Barry’s next lie will be to claim that he was lying to deceive the terrorists and make catching them easier.

“Folks… it was what the intelligence people call ‘strategic misdirection’ to keep the enemy guessing. I’m sorry I had to involve Ms. Rice in it, but she is entirely blameless. We could not let the terrorists know we were on to them so fast. We were letting them play out the line so that we can haul in more of them.”

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 3:56 AM

lol I know you know this, but that isn’t really that farfetched!

He’s does not have a healthy psychology – he’s indisputably pathological, and it would be helpful if more of our congresspeople started opening their eyes and accepting this about him.

We need to impeach these people now before they use these outrageous lies to invade some country and we lose thousands of our own soldiers for no reason at all.

bileduct on November 15, 2012 at 6:47 PM

You have a point. However, I don’t think a President can be impeached twice. Even though all of these general talking points were first made by him, I think Bill Clinton’s been through enough.

But your post was very cute. Just ignorant. Oh, and irrelevant.

Or because they’re all lying, and can’t keep their laters of lies straight any more?

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 1:46 AM

and NO ONE in the lsm will call them out on their contradictions….

infuriating…

By Diana West

While U.S. troops carried out Part One successfully by fighting to establish basic security, the “trust” and “political reconciliation” that such security was supposed to trigger within Iraqi society never materialized in Part Two. Meanwhile, the “Sunni awakening” lasted only as long as the U.S. payroll for Sunni fighters did.

Today, Iraq is more an ally of Iran than the United States (while dollars keep flowing to Baghdad). This failure is one of imagination as much as strategy. But having blocked rational analysis of Islam from entering into military plans for the Islamic world, the Bush administration effectively blinded itself and undermined its own war-making capacity. In this knowledge vacuum, David Petraeus’ see-no-Islam counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine would fill but not satisfy the void.

The basis of COIN is “population protection” — Iraqi populations, Afghan populations — over “force protection.” Or, as lead author David Petraeus wrote in the 2007 Counterinsurgency Field Manual: “Ultimate success in COIN is gained by protecting the populace, not the COIN force.” (“COIN force” families must have loved that.) Further, the Petraeus COIN manual tells us: “The more successful the counterinsurgency is, the less force can be used and the more risk can be accepted.” “Less force” and “more risk” translate into highly restrictive rules of engagement.

More risk accepted by whom? By U.S. forces. Thus we see how, at least in the eyes of senior commanders, we get the few, the proud, the sacrificial lambs. And sacrificed to what? A theory.

The Petraeus COIN manual continues: “Soldiers and Marines may also have to accept more risk to maintain involvement with the people.” As Petraeus wrote in a COIN “guidance” to troops in 2010 upon assuming command in Afghanistan: “The people are the center of gravity. Only by providing them security and earning their trust and confidence can the Afghan government and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) prevail.” That was a theory, too. Now, after two long COIN wars, we know it was wrong.

COIN doctrine approaches war from an ivory tower, a place where such theories thrive untested and without hurting anyone. On the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, however, the results have been catastrophic. Tens of thousands of young Americans answered their country’s call and were told to accept more “risk” and less “protection.” Many lost lives, limbs and pieces of their brains as a result of serving under a military command structure and government in thrall to a leftist ideology that argues, in defiance of human history, that cultures, beliefs and peoples are all the same, or want to be.

Attributing such losses to Petraeus’ see-no-Islam COIN is no exaggeration. In his 2010 COIN guidance, Petraeus told troops: “Walk. Stop by, don’t drive by. Patrol on foot whenever possible and engage the population.” As the Los Angeles Times reported last year, “The counterinsurgency tactic that is sending U.S. soldiers out on foot patrols among the Afghan people, rather than riding in armored vehicles, has contributed to a dramatic increase in arm and leg amputations, genital injuries and the loss of multiple limbs following blast injuries.”

Indeed, the military has had to devise a new category of injury — “dismounted complex blast injury” — while military medicine has had to pioneer, for example, new modes of “aggressive pain management at the POI (point of injury)” and “phallic reconstruction surgery.”

But not even such COIN sacrifices have won the “trust” of the Islamic world. On the contrary, we have seen spiraling rates of murder by our Muslim “partners” — camouflaged by the phrase “green on blue” killings. COIN commanders, ever mindful of winning (appeasing) “hearts and minds,” blame not the Islamic imperatives of jihad but rather summer heat, Ramadan fasting and the “cultural insensitivity” of the murder victims themselves. Such is the shameful paralysis induced by COIN, whose manual teaches: “Arguably, the decisive battle is for the people’s minds. … While security is essential to setting the stage for overall progress, lasting victory comes from a vibrant economy, political participation and restored hope.”

Notice the assumption that something called “overall progress” will just naturally follow “security.” Another theory. It didn’t happen in Iraq. It hasn’t happened in Afghanistan. Since nothing succeeds like failure, the doctrine’s leading general was rewarded with the directorship of the CIA.

There is more at work here than a foundationally flawed strategy. In its drive to win Islamic hearts and minds, COIN doctrine has become an engine of Islamization inside the U.S. military. To win a Muslim population’s “trust,” U.S. troops are taught deference to Islam — to revere the Quran; not to spit toward Mecca (thousands of miles away); and to condone such un- or anti-Western practices as religious supremacism, misogyny, polygamy, pederasty and cruelty to dogs. Our military has even permitted Islamic law to trump the First Amendment to further COIN goals, as when ISAF commander Petraeus publicly condemned an American citizen for exercising his lawful right to freedom of speech to burn a Quran.

This explains why the reports that CIA director David Petraeus went before the House Intelligence Committee in September and blamed a YouTube Muhammad video for the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, sounded so familiar. Whatever his motivation, it was all too easy for Petraeus to make free speech the scapegoat for Islamic violence. But so it goes in COIN-world, where jihad and Shariah (Islamic law) are off the table and the First Amendment is always to blame.

If there is a lesson here, it is simple: A leader who will betray the First Amendment will betray anything.

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 1:46 AM

The simplest way to put it imo is to say that 0dumba’s MO about Benghazi has been to be duplicitous, as many manipulative and cowardly lawyers are wont to do.

He clearly did not want to label the attacks as terrorist ones (his avoidance when presented the easy chance to do so on “The View”) except when he considered it beneficial for him to do so (his debate with Mitt.)

Anti-Control on November 16, 2012 at 3:16 AM

Barry’s next lie will be to claim that he was lying to deceive the terrorists and make catching them easier.

“Folks… it was what the intelligence people call ‘strategic misdirection’ to keep the enemy guessing. I’m sorry I had to involve Ms. Rice in it, but she is entirely blameless. We could not let the terrorists know we were on to them so fast. We were letting them play out the line so that we can haul in more of them.”

When Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss emerged from today’s closed-door sessions for lawmakers on the events in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, Fox News cameras were waiting. Among the insight that Chambliss was willing to share was that those involved knew immediately that the assault on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex was a premeditated terrorist attack.

On Fox News: Sen. Chambliss said “There will be an open hearing for the public so the public can see it.”—
Connie Powers (@Lynx60C) November 15, 2012

So, if it was obvious from Day 1 that the attack didn’t arise from a “spontaneous” protest over a YouTube video, how does that explain Amb. Susan Rice’s many Sunday morning appearances repeating that theory?

Chambliss “what Susan Rice said is exactly what Obama told her to say….”—
Diane (@flores8047) November 15, 2012

During the debates Obama lied and said he initially claimed he told the American people he knew it was a terrorist attack immediately in his Rose Garden address.

Why would Rice not repeat what Obama claims he told the American people?

Why was she not aware of what Obama had just said about the Libyan attack being an act of terrorism?

Why would she go backward to a discredited story about the “Muslim video” being the cause of the attack?

Because Obama never said it was a terrorist attack, and then lied that he did, to the delight of Candy Crowley?

Or because they’re all lying, and can’t keep their laters of lies straight any more?

profitsbeard on November 16, 2012 at 1:46 AM

The simplest way to put it imo is to say that 0dumba’s MO about Benghazi has been to be duplicitous, as many manipulative and cowardly lawyers are wont to do.

He clearly did not want to label the attacks as terrorist ones (his avoidance when presented the easy chance to do so on “The View”) except when he considered it beneficial for him to do so (his debate with Mitt.)

(Sorry, but this palimsest of prevarication is hard to keep track of much less write coherently about.)

Why would Rice not repeat what Obama claims he told the American people?

Why was she not aware of what Obama had just said about the Libyan attack being an act of terrorism?

Why would she go backward to a discredited story about the “Muslim video” being the cause of the attack?

Because Obama never said it was a terrorist attack, and then lied that he did, to the delight of Candy Crowley?

Or because they’re all lying, and can’t keep their laters of lies straight any more?

Anyone?

Genuine on November 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Not something they’d keep from the President.

First of all, the CIA is not going to provide talking points which sound like the ones we just heard. An intelligence report has two components — the evidence accumulated by various assets, and an analysis of that evidence, assigning weights to the various components — including an overarching opinion by the lead analyst.

I can believe that these “talking points” might have been valid for about the first hour of the attack, but not any point thereafter.

It’s pretty obvious to me that the Cairo Embassy attack itself was brought on by a junior diplomat thinking that agreement with the views and demands of the protesters would somehow dissuade them from violence — when such violence would naturally erupt from the US Government’s inability to immediately curtail the free speech rights of its citizens.

This is going to blow up tomorrow

CNN: PETRAEUS TO TESTIFY HE KNEW LIBYA WAS TERRORISM ‘ALMOST IMMEDIATELY’

Petraeus also told this source he believed the CIA talking points given to Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2012/11/15/CNN-Petraeus-To-Testify-He-Knew-Libya-Was-Terrorism-Almost-Immediately

Conservative4ev on November 15, 2012 at 8:11 PM

I caught a little bit of the Hannity rerun. King and a rep from NV were on and talked about the testimony they heard from the CIA.

The original info the CIA submitted did say it was a terrorist attack. The points Rice gave were altered. The CIA said they didn’t know by whom.

Both reps thought that when Obama went to the UN and blamed the video he had to have known the truth by that time.

—-

So this means Petraeus lied originally, and IMO Obama had to have given orders that the talking points be altered. Who else would have the authority to make that kind of decision?

Genuine on November 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Simple, it’s easy to let it be a random terrorist attack on a target of opportunity. No one would care about the reason for the attack or even what was destroyed if the doofus in chief hadn’t tried so hard to cover it up. How hard would it have been to say “The investigation is on going, but at the current point it appears to have been an attack by groups tied to Al Qeada who took advantage of an opportunity provided by the riots in Cairo.”

Not hard at all…unless you didn’t want to acknowledge that killing bin laden didn’t help (like W told us), and that people in his administration were to incompetent to help.

In fact, I’m proud to say that I reached the identical conclusion (that this was a terrorist attack related more to 9/11 than to any putative movie) within a few minutes of hearing of the intensity and nature of the attacks. And I’m no foreign policy Einstein either.

So why did the Einsteins of our State Department conclude anything other than what the facial evidence concluded?

In every intelligence analysis, the finished product rests upon the evidence — the data collected by the many disciplines of surveillance. How could anyone, in hind sight, looking at the data we know know existed in those first hours, come to any other conclusion than that this was an attack expressly upon our Ambassador?

Not even the late news of possible prisoners changes that. Even the simplest non-military person would have viewed the primary objective to be the annex and not the consulate in that case — yet the consulate was attacked first — and the annex attacked only in hindsight after the Americans at the consulate retreated there. So the prisoners were not the target of the attack.

Brennan noted in her “CBS This Morning” report that Rice is also a member of President Obama’s cabinet, and thus privy to his daily intelligence briefings, which may have provided further information or context on the Benghazi assault prior to her television appearance the following morning. The details of the cabinet intelligence briefings are not known.

Rice is not a member of the cabinet although I believe Obama has accorded her cabinet rank. Are all members of the cabinet privy to the daily intelligence briefings? Surely they don’t all have the requisite security clearance.

Scope out the details on her poor performance.