Benghazi Stand Down- Did Valerie Jarrett Give Those Orders

Pretty stunning headline, don't you think?
Could it be that the stand down orders to the US North Africa Commend to head to Benghazi Compound to try and defend Chris Stevens and the other 3 Americans came from the Presidents adviser?

Interesting article, to say the least, from Conservative Report.

Confidential sources close to Conservative Report have confirmed that Valerie Jarrett was the key decision-maker for the administration, the night of the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9/11/2012.

The chronology of the evening of 9/11 are as follows.

At approximately 5 PM Washington time, reports came in through secure-channels that Special Mission Benghazi was under attack. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey summoned the President,and briefed him on the crisis, face to face.

Subsequent to that brief meeting, President Obama proceeded to the White House to dine in his living quarters.

After supper, Barack Obama had a telephone conference scheduled with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senior Advisor to the President, Valerie Jarrett was present for that conference, which was held due to problems the President was having with the perception of him snubbing Netanyahu in previous, formal encounters.

The telephone call between Obama and Netanyahu carried on for a full two-hours, creating the appearance of respect between the two world leaders.

As that meeting drew to a close, Ms. Jarrett, who is also the Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, went from the living quarters to the White House Situation Room, where the attack in Benghazi was being monitored by Dempsey, Panetta and other top-ranking officials.

A critical question that needed to be answered, and the sole military-order that could have launched offensive-actions, neutralizing the Ansar al Sharia terrorists attacks on the Mission (the purpose of which is detailed here) and its subsequent attacks on the adjacent CIA Annex, was the issuance of “Cross Border Authority”, an order that can only be issued by the Commander in Chief, himself.
READ MORE HERE

This wouldn't be the only time Jarrett has stuck her claw in to Presidential decision making. The UBL raid, on 3 different occasions, were nixed by this adviser of Iranian heritage.
Of course, she alone could not give the orders. Some communication had to come from the Commander -n- Chief! 

(H/T to Right Truth)

Dana Perino smacks down Bob Beckel over Benghazi

Dana Perino hammers Bob Beckel over Benghazi and his Daily Kos talking points, that all liberals are using to justify what they call hypocrisy by the Benghazi hearings.

Watch.

 

Problem with Bobby Beckel statement, as Perino points out, is that Bush never blamed a You Tube video for those attacks. 

And, never tried to cover them up. 

ALSO I might add, the 54 attacks on diplomatic missions, that Beckel points out, were in a war zones, AND Bush never ordered the Military to stand down to stop our military from saving American lives.

Keep trying leftest. You'll never be able to wash this away.

 

Rand Paul- Obama Could Be Running Guns to Jihadists

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., raised questions during a radio interview a few days ago, about whether the Obama administration was smuggling guns to jihadist rebels in a possible “international Fast and Furious” that the White House has tried to cover up.

Speaking with Aaron Klein Investigative Radio on New York’s WABC Radio, Paul said the guns scheme could help explain the reason for the coordinated attacks against the U.S. special mission and CIA annex in Benghazi last September.

Paul: “There is also some concern about whether or not Libyan arms are being ferried through Turkey into Syrian rebels and whether or not that had something to do with the cover-up that came out of the administration when the administration was saying that, ‘Oh, this attack in Benghazi had something to do with a film.’

“Maybe that was to cover up that there was some kind of gun smuggling going on over there, some kind of international fast and furious was going on in Libya and that this was a cover-up,”  
Paul continues. “These are some of the questions that we are going to have for Hillary Clinton when she comes before our committee.

But this question was never posed to Clinton! Why?
Will she return for more testimony? Maybe, if this committee hears testimony about the weapons used in the attack on our conciliate and where they came from... But don't hold your breath! 

After Clinton shocking statement of "What difference does it make" and being that this committee is made up of mostly liberal Senate hacks, this question will never be discovered, I'm afraid! 

Journalist Fox News Agenda

Thomas Ricks is a veteran newspaper reporter who had been invited on the Fox News network by their producers. Ricks is the author of "The Generals" and was shown on TV being interviewed by Foxs anchor Jon Scott.
The interview had become focused on the Republican Party's criticism of the United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice's comments about the attack on the American Embassy in Libya.

Ricks began his rant, that the story about the Benghazi attacks, which killed four Americans, including the first U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, was "hyped, by this network especially."
When asked about the "hyped" comment, from Scott, Ricks said that not many people were in the know about how many United States security contractors had been killed in Iraq, inferring the number was much greater than the four Americans killed in Banghazi. He then said the media attention from Fox News on Banghazi was disproportionate when comparing the two.


Well, you had to know that that was coming. Take the topic of what happen in Banghazi and turn it in to a 'Bush thing'.....

And the comment by Ricks that the bloody attacks on the Libya embassy as "essentially a small firefight." is skirting the issue. Granted the US contractors deaths was outrageous, as Fox and all were and did report on. But to miniscule a dead ambassador and his 3 fellow Americans in Libya is extremely outrageous. We didn't have an dead ambassador in Iraq.
Ricks went on to said, "I think that the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party."

At that moment Scott said thank you and allowed his co-anchor to introduce a commercial break, cutting off the interview immediately because Scott new (as did the producers) that Ricks appearance was for one thing, and one thing only. To attack Fox News for dong IT'S JOB!

Here is the interview.

 (excuse an ad at he beginning)

Southside Chicago Thuggery

WOW!
Never have I heard a President of the United States act like some street hustling thugmaster and try to intimidated us and our Representatives.

Before I begin, I would like you to watch, if you have not, or re-watch if you have, this video, and then I will continue....



Now first, at 1:07 mark, while talking about Susan Rice as a possible successor to Hilary Clinton as SofS, Barack Obama say this. 

"She made an appearance at the request of the Whitehouse"....

So now we have an answer to who sent Susan Rice out there on the Sunday morning talk shows after the Benghazi/9-11 attack to say that it was a spontaneous uprising because of a You Tube Video. Great, so the administration lied to us. Nothing new here, FOLKS!

Next:

 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.

Go after you? So what is THAT?
And if she had nothing to do with it, then why did he send HER OUT THERE on that Sunday morning with that message?
I swear, I have never heard a President of the United States put those kinds of word out there.
And intelligence that she received? What intelligence? You mean the one that 3 days earlier was said to be a "coordinated attack on out consulate"?
I'd say the President besmirched her, by handing her, her talking points, because the President is the one who presents her with the "intelligence she had received"

Aaaaand we’re after an election now.  I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi

OH HOW covenant is 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.

No, The President has 59M+ Americans (and then some) that is his problem. The ones who are paying attention in our nation.
He has dodged this terrorist attack long enough. 2+ months and they are still investigating this, with no answers?!?
My bet that there will be no legitimate answers to come from the US Kremlin.
And he needs to check that mouth of his at the door!!!

Presidential Debate- P2

Last night Presidential debate was what it was billed to be.
Romney being Romney, but Obama will do better then his last debate.
And, admittingly, Obama did do better.... in his attacks.
On substance from the President, nothing new there.
Romney slammed the President on the economy, energy policy, tax policy, and so on.

What this post will be about is the part of the debate where Candy Crowley asserted herself in to this debate, with regards to the Benghazi topic of the debate.

First, some of Obama remarks of the attack:

So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again....

The President pretty much admitted that security was not sufficient, and two, "investigate exactly what happen, regardless of where the facts lead us." ???
Is the President saying investigate, but disregard facts, and hold them accountable? Seems so.

Romney then stepped up, to address this issue.

The president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event, I think these — these actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance 

Obama's rebuttal:

The suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. 

Problem with this statement by the President is twofold. First Romney never said "Secretary of State", nor "UN ambassador" played politics. He said the President did. "That's not what I do as President" Well Mr. President... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID!

Romney's turn, and here is where is gets interesting.

Romney: I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration? 

Obama: Please proceed.
Romney:  I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
Obama: Get the transcript.

 OK, I did:

As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.  
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Now mind you Romney was right, the President didn't call THIS attack an act of terror.

Ms Crowley asserted in to this discussion by saying:

He did call it an act of terror.

But later the moderator corrected herself on CNN... Well sort of:

I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So I knew that the president had, had, said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand or, whatever the whole quote was.

These acts of terror vs No acts of terror..... 'Or whatever the whole quote was'.

The problem was she asserted herself in to this back and forth without "being up on it" and having the facts.