Curiouser, haunting Benghazi details

Benghazi always seems to come back to what didn’t we know and when didn’t we know it?

BOMBSHELL: Here Are The Stunning Instructions The Benghazi Rescue Team Received

Will this be a new Benghazi “ghost” to haunt Hillary?

Duane Lester January 20, 2016 | TPNN

From the beginning of the heated controversy over the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens in the terrorist attack on the American compound in Benghazi, people have wondered why no U.S. response force was sent to defend and rescue the diplomat and the other victims of the assault. New evidence now indicates that not only were fighting forces on the way, but they were deterred by not being cleared to enter Libya, leaving our people to the relentless murderers on the ground.

And that may not be the worst of it.

Emmy Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson says she was informed of military teams ready to deploy or actually heading to Libya before they were told to stop or turn back, even as the 8-hour-long attack continued.

“This is something that the president and the White House has steadfastly denied, but there’s now what I would call an overwhelming body of evidence that leads us to believe that somebody stopped a number of teams and potential rescuers from entering Libya or going to Benghazi to help while those attacks were underway,” Attkisson claims. “They could have gotten there before the last two Americans died. Those attacks went on for eight hours.”

On her show “Full Measure,” Attkisson interviewed Col. Andrew Wood, the man who once led a Special Forces anti-terrorism unit that protected Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Libya. He said his team was removed a month prior to the attacks, despite warnings of terrorist activity and possible violence against the U.S. facilities in Benghazi. He told Attkisson about the team mentioned in an email as “spinning up” to respond to the attacks on September 11, 2012.

“Those individuals I know loaded aircraft and got on their way to Benghazi to respond to that incident. They were not allowed to cross the border as per protocol until they got approval from the commander in chief,” Wood reportedly claimed. “That authority has to come from him or they’re not allowed to enter the country.”

There has been speculation about President Obama’s involvement in the non-response to repeated pleas for help during the prolonged attack on the U.S. compound. Some claim that Obama or someone very close to him issued a stand down order, denying those whose lives were on the line the support that might have saved them. Often the reason cited for such a supposed order was to protect the president from scandalous involvement in a horrific situation just prior to the 2012 election.

Attkisson noted on her show that as of today, “the White House has refused to detail the involvement of President Obama — the Commander-in-Chief — while Americans were under attack on foreign soil.”

h/t: PJ Media

Original article at http://www.tpnn.com/2016/01/20/bombshell-here-are-the-stunning-instructions-the-benghazi-rescue-team-received/

 

This also goes to the heart of another scandal, Fast and Furious, based on my opinion. From my reading and understanding, any time the US has an operation involving another sovereign country the President must be briefed and sign off on it. It’s part of the chain of command. That means Obama cannot have the plausible deniability he continually implies. That also means he okayed gun running operations going south of the border.

It means the latest 50 cal gun found in El Chapo Guzmán’s hideout is a direct product of that and that the guns used in killing people in Mexico and in the US were part and parcel of Obama’s operation. So does it make sense that these were rogue operations he was unaware of or not under his oversight as CiC? No way, José . Even Eric Holder could not have conducted it without Obama’s approval.

But then as the article asserts, it gets worse. We don’t have any account or detail of what Obama was doing on the Benghazi attack. And despite that “lengthy” hearing, we don’t know what all Clinton did, or didn’t do, on the night of the attack and after. If memory serves me, she did not speak to the Sec of Defense until the following morning. And as the article states, we now know that security forces were pulled from the Benghazi compound earlier, before the attack ever happened.

On both F&F and Benghazi we have no account for the involvement of the Commander in Chief. Despite Hillary taking full responsibility for Benghazi, again in 2015, she never did. Pursuant to that “responsibility,” would she ever be running for President in 2016?

Benghazi’s haunting hearing

The fundamental difference between me and Democrats is simple:

    Democrats are sick of the Benghazi hearings.
    And I’m sickened by the Benghazi hearings

It takes a village of government bureaucracy and all the Democrats to defend Hillary. But she knows nothing, and Dems don’t care, about security Chris Stevens needed.

Hillary again announces she is taking responsibility. Then she promptly denies she had any accountability for the security shortage. Blame that on Stevens.

Hillary’s talking point of the day was Stevens knew the risks involved. Okay, so that makes it all better. He knew what he was getting into, uh?

A case study in liberal denial and deflection and typical behavior.

Hillary lied, people died, Hillary lied, then Hillary ran for President.

Morning Joe grief counseling on Hillary

Morning Joe dumps on reacts to Hillary’s server mess.

Mika says, if she wins the nomination “I’d vote for her.” But then how do you get there?

Mika sounds warnings about “candidates pretending that things don’t exist.” Welcome to Hillary’s world. Then came the sobering proverbial question of the decade: “I’m going to believe you…and you think the American public is that stupid? That’s very insulting.”

Yes, apparently they do if people say they would still vote for her anyway.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager issued a memo August 13th, wherein he said Republicans are mired in a “bizarre and contentious primary”. So it’s the Republicans, stupid! I don’t see any of them mired in scandals, pretending they don’t exist.

Even lamestream media acknowledges the problems and lies contradictions. Strategy: Deny and ignore that Hillary’s problems even exist.

Hillary, illegals to Trump to guns roadtour

Here’s Hillary’s comment to Trump

Hillary has just one word for Trump, “Basta…enough!” Coming from Hillary, that’s funny because that is exactly what we have been thinking about the Oval Office Heiress.

When we saw your actions on Benghazi and what you said. Enough comes immediately to mind.

When we saw you used a personal server for State Department business and email, we said enough.

When we saw your staged theatrics as Sec of State with Russia over a “reset button,” we said enough.

When we hear you talk about moving the country forward, we say “enough”

When we hear you say you followed all the rules and law at State, we say enough.

When we hear you testify to congress on Benghazi lecturing us: “what difference at this point does it make” we said that’s definitely enough.

When we look at your perpetual trickle-down scandals, we said that’s quite enough.

When most people in the country don’t trust you, we say enough. “Basta…

(another clip and @ 23 minutes)

“Failed, top-down policies that wrecked our country before,” Hillary told Arkansans.

“You know, Democrats are in the future business, but from the Republican candidates for president we see the opposite. They may have some fresh faces but they are the Party of the past”.

“We Democrats look at America and see limitless potential. We believe in a basic bargain, if you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead. And we believe that the measure of our success should be how much incomes rise for hard working families, not just for CEO’s and money managers.”

Whoo-hoo! “Basta,” for sure. She doesn’t want to go to the past, well neither do we want to go back to the old Clinton years, especially after seeing BO revision 2.0

[At 23 minutes]”Yes, Donald Trump”… “but there is nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and their families, and now the insults he’s directed at a genuine war hero, Senator John McCain.”

I seem to remember the queen of attacks going to Senate hearings claiming General Petraeus’s’ — whom Hill’s village comrades called “General Betrayus” — testimony “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”

“Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”… “I give you tremendous credit for presenting as positive …a view of a rather grim reality,” Sen Clinton told Gen. Petraeus in ’07 (5 yr before conducting her own Libyan adventure.)

She never condemned the viscous “General Betrayus” campaign or those mocking a hero. She’s shown contempt for our military, its leaders and efforts. But now she is concerned about comments toward John McCain, and criticism of his Senate record? What a condescending hypocrite. Talk about trying to “present a positive view on grim reality!”

The Basta Grandma in another speech blamed Trump’s remarks for the Charleston Shootings. Then railed about her other favorite theme, guns — or the real problem.

“We have to have a candid national conversation about race, and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred. The people who do this kind of dastardly, horrible act are a very small percentage. But unfortunately public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who are less than stable to do something like this.

Clinton continued, “People need to stand up against it. We should not accept it. I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable. You know you don’t talk like that on talk radio. You don’t talk like that on the kind of political campaigns. I think he is emblematic. So I want people to understand, it’s not just him, it’s about everybody. The second thing is guns. Let’s just cut to the chase – it’s guns.”

“You gotta build it from the bottom up and top down” she claimed. “So maybe on a local and State level we have to keep building towards a more sensible, balanced kind of policy.”

Hillary can’t even pay lip service to the policies enabling a felon deported 5 times and released to murder Kate Steinle. Policies she’d be familiar with as Secretary of State.

Isn’t it disturbing how she talks about guns as another program to hoist on us? Even with her current record of non-stop scandal, she bluntly talks about what she’ll do to the people

New: Hillary doll hits market

I heard a toy company has a new promotional doll planned of Hillary Clinton. It was something like this:(Satire – older post)

Gearing up for summer release

Hillary — a doll whose time has come.

She walks, talks, cries and lies, and raises money too. It comes preloaded with 25 scandals, more than enough to get started. Think of all the fun kids — lets be honest girls — can have acting out some of the famous scandals they’ve only seen on tabloid magazines at the grocery store.

Cultivate your child’s imagination on rainy day play dates. White House and accessories sold separately. They’ll want to hold on to this one for years and never grow tired of it, because there’s always something new! Kids can create their own scandals too.

It’s scalable and you can add as many interactive staff and advisers as you like. Develop their own story lines just like in real life. What child could resist all those possibilities?

Set comes with the original White Water one all the way to Benghazi – many accessories available now and more on the way. And remember Hillary is always busy, which means there will be plenty more to add later. Kids can have even more fun guessing what scandal Hillary will create next? Parents might be tempted to play along for hours of wholesome family fun. Comes with lots of “Democrat voter” stickers, plus  #ReadyForHillary tags.

There will be a limited amount of dolls in the 1st edition, so get them while you can. We will try to keep up with demand but cannot guarantee it as early shipments are selling fast.

There will also be a Bubba doll roll out, so you can mix and match your choices of advisers and interns with Bubba Clinton to find which are the best fit, or just try them all one by one. The hours of enjoyment you will have from him alone will be priceless for any aspiring child. All Bubba pieces sold separately, so collect them all…if you can! Sure to be worth more over time. Sit back and just watch the story lines develop, and their value increase. Your child’s closet will not be big enough to hold it all — Hillary’s is not.

Don’t be the last on your block to order yours, they’ll be the talk at school. Made right here in USA by Blue-Dress Toy Inc. (must be at least 18 to purchase — wink, we won’t tell)

(published 3/16/2015)

RightRing | Bullright

Putin and Obama

I thought a weird comparison might be Obama and Putin. There were several articles about Putin last year. The interest only grows with all that has happened in the last 6 months. The curiosity cannot be contained. (sound vaguely familiar)

One was a write up of his family life, and another linking to an illustrated mini-bio.

Even his daughters assumed different names in school. Secretive as Putin can be.

The veil of secrecy that surrounds the Putins is rigorously enforced by the Kremlin. Journalists who violate the taboo of reporting on the private life of Russia’s first family are dealt with swiftly and summarily. In 2008, when the liberal newspaper Moskovsky Korrespondent reported that Putin was planning to marry a rhythmic gymnast named Alina Kabayeva, the editor was forced to resign within hours.

He has little edge over Obama’s secrecy of records and ties. Media seems to cut both of them wide berth in that area.

Yeltsin at resignation, with Putin and Alexander Voloshin Wikimedia – creative commons via [www.kremlin.ru.]

After reading the mini-bio, it reminded me of the similarities. For background, see Business Insider Putin story link here.

Both seemed to come out of relative obscurity to seize the political scene. Both seemed to have popularity. But wait, Putin was not always so popular, though he found his ways.

Obama rode the celebrity spotlight from the beginning. He made a convention keynote speech in 2004 that was the opening salvo for his national run.Then it was a matter of not being able to deny him election, rather than winning on his personal record.

Putin did much the same once Yeltsin was retiring. Both have become controversial figures since landing in office. Obama was always shrouded in controversy. Both demonstrate how someone can come from an obscure background and gain popular national attention. That’s an example how it could work with the anti-Christ. Obama shows the possibilities — that popularity opens many doors. Maybe he will take a lesson from these two.

2004 convention speech. Wikimedia.

Then once in office, they stretch the executive powers to the hilt. Neither wants to let go of it.

Not far into his first term people were talking about repealing term limits. We saw what Putin did. Media is to Obama what the Russian state media is to Putin, putty in his hands.

Neither is very astute in economics. (though Putin probably has more basic sense)

Some might say Obama has never plumbed the depths of secrecy that Putin has. But Obama has developed a good front, creating an illusion of transparency. It’s more like a mockery of the concept. Media still plays gleefully along.

When do you ever hear media mention the secrecy of his records? Media’s narrative suggests everything is out and known about Obama, and attacks those who asks questions. Clever. Yet when he mentions starting out with the benefits of scholarships, those very scholarships he boasts of are mired in secrecy.

Many times he’s said to leave his family out of politics, even though he flaunts them about in photo-ops. Obama is ticked at any criticism, by media or otherwise. Putin may handle it more directly, but how poignant is it to shut out aggressive reporters or critics who inquire? They may use slightly different methods.

How many times has the White House leaned on media for criticism? We don’t even know the full extent. But we hear. Then media’s narrative so often follows the White House narrative, whether it was on the campaign trail or on policy and actions. Critics within the administration suffer a backlash.

He has the Pentagon locked down and micromanaged out of the White House. Hagel proved that. Benghazi showed the extent they will go to to push a narrative. IRS shows the limits they’ll go politically and in denial. Executive orders show his arrogance and contempt for the Constitutional process. Obamacare showed his ability to lie to achieve his political objectives. Their success is largely owed to a complacent media eager to do their bidding. A debate moderator can turn into an advocate in the blink of an eye.

So then it is interesting to see media report on and criticize the secrecy of Putin. It only reveals their willing blindness toward Obama. We shouldn’t notice the inconsistencies.

Both are narcissistic. Protecting themselves is a priority for both. At this point, some people might say but there are differences too. There are. And the differences tell us something about character too.

Putin believes in Russia whatever else he believes in. Obama believes in himself first but puts ideology ahead of everything. Both believe in preconceived outcomes. Though Putin puts his country high on the list, to preserve it. Obama is about changing his and unchaining it from its history. Putin would like to rebuild their history, Obama wants to rewrite ours. Obama wants history to preserve his legacy, not the other way around. He wants history to be kind to him while torturing us with history.

Obama wants to fundamentally transform our country, and Putin wants to rebuild his. Putin wants to use resources and assets, where Obama prefers to play politics, holding ours hostage to his ideology.Putin will use the military to serve the state, where Obama will use it to serve his own ideology. Putin believes in the power of Russsia, Obama believes in making us less powerful. Obama believes in diplomacy, and Putin believes in demonstrating his position. Obama believes in appeasement and Putin believes in winning.

So now there is an outreach toward Russia, on the heels of economic problems they are having.

Putin is known as a nationalist, Obama is an ideologue. Even worse, Obama is a radical. Which means part of his nature is predictable, as long as you understand him as a radical. Putin’s prowess can be predictable if you understand him as the nationalist.

Their similarities are awkward, and their differences are troubling. The west projects that Putin has painted himself in a corner, but there are no corners in Putin’s world.

RightRing | Bullright

What’s the definition of “In fact”?

Trey Gowdy severely excoriates Susan Rice and Carney and demands answers from Obama’s administration for Benghazi massacre cover-up.

It must mean that everything this administration decides to say is fact: your premiums will go down; if you like your plan you can keep it; if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor; it was a transparent process; there “is not a smidgen of corruption” in IRS scandal.

And they still repeat those assertions as if they are true. Now Benghazi goes to Ferguson. One of the best comments I’ve seen is: so if …”Obama made Gov.Nixon not send in the National Guard Monday night, that would make Ferguson Obama’s domestic Benghazi.’

RightRing | Bullright

Dissing Zero

While some effects are hypothetical, what isn’t are Obama’s poll numbers. So I looked at the Real Clear Politics chart and what I found was interesting. The day it shifted from black-approval, to negative-disapproval was about May29th, 2013. From then on the disapproval leads. Well, besides a giant asteroid passing by earth, there was other news.

Six months into his second term and Obama’s approval numbers inverted. His disapproval numbers have remained higher than his approvals ever since.

May 2013 was not a good month for the Obama administration, dep of Justice, or the IRS, or one Lois Lerner. The IRS scandal broke and by the 22nd, Lerner was taking the fifth amendment in her roundabout way of giving an opening statement declaring she did nothing wrong. This after she initially leaked the IRS targeted conservatives. Benghazi was still on the front burner.

Last October it was 50.9 disapproval — 43.9 approval. By December, it was 55.6 disapproval to 40% approval. All that stuff which happened in the last year and a half adds to that mix. Benghazi, to IRS, to immigration, privacy, rights, government spending and national security.

We had the trifecta, Benghazi the Dep of Justice scandal over the phone records. (without even counting fast and furious) Questions of whether Holder lied under oath about investigations. It was the week Lois Lerner was called to testify and took the fifth amendment. The Democrats finally began calling for her resignation. A Senate gang of eight was working on and moving an immigration reform bill. He’s been inverted ever since.

Then through to the recent discontent. On August 05, NBC/Wall Street Journal reported about upcoming mid-term elections:

Two words sum up the mood of the nation: Fed up.

Six in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with the state of the U.S. economy, more than 70 percent believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and nearly 80 percent are down on the country’s political system, according to the latest NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll.

The frustration carries over to the nation’s political leaders, with President Barack Obama’s overall approval rating hitting a new low at 40 percent, and a mere 14 percent of the public giving Congress a thumbs up.

“We’re in the summer of our discontent,” said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. “Americans are cranky, unhappy… It is with everything going on in the world.”

The discontent’s two main causes

The NBC/WSJ pollsters attribute the wide discontent to the lingering effects of the Great Recession, as well as a loss of faith in the country’s politicians. /…

There’s also the public’s anger at Washington. A whopping 79 percent of respondents are dissatisfied with the U.S. political system, including nearly half who are very dissatisfied.

In addition, 71 percent of Americans believe the economic problems facing the country are due to the inability of elected officials in Washington to get things done to improve the economy.

By comparison, just 23 percent think the problems are due to deep and longstanding issues with the economy.

“The public seems to have moved beyond the plaintive cry of ‘Feel our pain!’ to the more angry pronouncement of ‘You are causing our pain!’” said Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research.

More: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/americas-fed-obama-approval-rating-hits-all-time-low-poll-n173271

I just love the way he stated that conclusion. But there is a fly in their ointment. They claim there is not a central issue people are rallied around. That’s a problem? Well, there are many. So the larger issue is not only don’t people trust our politicians (i.e. government) but that they blame it/them for these circumstances.

One has to be blind not to see the wide circumstances for discontent. This year is even worse than last. Does not coalescing around one particular issue seem like a problem that will hurt Republicans? Choosing one particular issue would naturally give others a pass. That people blame politicians and government could be a wonderful thing.

RightRing | Bullright

Providence votes in disagreement

This takes a little explaining but I’ll try. The last few weeks reinforce my opinion that there just might be some method in all this madness. It’s a working theory.

Let me start by acknowledging all those loud voices against foreign involvements of any kind. Oh, it makes for some good soundbites. Generally, a lot of people agree with that evidenced by Ron Paul’s popularity. There are good points. There are also limits and extremes, though this is not about the validity of that theory.

Into that backdrop and sentiment came Obama into office. He attempted to project his success in that philosophy, as well as his overall ideology. Then came his second campaign and, besides all other problems, he made anti-war the central issue. “Osama bin Laden is Dead and GM is alive.” Biden said that was the bumper sticker for the campaign, despite reality. Obama’s inaction toward foreign wars was supposed to be his greatest achievement. And they eventually caught bin Laden, even if it was only a matter of time. He rode the victory lap long and hard on that right into the campaign.

Then came Benghazi. After years complaining that Bush took his eye off the ball, a terrorist attack happens. No sooner did it happen than he was figuratively and literally in full campaign mode when they began lying and standing truth on its head. They had already been spinning the Libya adventure, declaring it a validation of Obama’s approach and trying their organizing touch with their Muslim Brotherhood connections.

That was just the backdrop for what happened. As hard as team Obama tried to project his utopian vision, events took place to defy it. Well, they still argued that not only were they correct but things were going swimmingly smooth.(or they pointed to Bush) Regardless of the talk, one Mid-East uprising after another went awry under his studious leadership, if you followed their narrative about it all. They tried to reassure everyone things were working as planned. Biden had claimed Iraq would be their big success story.

But they were so busy running from and trying to rewrite Benghazi to notice what was happening — or to see the overall message. The people caught on but they didn’t. And they dug in even further, calling Benghazi a manufactured and made-up scandal just like they called Fast and Furious. It was standard protocol to deny any truth about it.

Here is the point. It was somewhere between the middle of his fist term and Benghazi. He painted a portrait that seemed nothing like reality, and the sales pitch for it became harder and harder. There never was an attempt to work with others — as Obama claimed he had always done. No, those lies aren’t the real point either. But what happened every time was as if divine providence proved him wrong.

As he was writing off Iraq as ‘his’ success story, it was falling apart. As he was betting on the Arab Spring, it got sprung by his Mo-Bros and radicals. Just like he’d declared success in Libya it fell apart. As he swore off action with a red line in Syria, with a warning not to use chemical weapons, what happened? Hello chemicals. He then declared it a success after Putin cut him off at the pass, and detoured it. Success was now an agreement, he claimed. He was applying the same negotiation strategy with Iran, and again prematurely calling it progress and success.

Now do you notice what happened every time, almost as if planned? The truth showed its head every time. So the message was always there, we could see it. I believe, and it is only my opinion, that the truth was saying “you cannot hide me, and I am not going away.” Despite what Obama did, it seemed truth would not be hidden from view. As stubbornly arrogant as Obama is, the truth appears as stubborn.

They start with deception: but the JV, regional ISIS begs to differ. No threats in this country, then people are caught at the border with ISIS ties ( plus those who got by). Napolitano said we had a border perception problem. Yea, a 20/20 problem. You can’t hide 60,000 illegals storming the border. Why make the statements? No shutdown of government, voila shutdown. Obamacare will save money, facts be damned. Clapper said we aren’t wittingly collecting Americans’ information. Obama said there was “ not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS scandal. Hello.

Obama rolled out his signature Obamacare putting so much emphasis on their success beforehand that it could not live up to it on any level. Even worse, the process to roll it out was so flawed it was laughable. Do you see a little humor in that? I know it wasn’t funny but it was like Providence was playing its hand again. The irony of truth, in spite of what they said and did. With all the ObamaCare hype, you’d think at least the problem-plagued program could roll out without creating even more disaster than it already was.

Even with help from mainstream media, they could not completely hide the truth. Benghazi blew up in their face, after they thought they had killed it. Then came the IRS scandal. Each time they defiantly ignored it. Then the sequester testified.

Obama portrays himself as patient and wise. Events don’t validate it. Almost the harder they try to project their narrative, someone is saying “not so fast…you can’t get away with all those lies.” You probably know what I think. But it would be hard to suggest Obama is going along completely undeterred. Oh, nothing has stopped him so far. No lightning bolts prevented his machinations. At the same time, the truth was not allowed to be buried. Lord knows they tried. Obama makes some pronouncement and within a day or two facts say the opposite. I have to see a little method to this madness. I almost look forward to the next pronouncement so truth can vote its conscience.

“Something in the depths of our souls…tells us that the world may be more than a mere combination of events.”-Louis Pasteur

RightRing | Bullright

Obama seeks doctrine of revision

…to turn back the hand of time.

So on the eve of 9/11, Obama takes to prime time to announce his supposed plan against ISIS, which he calls ISIL. He could have given this speech at any time in the last 9 months. He didn’t and made it on this particular day, after his dwindling poll numbers came out.

I won’t even give it a word for word reply because there is really nothing new. But he did say, once again, that ISIS is not an Islamic organization. Nope, it’s not..it’s not! That came early in his slithering rhetoric so it could have muted anything after.

But there is one other point that deserves mention. He said this action is designed to save and help those displaced by ISIS. Its too late, ISIS did that months ago. He watched it, or maybe he didn’t read those briefings? But now that the damage is done, he promises continued humanitarian aid. I bet they wished help would have really came to prevent what ISIS did. He did have an answer, someone said thank you, America, for coming. That was supposedly for his help earlier on Mt. Sinjar. (aid and persuade campaign)

“We cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands,” Obama said.

How can you return to a burned home, or without the family that were slaughtered? Of course that was the whole idea of ISIS to be so brutal as to drive the people out for good. Message received. But Obama, always late to the game, now offers them cordial sympathies and promises of hope. Be careful about Obama’s promises of hope.

He spoke quite literally the way Democrats do about war strategy. The saying is that they are always fighting the last war. In this case, Obama was making a speech on a commemorative eve of the 9/11 attacks. Or that was supposed to be the backdrop. But that backdrop is of being attacked, and then there was the attack on his watch in Benghazi.

Was it an attempt to rehabilitate his image and indeed the day? Maybe. A day which two years earlier he wished to erase. A day that came at the worst time of his presidency, campaign eve of reelection. And a day which he wanted to ignore even before the Benghazi attack happened. If anything became clear, it was that Obama wanted no part in either Iraq, or the war on terrorism. What do you know, they both showed up in the same place. What are the chances?

Then he had for a year ignored the problems in Syria, after laying down a red-line which he himself ignored. He wasn’t interested in that and Putin gave him an out. His lack of attention on Iraq did not go unnoticed either. The original ISIS, an off chute of al Qaeda in Iraq was driven from Iraq in the war. It festered in Syria and gained traction during the civil war before moving right in to Iraq.

One can say it was albeit a direct creation of Obama, and his policies. Democrats resist the temptations, they say, at extended stays in countries. So be it. They claim they are not against justified actions in countries though. But we saw their prototype version in action in Libya. And it was a stunning failure. Another thing Obama immediately ignored. Our enemies didn’t. His Libyan adventure laid the groundwork for Benghazi.

Obama had already forgotten about Libya prior to the Benghazi attack. It was in the rear view mirror. And Biden told us, if we were looking for a bumper sticker, which Dems undoubtedly were, it was that “Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.” (even if GM was on life support) Who cares about details? Their message sold, evidenced by how many Dems repeated it ad nausea. Whether it is true or not never mattered to them. Success in a soundbite over success on the battlefield.

Now he says he is going to counter a “warped ideology” which earlier he denied was real. He has not lacked opportunities to counter it. We had Christians slaughtered across the Mid East. They were driven almost completely out of Iraq. The black-flag Islamists marched across the ME. He may be the only one in the world willing to claim it is not Islamic. I said before he should leave the apologetics to Islamic scholars, who do not dispute the point. That they are killing Muslims, too, means exactly what? If this is his answer to evil, to revise it, then I question and reject everything about it.

RightRing | Bullright

Stupid policy tricks

More on Obama’s Libya adventure and Mid-East roadshow

Since Obama’s Libya adventure, and with the Mid-East on fire in what’s left of the Arab Spring, he has taken mostly to denying the very real results of his foreign policy foreplay. He avoids confronting the turmoil that he and his cohorts welcomed over a year ago. Results have not been fruitful, from Riyadh to Moscow, from Tripoli to Shanghai.

Post Obama’s little Libya intervention, which was supposed to be the model, we now have ISIS and the Islamic Caliphate State running wild from Damascus to Baghdad. Not to ignore all the other terrorist groups, it’s reported that there are 1200 terror groups just in Libya. Let’s forget South Africa for the moment. It was not an easy drive here.

Of course, there was Benghazi. But we‘ve moved on and terrorists have too. Then there was Obama’s version of a shell game with the vanishing red line in Syria — or was that a laser pointer in a Power Point presentation? Russia to the rescue, more on that later.

Then along comes the terrorists just when he was on a roll. Obama was forced to acknowledge ISIS, calling it JayVee in January after ignoring them for months.

‘The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”

Yes, and he did think it was accurate. He thought talking smack would cut it as he dismissed them as a threat. That provides a good illustration. So just because Obama was elected doesn’t make him a good president. Just because he has AF-1 doesn’t mean he will make superior decisions. And just because he gets elected doesn’t mean he is qualified. Obama is proving it everyday. But Obama thought talking smack and dissing an enemy out of hand would suffice because that is the way he always treated his opponents or potential opponents: like they were nothing, not up to it, or beneath him. That’s his M/O.

Now the irony and embarrassment of being forced to respond to those JayVee hoodlums with F-18’s and 500-pounders from the deck of USS George H.W. Bush carrier. Oops!

Along the way, we heard what I call the doctrine of ‘walk softly and carry a big script’ had morphed into Obama’s official doctrine: “don’t do stupid shit”— “stuff” in the public version. But looking back, what has Obama done that wasn’t stupid, whether abroad or here at home?

He insulted Israel how many times? His red line was a nightly punch line. His “more flexible” approach to Russia was the foundation for all sorts of actions from Putin, and our concessions. Obama’s arms-running across the Middle East may have backfired throughout. His comments toward Israel in the middle of a war were a combination of insensitive and stupid. His meddling in Israel’s self defense all the while neglecting our own security, especially at the border. And his Executive “Dream” pen started the nightmare on the border. Yet he was counseling Israel on their aggressive approach under attack. How many degrees of stupid are there? And he shut down air travel to Tel Aviv.

He reduced sanctions on Iran as the centrifuges spin away. He watched Crimea be gobbled up by Russia, while making backhanded remarks that must have given Putin chuckles. He sent out Kerry to make stupid remarks. What good is doing stupid stuff if you don’t talk up a good game? And if all else fails, he still has his denial doctrine.

Then there was the traveling Snowden sideshow and eaves dropping on Angela Merkel. There are stupid actions and consequences for inaction, too. Obama prefers a mixture.

RightRing | Bullright

Rhodes’ musical chairs on Iraq and ISIS

White House: Foley’s killing was ‘absolutely’ a terrorist attack. That from Ben Rhodes in his press briefing from Martha’s Vineyard with Obama on vacation.

White House: Foley’s killing was ‘absolutely’ a terrorist attack

By Justin Sink – 08/22/14 | The Hill

The killing of American journalist James Foley was “absolutely” a terrorist attack, the White House said Friday.

Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, briefing reporters from Martha’s Vineyard, said Foley’s beheading by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) — and the release of an online video showing the aftermath — was a direct assault on the United States.

“When you see somebody killed in such a horrific way, that represents a terrorist attack against our country and against an American citizen,” Rhodes said.

“Clearly, the brutal execution of Jim Foley represented an affront — an attack not just him, but he’s an American, and we see that as an attack on our country when one of our own is killed like that,” he added.

Rhodes addressed the media the day after Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey floated expanding the scope of military action against ISIS into Syria.

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” Dempsey said. “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”

Rhodes said President Obama would consider airstrikes against Islamist militants operating in Syria if it were necessary to help protect Americans.

“We’re actively considering what’s going to be necessary to deal with that threat, and we’re not going to be restricted by borders,” Rhodes told reporters Friday. “We’ve shown time and again that if there’s a counterterrorism threat, we’ll take direct action against that threat if necessary.”

The White House said that the president has not yet been presented with specific military options “outside of those that are carrying out the current missions in Iraq.”

“But we would certainly look at what is necessary in the long term to make sure we’re protecting Americans,” Rhodes said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/215778-white-house-foleys-killing-was-absolutely-a-terrorist-attack

Ben Rhodes could not find those words “absolutely” a “terrorist attack” on the US. Rhodes, who was behind the memos and Susan Rice’s talking points on Beghazi, now declares an attack on one American is a legitimate terrorist attack. A terrorist group claimed credit for the Benghazi attack, yet he could not voice those words. Now he can clearly call it terrorism. Will the real Ben Rohodes stand up… or sit down and shut up.

In an email to Susan Rice in prep for her infamous news tour on Benghazi, Rhodes said: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

It’s a shame old fiction writer Rhodes could not find the words “Terrorist Attack” on Benghazi, after slaughtering 3 Americans and a US ambassador the way they did. That’s checkmate, Rhodes! None of that “absolutely” shit about Benghazi, was there?

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s touchstones, breaking badder


“Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency”.

Touchstone:

(assaying tool), a stone used to identify precious metals; or (metaphor) a means of assaying relative merits of a concept

1: a black siliceous stone related to flint and formerly used to test the purity of gold and silver by the streak left on the stone when rubbed by the metal
2: a test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of a thing
3: a fundamental or quintessential part or feature — merriam-webster

There’s nothing wrong with transparency and rule of law. Just that Obama has to pervert them to suit his personal needs like he does everything else. Then, you probably thought you knew what “transparency” meant.

But in this case, transparency actually now means the opposite: spying on citizens, concealing the truth about Benghazi, or lying when convenient –especially for political gain, Obamacare and its roll out, denying scandals as “phony scandals”, or that IRS was engaged in political activism. Or ignoring and dismissing a problem he previously railed against as a priority.  

So  transparency can mean denial of a problem and necessary cover-up that one even exists. Luckily, transparency is also alive and well in the Dep. of Justice — not. Holder was held in contempt of Congress for failure to comply. Now it can mean selective transparency when you want something known, like details of the bin Laden mission or CIA chief in Afghanistan, accusations about your political enemies, or spying and accusations on a reporter, or revenge for an unfavorable documentary. And feeling politically justified for it all — even the contempt.
 

Rule of Law: one does not have to return to Blackstone commentaries to define rule of law. It’s sort of self-explanatory. (Wikipedia)

The Oxford English Dictionary has defined “rule of law” this way:

“The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.”

The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, and not individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials. The phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote “Law should govern”.Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.

In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men.”

O-translation: ‘whatever I say or decide the rule of law is at any particular time’.
 
Wikiquote

The term to “break bad” is American Southeast slang meaning to turn against one’s previously lawful lifestyle for one of criminal acts, usually at the cost of someone else’s life or well-being.

Obama could not abandon what he was never constrained by, so he’s ‘breaking badder’.

It sounded better than “cronyism, lies and corruption will be my touchstones.” Obama’s words fit his penchant for making factually inaccurate statements, then repeatedly lying to try to validate them. Benghazi and ObamaCare are text book examples. The border crisis demonstrates his lawlessness and insincerity for the “rule of law”.

RightRing | Bullright

Benghazi: administration busted again

Explosive New Report About Benghazi: They Heard the Terrorists on the Phones While it Happened…

By Caroline Schaeffer | IJReview

A damaging new report from the Air Force pilot who transported embassy officials from Libya discloses that the terrorists who attacked the Benghazi compound and murdered four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, two Navy SEALs, and one information officer, stole State Department cell phones to call their higher-ups and declare their operation a success.

Because they were using State Department phones, U.S. spy agencies overheard their conversations in real time, he says, and knew they were talking to terrorist leaders about a planned mission.

This new information, reports Fox News, will damage the State Department and White House claim that initial intelligence suggested that the attack was over an anti-Islam video, instead of a coordinated attack. Administration officials including National Security Adviser Susan Rice maintained this “anti-Islam video” claim for weeks after the attacks.

Fox News host Bret Baier interviewed retired Air Force Major Eric Stahl, who commanded and piloted the C-17 which transported the bodies of the four victims of the Benghazi attack, as well as survivors.

In the interview, Stahl says that members of the CIA were confused by the Administration’s claims, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” And this claim was backed up by another official.

The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.

Furthermore, Stahl wonders why his quick-ready team wasn’t called up sooner, if the State Department knew of the terrorist attack as it was happening.

Hillary Clinton may wonder what difference it makes whether it was a planned terrorist attack or a spontaneous riot which caused the murder of four Americans.

MORE>
 

As Hillary slithers out on the campaign trail, it’s obvious we haven’t heard the last of this. Neither has she. Once again, it counters their entire flimsy narrative. Her supporters will be screaming “but people don’t care about that”.

She didn’t like to do media appearances, so they sent Susan Rice. Now she’s on book tour doing media everywhere. She also does 200k speeches. So maybe they didn’t pay her the right price. They criticized Mitt Romney for his statements on the attack. Everyone piled on to criticize Romney at the time, when he said:

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Oh, they swung on a pivot attacking him and his “campaign” for that. But Obama and Hillary were in office and aware of what was going on. Plausible denial is just not plausible. Yet it was open season to criticize Romney at the time.

Flash forward, they are all criticizing the soldiers for telling the truth about Bergdahl. It’s always amazing when they find their voice on issues. They were not happy about pictures leaked out on the border scandal either. Before that, not a word about it. They weren’t happy about the news of VA, but before that nothing. Just as Hillary has a selective voice.

RightRing | Bullright

School censors parent upset over explicit book content

Dad handcuffed for protesting graphic-sex book

Cop takes action at school-board meeting

    William Baer, a parent upset over a reading selection in Gilford, was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct when police said he did not leave a school board meeting after being asked.

A parent who complained about a book assigned to his daughter at Gilford High School in Gilford, New Hampshire, was arrested and taken away in handcuffs from a school board meeting for refusing to “be quiet” when repeatedly admonished by a board member.

William Baer, whose ninth-grade daughter last week was assigned the book “Nineteen Minutes,” came to the meeting to protest the book’s assignment and the district’s failure to notify parents the book contained graphic descriptions of “rough sex” between teens.

According to the Laconia Daily Sun, Baer challenged the board to read aloud the controversial portion of “Nineteen Minutes” during the meeting, but school officials refused.

Before speaking, Baer was told he had two minutes to speak.

Baer spoke beyond the time limit and sat down but then exchanged words with another parent who approved of the book.

“So what is the remedy here?” Baer asked.

The board said it would not take questions on the matter.

“Sir, would you please be respectful of the other people?” a school board member responded.

“Like you’re respectful of my daughter, right? And my children?” he countered.

“Please, be quiet,” admonished the board member.

A police officer then arrived at the scene, instructing Baer to leave with him.

“You are going to arrest me because I violated the two-minute rule?” the father said. “I guess you are going to have to arrest me.”

But Baer did get support from other parents.

Sarah Carrignan said, according to the Sun, that she was “‘utterly appalled that this was acceptable.”

“My son should never have had the book in his hand.”

Part of the problem was that when the book was used previously in the school, parents were notified and asked for permission for their children to participate.

The school this year didn’t notify parents until after students already were assigned the book and given access to the material.

Gilford Police Lt. James Leach, who was at the meeting, ordered Baer to leave the meeting and then handcuffed the parent. Reports say Baer was ticketed for disorderly conduct. MORE

H/T to Dave
 

Most people may have heard about it. If it was a school authorized book, then the school obviously purchased the books. So tax money is paying for objectionable material?

But wait, there was a similar story at WND, 08/04/2005. While not the exact same thing, the same narrative played out in Massachusetts .

Father faces trial over school’s ‘pro-gay’ book

Arrested after objecting to kindergartner’s reading material

A Massachusetts man faces a court trial over a dispute about the teaching of homosexuality in his son’s kindergarten class.David Parker, of Lexington, spent a night in jail and was charged with criminal trespassing after refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with school officials April 27, unless they gave him the option of pulling his child out of certain classes.

Parker says the officials had indicated they would agree to a notification policy then suddenly refused. He insists he has done nothing wrong and is willing to contest the charge rather than plea-bargain.

At a hearing Tuesday, Parker’s trial date was set for Sept. 21.

The Lexington School Board contends Parker deliberately set out to be arrested and make national headlines.

Parker’s attorney, Jeffrey Denner, rejected that claim as supporters picketed outside the courthouse.

The dispute began last spring when Parker’s then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, “Who’s in a Family?” The optional reading material, which came in a “Diversity Book Bag,” depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.

“There’s a larger issue here locally and nationally and internationally about the role of family and what kind of encroachments government can make into children’s and people’s lives,” Denner told reporters.

More http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31618/
 

Now the treatment is virtually the same — even if the details are different. One in Massachusetts and the other in New Hampshire, years apart. But the message is the same to concerned parents: object to book content and you could get ‘booked’.

There is also another glaring contrast. That was the 9/11 Benghazi attack where they injected a video as a motive for it and violent protests in Egypt etc. Whether it was the cause of protests or not, they injected a video as a de facto cause, ran out publicly talking about it, then rounded up and arrested the guy who made it.

Notice how quick the federal government condemned the video content for being objectionable to Muslims or Islamists? But if you are a parent of a grade school or middle school kid where the content in a book and their handling of it is objectionable, they go after the parents for offending the school by criticizing the content. Off to jail for objecting to content. See how due process works?

Then throw in one more contradiction. The State Dep. and Obama wasted no time running out to condemn content of a video. But so many Christians have been killed and persecuted throughout the Middle East, with the worst violence and cleansing being committed. Yet silence comes from our government. No long speeches, dialogue or condemnation and criticism. Maybe speaking out would offend the persecutors? Now hundreds of girls are kidnapped, and the terrorists come out making threats about what they are going to do to them. Officials struggle to find the right words to condemn it.

But don’t worry, if parents object to content in the schools, they’re going to jail. The disparity could not be greater if it was intentional. Wait…

RightRing | Bullright

When fiction becomes reality

Maybe next the White House could do a project with Dream Works.

Obama Adviser That Edited Benghazi Talking Points Wrote Short Story About A Character That Edits Talking Points

Patrick Howley — 05/04/2014  | Daily Caller

President Obama’s national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who edited the administration’s Benghazi talking points, is a former fiction writer who penned a short story about a supernaturally gifted professional note-taker who rises through the corporate world by taking notes that make other people’s statements sound better.

Rhodes, it was recently revealed, sent a 2012 email after the Benghazi terrorist attack instructing then U.N. ambassador Susan Rice and other administration officials “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

Rhodes, who has worked for Obama since the president was a U.S. senator, holds a Masters degree in Fiction from New York University. His one known published short story, “The Goldfish Smiles, You Smile Back,” was published in Beloit Fiction Journal in the spring 2002 issue. The story was about a man with an incredible gift for note-taking.

“My notes are so impressive that they have taken on the form of ideas…I capture other people’s words in a manner that not only organizes them, but inserts a clarity and purpose that was not present in the original idea,” states the protagonist of Rhodes’ short story.

Obama’s little sensitive artist is the brother of CBS News president David Rhodes, whose network prevented investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson from digging too deep into the Benghazi scandal and finding out who edited the administration’s talking points.

Daily Caller

I jokingly said he should be writing fiction on a secluded island, wish he was. I didn’t know how immersed he was in it, with a degree in writing fiction.

Almost too surreal. Except Benghazi was bad enough it didn’t need a fiction writer messing with it. The White House and their cohorts created quite a story line all by themselves. But maybe having a fiction writer on staff, close to the president, should have given them a clue how deep in a plot they were way before 9/11/12. The alarm bells should have been going off at staff meetings and briefings instead of in the Situation Room on 9/11. If Obama even took the briefings.

See, its rather ironic that the story lines contrasted so widely. On one hand, they depicted(wrote) a great victory over terrorism. On the other, reality, they were caught by their own shortfall in taking credible threats seriously. Yes, only a fiction writer could be scheming behind the scenes of that delusion. The real truth here is that nothing was as it was portrayed to be — when fiction becomes reality and reality is fiction.

But  it makes perfect sense that a pretender like Obama would need a fiction writer on his staff all along the way.

RightRing | Bullright

Goal Posts and WH strategy

The goal posts are moving, again, now almost daily.

At first they said there was nothing to suggest the White House changed or had anything to do with altering the talking points on Benghazi.

Here you have a chief WH staffer, Ben Rhodes, telling and suggesting what Susan Rice should say in her Sunday talk-a-thon. Then Rice goes out on the talk shows blaming Benghazi attack on the video, per script.

Carney telling us that the email had nothing to do with Benghazi is like… well, and they claim we dabble in conspiracies? Am I to believe he wrote the email to Rice, prior to her talk-a-thon, and was explicitly NOT talking about Benghazi? (Sure) Why would he exempt Benghazi… where 4 Americans were viciously killed, and all the attention was focused, and what Susan Rice mostly talked about? Then they claim the Benghazi blame points came from the CIA, not so per Morell. So then she would have had to inject that video reason for Benghazi all by her lonesome. (that’s a wild theory)

That Rhodes was not even referring to Benghazi, even though he did mention it, doesn’t pass the smell test. In fact, it wreaks. The other absurdity on its face is that if in fact he did mean the video was the reason for the protests and violence, anywhere, then that really blames us and supplies terrorists a universal excuse. That was Mitt Romney’s problem as it was happening. But they would rather cling to some flimsy excuse for the perpetrators of violence than admit there was a real terrorist attack in Benghazi — unattached to a video.

If Rhodes was making the point about protests excluding Benghazi, then wouldn’t you think he (the WH) would have made a point to lay out a real cause for Benghazi itself, alone, untied to the other protests? No, he was referring to Benghazi.

But the goal post did move. The left said there was nothing connecting the WH to what was said in the talking points. Hello, there it is. Now they say it doesn’t. Their co-opting of the talking points were not even about Benghazi. Jay must have thought that one up by himself. Just connect what Rice said, explicitly referring to Benghazi, to Rhodes instructions in the email. Voila. She followed the script perfectly. Now they merely dismiss deny that Rhodes’ email, copied to everyone, had anything at all to do with Benghazi. Nancy says there is “nothing new”. Lets just say they stretched the goal posts from one place to another. Now they will claim this means nothing — denial.

Liars and liars, and liars. “No substantive changes…”- Jay Carney.

It’s pretty bad when CNN, with its own queen of spin, Crowley, thinks it’s absurd.

(…see if CNN gets anymore special interviews!)

RightRing | Bullright

Boehner calls vote for Select Committee

Boehner Announces Establishment of Select Committee on Benghazi

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
May 2, 2014 2:05 pm

House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) announced on Friday that the House will vote to establish a select committee to investigate the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

“Americans learned this week that the Obama Administration is so intent on obstructing the truth about Benghazi that it is even willing to defy subpoenas issued by the standing committees of the People’s House,” said Boehner in a statement. “These revelations compel the House to take every possible action to ensure the American people have the truth about the terrorist attack on our consulate that killed four of our countrymen.”

Majority leader Eric Cantor (R.-Va.) echoed the sentiments of Boehner in a separate statement on the establishment of the Benghazi committee.

“The Obama Administration’s continued obstruction has made clear that it is time for a House Select Committee to force the Administration to end its stonewalling and come clean to congressional investigators, an inquiring media, and the American public.” said Cantor.

“Four Americans died at the hands of terrorists nearly 20 months ago, and we are still missing answers, accountability, and justice. It’s time that change,” added Boehner.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/boehner-announces-establishment-of-select-committee-on-benghazi/

What took you so long. Eric Cantor has the same question to answer. What a difference an email makes, uh? Now they both have the same question to answer: why did this email make you finally call for the Select Committee? Was it the White House answers after or the emails themselves, or is it that you finally think its ready(ripe) for a real investigation?

Maybe you should all explain that for us. Inquiring minds would like to know. You could have already had the committee in place. And now the Left will say it’s just political posturing for the election. Never mind that an election, and politics, were the chief motives behind the scandal. While we can be happy you finally took the step, your motives are just as suspect about why you waited this long. And why did you have to be coerced into it?