Megyn Kelly Leaves State Department Spox Jen Psaki Speechless After Confronting Her with Obama’s Own Words from Debate Tape with Romney on Troop Withdrawal
BARACK OBAMA, THE LIAR IN CHIEF IN HIS OWN WORDS …
State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki at a loss for words when confronted with Obama’s own words in what he stated during the 2012 Presidential debates against Mitt Romney vs. his comments now. Presented with the facts from Megyn Kelly and the comments from or Leon Panetta, former Defense and CIA director, that “those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.”
Mitt Romney: With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe that there should have been a status of forces agreement… Oh, you didn’t want a status of forces agreement.
Barack Obama: No, what I would not have done was left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.
VIDEO – Via the Kelly File from The Gateway Pundit
Now we get Barack Obama only blaming Iraq’s Maliki, claiming it was bit his decision.
Barack Obama, The Liar in Chief …
After President Barack Obama threw the US intelligences community under the bus and blamed them for his underestimating Iraq and ISIS. However, Former Defense Secretary & CIA Director Leon Panetta is firing back and calling out Obama’s lies. Panetta says that not only was Obama advised to keep American military forces in Iraq to protect its fragile stability, he also warned that the rise of the Islamic State “greatly increases the risk that Iraq will become al-Qaeda’s next safe haven.”
It would appear that Panetta wants to put forth the truth as to what really took place and create a firewall between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for her 2016 presidential run.
Leon Panetta … warned the rise of the Islamic State “greatly increases the risk that Iraq will become al-Qaeda’s next safe haven.”
In clear and unequivocal terms, former Defense Secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta confirms precisely what conservative critics, lawmakers, former officials, tactical experts and military officials have said about Iraq: President Obama was advised to keep a stay-behind force and warned about the consequences if he did not. He preferred to keep his campaign pledge to get all the troops out. The White House therefore allowed negotiations to falter for a status of forces agreement and bragged it had gotten all the troops out. Iraq has now collapsed.
In excerpts of his new book printed in TIME, he writes: “When President Obama announced the end of our combat mission in August 2010, he acknowledged that we would maintain troops for a while. Now that the deadline was upon us, however, it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together.” Among others, Panetta and Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy tried to convince the White House this was essential, but the White House refused to take obvious measures to maintain troops:
In them, Panetta explained that Iraqi leaders privately wanted some U.S. forces to stay behind after the formal 2011 withdrawal, though they would not say so publicly. The former secretary, though, said the U.S. had “leverage” to strike a deal, and the Defense and State departments tried to do exactly that.
“But,” he wrote, “the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated. … and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.”
He said the negotiations with then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went down to the wire in December 2011, but the White House never stepped up.
“To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them,” Panetta charged. “Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away.”
The account from Panetta challenges the notion that the Obama administration would have left some troops behind – as U.S. military advisers wanted – if only the Iraqi government had been more willing to negotiate. While Panetta lays some blame at the feet of the Iraqis, he also argues that the White House never seized the chance at a deal.
Panetta claims that a residual troop presence like he and others had advocated could have made the difference.
“To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country,” he wrote.
Panetta also warned that the rise of the Islamic State “greatly increases the risk that Iraq will become al-Qaeda’s next safe haven.”
Barack Obama Blames Intel Officials for ISIS … “Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.”
Barack Obama … The Buck always Stop with somebody else other than me …
It did not take long in last nights CBS ’60 Minutes’ interview for President Barack Obama to blame some one else for his not having a strategy or a clue in how to deal with ISIS. Barack Obama threw Intel officials and James Clapper under the bus and stated they underestimated ISIS. Who underestimated ISIS, or did you just not want to see what they were doing? I could not have said it any better than Instapundit, When things go well, it’s always “I, me, mine” with this guy. When things go badly, it’s always “they” who screwed up.
But wait a minute, didn’t FOX News report Obama given detailed intelligence for a year about rise of ISIS?
President Obama was given detailed and specific intelligence about the rise of the Islamic State as part of his daily briefing for at least a year before the group seized large swaths of territory over the summer, a former Pentagon official told Fox News.
The official — who asked not to be identified because the President’s Daily Brief is considered the most authoritative, classified intelligence community product analyzing sensitive international events for the president — said the data was strong and “granular” in detail.
The Hill: Obama – Intel officials underestimated ISIS.
President Obama largely blamed the United States’ intelligence community in an interview broadcast Sunday for giving an incorrect assessment of the capabilities of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
“Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” Obama said on CBS’s “”60 Minutes.”
Obama said ISIS, also known as ISIL, went “underground” when United States forces fought al Qaeda in Iraq in the last decade.
That, along with Syria’s civil war, allowed ISIS to regroup and recruit fighters from all over the world, including Europe, the United States, Australia and the Muslim world, Obama said in an excerpt from the interview. The full interview with Steve Kroft will air Sunday night.
“And so this became ground zero for jihadists around the world,” Obama said of Syria.
Jim Geraghty at NRO says, oh contaire … “How Many Times Was Obama Warned About an Islamist Takeover of Iraq?”
Isn’t this what all of those allegedly horrific warmongering Bush administration officials warned about? Didn’t we have an entire 2008 presidential campaign debating the consequences of a “precipitous withdrawal”? Didn’t Obama and his team assure us, over and over again, that they would manage the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq responsibly?
Vice President Cheney, November 21, 2005:
Would the United States and other free nations be better or worse off with terrorists like Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi running Iraq? And would the United States be more or less safe with Iraq ruled by extremists intent on its destruction?
A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further the violence against free nations and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.
President Bush, July 12, 2007:
I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.
Even The Daily Beast is calling Obama on his comments … Why Obama Can’t Say His Spies Underestimated ISIS.
Still, other senior intelligence officials have been warning about ISIS for months. In prepared testimony before the annual House and Senate intelligence committees’ threat hearings in January and February, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the recently departed director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the group would likely make a grab for land before the end of the year. ISIS “probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014.” Of course, the prediction wasn’t exactly hard to make. By then, Flynn noted, ISIS had taken the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, and the demonstrated an “ability to concurrently maintain multiple safe havens in Syria.”
Flynn was not alone. Clapper himself in that hearing warned that the three most effective jihadist groups in Syria—one of which he said was ISIS—presented a threat as a magnet for attracting foreign fighters. John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, said he thought both ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda’s formal franchise in Syria, presented a threat to launch external operations against the West.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said February 4 that because of areas of Syria that are “beyond the regime’s control or that of the moderate opposition,” a “major concern” was “the establishment of a safe haven, and the real prospect that Syria could become a launching point or way station for terrorists seeking to attack the United States or other nations.”
Gen. Martin Dempsey,Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Says … US May Send in Ground Troops to Fight ISIS (Video)
BOOTS ON THE GROUND … I THOUGHT THAT OBAMA SAID THERE WOULD BE NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND?
Foreign policy from the Divider in Chief, even the military and WH are divided …
Barack Obama said emphatically that the US would put no boots on the ground against ISIS, not so fast. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel yesterday that the United States may send in ground troops if they are needed to defeat ISIS. Gen. Dempsey stated, that he hasn’t ruled out recommending U.S. ground forces deploy to attack ISIS targets if the current air campaign in Iraq fails. Dempsey said that Obama might reconsider boots on the ground and come back to him on a case by case basis. Oops. That is a much different message than Obama is trying to show in public to his left-wing, moonbat base.
ABC NEWS: US Troops Could Fight ISIS in Iraq
The nation’s top military officer opened the door slightly today to the possibility of American troops accompanying Iraqi forces on the battlefield against ISIS if needed.
The latest deployment of 475 American forces to Iraq includes 150 advisers who will be working closely with Iraqi brigades at the headquarters level to coordinate the Iraqi military’s offensive operations against ISIS.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the advisers “will help the Iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for enabler and logistics support, and coordinate coalition contributions.”
He told the committee that he currently does not see a need for American troops to serve as JTAC’s with Iraqi units, though he could change his recommendation as events warranted.
Dempsey said that Gen. Lloyd Austin, who oversees U.S. Central Command, had initially recommended using American JTAC’s with the Iraqi and Kurdish forces that retook the Mosul Dam last month, but ended up using work-around technologies. Dempsey said he does not currently see the need to embed the controllers with Iraqi forces, “but I’m not walking away from what I said. If we get to the point where I think we need the JTAC with the Iraqi security forces, I will make the recommendation.”
At least it was ironclad until Tuesday, when Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of Congress he hasn’t ruled out recommending U.S. ground forces deploy to attack ISIS targets if the current air campaign in Iraq fails.
“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the President,” Dempsey said.
Barack Obama’s 9-10-14 Full Speech on ISIS … Wrong President at the Wrong Time: From the Jayvee Team to America’s Greatest Terror Threat
SORRY, OBAMA LOST ME AT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF MY HIGHEST PRIORITY IS THE SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, OKAY REALLY IT WAS AT MY FELLOW AMERICANS
Lying to the American people and playing politics with healthcare, the IRS and jobs is bad enough, but lies and playing politics with terrorism kills.
Barack Hussein Obama is the wrong president at the wrong time with a speech that many feel are just more words. Let’s get serious folks, it was WE THE PEOPLE who forced Barack Obama, kicking and screaming, to speak to the American people with regards to the terror threats of ISIS. The only reason why Obama addressed the American people was because of his sinking poll numbers of terrorism and foreign policy. In gaffe after gaffe, or in Obama’s case, how he really felt, Obama claimed that ISIS offered no threat, they were just the jayvee. As ISIS ravaged innocent men, women and children he stood back and did nothing. As ISIS created a caliphate and took over lands in Syria and Iraq, Obama did nothing. Isis beheads an American journalist and Obama says bad things have always happened, its just the media and social media that make more out of it today. Then when Obama first presents what he will do to ISIS he admits he has no strategy and then when he comes up with one it is to make ISIS a “manageable problem”. WTF!!!
So now Barack Obama provides us with more words, little details and a 180 on so many of his own words, policies and principles, it makes anyone’s head spin, even Democrats and liberals. Just curious, since when has the core principle of Obama’s presidency been, if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven. REALLY? Did Obama also provide Yemen and Somalia as examples of successes against terrorism? Hold the phone, did Obama just say that ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East, including American citizens, personnel and facilities? Mr. President, you said ISIS was the jayvee. You dismissed them as not a threat and not on par with Al-Qaeda and now they are a threat to all, including America? Then what might be the flip-flops of all times, Obama states that there will be no American boots on the ground, but instead we will reply on Syrian opposition fighters. The very people that President Barack Obama once derided as “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth” are now form a key pillar of the U.S. leader’s strategy to beat back the militant insurgency known as Islamic State. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
The White House (CNN) — My fellow Americans — tonight, I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.
As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people. Over the last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve targeted al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. We’ve done so while bringing more than 140,000 American troops home from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year. Thanks to our military and counter-terrorism professionals, America is safer.
Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. That’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL — which calls itself the “Islamic State.”
Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.
In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. In acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists — Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.
So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East — including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region — including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners — including Europeans and some Americans — have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.
I know many Americans are concerned about these threats. Tonight, I want you to know that the United States of America is meeting them with strength and resolve. Last month, I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. Since then, we have conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq. These strikes have protected American personnel and facilities, killed ISIL fighters, destroyed weapons, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. These strikes have helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
WELCOME TO OBAMA IN WONDERLAND …
The tin-pot dictator Barack Obama told Congressional leaders he does not need their vote to wage war against ISIS. Isn’t that rich. Even when so many are on board with collectively annihilating ISIS and it is Obama who has been pulled into this kicking and screaming, the president took the opportunity to do what he does best, be negative and divisive. With the polls showing that an overwhelming majority think that Obama has been to lax in dealing with
ISIL ISIS and want more action taken against the terror group. So why no vote? Isn’t this the same president who for 6 years has been bitching and moaning about no bipartisanship in Washington? Is this a matter of Obama wanting to go it alone because he is a narcissist, is it because he does not want to show the optic ever of Democrats and the GOP coming together on any issue, or is it because he does not want liberal Democrats to have to vote for war ahead of the 2014 midterms and upset their radical left-wing base?
This is what happens when you have a president that does everything with a political taint to it, rather than what is best for America.
President Obama told congressional leaders at a White House meeting on Tuesday he doesn’t need their authorization to expand his military campaign against Islamic terrorists.
The president offered the assurance one day before a prime-time address he’s scheduled to give to the nation.
The president is also weighing the possibility of airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria, as well as asking the United Nations to pass a binding resolution requiring governments to prevent the flow of foreign fighters to the region.
While Obama told the House and Senate leaders he would welcome congressional action that demonstrates a unified front, the president told the bipartisan group “he has the authority he needs to take action against (ISIS) in accordance with the mission he will lay out in his address,” according to the White House.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called on Obama to better clarify his strategy this week, and the White House has said the president will offer a frank “assessment of this critical national security priority.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest cautioned that the address would not provide a timeline for the military campaign, nor was Obama expected to outline costs for the operation.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is emerging as the most outspoken congressional leader pushing for a vote on President Barack Obama’s plan to take on the Islamic State, even as the White House insists the president already has authority to take on the militant group.
On Tuesday, McConnell aggressively called on Obama to back a vote in Congress on his military strategy before the November elections, which will pit the GOP leader against Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in a pivotal race that could determine control of the Senate.
“He really ought to ask for our support, whether or not he may think he’s authorized to do what he intends to do. I think it’s in his best interest,” McConnell told a reporter.
And Democratic leaders are also trying to stay out of the fray, though some rank-and-file Democrats in the Senate are agitating for a roll call on continued airstrikes in Iraq or an expansion into Syria.
FLASHBACK 2007 … However, that was not always the case. The Gateway Pundit reminds us of Obama, in his own words, criticizing GWB in 2007 for actually going to Congress and getting approval as opposed to Obama who says he does not need Congress to wage for on ISIS. HUH? Bush followed the War Powers Ac in Iraq and that is not good enough for then, Senator Obama. My how times have changed. Hear Obama criticize how the president, Congress and the MSM have failed the American people. Did he just say that the MSM reported spin instead of facts? Seriously?
The Triple Crown of Lying … Fact Check.org/Politifact/WAPO Fact Checker Gives Barack Obama & Minions More Pinnochio’s for His Lame ISIS, JV Team’ Explanation
BARACK OBAMA, YOU LIED … AGAIN!!!
Fact Check.org gives Barack Obama more “Pinocchio’s” for his lame effort in trying to say that he was not referring to ISIS when he was making the past comparison that ISIS was like a “jayvee” terror team. WHAT OBAMA LIE? Say it isn’t so. Obama and his minions have won the “triple crown” of lying as Fack Check.org, Politifact and the WAPO Fact Checker all say … YOU LIE. I guess it all depended on that is, is … oh sorry, ISIS is. Barack Obama is simply incapable of telling the truth.
Todd: Long way, long way from when you described them as a JV team.
Obama: Well, I –
Todd: Was that bad intelligence or your misjudgment?
Obama: Keep — keep — keep in mind I wasn’t specifically referring to ISIL. I’ve said that, regionally, there were a whole series of organizations that were focused primarily locally. Weren’t focused on homeland, because I think a lot of us, when we think about terrorism, the model is Osama bin Laden and 9/11. And the point that I was –
Todd: You don’t believe these people –
Obama: Not yet. But they — they can evolve. And I was very specific at that time. What I said was, not every regional terrorist organization is automatically a threat to us that would call for a major offensive. Our goal should not be to think that we can occupy every country where there’s a terrorist organization.
Barack Obama – The Lying King
During Obama’s Meet the Press interview Sunday with new host Chuck Todd, the president essentially gave the same explanation Earnest previously gave about the JV remark published in the New Yorker in January.
“Keep in mind I wasn’t specifically referring to (Islamic State). I’ve said that, regionally, there were a whole series of organizations that were focused primarily locally, weren’t focused on homeland, because I think a lot of us, when we think about terrorism, the model is Osama bin Laden and 9/11,” Obama told Todd.
FactCheck.org issued a verdict Monday afternoon that like others was based on the transcript from New Yorker reporter Davide Remnick’s interview with Obama.
“The president can make the case that he wasn’t referring only to ISIS when he made his remark about a junior varsity team. But he cannot say that he ‘wasn’t specifically referring to ISIL,’ because The New Yorker article and the transcript of the interview make it clear that the context of the president’s remark included ISIS,” FactCheck.org says.
STRIKE ONE: Fack Check. org
STRIKE TWO: PolitiFact ranked Obama’s Meet the Press statement as “false.” That’s slightly better than the worst ranking the site can give: “pants on fire.”
STRIKE THREE: Washington Post Fact Checker gave Earnest its worst ranking.
Mitt Romney Rips Barack Obama on His Past Comments and Foreign Policy, Says Hillary Clinton & Obama are Two Peas in the Same Pod … Romney Says He Will not Run Again for President
Whether you like Mitt Romney or not, Romney was correct during the 2012 Presidential race and debates and Obama was dead wrong.
AMERICA HAS BUYER’S REMORSE … Former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney appeared on FOX News Sunday and shredded Barack Obama, his lack of a foreign policy and his disastrous out of touch presidency. In retrospect, does anyone really not think that Romney would have been a better choice than Obama? During the 2012 presidential debates Obama had nothing but condescending one liners like when Romney was discussing the dwindling size of the navy, Obama mocked him by replying, “we also have fewer horses and bayonets.” Then there was the condescending Obama comments when Romney had stated that Russia was one of the biggest Geo-political threats, Obama quipped that “the 1980′s are now calling for their foreign policy back.” It makes for a good joke, but could Obama have ever been more wrong? Hey Barack … what do you think of Vladimir Putin now?
Mitt Romney also went on to say that he thinks he would have made a better president than Barack Obama; however, Romney also stated that he is not running again. Romney stated he had his chance and his time has passed. But it is obvious to many that Romney would have made a better president and that the American people have buyer’s remorse. A recent CNN poll indicated that if the 2012 presidential election was held today, Romney would defeat Obama 53% to 44%.
Romney also said that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are one in the same.
“I look for instance at her record as secretary of state. Look, her record is Barack Obama’s record in foreign policy, and it’s a disaster,” Romney said. Citing the ongoing conflagrations in the Middle East and the Ukraine and the current administration’s inaction, Romney said: “If you can’t speak decisively, you can’t be decisive. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are two peas in the same pod.”
And to the folks over at Crooks and Liars who have nothing but MEAN things to say about Romney’s appearance on FNS where all he was doing was answering the questions he was asked, Elmer Fudd would have made a better president than Barack Milhous Obama. Romney was not crying he was not elected, America is crying. Had Americans known that Obamacare was a lie, Benghazi was another lie and coverup and IRS-gate … Obama would have lost in a landslide, as he should have.
Posted September 7, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
2012 Elections, al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, Debates, Epic Fail, Foreign Policy, IRS-gate, Misleader, Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney - Paul Ryan 2012, Obamacare, Obamanation, Presidential Election, Russia, Terrorism, The Lying King, Transparency, United States, Vladimir Putin, War on Terror, You Tube - VIDEO | no comments
BARACK OBAMA, THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!
According to the most recent Gallup poll, three day rolling average, Barack Obama has tied his all-time low for job approval at 38%. At some point though, Obama’s job approval numbers have to sink even lower as we look around and nothing, I mean nothing is positive for the United states or Americans, both in domestic and foreign policy, in the disastrous Obama presidency. As Obama’s poll numbers continue to shrink, the MSM-Democrat state run media complex refuses to report the news.
- U.S. Economy added a pathetic 142,000 jobs in August, 2014
- The July payroll number was revised up from plus 209,000 jobs to plus 212,000 but June’s count was revised down from 298,000 jobs added to 267,000. Total employment gains those months were therefore 28,000 lower than what BLS originally reported.
- Black unemployment at 11.4%
- Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low, 92,269,000 not in work force.
- IRS Scandal Continues … Benghazi-gate scandal continues.
- ISIS on the move creating a caliphate, murdering innocents and beheading two Americans with a muddled, dithering and weak response from Obama.
- Obama, a disastrous conclusion that ISIS was the Jayvee, turns out it was Obama who is the rank amateur.
- Putin on the move … China on the move … ISIS on the move … Iran’s nuclear capability on the move Thanks to a weak Ditherer in Chief and the world no longer fears the US because of Obama.
- Obamacare is to a costly joke.
- Afghanistan and Iraq all but lost after the loss of so many brave American military souls.
- Amnesty for illegals.
The below average polling for Obama’s job approval is at 40.25% Approve and 54.25% Disapprove.
Reuters/Ipsos – 8/30 – 9/3: 38% Approve – 56% Disapprove (-18)
Gallup – 9/2 – 9/5 : 38% Approve – 54% Disapprove (-16)
The Economist/YouGov – 8/30 – 9/1: 41% Approve - 56% Disapprove (-15)
GWU/Battleground – 8/23 – 8/28: 44% Approve - 51 Disapprove (-7)
USA Today/Pew Research – 8/20 – 8/24: 42% Approve - 50% Disapprove (-8)
Posted September 6, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Act of War, Afghanistan, Amnesty, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, Blacks, Bystander in Chief, China, Corruption, Cover-Up, Divider in Chief, Economy, Epic Fail, Foreign Policy, Gallup, Illegal Immigration, Iran, IRS-gate, ISIS, Islamist, Jihad, Job Approval, Jobs, Labor Force, Latinos/Hispanic, Leading from Behind, Libya, Lost in Smallness, Media Bias, Middle East, Misleader, Obamacare, Obamanation, Obamanomics, Polls, Radical Islam, Russia, Scandal, Syria, Terrorism, The Lying King, Unemployment, Vladimir Putin, War on Terror | 3 comments
Bret Baier Fox News Exclusive – ’13 Hours in Benghazi’: Top CIA Officer in Benghazi Delayed Response to Terrorist Attack … “I strongly believe if we’d left immediately, they’d still be alive today.”
THEY WERE TOLD TO STAND DOWN ...VIDEO, WHAT VIDEO?
IN A MUST SEE INTERVIEW, their account gives a dramatic new turn to what the Obama administration and its allies would like to dismiss as an “old story” – the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Ahead of the book, “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi” comes the following interview with Fox News Special Report Brett Baier and the security contractors — Kris (“Tanto”) Paronto, Mark (“Oz”) Geist, and John (“Tig”) Tiegen.
A U.S. security team in Benghazi was held back from immediately responding to the attack on the American diplomatic mission on orders of the top CIA officer there, three of those involved told Fox News’ Bret Baier.
Their account gives a dramatic new turn to what the Obama administration and its allies would like to dismiss as an “old story” – the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Speaking out publicly for the first time, the three were security operators at the secret CIA annex in Benghazi – in effect, the first-responders to any attack on the diplomatic compound. Their first-hand account will be told in a Fox News special, airing Friday night at 10 p.m. (EDT).
Based on the new book “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi” by Mitchell Zuckoff with the Annex Security Team, the special sets aside the political spin that has freighted the Benghazi issue for the last two years, presenting a vivid, compelling narrative of events from the perspective of the men who wore the “boots on the ground.”
Now, looking back, the security team said they believed that if they had not been delayed for nearly half an hour, or if the air support had come, things might have turned out differently.
“Ambassador Stevens and Sean [Smith], yeah, they would still be alive, my gut is yes,” Paronto said. Tiegen concurred.
“I strongly believe if we’d left immediately, they’d still be alive today,” he added.
Posted September 5, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Act of War, al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, CIA, Epic Fail, Islamist, Jihad, Libya, Libyan Consulate - Amb. Stevens, Misleader, Murder, Obamanation, Radical Islam, Scandal, Terrorism, The Lying King, US National Security, War on Terror, You Tube - VIDEO | 12 comments