The terrorist attack upon our US Consulate in Benghazi and the White House on-response tothe tragedy for the next month, with its changing false narrative it created, in itself is reprehensible. But perhaps what is most damnable was the White House’s non-response to the attack as it was happening.
We now know that there were US ships less than 500 miles that could've provided rescue and defensive assets within less than an hour after the attack. We now know that the White House was monitoring the situtation minute by minute as it occurred. now know that they were being apprised of the deteriorating situation via e-mails. We also know that we had military assets in place in Tripoli who could've come to the aid of the bileagured members of the consulate within minutes of the attack. None of these were forthcoming. When our people needed quick and responsive leadership from this White House and this Commander-in-Chief, none materiliazed. The man had left on a flight to Las Vegas to raise cash and campaign.
The House Oversight Committee held hearings on this, and under sworn testimony it was discovered that when the people whose responsibility was to staff the embassy with the proper security personnel requested repeatedly for additional security be posted at the consulate; they were met a wall by this administration. For weeks, then months; they requested repeatedly to this White House that the consulate in Benghazi needed security augmentation of secure assets due to the increased attacks against it, but it met deaf ears.
Mr. Obama has made the claim that he was on this from day one, and that he took precautions to make sure that the remaining personnel be rescued, attempting to convince a skeptical public that he took a leadership role in the affair. He did not. If he were correct, and he micro-managed the response to the Benghazi terror assault on our consulate, by ordering the rescue of those who were left, then he displayed the greatest disregard when apprised of the impending attacks hours before. He could've dispatched Special Operations Combat Control Teams and joint assets from the State Department already in the region, in fact already inside Libya, and he did not.
Watergate was a bungled burglary that caused the presidency of Richard Nixon. No one died either prior to, during, or following the burglary. This breach in our defenses at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya eclipses Watergate as the greatest example of irresponsibility and negligence by a chief executive in the annals of our country's history.
It presages the decisive defeat of Barack Hussein Obama by the American electorate at the polls on Election Night, November 6th, 2012. Anything short of that will be a greater disgrace than this man leaving for Las Vegas to campaign and raise money on the night the consulate in Benghazi was attacked and four of its staff, including Ambassador Stevens, were brutalized and murdered In cold blood. His non-response and continue callousness since then is axiomatic of a man who has no moral compass and is devoid of conscience.
Obama is simply an empty cold-hearted shell of a politician lacking any empathy or ability to comprehend the enmormity of this tragedy. This man is dead inside. In the face of this tragedy he campaigns as though nothing happened. Ra, ra, ra, cheer, cheer, cheer, Obama is here! Ra, ra, ra, cheer, cheer, cheer, Obama is here! Where is the remorse? Where is the sense of outrage? There is none, because the man simply does not care.
Because the articles which follow are so well researched and so compelling in what they present in the face of such deception and deceit from the White House in what may become the greatest foreign policy scandal in decades, I have posted them here for the reader to take the time to read for themselves, because the most important election of our life time is about to take place in a matter of days, and our nation’s fate hangs in the balance.
An informed electorate will assure that this administration is conclusively and effectively voted out of office on the same night of the Elections, and our nation is brought back from the brink of its demise, its own destruction by its own hand (this administration and the people who put in place), and judgment (of which we have had nine Harbingers to warn US about, which we have not heeded or done anything about.
Now please take the time to read this, and get informed about this, because there has not been witnessed this kind of criminal negligence in our government in decades. If Obama were an honorable man, he would end his campaign for the White House immediately in a public statement, and retire from office, allowing the steady transmission of power to occur to his successor, Mitt Romney. I do not expect this, because he is not an honorable man, nor are any of those within his regime.
How do we make sense of this White House, and of the man who seeks to be reelected to another disasterous four years, who continues to campaign as though nothing occurred on Tuesday, September 11th, 2012 at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya? In order to answer this question we must first understand the reluctance that this White House and the entire government infrastructure under Barack Obama have in using the term “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamist terror” or even “Islamist extremist/extremism.”
We must delve into the background and the company this man has kept and continues to keep to this day. The list below is from an article that has done this:
“Last week's release of the Barack Obama/Derrick Bell Harvard tape was seen by many as another example of the President’s long history associating with radicals.
There is another interpretation, however. When Obama urged people to open up their hearts and minds to Bell, it was another case of him “cozying up" to an antisemite. Understand--we are not talking about people who are anti-Israel (although there is a huge crossover of the two) but people who regularly use antisemitic stereotypes or more directly derogatory comments about Jews.
Here are some examples:
Derrick Bell: Bell was a leading proponent of Critical Race Theory (CRT), described by Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry in Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law as an example of extreme multiculturalism. They add:
The radical theories inescapably imply that Jews and Asians enjoy an unfair share of wealth and status. Thus, the necessary normative implication of the radical theory is that steps should be taken to redress the balance more in favor of white gentiles. In addition, the radicals cannot easily explain Jewish and Asian success. Although benign explanations for this success are available, they are logically inconsistent with radical multiculturalism; consequently, the radicals would be forced to explain Jewish and Asian success by deploying theories that parallel historic forms of anti-Semitism. In short, if the radical multiculturalists are not personally anti-Semitic or anti-Asian, it is only because they have failed to work fully though the logic of their own theories.
More directly, Bell appeared to believe that Jews have an ulterior motive for everything. For example, in his novella, “The Space Traders,” Bell argued that Jews help blacks so they themselves won’t become the target of bigotry.
Merrill A. McPeak: Co-Chair of Obama’s 2008 campaign, McPeak is a believer in that old “Jews control the government” meme. In one interview, he suggested that U.S. politicians are afraid of Jewish voters in Miami and New York City and that American Jews are the "problem" impeding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Sen. Chuck Hagel: When Obama was first elected, Hagel--a friend from Obama's brief service in the U.S. Senate--was believed to be the president’s first choice for Defense Secretary. Hagel was once quoted as saying: "The political reality is that... the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here."
Sorry, Chuck, but the only Jewish lobby I know of is in my house--and my wife says it needs a paint job.
Khalid al-Mansour and Al-Waleed bin Talal: According to Sutton, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal (the guy whose ten million dollars were rejected by former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani because he had blamed 9/11 on Israel) and Khalid al-Mansour of the antisemitic Nation of Islam were instrumental in assisting the future president's Harvard ambitions.
Zbigniew Brzezinski: The President once called Brzezinski "someone I have learned an immense amount from" and "one of our most outstanding scholars and thinkers." The former National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter, Brzezinski is famous for helping to create the Taliban and is a Judeophobic conspiracy theorist who believes the Jews control U.S foreign policy and Congress.
Al Sharpton: According to the Wall Street Journal, the President turned to Sharpton to answer public criticism in the black community over his economic policy. Sharpton helped fan the flames of the Crown Heights Pogrom and was a leader of the anti-Jewish protest that led to the firebombing of the Jewish-owned Freddy’s Fashion Mart. Sharpton called Freddy's Fashion Mart's Jewish owners "bloodsuckers" and "white interlopers," leading protesters to shout, "We're going to burn and loot the Jews." Just a short time later, they got their wish: the store was firebombed and eight people died.
Jeremiah Wright: Shortly after Obama took office, the man in whose church the President sat in for twenty years complained about his lack of access to the Oval Office: Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck or in eight years when he’s out of office. They will not let him talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. I said that from the beginning. He’s a politician; I’m a pastor. He’s got to do what politicians do.
And there are plenty more where that came from, including the chairman of his transition committee, John Podesta, who is now head of the Center for American Progress (CAP). Both CAP and its “child” organization, Media Matters for America (MMfA), have been cited by the Simon Wiesenthal Center for promoting the antisemitic meme that Jews are not loyal to America.
Many critics of this analysis will call the above “guilt by association;” at least, that’s what they did to similar stories in 2008.
Please understand clearly that it is not my contention that the President of the United States is an antisemite; I have seen no evidence to that fact. I do contend that he has a nasty habit of associating with Jew-haters.
Why does Barack Obama seem to gravitate to Jew-haters? Is it because he agrees with their hatred? Is he unaware? Or is he just insensitive?
Here is a man who called a Georgetown student because she was hit with an insensitive attack by a radio host, but he accepts and associates with antisemites.
Perhaps, like the radical multiculturalists who appeared to shape some of his views, Barack Obama believes Jews have an unfair share of wealth and status in this country, and a little pressure will help “redistribute" their success. Either way you look at it, his choices of friends and associates raise questions which need to be answered.
From an article titled, Judging Obama by His Antisemitic Friends
________________________________________
October 24, 2012
The Wave That Breaks the Liberal Bubble
By C. Edmund Wright
Can you feel it?
The wave, that is. I speak of one that will wash away far more than just a failed presidency. This wave will have the torque to rock the entire liberal bubble -- the political/media/crony bubble -- leaving it forever exposed. Ironically, those inside this bubble will be the last to know -- which is precisely why it will happen. Those who would rule over us, and insult us with outrage over Big Bird, academic debate-scoring, "binders" memes, and specious jobs statistics know nothing about us. This includes those inside the bubble who purport to represent our views.
But we know them well. For the record, "we" refers to the quarter of the country that never bought into the fraudulent vapor of Obama and who lost respect for anyone who did. Even post-election, when 70% plus of the nation was in this stupor, we knew it was Marxist voodoo that could not last.
It did not. Early in 2009, per Rasmussen, another 25% got over the phony high of Obama's election. Since then, Obama's been underwater on approval .
Millions more have joined this narrow majority in the past weeks. Debates have been the catalysts, but this epiphany has been building for much longer -- and now it's reached critical mass. There is now understanding of the shallowness of Obama and of liberalism. Everything said by the supposedly racist, mean-spirited conservatives has been validated.
Doggone it...I think they've been right all along.
We were, and not just about Obama. We've been right about the academia elites, the Jurassic media, the elitist conservative pundits, the establishment, the "obama foam" class, and Occupy and union thugs, too. This includes anybody who makes his living from government -- and the reporting thereof. It encompasses those who live inside the bubble, plus those who depend on them. These people are all intertwined, co-dependent, and out of step with America. Recent events have finally connected dots for a lot of people in ways they can no longer deny.
Consider a quick history:
Rush Limbaugh opened his show that day saying that "the new tone has come home to roost" and, seconds later, "I'm already on the field." Many scratched their heads, yet others knew exactly what he meant. The diluted conservatism of Bush, Karl Rove, and John McCain was destined to fail -- allowing a fresh start to take its place. This was explicitly Rush's point. Game on!
It mattered not that Bush and McCain couldn't stand each other; reaching across the aisle and the new tone were different names for the same perception failure. Thus, the end of Bush/McCain felt like termination from a bad job. Awful, and yet liberating. Many were "on the field" with Rush that day. The wave began.
Yes, Romney uses some McCain language -- and Rove is part of efforts to defeat Obama. Consider them collateral beneficiaries of a wave they don't understand.
The wave grew in February 2009, when Rick Santelli reintroduced the term "Tea Party" into our vernacular on CNBC -- and his rant went viral thanks to Matt Drudge and Limbaugh. The phrase "Tea Party" was everywhere.
Thus, when people connected in spring '09 at town hall meetings opposing ObamaCare, Tea Party groups organically sprang up. David Axelrod, who has never been part of any movement that he was not paid to dream up and fabricate, immediately projected his counterfeit style onto the Tea Party. He still doesn't get it.
In November 2009, Jon Corzine was decisively beaten by Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell won Virginia big. People were seeking refuge from Obama in the safety of Republican governors. In the bubble, they ignored these and bitterly clung to an oddball race in New York 23. Hey, no big deal -- you won two, but we won one. Nothing to see here. By the way, did we mention that Obama is personally popular?
The wave then crashed at Hyannis months later and washed the Ted Kennedy seat out of Democrat hands. Scott Brown is no Reagan, but his campaign was anti-ObamaCare and pro-Tea -- even as he avoided the term. The excuse from the bubble? Martha Coakley was a poor candidate. True, but poor libs win safe seats all the time. Those in the bubble missed the point and passed ObamaCare anyway.
They even promised to read it...if Nancy Pelosi would take her 200-pound gavel off it.
Then came 2010, which, like 1994, was fought ideologically. With Pelosi predicting victory, Democrats lost 69 seats in Congress, 700 state seats, lots of governors -- and damned near every dogcatcher. Pelosi lost her gavel, too.
Undeterred, the bubble-dwellers then put all their chips on the table in Wisconsin, where they had unions, a hack judge, and the sacrosanct teachers on their side. This was their slam-dunk. They were sure they could sink Scott Walker, and the world would be right again.
Uh-oh. Walker won the absurd recall easily. The bigger story is the damage done to public unions. The infantile behavior of so-called dedicated educators was seen nationwide. "Public servants," greedy? Who knew?
In the bubble, they dismissed this. They said the problem was simply their messaging and the evil Koch Brothers. Forget Brown, Christie, McDonnell, 69 seats, 700 legislators, lots of governors, and Walker (twice). Forget that the entire nation watched the Democrats flee the state to avoid a vote! Obama is still inevitable. Everyone (in the bubble) knows it.
They really believe this, and they really believe that the world revolves around them. For years, it did -- as most power, communication and information originated inside the bubble. Three networks, two wires, one cable, and three dailies ruled the bubble and the opinions of the world. We know the rest: along came Rush, Drudge, Fox, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Beck, and the conservative websites. Breitbart emerged and inspired millions to embrace tech toys to expose the "racial Marxism" of the Democrat-media complex. Thanks to the delightful capers of O'Keefe and Giles, we all know ACORN.
Liberal mischief was exposed. A union thug fakes racism at a Tea Party -- it goes viral. SEIU members confess to being paid to protest -- and it goes viral. A Democrat congressman insults a youngster -- it goes viral. Chris Matthews wets his pants, and it goes viral. Weiner...well, you know -- and it goes viral. The entire bubble is intellectually naked, and everyone sees the political porn without the networks, cable channels, or newspapers that once controlled access.
In the bubble, where politics is but a game, they miss the cumulative effect of all this. They have no sense of the undertow pulling on many.
Fast forward to last week. As Candy Crowley and the pundits are finding out, winning the optics of the moment is no longer enough. Now events are won and lost in the days following. It's not over 'til the fat lady goes viral. She went viral, and now Crowley, Obama, and the entire media coterie are being exposed on the web.
Those in the bubble never see these tectonic shifts. They were in denial after Drudge nearly brought down Bill Clinton. They stayed in denial after bloggers retired Dan Rather. Everyday reality brings down more newspapers and magazines, and the pioneer of cable is now only airport fare.
Hello? Anyone in the bubble spot a trend here?
No, and this includes some good guys. Limbaugh and Mark Levin hammered Charles Krauthammer and George Will last week on their groupthink. Even bubble conservatives speak of four-dollar gas and dead ambassadors as mere debate topics. How can they miss that four-buck gas, soaring food prices, and 11% unemployment are ruining lives? These are not points awarded because a guy sounds elegant.
Crowley's antics are a sample of incidents that cause light bulbs to go off for voters who may not know the issues but who do know that a president who has to be rescued by a B-list journalist is indeed an empty chair. They know that the B-list journalist is not worth listening to, either. This is the kind of event that can put the last four years into instant perspective for someone.
Different dots connect for different people. For some, it may be Obama snarking, "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" after blaming the video for weeks. Add this to Big Bird, binders, and contraception for middle-aged students, and even unserious voters can tell that Obama is unserious.
For others, it may be the pipeline and gas prices. Or the cancer ad, the phony Harvard Cherokee, or fat union perks. Whatever the dots, they all connect those inside the liberal matrix of Obama, all Democrats, the media, unions, Occupy, and the pundits. Nothing they have said for years is actually true.
If such realizations have hit critical mass, we have a wave.
Gone will be Obama and the Democrat Senate. More than that, however, will be the exposition of the entire liberal myth. Obama has been the face of liberalism, and the bubble has been his support system. When this vapor gets blown away, the propagators will see their credibility blown away as well.
Even at this late date, many assign credence to polls with laughable 2008 turnout models. This includes Fox, Rasmussen, and the Wall Street Journal, as well as the liberal outlets. (Gallup excluded this week.) It will be fun to watch the horror, the denial, and then the spin after election day.
That's why the wave will be so satisfying. Oh, saving the country from four more years of Obama will be important, too, of course. But that will be challenging at the same time. Remember that John Boehner was a collateral beneficiary of the 2010 elections, and he still does not understand the movement that gave him the speaker's gavel. The same might be true for Romney and Paul Ryan. Rove will also get more credit, more airtime, and more wealth as a result. He may think he is driving the wave, but he is merely riding it. These winners are very likely to miss the message of this election, just as the liberals have misinterpreted every election since 2009. Inside the bubble, they always miss it.
All of this will present challenges and frustrations, of course, going forward. To paraphrase a sentiment of Levin's, we'll "deal with all of that later." And we will. In the meantime, enjoy the wave. It's coming. You can feel it, too. I know you can.
________________________________________
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
GAFFNEY: The real reason behind Benghazigate
Was Benghazi the base from which Team Obama was funneling arms to Jihads seeking to overthrow Syria and establish another radical Islamist State? Suddenly Ambassador Stevens presence there and his meeting with a Turkish diplomat begins to make sense.
Was Obama gun-walking arms to jihadists?
Thanks to intrepid investigative reporting — notably by Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge at Fox News, Aaron Klein at WND.com and Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org — and information developed by congressional investigators, the mystery is beginning to unravel with regard to what happened that night and the reason for the subsequent, clumsy official cover-up now known as Benghazigate.
The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
Once Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown, Stevens was appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by Mr. Belhadj and his friends. Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.
Investigative journalist Aaron Klein has reported that the “consulate in Benghazi” actually was no such thing. He observes that although administration officials have done nothing to correct that oft-repeated characterization of the facility where the murderous attack on Stevens and his colleagues was launched, they call it a “mission.” What Mr. Klein describes as a “shabby, nondescript building” that lacked any “major public security presence” was, according to an unnamed Middle Eastern security official, “routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria.”
We know that Stevens‘ last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria. It also may have involved getting more jihadi fighters there. After all, Mr. Klein reported last month that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”
It gets worse. Last week, Center for Security Policy senior fellow and former career CIA officer Clare Lopez observed that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with the so-called “consulate” whose purpose has yet to be disclosed. As their contents were raided in the course of the attack, we may never know for sure whether they housed — and were known by the local jihadis to house — arms, perhaps administered by the two former Navy SEALs killed along with Stevens.
Read the whole thing.
It's also part of a pattern that's emerging about Obama's policies in the Middle East. Note that all of countries that have experienced the so-called "Arab Spring" have produced radical Islamist leaders. Which leads to a common question when you see the results of the Obama policies: are the policies failures or are they deliberately designed to do what they have done? Some have asked this about Obama's domestic "failures" and now it's worth asking about the destruction of American interests overseas.
It also leads to another interesting question: what group is actually responsible for the attack? The Islamists who were getting the weapons don't have an obvious motive for the attack. Syria's Assad regime would benefit from the destruction of the Benghazi compound. We won’t get a truthful answer if Obama is re-elected, and a Romney administration may not want to open that can of worms.
UPDATE: This could also explain why the CIA and the State Department are both willing to fall on their swords and claim that the attack was all about a You Tube video. The discussion about who knew what and when they knew it diverts attention from alternative reason behind the attack. Once you eliminate the video as the spark that led to the attack you are left with no stated motive. The default motive: that Jihadists don't like us and would attack us, just as they would any enemy, is plausible on the surface, ... but under closer scrutiny doesn't pass the smell test.
________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment