- “Whistleblowers confirm Obama regime lied about the Benghazi attack,” May 8, 2013.
- “BENGHAZI = TREASON,” May 8, 2013.
- “Benghazi Witness: Special Forces Told “You Can’t Go” To Benghazi,” May 8, 2013.
On October 25 2012, defending why the Obama administration did not send help to the besieged U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Obama’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made this interesting statement to Pentagon reporters:
“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. [Carter] Ham, [Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff] Gen. [Martin] Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
The first thing to note about what Panetta said is that HE LIED about the administration not having “real-time information about what’s taking place”.
Last Saturday, Oct. 27, 2012, retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said on television that his sources say Barack Obama was in the White House situation room watching the Benghazi attack in real time.
Shaffer said: “This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down. According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this. Only he [Obama] could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something. That’s the only place it could be done.”
The Inquisitr reports that not only did Obama refuse to send help to the Americans being attacked and killed, sources say he actually ordered an AC-130U gunship to stand down. After that, the Commander In Chief went to bed early in order to be ready for his Las Vegas fundraiser the next day.
Despite three urgent requests from the CIA annex, no military backup was sent for the besieged personnel of the consulate. The CIA officially denies that these requests ever took place or that they were turned down.
According to TheBlaze.com, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, the two former Navy SEALS who were among the four Americans murdered in Benghazi, disobeyed orders from superiors to “stand down”. They raced to the main consulate building to help Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others who were under siege.
Pat Dollard of BareNakedIslam writes, Oct. 28, 2012, that he heard that General Carter Ham, head of Africom (U.S. Africa Command), received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the Benghazi attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had the unit ready. Dollard writes:
“General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.”
Gen. Ham’s “second in command” is not named.
The United States Africa Command, also known as U.S. AFRICOM, is one of nine Unified Combatant Commands of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). As one of six that are regionally focused, it is devoted solely to Africa. U.S. AFRICOM is responsible to the Secretary of Defense for U.S. military relations with 54 African countries.
The Benghazi attack took place on the night of September 11, 2012. On October 18, 2012, in a DoD news briefing, Leon Panetta announced that Gen. Ham was fired:
“Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.”
James S. Robbins of The Washington Times writes that Gen. Ham “is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. ‘Kip’ Ward.” According to Joint doctrine, “the tour length for combatant commanders and Defense agency directors is three years.” But Gen. Ham had only been in the commander position at AFRICOM for a year and a half and the informal word was that he was scheduled to rotate out in March 2013.
In other words, Obama fired General Carter Ham, a distinguished U.S. Army general and a true patriot.
The Obama administration is led by liars so pathological, they can no longer distinguish between truth vs. falsity. The latest example is Democratic National Committee chair Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL).
Two days ago, Schultz told the ultimate of
Orwellian double-speak lies. Reacting to new information from multiple sources indicating that the White House and State Dept knew full well the 9-11 2012 attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens (who was tortured and sodomized) and three other diplomatic staff members, were terrorist acts rather than reaction to a little-seen anti-Muslim video, Schultz said that the Obama administration’s FALSE portrayal of the attack “doesn’t mean it was false.“
Anthony Martin reports for Examiner.com, October 11, 2012, that Schultz’s comments came as the administration continues to attempt damage control in light of the fact that new information from multiple sources, including the White House, the State Department, and the Defense Department indicates that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice issued statements within 24 hours of the attacks that not only were false but that the government knew were false.
The Examiner was among the first of a very small number of media outlets to report that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attacks were terrorist related with connections to al Qaeda. In recent days that early report was confirmed by the administration itself.
Yet Obama went to the United Nations and claimed that the attacks were a spontaneous response to a video on YouTube, which he described as a film that attacks the prophet Muhammad. This false explanation was repeatedly used by administration officials and parroted by mainstream media outlets, national and local, all over the country.
But intelligence officials on the ground in Libya reported the day after the attack that no such protest against the film occurred. Nothing was said about the film by anyone in the Libyan government or by extremist insurgents in the country.
In spite of these facts, Obama persisted in claiming the attacks and ensuing murders of U.S. officials were motivated by Muslim outrage toward the film. Even when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta finally admitted that the scenario was a terrorist attack, Obama still persisted in avoiding describing the attack as terror related and continued to blame the incident on the film.
On Wednesday a State Department official, testifying before a House committee investigating the growing scandal, stated that she was monitoring the developments on the ground in Libya in real time, as the events unfolded, and admitted that nothing in the record indicated any spontaneous protest against the film. The admission brought forth a stinging response from House Republicans, particularly U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who launched into a tirade about the numerous lies told by administration officials such as Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, and Susan Rice.
Not only did the administration know as the events unfolded that the incident was terror related and had nothing to do with the film, but information has also been disclosed indicating that the U.S. Consulate in Libya had prior information about the growing threat of terrorism, that their lives were endangered, and that their security was woefully inadequate should an incident occur. Requests for increased security measures submitted to the administration in Washington were denied.
Thus, at least four top administration officials are on record giving the public erroneous information, including the president, Hillary Clinton, Press Secretary Jay Carney, and Ambassador Rice. From the beginning the record shows that these officials knew the information was false even as they provided it. And for the chair of the DNC to claim that false information is not false, particularly when the parties involved knew it was false, only highlights the deception.
The motivation for the lies has also come to light. Al Qaeda, according to the president, has been de-fanged and nearly decimated. Terrorism has been squelched under his administration, if one believes the Obama spin. For the administration to admit that al Qaeda-inspired terrorism is behind the attacks is contrary to a central campaign theme for Obama’s reelection. And for an attack like this to occur within two months of the election is a most inopportune happenstance, necessitating not only a false explanation but a cover up of the woeful inadequacies of administration foreign policy, including the bungled process of insuring U.S. diplomats are afforded adequate security in dangerous regions of the world.
The abominable Obama administration is led by pathological liars with the father of all lies at the top. Obama and Hillary Clinton have the blood of Amb. Stevens, Sean Smith, and ex-Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty on their hands.
This is unconscionable and utterly shameful.
The Pentagon is failing to comply with a law to help our soldiers overseas to vote in the upcoming critical November 6th election.
John Solomon reports for the Washington Guardian, Sept. 4, 2012:
Congress required the Pentagon to create voting assistance offices on all overseas military bases to help deployed soldiers cast their ballots back in their home states, but military branches haven’t fully complied, citing budget shortages and a difference of opinion with lawmakers.
With another election lurking around the corner, the Pentagon is getting a bad review for its efforts to comply with a new law designed to make it easier for overseas military personnel to cast their ballots.
The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act was passed by Congress in 2009 and signed into law by President Barack Obama and was supposed to make it easier for both soldiers deployed overseas and U.S. citizens living abroad to cast ballots back in their home states.
One of the key provisions required each military branch to create an installation voting assistance office (IVAO) for every military base outside an immediate combat zone.
But the Pentagon’s inspector general, the military’s internal watchdog, reported Tuesday it got a disappointing result when it tried to locate such voting assistance offices on each installation earlier this year.
“Results were clear. Our attempts to contact IVAOs failed about 50 percent of the time,” the inspector general reported. “We concluded the Services had not established all the IVAOs as intended by the MOVE Act because, among other issues, the funding was not available.”
The Pentagon estimates it could cost $15 million to $20 million a year to create all the offices required by the law.
In addition, Pentagon officials apparently disagree with the tactics the law recommended, preferring to use advertising and digital outreach efforts to educate overseas soldiers rather than creating the voting assistance offices.
“DoD officials also posed concerns about IVAO effectiveness,” the inspector general reported. “They noted that younger military personnel were the biggest DoD military population segment and emphasized that IVAOs were likely not the most cost effective way to reach out to them given their familiarity and general preference for communicating via on-line social media and obtaining information frominternet websites. They suggested assistance might be provided more effectively and efficiently by targeted advertising.”
[...] You can read the full report here.
And why is the Pentagon under the POS’s administration dragging its heels?
The reason for this delay is simple. The POS wants to minimize soldier voting as much as they can legally do it because military voters are 65-75% Republican.
Sean Waterman of The Washington Times reports that six Republican senators are asking Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta personally to intervene to ensure that U.S. troops stationed away from home get the chance to register and vote in the upcoming election.
The 6 are John Cornyn of Texas, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, James Inhofe of Oklahoma.
The Arab revolution that began on 18 December 2010 and swept rulers from power in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen (and now threatening to do so in Syria as well), was touted by the West as “Arab Spring” and lauded by the POS in the White House.
More and more, however, Arab Spring is turning into an Islamic Winter in hell, specifically a triumph for the radical politico-religious movement called the Muslim Brotherhood, whose goal is a pan-Islamic (uniting all the world’s Muslim countries) theocracy.
After Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was toppled last year, the military took control, determined to restrict the power of the Muslim Brotherhood. The military traditionally sees itself as the guardian of the Egyptian state. The military leadership in the form of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces dissolved Parliament, where Brotherhood members held about 50% of the seats.
In June 2012, Mohamed Morsi, a leading figure in the Brotherhood, was elected Egypt’s president. Upon winning the presidency, Morsi promptly declared that very little would change but that “Our capital shall be Jerusalem, Allah willing.”
Yesterday, in a stunning swift move, Morsi purged the Supreme Council of senior military leaders and installed his man, Lt. Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, as defense minister.
Kareem Fahim reports for the New York Times, August 12, 2012, that President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt forced the retirement on Sunday of his powerful defense minister, the army chief of staff and several senior generals, in a stunning purge that seemed for the moment to reclaim for civilian leaders much of the political power the Egyptian military had seized since the fall of Hosni Mubarak last year.
Morsi also nullified a constitutional declaration, issued by the military before he was elected, that eviscerated the powers of the presidency and arrogated to the military the right to enact laws. It was not immediately clear whether he had the constitutional authority to cancel that decree.
Morsi also replaced the commanders of the Navy, Air Force and air defense, and named a senior judge, Mahmoud Mekki, as his vice president. The current chief of military intelligence, Abdul Fattah el-Sisi, would become the country’s new defense minister.
Neither the White House nor the State Department offered any immediate reaction to Morsi’s actions on Sunday.
It is noteworthy that last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with President Mohamed Morsi and the now-ousted defense minister, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi. Recall that Obama had congratulated Morsi on his electoral victory and ordered Egypt’s military to speedily hand over power to the Muslim Brotherhood or risk losing billions of dollars in U.S. military and economic aid.
The Society of the Muslim Brothers … is the world’s most influential and one of the largest Islamist movements, and is the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states. Founded in Egypt in 1928 as a Pan-Islamic, religious, political, and social movement by the Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna … Its ideas had gained it supporters throughout the Arab world…. Its most famous slogan, used worldwide, is “Islam is the solution.”
The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for …ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state”. The movement officially opposes violent means to achieve its goals, although it at one time encompassed a paramilitary wing and its members were involved in massacres, bombings and assassinations of political opponents; notably Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud an-Nukrashi Pasha and the movement’s own founder Hassan al-Banna.
H/t FOTM’s beloved Grouchy Fogie.
It’s mid-June, but (as FOTM’s Dave would say) dayem, we’re just finding out that the United States Military is celebrating the month of June as Gay Pride Month!
Pauline Jelinek reports for The Associated Press, June 15, 2012, that in a remarkable sign of a cultural change in the U.S. military, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that with the repeal last year of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that prohibited gays from serving openly in the military, gays and lesbians can now be proud to be in uniform.
“Now you can be proud of serving your country, and be proud of who you are,” Panetta said.
Panetta’s video message was part of a Pentagon salute to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender troops as the Pentagon joined the rest of the U.S. government for the first time in marking June as gay pride month.
It comes nine months after repeal of the policy that had prohibited gay troops from serving openly and forced more than 13,500 service members out of the armed forces.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was in force for 18 years, and its repeal was a slow and deliberate process. President Obama on Dec. 22, 2010, signed legislation repealing it. Framing the issue as a matter of civil rights long denied, Obama said, “We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot … a nation that believes that all men and women are created equal.”
Before the repeal, gay troops could serve but couldn’t reveal their orientation. If they did, they would be discharged. At the same time, a commanding officer was prohibited from asking a service member whether he or she was gay.
Basic changes have come rapidly since repeal; the biggest is that gay and lesbian soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines no longer have to hide their sexuality in order to serve. They can put photos on their office desk without fear of being outed, attend social events with their partners and openly join advocacy groups looking out for their interests.
OutServe, a once-clandestine professional association for gay service members, has nearly doubled in size to more than 5,500 members. It held its first national convention of gay service members in Las Vegas last fall, then a conference on family issues this year in Washington.
At West Point, the alumni gay advocacy group Knights Out was able to hold the first installment in March of what is intended to be an annual dinner in recognition of gay and lesbian graduates and Army cadets. Gay students at the U.S. Naval Academy were able to take same-sex dates to the academy’s Ring Dance for third-year midshipmen.
The U.S. military will hold a gay pride event — the first of its kind — on June 26 in the Pentagon. It will feature remarks by Jeh Johnson, the top Pentagon lawyer, as well as a panel discussion of the value of gay service and diversity, with gay and lesbian service members participating.
Ever on the cutting edge in service to our readers, Fellowship of the Minds obtained this exclusive.
The Pentagon’s special gay pride event on June 26 promises a surprise performance by a very special duo:
Don’t miss this special event! Hurry! Get your advance tickets now!
H/t FOTM’s beloved Anon & Hardnox
Yesterday, Obama’s defense secretary Leon Panetta visited Afghanistan, no doubt in an attempt to smooth Afghan ruffled feathers from a crazed Army sergeant’s murderous mayhem.
The media’s focus was/is on how a stolen truck, driven by an Afghan, sped onto a runway ramp and exploded at the British military airfield as Panetta’s plane was landing. Panetta is unhurt.
But the real astonishing news is this:
The U.S. military disarmed the U.S. soldiers among the 200 some people at Panetta’s speech in Camp Leatherneck — a practice never done before.
Elisabeth Bumiller reports for the NYT, March 14, 2012:
In a sign of the nervousness surrounding the visit, Marines and other troops among the 200 people gathered in a tent at Camp Leatherneck to hear Mr. Panetta speak were abruptly asked by their commander to get up, place their weapons — M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols — outside the tent and then return unarmed. The commander, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders from superiors.
“All I know is, I was told to get the weapons out,” he said. Asked why, he replied, “Somebody got itchy, that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust.”
Normally, American forces in Afghanistan keep their weapons with them when the defense secretary visits and speaks to them. The Afghans in the tent were not armed to begin with, as is typical.
Later, American officials said that the top commander in Helmand, Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus, had decided on Tuesday that no one would be armed while Mr. Panetta spoke to them, but the word did not reach those in charge in the tent until shortly before Mr. Panetta was due to arrive.
General Gurganus told reporters later that he wanted a consistent policy for everyone in the tent. “You’ve got one of the most important people in the world in the room,” he said. He insisted that his decision had nothing to do with the shooting on Sunday. “This is not a big deal,” he said.
This is what has become of the Obama administration:
But then maybe America’s soldiers know that Panetta is really not America’s, but the New World Order’s defense secretary. Afterall, on March 9, this servant of Obama actually declared before the Senate Armed Services Committee that it is “international permission,” instead of the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional approval, which provides the “legal basis” for U.S. military action.
H/t beloved Joseph
WASHINGTON, March 7—Under question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that “international permission,” rather than Congressional approval, provided a ‘legal basis’ for military action by the United States.
-Steve H/T Grouchy Via Bare Naked Islam
Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) is doing something about this.
On March 7, 2012, Jones introduced H. Concurrent Resolution 107, which calls on the House, the Senate Concurring, to prevent Obama from starting another war without authorization from Congress. The resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on March 7.
Rep. Jones’ resolution states that any use of military force by Obama without explicit consent and authorization of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Read more here.
H/t Alice Wolf
Let’s compare now boys and girls.
The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq .
The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by
a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate ‘them.
Barack Hussein Obama speech, Sunday, May 1, 2011:
killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as I continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Hubris ( /’hjuːbr?s/), extreme haughtiness, pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one’s own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.
~Steve~ H/T Q.V. Jean