Posts Tagged ‘Libya’

Benghazi Chapter 2: Generals, Timeliness, and Sex Under the Desk

November 12, 2012 1 comment

If you thought Benghazi was weird before, then you should probably sit down.  Before the election, all we knew about Benghazi was that four Americans were killed over a seven hour period, during an attack by a group of heavily armed protestors, and that the remaining facts were still unclear.  Of course, the conspiracy nuts out there thought the whole “we’re looking into it” thing was simply an effort by the Administration to stonewall until after the election.  Fools.  Well, my sources are telling me that Barry was actually telling the truth when he said he didn’t know much about the attack.   See, what happened is, he DVR’d the live feed of the attack so he could watch it later without commercials, but became too busy with the whole election thing to see it.

Just kidding.  I don’t have any sources, and Barry would never DVR an attack on Americans…unless it was to watch “Nashville,” which conveniently aired on September 12.

Barry LUVS country music.

Now that the election is over, however, hold on to your hat!  First, during the weekly Friday night document dump, the Pentagon released a timeline revealing that it took more than 19 hours for any military assets to arrive in Libya.

But there have been persistent questions about whether the Pentagon should have moved more rapidly to get troops into Libya or had units closer to the area as the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America approached. In particular, there was at least a 19-hour gap between the time when Panetta first ordered military units to prepare to deploy – between midnight and 2 a.m. local time in Tripoli – and the time a Marine anti-terrorism team landed in Tripoli, which as just before 9 p.m.

Why?  According to Pentagon chief Leon Panetta, the situation was “murky.”  It’s hard to believe that it was 19 hours murky, however, considering the consulate had notified the State Dept. about an expected attack three hours before it started, and that everyone, including the White House, was notified of the attack only 20-30 minutes after it began.  In other words, we still don’t know why it took everyone so friggin’ long to respond to the attack.

Also on Friday, we all learned that CIA Director General David Petraeus was resigning his position, effective immediately, because of an extramarital affair he had with his biographer.  The Administration, and its surrogates in the media, have obviously claimed the timing of the resignation has nothing to do with Benghazi or the fact that Patraeus was scheduled to testify before Congress this week.  The resignation follows the “retirement” of our head guy in Northern Africa (which is where Libya is located on the map. #geographybee).  General Carter Ham reportedly redirected an unarmed drone to the scene just 17 minutes after the attack began, and allegedly objected to orders to “stand down” after the first reports of the attack came in.

According to the FBI, however, the govt. already knew about Petraeus’s indiscretions from affair-related emails discovered this last summer.  So why did the resignation happen now?  It’s clear that the White House has been pointing its finger at the CIA since Benghazi hit the papers.  Is Petraeus the fall guy?  Or could it be that Petraeus leaked secrets to his mistress, which we all found out about when she gave a speech at the University of Denver on October 26.

‘I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex had actually  had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner. And they think that the  attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back,’ Broadwell declared during the speech, at the University of Denver.

The CIA denied the existence of the alleged prison in Benghazi, but that’s to be expected.  Still though, was the resignation forced as a result of the speech, thus making its timing just a coincidence with Petraeus’s upcoming Benghazi testimony, or is it just a cover?

Why was the FBI investigating the head of the CIA in the first place?  It is being claimed that the FBI got involved when the mistress sent threatening emails to some random woman named Jill Kelley, and Kelley went to the FBI.  During its investigation, the feds apparently found the scandalous emails between the mistress and Petraeus.  I bet I couldn’t get the FBI to investigate the threatening emails I receive on a daily basis.  Just sayin’.

This whole thing is really weird, and is only going to get weirder.  Closing quote by the mistress’s father:

He told the Daily News: ‘This is about something else  entirely, and the truth will come out.’

Don’t bet on it.


Fox News has a source confirming the mistress’s story:

A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan  militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was  being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and  annex that night.

According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there  were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners  from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this  location.

I wonder if they were water-boarded.  That would be awesome.


Stuff that’s been going down.

October 29, 2012 4 comments

Well, apparently it’s going to be raining in New York for the next several days.  Atlantic City is already underwater, or so the media reports.  While some are quite concerned about Sandy, I view it as an opportunity to clean out some of the trash that resides in the Northeast.

Like this guy.

Don’t worry about me though.  I’m ready for Sandy.  Any potential looters should be on notice that I am bitterly clinging to my guns and God.  And Sparky’s riding shotgun.


Lots of interesting things happened over the weekend…some sad, some not so sad.  One sad thing that happened was the Tigers forgot they needed to score runs in order to win at baseball.  The second thing is a combination of happy and sad.  I went to Benihana on Saturday night to celebrate one of my kid’s birthdays.  Hibachi always makes me happy because I get to drink a comically large beer while watching some guy in a big hat make a train out of an onion.  Friggin’ genius, that is.  It was also sad though, because said guy did not let me catch a shrimp in my mouth.  See, I’m really awesome at catching stuff in my mouth, and I lost out on the opportunity to totally impress my wife and give her another reason to be proud of me.

What else….oh yeah, there was this Catholic Bishop in Green Bay, WI, who wrote a letter to his parisioners about the upcoming election.  In it, he advised his flock that one’s religious beliefs should actually impact one’s life outside of church.  Novel concept, I know.  As a result, the Bishop recommended that voting for a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-gay marriage candidate should probably not be done, since all three positions are in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches.  The only reason this is news is because Catholics have an inexplicable history of voting for baby killers liberals.

And let’s not forget about the dumpster fire that is Benghazi.  On Saturday, Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer told Fox News that he has sources in the military that told him Obama watched the entire attack go down via live feed from a drone flying over the scene.  No word on whether Barry had butter on his popcorn though.  Yes, my many liberal readers, I can hear you now: “Oh, but that’s Fox News.  You can’t believe them.”  Well, usually I would attempt to corroborate their reporting with “objective” media outlets, except that hasn’t been possible in this case.

And then there’s the report going around the interwebs about General Carter Ham, commander of the U.S. Africa Command, being forcefully retired because he attempted to disobey orders and send military assistance to Benghazi.  By now you know that everybody and their mother received real-time emails from a CIA outpost that an attack was taking place, and when some Navy Seals attempted to go and help, they were repeatedly told to stand down.  Of course, the Seals went anyway, and saved approximately 30 people before being blown up by terrorists after seven hours of fighting.  The new rumor is that Gen. Ham, who was in a position to provide assistance, was fired when he attempted to do something other than complain about running out of Goobers.  These may just be rumors, but it is a strange coincidence that he would “retire” at this specific point in history.

Of course, the best person to ask about what happened in Benghazi on September 11 would be the Commander in Chief.  He’s too busy “bringing folks to justice” to take questions though.  Exit quote:

Ultimately, as commander in chief, I’m responsible, and I don’t shy away from that responsibility. My number one responsibility is to go after folks who did this and we’re going to make sure that we get them. I’ve got a pretty good track record doing that.

In other words, the Prez is responsible.  The buck stops with him.  And at some point, long after the election, he’ll let everyone know that there was a serious communication breakdown somewhere, that absolutely positively did not involve him, and it will never happen again.  But please don’t ask him about it right now, because he’s busy.  Why don’t we all just do him a favor, and remove the heavy burden of being president from his shoulders.  After that, he’ll no longer have to go through the strain of dodging questions.

Should Obama be Impeached?

October 24, 2012 4 comments

More information about the Benghazi incident is coming out everyday.  Of course, the source of the information isn’t the White House, which is continue to stonewall.  It’s been obvious for weeks that the Administration is trying to run out the clock on the murder of four U.S. citizens, which includes an Ambassador, until after the election.  If information concerning the incident continues to move towards its logical conclusion, however, the election may not matter.

We already know that our Ambassador was attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 of this year.  We also know that the attack took place at a “safe house” where Ambassador Stevens was meeting with a diplomat from Turkey.  We still don’t know why they were meeting, however.  We also know that Stevens requested additional security from the State Dept. several times, and was ignored.  Since the attack, the Administration has been regularly changing its story as to who knew what, and when.  Things are starting to become clearer though, and the White House is beginning to look complicit in the murders.

Today we learned that the White House was receiving continuous emails concerning the attack, the first one coming only 20-30 minutes after the attack began.  Also, the White House knew, as soon as two hours after the attack, that an Islamic terrist group, Ansar al-Sharia, was to blame.  It should be noted that Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen is considered to be an affiliate of Al Qaeda; no word on whether Ansar al-Sharia in Libya is such an affiliate (although if it isn’t, it may want to come up with a new name).  All of this information comes from emails leaked to Reuters.  As everyone knows by now, the White House first called the attack a spontaneous outburst resulting from some Youtube video that nobody saw.  This story continued while, at the very same time, the State Dept. reported it was a terrorist attack.

Now, one would think the alleged failure of Hillary Clinton to tell her boss, the President of the United States, that terrorists murdered a U.S. Ambassador would be an important issue to Americans.  On the other hand, when one’s presidency has been filled with incompetency, the failure to effectively communicate with staff doesn’t necessarily amount to a “holy crap” moment.  Either way, Libya does not seem to be impacting the President’s poll numbers much.  Now that we have the emails, however, the “failure to communicate” theory has been replaced with an active cover-up.

Why cover it up?  I believe it becomes obvious the longer this plays out.  This is from the Reuters article linked above:

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.’

Yes, you read that right: an email was sent advising the reader of the attack only 20-30 minutes after it started.  Keep in mind, the attack last several hours.  Who received the email?

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from  copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.

Yep, it went to the White House.  Where was the President?  This was his “3:00 a.m. phone call,” and by all accounts, it seems like he hit the snooze.

And it gets worse.  This isn’t just about the Prez lying to us about knowing it was a terrorist attack almost immediately.  We had an unmanned drone flying over the attack as it was happening.  In other words, we were watching it happen.  If a drone can get there, why can’t our military?

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.


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.

So let’s review.  Not only did the White House absolutely know about the attack, as it was going on, it did nothing to protect our people.  This isn’t incompetence, or a failure to communicate.  This was purposeful inaction on the part of our Commander in Chief.  And not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but it sure looks like the White House was pretty okay with Ambassador Stevens being killed on September 11.  Why?  As we said earlier, we still don’t know why Ambassador Stevens was meeting with a Turkish delegate in a safe house in Benghazi; although we do know that heavy weapons are being shipped to Syrian rebels through Turkey.  We also know that Stevens was instrumental in running guns to Libyan rebels during the whole “let’s overthrow the government” thing.  We also know that some of the “rebels” who we were shipping guns to were members of Al Qaeda.

What does all of this look like to me (as well as others)?  Stevens, and three other Americans were killed by a group of terrorists that America armed, and it all went down with the President looking on.  Why did he do nothing?  We still don’t know.  But we will.  The biggest mistake the President made in all of this was blaming the CIA for bad intel.  Information will continue to leak out, and we’ll eventually have the full picture.  You won’t be able to ask Barry about it though, because he’ll be on The View, talking about Big Bird.

Things I Learned Last Night

October 17, 2012 1 comment

I split-screened the Tigers-Yankees game and the presidential debate last night.  Actually, I had the debate on t.v. with the game on the computer.  I did the best I could to keep up with both, but with Verlander being Verlander, there wasn’t a whole lot going on in the game.  Here’s a list of the things I learned last night:

1.  Justin Verlander is a stud, and obviously worthy of Kate Upton’s love and affection.  Tigers one win away from World Series.

They will give birth to many top-heavy Cy Young winners.

2.  Gas prices are low when the country is about to go into a horrible recession.  Prices are apparently 100% higher when the economy is still terrible.  If you don’t understand this, it’s because you’re stupid.  Obviously.

3.  Barry hasn’t actually been our president for the past four years.  It’s been Congress…or Hilary Clinton…or maybe the CIA.  Except for that whole killing Bin Laden thing.  That was all Barry.

4.  Barry has a fantastic economic plan that, while entirely devoid of details, is way better than Mittens’.

5.  Barry definitely used the word “terror” the day after four Americans were killed in Libya.  While it wasn’t used in the context of actual terrorism in Libya, it is possible he was referring to Sharktopus.

aka Candy Crowly

6.  Mittens has a binder full of women.

7.  Automatic weapons should be illegal in America.  They’re ok in Mexico.

8.  Barry’s private answer on why his administration failed to provide adequate security for our embassy in Libya was apparently better than his public answer, says the guy who asked the question:

Obama’s retail politics left an impression on Ladka: ‘I appreciate his private answer more than his public answer,’ he says.

9.    Rich people suck , and they should be taxed more.

10.  Mittens stared into the soul of the kid asking the first question.  No, seriously,

‘Mitt Romney’s first answer — I felt like he was staring into my soul, just right through me, when he was asking me the question.’

11.  Barry raged against the alleged Gender Pay Inequality Machine with the Lilly Ledbetter Act.  This resulted in absolutely no change in the alleged inequality.

12.  Barry’s love and respect for his single mother has lead to him paying female employees less than male employees at the White House.

13.  People who are threatening to assassinate Mittens if he wins like to leave a papertrail for the Feds.

14.  Mittens has more money in his pension than Barry does, and spends more time looking at it…just like this guy:

15.  Barry’s economic plan is not built on government creating jobs.

16.  Barry’s “jobs bill” involves taking tax-payer money and giving it to govt. agencies to hire people.

17.  Barry kept his promise to pass a comprehensive immigration law by doing nothing about immigration.

18.  Phil Coke has a filthy slider.  I added that because my wife hates it when I use the term “filthy” to describe a pitch.

After Listening to Biden at the Debate, I’m Glad I Invested in that Bomb Shelter

October 12, 2012 3 comments

Nope, I haven’t written in a while.  Things have been busy and such.  Regardless, I’m sure we’ve all been paying attention.  People are starting to realize that Barry doesn’t really care about them because he’s been sitting on his Great New Economic Plan for four years.  Plus, people are starting to realize that Mittens isn’t a jerk.  As such, the good guys are actually, slightly, in the lead.  Last night was the Vice Presidential Debate.  The left is excited because Joe “I’m from Scranton, which is totally blue collar, so I’m totally blue collar; did I mention I’m from Scranton” Biden was “passionate.”  Everyone else thought he was a belligerent tool who drank a little too much Jameson’s Irish Whiskey before the debate.

Nope, it’s true.

Paul Ryan was, well, Paul Ryan.  A polite, handsome, slightly underwhelming guy, who didn’t hurt us.

and he was thirsty

While I am now scarred with the picture of Joe Biden’s teeth having been burned into my head, I am even more terrified of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy.  Here’s what I took from last night: we’re absolutely, positively leaving Afghanistan on a specific date in 2014.  And dammit, everybody better know it (including all of you terrorists hanging out in a cave).  Why 2014?  Because that’s the arbitrary date we chose.  Of course, according to Biden, the job is done in Afghanistan.  We’ve already been successful in meeting all of our goals.  O.k.  Then why not pull the troops out tomorrow?  Or 2013?  Because that isn’t our arbitrary date!  So, if we’ve been so successful, why are we there?  Apparently to train the Afghan military…so they can shoot our troops in the back.  Why are we decreasing the number of Americans fighting in Eastern Afghanistan, as Ryan argued?  So we can have more incompetent Afghan troops accompany the fewer American troops into battle…while shooting them in the back.  In other words, the Obama Administration has absolutely no plan for Afghanistan that his based on anything other than its arbitrary 2014 date.  I put more thought into what I’m going to wear to go running (Just kidding.  I don’t exercise).

And why not go into Syria, like we did Libya?  Joe said something about geography.  Of course, the real answer is we were talked into helping out with Libya by Western Europe, because Western Europe gets a lot of oil from Libya.  We don’t get any.  Hence, there’s no strategic reason why we would have done anything in Libya.  We arguably have a strategic reason to get involved in Syria though, since it’s a hot-bed for terrorism, and has a crazy leader with lots of chemical weapons.  Oh, and they’re shooting at our NATO ally Turkey.  So, again, the Administration is seemingly throwing darts at a map when it comes to what conflicts we should get involved in.

And then there’s Iran.  We heard a lot about sanctions during the debate last night.  We heard a lot about how tough the sanctions were and that they’re the toughest sanctions in the history of the world, and so forth.  That’s great Joe.  We’ve leveled tough sanctions against Iran.  They’re “isolated,” whatever that means.  Of course, despite the super-serious sanctions, Iran is still enriching uranium, at an increasingly quick pace.  And this shouldn’t be a surprise.  Sanctions only impact the population.  The crazy dudes running the country are still dining on whatever it is they eat, and dreaming about virgins in their silk sheets.  It’s the people who we’re starving out with sanctions.  Don’t believe me?  Look at North Korea.  We’ve been sanctioning them since what seems like the beginning of time.   And during that time, they’ve continued their nuclear bomb project and their crazy dictator has continued to live in luxury (by North Korean standards), while the people starve to death.  What’s my point?  Sanctions don’t work against dictators who don’t give a crap about their people.  In fact, sanctions make it easier to maintain power.  Tim the Spoiled Lettuce Salesman is less inclined to come up with revolutionary plans when he’s worried about what his kids are going to eat for dinner.

O.k.  So we’ve established that sanctions don’t work.  So what’s Joe’s response to the fact that Iran continues to enrich uranium despite the sanctions?  Don’t worry.  Iran still doesn’t have a missile to put the bomb on.  Well that’s reassuring.  So our policy is to wait until Iran gets a missile, and then do something?  Isn’t it a little late at that point?

You see, this is the worldview of the naive.  And libs have always been dangerously naive when it comes to the world.  The Administration’s Middle East policy has been a disaster, and it isn’t debateable.  And it’s a disaster due to a combination of the aforementioned naivety, and incompetence.  Our Embassy in Libya was denied extra security multiple times before it was attacked, and despite the State Dept. confirming that fact, Biden proceeded to tell a completely different story on national television last night.  There is dark cloud forming on the horizon, that is made of a new alliance between Russia, China, Iran, and Syria, and it’s being completely ignored by Barry.

Simply put, the world remains a dangerous place, and the Administration is acting like we’re all just having a disagreement over what flavor Tootsie Pop is the best.  Honestly, hearing Biden last night made me feel a lot like this:


Scared.  It made me feel scared.

All Hail King Barry. **UPDATE**

May 21, 2011 1 comment

I do what I want.

Or should I call him Dictator…or just Dic.  It’s quite amazing really.  I still hear libs call George W. Bush’s War in Iraq “illegal,” even though he actually sought, and received, Congressional approval multiple times.  Let’s compare that to our current president.  As you all know, B.O. decided to send some of our military assets to Libya, to help Western Europe secure some oil.  Since that time, we’ve been part of a coordinated effort to assassinate the leader of a foreign country that’s in the middle of a civil war.  Oh, and our president never asked Congress’s approval to do any of it.

To be fair, the prez had the authority to act unilaterally against Libya under the War Powers Resolution.  The WPR only allows him to take such action for sixty days, however…and that time has expired.  In other words, in order for the U.S. to continue its military action in Libya, Congressional approval is necessary.  It’s the law.  Unless you’re supreme leader Barack Hussein Obama.

Today, instead of seeking Congressional approval, our democratically elected president took it upon himself to tell the American people, with their pesky laws, to pound sand.  See, according to Barack, since we’re only half-assing our way to killing Qaddafi, our involvement in the Libyan conflict is “limited.”  Since it’s “limited,” Congressional approval is not needed.  Obama’s assertions are astonishing for several reasons.  First, claiming that military action is “limited” because we’re only “providing support” to NATO, when we’re the only ones with the boats and missiles and stuff, is absurd.  Second, the President is doing the very thing his party has accused Bush of doing, i.e., waging an illegal war, except this time, it’s actually illegal.  Last but not least, the whole basis for not seeking Congressional approval, i.e., that Libya is a “limited operation,” is an exception that doesn’t actually exist in the War Powers Resolution.  Barry and his lawyers simply made it up.  Oh, and then there’s that whole “we’re not trying to assassinate Qaddafi (that would be illegal) but we keep firing missiles at his house” thing.

Considering that Barry has already appointed his own personal czars to direct all manner of government without any Congressional oversight, deciding he can wage war against anyone he chooses, whenever he gets bored, doesn’t come as much of a surprise.  After all, he did just send U.S. military into a foreign country without its consent to shoot an unarmed man in the face.  But I must admit, I’m becoming a little scared of our tyrant in Washington.  Remember, Hitler was elected democratically too.

**UPDATE**  Well, despite what ABC told me almost thirty days ago (see link above), apparently the prez gets 90 days, not 60, to seek approval from Congress regarding Libya.  Not that it matters, since Barry still hasn’t asked for permission.  Now, Boehner has warned B.O. to seek Congress’s approval by Sunday (day 90)…or else (or else what?).

**UPDATE II**  Apparently ABC was right the first time…it is 60 days.  Although there seems to be some level of “flexibility” that could allow for 90.

Good thing the Prez wasn’t under oath last night

March 29, 2011 3 comments

Saving the world, or something.

Barry’s speech last night was astounding.  He outlined the ‘Obama Doctrine,’ which basically says the U.S. will use military force in any country where we think civilians might be killed, or something like that.  He criticized the Iraq War for implementing a regime change, when that is exactly what the mission is in Libya.  Finally, he blatantly lied to the American people when he stated our involvement is ratcheting down, because we’re handing the  mission over to NATO; as if NATO has its own military sitting around somewhere.

Libya is a disaster in a myriad of ways.  First, it sets a precedent that will be used for every humanitarian crisis of the month.  I can hear it now, “if we went into Libya for humanitarian reasons, why not the Ivory Coast?  Or Bahrain?  Or Haiti?”  Second, it’s a mission that will take months to complete…although we’re not exactly sure what will constitute completion.  Obama says regime change is not what we’re about…although we’ve sided with the rebels, and regime change is most certainly what they’re about.  This isn’t a peace-keeping, or humanitarian mission; it’s a military action.  What’s happening in Libya is a civil war, and we will be providing military support for the rebels.  If their goal is regime change, doesn’t that make it our goal by proxy?  Our government is even considering arming the rebels.  The rebels consist, at least in part, of members of Al Qaeda!  We’re actually contemplating arming our enemy.  Do we learn absolutely nothing from the past?

And who is NATO?  Well, it’s the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and it was primarily created as an allegiance against the Soviet Union.  It’s members consist of us, France, England, and then some other countries with the military equivalent of catapults.  Simply removing the American flag patch from our uniforms and replacing it with a NATO patch doesn’t change the fact that it’s our troops being shot at.  Just as an example, 2200 Marines are being shipped out for a 10 month tour of duty off the Libyan coast.   And for what?  To protect armed rebels?  Armed rebels that choose to hide out within a civilian population?  Why do you think Q was sending his troops to Benghazi?  It wasn’t to check out the scenery; the rebels selected the city, with all those human shields, as their base of operation.

If this is a humanitarian mission, then why the hell is our secretary of state meeting with a rebel representative, to “determine Libya’s future?”  If this doesn’t constitute regime change, than I don’t know what does.  And of course, the reason for all of this has already come to pass for Western Europe: the rebels are going to start selling oil again. 

%d bloggers like this: