Featured Post

If You Will Look, You Will See: It's the Islam

What more can be said in the wake of the horror in Paris? It's all been said before: we will read in the media how investigators are l...

Friday, October 12, 2012

Biden: State & CIA Lie on Libya, but Tell Truth on Iran

Following last night's VP debate, I found myself extremely uneasy. After all that I have said against the current occupants of the White House, their economic and foreign policies, their governing philosophy, and their ethics, I realized that I have been way too easy on them.

Despite efforts to assist him by the atrocious debate moderator, in 90 minutes last night, Joe Biden proved over and over that neither he nor his boss should be anywhere near the levers of power of our country.

So much material, so little time . . . so let me focus on two issues: Libya and Iran.

On Libya, Biden lied gave an account at variance with the truth. He threw the entire intel community and the State Department to the wolves. He claimed that the Embassy in Libya did not ask for extra security, and that the White House was told the attack resulted from an anti-video demonstration gone awry, and not from a terrorist action. We all know that is not true. Foggy Bottom will exact its revenge. The leaks will come fast and furious (to use a phrase that did not come up last night) to show how the White House was informed and did nothing. There are now press reports that a US done was overhead for at least part of the attack; the State Department's Charlene Lamb already has testified that she was monitoring the attack in "near real time"; we know that the Embassy had requested additional security; and the CIA and State already have made known that they never concluded that the attack was anything other than a terrorist attack. Nobody has been able to explain the lack of White House response to an attack that went on for at least six hours.

In effect, he claimed that State, CIA, etc., deceived the White House. Interesting relationship that between Secretary Clinton and President Obama, that between Director Petraeus and President Obama . . .

Turning to Iran, Biden seemed to minimize the Iranian nuclear program, deriding the importance of their enrichment efforts because they have not yet developed a weaponized version of a nuclear device. He stated that we would "know" if the Iranians were close to developing a weapon. Hmmm . . . and we would "know" that how? The intelligence community would tell us! Oh, the same one that lied to misinformed the White House about what was going on in Benghazi? I see. According, therefore, to the Vice President our intelligence capabilities are not sophisticated or truthful enough to report accurately on an attack on a US facility by some two hundred heavily armed men in the middle of a city in a friendly country, but sophisticated and truthful enough to monitor intricate details of a hidden nuclear program undertaken in a very remote and heavily guarded location in the middle of an extremely hostile nation.

Sure, I am convinced. I just don't understand how those pesky Israelis, who lives depend on this, aren't convinced. Seeing the stellar performance by the White House on Libya, we and the Israelis should just put our fate in the hands of Obama, Biden, and their advisors.


29 comments:

  1. I arrived here through a link on Legal Insurrection. I owe 'em one. Great blog.

    creeper

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome aboard. Bring your friends; we don't bite . . . much

      Delete
  2. Seems to this old gal that it's not very prudent to throw HRC under the bus. Even last night's clown act should know that. Just saying...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I watched the debate on C-span last night. They have full coverage on a split screen. Did you see Ryan reel back when Biden said that the WH didn't know that more security was requested?
      How long do you think that this story telling will go on?
      I am reminded of a football team that "plays out the clock." Unfortunately, people died in this instance and our current admin just can't get their story straight.
      That the VP of our country came to a national audience and gave a rediculous answer (that a good portion of the electorate bought because they wanted to)is terribly dismaying to me.
      This man is the VP of our country! I expected quite a bit more from him. At the very least, I expected him to be civil.

      Delete
    2. babs, you are too kind. I didn't expect much from Biden, and I wasn't expecting him to be civil. Remember, they told Joe to just be himself...and he was.

      Also, I'm new here, so forgive the stupid question, but, what does HRC stand for?

      Delete
  3. Dude, you are prescient. Read this:
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/12/author-ed-klein-as-benghazi-blame-nears-hillary-clintons-grow-furious/

    Homina Homina Homina, now things are going to get really fun to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This reminds me of a painting I once saw. A russian wedding troika pursued by wolves and the groom in the act of hurling the bride to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The picture you describe depicts a story from Willa Cather's "My Antonia".

      According to Russian folklore, the two men, (the groom and his brother), were shunned by their fellow villagers for this act, and moved to American, where they became Democratic politicians.

      (Okay, I added the last five words.)

      Delete
  5. Joe Biden is nothing more than Obama's insurance policy. Imagine him in the Oval Office.

    Horrifying, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dip:

    That is the very best photo I've ever seen of the President and his National Security team! Thank you for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Question: will Obama accept Hillary's resignation before the election? Second question: can Harry Reid push Susan Rice's nomination as Secretary of State through the Senate before the election?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Answer #1: No. He can't afford to.
      Answer #2: Heck no. If Rice's name comes up, not one Repub will vote for her confirmation and any Donks with residual brain cells won't either.

      Delete
  8. " Nobody has been able to explain the lack of White House response to an attack that went on for at least six hours."

    Oh, I've got that one. Obama was sleeping.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is certainly possible, but my impression is that the WH pants-on-fire team was in ObamaDefcon 1, trying to figure out how to spin the situation so that Islamist violence is not the issue, except as a justifiable response to malicious slander.

      Delete
    2. No, Obama wasn't sleeping. He was playing golf in between campaign fundraisers.

      Delete
  9. Shorter WH defense of (one of) Biden's bald faced lies - "That depends on what the meaning of 'we' is"

    ReplyDelete
  10. The clown picture above is an insult...to clowns. Unlike our current gaggle in the White House and at State, clowns are professionals and spend a great deal of time thinking about, and working on, what they do. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. You have a great blog here sir. Prior to becoming a police officer, I served as a Marine Embassy Guard in Tel Aviv ('77-79.) I agree with your prediction that the good folks at Foggy will take their revenge. I recall Ambassador Lewis, and most of the FSO's there as some of the brightest and capable people I have met. It was an honor to have served with them. It only illustrates the fact that it is now amature hour in the Executive Branch. With all luck, that will change in about 3 weeks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And my hat's off to you former Marine Guards.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Kepha. As I said, it was an honor, and probably the most interesting experience of my life. In addition, I met a beautiful blond American girl there (the daughter of A McDonnell Douglas Tech Rep seving with the IAF.) We've been together for 33 years now. For that, I will always be greatful to Israel. She gave me the most precious thing in my life...

      Back to Libya - there is something else perplexing
      I would ask the host of this blog to write about. It has been reported in the press in Turkey, and Lebanon, that Ambassador Stevens (who was openly gay) had been gang-raped by the terrorists prior to being murdered.

      The PIO's at the State Dept have only made generic statements that he was "tortured", and did not explain that in fact, (if the allegations are true) that he was subjected to a savage sexual assault prior to being killed.

      It has been reported that this was the he was taken to the hospitial after he was found dead. Not by "looters", but by the terrorists themselves. They were proud of what they had done, they wanted the world to know it.

      You may recall, Gadaffi was penetrated with a foreign object prior to being executed. The terroists just didn't want to kill the Ambassador, they wanted to torture and humiliate him.

      Why is the American Press ignoring this fact? I suspect that, being in the tank for Team Obama, they know the fury it would engender in the American public.

      God knows where all of this is going. But, if Romney wins I'll bet the power grid inside the Beltway will be taxed by thousands of running paper schredders.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I have raised this with friends at State, but nobody wants to talk about it.

      Delete
    4. Gay ambassador raped by Islamist hard-core radicals.

      Absolute silence from the MSM-

      and no one in the gay community holding
      Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, or Dan Kloefer accountable either.

      Nothing to see here, move along.

      Delete
  12. Why is no one asking the one question that has been bothering me since this all began: why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi on 9-11?

    Two facts are certain: Benghazi is one of the biggest hot-spots in the Middle East and known to supply jihadists to Iraq and Afghanistan, so it stands to reason it has not cooled down since Obama took office. Secondly, 9-11 holds great meaning to the jihadists. It bolsters their belief that they brought down the Great Satan to its knees eleven years ago.

    So what was so important that Stevens needed to be there on a day that is so representative to the enemy? It was reported that he was trying to negotiate an arms retrieval. From whom? Whose arms? Obama supported Egypt and France providing arms/weapons to the Libyan rebels. Did Obama also provide them in a clandestine operation and has now learned that the Libyan "rebels" he suppled are really AQ and that is the real coverup? Is Benghazi Fast and Furious, Libyan Style?

    This goes deeper than we are being told and we know we cannot rely on the lapdog press to get to the bottom of it. But my guess is this is Obama's Iran Contra and he is trying to bury it because it will cost him the election.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "That is certainly possible, but my impression is that the WH pants-on-fire team was in ObamaDefcon 1, trying to figure out how to spin the situation so that Islamist violence is not the issue, except as a justifiable response to malicious slander."

    It's Bush's fault.

    ReplyDelete