This is painful to write. As much as I dislike and diapprove of almost all of President Obama's policies, I never would have assumed that a sitting president would be so callous and so disdainful of his responsibilities as commander-in-chief.
A number of e-mails have surfaced that now prove conclusively that the White House was directly aware within two hours after it started that the Benghazi attack was not a 'spontaneous protest' that got out of hand but a terrorist attack carried out by Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaeda affiliated militia named by the State Department as a terrorist group. They were sent from someone using the @state.gov email address directly to the Situation Room, the president's personal command center, along with other places.
Reuters, FOX and CBS news have posted the e-mails online, with the names of the actual sender redacted.
There is absolutely no way that President Obama, Secretary Clinton and other high level White House officials was not aware of exactly what was going on.
It gets even worse. The men in the consulate contacted the White House by phone at 10 PM Libya time, 4 PM Washington time when the attack began, and the White House was able to communicate with them and watch the attack in real time while it was occurring, thanks to a drone overhead.
The president could have ordered F-18s to fly overhead on afterburners and even fire into the mob, something that's worked in the past when it comes to dispersing attackers. They could have been there in an hour. He could have immediately ordered a full contingent of Special Operations Forces to fly in from the U.S. military base in Sigonella, Sicily. They could have been on the ground in less than three hours.
The president did nothing except to belatedly order a 22 man force to proceed from our embassy in Tripoli, about the same distance away as Sigonella. They did not arrive at Benghazi airport until 4 AM Libya time, six hours after the attack began.
By that time, Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were dead.
They died because they were not treated as American personnel under attack who needed to be rescued, but as a situation to be managed so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities. And after their deaths, they became a political problem to be handled so as not to embarrass this president. So a scenario was concocted about a spontaneous protest aggravated over a video.It was a scenario that everyone directly from President Obama on down knew was false.
These e-mails and other information about the Benghazi debacle would likely not have surfaced if it hadn't been for President Obama's insistence that the White House was 'not informed', and his blaming the entire fiasco on the State Department and the intelligence community. Apparently some of the people involved in this didn't take kindly to that.
For President Obama, there's no cover, no spin and no excuses possible any more, although I'm sure the attempt will be made. What happened in Benghazi was the culmination of his failed foreign policy in the Middle East,and his reacting as he did a perfect example of his weakness and lack of character.
It was the ultimate appeasement in a failed presidency.
what would anon say?
ReplyDeletei mean really?
who cares?
really?
who cares?
we at J/P hear about this. but what from the media? crickets.
who cares?
right?
if you comment on this again anon will use the racist tag on you. why? 'cause he/she ain't got nothing else!!!!!!
lol
who cares?
ask blow joe biden if he cares.
who cares?
while not being a fan of howard stern, they did it in 2008, and now did it again in 2012:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/howard-stern-and-obama-supporters-2012-version
you typical hussein fan/voter.
mccain/palin in 2012?
romney is african american?
who cares?
blame the people like clinton did.
blame the republicans like they always do.
for starters, what right did we have participating militarily in libya? where was code pink?
can you just imagine what would happen if something like benghazi happened in the '30s or '40s?
but not anymore.
why?
who cares?
Qualities of a Sociopath
ReplyDeleteSomeone who is described as a sociopath will have several traits that set them apart from those with no personality disorders. These traits include the following...
• Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others or to understand the emotional consequences of their actions
• Cold, calculating nature – The ability and willingness to use others around them to personal gain
• Shallow emotions – Lack of real emotion in response to events, limited capacity to feel love
• Narcissism – A personality disorder in itself in which the individual feels strong love and admiration toward themselves (often a defense mechanism against deep seated low esteem)
• Grandiose self image – They might see themselves as someone who is superior to others and sometimes even experiences delusions. A sociopath might see themselves as a fitting ruler of a country or even the world, but might also have delusional beliefs such as seeing themselves as a God or having super powers
• Charming – While the sociopath is unable to fully understand the emotions of others, they are capable but rather highly adept at mimicking them and might appear to be charming and normal at first
• High IQ – Often sociopaths will exhibit a high IQ which they can use to manipulate and plan
• Manipulative – Sociopaths use their superficial charm and high IQ to manipulate others to get their ends, and their lack of empathy allows them to do this with no sense of guilt or remorse
• Secretive – Has little need for others and is highly secretive in their actions meaning
• Sexually deviant – The lack of remorse, guilt or emotional attachments means that the sociopath is happy to have affairs and to engage in questionable sexual activity without questioning their desires
• Sensitive to criticism – That said, like all narcissists, the sociopath will desire the approval of others and will be highly sensitive to criticisms. They often feel they deserve adulation and admiration of the world and might feel victimized
• Paranoid – Often their lack of understanding of emotion along with their incongruous self view means that they feel a lack of trust and paranoia
• Despotic/Authoritarian – Often the sociopath will see themselves as a necessary authority and will be in favor or totalitarian rule
• Lawfulness – Despite popular belief, a sociopath is not likely to be a problem to the law in later life, but rather will seek to find loopholes, to rise to a position of power, or to move to another area so that their behavior is tolerated
• Low tolerance for boredom – Sociopaths require constant stimulation and get quickly bored
• Impulsive behavior – A lack of regret and empathy means makes sociopaths more likely to make sudden rash decisions based on the current facts
• Compulsive lying – As part of their facade, and as a means to an end, sociopaths are compulsive liars and will rarely speak truthfully making them hard to pin down
• The MacDonald Triad – In childhood sociopaths will likely have demonstrated the 'MacDonald Triad' also known as the 'Triad of Sociopathy', traits that often are demonstrated in sociopaths from a young age. These include animal cruelty (pulling the wings off of flies etc, bed wetting, and pyromania (an obsession with fire setting)).
Sociopaths of course vary in their symptoms and might act differently in different cases. However their main trait is presenting themselves as having the same empathy feelings and emotions as others when in fact they lack this emotional capacity. They are thus cold and manipulative and rarely see any problem with their actions.
This will be ignored by the mainstream media in favor of Gloria Allred's attempted (and likely coordinated) Oct. surprise which will backfire. The only reason CNN put it up is because they got scooped by Reuters and Fox but tried to downplay the damage of course.
ReplyDeleteI still can't understand how 46% of the population, including many of my friends, think this sociopath is doing a good job and want four more years of this shit. Or how Romney would not only be worse, but a disaster. BamBam is a disaster.
This is rather like the war criminals Nixon & Kissinger on the Watergate tapes : it is direct evidence of knowledge of an event & complicity in a cover-up. Ironically, to make the analogy even stronger & more eerie, joshuapundit's next post portrays the big O in Maoist garb : we had a puppet of Mao as prez in 1972 ( hence the continuation of an immoral war against Vietnam by the ' secret-peace-plan ' candidate of 1968 ) , & we have a pro-Peking prez ( & pro-Mahometan prez ) in 2012. Fortunately, in this 2012 election, we do have a credible & viable prez alternative this year in the official opposition, government-in-waiting candidate, Gov Romney ( the American people had to settle for changing the Congress in the '72 primaries & Nov election ) : at the very least, he would reverse the unconstitutional ObamaCare & import some business experience into the White House. We need not experience another Nixon 2-term tragedy this time. Come on, people, in places like Ohio, wake up to the shenanigans of that latter-day Nixon in the White House & retire him early at this election. ( Seriously, who could support Owebama other than trial lawyers, insurance industry executives, bankers at the TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL banks, black racists & neo-Maoists ? )
ReplyDelete--reader
@ LouieLouie : I have just read your comment. Is Howard Stern still on somewhere ? In all seriousness, I was always willing to make an effort to catch his newscasts & commentaries ( w/Robin ? ) when he was on regular radio up till 5 ( ? ) years ago. I never listened when he had a guest, for that was ' camp ' ( correct term in English language ? ) & of no interest to me ; however, when he was solo, he could deliver powerful, incisive, libertarian analyses of the then-current news. He was knowledgeable re & a supporter of Barry Goldwater & Gerald Ford : 2 of my favourite statesmen. I was also willing to listen to interviews with Rodney Dangerfield & Sandra Bernhard ( correct orthography ? ), but, as you can easily surmise & divine, the style of Stern's show would otherwise not be for me.
ReplyDelete--reader
( PS : even caught a Patty Hearst interview there once )