Monday, October 29, 2012

Is Obama Just Incompentent or is He a Criminal?... Some of Us Remember Watergate

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


In regard to the terror attack on the Benghazi Consulate, and the Presidents bungling, Senator McCain's analysis is right on.

The Hill - Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sunday questioned whether the Obama administration was engaged in a Watergate-esque “cover-up” of its handling of the September attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

"This is either a massive cover-up or an incompetence that is not acceptable service to the American people," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

McCain said that information that has surfaced since the attacks, which claimed the lives of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, indicates the narrative provided by the White House in the days following was "patently false."

"There was no demonstration. So for literally days and days they told the American people something that had no basis in fact whatsoever," he said.

The White House initially claimed that the attacks on the consulate in Benghazi were sparked by spontaneous anger over an anti-Muslim film created in the U.S., but later said the attack had been planned and carried out by armed militants.

The administration has said their public statements on the attack were based on the intelligence that was then available.

President Obama's handling of the situation has become a campaign issue, with Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans accusing him of waiting too long to call the assault a terrorist act and questioning if the administration downgraded security ahead of the violence.

The issue has provided the Romney campaign an opening on foreign policy, an issue that the Obama team saw as a strength thanks to the president’s drawdown of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq and the successful mission to kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

And McCain, in his advice to Romney, indicated foreign policy should become a larger part of the discussion in the waning days of the campaign.

"I think that national security, as I said, foreign policy has entered into this discussion," he said.

Watch video here.

Via: Memeorandum

25 comments:

  1. Oh my God, Les, really???

    Why are you guys so twisted up about this? Yes, there was a bureaucratically caused security lapse in Benghazi, but why are you guys so screwed up about that stupid f'n video that gave cover to the terrorists to attack the embassy in the first place??? Get the point. Don't use your speech irresponsibly. I'm sorry that point is lost on conservatives.

    Jeez. Give it a rest. I'm sure you voted for GWB, and he did things FFFFFFFFAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR worse than that.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As expected. ObamaBot worship. Christ jmj you and the rest of the looney left will overlook anything Obama does, or doesn't do.

      Delete
    2. Jersey said: "Yes, there was a bureaucratically caused security"

      Sorry, that is a mushy way to say "it just happened". When we all know the fact that several important individuals in the Obama administration were told of the threat, and specifically chose to do nothing about it. They heard cries for help, and chose to turn their back.

      " but why are you guys so screwed up about that stupid f'n video"

      The video had nothing to do with anything. And even if it did, I'll be damned if we piss on the Bill of Rights because something innocent might cause rabid dogs to snarl even more somewhere.

      "I'm sorry that point is lost on conservatives."

      We understand the point, and completely reject it. Only a fascist would blame free speech.

      Delete
  2. For those who forget, it was proven that Nixon knew nothing of the Watergate break-in until afterwards. His mistake was trying to protect his people after-the-fact out of misplaced loyalty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't it interesting that Watergate was blown apart by the liberal media BECAUSE it was a rEpublican president and administration, but now, in 2012, with a leftest president and a progressive collectivist administration the leftist media is ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE to be found?

      Telling indeed.

      Delete
  3. He is criminally incompetent. This is what happens when a nation elects a prom king instead of a president. This is what inexperience looks like.

    Good topic, Les. I wrote about the same subject today at my blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have posted on this subject more than once. Any doubt but what is is a coverup of large magnitude is rapidly become vapor.

      Well, to all with the exceptions of the loyal ObamaBots anyway.

      Delete
  4. I'm going with what GWB's NSA and former Secretary of State said about the situation, not Grandpa Walnuts:

    Condoleezza Rice:


    "Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is refusing to join the criticism of the Obama administration for its response to the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans last month, saying Americans should reserve judgment until official investigations have time to piece together the truth.

    Rice, who has been campaigning for former Gov. Mitt Romney, echoed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s comment that the “fog of war” made it hard to grasp what happened when dozens of armed militants stormed the U.S. diplomatic mission and a nearby annex in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11.

    “We don’t have all the pieces and I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here,” she told Fox’s Greta Van Susteren in an interview Wednesday. “It’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work.”



    And Jersey is correct. Republicans didn't call for George Bush's head on a platter or call him "criminal" because 9/11 happened 9 months into his presidency, and he actually had a PDB that stated "bin Laden determined to strike in US." 3,000 Americans died on 9/11.

    But keep pushing the story, hoping something will come of it, and keep calling Obama "criminal." It seems to soothe the neocons and the GOPers. And they do need some comfort at this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No surprise here Shaw. Absolute none.

      Delete
    2. Shaw. Bush was only guilty of continuing the Clinton-Gore policy of ignoring real terrorist threats. It was the 9/10 mentality.

      Sadly, Obama followed this mentality as well when his administration deliberately chose to ignore the terrorist threats in Libya.

      " It seems to soothe the neocons and the GOPers."

      I have yet to hear from any neocons. They are really rather rare.

      Delete
  5. And no surprise on your part, RN. Was George W. Bush incompetent or just a criminal?

    It took almost a year before the Bush administration reluctantly appointed the 9/11 Commission, and they did so only at the insistence of "The Jersey Girls." Four widows who wanted to know why 9/11 happened.


    It is truly astonishing to watch the GOPers politicize the Benghazi tragedies even as the same people howled when the Dems demanded an inquiry into the failures that led to 9/11.

    But it IS the silly season, isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was the silly season for you for a long time, Shaw. Ever since you put on the white pointed robe and argued repeatedly that Herman Cain was not a good candidate because he was a black man.

      Delete
  6. BTW, you never said a word about what former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated. Is she incompetent, too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw, I like and respect Condoleezza Rice, but on this I believe sheis wrong.

      So Shaw, because I differ with her on this does this make me a raaaaacist? I'm certain it does with certain of your clientele at Progressive Eruptions.

      Delete
  7. I'm no fan of John McCain. But he's correct on this one.

    Lie after lie from the Obama administration -- and an arrest of a so-called film producer as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. SF: "He is criminally incompetent. This is what happens when a nation elects a prom king instead of a president. This is what inexperience looks like."


    No this is what inexperience looks like:



    Number of American embassies attacked and people killed under Reagan, Bush, and Obama:


    92 killed at American embassies under Reagan.

    33 killed at American embassies under Bush.

    4 killed at American embassies under Obama.


    President Obama has the BEST record of protecting our embassies


    ReplyDelete
  9. "dmarksMon Oct 29, 01:11:00 PM EDT
    It was the silly season for you for a long time, Shaw. Ever since you put on the white pointed robe and argued repeatedly that Herman Cain was not a good candidate because he was a black man."

    dmarks, you are a disgusting liar.

    I never said such a thing, and you know it. Your attempt to label me a racist is cowardly. How dare you accuse me of something so rank and false.

    You either show the people here evidence for that libel or shut up. You can't because I never expressed anything close to that.

    You are a perfect example of a Mitt Romney supporter. He's a blatant liar and so are you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes you did. You quoted a racist "humorist" who said that Cain should not run because he was black. You defended him and his racist statement. It was a repugnant and outrageous view, and you strongly defended it at length.

      It is not a matter of labeling. Such views fit well within the definition of racism. It is not my fault you have decided to meet the definition.

      Sorry, I said the same thing to conservatives who bashed and bash Obama for being black. It doesn't make it any less racist when the person being bashed is conservative, and the basher is a liberal.

      Delete
  10. Bush isn't President anymore (and a lot of us in fact DID criticize the man and did so repeatedly), Shaw. Obama is, and it is abundantly clear that the man is either incompetent or he's lying. The fact of the matter is that the State Department (I refer to the sworn testimony of Charlene lamb) knew in real time that there was a) NO protest, b) a plethora of mortars, grenades, and AK-47s (something that normally isn't a part most protests, even in the Middle-East), and c) an al Qaeda affiliate who was taking credit for the attack AS IT WAS HAPPENING. To say that it's strictly the critics of the President (and I am NOT a Romney supporter, so you can stuff it on that one) who are playing politics here is, as the President himself has said, offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And you left out a few statistics; the number of civilian casualties from Mr. Obama's (now in 4 countries) drone campaign and the number of American troops that have died as a result of the man's idiotic surge in Afghanistan....I mean, we've got to look at the entire record, no?

    ReplyDelete
  12. WtnpH: "...Obama is, and it is abundantly clear that the man is either incompetent or he's lying."


    No, it is not, unless, of course, you're a true and vengeful partisan, which, all protests to the contrary, you sound like.

    No less an authority than former NSA and Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, refused to jump on the screeching-and-howling-for- Obama's-head bandwagon and advised people to wait until ALL THE FACTS are gathered and analyzed.

    But people here, as expected, have tried and convicted Mr. Obama and even alleging a cover-up! without knowing all the facts and with the absurd idea that he deliberately allowed Americans to be killed while he was playing golf or off at a pie-eating contest or some such idiocy.

    Yes I know Bush is not the president, but I also know that his mistakes and blunders that caused 9/11 didn't inspire the knee-jerk GOPers to want his head on a platter for that disaster. GOPers were ever so understanding that these things happen during presidents' terms in office, and really, who in their right mind would think the POTUS would DELIBERATELY place Americans in danger? And weren't the Democrats being blood-thirsty meanies for blaming GWB for his 9/11 incompetencies?

    I wonder why the GOPers were so understanding about GWB's 9/11 failings--which killed 3,000 Americans and are out for vengence on the Benghazi tragedy?

    Could it possibly have anything to do with election-year politics?


    Ya think?




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw, do even watch the news, C-Span, anything (CNN and the Daily Beast online have done an especially good job)? The State Department was watching this event in real time (you do know what real time is, correct?) and the intelligence officials knew well within 24 hours that this was a terrorist attack perpetrated by an al Qaeda affiliate. There are videos, audios, and eye-witness testimony and THERE WAS NO PROTEST (and, hence, there couldn't have been a spontaneous eruption emanating from it). That, and a terrorist group stationed far from the site claimed credit for it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING!!!! The fact that the administration had Jay Carney (man, do I ever feel sorry for that poor bastard) and Susan Rice go out there and peddle this bull-dung (yeah, I'm cleaning it up for Les) is absolutely disgraceful and for you to be spinning for Obama is disappointing.......As for me being a "vengeful partisan", I invite you do do a search on my blog and analyze some of the posts that I did on Mr. Bush back in 2007-2008. I think that you'll find that I was pretty critical of him (never mind the fact that I never voted for him, either).......And Condoleeza Rice? CONDOLEEZA RICE? That woman was the worst National Security Adviser since McGeorge Bundy. I could give a rat's arse what that individual has to say....So, was that bipartisan enough for you?

      Delete
  13. Ah, the beauty of pure progressive partisanship. And they think conservatives and libertarians are partisan.

    The old line the pot shouldn't call the kettle black certainly applies to progressives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Les, their answer is always moral equivalency; "Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush."

      Delete
    2. It certainly seems so. That's the problem with the extremes in either major party, there can be no reasonable meeting of the minds.

      Sad but true.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.