Obama lectured on diffuse terrorist threats

To a captive, unenthusiastic audience at West Point. (the address of the decade fell flat)

Obama found his voice on terrorism, after running around on the campaign, in the second half of his first term, talking as if the threat was dwindling or beaten back badly. Now there is no denying terrorism is alive and thriving. In fact, it is about everywhere. So he tries it out at West Point.

But while he attempts to convince graduating cadets that they could be “sent on murkier missions, helping endangered nations deal with their own terrorist groups”(NYT), he calls Boko Haram an “extremist group”. If he’s afraid to use the terrorism word, after kidnapping almost 300 girls, then the thing that is murky here is Obama.

“We have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat; one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin, or stirs up local resentments,” Mr. Obama declared. “We need partners to fight terrorists alongside us.”

Sure don’t want to stir up any local resentment by fighting terrorism. If we want to help/train other countries, what do they learn or interpret from calling Boko Haram an “extremist group”. If we can’t call them terrorists, what purpose does he suggest for sending soldiers to remote places on murky missions? We’ve seen how he has the back of his own ambassador in Benghazi. One of Obama’s own missions he sent them on.

Now he is talking about murkier missions after demonstrating how he abandons efforts in places like Iraq, where we invested blood and treasure for years. What an adventure those murky missions sound like. It is Obama making missions murky.

Note that it is New York Times describing “murky missions” for deployment of troops. Still, it sets a fairly accurate tone for Obama’s mission.

Today, as part of this effort, I am calling on Congress to support a new counterterrorism partnerships fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity and facilitate partner countries on the front lines. And these resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions, including training security forces in Yemen who’ve gone on the offensive against al-Qaida, supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia, working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya and facilitating French operations in Mali.

To call Somalia or Yemen murky missions would be an understatement. He’s concerned about border patrol and security in Libya?

“For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America at home and abroad remains terrorism.”

Well, except when certain campaigns, or candidates, render terrorism a non-issue: on the ropes, pretty much defeated. It’s also great to be working with and funding Muslim Brotherhood, or having Mo-Bro operatives in high positions in the administration. Lecture us about real threats of terrorism. Sounds just as murky as those other places.

Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into military adventures – without thinking through the consequences; without building international support and legitimacy for our action, or leveling with the American people about the sacrifice required. Tough talk draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans. As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947: “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.

Now Obama needs to show us where he sees Eisenhower’s example. Where did we “deliberately provoke” war? No, not Iraq either, that dog doesn’t hunt.

And I would betray my duty to you, and to the country we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed fixing, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak. ….

And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader – and especially your Commander-in-Chief – to be clear about how that awesome power should be used. …

Of course, skeptics often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions, or respecting international law, is a sign of weakness. I think they’re wrong.

Right, his opponents don’t want to follow international law, and see that as a sign of weakness. Stop with disingenuous straw-man arguments. But we don’t want to rely on it and we must remain a sovereign nation — a nation of laws. And this administration is challenged at following our own laws. He doubled the attack:

I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.

Standing on his phoney American exceptionalism platform, he attacks us for flouting international norms. In fact, it is the other way around: he flouts American norms and our rule of law, even throwing it in our faces. So lecture on Obama. He seems to think what makes him exceptional is flouting our laws and norms.

He also unleashed a critique on places around the globe:

The cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies and enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares.

Maybe he should look closer to home? Could he face those problems here, right in front of his nose? But short of trying to ban the word scandal, he hasn’t had much of a response. So with an epidemic of cronyism or corruption right here, it’s hard to imagine how bad it can get elsewhere. Thus, what he proposes is working with other corrupt regimes. But reflexively, he then exempts a “boots on the ground” plan in Syria. If people were not thrilled about Syria involvement, I can only imagine how they’ll feel about missions in Somalia or Yemen.

The NY Times had it right using the word “murky mission”, though what is really murky is Obama. And if he chooses missions the same way he picks winners and losers in the economy, we’re in for a real bumpy ride.

NYT: Obama Warns U.S. Faces Diffuse Terrorism Threats

Washington Times reported:

“Receiving tepid applause and a short standing ovation from less than one-quarter of the audience upon his introduction, Obama argued for a contradictory foreign policy that relies on NATO and the United Nations while insisting that ‘America must always lead on the world stage.”

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary under fire

Victim Hillary at your service.

All available resources to the rescue.


Clinton allies pressured Dems on Benghazi

By JAKE SHERMAN and ANNA PALMER | 5/21/14 | Politico

Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly considered boycotting the panel, an idea that Clinton supporters feared would leave the potential 2016 candidate exposed to the enemy fire of House Republicans.

So Clinton emissaries launched a back channel campaign, contacting several House Democratic lawmakers and aides to say they’d prefer Democrats participate, according to sources familiar with the conversations. Pelosi’s staff said they have not heard from Clinton’s camp.

On Wednesday, Pelosi appointed five Democrats to the committee, giving Democrats another crucial mission in the months ahead of what was already a tough election year: act as Clinton’s first line of defense.

“Republicans are making it clear they plan to use the power of the Benghazi Select Committee to continue to politicize the tragedy that occurred in Benghazi, which is exactly why Democratic participation in the committee is vital,” a Democrat close to Clinton world said. “Inevitably, witnesses ranging from Secretary Clinton to Secretary [John] Kerry will be subpoenaed to testify, and the Democrats appointed to the committee will help restore a level of sanity to the hearings, which would otherwise exist solely as a political witch hunt.”

As Republicans continue their high-profile probe into the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Clinton is center stage. Over the next few months, Republicans on the committee will work to build a case against her, and they will attempt to haul her to Capitol Hill to testify.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/benghazi-democrats-hillary-clinton-106978.html#ixzz32T5e41g7

Obfuscating they will go. Well, if Republicans are not out to make the investigation about Hillary, then Democrats are more than willing to make it all about her defense, whatever they say. So they didn’t want it to be about Hillary, but it can be about her defense.

Hillary’s testimony:

“I have to confess here in public, going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do. There are other things I prefer to do on Sunday mornings and, you know, I haven’t been on a Sunday show in way over a year. So, it just isn’t something I normally jump to do.” — why Rice not her did the talk circuit after Benghazi.

Elijah Cummings now: “someone has to be the defender of the truth.”

Of course, it depends what you call the truth, doesn’t it? And when has he defended the truth about Benghazi? The truth is he defends politics.(and the politics that created Benghazi)

Now we can expect Democrats to make it about the defense of Hillary, whatever it takes. They are in to protect Hillary Clinton. They wouldn’t participate to discover the truth on Benghazi, but they will get involved to defend Hillary.

An elite power-hungry politician versus 4 dead Americans. Who wins? But that is what Benghazi was about.

RightRing | Bullright

Select Committee whoas and pose

With the announcement of a Select Committee formed by the House, there was a lot of strategizing going on yesterday. (as many reported)

What with the Democrats Sunday saying they are going to boycott it, they wasted no time. I guess they found something else they can turn into a “civil rights” issue.

Even Jay Carney said he did not know if the White House was going to comply with the investigation. Is this one of those “choice” things? Or is it another Holder thingy?

So thinking about it, you know what? If Dems go along it depends on what way, doesn’t it? Given their inherent radical nature, would you expect them to try to sabotage the investigation? It’s right up their alley. Being on the Select Committee, to do it from the inside. If Obama’s campaign can distort the death of 4 Americans, Dems could do anything. Leaking or supplying intel to the WH, or obstructing the process would fit their radical tactics.

Here’s “drop the radical pose” for the radical ends, Van Jones and Plouffe on Sunday

In fact, the odd thing was that Plouffe on Sunday(above) was talking about campaign strategy, and Jim Messina said early on that they needed to run as an insurgency. That’s the real mode they were in.

President Barack Obama’s supporters must “act like an insurgent campaign” if they want to ensure his 2012 re-election, campaign manager Jim Messina told supporters in a Web video Monday.

Using the charts and graphs that were then-campaign manager David Plouffe’s staple in 2008, Messina said he aims to “really reinvent this campaign” using technology. His goal is to “make 2008 look prehistoric,” Messina said, adding: “If we just run that same campaign, we stand a good chance of losing. We’ve got to run a new campaign.” — Roll Call

Here was his video presentation. Context matters. And that political context took precedence on 9/11/12.

“We ought to not act like an incumbent, we ought to act like an insurgent campaign that wakes up every single day trying to get every single vote we can…..scratch and claw for those votes.”

Any surprise then that this kind of campaign — and insurgent, scratch and claw mentality — would do anything possible to frame Obama in the best favorable light, even if it meant spinning or revising a terrorist attack on an Embassy facility in Libya killing four Americans? That… while Obama was out claiming al Qaeda was defeated and on the run. After they had promoted and extorted bin Laden’s death for all they could, politically. And after his countless victory laps for it.

Their reaction to Benghazi was scratch ‘n sniff politics, and it looked and smelled rotten. Four dead Americans and their circumstances will not go away.

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

Cover up continues: oozing Benghazi

Sometimes thinking out loud is a good form of clarifying one’s thoughts. And sometimes that just adds to more questions and suspicions.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence,” the email stated.
Article and video

Sadly, only now this comes out about Benghazi. It is filed with irony.

First is the direct intention of government — presumably from all levels — to assert the Internet video as the root cause. This of course is lying and rewriting the events, but who cared about that when they had a presidential campaign to save and defend? Then is their intent to put the UN ambassador’s stamp of approval on it. Of course, it was the opposite: the White House putting its stamp of approval on what Rice would say. (the reverse of their intentions) Throwing the WH voice from the mouth of the ambassador.

Plus their choreography of the events directly contradicted the campaign’s central theme of a president with steady leadership at the helm. In fact, he was AWOL and no where to be found even though the day it took place on the infamous date of the 9/11 attack. So the irony is as thick as pea soup. And the subtext of the campaign theme was a defeated al Qaeda and terrorism in general.

The campaign message was interjected, as a priority, into their depiction of the events. But Obama was no where around, almost intentionally absent. As was Hillary and her steady leadership at the State Department.

The video itself, which had nothing to do with the events was described as hate-filled. What was clear was the violent nature of the attack itself. To think that they nearly pulled it off, as far as media is concerned anyway, is an astonishing piece of history. That to this day they still give the president default plausible deniability for it is equally troubling.

So on one hand you have the event and circumstances themselves, and on the other you have the media disintegration around the major story of the year. But then we have the way each of them played out, Obama’s statements at the UN; and the media charade at the debate vouching for Obama. (Candy Crowley played right along)

There was the speed by which this story spread around the globe in criticizing and blaming a video, as much of the real criticism belonged to the White House and the State Department.(Not to mention all the operatives who did their part)

Then we had Hillary who had to be almost dragged to Congress to testify about the attack. (after blunt head injury) And her stunning absence in the actual events was shrouded in mystery. Then convey this to people at the time as steady leadership. That it took a year and a half to even get this information is another testimony against the duo.(doesn’t speak much for media either) It’s as if not only were they both asleep at the switch, but they took a sleeping pill at the onset.

It is obvious (and ironic) that White House’s biggest priorities were the president protecting himself, and blaming an Internet video. Neither of those fit the Constitutional definition for the president. (…protecting Americans or being honest with the people.)

And contrary to the posture of the two leaders in charge, were the intricate plans of the operation in Libya from the beginning: from Obama’s stealthy, unilateral action to Hillary’s priority to establish an outpost in Benghazi by a certain date. Then afterward to act as if it was not even on their radar, and that they were surprised at the events is beyond belief. And it all would, again ironically, “require the willing suspension of disbelief”. After all, why would so many subordinates go to such lengths to obfuscate the truth, covering for their superiors, all by their own initiative?

Now that we know what was going on in the White House on Benghazi, one can imagine what was going on in sycophant media conference rooms amidst the campaign. Oddly enough, by the time of that debate they had come full circle to try to claim that they said it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Well, they could have saved themselves a whole lot of time and trouble then.

What this email trail makes clear is that it was not happenstance, that it was a wide-spread, coordinated, choreographed initiative driven by the White House with concerns about the campaign. Isn’t it funny what an email trail reveals? The campaign message drove the false narrative.

Obama does have a formal doctrine, its called the Denial Doctrine.

Ben Rhodes is the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting, overseeing President Obama’s national security communications, speechwriting, and global engagement. Previously, he served as Deputy Director of White House Speechwriting.

RightRing | Bullright

Benghazi black hole

Not much has changed since these clips.

Oh, “the kind of insanity we’re dealing with.”

The outrage goes on. Boehner, complicit or just complacent?

Did CIA’s Mike Morell Lie Under Oath About Changing the Benghazi Talking Points?

April 2, 2014

After former acting CIA Director Mike Morell testified to the House Intelligence Committee that he is the one who changed the Benghazi talking points, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) renewed her call for a select committee to investigate the attack. She suggested that Morell either lied to senators shortly after the attack, or lied during his testimony today.

4 Dead in Benghazi
“Should have been done long ago.”
“How can you run when you know?”

What will it take?

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report

Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot

By David Martosko, U.s. Political Editor

Published: 15:09 EST, 22 April 201 | Daily Mail UK

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.

More: Dailymail.co.UK

Hillary Clinton Cancels Appearance Where Benghazi Victim’s Mom, Protestors Await

April 4, 2014

Hillary Clinton was the planned keynote speaker at the 17th Annual Western Healthcare Leadership Academy in San Diego on April 11 – but she’s cancelled her visit in the midst of planned protests from San Diego locals and military families.

Protestors organized by “The Difference Matters” do not want the former U.S. Secretary of State to come because of Clinton’s role in the Benghazi scandal.

What difference, at this point, does it make?”
How can you run when you know?

Never forget

Benghazi 1

You knew it was bound to happen sooner or later. I’ve already seen it throughout the web and on news channels, inferences that Hillary running in 2016 should not be about Benghazi. That it will be yesterday’s news.That she’ll still handily win, regardless.

And true to Liberals’ form, they have already announced on social media that Americans either “won’t believe” Hillary had any culpability, won’t know, and just plain “won’t care”. In effect, it will be old news by then.

Well, God help us all when most Americans no longer know or care about what happened in Benghazi.

May we never forget Benghazi.
And may those responsible never sneak quietly into the night.

RightRing | Bullright — Sticky newer posts below

Hillary shills ready for 2016

I couldn’t help reacting to this slobberfest over Hillary – via “Ready4Hillary”. Let their cheer leading begin,”raw-raw sis boom bah”. This one is just ridiculous enough to be a poster child. My comments with added pictures for emphasis.

5 Things I learned from Hillary Clinton

[but did you learn the truth… that’s the thing?]
by Christine Horansky | Lipstick and Politics — Feb 5, 2014

As the world waits to see if she will take another run at the Presidency in 2016, many across America have already declared themselves “Ready for Hillary.” A modern-day Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton has inspired more than a few important lessons about life, the world we live in, and the promise of open possibilities.

A modern Eleanor Roosevelt? All depends how you define Eleanor. Declaring what exactly?

1. Women Can and Will Be President

What does a President look like? In the 21st century, our politics are evolving to match our realities. And the reality of this country is that women make up half of the American dream. A nation that can elect its first (two-term!) black President, can — and will — elect its first woman President soon.

Black man is out – white woman is in.

2. There’s No Such Thing as Losing

When it comes to female leaders, no one looks as Presidential as Hillary Clinton, who in a few short years went from running in a primary to running the world as Secretary of State. The only real losses in life are the gambles not made, the chances not taken. Hillary has made a career of being brave and fearless and is an inspiration to millions.

Right, no one looks as presidential as the heiress in waiting.

3. Some Days Are Scrunchy Days

Running the world can get a little rough and tumble sometimes. And when the going gets tough, the tough put their hair back, chin up, and get their game face on. Because when you are jet-setting to 112 nations or winning Olympic gold, who cares what your hair looks like Beauty radiates from strength and heart.

“Running the world”… Or ruining it?! What is proper attire? So many decisions, it doesn’t matter. “Game face”, is that what you call her Benghazi charade?

But when the tough get going, like terrorist tough, what to do? Simple, lie about some video and make excuses for them, just so you yourself do not look bad. Then hunker down and take full responsibility, while at the same time making excuses and refusing to take any. “What difference at this point does it make?” Strange characterization of it, “game face”.

Then step aside from that job to plan a run for the highest office….after assuming no responsibility for the brain farts under her leadership. “Strength and heart,” you call that? I’d label it something else. Beauty was not my descriptor. So who really cares what you look like, when your chief objective is to evade responsibility and accountability?

4. It’s OK to Be Completely, Unapologetically Awesome

Hillary gives you permission by embracing her own personal brand of awesomeness. She has given us a lot of reasons to love her, including her infamous “Hillary is not impressed” expression as she texted world leaders. She gained even more fans by responding to her own adoring Tumblr meme and signing off on it as “Hillz.”

I guess this is again, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Awesome? If by awesome you mean the ability to let four Americans get brutally attacked and killed under her watch, and then evade accountability for it.

Love her? Well, here we are gushing in Liberals’ emotionalism, which they must think substitutes for bravery and integrity in office after her beloved friend, ambassador Stevens, and 3 American heroes were murdered under her “not impressed” watchful eye.

Unapologetic is probably the first attribute I can agree with her on. “Hillary is not impressed” look – I must have missed that one, unless it was her face at the hearings; though a scathing look at those she resents does fit her. Yet I didn’t see any of it publicly at meetings with foreign leaders. In fact, her grin was obvious. And what was that reset button thingy all about anyway?

Her sign off meme as “Hillz”. Well, isn’t that just too cute of Hillary? And the author learned exactly what from that sign off meme? To project yourself as cool or cliquey? I don’t know.

5. Women and Girls Are Global Game-Changers

Hillary is not content with shaping the course of American history. As Secretary of State, she made uplifting women and girls around the globe her mission. She has spread the message that women and girls are powerful agents of change — and when women and girls are freer, we are all freer.

Women and girls are game-changers. So apropos. Nobody does change like a woman — or a woman scorned at that. (no offense to women intended) But I can think of a few “girls” with far more credibility, integrity, and change agent creds than Hillary — and they aren’t even superstar celebrities. Hillary gives Mother Teressa a run for her money, doesn’t she?

No, Hillary is not content with shaping American History, she’s intent on subverting and distorting it. She had opportunities all along to show her stellar side of womanhood (for lack of other word), and she took a big fat pass almost every time, except when it came to her personal self-promotion. Then it was all hands on deck to help Hillary.

In fact, I seemed to have reached just the opposite conclusion, not only are we not ready 4 Hillary“, but we should never be. And in fact, to accept all of this gushing, emotional praise for Clinton “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”, as does her record.

Ref: http://www.lipstickandpolitics.com/politics/5-things-i-learned-from-hillary-clinton
Photo credit

RightRing | Bullright

Marvels of modern technology, or not?

Okay, so science never ceases to amaze. Well, if it did no one would pay attention.

But careful, things are not always what you think either — this post for one.

Well, they identified the oldest star, dating its formation to 13.6 billion years ago. How do they know? Trust them… they know.

However, seems strange how we/they can find and date the oldest star but yet cannot figure out what Hillary or Obama did a year and a half ago when terrorists attacked Benghazi. That is now one of the toughest riddles to solve in the world to date – or so it would seem. It’s a giant mystery.

If they can predict rising tides, glacier melts 40-50 years ahead of time, and climate effects, wouldn’t you think these brains could solve the Benghazi mystery? Uh, which is really the Washington and State Department mystery. Come on scientists and brainiacs, a little help please! Inquiring mines have just been dying to know.

Meanwhile, our amateurish, common sense probable hypotheses about Benghazi are ridiculed or dismissed as untrue out of hand by so called experts. But still we do not get so much as a rational explanation of their whereabouts, actions, or their subsequent actions. It’s a blur in space.

I know, there must have been some sort of time warp and a black hole ate up all the evidence. Yea, that’s the ticket.

RightRing | Bullright

Gowdy asks the million dollar question

Did you interview Secretary of State, Clinton? Why on earth would they do that?

In the face of all that, it was Hillary’s requirement to set up an outpost in Benghazi and then took absolutely Zero responsibility for it.

Again, interview her? That must be a strange idea, considering four Americans died under her watch.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama in the state of denial

The setting might have been Super Bowl pregame, but Obama was in the state of denial. Not one question did he answer with a degree of sincere honesty. It was straight denial.

He started by denying the continuing failure of healthcare.gov, then moved on to admit regret over the lie of the year, only to add that more people were later grandfathered into his original lie so they did not lose their plan. No mention about rewriting of the legislation countless times. His reelection campaign was filled with lies.

To IRS, there was “not even a smidgeon of corruption”. I guess his original concerns about the situation were unfounded. Lois Lerner and Rachael Bade pleaded the fifth for nothing. Records ending up at Obama’s campaign means nothing. Even his scandals have baby scandals when the person to lead the investigation is donor to Obama. Roseman and Castillo’s scheme of 500 million in contracts? Not a smidgeon anywhere.

To Benghazi, he resorted to the ‘but I called it terrorism’ lie…. er, before he blamed the video. Then he lectured us that people are in dangerous locations. Say what? And who put them there then abandoned them? Not even a hint of accountability.He admits failures in protections as if there were someone else in the White House. Then he claimed he was explaining it, which to date he has never done.

About all he could do is blame Fox news. Even NYT said “Obama tackled by O’Reilly”. And Obama would say he never laid a glove on me. I guess New Jersey and Christie are about to get more attention.


Related: http://www.humanevents.com/2014/02/03/obamas-superbowl-sunday-interview/

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s killing field

Now if you were Obama and everyone around was pointing out all your policy failures, like your signature issue, then you could remind them that you are really good at killing people. So he told his aides, authors reported.

If his killing forte — and what gangster doesn’t have a flair for that — is a broader message to other would-be terrorists about the consequences, then it is also a glaring message to those at home who disagree with Obama on almost everything. On one hand, he wants people to get that message. On the other, he doesn’t know why people hold suspicion about the agenda and tactics of his global killing mission. Why shouldn’t he expect both sides to develop the same cynicism? He must set some record for being the first Nobel Prize-winner with a hit list to his credit.

Here’s an amazing contrast for the boastful killer. Strange how reports about IRS, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, or even the signature ObamaCare effects of millions of people losing their insurance, catch Obama unaware until he sees it on the news like everyone else. He was mysteriously and suspiciously out of the loop for all the scandals and problems. Then he feigns outrage promising to get to the bottom of it — though never does. Yet when it came to bin Laden he was supposedly involved in every detail — but IRS, not so much.

He has a nose for details when it is politically convenient. But he can boast that he’s really good at killing people”. He just happens to be pretty good at killing the economy, jobs, the medical system, the American spirit and integrity of the office too. Maybe killing people just naturally goes with all that?

Dempsey under the gun

Joint Chiefs Chairman Testifies He Was Not Directly Involved in Failure to Prepare for Benghazi Terror Attack

Dempsey says Joint Staff discussed pre-9/11 security with White House

BY: Bill Gertz | Free Beacon
October 11, 2013

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress this week that he was not directly involved in preparations by the U.S. military and security forces to respond to possible attacks on the anniversary of the 9/11 terror strikes.

Dempsey told the House armed services subcommittee on oversight and investigations, which is investigating the failed military response to the terror attack in Benghazi, that Joint Staff officials coordinated with the White House on pre-Sept. 11 preparations, according to a congressional aide.

The closed-door testimony raised further questions among investigators looking into why the White House published a statement Sept. 10, 2012—a day before the Benghazi attack—that the United States was ready for any attacks, a committee aide said.

U.S. military forces were unable to defend or rescue scores of U.S. diplomatic and intelligence personnel who were attacked at a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi and a nearby Central Intelligence Agency facility on Sept. 11, 2012.

The attack by several dozen armed terrorists, some equipped with mortars, killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. Several others were wounded.

Rep. Martha Roby (R., Ala.), chairman of the subcommittee, said she questioned Dempsey about the U.S. military posture during the hearing Thursday.

“General Dempsey confirmed that while he was not personally involved in that review, elements of the Joint Staff were,” Roby said in a statement. “His description of the process leads me to conclude that while it may have allowed the White House to issue a comforting press release, it was far from the rigorous examination and preparation the security of the American people deserved.”

Dempsey repeated earlier statements that no heroic action by the military could overcome “our lack of preparedness during the horrible Benghazi attack,” Roby said.

“We simply were not postured to respond in time,” she said. “I continue to be concerned that more than a year after the attack, our posture has not improved enough to sufficiently mitigate the risks to Americans serving overseas and in harm’s way.”

More> http://freebeacon.com/joint-chiefs-chairman-testifies-he-was-not-directly-involved-in-failure-to-prepare-for-benghazi-terror-attack/

Drip, drip, drip…. the ever-evolving, musical stories. It doesn’t add up. Which is it?
“Not personally involved in that review” — it got personal afterward, I suppose.

Libya demands US explanation

US commando raids: Libya demands explanation

[BBC news]

    Libya’s prime minister has called on Washington to explain a special forces raid on its territory, one of two by US commandos in Africa on Saturday.

    Ali Zeidan’s office said he had asked for clarification and stressed Libya was “keen on prosecuting any Libyan citizen inside Libya”.

    The raid captured al-Qaeda leader Anas al-Liby, a suspected mastermind of the 1998 US embassy attacks in Africa.

    US Secretary of State John Kerry said the suspect was a “legal target”.

    Mr Kerry said Anas al-Liby would face justice in a court of law.

    On Saturday, US commandos also carried out a raid in southern Somalia but failed to capture its target.

    The US Navy Seals’ seaborne raid was believed to have focused on a leader of the al-Shabab militant group, which says it carried out last month’s attack on the Westgate shopping centre in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, leaving at least 67 people dead.

More http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24420767

Benghazi….drip, drip, drip.

Russian Embassy evacuated in Tripoli


Russian Embassy Staff in Tripoli Evacuated After Attack

By Ilya Arkhipov & Henry MeyerOct 3, 2013 | Bloomberg

Russia evacuated its embassy staff from Libya after armed militants attacked the country’s diplomatic compound in Tripoli.

Russian embassy officials and their families crossed safely into Tunisia today, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement on its website. All but a handful of senior diplomats who will remain in Tunisia to maintain ties with Tripoli will return to Moscow tomorrow, the ministry said.

The decision was taken after the North African nation’s authorities told the Russian ambassador that Libya wasn’t “currently able to guarantee the protection and security of the Russian embassy and recommends its staff to leave the diplomatic mission,” ministry’s spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said.

The attack came in revenge for the killing of a Libyan officer by a Russian woman now under arrest, according to the ministry.


Russia lost billions of dollars in arms and civilian contracts after the overthrow in 2011 of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. It has resumed cooperation with the post-Qaddafi government by offering to train military personnel and to develop energy ties.



Putin in charge !/?

In weeks there has been a round of talk that Putin has stepped into the driver’s seat in the Middle East. It must have touched a nerve because the old guard establishment Republicans, joined at the hip by the Left, are taking issue with that assertion. In one article pointing out all the ways Russia is not, nor has been, in the driver’s seat, they have countered that assertion with a deluge of why it is not so.

Only problem is, how do their examples hold up and what does the current situation portend for the future? I grant that no one knows for sure who’s up and who’s down, or who’s in and who’s out given the fluid circumstances in the Middle East at present. That is the point. Old paradigms are interesting, but how predictable are they for the future?

Here’s a good summary from National Interest of their argument, starting with a tiny admission, why Putin is not ‘large and in charge’. Try to follow their shuck and jive.

“It may well be that the United States’ influence is declining in the region, though it’s more likely that it is changing rather than disappearing completely. Where the United States might be losing influence, the Russians are not replacing it: no state that doesn’t already lean on the Russians is turning to Moscow for help. Nobody else in the region is asking for Russian money, arms, or diplomatic support.

Just makes me want to break into song: “lean on me…” Might I offer that a caveat of reason? They know that Russian help and influence comes with strings. But for someone who invaded Afghanistan only decades ago, Russia rebounded some influence in the region. It runs interference for Iran fairly well, and defense for Syria. It wisely stood back on Egypt — who says loss is not gain?

This isn’t to say that the Soviet Union or Russia has never mattered. Its threat against Britain, France, and Israel in 1956 prompted Dwight Eisenhower to force the three to withdraw from Egypt after the Sinai Campaign. Its presence at international conferences on the Arab-Israeli conflict has sometimes (though not always) been seen as contributing international legitimacy to the effort. Moscow’s decision to let the U.S. attack Iraq in 1991 avoided what could have been a drawn-out struggle that would have left Iraq in Kuwait for much longer. And, of course, Moscow’s veto at the Security Council has prevented any substantive UN action on the Syrian civil war.”

Oh yes, the ever lovin’ power of the minority — everywhere except here in the US.

That’s right, if you thought that seems to argue against itself you’d be correct. (IMO) So what does that mean? They have a veto and expressively use it. It’s a little like the minority was to George Bush, a perpetual critic. (not to say he was always right) And they did have some affect on him.

But it is increasingly clear what is really gaining power in the Mid East vacuum, other than Putin, are the radical jihadists. Of course, in the end, that wouldn’t matter so much to Vlad, especially if it agitates the west. He’s content with the option to sell Syria or anyone else what they want. Putin is much the opportunist the way the Islamists are. The so-called dominant influence in the region is becoming more of an evolving footnote.

Ref: http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/russia-no-threat-america-middle-east-9113?page=1

Putin’s world


The Long, Withdrawing Roar

Column: It’s Putin’s world now. America is just living in it.

September 13, 2013 4:59 am

“The Sea of Faith / Was once, too, at the full,” Matthew Arnold wrote in “Dover Beach“ (1867), “… But now I only hear / its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar / Retreating, to the breath / Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear / And naked shingles of the world.”
The roar Arnold had in mind was the sound of Christianity’s withdrawal from Western Europe. But his words describe equally well what is happening in the Greater Middle East. President Obama put it this way during his speech to the nation Tuesday evening: “For nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security,” including in this geographically central, resource-rich, and conflict-ridden region. But now we are weary of the burden. “A veteran put it more bluntly,” the president said. “‘This nation is sick and tired of war.’”
America has left Iraq. America is leaving Afghanistan. America was so reluctant to participate in the NATO war that toppled Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, and so passive and hesitant in playing a role in Libyan reconstruction, development, and security, that our ambassador and three other Americans were killed in an assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound a year ago. The chief suspects in that attack remain at large. For over two years, America has watched confusedly as Egypt whipsaws between Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood, and General Sisi.
And for over two years America has done its best not to become involved in the Syrian Civil War. Even now, as President Obama says America must act in response to Bashar al-Assad’s latest use of chemical weapons, he also says there will be no boots on the ground, while his secretary of State describes any attack as “unbelievably small” and an unnamed official says that after a strike Assad “will still be able to eat Cheerios.” To delay the use of American force, to forestall America’s reentry into the region, President Obama stunned the world in asking for a congressional authorization no one expects him to win, and by embracing a farcical Russian proposal to secure Syrian WMD that no one expects to work.
What happens when the sea recedes? The shoreline is exposed. Sand crabs and sea gulls and seaweed appear on the beach: Iranians and Saudis, Russians and Taliban. They come to fill the void left by the vacating American tide. The lower the tide becomes, the more daring the actions of the creatures liberated by its wake.
For several years now Americans have been comfortable in the delusion that the benefits, such as they are, of a global economy and of a world where war is a rarity can be enjoyed without cost. We can look inward, slash defense spending, gut the Navy, pull out from theaters of combat and from strategic bases, ignore the political character of Islamism, and otherwise pretend that at heart all human beings share the same feelings and want the same things, and life will go on as usual. And perhaps life will go on as usual, for most people, in most places in the country. After all: America is huge, protected by two oceans, and at peace with its neighbors.
But inevitably there will come a time when a lack of maintenance causes the international structure that America has built over decades to fall apart; when inwardness and self-preoccupation and “nation building here at home” exacts a cost of its own; when the flotsam and jetsam left behind by the receding tide, the sand crabs and seagulls and seaweed, begin to take over the shore. That time may have begun this week.
MORE http://freebeacon.com/the-long-withdrawing-roar/

Pretty good description but I would instinctively suggest it began before this week. In the last 15-20 years it is hard to say exactly where it began, and/or accelerated. I remember a pillar engrained in Bush’s first campaign against nation building, and meddling foreign entanglements. I do think, at the time, he was being sincere.

Benghazi Syria connection question remains

Frank Wolf Asks if Benghazi Site Was Stockpiling Syrian Weapons

Says the issue has a bearing on congressional debate over Syria strike

BY: Adam Kredo — Free Beacon
September 9, 2013

A top congressional appropriator suggested on Monday evening that the State Department and CIA might have been stockpiling weapons for Syrian opposition fighters when they came under attack by jihadists in Benghazi, Libya.
“I firmly believe that whatever the State Department and CIA were doing in Benghazi had a direct connection to U.S. policy in Syria—a policy that to date has not been fully revealed to the American people or Congress,” Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.) said on Monday evening during a discussion focusing on “unanswered questions” surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed four Americans.
“Were these rebels being armed with weapons collected in Benghazi?” Wolf asked, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. “Again, there is reason to believe this may be the case and a clear explanation is warranted.”
The issue has a direct bearing on Congress’ debate about military intervention in Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad stands accused of using chemical weapons.
“Given the pending request for authorization to use military force in Syria, it is more important than ever that the Congress understand U.S. support and assistance to Syrian rebels and whether groups responsible for the American deaths in Benghazi may have been at the same time benefitting from U.S. assistance in Syria,” Wolf said.
Congress cannot “make an informed decision” about Syria before the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack are “more fully understood,” said Wolf, who sent a pair of letters to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday to reveal whether weapons in Benghazi could have reached Syrian rebels and “jihadist fighters.”
“The two [issues] are intimately related and may [have] a direct bearing on U.S. national security,” Wolf said.
Congress could get more answers by holding a public hearing with former CIA Director David Petraeus and current Director John Brennan, Wolf said.
More: http://freebeacon.com/frank-wolf-asks-if-benghazi-site-was-stockpiling-syrian-weapons/