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

[Laan Yaa Mo]

As a non-citizen of the United States, my opinion does not count for much, but he does seem to be floundering from this side of the border. I do not think that one can blame it all on Republicans or Southern fundamentalists as some might do. So why is he having these problems?

[quote][Charles Krauthammer: Six months after re-election, Obama’s presidency is dead in the water

Charles Krauthammer | 13/05/03 | Last Updated: 13/05/03 11:23 AM ET


Six months after re-election, the losses for Obama keep stacking up.

Fate is fickle, power cyclical, and nothing is new under the sun. Especially in Washington, where after every election the losing party is sagely instructed to confess sin, rend garments and rethink its principles lest it go the way of the Whigs. And where the victor is hailed as the new Caesar, facing an open road to domination.

And where Barack Obama, already naturally inclined to believe his own loftiness, graciously accepted the kingly crown and proceeded to ride his re-election success to a crushing victory over the GOP at the fiscal cliff, leaving a humiliated John Boehner & Co. with nothing but naked tax hikes.

Thus emboldened, Obama turned his inaugural address into a left-wing dream factory, from his declaration of war on global warming (on a planet where temperatures are the same as 16 years ago and in a country whose CO2 emissions are at a 20-year low) to the invention of new entitlements — e.g., universal preschool for 5-year-olds — for a country already drowning in debt.

Related
Matt Gurney: Obama to Syria: You can use a little sarin, but not a lot. OK?

To realize his dreams, Obama sought to fracture and neutralize the congressional GOP as a prelude to reclaiming the House in 2014. This would enable him to fully enact his agenda in the final two years of his presidency, usually a time of lame-duck paralysis. Hail the Obama juggernaut.

Well, that story — excuse me, narrative — lasted exactly six months. The Big Mo is gone.

It began with the sequester. Obama never believed the Republicans would call his bluff and let it go into effect. They did.

Taken by surprise, Obama cried wolf, predicting the end of everything we hold dear if the sequester was not stopped. It wasn’t. Nothing happened.

Things began with the near-comical cancellation of White House tours and ended with not-so-comical airline delays
Highly embarrassed, and determined to indeed make (bad) things happen, the White House refused Republican offers to give it more discretion in making cuts. Bureaucrats were instructed to inflict maximum pain from minimal cuts, as revealed by one memo from the Agriculture Department demanding agency cuts that the public would feel.

Things began with the near-comical cancellation of White House tours and ended with not-so-comical airline delays. Obama thought furious passengers would blame the GOP. But isn’t the executive branch in charge of these agencies? Who thinks that a government spending $3.6-trillion a year can’t cut 2% without furloughing air traffic controllers?

Looking not just incompetent at managing budgets but cynical for deliberately injuring the public welfare, the administration relented. Congress quickly passed a bill giving Obama reallocation authority to restore air traffic control. Having previously threatened to veto any such bill, Obama caved. He signed.

For Obama, gun control was a political disaster. He invested capital. He went on a multicity tour. He paraded grieving relatives. And got nothing
Not exactly Appomattox, but coming immediately after Obama’s spectacular defeat on gun control, it marked an administration that had lost its “juice,” to paraphrase a charming question at the president’s news conference.

An assault-weapons ban — a similar measure had passed the Congress 20 years ago — lost 60-40 in a Senate where Democrats control 55 seats. Obama failed even to get mere background checks.

All this while appearing passive, if not helpless, on the world stage. On Syria, Obama was nervously trying to erase the WMD red line he had so publicly established. On Benghazi, he stonewalled accusations that State Department officials wishing to testify are being blocked.

He was even taking heat for the Boston bombings. Every day brings another revelation of signals missed beforehand. And his post-bombing pledge to hunt down those responsible was mocked by the scandalous Mirandizing of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, gratuitously shutting down information from the one person who knows more than anyone about possible still-existent explosives, associates, trainers, future plans, etc.

Now, the screw will undoubtedly turn again. If immigration reform passes, Obama will be hailed as the comeback kid, and a new “Obama rising” narrative proclaimed.

This will overlook the fact that immigration reform has little to do with Obama and everything to do with GOP panic about the Hispanic vote. In fact, Obama has been asked by congressional negotiators to stay away, so polarizing a figure has he become.

Nonetheless, whatever happens, the screw will surely turn again, if only because of media boredom. But that’s the one constant of Washington political life: There are no straight-line graphs. We live from inflection point to inflection point.

And we’ve just experienced one. From individual of the world to dead in the water in six months. Quite a ride.

Washington Post Writers Group/quote]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... authammer/

This was originally posted under debates and discussions.

[LilRed]

Da Big O will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents.

In case one hadn't noticed, the US stock market is the highest its ever been, and, climbing...


He's taken some licks, but, he takes them nicely, while moving on. A real pragmatic man, he is.

Look at some of his successes:

Obamacare: Our health care system is broken. We have the most expensive health care/system in the world. The stats, however, clearly demonstrate its ineffectiveness, in comparison to other systems. Obamacare may have inadequacies, but, Obamacare is a fine start on cleaning up our health care system, something the legendary Clintons were unable to do.

Iraq: Obama got us out.

Afghanistan: He's gettin us out.

OBL: No longer with us. Da Big O didn't even hesitate to issue the kill order.

Drones: Da Big O increased the use of drones over 10 times what Jr. Bush allowed. No question about it, the drones are highly effective weapons which save our forces lives, while being incredibly intimidating. Sorry about the civilian casualties. But, best they be on the terrorists' home turf, don't ya think?

Take the politics and racism out of the picture, and one sees a great President in action. A black President, with heavy Islamic creds. And, best of all, he kicked Hillary's butt.

I say, "Run, Michelle, run!".

[WBU ALUM]

As a non-citizen of the United States, my opinion does not count for much, but he does seem to be floundering from this side of the border. I do not think that one can blame it all on Republicans or Southern fundamentalists as some might do. So why is he having these problems?

First of all, most presidents hit a brick wall in their second terms. Even the popular ones who win in landslides.

Second, it's way too early. He's got over three more years of over-regulation, demonizing of groups and individuals through race-baiting and class warfare, stifling of free enterprise and threatening the Constitution and Individual Liberty. I'm sure he's looking forward to the challenge -- in between fund-raising and vacations on our dime.

[gudtymchuk]

It is wise to remember the prerequisite of liberal thinking is to only judge their intentions, never their results.... that house of cards is beginning to universally crumble.

[WBU ALUM]

One thing is certain, this administration is soon to have some big problems with Syria and Benghazi.

NY Times: Obama may have adlibbed us into war
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/05/n ... nto-a-war/

Sunday Shows: Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi, Syria
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism ... hazi-Syria

Where Benghazi is concerned, I have heard more than one account that witnesses will testify that the military was told to stand down and not attempt to assist those in danger and under attack -- an attack that extended over a full 24 hours in two locations. Troops were not even sent to preserve US assets at the two locations. Only one person can give the order to stand down -- or reverse that order.

[WBU ALUM]

It is going to get interesting. Several someones have been lying for a long, long time. Soon, we will find out who.

Whistle-blower: Benghazi rescue team told to stand down before second deadly attack
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2528939#

Benghazi whistleblower: U.S. special forces were told to stand down during attack
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/06/r ... ng-attack/

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound “when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”…

“I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them,” Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.

[gudtymchuk]

It is going to get interesting. Several someones have been lying for a long, long time. Soon, we will find out who.

Another interesting question to the Benghazi Gate drama will be who and how many of the Obama apologists will be willing to fall on the "Liar in Chiefs" sword? Will Billary stay on the reservation and stick to the talking points or will she squeal like a rat as she jumps from the burning ship in an attempt to keep her political life intact? Yes, interesting days ahead :-"

[WBU ALUM]

The State Department is under the direct control and direction of the Secretary of State, who was Hillary Clinton at the time and is now headed by John Kerry. The Secretary of State answers directly to the President and the Executive Branch. This department is under the direct control of the Executive Branch, headed by the President.

State Dept Continues to Hide Identities of Benghazi Survivors from Congress
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013 ... m-Congress

This is not going away. All of the major news organizations have now picked up the story -- except for the NY Times, which has provided cover since the beginning.

[WBU ALUM]

More coming out on the chain of command involving Benghazi.

Source: Only President Could Have Made 'Stand Down' Call On Benghazi
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013 ... azi-Attack

“Ham answers directly to the President of the United States,” said the source. It wasn’t a low-level bureaucrat making the call, the source adamantly added.

That call may have been made early in the engagement. Both Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey testified in January that they had no further communication with President Barack Obama after an initial briefing in the early hours of the Benghazi crisis, which continued through the night.

But what about then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

“I have a hard time thinking it was Hillary alone. Hillary may have tried to circumvent the counterterrorism board and deal with this. I think in order for her to tell General Ham, ‘No, you’re not going to get involved,' she would have had to talk to the president. The president would have had to say, ‘No, take your commands from Hillary.’ He would have had said something, because Ham does not work for the Department of State; he works directly for the president,” the source explained.

The lack of clarity surrounding orders given during the Benghazi attacks is a stark contrast to the clarity projected after the successful Osama bin Laden raid in May 2011, when administration officials were keen to attribute responsibility for the orders to the president.

I predict that we will learn that Obama went to sleep to get well-rested for his fund-raising event in Las Vegas the next day. Secretary of Defense Panetta has already testified under oath that he never heard from Obama again after briefing him at the start of the attack.



It's already been revealed that DoD had the capability to watch the attacks in real time as they were playing out.

[tutone]

Politics as usual. What's the point, anyway. Whether terrorist attack or spontaneous attack from a demonstration, the gov't should deal with it, try to find the perpetrators, and move on to more important issues. Cover up? Cover up what? Too much misinformation then and now. I love all the armchair generals in Congress with their amazing ability to call up hindsight when they plan attacks on the other political party.

[WBU ALUM]

Politics as usual. What's the point, anyway. Whether terrorist attack or spontaneous attack from a demonstration, the gov't should deal with it, try to find the perpetrators, and move on to more important issues. Cover up? Cover up what? Too much misinformation then and now. I love all the armchair generals in Congress with their amazing ability to call up hindsight when they plan attacks on the other political party.

Frankly, it's not politics as usual. People are dead and Congress has a role to play in check and balances. They want to know why there was no assistance sent to people over hours of multiple attacks. Why was there no effort to secure US assets after it was over, much less look for anyone who did it (in 3 days, 8 months will have passed)? I feel sorry for those being put in harm's way because I'm sure they now wonder if someone will be sent to help them if they come under attack.

The cover up has to do with lying from the beginning as to the cause of the attacks, why security was not provided to embassies on that day (Sep 11), who rejected the security, who had troops stand down and not attempt to help in Benghazi? Why were survivors hidden from Congress?

The head of the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are in charge of military operations. They are hardly political figures. To their credit, they answered as well as they could while still trying to provide cover for the CIC, who never checked with them again about the attacks -- until the attacks were well over.

tutone, based on your comments, you haven't been paying attention AND you don't care. So why post so much nothing in a thread that you don't care about? That would be like me going into the thread on UK Pensions and saying, "Who cares? It's all politics." Why would I want to waste my time and disrupt their thread with something like that?

[gudtymchuk]

Very interesting Washington Times opinion piece begins with:
The party that swept into power on promises of transparency and accountability scrambled Wednesday to circle wagons in an extravagant attempt to protect administration officials, the White House and the woman many Democrats hope will be their next nominee for president.

Congressional Democrats strenuously tried covering up the inquiry into the botched handling and dishonest aftermath of the terrorist attack on a U.S. facility in Benghazi that left our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead.
Full article here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... desperate/
Interesting too that both sides on the Committee have indicated they think more hearings will be necessary to get to the full truth regarding what happened before, during and after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2012, yet the liberals continue to obstruct fact finding and obfuscate what has already been revealed to protect and cover the POTUS and Hillary....

[LilRed]

Tutone got this right: "Too much misinformation then and now."


Looks like to me, the folks involved at the time, made a real tough decision. The concern about a "trap" certainly appears valid. Nobody likes leavin their folks to die. But, losin 10, 20, 30 or more, to a trap that's been used throughout history?

I am reminded of the opening of the 1965 Battle of Ia Drang, where a 1st Air Cav Company was lured into an ambush, in pursuit of a single NVA regular. They were nigh on decimated... We won the battle (?)... at high cost to both sides... Gen. Harold C. Moore, detailed the battle in his book, "Once We Were Soldiers, and Young". (Mel G. played Moore in the movie, which was very true to the book...)

There are some serious other questions... For example, if the RSO and Ambassador, had repeatedly reported the critical security situation in Benghazi, and requested more security... which was DENIED, then why did the RSO allow the Ambassador to travel there with what he himself had already reported as inadequate security? To a consulate where the local security folk had abandoned their positions?

Seems to me, our extreme right citizens, are making a whole lotta noise, before we have ALL the info... And, I believe, are being deliberately misled. Seems to me, their behaviour, actually helps and greatly encourages the bad guys...

Best we figure out the facts, and, punish those needin it. Preferably, without helpin the bad guys, in the greater conflict.

[gudtymchuk]

Seems to me, our extreme right citizens, are making a whole lotta noise, before we have ALL the info... And, I believe, are being deliberately misled. Seems to me, their behaviour, actually helps and greatly encourages the bad guys...

And seems to me that if the citizens on the right did not make "a whole lotta noise", there would be no effort to get all the information. Here is a quote regarding the "job" being done by the biased main stream media and one CBS reporters efforts to get all the information, namely Sharyl Attkisson. "Dangerously close to advocacy"? That's how CBS News apparently views the work of a reporter who is doggedly seeking truth about an issue of enormous importance that many of her colleagues have scrupulously ignored. Remarkable. And as Ed Morrissey noticed, Attkisson's Twitter feed went curiously silent very early on during today's hearings. What happened? Allahpundit thinks he knows what's going on here, and I agree with him:
[The media establishment and liberals] can’t stop conservative media from existing, but they can ghettoize it as illegitimate and “partisan” in a way that their own partisan garbage isn’t....Skepticism about Benghazi is fine for the wingnuts at Fox, but bringing such unhelpful nonsense into an “impartial,” i.e. pro-Obama, outlet like CBS risks lending credence to the GOP’s accusations. The proper line to take on Benghazi is to dismiss the new hearings with a sneer, a la Joe Klein, or, in the case of “impartial” news coverage, to dismiss them more lightly by referencing Hillary’s long-ago whining about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to discredit the Clintons. “Going where the story leads” is unhelpful to liberalism in this case, ergo it’s advocacy by definition.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ ... g-n1591242

[papaguido]

Tutone got this right: "Too much misinformation then and now."


Looks like to me, the folks involved at the time, made a real tough decision. The concern about a "trap" certainly appears valid. Nobody likes leavin their folks to die. But, losin 10, 20, 30 or more, to a trap that's been used throughout history?

Total BS…we’ve got special ops units that are specifically trained for this type of warfare and merely hours away and your example is weak; our military has evolved greatly since Vietnam.

The question remains why military forces weren’t sent. Maybe because it didn’t fit the administrations narrative on its failure to recognize Radical Islamic Extremist, hell they can’t even bring themselves to say it. Maybe the state department is trying to cover their six for failing to provide adequate security well before the attack, in other words they’re trying to cover their incompetence.

Either way it’s stinks of politics and there’s no excuse for abandoning the four Americans lost fending for themselves and the reasons need to be investigated and exposed thoroughly and appropriately to bring justice to those Americans and crap like this is not repeated.

This may not matter to you and quite possibly you may not even give a sh*t, but it matters to the families who lost their sons, brothers or husbands and it also matters to those still serving...

[WBU ALUM]

Tutone got this right: "Too much misinformation then and now."


Looks like to me, the folks involved at the time, made a real tough decision. The concern about a "trap" certainly appears valid. Nobody likes leavin their folks to die. But, losin 10, 20, 30 or more, to a trap that's been used throughout history?

I am reminded of the opening of the 1965 Battle of Ia Drang, where a 1st Air Cav Company was lured into an ambush, in pursuit of a single NVA regular. They were nigh on decimated... We won the battle (?)... at high cost to both sides... Gen. Harold C. Moore, detailed the battle in his book, "Once We Were Soldiers, and Young". (Mel G. played Moore in the movie, which was very true to the book...)

There are some serious other questions... For example, if the RSO and Ambassador, had repeatedly reported the critical security situation in Benghazi, and requested more security... which was DENIED, then why did the RSO allow the Ambassador to travel there with what he himself had already reported as inadequate security? To a consulate where the local security folk had abandoned their positions?

Seems to me, our extreme right citizens, are making a whole lotta noise, before we have ALL the info... And, I believe, are being deliberately misled. Seems to me, their behaviour, actually helps and greatly encourages the bad guys...

Best we figure out the facts, and, punish those needin it. Preferably, without helpin the bad guys, in the greater conflict.

Since when do American forces sit around for over 7 hours because they're concerned about some hypothetical trap? Enough forces are sent to insure that a trap won't be effective. There is also such a thing as pre-strike surveillance. How do I know that? Because I was part of that group in the USAF. There is also such a thing as cover provided while the occupation of the drop zone is occurring to prevent such a "trap" from being effective. 1965 is almost 50 years ago. Our technology today FAR surpasses that.

Well you got in this Mr. Red. I have some questions for you about your very general and broad statements that contained no detail.

- What is the misinformation -- specifically?
- What are "extreme right citizens" -- specifically?
- What "noise" are they making -- specifically? Why don't you lay it out and refute it -- specifically?
- How are people being deliberately misled about Benghazi -- specifically?
- How does wanting the truth help and encourage the bad guys -- specifically?

Eight months have passed since this occurred. The State Department has pressured witnesses not to testify. Why?

If the current administration was so worried about catching those who did it, why were US assets and potential EVIDENCE left unguarded, unprotected and unoccupied AFTER the attacks occurred? The news media -- and anyone else -- were picking through debris and documents DAYS after the attacks and before the scenes were secured.

[papaguido]

Best we figure out the facts, and, punish those needin it. Preferably, without helpin the bad guys, in the greater conflict.

Some facts that are beginning to come out...if it matters to you, watch the video...

(CBS News) "Everybody in the mission" in Benghazi, Libya, thought the attack on a U.S. consulate there last Sept. 11 was an act of terror "from the get-go," according to excerpts of an interview investigators conducted with the No. 2 official in Libya at the time, obtained by CBS News' "Face the Nation."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57 ... he-get-go/

[LilRed]

WBU:


Easy, man. We are allowed to disagree. I have serious creds too.


- What is the misinformation -- specifically?

Example: That the Anbassador was sodomized.

- What are "extreme right citizens" -- specifically?

The Tea Party/NRA/Republicans. No offense intended, just tryin to differentiate them and the liberal crowd. We are both allowed to believe what we want to, and, to disagree. And, to freely discuss it. So, let's get on wid da cussin n discussin.

- What "noise" are they making -- specifically? Why don't you lay it out and refute it -- specifically?

I particularly refer all the political crap bein slung around before we have completed a credible investigation. I am very well read on this one, from several angles. I dunna have the time or interest to joust with you. I do have time to make some points I think need thinkin about. You don't like my points? Don't read 'em.

- How are people being deliberately misled about Benghazi -- specifically?

See above for example.

- How does wanting the truth help and encourage the bad guys -- specifically?

Divisive political rhetoric before proper investigation is a big plus for the bad guys.


Most of us want the truth. Let's get it.


PG: Gladly. I do, carefully check out some a this stuff. CBS News has good credibility with me. Fox News does not.

[gudtymchuk]

CBS has credibility? Would that be the same Dan Rather CBS with the infamous fraudulent Texas Air National Guard documents that led to the resignation of several CBS producers and the eventual ouster/retirement of Mr. Rather himself... yes, lots of credibility there.

[parrot]

Jon Stewart offers his take on Benghazi
http://www.thedailyshow.com/