Masters of Deceptive Persuasion

Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Gary VarvelPolitical Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Crafting D.C. Style

Oh they hear you, they just don’t care what you think. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred, documents and interviews with current and former intelligence officials show.

The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012 — a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.

That the talking points used by Mrs. Rice, who was then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, were written by a CIA that ignored the assessment by its own station chief inside Libya, has emerged as one of the major bones of contention in the more than two years of political fireworks and congressional investigations into the Benghazi attack.

What has never been made public is whether Mr. Morell and others at the CIA explicitly shared the station chief’s assessment with the White House or State Department.

Two former intelligence officials have told The Washington Times that this question likely will be answered at a Wednesday hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during which Mr. Morell is scheduled to give his public testimony.

Mr. Morell, who has since left the CIA, declined to comment on the matter Monday. He now works at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington insider strategic communications firm.

One former intelligence official close to Mr. Morell told The Times on the condition of anonymity that “the whole question of communication with the station chief will be addressed in his testimony.”

“We’re confident that it will clarify the situation in the minds of many who are asking,” the former official said.

Another former intelligence official told The Times that Mr. Morell did tell the White House and the State Department that the CIA station chief in Libya had concluded that there was no protest but senior Obama administration and CIA officials in Washington ignored the assessment.

Why they ignored it remains a topic of heated debate within the wider intelligence community.

A third source told The Times on Monday that Mr. Morell and other CIA officials in Washington were weighing several pieces of “conflicting information” streaming in about the Benghazi attack as the talking points were being crafted.

“That’s why they ultimately came up with the analysis that they did,” the source said. “The piece that was coming out of Tripoli was important, but it was one piece amid several streams of information.”

One of the former intelligence officials said the Libya station chief’s assessment was being weighed against media reports from the ground in Benghazi that quoted witnesses as saying there had been a protest. Analysts at the CIA, the source said, also were weighing it against reporting by other intelligence divisions, including the National Security Agency.

“The chief of station in Tripoli who was 600 or 700 miles away from the attacks wouldn’t necessarily have the only view of what actually went on in Benghazi,” that former official said.

U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

While the testimony is expected to focus on Benghazi, the hearing arrives at a time of growing tensions between Congress and the CIA over such matters as the Bush administration’s interrogation rules and mutual charges of spying and illegality between the Senate intelligence committee and the agency.

Lawmakers are likely to press Mr. Morell for a reaction to reports this week that a classified Senate intelligence report has concluded that harsh interrogation methods used in the years after Sept. 11 provided no key evidence in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and that the CIA misled Congress on the matter.

The CIA disputes that conclusion. The Senate panel is expected to vote Thursday on sending the Obama administration a 400-page executive summary of the “enhanced interrogation” report to start a monthslong declassification process.

One of the key issues likely to come up during the House hearing involves what was said during a series of secure teleconferences between CIA officials in Washington and Libya from the time of the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, to the completion of Mrs. Rice’s talking points for dissemination on the Sunday talk shows Sept. 16.

Multiple sources confirmed to The Times on Monday that the station chief’s email to Mr. Morell was written after one of the teleconferences during which senior CIA officials in Washington — Mr. Morell among them — made clear to the Tripoli station chief that they were examining alternative information that suggested there was a protest before the attack.

After the exchange, Mr. Morell signed off on the CIA talking points given to Mrs. Rice promoting what turned out to be the false narrative of a protest. The development ultimately triggered an angry reaction from Republicans, who have long claimed that the Obama administration, with an eye on the November elections, was downplaying the role of terrorists in order to protect the president’s record on counterterrorism.

Documents since released by the White House show that administration officials boasted in internal emails at the time about Mr. Morell’s personal role in editing and rewriting the talking points.

“Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy editing hand to them,” an Obama administration official wrote Mrs. Rice on the morning of Sept. 15.

What is not clear is whether the email was in any way referring to the conflicting intelligence streams about a protest in Benghazi.

Alternatively, the email notes that Mr. Morell was uncomfortable with an initial draft of the talking points batted back and forth between White House and CIA officials “because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack” in Benghazi.

During interviews with The Times, several former senior intelligence officials have lamented the whole “talking points” issue, saying the CIA was caught in the middle of the White House, Congress and the reality on the ground in Benghazi while crafting the points.

The reason the CIA ended up taking the lead on the talking points was because, as news of the attack was breaking around the world, lawmakers on the House intelligence committee were seeking guidance from the agency on how to respond to media questions without revealing classified information.

Specifically, Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and the committee chairman, and ranking Democrat C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland asked for the guidance.

One former senior intelligence official told The Times that as word circulated through the inner circles of the intelligence community that the CIA was working on the talking points, officials within the Obama administration steered the mission toward crafting something Mrs. Rice could say on national talk shows.

“In essence, the talking points got repurposed,” the former official said. “What it turned into — and I don’t think Michael ever knew this, it’s something to watch for in his testimony this week — was, ‘Let’s hand this thing to the U.N. ambassador and make it what she should say.’”

“That’s a big deal,” the former official said. “It’s one thing to prepare something for lawmakers so they don’t make a mistake or say something inaccurate. It’s quite another matter to have that feed the administration’s then-current, definitive account of what had actually happened in Benghazi.”

“There are a lot of twists and turns in this,” added another former intelligence official. “A lot of it hangs on the fact that the agency thought they were crafting these talking points for Dutch Ruppersberger and Mike Rogers, not the White House.” (WT)

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

What Difference Does it Make?

Senate report: Attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi could have been prevented

But it was all the fault of the video, not incompetence in government all the way to the top, especially not Soon-to-Be Crowned in 2016 Queen Hillary The First.

So what if they were preventable and we didn’t prevent them, that’s hardly grounds for holding anyone accountable!!

A long-delayed Senate Intelligence Committee report released Wednesday faulted both the State Department and the intelligence community for not preventing attacks on two outposts in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, in 2012.

But a year and half later, does anyone care anymore? And isn’t that the point now?

The bipartisan report laid out more than a dozen findings regarding the assaults on a diplomatic compound and a CIA annex in the city. It said the State Department failed to increase security at its mission despite warnings, and blamed intelligence agencies for not sharing information about the existence of the CIA outpost with the U.S. military.

Gee, wasn’t that also in the 9/11 report? 🙂

So I guess it’s the CIA’s fault, no it’s the Video…But it certainly isn’t Queen-to-Be Hillary, even though the buck shouldn’t stop at the top of the bureauctic food chain…. especially for the Once and Future Queen! 🙂

The committee determined that the U.S. military command in Africa didn’t know about the CIA annex and that the Pentagon didn’t have the resources in place to defend the State Department compound in an emergency.

“The attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission,” the panel said in a statement.

The report also noted, chillingly, that the FBI’s investigation of the attacks has been hampered in Libya and that 15 people “supporting the investigation or otherwise helpful to the United States” have since been killed in Benghazi. The report said it was unclear whether those killings were related to the inquiry.

<<snicker>> Yah, think… 🙂

And now the fun part…

The report found no evidence of the kind of political coverup that Republicans have long alleged. Much of it recounted now-familiar facts about deteriorating security conditions in Benghazi in 2012, a year after the fall of longtime dictator Moammar Gaddafi. It filled in new details about the relationship between the State Department compound and the CIA annex about a mile away, and described the concern among many intelligence specialists about the growing potency of Islamist militants in the city.

“In spite of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and ample strategic warnings, the United States government simply did not do enough to prevent these attacks and ensure the safety of those serving in Benghazi,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), the ranking Republican on the panel.

FOX: Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Can you say “re-election”. Just Lie long enough to get Obama Re-elected.

Armed Services Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee’s hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.

Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night — as Obama’s hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch — that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue. 

“In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta,” McKeon asked, “was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?” Ham initially testified that there was some “peripheral” discussion of this subject, but added “at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for.”

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that “the nature of the conversation” he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that “this was a terrorist attack.”

NOT A VIDEO!! (released 4 months before hand)

Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately — from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts — that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive “tick-tock” of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: “What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?” 

“That is a question that you would have to ask others,” replied one of the senior officials. “That was not our conclusion.”

But what difference does it make, the Liberal Queen Hillary Media will not touch her sacredness.

Media Matters (Ultra-Leftists funded by a Billionaire Socialist and deep into the Liberal Media): On January 15, 2014, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a bipartisan review of its findings in an investigation of the September 11, 2012, attacks on an American diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. Much of the report dispels myths perpetuated by Fox News over the last sixteen months.

It did no such thing. But hey, what’s another lie now, after all, What does it matter? 🙂

It’s not like the Liberal Media is going to be suddenly outraged and demand action like they did at Watergate 40 years ago. Oh hell no!

…You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.’ But the plans were on display…’ on display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.’ `That’s the display department.’ `With a torch.’ `Ah, well the lights had probably gone.’ `So had the stairs.’ `But look you found the notice didn’t you?’ `Yes,’ said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard”.’ — Douglas Adams.

BEWARE THE WRATH OF THE ONCE AND FUTURE QUEEN OF AMERIKA!! And her Ministry of Truth.

In response to the report, the State Department issued an update of its efforts to improve security at overseas posts and make other changes recommended by an independent oversight panel — the Accountability Review Board — shortly after the attacks.

Gee, they said that after 9/11.

Ohh, goody, a Review Board! They should have a uselessly outdated report ready by…oh Spring of 2016 after the Coronation of Queen Hillary…

“While risk can never be completely eliminated from our diplomatic and development duties,” the State Department statement said, “we must always work to minimize it.”

Minimize the political risk you mean.

The agency said it is refining procedures for assessing risk and evaluating security measures in highly volatile areas, including when to depart from the usual reliance on locally hired security guards. “Hard decisions must be made when it comes to whether the United States should operate in dangerous overseas locations,” the statement said.

Gee, didn’t they say that after 9/11??

State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said the Senate report adds little new information and does not do much to expand the government’s understanding of the attacks. “We should have been better then, and we need to get better going forward,” she said.

Of course it adds little new information because every knew you were lying then, and this just proved it, but you’ll continue to go with the lies and the committees becauseb the truth ultimately doesn’t matter enough, but the politics does. So until you’ve buried it under that “Leopard” sign on your door, does it really matter? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

The Itch That Won’t Go Away…

But everyone go fuck themselves, I got mine! 🙂

**************

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings.

The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.

It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”

Another says, “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”

“Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that,” said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer.

In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.

“If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it’s called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they’re looking for something, or they’re on a fishing expedition. But it’s absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly,” said Baer.

CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted in a statement that the agency has been open with Congress.

“The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi,” the statement said.

“CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want,” the statement continued. “The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident.”

Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack.

A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously.

While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency.

The lack of information and pressure to silence CIA operatives is disturbing to U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, whose district includes CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

“I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it’s an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way,” said the Republican.

“We should have the people who were on the scene come in, testify under oath, do it publicly, and lay it out. And there really isn’t any national security issue involved with regards to that,” he said.

Wolf has repeatedly gone to the House floor, asking for a select committee to be set-up, a Watergate-style probe involving several intelligence committee investigators assigned to get to the bottom of the failures that took place in Benghazi, and find out just what the State Department and CIA were doing there.

More than 150 fellow Republican members of Congress have signed his request, and just this week eight Republicans sent a letter to the new head of the FBI, James  Comey, asking that he brief Congress within 30 days.

In the aftermath of the attack, Wolf said he was contacted by people closely tied with CIA operatives and contractors who wanted to talk.

Then suddenly, there was silence.

“Initially they were not afraid to come forward. They wanted the opportunity, and they wanted to be subpoenaed, because if you’re subpoenaed, it sort of protects you, you’re forced to come before Congress. Now that’s all changed,” said Wolf.

Lawmakers also want to about know the weapons in Libya, and what happened to them.

Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.

It is clear that two U.S. agencies were operating in Benghazi, one was the State Department, and the other was the CIA.

The State Department told CNN in an e-mail that it was only helping the new Libyan government destroy weapons deemed “damaged, aged or too unsafe retain,” and that it was not involved in any transfer of weapons to other countries.

But the State Department also clearly told CNN, they “can’t speak for any other agencies.”

The CIA would not comment on whether it was involved in the transfer of any weapons.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) was on with Greta Van Susteren Thursday to discuss the Obama scandals.

“Including changing names, creating aliases. Stop and think what things are most calculated to get at the truth? Talk to people with first-hand knowledge. What creates the appearance and perhaps the reality of a cover-up? Not letting us talk with people who have the most amount of information, dispersing them around the country and changing their names.”

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

 

3 Months Later

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Three months ago today, President Obama woke up to the news that US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans had been murdered during a terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi.  The president had been informed that an active attack was underway the night before — but how actively he followed the developing raid, and what (if any) orders he issued, remains a mystery.  On September 12, the president skipped his daily intelligence briefing and flew to Las Vegas for a campaign rally.  This much we know.  The Obama campaign eventually accused Republicans of “politicizing” the massacre by asking questions about it, asserting that the “entire reason” it was a major national story was due to rank exploitation of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.  Even with the president’s re-election safely tucked away, the White House has continued to defend its UN Ambassador (and possible Secretary of State in waiting) against charges that she dissemminated false information to mislead the public about the true nature of the deadly attack.  The president and his top lieutenants have repeatedly dodged difficult questions, changed their stories, and hidden behind the dubious fig leaf of “ongoing investigations.”  Obama has vowed to track down those responsible for the atrocities and bring them to justice.  He has also stated his desire to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi that night.  The federal investigation into the attacks got off to a stupefyingly dreadful start, and three months later, justice and accountability remain in short supply:

Three months after Ambassador Christopher Stevens, a diplomat and two CIA contractors were murdered in Benghazi, there is no sign of the killers being brought to justice by the United States. The investigation into the attacks has been hampered by the reluctance of the Libyan authorities to move against the Islamist terrorists identified by the FBI as responsible for the killing, according to American officials briefing the ‘New York Times’. None of the suspects has been arrested or killed and some have fled Libya. Last month, the FBI issued a global appeal asking anyone with information about the killers to send information in an e-mail, text message or via Facebook. Stevens, the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979, diplomat Sean Smith and CIA contractors and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed in an attack on the U.S. consultate in Benghazi on September 11. The following day, President Barack Obama vowed: ‘Make no mistake, justice will be done.’ But that promise may remain unfulfilled if there is not more cooperation from the Libyan authorities.
The White House and its allies now insist that most questions on Benghazi have already been asked and answered — a claim that even some members of the mainstream media are finding hard to swallow.  Here’s a question: Is this report accurate?

A source with personal knowledge of the security situation in Benghazi told Breitbart News that Senators who listened to closed door testimony about the Benghazi attack were shocked to learn State Department security personnel agents were not immediately armed. Additionally, agents separated from Ambassador Chris Stevens left to retrieve their M4 weapons in a separate building. Only one returned to protect the Ambassador, while the other two hunkered down in the barracks, the source relayed. “From the accounts I read, those guys were not ready. When the attack came that night, they had to go back to the other room and grab their weapons. Then the worse part about it was they never even returned to be with the Ambassador. One returned to be with the Ambassador with his rifle … There were no shots fired in return. On the embassy property, just the embassy property, none of those security agents blasted a single bullet from a single pistol or rifle at all in defense of the Ambassador—nothing.”  
We already knew that the security situation at the consulate was woefully inadequate, but this is the first we’ve heard about zero shots being fired in the ambassador’s defense (which is not to be confused with the subsequent, prolonged firefight at the CIA safehouse).  Jay Carney may not be able to think of a single question on Benghazi that hasn’t been sufficiently addressed, but I certainly can.  Here are a dozen relevant and important inquiries, just off the top of my head:

(1) Who, specifically, denied repeated requests for increased security resources and personnel from American officials on the ground in Libya?  Why were these requests shot down?

(2) A senior State Department official testified that the US had the “correct” number of security assets in Benghazi. Amb. Susan Rice stated that our security presence at the Benghazi mission was “substantial.”  Does the president stand by those assessments?  If not, why were they made in the first place?

(3)  Why were US security personnel pulled out of Libya, even as Amb. Stevens warned of heightened risks?  

(4) Why was the Benghazi consulate operating below the bare minimum standards for a US diplomatic compound, especially after our government learned that at least ten known Islamist militias were operating in the city?  

(5) Why wasn’t security beefed up after a series of attacks on western targets in Benghazi, including previous attempted bombings at the American consulate itself?

(6) Where was the president during the raid itself?  How closely did he follow what was happening, and for how long?

(7) Was the president made aware of the numerous desperate pleas for help from two former SEALs, who battled the terrorists for seven hours before being killed?  If not, why not?  If so, what was his response?

(8) Which government officials, specifically, watched the attack unfold in real time — hour after excruciating hour — via footage from an American drone?  Was that drone armed?

(9) Why were American forces and resources not deployed to help defeat the enemy, particularly while several Americans were alive and urgently seeking reinforcements?  Why was a key counterterrorism task force not convened during the attack?

(10) Who, specifically, changed Susan Rice’s public talking points by excising references to Al Qaeda, and why?  If there was a national security concern, what was it?  Where did the inaccurate “spontaneous protest” narrative originate?  Why was that story deemed more fit for publication than the accurate terrorism evidence?  And if Rice had little direct knowledge of the facts on the ground in Benghazi, why was she selected as the administration’s spokesperson on the subject?

(11) Why was the president still publicly hedging on the terrorism question several weeks after the attack, especially if a terrorist link had been established “almost immediately.”

(12) Why did it take the FBI weeks to arrive at the unsecured, bombed-out consulate after the attack?  Why were sensitive documents left in the rubble, even after they’d left?  Without jeopardizing any leads, what — if any — progress has been made in identifying, capturing, or killing those responsible for the assault?

Three months later, the American people and the families of the fallen still deserve answers. (Guy Benson)

And they categorically will not get them.

Worse than Watergate this may be, but because it’s a Liberal and the Ministry of the Truth in control nothing will be done.

Benghazi, what’s that? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

November is Here

Next Tuesday decides the fate of this country.

Vote.

(for Democrats, they’d want to add Vote Often and and Illegally if you can)

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Benghazi

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.

According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.

The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.

In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”

It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

And 2 More people have claimed responsibility for this film-related incident (Hillary was the first): (townhall)

Petraeus has made clear the CIA wasn’t responsible for the decision not to act. Panetta has tried to take the responsibility himself—and the White House has seemed to encourage this interpretation of events. But Panetta’s position is untenable: The Defense Department doesn’t get to unilaterally decide whether it’s too risky or not to try to rescue CIA operators, or to violate another country’s air space. In any case, it’s inconceivable Panetta didn’t raise the question of what to do when he met with the national security adviser and the president at 5 p.m. on the evening of September 11 for an hour. And it’s beyond inconceivable he didn’t then stay in touch with the White House after he returned to the Pentagon. So the question remains: What did President Obama do that evening (apart from spending an hour on the phone with Prime Minister Netanyahu)? What did he know, and what did he decide, and what was the basis for his decisions? Petraeus has disclaimed responsibility for the decisions of September 11. Panetta has claimed responsibility for decisions that weren’t his to make. Both Petraeus and Panetta have raised more questions than they’ve answered. The only person who can provide the answers the American people deserve is President Obama. 

And he’s doing Sgt Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes, “I know nothing” and the Ministry of Truth is doing “I want you to know nothing”

So don’t worry, it was film’s fault and continuing to expose it is just a political ploy. 🙂
But the Obsession by The Ministry of Truth to ignore the story is not. 🙂

Clearly worried about a Romney victory next week, the mainstream press apparently thinks it’s found the “October surprise” — Romney’s alleged vulnerability on FEMA because of an answer he’d given to a debate question more than a year ago.

Here’s how a pool reporter described the scene in Ohio, where Romney organized a Sandy relief effort:

“TV pool asked Romney at least five times whether he would eliminate FEMA as president/what he would do with FEMA. He ignored the qs but they are audible on cam.

“‘Gov are you going to eliminate FEMA?’ a print pooler shouted, receiving no response.

“Wire reporters asked more questions about FEMA that were ignored.

“Romney kept coming over near pool to pick up more water. He ignored these questions:

“‘Gov you’ve been asked 14 times, why are you refusing to answer the question?'”

That led to headlines like: “Mitt Romney Refuses to Talk About FEMA After Hurricane Sandy Event” and “Romney Faces Scrutiny on Aid in Storm’s Wake.”

It’s a safe bet the press has never hit Obama with repeated, tough questioning on any subject when he was a candidate in 2008 or since he’s been in the White House.

But the bias becomes far more glaring when you consider how reporters have handled the Benghazi attack that left four Americans dead.

Even liberal scribes admit that, almost two months later, “unanswered questions remain.”

Yet, rather than hurl unrelenting hardball questions at Obama whenever they get the chance and demand answers, they treat Obama to slow-pitched softballs like the one NBC News’ Brian Williams lobbed a few days ago: “Have you been happy with the intelligence, especially in our post 9/11 world?” And after Obama filibusters, they dutifully move on to other subjects.

Then again, who has time for trivialities like whether the White House denied help to Americans under attack and then covered it up, especially when there’s that all-important “what’s-Romney’s-view-on-FEMA” story to chase down? (IBD)

Michael Ramirez Cartoon
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Cooling Out

“Anytime a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans who were serving our country get killed, we have to figure out what happened and fix it,” he said, speaking with Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski in New Hampshire. “But I do take offense with some suggestion that in any way, we haven’t tried to make sure that the American people knew as the information was coming in what we believed.” (RCP)

Obama: “If four Americans get killed, it’s not OPTIMAL”

That’s why he said “act of terror” the day after (The talking point) and then blamed a film for weeks then switched to the State Department did it, then the CIA did it, and finally stop blaming me for lying about it, damn you! 🙂

That’s cleared that up. 🙂

Obama “Playing President” During Sandy, But Not For Benghazi

“Well, he says he’s not concerned about the impact on the elections,” syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about Obama and Hurricane Sandy on Monday’s broadcast of “Special Report” on FOX News. “I’m sure he’s very sincere on that. It is a little odd that he shows up in the briefing room, where he hasn’t shown up in the briefing room for about, what, a month and a half? On Libya, or for everything else for that matter. Then you get the photo-ops of him in the Situation Room deploying, I guess, the utility crews who will restore power all over America. Whereas you would think he might want to use the Situation Room and had convene high level people during the nine hours our people were under attack in Benghazi.”

“It’s hard to look at this, playing the president, playing the Commander in Chief in what’s a natural disaster that really doesn’t a lot of leadership from the White House,” Krauthammer said. “It’s up to the Governors mostly. The White House and the Governors release money, that’s about all that they do. And he’s really good at releasing money and pretending it’s not about politics. He wants to use this to show himself in command and I think he might actually be the beneficiary of the fact that all national attention is drawn away for three days. Romney clearly had the momentum, it slowed down but it was still heading in his direction. It’s not clear what happens when the country sort of wakes up out of this in three days and restarts attention on the campaign, whether the momentum will be gone or not. I mean, that’s an open question.”

“I think Charles is a little too hard on Obama. Frankly, it’s huge progress that he didn’t blame this hurricane on a video,” Jonah Goldberg, fellow “Special Report” panelist, joked.

“Or on George Bush,” Krauthammer shot back. (RCP)

YET. 🙂

The brilliant Thomas Sowell nails it: Confidence men know that their victim — “the mark” as he has been called — is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.

So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called “cooling out the mark.”

The same principle applies in politics. When the accusations that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton first surfaced, he flatly denied them all. Then, as the months passed, the truth came out — but slowly, bit by bit. One of Clinton’s own White House aides later called it “telling the truth slowly.”

By the time the whole truth came out, it was called “old news,” and the clever phrase now was that we should “move on.”

It was a successful “cooling out” of the public, keeping them in uncertainty so long that, by the time the whole truth came out, there was no longer the same outrage as if the truth had suddenly come out all at once. Without the support of an outraged public, the impeachment of President Clinton fizzled out in the Senate.

We are currently seeing another “cooling out” process, growing out of the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11th this year.

The belated release of State Department e-mails shows that the Obama administration knew, while the attack on the American consulate was still underway, that it was a coordinated, armed terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the consulate who were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures from a camera on an American drone overhead.

About an hour before the attack, the scene outside was calm enough for the American ambassador to accompany a Turkish official to the gates of the consulate to say goodbye. This could hardly have happened if there were protesting mobs there.

Why then did both President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice keep repeating the story that this was a spontaneous protest riot against an anti-Islamic video in America?

The White House knew the facts — but they knew that the voting public did not. And it mattered hugely whether the facts became known to the public before or after the election. What the White House needed was a process of “cooling out” the voters, keeping them distracted or in uncertainty as long as possible.

Not only did the Obama administration keep repeating the false story about an anti-Islamic video being the cause of a riot that turned violent, the man who produced that video was tracked down and arrested, creating a media distraction.

All this kept the video story front and center, with the actions and inactions of the Obama administration kept in the background. The White House had to know that it was only a matter of time before the truth would come out. But time was what mattered, with an election close at hand. The longer they could stretch out the period of distraction and uncertainty — “cooling out” the voters — the better. Once the confidence man in the White House was reelected, it would be politically irrelevant what facts came out.

As the Obama administration’s video story began to slowly unravel, their earlier misstatements were blamed on “the fog of war” that initially obscures many events. But there was no such “fog of war” in this case. The Obama administration knew what was happening while it was happening.

They didn’t know all the details — and we may never know all the details — but they knew enough to know that this was no protest demonstration that got out of hand.

From the time it took office, the Obama administration has sought to suppress the very concept of a “war on terror” or the terrorists’ war on us. The painful farce of calling the Fort Hood murders “workplace violence,” instead of a terrorist attack in our midst, shows how far the Obama administration would go to downplay the dangers of Islamic extremist terrorism.

The killing of Osama bin Laden fed the pretense that the terrorism threat had been beaten. But the terrorists’ attack in Libya exposed that fraud — and required another fraud to try to “cool out” the voters until after election day.

AMEN!

NEXT TUESDAY- NOVEMBER IS HERE!

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Progress

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

The Fruits of Obama’s “better relations” and “destruction” of Al-Qaeda:

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has urged Egyptians to restart their revolution to press for Islamic law and called on Muslims to kidnap Westerners, the SITE Intelligence Group said Friday.

In a video released on jihadist forums and translated by the US monitoring service, Zawahiri also lashed out at President Barack Obama, calling him a liar and demanding he admit defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa.

Criticizing the new Egyptian government — led by a president drawn from the Muslim Brotherhood — as corrupt, he said a battle is being waged in Egypt between a secular minority and Muslims seeking implementation of Shariah law. (france24)

Despite real-time video, emails to the White House and desperate cries for help, our defense secretary says we didn’t send rescue forces to our Benghazi consulate because we didn’t know what was going on.

In a statement bordering on the Kafkaesque, Leon Panetta told a news conference Thursday that four Americans, including our Libyan ambassador Chris Stevens, were left to die without a rescue attempt by nearby U.S. military forces because there’s “a basic principle here, and the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

That would seem to sum up the Obama administration’s assessment of and story line about the Middle East — it has no real-time clue about what’s going on. Osama bin Laden is dead, but Islamofascism is very much alive, and to send an ambassador and his diplomatic mission into harm’s way without so much as a Marine security detachment with bayonets is unconscionable.

Excuse us, Mr. Secretary, but your administration had a drone over the consulate on Sept. 11, and you and President Obama had a meeting that included Vice President Joe “Nobody Told Us” Biden in the Oval Office at 5 p.m. Washington time, a little more than an hour after the onset of the attack. There were at least 50 minutes of real-time video of the attack as the battle was sent streaming directly to the Situation Room in the White House.

Real-time emails were also pouring into the Situation Room detailing that 20 armed terrorists were attacking our Benghazi consulate, that Ambassador Stevens was crouched in a safe room waiting for help as the al-Qaida terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia was taking credit for the attack. Most claims of responsibility for a terrorist attack come days after the event. This was, as they say, in “real-time.”

If indeed you had insufficient knowledge concerning the attack itself, you certainly had knowledge of the threat. Ambassador Stevens had been begging for even the most basic security, and all his requests for additional security were denied. And how about this little factoid: the Benghazi consulate was and is sovereign U.S. territory that you and President Obama had a responsibility and duty to defend. (IBD)

But the only thing they want to defend is Barack’s political ass.

A Famous  Quote from our Dear Leader:

“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

An Even Better one for all of us:

“The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.” — Plato

So If you want better, VOTE. If you want Obama out, VOTE. If you want Democrats defeated, VOTE.

It’s that simple. If you don’t vote, don’t Bitch.

I vote. I really bitch! 🙂

His ALL-IN (the shit) Energy Policy:

It’s not that Obama necessarily hates profits. What he’s really concerned about is where they end up.

“Greater profits,” he said in February 2011, “have to be shared by American workers.” So rather than letting profits accrue to those who earned them, the president wants them to be “shared” in a way that he approves.

Profit-loathing isn’t limited to the White House. It’s partywide. Democrats from top to bottom are agitated when corporations profit, especially oil companies.

This couldn’t have been more clear than when earlier this year, six House Democrats — Reps. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Jim Langevin (R.I.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.) — proposed a Reasonable Profits Board that would levy a 50% to 100% tax on oil company earnings that exceeded a “reasonable profit” limit.

Former House speaker and current Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was not among those who put together the totalitarian-sounding Reasonable Profits Board. But she’s been known to spit out phrases such as “record profits,” “profiteering,” “highly profitable,” when describing oil companies’ earnings.

On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Harry Reid, who still runs the Senate for the Democrats, has similar ill feelings toward health insurance companies.

In Reid’s mind, the “profit motive” of insurers has “almost destroyed our economy.” He’s complained — incorrectly — “they make more money than any other business in America today,” implying that there is something wrong with making more than everyone else and forgetting that some industry has to come out on top.

Unless, of course, we live in a nation in which the government uses its force to even all outcomes. Could it be that’s what the Democrats are really trying to achieve?

The Democrats’ war on profits is just as shameful at the grass-roots level. Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, discovered just how intense the animosity is when he spoke to Democrats at their convention this year in Charlotte, N.C. He was told that Washington should mandate “corporate losses,” ban corporate profits, “limit” corporate profits and put a “cap” on them.

Predictable. And so, unfortunately, was the response of a woman who initially said she didn’t know enough about banning corporate profits to offer an opinion, only to later say she would favor a ban if Obama approved of one. Why? Because, she gushed, “I will support anything my president wants to do.”

There is an ugly jealousy and spitefulness that runs deep and wide through today’s Democratic Party.

It shows in the desperation of the Obama re-election campaign. It’s supposed to be the party of peace and unity. But it’s become a party of division and disunity. (IBD)

I would add Disrespect, distraction, disgust, and Disharmony.

The Wit & The Wisdom

The Wit and Wisdom of Snoop Dog: The number one reason cited for not voting for Romney is because “He a white n****.” Likewise, Obama will receive his vote because “He a black n****.”

The Libya Blame Game continues. It’s someone elses fault.

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told Republican senators that her televised statements last month on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were based entirely on information she was given by the intelligence community.

“In my Sept. 16 Sunday show appearances, I was asked to provide the administration’s latest understanding of what happened in Benghazi,”

“In answering, I relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials, including through the daily intelligence briefings that present the latest reporting and analysis to policy makers. This information represented the intelligence community’s best, current assessment as of the date of my television appearances, and I went out of my way to ensure it was consistent with the information that was being given to Congress.”

“Elements of the intelligence community apparently told the administration within hours of the attack that militants connected with al Qaeda were involved, yet Ambassador Rice claims her comments five days later reflected the ‘best’ and ‘current’ assessment of the intelligence community. Either the Obama administration is misleading Congress and the American people, or it is blaming the entire failure on the intelligence community,” the senators said in a joint response to Rice’s letter today.

“Ambassador Rice claims the administration launched a ‘comprehensive’ effort to determine what happened in Benghazi, but the administration failed to secure the scene of the terrorist attack for three weeks — allowing evidence and sensitive information to be compromised and destroyed. From beginning to end, the administration’s behavior in the wake of the attack indicates a breathtaking level of incompetence and suggests an intent to deliberately mislead Congress and the American people.”(FP)

And we know which of those it was, don’t we. 🙂

The Debate

Best Excuses: DNC spokesman- Brad Woodhouse: If Romney ‘was speaking last night, he was lying’ and that caught Obama off-guard!
ROTFL!!!

Somehow, in all their post-debate whining and spin, the Obamaites have forgotten to blame Bush for their man’s sorry performance.

Since Wednesday’s debate spanking of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama by 45th President of the United States, Mitt Romney, the liberal establishment and their media allies have joined the Obama campaign team in furiously blaming everything but the man who lost. (One possible and unlikely exception was Bill Maher who said, on Twitter, that “Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter.”)

Following is a far from exhaustive list of Democrat excuses. You will notice certain themes. Those marked with an asterisk work for the Obama administration, the Obama campaign, or the Democratic National Committee.

Al Gore: It was the altitude.

David Plouffe*: It was the media, secretly wanting a Romney win.

David Axelrod* (Obama adviser): It was just good acting by Romney. And Romney is a liar.

Stephanie Cutter* (Obama adviser): It was the moderator.      

Bob Woodward: Obama was distracted, maybe by his personal life.

James Carville: Talking to Romney is like talking to a chainsaw.

Michael Moore: It was John Kerry.

Andrew Sullivan: It was the moderator.

Juan Williams: It was liberals like Michael Moore and Andrew Sullivan on Twitter.

Darrell Delamaide: The moderator asked questions biased toward the Republican agenda.

Brad Woodhouse*: Romney is a liar.

(Intermission for a shred of honesty)

Marc Ambinder: It was the format, Obama’s cautiousness, a bad memory, tiredness from dealing with Turkey and Syria, and (honesty!) that “Obama just doesn’t have a very good affirmative argument to make.”

(Now back to the Democrat panic-spin)

DNC*: It was Romney dominating the moderator.

DailyKos: Romney is a liar.

Michelle Goldberg: Romney is a liar.

Susan Thistlethwaite: It was the moderator and Romney is a liar.

Howard Kurtz: Journalists aren’t doing their jobs… by not calling Romney a liar.

Chris Matthews: Obama doesn’t watch enough MSNBC.

George Lakoff: Obama didn’t say what he believes.

Jen Psaki*: Obama was too busy to adequately prepare.

Kevin Baker: Romney is a racist (because of the story about his five boys).

Jamelle Bouie: It doesn’t matter.

Joe Klein: It wasn’t the real Barack Obama.

Barack Obama: It wasn’t the real Mitt Romney.

Joe Biden: Obama did a great job. (American Spectator)

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Legacy of 9/11

Today is a day of Remembrance. Remembrance of those 3,000 people that were slaughtered by Muslim fanatics. Hatred unbridled.

Not partisan hatred. But that still thrives today. Like the JFK conspiracies of my youth, the “truthers”, extreme Left wing haters of George W Bush are still out there thinking that the then-new President arranged in months to kill his own people just so he could be a warmonger and kill even more people (and steal the ’04 re-election like he stole the 2000 election).

It’s frankly sickening. But it’s not that far away from the hatred the Left has for “baggers” like me. Their ideological enemies.

Hatred, division, extreme partisanship. It’s all very real in America today.

Who needs muslim terrorists anymore, the people are more than capable of doing their job to themselves now.

Even today on the 11th anniversary of a truly horrible day in America History.

Hatred still rules. Only now, the hatred is internal. Being destroyed from within.

That’s apparently the unfortunate legacy of 9/11/01. And it shouldn’t have been that way.

This is the Reality. Not some whitewashed Liberal fantasy of Political Correctness.
That’s what we have to collectively remember.
3,000 innocent lives snuffed out
in a moment of blind hatred.
And with the hate-filled partisanship we have now, we have to remember that day.

And these are the Men who did it. Radical Muslims. Not George Bush, Not the CIA, not Dick Cheney or any other ridiculously partisan silliness.

And No Political Correctness. They were Muslims. Period.

But you can see in the “Truthers” is the modern day birth of the hyper-partisan. The need to destroy at all costs your political enemies and to believe or say any wild ass thing as long as you believe it advances your ideology and denigrates the the “enemy”.

Obama and The Ministry of Truth are the perfect example of this era we now live in.

But they reality is:

10:03 am ET – At this exact moment eleven years ago, brave patriots aboard United Airlines flight 93 forced Islamist hijackers to bring the airliner down in a Pennsylvania field, thwarting another attack on the nation’s capital.

And hour earlier 3,000 people were doomed when 2 planes were crashed into the World Trade Center towers.

That’s the reality.

Guy Benson 2011:One of the most striking and disturbing images of 9/11 is a photograph of an unidentified man plunging from the World Trade Center towers to his death.  Facing the reality that no rescue effort was feasible, this citizen — like dozens of others — chose to leap to his demise rather than be incinerated by the blaze.  This picture is extraordinarily difficult to stomach.  Much of the media, which has decided to sanitize 9/11 to the greatest extent possible, won’t show it: 


Onlookers were terrified, horrified, and overcome with grief:

This was not a “tragedy.”  It was an atrocity, committed by radical Muslims whose fanatical, murderous hatred for western civilization has not abated.  They cannot be coddled.  They cannot be placated.  They can only be captured and interrogated, or killed. May those whose lives were ripped away ten years ago never be forgotten.  May their loved ones find peace.  May God bless our military, intelligence community, and first responders.  And may God bless our great country.

Amen.

That is reality. Not some hyper-partisan fantasy.

Let’s Roll!

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne