Brutal assessment of Obunga admin in Los Vegas Review-Journal

Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 01:29 am
Linked vicariously:






U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in a well-planned military assault on their diplomatic mission in Benghazi seven weeks ago, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So why are details surfacing, piecemeal, only now?

The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday's election.

Charles Woods, father of former Navy SEAL and Henderson resident Tyrone Woods, 41, says his son died slumped over his machine gun after he and fellow ex-SEAL Glen Doherty - not the two locals who were the only bodyguards Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration would authorize - held off the enemy for seven hours.

The Obama administration was warned. They received an embassy cable June 25 expressing concern over rising Islamic extremism in Benghazi, noting the black flag of al-Qaida "has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities." The Obama administration removed a well-armed, 16-member security detail from Libya in August, The Wall Street Journal reported last month, replacing it with a couple of locals. Mr. Stevens sent a cable Aug. 2 requesting 11 additional body guards, noting "Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on," reports Peter Ferrara at Forbes.com. But these requests were denied, officials testified before the House Oversight Committee earlier this month.

Based on documents released by the committee, on the day of the attack the Pentagon dispatched a drone with a video camera so everyone in Washington could see what was happening in real time. The drone documented no crowds protesting any video. But around 4 p.m. Washington received an email from the Benghazi mission saying it was under a military-style attack. The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA were able to watch the live video feed. An email sent later that day reported "Ansar al-Sharia claims responsibility for Benghazi attack."

Not only did the White House do nothing, there are now reports that a counterterrorism team ready to launch a rescue mission was ordered to stand down.

The official explanation for the inadequate security? This administration didn't want to "offend the sensibilities" of the new radical Islamic regime which American and British arms had so recently helped install in Libya.

The official explanation for why Obama administration officials watched the attack unfold for seven hours, refusing repeated requests to send the air support and relief forces that sat less than two hours away in Italy? Silence.

An open discussion of these issues, of course, would lead to difficult questions about the wisdom of underwriting and celebrating the so-called Arab Spring revolts in the first place. While the removal of tyrants can be laudable, the results show a disturbing pattern of merely installing new tyrannies - theocracies of medieval mullahs who immediately start savaging the rights of women (including the basic right to education) and who are openly hostile to American interests.

When Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney promptly criticized the security failures in Benghazi, the White House and its lapdog media jumped all over him for another "gaffe," for speaking out too promptly and too strongly. Prompt and strong action from the White House on Sept. 11 might have saved American lives, as well as America's reputation as a nation not to be messed with. Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better?

This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy - though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them." He added, "Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama's future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" - $9 a gallon.

Yet the president now claims he's in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he's powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.

These behaviors go far beyond "spin." They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation's economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove," would be disastrous.

Candidate Obama said if he couldn't fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.

Mitt Romney is moral, capable and responsible man. Just this once, it's time to hold Barack Obama to his word. Maybe we can all do something about that, come Tuesday.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,368 • Replies: 16
No top replies

Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 02:57 am

Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 04:59 am
excellent give an take. I sometimes forget that, in the middle of Geraldos worldviews is the fact that HE IS A REAL JOURNALIST and not a shill for the GOP like most of the clowns on Fox
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 05:54 am
Basic cold hard reality and we now have two examples of it in a short space of time, is that Bork Obunga really doesn't give a **** about anything in the world other than himself. Benghazi and Staten Island have this in common: Americans have been hung out to dry and left to die while Bork Obunga was off to Vegas.

In the case of Benghazi, saving American lives was subordinated to maintaining some sort of a fiction about having eliminated AQ. The terrorists involved were targed and there was a gunship overhead, major firepower, and all that was needed was Bork's permission to shoot and it never came.

Neither Whoraldo nor anybody else can spin this ****, it's basically unspinnable. Bork Obunga is a defective person and he has no business being in or even near the whitehouse.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 06:34 am
Obunga photo-op in NY...

0 Replies
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 06:42 am
Whoraldo in fact is lying in the video in claiming all we had overhead at Benghazi was the two drones, there was also a C130 gunship with significant and major firepower which only needed permission to shoot.
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 10:51 am
nyah nyah
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 11:01 am
Where is Los Vegas? Cool
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 11:07 am
It is one of the cities in the state of Novato.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 01:41 pm
More Fox poo.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 01:46 pm

Obama is all about breathing life into lies.
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 01:51 pm
H2O MAN wrote:
Obama is all about breathing life into lies.

as is every politician, that's what strict party people seem to forget

politician = lying scumbag
0 Replies
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 03:33 pm
After reading or listening to the following see how many errors you can find in the idiotic opinion piece....


I count the following

1. There is no evidence it was "well planned".
2. The Obama administration didn't sit by for 7 hours ignoring cries for help because the time line clearly shows there were not 7 hours of calls for help. There were 2 attacks with a 4 hour lull between them.
3. Ty Woods and Glen Doherty did not hold off attackers for 7 hours.
4. The drone wasn't dispatched until after the attack started so would have no video of whether there was a crowd before the attack or not.
5. Includes the email that says they are under attack but fails to include the one less than 2 hours later that states firing has stopped and a response team is on site.
6 It reports Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility which they didn't.
7. It claims a counter-terrorism unit was ordered to stand down when no such thing occurred. The unit didn't arrive in Italy until after the CIA annex was evacuated and all personnel had left Benghazi.
8. Claimed the forces were only 2 hours away in Italy when they were not in Italy until 10 hours after the attack started.
9. There is no evidence of repeated requests for air support. The timeline would make it unlikely that would have occurred.

I'm sure there are a lot more errors but I see no reason to keep looking for them. The piece is to wrong on so many facts I wonder why anyone can take it seriously.
0 Replies
Finn dAbuzz
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 10:24 pm
Amazing how an opinion can change drastically when the subject says something with which you agree.

Yeah, Geraldo is a real journalist. Remember that ground breaking piece he did on Al Capone's safe?

He may be one of the few people whose narcicissim approaches the level of Obama's.

During this exchange he loudly and proudly made the point that anyone who had been engaged in combat knew there was nothing that could be done for those killed in Benghazi. The implication, obviously, was that he had been engaged in combat.

I've not been and so I can't actually refute his contention, so I'll defer to folks like General Thomas McInerney, Admiral James Lyons, and Colonel David Hunt (but to name a few) who actually did have combat experience, and do.
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2012 03:06 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Combat is one thing, that's not really what you're talking about here.

Combat implies a fight on equal or similar terms, we had one of those C130 gunships overhead with gigantic firepower and the terrorists were actually lit up with laser pointers, all anybody needed was the order to shoot.
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2012 10:35 am

Combat implies a fight on equal or similar terms, we had one of those C130 gunships overhead with gigantic firepower and the terrorists were actually lit up with laser pointers, all anybody needed was the order to shoot.

And that is the biggest lie of all. No evidence to support it. The time period of the attack on the CIA annex says that isn't possible.
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2012 10:42 am
The real question is if someone manning a 50 caliber machine gun has line of sight on a target in an urban environment why wouldn't they just use the machine gun instead of a laser?

But that somehow doesn't make sense in RW bizarro world.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
  1. Forums
  2. » Brutal assessment of Obunga admin in Los Vegas Review-Journal
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/29/2023 at 03:50:01