Obama's Afghanistan Lies

Of course, Obama would lie about the situation in Afghanistan.

He lied about Benghazi. It took weeks for him to admit that it was a terrorist attack and not the result of angry Muslims offended by a video.

Obama has lied incessantly about ObamaCare.

So, it should come as no surprise that Obama has been misleading the American people again. He's always crowing about HIS success in Afghanistan and the end of the war.

From the Associated Press:

The American-led military coalition in Afghanistan backed off Tuesday from its claim that Taliban attacks dropped off in 2012, tacitly acknowledging a hole in its widely repeated argument that violence is easing and that the insurgency is in steep decline.

In response to Associated Press inquiries about its latest series of statistics on security in Afghanistan, the coalition command in Kabul said it had erred in reporting a 7 percent decline in attacks. In fact there was no decline at all, officials said.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who is among the senior officials who had publicly repeated the assertion of an encouraging drop-off in Taliban attacks last year, was disturbed to learn of the error, said his spokesman, George Little.

"This particular set of metrics doesn't tell the full story of progress against the Taliban, of course, but it's unhelpful to have inaccurate information in our systems," Little said.

A coalition spokesman, Jamie Graybeal, attributed the miscounting to clerical errors and said the problem does not change officials' basic assessment of the war, which they say is on a positive track as American and allied forces withdraw.

The 7 percent figure had been included in a report posted on the website of the coalition, the International Security Assistance Force, on Jan. 22 as part of its monthly update on trends in security and violence. It was removed from the website recently without explanation. After the AP asked last week about the missing report, coalition officials said they were correcting the data and would re-publish the report. As of Tuesday afternoon it had not reappeared.

This makes me sick.

We've been fed lies.

Once upon a time, people cared about that sort of thing.

SNL: DJESUS UNCROSSED (Video)

Did Saturday Night Live cross the line with its violent, bloody trailer for DJesus Uncrossed, a parody of Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained and Inglourious Basterds?

Host Christoph Waltz appeared in Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. In SNL's offering, he played the part of DJesus, as in Jesus Christ, Son of God, going on a murderous, vengeful rampage.

Here's video.

TRAILER NARRATOR: This summer, if you liked Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained, then get ready for the ultimate historical revenge fantasy - DJesus Uncrossed.

He's risen from the dead, and he's preaching anything but forgiveness.

He may be wearing sandals, but he can still kick ass.

What are critics saying?





The trailer ends with this warning from DJesus:

DJESUS: No more Mr. Nice Jesus.

That's followed by a gunshot and a splattering of blood across the screen.

Is this video enough to cause Christians to erupt in violent protests and storm Rockefeller Center and Hollywood studios?

According to Obama and his legions, a video criticizing Islam caused worldwide protests. The Obama administration even insisted the video prompted the uprising in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of our ambassador and three other Americans.

So will this blasphemous SNL video get a similar reaction?

Will our government put the makers of the video in jail?

Of course not.

Laugh. Just laugh.

Panetta Testimony: Obama AWOL on Benghazi

Obama is a liar.

He lied about Benghazi.

Testimony on Thursday by Leon Panetta exposed Obama.

To quote former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, "What different does it make at this point?"

It DOES make a difference. It DOES matter that Obama and his people LIED about the killings of four Americans. It DOES matter that they did NOT act to save the ambassador and three other Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi when it came under attack.

Before the November 2012 election, Kyle Clark, of KUSA-TV Denver, asked Obama pointblank about the Obama administration's reaction to the 9/11/12 terrorist attack in Benghazi.

From October 26, 2012:

Obama looks awful. He looks exhausted. He looks wasted.

Here's the transcript:

KYLE CLARK: Were the Americans under attack at the consulate in Benghazi Libya denied requests for help during that attack? And is it fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and we'll all find out after the election?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do. But we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I have made a commitment to the families impacted as well as to the American people, we're going to bring those folks to justice. So, we're going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn't happen again but we're also going to make sure that we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.

KYLE CLARK: Were they denied requests for help during the attack?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we are finding out exactly what happened. I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we're going to find out exactly what happened, but what we're also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.

Before the election, Clark exposed Obama for exactly what he is - a disgrace.

Defense secretary Leon Panetta revealed in testimony on Thursday that Obama did NOTHING to aid the Americans under attack.

Obama lied to Clark. He dodged instead of being forthcoming. He lied to the American people. Obama lied then and he's lying now.

Video, from The Right Scoop, via Mark Levin:

Panetta, Dempsey Did Not Talk to Clinton On Sept. 11, 2013

Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi

Disgraceful.

Ron Johnson and Hillary Clinton (Video)

Hillary Clinton FINALLY testified on the 9/11/12 terrorist attack in Benghazi, killing our ambassador and three other Americans.

In response to a question from Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, Hillary flipped out. The theatrics failed to deflect from the reality that she didn't answer his question.

Apparently, Hillary believes WHY four Americans were killed is irrelevant.

Here's video:

HILLARY CLINTON: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

Hillary goes on to say, "It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

In other words, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Hillary sounds like a fool. She looks like a fool.

Misleading the American people MATTERS, and that's what she and Susan Rice and Jay Carney and the Obama administration and Obama himself did. Lying matters. It matters to me.

We know Hillary gets angry when someone has told her lies. We know she throws lamps when she's mad.

The fact is, with all due respect, she's blind or stupid or deceptive in managing her personal life and in carrying out her duties in public service.

Obviously, Hillary doesn't have the demeanor or the skill or the character to be president of the United States. She's not up to the task of taking that 3:00 AM phone call and responding appropriately.

Crying, yelling, pounding the table, and flailing her arms don't accomplish anything.

I think Republicans have material for their first ad for the 2016 presidential election.
_________________

More here.

Manti Te'o

The Manti Te'o story:



I want to know the truth about Benghazi.

The 9/11/12 terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya resulting in the assassination of our ambassador and three other Americans matters.

Obama and his minions lied to us. They engaged in a cover-up. That's important.

Manti Te'o and his hoax girlfriend or whatever doesn't matter to me.

Yes, it's weird. But why this obsession?

It's tabloid stuff.

If Te'o is lying, it makes no difference to me. If he's a gullible idiot, it doesn't matter.

I don't care.

Susan Rice Withdraws

Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, appeared to be Obama's choice to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, at least for a while.

Obama and his hacks did all they could to paint John McCain and other senators as racist and sexist for opposing her potential nomination.

Obama made a fool of himself when he played the tough guy at his news conference, coming to the aid of the helpless Susan Rice.

This performance didn't convince McCain and company to back down. They were right to stand strong and demand accountability from Rice for her role in the Benghazi cover-up.

So, Susan Rice, the woman Obama wanted, is withdrawing herself from consideration to replace Hillary.

In the Washington Post, Rice writes:

On Thursday I asked that President Obama no longer consider me for the job of secretary of state. I made this decision because it is the right step for this country I love. I have never shied away from a fight for a cause I believe in. But, as it became clear that my potential nomination would spark an enduring partisan battle, I concluded that it would be wrong to allow this debate to continue distracting from urgent national priorities — creating jobs, growing our economy, addressing our deficit, reforming our immigration system and protecting our national security.

These are the issues that deserve our focus, not a controversy about me. On Sept. 16, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was unavailable after a grueling week, the White House asked me to appear on five Sunday talk shows to discuss a range of foreign policy issues: the protests against our diplomatic facilities around the world; the attack in Benghazi, Libya; and Iran’s nuclear program.

When discussing Benghazi, I relied on fully cleared, unclassified points provided by the intelligence community, which encapsulated their best current assessment. These unclassified points were consistent with the classified assessments I received as a senior policymaker. It would have been irresponsible for me to substitute any personal judgment for our government’s and wrong to reveal classified material. I made clear in each interview that the information I was providing was preliminary and that ongoing investigations would give us definitive answers. I have tremendous appreciation for our intelligence professionals, who work hard to provide their best assessments based on the information available. Long experience shows that our first accounts of terrorist attacks and other tragedies often evolve over time. The intelligence community did its job in good faith. And so did I.

I have never sought in any way, shape or form to mislead the American people. To do so would run counter to my character and my life of public service. But in recent weeks, new lines of attack have been raised to malign my character and my career. Even before I was nominated for any new position, a steady drip of manufactured charges painted a wholly false picture of me. This has interfered increasingly with my work on behalf of the United States at the United Nations and with America’s agenda.

I grew up in Washington, D.C., and I’ve seen plenty of battles over politics and policy. But a national security appointment, much less a potential one, should never be turned into a political football. There are far bigger issues at stake. So I concluded this distraction has to stop.

Translation: Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others in the administration want the Benghazi scandal to go away. Having Rice under oath during confirmation hearings would be a disaster for Obama and Hillary.

Rice's withdrawal should not put the matter to rest.

It would be a disgrace to allow all the unanswered questions about the Benghazi terrorist attack to remain unanswered. Four Americans were killed. We deserve the truth.
_________________

READ: "Families want to know what happened in Benghazi"

Susan Rice for Secretary of State

I desperately want Obama to nominate Susan Rice to be Secretary of State because I want to find out the truth about Benghazi.

I want Rice to answer questions under oath.

I want her awful judgment, her incompetency, to be clearly exposed.

I'm sick of Obama and his hacks, like Harry Reid and Jay Carney, insisting that Rice is being criticized because of her gender and her race.



That's crap, plain and simple.

I am convinced that sending Rice out on the talk show circuit was a calculated move by the Obama administration.

Rice was willing to parrot the White House's ludicrous talking points about a video being responsible for the 9/11/12  terrorist attack that resulted in four dead Americans. Rather than question that ridiculous explanation of events, given the intelligence she received, she dutifully did Obama's bidding.

Either she showed no intellectual curiosity on the matter whatsoever and accepted the White House's twisted account, or she suspected she was dishing out lies. Either way, she is utterly unfit to serve as Secretary of State.

Why did the White House send out Rice on the pre-election Obama damage control mission?

I think they chose Rice because they fully intended to play the race and gender card when she was caught giving false information to the American public, as they knew she would be.

Obama's bizarre, rehearsed reaction to the Benghazi question during his rare news conference, the "If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me" performance, was a clear indication that was the plan.

The administration could use Rice's race and gender to deflect from the real issue: the cover-up of the terrorist attack.

Disgraceful. We can't have such a weak Secretary of State that she needs tough guy Obama to come to her rescue.

Bottom line: It's obvious to me that Obama doesn't really care about the four Americans who died in the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. He cares about saving his political hide.

Obama is a bad president. Obama is also exposing himself to be a bad person, at least when it comes to the handling of the 9/11/12 terrorist attack on our nation and the deaths of four Americans.

We deserve answers, not this stonewalling and obfuscating from Obama.

Four Americans are dead, and Obama continues to play politics.

Disgraceful.

I hope we have the opportunity to have Rice testify under oath. We deserve the truth. Obama needs to be held accountable.

John McCain Misses Benghazi Briefing

Obama and his allies, the media Leftists, are trashing John McCain because he dared to challenge Obama about Benghazi. He dared to speak up.

Naturally, the New York Times attacks McCain, punishing him for demanding accountability on the part of Obama and his surrogates.

The Leftists are crucifying McCain, criticizing him for missing a briefing on Benghazi.

Poor John McCain. The senior senator from Arizona, former presidential candidate and general Republican big-man-in-Washington was so busy on Wednesday complaining about President Obama’s handling of the Benghazi mission killings that he just didn’t have time to do his actual job and attend a hearing on the Benghazi mission killings.

Mr. McCain has said he wants to get to the bottom of what he seems absolutely certain was a catastrophic bungling of the Libyan situation by Mr. Obama and his team. He is proposing holding “Watergate-style” hearings on the matter, with lots of witnesses and of course, lots of television cameras.

But yesterday, when the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee received a classified briefing on the Benghazi issue, Mr. McCain was absent. His spokesman Brian Rogers blamed a “scheduling error.”

CNN's Dana Bash is also slamming McCain. Wolf Blitzer joins in the fun.

Here's video:



Good grief.

This Benghazi cover-up is a disgrace.

The story should not be about McCain's attendance at a briefing, especially given that Obama, the PRESIDENT, doesn't bother to show up for his daily intelligence briefings.

The liberal media didn't care about the revelation that Obama was MIA for his PDB, attending only about 38 percent. No, of course not. They're much more concerned about McCain missing one briefing on Benghazi.

Obama, as always, relies on the lib media to support his narrative and they're eager to oblige.

It's outrageous.

Instead of digging for answers about Obama's handling of Benghazi, they're berating McCain.

Sometimes, I really can't believe how over-the-top the media are when it comes to the lengths they go to protect their beloved leader, Obama.

I can't believe how shamelessly they play the race card.



What Susan Rice did, giving the American people false information on five Sunday shows in one day, has nothing to do with the color of her skin or her gender. Obama sent her out to lie about Benghazi. Maybe she didn't know she was deceiving Americans, but she did play a part in an orchestrated cover-up. Her race and sex have nothing to do with McCain wanting the truth about the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack.

The racial BS from the Leftists drives me nuts.

Dana Bash reported how a "Democratic source" framed McCain and Lindsey Graham's call for an investigation into the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. The source wants the focus of the story to be on the Republicans attacking Susan Rice, framing it in racial terms.

DANA BASH: I talked to a good Democratic source here asking, "Do you think if she is nominated you could overcome a filibuster?" The answer was yes, and I'd have to tell you this, that this source said, 'If anybody wants to watch two old white guys,' speaking of course of Graham and McCain, 'beat up on a black woman, I'll sell tickets to that.' So there is politics all around here.

I am so sick of this "old white guys" stuff.

We had a terrorist attack on our consulate. We have four Americans killed. And Obama and his allies are deflecting from the legitimate concerns about that terrorist attack by turning the issue into a racial attack on Susan Rice.

Disgraceful.

In reality, the Leftists have turned being white into a fatal flaw. It's crazy. Being white is not a crime.

Furthermore, Lindsey Graham is not exactly old. He's six years older than Obama. Is Obama an "old half-white, half-black guy"? (Sounds offensive, doesn't it?)

I never heard Ted Kennedy marginalized as an "old white guy." Bill Clinton is 66. No one is beating up on him for being an "old white guy."

Harry Reid is about to turn 73. When he would beat up on Condoleezza Rice, his age and race never were discussed as factoring into his motivation.

Do the Leftists realize how inconsistent their remarks are when it comes to age and race?

Do they realize how ridiculous they appear for bashing McCain for missing a single meeting when Obama habitually relies on his "Sgt. Schultz" routine?

Obama and Susan Rice (Video, Transcript)

Unlike in his recent public appearances, Obama didn't cry during his news conference yesterday.

He was having a great time, refusing to give direct answers to questions, if he answered them at all.

He lapped up the congratulations on his reelection from a reporter. Embarrassing.

Obama looked relaxed, like someone who knows he has all the "flexibility" in the world, like someone who intends to do whatever he chooses.

He came off as arrogant and cocky, the imperial president.

In his news conference yesterday afternoon, Obama also acted like a street thug.

He made a fool of himself, defending the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, picking a fight with Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham.

Here's video:



Transcript

JONATHAN KARL: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be Secretary of State, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. As Senator Graham said, he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I’d like your reaction to that. And would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I’m not going to comment at this point on various nominations that I’ll put forward to fill out my Cabinet for the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed.

But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace.

As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. Ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.

And we’re after an election now. I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants. We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information. And we’ve got a full-blown investigation, and all that information will be disgorged to Congress.

And I don't think there’s any debate in this country that when you have four Americans killed, that's a problem. And we’ve got to get to the bottom of it, and there needs to be accountability. We’ve got to bring those who carried it out to justice. They won’t get any debate from me on that.

But when they go after the U.N. Ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me. And should I choose, if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity of the State Department, then I will nominate her. That's not a determination that I’ve made yet.

Good grief.

Obama is playing the War on Women card again. Poor helpless Susan Rice.

Why would Rice be an "easy target"?

I hope the U.S. ambassador to the UN has a backbone. If she doesn't, if she's such an "easy target," she needs to be replaced immediately.

It's particularly disturbing that Obama became so angry, charging McCain and Graham with "going after" the ambassador. It was a rehearsed response, but it still was weird.

Remember how the Leftists went berserk over John Bolton?

Our ambassadors to the UN obviously are not off limits in terms of criticism.

The cocky Obama says he'll select Susan Rice to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State if he feels like it.

He has a mandate to do whatever he wants.

That's delusional. Obama is delusional.

He has no mandate. He didn't win by a landslide. Half the country doesn't want him as our president. Mandate, shmandate.

The next four years are going to be a nightmare if Obama keeps up with this crap.

Obama: Petraeus, Trayvon Martin, Henry Louis Gates

In his news conference, Obama said he doesn't comment on ongoing investigations, like the David Petraeus scandal. That's his policy.

Oh, really?

BS.

Barack "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" Obama believes one is innocent until proven guilty?

Clearly, Obama breaks his own policy about staying quiet.

Remember the Henry Louis Gates incident, the Beer Summit?

In a July 2009 news conference, Obama admitted he didn't know all the facts but went on to trash the Cambridge Police Department, declaring "Cambridge police acted stupidly."

Again, that investigation was ongoing, but Obama yapped about it anyway.

What a hypocrite!

Obama News Conference

Obama, the self-proclaimed most transparent president in U.S. history (What a load!), will face the press for his first news conference since MARCH.

From the New York Times:

Finally, President Obama is holding a news conference.

The last time the president stepped on a podium to take questions from reporters was in June, at the Group of 20 economic summit in Los Cabos, Mexico. And even then, he took only three, leaving the press assembled before him grumbling that even Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, had answered more queries from journalists at the meeting.

Mr. Obama will presumably take more than three questions this time when he shows up in the East Room of the White House — the scheduled time is 1:30 p.m. Wednesday — now that he has won re-election. And reporters have been storing them up for five months, so there should be a broad array of topics.

Topping the list of subjects likely will be the affair that has upended the C.I.A. career of David H. Petraeus and is now threatening the career of Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of the war effort in Afghanistan.

...The president is also likely to be asked about the attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11. While Mr. Obama addressed the issue during the second debate with Mitt Romney, he has not had a news conference since before the attacks, so the reporters who cover him have not had a chance to engage in a public back-and-forth on the issue.

Also likely is a focus on the debt negotiations with Congress that will soon be gathering steam, although asking Mr. Obama about that may just give him more space to repeat what he said last week — that he wants to see tax increases on the wealthy, and that he believes that exit polling shows that most Americans agree with him.

Though the president’s spokesman reaffirmed his $1.6 trillion target for new revenues on Tuesday, while Mr. Obama reassured progressives and labor leaders that he would stand firm against Congressional Republicans on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, expect plenty of questions about the “fiscal cliff.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah.

I want Obama to address specifics on the 9/11/12 terrorist attack in Benghazi.

I want to Obama to admit he lied in the second presidential debate when he claimed he called it a "terrorist" attack immediately, and Candy Crowley, moderator of the debate, had the transcript.

I want a reporter to ask for the release of the photo of Obama monitoring the hours-long attack in Benghazi from the situation room, just like the photos of him "taking care" of bin Laden and Superstorm Sandy.

I don't want to hear about Petraeus and Broadwell and Kelley and Allen and the shirtless FBI guy, other than how they relate to the colossal, inexcusable breakdown in Benghazi. I do want to know why the Petraeus affair was revealed when it was.

Obama supposedly didn't know anything about it. Why???

I want Obama to specifically explain to the American people why he blamed the 9/11/12 TERRORIST attack on an obscure YouTube video. I want Obama to address why he allowed Susan Rice to lie for him.

I hope the media are tough. It is their job. They should play an important role in protecting the American people from abuse by their leaders, by holding the leaders accountable and providing the truth.

I expect Obama to blather on and on and filibuster the way he always does at his infrequent news conferences. I don't expect any answers of significance from Obama because I don't think there will be questions of significance from the press.

Do you think Obama will sing Al Green to his media allies?



They're so in love. He owes them his reelection.
________________

UPDATE: Obama's first news conference in months and months is a joke. No hard-hitting questions, mostly touchy, feely crap.

He talks like he's still on the campaign trail.

That's unacceptable.

This personality cult stuff is an embarrassment.
_________________

UPDATE: The Benghazi cover-up continues. Obama says Susan Rice is being besmirched by John McCain and other Republican senators. He became angry and accused them of "going after the UN ambassador."

Obama, champion of helpless women!

Sen. Lindsey Graham responds to Obama's attacks.

Petraeus Affair

NOW we're talking about Benghazi, sort of.

Forget about Obama's lies about the alleged protest at the consulate and the video that sparked it. What we have is a sex scandal, a dream come true for the media - and Obama.

What a perfect distraction! Rather than focus on the abject failure to protect Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans and the ensuing disgraceful cover-up by Obama and his team, we get to focus on Paula Broadwell and the various sordid details of her affair with former CIA Director General David Petraeus.

New details in Petraeus scandal: Woman who received threatening emails revealed

Soccer Mom or Skankzilla: Which is the Real Paula Broadwell?

Paula Broadwell, David Petraeus' Alleged Mistress, Embedded With Him for 1 Year in Afghanistan

Yes, Broadwell was "embedded" with Petraeus.

Good grief.

I don't want focus to shift to Broadwell and all the tabloid trash reporting.

I want to know why four Americans were killed during a 9/11 anniversary TERRORIST attack. I want to know why Obama and his administration misled the American people for weeks.

I suspect the Obama and his allies are thrilled that Petraeus is an adulterer.

Sick, the entire mess.
__________________

Military timeline from night of Benghazi attack begs more questions

Obama Tweet: 'Eliminating' Bin Laden

Obama sent this message and image out on Twitter:

President Obama ordered the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, eliminating the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks: pic.twitter.com/Ok6WTP9D

President Obama ordered the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, eliminating the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks: twitter.com/BarackObama/st…
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 5, 2012

This is the 11th hour message from Obama's campaign?

Oh, good grief.

What a gutsy call!

GIVE ME A BREAK!

If Obama and his hacks think that this election is about bin Laden, they're delusional.

Ask anyone out of work or underemployed, if they had to choose between getting a job and "eliminating" bin Laden, which would they want?

If Obama wants credit for killing bin Laden, then he damn well should take responsibility for what happened in Benghazi on 9/11/12, and cough up the freaking truth already.

Obama: A 'PROP' Being Propped

Obama is a prop.

That sums up his presidency.

I assume Obama was about to go on to say that the people have the power in this campaign, not him.

That's true.

However, Obama's choice of words, that he's a prop, is as unfortunate as it is spot-on.

He's on stage, serving as part of the scene in the theatrics.

His role as a prop has been utterly ineffective. He's not really part of the action.

He's just there, an empty suit, not making things better via his policies or his leadership.

And then the instances when he abused the office and grabbed power, dictating and oppressing, the imperial president, Obama made things worse.

And then we have the mainstream media, "propping" up Obama, shamelessly hiding the truth from the American public, going AWOL time and time again, on Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the oppression of Catholics' religious liberty, even the economy.

The last four years the story has been the Leftists propping up the prop in chief.

Enough.

Time for REAL hope and REAL change.

Vote Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Are You Better Off Than Four Years Ago?

Ronald Reagan's words ring true today.



Think. The choice is clear.

Obama has been a disaster.

Mitt Romney offers a positive vision for the future, hope and change, action instead of empty rhetoric.

Leno: Libya, Carney, FOX News, Talk Radio

JAY LENO: The White House spokeman Jay Carney said that the attack in Libya is still being investigated, and we will find out what happened. But until we do, he suggested Americans should not watch FOX News or listen to talk radio.

Leno: Obama Halloween Party, Libya

JAY LENO: President Obama cancelled the annual White House Halloween party. He didn't want to, he didn't want to risk a trick-or-treater asking him a question about Libya. So they had to cancel.

Obama's Media

Benghazi? Huh?

McCain-Graham-Ayotte-Johnson Letter to Obama (Text)

Republican Senators Ron Johnson, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte want answers about the 9/11/12 terrorist attack in Benghazi, answers Obama has refused to give to the American people.

Here is the text of the letter they sent to Obama:

October 31, 2012

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The American people deserve to know all the facts surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, that resulted in the murder of four Americans—including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Unfortunately, you and your senior administration officials have not been forthcoming in providing answers to the many questions that have emerged.

On October 9, 2012, we sent a letter to the senior intelligence officials in your administration in an effort to obtain answers to these questions. More than three weeks have passed, and we still have not received a response. To make matters worse, since that original letter, we sent several subsequent letters to you or to your senior administration officials asking a number of questions, and we have failed to receive a single letter in response.

The American people and their representatives in Congress need to understand what you knew about the Benghazi terrorist attack and when you knew it. We also have a right to know what steps you and your administration took—or failed to take—before, during, and after the terrorist attack to protect American lives.

In order to facilitate an immediate response to our important questions on behalf of the American people, below are the questions from the letters we have sent over the last three weeks.

In our October 9, 2012, letter that we wrote with Senator Saxby Chambliss, we asked the following questions of Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, Jr.; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David H. Petraeus; and Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan:

• Within 48 hours of the attack, was there credible information and reporting to suggest that the assault on our Consulate and other U.S. facilities in Benghazi should be characterized as a terrorist attack?

• At what time did intelligence community agencies or elements first assess that the events in Benghazi were a terrorist attack?

• What information did the intelligence community provide to senior policymakers that led some of them to draw the conclusion as late as five days after the attack in Benghazi that it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration, not a terrorist act?

• Was there no credible evidence at that late date that was compelling enough for the intelligence community and the senior policymakers to draw a conclusion with at least moderate confidence that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist act?

On October 15, 2012, Senator Graham sent letters to Mr. Brennan, Director Clapper, Director Petraeus, as well as National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon. The letters highlighted the fact that on June 6, 2012, assailants placed an improvised explosive device (IED) on the north gate of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The IED detonated and ripped a hole in the security perimeter that was described by one individual as "big enough for forty men to go through." This attack was preceded by an earlier IED attack against the Consulate in April 2012. Based on these facts, the letter included the following questions:

• Were you aware of these attacks?

• Did you inform the President of these attacks?

• If so, what action was taken to protect our Consulate?

• If you did not inform the President, why not?

On October 15, 2012, Senator Graham sent you a similar letter asking the following questions:

• Were you informed of these attacks on our Libyan Consulate?

• If not, why not?

• Did you consider these serious events?

• If you were informed, what action was taken to protect the Consulate?

On October 19, 2012, we sent a follow-up letter to the same three senior intelligence officials in your administration noting that ten days had elapsed since we sent the October 9 letter.

On October 24, 2012, we sent a letter to you asking the following questions:

• Why did your administration insist that a spontaneous demonstration was responsible for the attack on our Consulate, but as the State Department later divulged, no demonstration even occurred in Benghazi?

• Why were requests for greater security assistance by officers on the ground not fulfilled, especially in light of the fact that there had already been two attacks on our Consulate in Benghazi this year and an attempt to assassinate the British Ambassador-events about which you should have known?

• In light of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and the escalating series of attacks in the preceding months, why were there not rapid reaction forces or other military assets available in the region to deploy to Libya in the event of an emergency on September 11, 2012-a day that our intelligence agencies consistently cite far in advance as a moment of heightened security threat for the United States and our citizens and interests abroad?

On October 26, 2012, we sent a letter to Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David H. Petraeus; and Attorney General, Eric H. Holder requesting the immediate declassification of the surveillance video in and around the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi for the two days-September 11 and 12, 2012-that it and related U.S. facilities were under attack.

On October 27, 2012, Senators McCain and Portman sent a letter to Secretary Panetta asking the following questions:

• What military forces were available to provide support to U.S. personnel in Libya?

• What military forces were requested to provide support to U.S. personnel in Libya, by whom, and what forces were provided?

• What communication and coordination did you have with the President and other members of the National Security Council regarding possible Defense Department support in Libya?

Your failure to answer these important questions will only add to the growing perception among many of our constituents that your administration has undertaken a concerted effort to misrepresent the facts and stonewall Congress and the American people. We look forward to a prompt and thorough response to these questions. The American people deserve a full accounting of what happened in Benghazi where four brave Americans were murdered.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

John McCain
United States Senator

Lindsey Graham
United States Senator

Kelly Ayotte
United States Senator

Ron Johnson
United States Senator

Cc: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense;
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States;
The Honorable James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence;
The Honorable David H. Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

Obama - Situation Room (Photos)

Here are photos of Obama "looking presidential" in the Situation Room:


President Barack Obama receives an update on the ongoing response to Hurricane Sandy, in the Situation Room of the White House, Oct. 29 2012. Participating via teleconference, clockwise from top left, are: Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano; FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate; Rick Knabb, Director of the National Hurricane Center; Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood; and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. Pictured, from left, are: Clark Stevens, Assistant Press Secretary; Emmett Beliveau, Director of the Office of the Chief of Staff; John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; Richard Reed, Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security; Chuck Donnell, Senior Director for Resilience; Asha Tribble, Senior Director for Response; Chief of Staff Jack Lew; Alyssa Mastromonaco, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations; Press Secretary Jay Carney; and David Agnew, Director for Intergovernmental Affairs. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)


Photo By HANDOUT/Reuters Tue, Oct 30, 2012
U.S. President Barack Obama (R) receives an update on the ongoing response to Hurricane Sandy during a meeting with administration officials in the Situation Room of the White House in Washington.

I don't know why Democrats are excited about Obama "looking presidential" in the White House, given the fact that the guy IS the president.

It's not good that Obama has a presidential stature problem. He IS the incumbent. I suppose the confusion comes from Obama campaigning as if he hasn't served as president for nearly one complete term.

A president worthy of reelection should be touting his accomplishments in office, not acting as if he hasn't served in the role. He should gladly take responsibility for what he's done. There's the rub for Obama.

I'm looking for another photo from the Situation Room, the one of Obama monitoring the deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi that took place on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our homeland.

I'm looking for the photo of Obama monitoring the Benghazi attack, the one that went on for hours, where Americans requested assistance to save their lives but were denied.

Where is that photo?

Where is the photo of Obama monitoring the 9/11 attack in Benghazi?

I can't find one. Where is the HANDOUT from the White House of that image?

Does it exist?

Where is the photo of Obama "looking presidential" monitoring the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the people Obama likes to call "his folks"?