Talk about pimping!
What spin…..Ignatius again lies to cover for Obomber…..read carefully the lines I have underlined and highlighted…and ask yourself…just how they intend to have it both ways…either Obomber called it a ACT of terror…based on facts or not….He wants us to believe that Obomber was accurate based on this dubious “talking Points” memo from the CIA and Rice was also right ….. and no where does even this “talking Point” memo say it was the video…they say it was because they watched what was happening in Cairo!!!!
WASHINGTON — The Romney campaign may have misfired in its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the U.S. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”The CIA document went on: “This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.” This may sound like self-protective boilerplate, but it reflects the analysts’ genuine problem interpreting fragments of intercepted conversation, video surveillance and source reports.The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate facility.“We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new intelligence community report prepared last week for the House Intelligence Committee.
Here’s how the senior official described the jumble of events in Benghazi that day: “The attackers were disorganized; some seemed more interested in looting. Some who claimed to have participated joined the attack as it began or after it was under way. There is no evidence of rehearsals, they never got into the safe room … never took any hostages, didn’t bring explosives to blow the safe room door, and didn’t use a car bomb to blow the gates.”The Benghazi flap is the sort of situation that intelligence officers dread — when politicians are demanding hard “yes” or “no” answers but evidence is fragmentary and conflicting.
The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the senior official said there’s evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motivations. There’s no dispute, however, that it was “an act of terror,” as Obama described it the next day.
“It was a flash mob with weapons,” is how the senior official described the attackers. The mob included members of the Ansar al-Sharia militia, about four members of al-Qaida in the Maghreb, and members of the Egypt-based Muhammad Jamal network, along with other unarmed looters.The official said the only major change he would make now in the CIA’s Sept. 15 talking points would be to drop the word “spontaneous” and substitute “opportunistic.”He explained that there apparently was “some pre-coordination but minimal planning.”
The intelligence community obviously feels burned by having its tentative assessments become a political football in this campaign and, in truth, one obvious lesson is that the U.S. could use much better real-time intelligence from places such as Libya.
A memo prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center on Sept. 14 illustrates the fragmentary nature of the evidence. “As time progresses, we are learning more, but we still don’t have a complete picture of what happened,” noted the NCTC analysts. “At this point, we are not aware of any actionable intelligence that this attack was planned or imminent. … We are very cautious about drawing any firm conclusions at this point with regard to identification and motivation of the attackers.”The analysts seem confident that al-Qaida’s new leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, played no direct role in the Benghazi events, even though he called on Sept. 10 for revenge attacks against the U.S. “He’s not a manager, he’s not a planner, he’s not an operator. He’s a theologian, and that doesn’t have much resonance now. He’s almost irrelevant, he’s so concerned about his security, so hunkered down,” said the senior official.Ironically, the Sept. 15 talking points that were the basis for Rice’s televised comments were requested by the House Intelligence Committee. Ideally, the congressional oversight committees would provide bipartisan support for intelligence officials who are probing the Benghazi attack. But in the heat of the final pre-election weeks, the murky details of what happened in Libya have instead become political assault weapons.
Obama’s dirty little (energy) secret
By NICK CHICKERING | 4 comments
Why are gasoline prices so high? Now that the election campaign is on, the president speaks almost daily about his determination to lower gas prices, but let’s look at the record. Gasoline prices were $1.90/gal. when he took office with promises he would free America from dependency upon OPEC. The Arab oil racket drains $400 billion/year from American taxpayers. Yet now, it is $3.80/gal, exactly double, and it is not hard to see why, when we see what steps Barack Obama took to raise the price of gas and oil.
What he said and says, and what he did, are polar opposites:
1. The most important person to determine energy costs would be his choice for energy secretary. He chose Steven Chu, an academic who was specifically on record in support of raising domestic gas prices to Europe’s much higher prices (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73138.html).
2. While Obama shut down all our rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from domestic well drilling, he offered no objection to the Government’s Export-Import Bank simultaneously approving a $2 billion loan to Brazil to drill much deeper wells off their coast, which oil was contracted to go to China (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senator-questions-2-billion-loan-brazil-offshore-drilling-domestic-production,http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html).
3. The Inspector General’s Office discovered that the Obama administration report assuring that the expert panel reviewing his ban on drilling supported the ban, was, in fact, a fraud, and that the expert panel’s findings did not support the ban on drilling (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44921.html).
4. Obama shut down the Keystone Pipeline, a major jobs and energy project which would have Canadian oil supplant Venezuelan oil at refineries in Texas and Louisiana, risking instead that it might go to China. In fact, our long-time ally, Canada, is so frustrated and fed up with this decision, they are now building a new pipeline through British Columbia to their West Coast so that all that oil which could have stayed here, can now go to China (http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/project-at-a-glance/).
5. Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has filed numerous new and continuing actions against efforts to drill for oil and gas domestically from coast to coast, and has virtually halted drilling on federal lands (http://www.frackinginsider.com/regulatory/when-one-thinks-of-a/)
6. Obama has stopped offshore drilling in the East and South while China and Cuba drill in waters off Florida (http://www.npr.org/2011/09/12/140405282/cuban-offshore-drilling-plans-raise-u-s-concerns).
7. Obama’s EPA blocked Shell Oil from efforts to drill off Alaska despite years of waiting for permits (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/04/25/epa-blocks-oil-drilling-in-alaska/)
8. Despite the fact that coal-fired plants account for 42 percent of all domestic energy plants in our country, Obama has proposed new regulations designed to shut down up to half our coal-fired domestic energy plants and already shut down six major coal-fired energy plants in the U.S. The East Coast blackouts can be directly attributed to this forced curtailment of domestic energy plants (http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/12/19/3606472/ new-epa-rules-expected-to-cause.html).
9. A top Obama EPA official was caught on tape saying the philosophy of Obama’s EPA is to “crucify” oil and gas companies (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/26/epa_official_says_philosophy_is_to_crucify_oil_and_gas_companies.html).
10. Obama daily attacks our domestic oil and gas companies, threatening much higher taxes on the companies. Higher taxes, of course, lead to less money to discover oil and gas, and raise retail prices further to pay for the additional taxes. According to the Energy Information Administration, over the past 20 years, energy companies paid more taxes to the government than they earned for their shareholders, and paid an average tax rate of 41.1 percent vs. 26.5 percent tax paid by the 500 largest companies in the U.S. Why are oil companies singled out for paying 41 percent taxes, but not Apple, which only pays 8 percent federal taxes (http://www.api.org/statistics/earnings/upload/earnings_perspective.pdf)?
When Barack Obama’s policies are clearly and purposely curtailing new domestic energy sources, thereby increasing OPEC imports, prices go up. Why does he want consumers to pay much more for heating their homes and driving to work? Answer: Unless he can drive fossil fuel prices much higher, his far more expensive “green energy” will fail, though “green energy” still only accounts for less than 3 percent of domestic energy production..
Finally, if you still can’t believe that our president is purposely driving the average citizen’s energy prices higher, listen to him yourself in an interview he gave in San Francisco in 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4), where he says, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
In the meanwhile, the voting public remains uninformed, as Obama campaigns on lowering energy prices, confident that his Mainstream Media allies will not report his dirty little secret. Is it too much to ask that our president tell us the truth
Chickering is a resident of Whitefish
Where is the analysis on what Obama has allowed to happen in Iraq, Mr. Burns?
You write, “the outcome in Afghanistan also is important because of the enormous investment in human lives over the past decade. To let it unravel and revert to a pre-9/11 Taliban rule would be seen by many as dishonoring those sacrifices.”
Well Mr Burns…what about the lost lives in Iran? It has not only reverted…it is being taken back by the al-Qaida, that the media said was never in Iraq. The Afghanstan story is off the peoples radar…because you and your cronnies KEEP it off the radar…Where are the death and mayhem Bush caused (Obama now) stories? Where are the soldiers body counts? Why have you and others referred to NATO troops, instead of US troops? You see…Mr. Burns, we are on to you and your ilk…and come November, despite all your attempts to cover for that gigantic FAILURE in the White House, we will show you just how much pain the average middle class citizen has been baring..
AFGHANISTAN By ROBERT BURNS— Sep. 11 12:31 PM ED
FILE – This June 19, 2012 file photo shows a US soldier, part of the NATO forces, patrols a police station in Kandahar, south of Kabul, Afghanistan. U.S. troops are still in Afghanistan, nearly 11 years after they invaded. Why? The answer boils down to one word: al-Qaida. The goal is to damage the terrorist group enough to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 attacks. (AP Photo/Allauddin Khan, File)
U.S. troops are still in Afghanistan, nearly 11 years after they invaded. Why? The answer boils down to one word: al-Qaida. The goal is to damage the terrorist group enough to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 attacks.
Where they stand:
After nearly tripling the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2009-10, President Barack Obama is now pulling them out, aiming to end all U.S. combat there by December 2014. Mitt Romney has outlined a broad goal for the war — without specifics about troop numbers — that is similar to Obama’s: Hand over security responsibility to the Afghans at a pace that does not risk the country’s collapse and al-Qaida’s return.
Why it matters:
Only small numbers of al-Qaida fighters are still in Afghanistan, and their iconic leader, Osama bin Laden, is long dead. But the threat they represent is still the main reason Americans are still fighting and dying there.
The logic goes like this: If U.S. and allied forces were to leave before the Afghans can defend themselves, the Taliban would regain power. And if they were in charge, then al-Qaida would not be far behind.
In that view of what’s at stake, al-Qaida would once again have a launching pad for attacks on American soil.
What’s often overlooked in that scenario is an answer to this question: Why, after so many years of foreign help, are the Afghans still not capable of self-defense? And who can say when they will get to that point?
The official answer is 2014. By the end of that year, the U.S. and its allies are scheduled to end their combat role. The Afghans will be fully in charge, or so it is hoped, and the war will be over — at least for Americans.
So, from an American point of view, what is at stake in Afghanistan is avoiding a repeat of 9/11. But it is also true that the United States faces threats on other fronts. Some of those threats have arisen as a consequence of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, just weeks after the traumatizing 9/11 attacks.
Al-Qaida has migrated to other countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and various spots in North Africa.
Thus, al-Qaida remains a worry, but its presence in Afghanistan does not seem to trouble many Americans. Although nearly 2,000 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan, the war is hardly an issue in the presidential campaign.
It’s perhaps a measure of the public’s inattention to Afghanistan that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta felt it necessary to say at a Pentagon news conference that it was important to “remind the American people that there is a war going on.”
He added, with an allusion to the al-Qaida threat: “Young men and women are dying in order to try to protect this country.”
The outcome in Afghanistan also is important because of the enormous investment in human lives over the past decade. To let it unravel and revert to a pre-9/11 Taliban rule would be seen by many as dishonoring those sacrifices.
EDITOR’S NOTE _ One in a series examining issues at stake in the election and their impact on people
Deceptive headlines are a pet peeve of mine..I will probably set up a page of these…once I figure out how to!…lol For now I will post the idea here. The first of course is the “SLOW JOB GROWTH” this “distorter” (reporter) knows full well. or should with a little research, that there is NO GROWTH in jobs..since 2008, there are actually FEWER people working now than before OB set out to “create” jobs!
Now this one is a good one too….Americans FEEL safer now. Terror has taken a back seat! Of course it has, because the “distorters” have not reported about the terrorists that are increasing in the countries where OB has drone killed so called terrorist, and the “distorters” do not report the civilian deaths from these attacks…as they did on the very few that Bush used in the Iraq war. The “distorters” also forget to mention that we are not at WAR with these countries either! So as OB continues to create more America haters in countries we have not declared war on, the people remain uninformed. I guess it is JUST Republicans that MAKE enemies when we use drones…