’t buying into the bullshit.
Pedal faster, Rupert!
@Nan G:
Nan, let’s be quite clear; Neither Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton or David Petraus have the authority to activate military action in a situation like Benghazi. They can make recommendations, advise to availability of forces, etc, but the ultimate decision falls to only one person, POTUS.
When we had students at risk in Grenada, Cap Weinburger strongly advised President Reagan to NOT deploy forces to that island. Reagan had other thoughts and forces were deployed within two hours learning that those students, who were U.S. citizens, were in harm’s way. The former SEALs were told to stand down. I grant that may have been an order given before the Situation Room was linked to the real time videos of what was going down in Benghazi, but the second order to stand down had to come from the very top, just as the order had to be given to not provide rapid response forces from Sigonella, Sciliy.
Now, let’s take a look at what Leon Panetta, with that weasel, General Dempsey sitting next to him, said:
“You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”
But that doesn’t hold water as emails were being sent almost immediately after the first assault began on the Benghazi compound. On top of that, we had at least one drone circling the compound which was giving real time information to everyone in the Administration. Charlene Lamb testified that the State Department did, in fact, watch the assault in “near” real time. Is Panetta trying to tell us that while the State Department watched the assault, the White House did not have that ability? I ain’t buying that load for one minute.
Panetta also said:
“It was really over before we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.”
Seven hours is “over before we had the opportunity to know what was happening?” Excuse me? Is this administration totally inept? Seven hours and they still have no clue?
Then Panetta goes on to say, when asked about the drones “There’s a lot of Monday moring quarterbacking going on here.” which really is a dodge and doesn’t answer the question.
Compare that to the killing of Osama bin Laden where Navy SEALs were sent in with no ground communication from Abbottabad. The distance between Sigonella and Benghazi is around 390 miles. The distance between Bagram AFB and Abbottabad is 325. In the time it took the SEALs to fly to Abbottabad, the situation on the ground could have changed quickly, yet, we are told that Obama made that “gutsy” call to send the SEALs into harm’s way with no actionable intelligence on the ground.
But here is the money quote from a CBS (Greggie’s favorite news source) report:
“Even if the team had been ready in time, confusion about what was happening on the ground in Benghazi —and State Department concerns about violating Libyan sovereignty–made a military rescue mission impractical, officials say.”
Got that? While Obama was not concerned about “violating” the sovereignty of Pakistan to send SEALS to kill bin Laden, this administration, or at least Hillary Clinton whom I am sure relayed her concerns to the President, was concerned about Libyan sovereignty. I also heard Charlene Lamb testify that the State Department was concerned about any civilian deaths that could have happened had we sent reinforcements.
So what can we take from Panetta, Clinton and Casey?
a) seven hours is not enough time to assess the situation although they are getting real time video and real time communications
b) Libyan sovereignty is more important to Clinton, and hence Obama, than Pakistani sovereignty.
c) sending SEALs into harm’s way is OK to kill ObL giving Obama a campaign talking point, but not OK to save the lives of American foreign service workers.
Greg,
It may be true what you said about active duty military contributions, but that’s not what your link said. The article you linked to included the donations of military and civilians in DOD and the military branches, and noted that political appointees might have tipped the scales towards President Obama in amounts of donations. I suspect that deployed military may be a bit busy right now keeping their units sound and themselves and those they work with safe rather than writing checks. My son is on an old ship. His “free” time is spent sleeping. On a good day, that’s about 4 hours total.
@Greg: Here is the latest poll of MILITARY PERSONNEL only as opposed to both civilian and military personnel which is what was cited in your link. Notice Romney has more than a 2:1 advantage. Votes are what counts when determining level of support not campaign contributions.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/military-times-poll-romney-bests-obama-2-1-100712/
Also as stated in your own link:
Seems you cherry picked what you wanted. Put the two together and the conclusion is obvious: the military isn’t buying into the bullshit of Obama.
@retire05, #10:
Planning the Abbottabad raid and assembling and training the teams involved took over 3 months. Even with that, there was a serious mishap that could have turned out very badly.
@another vet, #12:
I can’t imagine a majority of people in uniform wanting to be under the command of a draft dodger who tries to talk as if he were John Wayne.
The problem with the cited Military Times poll is that it was conducted entirely with Military Times subscribers. As they acknowledge, Times subscribers do not reflect a cross sectional sampling of the military. Subscribers represent the “professional core” of the all-volunteer military. In other words, those with strong conservative leanings.
@Greg: And how would you know? They do not have to declare who they work for except Federal Government.
@Randy, #15:
I was told by anonymous sources on the ground and by an unnamed but highly reliable person in the military. Also, I carefully questioned a Magic 8 Ball.
@Greg:
You said: “there was a serious mishap that could have turned out very badly.”
OK, so what is the difference between sending forces into Abbottabad to kill ObL, and sending forces in to try to save the lifes of American citizens? Absolutely none, Greggie. Neither mission would have been without risk. Panetta is pissing on your leg and you believe him when he tells you it is raining. Anytime you send American forces into a hostile situation, it involves risk.
Now, I know you and the other three Stooges are having a hard time defending Obama and you really are earning your keep in your attempts, but you are left with one of three choices which are
#1) Obama made the call to not send in reinforcement troops to try to save the lives of American citizens who were under seige
#2) Panetta, Clinton and Casey made the call, usurpting the authority if the United State President for which they should be fire immediately
#3) Obama handed off the decision re: Benghazi to Panetta, Clinton and Casey, therefore basically voting “present” and abdicating his duty as Commander in Chief.
So which it is, Greggie, because it is one of those. There are no other options, no matter how you want to spin it. Either Obama made the call and left those Americans to die unaided, he voted present and let others make the call or his authority was overriden by unelected cabinet members which is a violation of the United States Constitution.
Let’s see just how dishonest you are willing to get although I doubt I’ll get an answer since you have yet to show me where the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State or a General have the Constitutional authority to call the shots in a national emergency like Benghazi.
@Randy:
Greggie is an expert who gains all his insight while gazing at his navel and singing Kumbaya.
@Randy: They give EC far too much credit.
What an utterly useless life it must be to have to spend every day blogging on a conservative website with zero chance of your liberal nonsense changing someone’s mind.
@Greg:Gregory,
Let’s see here, what you’re saying is, the military forces in Siggonella are not trained. I spent 4 years in the Navy and about 95% of my ‘on duty’ time was spent training. I was on an aircraft carrier in the Med for 18 months and if we were ‘at sea’ we could have put aircraft into the air is less than 30 minutes. If we were ‘in port’, we would have to get underway before launching. It would have taken a little longer, depending on which port we were in but in every case, it would have been considerably less than 7 1/2 hours. Don’t you ever tire of trying to defend the indefensible?
@Greg:
Is Clinton running for POTUS again? I thought Obama was on the top of the ticket and not Biden? If you think the majority of the military personnel support Obama would you be willing to see the military elect the next POTUS? I would. There would no reason to follow the race anymore because Obama would suffer a huge, humiliating defeat. If you look at Romney’s support amongst the military, it mirrors McCain’s meaning there is a lot more credibility to the Military Times’ poll than your theory.
@Greg: #14
you think they prefer a foreign born muslim anti-American who sometimes imitates illiterate in his speech mannerisms? Yea, sure….
@retire05, #17:
We’d have been talking about helicopters, I think. What circumstances would they have been attempting to unload troops into? How many hostiles were surrounding the compound? What weapons were they equipped with? Those answers still aren’t clear, even after more than a month.
And how long would it have taken to put troops on site, assuming caution had been thrown to the winds and you decided to simply ignore all of the unknown factors?
Whoever made the call, it wouldn’t have been easy, even though the responsible call was obvious. You don’t reflexively send helicopters and people into what might be a carefully planned killing zone. I would think there would be reason to question the judgement of any military leader who advised that course of action.
Maybe Mitt Romney should publicly state what he would have done.
I think I have it figured out why MSM supports obama. Bad news sells. The msm wants to continue to profit from the decline of the USA and obama fills the bill. Newscasters almost gleefully report the discomfort of others in a ‘Running Man’ scenario and cheerfully top it all off with a feel good happy story. They wring the tears from a desparate housewife LIVE on the air for all to see. They rejoice in the desparation of John Q Public and swank away to their high-rise condos to hob-nob with like minded peers. Death and tragedy are the by-lines that sell and the more the merrier. Re-elect obama and the foundering nation will watch all the more intently the fall of man and buy all the more gold and seek all the more personal comfort at the expense of their neighbor. Yes! I understand now why the msm likes obama… bad news sells!
@Greg: Greg, we are talking about the US Military
I would not want a military leader that would hesitate to rescue Americans in this situation. That’s what a leader is. That’s why Empty chair should vacate that chair.
@Greg:
. Could you get EC to give him the same info that he had in his hand so that the decision can be based on the same info?
Would you want any leader to state an opinion on a variable situationwhat he would do without knowing the details? Zero had the details. He didn’t act, unless his act was to ‘take no action’.
@Redteam, #25:
I imagine you’d have been a big fan of General George Armstrong Custer.
Randy,
Do you know what operation Magic 8 Ball was? Be careful of your answer. The SS reads all of the entries
@Greg:
Nope, he was a yankee. General Patton was more my style.
Greg, you wanta know who you are shilling for: try this link.
http://patriotupdate.com/31687/obamas-taqqiya-unravels
If Obama was watching, I wonder which side he was rooting for.
@Greg: There were two c-130 gun ships available to be on site in 30 minutes. They have the ability to put a .30 cal round in every sq foot of an acre of land pluss lay on some heavy metal on lazer designated targets. The targets were lazed. The POTUS didn’t want to disrupt his muslim friends. Americans died as a result. For once, place blame where it belongs and show that you are just not stupid!
@Redteam: Actually, the folks would likely still be alive but Obama overruled the decision of the empty chair and people died!
@Greg: Actually Greg, your ignorance about Custer shows how little you do know about military history. Custer earned his temporary rank in the Civil War by rescuing ignorant officers like you. If you study Custer, you would find a quite different person than you think you know.
@MOS 8541: I think that is a black decision making device that sets on the Resolution desk.
I agree 100% with this post.
When I think of these heroes being betrayed it makes me sick to my stomach…
The current administration is not fit to command.
What I know about General Custer is that his career ended when he advanced against hostile forces of uncertain size and unknown disposition, and his main element was summarily annihilated.
@Greg:
So you are willing to pass judgement on a guy that you only know about 1 hour of his life. (by your own statement) He might have been attempting to rescue some of his forces that had been captured and were being tortured. So, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt just as you are willing to give Zero the doubt for not attempting to rescue some of his forces that were being killed.
@Greg:
In your typical liberal fashion, you refuse to answer my questions but pose your own questions. I understand that you liberals think you can divert the topic by changing it, but if you want to have any credibility, you will stop that nonsense and answer questions. I suspect you didn’t like the three options I gave you because no matter how you spin it, Obama looks incompent.
Helicopters? Really, Greggie? Why helicopters? Or have you forgotten that Obama is constantly bragging how we are taking out the terrorists with drone attacks that can pinpoint a vehicle? Why not a Specter?
“Whoever made the call?” So you are admitting that you don’t know who made the call? I thought you were so sure of the “gutsiness” of The Won. After all, didn’t he singlehandedly scale the security wall in Abbottabad and take out ObL? Oh, that’s right, he went golfing and the SEALs went hunting. “responsiblecall”, Greggie? We have four Americans dead and you call that a responsible call? I call it blatant failure of leadership.
Now, I gave you three choices; pick one unless it is your intent to confirm you are an imbicile.
@Randy, #31:
According to whom? More of your unnamed sources on the ground in Benghazi? More unnamed people in the military?
@Greg: That is you Greg. You listen to a sound bite and make huge assumptions. All ignorant people follow your practices. Now if you understood the circumstances of the Little Bighorn, you might make a different comparison.
@retire05, #38:
The post I was responding to specifically mentioned troops, Zippy. Do you imagine they would have arrived by teleportation?
@Randy:
Greggie has no answers. His only purpose is to make lame excuses for the most pathetic excuse of a President in the history of our nation. I hope he is not paid very much by the Obama campaign since Greggie is not very good at his job.
@Greg:
Greggie, pick a subject and stick with it. Try answering my questions instead of playing the fool, which you mastered a long time ago.
You have no facts, just hypotheticals dreamed up in your own small little brain. But then, I guess you don’t mind that most people think you are an idiot and are laughing their asses off at you.
Crawl back into your hole, Greggie. You have proven what a clown you are enough for today.
It’s gratifying that you leave so many posts like that last one, for any remaining undecided voters who happen along to consider. I really can’t tell you how much it’s appreciated.
Since you’ve turned another thread into nothing more than an insult slinging session, I believe I will call it an evening.
Before I get to ‘Benghazi’, I want to remind everyone that Obama is not a normal man; he’s a sociopathic narcissist among other character issues – out for revenge. His rage to pay America back goes all the way back to his younger years, when he was abandoned; he’s actually a very dangerous man. Any Phsychiatrist will tell you, that this man should never have been able to be even near a position of power – because he will abuse his power to nurture his rage, hatred and revenge he feels towards America.
The Benghazi issue goes all the way back to Afghanistan; when he threw in his lot with our enemies – MB, AQ and every other anti-american jihadist group.
He is responsible for the killing of the many Seals, crammed into one in-appropriate chopper, set-up to be taken down by a jihadist laying in wait with a anti aircraft missile. He needed to silence those who knew about his ‘lies’ of killing of OBL (who had been dead for years), his invented and fabricated story to sidetrack the american public for his birth certificate fraud issue.
Obama, Jarrett, Brennan etc..have joint the jihadists, as they needed them to take out Gaddafi, again with weapons provided by us. Stevens was the frontman in actively recruiting jihadists not only to fight Gaddafi, but also before that in Eqypt and, currently in Syria. Stevens was aqlso involved in arming said enemies of the USA.
Remember, obama wants to overthrow every govt in the Middle East, incl Saudi Arabia, Jordan to install the MB.
Stevens regurlarly met with jihadists in Eastern Libya, who proudly told them them they were killing our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. He had no qualms about it; even during 2007, when Bush was in office, he was busy with his dirty work in Benghazi. (I’m sure Bush was unaware; we know obama made deals already then during the campaign behind Bush’s back).
Obama important jihadists from Afghanistan into Libya before he planned to overthrow Gaddafi; we also know that only ‘he’ and ‘brennan’ oversee the ‘kill list’; so anyone not following o’s way is eliminated.
Benghazi suppose to be a ‘hostage’ situationto help him get re-elected. Stevens security was withdrawn; repeated requests were denied; the only one not informed about jarrett and obama’s dirty deed was Stevens. (By the way, jarrett was sure to have the msm in her pocket,no fear of being exposed). He suppose to be kidnapped, kept in a safehouse until obama was once again using the SEALS to rescue him to big fanfare going into 1st debate.He thought of antoher notch to killing OBL. Unfortunatly, the two Seals presence was unknown and, the hostage plan went out of control – jihadists not suppose to die that night.
In the meantime, obama is involved in international fast and furious x1000; his current and active arming of jihadists incl AQ to overthrow Assad Bashar did not go unnoticed by Putin in Russia, who has warned obama. (Putin recent nuke maneuver is directed at the US/obama/clinton/panetta).
When the recent tanker/ship docket in Turkey, having not only humanitarian items, but also massive amounts of weapons incl anti aircraft missiles, Putin must have made known the dirty deeds to obama, and turkey among others – obama/state and whomever involved in that deed, had the turkish guy meets w/Stevens in Benghazi that night to hatch another plan or what to do.
The rest is ‘almost’ history, because not only did obama/hillary/panetta/biden/jarrett/brennan watched live feed how our people were tortured and butchered, but also refused to assist in any way. The attempt to concoct some plausible explanation, as Jarrett knows the media will ehlp them out.
What knowbody yet reported is that a Delta Crew did arrive after the slaughter, but they also knew that nothing made sense; Petreaus also knows. Many in the military know – but keep for the moment silent; obama’s dirty deeds and danger involved is known. The time will come, when those who count, will start speaking out and, speak out they will.
We have not heard the end of that yet; in the meantime we need to do our part in pushing this issue in any way we can, be it our reps in Congress, media etc…..
Pray for America….ask that our prayers are heard, and that we are in need divine intervention!
@Greg:
Actually, Greg, the subscribers to any of the Military Times papers are those who tend to serve full service terms, called “lifers” by most military personnel. This includes your senior enlisted as well as the officers. As for whether or not they tend ‘conservative’, well, that is likely because they understand that the real “cowboys” who’ve inhabited the WH are those liberal/progressives who act like “city slickers”. Like Clinton. Like Obama.
@Greg: Do you work for the Obama campaign? You seem mighty focused on the undecided voter (where did that come from?).
@Greg: #39
Geez, Gregory, I’m on the ground here in Louisiana and I knew that. You need to let Zero know that he needs to keep you better informed if you’re going to be his lapdog. Though, on second thought, maybe he didn’t know so he couldn’t keep you informed….. sounds about right.
@Greg:
What’s more, the level of denial coming from you concerning anything ‘negative’ discussed about Obama is just insane.
I get the questions coming from you, though, about the “rumours”. The problem is that you have shown in the past that rumours directed at conservatives and GOP politicians are taken in and regurgitated on FA as “facts”. As is typical with most liberal/progressives, you use an entirely different set of rules when the shoe is on the other foot.
And the problem with the recent postings concerning Obama and what happened in Libya is that it is more likely that the FOX reports are correct than the Obama denials. Especially when you consider that the denials are insubstantial and don’t address the questions asked, nor the information demanded by we, the people.
I’ll say this, as far as this topic is concerned; If the allegations turn out to be true, then Obama doesn’t deserve to hold an office as the local shoe shiner, let alone the Presidency. And if you don’t agree with that statement, then it shows how far you have traveled down the rabbit hole of liberal/progressive ideology.