Obama: Dead in the Water...is it true?

[rufus]

it doesn't matter to Hillary or Obama it wasn't their sons/ brothers /fathers /husbands that died... while Obama napped and Hillary was keeping a close eye on billy goat to make sure he was doing another intern.... and im sure the attorney general mister holder will police up the irs but he and Obama the president and chief law enforcement officer of the country have no knowledge... that's the first truthful thing I have ever heard from either of them lol hope the county and world survives these two idiots and there Chicago thugs running it for another term....oh yeah they didn't know about gathering phone records of the press either just unbelievable my fellow countrymen elected this guy TWICE!!!!! it time for my bp pill I think ill take 2 one for each term...john

Well, your countrymen also twice elected that moron Bush the younger.

[papaguido]

Well, your countrymen also twice elected that moron Bush the younger.[/quote]

Yeah so anyway

More whistle blowers coming forward and if the allegations are true the Benghazi affair is not only criminal, but boards on treason.

According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/ ... and-obama/

[jackspratt]

More whistle blowers coming forward and if the allegations are true the Benghazi affair is not only criminal, but boards on treason.

According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/ ... and-obama/

I caution forum readers not to hold their collective breaths awaiting these explosive revelations.

Indeed, as the author of the quotes above says himself:

PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.

[LilRed]

PG:

Ah ha! Your last provides a plausible answer to one my questions: Why was Stevens there?

If PJM's info is correct, this is gonna get hotter still...


I still see no good info on Carter Ham "being pressured".

I would still like to know: Did the military KNOW IN ADVANCE, that Stevens was gonna be there, etc.?


I believe you said early on, this thing has the appearance of BF'n...

I agree.

ATM

[WBU ALUM]

I still see no good info on Carter Ham "being pressured".

I would still like to know: Did the military KNOW IN ADVANCE, that Stevens was gonna be there, etc.?

Stephens was assigned there. He was in Benghazi for awhile.

I have a feeling that when Ham testifies, it will be like hitting an iceberg. He doesn't mince words. And when he's done, I look for Petraeus to step to the microphone. This isn't nearly over.

[papaguido]

PG:

Ah ha! Your last provides a plausible answer to one my questions: Why was Stevens there?

If PJM's info is correct, this is gonna get hotter still...


I still see no good info on Carter Ham "being pressured".

Gen Ham's testimony may be key to blowing the lid off some of the security issues and will probably testify later as the investigation goes forward.

I would still like to know: Did the military KNOW IN ADVANCE, that Stevens was gonna be there, etc.?


I believe you said early on, this thing has the appearance of BF'n...

I agree.

Yes, in fact there was 16 member Special Forces security team based in Tripoli from Feb-Aug 2012.

LtCol Wood, a Utah Army National Guard Green Beret, led a 16-member Special Forces security team responsible for protecting Americans in Libya from February to August, including a four-month extension.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... tml?pg=all

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., who has been among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on Benghazi. “The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.”

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/14/3 ... itary.html

[LilRed]

PG:


Uh, I am confused: This 16 man SF team was assigned to Tripoli and Libya from Feb - Aug 2012? The attack was in Sept 2012...

And, even if they were in Tripoli, did Gen Ham, et. al., know Stevens was goin to Benghazi?

It sounds like DOS in a BF fight wid another 3 letter agency...


I believe the military would have responded, had they been authorized to... I believe they were cautious because, likely, they knew nothing about Stevens being in Benghazi. And, were not on "alert status"...


If, DOS did sell AQM Stingers, sent Stevens to Benghazi to buy them back, etc., we need to identify and punish the culprits...


ATB

[papaguido]

PG:


Uh, I am confused: This 16 man SF team was assigned to Tripoli and Libya from Feb - Aug 2012? The attack was in Sept 2012...

Correct, the the team was not extended by DOS. Essentially, they were cut loose from Libya about month before the attack.

And, even if they were in Tripoli, did Gen Ham, et. al., know Stevens was goin to Benghazi?

Well the Embassy had a defense attache, a Special Forces Col (which by the way received stand down orders from Gen Ham when the feces hit the fan) so there had to be some level of communication between the two. Libya also falls under AFICOM and the 16 man security team came from AFICOM, so I'm sure Gen Ham had some idea that Stevens was at Benghazi.

It sounds like DOS in a BF fight wid another 3 letter agency...

The DOS needs to leave the intel work to the 3 letter agency.

I believe the military would have responded, had they been authorized to... I believe they were cautious because, likely, they knew nothing about Stevens being in Benghazi. And, were not on "alert status"...

Gen Ham knew as early as Aug. He was ready to send the Calvary when the feces hit the fan, but was ordered to stand down.

If, DOS did sell AQM Stingers, sent Stevens to Benghazi to buy them back, etc., we need to identify and punish the culprits...

ATB

Think about it...if the DOS (allegedly) sold weapons to al-Qaeda groups (our enemy, unless something has changed) wouldn't that be treason?

And this ain't the work of some low level federal employees.

[jackspratt]

Goodness .............. starting to sound like the Iran Contra affair.

Will Gen. Ham (or Ambassador Stevens) turn out to be the modern version of Ollie North?

Has yet another President (this one unsanctified) OK'd the sale of weapons to the enemy, but will also flatly deny it?

If they get the dirt on Obama, will he be able to plead not guilty on the basis of diminished mental capacity ie dementia?

I will be off the air tomorrow, but I can hardly wait for the next exciting update when I log in on on Friday.

[papaguido]

Goodness .............. starting to sound like the Iran Contra affair.

Will Gen. Ham (or Ambassador Stevens) turn out to be the modern version of Ollie North?

Has yet another President (this one unsanctified) OK'd the sale of weapons to the enemy, but will also flatly deny it?

If they get the dirt on Obama, will he be able to plead not guilty on the basis of diminished mental capacity ie dementia?

I will be off the air tomorrow, but I can hardly wait for the next exciting update when I log in on on Friday.

Why don't you start your own thread and mind your business there

[jackspratt]

Why don't you start your own thread and mind your business there

I understand it is against forum rules to have 2 threads running on the same subject.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

From what I have seen on various Canadian and U.S. networks, and BBC World, this is pretty serious stuff, and it seems, at the this stage, that fundamental errors had to have been made high up in the U.S. Government.

[gudtymchuk]

It now appears some of the unions who helped elect Obama are now realizing Obamacare is not such a wonderful idea after all. So now we have Liberal Democrats calling it a "Train Wreck" and the Unions crying foul......
Not looking good for Big "O".
"It is a well-known fact that nobody in Congress ever reads, or even skims, any law, and especially not the fine print, it passes until long after it has been enacted into law. It appears the same is just as true for the biggest pillar of support for the Obama administration: America's labor unions, whose liberal vote every election is instrumental to preserving the outflow side of America's welfare state. As it turns out, it was the same labor unions who enthusiastically supported the primary accomplishment of the Obama administration in the past 4 years, Obamacare, only to realize, long after it has become reality that, surprise, their healthcare plan costs are about to go up. And, as the WSJ colorfully summarizes, they are now "turning sour."

From WSJ:

Union leaders say many of the law's requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-3 ... n-sour-oba

[gudtymchuk]

It now appears some of the unions who helped elect Obama are now realizing Obamacare is not such a wonderful idea after all. So now we have Liberal Democrats calling it a "Train Wreck" and the Unions crying foul ......
Not looking good for Big "O".
"It is a well-known fact that nobody in Congress ever reads, or even skims, any law, and especially not the fine print, it passes until long after it has been enacted into law. It appears the same is just as true for the biggest pillar of support for the Obama administration: America's labor unions, whose liberal vote every election is instrumental to preserving the outflow side of America's welfare state. As it turns out, it was the same labor unions who enthusiastically supported the primary accomplishment of the Obama administration in the past 4 years, Obamacare, only to realize, long after it has become reality that, surprise, their healthcare plan costs are about to go up. And, as the WSJ colorfully summarizes, they are now "turning sour."

From WSJ:

Union leaders say many of the law's requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-3 ... n-sour-oba

[GT93]

It's not worth getting too heated about American politics. Just about all the politicians over there now are hardcore Communists if you judge them by their actions rather than their words. So they are all much of a comradely red muchness.

Mr. George W Bush and his mates exploded the national debt in boom economic times and ran up many many billions of debt in two "wars" against a few thousand loony Muslims. Oh Buddha, couldn't this have been done much more cheaply? Next time put an accountant in charge of your wars.

Mr. O is also a Communist - bailing out Detroit, Wall Street etc. When do you guys let big business fail?

Corporate America has for decades had its big snout well into the trough of main street. Corporate welfare is the national agenda if you look through American political speak. No wonder the man and woman on main street are so friggin' angry. Fox News feeds off all these angry Americans. If I did this as well, I'd be rolling in it. I'd be wealthier than Scrooge McDuck.

The US better watch out or else this will be the Chinese century. They're the twenty first century's capitalists. The US has been losing the plot for decades. Mr. O ain't the problem. It's much deeper than that.

There's my three pence worth. And I ain't even a right wing loon. Don't let it raise your blood pressure.

[WBU ALUM]

It now appears some of the unions who helped elect Obama are now realizing Obamacare is not such a wonderful idea after all. So now we have Liberal Democrats calling it a "Train Wreck" and the Unions crying foul ......
Not looking good for Big "O".
"It is a well-known fact that nobody in Congress ever reads, or even skims, any law, and especially not the fine print, it passes until long after it has been enacted into law. It appears the same is just as true for the biggest pillar of support for the Obama administration: America's labor unions, whose liberal vote every election is instrumental to preserving the outflow side of America's welfare state. As it turns out, it was the same labor unions who enthusiastically supported the primary accomplishment of the Obama administration in the past 4 years, Obamacare, only to realize, long after it has become reality that, surprise, their healthcare plan costs are about to go up. And, as the WSJ colorfully summarizes, they are now "turning sour."

From WSJ:

Union leaders say many of the law's requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-3 ... n-sour-oba

This is what happens when a bill is so monstrous and loaded with bureaucratic regulation that no one reads it or understands it. Being passed quickly on a weekend after being debated in the dead of night also didn't help.

I have always said that there are self-proclaimed Liberals out there who blindly follow their political leaders. Those Liberals don't understand where their political leaders are taking them, but they trust them. When they finally realize what it happening, those Liberals pull back and reject the over-reach.

Many who were in favor of what they perceived to be free health care are learning differently. They're also learning that they no longer have choices for the types of policies they want and the violation of their privacy when it comes to making their own health care decisions. They are realizing that Big Government will run it all, and in the true fashion of the US Postal Service, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, AmTrak and the other failed Big Government experiments, it will be run into the ground and ruined.

When anyone attempts to mix socialist components with free enterprise components, it is just as destructive and chaotic as trying to play baseball with football rules on a tennis court. The rules are different and incompatible. Many people will be hurt by this phony health care debacle that is only about control -- nothing else.

[gudtymchuk]

The point is that not only is Obamacare bad legislation, it's bad ideology. There were approximately 52+% who believed in the campaign rhetoric based on lies and misconceptions. His transformative and transparent governance has proven to be neither.
He could have learned from the Bill Clinton play book and probably salvaged a little of his legacy. As most of us remember, Clinton took an abrupt turn to the center with his "era of big government is over" and proved it with anti-liberal welfare reform. But the Obama arrogance, manipulation and lack of leadership will leave his Presidency in the same pile of disgrace as the other two liberal champions, LBJ and Jimmy Carter.
Obamacare is destined for the same graveyard as was the LBJ "Great Society" and Carter's Camp David Peace Accords and rightfully so.

[WBU ALUM]

The point is that not only is Obamacare bad legislation, it's bad ideology. There were approximately 52+% who believed in the campaign rhetoric based on lies and misconceptions. His transformative and transparent governance has proven to be neither.
He could have learned from the Bill Clinton play book and probably salvaged a little of his legacy. As most of us remember, Clinton took an abrupt turn to the center with his "era of big government is over" and proved it with anti-liberal welfare reform. But the Obama arrogance, manipulation and lack of leadership will leave his Presidency in the same pile of disgrace as the other two liberal champions, LBJ and Jimmy Carter.
Obamacare is destined for the same graveyard as was the LBJ "Great Society" and Carter's Camp David Peace Accords and rightfully so.

Can't disagree with one word of that, gudty. =D>

[Funman]

@ GT93 "Next time put an accountant in charge of your wars". We did and his name was Robert S McNamara and it was Vietnam and you know how that turned out! X amount of enemy dead (body count) for X amount of expended ordnance.

[parrot]

I doubt any among us has read the details of Obamacare. I'll guess that whatever positive/negative one has to say about the program is weened from the media reports (depending on which you might subscribe to). The fact is, it's a done deal....and with 3+ more years in the White House, there's little reason to argue over how the bill was passed. It passed......it's law.....and now we have to live with it. If it's a failure, it'll reflect on the President........if it's a success, it'll reflect on the President.
Any conjecture at this point about failure or success is about as pointless as arguing whether gold will go up or down in the next few weeks or months.
I caught myself with my handy pair of rose-colored glasses reading Paul Krugman's column in today's NYT........I know some will argue that the NYT caters to the liberal left.....but the reality is that Krugman has been very right (so far) on his assessment of the economic situation in the US...while many others who've predicted gloom and doom unless we embrace austerity have been proven wrong (as witnessed in Europe/UK).
In another year or two or three, we'll all know enough about the success or failure of Obamacare......until then, we're tossing darts at a dartboard behind our backs.
JMO
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opini ... ck.html?hp