Obama has been lying the whole time. He knew. They ALL knew.
The attacks in Benghazi were terrorist attacks and Obama refused to admit that fact. He specifically mentioned Benghazi 7 times in the Rose Garden speech and not once did he refer to them as terrorist attacks. Only when speaking about the general 9-11 attacks in the large view did he use the words terrorist attacks.
The White House marched Patraeus out and had him repeat their lie:
Former CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers at a closed-door briefing Friday the agency believed the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack from the beginning.
Now, let’s admit that:
Obama mishandled the whole crisis.
Covered up the fact that they knew.
Leveraged Patraeus’ affair in order to get him to repeat the video story.
The perceived weakness of the White House may be behind the attacks in Israel.
Oh yeah, and that this had EVERYTHING to do with the elections.
“To have a journalist have top secrets of the United States and not have it come from the CIA, not have it come from the director of national intelligence, this seems to have been given to him from someone in the White House,” King said.
…
Meanwhile, classified documents on the Benghazi terrorist attack will now be made available to lawmakers at a special meeting on Capitol Hill. It will be in a classified setting which means lawmakers cannot take copies with them.
In a real world with real laws and real leaders we wouldn’t be looking at classified documents 3 days AFTER an election where debate moderators and Presidents lie on national TV covering up the obvious.
I’m preparing a post regarding the continued saga that is Benghazi. However, before I do I think it’s important to point out a little analysis I did on a past post in the comments.
Scott mentioned that Obama referred to the attacks as “acts of terrorism” the next day. I’ve read the transcript and listened to the remarks. And I don’t remember ever thinking that Obama referred to the attacks in Benghazi as those “acts of terrorism.” In fact, I was struck by how he AVOIDED that reference. He does this here in the same way that he refuses to name terrorism instead referring to it as “man caused disasters.” In the same way that he refers to the Ft. Hood shooting as “work place violence.
Obama does NOT want to label events as terrorist attacks.
So I went back to the transcript and looked for Obama specifically referencing the attacks on the consulate. This is what I found:
He mentions the attacks directly in the statements I’m copying.
The first:
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.
The second:
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.
The third:
We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
The fourth:
Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.
The fifth:
And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
The sixth:
We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.
The seventh:
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.
And that’s it – seven mentions of attacks and not one single reference to terror.
Now, to be sure, the left has some righteous ammunition on statements and context. Take the republican’s attack on “You didn’t build that.” Clearly Obama was referencing the infrastructure work he mentioned directly before that comment. That didn’t stop the right, and me, from scorching him over those comments but at least I mentioned that the context supported Obama’s contention. But here, the democrats are trying to pull the same shennanigans – they wana change the context. And theyjust can’t do it.
(Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
In addition to the footage from the consulate cameras, the U.S. government is also poring over video taken from an overhead U.S. surveillance drone that arrived for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex.
Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.
I get that assessing reports and data real time is tough and can often be wrong. But as the days and weeks advanced, Obama continued to tell us that what happened in Benghazi was something other than what it was:
Just in this montage, the administration mentions the video at least 7 times over 6 days. This is a massive failure in terms of obtaining the truth and an absolute failure in dealing with the American people’s faith and trust in the government.
The fact is this, the administration had reason to believe in the first 2 hours that we were dealing with a terrorist attack and certainly within the first 2 days this was crystal clear.
Reuters has a nice article discussing the trouble France is in. We all know that the French are one of the leading examples of a bloated government gone bad.
Too much spending on programs that have nothing to do with a government governing. The whole thing is worth the read. The money sentence:
France is too generous so people take it for granted.
As we all know, Romney criticized the Obama administration on it’s handling of the events surrounding the attack on American embassies in Cairo and in Libya. Chief among those critiques was Romney’s statement taking Obama to task for his administration’s “apology” to the perpetrators of those attacks.
I’ve already “awarded points” to those defending Obama by going after Romney on two parts:
In failing to admit that he had the timeline wrong that evening.
Continuing to label the Cairo statements as an apology.
However, I have been strong in my defense of Romney issuing his statement because I felt that everyone was in the dark surrounding the timing of those statements.
Before issuing the press release, Schwartz cleared it with just one person senior to himself, Deputy Chief of Mission Marc Sievers, who was the charge d’affaires at the embassy on Tuesday because Ambassador Anne Patterson was in Washington at the time, the official said.
Schwartz sent the statement to the State Department in Washington before publishing and the State Department directed him not to post it without changes, but Schwartz posted it anyway.
Clearly this shows that the Obama administration was not operating under what I have been referring to as “the fog of war.”
With this clarification I can no longer claim that an complete sense of confusion was being experienced by everyone. It is safe to say that only the Romney team was unclear as to the timing of the release and was, perhaps, relying on the Twitter feed from the Cairo embassy.
This leads me to add an additional critique to Romney’s team; get the facts right.
For a very long time I received my news exclusively from CNN. I used to watch Aaron Brown every night. However, I lost interest in Anderson Cooper almost right away and Lou Dobbs sealed the deal; I was gone. As the campaigns for President geared up in the spring of 2007 [remember, Obama announced in February of that year] I began to listen to some talk radio with my initial fix being Alan Colmes. I was hooked.
Since then I’ gravitated to Fox News. Not so much because of how the reported the news but because of what news they reported. I’ve never felt that the actual content of the stories they cover was skewed, rather, the stories themselves trended right.
Then I started blogging and needed to rely on sources not just Fox. I now read Reuters, NPR, The NY Times, The Hill, The Wall Street Journal and MSNBC. As I continue this hobby, I wanna start reading more liberal main stream “media” types and so have found myself hitting Slate, TPM, The Nation, Salon and Mother Jones. Now I know what the left must feel like when they read what they consider conservative sites.
The idea of Mitt Romney in the White House is a scary, scary thought after his bungling of the Libya crisis, and the Stormin’ Mormon just keeps making it scarier—including putting out Liz Cheney as spokeswoman for his anti-Muslim bigotry.
I get that this is a liberal outfit, but really? Stormin’ Mormon? But it continues:
So far, not a word from Romney about radical right Christian anti-Muslim bigots, including: Florida’s Terry Jones, the nutball, Koran-burning preacher who promoted the film; various extremist, Egyptian Copts; Steve Klein of California; and the mystery man who supposedly made the film.
So, I think there should be a message from Romney about the film and the folks that created it. But I find it wonderfully ironic that Robert Dreyfuss is asking Romney to call out “radical right Christian anti-Muslim bigots” even going so far as to label them nutballs and extremists. I think that if we wanna ask people to stoop calling people names, we should start by not calling those people names. And not for nothing, but making a crummy YouTube movie is hardly considered “extremist” when compared to the extremists who protest and breach embassies, burn flags and kill people. In fact, some liberals might even find making movies wonderfully “artsy.”
Moving on, Dreyfuss critiques Romney by saying:
To recap: after the Libya attack, which killed four American diplomats, Romney found himself compelled to attack President Obama for supposedly expressing sympathy for the terrorists. His statement:
“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.”
So, what Dreyfuss is saying is that Romney is wrong to criticize the response from the Cairo embassy. After all, that is the origination of the statement in question. And in retrospect, that statement is NOT sympathizing but rather acting as a calming note. But it’s important to remember two things:
Obama criticized the EXACT SAME STATEMENT and he did it 30 minutes before Romney issued his release.
Everyone, so it seems, was acting as if Cairo released that statement AFTER the attacks, not before.
Not a word from Dreyfuss.
Last I’ll leave you with a case study in tolerance from the gentle left when engaging in discussion with those in whom you may disagree:
Liz Cheney, satanic offspring of the ex-VP, was trotted out by the Romney campaign for her Wall Street Journal screed, which said in part:
Like it or not, the campaign season is a time for candidates to differentiate themselves from their opponent. Further, each candidate who is not the incumbent – in this case Romney – is going to posture himself as Presidential. It might seem that each candidate is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position.
Mitt Romney Responds To Obama Administration
Mitt Romney’s Response To The Obama Administration
On Tuesday, September 11, two separate American embassies were attacked resulting in the deaths of 4 American’s including the American Ambassador to Libya. Mitt Romney, attempting to demonstrate a difference between himself and Obama, used the developing situation as a foil.
At around 10:00 PM EDT Romney issues a statement:
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.
The response that Romney was referring to?
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others
Was Romney right? Is this response appropriate or not?
The answer – It depends.
The Embassy Attack Timeline
It all depends on the timeline of events. For example, I was off-line most of yesterday afternoon and only this morning woke up to the news of the attack. Upon hearing of the Egyptian embassy release I had two thoughts:
When protestors are attacking your location, you don’t issue statements that legitimatize those attacking you.
Knowing that protestors had already murdered 4 embassy staff in Libya, the Egyptian staff may simply have been acting to save their lives.
It’s clear that there is confusion surrounding the events of the situation in Egypt and that such confusion colored the context of the Cairo statement. For example, if we believe that the embassy in Cairo released their statement long before the attack on the embassy, their message is better phrased. However, if their statement is released AFTER the attacks on the Cairo embassy, their statements are grossly irresponsible.
And I think both Romney and Obama were confused by the timing of the statement.
The Politics of Cairo and Libya Attacks
It’s no secret that Romney has little if any foreign relations experience. Obama is going to, he has to, use this in his critique of the governor. However, most candidates for the office of President have that exact same knock against them. This would include our sitting President Barack Obama when he was a contender just 4 years ago. That being said, Romney is anxious to demonstrate that he has a firm grasp on matters foreign. Enter the Mideastern violence.
To further complicate matters, Romney and Obama are not only working to manage the chaotic real time events overseas, but they are also keeping an eye on the “campaign ball.” I feel that had both Romney and Obama been less concerned with that campaign and more concerned with providing leadership, remaining calm in a very charged circumstance and gathered all facts, neither the administration or the Romney camp issued their remarks. See, at 11:00 PM, the Obama administration distanced itself from the Cairo embassy remarks. In fact, they mentioned that they do not represent the United States. Here, Obama is making the same mistake Romney makes; they are confused by the timing of the statement. Seen in the calm of day, the statement issued by Cairo are completely appropriate. Further, adding that the statements don’t reflect the United States government only adds to the confusion coming from the United States. If an embassy doesn’t represent the government, what is its role?
When the administration issued it’s statement on Cairo at 11:00 pm, I suspect that Romney felt more confident that the Cairo statement was issued AFTER the violence and not many hours before. This mistake, now seen to be true, leads to his remarks that the administration is, in essence, apologizing. I feel relatively confident that Romney was acting on facts as he thought they were and not twisting the timeline to his political favor. However, the light of day indeed showed his statements to be inaccurate.
Mitt Romney Remarks on Libya and Cairo
Notice Romney standing before a blue background framed by the American flags. Clearly an attempt to appear Presidential. Romney takes the tone of the gentle leader. He’s reporting to America and is trying to show he’s present and managing the situation.
He speaks to the following:
Issues condolences
Issues statement on American’s stance on values
Critiques the Obama administration on the handling of the events
Embraces the Arab Spring and the potential it has
Takes questions
My thoughts on his statements:
He completes the reassuring leader role very well.
At 3:25 he’s asked a question surrounding his statement from the night before. I think he knows the facts now but doesn’t own up to the fact. This is where he’s clearly weak and wrong.
He doubles down on the mistake by referring to Cairo’s statement as an apology.
When pushed further on this point, Romney acknowledges that the administration had the exact same reaction that he did. In this, he’s right. Both Obama and Romney were confused at the timing of Cairo’s statements and Tweets.
At 4:50 Romney is pushed to explain that if both he and Obama took the exact same reaction, what did the White House do wrong. Here is where Romney gathers steam. He’s right when he claims that Cairo is part of Obama’s administration. He’s right to say that a leader has to take responsibility for his administration. It’s in this understand of “how things work” that Obama’s critic are correct in leveling the claim that Obama has no leadership experience. That this is apparent to a 2nd level manager and not to the President of the United States is frightening.
Again he mentions apology. He slips and is weak by doing that.
When asked if it’s appropriate to engage in politics when the events are ongoing. His answer is powerful.
He correctly brushes off the trap of hypothetical nonsense.
He’s asked to define his foreign policy. And does so very well. The first “branch” as he calls it is to have “Confidence in our cause.” I think that he hits a home run with this one. Obama’s critics, e among them, distrust the President greatly. We don’t believe that Obama appreciates the things that makes America great. We think that he resents the abuses America has perpetuated around the world. And if Romney can verbalize the feeling we have, put brackets around this mistrust, he’ll make significant inroads.
Romney made some mistakes, however, those mistakes were made by both Obama and Romney. But his morning press interview went very well.
One last thing, Obama has a reputation for being a strong speaker. I’ve never felt that. I think he delivers a strong speech and can move audiences but his ability to speak succinctly in an ad hoc situation is horrible. Notice that Romney never pauses, hhmms or haws or takes time to struggle with his next words. He’s confident and clear in what he’s trying to say.
Venezuela’s Amuay refinery explosion is emblematic of the Hugo Chavez curse. The blast hobbled PDVSA’s largest oil processor – as well as killing 39 people. The Venezuelan leader’s policy of placing loyalty before commercial prowess may not have caused the accident. But it has warped the nation’s business ethos. The way he has meddled in the state-owned oil company offers an apt example.
A decade ago Chavez purged PDVSA of 19,000 employees he considered enemies and now rewards political allegiance over anything else. Employees must now devote as much time to political proselytizing as they do to pumping and refining oil. Top jobs typically go to true-blue Chavistas.
As a result, PDVSA is no stranger to maintenance issues from wellhead blowups to oil spills and unplanned shutdowns. And now, at some 2.7 million barrels a day, oil output is almost a fifth below the level when he took office in 1999.
A large part of why I don’t like the idea of too much Government meddling is that it provides too much opportunity for abuse. I’m continually confused as to why those on our left would think that we’ll find angels in government but only devils in a free’er free market.
Recent moves make matters worse. Last week Chavez vowed to strip PDVSA of a seventh of its 70 percent stake in a key oil venture to hand it to another government-controlled enterprise -mining operation CVG. It’s a great deal for the latter. CVG companies consistently lose money, so getting a 10 percent share in 150,000-barrel-a-day Petropiar oil venture will bolster its finances. And it may also help win over CVG’s 9,940 steel workers ahead of the presidential election in October.
It’s explicit. Chavez, and he’s by no means unique, is using his power to buy votes. Capitalism may be imperfect; businesses will fail and people will lose their job, but it’s simply superior to this.
It’s not the only recent example of mind-bending politicking, either. On August 22 Chavez approved a plan to finance unpaid benefits for government workers with petroleum-backed bonds. Workers cannot cash them in for a year, however, and the 18 percent coupon they pay is less than the 19.4 percent inflation rate. But after years of waiting, this transparent play for votes must seem better than nothing to thousands of active and retired public servants.
Italy may be in a funk, with a shrinking economy and a high unemployment rate, but the United States can learn a lot from it, and not just about the benefits of public health care. Italians live longer. Their poverty rate is much lower than ours. If they lose their jobs or suffer some other misfortune, they can turn to a more generous social safety net.
Mr. Porter makes this case with what I can only assume is a straight face. What he calls a “funk” is really an economy that is one of the worst in Europe, perhaps only behind Greece. And he’s actually trying to make the case that we, the United States, can learn a lot from Italy.
We can. But not in the way that the author is trying to point out. What we have to learn from Italy is what NOT to do. Certainly not WHAT to do.
Consider:
No wonder we can’t afford to keep more children alive. In 2007, the most recent year for which figures are available, the United States government spent about 16 percent of its output on social programs — things like public health, food and housing for the poor. In Italy, that figure was 25 percent.
Here again, Porter is lamenting the fact that the United States spends “only” 16% of our output, GDP[?], while Italy spends 25%. Yet no mention that Italy is deeply in debt and failing to grow its way out of the danger zone.
In short, the government has spent too much money. So much so that Italy is deeply in danger of economic catastrophe. Hardly a fair price to pay for extended unemployment benefits.
It’s safe to say that when presented an argument that we need to raise taxes in order to emulate Italy you are dealing with a deeply partisan statist.
