Obama Lied Again

Late last night it was revealed that emails detailing the attacks in Benghazi were sent from Tripoli to the State Dept. in Washington and the EOP (executive office of the President). The emails were sent while the attack was on going, and stated that Ansar al Sharia had claimed responsibility. No where in the emails did it refer to the you tube video, or that the attacks were spontaneous in nature. The emails were received by several officials at the State Dept., the FBI, and at least two officials in the White House. For two weeks following the attack, the administration lied to the American people and to this very day, our President still has not told the truth. What’s even more egregious is the fact that Obama blamed America for the attack, arrested the producer of the video, and characterized the deaths of our four Americans as “bumps in the road”.

This inexcusable action on behalf of the Obama administration rises to the level of impeachment, and if he somehow wins reelection, I for one will not stop until impeachment proceedings begin.

Advertisements

36 thoughts on “Obama Lied Again

  1. Retired Spook October 24, 2012 / 12:47 pm

    What’s most egregious about this is the fact that a number of higher-ups in this administration, including, it would appear, the President, VP, Secy. of State, Secy. of Defense and members of the National Security Council, watched all but the first couple hours of the attack unfold on a live satellite feed from a drone circling over Benghazi, and DID NOTHING TO PROVIDE AID TO THOSE KILLED AND OTHERS WHO SURVIVED THE ATTACK, even though the attack went on for 5 more hours, and the last two Americans killed didn’t die until toward the end of the attack. That is beyond reprehensible, and impeachment would be too soft a punishment, IMO, although it may have to be a first step. If all the truth on this comes out, it’s gonna make WaterGate and Iran-Contra look like small potatoes.

  2. Retired Spook October 24, 2012 / 1:11 pm

    Great piece by Thomas Sowell on this at the American Spectator yesterday.

  3. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) October 24, 2012 / 1:32 pm

    All of the news accounts mention the drone broadcasting the live feed of the attack was dispatched a couple hours into the attack. The question, which I have not seen asked or answered anywhere, is who gave the order to dispatch the drone, and when was the order given. A caller to Rush, who claimed to have intimate knowledge about drone logistics, said launching a drone is not something that’s done on the spur of the moment. Still lots of unanswered questions on this matter, and I doubt any of the answers are going to be favorable to Obama.

  4. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) October 24, 2012 / 1:52 pm

    I find it interesting that the State Department (Clinton) and the Whitehouse (Obama) both claim that neither Facebook nor Twitter are reliable intelligence for attributing responsibility.

    Yet in the absence of any information feel that assignation of responsibility to a You Tube Video is fully credible.

    • The Return of Rathaven October 24, 2012 / 2:09 pm

      “We don’t believe the Terrorists claiming responsibility for this dastardly man-caused disaster. We, therefore will declare that we know for a fact that an American made Video is responsible. So,

      Look at the puppet- look at the puppet … see the pretty puppet?”

    • Retired Spook October 24, 2012 / 2:18 pm

      And Obama claimed in the last debate that, “Now, with respect to Libya, as I indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, we did everything we could to secure those Americans who were still in harm’s way.” It’s pretty clear that that was a pants-on-fire lie.

  5. Retired Spook October 24, 2012 / 2:38 pm

    Someone commented the other day on the conspicuous absence of our resident Lefties, and, right on cue, Watson popped up out of his hole, but, for the most part, they’ve completely disappeared. Only 3 possible explanations: Media Matters and The Center for American Progress quit paying them, they still have enough intellectual honesty left that the talking points they were provided were repugnant even to them, or they’ve all been banned. Lefties, if you’re still out there, please don’t take this as a complaint or an invitation to grace us with your presence — YOU’RE NOT MISSED.

    • The Return of Rathaven October 24, 2012 / 5:21 pm

      Who do you think you are kidding james? You’re too stupid to have a job.

    • dbschmidt October 24, 2012 / 8:15 pm

      I will be here and laughing at you James. Nothing more than a minion that cannot interpret the wave that is about to hit you and yours full-frontal. Enjoy.

      Are you going to be here?

  6. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) October 24, 2012 / 2:59 pm

    The rats caught in this trap are still trying to circle the wagons.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just responded to the release of State Department emails which suggest that national security officials knew that an Al Qaeda-linked group claimed responsibility for the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi as it was happening.

    Clinton stressed that no one wants to find out what happened in Libya more than she does, and said, “The independent Accountability Review Board is already hard at work looking at everything, not cherry picking one story here or one document there, but looking at everything which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach to something as complex as an attack like this.”

    Calling Woodward and Berstein

  7. Cluster October 24, 2012 / 3:36 pm

    Rush just played a montage of the Obama regime, and his surrogates, spin on the embassy attack, and in one of them Jay Carney clearly and unambiguously stated that the violent “mob” was a direct result of the you tube video and that the Administration clearly rebukes the video and any attempts to denigrate Islam or any religion.

    Funny, I don’t remember Jay Carney saying anything about the Crucifix in a jar of urine. They did, and continue to, LIE straight thru their teeth to the American people.

    These BASTARDS need to be impeached!!!

  8. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) October 24, 2012 / 4:16 pm

    The networks are grudgingly beginning to pick this up. Nothing on CNN yet, but NBC/MSNBC has it as breaking news and Reuters has it as a lead story, Fox has a blurb about Hillary claiming there’s nothing to the story, and CBS has the Hillary denial as the lead story. ABC doesn’t mention it on their home page. I don’t think this can be swept under the rug until after the election. Anyone who can still vote for Obama after this really doesn’t deserve to live in the United States.

    • The Return of Rathaven October 24, 2012 / 5:18 pm

      “I think that God can see beauty in every life,” Mourdock said. “Certainly, I did not intend to suggest that God wants rape, that God pushes people to rape, that God wants to support or condone evil in any way.

      “I spoke from my heart. And speaking from my heart, speaking from the deepest level of my faith, I would not apologize,” he continued. “I would be less than faithful if I said anything other than life is precious, I believe it’s a gift from God.

      I don’t know about JR, but I certainly agree with that.

      • Cluster October 24, 2012 / 6:16 pm

        Hard to disagree that life is precious and a gift from God.

        What say you James?

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) October 24, 2012 / 7:11 pm

        I’m from Idaho, so I wasn’t familiar with Mourdock. From what I’ve read, the Left has tried to turn his words into something ugly, and saying that life is precious and a gift from God is not ugly. What’s ugly is the Left trying to portray him as “pro-rape”, but then, when you’re wrong on the issues, I guess that’s all you got left. It’s easy to see why you’re on that side, James.

      • The Return of Rathaven October 24, 2012 / 7:18 pm

        “Life is a gift from God” the circumstances surrounding the beginning of that life doesn’t diminish God’s love.

        Being a bastard is an accident of my birth, in james’s case … he’s a self-made man.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) October 24, 2012 / 7:36 pm

        Idaho huh? When I was in college Playboy came out with the 10 worst college towns.

        Number 2 was Pullman, Washington (Washington State). Pullman’s only saving grace was that it was near Moscow, Idaho.

        Number 1 worst college town was Moscow, Idaho.

      • Cluster October 24, 2012 / 8:28 pm

        Boise State is where it all happens, including football!!!

      • Cluster October 24, 2012 / 8:29 pm

        I only read Playboy for the articles too Count. Great writers.

      • ricorun October 24, 2012 / 10:00 pm

        RoRathaven: I don’t know about JR, but I certainly agree with that.

        Cluster: Hard to disagree that life is precious and a gift from God.

        So let me get this straight… Any pregnancy, no matter how conceived, is a gift from God, not Satan. Yet Satan is an active force in the world, right? And a force that should be combated, right?. So I guess the first question is… at what level?

        Perhaps engaging Satan only applies after the child is born, because Original Sin only applies to fetuses who are actually born, right? And I presume that is why, in some people’s minds, it’s perfectly fine for society to not get involved in a child’s life after birth, even though it is felt that considerable restrictions imposed prior to birth are perfectly fine.

        But many people disagree. Many people argue that if society, regardless of what the mother’s perceived personal relationship with God is, legally bars her from making a choice to bring her child to term, society should be under some legal obligation to care for the child. That, to me, is a very Constitutionally constructionist argument.

        Moreover, But how does the same reasoning apply to the hundreds of thousands of fetuses conceived via in-vitro fertilization, the vast majority of whom are left to succumb to freezer burn? After all, they are just as innocent and unsullied by Original Sin as any other unborn child, aren’t they? What about them? If “God can see beauty in every life”, are they REALLY just a distraction? If you really believe that every human life begins at conception, how could you possibly believe that?

        We hear a lot about “ideology”, how it makes perfect sense, and most importantly, how anyone who doesn’t agree completely with the party line is some kind of apostate if he/she doesn’t vote along party lines — regardless of whether they think the “party line” makes any logical sense with respect to their own point of view, as if “party’s” point of view is more important than their own as an individual person.

        I don’t see the sense in that. In fact, I am offended by it. Personally, I’m appalled at some of the platform issues offered by both the Republican and Democratic parties. Worse, I think the most important issue (i.e., the role of government to counterbalance the role of big business to keep the market vital) have been abandoned by BOTH parties. Rather, one side assumes that Big Government is preferred whereas the other assumes that Big Business is preferred. Of course, both sides talk about “stimulating small business”, and “unleashing entrepreneurs”, but there is very little in the platforms of EITHER party to suggest that they are truly inclined to resist big business from usurping the power to decide the nature and magnitude of boom/bust business cycles. And that, I think, is a tragedy.

        That’s my fundamental worry. I’m pretty sure I’ll do okay (I keep learning and have a good investment record so far), but as a general concept I’m not at all sure the idea of significantly contracting the power of government without also contracting the power of big business is a good idea. In fact, I think it’s a horrible idea. De-regulation is not the answer. IMO, the answer is smarter regulation not less regulation. But that’s a pragmatic concept, not an ideological one. So I’m sure I’ll get pummeled on this site for suggesting it.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 12:20 am

        “We hear a lot about “ideology”, how it makes perfect sense, and most importantly, how anyone who doesn’t agree completely with the party line is some kind of apostate if he/she doesn’t vote along party lines — regardless of whether they think the “party line” makes any logical sense with respect to their own point of view, as if “party’s” point of view is more important than their own as an individual person. ”

        I guess if you simply invent a goofball, bizarre, definition that you think will justify your ignorance of the simple fact that every politician represents, not just an issue or a winning smile but a party, a political ideology and a coalition, then you can make any cockamamie assertion about “ideology”, based on your silly definition. As you do this odd misstatement of fact and of what anyone has ever said.

        Rico, vote for every personality, every issue, every fleeting fad or sparkly thing that catches your attention. Pretend that if you vote for a Dem because he struck your fancy he will not actually be a representative of his party or a member of his party’s coalition. Stick with your childish fantasy that he stands alone, independent, unattached, and that alone he can achieve whatever it was that made you think your choice is really an intelligent and pragmatic one. Stay snug in ricoland, where someone can gain your vote by pretending he will then have the power to give you what you want, no matter what his party may do.

        NO ONE CARES.

        Just quite inventing utterly stupid definitions for what most people easily understand.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 12:25 am

        “De-regulation is not the answer. IMO, the answer is smarter regulation not less regulation. But that’s a pragmatic concept, not an ideological one. So I’m sure I’ll get pummeled on this site for suggesting it.”

        Awww, poor rico is now a victim.

        Of course he has to create a false paradigm, in which the choice is limited to either less regulation OR “smarter regulation”—-and of course he then defines his own stance as oh so pragmatic.

        I am starting to believe that his definition of “pragmatic” is as goofy as his definition of “ideology”—both of which appear to be unique and unrelated to any objective understanding of either word.

        We will now pause while rico snivels over this “pummeling” while smugly believing that he is scorned here just because he is so much smarter than everyone else.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 12:30 am

        Rathaven, you need to use the special Dem Decoder Ring.

        “I think that God can see beauty in every life,” Mourdock said. “Certainly, I did not intend to suggest that God wants rape, that God pushes people to rape, that God wants to support or condone evil in any way.

        “I spoke from my heart. And speaking from my heart, speaking from the deepest level of my faith, I would not apologize,” he continued. “I would be less than faithful if I said anything other than ……life is precious, I believe it’s a gift from God.“

        See how that works? It’s how you also learn that Mitt Romney wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood.

      • tiredoflibbs October 25, 2012 / 5:52 am

        rico: “the answer is smarter regulation not less regulation. But that’s a pragmatic concept, not an ideological one. ”

        Smarter regulation? Too bad, obAMATEUR does not believe that either. He has the worst record of massive regulations that costs businesses BILLIONS IN NEW REGULATIONS just under his watch.

        You will only get “pummeled” if you show no common sense, like velma, tommy-boy, balddoof, etc. etc. However, thinking that the fed will implement “smarter” regulation under this pResident, which goes against their ideology is a fairy tale.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) October 24, 2012 / 7:19 pm

      there you go JR! alienate the 50 million plus that will vote for the President

      If 50 million would vote for someone who watched 4 of his diplomats murdered in real time, didn’t lift a finger to do anything to save them, went to bed, and then got up the next morning, made a brief speech in the Rose Garden and jetted off to a fund raiser in Vegas, that’s a pretty sad commentary on our electorate.

    • dbschmidt October 24, 2012 / 8:23 pm

      One has to take James601 views into perspective–you know, the one where trees have life and souls but an unborn child is just a blob of cells.

  9. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) October 24, 2012 / 8:05 pm

    Lib-tard alert! I just spotted Velma posting in old threads from days ago. Hiding among the tall weeds tossing out her usual liberal vomit where she doesn’t get challenged, and doesn’t have to defend her insanity.

    What am i saying, she never defends anything, only drops her brain turds and runs away.

  10. Cluster October 24, 2012 / 8:40 pm

    Democrats are starting to cheat folks, it could get ugly. Liberals like James will do anything to win, including fraud. When you stand for nothing, you will do anything.

    The son of Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. – who serves as the field director for his father’s campaign – has been caught on video advising an undercover reporter how to fraudulently cast ballots in the name of registered voters by forging utility bills and relying on the assistance of Democrat lawyers

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/video-captures-dem-campaign-chief-plotting-vote-fraud/

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 4:27 pm

        So now poor Velma is gloating over a biased report of attempted voter fraud in a couple of isolated incidents, in which those accused were fired by the GOP agents who hired them/

        Oh my!!!!

        I know she has a really hard time with this, but we will try it again, just for her.

        Velma: Every political party we know of on Earth is made up of human beings. The human gene pool, from which the parties must recruit, will have some people who are not honest. This means that statistically every party is going to have some dishonest people.

        You can stop here if you like, ponder this, maybe have a second grader explain it to you.

        OK—–no one is surprised to find that somewhere in any party there is going to be an effort to cheat. What matters is what happens after this is discovered.

        in the case of the GOP, two things happen. The first, which the rabidly radical Left chooses to ignore or downplay, is that the offenders are fired and efforts are made to correct what damage has been done. The second is to have rags like the HuffPo print highly slanted stories about this, while ignoring even more numerous and blatant efforts on the behalf of their candidates.

        (I am thinking in particular of the claim in the linked article that there has been an effort to impose voter rules that affect more Dems than Republicans, which is a de facto admission that people on the Left are either too stupid to know how to get state issued voter IDs or can’t prove who they are.)

        And, of course, in the case of the Dems, they seat the people who have been fraudulently elected.

      • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 4:34 pm

        Was the Virginia case one of intentional fraud?

        “….as it turns out, although county officials won’t confirm it on the record, the most likely possibility may be that Small was throwing the applications away because he’d waited longer than the statutory 15 days after he collected them to turn them in, and was afraid of getting in trouble.

        Virginia’s guidelines for voter registration drives clearly state that failure to turn in completed applications within 15 days can lead to prosecution for a misdemeanor.”

        So it appears that this was not a case of trying to rig an election but of just being bad at his job and trying to avoid getting in trouble.

        Not exactly the same thing as knowingly registering the same people dozens of times, or “finding” just the right number of votes in a car trunk to move a Dem into the Win column after an election.

  11. irisspirit October 25, 2012 / 2:08 pm

    The typical canard by the far right – impeachment! Is that all you have? Pathetic.

    • Amazona October 25, 2012 / 4:17 pm

      Oh, Velma, you are a ray of sunshine! Your determined idiocy is always good for a laugh.

      Are you still claiming to be a lawyer? Because your ignorance of even the most basic of legal terms, such as “impeachment” is so glaring, even more so than your inability to spell even simple legal terms like “indict”, that it makes this claim pretty hard to believe.

      OK, since you evidently did not cover this when you were working so hard to graduate last in your class from Bertha’s School of Hair Design and Law, I’ll do a quick review of “impeach”. (Feel free to take notes….)

      from wikipedia:

      TO IMPEACH (emphasis mine)

      a. To make an accusation against.

      b. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.

      2. To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness’s credibility.

      OK, now that we have gotten that out of the way and shown that the “lawyah” doesn’t understand that basic legal term, let’s move on to another word which she also clearly does not understand.

      CANARD

      “a : a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report
      b : a groundless rumor or belief

      So, as we see, poor ignorant dumb-as-a-box-of-hair-yet-compelled-to-constantly-prove-this Velma does nothing more than show us that even in a short post she can spotlight her inadequacy while illustrating her venom.

      When the words “impeach” and “canard” are used properly, what she said was it is a false report by the Right to charge a public official with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal. As usual, she makes no sense.

      Clearly it is quite appropriate to first challenge the validity of the administration’s stories and then to charge certain public officials with improper conduct in office, before a proper tribunal. To do so would not be a “canard” though one could, in vigorous defense of the lies and the liars, try to challenge the validity of the accusation of improper conduct. But this would have to determined in the proper tribunal.

      Poor sad silly pathetic venomous hateful Velma, so desperate to attack people she doesn’t even know just because she has identified them as enemies due to their political convictions (which she doesn’t understand) that she is compelled to scurry in to post such nonsense.

Comments are closed.