I can't let this one go...

Through some fluke of fate, I'm able to hear the President's speech today about all of us "victims" of Superstorm Sandy.  Oh, Fate... how you hate me.

First he talks about how he intends to "cut" all the red tape and hassle that surrounds the aid, assistance and recovery efforts that have hampered past victims (again, presumably ME, since I was a Katrina refugee, too) whenever the Government has tried to fix what was wrong... something I am ALL IN FAVOR OF, and specifically why I am voting for the OTHER GUY.

Then he turns my stomach... literally, makes me ill... with the comment "We won't leave anyone behind!"

What about J. Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador (deceased)?  Or Sean Smith, Officer with the US Foreign Service (deceased)?  Or Glen Doherty, USN (deceased)?  Or Tyrone S. Woods, USN (deceased)?  Can you explain to their children, families and friends how THEY weren't left behind either?  Why THEIR well being and safety was less important than mine, or my neighbors, here at home?

The level of hypocrisy is almost amazing... and the ignorant manner in which it is brushed aside by the liberal supporters of the man truly are amazing.  To use a promise made to every American service man and woman that has ever put themselves between harm and home... a promise he wouldn't or couldn't bring himself to keep... to make some cheap political points at MY expense, simply because I was somehow effected by this storm, along with 8.9 million other people?  Those are some balls, Mr. President!  Balls as big as church bells.

On Sandy...

I can't seem to get away from these damn hurricanes, can I?

They have already declared a State of Emergency in both PA and NJ, the county I live in is crawling with power crews and Asplundh trucks, school has been closed for at least the next two days (really not good news)... but I'm still going to work.

Liz has stocked up on more stuff than I would have thought needed in five hurricanes.  The lamps are full, the batteries charged, the coolers packed, the propane ready to burn, loose items and toys in the yard secured.

All I worry about is an extended time without power.  Even PPL (the largest power provider in PA) is telling everyone via text messages and emails that they should be prepared to live 3 to 5 days with no power, and for as much as a week with interrupted power.  Is that PPL being cautious and covering their collective butts, or is it a harbinger of what is to come?

Man, I'm tired of hurricanes.

This could break the President...

Which is why I am convinced that the Democrat-controlled Senate has issued the date for it's own investigation to begin AFTER the elections are over.

The White House has broken a sacred trust.  The President is the "Commander and Chief" of all the Armed Forces of the United States, and everyone working under him must represent that position... even the civilian Cabinet positions.

If there were a motto that all branches of the military could claim, and all have adhered to since their inception, it is that "we leave no one behind".  No one is left to fight "alone" involuntarily.  If the means to support our personnel exist, we MUST do it... or we undermine the will and determination to fight for our whole defensive structure.

Those people that fought for their lives in Libya knew help was available... literally as little as 200 minutes away... and put up a defense waiting for that help to arrive.  As Ryan said, there were assets on the ground that could have been employed, but were specifically and repeatedly told to "stand down" as fellow Americans and comrades were under attack.  In short, I believe that the men stationed in Libya, and specifically in Benghazi, were left without support so as not to put the White House and its policies in a "bad light" so close to an election at home.  This is more than bad policy or failed diplomacy... this is the ultimate example of failed leadership and command, and resulted in the ultimate cost to those most directly at risk.

As much as I detest the thought, I have tried to imagine what would exonerate the President and his staff in this matter... and nothing has presented itself, at all.  There is no doubt in my mind that he KNEW what was happening, and that he KNEW what his top advisory and command staff was doing, and people still died because no help or support was given in their time of need.

I don't want to sound flippant or glib in light of the very serious nature that this topic follows, but anyone that might be considering answering the "Help Wanted" poster now being drawn up by the White House and the State Department needs to look long and hard at the possibility of the same thing happening to them.  What kind of people do you think are going to take that job in the future?  Certainly not the ones best suited for the position, I'd venture to say.

They hate us more than they value truth...

That's the conclusion I've come to. After all the economic data, foreign policy debacles and clear loyalty to an ideology which fails every time it's tried, I have determined that those still supporting President Barack Hussein Obama simply hate the "other side" more than they value intellectual honesty. There is no sane defense of this man. And the Libya scandal is making that horrifyingly clear.

This is an issue I've taken particular interest in, and there have been shocking new developments today (source). When the attack started, around 9:40pm 9/11/12, the two ex-Navy SEALS Doherty and Woods were at a secure CIA annex only one mile away from the chaos unfolding at the consulate/compound. After the men heard shots fired, they promptly let the chain of command know about the situation on the ground. However, sources now claim that they were told to refrain from action. This same mandate was again given to the men when they called a second time just one hour later to report that the dangerous situation was still unfolding at the consulate.

According to three newly released emails dispatched on the afternoon of September 11—as the attack was underway—the State Department Operations Center alerted multiple government offices, including the Pentagon, the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and the White House Situation Room (including the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper) that the assault was happening. The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line ‘U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack’ and the notation ‘SBU,’ meaning ‘Sensitive But Unclassified.’ The email said the State Department’s regional security office had reported the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was ‘under attack.Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.’ The message continued: ‘Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.’

Fox News' Jennifer Griffin (chief National Security correspondent) is reporting that despite those alerts to the highest halls of government her sources have confirmed that a total of three urgent requests for military assistance were sent from that CIA annex and all three were all denied. In addition to the two SEALS, CIA operators within the annex, with rapid deploy capabilities, were also told to “stand down."

Doherty and Woods allegedly disobeyed orders from superiors to “stand down” in the wake of the attack and decided to go to the main consulate building to help U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others who were under siege. At least two others, along with elements of the CIA Quick Reaction Force also ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. The quick reaction force evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith (a US diplomat), who had been killed in the initial attack.

A second email, headed ‘Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi’ and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.’ It said a ‘response team’ was at the site "attempting to locate missing personnel.”

In the end they could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight. After arriving back at the annex, the incident was far from over for the security team, which at this point still included Woods and Doherty. An attack was launched on the annex — this one more intense than the initial assault on the main building. At that point, they called again for military support, reporting they were taking fire at the annex. The request was denied.

 On Thursday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s responded to questions surrounding military reaction saying that forces did not intervene because officials did not have enough “real-time information” about what was happening on the ground, “The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place, and as a result of not having that kind of information…[we] felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

However eyewitnesses arriving from the compound say there were no communications problems at the annex. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News reported that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators. Military officials in Benghazi told CNN that rocket-propelled grenades were among the heavy firepower used by the attackers at the annex, with one official saying mortars were also fired. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex. The two ex-SEALS (if there is such a thing) Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by one of those mortar shells at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began — a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations.

Sources appear to claim that there were potential options that could have been pursued, although these avenues were reportedly not taken during the September 11 attack. While the forces available at Sigonella could have been flown into Benghazi in less than two hours, they, too, were also allegedly told to “stand down.” Around 3 a.m. that evening, a pro-U.S. Libyan militia finally showed up at the CIA annex. And an American Quick Reaction Force that was sent from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m., but was delayed for 45 minutes over transportation confusion. In both instances, though, the arrivals were hours after the initial attack took place.

Only several hours after the annex was finally evacuated did US officials even know the fate of Ambassador Stevens. A hospital doctor started randomly dialing numbers in a cell phone belonging to a corpse dropped off at his medical facility. One of those calls was to the US embassy in Tripoli. The corpse turned out to be the ambassador.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, to US based officials that carried the subject line: ‘Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.’ The message reported: ‘Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.’

In addition there has been debate surrounding drones and whether or not U.S. officials had the ability to watch a portion of the Libyan attack in real time. Some have dismissed the notion that the battle was being viewed live by officials as it progressed. But an October 20th report from CBS News claims that a portion of the attack was potentially seen by officials. In fact, according to the network, “hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.” FOX, too, reported today that there were two military surveillance drones that were sent to Benghazi after the attack on the U.S. consulate began. Both of these drones had the capability to send images back to government officials, including the White House situation room.

Let me remind you that all of this Intel, this entire timeline was available to the President in the FIRST 24 HOURS. He knew all this, as well he should. Yet the Press Secretary, The Secretary of State, the UN Ambassador, and the President of the United States himself spent weeks emphatically claiming they had "concrete evidence" as Press Secretary Jay Carney put it, that this was not a premeditated attack in opposition to America or American policy, but rather a spontaneous protest turned violent over an obscure You Tube video which had 19 hits as of July 2012 (with surely millions more now that the administration made it famous). In fact the father of one of the fallen hero SEALS has disclosed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him, at the receiving ceremony of the caskets, that they would get the maker of this film. THAT is the depth of deception they were willing to sink.

Why?

The Al Qaeda connections to Benghazi were well known. Images showing the black Al Qaeda flag being hoisted up over the city after the fall of Qadaffi were beamed to every corner of the earth. Al Qaeda and its affiliates had already attempted attacks on our consulate there, repeatedly, and even attempted to assassinate the British ambassador, our closest ally. The pattern of planned terror attacks was well-known. The new head of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had called for attacks on U.S. interests in Libya after a drone strike had killed a top Libyan al Qaeda operative. Our now-dead Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and his team had repeatedly reported the escalating violence and had repeatedly requested more security. They were denied.

Again, I ask why?

As far as I can tell there are four fundamental questions yet to be answered by the administration:
1.) Why were earlier requests to increase security repeatedly denied given the threat level was publicly known to be extremely elevated (particularly on 9/11)?
2.) During the attack why were requests for military back up, made in real time by trained men with eyes on, denied?
3.) Whose idea/plan was it to blame an obscure video?
4.) Why did the administration, including the President, agree to that plan?

“That is cowardice by the people that issued that order. And our country is not a country of cowards. Our country is the greatest nation on Earth. And what we need to do is we need to raise up a generation of American heroes just like Ty who is an American hero. But in order to do that, we need to raise up a generation that has not just physical strength but moral strength. We do not need another generation of liars who lack moral strength.”  

-Charles Woods, father of fallen SEAL Tyrone Woods on 10/26/12 responding to reports that back-up teams were repeatedly told to "stand down."

To quote Kip....

"I love technology." I am right now posting from my xbox controller on my TV screen! The new update for xbox live included an internet explorer app for the dash board. I can peruse the news sites in the morning on a 52 inch screen. My eldest has also just seriously been set back in his argument to have his own laptop, hehe. Years ago I heard from a tech guy that "one day" our television screen will be an all encompassing activity screen and the idea of a seperate station for your home pc will be antiquated. That day is here ... now all I need is the Iron Man touch response hollogram app with the Jarvis voice add-on and I'll be set.

This is driving me nuts!

I want to follow up to my response below... I've been walking around all day and no matter what I do or how I attempt to distract myself I keep having the arguments I would have prosecuted were it me debating Obama last night instead of Romney. Again, I get the idea that there are only a select amount of states in play and only select demographics within those states, so I understand last night's strategy to capture the three undecided single moms in Ohio by communicating, "I'm nice. I'm not Bush. No more wars, I promise." However, I tend to concur with Pat Cadell (a political analyst on Fox News whom has the unique distinction of being both an out spoken critic of Obama and the 1980 campaign manager of Jimmy Carter), that there were ways for Romney to avoid being painted as a war mongering Bush 2.0 without curling up into the fetal position. He played it safe. Fine. But playing it safe doesn't strike me as particularly inspired leadership when Americans are dying in foreign wars.

So if I am to get a single thing done in the next 72 hours I must purge myself of these arguments here. I give you an abrogated foreign policy debate between F.Ryan, son of Terrance, warden of the South and Barack Obama, second of his name and Lord of the East . . . (I've been watching Game of Thrones, forgive me):

Mr. President, I don't doubt your sincerity in wanting to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt your ability. You see sir, as history has shown us wars are either won or lost, not arbitrarily ended so they may serve as campaign slogans. Many people may not be aware that in Afghanistan, our longest war, 70% of US casualties have occurred within the last four years. That was your watch. And that 2/3rds of the cost of the war has been spent in the last four years. It would appear that much like the stimulus spending the American people are not getting a good return on the blood and treasure they entrusted you with. Last month alone a half dozen Afghan soldiers, trained, housed and fed by our military so that they may stand up when we stand down have turned on our men, killing them in cold blood. Across North Africa and the Middle East we see embassies under protest, under attack and under evacuation. You stand up in the UN and declare we will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, yet the biggest obstacle to tighter sanctions, Vladimir Putin, is sent a secret message via his proxy so that he'll know things will get easier after your reelection... easier for him. As a candidate for president you declared it folly not to negotiate with the worst actors around the world. You described Iran, Cuba and North Korea as, "tiny countries that don't pose a threat to us." Mr. President, as it is today, in 1941 Japan was a tiny country in comparison to the United States. As any junior analyst at the CIA can tell you, the geographical size and population of a nation do not dictate their threat level. Their determination does. And as we sit, four years later, Iran seems as determined as ever to acquire nuclear weapons. They pursue their goals, threaten our closest ally with a second holocaust, and we do nothing. Your strategy has failed. They are undeterred. And why shouldn't they be? One of your first acts as President was to tell them and the world that essentially America has been a problem. You stood on foreign soil and proclaimed that we, the greatest nation ever to grace God's green earth, have "failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world" and added "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Mr. President you said these words in France. Let me ask you, were we dismissive at Normandy? Were we derisive at the liberation of Paris? Imagine the young Lieutenant coming in from patrol in Mosul where he spilled and spent blood that day only to come into his command post and hear his Commander-in-Chief call the country he spent all day defending, arrogant. I think your administration has failed to appreciate America's leading role in the world, and you have personally condemned it. In the Port of Spain you proclaimed, " [A]t times we sought to dictate our terms.” Your view on American history seems to have a theme - we are the problem. Mr. President, America is not the problem. America is the solution. I started this by stating that I don't doubt your sincerity in Afghanistan and Iraq, just your ability. Unfortunately the same can not be said of Libya. There has been much discussion on why a video and angry mobs were said to be at fault when it was clear there were neither. Discussions on why your Secretaries of Press, the UN, and State repeatedly and emphatically claimed that when our Embassy fell and four Americans died that a spontaneous protest was to blame. In your speech to the UN, nine days after the assault, you referenced this video and those protests no less than six times. Mr. President, it never happened. There were no protests. It was not due to a video. It was planned. It was premeditated. It was a terror attack. Not a "man caused disaster" as your National Intelligence Director insists on calling such attacks, not an "over seas contingency" as your Press Secretary refers to wars. It was an attack by terrorists. And the fog, the muddled haze that followed, which continues to this day, has been nothing short of dishonest. If the American people can not expect a straight answer on matters of life and death then how can they expect a straight answer on medicaid? On unemployment? On gas prices? So the question quickly becomes, why? Why do we see a foreign policy agenda unraveling before our eyes? I submit it is you. With all due respect sir you went into the office of President as a national security novice, and four years later the rest of us are paying the price. America trusted you and you have been irresponsible with that trust. And just for the record, the Navy classifies air craft carriers among their ships. Perhaps if you spent more time among world and military leaders and less time with David Letterman and raising crystal champagne glasses with vulgar rappers, you would know that. I think America has had enough of a foreign policy born of on the job training. The job is too important and your training is going too slow. You've had your four years to apologize for us. We're ready to go back to leading now.

Lets not go too far here...

On me or Romney.

Dude... what happened to running on principles? Holding Obama's feet to the fire? You have said, time and again, that the GOP candidate (whomever it is) should NEVER pander to the middle... always go to the base. Your reasoning was always that it was what worked for Reagan, we can do no better.

On me... I didn't endorse Romney's strategy of last night. I was clear about that. I don't like this stuff. I was clear about that. Reread my post, I wasn't happy. I simply acknowledged that this was a purposeful strategy that may work to capture the few mushy middle undecided voters still left. That's all - it was on purpose and may work. But I don't like the strategy of smothering with hugs just so the middle doesn't think you're "mean", especially when your opposition was caught dead to rights lying about the assassination of an ambassador. I prefer drawing clear and definite contrasts the way I feel Romney did on economic policy and the way Reagan did on every policy. That, I feel, is the more effective tact, but Romney's not paying me $900 an hour to advise him... maybe he should.

Now, on Romney... overall I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. I don't think that our "only hope" is the electorate realizing Obama is now making excuses for, rather than defending, his record. I think Romney has prosecuted the economic issue well and that this election will turn on whom the nation feels will be better on the economy (from gas prices to jobs).

In fact, here's my prediction - Romney wins in 2012 by more than Obama won by in 2008, in spite of giving an absolutely corrupt, historical-revisionist, self-loathing American, radical apologist a pass on foreign policy.