Obama Cancels Campaign Stops To Monitor Storm, But Not For Benghazi

image

The president canceled appearances in Northern Virginia on Monday and in Colorado on Tuesday to monitor the massive storm, which, according to the most recent models, is expected to make landfall along the mid-Atlantic coast Monday evening.

Now, this is the correct response for the storm.  Of course, cancelling in Northern Virginia is more because people wouldn’t be able to get to him anyway, so it isn’t like he’s doing anything magnanimous. 

And, as far as Colorado goes, we might not see him in the state again.  The local media isn’t on the same page as the LSM.  Check a couple of questions he was asked in Colorado, here and here.

Denver’s News9 reporter Kyle Clark said in a Friday interview that Obama touted the “stimulus money going to Abound Solar” in a national address, but Abound Solar is “out of business and under criminal investigation” while the “jobs are gone and taxpayers are out about 60 million dollars.”

“How do you answer critics who see Abound Solar as Colorado’s Solyndra — a politically connected clean energy company that went under and took our money with it?,” Clark asked Obama. 

Obama chuckled, saying only “four percent” of green-energy loans went to companies like Abound Solar and Solyndra. Since those decisions are made by the Department of Energy, he reasoned, “they have nothing to do with politics.” 

Except this has been demonstrated as a lie.  The White House on more than one occasion intervened on behalf of their cronies to ensure money was release for these stupid fantasy schemes.

Pat Stryker, an Obama bundler who has donated, according to the Center For Responsive Politics, “$500,000 to Democrats over the last five years including $50,000 to President Obama’s inaugural fund and $35,800 to his victory fund in 2008,” was an original investor in Abound and visited the White House three times around the time the DOE loan was approved. 

Abound subsequently filed for bankruptcy in June, and the government is refusing to release the company’s trade secrets for fear they will reveal the Abound’s solar panels were not up to par.

Then there was this question asked of Barry in Colorado……

Kyle Clark, a political reporter for Denver news station 9News, asked Obama, “Were the Americans under attack at the consulate in Benghazi Libya denied requests for help during that attack?”

Obama merely said, “nobody wants to find out more” about what happened than he does, and the administration was still gathering facts to “find out exactly what happened.” Earlier in the day, a report came out that revealed the Obama administration denied the urgent pleas for help from CIA agents in Libya during the attacks.

When Clark pressed Obama a second time, the President again punted, answering, “we are finding out exactly what happened.”

Obama protested, “the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives,” the first of which was to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”

E-mails released this week, though, revealed the Obama administration knew within two hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists were behind the attacks, and on Friday the father of a slain Navy SEAL who disobeyed orders and went to the consulate to help said the Obama administration’s claims of ignorance are “a pack of lies.”

Obama won’t go back to Colorado if they let Kyle Clark ask him anymore questions.  So, we’re not sure he’s cancelling to watch the storm or cancelling because there’s no point in making the stops he had planned to make.

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Obama Cancels Campaign Stops To Monitor Storm, But Not For Benghazi

  1. kim2ooo says:

    Of course, cancelling in Northern Virginia is more because people wouldn’t be able to get to him anyway, so it isn’t like he’s doing anything magnanimous. ”

    You are being too kind 🙂

    Cowards in Chiefs — Storm Area = ?

  2. DirkH says:

    VA is coal country. Difficult to imagine it to go to Mr. You-can-build-a-coal-power-plant-it’s-just-that-it-will-ruin-you.

  3. Pingback: Obama chuckled – suyts space – Blog | Solar Flare 2012

  4. David says:

    I have a relatvely short, just the facts, summary concerning the triple (before, during and after) scandal with Benghazi. I would love any corrections and or additions.

    BEFORE THE TERRORIST ATTACK IN LYBIA WHICH KILLED FOUR AMERICANS.
    There were at least two requests for additional security prior to 9-11-12. The British embassy was closed after their ambassador was attacked. Red Cross pulled out over safety concerns. The area was a known hot spot for the growing influence of radical Islam.(even the NY times admits this now, which is contrary to the Obama administrations constant presentation that radical Islam was on the run and the MB was mostly secular.) Instead of meeting the request for additional security, security was reduced just prior to the 9/11/01 anniversary, a known time for increased Islamic violence. Part of the Ambassador’s mission in Lybia was to try to get arms, which we had supplied, back from the Islamist that many had gone to. (Surprizingly the NY times broke the cover on this, but it has been ignored since.) Additionally there is evidence that their was a planned movement of arms to rebels in Syria, again likely sending arms to elements of radical Islam, and this is what percipatate Putin warning that WWIII would start in Syria.

    DURING THE ATTACK.
    There was at least one drone overhead giving a live feed to our intelligence, including the situation room at the Whitehouse. There was live communication with the people on the ground in Lybia. It was known that there was no protest or riot taking place. The drone proved it and it is S.O.P. for any riot out side an embassy to be immediately reported to intelligence. The first e-mail, sent to the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence with a subject line of “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,” sent at 4:05 PM about 25 minutes after the attack began, describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people. “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack,” the email states. “Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.” The next e-mail sent at 4:54 PM states that the shooting has stopped and the compound was cleared, adding that a response team was “onsite attempting to locate COM personnel. We are not yet clear if the response team was the two seals that disobeyed orders to stand down, and responded to the attack, but it was these two “seals’ who rescued the people there, including removing one dead body, and fled to the CIA safe house several blocks away. On this short Journey they were ambushed several times (indicating a very planned attack with safeguards to make certain no one got out) but successfully made it to the safe house. It was there that they came under fire for about five more hours. They requested air support to take out the mortar fire. They had its location and a laser on it, which could have guided air firepower to strategically take it out. They were refused any and all aid. They died hours after help could have arrived, their blood all over the machine gun they were using to defend. ( Remember, this was seen in real time by the white house.) Also , over seven hours after the attack began, ambassador Stevens was found alive. He could have been rescued. The third e-mail updates officials that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Face book and Twitter, and has threatened to attack the Tripoli embassy. I have seen no intelligence released that identifies any rioting crowds beforehand, or that everyone thought it was a crowd gone wild during the actual event

    .During the attack Obama was appraised of the situation. Marc Thiessen provides a shocker in his Washington Post column: the day after America’s embassy in Cairo was assaulted and the consulate in Benghazi, the president once again skipped his intelligence briefing, choosing instead to fly off to Las Vegas to fundraiser. (This was after he went to bed in the middle of the attack) Panetta, the Secretary of Defense, has since said that no one in the CIA told American forces in the area to stand down. (This indicates that the decision to stand down came from above him.) I do not know if Panetta is considered part of the CIA, or if they just report to him.

    AFTER THE ATTACK

    After the attack the Obama administration, for two weeks, insisted this was a protest over a terrible video which got out of control, an unplanned spontaneous crowd reaction to a video. Obama backed this story numerous times, his only known reference to it being “terrorist” was a generic reference to any such act being terror, but he clearly spoke of it as a reaction to a video insulting the prophet and an abuse of freedom of speech. At a press conference Obama’s spokesman stated, “We have NO indication that this was a planned terrorist attack” Susan Rice went to five talk shows, at each one reinforcing this perspective. Hillary Clinton supported this narrative. A viewpoint which ALL of them KNEW was not true, a lie. They all lied. They all knew that this “crowd gone wild over a u-tube video” story, was complete B.S. (How does anyone justify saying there was no political motivation in presenting this knowingly false narrative to the world?) Mom, that is a question I would like you to answer, but I do not think you will.

    Since those attacks, President Obama has criticized Mitt Romney for “shooting first and aiming later” by speaking about an international situation – a statement that is doubly galling considering the fact that Obama himself, rather than learn about facts and threats, went to bed early in the attack,then blew off his own am intel briefing to go to the fundraise in Las Vegas, and for two weeks spun a knowingly false narrative.

    If anyone has anything to add or correct I would love to hear it. Also any reasoned speculation on the chess behind the scenes is welcome. The overall geo-political situation is that the MB is using the “Arab Spring” as an opportunity to size control in Egypt, (with Obama’s aid) and making headway in a very fractured Lybia, and furthering thier influence in Syria. Syria is to Russia what Egypt was to the US; with Assad playing the role of Mubarack, keeping a lid on the Jihadist within. Only Putin has no intention of letting Syria go. My personal speculation is that Obama wants the radical M.B to gain Syria, and in exchange Obama will, as he promised, after the election be far more flexible with Putin on matters concerning Europe, in exchange for releasing Syria.

    http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/pressrelease_view.asp?pressreleaseID=2239
    http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/pressrelease_view.asp?pressreleaseID=2239
    http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/oped_view.asp?opedID=2175

    • DirkH says:

      With regard to MB and Syria: I don’t think so.
      Gaza-based Hamas is Sunni and was an unlikely ally of Iranian Shia. Now, MB-ruled Egypt has opened the border or is in the process of doing so, and Hamas gets money from Sunni Qatar.
      So Hamas realigns with Sunni MB. Iran loses influence over Gaza. Iran supports Syrian “rebels” to be able to attack Israel via Syria. Iraq (with significant Shia faction) lets it happen.
      13% of Syrian population are Shia including the ruling Alawi (a branch of Shia).
      About 60 to 65% of Iraqis are Shia.

    • suyts says:

      David, working backwards, I agree with Dirk, to a point. I’m not sure we have a good handle on all of the extremists in play, or where their loyalties lie. But, he’s correct; the Shia and Sunni don’t typically play well together.

      As to the events during the attack, we now know there were at least two drones. In spite of initial reports, there is now a question as to whether or not these drones were armed. This alters the narrative significantly. . Chris Wallace of Fox directly asked two Dem Senators serving on committees of military and intelligence if these drones were armed or not. Neither would answer. Worse, neither directly stated “I don’t know.”

      As to Panetta, he’s head of Defense, the CIA does not directly report to him. Still he ran the CIA for a time. I watched a Fox special on this with Brett Baier. There are small inconsistencies between what I thought I knew and what he thinks he knows.

      The denials of issuing the orders to stand down are interesting. They seem to try to deny that they were issued, but no one will explicitly state that they were not issued. Panetta is also forwarding another absurdity, in that military people don’t deploy into hostilities until we know the situation. Indeed, the “fog of war” prevents such certitude. The purpose of the military is to protect our people. We go, willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice in order to protect the citizenry. The decision not to go stands the function and purpose of the military on its head.

      I guess what I’m saying is that it would be premature to offer an emphatic summary of events. It seems like each day something new is learned. What we do know is that it’s bad. And, you are correct, there was a failure before, during, and after the events. The administration started with an absurd lie and is now simply stonewalling. There was a dereliction in duty. People needlessly died.

  5. Pingback: Obama Cancels Campaign Stops To Monitor Storm, But Not For … | Solar Flare 2012

  6. dan says:

    Panetta’s a weasel….just sayin’

  7. Pingback: Obama Cancels Campaign Stops To Monitor Storm … – suyts space | Solar Flare 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s