DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Says GOP Using Benghazi to ‘Gin Up Their Base’ Ahead of 2014 Midterm Elections
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) squared off against one another over politicizing the Benghazi investigation this morning on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’. Debbie Wasserman Schultz accused the GOP of using the Benghazi investigation to drive their base for voter turnout, since they lost on Obamacare. Hmm, lost on Obamacare? Americans are the ones who lost on Obamacare. Bachmann stated that the Democrats have tried to sabotage the investigation process from the beginning. A fact that is most plainly see by the recent revealed Ben Rhodes email that was purposely kept from the committees investigating Benghazi.
“I think it’s important that this is a dialogue and not a monologue, ” Minnesota congresswoman said, adding later, “It’s really clear that the Democrats have tried to sabotage this process from the very beginning,”
Laughing, Wasserman Schultz said, “We don’t have the ability to sabotage.”
One would think that any politician would want to get to the truth of Benghazi and why the American people were mislead by a presidential administration, no matter what the party affiliation. Not Democrats.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Republicans are digging up the issue of the 2012 attack in Benghazi to drive turnout this election year.
Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN’s Candy Crowley on Sunday that as the issue of health care fails rile up their base, House Republicans are refocusing their attention on the assault that left four Americans dead, including the ambassador to Libya.
Schultz appeared Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Rep. Michele Bachmann, a conservative from Minnesota who ran for president in 2012.
“The big question on many people’s minds is, where did this false narrative come from, to blame a video rather than the terrorist actions of Ansar al-Sharia, which were evident on the ground,” Bachmann said. “So I think that what this committee is doing is taking a very careful look at a very deliberate pace to go through depositions and people on the ground to find out the truth of what happened. That’s all people want is the truth.”
The Obama administration first linked the attack to protests sparked by an anti-Muslim film produced in the United States, which had incited violence in other regions at the time. However, it was later revealed to be a coordinated terrorist attack.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) Says Democrats May Not Participate in Benghazi Committee, “Colossal Waste of Time” … Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Blasts Boycott of Probe as “Terribly Arrogant” and “Wrong”
Why don’t Democrats want to get to the truth?
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace that he would recommend congressional Democrats not participate in the recently announced Select Committee on Benghazi. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) responded that by doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong.” King went on to say that, “If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide.” On Friday, House Speaker John Boehner said the House would vote on a select committee to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) will lead a Select Committee investigation on White House Benghazi scandal.
“I think it is a colossal waste of time … I don’t think it makes sense really for Democrats to participate. It’s just a tremendous red herring, and a waste of taxpayer resources … I don’t think it makes sense for us to give this Select Committee any more credibility than it deserves.”
Imagine that, Democrats think it is a waste of time to get to the truth. As stated by Protein Wisdom, “Democrats make it clear: Obama’s political reputation more important than American lives.” I would also add, protecting Hillary Clinton’s bacon.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong.”
The call for a boycott was made earlier by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” He was responding to House Speaker John Boehner’s announcement Friday that the House would vote on a select committee to investigate Benghazi.
The congressman said Democrats should not give the select committee more “credibility” by joining, dismissing new evidence that Republicans have called a “smoking gun” showing the White House politicized the tragedy.
“I think it’s a colossal waste of time,” said Schiff, also a member of the intelligence panel. “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”
King, speaking afterward with Fox News, said this would be a “mistake” for Democrats as it would show they “cannot defend the administration.”
“If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide,” King said.
Former NSA Spox Tommy Vieto Admits … DUDE, Barack Obama Never Made it to Situation Room During Benghazi Terror Attack!
So as our US Consulate was being attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 where four Americans were killed, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, we finally learn from former NSA spokesperson Tommy Vieto that President Barack Obama never made it to the Situation Room. Obama was in the White House but never made it to the Situation Room as events were taking place in Benghazi and Islamist terrorists stormed the US Embassy in Cairo. UNREAL.
So why wasn’t Obama in the Situation Room? Could it be because what was going on did not fit his narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run, or was he and this political spin doctors already at work making up faux talking points?
From Fox News Special Report:
Tommy Vietor: I was in the Situation Room that night. Ok. And we didn’t know where the ambassador was. Definitively.
Bret Baier: Was the president in the Situation Room?
Baier: Where was the president.
Vietor: In the White House.
Baier: He wasn’t in the Situation Room.
Vietor: Uhh. At what point in the evening. He was constantly… It’s well known that when the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office. And he was updated constantly…
Baier: So then when Hillary Clinton talks to him by phone at 10 PM, he’s where?
Vietor: I don’t know. I don’t have a tracking device on him in the residence.
Baier: But you were in the Situation Room and he wasn’t there.
Rasmussen: 61% of Americans Support the XL Keystone Pipeline as Obama Panders to Enviro-Wackos and Delays Decision Until After 2014 Midterm Elections
WHO IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH AMERICA AND PANDERS TO AN EXTREMIST MINORITY FOR POLITICAL REASONS?
A recent Rasmussen poll has support for the XL Keystone Pipeline at all time highs. Sixty-one percent of Americans now support the building of the oil pipeline from Canada to Texas, while only 27% are opposed. Also, 62% of likely voters also say that the pipeline is good for the economy. However, the anti-fossil fuel Obama would rather pander to the environmental wacko minority and continues to dither and delay the decision on the construction. Just last week Barack Obama once again delayed his decision to go forward on its construction as he pushed it back until after the 2014 midterm elections putting Democrat party politics ahead of jobs for Americans. But of course we were told that Obama’s delay had nothing to do with politics from Debbie Wasserman-Schiltz. Of course not. Also reported in the poll was that 57% of voters say the pipeline is at least somewhat important to how they will vote in the next congressional election, with 23% who say it is Very Important.Democrats better be careful in 2014, there is no way that 57% are all Republicans.
I don’t care what a majority of the American people think, you are stuck with me. I do not work for you.
Support for building the Keystone XL pipeline is now at its highest level ever.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% of Likely U.S. Voters now at least somewhat favor building the major oil pipeline from Canada to Texas, while just 27% are opposed. This includes 37% who Strongly Favor the project and 10% who Strongly Oppose it. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Support for building the pipeline is up four points from 57% in January and now has edged above the previous high of 60% found in November 2011 when President Obama first delayed the project for further environmental study.
It is Democrats and the MSM that always claim that the GOP panders to the radical Tea Party, Americans just might want to take a look at who Obama is taking his orders from.
Oh by the way, this weeks jobless claims jump 24,000 this week to 329,000 as Obama refuses to approve a project that would automatically create jobs in the private sector with no tax paid for stimulus.
The number of Americans filing for new unemployment benefits jumped last week, a sign layoffs have increased since touching a seven-year low earlier this month.
Initial claims for jobless benefits, a measure of layoffs, rose by 24,000 to a seasonally adjusted 329,000 in the week ended April 19, the Labor Department said Thursday. The weekly gain was the largest since December.
Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal expected 315,000 new claims last week. Claims for the prior week were revised up by 1,000 to 305,000.
Posted April 24, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Bystander in Chief, Chicago-Style Politics, Crony Capitalism, Democrats, Divider in Chief, Economy, Energy, envirowackos, Epic Fail, Gutter Politics, Jobs, Keystone XL Pipeline, Liberals, Misleader, Moonbats, Obamanation, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Radicals, Rasmussen, The Dodger in Chief | one comment
AG Eric Holder Plays the Race Card at Sharpton’s National Action Network Conference About How Congress Treated Him
What a shock, Attorney General plays the victim and the race card …
While speaking to the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network at its annual convention in New York on Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder complained about how he was “treated” by a House committee the day before, namely Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), played the race card, calling it evidence of “ugly and divisive” civil rights challenges facing him and President Barack Obama. Holder stated that his and Barack Obama’s treatment by Congress has been unprecedented to his Al Sharpton crowd. Hmm, what ever could he be implying? Really Holder, call the “wahmbulance”. Holder may want to do some Google searches on how past GOP presidents were treated, he may learn something. But, liberals are always the victim and in Holder’s case, throw a little racism on the fire to continue the divide and conquer strategy as the Obama administrations fails America.
Attorney General Eric Holder strayed from prepared remarks to slam the way he was “treated” by a House committee the day before, calling it evidence of “ugly and divisive” civil rights challenges facing him and President Barack Obama.
“The last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms even in the face, even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity,” Holder said. “If you don’t believe that, you look at the way — forget about me, forget about me. You look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee — has nothing to do with me, forget that. What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”
Holder goes off script and plays the victim during a speech he gave Wednesday to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network.
Holder vs. Gohmert, “Don’t Go There”
Attorney General Eric Holder lashed out a bit at Louis Gohmert yesterday during a contentious exchange, snapping, “You don’t want to go there, buddy.” Holder’s clearly steamed about the back-and-forth, and brought it up during a speech he gave Wednesday to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. The Justice Department posted the transcript of Holder’s remarks as prepared for delivery, but Holder went off-script a bit to take a shot at the Republican congressman.
In the end, Eric Holder would have been fired under any other administration for the poor job that he has done. Holder has provided no justice in ‘Fast & Furious’, ‘Benghazi’ or the IRS scandal of targeting Conservative and Tea Party groups. However, when his job is to obstruct and protect Barack Obama’s bacon from impeachment and his connection to these scandals, Holder is doing a fantastic job and thus the reason why he is still employed. Maybe the reason why, as Holder says, “What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” is because we have never had such a corrupt and imperial administration?
The Obama Administration & Democrats Playing Politics with Obamacare Again … Cuts to Medicare Advantage A No Go During an Election Year
Democrats once again playing politics with healthcare … Just changing the law as they see fit to benefit themselves.
Barack Obama previously said that Obamacare was a done deal and here to stay. However, one could say that it is Obama and Democrats that have done more to show that Obamacare is “unsettled” science and a disaster. Team Obama has done everything imaginable to delay the pain to Americans until after the 2014 midterm and even the 2016 elections so not to adversely affect Democrats. Add cuts to Medicare Advantage to the long list of delays as well. As reported at The Hill, the Obama administration announced Monday that planned cuts to Medicare Advantage would not go through as anticipated amid election-year opposition from congressional Democrats. It’s a bit premature Barack to call Obamacare a done deal when you have delayed most of it so the American people don’t feel the affects until it is too late.
The Obama administration announced Monday that planned cuts to Medicare Advantage would not go through as anticipated amid election-year opposition from congressional Democrats.
The cuts would have reduced benefits that seniors receive from health plans in the program, which is intended as an alternative to Medicare.
Under cuts planned by the administration, insurers offering the plans were to see their federal payments reduced by 1.9 percent, which likely would have necessitated cuts for customers.
Instead, the administration said the federal payments to insurers will increase next year by .40 percent.
The healthcare law included $200 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage over 10 years, in part to pay for ObamaCare.
The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) on Monday said changes in the healthcare market meant it did not need to make those cuts to Medicare Advantage this year.
New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer, who signed a February 14 letter called on the Obama administration to essentially hold Medicare Advantage rates steady, said in a statement Monday that he was glad the Obama administration heeded their call. Code for, SOS for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.
One of the senators who signed that letter, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, said in a statement Monday that he was glad the Obama administration heeded their call.
“In many parts of the country, including New York, Medicare Advantage works very well,” Schumer said.
Just curious, Democrats certainly had no problem voting for these cuts in lock-step with Barack Obama in passing Obamacare along a 100% partisan vote and ramming this down the throats of Americans. So, why suddenly the change? It could not possibly be because the cuts in the popular program, Medicare Advantage, would hurt Democrats at the voting booths, could it? No, of course not.
Charles Krauthammer Blast Latest Lawless Obamacare Delay: ‘This Is Stuff That You Do in a Banana Republic’
Obamacare is a sham …
FOX News contributor and syndicated columnist Charles Krauhammer expresses his disbelief and outage over Barack Obama’s lawless actions in continually changing the Obamacare law. Krauthammer said, ‘This Is Stuff That You Do in a Banana Republic’.
“Generally speaking, you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wontedly changing the law lawlessly,” Krauthammer said. “This is stuff that you do in a banana republic.”
He went on to say that the Obama administration’s habit of acting unilaterally is so routine that no one even “notices or complains.”
“These are not adjustments or transitions,” he added. “These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election. And it is changing a law in way that you are not allowed to do.”
Pic- screen grab, Fox News: click on pic to watch VIDEO
Krauthammer went on to say that because Barack Obama continually acts in this manner with complete contempt for the American political process, the US Constitution and the separation of powers, “It’s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains.”
Could some one tell me what the Obamacare law is? Is there actually a law or was it written in invisible ink?
Barack Obama – Bill O’Reilly Contentious Pre-Super Bowl Interview Discusses Obamacare Failed Promises, Benghazi, IRS-Gate … “Not Even a Smidgen of Corruption” … “These Kinds of Things Keep on Surfacing, Because Folks Like You Will Promote Them.”
THE THIN SKINNED PRESIDENTIAL INTERVIEW …
President Barack Obama and FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly went back and forth in a contentious pre-Super Bowl interview in which the president provided few answers. Instead of answering the tough question that not only Americans want to hear, but are entitled to, Obama played the blame game, ducked and dodged, and allowed his thin skin to dictate the non-responsive interview. Obama’s attempt to try and put all his administrations scandals behind him, most likely only made matters worse. When being asked questions, Obama actually blamed FOX News for daring to bring up and question such scandals like Benghazi, IRS-gate, Obamacare and the rest of the all too numerous scandals of the Obama presidency. Obama actually thinks the media is supposed to be his propaganda arm. In the end Obama stated that there was no corruption, “not even a smidgen.”
Obama addressed concerns over Benghazi, the launch of HealthCare.gov and the IRS, during the interview Sunday before the Super Bowl. He adamantly rejected the suggestion that the IRS was used for political purposes by singling out Tea Party groups seeking tax exemption.
“That’s not what happened,” he said. Rather, he said, IRS officials were confused about how to implement the law governing those kinds of tax-exempt groups.
“There were some bone-headed decisions,” Obama conceded.
But when asked whether corruption, or mass corruption, was at play, he responded: “Not even mass corruption — not even a smidgen of corruption.”
Bill O’Reilly’s Super Bowl interview with President Obama
Picture: Source Fox News screen grab – Click in Pic to watch VIDEO
I have just one question, why did President Barack Obama agree to do this interview if he did not intend to answer any question or offer anything new other than the same old BS and blame game? It would appear that the folks at Hot Air are asking the same.
Seriously, I don’t know why Obama bothered to do this interview at all. The only answer he seemed interested in sharing was that Fox News is a big Meany Channel with Meany Reporters who Keep Asking Questions When I Give The Only Answers I Want To Give.
However, the best question of the interview did not even come from Bill O’Reilly. It came in a letter from Kathy LaMaster of Fresno, California. Kathy asked the fantastic question … “Mr. President, why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?” BINGO!!! This is why Obama has no credibility anymore. Obama tried to say that, “I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation” … even though he is the one who said we had to, see video below. Some how the US was fine for Obama to be afforded the opportunity of the first black man being elected president, but he has to fundamentally change it for others. Hmm?
Here is what Candidate Obama wanted for our country when he was running for President of the United States of America. He said that “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
O’REILLY: OK. I got a letter from Kathy LaMaster (ph), Fresno, California. I said I would read one letter from the folks, all right?
O’REILLY: “Mr. President, why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?”
OBAMA: I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation…
O’REILLY: But those are your words.
Snippets from interview:
With regards to the disastrous roll-out of Obamacare, President Obama claims everybody will be held accountable. REALLY? No one has been held accountable by this president with anything from Obamacare to Benghazi, from Fast & Furious to IRS-gate. Who is he kidding?
O’REILLY: And I’m paying Kathleen Sebelius’ salary and she screwed up.
O’REILLY: And you’re not holding her accountable.
OBAMA: Yes, well, I — I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable. But when we’re…
O’REILLY: But she’s still there.
Obama and O’Reilly spar on Benghazi. The president incredibly is sticking to the story that he called the Benghazi attack a terror attack, even though non-Kool Aid drinking folks know it is a lie. Obama could not answer in a “yes” or “no” manner whether he was told it was a terrorist attack.
O’REILLY: Did he tell you, Secretary Panetta, it was a terrorist attack?
OBAMA: You know what he told me was that there was an attack on our compound…
O’REILLY: He didn’t tell you…
OBAMA: — (INAUDIBLE)…
O’REILLY: – he didn’t use the word “terror?”
Really Mr. President, you did not say it was a terror attack in the ’60 Minutes’ interview, when you discussed it with Joy Behar or to the United Nations.
Bill O’Reilly’s Super Bowl interview with President Obama
O’REILLY: It’s more than that because if Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration…
O’REILLY: — off a videotape but your…
O’REILLY: — your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it’s a terror attack…
OBAMA: Now, Bill…
OBAMA: — Bill…
O’REILLY: — as an American…
OBAMA: — Bill — Bill…
O’REILLY: — I’m just confused.
OBAMA: And I’m — and I’m trying to explain it to, if you want to listen. The fact of the matter is is that people understood, at the time, something very dangerous was happening, that we were focused on making sure that we did everything we can — could — to protect them. In the aftermath, what became clear was that the security was lax, that not all the precautions and — that needed to be taken were taken and both myself and Secretary Clinton and others indicated as much.
Obama blames the FOX News blame game, good grief, how small of you.
O’REILLY: — but I just want to say that they’re — your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out.
OBAMA: Bill, think about…
O’REILLY: That’s what they believe.
OBAMA: – and they believe it because folks like you are telling them that.
O’REILLY: No, I’m not telling them that.
O’REILLY: I’m asking you whether you were told…
OBAMA: But — and what I’m saying is…
O’REILLY: — it was a terror attack and you…
OBAMA: — and what I’m saying is that is inaccurate.
On the IRS scandal where conservative and Tea Party groups were specifically targeted by the IRS, Obama says there was no corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption.
O’REILLY: — so you’re saying there was no…
OBAMA: — if you are involved…
O’REILLY: — no corruption there at all, none?
OBAMA: That’s not what I’m saying.
OBAMA: That’s actually…
O’REILLY: No, no, but I want to know what…
OBAMA: — (INAUDIBLE)…
O’REILLY: — you’re saying. You’re the leader of the country.
O’REILLY: You’re saying no corruption?
OBAMA: There were some — there were some bone-headed decisions…
O’REILLY: Bone-headed decisions…
OBAMA: — out of — out of a local office…
O’REILLY: But no mass corruption?
OBAMA: Not even mass corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption, I would say.
BTW, how about you wear a tie! Good grief, if you can’t act presidential, could you at least look presidential?
# YOU LIE: The Benghazi Transcripts … Barack Obama Knew From the Beginning that the Benghazi Attack was a Terror ‘attack,’ Not Video or Protest
BENGHAZI-GATE: Barack Obama lied, imagine that … What did he know and when did he know it? How About from the earliest Moments!!!
From James Rosen of Fox News, ‘The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest’. On September 11, 2012 the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and four Americans were killed, including Ambassador Stevens. Barack Obama and his minions blamed the attack on a video tape, but as it turns out Obama knew from the outset that it was a terror attack. This information blows a hole wide open in Obama, Hillary’s and the rest of the Democrat puppets talking points. No wonder Obama targeted James Rosen, eh?
Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials – headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.
Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing — occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.
MUST SEE VIDEO: New Documents Reveal Top Officials Knew from Outset Benghazi Was a Terror Attack
According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham — who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 — said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.
“In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta,” McKeon asked, “was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?” Ham initially testified that there was some “peripheral” discussion of this subject, but added “at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for.
The Unbelievable lies from the Obama White House … see what Jay Carney was saying then, when they knew what had happened
Posted January 14, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
America - United States, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, Epic Fail, FOX-gate - James Rosen, Liars, Misleader, Misrepresentation, Obamanation, Scandal, Terrorism, The Dodger in Chief, The Lying King, Transparency, United States, US National Security, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 3 comments
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates RIPS Barack Obama’s Leadership in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War” … Obama Douted, “Outright Convinced It” [the Surge Mission] Would Fail”
Commander in Chief?
Really, Barack Obama, the so-called Commander in Chief sent 30,000 of America’s bravest and treasured resources into harms way in the Afghanistan surge and did not even believe in the mission? Robert Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” the president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail.”
Why would some one commit troops to a mission that one did not believe in? This is enormously troubling. Was it merely political?
Barack Obama: Commander in Chief or President Photo-Op?
In a new memoir, former defense secretary Robert Gates unleashes harsh judgments about President Obama’s leadership and his commitment to the Afghanistan war, writing that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”
Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,” Gates writes in “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.”
Obama, after months of contentious discussion with Gates and other top advisers, deployed 30,000 more troops in a final push to stabilize Afghanistan before a phased withdrawal beginning in mid-2011. “I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops, only his support for their mission,” Gates writes.
A Damning must see VIDEO – lack of regard of others by the Obama White House
VIDEO – CNN: Et tu Bob? Fmr. Defense Secretary slams Obama on Afghanistan in new memoir
At a March 3, 2011, National Security Council meeting, Gates writes, the president opened with a “blast.” Obama criticized the military for “popping off in the press” and said he would push back hard against any delay in beginning the withdrawal.
According to Gates, Obama concluded, “?‘If I believe I am being gamed . . .’ and left the sentence hanging there with the clear implication the consequences would be dire.”
Gates continues: “I was pretty upset myself. I thought implicitly accusing” Petraeus, and perhaps Mullen and Gates himself, “of gaming him in front of thirty people in the Situation Room was inappropriate, not to mention highly disrespectful of Petraeus. As I sat there, I thought: the president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand [Afghanistan President Hamid] Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”