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?

O’s slow drip lies bad for what ails you

Obama’s favorite whipping-post enemy is the NRA and its lobby power. And Planned Parenthood’s #1-rated political ally in Washington is Barrack Obama.

So it’s a geological thing that 2nd amendment. You know that’s what I like about the entire first amendment, it’s so regional. No use wasting it where it isn’t needed necessary. Obama told the old story about Michelle in Iowa(’07) saying if she lived in a farmhouse there, a good distance from the sheriffs’ office, she would want to own a shotgun or rifle. I didn’t know the first amendment was limited to location, too. “Location location!”

The town hall gun-control show was on.

What the gun dealers should have told Obama was:

“Mr President, only one of us in this room has trafficked and lost over 2,000 guns that were then used in murders in both Mexico and the US. And it wasn’t me. Yet no one was held accountable. In fact, we the people could not even get the information about it. Actually your AG was held in contempt and that still didn’t resolve it. And was anyone prosecuted in that case? So tell me about loose guns and loopholes.”

Rather than calling it gun reform, can’t Obama call it 2nd amendment reform. And that 1st amendment so needs an overhaul, big time — I mean it is out of control.

In the last few days Obama called the NRA liars. He branded them about the most powerful lobby in Washington that breeds fear in people. But Planned Parenthood is probably the most powerful player in Washington, certainly on the Left, fear mongering in every election. No need to restrain PP from the Capitol, White House, or Obama’s office.

Now you install a litmus test that you won’t support any candidate who doesn’t support the gun control agenda. The NRA lies…. how about the lies last year from Planned Parenthood, defending even criminal acts marketing human tissue of babies. Yet investigate and prosecute it? Your administration did call to investigate and prosecute the videographers. But Planned Parenthood is not only a mega-lobbyist, it is subsidized by Washington to the tune of 450+ millions every year — with 41% of its revenue from government.

Which one has a real death agenda? Welcome inside Obama’s slow-cooker of lies.

Obama went on to mock any idea of anti-gun agenda or confiscation as a “conspiracy” theory. He said it sure is a conspiracy [theory]. Then he explains his own conspiracy theory how we use gun grabbing and anti-gun rhetoric, incorporated by Republicans and NRA, to stir up distrust for him on guns. Sounds like vast-right-wing conspiracy. But he laughs at the idea of the government working and scheming against people’s rights, as a “conspiracy.” So it is not a conspiracy that he abused his power already. It’s not a conspiracy when he demands a litmus test for Democrats, last I remember he is the head of the Democrat Party. He claims his side’s positions are consistently mischaracterized by the NRA. (Victim point) While he mischaracterizes reforming the 2nd amendment.

Referring to teenagers and suicides, he said “imagine if you have access to firearms what bad decisions you might make.” So access to firearms causes suicide?

The gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage, but they can't hold America hostage. We can't accept this carnage in our communities.

— President Obama (@POTUS44) January 4, 2016

There he goes, the man who mocks conspiracies about himself says “NRA is holding Congress hostage.” The man who holds America hostage to his pen and the DOJ.

Here was a typical liberal reply on that thread to a person over gun rights.

That Constitution was written and signed by all rich whiteMEN. No women no Blacks no Hispanics How relevant is it in 2016? @tradawn66 @POTUS

— Stephanie Gilley MS (@StephieGilley) January 6, 2016

Okay, so now we have, regional, geographic rights, and finally an outdated Constitution. Obama reminded us he respects the 2nd amendment — more at farmhouses. He is not making a stink on sanctuary cities, like San Fran where a previously deported, convicted illegal alien shoots a woman on the pier. But carve up the 2nd amendment like a turkey. Nor is he fired up “mad” over Islamic terrorism. Obama paints his own conspiracy.

RightRing | Bullright

Fallen trees, forests, and witnesses

Here is a good article worth a read. We know political connections in Washington run deep, How deep? And to any observer, the establishment wing of the RNC acts very odd and aloof in spite of the base of the Party. Sometimes acting as its own worst enemy. This article goes a long way in explaining what could be behind much of it. It’s just a matter of connecting dots and events over nearly 30 years. The piece is over a year old. The same issues seem important again in this election.

Government Coverups Behind Islamic Invasion of America

Walid Shoebat | February 15, 2014 | Freedom Outpost

If ever there was a political ‘odd couple’, George H.W. ‘Felix’ Bush and Bill ‘Oscar’ Clinton fit the bill. Sure, living U.S. presidents share things in common no one else on earth shares but the relationship between the 41st and 42nd Presidents respectively, always seemed to smack of being suspiciously close. In 2006, I saw Bush 41 speak at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor and he referred to this relationship as such; he acknowledged it without explaining it.

The subsequent and logical unanswered question “why?” asked by several people, silently in their own minds, hung in the air and was never answered.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/02/government-coverups-behind-islamic-invasion-america/

The expression is is “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?” You might say in this case it was also a pretty quiet tree. But any witnesses aren’t saying much about it either.

Christie in Crisis

Has Christie crossed the line?

There are a couple problems with the Christie story. For now I’ll accept it as he has told it.

Here was another article on it: http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/19915/a-few-thoughts-on-the-christie-scandal/ It’s good basic information.

When Christie says he didn’t know anything about it, I will accept that premise. But when I do that a few things happen: first it says he was unaware of a major undertaking of his team. That hurts because it could indicate incompetence. See to believe all the “know nothing” claims from Obama, in scandal after scandal, you would have to conclude that he is incompetent.

And if Christie knows nothing, then it actually makes the case that an executive in government can excuse the actions of his subordinates by claiming he/she did not know anything about it. See Hillary and Obama’s records on how that works. Try that in business. Fairness to Christie, he did claim he was still responsible.

So I do have a problem that he did not know what was going on. Remember even Axelrod came to Obama’s defense claiming government is so big and vast that he could not possibly know what was going on. Interestingly, David Axelrod was one of the first to claim Christie did the best he could in this situation. (was that a compliment or an insult…which is it?)

If we were out to make the case for “ignorance is an excuse” in office, Christie’s apology-presser goes a long way in doing that. If we are to buy it, then we also grant that Obama and Hillary could be ignorant to what was going on, say, in Benghazi. Or even in the IRS.

I now have a problem. Is it now a legitimate excuse to just say you didn’t know, even though you should have and you are being paid to know? I don’t think that is a good enough excuse. I don’t think it was for Obama, nor for Hillary, nor for Holder, nor should it be for Christie. Ignorance is not a good enough excuse. We know how politicians rely on plausible deniability (i.e. Being such that plausible disavowal or disclaimer is possible).

Just what we need, another excuse for Obama’s conduct and abuse of power. No thanks.

RightRing | Bullright

Same old Obama the hypocrite

(The dancing hypocrite takes his show to the stage.)

Obama did Jay Leno to roll out his thoughts on national security, Benghazi, and embassy closings. Did someone move the press room to NBC studios?

This is probably the most insulting thing from this president yet. I let the words sink in; it was inflammatory when he said it and gets worse the longer it distills.

Q Everyone is concerned about these embassy closings. How significant is this threat?

BO [Barry the Hypobama]: “Well, it’s significant enough that we’re taking every precaution. We had already done a lot to bolster embassy security around the world, but especially in the Middle East and North Africa, where the threats tend to be highest. And whenever we see a threat stream that we think is specific enough that we can take some specific precautions within a certain timeframe, then we do so.

Now, it’s a reminder that for all the progress we’ve made — getting bin Laden, putting al Qaeda between Afghanistan and Pakistan back on its heels — that this radical, violent extremism is still out there. And we’ve got to stay on top of it. It’s also a reminder of how courageous our embassy personnel tend to be, because you can never have 100 percent security in some of these places. The countries themselves sometimes are ill-equipped to provide the kind of security that you want. Even if we reinforce it, there are still vulnerabilities.

And these diplomats, they go out there and they serve every day. Oftentimes, they have their families with them. They do an incredible job and sometimes don’t get enough credit. So we’re grateful to them and we’ve got to do everything we can to protect them. (Applause.)”

Obama said that “this radical, violent extremism is still out there.” Double Duh!! Is that his latest term for it?  He still can’t manage to say Islamic radicalism. After a Ramadan Iftar Dinner, he can’t change his vocabulary now. Islamists happen to be the ones who declared a fatwa and war on us. So it could be a bit much for him to address them as such.

So whenever they see a stream of specific enough threats they take specific precautions? Someone needs to ask the absentee prez what “specific precautions” they took in Benghazi, after everyone else pulled out and requests came up the chain for increased security? No, they cut back on security. Now he wants to sell us on a need to take specific precautions?

(“Specific precautions” — neither word has meaning to Obama, unless referring to contraceptives, namely Catholics and contraceptives.)

The time frame of an imminent attack any day in Bengazi was not critical or specific enough? Maybe he ought to blame the dead heroes and Ambassador for not being specific enough about threats in their specific situation? Tell us, Hypobama, how they don’t get enough credit! And credit wasn’t what they wanted – a little help was. They got none.

“We’ve got to stay on top of it“?  Imagine telling us we have to stay on top of it,  after a major attack on our embassy that he still wants to ignore.  Then he claims it is a reminder of how “courageous our embassy personnel tend to be”? You mean how courageous in the face of having no help — or no help and justice after the fact — from the country they serve. This is insulting. I really need some help with that asininity.

Then he says we have to do everything we can to protect our diplomats. Where was he last year? Campaigning — election was way more important. That’s his clear message to them. Hillary was no better. Now he uses “protect them” for an applause line.

With no honesty or credibility he has the nerve to do an informational media appearance telling us there’s a serious concern? (as he runs off to vacation)

Q This global travel warning, this is for Americans all around the world? Are we telling people don’t take that European vacation just yet? What are we saying?

PREZ-O: “I think the general rule is just show some common sense and some caution. So there are some countries where you’re less likely to experience a terrorist attack. There are some where there are more dangers. And if people are paying attention, checking with the State Department or embassy, going on the website before you travel, find out what kind of precautions you should be taking, then I think it still makes sense for people to take vacations. They just have to make sure that they’re doing so in a prudent way.“

Golly gee, talking about prudent vacations!  What glaring hypocrisy.

This thing called Obama woke up one morning and said to himself; “I need tell people to be prudent about making their vacation plans. And I need to do it just before I go to Martha’s Vineyard on vacation” … “And I must do it before cramming ObamaCare down their throats“.

He is also compelled to remind people  these are just “phony scandals”. In his latest speech, Obama took aim at Republicans for focusing on “phony scandals.”

“That’s what we’ve been fighting for, but with an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball. And I am here to say this needs to stop. This needs to stop.“

The guy in Washington’s highest office, has Fast and Furious, Benghazi and now IRS in his rear view mirror, defending the biggest farce in law(ObamaCare) foisted on people in decades, on a scandal-plagued road, deflecting at every turn, declares them all phony scandals, and then pushes the accelerator pedal to the floor.

This is what makes Americans sick: that this stuff happens and he goes around trivializing it, tells us a false narrative, and then comes to lecture us on the seriousness of the condition he did not address at the time. But we need lectured….from this guy?

News drought for lamestream, and the price of ground beef

In a lull of news for media to cover, what do they do? If you have not had your fill of royal watching, which is something like whale watching for enthusiasts, then you must have blacked out the news.

It is not entirely media’s fault that news is a bit slow, considering all the scandals or news they cannot cover and the controversies of the administration that are pretty much off limits. That left the Zimmerman trial and the royal birth as top billing for media coverage. Everyone loves a good racist story or the countdown to a birth from UK’s royals.

But that is real news, they insist. We now know the baby is worth a billion dollars. You cannot take it with you when you die, but nothing says one can’t be born into a billion-dollar net worth.

One only has to look at all the things which are not worthy of media coverage: Benghazi, IRS, Fast and Furious, or ObamaCare’s many looming turns. Next to those, camping outside a hospital to see a baby brought out is a welcomed announcement. They could use anything about George Zimmerman to fill the gaps. If it was the civil war, they’d call the uniforms controversial. Media has its unique way of framing what is important.

I guess that is why Obama took to the campaign trail talking about the economy. It gives them something else they are permitted to talk about. That’s a relief, after the Royal baby arrived they were running low on subject matter. How many weeks have they dragged out the Zimmerman trial?

So Obama debuts his latest campaign speech attack, which is just like all the others, to blame Republicans “for engaging in an “endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals.”

“Washington has taken its eye off the ball,” Obama said in what was billed as a major economic address at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill. “And I am here to say this needs to stop.”

He just got off a huge vacation in Africa, then Friday comes out to stick his nose into the Zimmerman verdict, after dropping the bomb that he was delaying ObamaCare laws for corporations for a year – until the elections — but he charges others have taken their eyes off the economic ball.

Didn’t economic issues have enough sensationalism for Obama’s taste? He must have missed everybody else complaining and talking about the economy all along — which he implied was a non-issue. Now comes the lecture that everyone else has taken their eye off the economy… and the scandals are phony. He takes hypocrisy to a new high.

If there was any take away line from Obama, this could be it:
“I’m here today to tell you what you already know — we’re not there yet.”

He came to tell us what we already know! Gee, thanks. You could have saved your breath, everyone’s time, and a whole lot of money by staying in Washington. Maybe giving the lackluster, polished turd speech from there. This is partisan campaigning — not turning his eye to the economy. So turning his eye to the economy is killing the XL pipeline and declaring war on coal? (along with the job killing ObamaCare)

Congress is just getting ready for its recess, so time for Obama to blast away just before shuttling off to Martha’s Vineyard for another bite at the vacation apple. Maybe he can lecture us about the economy from there?

I saw this in a new Factcheck statement:

“Consumer prices have risen a modest 9.9 percent since Obama first took office”

A “modest” increase? Well, if you factor into that that wages in some sectors actually declined — for example in some health related jobs — as much as 5%, then it feels more like a 14.9 % differential.

That is not a good humor pill, and not great that we saw almost a 10% spike in prices. But consider just the gas price increases since he took office. I know it is not 9.9 percent, we could only wish it was that.

Last year, August of 2012, Bloomberg news reported:

The cost of living in the U.S. climbed in August by the most in more than three years, reflecting a surge in fuel costs.

The 0.6 increase in the consumer-price index was the biggest since June 2009 and followed no change in the previous month, the Labor Department reported today in Washington. The median forecast of 85 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for an advance of 0.6 percent. The core index, which excludes volatile food and fuel costs, climbed a less-than- projected 0.1 percent for a second month.

As of January 2012, gasoline had an 83% increase and ground beef a 24% increase, since he took office. But Factcheck tells us we just had a “modest” 9.9% CPI increase since ’09. Ground beef prices rose every month from November 2009 to January 2012 – 26 months of price increases. (We had a 30.8% increase in gas prices in 50 days -before July ’09.)

West Wing plays Holder-Folder

[Thanks to Dave]

NYT: White House Wants Holder to Resign

Newsmax – 6/2/13

Presidential aides are privately admitting to a growing frustration inside the White House with Attorney General Eric Holder’s political ineptness in the press leak investigations and are hoping the embattled appointee will resign from office, The New York Times reports.

“The White House is apoplectic about him, and has been for a long time,” said an anonymous Democrat source, identified only as a former government employee who acknowledged the White House staffers in question are his friends.

President Barack Obama’s advisers are frustrated with Holder’s inability to foresee problems arising from his approval of a subpoena naming a Fox News reporter as a co-conspirator in an espionage investigation. Now Congress is looking at whether Holder lied under oath when he testified last month that he knew nothing about the incident.

Additionally, Holder has become a lightening rod for criticism for pulling the phone records of 100 Associated Press reporters in another polarizing investigation.

“How hard would it be to anticipate that the AP would be unhappy?” the former official said. “And then they haven’t defended their position.”

The New York Times article highlighted a rare glimpse of the interworking of the White House social circle, stating that Holder’s “saving grace through years of controversies has been the friendship of two women close to Mr. Obama” – First Lady Michelle Obama, who is good friends with Holder’s wife, and Valerie Jarrett, the president’s senior adviser.

In addition to the press leak scandals, Holder has come under attack for his agency’s participation in the botched gun-trafficking investigation “Fast and Furious,” for which Holder was found in contempt of Congress.

Read more … http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Holder-Obama-New-York-Times-resign/2013/06/02/id/507546?s=al&promo_code=13B16-1#ixzz2VA5inMZW

Hat tip to Dave for the article.

My comments: So is a circular firing squad forming? But no one told Holder’s mobile defense team. Schumer has come out saying there is no grounds for him to resign.  Mixed signals? — Why certainly!

Or is the regime trying to be on both sides of the issue, once again? Trying to pacify their both critics and base?  And why the leak about it? Holder better investigate that.

It is hard to forget an entire caucus in congress staging a walkout and calling it racism to hold Eric Holder accountable — then over Fast and Furious investigations. Still he was held in contempt for his failure to allow congress to do its job. He seemed to be provoking a Constitutional crisis then.

After all the radical times and “racism” accusations, hard to believe they have a problem with Holder now. I thought he was perfect. I kind of enjoy watching Schumer and company try to defend the indefensible. Is it a trial balloon… or just more theater? Maybe their bluff face needs work.

I will await the next story how Eric Holder, and Obama by extension, are being victimized, picked on, harassed, and railroaded. (precisely the tactics used on anyone who gets in their way) Then I will know how serious it all is.

Last week he failed to bond with the media on having an “off-the-record” session with media. Apparently there was no food and refreshments… few takers.  

Get over it, I think not

This should not be have to be said but, with leftists, it seems to be required.

The number one response of Liberals to conservatives is “get over it, Obama won.” That is a snarky command. I don’t know the hundreds of times I heard that reply toward any opposition of Obama’s agenda. It is standard, backhanded rhetoric of the left.

It’s not really defined, and I’m not sure they even know what they mean by it – like many of the vague, superficial and enigmatic things they say.

Liberals never “got over” George Bush. They set the bar pretty high there. They never “got over” Iraq, or WMD, or the 2000 election. And they were proud of it. Still, it is his sycophants’ top reply. Even Obama did not “get over” Bush. He still hasn’t.

I cannot “get over” a country who abandoned common sense and its moral conscience, ignoring their better senses when electing him either. Nor can I get over a dismissive press and media who fail to hold him accountable for his record or decisions. No, it’s not just about him winning the election.

So I will not get over Benghazigate. I cannot get over fast and furious. I can’t “get over” the secrecy and obfuscation of an inexperienced, unqualified president who has set an all time high for hypocrisy. (who substituted a campaign for a resume) I will not get over ObamaCare or the national takeover of the medical industry. I will not get over Obama’s refusal to release records; even records from the Illinois Senate where he voted “present” much of the time. I shan’t get over his ignorance and constipation on the fiscal crisis.

It is not a DUI, an indiscretion from years ago, or just a personal matter.

I won’t get over the arrogance. I will not get over the statements that “you didn’t build that”. I cannot “get over” the house of czars he built; or his Marxist appointments; or his department of injustice; or his ignoring the Constitution and treatment of allies or terrorists; or his obfuscation over fast and furious and records. I won’t get over the ‘my way or calamity’ threats, or Obama’s mantra calling another branch “hostage” takers. I will not get over the attacks on the 2nd amendment, all the lies, or the accusations and insinuations of racism whenever he’s questioned either. No.

However, in context, what “getting over it” actually means is let him do whatever he wants and defy the Constitution and the will of the people, to dictate over the country without challenge. That’s what they mean. To just say when he is questioned, “I won”. Just give him whatever he wants is his and their definition of “just get over it”. That is what “get over it” means, whatever the king wants without objection: “I won, get over it.”

So, Liberals and Marxists, just “get over” that already.

The Scandal That Will Bring Obama Down

Western Journalism

January 11, 2013 By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

 

It’s even worse than we previously thought. A retired four-star admiral is now claiming that Barack Obama intentionally conspired with America’s enemies to stage a bogus attack and the kidnapping of an American ambassador so he could “negotiate” the release of a “hostage” and bolster his mediocre approval ratings just prior to the election!

The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: “the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi… was the result of a bungled abduction attempt…. the first stage of an international prisoner exchange… that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheik’…”

But something went horribly wrong with Obama’s “October Surprise.” Although the Obama Administration intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers…and the attackers, believing that Obama had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.

Continue reading: http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-scandal-that-will-bring-obama-down/

 

There is a lot of food for thought to this, which is not all that new. Strange how this is the one issue Barry – or whatever his name is — does not talk about (just like fast and furious), when it sure seems he is very vulnerable on it. On everything else, they roll out the lies and excuses. He glosses over it just like fast and furious. He finally said “sloppiness” was a problem. Yuh think?

HotAir 12/31/12

Obama: What I’ve– my message to the State Department has been very simple. And that is we’re going to solve this. We’re not going to be defensive about it. We’re not going to pretend that this was not a problem. This was a huge problem. And we’re going to implement every single recommendation that’s been put forward.

Some individuals have been held accountable inside of the State Department and what I’ve said is that we are going to fix this to make sure that this does not happen again, because these are folks that I send into the field. We understand that there are dangers involved but, you know, when you read the report and it confirms what we had already seen, you know, based on some of our internal reviews; there was just some sloppiness, not intentional, in terms of how we secure embassies in areas where you essentially don’t have governments that have a lot of capacity to protect those embassies. So we’re doing a thorough-going review. Not only will we implement all the recommendations that were made, but we’ll try to do more than that. You know, with respect to who carried it out, that’s an ongoing investigation. The FBI has sent individuals to Libya repeatedly. We have some very good leads, but this is not something that, you know, I’m going to be at liberty to talk about right now.

Four Americans are dead, we were “sloppy”, but “we have a few leads” — 3 1/2 months after the fact. This is equivalent to “now move along, nothing to see here”.

How do you “fix” four dead Americans?

A few “very good leads”….yea, that’s the answer. “We’ll try to do more than that…This is not something I’m going to be at liberty to talk about right now.” Oh really? The accountability he talked about is ZERO.

Now his number one proirity seems to be gun control.(cover one scandal with another one) “Sloppiness?” Anything you say, No-Drama Obama. But we don’t need to talk about it. It makes me sick.

Gun control, meet freak central

There is a hint of sarcasm and a dash of satire within.
Funny how…

Only the people who could carry out fast and furious could say they are the people who need to take action on “common sense” gun control.

Only the people who perfected the use of drone assassinations around the world could be trusted to fix the gun problem – as libs refer to it.

Especially the people who allowed four great Americans including an ambassador to be killed in Benghazi without lifting a finger, could say they are interested in protecting Americans: “if we can only save one life, we must act!”

Just one, Joe? What about those four in Benghazi? And they saw that attack as it happened. You can’t even protect an ambassador and the consulate in Libya — after “liberating it” — but you are out to protect Americans at all costs? Where was Biden’s time for action comments on Fast and Furious? You must have missed that one, Joe.

Trust Obama, Biden and the Party that will go to any length to “preserve the right” of a woman to kill her baby, to look out for you and save the lives of children.

And then they’ll have you believe the only thing that stands in their way of saving Americans’ lives is the NRA.
 

Mark Levin puts their gun control fetish in perspective comparing it with what they did on DDT. Listen here. “This is how government works,” he says.

 

Morgan to the Rescue

I stumbled onto an article about the Piers Morgan freak show. Tip to JTR for a post inspiring the idea. Some left-media are talking about Piers Morgan’s show and they presented a certain view. It got me thinking. It made me wonder about Piers Morgan’s nightly rants on guns. If the left is getting the idea that people are big mouth crazies for supporting gun rights, is that a coincidence? (I don’t get that conclusion, but the left seems to)

The mission and objective:

Isn’t it quite possible that Piers is deliberately trying to –A) paint gun advocates as crazies and to B) project a self-fulfilling narrative that “we can’t have a rational discussion”?

You have Piers daily provoking guests into heated arguments. So Piers Morgan has become the Jerry Springer of gun control. He constructs the narrative to show that they are just trying to have this “discussion” about guns and look what gun advocates are doing. All projection. Of course, it requires you ignore Morgan’s irrational blowouts, rants and character attacks at his guests. That’s no problem for libs or MSM.

Morgan said on Twitter:

“the more we hear from [Jones], the better chance proper U.S. gun control legislation will be passed.”

Now he is trying to tame his rhetoric a little bit. I guess the feedback was not very flattering, even from libs. I really think that is what is going on here. Leave it to the left to choreograph something for political gain.

H/T to Scotty Starnes’s Blog