BTW, Obama Decided Not To Send In The Military To Rescue Our Benghazi Personnel

By William Teach October 4, 2012 – 7:11 am

As Ace points out, on one hand Team Obama decided not to increase security at the Benghazi consulate. On the other hand

According to the Wall Street Journal, as the attack on the U.S. consulate was raging, Obama took a “wait and see” approach.

Ninety minutes after news of the attack reached Washington, Obama, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, JCS Chair General Martin Dempsey, and a national security adviser convened for an oval office meeting in which they ultimately rejected the course of U.S. military intervention. Instead, they decided to reach out to the Libyan government to ask if they would send reinforcements.

When the U.S. personnel at the consulate left the main building for what was supposed to be a safe house, questions regarding the deployment of forces seemed moot.

But the battle was still raging, and Ambassador Stevens’ life was close to its end.

So, essentially, US leaders on the other side of the Atlantic ocean decided to not bother doing anything themselves other than make a pleading phone call to the brand spanking new leadership of Libya in the hopes that Something would get done, abdicating their roles as protectors of US citizens. Mary Joe Ambassador Stevens is unavailable for comment.

From that WSJ account

“There was no serious consideration at that hour of intervention with military force, officials said. Doing so without Libya’s permission could represent a violation of sovereignty and inflame the situation, they said. Instead, the State Department reached out to the Libyan government to get reinforcements to the scene.”

Yet, Obama sent two super secret special ops Blackhawks deep into Pakistan, 30 miles from the capital, loaded with SEALs, on a mission to kill Osama. That certainly was a violation of sovereignty, was it not? And isn’t deploying our military to bomb Libya from the air previously a violation of sovereignty? Could they not have called the Libyan government and said “hey, we’re sending military assets to protect our diplomatic personnel, deal with it”?

Let’s review:

The U.S. ignores warnings of a parlous security situation in Benghazi. Nothing happens because nobody is really paying attention, especially in an election year, and because Libya is supposed to be a foreign-policy success. When something does happen, the administration’s concerns for the safety of Americans are subordinated to considerations of Libyan “sovereignty” and the need for “permission.” After the attack the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that al Qaeda is far from defeated, and that we are no more popular under Mr. Obama than we were under George W. Bush. Denouncing the video also appeals to the administration’s reflexive habits of blaming America first. Once that story falls apart, it’s time to blame the intel munchkins and move on.

It’s not like we have multiple warships capable of deploying military assets that could have provided security for the consulate personnel in the Mediterranean or something.

BTW, lots of sensitive documents were left behind, and the FBI still hasn’t accessed the crime scene terrorist attack scene.

Read: BTW, Obama Decided Not To Send In The Military To Rescue Our Benghazi Personnel »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, War On Terrorism | Comments Off on BTW, Obama Decided Not To Send In The Military To Rescue Our Benghazi Personnel | Trackback URL

Chris Matthews Loses It Post Debate

By William Teach October 4, 2012 – 6:43 am

I’m not going to bother with a long debate wrap-up, since this is a crosspost. John Hawkins (and many others) have done a fine, fine job in digesting the debate. I will say one thing: I listened to most of the debate on the radio, and it was somewhat like the Nixon-Kennedy debate, where those who watched TV thought Kennedy won, and those who listened on radio thought Nixon had won. Why? Because on TV Nixon looked awful, because of bad makeup and him getting over a cold, so he looked pasty and had bags under his eyes, while Kennedy looked marvelous! On radio, I’d give Obama B- (Mitt an A), while when I watch the video recaps, Obama gets a D+. He just didn’t look that engaged, he was looking down, he looked jumpy.

Anyhow, here’s Matthews

(Daily Caller) “Where was Obama tonight?” Matthews said. “He should watch — well not just ‘Hardball,’ Rachel, he should watch you, the Reverend Al, he should watch Lawrence. He would learn something about this debate. There’s a hot debate going on in this country — know where it’s being held? Here on this network is where we’re having the debate. We have our knives out. We go after the people and the facts. What was he doing tonight? He went in there disarmed. He was, ‘Wait an hour and a half, I think I can get through this thing, I don’t even want to look at this guy.’ Whereas Romney — I loved the split screen, staring at Obama, addressing him like the prey. He did it just right. I’m coming at an incumbent. I’ve got to beat him. You got to beat the champ and I’m going to beat him tonight. And I don’t care what this guy moderator whatever he think he is because I’m going to ignore him. What was Romney doing? He was winning.”

The DC also provides some fun tweets from Michael Moore and Excitable Andrew Sullivan

Now we’ll have to see what happens with the next two debates, as well as the VP debate. Perhaps Paul Ryan will bring his crossbow and just put Biden out of his misery early? (Lighten up, a joke)

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Chris Matthews Loses It Post Debate »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Barry Obama, Democrats, Elections, Romney | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

BTW, North And South Korea On The Verge Of Nuclear War

By William Teach October 3, 2012 – 5:45 pm

Did you know that the UN General Assembly was still going on? Yeah, me neither

(UK Telegraph) Pak Kil-yon, Pyongyang’s vice-foreign minster, put the blame for the tense state of inter-Korean relations firmly on South Korea’s conservative government and claimed the citizens of the North feel “shame” and “political terror.”

Monday’s speech was the first time a representative of North Korea has addressed the General Assembly since Kim Jong-un assumed power after the death of his father in December last year.

Neither the United States nor the UN escaped criticism, with Pak saying recent joint military manoeuvres between the US and South Korean troops were “reckless provocations.”

“Today, due to the continued US hostile policy towards the DPRK, the vicious cycle of confrontation and aggravation of tensions is an ongoing phenomenon on the Korean Peninsula, which has become the world’s most dangerous hot spot and where a spark of fire could set off a thermonuclear war,” Pak said.

Provocation or typical bluster by North Korea?

Read: BTW, North And South Korea On The Verge Of Nuclear War »

Posted in Current Affairs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Has Long Diatribe On Those Mean “Skeptics”, Has Three Questions

By William Teach October 3, 2012 – 2:26 pm

You really should go over and read this rant by Warmist James Murray in a post entitled “How to argue with “climate sceptics”“, which he has been “procrastinating” on writing.

But worse than all of that, is the sheer boredom. Almost every discussion between environmentalists and climate sceptics follows a remarkably predictable and circuitous path that proceeds in ever decreasing circles until someone (usually me) gets bored and walks away.

Usually they walk away because they don’t have scientific evidence on their side, just hearsay and alarmism. He also calls for “polite engagement”, then refers to Climate Realists as “climate reckless” and “pollutocrats”. Anyway, here are the 3 questions

The first is the environmental campaigner George Monbiot’s killer question, what would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

The next question is, what happens if you are wrong?

Finally, and this is the most important question for businesses to ask of climate sceptics, what makes you hate the future so much?

Let’s see:

  1. Honest scientific proof, including raw data and “smoothing” methodology from the “climate” researchers, that proves without a shadow of a doubt that this warm period is mostly or solely due to Mankind’s output of greenhouse gases. Oh, and Warmists practicing what they preach, which would show that they actually believe their own mule fritters, would help. Furthermore, being able to predict what will happen over the next few years with the climate with at least 80% accuracy, since pretty much all your predictions based on computer models have failed time and time again, hence the Warmist use of “50-100 years”.
  2. Nothing that hasn’t happened time and time again. What happens if you’re wrong, and we spend oodles of money, moving it from the private sector to the public sector for redistribution, all while restricting the freedoms of individuals?
  3. “When did you stop beating your wife?” A BS question for a BS issue. When will Warmists stop agitating and spreading awareness and themselves embrace the “carbon neutral” lifestyle, virtually giving up all trappings of modern life?

Read: Warmist Has Long Diatribe On Those Mean “Skeptics”, Has Three Questions »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on Warmist Has Long Diatribe On Those Mean “Skeptics”, Has Three Questions | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 3, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is evil beer putting CO2 into the atmosphere, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Wizbang, with a post on racism.

Oh, and in case you didn’t know, the color of the week is white. Next week is ultraviolet.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Maybe #PresidentLadyParts Should Concern Himself With Women In Egypt

By William Teach October 3, 2012 – 10:43 am

Most of you probably caught the “lady parts” kerfuffle yesterday. The Weekly Standard has a good recap. Here are two of my Tweets from yesterday

Let’s look at the link in that second one

Three separate protests against elements of Egypt’s draft constitution will be held on Tuesday to coincide with an expected court ruling on the status of the Constituent Assembly.

A protest against the draft constitution’s Article 36, which focuses on women’s issues, will take place at the Shura Council (where the Constituent Assembly meets) at 6pm. Critics of the article say it could open the door to lowering the marriage age to below 18, legalising female genital mutilation and using Sharia law (Islamic jurisprudence) to limit the rights of women to education and work, among other restrictions.

Moe Lane points out that the US is planning on giving Egypt $450 million of our tax dollars to a government that is anything but “moderate”. Strange how Obama and Democrats care little for the “lady parts” of women under Islamist regimes, and ignore the growing danger from the Muslim extremists.

Read: Maybe #PresidentLadyParts Should Concern Himself With Women In Egypt »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Dhimmitude, RoP | Comments Off on Maybe #PresidentLadyParts Should Concern Himself With Women In Egypt | Trackback URL

5 Things To Watch In Tonights Debate

By William Teach October 3, 2012 – 8:58 am

The Politico provides a handy dandy reference guide to the first cage match presidential debate between President Mitt Romney and challenger Barack Obama…..what? Romney’s not president right now? Weird. The way the media portrays it, Mitt’s been president. Anyhow, here we go

1. Can Romney win the first half-hour? Like Obama, Romney can seem smug and prickly when challenged. He needs to go in relaxed, without memorizing his briefing book to the point of paralysis. Romney will try to trip up the president, but he needs to be as nimble as possible. Also like Obama, Romney is a good but not expert debater. He can make a mistake in a weak or unpredictable moment. And the fact that he started laying out a few new policy statements 48 hours before the debate suggests he knows tough questions are coming.

Essentially, which Romney shows up? The tough one? The one who bet Rick Perry $10k? The one who complained to the moderators about Perry taking too much time?

2. How hard will Obama attack? The president does not tend to fare as well going negative. But he has to attack.

The article notes that Obama doesn’t like Romney, which highlights that Obama takes politics personally, something we’ve seen over the years. This is something that Romney can exploit in getting Obama off his game. Romney will want to get a few zingers in to get Obama looking petty and angry, and perhaps raising his chin so that he’s looking down his nose into the camera.

3. How do “47 percent” and Libya play?

The latter will be bigger than the former, if Romney can get a chance to discuss what the administration has attempted. Will there even be an opportunity for the latter? You know the moderator will attempt to bring up the former.

4. Is Obama ready for prime time? It seems like a crazy question to ask about a man who has governed the country during one of its most tumultuous recent periods — and a guy who speaks in public nearly as much as he speaks in private. But the truth is Obama is really, really rusty when it comes to debating.

And we’ve seen how well Obama does when he is off teleprompter.

5. Who brings up Bill Clinton?

Bringing up Clinton might not be the best for Obama. While Billy Jeff certainly helped Obama during the Democratic National Convention, in the days afterwards people were able to sit back and say “hey, this Obama guy is nothing like Clinton”.

The bigger question is what happens in debate about the economy. Obama will certainly want to use his standard talking points and then deflect to personal attacks on Mitt and Bain Capital. You can bet that Mitt will have plenty of material about the economic conditions ready to go.

What are your predictions for tonight?

Read: 5 Things To Watch In Tonights Debate »

Posted in Barry Obama, Elections, Romney | Comments Off on 5 Things To Watch In Tonights Debate | Trackback URL

Obama Admin Knew Within Hours That Benghazi Attack Was Terrorism

By William Teach October 3, 2012 – 8:23 am

I know many are talking about the bombshell of Obama’s speech in 2007, which I really don’t see as that big of a deal: we knew back then that Obama hadn’t divorced himself from Jeremiah Wright, that he was (and still is) a race hustler, and that he attempts to divide people. I find this a bigger bombshell than a 5 year old video

(Reuters) Within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said.

Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups.

It was not until last Friday that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office issued an unusual public statement, which described how the picture that intelligence agencies presented to U.S. policymakers had “evolved” into an acknowledgement that the attacks were “deliberate and organized” and “carried out by extremists.”

So, within hours the Obama administration had reports that it wasn’t a video, it was a preplanned attack resulting in the death of our ambassador and 3 others. And what did Obama do? He went on a fundraising trip to Vegas. Then some more trips over the days following as his administration pushed the notion that it was all a spontaneous response (with RPGs and heavy weapons) to a stupid video that none had seen.

The stream of intelligence flowing into Washington within hours of the Benghazi attacks contained data from communications intercepts and U.S. informants, which were then fashioned into polished initial assessments for policymakers.

Officials familiar with them said they contained evidence that members of a militant faction, Ansar al-Sharia, as well as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, were involved in the assaults.

The officials did not allege the attacks were a reaction to the anti-Muslim film, but they acknowledged it was possible that the attackers sought to use an outbreak of violence in Cairo over the film, which insulted the Prophet Mohammad, as a pretext for attacks.

The big question is why did the Obama admin. decide to go with the “it was a film” talking point instead of terrorism? Essentially a cover up. There are many theories, but the only one that truly makes sense is that by labeling the attack as a growing out of the protest allowed Obama to continue campaigning at will since September 11 and then hoping that enough of the real information would stay off the media radar till the elections. Obama even blamed the attack on the Mohammed video during his United Nations speech, before blowing off world leaders to go on The View.

In other words, the Administration purely lied to the American public.

And they have no intention of being honest with the American Public. The FBI still hasn’t accessed the scene of the attack. The Washington Post has. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is stating that they’ll have a report on this attack….(via Allahpundit)

Clinton asked Issa to withhold any final conclusions about the Benghazi attack until the review board finishes its work and reports to Congress, which could come as early as November or as late as early next year. She pledged to work with Issa’s committee and asked him to submit any requests for information or witnesses at hearings to the State Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs.

So, after the election. Foot dragging, stonewalling, and coverup.

Allah also posts this video about the sorry state of the security at the Behngazi site

The big question is will the media do their job and investigate? It used to be that the media were sharks, and something like this would be a pool of blood in the water.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama Admin Knew Within Hours That Benghazi Attack Was Terrorism »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, RoP, War On Terrorism | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Biden: “The Middle Class Has Been Buried The Past 4 Years”

By William Teach October 2, 2012 – 7:36 pm

Sheriff Barney Fife Joe Biden went gaffetastic once again here in North Carolina this afternoon

(CNN) During a campaign event in Charlotte, North Carolina, the vice president reiterated recent attacks against his Republican opponents: claiming that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s economic plans would raise taxes on middle class families.

“This is deadly earnest,” Biden said. “How they can justify, how they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that has been buried the last four years? How in the Lord’s name can they justify raising their taxes? We’ve seen this movie before.”

Except, Romney/Ryan aren’t looking to actually raise taxes on the middle class, the same middle class that has been buried by Democrat/Obama policies.

(WRAL) “We need to stop digging by electing Mitt Romney the next president of the United States. Of course the middle class has been buried,” Ryan said in Burlington, Iowa. “They’re being buried by regulations; they’re being buried by taxes; they’re being buried by borrowing. They’re being buried by the Obama administration’s economic failures.”

Obviously, Democrats aren’t happy with Republicans highlighting Biden’s words

Lis Smith, a spokeswoman for Obama’s campaign, said the Republican response to Biden’s remarks was “another desperate and out-of-context attack.”

The only thing Democrats hate worse than people using their own words back against them is……well, nothing.

Read: Biden: “The Middle Class Has Been Buried The Past 4 Years” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Elections, GOP, Joe Biden, Romney | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Warmist Decides To Walk The Talk, Cut Back On Showers

By William Teach October 2, 2012 – 5:01 pm

Well, finally one sort of stands up and decides to sort of live the “carbon” neutral lifestyle, and tells us about it as part of the silly “50 months left” schtick I mentioned yesterday. Here’s Warmist Kevin Anderson (via Climate Depot and Tom Nelson)

My day job is to translate the science of climate change into the everyday language we use to understand our lives. To chaperon policy-makers in the transition towards a low-carbon UK, and to help companies and civil society understand the mitigation challenge we all face. But this is not just a job – I’m as much a part of the problem as the solution. Many of my colleagues disagree with me on this – but as I work in the area I cannot excuse my profligate emissions through lack of knowledge.

Hmm, you fellow Warmists disagree that they have to walk the talk? Shocking!

So what will I do differently? I haven’t flown for almost eight years – and that will have to continue. I have halved the distance I drive each year and have significantly changed how I drive. I’ve done without a fridge for 12 years, but recently relented and joined the very small proportion of the world’s population that has a fridge – this I may have to reverse! I’ve cut back on washing and showering – but only to levels that were the norm just a few years back.

Actually, despite my constantly telling Warmists to live the life they say everyone should be forced to, please, Warmists, shower properly.

All this is a start but it is not enough. Certainly, if those of us working on climate change are a bellwether of society’s response, the future looks bleak. Nevertheless until those intimately engaged in climate change, including the scientists, journalists, NGOs and ministers, put their own houses in order, I think it unlikely others will take our analysis seriously. As we pass the bus stop to jump in a taxi from the airport to another air-conditioned hotel room in Bali, Cancun or Rio – what message are we disseminating?

I have to say, he has a good point. Why should anyone buy what Warmists are selling when they refuse to modify their own lives?

Oh, and as for all the “tipping points”, Climate Depot has a good list of many that have been thrown out.

Read: Warmist Decides To Walk The Talk, Cut Back On Showers »

Posted in Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove