Brutally Honest

American diplomats were warned 3 days prior to attack

CNN:

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.

"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.

Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area.

That in sharp contrast to what the White House was saying on Friday, as CNN also reports:

The White House said Friday there was no indication before the attack in Libya this week that something was in the works beforehand.

"We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said.

The comment came as a top Libyan official and some within Congress and other aspects of the U.S. government said there are signs now that the attack on the consulate that killed the ambassador and three other Americans was not a spontaneous outgrowth of a mob angered by an anti-Muslim film.

The Libyan President joins that chorus:

Libya's president says he believes al-Qaida is behind a deadly attack in eastern Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other U.S. staffers.

In an exclusive interview with NPR in Benghazi, President Mohammed el-Megarif says foreigners infiltrated Libya over the past few months, planned the attack and used Libyans to carry it out.

...

Megarif says that over the past few months, foreigners took advantage of the security vacuum and flowed into the country from Mali and Algeria. I ask if this attack was over an anti-Muslim film that sparked violent protests across the Muslim world. He shakes his head.

"The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous," he says. "We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate."

The attackers used the protesters outside the consulate as a cover, he says.

"The intention was there from the beginning, for it to take this ugly barbaric, criminal form," he says.

Megarif claims evidence shows that some elements of Ansar al-Sharia, an extremist group in eastern Benghazi, were used as tools by foreign citizens with ties to al-Qaida to attack the consulate and threaten Libya's stability.

At what point will the United States government come to the same conclusion?

And at what point will Obama's skipping nearly 50% of his intelligence briefs come into play?

Obama is “among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet”

That's the message being put out by administration officials explaining away Obama's lack of interest in daily intelligence briefs.  In other words, Obama's intellect removes the necessity for face to face meetings with the intelligence community.  

Raise your hand if you're buying this crap:

When I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if the president had attended any meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) since Sept. 5, he repeatedly refused to answer. He noted that Obama had attended a principals meeting of the National Security Council on Sept. 10 and reiterated that he reads the PDB. “As I’ve told you every time you ask, the President gets his PDB every day,” Vietor told me by e-mail, adding this swipe at Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush: “Unlike your former boss, he has it delivered to his residence in the morning and not briefed to him.” (This new line of defense was echoed this morning by my Post colleague, Dana Milbank, who writes thatBush was briefed every day by his intelligence advisers because he “decided he would prefer to read less.”)

Vietor’s reply is quite revealing. It is apparently a point of pride in the White House that Obama’s PDB is “not briefed to him.” In the eyes of this administration, it is a virtue that the president does not meet every day with senior intelligence officials. This president, you see, does not needbriefers. He can forgo his daily intelligence meeting because he is, in Vietor’s words, “among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet.”

Truly sophisticated consumers of intelligence don’t see it as a sign of weakness to “be briefed” by the experts. Most of us, if we subscribed to a daily report on, say, astrophysics, would probably need some help interpreting it. But when it comes to intelligence, Obama is apparently so brilliant he can absorb the most complicated topics by himself in his study. He does not need to sit down for up to an hour a day with top intelligence officials, or hold more than 100 “deep dives” in which he invites CIA analysts into the Oval Office and gives them direct access to the commander in chief to discuss their areas of expertise. Such meetings are crutches this president does not need. Written briefings, questions and comments are enough. Obama has more important things to do — such as attend Las Vegas fundraisers.

The mere fact that this man became President is disturbing enough.

Yet more disturbing is the notion that this man could be re-elected.

God help this country.

"This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy..."

"... this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims."

And if you believe that swill, that unmitigated ignorance, that stupidity, that ridiculousness, then there's really no hope for you.

None.

The fact that it's coming from the White House is so freaking depressing, particularly when you come to grips with the notion that the originator of said nonsense might just get re-elected.

Holy. Crap.

Dear God, grant wisdom to our leaders, raise up those who see what's occuring across the Middle East and Africa not as a reaction to a video but as what it truly it.

The manifestation of an ideology purposed in destroying the West and the values to which the West at one time stood for.

Wake us up Dear Lord.

Wake us up before it's too late.

I think this pretty much sums up the Obama Presidency

An American diplomat is assassinated in what used to be called an act of war against the United States and what is it that Obama will be doing?

He's going to Vegas baby:

On the day after the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, the White House on Wednesday morning released a schedule showing that President Obama would continue with his planned campaign trip to Las Vegas.

But before leaving on that trip, he did issue this statement:

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.

Bookworm wonders if this isn't yet another attack on... Americans... by Obama:

Doesn’t that sound as if Obama is saying that it’s official U.S. policy to stifle religious criticism?    I know of no such policy.  Obama should have been celebrating free speech and talking about the fact that, no matter how unpleasant it is, it is the essence of freedom. Instead, he says that the United States rejects free speech that speaks negatively of religion.

Keep in mind as you think about Obama’s words that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has been trying for years to push through the U.N. a resolution that would make denigrating a religion a criminal offense.  Just recently, the Obama Administration refused to state categorically that America will never support such an initiative.  And why should it?  Just a little while a, our President, speaking to an international audience, said that the United States rejects denigrating religion.

No.  No.  No.  The whole point of the First Amendment is that the government stays out of controlling religion and that the American people are free to speak about religion and all sorts of other things without fear of their government.

In the mean-time, the psychophantic media are attempting to make this all about Mitt Romney.  Romney, to his credit, is standing his ground:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday stood by his criticism of the Obama administration for its initial response to attacks against U.S. diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt, calling the White House's reaction disgraceful.

Romney has drawn criticism for a statement his campaign issued on Tuesday night attacking the U.S. Embassy in Cairo for releasing a statement that the Republican said was an apology for U.S. values.

The embassy had condemned a film about the Prophet Mohammad that angered protesters in Libya and Egypt who stormed the U.S. missions there. The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three embassy staff were killed in Benghazi.

Romney said his campaign was right to criticize the embassy statement, which he said was evidence of the White House apologizing for American values of free speech.

"We join together in the condemnation of the attacks on American embassies and the loss of American life and join in the sympathy for these people," he said. "But it's also important for me, just as it was for the White house last night, by the way, to say that the statements were inappropriate and in my view a disgraceful statement on the part of our administration to apologize for American values."

Romney said an apology for American values was never the right course and that "the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation," Romney said. "An apology for America's values is never the right course."

Romney held a hastily arranged news conference to comment on the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other diplomatic personnel. He called the attacks disgusting and outrageous "and breaks the heart of all of us."

"America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We will defend also our constitutional rights of speech, assembly and religion," he said.

Unfortunately, Mr. Romney is wrong.

America, under Obama and with people like him in power, will indeed tolerate attacks against our citizens... and in fact, indirectly, will join in those attacks.

Let there be no mistake about it.

"By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting"

A revealing piece over the Washington Post by Marc Thiessen needs to get much wider play:

President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting.

The Government Accountability Institute examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor about the findings, and whether there were any instances where the president attended the intelligence meeting that were not on his public schedule. Vietor did not dispute the numbers, but said the fact that the president, during a time of war, does not attend his daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis is “not particularly interesting or useful.” He says that the president read his PDB every day, and he disagreed with the suggestion that there is any difference whatsoever between simply reading the briefing book and having an interactive discussion of its contents with top national security and intelligence officials where the president can probe assumptions and ask questions. “I actually don’t agree at all,” Vietor told me in an e-mail, “The president gets the information he needs from the intelligence community each day.”

Yet Vietor also directed me to a Post story written this year in which Obama officials discuss the importance of the intelligence meeting and extol how brilliantly the president runs it. “Obama reads the PDB ahead of time and comes to the morning meeting with questions. Intelligence briefers are there to answer those questions, expand on a point or raise a new issue,” The Post reported. “One regular participant in the roughly 500 Oval Office sessions during Obama’s presidency said the meetings show a president consistently participating in an exploration of foreign policy and intelligence issues.”

You might recall this paragraph from a post published less than a week ago that juxtaposed with the one today is eye-opening:

2. How he spends extraordinary amounts of time and energy to compete in — trivialities.

For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the WhiteHouse alley.

Will the American people see what this guy really is in time?

It's encouraging that the first piece is in the WaPo but... will it persuade?

Lord, I truly hope so.

Chris Matthews removes all doubt

The man is a caricature, he's a joke, he's one of the biggest journalistic buffoons in the history of journalism.

I think at this point we can all say confidently that no one will ever unseat him.

I honestly don't believe that you can sink any lower than the depths the man has plumbed.

Are you ready to experience the worst of all asshattery?  Experience this:

Meet Charlie Crist, buffoon

The former Florida Governor, former Republican and now former thinking man, Charlie Crist, has endorsed President Obama:

Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist endorsed President Obama for reelection on Sunday, writing in a Tampa Bay Times op-ed that the president is "the right leader for our state and the nation."

"I applaud and share his vision of a future built by a strong and confident middle class in an economy that gives us the opportunity to reap prosperity through hard work and personal responsibility," Crist writes. "It is a vision of the future proven right by our history."

Crist, a former Republican who served as governor from 2007 to 2011, switched his party affiliation to Independent during a failed U.S. Senate bid. Crist lost the 2010 race to Sen. Marco Rubio.

In Sunday's op-ed, Crist went after his former party, citing Rep. Todd Akin's (R-Mo.) "legitimate rape" comments as an example of right-wing extremism.

"As Republicans gather in Tampa to nominate Mitt Romney, Americans can expect to hear tales of how President Obama has failed to work with their party or turn the economy around," Crist writes. "But an element of their party has pitched so far to the extreme right on issues important to women, immigrants, seniors and students that they've proven incapable of governing for the people. Look no further than the inclusion of the Akin amendment in the Republican Party platform, which bans abortion, even for rape victims." 

I think the following best represents the response we should all have to Crist's apparent stupidity.

I can't for the life of me understand anyone endorsing Obama and it's even harder to understand someone once associated with the GOP doing so.  

Crist's affiliation with the Republican Party should forever stand as an embarrassment and an indictment.

Squealing pigs, Part 2

Posted by guest blogger tim, The Godless Heathen

For reference, Part 1 is here.  (I wonder what number we can reach before the election?)

In keeping with the most vitriolic, dishonest and outright lying presidential campaign of memory, I bring you the leader of the drove of pigs, better known as the Democrats, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Via The Blaze:

Regardless of whether or not you agree with Anderson Cooper’s politics, the guy is arguably one of the last real journalists left in the mainstream media. During his CNN show on Thursday, the host proved that during his “Keeping Them Honest” segment where he ripped into Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) for “misquoting” a Los Angeles Times article in a fundraising email, in which she attempted to tie GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s abortion stance to Rep. Todd Akin’s. Akin came under fire this week from all sides for arguing that women’s bodies can prevent pregnancies in cases of “legitimate rape.”

Cooper was persistent in trying to coax an apology out of Schultz, but she remained defiant throughout the entire segment.

The email in question argued that the GOP “just voted to embrace Akin’s position by including a constitutional ban on all abortions — even in cases of rape or incest — in their 2012 platform.”

Schultz also criticizes Romney and his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in the email for “saying they don’t entirely agree with that plank.” Cooper then addressed the LA Times quote that Schultz used to make her point, which he says she “misquoted.” From the email:

“…but guess what? The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the platform was, and I quote, ‘written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.’”

Those exact words did actually appear in the LA Times, Cooper explained, but Schultz took them “completely out of context.”

It gets better, or worse, depending how you look at it.

Go here.

Also, if you can stomach it, there’s video of the whole lying, squealing pig.  Hey, just using Crazy Uncle Joe Biden's vernacular.

Joe Biden: Lying "squealing pig"

Guest posted by tim, The Godless Heathen

While this story of yet more buffoonery by V.P. Biden is making the rounds today…

The Gateway Pundit- 

Vice President Joe Biden suggested a new image to associate with Republicans who opposed Democratic efforts to toughen regulations on Wall Street, characterizing them as ” squealing pigs.”

I’m afraid of what will be lost is the complete lie that Crazy Uncle Joe would like the electorate to believe -

“…over the objections of Romney and all his allies, we passed some of the toughest Wall Street regulations in history, turning Wall Street back into the allocator of capital it always has been and no longer a casino. And they want to repeal it”

Here’s the facts, Joe. I know, why let them get in the way of a good sound bite…

From a few day ago by The American Thinker:

“…the Obama administration's DOJ has not brought criminal charges against a single major Wall Street executive.” (Emphasis mine.)

For a little comparison from that evil George Bush and his “failed policy of the last administration” -

Between 2002 and 2008, for instance, GAI [Government Accountability Institute] points out how a Bush administration task force "obtained over 1,300 corporate fraud convictions, including those of over 130 corporate vice presidents and over 200 CEOs and corporate presidents."

Yes, just a bunch of  “squealing pigs.”

Just like Obamacare not being a tax; how the Stimulus would create jobs; the Bush tax cuts being are “unfair” to the rich; being “laser focused on the economy”…should I go on, or would that be too much “squealing” Joe?

[*Image Source]

Heads really need to roll at ABC News

First there was the Brian Ross fiasco.

Now there's this:

Arlene Holmes, the mother of Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes, has suggested that ABC News mischaracterized her when it reported that her initial statement to the reporter, "you have the right person," was a reference to her son.

"This statement is to clarify a statement made by ABC media. I was awakened by a call from a reporter by ABC on July 20 about 5:45 in the morning. I did not know anything about a shooting in Aurora at that time," Holmes said in a statement this afternoon, read to the national press by attorney Lisa Damiani. "He asked if I was Arlene Holmes and if my son was James Holmes who lives in Aurora, Colorado. I answered yes, you have the right person. I was referring to myself."

"I asked him to tell me why he was calling and he told me about a shooting in Aurora," she continues. "He asked for a comment. I told him I could not comment because I did not know if the person he was talking about was my son, and I would need to find out."

In the first paragraph of its initial report on Friday, ABC News reported that it had identified the correct James Holmes because his mother "told ABC News her son was likely the alleged culprit, saying, 'You have the right person.'"

If Arlene Holmes' latest statement is true, it means that she did not tell ABC News her son was likely the alleged culprit, calling into question the reporting of a network that has already been marred by one inaccuracy.

Sad what this network has become.

Very sad and pathetic.