I can surely understand the urge. THat night was depressing as hell. And four more years of Barack are not four years I am anticipating.
But if you're on the edge, try to find a reason to hang in a little longer.
Smash returns in January. Don't you want to see if the show's going to suck of if they fixed the problems?
Spring will be here before you know it and that's when everything starts growing again.
Or maybe you're crazy for the Double Stack burger on the Wendy's Value Meal?
I'm sure there's got to be something, if you think long enough, that says, "Hold on a for a few minutes more.)
And if you really don't care for Barack (or another politician later on), do you really want to give them that kind of power that you kill yourself because they get elected?
Think about that. Maybe that will convince you to hang in a little longer.
Reading the article, I am under the impression that Hamilton lived with his lover. If that is the case, there's another reason to hang in there.
But since it appears he may have been gay, I was thinking, "I better grab this."
Remember, Barack's gone in four years. You can wait that out. Or the next person. Don't give them your power.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday,
November 14, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, a rape takes place
and a father is ordered to execute the person found to be the rapist,
terrorist Daqduq killed 5 Americans but Barack's big concern was that
Iraq not release him from prison until after the election, Daqduq has
been released, 5 dead Americans don't matter to the White House press
corps which refuses to ask Barack about the release at today's press
conference, Barack stands by Susan The War Hawk Rice (for now), and
more.
Today Iraq was yet again slammed with bombings. In a month of violence that had already seen 80 die so far through yesterday (Iraq Body Count's
count), bombs left many dead and injured. It didn't look like it was
going to be that kind of day to the security forces and Nouri's
government. Early this morning in Baghdad, Alsumaria was trumpeting the fact that 3 members of al Qaeda in Iraq had surrendered outside of Ramadi. How quickly it all changed.
Wang Yuanyuan (Xinhua) offers, "The
deadliest attack occurred in the oil-rich province of Kirkuk in
northern Iraq, when four car bombs killed a total of nine people and
wounded some 32 others, a provincial police source told Xinhua on
condition of anonymity." Al Rafidayn also calls that the deadliest attack of the day. When the press is ranking the day's attacks, you know it's a day of deadly violence and Deutsche Welle adds, "The violence comes a day before Muharram, the Islamic new year."
Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) reports, "In Kirkuk, a city disputed between Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen, there were at least three car bombs: one against the offices of a major Kurdish party, one targeted a Turkmen party office, and another that hit a major road. That was in addition to car bombs in the city of Hilla, a Shia town. And one here in Baghdad that targted an army general [General Qassim Nouri -- Prensa Latina reports that the general's bodyguard was killed in the bombing]. All in all, these seem to be the major targets that have been frequent targets of violence: security forces, Shia and, increasingly, political parties in Kirkuk." All Iraq News says 9 people were killed and thirty-eight were injured. Shukriyah Rauf tells AFP, "My child was killed! His friends were killed! There is no security hear, our homes were destroyed!"
Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) reports, "In Kirkuk, a city disputed between Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen, there were at least three car bombs: one against the offices of a major Kurdish party, one targeted a Turkmen party office, and another that hit a major road. That was in addition to car bombs in the city of Hilla, a Shia town. And one here in Baghdad that targted an army general [General Qassim Nouri -- Prensa Latina reports that the general's bodyguard was killed in the bombing]. All in all, these seem to be the major targets that have been frequent targets of violence: security forces, Shia and, increasingly, political parties in Kirkuk." All Iraq News says 9 people were killed and thirty-eight were injured. Shukriyah Rauf tells AFP, "My child was killed! His friends were killed! There is no security hear, our homes were destroyed!"
Alsumaria notes
that an assassination attempt took place in Kirkuk with a bombing
targeting the Governor of Diyala Omar Humairi as he was entering Kirkuk
Province from the south. He was not harmed and security forces swarmed
the area. On the Baghdad bombing, Alsumaria reports
it was outside the Ishtar Sheraton Hotel in Firdos Square and, in
addition to claiming 1 life, and left four other people injured (Mohammed Twafeeq reports on the hotel bombing for CNN), a bombing in Wasit Province, just north of Kut, near a restaurant claimed 3 lives and left fifteen injured. while a mortar attack near a Falluja gravel plant left three workers injured. BBC News offers a photo essay of the Kirkuk and Baghdad bombings here. AFP has a photo essay here. Yasir Ghazi and Christine Hauser (New York Times) have a good article on the day's violence.
On the Hilla bombing, Reuters quotes city official Hamza Kadhim stating, "A car bomb exploded near a secondary school for girls and a crowded poultry market, leaving four dead, including innocent students. It's a real vicious terrorist act." Press TV adds eleven female students were left injured in the attack. All Iraq News reports the bombing left over 12 dead and over sixty injured.
The US press largely ignored Mosul. All Iraq News, citing a security source, reports a Mosul bombing injured a military officer and this took place at the University of Mosul where, here's the disturbing part, security forces closed all doors to bar students and faculty from leaving a campus they thought under attack. All Iraq News updates the story to note the officer held the rank of Captain and was evacuated to the hospital before the security forces began closing the doors (and trapping students and faculty on a campus with bombs). In addition, two other bombs were found inside the university (they were disarmed), one at the entrance to the Faculty of Science office. All Iraq News notes that another Mosul bomb - a roadside one this time -- targeted a military patrol and left seven people (five were soldiers) injured -- this one the US press did cover.
On the Hilla bombing, Reuters quotes city official Hamza Kadhim stating, "A car bomb exploded near a secondary school for girls and a crowded poultry market, leaving four dead, including innocent students. It's a real vicious terrorist act." Press TV adds eleven female students were left injured in the attack. All Iraq News reports the bombing left over 12 dead and over sixty injured.
The US press largely ignored Mosul. All Iraq News, citing a security source, reports a Mosul bombing injured a military officer and this took place at the University of Mosul where, here's the disturbing part, security forces closed all doors to bar students and faculty from leaving a campus they thought under attack. All Iraq News updates the story to note the officer held the rank of Captain and was evacuated to the hospital before the security forces began closing the doors (and trapping students and faculty on a campus with bombs). In addition, two other bombs were found inside the university (they were disarmed), one at the entrance to the Faculty of Science office. All Iraq News notes that another Mosul bomb - a roadside one this time -- targeted a military patrol and left seven people (five were soldiers) injured -- this one the US press did cover.
And then they lost interest. Even though the violence continued. Alsumaria notes a Nineveh Province barber shop was attacked leaving 3 police officers dead and two civilians injured, an armed clash at a Nineveh Province checkpoint that left 1 police officer dead, and 1 person died and twelve were left injured via stoning at a residential project to the north of Najaf.
So much of the violence is not reported. For example, today Lauren Williams (Daily Star) reports
a rape that took place last month which led to a father killing his
14-year-old son -- neither the rape nor the murder ("execution") of the
14-year-old garnered attention from the press in October:
When
a young boy was raped by a member of rival tribe last month in the city
of Ramadi, in Iraq's vast Sunni heartland of Anbar province, tribal
authorities were called on to settle the situation.
Fourteen regional tribal sheikhs convened an emergency judicial session and delivered a swift, unanimous verdict.
The perpetrator was sentenced to immediate execution at the hands of his father, to avert any further retributive violence.
Amnesty
International has condemned a wave of bomb attacks across Iraq that has
reportedly killed at least 14 people on the eve of the Islamic New
Year.
The deadliest attack took place in
the northern city of Kirkuk, where, according to media reports, four
bombs planted in parked cars went off simultaneously, killing at least
nine people and wounding scores more.
Meanwhile
in the mainly Shi'a southern city of Hilla, a car bomb reportedly
exploded near a school and a crowded market, leaving at least four
people dead, among them schoolchildren.
Explosions
were also reported in the capital, Baghdad, and in the town of Balad
Ruz, in the province of Diyala. The attacks appear to have targeted both
Iraqi civilians and members of the security forces.
Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa Director Philip Luther said:
"Deliberate attacks on civilians can never be justified.
Such attacks show utter contempt for humanity and must be roundly condemned.
"We urge the Iraqi authorities to conduct a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation.
"Those
suspected of being behind the attacks must be brought to justice in
proceedings that meet international standards of fairness, and without
the imposition of the death penalty."
Sunday, Michael R. Gordon reported on Ali Musa Daqduq who is said to be responsible for the death of 5 Americans and how he might be set free by Iraq. Today Dar Addustour reports
Ali Musa Daqduq has already been released and left for Iran. A release
that will obviously bother at least one US widow. How do we know
that? From the May 18th snapshot:
Dropping back to earlier violence, Christine Show (Daily Mail) reports,
"The wife of a U.S. Army captain who was killed while deployed in Iraq
is stunned that the person named responsible for his death will be
freed. Charlotte Freeman of Temecula, California expressed her dismay
when she learned on Wednesday night that Ali Mussa Daqduq was cleared of
all charges in the 2007 attack that killed Brian Freeman, 31, and four
other U.S. soldiers."
On May 7th, Suadad-al Salhy, Patrick Markey and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) reported that Iraq's 'justice' system has cleared Ali Mussa Daqdug of all charges related to the "2007 kidnapping attack that killed five U.S. troops." This was actually the second time that those said to be responsible for the five deaths. Ali Mussa Daqduq is alleged to have been working with the League of Righteous (once known as "the Special Groups network") and the US had the leader and high ranking members in a US prison in Iraq. Had. Though right now there are many complaints regarding the decision to set Ali Mussa Daqdug free (he remains behind bars currently while the decision is appealed), the White House ordered the release of the leader of the League of Righteous, his brother and other high ranking LoR members. That's in the summer of 2009. Barack Obama is president.
Why did they do it? The White House set them free in order to help England with their outstanding issues. The White House made the call that 5 British citizens were more important than 5 US ones and they entered into negotiations with the League of Righteous. All but one of the five Brits were already dead. One of the dead wouldn't be released until a few months ago. The League of Righteous would announce Barack went back on his promises to them so they weren't releasing all five. After the bulk of US troops left Iraq in December 2011, the League of Righteous finally released the fifth corpse.
On May 7th, Suadad-al Salhy, Patrick Markey and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) reported that Iraq's 'justice' system has cleared Ali Mussa Daqdug of all charges related to the "2007 kidnapping attack that killed five U.S. troops." This was actually the second time that those said to be responsible for the five deaths. Ali Mussa Daqduq is alleged to have been working with the League of Righteous (once known as "the Special Groups network") and the US had the leader and high ranking members in a US prison in Iraq. Had. Though right now there are many complaints regarding the decision to set Ali Mussa Daqdug free (he remains behind bars currently while the decision is appealed), the White House ordered the release of the leader of the League of Righteous, his brother and other high ranking LoR members. That's in the summer of 2009. Barack Obama is president.
Why did they do it? The White House set them free in order to help England with their outstanding issues. The White House made the call that 5 British citizens were more important than 5 US ones and they entered into negotiations with the League of Righteous. All but one of the five Brits were already dead. One of the dead wouldn't be released until a few months ago. The League of Righteous would announce Barack went back on his promises to them so they weren't releasing all five. After the bulk of US troops left Iraq in December 2011, the League of Righteous finally released the fifth corpse.
Those late to the story, refer to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
Having made the decision to release those five in 2009, the Obama administration had no qualms about handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqi legal system despite the fact that it was considered a good guess that he'd walk. December 16, 2011, Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported on the US handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqis:
He was transferred to Iraqi custody after the Obama administration "sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes," according to Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council in Washington.
Kitabat reported in May that Nouri caved to pressure from Tehran and that's why he was released. It was also noted that a number of US Senators were asking the White House not to turn Daqduq over to Iraq but to move him to Guantanamo or another facility.
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
Having made the decision to release those five in 2009, the Obama administration had no qualms about handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqi legal system despite the fact that it was considered a good guess that he'd walk. December 16, 2011, Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported on the US handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqis:
He was transferred to Iraqi custody after the Obama administration "sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes," according to Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council in Washington.
Kitabat reported in May that Nouri caved to pressure from Tehran and that's why he was released. It was also noted that a number of US Senators were asking the White House not to turn Daqduq over to Iraq but to move him to Guantanamo or another facility.
May 18th, Mike Jaccarino (Fox News -- link is text and video) quotes
Charlotte Freeman stating, "It was like a pit (opening) inside of me. I
briefly read it and couldn't read on. I couldn't go there. It wasn't
like he was dying again. It was more shock that these people get away
with what they do. There's no justice. It's amazing and shocking to me
that someone who did what he did could go free."
Sunday, Gordon reported
that the White House were informed Iraq was not going to continue to
hold him and that US Ambassador to Iraq Robert S. Beecroft had been told
to meet with Nouri about keeping Ali Musa Daqduq in prison. Gordon
observed:
The case is politically
delicate for the White House not just because of the allegations against
Mr. Daqduq but also because of the timing. Some Iraqi officials have
previously suggested that they would seek to mollify the Obama
administration by putting off releasing Mr. Daqduq until the
presidential campaign was over, but American officials repeatedly
insisted that they did not want him released at all.
We've
noted before, when he was first cleared, that asking Iraq to hold
someone who had been cleared of charges was ridiculous. What message
does that send? "Justice matters except when the US government doesn't
like the decision."? If the Iraqi courts are going to be told that
their decisions are subject to the approval of another government, then
they're never going to progress. As noted in the July 12th snapshot:
I
am very sorry that the families did not see justice. I'm very sorry
that Barack Obama traded others involved in the killings (he let go the
head of the League of Righteous and others who were involved in this
attack -- let them go in the summer of 2009 from US prisons and did so
-- as they would reveal themselves -- because he wanted the 5 kidnapped
British citizens released by the League). I'm sorry that American lives
mattered so little to Barack Obama. I'm sorry that he wants to
grandstand on the backs of US service members after releasing the
ringleaders involved in killing 5 Americans.
But
at this point, it's too late. The legal system is followed or it
isn't. The US is interfering with Iraqi law and the legal system. Not
to try to save someone from being executed but to try to prevent someone
from being released. If Barack didn't want him released, he should
have kept in US custody. Barack chose not to and the man was turned
over to Iraq. He's now stood in trial twice. He was found not guilty.
By the rule of the law, he's free. I don't like it, I don't think it's
fair, but it's the law.
There
are many things the US could have done including bringing Daqduq to the
US for a trial instead of handing him over. That was also when Antony
Blinken (National Security Adviser to US Vice President Joe Biden)
stated that they were asking Iraq to extradite Daqduq to the US. There
was a real request? And Iraq turned it down? We're supposed to believe
that?
And Barack? First, he
traded custody of killers -- plural -- of 5 Americans in order to help
the British. Then he failed to take the necessary steps to punish the
alleged ring leader. After, when it was getting press attention, he had
Blinken lie. And, on top of that, grasp what Michael Gordon was
reporting. There was a deal in place with Nouri that said Daqduq would
not be released until after the US presidential election.
Do you grasp that? Do you grasp how many lies the American people have been told and how much has been hidden? Douglas Murray (UK's Spectator) observes:
What a lot of things President Obama seems to have been holding back until after his re-election. Each day brings something new.
There
has been the news of an attack by Iran on a US drone in the Persian
Gulf. Then there is the Petraeus affair – known about for months, but
only leading to the CIA chief's resignation immediately after Obama's
re-election. The Benghazi hearings are yet to come.
And
now another surprise. It transpires that the Iraqi government, a body
which is only in power because of the sacrifice of thousands of
American, British and other allied troops, is releasing from custody a
senior Hezbollah terrorist who was in detention for killing American troops.
Alsumaria reports
that US President Barack Obama has confirmed his support for Iraq via a
phone call between Nouri and US Vice President Joe Biden who stayed he
will visit soon and that a defense delegation will also be visiting
Iraq. However, Neil Munro (Daily Caller) reports that Nouri spoke with Biden when Nouri called because Barack "spurned a congratulatory phone call" from Nouri. The White House issued the following on the phone call yesterday:
For Immediate Release
November 13, 2012
Readout of Vice President Biden's Call with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
Vice
President Biden today spoke by phone with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
Al-Maliki. Prime Minister Maliki congratulated the Vice President and
President Obama on their re-election. The two leaders agreed that the
coming years presented an opportunity for both nations to enhance our
strategic partnership across a range of issues of mutual concern and
pledged to continue the close consultations conducted in recent months
by a series of senior U.S. visitors to Baghdad. Both leaders also
reiterated the importance of implementing the U.S.-Iraq Strategic
Framework Agreement, in all its dimensions, and noted that upcoming
meetings would be dedicated to that objective.
Today Barack held one of those rare press conferences.
No one asked him about the release of Daqduq. Apparently 5 dead
Americans don't mean one damn thing to the White House press corps.
Excerpts of topics we have been following:
Q
Thank you, Mr. President. Can you assure the American people that
there have been no breaches of national security or classified
information in the scandal involving Generals Petraeus and Allen? And
do you think that you as Commander-in-Chief and the American people
should have been told that the CIA chief was under investigation before
the election?
THE
PRESIDENT: Well, I have no evidence at this point from what I've seen
that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had
a negative impact on our national security.
Obviously
there's an ongoing investigation. I don't want to comment on the
specifics of the investigation. The FBI has its own protocols in terms
of how they proceed, and I'm going to let Director Mueller and others
examine those protocols and make some statements to the public
generally.
I do want to emphasize what I've
said before: General Petraeus had an extraordinary career. He served
this country with great distinction in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and as head
of the CIA. By his own assessment, he did not meet the standards that
he felt were necessary as the Director of CIA with respect to this
personal matter that he is now dealing with, with his family and with
his wife. And it's on that basis that he tendered his resignation, and
it's on that basis that I accepted it.
But I
want to emphasize that from my perspective at least, he has provided
this country an extraordinary service. We are safer because of the work
that Dave Petraeus has done. And my main hope right now is, is that he
and his family are able to move on and that this ends up being a single
side note on what has otherwise been an extraordinary career.
Q What about voters? Did they deserve to know?
THE
PRESIDENT: Again, I think you're going to have to talk to the FBI in
terms of what their general protocols are when it comes to what started
off as a potential criminal investigation. One of the challenges here
is, is that we're not supposed to meddle in criminal investigations, and
that's been our practice. And I think that there are certain procedures
that both the FBI follow, or DOJ follow, when they're involved in these
investigations. That's traditionally been how we view things, in part
because people are innocent until proven guilty, and we want to make
sure that we don't pre-judge these kinds of situations. And so my
expectation is, is that they followed protocols that they already
established.
[. . .]
Q
Thank you, Mr. President. Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey
Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings
on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and said that if you
nominate Susan Rice to be Secretary of State, they will do everything in
their power to block her nomination. As Senator Graham said, he simply
doesn't trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I'd
like your reaction to that. And would those threats deter you from
making a nomination like that?
THE
PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I'm not going to comment at this point
on various nominations that I'll put forward to fill out my Cabinet for
the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed.
But
let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work.
She has represented the United States and our interests in the United
Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace.
As
I've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White
House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that
had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and
others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I'm
happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the
U.N. Ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply
making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and
to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.
And
we're after an election now. I think it is important for us to find
out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I'm happy to cooperate in any
ways that Congress wants. We have provided every bit of information
that we have, and we will continue to provide information. And we've
got a full-blown investigation, and all that information will be
disgorged to Congress.
And I don't think
there's any debate in this country that when you have four Americans
killed, that's a problem. And we've got to get to the bottom of it, and
there needs to be accountability. We've got to bring those who carried
it out to justice. They won't get any debate from me on that.
But
when they go after the U.N. Ambassador, apparently because they think
she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me. And should I
choose, if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in
the capacity of the State Department, then I will nominate her. That's
not a determination that I've made yet.
Ed Henry.
Q
I want to take Chuck's lead and just ask a very small follow-up, which
is whether you feel you have a mandate not just on taxes but on a range
of issues because of your decisive victory?
But
I want to stay on Benghazi, based on what Jon asked because you said,
if they want to come after me, come after me. I wanted to ask about the
families of these four Americans who were killed. Sean Smith's father,
Ray, said he believes his son basically called 911 for help and they
didn't get it. And I know you've said you grieve for these four
Americans, that it's being investigated, but the families have been
waiting for more than two months. So I would like to -- for you to
address the families, if you can. On 9/11, as Commander-in-Chief, did
you issue any orders to try to protect their lives?
THE
PRESIDENT: Ed, I'll address the families not through the press. I'll
address the families directly, as I already have. And we will provide
all the information that is available about what happened on that day.
That's what the investigation is for.
But
as I've said repeatedly, if people don't think that we did everything we
can to make sure that we saved the lives of folks who I sent there and
who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you
don't know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department
thinks or our CIA thinks. Their number-one priority is obviously to
protect American lives. That's what our job is. Now --
Q (Inaudible.)
THE
PRESIDENT: Ed, I will put forward every bit of information that we
have. I can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks
were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do
whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. And that's the same
order that I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger,
whether they're civilian or military, because that's our number-one
priority.
First off, Sean Smith's
mother, Pat Smith, has been very clear on CNN speaking with Anderson
Cooper that the White House has ignored her after one brief meeting.
Tyrone Woods' father, Charles Woods, feels lied to. There were four
Americans that died. The media ran with the parents of Chris Smith
because (a) they're elitists (he was the Ambassador) and (b) that's who
the White House tried to make the spokespeople because they'd sing the
tune the White House wanted. But Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean
Smith also died in that attack. It was very telling that for all the
talk of 'service' the press likes to pretend they give a damn about,
they were happy to ignore Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty who are both
veterans of the military. Very telling.
Second, Susan Rice was selected to lie and that is what she did. She is now a liar. Here's the liar from September 16th, Susan Rice on CBS Face The Nation:
BOB
SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our
U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has
been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been
saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page
here?
SUSAN
RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we
understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very
importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an
investigation that the United States government will launch led by the
FBI, that has begun and--
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.
SUSAN
RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun
looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available
to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the
investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to
draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we
have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what
began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired
some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a
violent protest outside of our embassy--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
SUSAN
RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous
protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it
looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that
effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily
now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into
something much, much more violent.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
SUSAN
RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us
to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
Beside
the lies she was spreading, grasp that five days after the attack,
she's telling America -- with no apology or remorse -- that the FBI and
US government have no one on the ground in Libya for the investigation.
Five days after. That's outrageous. And "telling"? Only after Bob
Schieffer pressed her. Let's also remember what she said on NBC's Meet The Press six days after the attack,
"This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely
disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world Obviously, our view
is that there is absolutely no excuse for violence and that -- what has
happened is condemnable, but this is a -- spontenaeous reaction to a
video, and it's not dissimilar but, perhaps, on a slightly larger scale
than what we have seen in the past with The Satanic Verses with the
cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Now, the United States has made very
clear and the president has been very plain that our top priority is the
protection of American personnel in our facilities and bringing to
justice those who attacked our facilitiy in Benghazi."
But
it had nothing to do with the video. Susan Rice is a liar. And you
damn well better believe there will be pushback if she's nominated. I
have a home in the DC area but I'm not part of the DC bubble and,
outside of the bubble, if you speak to veterans, students and others
groups -- as we do week -- you'll find out real quick that Susan Rice is
a lightening rod.
Senator John McCain's office issued this statement from McCain today in response to the press conference:
I
have always said that the buck stops with the President of the United
States, particularly for his contradictory statements in the Rose
Garden, on '60 Minutes' and in later venues alleging that the obvious
terrorist attack in Benghazi was triggered by a spontaneous
demonstration and a hateful video, or that we didn't know the cause.
Those statements clearly did not comport with the facts on the ground.
We owe the American people and the families of the murdered Americans a
full and complete explanation, which for two months the President has
failed to deliver. Given all these facts, a Select Committee must be
appointed in order to obtain a full and complete accounting which would
be credible with the American people.
McCain and others (including Senator Susan Collins -- who is described as a moderate Republican) are featured in Kelly O'Donnell's report for NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. Already the Boston Herald's editorial board has come out against her:
And
speaking of Benghazi, it's our view that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice
either intentionally misled Americans when she went on five national
talk shows five days after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate
there -- or she was simply parroting the empty talking points that the
White House had stuffed into her hands prior to her appearances.
We're not sure which is worse, but we're quite sure that stain on Rice's otherwise impressive resume disqualifies her from serving as this nation's top diplomat.
I've
never bought they myth that Barack's a genius. But is he that stupid?
They've run off anyone who could help the White House -- Valerie
Jarrett's run off everyone -- but no one can explain to the apethetic
Barack that any goodwill he thinks the election brought him will vanish
if he pursues the Susan Rice nomination?
We
included Barack's remarks about Petraeus. Then-General David Petraeus
became a high profile figure when he was the top US commander in Iraq
from February 2007 to September 2008. More recently, he's known for
other things. The scandal has forced him to resign as CIA Director. It
also means that an honor he was to receive has been put on hold. The Royal United Services Institute in London explains:
General
Petraeus was due to visit London this month to receive the Chesney Gold
Medal award from the Royal United Services Institute for his role in
devising and implementing the US counter-insurgency doctrine that was
used to turn around the war in Iraq and reshape the campaign in
Afghanistan. In light of recent developments, the presentation on 26
November of the RUSI Chesney Gold Medal for General Petraeus'
distinguished lifetime service and contribution to international defence
and security will now be postponed.
The
presentation of the award to General Petraeus will take place on a date
to be determined, in early 2013, at the Tower of London.
For further information on the rescheduled dinner please look for updates on www.rusi.org/events
For more on the Chesney Gold Medal please visit www.rusi.org/chesneygoldmedal
As Ephraim Hardcastle (Daily Mail) notes,
Petraeus has become a joke internationally. Jill Kelley's the whatever
who ran to the FBI (instead of the police) and brought Petraeus down by
sicking the FBI on Petraeus' mistress. As Elaine noted last night, Kelley's not a socialite. She's considered many things (none of them kind) but she's not a socialite. On Benghazi, Ruth pointed out last night, "One question that should be answered is if the Pentagon knew about the attack within 50 minutes of it starting, why did the White House and President Barack Obama lie for weeks that it was a protest caused by a YouTube video?"
No comments:
Post a Comment