Obama Lies, Ambassador Dies – Update

What we all knew is the raid on the Consulate at Benghazi was a Terrorist attack. What we unsurprisingly found out today was that on 9/12 the Obama Maladministration knew for sure the next day. Yet this terrorist adverse saying resident at 1600 PA Ave, NW kept telling lying to us for about two weeks it was a spontaneous demonstration over a stupid video no one has seen. Memebers of the Senate Intelligence Committee said on the news that a debriefing days later were told it was the video that made the raiders do that. Again, Obama Lies, Ambassador Dies. Since BO is terror adversed, he is treating this as a street mugging gone bad and has sent the FBI to investigate the “crime”. Today, the FBI has not been to Benghazi yet. Incompetence abounds in this Maladministration. And to think people want four more years of this pure Unadultrated 150% Bovine Feces.

Bombshell Report: US Knew Benghazi Raid Was a Terrorist Attack Within 24 Hours

Guy Benson
Political Editor, Townhall.com
Sep 26, 2012 12:38 PM EST

For a full week following the deadly ambush at the US consulate in Benghazi, the Obama administration told the American public that the incident was triggered by a “spontaneous protest” over an anti-Islam video that spun out of hand. They’ve equivocated over recent days, as the himself president has begun to hedge — finally allowing that other forces may have had a hand in the destruction. Today, national security correspondent Eli Lake has a bombshell exclusive in Newsweek/The Daily Beast that destroys the administration’s official story and points to an intentional cover-up:

See what’s after the : here http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/09/26/bombshell_report_us_knew_benghazi_raid_was_a_terrorist_attack_within_24_hoursp>

74 Comments

  1. GMTA:

    People Died, Obama Lied
    Friday, September 28, 2012

    People died, Obama lied. That’s the best summary of what has happened since Sept. 11, when terrorists (yes, terrorists) attacked the U.S. consulate in Libya, killing four Americans and the U.S. Ambassador, while terrorist sympathizers swarmed the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
    The Obama administration insisted–though it knew otherwise–that the attacks were provoked by an anti-Islam film made in the U.S. by a Coptic Christian.

    Worse, the Obama administration inflamed the supposed outrage over the film by telling the world that the U.S. condemned it and was not responsible for it–even buying airtime on Pakistani television to broadcast that apologetic message.

    It also sent a signal that American principles of free expression were up for negotiation by suggesting that free speech did not include the right to insult other people’s religions, and Islam in particular.

    Now, as new details emerge every day about what the Obama administration knew and when, it is clear that President Barack Obama lied shamelessly to the American people about a terror attack that claimed American lives.

    Post Continues on http://www.breitbart.com

    Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/30165/people-died-obama-lied#ixzz27o0Jf8Qt

  2. Here’s the latest from Bob Beauprez at Townhall.com Finance 9/29/12. (Bold added)

    Benghazi-gate – Obama Knew

    In the days following the assassination attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three aides dead it was appalling to watch the Obama Administration’s painstaking efforts to deny any connection to radical Islamic terror. A week later, the White House was forced to admit a connection to al Qaeda after the Director of the National Counterterrrorism Center, Matthew Olsen, testified to a Senate Committee that Benghazi was indeed a “terrorist attack on our embassy” with likely “connections to al Qaeda.”

    The week long contortions and denials by the Administration became even more befuddling when Eli Lake at the Daily Beast raised the stakes with this bombshell disclosure on September 26:

    “Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.” Read more

    Anderson Cooper at CNN disclosed on September 23 that Ambassador Steven’s journal indicated he believed he was targeted by al Qaeda, yet apparently the State Department took no steps to protect his safety. That added to the questions….why?

    Instead of coming clean, the State Department attacked CNN calling the disclosure “disgusting” and “not a proud moment in CNN’s history.” Again, raising more questions.

    High ranking House and Senate Republicans fired off letters and issued public statements directed to the President demanding more information. What did the President know, and when did he know it?

    Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) was the first to mention the “c” word – cover up. “There has to be something they’re trying to hide or cover up,” he said. “We just want answers.”

    Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) gave the growing scandal a name; Benghazi-gate.

    Lake’s newest revelation raises the stakes yet again. Jennifer Rubin in her “Right Turn” column in the Washington Post today asks the newest most obvious question – “Did Obama lie?”

    “Obviously the report (Eli Lake’s in the Daily Beast), if true, suggests that the White House lied to the American people by insisting for over a week that this was a spontaneous attack. It is one thing for the president to be so benighted as to think a video sets off multiple attacks on Sept. 11. It is quite another to send out his advisers, including his own spokesman, to mislead voters.”

    Rubin also raises three other important questions that logically follow:

    Can Obama squirm out of this scandal unscathed as he has so many others, or
    Will Mitt Romney effectively make this a campaign changing moment, and
    Will the media live up to their responsibilities and hold the Administration accountable?

    The answers to Rubin’s first and second question are going to be highly dependent on the outcome of the third. Coming days will tell, but Rubin rightfully prods the mainstream media; “…now is the time when we see if reporters and pundits are more than shills for the president.”

    However, Rubin doesn’t see much “evidence that an epidemic of fairness is breaking out in the mainstream media.”

    And, then the biggest question; will the American people continue to let Obama get away with it? “Certainly, we shouldn’t have a president in office who would lie to the American people about a critical national security issue for the sake of his own reelection, right?” Rubin asks rhetorically. We’ll find out soon enough

  3. Rope:
    And, then the biggest question; will the American people continue to let Obama get away with it? “Certainly, we shouldn’t have a president in office who would lie to the American people about a critical national security issue for the sake of his own reelection, right?” Rubin asks rhetorically. We’ll find out soon enough

    There is NO Outrage because the MSM hasn’t truly informed the proles yet to be outraged. The key ingredient that is holding the BO synchophants back in the LSM is a key Four Letter Word. B-U-S-H

    When Nixon screwed up on the Saturday Night Massacre, he was hound by the media until he quit. Benghazi-gate produces no outrage even though it is far more serious than the cover-up of a 3rd rate robbery to find out what Nixon knew anyway, he’d win. All BO wants is any true and earnst investigation starts Nov. 7th

  4. Let us examine the administration’s description before going of on some half-cocked, desperate partisan attack:

    President Obama does believe that the attack in Libya was terrorism, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney clarified to reporters on Thursday.

    Pressed about Obama’s position on the Benghazi attacks, Carney said the president — who has not publicly called the assault “terrorism” — believes that it was indeed a terror attack, “since I said so” last week.

    “Every step of the way, the information that we have provided to you and the general public about the attack in Benghazi has been based on the best intelligence we have and the assessments of our intelligence community,” he said.
    Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Carney referred all questions on the investigation in Libya to the FBI. But he added that Obama is “determined, as he has said many times, that the perpetrators of the attack that cost four American lives, including our ambassador, be brought to justice.

    “And he will insist that the agencies of his administration take all necessary action to bring about that eventuality,” Carney added.

    Team Obama accused Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of trying to turn the attacks into a political issue. But they said they aren’t worried about Romney’s tack. “Every time Gov. Romney has attempted to dip his toe in the foreign policy waters, it’s been an unmitigated disaster,” said Jen Psaki, Obama’s traveling press secretary. “If you look at the last couple of months … he went on a foreign trip that was built up, offended our closest ally.

    “He gave a speech that was his best opportunity to lay out his case to the American people on why he was prepared to be commander-in-chief, and he failed to mention our troops, failed to mention Afghanistan,” Psaki continued. “He jumped the gun in criticizing the president on the night that these tragic events happened, which is something that, as we know, is not traditionally what takes place in a political campaign given the tragedy and the seriousness of what was under way.”

  5. If talk was all it took, that is, if Obama and his pack of barking dogs could turn his lies, deceptions, and double talk into hard facts, maybe, just maybe, his words would be worth more than a glass of warm spit.

    But, the sad fact is that Obama’s words are worthless, he’s a baldfaced liar who’s surrounded by a cadre of paid liars all feeding from the public trough, who are themselves pampered and protected in the media by a mindless pack of bootlicking partisans posing as professional journalists.

    And no matter what Obama or his jackals say, no matter how many times his oily accomplices try to twist the truth to conceal his Administration’s treacheries, it won’t work. The truth is there for all to see.

    The American people were blinded by the flim-flam in 2008, but they’ve had enough time to get a good close look at the pretender in the White House, and they don’t like what they see, and they won’t make the same mistake again. And no amount of talk is going to change that fact.

  6. Hope it tastes good.

    Wagonwheel:
    Let us examine the administration’s description before going of on some half-cocked, desperate partisan attack:

    We Have examined it. It’s 200% Bullshit.

  7. Let us examine the administration’s description before going of on some half-cocked, desperate partisan attack:

    Yeah — says the complete moron who believes in election conspiracy theories, and outright lies to everyone here to their faces about his threats and accusations of criminality. Among many other idiocies.

  8. Watched “The FIVE” last night and even Bob Beckel who takes the BO stories side 99% of the time could not defend the Maladministration’s position it was not TERRORISM. BO LIED, the AMBASSADOR DIED.

  9. “He gave a speech that was his best opportunity to lay out his case to the American people on why he was prepared to be commander-in-chief, and he failed to mention our troops, failed to mention Afghanistan,” Psaki continued. “He jumped the gun in criticizing the president on the night that these tragic events happened, which is something that, as we know, is not traditionally what takes place in a political campaign given the tragedy and the seriousness of what was under way.”

    Tragedy and seriousness are things Obama and his ilk are not fit to talk about. If anyone is king of the frivolous, it is this bunch. Not decency nor honor nor charity get in their way.

  10. Why is Perry still here? Like a petty tyrant, he claims he wants to “Push back”, to thus become king of this little blog when instead his time would be better spent learning from his betters, which would include everyone else here.

  11. Yorkshire, your entire screed on this subject is not working, because it is not the truth, rather it is supposition based on extrapolation from the known fact by folks who hate President Obama who are particularly irritated that the election seems to be turned to favoring our President.

    This is nothing more than an attempt by to attack our President by disloyal Americans on the right extreme of our politics.

    Now Yorkshire, please very carefully read this update published in the Financial Times, and discard this partisan anti-administration propaganda which you have been spewing out in this thread.

    WASHINGTON, September 28 – The top US intelligence authority now believes the September 11 attack on US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, was a “deliberate and organised terrorist attack”.
    James Clapper from the office of Director of National Intelligence said that the statement represented a change in the US intelligence assessment of how and why the attack happened. During the attack on two US government compounds in the eastern Libyan city, four US personnel, including ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed.
    More

    ON THIS TOPIC
    Editorial Disbanding Libya’s lawless militias
    Libya issues ultimatum to militias
    Protesters condemn Benghazi militias
    Minister cancels trade trip to Libya
    IN MIDDLE EASTERN POLITICS & SOCIETY
    Syrian president’s sister in UAE
    Netanyahu spells out red line for Iran
    Rebels make competing bomb attack claims
    Saudi forces kill fugitive in Shia area
    Shawn Turner, spokesman for Mr Clapper’s office, said that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, US agencies came to the view that the Benghazi attack had begun spontaneously after protests at the US embassy in Cairo against a short film made in California lampooned the Prophet Mohammed.
    Mr Turner said that as US intelligence learnt more about the attack, “we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organised terrorist attack carried out by extremists”.
    He said it remained “unclear” if any individual or specific group commanded the attack. US agencies believe that some of the militants involved in the attack were “linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qaeda”.
    In an apparent reference to a series of contradictory statements by some top Obama administration officials, Mr Turner said intelligence agencies’ “initial assessment” had been passed on “to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available”.
    One US official familiar with the background to the shifting intelligence assessments said the process of figuring out from scraps of intelligence who perpetrated an event like the Benghazi attack was “imprecise” and “evolving”.

    And Yorkshire, pay particular attention to the last paragraph in this quote. You can see that the intelligence information was coming out slowly. In the future, let us wait to see the details, before striking out with criticism based only on partisan intent to deceive!

  12. And if you believe that drivel above from wife-beater (BIMBW) Perry, then you also believe that the elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen by the GOP.

  13. Wagonwheel you are the most gullible and hyper partisan person I know. If you want us to believe your 100% Bovine Feces, then read this. AGAIN, Ambassador Died, Obama Lied. I know it’s impossible for you to believe BO LIES, BUT HE DOES.

    U.S. responded to Benghazi attack as terrorism on ‘Day One’: Source
    By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News Notice I purposely did not use FOX

    White House Correspondent

    By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – Thu, Sep 27, 2012

    When gunmen struck the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 of this year, the response from American officials was almost simultaneous: They immediately set about collecting information about the attackers, some of whom were quickly identified as foreigners, and tracing links from them to known extremist groups, a knowledgeable source has told Yahoo News.

    The source’s description came as fresh news accounts cast doubt on the White House’s insistence that it has been forthright all along about what it knew about the attack. (I tweeted on Sept. 21 that this same source informed Yahoo News that the administration privately labeled the attack as terrorism on “Day One.”)

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/source-u-responded-benghazi-attack-terrorism-day-one-215656818–election.html

  14. Yorkshire, this is ridiculous! You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

    From your own cite we have:

    The day after the attack, President Barack Obama used his first public remarks on the tragedy to declare that “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” That contradicts Republican charges that the president has refused to label the attack as “terrorism.”

    What more is there to discuss?

  15. Yorkshire, this is ridiculous! You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Several dead including our ambassador and Passive-Aggressive Idiot calls it a “molehill.” Just like his idol, Dictator Obama calling it “a bump in the road.”

    Scumbag.

  16. Wagonwheel says:
    September 30, 2012 at 13:40 (Edit)

    Yorkshire, this is ridiculous! You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

    From your own cite we have:
    The day after the attack, President Barack Obama used his first public remarks on the tragedy to declare that “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” That contradicts Republican charges that the president has refused to label the attack as “terrorism.”

    What more is there to discuss?

    What more??? Simple, you talking out of both sides of your mouth and pulling crap out of your butt like this:

    But earlier this morning you said the OPPOSITE. So, make up your mind WW. If you were behind bimBO and he stopped instantly, you would have your head up his butt to the shoulders.

    And Yorkshire, pay particular attention to the last paragraph in this quote. You can see that the intelligence information was coming out slowly. In the future, let us wait to see the details, before striking out with criticism based only on partisan intent to deceive!

    Make up your mind before you say something. All along the real people have been saying TERROR. The ones with scales over their eyes have said it was something, but didn’t know what.

  17. And Yorkshire, pay particular attention to the last paragraph in this quote. You can see that the intelligence information was coming out slowly. In the future, let us wait to see the details, before striking out with criticism based only on partisan intent to deceive!

    Make up your mind before you say something. All along the real people have been saying TERROR. The ones with scales over their eyes have said it was something, but didn’t know what.

    The Obama Administration also says it was terror. So what is the issue here. I really don’t get your point, unless it is just to make a ridiculous partisan effort to try to make the Obama Administration look bad. If so, this is really weak, Yorkshire.

  18. WW:
    The Obama Administration also says it was terror. So what is the issue here. I really don’t get your point, unless it is just to make a ridiculous partisan effort to try to make the Obama Administration look bad. If so, this is really weak, Yorkshire.

    The issue is SIMPLE, bimBO is terrorism adverse. All his minions for the first week denied terror. OUR UN AMBASSADOR went on FIVE TALKING Head shows the Sunday after and said it was the video. bimBO himself at the UN said it was the video. bimBO is afraid of the word terror because he proclaimed a new US-Islam relationship.

    What we’re hearing now are the Terror groups are pissed at his victory lap, after victory lap on UBL. Paybacks are Hell, aren’t they. And having a total incompetent resident at 1600 PA Ave, NW, DC 20001 is worse.

  19. I really don’t get your point, unless it is just to make a ridiculous partisan effort to try to make the Obama Administration look bad

    It doesn’t need any help. Mindless Dictator Obama automotons like your idiot self and the mainstream media notwthstanding, of course.

  20. It doesn’t need any help. Mindless Dictator Obama automotons like your idiot self and the mainstream media notwthstanding, of course.

    I call them Obamatons.

  21. The Obama Administration also says it was terror.

    Only NOW, and very grudgingly. For weeks they were asserting the opposite, blaming it on the video and (implicitly) free speech. Truth is, we were right all along, and you Obamatons don’t want to admit it.

  22. The issue is SIMPLE, bimBO is terrorism adverse. All his minions for the first week denied terror. OUR UN AMBASSADOR went on FIVE TALKING Head shows the Sunday after and said it was the video. bimBO himself at the UN said it was the video. bimBO is afraid of the word terror because he proclaimed a new US-Islam relationship.

    Yorkshire, this is nuts and your better judgment should tell you that. Unfortunately, it does not. Thats’s on you, and your Rightie compatriots who have lost track of what the truth is. Please do not extend your lack of morality and ethics on this issue to your political enemies, Yorkshire. I am not impressed.

    Again, here is what The Financial Times, a credible source, summarizes the sequence of events on this issue:

    WASHINGTON, September 28 – The top US intelligence authority now believes the September 11 attack on US diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, was a “deliberate and organised terrorist attack”.
    James Clapper from the office of Director of National Intelligence said that the statement represented a change in the US intelligence assessment of how and why the attack happened. During the attack on two US government compounds in the eastern Libyan city, four US personnel, including ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed.

    Shawn Turner, spokesman for Mr Clapper’s office, said that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, US agencies came to the view that the Benghazi attack had begun spontaneously after protests at the US embassy in Cairo against a short film made in California lampooned the Prophet Mohammed.

    Mr Turner said that as US intelligence learnt more about the attack, “we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organised terrorist attack carried out by extremists”.

    He said it remained “unclear” if any individual or specific group commanded the attack. US agencies believe that some of the militants involved in the attack were “linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qaeda”.

    In an apparent reference to a series of contradictory statements by some top Obama administration officials, Mr Turner said intelligence agencies’ “initial assessment” had been passed on “to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available”.

    One US official familiar with the background to the shifting intelligence assessments said the process of figuring out from scraps of intelligence who perpetrated an event like the Benghazi attack was “imprecise” and “evolving”.

    This had been breaking news where initial information turned out to need revision, Yorkshire. Please explain to me why this is not an accurate report from a credible source?

    And please do not cite Breitbart or such, as these outlets have a political ax to grind, and are not well known for honesty.

  23. Obama’s pattern of denying Islamic terrorism is well established. Every time some bloodthirsty Muslim pig launches a jihadi terrorist attack against US citizens Obama’s first inclination is to protect the filthy murdering terrorist swine.

    But, he’s too cowardly to name it for what it is: Islamic motivated terrorism. He’s even too cowardly to name it himself, he hides behind women and sends them out to do his dirty work. Susan Rice is only the latest in the string of deceitful women who’s skirts Obama hides behind.

    Two years ago it was another of Obama’s bitches, Janet Napolitano, who assured us in early May of 2010 on Meet the Press the Times Square bomb attempt “appeared to be a one-off attack.”

    Next, when the cover story started to fall apart, Obama sent out someone respected in the intelligence community, David Petraeus, to tell the nation Faisal Shahzad was a “lone wolf.” Only a week later Eric Holder had to admit to David Gregory it was actually the Pakistani Taliban behind Shahzad’s attempt to blow up Times Square.

    Remember all the hand wringing over the Underwear Bomber, Umar Abdelmutallab, and whether he was properly read his Miranda Rights before the flames coming from his underpants bomb were extinguished, never mind it was Christmas and an airplane full of Americans might have been blown up. We can’t have an racial profiling going on.

    Recall also that Eric Holder refused to charge the Fort Hood murdering pig, Nidal Hassan, with terrorism. Holder insisted Hassan’s cold blooded murder of 13 soldiers and the attempted murder of 3 dozen more was an example of workplace violence.

    A sober look at the Obama Administration’s response to terrorist attacks makes it clear he’s more interested in shielding bloodthirsty Islamic pigs from the consequences of their evil operations than in protecting American citizens.

  24. Obama’s pattern of denying Islamic terrorism is well established. Every time some bloodthirsty Muslim pig launches a jihadi terrorist attack against US citizens Obama’s first inclination is to protect the filthy murdering terrorist swine.

    Ropelight, you are just not credible, otherwise, citation please!

  25. Wagonwheel says:
    September 30, 2012 at 16:55

    Obama’s pattern of denying Islamic terrorism is well established. Every time some bloodthirsty Muslim pig launches a jihadi terrorist attack against US citizens Obama’s first inclination is to protect the filthy murdering terrorist swine.

    Ropelight, you are just not credible, otherwise, citation please!

    Looks like you’re sailing down or up your favorite River again:DeNile

  26. Yorkshire, now you quote ropelight’s made up stuff. He has provided no citation to back up this nastiness, so it is HIS nastiness.

    I sense that you are a better person than this, Yorkshire. I expect this sort of crap from ropelight, koolo, Eric, or John H., but not from you or our Editor.

  27. Wagonwheel says:
    September 30, 2012 at 17:19

    Yorkshire, now you quote ropelight’s made up stuff. He has provided no citation to back up this nastiness, so it is HIS nastiness.

    I sense that you are a better person than this, Yorkshire. I expect this sort of crap from ropelight, koolo, Eric, or John H., but not from you or our Editor.

    Why does Rope need citations? It’s all public knowledge. You could look it up and prove him wrong, but you won’t and it won’t be proven wrong. This is an example of you putting your fingers in your ears and Humming so you can stay in Denial. And when we do give you citations, you ignore them and move on like it never happened.

  28. Charles Krauthammer at Real Clear Politics: (bold added)

    Obama Deceived Americans on Lybia Hoping That The Media Would Let It Slide

    CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: At question is not the wisdom of the Libya operation, at question is the honesty of the Obama administration. This was clearly deception on part of the administration in sending Susan Rice to say this was a spontaneous demonstration, when as you reported, it was known inside the administration within a day that it was not. It was a terror attack. So why did they deceive? It’s obvious. Because the attack took place five days after the Democrats had spent a week in Charlotte touting, spiking the football on Osama.

    And essentially, since it’s the only foreign policy achievement of the four years they repeated it over and over again, the great triumph over al-Qaeda. Well, within a week, al-Qaeda sacks a U.S. embassy, kills an ambassador and the administration did not want to admit it so it spent a week deceiving Americans to think it’s about demonstration, its about a film, thinking, I think correctly that if it strung it out long enough the media would let it slide and now that it becomes it’s obvious and true, nobody will care, I guarantee you. This is not a headline in the mainstream media.

  29. York, I appreciate your contribution, but don’t waste your time responding to Perry’s stupid deceptions. He didn’t read past my first paragraph (his request proves it) and only asked for a cititation as his usual dishonest way of avoiding facts he can’t face.

  30. The following excerpt is from Clarice Feldman, The American Thinker, 9/20/12

    Fast & Furious, Benghazi edition

    Let’s review the sad history of an Obama foreign policy initiative which resulted in the murder of our Ambassador, and three other Americans in an action which suggests that (reminiscent of Fast & Furious) the Administration let loose countless dangerous weapons , cannot trace them and has unloosed even more destruction — including against the U.S. — in this highly unstable region.

    March 2012

    According to Mark Hosenball of Reuters, sometime in that month, Obama decided to aid the rebels in ousting Gaddafi, a man who was at the time seemingly much subdued after we invaded Iraq and no longer creating the trouble in the region he’d been infamous for.

    President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

    Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.

    Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.

    As is common practice for this and all administrations, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. “I will reiterate what the president said yesterday — no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya.”

    Congress was not consulted. Congress did not authorize this. The entire decision and responsibility is Obama’s.

    While it may have appeared that we were only providing air support to the rebels, Obama announced at the time he had not ruled out supplying the rebels with arms, and from the nature of the attack on our consulate and a nearby “farm” in Benghazi we can assume that we, in fact, provided them. I can think of no other reason why we had so many former Seals and outside contractors in these locations except that we were trying unsuccessfully to retrieve these arms before they fell in the hands of Al Qaeda. And this development was as Hosenball reported something of great concern to people with a great deal more experience and historic knowledge than Obama:

    Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activities in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.

    There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi “at this time.”

    “We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them,” Rogers said in a statement.

    A Little song, A Little dance, A little Seltzer Down Your Pants

    It was reasonably obvious from the outset — especially considering the words of the Libyan government and the reports on the ground — that the attacks on the consulate and at a nearby ” farm” were not spontaneous outbursts occasioned by fury at a video which was critical of Muhammad, “Innocence of Muslims.” At the Daily Beast, Eli Lake reported it was known within 24 hours of the incident that al Qaeda affiliates were behind the well-supplied and orchestrated attacks, but the Administration persisted for a week using various spokespersons, especially Susan Rice, Jay Carney and Secretary of State Clinton, to lie and suggest that was the cause of the murder of the Ambassador and three others.

  31. I expect this sort of crap from ropelight, koolo, Eric, or John H., but not from you or our Editor.

    Ooooooh … he expects “crap” from us!! The living embodiment of excrement expects it from others!!

    Guess we should feel “honored,” eh?

  32. Please do not extend your lack of morality and ethics on this issue to your political enemies, Yorkshire.

    What a crock! Since when are you and your ilk been immune from criticism when it comes to your morals and motives?

  33. What audacious American President who claimed to be a Christian expressed his intention to stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction?

  34. FOR WW, This is the Update

    BOMBSHELL: Obama Denied Requests for Increased Security in Benghazi Before 9/11
    Tuesday, October 2, 2012

    U.S. diplomats in Libya repeatedly asked the Obama administration for more security in Benghazi in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate but were “denied these resources,” two congressional lawmakers said.
    House oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, pressed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for more information on those requests and other concerns in a letter Tuesday.

    They detailed a string of attacks and other security incidents in Benghazi starting in April, and asked the State Department what measures it took to address the threat. They claimed officials have told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee of “repeated requests” for additional security.

    “Based on information provided to the committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012,” they wrote. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

    Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/30338/bombshell-obama-denied-requests-for-increased-security-in-benghazi-before-911#ixzz28BQ37kRX

  35. Before we believe anything from the “patriotupdate”, take note of this statement:

    House oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, pressed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for more information on those requests and other concerns in a letter Tuesday.

    In other words, there is not enough information yet for rational people to make any significant conclusions. Irrational Righties don’t count, because they cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

    We can already see that radical Righties are trying their best, in their desperation, to make an issue of this most unfortunate event.

    For example, is it possible that the Ambassador himself made a serious error in judgment considering the lack of security he had at that time?

    PS: If you try to bring up Yorkshire’s townhall.com cite, be ready for a surprise!

  36. WW:
    PS: If you try to bring up Yorkshire’s townhall.com cite, be ready for a surprise!

    The surprise is it was part of the ORIGINAL POST, NOT THE UPDATE. The Update is above your post and they do have more info now. Follow the dates.

  37. ‘The main compound used by the American diplomats was unguarded Monday, although the gate was locked. In the first days after the attack, looters, curiosity-seekers and journalists roamed the burned-out buildings.

    The FBI has been unable to set up operations in Benghazi as part of the investigation into the deaths of Stevens, information manager Sean Smith and government contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. The absence complicates efforts to gather evidence and interview witnesses.

    Several Libyans who provided security for the U.S. post said they have not been questioned by U.S. or Libyan authorities about the Sept. 11 assault. Others said that some witnesses had been flown to Tripoli, the capital, where U.S. officials say the FBI team is conducting its investigation.

    “I don’t know why the Americans don’t come here,” said Wissam Bin Hamid, commander of the Libyan Shield Brigade, a militia that came under sustained attack while helping defend the second compound on Sept. 11. “Maybe they are afraid.”

    “In other words, there is not enough information yet for rational people to make any significant conclusions.”

    Of course there’s not enough “information” since the cowards in the White House and State Dept. refuse to send in the FBI to investigate the scene. What would you say if the Romney FBI let a crime scene sit unguarded and uninvestigated for 21 days? BTW, “rational people” have made a conclusion: Soetoro is a liar and a coward and incompetant to be prez.

    “It’s 21 days after a deadly al-Qaeda-connected attack and yet a) the FBI hasn’t done a thorough investigation b) the consulate remains unsecured c) witnesses are not being interviewed and d) crucial evidence from the attack may have gone missing.

    Luckily the late ambassador’s journal — in which he recorded his fears about poor security and death threats — was found in the burned-out consulate by journalists, but even that story was underreported.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/10/02/washpost-three-weeks-after-deadly-911-benghazi-strike-fbi-arent-ground#ixzz28BjQ4ubC

  38. Of course there’s not enough “information” since the cowards in the White House and State Dept. refuse to send in the FBI to investigate the scene. What would you say if the Romney FBI let a crime scene sit unguarded and uninvestigated for 21 days? BTW, “rational people” have made a conclusion: Soetoro is a liar and a coward and incompetant to be prez.

    The lying is on you, Hoagie, because you are operating only on the information that a right-wing blog supplies. So of course you hop on it in your partisan effort to make our President look bad at every opportunity.

    The bottom line is that your ilk appears to be turning out to be the losers, finally, which is great news for the American middle and poor!

  39. The surprise is it was part of the ORIGINAL POST, NOT THE UPDATE. The Update is above your post and they do have more info now. Follow the dates.

    OK Yorkshire. My point is the same as in your cite, more information is needed from the State Department, as per the request of Issa and Chaffetz.

    Before partisan attack, more patience is required for additional information.

    PS: The FBI might well have good reason for not going on site at the present time. Can we please trust our authorities that they will make good decisions, unless we know otherwise factually?

  40. “The lying is on you, Hoagie, because you are operating only on the information that a right-wing blog supplies.”

    You’re the dirty liar Wagonwheel, not I. And you’re so deep up the ass of the left wing radical extremists you can’t ever see daylight.

    Here’s what The Hill reported your own vice president stated:

    Biden tells audience middle class has been ‘buried’ last four years

    By Amie Parnes – 10/02/12 01:33 PM ET

    Vice President Biden said Tuesday that the middle class has been “buried” for the last four years.

    Biden made the remark at a campaign rally while arguing that Republicans would raise taxes on the middle class. He said the tax hike would be especially bad given what the middle class has been through over the last four years.

    “This is deadly earnest, man. This is deadly earnest,” the vice president said. “How they can justify, how they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that has been buried the last four years — how in Lord’s name can they justify raising their taxes with these tax cuts.”

    Republicans quickly seized on the remarks, accusing the Obama administration of implementing policies that have hurt the middle class.

    It’s your lying leftist party who plans tax increases on the middle class in January, plus new Soetorocare taxes, not ours!

    How’s you free obama phone workin’?

  41. No Hoagie! Now you want to change the subject, don’t you?

    Back on topic:

    Just out, here is a report from the NYT, bringing us up to date on what our government is doing about the situation in Libya:

    WASHINGTON — The United States is laying the groundwork for operations to kill or capture militants implicated in the deadly attack on a diplomatic mission in Libya, senior military and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday, as the weak Libyan government appears unable to arrest or even question fighters involved in the assault.

    The top-secret Joint Special Operations Command is compiling so-called target packages of detailed information about the suspects, the officials said. Working with the Pentagon and the C.I.A., the command is preparing the dossiers as the first step in anticipation of possible orders from President Obama to take action against those determined to have played a role in the attack on a diplomatic mission in the eastern city of Benghazi that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three colleagues three weeks ago.

    Potential military options could include drone strikes, Special Operations raids like the one that killed Osama bin Laden and joint missions with Libyan authorities. But administration officials say no decisions have been made on any potential targets.

    More at this site.

    Now aren’t you ashamed at yourself for jumping the gun, driven by your desire to make our President look bad, when in fact our authorities, instead of jumping the gun, instead of acting hastily, have conceived what appear to be well thought out plans to handle the situation.

    Here is just one more reason not to put you irrationally thinking gun packing idiots in charge of our country. You people look like fools, because that is exactly what you are, fools.

    Now come back to your senses, will you please?

  42. It’s your lying leftist party who plans tax increases on the middle class in January, plus new Soetorocare taxes, not ours!

    Not according to the Romney/Ryan plan, Hoagie, which yes, will lower the tax brackets, but will wipe out major deductions, like for charitable giving and mortgage interest. The CBO calculates that to be a net tax increase on middle Americans of about $2k, while providing huge cuts for the elite class.

    Moreover, the total tax cut package will amount to $5T, that’s trillion, over 10 years. Do you approve of this trickle down, Hoagie.

    You need to stay up to date on the news, and think about electing to power those who would spread the middle instead of reward those who would distribute more to the top by cutting their. Or don’t you care, Hoagie?

  43. “Now aren’t you ashamed at yourself for jumping the gun, driven by your desire to make our President look bad,”

    Jumping the gun? The whole point is he FAILED to stop these terrorist attacks even though he KNEW they were coming! He should be removed from office (soon, very soon ) then tried for malfeasance. And we do not need to “make our president look bad”, he does that all by himself, every day, at every turn, on every topic. The man’s a fool. But his obama phone plan is good. Yeah man, gotta get me an obamaphone!

  44. “Not according to the Romney/Ryan plan, Hoagie, which yes, will lower the tax brackets, but will wipe out major deductions, like for charitable giving and mortgage interest. The CBO calculates that to be a net tax increase on middle Americans of about $2k, while providing huge cuts for the elite class”

    Bullshit! Who pays more and higher mortgages and gives greater amounts to charity, the middle or the rich? So who would be more hurt by those deductions being eliminated? BTW, what does the CBO figure will be the impact on the middle class when the tax cuts expire on January 1st? How about the impact of obamacare taxes? How about the cost to the REAL taxpayers of obamaphones? Gotta get me an obamaphone!

  45. GOP: US Consulate received repeated threats, had requested more security

    By Julian Pecquet – 10/02/12 03:28 PM ET

    Two House Republicans say they have been informed by whistleblowers that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked and threatened 13 times before the incident last month that killed four Americans.

    Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a letter on Tuesday that detailed the whistleblowers’ allegations.

    “Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012,” Issa and Chaffetz wrote. “It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest.”

    The congressmen said the consulate asked for more security to deal with the growing threat but was turned down by the administration.

    “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

    The two lawmakers told Clinton they intend to convene a hearing of Issa’s House Oversight panel on Oct. 10 to review possible security failures in Libya, including “State Department security assessments and security related decision making.”

    Clinton will “cooperate fully” with the Republican probe, the State Department said.

    “The secretary intends to respond to the congressmen today,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at her daily briefing Tuesday.

    “And her letter will make absolutely clear the desire of this department, her personal desire to cooperate closely with the committee and with all members of Congress, both in their document requests, in their requests for witnesses for their hearing, because we share the same goal: We want to get to the bottom of precisely what happened and learn any lessons that we need to learn from it. We’re taking this very, very seriously.”

    The letter from the GOP congressmen for the first time reveals an April 6 attack against the consulate in which two former security guards threw homemade improvised explosives over the fence of the compound.

    The letter also says militants made no secret of their intention to target Americans in Libya.

    On May 22, a warning message was posted on Facebook that a rocket-propelled grenade attack against the Red Cross offices in Benghazi would be followed by a “message for the Americans disturbing the skies over Derna.” A separate threat was made the following month against Ambassador Christopher Stevens that mentioned his morning run with a security detail, complete with a photo of the late ambassador.

    Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a Sept. 11 attack on the consulate. The Obama administration initially blamed the attack on militants who acted spontaneously and used protests against an anti-Islam video posted online as cover.

    But the administration has shifted its account, with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper calling it a “deliberate and organized terrorist attack” on Friday.

    Republicans say the administration’s account has been misleading. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other GOP lawmakers believe the attack was premeditated and argue the administration has played down that possibility because it could hurt President Obama’s reelection effort.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/259677-report-libya-consulate-subject-to-previous-threats-attacks

  46. But the administration has shifted its account, with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper calling it a “deliberate and organized terrorist attack” on Friday.

    As well they should, based on newly gleaned facts.

    The word of unnamed whistleblowers and inside officials may well be the truth, but let us wait for the under oath testimony of the Secretary of State whom Issa and Chaffetz have invited to a hearing, before we all go off half-cocked on this situation.

    I understand that desperate Republicans, are anxious to make political hay with incomplete information, as expected, given the current status of their campaign.

    Let us also see if this topic is addressed in the debate on foreign affairs, which I believe is the third debate.

  47. “Sorry to bore your one-track mind with the facts, Hoagie!”

    Don’t apologize Wagonwheel, no need. After all “the facts”, as you put it are: 1. Soetoro has screwed up the economy, and 2. Soetoro has now screwed up our foreign policy in the Middle East. Hey! When you look at it he’s doing to the “Middle” East exactly what he’s done for the “middle” class! Must have something against the word “middle”.

    But don’t worry, we’ll all get us some obama phones!

  48. ” Do you approve of this trickle down, Hoagie.”

    There’s no such thing as “trickle down”, you brain-washed extremist. Take note to Walter Williams referring to a paper by Thomas Sowell ( you know REAL economists ):

    “Dr. Thomas Sowell’s “‘Trickle Down Theory’ and ‘Tax Cuts for the Rich’” has just been published by the Hoover Institution. Having read this short paper, the conclusion you must reach is that the term “trickle down theory” is simply a tool of charlatans and political hustlers.

    Got Wagonwheel? There is not now nor has there ever been an actual “trickle down” theory in economics. The term is used to obfuscate by the enemies of free markets (like yourself).

    Firther:

    “Sowell states that “no such theory has been found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories.” That’s from a scholar who has published extensively in the history of economic thought. Several years ago, Sowell, in his syndicated column, challenged anyone to name an economist from any economic school of thought who had actually advocated a “trickle down” theory. To date, no one has quoted any economist who ever advocated such a theory. Trickle down is a nonexistent theory. Those who use it simply argue against a caricature rather than confront an argument actually made.”

    Hummm…now who could that be Wagonwheel? Methinks:thee.

    Continuing:

    “President Barack Obama recently criticized Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for trying to sell a tax plan, which he called “trickle down snake oil.” Criticizing tax cuts as trickle down is a way not to confront the argument; however, there’s empirical evidence about the effects of tax cuts. Sowell shows that during the Warren Harding administration, in 1921, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon advocated tax rate cuts, which were enacted into law by Congress. Afterward, there was rising output; unemployment plummeted; and the resulting higher income produced greater federal tax revenues, even though the tax rate had been lowered. There were somewhat similar results in later years after high tax rates were cut during the John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations.

    The facts about the 1920s tax rate cuts are unmistakably clear for those who bother to check the facts. In 1921, when the tax rate on people earning more than $100,000 a year was 73 percent, the federal government collected a little more than $700 million in income taxes, of which 30 percent was paid by those earning more than $100,000. By 1929, after the tax rate had been cut to 24 percent on incomes higher than $100,000, the federal government collected more than $1 billion in income taxes, of which 65 percent was collected from those with incomes higher than $100,000.”

    Got it moonbat? There is a point in the Laffer Curve where less is MORE.

    But just in case you still don’t get it, let’s use a Democrat as an example:

    “In 1962, Democratic President John F. Kennedy pointed out that “it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

    But as a true class warrior you’ll continue with your blinders on and disregard this:

    “One very insightful part of Sowell’s paper is the discussion about what Mellon called the “gesture of taxing the rich” – namely, tax-exempt securities that he tried unsuccessfully to put an end to. Tax-exempt securities and other tax breaks are valuable tools in the politics of class warfare and envy. Politicians have it both ways. They get votes by raising taxes on the wealthy – or threatening to do so – and at the same time provide the wealthy with a way out of high taxes through tax-exempt securities. This explains how President Obama can raise tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from Hollywood millionaires and Wall Street’s rich and powerful. “Tax cuts for the rich” demagoguery is simply the height of deceit perpetrated on the gullible people and useful idiots. ( that would be guys like you ).

    Wher’ my obama phone at?

  49. I understand that desperate Republicans, are anxious to make political hay with incomplete information, as expected, given the current status of their campaign.

    Yeah, sort of like Perry with his buddy Harry Reid’s outright LIE about Mitt Romney’s taxes.

    Say it with me, Perry: “Hypocrite.”

  50. Hoagie, you (and Sowell) are making an argument based on semantics: trickle down, supply side, horse and sparrow, ….

    Why make this more complicated than it has to be?

    The point is, an economy does not function as one unless there is demand for products and services. No matter how good the product is, or how useful the service is, they go unused if there is no demand, i.e., there are no customers who can afford to pay for them. This is just common sense which does not require an economist to understand.

    The controversy arises over the issue of tax policy, whether it should favor the supply side (the product and/or service providers), or whether it should favor the demand side (the customer).

    The Reagan and Bush-43 tax policies favored the former, that is the supply side, whereas the post WWII and Clinton tax policies favored the latter, the customer. The economy did better post WWII and under Clinton, than under Reagan and Bush-43. This is the historical record against which you supply siders have no argument otherwise.

    Now granted, the economy is so complex that a simple argument like the above does not cover the total picture. But in terms of tax policy, it makes more sense to favor the customer side than the producer side, with the overall goal to keep the taxes as low as possible overall.

    The bug in the soup is the deficit, which neither Reagan nor Bush-43 took into account, which the post WWII Presidents up to Reagan, and Bush-41 and Clinton did take into account. President Obama has therefore been the recipient of the sins of Reagan and Bush-43, in inheriting the worst recession by far in the post WWII era. And you supply side extremists have not helped the man one bit to solve the issues you generated, the deficit and the skewed wealth distribution to the 1%ers.

    That said, getting back to “trickle-down” tax policies, it is worthwhile noting this piece from Wiki:

    The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that “trickle-down economics” had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name “horse and sparrow theory.” He wrote, “Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: ‘If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.’” Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896. In 1896, Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan made reference to trickle-down theory in his famous “Cross of Gold” speech:
    There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

    Proponents of Keynesian economics and related theories often criticize tax rate cuts for the wealthy as being “trickle down,” arguing tax cuts directly targeting those with less income would be more economically stimulative. Keynesians generally argue for broad fiscal policies that are directed across the entire economy, not toward one specific group.

    In the 1992 presidential election, Independent candidate Ross Perot called trickle-down economics “political voodoo.”[17]

    In New Zealand, Labour Party MP Damien O’Connor has, in the Labour Party campaign launch video for the 2011 general election, called trickle-down economics “the rich pissing on the poor”.

    A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy.

    Based on their record, it is obvious that Dem leadership has a better handle on our economics than the Repubs have ever had, based on the economic performance of most Americans.

    Thus, I suggest we go with the Dems come November 6th, you too Hoagie!

  51. Yeah, sort of like Perry with his buddy Harry Reid’s outright LIE about Mitt Romney’s taxes.

    Rubbish!

    By the way, koolo, where ARE Willard Romney’s tax returns?

    What is he hiding?

  52. Look Wagonwheel, my point was only that there is no actual ‘trickle-down theory” like there is an actual Theory of Supply and Demand, that’s all. Therefore, to employ the term “trickle down” is side stepping the issue or IOW, obfuscate or misdirect.

    “Now granted, the economy is so complex that a simple argument like the above does not cover the total picture. But in terms of tax policy, it makes more sense to favor the customer side than the producer side, with the overall goal to keep the taxes as low as possible overall.”

    Yes, the economy IS that complex which is why I keep trying NOT to talk about it here. I just don’t have the time or inclination to give it the depth which it deserves on any given subject so I’d rather take a pass. But, in the sentence above you make the claim: “it makes more sense to favor the customer side than the producer side”. In my opinion it makes more sense to “favor” either side. That’s where we go awry. When “favoritism” enters the picture the effect is to tilt the scales in one direction. That may sound good to you and it may even work in the short term. However, at what point do whe know for sure the scales need to be tipped back? We have no way of knowing. Therefore, I submit that a fair and eqitable tax and spending policy is the BEST way to achieve prosperity and equal treatment under the law at the same time.

    Now, I figured you’d come up with some Wiki fun fact about trickle down and so you did. But Wiki ain’t an economist. So although it never hurts to see anotheer opinion just remember, it ain’t a “fact” it’s an opinion.

    But then you gotta’ go and make the stupid leap of faith and reality by saying: “Based on their record, it is obvious that Dem leadership has a better handle on our economics than the Repubs have ever had, based on the economic performance of most Americans.” Do I, do we, really need to reiterate the abyssmal litany of economic failures just in the last four years brought on by Democrats again for you to finally stop “blaming” everybody else for the general shortcomings of the entire political class? It ain’t just Republicans Wagonwheel, and it sure ain’t just Democrats. It’s all the pigs at the trough.

    So from what you stated above I then would be justified in saying: Based on the Democrat record, of ponzi schemes and handouts (like SS and welfare), silly investments like Solyndra and crony capitalism with Wall Street, it is obvious that Rep leadership has a better handle on our economics than the Dems ever had, based on the failing and falling economic performance of most Americans. After all, most Americans are far, far worse off today than they were four years ago and last time I looked the president was a Democrat.

  53. Rubbish!

    Oh, so you’re going to deny THIS, too? At least you’re consistent with your lies.

    By the way, koolo, where ARE Willard Romney’s tax returns? What is he hiding?

    He’s released them. I thought you got your news from various sources. How did you miss it?

    By the way, where are Dictator Obama’s college records?

  54. 2008, Black Panthers wielding billy clubs prevent senior citizens from approaching the polls in Philadelphia. Attorney General Eric Holder’s DOJ drops indictments and the thugs get off with a slap on the wrist. Perry makes excuses for the thugs. When the GOP calls for an ID requirement to limit voter fraud, Perry makes multiple accusations against the GOP for attempting to suppress minority votes.

    2009 Eric Holder announces his intention to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammed in NY City. President Obama announces his support “…my Administration will insist on it.” Public outrage forces Holder and Obama to reverse their plans for a show trial at ground-zero.

    2010, NY Times publishes Muslim plans for construction of a Victory Mosque near ground-zero to be called Cordoba House marking Islamic victory over American values. President Obama defends plan, “Muslims have a right to build the Mosque near ground-zero.” Perry defends Victory Mosque.

    Early in Obama’s term, Eric Holder’s DOJ begins Fast-n-Furious gun running program putting thousands of assault weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is murdered with Fast-n-Furious guns, 16 Mexican teenagers are murdered with Fast-n-Furious guns, hundreds more Mexicans are murdered with Fast-n-Furious guns. Eric Holder refuses to comply with subpoenas from Congressional investigation seeking to identify Obama Administration officials responsible for approving and funding Fast-n-Furious program. 2012, President Obama invokes Executive Privilege to his his Administration’s role in Fast-n-Furious. Perry defends Holder and Obama.

    2012, US Ambassador is murdered in Benghazi. Obama Administration immediately releases cover story designed to conceal repeated requests for additional security in face of multiple threats from well armed and increasingly bold and violent terrorists. Requests for enhanced security are denied by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

    US Ambassador is sent on visit to several European countries, prior to his return to Embassy in Tripoli flight is diverted to Benghazi where Ambassador walks unprepared into preplanned terrorist attack on US Consulate on anniversary of 9/11. Ambassador and 3 others are murdered, dozens more are injured. Obama Administration rushes to orchestrate a tissue of lies to hide facts and circulate a cover story. Perry defends the liars.

  55. Wagonwheel says:
    October 3, 2012 at 10:51

    Hoagie, you (and Sowell) are making an argument based on semantics: trickle down, supply side, horse and sparrow, ….

    Why make this more complicated than it has to be?

    What is so hard to understand the basic principle is if you take more money from those who make jobs through taxes, and hidden taxes called Regulations. The more the owner forks over to the Gummint, the less to invest in plant and people. The less you tax and regulate owners, the more they have for plant and people.

    Or as often stated you want less of something, tax it, you want more of something, don’t tax it.

    Case on point – cigarettes

  56. This is nothing more than an attempt by to attack our President by disloyal Americans on the right extreme of our politics.

    Exposing lies by your president is hardly “Disloyal”. What, do you think Obama is a king or something, who is immune from criticism?

  57. Just out, here is a report from the NYT,

    Don’t quote the NY Times. It is a left wing rag. If you want to be taken seriously, quote the Wall Street Journal instead.

  58. The economy did better post WWII and under Clinton

    Don’t forget that much of the so-called “Boom” under Clinton in the late 90′s was actually a bubble, and when the bubble burst in 2000 it was George W Bush who was left to clean up the mess.

  59. That said, getting back to “trickle-down” tax policies, it is worthwhile noting this piece from Wiki:

    That article is meaningless. There are really only two differences when it comes to economics. You are either pro-freedom or pro-Big Government. The Keynesians are the latter, and should be either ignored or shunned by a free people.

  60. BO was a frozen chicken here.

    Report: Obama Admin Rejected Military Intervention in Benghazi During Attack

    by AWR Hawkins2 Oct 2012

    According to the Wall Street Journal, as the attack on the U.S. consulate was raging, Obama took a “wait and see” approach.

    Ninety minutes after news of the attack reached Washington, Obama, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, JCS Chair General Martin Dempsey, and a national security adviser convened for an oval office meeting in which they ultimately rejected the course of U.S. military intervention. Instead, they decided to reach out to the Libyan government to ask if they would send reinforcements.

    When the U.S. personnel at the consulate left the main building for what was supposed to be a safe house, questions regarding the deployment of forces seemed moot.

    But the battle was still raging, and Ambassador Stevens’ life was close to its end.

    In hindsight, anonymous officials privy to details of those Sept. 11 decisions asked why we didn’t at least send aircraft from the U.S. base in Sicily — which is less than 500 miles away from Benghazi. The line of thinking is that that such a show of force might have given the attackers second thoughts.

    The State Dept. has dismissed this option has “unrealistic.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/02/As-Benghazi-Attacks-Raged-State-Dept-Dismissed-Strong-U-S-Response-As-Unrealistic

  61. ” The economy did better post WWII and under Clinton”

    Okay, once again for the learning impared. The economy “post WWII” was the only industrialized economy that had not been bombed into submission during the war. Do you understand that? IOW, in the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king. We were at that time the sole producer of the worlds consumer needs and the only country with the industrial capacity to do so.

    Now as far as Clinton’s economy goes, first he had a free-market Congress to subdue his natural inclinations and second he was riding a “wave” which turned out to be a “bubble” instead. But I’n not blaming anything on anybody, I’m just waiting for Soetoro and his leftist duddies to take resposability for what is going on now, THEN FIX IT!

  62. Let’s set the record straight. The BO administration granted the Benghazi consulate a waiver. What sort of waiver, you ask? A security waiver. The Benghazi consulate was permitted to exist with far less than the minimum required security detail. That’s right, boys and girls. Obama did not permit the Benghazi consulate to have even the minimum security detail in a very dangerous and ungoverned area. An area where al Qaeda was known to operate. An area that was very clearly anti-US and anti-Christian and anti-Jew.

    And our ambassador, whom Obama appointed, wasn’t just murdered.
    He was tortured.
    He was RAPED.
    Then he was murdered.
    And then, his body was dragged through the streets.
    For all the world to see the terroristic hatred that is Islam.

  63. Hitch is correct, but the unanswered question is why. Why did Hillary Clinton’s State Department deny the Benghazi consulate even the minimum security protections standard for high risk areas when the situation there was already dangerously violent and getting so much worse the Ambassador was making increasingly desperate pleas for more protection?

    The only answer that makes any sense is that significant clandestine operations were being run out of the Benghazi consulate and the presence of US security forces would have put military authorities in position to observe what was going on and would likely have resulted in such immediate and strenuous objections that secret operations would have been exposed to public view and congressional oversight.

    I suspect the Obama Administration was providing material support for Al-Qaeda and their affiliates.

  64. The Other ropetligh? 8-)
    I suspect the Obama Administration was providing material support for Al-Qaeda and their affiliates.

    bimBO’s actions with Obummble care with its anti-Catholic/Christian abortion/birth control mandate, his fixation on the video on the Libyan Embassy, and snubbing Netenyahu say he’s sided with the muslims.

  65. Here’s a question I posed up-thread:

    ropelight says:
    October 1, 2012 at 19:44

    What audacious American President who claimed to be a Christian expressed his intention to stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction?

    Hint: He’s also the same smarmy lightweight who got a nationally televised ass whuppin’ last night.

  66. I suspect the Obama Administration was providing material support for Al-Qaeda and their affiliates.

    Ropeligh (sic), you have supplied no evidence whatsoever for such a foolish statement, to add to the plethora of foolish statements, lies, in recent weeks. You are a desperate man/woman, aren’t you?

  67. Perry, as you know, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are custodians of evidence of their activities in Libya, and both are well practiced at withholding information from the public and from Congress. Even when under lawful subpoena and instructed by court order to release records Obama refuses to comply and eventually resorts to bogus claims of Executive Privilege to evade the public’s right to know what their elected leaders are doing.

    So, my conclusion was based on educated speculation, as explained in the first two paragraphs.

    And, no, I’m not the one desperately spreading a phony cover story. I gave my speculation and it was accompanied by my reasons for it.

    It’s Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who have the blood of a dead US Ambassador on their hands who are desperate to change the subject.

Comments are closed.