I await the apologists for our Traitorous, Amerika Hating POTUS in giving aide and comfort to our Islamic Enemies by writing them out of the attack in Benghazi, the better to cover his cowardly sacrifice of American lives in pursuit of his political goals.Lying to their closest relatives while standing beside their caskets, a real profile in courage.
Our enemies, doug, maybe Islamoids, but they are NOT Islamic Enemies.That was rejected as a meme, by GW Bush.Recall, if you will, his dancing with our Islamic ALLIES.Doin' that Texican Two Step, with the Princes.
"In order to live in peace,blah, blah, blah."Heap Big Injun Bullshit.Ugh.
That is not a politically correct statement.If you remove not and politically you are closer to the truth. Though it is a complex situation.I have watched till Wounded Knee, and will watch the rest tomorrow. How the shooting started there is a subject in dispute.The Sioux were a woodland people on the Mississippi. Pushed out and up, they were in Minnesota, pushed out to the plains, they got the horse, and became the national icon of Native American life. Once on the plains, their mythology changed to suit the new circumstances. Buffalo Woman showed up for instance.
Chief Plenty Coups of the Mountain Crow, a group of the Crow of Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota, who were losing out in the free for all fight over the buffalo there to other competing tribes, had the good sense to ally with the whites, thus saving something for his people.>Plenty Coups From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Plenty CoupsPlenty Coups Edward Curtis Portrait (c1908).jpgPortrait of Plenty Coups (c.1908) TribeMountain Crow (Apsáalooke), Crow Nation Born1848 The-cliffs-that-have-no-name (possibly near Billings, Montana) Died1932 Native nameAleek-chea-ahoosh ("Many Achievements"); birth name, Chíilaphuchissaaleesh ("Buffalo Bull Facing The Wind") Known forDefending Crow lands in Washington, D.C., promoting education Spouse(s)Strikes-the-iron ParentsMedicine-Bird, Otter-woman Plenty Coups (otherwise known as Aleek-chea-ahoosh) (1848 – 1932) was a Crow chief and visionary leader. He allied Crow with the whites when the war for the West was being fought, because the Sioux and Cheyenne (who were opposing white settlement of the area) were the traditional enemies of the Crow. Plenty Coups had also experienced a vision when he was very young that non-Native people would ultimately take control of his homeland (Montana), so he always felt that cooperation would benefit his people much more than opposition.One of his famous quotes is: "Education is your greatest weapon. With education you are the white man's equal, without education you are his victim and so shall remain all of your lives. Study, learn, help one another always. Remember there is only poverty and misery in idleness and dreams - but in work there is self respect and independence."He very much wanted the Crow to continue as a people and their customs and spiritual beliefs to carry on. His efforts on their behalf ensured that this happened and he led his people peacefully into the 20th century.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenty_Coups
This guy was a real statesman of the time.
The Chumash seemed pretty cool and casual.Why shouldn't they have been?The beaches and shellfish in the winter.Oaknuts and venison in the winter.Back in the days before the Dems brought the great state to it's knees.aka, bankrupt.(Rufie's touting of "Green" energy notwithstanding)
"Oaknuts and venison in the SUMMER."
ONE AND ONLY ONE PERSON COULD HAVE ISSUED THE TWO STANDOWN ORDERS re: Ben Gazara -POTUSCommander in Chief, don'tcha know.Ugh
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding --we finally have a winner.For days people here have been struggling, struggling with this brain twister.Doug!!!Doug has the answer.The Commander in Chief!He's the guy that issues the orders.Not TOTUS, POTUS!
May 11, 2013 Politics Disguised as the Fog of WarRuss Vaughn That title is not mine; it's taken from an excellent article by Peggy Noonan at the Wall Street Journal titled The Inconvenient Truth About Benghazi. Noonan went a little wobbly back in the 2008 campaign when she, like so many others, let her emotions overrule her commonsense judgment about Barack Obama. This latest posting at the WSJ shows she's stable and clear headed once again. In fact, it is the best explanation I've read yet as to why there was no effective military response by American forces.Quite simply, there was no aggressive response because, as we've long suspected, a political decision was made early on not to respond. It was not that we didn't have forces available, both air assets and troops, ready and able to intervene; despite all the excuses made by the administration and even our dishonorable military commanders, it wasn't that we couldn't do something, it was because a decision had been made that we were not going to do anything.As Noonan explains, the truth that this was a terrorist attack was politically inconvenient to the Obama 2012 re-election campaign. The Democrats, including their leader, had been gloating that with the demise of Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda was dead, no longer a serious threat to American interests. An Al Qaeda led attack on a sovereign American possession, even on foreign soil, put the lie to that boast. More importantly, such aggression by Al Qaeda required an aggressive response by our military forces.On the other hand, and this is where Noonan nails it, a mere out of control demonstration by angry Muslims, outraged over a sophomoric You Tube video, would not require a military response. In fact, an American military response to a mere riot would be a clearly inappropriate intervention into the sovereign affairs of Libya. And right there, folks, is the answer as to why the orders to stand down were issued. In order to meet the political needs of the Obama re-election campaign, this event could not be seen as a terrorist attack so it was hurriedly morphed into a deadly demonstration incited by an American-made video.The political decision to remake this Al Qaeda attack into a demonstration didn't come from the military, even though the current command structure is clearly carrying water for the Obama administration; nor did it come, as the White house has claimed, from the intelligence community. The recent congressional whistleblower testimony makes that clear. So that leaves Hillary Clinton's State Department and Obama's White House, most likely working in collusion, to create the false narrative. Their motive seems fairly simple: maintaining Democrat control of the executive branch.That's cold, really cold; a political decision is made that a terrorist attack must be presented to American voters as a demonstration and therefore no military response is possible, no matter how dire the consequences may become for those under attack. As we now know, it was a death sentence for four Americans, one of whom was our ambassador to that country. What we don't know is who the scheming, calculating politicos were who made that cold, deadly decision.Not yet anyway...Go read Noonan's entire article for the best dissection of this political scheme to date.
Just heard that Dakota Meyers was ordered to stand down four times.Obviously, POTUS did not do that.Just as obviously, though, BHO's direction to Hillary and Panetta to do what needs to be done was not uttered in a vacuum wrt to previous discussions and understandings.Just as obviously, for a President to say "nite, nite" under those circumstances is despicable and absurd.For Hill and him to REDUCE defenses in spite of CIA warnings is criminal.
Congress had cut the funding, for off site security, doug.Is budget cutting criminal?
Dire? The situation was not dire. Not for those still livingThe Ambassador and his security man, were already dead.The situation was not dire, until the CIA gunsel lasered the Libyan mortar crew, pinpointing his own location.This was hours after the assault on the compound was finished, when the employees had already been evacuated from the compound and were in the CIA annex building miles away.Or so the story was once told.
.Congress had cut the funding, for off site security, doug.Another stolid observation from the frontier, one with an obvious answer, "So What?"Once again, rat buys the BS he is fed by the Dems.State Department budgets and security priorities were not dictated as in sequestration. The priorities could be set by State and there is (or should be) no question that the security of U.S employees should be the number one priority set in any government agency. Beyond that DOS rules dictate that any facility that is designated hi-risk as were Tripoli and Benghazi have a minimum level of security a level that was not in place at either site. Under DOS rules Tripoli and Benghazi should have automatically have been prioritized higher than the Court of St. James when it came to security. Instead of funding a few flights around the world for Hillary or putting out cakes and coffee for visitors at our embassies the money could have been spent on security as State Department rules dictated.But if you want proof from direct, under oath, testimony look at that from Charlene Lamb, the person directly responsible for facilities security at State who while trying to defend the security situation in Libya when asked whether funding played a part in the FUBAR situation in Libya, responded, "No."There is no priority set at State or any other U.S. group more important than the security of their employees.Here is an article that kind of explains the overall budget situation regarding State and the priorities it does or does not set on security. It also points out Clinton's views on the subject.(Also, remember that the OIG at State has just begun its investigation of the ARB that Clinton appointed.)http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/24/budget-figures-challenge-clinton-claim-about-lack-funding-for-security/.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The situation was not dire, until the CIA gunsel lasered the Libyan mortar crew, pinpointing his own location.This was hours after the assault on the compound was finished, when the employees had already been evacuated from the compound and were in the CIA annex building miles away.Or so the story was once told.Really, who told that story, rat? While woods had the capability to laser targets, what made you think he did. He could see the targets from where he was. Likewise, his numerous requests for air support were denied. Why would he sit there lasering targets when no one would respond? I mean it's not like he had nothing else to do but play with his x-box. And what makes you think the lasering, had it happened, helped a bunch of rag heads armed with AK-47s, RPGs and mortars.If he could see them they could see him or at least the building he was sitting on top of. According to testimony, the first shell went long and the second short before they got the range and started hitting the building.What is the source you are citing? .
Tom Pickering...must be a dick. He wrote, at 80 years old, the whitewash report ordered up by Shillary.When he was Ambassador to El Salvador back in the day his protection was increased 300%.But he didn't criticize Shillary for leaving the folks in Benghazi defenseless.From Ollie North, who can come up with some interesting stuff, interviewed on Fox.At least two more whistleblowers in the wings, maybe more.
This country needs a Whistleblower Medal.
The attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers told TheBlaze Radio that he has more people who want to come forward to testify.Joseph diGenova, attorney for acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Counterterrorism Mark Thompson, did not specify how many new witnesses there were, but said they had been “on the ground” and “in the fight” during the September assault that left four Americans dead. Thompson was one of three whistleblowers who went before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.“We’ve been contacted by some people on the ground who were there, who were in the fight, who want to come forward but who fear if they do they will never get contract work with the agency again,” diGenova told TheBlaze Radio host Jay Severin on Thursday. “We are going to test the director of central intelligence’s word [that those who testify will not be penalized]. If these people decide they want to come forward, the first thing we’re going to do is go to the director’s office and say here they are, how are you going to protect them?”Hot Air
There is no protection for seditious traitors, boobie.Ask PFC Manning.
Perhaps you think Jonathon Pollard needs a medal, too?Traitors and spies, those are your kind of guys.
Goodmorning, Bunk.I see you are in your usual bottomland shit mood.
.There is no protection for seditious traitors, boobie.Ask PFC Manning.Once again the rat proves himself to be the Prince of the Sheeple.Anyone who objects to government policy is a traitor and a spy. Civilians working for the government have to do what they are told and not discuss it in public if it goes against the storyline put out by the top levels of government or they are seditious traitors. Straw men like Manning (a soldier) and Pollard (a spy) are drawn out and compared to civilians on the ground while events happened that want to tell their story, what some call whistleblowers but what I call patriots but what rat calls seditious traitors.Makes me want to puke..
This story is so hot that even Fox News (the only network covering it) broke away when one of the kidnapped girls returned home. :)It's going to be a loooooooong four years for you boyos.Oh wait, I forgot, double-dumb polling told you that one of your resident crazies is going to ride the "Benghazi bumfuck" all the way to the white house. Where he will repeal Obamacare, IQs higher than 50, non-grey skin, and all cars that get over 5 miles per gallon from the republic.:) you loons are a hoot.
Goodmorning, Rufus.Think of it this way, you would have survived the IQ cut.hahahahahardeharharhohoho
.Forget it Bob, the little general, like Panetta and Clapper before him will change the subject from four dead diplomats to the people involved should all be absolved because of the politics.What a maroon.Even Obama raised his concern (while visiting Comedy Central) to the level of saying, gosh, "If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal.Rufus on the other hand takes the Hillary Clinton approach, "What does it matter.".
.CIA agents in Benghazi twice asked for permission to help Ambassador Chris Stevens as bullets were flying and twice were told to 'stand down''If four Americans get killed, it's not OPTIMAL': Obama's extraordinary response to Comedy Central question about shifting story after Benghazi attack http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223747/CIA-agents-Benghazi-twice-asked-permission-help-Ambassador-Chris-Stevens-bullets-flying-twice-told-stand-down.html.