Rhodes to Hell

Scandal: Newly obtained emails on Benghazi show then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was coached by a key White House aide to lie and ignore the facts known and reported on the ground to make the administration look good.

The fish rots from the head, as the saying goes, and no further proof is needed than a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, contained in more than 100 pages of documents released by Judicial Watch and obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request.

That email, with the subject line: “RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 p.m. ET,” was sent to other key White House staffers such as then-Communications Director David Plouffe and Press Secretary Jay Carney the day before now-National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her whirlwind tour on five Sunday news show appearances to specifically and emphatically blame an Internet video for the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other nationals were killed.

One of the goals listed in the emails was the need for Rice “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.” She was also to “reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.” Her job was not to tell the truth, but to put lipstick on the Obama administration’s Benghazi pig.

The documents include a Sept. 12, 2012, email from Payton Knopf, a former deputy spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, in which Knopf informs Rice that senior officials had already dubbed the Benghazi attack “complex” and planned in advance. Yet Rice would still insist on her TV tour that the Benghazi terrorist attacks were “spontaneous.”

In early April, former deputy CIA director Michael Morell, who was heavily involved in editing the now infamous talking points, told lawmakers it was Rice, on the Sunday shows, who linked the video to the Benghazi attack and that the video was not part of the CIA analysis.

The Rhodes email was not part of the 100 pages of emails released by the administration last May, and we can see why. As we noted at the time, that email package showed a successive pattern of edits with White House involvement designed to remove any hint of terrorist involvement to fit the administration’s campaign narrative that the war on terror was over and won.

Those emails show that Rhodes and National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor were alerted that the intelligence community was drafting talking points that as late as 3:04 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 14, still included references to extremists tied to al-Qaida and an “attack.”

The terms “al-Qaida” and “attack” were stripped out by 4:42 p.m., and shortly afterward Vietor thanked colleagues for revisions and said they would be vetted “here,” as in the White House. He then forwarded “edits” from John Brennan, the current CIA chief who then was a White House counterterrorism adviser.

In a White House meeting on Saturday morning, Sept. 15, the CIA, at the direction of the State Department and White House, drafted the final version of the talking points from which all references to al-Qaida and security warnings in Benghazi before the attack were deleted.

The question of how the video story was concocted out of whole cloth, by whom and why, and why it was trumpeted by Rice, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama himself with such fervor at the United Nations has remained unanswered until now.

“Now we know that the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement.

That the White House’s main concern in the wake of an attack in which four Americans were murdered was Obama’s image is downright despicable. (IBD)

But very politically motivated. After all, it’s Win at any Cost, especially the Truth.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Benghazi: One Year Later

So what have we learned in the last year?

That Obama Lies. Hillary Lies. Susan Rice Lies. The State Department Lies.

Everyone in the Administration lies about it.

Then the Ministry of Truth buries it.

And you get scorn and ridicule if you even bring it up to The Left.

“What Difference Does it Make?”

It’s deliberate. It’s Calculated. And it’s 1000% political.

That’s what we’ve learned in the last year.

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi “talking points” when Congress asked for them, and using the word “spontaneous” while avoiding the word “terrorism.”

And blaming a You Tube video that had been out there 3 months prior and had had no effect in the region. But the Administration arrested it’s maker. It’s the only arrest they’ve made to date.

And that  arrest wasn’t for making the video, which is a legal, constitutionally-protected exercise of free speech. It was for violating his probation in an earlier bank fraud case dating back to 2010.

Twelve months ago, the Christopher Stevens became the first US ambassador assassinated in the line of duty in more than three decades.  He was murdered along with three other Americans during a chaotic, hours-long terrorist raid on two US compounds in Benghazi, Libya.  Since that day, none of the terrorists responsible have been captured or killed, even though our intelligence services know where they are.  Not a single government official has been fired over the historic security failures.  And more than a dozen US diplomatic missions in “high risk” zones remain under-protected to this day.  Nine months ago, I posed twelve unanswered questions about the Benghazi massacre; as of this writing, ten of them have yet to be adequately answered.  The responses to the others reveal US incompetence and a politically-motivated cover up.  Chris Stephen, the left-wing UK Guardian’s Libya-based correspondent, has meticulously reviewed the record of what really happened in Benghazi on 9/11/12, and contrasted it with the Obama administration’s “official” story.  Here is the introduction from Stephen’s lengthy report:

The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was striking for a number of reasons: the date, 11 September, the toll – four diplomats killed, including an ambassador – and the knock-on effects on the careers of senior American politicians. But what is perhaps most striking is the inconsistencies: the US version of events compared with those of witnesses and the facts on the ground. The two do not tally. And so, a year later, there remain pressing questions about what happened that night – and what the Americans say happened

Read the whole thing ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-consulate-benghazi-attack-challenge).  It’s a harrowing account of terror and confusion, an indictment of the administration’s reckless ineptitude in the weeks leading up to the bloodshed, and an expose of the government’s numerous attempts at revisionism.  Meanwhile, why haven’t any of the perpetrators been brought to justice?  Part of the equation is the Obama administration’s dangerous obsession with treating these terrorists as common criminals.  They want to build legal cases against the attackers, then try them in civilian court.  Madness. But another element of the delay is the Libyan government’s ongoing efforts at obstruction, and the White House’s lack of urgency (via the New York Times):

A year after the attacks in Benghazi that killed the United States ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, the Justice Department has indicted suspects. Intelligence officials have a general idea of where they are hiding. And the military has a contingency plan to snatch them if that becomes necessary.  But the fledgling Libyan government, which has little to no control over significant parts of the country, like Benghazi and eastern Libya, has rebuffed the Obama administration’s efforts to arrest the suspects…Some military and law enforcement officials have grown frustrated with what they believe is the White House’s unwillingness to pressure the Libyan government to make the arrests or allow American forces to do so, according to current and former senior government officials. Mr. Obama acknowledged last month at a news conference that the suspects had been charged but were still on the loose.  “Whether he likes it or not, he is going to have to deal with this issue,” said a former senior American official, referring to Mr. Comey. “There’s a huge frustration on the issue among the agents about why nothing has happened to these guys who have killed Americans.”

In fairness to the Libyan government, they can barely keep themselves safe, and wield virtually no sovereign control over much of their nation.  They live in constant fear of Islamist reprisals.  It’s also possible that the Libyans may still harbor a grudge over the public humiliation they suffered at the hands of the Obama administration in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.  You may recall that Susan Rice’s false talking points directly contradicted the assessment of Libya’s president, prompting the Libyans to delay the arrival of US investigative teams at the attack site.  Most gallingly, American officials on the ground are venting frustration over their assessment that regardless of the Libyans’ posture, The White House isn’t applying much pressure or leadership to resolve the situation.  365 days have passed since four Americans were murdered by a gang of radical Islamists, and that outrage has gone unanswered.  No arrests, no military strikes, few (if any) lessons learned, no accountability — even of the token variety — and no justice.  Appalling.  I’ll leave you with two video clips.  The first features Hillary Clinton standing next to the Benghazi victims’ flag-draped coffins and blaming the attacks on an “awful internet video,” followed by President Obama vowing justice for the fallen.  The second clip is of Amb. Susan Rice disseminating information that the administration knew to be false, days after the raid.  She has since been promoted.  Both spectacles speak for themselves: (townhall)

And it took almost a year to get Susan Rice her payback for her bold faced lies.

She the National Security Advisor.

Finally, someone who is nearly as good an example of the Peter Principle as Janet Napolitano.

The State Department, under the direction of Secretary of State John Kerry, is still refusing to provide requested Benghazi eyewitnesses to the House Oversight Committee for interviews about what happened one year ago today.

Yesterday, Chairman Darrell Issa sent a letter to Kerry stressing the only people who can provide a full picture of the 9/11 terror attack are witnesses who survived.

“The survivors of the attacks are the only people who can give testimony to the Committee about what happened on the ground in Benghazi,” Issa wrote in the letter. “Details provided by the survivors will not only help the Committee determine what took place during the attack, but will also help the Committee and other interested parties determine ways to prevent future tragedies.”

A request was made by the Oversight Committee on August 14, 2013 for transcribed interviews with Benghazi survivors. The State Department responded on August 23 by saying it was “not prepared to provide witnesses for those interviews.” The Accountability Review Board [ARB] has interviewed Benghazi witnesses Issa is requesting. 

“The ARB considered the surviving eyewitnesses to the attack to be part of a ‘core group’ of witnesses,” Issa said. “Furthermore, the ARB recommended that the Department establish a panel of outside independent experts to identify best practices and evaluate security issues at diplomatic posts around the world. That panel, chaired by former U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, enjoyed the Department’s full support, with unfettered access to documents and personnel. The panel met with over 200 people, including at least one individual whom the Department is now refusing to make available to the Committee.”

It is suspected the State Department has allowed witnesses to speak to the media for interviews. Issa’s letter cites a recent article in Vanity Fair in which great details are described regarding the Benghazi attack, including “details that only persons who survived the attack could possibly know.” Fox News has also been able to get in contact with some of the witnesses.

“The State Department has further restricted the Committee’s access to these witnesses, claiming that they must be insulated from congressional investigators as they ‘would very likely be witnesses in any criminal proceedings relating to the Benghazi attacks,'” Issa said. “The Department’s claims that it needs to ‘insulate’ witnesses ‘from any perception of political accountability in fulfilling their responsibilities’ actually creates the impression that the Department is exerting its own political influence to prevent survivors from speaking to Congress.”

President Obama pledged to cooperate with Congress after the attack as did Secretary Kerry.

“The State Department has not lived up to these unequivocal commitments to ‘provide answers.’ Instead, the Department has attempted to limit the Committee’s access to important documents and information, including witnesses such as the Benghazi survivors.”

Issa is demanding Kerry provide interviews with witnesses by September 24 or be issued subpoenas. (Katie Pavlich)

“We made mistakes, but without malice”–One Administration official was said to have decried.

The Justice Department says it’s “using every tool and resource available…to ensure that anyone who played any part in that attack will face justice, no matter how long it takes and no matter how far we must go to find them.” (Meanwhile, he’s suing Texas over Voter ID laws).

Well, that’s ok then, no problem…After all, “What Difference does it make?”

So the lesson to be learned here is , that if lie to cover up your bosses mistakes you will get a promotion and you get to ridicule and stonewall anyone who dares to challenge your lies.

Now, that’s Government you can trust. 🙂

 

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

C.R.E.E.P.y…..

Committee to Reelect the President. President Nixon, that is. 🙂

The White House held an off-the-record briefing with reporters on Friday afternoon to discuss recent revelations about the Benghazi investigation, sources familiar with the meeting tell POLITICO. The meeting began around 12:45 p.m. and postponed the daily, on-the-record White House press briefing to 1:45 p.m. White House press secretary Jay Carney did not respond to a request for confirmation of the meeting. The off-the-record session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi.

Strategy Meeting with The Ministry of Truth? 🙂

Susan Rice’s Benghazi talking points were redacted and revised at least 12 times in advance of public consumption in order to help cover up the administration’s security failures prior to the attack.

 They doctored intelligence to protect the political reputations of people who dropped the ball.

To Protect the Re-election of a President.

C.R.E.E.Py

The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was “inappropriate” targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

White House Chief Mouthpiece, Jay Carney: “I.R.S. is an independent enforcement agency,” said Carney. “The — which I believe, as I understand it, contains only two political appointees within it. The individual who is running the I.R.S. at the time was actually an appointee from the previous administration.”

IT WAS BUSH’S FAULT!!!!

AMAZING CHUTZPAH!! wouldn’t you say. 🙂

Par for the course and predictable, I’d say.

“I call on the White House to conduct a transparent, government-wide review aimed at assuring the American people that these thuggish practices are not under way at the IRS or elsewhere in the administration against anyone, regardless of their political views,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

White House spokesman Jay Carney declared it was indeed inappropriate for the IRS to target tea party groups. But he brushed aside questions about whether the White House itself would investigate.

Instead, Carney said the administration expects a thorough investigation by the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration. The inspector general has been looking into the issue since last summer, and his report is expected to come out next week, the IG’s office said Friday.

Carney said he did not know when the White House first learned that tea party groups were being targeted.

Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.

“That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review,” Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association.

“The IRS would like to apologize for that,” she added.

C.R.E.E.P.y….. 🙂

“The admission by the Obama administration that the Internal Revenue Service targeted political opponents echoes some of the most shameful abuses of government power in 20th century American history,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said Friday he will hold a hearing on the matter has not yet set a date.

“The IRS absolutely must be non-partisan in its enforcement of our tax laws,” Camp said. “We will hold the IRS accountable for its actions.”

“It’s the line people that did it without talking to managers,” Lerner told The AP. “They’re IRS workers, they’re revenue agents.”

Meaning their manager were asleep at the switch, or tacitly implicit right? 🙂

“It is suspicious that the activity of these ‘low-level workers’ was unknown to IRS leadership at the time it occurred,” said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, which describes itself as the nation’s largest tea party organization. “President Obama must also apologize for his administration ignoring repeated complaints by these broad grass-roots organizations of harassment by the IRS in 2012, and make concrete and transparent steps today to ensure this never happens again.”

Bwah hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Never happen. After all, it was George Bush’s Fault! :0

Here are some of the things they wanted to know about those groups.

1. We’re gonna need all your direct and indirect communication. “‘Direct and indirect communications’ is profoundly chilling of First Amendment rights, ” said David French, senior counsel for American Center for Law & Justice, which has been representing 27 conservative organizations met with IRS inquisitions. “It’s so vague as to be impossible to comply with.”

IRS1

2. What do we need to know about your members? Nothing much. Just ALL THE THINGS!

IRS2

3. Your present and past employees and their relationships, please.

IRS3

4. No, family members of past and present board members and employees are not exempt, nor are their activities with other groups. Why do you ask?

IRS4

5. If someone in this country’s free press has ever interacted with you in any way shape or form about your free speech activities, we’re going to need documentation of that.

IRS5

6. By the way, all the insane, intrusive information we’re asking for is understood to be public once you’ve given it to us, so please include only the most flattering possible photos of your children and pets.

IRS6
7. There are very specific requirements for completing and submitting this insane, intrusive information we’re asking for. Does it feel like you’re running hurdles yet, Lolo?

IRS7

8. Don’t forget to read the continued very specific requirements for completing and submitting this insane, intrusive information.

IRS8

9. If you do not comply with these very specific requirements for completing and submitting this insane, intrusive application, you will go directly back to Start, you will not pass Go, and let’s face it, we will probably collect $200.

IRS9

10. Please predict the future reliably. Thank you for your time.

IRS10

IRS11

IRS12

But not to worry, it was George Bush’s Fault!!

Sleep tight…Don’t let the IRS Bed Bugs bite…

<Insert C.R.E.E.Py Music>

coward

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

All The President’s Men (2013)

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

All The President’s Men (1976) an Academy Award winning movie about 2 crusading journalist who spoke truth to power and brought down an evil, unpopular President and set generations of journalists on their own crusade.

All The President’s Men (2013) should be an Academy Award winning performance about crusading “journalists” who protect the truth for power and brought down an evil, unpopular Internet Video so that they could protect an unpopular President and want to set generations of “journalists” on their own crusade to save their guy and any future ones.

From crusading journalist to crusading propagandists.

Watergate is a piddy little break-in compared to Benghazi and the things this President has gotten away with because The Ministry of Truth is there to save Big Brother.

My how things have changed. No blunder is too big for them to want to cover-up.

In February of this year the NY Times idea of “All The President’s Men” was “The U.S. president’s all-male, all-white nominations for the top jobs”, literally about Men and how he discriminated against women!

Seriously.

So the new mission: Protect Hilary, the ordained successor to BHO. The Next President to be protected from an ungrateful public and evil partisan Republicans! 🙂

Congressional Democrats will go all-out to protect their likely 2016 presidential nominee. They won’t ask why a 10-man SWAT team was sent to arrest a filmmaker while pleas for help in Benghazi were ignored.

On Sept. 14, 2012, three days after the terrorist attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi that claimed their lives, the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were returned to America in a “transfer of remains” ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, Md.

Charles Woods, Tyrone’s father, recalls that as the bodies of the four Americans arrived at Andrews, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him “that first of all she was sorry and then she said, ‘We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.'”

Thanks to the available testimony of Benghazi whistle-blowers and to a new timeline of events before, during and after the terrorist attack, the last vestige of plausible deniability has been stripped from a secretary of state who, at best, is woefully incompetent to hold any public office and criminally negligent at worst.

We already knew about the ignored advance warnings of terrorist training camps from Ambassador Stevens, about camps that surrounded what he called an indefensible facility and about the ordered withdrawal of security teams by Clinton herself in advance of the attack.

But the whistle-blowers’ testimony that she cut her department’s counterterrorism task force out of the loop as rescue teams were ordered to stand down and refused to listen to people on the ground who knew it was a terrorist attack “from the get-go” is damning.

We knew of an April 19, 2012, cable bearing Clinton’s signature acknowledging a March 28, 2012, formal request from Gene Cretz, then ambassador to Libya, for additional security assets. But she ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

The rationale behind the video story has always been puzzling. But in the context of a possible 2016 presidential run and a desperate attempt to salvage it, the grasping of this implausible straw makes sense.

To acknowledge it was a terrorist attack “from the get-go” would require answering unanswerable questions about decisions she made and warnings she ignored that made the attack and the deaths of four Americans inevitable.

The altered talking points and the presidential decision to send U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on all the Sunday talk shows to parrot a concocted lie was an effort to protect Clinton from making any more public statements that could be used against her in 2016.

Incompetence and willful negligence are not the best things for a presidential resume.But according to Nancy Pelosi, she “the best” qualified candidate!! But she might be a little biased!

In 2008, Hillary suggested of her opponent who would be the next president, Barack Obama, that he was unqualified to pick up the White House phone at 3 a.m. in the event of a crisis.

She was right. On the night four Americans died in Benghazi, he went to bed and woke up refreshed for a fundraiser in Las Vegas, not bothering to inquire about how things turned out.

We still have no hour-by-hour accounting of what he did that night other than sleep.

In the aftermath of the Benghazi attack, with the help of a sycophantic media, the immediate goal was to kick this can down the road so it wouldn’t destroy the president’s campaign narrative of victory in the war on terror or derail his re-election chances.

Now congressional Democrats at Wednesday’s hearing have a clear mission. It’s the same one that existed for the administration from the first minute news of the terrorist attack reached the State Department and the White House — to shield the party and its leaders from responsibility for a major terrorist attack on American sovereign territory and to protect Hillary Clinton’s ascension to the presidency. (IBD)

But will all be for naught if the Undocumented Democrats are granted immunity and given the right to vote.
Welcome to the land of the Crusading Citizen Journalist! 🙂

“We’re going to find political manipulation seven weeks before an election. We’re going to find people asleep at the switch when it comes to the State Department, including Hillary Clinton.

“The bond that has been broken between those who serve us in harms way and the government they serve is huge — and to me every bit as damaging as Watergate.”–Sen Lindsey “Amnesty” Graham (R-SC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-a-benghazi-bombshell/2013/05/06/d7a4e3fe-b651-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html

http://freebeacon.com/stand-down/

So who will win?

5762b-whathappensinbenghazistaysinbenghazie280a6cartoonbya-f-branco

Cover-up Zombies

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us, it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid!

In an appearance on Face the Nation this morning, Rep. Darrell Issa revealed several new pieces of information about the Obama administration’s controversial description of the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, casting doubt that the White House mischaracterized its cause by mere accident.

“The talking points were right and then the talking points were wrong,” Issa explained in response to a question about reporting at the Weekly Standard. The CIA and Greg Hicks, who took over as Charge d’Affairs in Libya after the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, both knew immediately that it was an attack, not a protest.

Hicks, who did not appear on the show but whose reactions were featured based on transcripts of interviews with Issa’s committee, said he was stunned by what UN Ambassador Susan Rice claimed on five different news shows on Sep. 16. When she appeared on Face the Nation, she followed an interview with the President of Libya who claimed he had “no doubt” it was a terror attack. Moments later, Amb. Rice contradicted him and claimed a spontaneous protest was more likely.

Acting Ambassador Hicks watched the Sunday shows and said he found this contradiction shocking. “The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” he accused. Hicks added, “My jaw hit the floor as I watched this…I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career as on that day.”

Hicks believes the stunning failure of diplomacy on the Sunday news shows explains why it took the FBI three weeks to gain access to the Benghazi site. The U.S. had effectively humiliated the Libyan President on national TV. That decision, he believed, probably compromised our ability to investigate and track down those responsible.

According to Hicks, no one from the State Department contacted him about what Amb. Rice would be saying in advance. The next morning he called Beth Jones, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near East Affaris, and asked her why Amb. Rice had made the statements she had. Jones responded, “I don’t know.”

A report published Friday by the Weekly Standard suggests that State Dept. spokesperson Victoria Nuland took issue with the initial talking points and, with backing from the White House, removed any evidence of al Qaeda involvement and of prior attacks on western targets in the region. According to emails reviewed by the Weekly Standard, Nuland said her superiors (unnamed) were concerned about criticism from Congress. (Breitbart)

If this had been their Devil Incarnate GWB they’d be screaming for Impeachment hearing like a bunch of flesh crazed harpies.
Instead they are cover-up Zombies.
Amazing what partisan ship does to “justice” isn’t it?
But, take heart, Ambassador Stevens and 3 others are still DEAD. And the Left doesn’t care who did it because it’s not apart of their Agenda.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146226n

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146226n

Can you hear the collective yawn for the Ministry of Truth?

Rules of Engagement

The Real “Buffett Rule”:

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (A)’s cash hoard hit a record as first-quarter profit jumped 51 percent on gains from equity-linked derivatives and insurance operations.

Net income climbed to $4.89 billion, or $2,977 a share, from $3.25 billion, or $1,966, a year earlier, the Omaha, Nebraska-based company said yesterday in a statement. The cash pile grew to $49.1 billion from $47 billion three months earlier, eclipsing the previous record of $47.9 billion in the second quarter of 2011.

“Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States,” President Obama said during a speech at Mexico’s Anthropology Museum. “

Except when I do it, then you’re not allowed to ask me about it because I won’t tell you.

War On Terror (IBD): Eight months after the Benghazi attack, the FBI begs for help by releasing photos of three suspects, reports surface about an al-Qaida link and the State Department’s review panel is under investigation.

Ahead of highly anticipated hearings set for Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee featuring testimony from State Department whistle-blowers — of which a clueless President Obama professes no knowledge — the FBI has released photos of three people who were at the U.S. consulate when it was attacked last Sept. 11 — pictures that were available on Day One.

But of course on Day One, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy blaming a YouTube video for the murder of her ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

So was United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice five days later on all the Sunday talk shows.

The Obama administration had no time for real suspects, especially those possibly linked to an al-Qaida organization that we were told was on the run in a war on terror that was over.

“We are seeking information about three individuals who were on the grounds of the U.S. Special Mission when it was attacked,” the FBI said in an Arabic release featuring the images.

“These individuals may be able to provide information to help in the investigation.”

Well, it’s about time, isn’t it?

Contrast this Inspector Clouseau-like plea for help in identifying suspects eight months after the Benghazi attack with the quick release of suspect photos in the Boston Marathon bombing that led to their relatively quick apprehension.

Why wasn’t this Benghazi trio immediately cast as three of America’s most wanted? Why the difference?

CNN now reports that it’s been told by a senior U.S. law enforcement official that “three or four members of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula,” or AQAP, took part in the attack and may have been deliberately dispatched there to help in the carefully planned and well-executed operation.

They were later traced to northern Mali, where they’re believed to have been connected with a fighting group commanded by Moktar Belmokhtar, an Algerian terrorist linked to al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Belmokhtar claimed responsibility for an attack on the In Amenas gas facility in southern Algeria in January.

Fox News is also reporting that the State Department’s Office of Inspector General is investigating the special internal panel that probed the Benghazi attack for the State Department and whether the Accountability Review Board, or ARB, failed to interview key witnesses who had asked to provide their accounts of the Benghazi attacks to the panel.

This ARB report, which fails to mention the video “Innocence of Muslims,” also failed to single out any individual officials for violating procedures and did not recommend any disciplinary action, despite the fact that the broad security failures resulted in the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three others.

In an interview for the Fox News program “Geraldo” taped Thursday afternoon and set to air over the weekend, Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, told host Geraldo Rivera that he was representing a career State Department officer whom the board failed to interview. DiGenova called the ARB report a “cover-up.”

DiGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official who represents another State Department whistle-blower in the Benghazi case, said their respective clients will testify at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

As we’ve written, Benghazi is a clear case of criminal negligence by this administration. Obama pledged to bring those responsible for the attack to justice. He lied.

So far, the only one jailed is the maker of that YouTube video. This is not an ongoing investigation. It’s an ongoing cover-up.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

BLOG #1000

Barack Milhouse Obama-Nixon.

Talk about your Asian-Black-American Fusion!!
Obama-Nixon 2007: Obama urged Bush to consider “coming clean,” adding that ” I think the American people deserve to know what was going on there.”
“I think the issue of executive power and executive privilege is one that is subject to abuse and in an Obama presidency what you will see will be a sufficient respect for law and the co-equal branches of government that I hope we don’t find ourselves in a situation in which we would have aides being subpoenaed for what I think everything acknowledges is some troublesome information out there,” then-Senator Barack Obama told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in a 2007 interview.
But when it’s the liberals hand that is caught in the cookie jar, it’s nothing…
And if so, why is Obama exercising Executive Privilege unless his gonads are caught in the Bear trap of “Fast & Furious”?
Distraction??
Loyalty to one’s cronies??
Or is there something there that would genuinely hurt him?
Executive privilege, in its definition, provides protection over communications with the president himself. The letter sent by Eric Holder requesting executive privilege does not detail a discussion with the president, but Judge Napolitano said, “The implication is there.”
The cover-up is always worse than the crime.
“Until now, everyone believed that the decisions regarding ‘Fast and Furious’ were confined to the Department of Justice. The White House decision to invoke executive privilege implies that White House officials were either involved in the ‘Fast and Furious’ operation or the cover-up that followed,” said Boehner’s press secretary Brendan Buck. “The administration has always insisted that wasn’t the case. Were they lying, or are they now bending the law to hide the truth?”
“I AM NOT A CROOK!” 🙂
**********
So holding Holder in Contempt works, because he and his Boss Obama hold everyone else in contempt anyways. 🙂
The MSNBC Headline: Police Chief in Sanford, Fl was fired! Now that’s your “journalist” priority!
Oh, and Democrat Al Green wants hearings on Radical Christians: “Why don’t we go to the next step and ask, how is that a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white female in the United States of America can become radicalized to the point of wanting to do harm to this country? We don’t have that type of hearing.”
Chris Matthews (MSNBC): “Here’s a chance to humiliate a distinguished member of the United States government, the attorney general- and everybody knows- close friend of the president’s. It’s a surrogate operation.”
Leadership Council’s Wade Henderson: “To do it now against Eric Holder is to ignore all the facts of the case and to use a fiction to promote this kind of political agenda and I hope that both members of the Democratic Party as well as Republicans will see this for what it is.
Four Words : ‘Scooter Libby’ and Valerie Plaime. ‘Nuff Said. 🙂
Except Chris Matthews went ever further: “Is this ethnic…
Gotta get that racism dig in. No Liberal would let anything go without it.
Now that we have our priorities straight.

Stacked up, Obama-Nixon’s whoppers would make even Bill Clinton blush. Here’s a sampling:

Lie No. 1: Obama has repeatedly claimed his white grandfather, Stanley Dunham, “fought in Patton’s army,” when he was a clerk with no combat in WWII.

Lie No. 2: Obama claimed Dunham, a communist sympathizer, signed up for duty “the day after Pearl Harbor,” when in fact he waited six months.

Lie No. 3: Obama claimed his father “fought when he got back to Kenya against tribalism and nepotism, but ultimately was blackballed from the government,” when in fact he fought against capitalism and lost his job when he advocated communism.

Lie No. 4: Obama has claimed his late mother’s health insurer refused “to pay for her treatment” for cancer while citing a “pre-existing condition,” when Cigna paid all her hospital bills and never denied payment.

Lie No. 5: Obama claimed he and a black high school friend named “Ray” were ostracized in Honolulu, when in fact the friend, Keith Kakugawa, was half-Japanese, and neither of them experienced discrimination.

Lie No. 6: Obama claimed the father of his Indonesian stepfather was killed by Dutch soldiers while fighting for Indonesian independence, when in fact the story turns out to be “a concocted myth in almost all respects,” Maraniss found.

Lie No. 7: Obama claimed his parents decided to marry in the excitement of the Selma civil-rights march of 1965 — and that he personally has “a claim on Selma” — when in fact they were married several years earlier.

Lie No. 8: Obama claimed his father got to study in the U.S. thanks to JFK’s efforts to bring “young Africans over to America,” when in fact the Kenyan airlift his father participated in occurred in 1959 under Ike.

Lie No. 9: Obama submitted a phony bio to his book publicist claiming he was “born in Kenya.”

Lie No. 10: Obama denied being a member of the socialist New Party, when a member roster of the Chicago chapter of the party lists him joining on Jan. 11, 1996.

Lie No. 11: Obama claimed he had only a passing acquaintance with Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, when in fact they held a fundraiser for their Hyde Park neighbor in their living room, and years later, while Obama served in the U.S. Senate, hosted a barbecue for him in their backyard.

Lie No. 12: Obama claimed he never heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright spew anti-American invectives while sitting in his pews for 20 years, when in fact Obama was moved to tears hearing Wright condemn “white folks” and the U.S. for bombing other countries and even named his second book after the sermon.

Lie No. 13: Obama claimed he got in a “big fight” with old white flame Genevieve Cook, who after seeing a black play asked “why black people were so angry all the time,” when in fact she never saw the play nor made the remark. (IBD)

Obamnesty
2010: ‘If we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.'”– Obama to AZ Senator Jon Kyl.
So if you have a “work permit” that gives you “legal status” in the country then can you get a Driver’s License, and then with that Vote for a Democrat??
Naw… that would be just a happy coincidence. 🙂
Thomas Sowell: Whatever the merits or demerits of the Obama immigration policy, his executive order is good only as long as he remains president, which may be only a matter of months after this year’s election.People cannot plan their lives on the basis of laws that can suddenly appear, and then suddenly disappear, in less than a year. To come forward today and claim the protection of the Obama executive order is to declare publicly and officially that your parents entered the country illegally. How that may be viewed by some later administration is anybody’s guess.

Employers likewise cannot rely on policies that may be here today and gone tomorrow, whether these are temporary tax rates designed to look good at election time or temporary immigration policies that can backfire later if employers get accused of hiring illegal immigrants.

Why hire someone, and invest time and money in training him, if you may be forced to fire him before a year has passed?Kicking the can down the road is a favorite exercise in Washington. But neither in the economy nor in their personal lives can people make plans and commitments on the basis of government policies that suddenly appear and suddenly disappear.

Like so many other Obama ploys, his immigration ploy is not meant to help the country, but to help Obama. This is all about getting the Hispanic vote this November.

Gee, you mean it’s all about HIM! and you are just a tool to benefit HIM!? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez Cartoon