General Petraeus To Testify On Benghazi This Week

Yep, I’m going to beat Benghazi Like A Dead Horse.

OK,   This article looks like things are going to rock and roll when

General Petraeus Testifies this week. Seems he may have an ax to grind with skippy. I’d like to pull one paragraph out and highlight how Jay Carney answers a reporter’s question. It just amazes me how these people can say so much and not even come close to answering your question..LOL

I’ll run the whole story after the pull out. Am I confusing you? Cause I’m sure as heck confusing myself.           ~ Steve~

OK,  This is reporter’s question.

“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”

And this is Carneys response.

“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”

Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

 Just what in the hell is he saying? I know he did not answer the question, and seems he threw the C.I.A. under the bus. Now if memory serves who was the director of CIA at time of Benghazi? Hmmmm-

—————————————————————————————————

Watch out for Petraeus in Benghazi                    scandal

http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/joseph-curl/

By their second term “inside the bubble,” presidents have completely lost touch with reality: Aides and confidants conspire to keep the chief executive insulated from the real world — the bad news, the worse press coverage. They think it’s their job, and lounging on the Oval Office couches, they nod along with the president’s every musing.

But this presidency has taken OOCS to new heights. Mr. Obama has only a few trusted aides, and occasional leaks from the West Wing show a paranoid president suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Supremely confident, convinced by the fawning minions at his feet that he is untouchable, the president dismisses all controversy as partisan attacks by an overzealous opposition. A pliant press corps of stenographers follows in lockstep.

Not surprisingly, every president in the past 60 years has had a major scandal in Term 2: Dwight Eisenhower had the U-2 “incident”; Richard Nixon had Watergate; Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton had Monica (literally); George W. Bush had Katrina (and let’s not forget those WMDs that never turned up); and now, this president has Benghazi.

Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal. Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.

For months before, there were warnings about weak security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya; no one paid attention. During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.

And after? That’s when the Obama scandal falls into the predictable second-term pattern his predecessors all learned the very hard way. Faced with a crisis, the Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up.

So little is known about what happened in Benghazi: Where was the commander in chief that night? No pictures from the Situation Room this time. Why didn’t the Pentagon authorize a quick-response team to swoop in? Members of the military say they were ready — burning — to go. The call came in: Stand down. Let them die. There were dozens of witnesses to the attack that night: Where are they? What do they know? What really happened that night?

And who forced the heavy-handed redactions of those infamous “talking points,” the ones that sent Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations onto the Sunday talk shows to declare that the attack was just the culmination of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube?

Carnival barker Jay Carney looked almost ashen Friday as he took the podium to face a suddenly invigorated press corps. Of course, the public briefing came after a private session with “reporters who matter,” a sure sign the White House is in full hunker-down mode — and, more precisely, terrified.

“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”

“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”

Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

Speaking for the White House, the flack said the CIA was fully to blame for the talking points. Fully. “That is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA,” he said.

“Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants.” That line was stricken: Everything was fine there — fine fine fine.

And: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That line, too, was deleted by … someone. Instead, this was inserted: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning. And the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat: the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.

With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.

General (Retired) Petraeus

A warning to those West Wing sycophants suffering from acute OOCS: Don’t walk down any dark alleys.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/?page=2#ixzz2TB1BiC00

MSM Start To Turn On Benghazi . Could Get Interesting Real Quick.

This is encouraging. This will be the only way to take him down. Kinda wish the media would have done their jobs say…about 5 yrs ago.

~Steve~

——————————————————————————————

MAY 10, 2013  POSTED BY ALEX KOPPELMAN

http://www.newyorker.com

SPINNING BENGHAZI

——————————————————————————————

                          Poor wittle Jay Carney. Busted lying thru his teeth.    :D

                        I definitely have a case of Schadenfreude on this.  LOL

It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)

Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a <href=”#.uy1gksebagw.twitter”>secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.

 

Benghazi Report, Talking Points Changed 12 Times. ABC News Reports.

Things on benghazi are really heating up. abc news has done a story showing 12 edits to original talking points memo. You can see edits at this link .                                              http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583988/emails-reveal-a-flurry-of-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points/                                     

I googled and just about every OTHER network has now reported on it.  Now this I believe is a good thing. It will not go quietly into the night. 

Now for my 2 cents. they may be reporting on it, but every story, and i mean every all throw State, the Cia,   

And STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESWOMAN VICTORIA NULAND under the bus.

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland 

They may be reporting on it , but still covering the jackass’s butt.

Not one reference anywhere to Skippy or white house at all. 

—————————————————————————————————-

   ABC Is Reporting………   

By Robert Laurie (Bio and Archives)  Friday, May 10, 2013

First, NBC outed Democrat attempts to destroy the Benghazi whistleblowers, now ABC News is shredding the official White House version of events. It’s starting to look like the President’s media lapdogs have finally been shamed into exposing their favorite administration.

n this case, ABC has revealed that they’ve received a whopping 12 different revisions of the Benghazi talking points. Their reporting makes it clear that the White House lied when it said the revisions were enacted predominantly by the intelligence community.

“When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows on the Sunday after that attack.

Susan Rice

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.”

They even call Jay Carney out – by name – for telling a bald faced lie back in November.         Hehehehehehhee

Poor wittle Jay, him sad cause he in deep doo doo.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney said at the time. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word “consulate’ to “diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Bear in mind, this isn’t Fox News. This isn’t the National Review, TownHall, or even the crackpots at InfoWars. This is mainstream, Democrat-friendly, ABC News. We can all complain about how long it took the last horse to cross the finish line, but at least it’s managed to do so. Progressives can no longer claim that this “is a non-story” or that “only right wingers care.”

The story is becoming bigger and bigger, and not even the Obama-faithful can ignore it any longer.

We’ll see how long this new found love of reality lasts – and the smart money’s on ‘not long’- but if outlets like NBC and ABC have stopped carrying the President’s water on this matter, the wheels are truly coming off.

Here’s the ABC News piece, and you can read all of their reporting HERE.

CBS has a breakdown of the edits. You can read it   HERE

H/T Canada free press

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55120

~Steve~

 

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland listens to US Secretary of State John Kerry and Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida speak to the press prior to a meeting at the State Department in Washington on February 22, 2013. Credit: AFP/Getty Images 

 

IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Groups. Well Hell must have just froze Over

POLITICO Breaking News!!

Well Golly and Gee Wizz Gomer. Targeting Conservatives, who would have thunk it. Duh.  

—————————————————————————————————

 AP Photo

By BYRON TAU, LAUREN FRENCH and TARINI PARTI | 5/10/13 10:45 AM EDT Updated: 5/10/13 2:19 PM EDT

The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday to conservative political groups for giving their tax documents extra scrutiny — validating the worst fears of Republican activists who have long accused the Obama administration of politicizing the process.

Roughly 75 groups were singled out using words like “tea party” or “patriot” in tax documents, Lois Lerner, who is responsible for overseeing tax-exempt groups, said on a hastily arranged conference call Friday afternoon.

“Mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale,” the IRS said in a separate statement.

The announcement is the latest black eye for an agency that has been criticized by members of Congress from both parties, reform groups and conservative activists for its handling of politically active tax-exempt nonprofits.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called for President Barack Obama to order a “transparent, government-wide review” to see if similar practices are happening elsewhere in the administration.

House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany told POLITICO he will launch an “aggressive” investigation. “We’re not going to let this rest,” the Louisiana Republican said. “We’re going to pursue this vigorously.”

Outside groups on both sides have increasingly chosen to organize as nonprofits — regulated and reviewed by the IRS instead of the Federal Election Commission. Their nonprofit status exempts those groups from paying federal taxes — and unlike super PACs, allows them to hide their donors.

Major outside groups like the Karl Rove-affiliated Crossroads GPS, Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity and the pro-Barack Obama group Priorities USA are organized as 501(c)(4) nonprofits.

The IRS statement said the agency “should have done a better job” dealing with the dramatic influx in applications for 501(c)(4) status. It also said that the decisions on how to handle the applications were made by “local, career employees in Cincinnati.”

“When we see an uptick in applications from a particular type of group…that we don’t ordinarily see, what we do is we centralize those applications into one group to work on them. We do this all the time,” Lerner told reporters. “The problem here was that in some cases they added actual case names to the list. They added ‘tea party’ and ‘patriot’ to the list of cases that should be centralized in this group.”

Lerner said that she only began looking into the issue when the press started writing about it last year before the election. but she declined to say why it took six months for the agency to publicly admit the practice or if any employees involved had been punished.

Lerner added that she was not aware if White House or Treasury Department employees knew about the review before Friday’s apology, and said she did not remember when she notified higher-ups at the IRS.

The White House has not responded to a request for comment.

McConnell said the IRS’s apology wasn’t nearly enough. “Make no mistake, an apology won’t put this issue to rest,” he said. “Now more than ever we need to send a clear message to the Obama administration that the First Amendment is non-negotiable, and that apologies after an election year are not an sufficient response to what we now know took place at the IRS.

“This kind of political thuggery has absolutely no place in our politics,”

And now for the rest of the story.

Read more on Story HERE!!!!

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-targeting-conservative-groups-91183.html#ixzz2Sv0IlEUm

Tuesday Morning Laugh..

SUCCESSION OF POPE

 

 

WASHINGTON, DC – Sources close to the White House have learned that Barack Obama is planning to run for the office of Pope when the College of Cardinals convenes to elect a successor to ailing Benedict XVI at the end of this month. Calling on the promise of Equality for All, Obama is said to firmly believe that the time has come for a non-Catholic to occupy the Vatican‘s highest office.

Foreseeing a looming citizenship issue he states that he has discovered an Italian birth certificate that proves he was born in Rome before he was born in Kenya. “That Hawaiian birth certificate never has been worth what I paid for it anyway,” he noted.

Continuing, he concluded, “And there’s no way that a handful of cardinals could be more expensive to buy than 10 million voters in Michigan.” Further questions should be directed to Obama’s Papal Campaign Manager, Abdul Azeem Khan.

~Steve~                         H/T   Miss May         

Let’s play in another Caption Contest!

This is the 43rd world-famous FOTM Caption Contest!

Here’s the pic (h/t our beloved DCG):

Click pic to enlarge (you must!)

L to r: Kristin Jones, Personal Aide to FLPOS; Tina Tchen, CoS to FLPOS; FLPOS; POS (Photo by White House photog Pete Souza, Feb. 12, 2013) 

You know the drill:

• The winner of the Caption Contest will get a gorgeous Award Certificate of Excellence and a year’s free subscription to FOTM!
• FOTM writers will vote for the winner.
• Any captions proffered by FOTM writers, no matter how brilliant (ha ha), will not be considered.

This contest will be closed in a week, at the end of next Monday, April 1, 2013.

To get the contest going, here’s my caption:

“TGIF at the Monkey House – a foul place where inhabitants have been inside for so long that they no longer notice the stench.”

For the winner of our last Caption Contest, go here.

~Eowyn

Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

While simultaneously launching effort to disarm the American people.

OK Folks. The Steaming Pile has decided he needs Secrete Service protection for life. Probably a smart move. Will cost us millions but hey he’s such a nice guy let’s cut him some slack.   BRB, going to barf.       ~Steve~

H/T May & Tina

———————————————————————————————————–

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 11, 2013

Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.

“The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected,” reports Yahoo News.

The new bill, which will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars, is a re-instatement of a 1965 law which will see presidents protected for life as well as their children up to age 16

The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.

But it’s not the first time that Obama has lauded the notion of responsible Americans using firearms to protect himself and his family while concurrently eviscerating that very same right for the American people.

During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26 yet recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability “to have men with guns around at all times,” in order to protect his daughters.

In addition, the school attended by Obama’s daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times, yet the idea of arming teachers and school officials to prevent school massacres has been dismissed by gun control advocates who want school campuses to remain “gun free zones” where victims are disarmed and shooters are free to carry out their rampage unimpeded.

The hypocrisy of gun control advocates who feverishly work to create victim disarmament yet surround themselves with armed men is rampant amongst the political class.

As we reported last month, despite in the same year calling for “Mr. and Mrs. America” to “turn in” their guns California Senator Dianne Feinstein, author of a draconian bill set to be introduced later this month that would treat gun owners like sex offenders, admitted to carrying a concealed weapon for her own protection after she was threatened by a terrorist group.

Other prominent gun control advocates such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg have also aggressively pushed to disarm Americans while themselves employing armed bodyguards at all times.

Michael Moore, another vehement proponent for gun control, also has armed bodyguards, one of whom was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon at in New York’s JFK airport back in 2005.

A White House petition created at the end of last month calls for making the White House and all federal buildings gun free zones. “If the government believes gun free zones are a solution for citizens, the same standard should apply to government servants and employees,” states the petition, which currently has over 12,000 signatures.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-bill-giving-him-armed-protection-for-life/

Fiscal Cliff averted! And What’s wrong with this story?

The White House and congressional leaders have reached a deal to avert the fiscal cliff, a Democratic source familiar with the negotiations confirmed. The agreement includes a two-month delay of the sequester, which had been scheduled to begin on Jan. 2. President Barack Obama spoke with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi about the agreement and both leaders have signed off on it, according to the source.

Does Any one happen to see John Boehner’s name anywhere in this drivel?
~Steve~
For more information… http://www.politico.com

Obama pardons turkey with left-handed mock cross

In 1989, President George H.W. Bush revived the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation Ceremony at the White House, wherein the president would “pardon” a turkey from being “executed”.

The Christian Sign of the Cross is made with two gestures:

• A top-to-down vertical stroke: “In the name of the Father”
• Then a left-to-right horizontal stroke: “And of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen”

Out of respect for the centuries-long Christian practice, no one makes the sign with the left hand. But yesterday, accompanied by his two daughters, Obama “pardoned” the turkey by using his left hand to make a mockery of the Sign of the Cross over the bird.

Not only did Obama use his left hand, his hand gestures also were not the true Sign of the Cross. I replayed this video several times to make sure I accurately saw what he did with his left hand:

Using his left hand, Obama first made an up-down vertical stroke, then a right-to-left horizontal stroke, then another up-down vertical stroke.

In other words, instead of the Sign of the Cross

†

Obama made a sign of the doublecross:

It’s his “F-You” to Christians.

H/t FOTM’s Maziel and Canada Free Press.

Update (Nov. 23, 2012):

This is also the 4th straight year that Obama’s Thanksgiving message makes no mention of God. [Source: Breitbart]

~Eowyn

The Independent: Foggy Bottom Warned of Attack 48 Hours in Advance – Did Nothing

I have tried most diligently to stay away from all this today, as I am so distraught over it all I have been driven nearly to tears several times over the last couple of days. Fortunately, I was gone a good part of the day and had little access to a computer.

I finally decided to take a peak at Drudge a little while ago, only to see the following in big block red letters – PAPER: U.S. WARNED OF EMBASSY ATTACK BUT DID NOTHING

I then clicked on the link and in very short order could not believe what I was reading.

However, on second thought…

Via independent.co.uk  (emphasis and photos are mine):

Revealed: inside story of US envoy’s assassination

Exclusive: America ‘was warned of embassy attack but did nothing’

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.

Foggy Bottom

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

Mr Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya when the Benghazi trip took place with the US embassy’s security staff deciding that the trip could be undertaken safely.

Eight Americans, some from the military, were wounded in the attack which claimed the lives of Mr Stevens, Sean Smith, an information officer, and two US Marines. All staff from Benghazi have now been moved to the capital, Tripoli, and those whose work is deemed to be non-essential may be flown out of Libya.

In the meantime a Marine Corps FAST Anti-Terrorism Reaction Team has already arrived in the country from a base in Spain and other personnel are believed to be on the way. Additional units have been put on standby to move to other states where their presence may be needed in the outbreak of anti-American fury triggered by publicity about a film which demeaned the Prophet Mohamed.

Y0u may read the rest at this link.

Broom Hilda

If this is true, or even fifty-percent true, a whole bunch of heads need to roll, starting with Hillary Clinton’s.

As for our dear POtuS and CIC, it is just possible that, given the recent revelation that he appears to have little interest in attending security briefings, he may very well have not known of the warnings (in fact, he is still skipping them despite the recent attacks), but he is still the HMFWIC, and the proverbial “buck” ultimately stops with him.

I guess fund-raising in the desert trumps the security of our embassy and consulate personnel living and working abroad in often hostile places.

What is really sad is that we are only hearing about this from the British media, as it appears their American counterparts are much too busy trying to destroy the candidacy of Mitt Romney to be bothered.

After all, the comrade Dear Ruler must be protected at all costs.

And I am not buying for a second that this was all caused by some obscure video concerning Mohamed, as there is mounting evidence that the attacks had been in planning for some time, and they were then carried out on 9/11/2012.

I do not believe in coincidences – especially when it comes to bass-ackward, 7th Century, functionally illiterate, flea-infested primitive camel-washers.

I will have more on this in the coming days, but this is all I can stomach for now.

-Dave

(h/t: Drudge)