Obama laughs when asked about Benghazi attack by O’Reilly

I don’t know which was worse. The Super Bowl, or being inflicted with words from the Dictator-in-Chief. Either way, Obama was not going to let a day go by with out his selfie being in the news. This time he makes a real a** of himself. Here we go:

During the interview today, Bill O’Reilly brought up Benghazi and this one makes my blood boil.

O’Reilly says General Carter Ham testified he told Leon Panetta it was a terror attack. Then Panetta went right into speak to Obama. So O’Reilly asked “did Panetta tell you it was a terrorist attack”?

Obama dances this way and that and refuses to answer the question. It’s very simple. Either he did or he didn’t. But Obama refuses to say. O’Reilly says the question about whether it was a terrorist attack matters because of Susan Rice (because she was sent out to lie on the Sunday talk shows and say it was all because of the video). At this point, Obama broadly smiles and laughs dismissively about the question at around 4:10 of the video.

He also lies, saying we all said it a week later, that it was a terrorist attack. Well, now, no you didn’t you lied for at least two weeks, until you were forced to admit that it wasn’t what you had been saying. In the interim, Hillary lied to the parents of the dead and Obama talked about the video at the U.N. H/T: Weasel Zippers

Obama Gov shut down plan? Put Americans at risk

While we were captured by the visuals of the WW II memorial shut down, a much more evil and sinister process was underway at our intelligence agencies. One can only conclude that the furloughing of a majority of those who dedicate their lives to protecting us was an intentional act to make us less secure. If one accepts this premise, then one has to conclude that any attack would have been well received and could have been used for political purposes. In other words, we are expendable for the good of the Obama agenda. One also has to wonder how much intelligence was lost, never to be able to be recaptured. Here we go. Our man Clapper.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted that furloughing “nearly three-quarters of the workers at the government’s intelligence agencies” due to the shutdown “put the United States at greater risk of terror attacks.”

According to McClathcyDC, “lawmakers, former intelligence officials and national security experts say they were shocked that the administration furloughed the bulk of federal workers at 16 intelligence agencies, many of them tasked with the most important job in government: safeguarding lives.”

It’s difficult for me to understand,” said Leon Panetta, who served as the director of the CIA and the secretary of defense under President Barack Obama. “People that are involved in our intelligence are critical. You can’t possibly put 70 percent on furlough and not harm national security.”

H/T” Breibart and full story over at According to McClathcyDC,

For those who want to have a recap of the purpose of our man Clapper, an interview with humor. ABC interview : The Director of National Intelligence lacks some “intelligence”… (I mean “intel”, of course…) Diane Sawyer is confused.

Delusional Panetta wants Syrian Military to stay, S. Power confused

President Obama’s team thought the Iranian regime might abandon dictator Bashar Assad over his use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war. No doubt this keen thinking originated from Iranian born Valerie Jarrett who has admitted her family still has ties to Iran. But if this is not enough for my Sunday Special, my readers get a bonus report.

Back in August of 2012, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says that when Bashar al-Assad loses his grip on power, he wants the Syrian military to remain in place. I am sure Kerry no doubt has an even happier ending.

Depraved and Delusional formerUS Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tells CNN that the US must make sure that the ruthless genocidal hated Baathist Alawite sect-packed Secret Police Security Forces stay in power after the inevitable overthrow of Dictator Bashar Assad.

Many of us have been looking for what the ending would be in Syria after we dispatched another head of a Middle East country. I happened on a Panetta video whose is equally clueless regarding the administration’s best wishes for a happy ending. So first, lets chug down Samantha Power and move on to Leo Panetta.

Obama team thought Iran would not tolerate Bashar Assad’s use of WMDs

Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, hoped that a team of UN investigators — many of whom, presumably, have a longstanding relationship with Iranian leaders — could write a report that would convince Iran to abandon its ally at the behest of the United States.

“We worked with the UN to create a group of inspectors and then worked for more than six months to get them access to the country on the logic that perhaps the presence of an investigative team in the country might deter future attacks,” Power said at the Center for American Progress as she made the case for intervening in Syria.

“Or, if not, at a minimum, we thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran — itself a victim of Saddam Hussein’s monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987-1988 — to cast loose a regime that was gassing it’s people,” she said.

Washington Examiner

[565] CNN_ Interview with Defense Secretary Panetta on post-Assad Syria [AR_EN_FR_RU].flv
U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says that when Bashar al-Assad loses his grip on power, he wants the Syrian military to remain in place.

Here is some real clear critical thinking. I am just sure this is how it will go.

“I think it’s important when Assad leaves – and he will leave – to try to preserve stability in that country. And the best way to preserve that kind of stability is to maintain as much of the military, the police, as you can, along with the security forces, and hope that they will transition to a democratic form of government. That’s a key,” Panetta told CNN’s Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr in an exclusive interview in Tunis, Tunisia, Monday. (More of this Hopey, changey, thingey).

He said the United States shouldn’t allow a repeat of the Bush administration’s moves in Iraq, where it disbanded the Iraqi military.

“It’s very important that we don’t make the same mistakes we made in Iraq,” he said. “And that, particularly, when it comes things like the chemical sites. They (the Syrian military) do a pretty good job of securing those sites. If they suddenly walked away from that, it would be a disaster to have those chemical weapons fall into the wrong hands – hands of Hezbollah or other extremists in that area.”

Yep, Leon, that is what a whole lot of us are thinking.

Panetta: ‘We lost track of some of the Syrian chemical weapons’

Yes, just a year ago, Panetta admitted that there was just as good a chance that the rebel forces had indeed acquired Chemical weapons. So stick this in your ear and stop lying to us. You have no clue who used these chemical agents, and in fact you could be just as easily be setting us up you clueless fools. Am I angry? You betcha. Major/main sites are secure? How about the not so major/main sites??

Friday, September 28, 2012

“We’ve never had perfect visibility into  the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile, but we have excellent information that accounts for most of it,” said a senior defense official, speaking on background.

“I don’t have any specific information about the opposition and whether or not they’ve obtained some of this, or how much they’ve obtained and just exactly what has taken place,” Panetta said.

“As to the movement of some of these materials and whether or not they’ve been exposed to possession by the opposition or others,” he added, “that’s something I really don’t have any firm information to confirm that that’s taken place.”

The U.S. has lost track of some of Syria’s chemical weapons, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday, and does not know if any potentially lethal chemicals have fallen into the hands of Syrian rebels or Iranian forces inside the country.

Panetta said that the “main sites” in Syria storing chemical weapons with which the Pentagon is most concerned remain secured by the Syrian military. But there is “some intelligence” that “limited” movements of weapons from other sites have occurred, he said, “for the Syrians to better secure what they – the chemicals.”

Panetta’s statement follows reporting that Syrian rebels claim to have taken control of a military base that contains chemical weapons.  ED. And other nasty weapons as well.

H/T: Foreign Policy

Published on Sep 28, 2012

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says intelligence suggests the Syrian government has moved some of its chemical weapons, but the U.S. believes that the main sites still remain secure. (Sept. 28)

Navy: Lincoln Refueling Delayed because of funding, yet pays $16 bucks a gallon

During the hearing with Panetta last week, I was ready to jump out of my chair as I watched the ignorance regarding the statement by Panetta that he cancelled the deployment of the Navy Carrier USS Truman because of budget concerns, no doubt, because of the GOP. Wink Wink. Now we learn we cannot fuel the USS Lincoln. So the truth of the matter is they can’t find biofuel and the Navy has wasted so much money going green. Of course delaying the retrofit of the ship should put more pressure on the GOP so the plan goes. I was waiting, waiting waiting for someone to ask about this idiotic behavior. Better yet would have been to question the Charmian of the Armed Services. So here we go, first the back story.

Navy buys biofuel for $16 a gallon

This is going to help the Defense Department weather looming budget cuts, for sure. Teaming up with the Department of Agriculture (which has a cheery Rotary Club ring to it), the Navy has purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for about $16 a gallon, or about 4 times the price of its standard marine fuel, JP-5, which has been going for under $4 a gallon.The why and more at Hot Air 

U.S. Navy going Green

By 2020, the Navy must learn to get at least 50 percent of energy from alternative sources, and 50 percent of the military vessels will have to try hard to zero out- that is to spend no more energy than they can produce. In other words, the sailors themselves have expressed doubts as to how efficient the vessels will be after the replacement of traditional fuels with alternative ones

The U.S. Navy will delay the refueling of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) for an unknown period because of the uncertain fiscal environment due to the ongoing legislative struggle, the service told Congress in a Friday message obtained by USNI News.

Lincoln was scheduled to be moved to Huntington Ingalls Industries’ (HII) Newport News Shipyard later this month to begin the 4-year refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) of the ship.

“This delay is due to uncertainty in the Fiscal Year 2013 appropriations bill, both in the timing and funding level available for the first full year of the contract,” the message said.
“CVN-72 will remain at Norfolk Naval Base where the ships force personnel will continue to conduct routine maintenance until sufficient funding is received for the initial execution of the RCOH.”

The move by the navy is the second this week involving funding for carriers. On Wednesday it announced it would delay the deployment of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) to the Middle East do to the ongoing budget strife bringing the total number of carriers in U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) to one until funding normalizes. Ful story USNI

Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi

 For first time, we are getting the real story behind Benghazi. For those who may have not gotten a chance to watch the hearings, I chose these two clips that sum it up. Obama could have cared less, and never expressed any concern. Mark Levin made the point last night that it was Obama that had the authority to order a cross border entry of our military. Clearly, he did not. Lindsey Graham does a good job of nailing it down. Levin also commented that ABC, CBS, NBC did not cover the hearing at all.

Here is a good outline of how it really went down.

Women in combat will have to register for the draft?

Panetta moves to permit women in combat, so the headline reads.

Since there is nothing that the obama administration does without some form of his agenda being moved forward, I puzzled why Panetta decided to make this his swan song move as he sailed out the door. No doubt to take a lucrative position as a lobbyist. Setting aside the arguments regarding the negatives of permitting this as opposed to the political opportunism, the answer may be more simple then we think. Of course, once the equality is made, conscription is possible for both sexes. Great move Obama. Thinking ahead, way far ahead on this one.

Now that the Pentagon is lifting its ban on women in combat, does this mean that women could potentially be drafted, too?

And as a practical matter: When women turn 18, will they now need to register, as men do, so that they can be conscripted in the event of a World War III, or any military emergency where the US government decides it needs troops quickly?

It’s a thorny question, raising what may be a difficult prospect societally. But the legal implications are obvious, analysts argue.

“The answer to that question is clearly yes,” says Anne Coughlin, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville. “The legal argument is clear: If it comes to that kind of wrenching emergency where we have to press young people into service, there is no legal justification for saying that men alone need to shoulder that burden.”

The wars of the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan have been fought by an all-volunteer force, since the US military discontinued the draft in 1973. Males between the ages of 18 and 25, however, are still required to register for the Selective Service. More at News Yahoo

Posted by Bunkerville: God, Guns Guts, Comrades

RECOMMENDED: Are you smarter than a US Marine? Take the recruitment quiz

Panetta’s big stick– watch out Terrorist’s- we’re coming for you!

Truthfully, it has been pretty much of a gagger to try to post the last couple of days. But finally I found a real hoot. Now that Panetta is walking out the door, after we left Americans to die in Benghazi, and have done nothing to go after those who did it, after we turned the Middle East into a tinder box, this savant has his last remarks recorded and that should go down in History as demonstrating one of the most insightful foreign polices in our Nation’s History. He claims we helped out big time in Algeria after everyone knows Algeria told us to go to hell as well as the rest of the Europeans. Add our savant Clinton who just issued this warning that perhaps Americans may want to take off Algeria as their destination vacation port.  Wow, four more years that should get even better with our new Secretary of State and Defense. At least the word “Terrorist” was used. We indeed have come a long way. So this is my inaugural post. God help us.

The State Department issued a travel warning Saturday night for Americans in or traveling to Algeria, citing credible threats of the kidnapping of Western nationals. The department also authorized the departure from Algeria of staff members’ families if they choose to leave.

“Terrorists should be on notice that they will find no sanctuary, no refuge. Not in Algeria, not in North Africa, not anywhere,” Panetta told an audience in London.

Panetta says US officials are “working around the clock” to secure the safe release of aof US citizens who have been taken hostage by militants at a gas plant near the Algerian town of In Amenas.

Jordan begins ‘Arab Spring’ – U.S forces present

There is barely a mention in the press that Obama has stationed troops on the Jordan and Syrian border. At the time, October of 2012, the only voices were Kucinich and Paul, who complained that according to the constitution, he needed Congressional approval, but what the heck. Why is it important? Because Jordan will soon start its full “Arab Spring”. Since we don’t know or perhaps we do- that the Syrian anti-government forces are mostly of the Muslim Brotherhood persuasion, we are getting in bed once more with characters that do not mean us well. What are we doing in Jordan? Supposedly it is to keep our eye on the chemical weapons. Or are we helping to destabilize Jordan as well.  Jordan’s King Abdullah II has agreed to new elections next year, and we know how that goes, don’t we? Keep your eye out for the highlighted statement below:

U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton phoned the monarch and backed his efforts to accelerate political reforms in the kingdom and implement economic reforms, a palace statement said.

BRUSSELS — The United States has sent troops to Jordan to bolster its military capabilities in the event Syria’s civil war escalates, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Wednesday, reflecting U.S. concerns about the conflict spilling over allies’ borders and about the security of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II fears such weapons could go to the al-Qaida terror network or other militants, primarily the Iranian-allied Lebanese Hezbollah — a vocal critic of Jordan’s longstanding alliance with the United States. Detroirt Free Press

AMMAN (Reuters) – Thousands of demonstrators chanted the Arab Spring slogan “the people want the downfall of the regime” in Jordan on Friday

The mainly urban Muslim Brotherhood announced on Friday it was joining the protests, lending the voice of the country’s largest opposition movement to demonstrations which had previously been focused on rural and tribal areas.

Abdullah cancelled a visit to London he had been due to make next week, Britain’s Foreign Office said, without giving further details.

U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton phoned the monarch and backed his efforts to accelerate political reforms in the kingdom and implement economic reforms, a palace statement said.

Instability in Jordan would come at a dangerous time for the region, when Syria’s war risks spilling across borders and Israel is bombing Palestinians in Islamist-run Gaza. Yahoo News

The Arab Spring, sold to the U.S. public as a wave of democratic fervor overthrowing Muslim tyrants to establish liberty, has instead given a powerful stronghold to the Muslim Brotherhood from which to exert its will toward its ultimate goal of a Muslim caliphate.

The “spontaneous” attacks and demonstrations throughout the Middle East and parts of Asia were just the first message from the Brotherhood telling Obama who’s really in charge.

If U.S. troops become involved in fighting in Syria or Jordan, they will be working alongside the Syrian “rebels” who are Obama’s proxies in this war. Many of them are Muslim Brotherhood-recruited members of al Qaida, some of whom were even recruited from Afghanistan and Pakistan, fresh from fighting against our troops there.

Now with his Arab Spring plan’s failure in open view, and the State Department tripping over itself to cover up for the boss, Obama is willing to spend more American lives and money in a pointless war he helped start that threatens to ignite into a full-blown conflict between Russia and NATO, with the most likely result being the creation of a new Ottoman Empire.

Read more: Political Outcast

Obama cites International Permission rather than Congress re: Syria

The Republican Mother found these chestnuts that are worth taking a look at since the Middle East is getting hotter by the day, and our Congress is getting more impotent by the day. It is clearly stated that Obama and Panetta believe they have the right to engage in Syria without Congressional approval. But why be surprised. Isn’t that how Libya and Egypt got mucked up big time? Jeff Sessions does a wonderful smack down. Then a clip of Lou Dobbs and the Judge’s reaction  follows.

 Secretary of Defense Panetta saying “our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the Congress to inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress….”

Notice at the end, Panetta retorts that the President has the ultimate authority to deploy the military if the US is threatened.

WASHINGTON, March 7—Under question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that “international permission,” rather than Congressional approval, provided a ‘legal basis’ for military action by the United States.


And now we have the Judge and Lou Dobbs reaction

WASHINGTON, March 9—On “Lou Dobbs Tonight”, Lou Dobbs and Judge Andrew Napolitano addressed an exchange on Wednesday between Sen. Sessions and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta regarding the Obama Administration’s apparent belief that “international permission,” but not congressional approval, is a necessary precondition for any military action by the United States.


%d bloggers like this: