Retired rear admiral confirms Glen Beck's theory of the Obama administration running guns to Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups, and that American Military personnel were set to respond to the attackers. Only someone very high up in the Obama administration countermanded the order of Admiral William McRaven Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command .

My post title is taken from my read of the recently posted Washington times column by Retired Adm. James A. Lyons. He is someone who is very qualified to discuss this subject from an inside baseball point of view.

From his online biography, his qualifications:

ADMIRAL JAMES “ACE” LYONS, JR., U.S. Navy Retired was an Officer of the U.S. Navy for thirty-six years, most recently as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, the largest single military command in the world, his initiatives contributed directly to the economic stability and humanitarian understanding in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions and brought the U.S. Navy Fleet back to China. He also served as Senior U.S. Military Representative to the United Nations. As the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations from 1983 – 1985, he was principal advisor on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters, and he was, the father of the Navy Red Cell, an anti-terrorism group comprised of Navy Seals he established in response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut. Admiral Lyons was also Commander of the U.S. Second Fleet and Commander of the NATO Striking Fleet which were the principle fleets for implementing the Maritime Strategy. Admiral Lyons has represented U.S. interests with military and civilian leadership worldwide – including China, Japan and other Pacific Rim countries, the European continent and Russia. As Fleet Commander he managed a budget of over $5 billion and controlled a force of 250,000 personnel. Key assignments preceding Flag rank included Chief of Staff, Commander Carrier Group Four, Commanding Officer, USS Richmond K. Turner (CG-20) and Commanding Officer, USS Charles S. Sperry (DD697). He has been recognized for his distinguished service by the United States and several foreign governments. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and has received post graduate degrees from the U.S. Naval War College and the U.S. National Defense University.


LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi
The American people deserve to know the truth


By Adm. James A. Lyons Sunday, October 28, 2012.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lyonsobama-needs-come-clean-what-happened-benghazi

There is an urgent need for full disclosure of what has become the “Benghazi Betrayal and Cover-up.” The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI and the Pentagon, apparently watched and listened to the assault on the U.S. consulate and cries for help but did nothing. If someone had described a fictional situation with a similar scenario and described our leadership ignoring the pleas for help, I would have said it was not realistic—not in my America – but I would have been proven wrong.



We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”



In another excellent article, Clare Lopez at RadicalIslam.org noted that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.




Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered.



Our Benghazi mission personnel, including our two former Navy SEALs, fought for seven hours without any assistance other than help from our embassy in Tripoli, which launched within 30 minutes an aircraft carrying six Americans and 16 Libyan security guards. It is understood they were instrumental in helping 22 of our Benghazi mission personnel escape the attack.


Once the attack commenced, Stevens was taken to a “safe room” within the mission. It is not known whether his location was betrayed by the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the local force providing security to the consulate, which had ties to the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group conducting the attack, and to al Qaeda. Unbelievably, we still do not know how Ambassador Stevens died.


The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI, State Department and the Pentagon, watched and listened to the assault but did nothing to answer repeated calls for assistance. It has been reported that President Obama met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in the Oval Office, presumably to see what support could be provided. After all, we had very credible military resources within striking distance. At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned. Certainly this was a force much more capable than the 22-man force from our embassy in Tripoli.


I know those Special Forces personnel were ready to leap at the opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know.


I also understand we had a C-130 gunship available, which would have quickly disposed of the terrorist attackers. This attack went on for seven hours. Our fighter jets could have been at our Benghazi mission within an hour. Our Special Forces out of Sigonella could have been there within a few hours. There is not any doubt that action on our part could have saved the lives of our two former Navy SEALs and possibly the ambassador.


Having been in a number of similar situations, I know you have to have the courage to do what’s right and take immediate action. Obviously, that courage was lacking for Benghazi. The safety of your personnel always remains paramount. With all the technology and military capability we had in theater, for our leadership to have deliberately ignored the pleas for assistance is not only in incomprehensible, it is un-American.


Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable. According to a CIA spokesperson, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need.” We also need to know whether the director of CIA and the director of National Intelligence were facilitators in the fabricated video lie and the overall cover-up. Their creditability is on the line. A congressional committee should be immediately formed to get the facts out to the American people. Nothing less is acceptable.


Retired Adm. James A. Lyons. (bolding by buglover34465)


Here is my problem with all this, the one thing in my opinion, that Obama and his administration were attempting to cover up.
After George Bush spent Billions of dollars on two wars and many American soldiers lives, attacking, routing, and killing the leadership of AL Qaeda, (the group responsible for killing 3000 plus Americans in the 9.11.2001 Terrorist attack) why is the Obama Administration re-arming, and refunding them?

Buglover34465

Copy of Black five post info from a "legandary Delta operator" confirming weapons systems were in the air over Bengazi.

POSTED BY BLACKFIVE • [OCTOBER 26, 2012] Having a back and forth with a former legendary Delta operator. Here is the gist of what he is implying: The news is breaking today but there is a small bit that is being overlooked. According to the statements from Fox News: The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators. Everyone is reporting this but they are missing a key point. From the retired Delta operator: Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me. One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not "paint" a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station. Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area. If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed. If that SEAL was actively "painting" a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS! This is far bigger than Watergate. The second worst feeling in the world has to be the platform crew being desperately asked for help, given a clear target and then having to stand down and watch your fellow Americans die. The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.

Damming update to king David post..evidence that the president would have known in 4 minuets of the attack.

'STAND DOWN': U.S. HAD TWO DRONES, AC-130 GUNSHIP, AND TARGETS PAINTED IN BENGHAZI

by AWR HAWKINS 27 Oct 2012 Reports indicate two drones and an AC-130 gunship were in the area when Benghazi was attacked, yet their resources were not used. This runs completely against the current explanation coming out of the White House, which is that Obama did everything he could once he learned of the attack. You'll remember that in the second presidential debate, Obama said that as "soon as I was aware the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team." The not-so-subtle intimation is that Obama was stepping up to the protect the U.S. personnel who were in Libya. And in the wakes of their deaths, which weren't "optimal," we have been assured that stronger action wasn't taken stronger because those options weren't available. Sec. of State Leon Panetta gave us another version this same excuse, saying: "The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over." There are three huge problems with the excuses Obama and Panetta are making. 1. It is now known that the U.S. had two drones in the area -- both of which were filming the attacks, sending back feeds in real time, and at least one of the drone may have been armed. 2. Reports also indicate a Specter gunship, probably an AC-130, was in the area for backup. The gunship could have swooped in and not only leveled the playing field in the match between 50 attackers vs a handful of security personnel, it could have thrown the attack decisively in favor of the security personnel. 3. The security personnel in Benghazi had painted a laser mark on the attackers outside the consulate. This mark would have made possible a response by the drones or the AC-130 routine had they been allowed to zero in on it. The member of the security team who was on the roof of the consulate, spraying machine gun fire down on the attackers, continually asked for backup from the AC-130. It never came. Obama says he was doing everything he could, and Panetta says we didn't react more strongly because we weren't sure what was going on. Yet we now know two drones were sending back video of the attack in real time, and at least one of those drones may have been armed. We also know a massive AC-130 gunship could have been used for backup as well, but it was not. And we know that security was begging for backup and even marking targets with lasers for the drones and/or gunship so they could make quick work of the attackers. Yet Obama chose not to respond, and that's the bottom line. --------by JOEL B. POLLAK 26 Oct 2012 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." 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.

Update to King David post

It seems to me that muslim friendly Obama has sided with the muslim brotherhood and is attempting to help them in their effort to take over the arab world. This explains why we helped over-throw Egypt and Libia, which were already our allies/governments working in our interests. And why we are helping the rebels in Syria. It also leads credence to my king david /mob boss theory of having no witnesses and no evidence equals no case against them. Beck reminded that it has been widely reported that President Obama has a close relationship with the Turkish prime minister, before continuing: An hour after that, the Turkish ambassador leaves through the front door and the front gate, unmolested. Now you tell me– why was the Turkish general counsel there? …Why was it so important on Sept. 11 to go to the most dangerous city, into a CIA safe house? An hour after he leaves, the fight begins. We now know that the White House– somebody, the military, somebody, sent a drone. So there was a live video feed of what was going on. They’re watching it in the State Department, they’re watching it at the Pentagon, they’re watching it at Langley, and they’re watching it in the Situation Room. At 5:00 in the afternoon, Leon Panetta has a meeting with the president of the United States. The first email comes at 4:05. So the Secretary of Defense arrives at the White House to have a meeting with the president 55 minutes after the Situation Room and everybody else gets an email saying, ‘Libya, the safe house is under attack.” ​[Emphasis added] Beck proceeded to read several more emails explaining how our personnel in Benghazi were missing and under attack, before he got to one time-stamped at 6:07. According to the memo, Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack and– though he isn’t sure– Beck said it’s possible that Ansar al-Sharia was one of the groups that we gave arms and funding to during the war to overthrow Gaddhafi. “This is why the White House covered, because our ambassador was killed by [guys] we were running guns to, and we are still running guns today.” He then read an international report from Russia Today saying U.S. Stinger Missiles are in the hands of Syrian rebels, adding that the New York Times has also reported that we are using the Muslim Brotherhood to arm the rebels in Syria. Beck concluded the segment: “This president is on the wrong side. It is so crystal clear…let’s just take it one step at a time. The President of the United States of America, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State have all lied to you. They lied to you and said, ‘this might be a video, we don’t have all the information, the information is still sketchy, it’s confusing,’…We now have the documents that came into the Situation Room saying, ‘There’s an attack, they’re watching.’ Then, we have the documents that we had a live video feed in the Situation Room, so they could see that there was no protest. ​Then there are the documents– and there’s now 13, with this new one– there’s now 13 different documents saying it’s a terrorist attack, and here’s the group that’s doing it. And they lied to you.” Russia: Syria rebels have US-made weapons ---http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20055271 --- The West has been reluctant to openly arm the rebels Continue reading the main story Syria conflict Aleppo's frontline trauma hospital Turkish town scarred Echoes of Spanish civil war No-man's land A senior Russian general has said Syrian rebels now have anti-aircraft weapons, including US-made Stingers. Gen Nikolai Makarov was quoted by the Interfax news service as saying the origin of the surface-to-air missiles should be "cleared up". Russia is the biggest supplier of arms to its Syrian government ally. Aerial bombardment of rebel-held towns continued on Wednesday, as the UN's Syria envoy prepared to brief the Security Council on ceasefire efforts. Lakhdar Brahimi has been trying to arrange a ceasefire between rebels and government forces over the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha, which begins on Friday. Weapon supplies "We have reliable information that Syrian militants have foreign portable anti-aircraft missile systems, including those made in the USA... it should be cleared up who delivered them," Gen Makarov told journalists in Russia. There have been earlier unconfirmed reports of the Syrian opposition having shoulder-mounted missiles, but the West has been reluctant to openly arm the rebels. In August, Syrian rebels said they had shot down a fighter jet near the border with Iraq.

Bengasi :King David style hit on Ambassador Stevens

More of my thoughts on the ambassador stevens incident. As I see it: This was a King David style hit on the ambassador just like King David did to Bathsheba's husband. In both cases our man was put in the area of highest fighting and the other people pulled back leaving our man to die. Just like with King David this was done to cover the king's sin up so nobody would know. With this theory in mind the facts come into place. Establish the cover story: here we have the pre 9.11.2012 apology out of now where about a video supposedly offensive to muslims that nobody there had yet seen or herd of. Having our egyptian embassy do this ensures that the right people would hear the apology. Then have our ambassador go to the area of Libia where the fighting is the greatest..Bengasi. Have the state department pull the american security detail replacing them with alquieda/musulim brotherhood friendly security armed with billyclubs. Given the instructions of warn them and run away. Now just like King David did, we have our man left to die at the hands of our enemy. Complete this with real time video of the hit, which 2 different news reports have CIA people claim happened, and we can understand why our president could go to sleep after hearing (seeing) the news. Like King David to him his troubles were taken care of, the evidence and the witness were gone. For weeks afterwords we let anybody run through the ambassadors compound, possibly to allow the evidence to be removed..recall that CNN waltzed through the compound days later and found Ambassador Stevens diary on the floor while most of the other documentation is gone. CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson asked the obvious question yesterday: If we could fly an unarmed drone over the consulate while it was under attack, why didn’t we send the military in to rescue our people? Some lawmakers are asking why U.S. military help from outside Libya didn’t arrive as terrorists battered more than 30 Americans over the course of more than seven hours. The assault was launched by an armed mob of dozens that torched buildings and used rocket propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles. CBS News has been told that, hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle. The State Department, White House and Pentagon declined to say what military options were available. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies.” But it was too late to help the Americans in Benghazi. The ambassador and three others were dead. --BY ALLAHPUNDIT-- According to Reuters, the guards patrolled with flashlights and batons, not guns; multiple British government sources told the authors of the story that they’d never heard of Blue Mountain, even though it’s based in the UK. Supposedly, State skimped on hiring a more established firm because they didn’t know how long they’d have a presence in Benghazi and didn’t want to hire full-timers who they might then have to find a position for later. That’s how you end up with your “guards” hiding on the roof — or maybe even lending the bad guys a hand — instead of defending vulnerable Americans inside. That’s who Chris Stevens had in his corner. Let’s see who was in the other corner: The founder of Libya’s Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia was at the U.S. consulate compound during the deadly attack here, Libyan officials say, but he remains free a week after those allegations were disclosed to Libyan political leaders and U.S. investigators in Tripoli. Ahmed Abu Khattalah—who current Libyan officials and former Islamic militants describe as propagating an al Qaeda-style ideology—was seen during the Sept. 11 attack at the diplomatic mission where two of the four Americans died, said two senior Libyan security officials familiar with the investigation… “There’s no doubt the sheik was there,” said one of these officials, referring to the religious title Mr. Abu Khattalah’s followers use for him. “If the sheik was there, then the sheik was giving commands. That’s how the group operates.” Some Libyan witnesses have traveled to Tripoli at their own expense to talk to the FBI, but “three of these witnesses say the Americans have offered them no protection in exchange for their cooperation, prompting two of them to say they are trying to dissuade other Libyans from talking to the bureau.” So there’s your “spontaneous protest” update of the day, replete with added irony: According to the Journal, Ansar al-Sharia, while denying any involvement, has itself been busy using the “spontaneous protest” defense to claim that the attack on the consulate was some sort of grassroots reaction to the Mohammed film. The White House’s lame, discarded spin is now the de facto alibi of the likely culprits.

must see evidence that our Libian ambassador ws left to die and Obama, Hilliary knew....from the CIA....

http://www.therightscoop.com/former-cia-officials-say-no-way-wh-didnt-know-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-even-during-the-attack/ The CIA officials say we could have sent both a team and air power in time to save lives but the white house/state department did nothing but watch.

More supposition that our libian ambasador was attempting to reaquire the lost rocket launchers..retweet of barry rubin posting.

The Murders in Libya, The Presidential Debate, and The Pattern of Obama Foreign Policy October 17, 2012 - 9:35 am - by Barry Rubin Tweet While foreign policy did not figure large in the second presidential debate, the Middle East again emerged as the overwhelming international issue. In the beginning of the debate, President Barack Obama claimed that he put a high priority on energy independence, an assertion well refuted by Governor Mitt Romney. A president who wants energy independence from the unreliability of Middle East supplies has many options: he could easily expand oil drilling on federal land, promote the use of new technology to produce oil and gas, approve a major pipeline from Canada, and continue production and use of coal for generating power. To do none of these things and put his effort into restricting traditional energy sources and pushing hard for untested, long-term, and failed “green energy” schemes subverts energy independence. But the main emphasis in the debate was on the Benghazi assassinations. Obama said: So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them. In other words, Obama said let’s increase security — after the attack was made — and then investigate and find those responsible for the attack. This is all rather obvious and anyone would have done that. But the real questions are different ones: How about investigating why there was such a security breach and the reasons for the attack? And how about what happened beforehand? The official story of what led up to the attack is just plain weird. Supposedly, the U.S. ambassador arrived back in the country and immediately ran off to Benghazi virtually by himself allegedly to investigate building a new school and a hospital there yet without any real security. His protection was to be provided by relatively untrained Libyans who a few months earlier had been rebels in the civil war. It is quite true that the State Department and ultimately Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bear responsibility for the ambassador being in Benghazi and for ensuring his protection. The president would not be consulted on such a “minor” event. But the story hinges on why the ambassador was in Benghazi that day. If he was, as accounts by sources in the U.S. intelligence community suggested, negotiating with a terrorist, anti-American group to obtain the return of U.S. weapons provided during the civil war, that would have been a much higher-priority matter. I have been asked by sources not to reveal the specific weapons system that was Washington’s highest priority to buy back, but the details make sense. The fact that the ambassador was not accompanied by a delegation of foreign aid experts to evaluate these alleged projects shows that the reason for the ambassador’s presence in Benghazi is being covered up. This situation transcends State Department jurisdiction and brings in the CIA and higher-level national security officials. The plan would have been in the presidential briefing and it is quite conceivable he would have been called on to approve of it. Obama and his administration immediately lied to the American people about the cause of the attack, what happened, and who appeared to have done it. – They said the attack was due to the video rather than a revolutionary Islamist attempt to hit at the United States and subvert the regime in Libya. – They said the attack was a spontaneous act in the context of a peaceful demonstration when it was a planned assault. – They said that there was no idea who was responsible when it was almost certainly al-Qaeda. In the debate, Obama charged: While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening. Yet all three of the above lies were precisely a matter of turning “national security into a political issue,” and that is what Obama has done throughout his term. To acknowledge the cause of the attack would have been to acknowledge the real threat in the Middle East and the embarrassing fact that American weapons had been given to terrorist, anti-American groups. Incidentally, far from learning anything in Libya, Obama is now doing precisely the same thing in Syria. To acknowledge the nature of the attack would be to show the depth of the security failure — on September 11 of all days — in not recognizing the danger in Benghazi. This includes the fact that the guards were untrained; that they had — according to one of them — been aware of the danger and not told any Americans; that they had fled; that Libyan regime sources had apparently tipped off the attackers to where Americans were hiding; and that there had been no U.S.-provided security. Was that last shortcoming due to an attempt not to “offend” the Libyans by showing they weren’t trusted? If so, that arises directly from the themes Obama has set in his foreign policy. In addition, attributing the event to a video produced in the United States — a clear and obvious lie — put a large part of the blame on America itself. No, huge forces aren’t seeking to create radical Islamist regimes in every country in the Middle East; there are just folks offended by a slur on their religion. To admit that al-Qaeda is still very much in business would show that Obama’s claim the group had been defeated was false and demonstrate the limited value of killing Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda is, of course, still strong in Yemen and Somalia as well as having active groups in the Gaza Strip, Iraq, Syria, and other places. Obama continues in the debate: But when it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. I said I’d end the war in Libya — in Iraq, and I did. I said that we’d go after al-Qaida and bin Laden. We have. I said we’d transition out of Afghanistan and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their own security. That’s what I’m doing. What Obama should have said is that he would end U.S. combat presence in these countries. Yet the wars continue. The assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya was an event in that war. And contrary to Clinton’s statement, Obama affirmed: “…I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place [in Libya]….” But what is taking place? The debate ultimately focused on the rather narrow question of whether Obama had or had not immediately called the assassination a “terrorist attack.” This is a red herring. Inasmuch as Americans were murdered for non-criminal reasons, the attack was by definition terrorist. Yet if this was a spontaneous deed in the midst of a peaceful demonstration of people upset because their religion had been slandered, then it was not so much a “terrorist attack” — first-degree murder — but rather some combination of self-defense and passions bubbling over in a spontaneous way. The real questions, however, were raised by Romney in his response: There were other issues associated with this —with this tragedy. There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, I think you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations [Susan Rice, acting of course on administration directives] went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could of we not known? In other words, the Obama administration deliberately lied to the American people. But I find more troubling than this that on…day following the assassination of the United States ambassador — the first time that’s happened since 1979 — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn’t know what happened, that the president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event. In this regard, Obama didn’t so much “make political points” or “turn national security into a political issue.” He simply put his own political benefit ahead of national security. Since, according to his own claim, Obama didn’t know what happened and there was a wave of other attacks developing, he should have put the priority on dealing with a crisis. And as for the way Obama behaved, to quote his own words, “that’s not how a commander in chief operates.” That is why this specific issue is so emblematic of Obama’s foreign policy performance. Romney continued: This calls into question the president’s whole policy in the Middle East. Look what’s happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and Israel, where the president said that…he was going to put daylight between us and Israel. We have Iran four years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria — Syria’s not just the tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a… strategically significant player for America. The president’s policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes. Quite true. The assassinations in Libya and how Obama handled them are one more example of that pattern. A region involving hundreds of millions of people and the main international source for American energy is going down the drain and Obama is, figuratively, heading off for Las Vegas. Update: It has now come out that the State Department hired a small, relatively unknown British firm (how’s that for outsourcing jobs?) which in turn hired 20 untrained, unarmed Libyans who were told to sound the alarm and run away if there was an attack. From the New York Post US ‘too slow’ to act as drone’s cam captured Libya horror By TIM PERONE From With POST WIRE SERVICES Last Updated: 6:30 AM, October 21, 2012 Posted: 12:37 AM, October 21, 2012 The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday. “They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News. The network reported that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the hours-long siege on Sept. 11 — obtaining information that should have spurred swift action. But as Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues were killed by terrorists armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Defense Department officials were too slow to send in the troops, Berntsen said. VIEW TO A KILL: As terrorists attacked the consulate in Benghazi, a US Predator drone was reportedly observing from above. “They made zero adjustments in this. You find a way to make this happen,” he fumed. “There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments.” The Pentagon said it moved a team of special operators from Central Europe to Sigonella, Italy — about an hour flight from Libya — but gave no other details. Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network. When the attack began, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies,” a White House official told the network. Even as the administration continues to vow that the perpetrators will be brought to justice, the man identified by witnesses as a ringleader in the attack continues to walk the streets of Libya without fear of arrest. Ahmad Abu Khattala has admitted being at the consulate during the horrific attack but has yet to be questioned by any Libyan authorities. Abu Khattala spoke to a New York Times reporter Thursday from a hotel patio as he sipped a strawberry frappe and mocked the US and Libyan governments. “These reports say that no one knows where I am and that I am hiding,” he boasted. “But here I am in the open, sitting in a hotel with you. I’m even going to pick up my sister’s kids from school soon.” Lax security at the consulate was an open secret. Stevens wrote a cable in June that there wasn’t enough security at the consulate, and he noted there had been a recent spike in attacks against “international organizations and foreign interests,” ABC News said. The ambassador wrote another cable in August that read, “A series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday.” Stevens said that the incidents were “organized” and that the Libyan security force had “not coalesced into a stabilizing force and [provided] little deterrence.” Several requests for additional security in Benghazi were made to the State Department prior to the attack. They were all rejected. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to deflect blame from President Obama last week, saying the decision not to beef up guards was her responsibility.

Not so funny trend with the Obama administration...calling terrorist attacks anything else but a terrorist attack. Two examples The fort hood massacar and the most recent string of attacks against our ambassador in Bengasi which resulted in his death. "According to Stars and Stripes. The Obama administration has thus far refused to consider the November 2009 mass murder a terrorist attack, choosing instead to call it — I kid you not — “workplace violence.” The victims and families of those murdered by Hasan want that changed ASAP" When describing the bengazi attack Obama in selling his it's due to the video narriative said Something along the lines that the mob attack was the justifiable reaction of mussulims to a video insulting their religion. Not that a mob attack is ever justifiable, not that such violance is wrong, no but he agreed with the terrorist mobs that there actions were valid. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/19/video-fort-hood-massacre-not-considered-a-terrorist-attack/ Article documenting Obama negociating with terrorists something George Bush said America would never do. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/19/What-Has-America-Gained-from-Obamas-Taliban-Concessions This CBS report details how we had a predetor drone watching the attack but sent ne reinforcements in. It also states that Hilliary Clinton knew of the attack and asked the libian goverment for permission to have our military fly into their air space. in other words she knew that night about the attack. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/20/Good-Libya-Reporting-Gives-Romney-Debate-opportunity

Barack Obama's energy policy summed up: Make solar, wind energy more finically feasible by driving up energy costs so that wind, solar look like the better finical choice. Per the May-June 2012 Cogeneration & On-site power Production pg 26 quotes "the average installed cost of residential and commercial solar systems fell by 17% ...the LBNL study estimated an average price of between $6.30/W and $8.30/w for systems less than 10 w in size, and between $3.00/w and $4.00/w for large utility-sector systems." Compare this with nuclear at ~$22/kw ( $.022/w) To do what Obama wants with nuclear power this much lower than solar/wind, the government will have to raise electricity generation costs 66% to make solar /wind viable. For a country in the economic state we are in this shows a dreamer with very bad judgement. Investing in R&D to bring down the costs of solar /wind would have been a much more practical and a less costly solution. Background Obama's administration lost 90 billion backing solar and other green energy companies whose technology and business models were not financially feasible.

must watch video

THE CAUSE OF SKYROCKETING GAS PRICES Here is a promise that OBAMA delivered on..."Under my policies ENERGY PRICES WILL NECESSARILY SKYROCKET"...read gass..and electricity both which hurt the middle and lower class.