Thread: Obama KNEW ... and lied to the American people

I wonder why she even bothered to vote There must be something out there killing healthy brain cells.

That would be like the person who darted across the street in between cars in the middle of the block...in case the walk signal wasn't working when they got to the cross walk......try telling that to the police

Yes ... it IS just that simple

Benghazi: the Great Media Whitewash…. a National Disgrace
- Greg Halvorson Saturday, October 27, 2012

Today, as Fox News broke new revelations that the White House received exigent requests for help during the Benghazi consulate attack, I went to see what the Big Three were running. As reported earlier on our Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Co...06783309358337

NBC website–NO coverage; headline: Auto bailout comments hurt Romney in car country…. CBS website–NO coverage; headline: Will white men sink Obama? …. ABC website–one obscure mention, softball headline….

Seriously…. It’s as if Watergate has broken open, but, instead of reporting it, the media is conspiring with Nixon…. They are, in FACT, conspiring with Obama to whitewash a blatant cover-up…. The president, in an effort to protect his campaign Talking Point – that he, Superman, has “decimated al Qaida” – forswore his duty to protect Americans, who died as a result…. With resources available, and drones overhead – with clear intelligence stating unequivocally that terrorists were mounting a deadly assault – the president, literally, allowed Ambassador Stevens, Navy SEAL, Tyrone Woods, and 2 other Americans, to perish, and did so, insidiously, for political reasons.

Watergate symbolizes the corrupting influence of unfettered power

Watergate is considered America’s biggest scandal. Watergate symbolizes the corrupting influence of unfettered power. Watergate, however, didn’t bring us body-bags, flag-draped coffins, grieving parents, a ridiculous video, absurd apologies to terrorists by high level officials reminiscent of a Neville Chamberlain grovel, and a media spavined by bias so blatant that it conjures the salad days of Pravda CCCP.

Obama is up 4 coffins on Nixon. He watched – or was certainly aware that al Qaida wanted him to – Americans die on American territory. He did nothing. He flew to Las Vegas…. He attacked Mitt Romney.

The president, from day one, lacked the gravitas necessary to perform the duties of his office. He has disgraced and embarrassed and divided America like no leader in our lifetimes. He, if he had honor, would resign–in a just world, he would be impeached. That he will suffer neither fate is an indictment of our culture. Journalism schools have churned out sycophantic, unprofessional lapdogs incapable of objectivity. For it, Americans are worse off.

And, tragically, some are dead.

~Greg Halvorson

UPDATE: In an interview, earlier today (10-26), with KUSA-Denver, the president was asked whether requests for help were denied in real time. His answer:

“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened… I can tell you as I have said over the last couple of months since this happened, that the minute I found out what was going on, 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 to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice… I guarantee you that everybody in the State Department, our military, CIA, you name it, had as the number one priority making sure that people were safe.”

Yet another blatant falsehood from the most dishonest president in modern times.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50619

Here's one....get some cheese to have with this whine.....

There's a photo going around of a man's call for his Romney-supporting friends to acknowledge that, in doing so, they are putting their economic self-interest ahead of his civil rights. I was moved by it, but realized that the people I feel that kind of disappointment in aren't people who will vote for Romney (as far as I know, I have no friends who would vote for Romney), it's the people who are too radical to support Obama. Because he has not done all they want, has let them down in what he promised (and I'm not arguing that he hasn't) they won't do anything--educate, donate, get out the vote, vote--to help him get re-elected. There is almost a feeling of abashedness at their excitement about Obama 2008, that drives them to hyper-cynicism and disdain toward Obama 2012. They are putting their personal pride in not tainting themselves by supporting this imperfect president ahead of my civil rights. Ahead of the rights of my family to exist. Ahead of the rights of women to have control of their bodies. Ahead of the rights of working people to organize for their health, safety, and fair pay. Ahead of the rights of people from other countries to work and go to school. Ahead of the rights of all of us to be protected from unregulated banks. Ahead of our need to do something, anything, to slow the damage we are doing to the earth. I have no patience for that degree of self-interest

Oy Vey....

:snicker: :snicker: :snort:

Sunday, October 28, 2012
So what does the President do when he takes responsibility?

After Hillary Clinton beat the President to playing the responsibility card, the President chimed in to say he also takes responsibility. This is what he said in an interview with MSNBC to be aired on Monday. http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affa...ghazi-security

“What my attitude on this is is if we find out there was a big breakdown and somebody didn’t do their job, they’ll be held accountable,” said Obama in an interview with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, according to a report on that network’s website.

“Ultimately as Commander-in-Chief I am responsible and I don’t shy away from that responsibility," Obama added.

Well, what exactly does that mean - to take responsibility? Does it mean being the guy who comes in after the fact to criticize those who made the wrong decisions in the first place? Sometimes that is all that a leader can do. No one expects him to be aware of the multitude of quotidian decisions being made in the federal government.

Though when it comes to national security we do have the right to expect that the President is being made aware of hot spots around the globe particularly in situations where he has sent Americans. We expect him to be asking pertinent and demanding questions of those briefing him - not just reading the reports on his blackberry while he's out campaigning. Shouldn't he have already known that parts of Libya were still under very ominous threats from terrorist groups especially when there had already been several attacks on westerners in that part of Libya? I'd read that on the internet myself before September 11. Did Obama ever ask about these attacks and what was being done to assure ourselves of the safety of Americans who might be in the region including our own diplomats?



And when news of the attack in Benghazi was known in Washington so that people in the State Department were watching it as it unfolded, what was the President doing and what advice was he getting.

William Kristol has some good questions for the White House about whom the President was consulting with on September 11 while the seven-hour battle was going on in Benghazi. http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/ten-...se_657977.html

THE WEEKLY STANDARD understands that it will take some time to "gather all the facts" about what happened on the ground in Benghazi. But presumably the White House already has all the facts about what happened that afternoon and evening in Washington—or, at least, in the White House. The president was, it appears, in the White House from the time the attack on the consulate in Benghazi began, at around 2:40 pm ET, until the end of combat at the annex, sometime after 9 p.m. ET. So it should be possible to answer these simple questions as to what the president did that afternoon and evening, and when he did it, simply by consulting White House meeting and phone records, and asking the president for his recollections.

1.) To whom did the president give the first of his "three very clear directives"—that is, "make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to?"

2.) How did he transmit this directive to the military and other agencies?

3.) During the time when Americans were under attack, did the president convene a formal or informal meeting of his national security council? Did the president go to the situation room?

4.) During this time, with which members of the national security team did the president speak directly?

5.) Did Obama speak by phone or teleconference with the combatant commanders who would have sent assistance to the men under attack?

6.) Did he speak with CIA director David Petraeus?

7.) Was the president made aware of the repeated requests for assistance from the men under attack? When and by whom?

8.) Did he issue any directives in response to these requests?

9.) Did the president refuse to authorize an armed drone strike on the attackers?

10.) Did the president refuse to authorize a AC-130 or MC-130 to enter Libyan airspace during the attack?

The CIA has denied that they denied any request for help for those on the ground and the White House has issued its own denial. So it seems that it is all on Leon Panetta's shoulders. But didn't the President get consulted at all during these discussions? The President is saying that we need an investigation to find out what was wrong, but presumably he should be able to find out pretty quickly what was going on in Washington D.C. as decisions were being made. And Kristol further points out that the White House was quick to send out information to the media about an hour-long phone call that he had with Benjamin Netanyahu that very same day. It was important to get that information to the press to alleviate criticisms that he had snubbed the Israeli prime minister by not meeting with him earlier when he was in New York at the U.N. http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obam...ll_658027.html

While Americans were under assault in Benghazi, the president found time for a non-urgent, politically useful, hour-long call to Prime Minister Netanyahu. And his senior national staff had to find time to arrange the call, brief the president for the call, monitor it, and provide an immediate read-out to the media. I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu, of all people, would have understood the need to postpone or shorten the phone call if he were told that Americans were under attack as the president chatted. But for President Obama, a politically useful telephone call—and the ability to have his aides rush out and tell the media about that phone call—came first.

So here are a few more questions for the White House: While President Obama was on the phone for an hour, did his national security advisor Tom Donilon or any other aide interrupt the call or slip him a piece of paper to inform him about what was happening in Benghazi? Or was President Obama out of the loop for at least an hour as events unfolded and decisions were made? On the other hand, national security staff were obviously with the president during and immediately after the phone call—otherwise how could they have put out their statement right away? Surely his aides told the president about what was happening in Benghazi. Was there then no discussion of what was or what wasn't being done to help, pursuant to the president's first directive that everything possible be done?

Now we're hearing leaks that the President was indeed watching this as it unfolded in real time. http://www.therightscoop.com/lt-col-...nghazi-attack/ Literally watching it, as Biden might say. That makes sense. We have the capability and had the drone in place transmitting pictures. With the President in the White House, wouldn't he have watched some of this unfold? There had to have been discussions as this was going on of what to do. The Secretary of Defense had to have consulted with the President. He would need permission either way to send military help or not send military help. If the rumors are true that the CIA in Benghazi was painting a target on the ground and calling in air support, why would they have been doing that if there http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...ed-off-attack/ was not an armed air attack that could have been called in? http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/1...-benghazi.html


The White House was quite happy to distribute a picture of Obama in the Situation Room while the raid on Osama bin Laden was going on. They even have cooperated with a Hollywood filmmaker to make a movie about the raid and one of their big supporters is tweaking his own film to give more credit to Obama as his film will air days before the election. The information that the White House leaked has even landed the doctor in Pakistan who helped us identify OBL's remains into a Pakistani prison. So they have no compunction about leaks of what should be classified information when it makes their guy look good. Is that what Obama's idea of responsibility truly is?

What about now? He can mouth words about taking ultimate responsibility but it sure doesn't seem that he is doing anything to own up to what taking responsibility really means when something doesn't go right and may tarnish his image as the guy who killed OBL and has al Qaeda on the run.

No wonder that both he and his administration preferred to mislead the American public that it was all about some video instead of acknowledging that he had misjudged the damage to al Qaeda and that it was still a threat, one against which he had not protected Americans on the ground beforehand and presumably while the attack was going on. Instead they are spinning madly and sending blame anywhere but at the man who then goes on TV to claim that he is ultimately responsible. Well, if that is so, how about acting like it?

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2012/...-he-takes.html

Leaks, Lies, Libya...Lack of Leadership
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hMdC...&feature=share

Aide: Obama didn’t deny requests for help in Benghazi
By Doug Powers • October 28, 2012 05:53 PM

That according to a National Security Council spokesman.

Rick Moran breaks down the past few days http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/28...hazi-cover-up/ (via Doug Ross http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...er-fox-is.html ):

The CIA is denying. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...k-sources-say/

The Pentagon is denying. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...k-sources-say/

And now the White House is denying that anyone refused to send help to our embattled CIA and State Department personnel engaged in a seven hour running firefight with more than 150 jihadists. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libya...enghazi-attack

It just doesn’t get any lamer than this:

The White House on Saturday flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th. “Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told ahoo News by email.

Why was this so hard for President Obama to say on Friday when asked a direct question about assistance to Americans under fire? http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...bc7_story.html

President Barack Obama said repeatedly Friday that his administration would “find out what happened” and punish those responsible, but he twice ducked questions about whether U.S. officials denied requests for help.

As Bill Kristol points out, Obama doesn’t have to “find out what happened” in the White House — he was there and presumably was kept informed.

informed.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said his sources told him President Obama watched the attack from the Situation Room. It shouldn’t exactly be a bombshell to discover a president had been monitoring an ongoing attack on an ambassador and his detail — that’s exactly what we’d expect a president to do. However, the pickle for the administration is that the only way they can distance Obama from the “who denied requests for help” question is to allow everybody to believe that Obama wasn’t doing what everybody would expect a president to be doing under those circumstances: Closely monitoring the situation. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/reti...attack-happen/

Leon Panetta said help wasn’t sent because they didn’t have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over. There might be a bit of semantics playing out here. Assuming for a moment no US official literally said “request denied,” most people would still consider doing nothing to be tantamount to a denial of request. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...orces-at-risk/

If nobody either in or connected with the Obama administration specifically denied requests for military back-up or gave any “stand down” orders during the Benghazi attack as Fox News reported, http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/26...icials-denied/ why didn’t the administration use the golden opportunity presented by the Sunday morning news shows to go out and rip Fox News apart at the seams much to the delight of disenchanted people who voted for Obama in 2008 who are desperately in need of motivation to get to the polls next Tuesday? Instead David Axelrod was worried about how Hurricane Sandy could harm Obama’s re-election chances http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ering-turnout/ and Stephanie Cutter was saying the Des Moines Register’s endorsement of Romney is not based in reality. http://twitchy.com/2012/10/28/heh-ru...ed-in-reality/ The latter was during the “Pot Meets Kettle” segment of ABC’s This Morning.


Democrat Sen. Udall, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, won’t tell Chris Wallace if the drones above Benghazi that day were armed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZeRW...layer_embedded

Gingrich: Obama canceling campaign trips due to hurricane but didn’t after Benghazi? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._benghazi.html

Update: Instapundit links http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/155954/ to this post at Big Journalism noting that out of the five major Sunday news shows, only Chris Wallace raised the issue of Benghazi. Bob Schieffer in the video above talked about the subject only after John McCain raised the issue. The collective media silence speaks volumes with just over a week to go until the election. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...Raise-Benghazi

**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/28...bama-benghazi/