It’s Rather Transparent – The EPA is Hiding Something

November 27, 2012 at 12:50 pm (Chris Horner, EPA, Lisa Jackson, Obama Administration, Regulations)

“Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

–  Barack Obama, 2008

Suffice it to say, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to receive any transparency memo from the White House in the last four years since the President uttered these words.

Nor are they particularly fond of the rule of law.
Just prior to the election, Senator James Inhofe accused the EPA of either delaying action or ‘punting’ on numerous regulations, in an attempt to garner extra second-term votes for President Obama.  Inhofe also outlined the fact that the President had also twice failed to release a regulatory agenda which would involve the EPA, a violation of federal law in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
But recent revelations involving the EPA may be a new low in an administration bound proudly in word to the mantra of ‘transparency’, all the while ignoring it in deed.  
From ignoring open-record requests, to creating bogus e-mail accounts and names, the EPA has proven there is no level to which they will not stoop in an attempt to sidestep the era of open government the President has so vociferously hailed.

The Curious Case of Richard Windsor
The tale of Richard Windsor would hardly warrant a blip on the radar of those analyzing the EPA’s activities, save for the fact that Mr. Windsor does not exist. Windsor is in fact EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, the name used as an e-mail alias she has reportedly used to cover her tracks in private correspondence.
The Windsor account may actually have been used by several other executives at the EPA, but a definitive relationship has been proven with Ms. Jackson.
A report from the Daily Caller provides a source which demonstrates “a complete link between the Windsor email address and Jackson”, providing screenshots that show the faux account on three separate computers under her name.
This act, while suspicious in its very nature, actually creates another legal issue for the department.  Investor’s Business Daily explains that, “Federal law prohibits the government from using private emails for official communications unless they are appropriately stored and can be tracked”.
This, according to IBD, has prompted an investigation:
“Because things look suspicious at the EPA, the House Science Committee is investigating the possibility that the agency has conducted business it doesn’t want the public to see. On Friday, the committee delivered letters to the EPA and various agency inspectors general’ seeking to find out if ‘senior personnel have been conducting official business through secretive means such as aliases and private email accounts.’”
What else does the EPA not want the public to see?

Ignoring Lawful Requests
The investigation comes mere months after the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) filed suit over the EPA’s refusal to comply with open records requests. Those particular requests revealed additional ‘secondary’ e-mail accounts created by top officials at the agency, including Obama ‘energy and environment czar’, Carol Browner.
As is addressed in the aforementioned law, such private e-mail accounts are prohibited because the communications cannot be properly stored and tracked. And by way of demonstration, the CEI has confirmed through a memo provided via a previous Freedom of Information Act request, that “the EPA ‘is unable to recreate most of the accounts’ usage histories.’”
Meanwhile, perfectly legal requests made by the CEI in regards to the Jackson/Windsor e-mails have gone unanswered.  
The EPA’s refusal to cooperate on the matter raises questions as to what exactly the Obama administration is hiding.  In fact, the IBD editorial goes so far as to claim that the federal government is “acting as if it’s an authority unto itself.”
The Most Secretive Administration Ever?
The House Science Committee, in letters delivered to the EPA, seeks to find the truth as to whether “senior personnel have been conducting official business through secretive means such as aliases and private email accounts.”
One person involved in the report claims that these secretive actions are more the norm in the administration than they are an aberration.
“Either way, it’s not just the EPA. Chris Horner, the CEI senior fellow who learned about the secret emails while researching his book ‘The Liberal War on Transparency,’ calls the Obama White House ‘one of the most secretive administrations ever.’”
The EPA is certainly giving no reason to think otherwise.  

Summary
We’ve covered the seemingly mundane (ignoring records requests), to the juvenile (creating secret e-mail accounts), to the downright criminal (failing to release a regulatory agenda).  
Do any of these actions strike you as the actions of a ‘transparent’ administration?
The question now progresses from one of ‘Is the Obama administration and the EPA hiding something?’ to ‘What exactly is the Obama administration and the EPA hiding?’  
Perhaps it is the avalanche of anti-coal regulations expected to cost the U.S. economy over $700 billion.  Maybe it is the new power plant rules expected to stop the building of all new coal plants, decimating an industry the President has vowed to bankrupt.  Or, perhaps as Inhofe suggested, it is the very regulations that some experts claim will contribute to the loss of 887,000 jobs annually, and would more specifically “cost $300 billion to $400 billion annual and significantly increase the price of gasoline and home heating.”
Sadly, we can only speculate about an administration so insistent on hiding their true intentions from the American people.

And only time will reveal the detrimental effect caused by the cumulative actions of employees at the EPA.


Cross-posted at FreedomWorks 
Advertisements

Permalink Leave a Comment

Petraeus to ‘Amend’ His Testimony – Knew It Was Terrorism ‘Almost Immediately’

November 16, 2012 at 11:41 am (Ansar Al Sharia, Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, Congress, Cover Up, David Petraeus, Navy SEALs, Obama Administration, Scandal, Susan Rice, Terrorism, Testimony, White House)

CNN is reporting that a well-placed source has indicated that CIA Chief David Petraeus will ‘amend’ his previous testimony, telling Congress that he knew the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans was terrorism, and that he knew this “almost immediately”.

Via Breitbart (h/t Memeorandum):

Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported that a high-placed source informed her that former CIA Chief David Petraeus will use his upcoming testimony to amend his previous testimony. According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed door congressional hearing that he knew “almost immediately” that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.

Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security advisor to George W. Bush, who is now a CNN analyst, tweeted this out:

Of course Petraeus knew the attacks were terror related almost immediately.  The entire White House knew it as well.  On October 24th, we reported on e-mails sent to officials at the White House and the State Department, advising the administration within a couple of hours that the attacks were carried out by an Islamic militant group, Ansar Al Sharia, the same group Petraeus plans to note in his testimony.
Reuters reported:

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

By ultimately, they mean several weeks later.  This is definitive proof that Obama’s White House was not getting bad reports and bad intelligence from the State Department or the intelligence community, and simply relaying mis-information that a video had sparked the attack.

They knew.  They knew, and they lied.

Which is precisely why GOP lawmakers have a hard time considering Susan Rice competent when she subsequently went on a whirlwind media tour five days later claiming that the attacks were a spontaneous response to an anti-Mohammad video.

Petraeus, in addition to his ‘amended’ testimony, also informed CNN’s source that “he believed the CIA talking points given to Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration.”

Politico is also reporting on these statements from Sen. Saxby Chambliss:

Sen. Saxby Chambliss on Friday stopped short of charging that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s explanation of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi was a lie but said it was crafted to provide White House political talking points.

“Susan Rice was sent to give a White House message,” said Chambliss, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “It was not an intelligence community message, and there’s a very clear distinction in that.”

“I do think that there were some politics involved in the message that the White House wanted to send,” he added.

Upon hearing President Obama’s touchy defense of Rice a couple of days ago, Charles Karuthammer had this to say:

You called at it a show of passion, I would say it was his usual show of indignation, which is his default response whenever he feels defensive or backed into a corner. ‘How dare you attack my U.N. ambassador?’ And then he gives the strangest defense by saying she didn’t have anything to do with the Benghazi [attack]. Then why the hell are you sending her out there? Why didn’t you send out the Secretary of State, or the CIA Director, or [Secretary of Defense] Panetta or somebody, who did know? 

The question is rhetorical.  We know that the White House, the State Department, and the CIA Director were informed that this was a terror attack almost immediately.  The White House then gave Rice her talking points for the American public five days later which denied terrorism was a factor by shifting blame to a video.

Rice had one job and one job only – to lie to you, to lie to me, and to lie to the families of those that were killed that night.  All because an election was right around the corner.

This is disgraceful.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Report: Did the Obama Administration Withhold Information on an Iranian Attack on a US Drone?

November 8, 2012 at 5:06 pm (CNN, Drone, Fighter Jet, Iran, Kuwait, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Persian Gulf, Predator, Su-25)

Brace yourself, this is but one of many, many things we will be finding out about now that the election is behind us.

CNN reports:

Two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed U.S. Air Force Predator drone in the Persian Gulf last week, CNN has learned.

The incident raises fresh concerns within the Obama administration about Iranian military aggression in crucial Gulf oil shipping lanes.

The drone was in international airspace east of Kuwait, U.S. officials said, adding it was engaged in routine maritime surveillance.

Although the drone was not hit, the Pentagon is concerned.

This incident occurred on November 1st.  The American media heard nothing about it until today.  The CNN report confirms that the Obama administration did not disclose the incident, which is tantamount to intentionally keeping it from public consumption.

The Obama administration did not disclose the incident, which occurred just days before the presidential election on November 1, but three senior officials confirmed the details to CNN.

Now that the election is over however, the incident is fair game to report on.  As will be the Benghazi scandal.  This administration has – and will continue to – put political aspirations well ahead of national security.

One journalist asked an American defense official if the reason it wasn’t reported was due to the Iranian fighter jet’s inability to actually hit the drone.  The response was, ““it doesn’t matter, they fired on us.”

In other words, there was no good discernible reason to not report the incident.  And yet, we’re just finding out about it now.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Father of Slain SEAL: White House ‘Had a Moral Duty to Send Support, They Chose Not To’

October 27, 2012 at 11:41 am (Benghazi, Charles Woods, Chris Stevens, CIA, Hero, Heroes, Navy SEAL, Obama Administration, President Obama, Tyrone Woods, White House)

Morality isn’t a strong point of this administration, as we have come to learn over the last couple of months concerning the massacre in Benghazi.

Last night on Hannity the father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, spoke about the moral bankruptcy of the White House in their response to the attacks, and the subsequent lies and cover up.

Here is a brief excerpt (transcript and video below):

“For seven hours the cowards in the White House were watching something they knew that was going to potentially kill those 30 people and potentially kill my son and they refused to do that – even though they had a moral duty to send support, they chose not to.”

TRANSCRIPT (Rough):

HANNITY: moments ago i spoke with the father of this american hero tyrone woods to get reaction to these developments. an incredible interview. here is what he had to say.

HANNITY: we have learned so much in the aftermath of this attack. and you know we learned that the ambassador first requested security. it was denied. we learned that while they were under attack that they requested security and none was forthcoming and we learnd that they were watching this in the state department, charleen lamb said they were watching in in real time so everybody knew what was going on.

CHARLES WOODS: right, exactly. when i went back to washington, d.c. when the bodies were flown in i knew that something was fishy. it just — it was just obvious that something was wrong with this picture and in my mind i questioned, you know, this was obviously a long drawn out battle. why there was no immediate air support sent in that would have saved the lives of not just the other 30 people but also the life of my son who truly was an american hero? now, it has come out that pleas for help were made not just by the other individuals but by my son and these pleas were turned down by the white house. now, as you know i’m a retired attorney and i know that these actions legally do not constitute murder but in my mind the people in the white house all of them who have authority to send in reenforcements to prevent what they knew was going to be the death of my son are guilty of murdering my son. there is new information that came out this morning that my son on a couple of different occasions requested permission to go to the aide of those 30 people being attacked and on at least two of the first occasion he was told stay where you are are at, let them die, don’t go and it does not surprise me that my son disobeyed orders in order to save american lives. that is the type of american hero he was.

HANNITY: so after he was told to stand down as i understand t there were numerous other are pleas for help and your son actually as i understand it rescued many people and got them out of the consulate. is that true?

WOODS: you know, one of the real touching e-mails i got was — i won’t mention a name but i received an e-mail from someone who said your son’s sacrifice saved my life and he saved more than one life and that is the type of man he was. that is the type of leadership the military needs.

HANNITY: so if he would have obeyed that order to stand down rather than help the ambassador’s team that person is telling you they wouldn’t be alive today.

WOODS: that is correct.

HANNITY: and then —

WOODS: and a many other people as well.

HANNITY: your son first got involved, was told to stand down after they heard shots at a approximately 9:40 p.m. now, as i understand it, it wasn’t until about 4:00 a.m. the next day that your son after he had rescued other people was still fighting in this attack and it was then that he took on mortar fire?

WOODS: that is my understanding. for seven hours the cowards in the white house were watching something they knew that was going to potentially kill those 30 people and potentially kill my son and they refused to do that even though they had a moral duty to send support they chose not to. this is not the way the seals operate. the seals are an honorable unit and ty was honorable by disoh boying the powers in the white house that told him not to rescue those lives.

HANNITY: your son was told to stand down. a navy seal, risks h his military career and his life for 7 full hours and rescues all these people. multiple requests throughout the entire period go, it is be hing watched in real time and nobody sends any help. i can’t fathom this. and then we are told the president goes out there for two weeks and couldn’t admit this is a tort attack. why do you think he tried to blame it on the video or denied it was a terror attack?

WOODS: unfortunately, sean, we have a generation of liars who have no moral background. hopefully my son’s sacrifice and his moral courage and his moral strength will encourage our next generation to be completely different. that we will change our direction. that we will raise up a new generation of true american here are rows such as my son — heros such as my son who have moral courage and who are are not liars like too many people in authority are nowadays.

HANNITY: i know you met the president and you met hillary clinton. when they had this service.

WOODS: that is, correct. at andrew’s air force base when the bodies were flown in.

HANNITY: you said the president couldn’t look you in the eye and it was like shaking hands with a dead fish.

WOODS: that’s exactly right.

HANNITY: and so you felt he couldn’t look you in the eye and that basically he felt no empathy and you said the same thing pretty much about hillary clinton?

WOODS: right. what happened was he came through there kind of after everyone else had been in the room circulating and he came over and shook my hand, you know, i wanted to do more than just shake his hand so i kind of put my arm around his shoulder to have just a little bit of physical warmth, not a major hug but just a small one and he kind of — it wasn’t in a powerful voice it was more of just a whiney little voice i’m sorry. i could tell my his voice he wasn’t even sorry. it would be like a little kid that is told by the teacher to go apologize to johnny out on the play ground and when looked at me his face was pointed towards me but he couldn’t look me in the eye. he was shooing over my shoulder and like i say, i thought he political — literally like shaking hands with a dead fish. i did not believe him at all as far as his being sore arery and now we understand why. was he one of those cowards that was in the white house watching my son being murdered on tv and refusing to do anything? that is a question that he will probably not have the courage to answer publicly but i would like to personally know that answer and one of these days the whole i’m sure that we will have that answer.

HANNITY: it is the hardest thing to lose a child and learning about the heroics of your son are beyond inspiring. he put everything on the line, you know, if we want to use a biblical quote no greater love hath a man than to day down his life for someone else. your son lay down his life for others.

WOODS: thank you very much, sean. i appreciate the work you are doing.

HANNITY: i appreciate your time. thank you for being with us

Permalink Leave a Comment

Video: Father of Slain SEAL – Administration "Murderers of My Son"

October 26, 2012 at 3:32 pm (Benghazi, Charles Woods, Chris Stevens, Megyn Kelly, Obama Administration, President Obama, Stand Down, Tyrone Woods)

Earlier today, we reported on news that Americans killed in Benghazi on 9/11 had radioed for help multiple times, and were denied those requests each time.

Charles Woods, the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, one of the Americans slain in the premeditated attack, spoke to Megyn Kelly earlier today, assailing the Obama administration for feeding he and his family a pack of lies, and for being “murderers of (his) son”.

Video can be seen below.  Transcript follows.

TRANSCRIPT

CHARLIE WOODS: thank you, i appreciate the introduction, and i do want to reiterate and really emphasize again that this is not about politics. if it were about politics, it would dishonor my son. this is about honesty and integrity and justice.

KELLY: you learn more about his final moments, how he was denied three times, and how he ignored the orders to stand down and he rushed to the scene to try to do his best and he did it down to the last.

WOODS: my son was an american hero. and he had the moral strength to do what was right. even if that would professionally cost him his job. even if it would cost him his life. he was a hero who was willing to do whatever was necessary. to respond to the cries for help. if, in fact, those people from the white house were courageous and have the strength, within minutes of the first attack, — he was not denied permission. i don’t know much about weapons, but it’s coming out right now. they actually had laser targets focused on the mortars and they refused to pull the trigger. to me, i’m an attorney. but to me, that is not right. those people made the decision and who knew about this and lied about it — they are murderers of my son. that is a very strong statement. but for their benefit, we need to stand up and they need to change the direction of their lives. i say, you know who you are. i hope years from now, you change the direction of your life.

KELLY: charlie, do you feel like you are getting straight answers? from the administration on this?

WOODS: this is all a pack of lies. that is one thing is the father whose son who has been killed, i do not appreciate lies.i’m a loving person. i love my son and i want to honor him. facts are coming out right now. the reason i am even speaking up, whatever the facts came out that in real-time, the white house, minutes after the first bullet was fired, they watch my son and they denied his request for help. my son violated his orders in order to protect the lives of at least 30 people. he risked his life and i wish that leadership in the white house had the same moral porridge that my son displayed with his wife.

KELLY: as we look at the beautiful pictures that you gave us of your son when he was younger, we remember his legacy. he is an american hero, charlie. i will give you the last word.

WOODS: you know, i appreciate that. and i sent you those pictures of him in high school. and i wanted you to show those for one reason. and that is so that people can be inspired and know that he was just a normal kid. we were an imperfect memory, but a normal family. i hope that his legacy goes on. and that we would raise a generation of american heroes. and that they would be inspired by his pictures and his life. those are strong morally and strong in every other aspect. we do not need another generation of liars who lack the moral strength.

KELLY: charlie, all the best you and your family.

WOODS: i really appreciate that. i really wish the best to those people that love my son to be murdered. i mean i very sincerely. i want the best for them. they need to stand up, and they need to change the direction. thank you.

KELLY: thank you. all the best, sir. i know i speak for a lot of you when i say that your son is missed, and we honor his memory today.

Permalink Leave a Comment

E-Mails Show White House Knew Benghazi Was a Militant Attack Two Hours In

October 24, 2012 at 12:05 pm (Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, John Bolton, Libya, Obama Administration, President Obama, Saxby Chambliss, Scandal, State Department, White House, White House E-Mails)

So much for reporting on the intelligence available at the time.  My question – Do you not as Americans get angrier with each and every lie that comes out of the White House regarding the murder of four fellow patriots?

Does it bother you at all?

Via Reuters:

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

By ultimately, they mean several weeks later.  This is definitive proof that Obama’s White House was not getting bad reports and bad intelligence from the State Department or the intelligence community, and simply erroneously relaying information that a video had sparked the attack.

They knew.  They knew, and they lied.

More details from Gateway Pundit:

This email was sent to State Department officials, White House officials, Secret Service officials at 6:07 PM EST on 9-11.

This was at least the third email sent to the White House the evening of 9-11 on the Benghazi attack.

Barack Obama was meeting with his security team in the Oval Office that evening.

The email clearly blamed Al-Qaeda linked group Ansar al-Sharia for the attack on the US consulate.

This was before the lifeless body of Ambassador Stevens was dragged from the consulate ruins.

A copy of the e-mail:

Then there’s this from Fox Nation via Maggie’s Notebook:

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.

“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.

The White House knew about it and did nothing.  They watched it happening in real-time and did nothing.  President Obama knew about it and went to sleep.  Literally. 

Republicans are responding.

NewsMax:

Republicans are blasting the Obama administration for failing to act on real-time information that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was under attack. Emails obtained by the news agency Reuters show that officials at the State Department were told within two hours of the attack starting that the al-Qaida-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility. Reacting to the report, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton said he was not surprised by the disclosure, telling Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Tuesday night that “what the emails show beyond any doubt is that the State Department was fully possessed of the information in real time.” Bolton said the “paper trail” now makes it harder for the Obama administration to “sweep away” the security failure at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, in which Ambassador Chris Stephens and three other Americans were killed. On Capitol Hill, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called for additional hearings on Libya based on the emails…
… Bolton also blamed the failure to launch an immediate military response to the attack, based on the email traffic that reportedly reached the White House situation room and the State Department, on election year politics and the administration’s reluctance to admit that al-Qaida “was resurgent in Libya.” “It undercut the [Obama campaign] storyline that the war on terror is over, al-Qaida’s on the run, the Arab spring has been a success,” Bolton said. “And that led to the denials of the request [before the attack] for security enhancement. That led to the tragedy in Benghazi. And I think that then led to this ridiculous story that it was caused by some YouTube video.” Bolton described it as “a willful blindness” to reality.

Willful blindness to reality.  Does that statement apply more so to the administration, or those voters who will ignore this massive scandal come election day?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Democrats: Americans Don’t Care About Benghazi, But They Care About Bin Laden

October 15, 2012 at 7:10 am (2012 Election, Benghazi, Christopher Stevens, Democrats, Donna Edwards, Foreign Policy, Libya, Mitt Romney, Obama Administration, Osama Bin laden, Situation Room, Stephanie Cutter)

Democrats for some reason seem to think that the singular act of killing Osama bin Laden equates to a successful foreign policy.

Problem is, the President’s other foreign policy tactics – disarming our Marines, creating a policy of ‘courageous restraint’, negotiating with the Taliban by releasing their commanders in exchange for a “promise” of peace talks, and failing to provide adequate security to our consulate buildings – demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of world events.

There is real concern over the President’s weak foreign policy.

On CNN’s The Situation Room yesterday Democratic Rep. Donna Edwards joined Stephanie Cutter and Team Obama in dismissing real concerns over Libya.

Watch as she first admonishes that we must “take the politics out of this,” then drops this bomb:

“…what voters care about, they may not care about Benghazi, but they care about Bin Laden.”

Utterly disgraceful.
The polls seem to indicate otherwise, as Obama has been sliding consistently since the real story about Benghazi has come to light.  Prior to the attack and cover up, Obama polled strongly in foreign policy, having a 49 to 41% edge over Mitt Romney regarding the question of ‘who do you trust to do a better job of protecting Americans from terrorist attacks’.  Now those results have reversed course, with Romney leading 48 to 42%.
We care, Ms. Edwards.  We care about being attacked on the anniversary of 9/11.  We care about the administration covering it up.  We care about being lied to.  
Ask Christopher Stevens family if they care about Benghazi.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama Campaign Manager: Benghazi Attack Only an Issue Because of Romney and Ryan

October 11, 2012 at 3:06 pm (Benghazi, Bumps in the Road, Libya, Mitt Romney, Obama Administration, Paul Ryan, President Obama, Stephanie Cutter, Terrorist Attack)

Shorter translation – the American people don’t have a right to know what happened in Benghazi, and if it weren’t for those meddling Republicans, they wouldn’t be asking so many questions.

Washington Free Beacon:

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Thursday that the “entire reason” the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans has “become the political topic it is” is because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about the attack.

STEPHANIE CUTTER: In terms of the politicization of this — you know, we are here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It’s a big part of their stump speech. And it’s reckless and irresponsible what they’re doing.

BROOKE BALDWIN: But, Stephanie, this is national security. As we witnessed this revolution last year, we covered it–

CUTTER: It is absolutely national security–

BALDWIN: –it is absolutely pertinent. People in the American public absolutely have a right to get answers.

The audacity of this woman to equate the realization by Romney and Ryan that the American people, and even more so, the families of those who died in Benghazi, have the right to ask questions about what happened and why it happened, to a political ploy is jaw-dropping.
This is an issue Ms. Cutter, because the people want to know why the administration didn’t do more to protect these Americans, why they covered up what really happened, and why you and your cohorts continue to view the terrorist attack in Benghazi as a ‘bump in the road’.
This woman is sick.

Permalink Leave a Comment

State Department: You Know All Those Times We Said the Benghazi Attack Was a Protest About a Video? Yea, We Never Said That

October 10, 2012 at 9:00 am (Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi, Libya, Obama Administration, September 11, State Department, Terrorism)

They insult our intelligence on a daily basis...

The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.

But asked about the administration’s initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, “That was not our conclusion.”

Um, er…

(h/t Michelle Malkin)

Permalink Leave a Comment

Top Security Chief to Testify That State Department Reduced Security in Libya Over His Objections

October 9, 2012 at 7:20 pm (Benghazi, Eric Nordstrom, House Oversight Committee, Libya, Obama Administration, Security, Terrorism, Tripoli)

Tomorrow, top security chief Eric Nordstrom is set to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee that diplomats in Benghazi needed more security – and didn’t get it.

Via the Daily Beast:

The former top U.S. diplomatic security official in Libya will tell Congress Wednesday that the State Department reduced security personnel for Libya over his objections.

Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer for the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from September 2011 to June 2012, is slated to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, where he will discuss publicly for the first time a 51-page report he prepared this summer on security incidents in Libya since June 2011.

“The incidents paint a clear picture that the environment in Libya was fragile at best and could degrade quickly,” Nordstrom wrote in an Oct. 1 letter to the committee. “Certainly not an environment where post should be directed to ‘normalize’ operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial timetable.”

We’re learning that this is why the White House spent so much effort concealing the true reasons behind the attack in Benghazi, because they are complicit in it’s success in killing Americans.  There were 13 different security incidents, and multiple requests for added security.  Yet the Obama administration simply went whistling through the graveyard.

This cover up is on a similar scale to Watergate, with the exception that nobody died in Watergate.

And yet we watch the media cover items like Obama’s Big Bird ad.  What has become of this country?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Next page »