Blog Archives

Why Did Obama Deny Military Help for Benghazi?

Submitted by may on October 28, 2012 – 12:44am

From the evidence thus far, it appears that the decisions to deny military help to the US Consulate in Benghazi and subsequently to the CIA safe house was made by President Obama.

The Obama Administration tired to shift the blame to the CIA for the lack of military support for the US Consulate and the CIA safe house.  A CIA spokeswoman denied that requests for help had been turned down by the CIA, implying the decision was made by President Obama,

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.

“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” she said. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.  In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

General David Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has made no comments on what happened in Benghazi.  Petraeus has not appeared on any news broadcasts and has given no interview.  Petraeus will not lie for Obama.  Breitbart has reported that Petraeus has denied that the CIA was the agency denying help to those requesting it in Benghazi.

Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus has emphatically denied that he or anyone else at the CIA refused assistance to the former Navy SEALs who requested it three times as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on the night of Sep. 11. The Weekly Standard and ABC News report that Petraeus’s denial effectively implicates President Barack Obama, since a refusal to assist “would have been a presidential decision.”

Earlier today, Denver local reporter Kyle Clarke of KUSA-TV did what the national media largely refuses to do, asking Obama directly whether the Americans in Benghazi were denied requests for aid. Obama dodged the question, but implied that he had known about the attacks as they were “happening.”

Emails released earlier this week indicated that the White House had been informed almost immediately that a terror group had taken responsibility for the attack in Benghazi, and Fox News reported this morning that the two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, had been refused in requests for assistance they had made from the CIA annex.

Jake Tapper quoted Petraeus this afternoon denying that the CIA was responsible for the refusal: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

The Breitbart report continued,

As William Kristol of the Weekly Standard notes, that leaves only President Obama himself to blame:

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

Why would President Barack Obama deny military support to the US Consulate in Benghazi and subsequently deny support to the CIA safe house?

Did Obama want to conceal the fact the attack was conduced by al-Qaeda terrorists?  Would this have interfered with Obama’s claim that al-Qaeda is vanishing since the killing of Osama bin Laden?

Was the Terrorist attack in Benghazi organized by Iran or Syria in retaliation for President Obama and Ambassador running guns into Syria and placing the weapons in the hands of Assad?  Was Obama afraid of starting a war with Iran or even with Russia?

Did President Obama want Ambassador Stevens killed because Stevens knew too much?  Were Stevens and Obama running guns to al-Qaeda in Syria much like Holder and Obama were running guns to drug cartels in Mexico with operation Fast and Furious?  Did Obama think allowing al-Qaeda to assassinate Stevens would put the lid on the Syrian gun running operation before it could become a scandal just before the General Election?

Congress and other responsible investigators must ask these difficult questions.  If President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others are innocent, they need to be cleared of suspicion.  I suspect the final answers regarding the involvement of President Barack Obama and others in the Obama Administration will shock our nation.

Source

Obama’s real legacy – $10 trillion in new federal debt over just four years

Tuesday, August 28, 2012 by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) As Election Day nears, Americans certainly have some sobering choices to make. Whoever wins the White House has a monumental fiscal crisis to deal with – one that makes losses incurred during the Great Recession of 2008 look like pocket change.

Either way you cut it, the country has been, and will remain, on a path of unsustainable debt. Federal spending under George W. Bush added some $4 trillion dollars to the country’s already burgeoning national debt, but under President Obama that debt has skyrocketed to a staggering $16-plus trillion, and, if the current administration’s budget projections remain unchanged, Obama will have added an unprecedented, mind-numbing, calculator-busting $10 trillion in federal government debt that your children – and their children and their children – will likely have to pay off.

It’s stunning, really, to sit back and watch the country being spent into oblivion, but that’s what’s happening.

Modest growth + increased debt = insolvency; the question is when

“By the end of this year, the federal debt is expected to be $16.2 trillion, which is $6.2 trillion more than when President Obama first came into office four years ago,” says The Weekly Standard, a conservative publication, in a recent blog which included a graphic projecting record budget growth between now and Fiscal Year 2017, the end of a second Obama term if reelected.

Starting at an estimated $15.2 trillion of debt currently (which is about $5 trillion more than when Bush left office), federal debt is expected to rise to $17.5 trillion by next year, then rise by roughly a trillion dollars a year until 2016, when the federal debt is expected to exceed $20.3 trillion.

This isn’t hyperbole; under the current regime, the country has suffered through four straight years of trillion-dollar deficits, and there is no reason to expect, given its history, that the current administration would change much.

“The Congressional Budget Office also says it expects the economy to continue recovering at only a modest rate the rest of this year, growing at a modest annual rate of 2.25 percent. The slow-moving economy and massive federal deficits are top-flight issues in this year’s presidential and congressional campaigns,” The Associated Press said in parsing a CBO estimate on current budget projections.

“Federal debt will increase to $25.4 trillion by the end of 2022, an increase of $10.6 trillion (72 percent) under the president’s budget policies,” adds the Senate Budget Committee.

Budget? What budget?

Part of the problem is unrestrained spending. As in, Congress has not voted on, and Obama has not signed, an actual budget in more than three years. According to the Standard, it’s been more than 1,212 days since Senate Democrats allowed a budget vote on the floor of their chamber.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to pass a federal budget. Despite the clear priority the Constitution gives to maintaining discipline in federal spending, the last time Congress enacted a budget was April 29, 2009,” more than three years ago, noted Mathew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Council.

Here are some more staggering numbers:

  • — Under current figures, the U.S. debt-per-person exceeds $50,900; U.S. debt per taxpayer; however, climbs to a staggering $140,000 each
  • — The current national debt is slated to surpass $16 trillion before Election Day
  • — The country’s Social Security liability is in excess of $15 trillion; the prescription drug liability is more than $20 trillion, and Medicare’s unfunded liability is $83 trillion, for a total unfunded liability of a massive, country-shattering $120.4 trillion – or every dollar in gross domestic product the U.S. will generate for the next eight years. And in case you’re interested, that’s a total debt of more than $1 million per taxpayer.

As Americans, we have some very important fiscal decisions to make when we go to the polls in November.
Sources:

http://www.weeklystandard.com
http://content.usatoday.com
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Republicans on Leaks: Either President or Times Is Wrong

Both cannot be correct

2:46 PM, Jun 8, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

President Obama at a press conference this morning insisted that high-level national security leaks are not coming from the White House.

“The notion that my White House would purposefully release classified information is offensive,” President Obama said.
But a Republican memo from the Senate Republican Policy Committee maintains that either the president or the New York Times is wrong.

“It would appear the President’s statement and the New York Times statements directly conflict with each other and cannot both be true at the same time,” the memo states.

For proof, the memo highlights Obama’s denial that the White House is responsible for the leaks and certain statements in the Times‘s stories.

“If that statement were meant to serve as a denial that the Obama Administration leaked classified information, it would appear to stand in direct contrast to the New York Times article describing the President’s personal involvement in a process  ‘to designate terrorists for kill or capture,'” the memo states. “One of the opening paragraphs described the methodology for compiling the story, saying ‘three dozen’ of the President’s ‘current and former advisers’ were interview sources for the story.”

The memo cites another example that would seem to contradict the president’s statement: “A second story, about cyberattacks on Iran nuclear facilities, citied discussions with ‘officials involved in the program,’ and went on to say that program ‘remains highly classified.'”

Source: Republicans on Leaks: Either President or Times Is Wrong | The Weekly Standard.

%d bloggers like this: