Barry said "come after me" over Benghazi

He got his wish.

November 14, 2012

(If video won't load click post title)

Video 31

Rice went on 5 talk shows blaming it on the video which Barry admits was a "request from the WH". Interesting choice of words. Last time I checked the WH itself can't speak.

  So who's in charge at the WH? 

 Presumably someone who lives there told her to lie. How do we know it's a lie? Because nobody and I do mean NOBODY in this administration is currently using the word "video" when it comes to any discussion about Benghazi.  

Barry said "come after me" over Benghazi

Stedman's... "beginning to feel a creeping sense of personal remorse"

Wonder what brought that on?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First it was this concerning Rosen after Stedman went through three judges to get a warrant calling Rosen a coconspirator on a case he never planned to prosecute. Why? This in itself sends up a red flag:

Stedman's statement to Congress:

 “That is not something that I’ve ever been involved in or heard of or would think would be a wise policy. In fact my view is quite the opposite.” 


An out and out lie after it was discovered Stedman signed off on it. The Republicans seemed perplexed and are "looking into whether the attorney general lied under oath." What do they need a house to fall on them!!! These are the Contempt of Congress laws as they are written. They seem pretty clear cut to a novice like me. Stedman broke just about every rule there is!

TITLE 18 ; PART 1 CHAPTER 47  § 1001 

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— 

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; 

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or 

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; 

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

I think Boehner said it best. "My question isn't about who is going to resign. My question is who's going to jail over this scandal?" He said this about the IRS. But most certainly this applies to Stedman.

This was not his first brush with the truth. He is the most corrupt AG we have had in the modern era. I could drag a rag through the exhaust pipe of my car and it would come out cleaner then this guy.

Stedman's... "beginning to feel a creeping sense of personal remorse"

The Benghazi debacle

On a tip from Bob Sweet

Four things we do know about Benghazi:

1.  No one from our government, through a long drawn out battle in Benghazi, so much as lifted a finger to help.

2.  No one has been apprehended for this atrocity.

3.  Everyone knows it wasn't the fuc**** video but strangely enough the guy who shot it is the only one in jail.

4.   Barry was so detached after the killing of  4  Americans approximately 15 hours later he went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. No other president in the modern era whether Republican or Democrat would have done that. 

---------------------------------------------------------

Without a doubt, this is the most lucid and knowledgeable explanation of the Benghazi fiasco that I have yet read. Knowing the players, it also is the most plausible. 

Originally from a retired Navy Captain who lives in Hawaii - The author's explanation and analysis of the Benghazi events seem plausible to me. I believe others will find this of interest (about 2 min. to read).


The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor - the granting or withholding of "cross-border authority." This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.


Once the alarm is sent - in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi - dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can't do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission. That is the clear "red line" in this type of a crisis situation.


No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation's border without that nation's permission.


For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace. On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the President of the United States "(POTUS)" has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks. Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA.


If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already "in country" in Libya - such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already "in country," so CBArules do not apply to them.


How might this process have played out in the White House? If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: "I think we should not go the military action route," meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed. Another possibility is that the president might have said: "We should do what we can to help them, but no military intervention from outside of Libya." Those words then constitute "standing orders" all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost.


When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself "unavailable," then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.


Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his "standing orders" not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella. Perhaps the president left "no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority" standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don't yet know where the president was hour by hour. But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders.


And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives. The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur's Sword for understanding Benghazi.


The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword. We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on "loose cannons" or "rogue officers" exceeding their authority.


No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.


When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.


Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "the U.S. military doesn't do risky things"-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation. General Dempsey joinsPanetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?


General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably "used" in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well - what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else.


Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey. We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.

At least in Watergate no one was killed.

The Benghazi debacle

I suspected this as soon as Lerner plead the 5th

The Phone call:

Obama…"High Lois how are you"?

"Oh…Mr. President what a pleasant surprise." 

"Look Lois I'll get right to the point I want you to resign."

"Me …resign?"

"Yes Lois that's the shared sacrifice sometimes we have to make."

"Look Barry don't give me that shared sacrifice crap. If I go down you go down!"

"OK.. Lois calm down. Look…(Barry starts scratching his head) let me put you on administrative leave until I can come up with a plan to bullshit my way out of this."

"With pay... or a sing like a canary!"

"You got it Lois. Please…just keep your mouth shut."

Click

While You Labor . . . | National Review Online

Welcome back to work.

With a rare three-day weekend behind you, you may be reading these words on your office computer or perhaps on a mobile device en route to your workplace. After barbecuing, relaxing with loved ones, and remembering America's fallen GIs, it may be tough to focus today on meetings, deadlines, and distracting colleagues who drop by to chat.

Too bad you are not Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS's exempt-organizations office in Washington, D.C. She now has America's easiest job. Having pleaded the Fifth Amendment before the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee last Wednesday, Lerner was placed on administrative leave. Meanwhile, Congress will sort out her role in the burgeoning scandal over the IRS's ideological profiling and political discrimination against at least 471 conservative groups and Tea Party organizations.

Since Lerner is on administrative leave, she will avoid her office. This means that she — unlike you — can sleep in until the crack of noon, savor breakfast in bed, visit the gym around 3 p.m., head home for a refreshing nap at 4:30 p.m., and then enjoy a long, boozy dinner. She can awaken on Wednesday morning with a throbbing hangover, roll over, and return to sleep. So, tonight: Waiter, make that one more bottle of Malbec! 

And on Thursday: Rise, rinse, repeat.

But wait. There's more.

Lerner is on administrative leave with pay.

According to the American Center for Law and Justice, Lerner signed intrusive letters to at least 15 groups that are suing the IRS for violating their First Amendment rights to free speech and their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under law. ACLJ represents these outfits in litigation that will be filed presently.

Lerner's letters improperly demanded the names of these groups' donors, copies of materials distributed at their meetings, and even the content of speeches that these institutions hosted.

What is Lerner's punishment for her abuse and intimidation?

Her just-concluded three-day weekend now becomes a continuous seven-day weekend, with her paychecks still landing in her bank account.

And what is Lerner's ongoing reward for this total absence of effort?

Lerner will keep receiving her annual salary of $177,000. As Fox News Channel documented, this sum — which is $3,000 higher than the $174,000 paid to U.S. senators — translates to $3,403.84 each and every week. Compare this with the Social Security Administration's 2011 average annual wage of $42,979.61, or $826.53 weekly. Thus, Lerner makes more than quadruple the typical earner's pay, and now without even lifting a finger. As Yogi Berra might say: "Only in America."

So, why is Lerner still getting paid, even though she is a ringleader of the biggest scandal to rock the IRS since Watergate?

One could argue that Lerner is innocent until proven guilty. However, that might merit her being separated from her duties without pay while all of this shakes out. If she truly did nothing wrong, all of her wages can be restored. If she violated IRS procedures or regulations, however, all of her undeserved gains will remain in the Treasury.

There is another explanation for why Lerner is getting paid to slumber and watch game shows. Her paychecks are hush money. Lerner's uninterrupted compensation conveniently reminds her that she can keep paying her bills as long as she is a good soldier and keeps her mouth shut.

Did IRS higher-ups instruct Lerner to hammer conservative groups? Who else at Treasury knew about this? Did Lerner discuss this with anyone at the White House? What did Obama know, and when did he know it? Perhaps Lerner can answer these questions. But as long as she stays quiet, Washington's pillars of power will be less likely to buckle and fall.

I stand with you, Obama's approval of Lerner's paychecks signals. So, Lois, stand with me. Of course, this assumes that America's absentee-landlord-in-chief is aware of this arrangement. That may be an assumption too far.

Well, dear reader, it's back to work for you. Unless you are on staff at National Review Online, your boss does not pay you to read my words — no matter how flattered I am that you are doing so.

But before you turn to your duties, here's one more thing: Lois Lerner is enjoying the first of many days off with all the joys of a six-figure salary paid for with taxpayer dollars. So, as you slave away, you are financing Lois Lerner's still-lucrative and newly undemanding lifestyle.

Have a productive day. Lois Lerner is counting on you.

— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.

I suspected this as soon as Lerner plead the 5th

Déjà vu...almost

Nixon and Obama: Like brothers from another mother

(If video won't load click post title)

Video 30


Barry steals a few pages from the Nixon playbook but won't any accept responsibility. 

Interesting to see  how he's gonna blame Bush for this one! 

Déjà vu...almost