Chris Matthews volunteers to dry hump Hillary’s leg or something

I think Matthews and his cohorts here, Joan Walsh, and David Corn really should head up Hillary 2016. Let these Left Wing fruitcakes be the “brains” and faces of her campaign

 

Matthews replied, “If you’re watching, Madam Secretary, all three of us have brilliant ideas. All of us have great ideas. And I especially put myself in that group with Joan and David. We know how to do this, we’ll get you in there.”

Although there may have been a little tongue in Matthews’ cheek, everyone watching knew full well that he meant it, and that his mission in the next 44 months – as well as that of likely every MSNBC contributor and guest – is to get Clinton in the White House.


Joan Walsh, David Corn, and Crazy legs Matthews have “brilliant ideas”? More like delusions of competence. These three could not think their way out of a wet paper bag.

 

Team Obama summed up!

By Doug Powers, who clues us in on the origin of those talking points that matter more to Susan Rice than four dead Americans.

For months the White House has been pinning the “it was the video” talking points on regarding the Benghazi attack on Susan Rice and/or the intelligence community, but not surprisingly the trail is leading to the top.

Yesterday, Jay Carney said that on the night of the attack, President Obama spoke with Hillary Clinton at about 10 p.m.

At approximately 10:30 p.m. the Hillary Clinton/the State Department releasedthis statement:

I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.

This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.

And by “some” Hillary’s probably referring first and foremost to Obama.

By the way, Susan Rice recently said that focusing on who originally suggested the “blame the video” talking points is a bigger tragedy than the attack that killed four Americans.

Powers sums up Team Obama perfectly

These people aren’t qualified to be in charge of a convenience store and yet they’re running the country.

Yep!

 

What could be worse than Hillary 2016?

Smitty suggest Janet Napolitano might run if………

Via Drudge:

So, what happens if Hillary Clinton doesn’t run in 2016?
It is hard to imagine the presidential field without a woman contender, and here’s one to keep your eye on: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Napolitano is quietly making it known that she is considering the race, and there is reason to take her seriously.

Yeah, I can see the GOP, Tea Partiers, and basically anybody else with a functioning brain being more than a little motivated to work against Big Sis if she’s on the ticket.

Now, if she brings on Bill Maher as VP, would the double negative somehow work?

Napolitano/Maher 2016? Or maybe I should say Dumber than a Tree Stump/Ultimate Douche Nozzle 2o16? And the campaign slogan would have to be If you See Something Say Something

Hillary to testify on Benghazi

Zip of Weasel Zippers fame assumes, correctly I would think, that she does not want the issue hanging over the soon coming Hillary 2016 campaign. So, she will get the lying and denying over with now

Via Daily Mail:

Hillary Clinton will testify in front of Congress about the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya – despite receiving a concussion and being hospitalized for a blood clot, it was revealed on Thursday.

The Secretary of State cancelled appearances before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee after she fainted and hit her head on December 9.

She sent two aides to testify in her place.

Some conservatives initially claimed she was using the health issue to dodge testifying on the contentious issue.

The Washington Post reports that Clinton ‘remains committed’ to appearing in front of the Congressional committees, though no date has been set.

Of course, perhaps this is just a tactic to stall, hoping the issue goes away. 

 

A perfect question for Eric Holder

Eric Holder our Attorney General, had some interesting comments on gun rights yesterday

“As a nation I think we have to ask ourselves some hard questions. We gather too often to talk about these kinds of incidents. We need to discuss who we are as a nation, talk about the freedoms that we have, the rights that we have and how those might be used in a responsible way.

Ah, so we should use our liberties in “responsible” ways. OK, but I am troubled by one thing. When someone speaks of using our rights responsibly, what do they mean? Likely they have their own definition of responsible. So, to better gauge what Holder means I have one question. If I were to give, or sell my guns to a Mexican drug cartel, would he consider that responsible?

 

Latest on Benghazi. Classified cables might provide the smoking gun

Via The Right Scoop

The Obama administration apparently had all the information they needed to warrant serious upgrades to our security in Benghazi, especially one 9/11. An August 16 cable even notes that there were Al Qaeda training camps in Benghazi and that the RSO in the State Department didn’t believe the consulate could be protected with current security staffing. So why did they not act?

Read below because there’s a lot more in this article:

FOX NEWS – The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.

According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.

The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.

In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”

As for specific threats against the U.S., the cable warned the intelligence was not clear on the issue, cautioning that the militias in Benghazi were not concerned with any significant retaliation from the Libyan government, which had apparently lost control in Benghazi. A briefer explained that they “did not have information suggesting that these entities were targeting Americans but did caveat that (there was not) a complete picture of their intentions yet. RSO (Regional Security Officer) noted that the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal from the (government of Libya.)”

While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

This says it all doesn’t it? This administration KNEW, they KNEW! They LIED! And Americans DIED! And that number would have been higher had it not been for Woods and Doherty! And ultimately, the responsibility lies with Barack Obama! And further, anyone who knows the facts here and still votes for Obama next Tuesday does not give one damn about America frankly!

MUST READ interview in The Jerusalem Post

Zion’s Trumpet has posted an invaluable interview that former CIA Operative Clare Lopez, who worked for the CIA 20 years Go read the whole thing, but here is the key part, at least to me

GA: So would you go so far as to say that it would be pretty clear that Obama watched in real-time and did nothing while 4 Americans were murdered?

 CL: Yeah, that’s very clear, yes.

 GA: Then, at some point later President Obama went to bed. Whether it was before or after everyone had died we’ll probably never know, but he had that super important fund-raising trip in Las Vegas the next day and here’s what gets me. He gets up the next day and he skips, yet again, his National security briefing.

 CL: Yes, that’s right.

 GA: Here’s some questions for you, from your 20 years with the CIA, why do you think that Hillary Clinton has been so absent since all this has started to come out?

 CL: I don’t know, I really don’t know, she was there early on putting out the false narrative story about the video and obviously she was the one that gave the orders to Amb. Susan Rice to go on the Sunday talk shows and give the same story. I don’t know. I don’t even know what to say.

 GA: The silence on her part has been deafening. I heard that she has proof that would clear her of all this and her husband, former President Clinton wants her to come forward and she refuses.

 CL: I don’t lend much credence to that at all, because, number one, throughout the months of 2012 requests were made repeatedly for additional security for Benghazi, the site security team that had been there up until August was withdrawn against everybody’s wishes, including the team itself which would have stayed, and the other thing is, that within the Department of State there is the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, sometimes called just DS – Diplomatic Security or DSS- Diplomatic Security Service and these are her people, she can order them anywhere in the world whenever she wants to. They are specifically security people, many of them former military, to go to any American diplomatic post in the world as she so chooses. That’s her propagative as Secretary of State.

 GA: Would she need to clear that with Obama or would she have just done that?

 CL: No, these are her people, her assets if you will, this is her department, her chain of command, all she had to do was say “DSS, send some more people to Benghazi” and they would have been gone. It would be different if she wanted to assign a Marine Security Guard Detachment because that has to go in coordination through DOD (Department of Defense), so those things you can understand have to have different approvals, but her own people, her own department, her own security service which exists for the purpose of defending American missions abroad, she had total authority of those people. She could have sent them anytime and she didn’t have to ask anyone to do it.

 GA: Lt. Colonel Andy Wood was the head of one of those fast security teams…

 CL: Yes, he testified before Congress…

 GA: He requested as the leader of that group to stay in Benghazi…

 CL: Yes, they were there from February to August. That was the period of time that they were assigned, that was the extent of their mission, it’s not that they were pulled out early, that was the end of it as it was planned. But at that point everybody said security demands more support and his team wanted to stay, Chris Stevens wanted them to stay in Benghazi, everyone wanted them to stay. But Secretary of State Clinton pulled them out.

 GA: So that would have been Clinton’s call there?

 CL: Yeah.

 GA: Is there any chance that Obama told her “pull them out” if she had gone and discussed it with him or she would have just made that decision on her own?

 CL: Yes, it could have come from the White House, but we don’t know.

 GA: Why do you think that media, for the most part, is ignoring something this huge?

 CL: It’s a good question isn’t it? That’s a really good question. Political? I have no idea. It boggles the mind, I don’t know.

 GA: Do you believe that this was a cover up from the very beginning?

As I said go read it all, it is stunning really, and it is reprehensible that the media here, for the most part is ignoring this story.