Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[Warph]

                     

President Obama: Apologizer-in-Chief


During Monday night's third and final presidential debate, President Barack Obama denied the charge by Republican nominee Mitt Romney that Obama had gone on a global "apology tour" after assuming office.

But a collection of clips of the president, assembled by the nonpartisan conservative group Young America's Foundation, undercuts Obama's denial.

                                         

Mar 8, 2012  Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) spoke on the House floor about the numerous frivolous and harmful apologies President Obama has made on behalf of the United States, while disregarding or even refusing to acknowledge some of the most important current events.

Heritage: The Foundry's Morning Bell - June 3, 2009 - Obama will continue apologizing for America's "mistakes" and bend over backward trying to explain that the United States is not a threat to Islam.  The President has already apologized for his country to nearly 3 billion people across Europe, the Muslim world, and the Americas.  His top ten apologies include:

10. Apology for Guantanamo in Washington: "There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. ... Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies."

9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA: "So don't be discouraged by what's happened in the last few weeks. Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes."

8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas: "Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."

7. Apology before the Turkish Parliament: "The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. ... Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans."

6. Apology for Guantanamo in France: "I don't believe that there is a contradiction between our security and our values. And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure."

5. Apology for the War on Terror: "Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. ... In other words, we went off course."

4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders: "I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we've made, that you're starting to see some restoration of America's standing in the world."

3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas: "While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. ... So I'm here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration. The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made."

2. Apology to the Muslim World: "We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."

1. Apology to France and Europe: "Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."

[Warph]

In all, this debate was largely a CBS (who already called the election for Obama) sponsored campaign appearance for Obama, with Romney allowed to speak and respond to certain issues, as long as he answered the directed question. In the meantime, Obama was allowed to ramble on endlessly about little girls, how great he was, or whatever he wanted, regardless of the question. Obama kept talking about his credibility, which if you follow the facts, he really doesn't have any.

The bias of moderator Bob Schieffer didn't take long to show up, as he interrupted Romney routinely, and didn't interrupt Obama at all. He also let Obama interrupt Romney multiple times without making any attempt to stop him or keep the event fair. Romney took the high road and talked when he was supposed to. He didn't interrupt a single Obama turn at a response.

In summary, Obama was for the most part petulant, disdainful, immature, condescending, insulting, and of course, dishonest about almost everything. However, his base seemed very impressed with this, because most of them are the same way: insolent, childish, spoiled brats who cry about life not being fair and that government should make it fair for them somehow.

Romney was much more mature, and although he stuttered too often trying to get all his points across, he deflected most of Obama's attacks, occasionally saying they were inaccurate, and "attacking me is not a plan." Other than that he focused on getting his big picture across, going into detail where necessary, and ignoring much of what Obama said. He must have had the intel beforehand that Obama was going to spend his time attacking things that Romney said.


Middle East.
Romney called Obama's first Middle East visit an apology tour, and pointed out that he visited Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, and several other countries, but not Israel, and that people noticed that. Obama denied it, but Romney countered by quoting that Obama said the US has been dismissive and derisive and dictated to other nations. But Romney said US does not dictate, we liberate.


Best answer of the day:
Question was: "what would you do if Israel calls on the phone and says their bombers were on the way?"
Romney said: let's not deal with that type of hypothetical question, because with my relationship with Israel, there would be no such phone call. That military operation would be planned out and discussed well in advance. No surprise phone call. Sheiffer was clearly dissatisfied with the answer to begin with, and kept trying to interrupt him to answer the foolish question.

Then, Obama's response came nowhere close to answering the question, instead referencing some emotional story of a little girl who lost her father that he remembered. The fact of the matter is that with Obama's relations with Israel, it is possible to get that surprise phone call, but Schieffer had no intention of interrupting him or reminding him of the question at hand.

Romney: 38 democrat senators asked Obama to ease the tensions with Israel and he did not. Editor's note: and Obama blew off Netanyahu to visit Letterman and the View instead.

Obama was completely condescending to Romney, saying at times, "I'm glad you agree with my policy on this matter," and trying to lecture him that sanctions and other actions are very meticulous and harder than Romney thinks.

Romney said: That he won't cut the military, and expressed disappointment at the navy's declining ships.


Most arrogant and condescending moment of the day:
Obama claimed that Romney hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works: We have less horses and bayonets. We have things called aircraft carriers that have planes landing on them. Ships that go under water nuclear submarines. (Marine tweeted to fox news that they still use bayonets).
Obama deflected the question of a nuclear Iran and brought up something about Romney investing in Chinese companies that did business with Iran.


Biggest threat to national security.
Obama: terrorist networks are the biggest threat. China is an adversary and we set up a trade commission to deal with cheaters. We need an even playing field. China was flooding us with cheap domestic tires, I mean Chinese tires. And we won a case about that which saved American jobs. Claims Romney disagreed with that and thought they were too tough on china.

Romney: greatest threat is a nuclear Iran. China wants a stable world because they have 20 million people coming out of the farms every year looking for the jobs. We don't have to be an adversary to china if they play by the rules. SecDef called $1 trillion cuts to military devastating. We need to make sure we're strong and have trade relations with china that are fair to us. Holding down the value of their currency artificially, holding down prices of their goods. They will be labeled a currency manipulator. They are stealing our technology and goods etc, and counterfeiting.

Obama said sequestration is not going to happen. (Hmmm... the Clown may know something we don't).

Sheiffer: will this language cause a trade war with china?
Romney: china's trade export is many more times than ours; they are the last one to want a trade war. Want to be partner with china.
Obama: Romney's right he knows about china because he invested in companies that relocate jobs to china.
Romney: attacking me is not a plan for foreign policy or getting more jobs in America.


Economy:
The economy came up time and again, even if it was a foreign policy debate. Romney, knowing that economics is his strong point and Obama's biggest weakness, took time to bring it up whenever possible. He said we have to be strong at home economically to be strong and respected abroad, and that he has the algorithm to get people working. He pointed to the record of Obama's failure again and said it will get worse with another 4 more years.

Obama's economic response was about hiring more teachers and education and claims he has a good record on that. Education and job retraining, all paid for by the taxpayer of course, is the key. And it's something that will take at least another 4 years to have any impact. Obama is smart enough to know that he can't run on his economic record, so pretended he hasn't been in charge. He still claims Romney's plan will increase deficit, as if he's worried about that since he almost tripled the deficit his first year in office.


Closing:
Obama shockingly blames everything on Bush, pretends he hasn't been in charge for 4 years, claims we made real progress in digging out of policies that got us in debt and caused two ongoing wars. Now Romney wants to return to these policies that didn't work.

Romney optimistic about future and excited about opportunities for success.
Two paths: obama's which is decline in take home pay, and doubling the national debt. Need to cut food stamps by getting people jobs where they don't need one. DC is broken but I can work with democrats and republicans to get it working again.


Fact checking.  
Status of force agreement.  There was an agreement, under Bush, and Obama wanted the minimum 5k but they wanted 20k.  Obama failed to get the agreement.  Romney supported higher force for Iraq which would have been agreed on.

It looks like Obama told a very low percentage of truths... so with those now famous words of Joe Wilson:

                         

[jarhead]

WARPH,
I would make a little wager with you. Several times during the debate Obama said something to the effect that his priority on the Libya terrorist attacks was to hunt down the perps and kill the SOB's (my description ). I'll bet ya a cold brew that with-in the next two weeks we will have a drone attack in Libya---might be an aspirin factory but it will be declared as we took out the low life scum bags.
I am still undecided (fibber ) on who I will vote for. Two weeks ago Linds Lohan endorsed Romney but now she is endorsing Obama---decisions, decisions !!

[Warph]

BOOM! Emails Show Obama Knew Islamic Group Took Credit for Benghazi Slaughter 2 HOURS INTO ATTACK – Before Ambassador's Body Discovered



Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, October 23, 2012

EMAIL TO WHITE HOUSE at 6:07 PM on 9-11:
"Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack"

This email was sent to State Department officials, White House officials, Secret Service officials at 6:07 PM EST on 9-11-2012.

This was at least the THIRD email sent to the White House the evening of 9-11 on the Benghazi attack.

Barack Obama was meeting with his security team in the Oval Office that evening.  The email clearly blamed Al-Qaeda linked group Ansar al-Sharia for the attack on the US consulate.  This was before the lifeless body of Ambassador Stevens was dragged from the consulate ruins.





Not optimal–
They knew the terror group behind the attack before the ambassador's body was found in the ruins.
They located Ambassador Stevens' body hours later at the hospital.

             
"Libyans dragged the body of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens out of the compound
after his murder." Al- Ahram: http://www.ahram.org.eg/World/News/170678.aspx


Here is Ambassador Christopher Stevens talking about his exciting work in Libya:

The Obama Administration KNEW an Al-Qaeda linked terror group took credit for the Benghazi attack before the ambassador's body was even discovered!

The State Department watched the attack in real time.

Yet, for weeks they said it was a protest!

Reuters reported, via Free Republic:

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

More... Greta Van Susteren reported that there were US troops in Italy about an hours flight away from Benghazi but they were never called in to help.[/font][/size]

[Warph]

Emails: White House Knew Libya Was a Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours

By Katie Pavlich
10/24/2012


The White House story line on Libya just keeps falling apart. Reuters got their hands on damning official emails showing the White House and State Department knew the attack on the U.S. consulate on 9/11 was a terrorist attack carried out by extremist groups linked to al Qaeda, within two hours. Previously, we found out through intelligence sources the White House knew within 24 hours the attack was in fact a terrorist attack, despite President Obama refusing to classify the attack as a terrorist attack until 14 days after it happened. For weeks, the White House and the State Department claimed the attack was a result of a YouTube video insulting Islam. This latest round of news further proves "the video" was used a distraction and clearly shows an effort by the White House to cover-up what really happened.


The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."

The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

Considering the State Department's Charlene Lamb testified before Congress that she watched the attack happen live, it makes sense they knew within two hours what kind of attack this was. As a refresher:


And a reminder of what President Obama said during the second presidential debate at Hofstra University in New York last week.


"The suggestion that anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive ... That's not what I do as president. That's not what I do as commander-in-chief."

It'll be interesting to see how White House Press Secretary Jay Carney spins the two hour news today.


UPDATE: Fox News is reporting the emails were sent to hundreds of national security officials.

Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation's top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.


(And then we get this spin from Carney)

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has just responded to the emails on board Air Force One:

"There were emails about all sorts of information that was coming available in the aftermath of the attack. The email you're referring to was an open source unclassified email referring to an assertion made on a social media site that everyone in this room had access to and knew about instantaneously. There was a variety of information coming in, the whole point of an intelligence community and what they do is to assess strands of information and make judgments about what happened and who was responsible and I would refer you to what we've already said about, and what the DNI has said about the initial assessments of the inelegant community and the fact that throughout this process I and others make very clear that our prelim assessments were preliminary, that an investigation was underway and as more facts became available, we would make the American people aware of them. Again this was an open source, unclassified email posting on a Facebook site.

I would also note, I think within a few hours that organization itself claimed that it had not been responsible. Neither should be taken as fact. That's why there's an invstigation underway."

[Warph]

Former Top Defense Official: If Your Ambassador Has Been Killed or Captured You Don't Ask "Mother May I" before You Cross the Border (Video)

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, October 24, 2012, 2:03 PM

US Officials said they NEEDED PERMISSION From Libyan Government for Overflights During the 9-11 Attacks–
Former Assistant Defense Secretary Bing West told America Live:

"For the United States military to say that they were 480 miles away and they couldn't do anything, and they couldn't move one aircraft in 8 hours? I'd say it's time to relieve a lot of people in the chain of command... If your ambassador has been either killed or captured, and is missing at the hands of terrorists, you do not ask any country for "Mother may I?" before you come across the border to save your own.'"

The US had troops in Sigonella, Italy – about an hour away.
The attack went on for at least four hours.


The Obama Administration stood by, they watched, and our people died.
Obama fiddled while Benghazi burned. President Obama sat on his thumbs as the Benghazi consulate burned.
FOX Nation reported, via Maggies Farm:

** White House officials watched the terror strike live by unmanned Predator drone
** White House knew Al-Qaeda linked group was behind terror strike at 6:07 PM EST on 9-11
** An estimated 300 to 400 'national security figures' received emails from Libya day of attack
** US Troops in Italy were not called in to rescue officials
** 200 attacks in Benghazi before 9-11
** The Obama Administration was concerned using troops from Italy would violate Libyan sovereignty
The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday.

"They stood, and they watched, and our people died," former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.

The network reported that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the hours-long siege on Sept. 11 — obtaining information that should have spurred swift action.

But as Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues were killed by terrorists armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Defense Department officials were too slow to send in the troops, Berntsen said.

"They made zero adjustments in this. You find a way to make this happen," he fumed.

"There isn't a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments."

The Pentagon said it moved a team of special operators from Central Europe to Sigonella, Italy — about an hour flight from Libya — but gave no other details.

Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network.

[Warph]

The Liar President

By Peter Ferrara on 10.24.12 @ 6:08AM

Yet there he was, telling the world Mr. Romney's pants were on fire.

Dorothy Rabinowitz, one of the best writers of our time, encapsulated the Obama Presidency perfectly in Monday's Wall Street Journal. She wrote:

In the 1967 film "A Guide for the Married Man," a husband, played by a peerless Walter Matthau, is given lessons in ways to cheat on his wife safely: "Deny! Deny! Deny!" -- no matter what. In an instructive scene, he's shown a wife undone by shock, and screaming, with good reason: She has just walked in on her husband making love to a glamorous stranger. "What are you doing," she wails, "who is that woman?" "What woman, where?" the husband serenely counters, as he and the tart in question get out of bed and calmly dress.

So the scene proceeds, with the distraught wife pointing to the woman she clearly sees before her, while her husband, unruffled, continues to look blankly at her, asking, "What woman?" Confused by her spouse's unblinking assurance, she gives up. Two minutes later she's asking him what he'd like for dinner.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443684104578067041987322754.html?KEYWORDS=walter+matthau

That is the Obama White House communications strategy exactly. I don't want to call the President a liar. I have used the term "Calculated Deception" many times before to describe it. But now it has come to the point where history will remember him as "the Liar President." That is not my fault. I am only discussing reality.

Dereliction of Duty

We can see this in the debates. In the second debate, he told the American people with a straight face that he had confessed the very next day in the Rose Garden that the murder of the Libyan ambassador and four other Americans in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Obama told the American people, with his straight Walther Matthau face, "The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."

But the truth is that the State Department, the CIA, and the White House itself all had access to real time video of exactly what happened. No doubt as word spread as to what was happening, the top levels of the Administration all tuned into the events, watching them all unfold in real time. So why is he telling us in the debate that "we are going to find out exactly what happened?" Intelligence made a full report within 24 hours.

An incredulous Mitt Romney exclaimed, "I think [it's] interesting the President just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said this was an act of terror." "That's what I said," Obama lied in response. Romney seeing the discrepancy with reality, noted "I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror." Obama replied, "Get the transcript."

Then, as if in a pre-arranged ambush, the supposed moderator "Candy" Crowley piped up and said to Romney "He did in fact, sir." To further demonstrate his mastery over the Democrat party-controlled media, Obama ordered live in the debate for every American to see, "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" Crowley stood at attention and reported "He did call it an act of terror."

The reason this was so obviously pre-arranged is that the transcript in fact does not back up what Obama fantasized and Crowley "reported." The transcript shows Obama mentioned terrorism in regard to 9/11, not Benghazi. Talk about calculated deception!

It took Romney alone among the three to correct the record, saying, "The Administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.... It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group."

Obama interrupted, appealing for a further bailout, by his plant, "Candy?" But Romney cut off his interruption, "Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how this was a spontaneous..." But Obama interrupted again to appeal for help, "Candy, I'm happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy." Crowley took her cue again, "I know you, absolutely, but I want to move you on...." For the first time honestly, a relieved Obama said, "OK. I'm happy to do that too."

We all saw for 14 days with our own eyes not only Obama but his whole Administration perpetuating the fairy tale that the Benghazi murders were all due to some amateur 14 minute film trailer on YouTube, just as Matthau's wife in the movie saw him in bed with another woman. We saw Obama's UN Ambassador Susan Rice repeat this myth on five Sunday talk shows almost a week after the event. We saw Obama at the UN telling the whole world that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a previously unknown amateur video.

Obama continued his prevarication on this tragedy in the third debate Monday, saying about the Benghazi murders, "With respect to Libya, as I indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, we did everything we could to secure those Americans still in harm's way...." We could use the White House phone logs on that one. Because while the attack that culminated in the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens went on for hours, the U.S. Air Force was just one hour flight time away, in Sicily. But it was apparently too much to rouse them for a rescue, attacking and scattering the terrorist attackers.

Moreover, whatever President Obama did order in response, it was not only way too little, but way too late, because the Administration had been receiving requests from the Ambassador for additional security in an increasingly dangerous environment since February. But the requests were denied. Even on the anniversary of 9/11, when the heightened danger should have been obvious, no additional security was provided. Obama and the liberal softies in his Administration did not want to offend Muslim sensibilities with additional show of force. That is why the American guards were denied even ammunition for their guns, and the Administration was relying on Libyan security, even when Ambassador Stevens had reported that government security forces were outmanned and outgunned by the Islamist extremists.

Ambassador Stevens and the Marines and other American personnel killed with him volunteered to serve their country. They did not volunteer to be abandoned and murdered. President Obama's failure to provide the requested security, or roust available U.S. forces for a rescue, can only be described as dereliction of duty.

Unilateral Disarmament

In Monday's debate, President Obama says that Governor Romney "wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military's not asking for." But the leaders of the military he is talking about serve at his pleasure, or may even have been appointed by him.

Romney again corrected the record, saying the under Obama's defense policies our Navy will be "smaller than any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now down to 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through with sequestration." Moreover, under Obama's policies our Air Force will be "older and smaller than any time since it was founded in 1947." In addition, "Since FDR...we've always had the strategy of saying we could fight in two conflicts at once. Now we're changing to one conflict." The problem with only being able to fight in one conflict at a time is that once America is embroiled in a conflict, it is vulnerable to attack on a second front from anyone else. That is why that policy has not been followed since America became a superpower.

But Obama countered:
You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities.

Notice that Obama here did not deny that our Navy under his policies is down to the lowest level since 1916. But he fails to see that Navy ships do not hold the status in today's military of horses and bayonets. Under his policies, moreover, we will have fewer aircraft carriers as well.

The military does not want any more ships than we had in 1916? That is not what both of Obama's Secretaries of Defense have said. They both said that Obama's defense cuts would be devastating to our nation's defenses. That goes for an Air Force that is older and smaller than at any time since our Air Force was founded in 1947.

But even more scary is President Obama's plans for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Most people do not know that President Obama has asked the Pentagon for plans to cut America's remaining nuclear deterrent by up to 80%. I say remaining because that is from what is left after President Obama's disastrous nuclear arms treaty with Russia last year.

Obama is the one who is stuck in a Cold War mentality, still negotiating arms deals with the Russians as if we were still in a bipolar world. Under Obama's New Start Treaty with Russia, America's nuclear forces are slashed to 1500 warheads, with essentially no cuts from Russia in return, because after the Soviet Union's collapse and disintegration, it cannot maintain nuclear forces even close to the limits allowed. What was smart about that? Another cut of 80% would reduce total warheads to 300, little more than Great Britain.

But that is in a context where Russia is not the only potential foe that we must deter. China is rapidly developing a more modern nuclear force. Proliferation is spreading from Pakistan to North Korea to Iran. Once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, we can expect Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and probably Egypt will as well. Even Russia is rapidly modernizing a threatening nuclear force.

Moreover, with just 300 warheads left, are we enticing a first strike to remove the remaining nuclear assets? Our nuclear strategy has always been based on the Triad concept, with nuclear forces on land on missiles, at sea on ships, and in the air through aircraft bombers. But just 300 warheads can be deployed on just 30 missiles with modern, multiple warhead technology.

Reagan gave us Peace through Strength. War threatens America with War through Weakness. Indeed, what exactly did Obama mean when he told former Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev to tell Russian strongman Vladimir Putin that he would have more flexibility after the election? Is that why Putin has endorsed Obama for re-election?

You Didn't Build That

In the debates, Obama has repeatedly bragged that under his leadership America has increased production of oil and natural gas to record levels, while "we've cut our oil imports to the lowest level in two decades." But Romney pointed out that the oil and gas production gains had nothing to do with Obama's energy policies, which had aimed at just the opposite results. Those gains all came on state and local lands, where Obama's policies could not stop them.

Romney charged in the second debate, "In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal lands and waters in half." "Not true Governor Romney. The production is up," Obama replied. Romney responded, "Production on government land of oil is down 14%, and production of gas is down 9%." Romney here was just citing accurately official U.S. government statistics from Obama's own Administration. But that did not stop Obama from saying in response, before the whole nation, "What you're saying is just not true. It's just not true."

What else can be said about this dishonorable display of dishonesty before the American people, other than that Obama is The Liar President. As the Wall Street Journal said on October 18:

The problem for the President is that a government outfit called the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) compiles these statistics. That's where Romney got his accurate figures on oil and gas production on government land and permitting in Obama's first term. The EIA also reports that total fossil fuel production in public areas -- oil, gas and coal -- has plunged to a nine year low, to 18.6 quadrillion BTUs, from 21.2 quadrillion in 2003.

The real problem is not President Obama. It is his supporters and contributors who are willing to blindly support this dishonesty, after four years of accelerating decline and failure, which will only continue in the second term. Obama is Marxist royalty by heritage, born and bred. Check the public record. Under his leadership, the Democrat party has become a Marxist party as well. Is that what a majority of Americans want? Despite the lies, so well supported by the Democrat-controlled media, the American people seem to be waking from their dangerous slumber.

[Warph]

Obama Knew

By Jeffrey Lord on 10.25.12 @ 6:11AM


Did ideological soft spot for Sharia keep U.S government from protecting Benghazi consulate?

Obama knew.

Say again, Obama knew.

So. The question.

If what happened in Benghazi wasn't incompetence -- was it ideology?

Did Sharia kill Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, and two Navy SEALs?

And is Hillary Clinton's insistence yesterday that the leaked State Department e-mails were "not evidence" yet more evidence that indicates the Obama White House not only knew what was going on but deliberately turned a blind eye to Benghazi because of that ideology?

Specifically, did an ideological soft spot for Sharia -- Obama's name is being used by his step-grandmother to raise funds to educate kids in Sharia -- blind the U.S. government to the threat posed by Ansar Al-Sharia? A group whose objective, says its Libyan leader, is to "impose Sharia" on Libya.

A group whose namesake in Yemen is a subsidiary of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula ("AQAP" in State Department language). It was, recall, Obama himself who first dismissed the so-called "Underwear Bomber" as an "isolated extremist." Finally the administration was forced to admit that AQAP was responsible for "the December 25, 2009 attempted attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan."

First, the e-mails.

In a stunning leak (and as this is written the leaks discussed below are expanding, with more gushing forth), Fox News producer Chad Pergram has discovered one of the biggest stories of the fall campaign:

A series of internal State Department emails obtained by Fox News shows that officials reported within hours of last month's deadly consulate attack in Libya that Al Qaeda-tied group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility.

Catch that phrase? The Obama Administration knew specifically "within hours" that the attack on the Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack and that, per one e-mail, "Ansar Al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack." (Note: interestingly, both Reuters and CBS ran this story -- standing out from their mainstream media fellows.)

The State Department through its Operations Center quickly copied the "White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence."

What specifically was said in the three e-mails, marked "SBU" for "Sensitive But Unclassified"?

Here's the text of e-mail Number One:
Subject: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU).

The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

The operations Center will provide updates as available.


And Number Two:
Subject: Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)

(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.

And next and last:
Subject: Update 2: Ansar Al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)

(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.

The e-mails are time and date stamped respectively at "4:05 PM" "4:54 PM" and "6:07 PM" on September 11, 2012, all Washington time.

For fourteen days after this the Obama Administration insisted this attack was all about an Internet video.

Fox producer Pergram correctly notes that on September 18 -- seven days later -- White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was saying :

"Based on information that we -- our initial information ... we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video." Carney went on to say "that is what we know" based on "concrete evidence, not supposition."

In short, these e-mails make Carney and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, whom Carney was vociferously defending, into bald-face (or is that red-faced?) liars.

Even more troubling, they make Vice President Joe Biden's claim in his debate with Congressman Paul Ryan that "we said exactly what the intelligence community told us" to be another outright untruth. The e-mails from that very intelligence community show specifically that the White House was told almost immediately of Ansar Al-Sharia that "the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

The "initial information" (to use Jay Carney's words) pouring into the State Department -- which was then handed on to the White House itself -- had no mention whatsoever of an Internet video and a quite specific reference to the Al-Qaeda terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia.

And Ansar al-Sharia in Libya? Who are they?

According to Mohammad Ali al-Zahawi, the self-styled "Commander of Ansar al-Sharia" his group -- admirers of Al-Qaeda -- is all about doing "battle with the liberals, the secularists and the remnants of Gaddafi." The terms "liberals" and "secularists" of course mean Americans and Westerners. In June the British ambassador to Libya, Dominic Asquith, was attacked as his convoy moved through the city. The British Ambassador survived but two bodyguards were injured.

Why is Ansar al-Sharia fighting this battle? As its name indicates, and in the words of its leader: "Our brave youths will continue their struggle until they impose Sharia."

Impose Sharia.

Now. Let's connect some dots. Facts.

The first two facts:

• The Obama White House, through e-mails from its own State Department, knew for a fact that, in the words of the e-mail, "Ansar Al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)."

• It knew what Ansar Al-Sharia was all about -- to "impose Sharia," in the words of Ansar Al-Sharia's "Commander" Mohammad Ali al-Zahawi.

And then this third fact.

Remember the story about Obama's Granny Sarah? This one? In which we told you about Walid and Theodore Shoebat's discovery that Granny Sarah, Cousin Musa Obama, and their family were using Western contributions and soliciting others? Through a television interview on Al-Jazeera in which the President's Cousin Musa happily discussed the ways the President's name was being used to fund educations in Sharia for poor kids? Getting gobs of favorable publicity from groups as varied as the International Reporting Project (in which New York Times editor Jill Abramson plays a key role), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, Greenpeace and even the Catholic Relief Services?

Remember this exchange between Cousin Musa and the Al Jazeera interviewer?


Q. So then you open opportunities for other universities? Do all these scholarships involve studying Arabic and Sharia?

A. Uuu...hhh the majority of course is Sharia schools because I have strong connections and relationships with primarily Sharia institutions.

So the obvious question.

Let's assume for a moment that the reason for this debacle in Benghazi was not incompetence.

For the "intelligence community" (to use Vice President Biden's words from his debate) to be specifically monitoring Facebook and Twitter for Ansar Al-Sharia means the Obama Administration well knew Ansar Al-Sharia was out and about in Benghazi. Yet somehow it didn't see a threat coming on, of all dates, September 11?

What other reason could possibly have caused the U.S. government to act the way it did? To be blind as a bat about the intentions of a radical Islamic group openly dedicated to doing "battle with the liberals, the secularists ..." (i.e., Americans and Westerners), all in the cause to "impose Sharia."

This is, after all, a president who has repeatedly gone out of his way to send a signal to Islamic radicals that he would, as he said in his Cairo University address, "consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

This is a president who blithely said just the other week at the United Nations that Arab youths were "rejecting the lie that... some religions... do not desire democracy." The lie, of course, is that Sharia -- the very Sharia promoted by his own family with his silent acquiescence as well as by Ansar Al-Sharia in Libya (not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) does in fact strenuously reject democracy other than as a means of getting power. Once that power is obtained, free elections vanish and, to borrow from Churchill, the Iron Veil descends.

This is the very same president who brushed off the idea that the Detroit Underwear Bomber was part of some Al Qaeda plot but rather was just an "isolated extremist."

Not to mention that the Obama administration persists to this moment in saying the Fort Hood shootings were nothing more than "work place violence."

With all of that -- and more -- characterizing Obama's approach to Islamic terror, it's no surprise the mainstream media would not report these e-mails.

With multiples of good reasons. Whether incompetence, simple lying, or ideology, none of this is helpful to a far-left hero struggling mightily to get re-elected. Not to mention that the ideology issue is beyond thorny.

Obama has never held a press conference to disavow Granny Sarah -- as he did with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Nor has he publicly asked her to stop using the President of the United States as fund-raising bait to raise money for what is, in effect, the exact same objective as Ansar Al-Sharia as expressed by Mohammad Ali al-Zahawi.

That objective?

Creating more Sharia fanatics whose sole belief is about imposing Sharia -- everywhere. For all we know some Granny Obama-funded Sharia acolyte could one day well turn up in yet another attack on Americans just like the attack in Benghazi.

Which is to say that in the world of leftist ideology that Barack Obama is using to run the White House, the State Department, and all the rest of the U.S. government, to consider Ansar Al-Sharia a threat of any kind would be an insult. Divisive. Deliberately egging on what the Obama administration likes to call a "man caused disaster" -- formerly known as Islamic terrorism.

What these leaked State Department e-mails are doing is raising the obvious point about Obama and Benghazi.

If Benghazi is not about incompetence or lying -- it's worse.

It's about a U.S. government that is at its highest levels in some fashion simpatico with a totalitarian ideology.

That ideology is Sharia.

And whether they wish to admit it or not -- these e-mails show exactly what Obama is loath to admit.

Who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens?

Sharia killed Ambassador Chris Stevens.

[Warph]

       

What The Debates Taught Us

By Victor Davis Hanson
10/25/2012

The president of the United States in the last debate chose to go on the attack against his challenger, Mitt Romney -- and once again largely failed to convince the American people that he was the more presidential alternative.

But how did the once-messianic incumbent find himself in this fix of playing the catch-up role of a bar-room-brawling challenger rather than a calm and confident president? Despite running ahead in the polls for most of the year, Barack Obama has rarely achieved a 50 percent favorability rating, largely because of four years of dismal economic news. Obama himself had warned us four years ago that if he didn't restore prosperity, he would be a one-term president -- and the debates taught us that he was probably right.

Promises about halving the annual deficit, getting unemployment below 6 percent and increasing middle-class incomes were never met. The recent unrest in the Middle East and the killing of an American ambassador and three other Americans in Libya did not help convince anyone that Obama's foreign policy was so successful that they could afford to overlook an anemic economy.

Yet the American people always wanted a viable alternative before they admitted their mistake and dumped a president whom they had voted in with such adulation in 2008. Obama sensed that hesitancy, and so he spent nearly $1 billion in a largely negative campaign to convince voters that Romney was insensitive to women, callous to the poor and, in general, a heartless, out-of-touch capitalist. The implicit message was that even if Obama's first term had not worked out as promised, Romney would nevertheless be even worse. The lesser of two evils, not a successful four years, had replaced hope and change this time around.

But after three debates, voters at last got to know Romney. What they saw and heard was quite different from the villain of the attack ads. In the first encounter, even the pro-Obama media came away shocked that the supposedly aristocratic Romney proved more personable -- and more knowledgeable -- than the listless Obama. The president showed up as if the entire debate were a tedious chore -- as if Romney could not possibly win the debate, and even if he did, it would have no effect on the media or on Obama's steady lead in the polls.

Instead, Obama's terrible 90 minutes set off a chain reaction, eroding the president's lead in the critical swing states. In the fireworks of the second debate, with its town-hall format, Obama came out fiery and accusatory, and pulled off a tie or narrow victory based on his sheer aggression -- or on the fact that he at least had improved upon his first losing debate performance.

The trick for Obama in the second outing was to show Americans that the first debate had been a freakish anomaly -- and Romney really was the caricature that had been depicted during months of negative ads. Yet if Obama won tactically, he lost strategically through his combative demeanor and the very fact that Romney was not only still standing after three cumulative hours of head-to-head jousting, but gaining even more ground in the polls.

This week, the third and final debate offered Obama a last opportunity to convince the American people that at least on matters of foreign policy, Romney was either dangerous or ill-informed. That challenge also ensured that Obama would have to crowd into the final 90 minutes near-constant attacks to crack the calm Romney facade. Even or ahead in the polls, all Romney had to do in response was for a third time keep acting presidential and prove that his earlier displays of composure and competence were no flukes -- a no-brainer strategy clear to anyone who had followed the first two debates.

That is precisely what Romney pulled off. As in the second debate, Obama might have done well enough to come away with a tie or even a narrow win on points, but he probably didn't fare well enough to reverse his slide in the polls. If Obama sought to shatter Romney's image as a compassionate and competent captain of industry, he more likely damaged his own once carefully crafted image as a nice guy.

So what did we learn from nearly five hours of verbal gymnastics?

The image of competency and composure that Romney projected in the first debate was not altered by the second and has been confirmed by the third.

Presidential debates really do matter, and a few hours of engagement with Romney may have cost Obama what he had tried to ensure through six months of attack-dog campaigning. And so in the last 10 days of the campaign, Obama will have to return to negative advertising -- a last hope to achieve through personal attacks what he couldn't accomplish through public persuasion.

If voters conclude that Obama is desperate to demonize Romney in a way he could not in the fair match of the public debates, then Obama will probably lose the election.

[Warph]

EVEN BILL CLINTON WANTS OBAMA OUTTA OFFICE!!!
   
ED KLEIN: BILL CLINTON 'URGING' HILLARY TO RELEASE BENGHAZI DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD 'EXONERATE' HER, DESTROY OBAMA'S RE-ELECTION HOPES

Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:44 am   By   Jason Howert, The Blaze

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered additional security for the U.S. mission in Benghazi ahead of the terrorist attack but the orders were never carried out, according to "legal counsel" to Clinton who spoke to best-selling author Ed Klein. Those same sources also say former President Bill Clinton has been "urging" his wife to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya... which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

Appearing on TheBlazeTV's "Wilkow!" on Wednesday night, Klein told host Andrew Wilkow that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been having "big fights" for "two or three weeks" about the issue, according to his two sources on Clinton's legal counsel. While Bill Clinton wishes his wife would "exonerate" herself by releasing the documents that show she wasn't at fault for the tragic security failure in Libya, the secretary of state refuses to do so because she doesn't want to be viewed as a traitor to the Democratic party...

AND THIS FROM THE DAILY CALLER:
     
With tensions between President Obama and the Clintons at a new high, former President Bill Clinton is moving fast to develop a contingency plan for how his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, should react if Obama attempts to tie the Benghazi fiasco around her neck, according to author Ed Klein.

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, Klein said sources close to the Clintons tell him that Bill Clinton has assembled an informal legal team to discuss how the Secretary of State should deal with the issue of being blamed for not preventing the Benghazi terrorist attack last month.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters during a press conference Friday that responsibility for the consulate in Libya fell on the State Department, not the White House.

OH, OH... BUBBA AIN'T HAPPY!