Friday, November 30, 2012
Charles is Correct Again....He Boils Down Just What the Republicans Need to Do....Let's Hope John Boehner is Listening....
November 29, 2012 8:00 P.M. By Charles Krauthammer
Cliff Jumping with Barack If Republicans give way on taxes, it should only be for real entitlement reform.
Why are Republicans playing the Democrats’ game that the “fiscal cliff” is all about taxation?
House Speaker John Boehner already made the preemptive concession of agreeing to raise revenues. But the insistence on doing so by eliminating deductions without raising marginal rates is now the subject of fierce Republican infighting.
Where is the other part of President Obama’s vaunted “balanced approach”? Where are the spending cuts, both discretionary and entitlement: Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare (the health-care trio) and Social Security?
Social Security is the easiest to solve. So you get a sense of the Democrats’ inclination to reform entitlements when Dick Durbin, the Senate Democrats’ No. 2, says Social Security is off the table because it “does not add a penny to our deficit.”
This is absurd. In 2012, Social Security adds $165 billion to the deficit. Democrats pretend that Social Security is covered through 2033 by its trust fund. Except that the trust fund is a fiction, a mere “bookkeeping” device, as the OMB itself has written. The trust fund’s IOUs “do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.” Future benefits “will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.”
And they are draining the Treasury, as 10,000 baby boomers retire every day. Yet that’s off the table. And on Wednesday, the president threw down the gauntlet by demanding tax hikes now — with spending cuts to come next year. Meaning, until after Republicans have fallen on their swords, given up the tax issue, and forfeited their political leverage.
Ronald Reagan once fell for a “tax now, cut later” deal that he later deeply regretted. Dems got the tax; he never got the cuts. Obama’s audacious new gambit is not a serious proposal to solve our fiscal problems. It’s a raw partisan maneuver meant to neuter the Republicans by getting them to cave on their signature issue as the hold-the-line party on taxes.
The objective is to ignite exactly the kind of internecine warfare on taxes now going on among Republicans. And to bury Grover Norquist.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Norquistian. I don’t believe the current level of taxation is divinely ordained. Nor do I believe in pledges of any kind. But Norquist is the only guy in town to consistently resist the tax-and-spend Democrats’ stampede for ever higher taxes to fund ever more reckless spending.
The hunt for Norquist’s scalp is a key part of the larger partisan project to make the Republicans do a George H. W. Bush and renege on their heretofore firm stand on taxes. Bush never recovered.
Why are the Republicans playing along? Because it is assumed that Obama has the upper hand. Unless Republicans acquiesce and get the best deal they can right now, tax rates will rise across the board on January 1, and the GOP will be left without any bargaining chips.
But what about Obama? If we all cliff-dive, he gets to preside over yet another recession. It will wreck his second term. Sure, Republicans will get blamed. But Obama is never running again. He cares about his legacy. You think he wants a second term with a double-dip recession, 9 percent unemployment, and a totally gridlocked Congress? Republicans have to stop playing as if they have no cards.
Obama is claiming an electoral mandate to raise taxes on the top 2 percent. Perhaps, but remember those incessant campaign ads promising a return to the economic nirvana of the Clinton years? Well, George W. Bush cut rates across the board, not just for the top 2 percent. Going back to the Clinton rates means middle-class tax hikes that yield four times the revenue that you get from just the rich. So give Obama the full Clinton. Let him live with that. And with what also lies on the other side of the cliff: 28 million Americans newly subject to the ruinous alternative minimum tax.
Republicans must stop acting like supplicants. If Obama so loves those Clinton rates, Republicans should say: Then go over the cliff and have them all.
And add: But if you want a Grand Bargain, then deal. If we give way on taxes, we want, in return, serious discretionary cuts, clearly spelled-out entitlement cuts, and real tax reform.
Otherwise, strap on your parachute, Mr. President. We’ll ride down together.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Cliff Jumping with Barack If Republicans give way on taxes, it should only be for real entitlement reform.
Why are Republicans playing the Democrats’ game that the “fiscal cliff” is all about taxation?
House Speaker John Boehner already made the preemptive concession of agreeing to raise revenues. But the insistence on doing so by eliminating deductions without raising marginal rates is now the subject of fierce Republican infighting.
Where is the other part of President Obama’s vaunted “balanced approach”? Where are the spending cuts, both discretionary and entitlement: Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare (the health-care trio) and Social Security?
Social Security is the easiest to solve. So you get a sense of the Democrats’ inclination to reform entitlements when Dick Durbin, the Senate Democrats’ No. 2, says Social Security is off the table because it “does not add a penny to our deficit.”
This is absurd. In 2012, Social Security adds $165 billion to the deficit. Democrats pretend that Social Security is covered through 2033 by its trust fund. Except that the trust fund is a fiction, a mere “bookkeeping” device, as the OMB itself has written. The trust fund’s IOUs “do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.” Future benefits “will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.”
And they are draining the Treasury, as 10,000 baby boomers retire every day. Yet that’s off the table. And on Wednesday, the president threw down the gauntlet by demanding tax hikes now — with spending cuts to come next year. Meaning, until after Republicans have fallen on their swords, given up the tax issue, and forfeited their political leverage.
Ronald Reagan once fell for a “tax now, cut later” deal that he later deeply regretted. Dems got the tax; he never got the cuts. Obama’s audacious new gambit is not a serious proposal to solve our fiscal problems. It’s a raw partisan maneuver meant to neuter the Republicans by getting them to cave on their signature issue as the hold-the-line party on taxes.
The objective is to ignite exactly the kind of internecine warfare on taxes now going on among Republicans. And to bury Grover Norquist.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Norquistian. I don’t believe the current level of taxation is divinely ordained. Nor do I believe in pledges of any kind. But Norquist is the only guy in town to consistently resist the tax-and-spend Democrats’ stampede for ever higher taxes to fund ever more reckless spending.
The hunt for Norquist’s scalp is a key part of the larger partisan project to make the Republicans do a George H. W. Bush and renege on their heretofore firm stand on taxes. Bush never recovered.
Why are the Republicans playing along? Because it is assumed that Obama has the upper hand. Unless Republicans acquiesce and get the best deal they can right now, tax rates will rise across the board on January 1, and the GOP will be left without any bargaining chips.
But what about Obama? If we all cliff-dive, he gets to preside over yet another recession. It will wreck his second term. Sure, Republicans will get blamed. But Obama is never running again. He cares about his legacy. You think he wants a second term with a double-dip recession, 9 percent unemployment, and a totally gridlocked Congress? Republicans have to stop playing as if they have no cards.
Obama is claiming an electoral mandate to raise taxes on the top 2 percent. Perhaps, but remember those incessant campaign ads promising a return to the economic nirvana of the Clinton years? Well, George W. Bush cut rates across the board, not just for the top 2 percent. Going back to the Clinton rates means middle-class tax hikes that yield four times the revenue that you get from just the rich. So give Obama the full Clinton. Let him live with that. And with what also lies on the other side of the cliff: 28 million Americans newly subject to the ruinous alternative minimum tax.
Republicans must stop acting like supplicants. If Obama so loves those Clinton rates, Republicans should say: Then go over the cliff and have them all.
And add: But if you want a Grand Bargain, then deal. If we give way on taxes, we want, in return, serious discretionary cuts, clearly spelled-out entitlement cuts, and real tax reform.
Otherwise, strap on your parachute, Mr. President. We’ll ride down together.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
YOUR TAxes Are Going Up BUT Barack and Michelle Are Still Livin Large on YOUR TAX DOLLARS....
Report: Obamas to spend holidays in Hawaii at $4 million cost to taxpayers
Caroline May Political Reporter
The first family will be vacationing in Hawaii for the Christmas holidays at a cost of at least $4 million to taxpayers, according to a report from the Hawaii Reporter.
The Hawaiian paper reports that residents living near the beachfront homes at Kailuana Place, where the President Obama and first family have visited annually since 2008, were notified Monday that there will be restrictions on their movements in place for 20 days, from Dec. 17 through Jan. 6.
The Hawaii Reporter calculated the $4 million cost to taxpayers based in part on the price of a round trip flight to the island on Air Force One, the transport of the president’s support equipment, housing of security and staff and the cost of police to local taxpayers.
The first family pays for their own rental on the beach, according to the paper.
The White House Dossier notes that the White House has yet to officially announce the vacation or the president’s travel plans and notes Obama could be in Hawaii on the day the country goes off the “fiscal cliff” if no deal is reached in time.
The Dossier adds that the vacation could help to add “subtle pressure” the president to reach a deal.
Author Robert Keith Gray estimated in his book “Presidential Perks Gone Royal“ that last year taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on the first family, compared to the $57.8 million British taxpayers spent on the royal family, The Daily Caller reported in September.
Last year the Hawaii Reporter estimated the president’s 17-day holiday vacation in Hawaii was more than $4 million as well.
Caroline May Political Reporter
The first family will be vacationing in Hawaii for the Christmas holidays at a cost of at least $4 million to taxpayers, according to a report from the Hawaii Reporter.
The Hawaiian paper reports that residents living near the beachfront homes at Kailuana Place, where the President Obama and first family have visited annually since 2008, were notified Monday that there will be restrictions on their movements in place for 20 days, from Dec. 17 through Jan. 6.
The Hawaii Reporter calculated the $4 million cost to taxpayers based in part on the price of a round trip flight to the island on Air Force One, the transport of the president’s support equipment, housing of security and staff and the cost of police to local taxpayers.
The first family pays for their own rental on the beach, according to the paper.
The White House Dossier notes that the White House has yet to officially announce the vacation or the president’s travel plans and notes Obama could be in Hawaii on the day the country goes off the “fiscal cliff” if no deal is reached in time.
The Dossier adds that the vacation could help to add “subtle pressure” the president to reach a deal.
Author Robert Keith Gray estimated in his book “Presidential Perks Gone Royal“ that last year taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on the first family, compared to the $57.8 million British taxpayers spent on the royal family, The Daily Caller reported in September.
Last year the Hawaii Reporter estimated the president’s 17-day holiday vacation in Hawaii was more than $4 million as well.
I Still Think Newt Would Have Been the BEST Republican Nominee for President.....He would have won the Election!
Gingrich: House Republicans should stop negotiating with President Obama
3:12 AM 11/29/2012 Alexis Levinson
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that House Republicans should stop negotiating with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats on the fiscal cliff, saying that by doing so, they give Obama all of the leverage in the talks.
“One of the things I would say to House Republicans is to get a grip,” Gingrich said in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif.
"They are the majority. They’re not the minority,” he said, enunciating the words as if explaining the concept to someone who did not understand it. “They don’t need to cave in to Obama; they don’t need to form a ‘Surrender Caucus.’”
“So my number one bit of advice to the congressional Republicans is simple: Back out of of all of this negotiating with Obama. The president is overwhelmingly dominant in the news media. You start setting up the definition of success finding an agreement with Obama, you just gave Obama the ability to say to you, ‘Not good enough,’” Gingrich said.
The onetime presidential hopeful ridiculed the idea of the fiscal cliff, saying it was a manufactured crisis.
“There is no fiscal cliff. It’s absolute, total, nonsense,” Gingrich said.
“It is an excuse to panic. It’s a device to get all of us running down the road so we accept whatever Obama wants because otherwise we have failed the fiscal cliff, and how can you be a patriot if you don’t do what the fiscal cliff requires, and the fiscal cliff will appear to us one afternoon, much like the land of Oz, where there will be this person hiding behind the machine who will say, ‘Raise taxes now,’” Gingrich intoned, “and if you don’t raise taxes you’ll have violated the fiscal cliff.”
“Now, do any of you want to be the person who stands up and destroys America by violating the fiscal cliff? Do you want to go on one of the national networks and explain that you are so reactionary, so out of touch with life, that you don’t care that America is going to die late on Thursday?” Gingrich scoffed
He also addressed the recent focus on Grover Norquist and his no-raising taxes pledge, which some Republicans have abandoned in recent weeks, calling it a “distraction.”
“I give Obama great credit for this. I have never seen anybody better at finding trivial distractions in order to avoid responsibility,” Gingrich said.
“I’ve known Grover Norquist for a long time, and I think he’s a fine person. He holds no elected office, and in fact, he wasn’t elected president. So here you have the President of the United States who is responsible for solving our problems, who has not offered a single serious, cost cutting measure, … Instead of dealing with the fact that the president has once again failed to provide leadership, the president has now gotten us worried about whether Grover Norquist now defines the Republican Party
3:12 AM 11/29/2012 Alexis Levinson
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that House Republicans should stop negotiating with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats on the fiscal cliff, saying that by doing so, they give Obama all of the leverage in the talks.
“One of the things I would say to House Republicans is to get a grip,” Gingrich said in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif.
"They are the majority. They’re not the minority,” he said, enunciating the words as if explaining the concept to someone who did not understand it. “They don’t need to cave in to Obama; they don’t need to form a ‘Surrender Caucus.’”
“So my number one bit of advice to the congressional Republicans is simple: Back out of of all of this negotiating with Obama. The president is overwhelmingly dominant in the news media. You start setting up the definition of success finding an agreement with Obama, you just gave Obama the ability to say to you, ‘Not good enough,’” Gingrich said.
The onetime presidential hopeful ridiculed the idea of the fiscal cliff, saying it was a manufactured crisis.
“There is no fiscal cliff. It’s absolute, total, nonsense,” Gingrich said.
“It is an excuse to panic. It’s a device to get all of us running down the road so we accept whatever Obama wants because otherwise we have failed the fiscal cliff, and how can you be a patriot if you don’t do what the fiscal cliff requires, and the fiscal cliff will appear to us one afternoon, much like the land of Oz, where there will be this person hiding behind the machine who will say, ‘Raise taxes now,’” Gingrich intoned, “and if you don’t raise taxes you’ll have violated the fiscal cliff.”
“Now, do any of you want to be the person who stands up and destroys America by violating the fiscal cliff? Do you want to go on one of the national networks and explain that you are so reactionary, so out of touch with life, that you don’t care that America is going to die late on Thursday?” Gingrich scoffed
He also addressed the recent focus on Grover Norquist and his no-raising taxes pledge, which some Republicans have abandoned in recent weeks, calling it a “distraction.”
“I give Obama great credit for this. I have never seen anybody better at finding trivial distractions in order to avoid responsibility,” Gingrich said.
“I’ve known Grover Norquist for a long time, and I think he’s a fine person. He holds no elected office, and in fact, he wasn’t elected president. So here you have the President of the United States who is responsible for solving our problems, who has not offered a single serious, cost cutting measure, … Instead of dealing with the fact that the president has once again failed to provide leadership, the president has now gotten us worried about whether Grover Norquist now defines the Republican Party
Bill Clinton....Still a total Sleezeball
Inside the Beltway: Bill and the hoodie
By Jennifer Harper The Washington Times Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Two decades have passed since nightclub entertainer and blond bombshell Gennifer Flowers stepped before cameras and announced she had a 12-year affair with then-Gov. Bill Clinton, joining a roster of attractive women who reported similar dalliances, wanted and unwanted. Miss Flowers has stepped forward once again to reveal that in 2005, Mr. Clinton offered to come visit her once again.
“I picked up the telephone, and it was him. I said, ‘No, you can’t come over here. No way.’ I said ‘No, you can’t come to my house.’ He said, ‘I’ll put on a hoodie and jog up there.’ He used to do that. I said ‘No. No. And I want you to leave me alone.’ And that was the end of it,” said Miss Flowers, now 62, as she sipped wine and laughed languidly through an interview with WGNO, an ABC affiliate in New Orleans.
She also had advice for Paula Broadwell, still generating scandalous news coverage of her affair with former CIA Director David H. Petraeus.
“Call me, Paula,” Miss Flowers said, miming a phone to her ear. “I’ll give you some really good advice.”
The self-described “cougar,” author and motivational speaker, incidentally, is currently shopping around a new reality show titled “The Real Housewives of New Orleans,” in which she plays herself.
“I’m always looking for romance,” she explains
By Jennifer Harper The Washington Times Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Two decades have passed since nightclub entertainer and blond bombshell Gennifer Flowers stepped before cameras and announced she had a 12-year affair with then-Gov. Bill Clinton, joining a roster of attractive women who reported similar dalliances, wanted and unwanted. Miss Flowers has stepped forward once again to reveal that in 2005, Mr. Clinton offered to come visit her once again.
“I picked up the telephone, and it was him. I said, ‘No, you can’t come over here. No way.’ I said ‘No, you can’t come to my house.’ He said, ‘I’ll put on a hoodie and jog up there.’ He used to do that. I said ‘No. No. And I want you to leave me alone.’ And that was the end of it,” said Miss Flowers, now 62, as she sipped wine and laughed languidly through an interview with WGNO, an ABC affiliate in New Orleans.
She also had advice for Paula Broadwell, still generating scandalous news coverage of her affair with former CIA Director David H. Petraeus.
“Call me, Paula,” Miss Flowers said, miming a phone to her ear. “I’ll give you some really good advice.”
The self-described “cougar,” author and motivational speaker, incidentally, is currently shopping around a new reality show titled “The Real Housewives of New Orleans,” in which she plays herself.
“I’m always looking for romance,” she explains
Jeff Sessions is absolutely correct....This is worth reading....
Jeff Sessions is absolutely correct...these negotiations should be done in public AND it is obvious that Obama is not serious about compromising...not serious about reducing spending and frankly not serious about fixing America's fiscal problems.....the American people will pay dearly for his reelection.....Obama is the leader and ONCE AGAIN he is NOT leading....
Senator Blasts 'Secret' Fiscal Cliff Negotiations
1:08 PM, Nov 29, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
In remarks on the Senate floor today, Alabama senator Jeff Sessions blasted President Barack Obama and congressional leadership for holding "secret" fiscal cliff negotiations.
"I rise today to express my reservations about the fiscal cliff negotiations that are currently underway," said Sessions. "Over the last two years, Congress and the President have held an endless series of secret negotiations. There have been gangs of six and eight, a supercommittee of 12, talks at the Blair House and the White House. But the only thing these secret talks have produced is a government that skips from one crisis to the next. Everything has been tried but the open production of a 10-year budget plan as required by law and open discussions of the difficult choices." Sessions, the highest Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, saved most of his criticism for the president. "President Obama campaigned on a tax increase of ‘only’ $800 billion," said Sessions. "But now the White House is demanding $1.6 trillion in new taxes. Don’t the American people have a right to see these taxes and where they will fall? Shouldn’t the President of the United States, the only person who represents everybody in the country, lay out his plan, or must that remain a secret too? Will it just be revealed to us on the eve of Christmas or eve of the new calendar year? We will be asked to vote for it, to ratify it like lemmings, I suppose."
The Alabama senator insisted Obama is not serious about cutting spending--or cutting government waste.
In fact, the President is giving speeches calling for even more spending. On Tuesday, he gave a speech in which he said he wants to use the tax hikes to ‘invest in training, education, science, and research.’ Investment, of course, is just code for spending. Not once in the speech did he discuss entitlements, our $16 trillion debt, or the economic catastrophe that could occur if we don’t get off this unsustainable path.
The President will go out to the press and use all the buzz words—he says he’s for a ‘balanced plan,’ and talks about a ‘responsible path to deficit reduction.’ But where are the cuts? What is the plan? It seems to me the President’s plan is to talk in general, to meet in secret, and then, under threat of panic, to force through some deal that maintains the status quo: more taxes, more spending, more debt.
That’s why the process needs to be taken out of the shadows. With public debate, people would learn facts that are now obscured. ...
Meanwhile, as the President demands more taxes, he refuses to do anything about government waste. Lavish conferences, duplicative programs, billions in refundable tax credits being mailed every year to illegal immigrants. No one is managing this government effectively. Why should the American people send one more dime in taxes to Washington when we won’t reform and manage the money we are already getting from them?
And Sessions criticized the fiscal cliff negotiations for not including the Senate: So I am concerned about the nature of these secret talks and the fact that the Senate is really not participating. News reports say that it is only the Speaker and the President of the United States who are negotiating. Apparently the Majority Leader of the Senate is not intimately involved, the Chairman of the Budget Committee is not involved, the Chairman of the Finance Committee is not involved. These are Democratic leaders in the Senate. Certainly Republican leaders are not involved.
The Senate is a great institution, and we ought to be engaged. The engagement of the Senate would allow the American people to know what’s happening. They are entitled to that. I believe we can do better. We must do better.”
Senator Blasts 'Secret' Fiscal Cliff Negotiations
1:08 PM, Nov 29, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
In remarks on the Senate floor today, Alabama senator Jeff Sessions blasted President Barack Obama and congressional leadership for holding "secret" fiscal cliff negotiations.
"I rise today to express my reservations about the fiscal cliff negotiations that are currently underway," said Sessions. "Over the last two years, Congress and the President have held an endless series of secret negotiations. There have been gangs of six and eight, a supercommittee of 12, talks at the Blair House and the White House. But the only thing these secret talks have produced is a government that skips from one crisis to the next. Everything has been tried but the open production of a 10-year budget plan as required by law and open discussions of the difficult choices." Sessions, the highest Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, saved most of his criticism for the president. "President Obama campaigned on a tax increase of ‘only’ $800 billion," said Sessions. "But now the White House is demanding $1.6 trillion in new taxes. Don’t the American people have a right to see these taxes and where they will fall? Shouldn’t the President of the United States, the only person who represents everybody in the country, lay out his plan, or must that remain a secret too? Will it just be revealed to us on the eve of Christmas or eve of the new calendar year? We will be asked to vote for it, to ratify it like lemmings, I suppose."
The Alabama senator insisted Obama is not serious about cutting spending--or cutting government waste.
In fact, the President is giving speeches calling for even more spending. On Tuesday, he gave a speech in which he said he wants to use the tax hikes to ‘invest in training, education, science, and research.’ Investment, of course, is just code for spending. Not once in the speech did he discuss entitlements, our $16 trillion debt, or the economic catastrophe that could occur if we don’t get off this unsustainable path.
The President will go out to the press and use all the buzz words—he says he’s for a ‘balanced plan,’ and talks about a ‘responsible path to deficit reduction.’ But where are the cuts? What is the plan? It seems to me the President’s plan is to talk in general, to meet in secret, and then, under threat of panic, to force through some deal that maintains the status quo: more taxes, more spending, more debt.
That’s why the process needs to be taken out of the shadows. With public debate, people would learn facts that are now obscured. ...
Meanwhile, as the President demands more taxes, he refuses to do anything about government waste. Lavish conferences, duplicative programs, billions in refundable tax credits being mailed every year to illegal immigrants. No one is managing this government effectively. Why should the American people send one more dime in taxes to Washington when we won’t reform and manage the money we are already getting from them?
And Sessions criticized the fiscal cliff negotiations for not including the Senate: So I am concerned about the nature of these secret talks and the fact that the Senate is really not participating. News reports say that it is only the Speaker and the President of the United States who are negotiating. Apparently the Majority Leader of the Senate is not intimately involved, the Chairman of the Budget Committee is not involved, the Chairman of the Finance Committee is not involved. These are Democratic leaders in the Senate. Certainly Republican leaders are not involved.
The Senate is a great institution, and we ought to be engaged. The engagement of the Senate would allow the American people to know what’s happening. They are entitled to that. I believe we can do better. We must do better.”
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Obama - Still NO leadership...Only an incompetent campaigner....
Proof that this President has NO Leadership ability...all he is a campaigner....He needs to learn how to lead people..he also needs to learn the meaning of Compromise...I would encourage everyone to go to the White House Website and email Obama telling to get to leading the nation and stop the campaigning!!!
Republicans rip Obama for campaign-style approach to fiscal talks
Published November 27, 2012
FoxNews.com
- FILE: Friday, Nov. 16, 2012: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner outside the White House in Washington. (AP)
Frustrated Republican leaders took a swipe Tuesday at President Obama, reminding him “the election is over” as he opts for a campaign-style strategy to sell his tax-hike proposal to middle-class America and small business owners – rather than deal face-to-face with Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
The president met last week with House Speaker John Boehner at the White House and spoke with him over the weekend. But as members of Congress return this week to Washington, Obama is instead hosting a series of events aimed at selling his plan while pressuring Republicans to extend tax cuts only to families earning $250,000 or less annually, which amounts to a tax hike on high-income families.
“The target of the president’s rallies should be the congressional Democrats who want to raise tax rates on small businesses rather than cut spending,” Boehner spokesman Mike Steel said Tuesday.
The president has invited small-business owners from across the country to meet Tuesday at the White House to discuss the impact of his tax policies on small businesses.
Among the 15 invited are Nikhil Arora, co-founder of Back to the Roots, west Oakland; David Bolotsky, chief executive officer of Uncommon Goods, New York; and Mandy Cabot, co-founder of Dansko, West Grove, Pa.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signaled the president’s shift Monday when he said: “The election is over” and it’s time for the president to present a plan that “goes beyond the talking points of the campaign trail."
Steel and other Republicans argue they are fulfilling their half of the bargain in the fiscal talks by agreeing to change the tax code to generate revenue to reduce the annual trillion-dollar deficits.
However, Democrats have to keep their end by presenting a plan to cut federal spending through such entitlement programs as Medicare and Social Security, they say.
Should the sides fail to strike a deal by Jan. 1, a mix of tax increases and federal spending cuts equaling roughly $1.3 trillion over the next decade would begin to take effect next year, which some economists say could plunge the U.S. economy back into a recession.
The president, who wants to extend tax breaks only for households earning less than $250,000 annually, is also meeting Wednesday with chief executive officers and middle-class taxpayers. On Friday, he is hosting a rally in the Philadelphia area where he is scheduled to lay out his plan to keep the country from going off the so-called “fiscal cliff.”
Meanwhile, Republicans will make their own appeal to Americans.
Boehner’s office said Tuesday that House Republicans will take their own message to small businesses across the country. Members in the coming days and weeks will hold events and visit local small businesses to emphasize “the threat to jobs posed by congressional Democrats’ small business tax hike.”
Obama and his Goons just keep lying and lying to the American People.....
The White House and Carney are just saying it's OK for Obama and his band of corrupt goons to LIE to the American people over and over again...and in this case for political gain...The American People should be outraged about this
White House blasts Republican ‘obsession’ with Rice and Benghazi
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee—flanked by fellow committee …The White House sharply escalated its attacks on Tuesday on Republican opponents of making Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice the next secretary of state, describing them as in the grips of a politically fueled "obsession" with incorrect "talking points" she used regarding the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya. Press secretary Jay Carney also said the United States still does not know who carried out the assault, which claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
"There are no unanswered questions about Ambassador Rice's appearance on Sunday shows" of Sept. 16, when she linked the strike to demonstrations fueled by Muslim anger at an Internet video ridiculing Islam, Carney told reporters.
"The questions that remain to be answered—and that the president insists be answered—have to do with what happened in Benghazi, who was responsible for the deaths of four Americans, including our ambassador, and what steps we need to take to ensure that something like that doesn't happen again," Carney said at his daily briefing.
His remarks came shortly after Rice acknowledged for the first time, in a written statement issued by her office, that her public comments that day were wrong because there was no protest outside the compound in Benghazi. In appearance after appearance, Rice had said that American intelligence had pinned the blame on the assault on extremists who took advantage of a demonstration outside the facility.
"Neither I nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved," Rice said. Her comments came after she met on Capitol Hill with Republican Senators fiercely opposed to seeing her become secretary of state, perhaps the clearest sign yet that President Barack Obama wants her to succeed Hillary Clinton as America's top diplomat.
The ambassador, accompanied by Acting CIA Director Michael Morell, met with Republican Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, who have accused Rice (and the Obama administration in general) of misleading the public by tying the assault to the video. Republicans have suggested that the administration hoped to blunt the potential political impact of the attack—the first to claim the life of an American ambassador in 30 years—shortly before the election.
"Bottom line: I'm more disturbed now than I was before," Graham told reporters after the meeting. "We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get," McCain said.
"The focus on—some might say obsession on—comments made on Sunday shows seems to me and to many to be misplaced," Carney shot back. "I know that Sunday shows have vaunted status in Washington, but they have almost nothing to do—in fact zero to do—with what happened in Benghazi," he added.
And neither, to hear Carney tell it, did Rice. "
Ambassador Rice has no responsibility for collecting, analyzing and providing intelligence, nor does she have responsibility as the United States ambassador to the United Nations for diplomatic security around the globe," he said. So why, then, did the White House anoint Rice the administration point person to answer questions about a possible intelligence failure and consular security? Why not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Director of National Intelligence James Clapper? Defense Secretary Leon Panetta? National Security Adviser Tom Donilon?
"She is a principal on the president's foreign policy team," Carney said. "It was entirely appropriate for Ambassador Rice to appear on the air to take questions about the president's approach to, and policy toward, the unrest that was occurring largely as a result of the video.
"To this day it is the assessment of this administration and of our intelligence community … that they acted at least in part in response to what they saw happening in Cairo and took advantage of that situation. They saw the breach of our embassy in Cairo and decided to act in Benghazi," Carney said. (In other words, according to one well-placed source, the perpetrators of the attack may have concluded that anger at the video gave them the maximum opportunity to get sympathy or support across the Muslim world, and might even inspire copycat attacks.)
In fact, Rice's much-dissected Sept. 16 comments broadly follow those lines. Rice said in repeated television appearances that American intelligence had pinned the attack in Benghazi on extremists who took advantage of a protest related to the video. There was no protest, as the administration has acknowledged.
Obama has fiercely defended Rice, while carefully declining to say whether he has picked her. Another leading contender is the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry.
McCain and Graham have pledged to try to filibuster her confirmation, but they are well short of the 40 votes needed to do so. ..
The reason that Carney dodges these questions is because Obama probably promised Rice consideration as Secretary of State IF she was willing to do his political bidding and go out and LIE to the American Public before the election...
<iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=1&VID=23900356&freewheel=69016&sitesection=breitbart&w=640&h=480' height='480' width='640' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>
It's Obvious to ALL that Obama and his goons were lying and are STILL LYING!!! Stand up Republicans....it's time to draw a line in the sand and take on Lying Barack Obama!
<iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=1&VID=23900170&freewheel=69016&sitesection=breitbartprivate&w=640&h=480' height='480' width='640' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>
White House blasts Republican ‘obsession’ with Rice and Benghazi
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee—flanked by fellow committee …The White House sharply escalated its attacks on Tuesday on Republican opponents of making Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice the next secretary of state, describing them as in the grips of a politically fueled "obsession" with incorrect "talking points" she used regarding the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya. Press secretary Jay Carney also said the United States still does not know who carried out the assault, which claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
"There are no unanswered questions about Ambassador Rice's appearance on Sunday shows" of Sept. 16, when she linked the strike to demonstrations fueled by Muslim anger at an Internet video ridiculing Islam, Carney told reporters.
"The questions that remain to be answered—and that the president insists be answered—have to do with what happened in Benghazi, who was responsible for the deaths of four Americans, including our ambassador, and what steps we need to take to ensure that something like that doesn't happen again," Carney said at his daily briefing.
His remarks came shortly after Rice acknowledged for the first time, in a written statement issued by her office, that her public comments that day were wrong because there was no protest outside the compound in Benghazi. In appearance after appearance, Rice had said that American intelligence had pinned the blame on the assault on extremists who took advantage of a demonstration outside the facility.
"Neither I nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved," Rice said. Her comments came after she met on Capitol Hill with Republican Senators fiercely opposed to seeing her become secretary of state, perhaps the clearest sign yet that President Barack Obama wants her to succeed Hillary Clinton as America's top diplomat.
The ambassador, accompanied by Acting CIA Director Michael Morell, met with Republican Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, who have accused Rice (and the Obama administration in general) of misleading the public by tying the assault to the video. Republicans have suggested that the administration hoped to blunt the potential political impact of the attack—the first to claim the life of an American ambassador in 30 years—shortly before the election.
"Bottom line: I'm more disturbed now than I was before," Graham told reporters after the meeting. "We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get," McCain said.
"The focus on—some might say obsession on—comments made on Sunday shows seems to me and to many to be misplaced," Carney shot back. "I know that Sunday shows have vaunted status in Washington, but they have almost nothing to do—in fact zero to do—with what happened in Benghazi," he added.
And neither, to hear Carney tell it, did Rice. "
Ambassador Rice has no responsibility for collecting, analyzing and providing intelligence, nor does she have responsibility as the United States ambassador to the United Nations for diplomatic security around the globe," he said. So why, then, did the White House anoint Rice the administration point person to answer questions about a possible intelligence failure and consular security? Why not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Director of National Intelligence James Clapper? Defense Secretary Leon Panetta? National Security Adviser Tom Donilon?
"She is a principal on the president's foreign policy team," Carney said. "It was entirely appropriate for Ambassador Rice to appear on the air to take questions about the president's approach to, and policy toward, the unrest that was occurring largely as a result of the video.
"To this day it is the assessment of this administration and of our intelligence community … that they acted at least in part in response to what they saw happening in Cairo and took advantage of that situation. They saw the breach of our embassy in Cairo and decided to act in Benghazi," Carney said. (In other words, according to one well-placed source, the perpetrators of the attack may have concluded that anger at the video gave them the maximum opportunity to get sympathy or support across the Muslim world, and might even inspire copycat attacks.)
In fact, Rice's much-dissected Sept. 16 comments broadly follow those lines. Rice said in repeated television appearances that American intelligence had pinned the attack in Benghazi on extremists who took advantage of a protest related to the video. There was no protest, as the administration has acknowledged.
Obama has fiercely defended Rice, while carefully declining to say whether he has picked her. Another leading contender is the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry.
McCain and Graham have pledged to try to filibuster her confirmation, but they are well short of the 40 votes needed to do so. ..
The reason that Carney dodges these questions is because Obama probably promised Rice consideration as Secretary of State IF she was willing to do his political bidding and go out and LIE to the American Public before the election...
<iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=1&VID=23900356&freewheel=69016&sitesection=breitbart&w=640&h=480' height='480' width='640' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>
It's Obvious to ALL that Obama and his goons were lying and are STILL LYING!!! Stand up Republicans....it's time to draw a line in the sand and take on Lying Barack Obama!
<iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=1&VID=23900170&freewheel=69016&sitesection=breitbartprivate&w=640&h=480' height='480' width='640' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>
Monday, November 26, 2012
It's Obama's Move...But Don't Hold Your Breath...
Just One More dictatorship in the Muslim World...anyone that really believes that the Muslim Brotherhood and Democracy exist in the same world are just kidding themselves...it will be interesting to see what actions Obama Takes....being at very least muslim leaning if not a muslim himself he will probably take little or no action.....his lack of leadership will most likely show itself again here. Talk is cheap and unfortunately that's all Obama does is talk!
Egypt's President Moves Toward Dictatorship
Egypt remains in turmoil after its president decreed last Thursday that he was no longer subject to the laws of his country—giving himself power over the judiciary and other branches of government.
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi made his lunge for power shortly after helping to broker a fragile ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, the extremist offshoot of his own Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda includes imposing Sharia (Islamic law), curbing the rights of women and religious minorities, abandoning Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel, and advancing Islamist causes around the world.
Reuters reports that about 370 people have been injured in clashes between protesters and police since Morsi issued his decree last Thursday. The president is meeting with judges today, supposedly on an agreement to amend his decree, but protesters say they want to see it reversed completely.
Morsi has set Egypt on a troubling new foreign policy course since coming to power in June. His government has distanced itself from Washington while cozying up to China, improving relations with Iran, and violating its peace treaty with Israel.
He has escalated Egypt’s cooperation with Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood that controls Gaza and remains adamantly committed to Israel’s destruction. Morsi’s Islamist-dominated government has cracked down on Egypt’s media and has announced that Egyptian journalists will be put on trial for “insults” to the president. Morsi’s government is systematically clamping down on Egyptians’ political, social, and cultural freedoms. Yet the Obama Administration naively continues to court it as a partner.
Morsi may calculate that his help in administering Band-Aids to the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict will make the United States and others who give aid to Egypt think twice before trying to reverse his power grab.
The Obama Administration was working on an aid package to Egypt that includes forgiving approximately $1 billion of Egypt’s debt to the United States. This is in addition to about $1.5 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid.
When protesters tore down the American flag at the U.S. embassy in Cairo on September 11, Morsi’s public reaction was nonchalant. Instead of immediately denouncing the attack and taking action to upgrade security around the embassy—as Libyan and Yemeni leaders have done after similar events—Morsi waited a day before casually issuing a mild rebuke to the rioters via Facebook.
The Obama Administration should leverage U.S. aid to pressure the Egyptian leader to respect the rule of law, abide by the decisions of Egypt’s courts, and abandon his drive for absolute power. Morsi has exploited external crises in the past to advance his own ambitions. In August, he used a Sinai terrorist attack that killed Egyptian soldiers as a pretext to purge the Egyptian army of its top Mubarak-era holdovers. Now he has done the same with the judiciary.
Egypt’s judiciary also has pushed back against Morsi’s power grab. The Supreme Council of the Judiciary denounced Morsi’s unilateral assertion of power over the judiciary as “an unprecedented attack on judicial independence.” The Judges Club, an association of judges made up of many appointees by the Mubarak regime, called for a strike by courts across Egypt.
But the judges alone will not be enough to reverse Morsi’s power grab. The key vote will be wielded by the armed forces. Morsi appears confident that he can count on support from key military leaders, whom he hand-picked after purging the top ranks of Mubarak loyalists in August.
While the army’s ultimate verdict on Morsi’s power grab is not yet apparent, Egypt’s investors voted with their wallets and withdrew their money from Egypt’s stock market, which plunged almost 10 percent on Sunday.
The big losers here are the Egyptian people. Their aspirations for freedom and democracy will likely get lost in the shuffle as Egypt’s “Arab Spring” descends into an Islamist winter. But the United States and its allies—particularly Israel—will also find their national interests undermined by the anti-Western drive of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood.
Egypt's President Moves Toward Dictatorship
Egypt remains in turmoil after its president decreed last Thursday that he was no longer subject to the laws of his country—giving himself power over the judiciary and other branches of government.
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi made his lunge for power shortly after helping to broker a fragile ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, the extremist offshoot of his own Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda includes imposing Sharia (Islamic law), curbing the rights of women and religious minorities, abandoning Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel, and advancing Islamist causes around the world.
Reuters reports that about 370 people have been injured in clashes between protesters and police since Morsi issued his decree last Thursday. The president is meeting with judges today, supposedly on an agreement to amend his decree, but protesters say they want to see it reversed completely.
Morsi has set Egypt on a troubling new foreign policy course since coming to power in June. His government has distanced itself from Washington while cozying up to China, improving relations with Iran, and violating its peace treaty with Israel.
He has escalated Egypt’s cooperation with Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood that controls Gaza and remains adamantly committed to Israel’s destruction. Morsi’s Islamist-dominated government has cracked down on Egypt’s media and has announced that Egyptian journalists will be put on trial for “insults” to the president. Morsi’s government is systematically clamping down on Egyptians’ political, social, and cultural freedoms. Yet the Obama Administration naively continues to court it as a partner.
Morsi may calculate that his help in administering Band-Aids to the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict will make the United States and others who give aid to Egypt think twice before trying to reverse his power grab.
The Obama Administration was working on an aid package to Egypt that includes forgiving approximately $1 billion of Egypt’s debt to the United States. This is in addition to about $1.5 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid.
When protesters tore down the American flag at the U.S. embassy in Cairo on September 11, Morsi’s public reaction was nonchalant. Instead of immediately denouncing the attack and taking action to upgrade security around the embassy—as Libyan and Yemeni leaders have done after similar events—Morsi waited a day before casually issuing a mild rebuke to the rioters via Facebook.
The Obama Administration should leverage U.S. aid to pressure the Egyptian leader to respect the rule of law, abide by the decisions of Egypt’s courts, and abandon his drive for absolute power. Morsi has exploited external crises in the past to advance his own ambitions. In August, he used a Sinai terrorist attack that killed Egyptian soldiers as a pretext to purge the Egyptian army of its top Mubarak-era holdovers. Now he has done the same with the judiciary.
Egypt’s judiciary also has pushed back against Morsi’s power grab. The Supreme Council of the Judiciary denounced Morsi’s unilateral assertion of power over the judiciary as “an unprecedented attack on judicial independence.” The Judges Club, an association of judges made up of many appointees by the Mubarak regime, called for a strike by courts across Egypt.
But the judges alone will not be enough to reverse Morsi’s power grab. The key vote will be wielded by the armed forces. Morsi appears confident that he can count on support from key military leaders, whom he hand-picked after purging the top ranks of Mubarak loyalists in August.
While the army’s ultimate verdict on Morsi’s power grab is not yet apparent, Egypt’s investors voted with their wallets and withdrew their money from Egypt’s stock market, which plunged almost 10 percent on Sunday.
The big losers here are the Egyptian people. Their aspirations for freedom and democracy will likely get lost in the shuffle as Egypt’s “Arab Spring” descends into an Islamist winter. But the United States and its allies—particularly Israel—will also find their national interests undermined by the anti-Western drive of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
More Negative consequences of the Obama Reelection....This Nation Will Go To Hell Under His "Leadership"
Should We Pay Government Employees More?
Federal employees—who work on average a month less than private-sector workers and get paid more—are lobbying for higher pay.
Government unions know that Congress is looking for ways to nip and tuck the federal budget, and they’re counting on being left out of the deal.
“The Federal-Postal Coalition—a group representing more than two dozen federal employee unions—pleaded with Congress on Monday to spare their members in any deal related to the ‘fiscal cliff,’” Government Executive reports.
Government unions went all out to re-elect the President—the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent more than any other outside group on Obama’s campaign. While only about seven out of 100 private-sector workers are unionized, in government, that number rises to 36 out of 100.
Now they’re complaining that they don’t get paid enough.
Federal employees and Members of Congress are working under a two-year “pay freeze,” though “individual employees still remain eligible for raises if they receive promotions, step increases or performance awards,” explains Government Executive.
Of course, these are employees who are paid by the taxpayers. So their compensation deserves every measure of scrutiny. Unfortunately, faulty comparisons to the private sector have been muddying the waters—something Heritage’s Jason Richwine and the American Enterprise Institute’s Andrew G. Biggs have been working to correct.
When Richwine and Biggs wrote in The Washington Post November 18 that government unions were using bogus numbers to push for raises, a firestorm of reader comments erupted. As of this morning, there were 2,480 comments on the piece.
One of the main issues: “The Federal Salary Council, an advisory body of academics and leaders of public employee unions, suggested last month that federal workers are underpaid by an average of 35 percent relative to nonfederal employees.”
What’s behind the huge gap the council is claiming? For starters, a huge omission: benefits packages. Richwine and Biggs note:
First, the pay agent doesn’t consider fringe benefits, even though benefits for federal workers are famously generous. In addition to a 401(k)-type pension with a handsome employer match, federal workers receive a traditional defined-benefit pension—for which they contribute less than 1 percent of salary—as well as retiree health coverage. A Congressional Budget Office study published in January found that the federal retirement package was 2.7 times more generous than what is paid by large private-sector firms. Federal workers also receive more paid vacation and sick days.
According to their own reporting, government employees work fewer hours than private-sector employees. To measure this in the fairest way possible, the American Time Use Survey allows workers to record all of their time, including any hours spent working from home or outside normal business hours. Using this data, Richwine found that government employees worked about one month less per year than private-sector workers.
And not only do they work less, they get paid more.
A January 2012 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) showed that federal government employees receive substantially higher compensation than similarly skilled workers in the private sector. The report’s methodology and conclusions were broadly similar to previous studies from both The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Richwine, Biggs, and Heritage’s James Sherk concluded:
Federal compensation should be scaled back and reallocated to reward the most productive federal workers. The government should replace the seniority system with performance pay, paying higher salaries to good workers without guaranteeing raises for mediocre performers.
Government unions worked hard to re-elect President Obama, and now they’re expecting a payout at the expense of taxpayers. Any suggestion that their pay is below market levels is completely false.
Federal employees—who work on average a month less than private-sector workers and get paid more—are lobbying for higher pay.
Government unions know that Congress is looking for ways to nip and tuck the federal budget, and they’re counting on being left out of the deal.
“The Federal-Postal Coalition—a group representing more than two dozen federal employee unions—pleaded with Congress on Monday to spare their members in any deal related to the ‘fiscal cliff,’” Government Executive reports.
Government unions went all out to re-elect the President—the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent more than any other outside group on Obama’s campaign. While only about seven out of 100 private-sector workers are unionized, in government, that number rises to 36 out of 100.
Now they’re complaining that they don’t get paid enough.
Federal employees and Members of Congress are working under a two-year “pay freeze,” though “individual employees still remain eligible for raises if they receive promotions, step increases or performance awards,” explains Government Executive.
Of course, these are employees who are paid by the taxpayers. So their compensation deserves every measure of scrutiny. Unfortunately, faulty comparisons to the private sector have been muddying the waters—something Heritage’s Jason Richwine and the American Enterprise Institute’s Andrew G. Biggs have been working to correct.
When Richwine and Biggs wrote in The Washington Post November 18 that government unions were using bogus numbers to push for raises, a firestorm of reader comments erupted. As of this morning, there were 2,480 comments on the piece.
One of the main issues: “The Federal Salary Council, an advisory body of academics and leaders of public employee unions, suggested last month that federal workers are underpaid by an average of 35 percent relative to nonfederal employees.”
What’s behind the huge gap the council is claiming? For starters, a huge omission: benefits packages. Richwine and Biggs note:
First, the pay agent doesn’t consider fringe benefits, even though benefits for federal workers are famously generous. In addition to a 401(k)-type pension with a handsome employer match, federal workers receive a traditional defined-benefit pension—for which they contribute less than 1 percent of salary—as well as retiree health coverage. A Congressional Budget Office study published in January found that the federal retirement package was 2.7 times more generous than what is paid by large private-sector firms. Federal workers also receive more paid vacation and sick days.
According to their own reporting, government employees work fewer hours than private-sector employees. To measure this in the fairest way possible, the American Time Use Survey allows workers to record all of their time, including any hours spent working from home or outside normal business hours. Using this data, Richwine found that government employees worked about one month less per year than private-sector workers.
And not only do they work less, they get paid more.
A January 2012 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) showed that federal government employees receive substantially higher compensation than similarly skilled workers in the private sector. The report’s methodology and conclusions were broadly similar to previous studies from both The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Richwine, Biggs, and Heritage’s James Sherk concluded:
Federal compensation should be scaled back and reallocated to reward the most productive federal workers. The government should replace the seniority system with performance pay, paying higher salaries to good workers without guaranteeing raises for mediocre performers.
Government unions worked hard to re-elect President Obama, and now they’re expecting a payout at the expense of taxpayers. Any suggestion that their pay is below market levels is completely false.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
More Reasons why the Reelection of Obama will Disasterous for America and Especially for the Middle Class....
Can Hostess Save the Twinkies from the Union?
Taking down the Twinkie. Clogging Wal-Mart parking lots on Black Friday. Messing with a major airport on the day before Thanksgiving.
If unions are trying to be more popular with the American people, they’re doing it wrong. Americans have gone crazy over the possible loss of Twinkies, Ho Ho’s, Ding Dongs, and Hostess CupCakes after the company said it was shutting down because its bakers’ union opted to walk off the job for a strike. People are already asking exorbitant prices on eBay for boxes of the packaged treats.
Hostess and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) have agreed to enter mediation with a bankruptcy judge, who said there are “serious questions as to the logic behind the decision to strike.” More than 18,000 jobs are at stake.
A Washington Post blogger says that “The AFL-CIO plans to try to turn this into a ‘teachable moment’ and a ‘national discussion.’” Union membership has been declining in the private sector, and the groups are desperate to reverse that trend. But shutting down one of America’s beloved brands certainly isn’t going to win lots of friends.
Obviously, poor management helped get Hostess to this point, and contested payouts for managers are causing controversy. Megan McArdle explains that paying incentives to managers to stay on during a rough bankruptcy transition isn’t unusual—it’s hard to convince people to stay and steer a sinking ship. Unfortunately, sometimes that means senior leaders could try to take advantage of this situation to get more money for themselves on the way down.
But McArdle reports that the current management “opened the books to the unions, paid senior management virtually nothing, and tried to cut deals that would save the company and salvage something of the grossly underfunded multi-employer pension plans of which they were a part.” The new managers did everything unions typically ask for in such situations.
It was enough to satisfy the Teamsters, who also represent employees involved in distributing the products. They came to a deal with the company to continue work.
Yet the bakers walked out. Their union didn't file any objections to the bankruptcy plan when the judge proposed it in August. Instead, the union’s leaders called for a strike. The strike was authorized with a voice vote—a public vote in the union halls—and the union leadership refused the Teamsters' request for a secret ballot vote on returning to work.
Why would the union do this? James Sherk, Heritage’s senior policy analyst in labor economics, says:
Either the union leadership was (a) utterly incompetent, or (b) was willing to sacrifice its members' jobs at Hostess in order to send a message to other firms that it would play hardball and they should not ask for concessions. Either way, it was not looking out for its members at Hostess.
Hostess is just the latest in the upward trend of labor strikes. After falling for decades, the number of strikes in the U.S. is climbing. In 2009, there were five major work stoppages (involving 1,000 or more employees). In 2011, there were 19.
Even when workers don’t walk off the job, unions are looking to cause chaos. A union-backed group is planning to stage protests at Wal-Mart stores on Black Friday. And unionized workers with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) are planning a protest at Los Angeles International Airport tomorrow—one of the busiest travel days of the year.
The aviation company in that case says the majority of its workers voted last year to leave the union. “Our employees are now earning more per hour than under SEIU and are happy to be free of them,” said Joe Conlon, Aviation Safeguards’ regional vice president.
Many Hostess employees probably wish they had the same opportunity to vote. However, they never got that choice. Once they’re in, unions remain certified indefinitely; they do not have to stand for re-election. Instead, new workers must accept the union’s representation as a condition of employment. Just 7 percent of private-sector union members voted to belong to their union.
The only way to get rid of a union is by filing for decertification—an extremely difficult legal process. Had Hostess workers gotten to vote, they might have opted for a more reasonable representative who would actually look out for them. This is why union representation should be voluntary—or, at the very least, unions should have to regularly stand for re-election.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is moving in the opposite direction. His National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently changed the rules so that unions can cherry-pick who gets to vote in union elections. This will allow unions to disenfranchise those workers who don’t want to take the risk of strikes bankrupting their company, too.
When the President returned to Washington after the election, one of his first meetings was with union leaders. After spending heavily in the election, the unions are keen to use the political process to boost their ranks. Their membership may be dropping, but union power in Washington is growing.
Taking down the Twinkie. Clogging Wal-Mart parking lots on Black Friday. Messing with a major airport on the day before Thanksgiving.
If unions are trying to be more popular with the American people, they’re doing it wrong. Americans have gone crazy over the possible loss of Twinkies, Ho Ho’s, Ding Dongs, and Hostess CupCakes after the company said it was shutting down because its bakers’ union opted to walk off the job for a strike. People are already asking exorbitant prices on eBay for boxes of the packaged treats.
Hostess and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) have agreed to enter mediation with a bankruptcy judge, who said there are “serious questions as to the logic behind the decision to strike.” More than 18,000 jobs are at stake.
A Washington Post blogger says that “The AFL-CIO plans to try to turn this into a ‘teachable moment’ and a ‘national discussion.’” Union membership has been declining in the private sector, and the groups are desperate to reverse that trend. But shutting down one of America’s beloved brands certainly isn’t going to win lots of friends.
Obviously, poor management helped get Hostess to this point, and contested payouts for managers are causing controversy. Megan McArdle explains that paying incentives to managers to stay on during a rough bankruptcy transition isn’t unusual—it’s hard to convince people to stay and steer a sinking ship. Unfortunately, sometimes that means senior leaders could try to take advantage of this situation to get more money for themselves on the way down.
But McArdle reports that the current management “opened the books to the unions, paid senior management virtually nothing, and tried to cut deals that would save the company and salvage something of the grossly underfunded multi-employer pension plans of which they were a part.” The new managers did everything unions typically ask for in such situations.
It was enough to satisfy the Teamsters, who also represent employees involved in distributing the products. They came to a deal with the company to continue work.
Yet the bakers walked out. Their union didn't file any objections to the bankruptcy plan when the judge proposed it in August. Instead, the union’s leaders called for a strike. The strike was authorized with a voice vote—a public vote in the union halls—and the union leadership refused the Teamsters' request for a secret ballot vote on returning to work.
Why would the union do this? James Sherk, Heritage’s senior policy analyst in labor economics, says:
Either the union leadership was (a) utterly incompetent, or (b) was willing to sacrifice its members' jobs at Hostess in order to send a message to other firms that it would play hardball and they should not ask for concessions. Either way, it was not looking out for its members at Hostess.
Hostess is just the latest in the upward trend of labor strikes. After falling for decades, the number of strikes in the U.S. is climbing. In 2009, there were five major work stoppages (involving 1,000 or more employees). In 2011, there were 19.
Even when workers don’t walk off the job, unions are looking to cause chaos. A union-backed group is planning to stage protests at Wal-Mart stores on Black Friday. And unionized workers with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) are planning a protest at Los Angeles International Airport tomorrow—one of the busiest travel days of the year.
The aviation company in that case says the majority of its workers voted last year to leave the union. “Our employees are now earning more per hour than under SEIU and are happy to be free of them,” said Joe Conlon, Aviation Safeguards’ regional vice president.
Many Hostess employees probably wish they had the same opportunity to vote. However, they never got that choice. Once they’re in, unions remain certified indefinitely; they do not have to stand for re-election. Instead, new workers must accept the union’s representation as a condition of employment. Just 7 percent of private-sector union members voted to belong to their union.
The only way to get rid of a union is by filing for decertification—an extremely difficult legal process. Had Hostess workers gotten to vote, they might have opted for a more reasonable representative who would actually look out for them. This is why union representation should be voluntary—or, at the very least, unions should have to regularly stand for re-election.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is moving in the opposite direction. His National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently changed the rules so that unions can cherry-pick who gets to vote in union elections. This will allow unions to disenfranchise those workers who don’t want to take the risk of strikes bankrupting their company, too.
When the President returned to Washington after the election, one of his first meetings was with union leaders. After spending heavily in the election, the unions are keen to use the political process to boost their ranks. Their membership may be dropping, but union power in Washington is growing.
Why would Anyone Believe Anything Fed to CBS?
Why would anyone believe anything that is leaked to CBS???...they haven't even been carrying the story and would report any lie or propaganda that was given to them without even questioning....If it was real it would have been fed to Fox and vetted there before being reported on... I have NO CONFIDENCE that this is anything other than more rhetoric from the Obama gang of goons.....we already know that Clapper is an absolute IDIOT....It's time for a special prosecutor to get the bottom of this once and for all....It's NOT OK to play politics with Americans lives and national security.
Sources: DNI cut "al Qaeda" reference from Benghazi talking points, CIA, FBI signed off
(CBS News) WASHINGTON -
CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Amassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.
There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.
Republicans have accused her of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a "spontaneous" demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.
However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers. "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to. An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure".
The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He did ultimately review the points before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 15. They were compiled the day before.
Brennan says her source wouldn't confirm who in the agency suggested the final edits which were signed off on by all intelligence agencies.
Another source, a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points, tells CBS News the "controversy this word choice has caused came as a surprise."
"The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack," the official tells CBS News, adding that there were "legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly."
"Most people understand that saying 'extremists' were involved in a direct assault on the mission isn't shying away from the idea of terrorist involvement," added the official. "Because of the various elements involved in the attack, the term extremist was meant to capture the range of participants."
Several militant groups have been eyed as likely culprits, including the Islamic extremist militia Ansar al Sharia, which was based in Eastern Libya and enjoyed huge power in Benghazi before the attack. Gen. Carter Ham, chief of the U.S. Africa Command, said recently that there were "linkages" between al Qaeda and some of the people who attacked the consulate and the CIA annex about a mile away.
CBS News senior correspondent John Miller, himself a former Deputy Director of the DNI's analysis division, explained on "CBS This Morning" in the weeks after the Benghazi attack why it has been so difficult for American intelligence agents to clearly identify and label the suspects in the assault.
"We want a wiring diagram," Miller said. "We want an organized picture: 'It was al Qaeda who ordered it, it was Ansar al Sharia who carried it out, it was this group that assisted. The problem is, the lines have blurred between those groups and their members. Ansar al Sharias are popping up in places like Benghazi, but also in Yemen, also in Tunisia, in all these countries -- and they're not al Qaeda, but they are reading from the al Qaeda narrative and they are being influenced by people who are formerly influential extremists in al Qaeda."
"The actual truth is, the picture isn't that clear, but we can piece it together, and that's not satisfying to people who are used to saying, 'You can attach this attack to that group,'" said Miller.
Sources: DNI cut "al Qaeda" reference from Benghazi talking points, CIA, FBI signed off
(CBS News) WASHINGTON -
CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Amassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.
There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.
Republicans have accused her of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a "spontaneous" demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.
However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers. "The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to. An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure".
The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He did ultimately review the points before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 15. They were compiled the day before.
Brennan says her source wouldn't confirm who in the agency suggested the final edits which were signed off on by all intelligence agencies.
Another source, a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points, tells CBS News the "controversy this word choice has caused came as a surprise."
"The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack," the official tells CBS News, adding that there were "legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly."
"Most people understand that saying 'extremists' were involved in a direct assault on the mission isn't shying away from the idea of terrorist involvement," added the official. "Because of the various elements involved in the attack, the term extremist was meant to capture the range of participants."
Several militant groups have been eyed as likely culprits, including the Islamic extremist militia Ansar al Sharia, which was based in Eastern Libya and enjoyed huge power in Benghazi before the attack. Gen. Carter Ham, chief of the U.S. Africa Command, said recently that there were "linkages" between al Qaeda and some of the people who attacked the consulate and the CIA annex about a mile away.
CBS News senior correspondent John Miller, himself a former Deputy Director of the DNI's analysis division, explained on "CBS This Morning" in the weeks after the Benghazi attack why it has been so difficult for American intelligence agents to clearly identify and label the suspects in the assault.
"We want a wiring diagram," Miller said. "We want an organized picture: 'It was al Qaeda who ordered it, it was Ansar al Sharia who carried it out, it was this group that assisted. The problem is, the lines have blurred between those groups and their members. Ansar al Sharias are popping up in places like Benghazi, but also in Yemen, also in Tunisia, in all these countries -- and they're not al Qaeda, but they are reading from the al Qaeda narrative and they are being influenced by people who are formerly influential extremists in al Qaeda."
"The actual truth is, the picture isn't that clear, but we can piece it together, and that's not satisfying to people who are used to saying, 'You can attach this attack to that group,'" said Miller.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Obama Continues to be a Total Embarassment to America....
Barack Obama blunders again on the world stage
By Nile GardinerWorldLast updated: November 19th, 2012
It is only two weeks since his re-election, and his second term remains two months away, but Barack Obama is already blundering again on the world stage, with the kind of gaffes that would have been plastered on the front page of The New York Times if they had been committed by George W. Bush when he was in the White House. Obama's first term was littered with foreign policy gaffes, and there is every chance the second term will be more of the same.
On his trip to Asia this week, President Obama struggled to pronounce the name of Aung San Suu Kyi, the most prominent human rights activist in the world. As The Associated Press reports (hat tip: Drudge Report):
As Obama stood next to the world's most recognized democracy icon, he mispronounced her name repeatedly.
Ever gracious, Suu Kyi did not correct her American guest for calling her Aung YAN Suu Kyi multiple times during his statement to reporters after their meeting. Proper pronunciation for the Nobel laureate's name is Ahng Sahn Soo Chee.
Obama also “botched” his greeting of Burma’s new president, according to the AP: The meeting came after Obama met with Myanmar's reformist new President Thein Sein – a name he also botched.
As the two addressed the media, Obama called his counterpart "President Sein," an awkward, slightly affectionate reference that would make most Burmese cringe.
Note to presidential advisers: For future rounds of diplomacy, the president of Myanmar is President Thein Sein – on first and second reference.
In addition, as The Weekly Standard notes, Obama was quick to use the Burmese regime’s preferred word “Myanmar”, to describe Burma, which is not the term officially used by the US government, or by Burma’s opposition activists.
President Barack Obama called Burma 'Myanmar' after a bilateral meeting with Thein Sein, the president of that country. From the pool report:
Obama used the word "Myanmar," the preferred terminology of the former military government and currently nominally civilian government, in a spray following the bilat, rather than use "Burma," the former name of the country, and the one preferred by Aung San Suu Kyi as well as the name the U.S. uses.
"I've shared with him the fact that I recognize this is just the first steps on what will be a long journey," Obama told reporters, with Thein Sein at his side. "But we think a process of democratic and economic reform here in Myanmar that has been begun by the president is one that can lead to incredible development opportunities.
It is rather embarrassing, as well as sad, that the leader of the free world can’t even pronounce the name of the most famous human rights activist on the planet. Or that he is so quick to appease Burma’s authoritarian regime by calling it “Myanmar”. Barack Obama’s gaffes demonstrate not only a marked lack of attention to detail and a high degree of amateurishness on the part of the White House, but also a disturbing willingness to curry favour with unsavoury regimes. Hardly a good omen for Obama’s second term.
By Nile GardinerWorldLast updated: November 19th, 2012
It is only two weeks since his re-election, and his second term remains two months away, but Barack Obama is already blundering again on the world stage, with the kind of gaffes that would have been plastered on the front page of The New York Times if they had been committed by George W. Bush when he was in the White House. Obama's first term was littered with foreign policy gaffes, and there is every chance the second term will be more of the same.
On his trip to Asia this week, President Obama struggled to pronounce the name of Aung San Suu Kyi, the most prominent human rights activist in the world. As The Associated Press reports (hat tip: Drudge Report):
As Obama stood next to the world's most recognized democracy icon, he mispronounced her name repeatedly.
Ever gracious, Suu Kyi did not correct her American guest for calling her Aung YAN Suu Kyi multiple times during his statement to reporters after their meeting. Proper pronunciation for the Nobel laureate's name is Ahng Sahn Soo Chee.
Obama also “botched” his greeting of Burma’s new president, according to the AP: The meeting came after Obama met with Myanmar's reformist new President Thein Sein – a name he also botched.
As the two addressed the media, Obama called his counterpart "President Sein," an awkward, slightly affectionate reference that would make most Burmese cringe.
Note to presidential advisers: For future rounds of diplomacy, the president of Myanmar is President Thein Sein – on first and second reference.
In addition, as The Weekly Standard notes, Obama was quick to use the Burmese regime’s preferred word “Myanmar”, to describe Burma, which is not the term officially used by the US government, or by Burma’s opposition activists.
President Barack Obama called Burma 'Myanmar' after a bilateral meeting with Thein Sein, the president of that country. From the pool report:
Obama used the word "Myanmar," the preferred terminology of the former military government and currently nominally civilian government, in a spray following the bilat, rather than use "Burma," the former name of the country, and the one preferred by Aung San Suu Kyi as well as the name the U.S. uses.
"I've shared with him the fact that I recognize this is just the first steps on what will be a long journey," Obama told reporters, with Thein Sein at his side. "But we think a process of democratic and economic reform here in Myanmar that has been begun by the president is one that can lead to incredible development opportunities.
It is rather embarrassing, as well as sad, that the leader of the free world can’t even pronounce the name of the most famous human rights activist on the planet. Or that he is so quick to appease Burma’s authoritarian regime by calling it “Myanmar”. Barack Obama’s gaffes demonstrate not only a marked lack of attention to detail and a high degree of amateurishness on the part of the White House, but also a disturbing willingness to curry favour with unsavoury regimes. Hardly a good omen for Obama’s second term.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
More and More Corruption in the Obama Administration....
House GOP: Obama officials using secret emails to avoid oversight
1:58 PM 11/16/2012 Neil Munro
The House science committee is demanding the White House explain why top administration officials are using secret e-mail accounts and other techniques to conceal their taxpayer-paid activities from public oversight.
The evidence of officials’ efforts to evade transparency laws includes EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s use of the fake name “Richard Windsor”, and hidden e-mail accounts, according to a Nov. 16 letter sent by the committee to several White House officials, including Jackson. (RELATED: EPA chief’s secret ‘alias’ email revealed)
The committee’s letters justified their startling statements with evidence published in The Daily Caller. The Caller’s report was based on an investigation by Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the author of a new book “The Liberal War on on Transparency.”
“The use of these [hidden] accounts could seriously impair records collection, preservation, and access, therefore compromising transparency and oversight,” said the letter, signed by committee chairman Rep. Ralph Hall.
The letter also asked Jackson’s office to provide all records related to “‘Richard Windsor’ or other aliases used by the EPA Administrator or senior management…. [plus] records relating to the establishment or use of dual, secondary, or non-public email accounts.”
The letter was not signed by the committee’s Democratic members. Similar letters were sent to the White House counsel’s office, the EPA’s inspector general, the inspector generals at the Departments of Commerce and Energy, and to John Holdren, the controversial director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.
1:58 PM 11/16/2012 Neil Munro
The House science committee is demanding the White House explain why top administration officials are using secret e-mail accounts and other techniques to conceal their taxpayer-paid activities from public oversight.
The evidence of officials’ efforts to evade transparency laws includes EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s use of the fake name “Richard Windsor”, and hidden e-mail accounts, according to a Nov. 16 letter sent by the committee to several White House officials, including Jackson. (RELATED: EPA chief’s secret ‘alias’ email revealed)
The committee’s letters justified their startling statements with evidence published in The Daily Caller. The Caller’s report was based on an investigation by Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the author of a new book “The Liberal War on on Transparency.”
“The use of these [hidden] accounts could seriously impair records collection, preservation, and access, therefore compromising transparency and oversight,” said the letter, signed by committee chairman Rep. Ralph Hall.
The letter also asked Jackson’s office to provide all records related to “‘Richard Windsor’ or other aliases used by the EPA Administrator or senior management…. [plus] records relating to the establishment or use of dual, secondary, or non-public email accounts.”
The letter was not signed by the committee’s Democratic members. Similar letters were sent to the White House counsel’s office, the EPA’s inspector general, the inspector generals at the Departments of Commerce and Energy, and to John Holdren, the controversial director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Drip, Drip, Drip....It Just Keeps Getting Closer and Closer to Obama Antics....
Florida woman tied to Petraeus scandal visited White House
Published November 16, 2012 Associated Press
An Obama administration official says a Tampa Bay socialite whose emails triggered the eventual downfall of CIA director David Petraeus visited the White House three times this year with her sister, twice eating in the Executive Mansion mess.
The official says that Jill Kelley, who initiated an investigation that ultimately unveiled Petraeus' extramarital affair, and her sister had two "courtesy" meals at the White House mess as guests of a mid-level White House aide. Kelley and her family also received a White House tour. The visits occurred during the past three months.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because those visitor records have not yet been made public.
The official said the White House aide who hosted her met the Kelley family at MacDill Air Force Base near Tampa
Published November 16, 2012 Associated Press
An Obama administration official says a Tampa Bay socialite whose emails triggered the eventual downfall of CIA director David Petraeus visited the White House three times this year with her sister, twice eating in the Executive Mansion mess.
The official says that Jill Kelley, who initiated an investigation that ultimately unveiled Petraeus' extramarital affair, and her sister had two "courtesy" meals at the White House mess as guests of a mid-level White House aide. Kelley and her family also received a White House tour. The visits occurred during the past three months.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because those visitor records have not yet been made public.
The official said the White House aide who hosted her met the Kelley family at MacDill Air Force Base near Tampa
Pelosi Is Still Just an IDIOT!
She doesn't even know the Constitution of the United States which she has vowed to uphold.....
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Obama Corruption is More Evident By the Day....It wil Take Him Down IF It Doesn't Take Us Down First....
November 15, 2012 12:00 A.M. By Victor Davis Hanson
Oh, We Forgot to Tell You . . . Hushed-up “news” explodes with a fury
The second-term curse goes like this: A president (e.g., Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and so on) wins reelection, but then his presidency implodes over the next four years — mired in scandals or disasters such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, the Iraqi insurgency, and Hurricane Katrina.
Apparently, like tragic Greek heroes, administrations grow arrogant after their reelection wins. They believe that they are invincible and that their public approval is permanent rather than fickle.
The result is that Nemesis zeroes in on their fatal conceit and with a boom corrects their hubris. Or is the problem in some instances simply that embarrassments and scandals, hushed up in fear that they might cost an administration an election, explode with a fury in the second term?
Coincidentally, right after the election we heard that Iran had attacked a U.S. drone in international waters.
Coincidentally, we just learned that new food-stamp numbers were “delayed” and that millions more became new recipients in the months before the election.
Coincidentally, we now gather that the federal relief effort following Hurricane Sandy was not so smooth, even as New Jersey governor Chris Christie and Barack Obama high-fived it. Instead, in Katrina-like fashion, tens of thousands are still without power or shelter two weeks after the storm.
Coincidentally, we now learn that Obama’s plan of letting tax rates increase for the “fat cat” 2 percent who make over $250,000 a year would not even add enough new revenue to cover 10 percent of the annual deficit. How he would get the other 90 percent in cuts, we are never told.
Coincidentally, we now learn that the vaunted DREAM Act would at most cover only about 10 percent to 20 percent of illegal immigrants. As part of the bargain, does Obama have a post-election Un-DREAM Act to deport the other 80 percent who do not qualify since either they just recently arrived in America, are not working, are not in school or the military, are on public assistance, or have a criminal record?
Coincidentally, now that the election is over, the scandal over the killings of Americans in Libya seems warranted because of the abject failure to heed pleas for more security before the attack and assistance during it. And the scandal is about more than just the cover-up of fabricating an absurd myth of protesters mad over a two-month-old video — just happening to show up on the anniversary of 9/11 with machine guns and rockets.
The real post-election mystery is why we ever had a consulate in Benghazi in the first place, when most nations had long ago pulled their embassies out of war-torn Libya altogether.
Why, about a mile from the consulate, did we have a large CIA-staffed “annex” that seems to have been busy with all sorts of things other than providing adequate security for our nearby diplomats?
Before the election, the media were not interested in figuring out what Ambassador Christopher Stevens actually was doing in Benghazi, what so many CIA people and military contractors were up to, and what was the relationship of our large presence in Libya to Turkey, insurgents in Syria, and the scattered Qaddafi arms depots.
But the strangest “coincidentally” of all is the bizarre resignation of American hero General David Petraeus from the CIA just three days after the election — apparently due to a long-investigated extramarital affair with a sort of court biographer and her spat with a woman she perceived as a romantic rival.
If the affair was haphazardly hushed up for about a year, how exactly did Petraeus become confirmed as CIA director, a position that allows no secrets, much less an entire secret life?
How and why did the FBI investigate the Petraeus matter? To whom and when did it report its findings? And what was the administration reaction?
Coincidentally, if it is true that Petraeus can no longer testify as CIA director to the House and Senate intelligence committees about the ignored requests of CIA personnel on the ground in Benghazi for more help, can he as a private citizen testify more freely, without the burdens of CIA directorship and pre-election politics?
It has been less than two weeks since the election, and Obama seems no exception to the old rule that for administrations that manage to survive their second terms, almost none seem to enjoy them.
The sudden release of all sorts of suppressed news and “new” facts right after the election creates public cynicism.
The hushed-up, fragmentary account of the now-unfolding facts of the Libyan disaster contributes to further disbelief. The sudden implosion of Petraeus — whose seemingly unimpeachable character appears so at odds with reports of sexual indiscretion, a lack of candor, and White House backstage election intrigue — adds genuine public furor.
The resulting mix is toxic, and it may tax even the formidable Chicago-style survival skills of Obama and the fealty of the so far dutiful media.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The End of Sparta. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2012 Tribune Media Services
Oh, We Forgot to Tell You . . . Hushed-up “news” explodes with a fury
The second-term curse goes like this: A president (e.g., Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and so on) wins reelection, but then his presidency implodes over the next four years — mired in scandals or disasters such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, the Iraqi insurgency, and Hurricane Katrina.
Apparently, like tragic Greek heroes, administrations grow arrogant after their reelection wins. They believe that they are invincible and that their public approval is permanent rather than fickle.
The result is that Nemesis zeroes in on their fatal conceit and with a boom corrects their hubris. Or is the problem in some instances simply that embarrassments and scandals, hushed up in fear that they might cost an administration an election, explode with a fury in the second term?
Coincidentally, right after the election we heard that Iran had attacked a U.S. drone in international waters.
Coincidentally, we just learned that new food-stamp numbers were “delayed” and that millions more became new recipients in the months before the election.
Coincidentally, we now gather that the federal relief effort following Hurricane Sandy was not so smooth, even as New Jersey governor Chris Christie and Barack Obama high-fived it. Instead, in Katrina-like fashion, tens of thousands are still without power or shelter two weeks after the storm.
Coincidentally, we now learn that Obama’s plan of letting tax rates increase for the “fat cat” 2 percent who make over $250,000 a year would not even add enough new revenue to cover 10 percent of the annual deficit. How he would get the other 90 percent in cuts, we are never told.
Coincidentally, we now learn that the vaunted DREAM Act would at most cover only about 10 percent to 20 percent of illegal immigrants. As part of the bargain, does Obama have a post-election Un-DREAM Act to deport the other 80 percent who do not qualify since either they just recently arrived in America, are not working, are not in school or the military, are on public assistance, or have a criminal record?
Coincidentally, now that the election is over, the scandal over the killings of Americans in Libya seems warranted because of the abject failure to heed pleas for more security before the attack and assistance during it. And the scandal is about more than just the cover-up of fabricating an absurd myth of protesters mad over a two-month-old video — just happening to show up on the anniversary of 9/11 with machine guns and rockets.
The real post-election mystery is why we ever had a consulate in Benghazi in the first place, when most nations had long ago pulled their embassies out of war-torn Libya altogether.
Why, about a mile from the consulate, did we have a large CIA-staffed “annex” that seems to have been busy with all sorts of things other than providing adequate security for our nearby diplomats?
Before the election, the media were not interested in figuring out what Ambassador Christopher Stevens actually was doing in Benghazi, what so many CIA people and military contractors were up to, and what was the relationship of our large presence in Libya to Turkey, insurgents in Syria, and the scattered Qaddafi arms depots.
But the strangest “coincidentally” of all is the bizarre resignation of American hero General David Petraeus from the CIA just three days after the election — apparently due to a long-investigated extramarital affair with a sort of court biographer and her spat with a woman she perceived as a romantic rival.
If the affair was haphazardly hushed up for about a year, how exactly did Petraeus become confirmed as CIA director, a position that allows no secrets, much less an entire secret life?
How and why did the FBI investigate the Petraeus matter? To whom and when did it report its findings? And what was the administration reaction?
Coincidentally, if it is true that Petraeus can no longer testify as CIA director to the House and Senate intelligence committees about the ignored requests of CIA personnel on the ground in Benghazi for more help, can he as a private citizen testify more freely, without the burdens of CIA directorship and pre-election politics?
It has been less than two weeks since the election, and Obama seems no exception to the old rule that for administrations that manage to survive their second terms, almost none seem to enjoy them.
The sudden release of all sorts of suppressed news and “new” facts right after the election creates public cynicism.
The hushed-up, fragmentary account of the now-unfolding facts of the Libyan disaster contributes to further disbelief. The sudden implosion of Petraeus — whose seemingly unimpeachable character appears so at odds with reports of sexual indiscretion, a lack of candor, and White House backstage election intrigue — adds genuine public furor.
The resulting mix is toxic, and it may tax even the formidable Chicago-style survival skills of Obama and the fealty of the so far dutiful media.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The End of Sparta. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2012 Tribune Media Services
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
To Get to the Bottom of This Petraeus Needs to Testify....Wouldn't it be GREAT if it all leads back to the White House....
Petraeus Personally Investigated Benghazi Attack
By JONATHAN KARL Nov. 13, 2012
In late October, Petraeus traveled to Libya to conduct his own review of the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
While in Tripoli, he personally questioned the CIA station chief and other CIA personnel who were in Benghazi on Sept. 11 when the attack occurred.
The Libya stop was part of a six nation trip to the region. Petraeus intended the review as a way to prepare for his upcoming testimony before Congress on Benghazi.
"He was looking forward to testifying," a Petraeus friend told ABC News. "He wanted to be fully prepared." Petraeus' friend described his investigation as Petraeus' "personal review" of both the Sept. 11 attack and the events leading up to it.
The trip was so recent that the CIA has told the Congressional Intelligence committees that the trip report has not yet been completed.
Petraeus' personal involvement in this investigation is one reason some in Congress are likely to insist he testify on Benghazi.
But now Petraeus is telling friends he does not think he should testify.
Petraeus has offered two reasons for wanting to avoid testifying: Acting CIA Director Morell is in possession of all the information Petraeus gathered in conducting his review and he has more current information gathered since Petraeus' departure; and it would be
By JONATHAN KARL Nov. 13, 2012
In late October, Petraeus traveled to Libya to conduct his own review of the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
While in Tripoli, he personally questioned the CIA station chief and other CIA personnel who were in Benghazi on Sept. 11 when the attack occurred.
The Libya stop was part of a six nation trip to the region. Petraeus intended the review as a way to prepare for his upcoming testimony before Congress on Benghazi.
"He was looking forward to testifying," a Petraeus friend told ABC News. "He wanted to be fully prepared." Petraeus' friend described his investigation as Petraeus' "personal review" of both the Sept. 11 attack and the events leading up to it.
The trip was so recent that the CIA has told the Congressional Intelligence committees that the trip report has not yet been completed.
Petraeus' personal involvement in this investigation is one reason some in Congress are likely to insist he testify on Benghazi.
But now Petraeus is telling friends he does not think he should testify.
Petraeus has offered two reasons for wanting to avoid testifying: Acting CIA Director Morell is in possession of all the information Petraeus gathered in conducting his review and he has more current information gathered since Petraeus' departure; and it would be
Monday, November 12, 2012
The Obama/Bengazi Scandal Just Keeps Dripping....Dripping...Dripping.....This COULD Take Obama Down....
EXCLUSIVE: Petraeus mistress may have revealed classified information at Denver speech on real reason for Libya attack
By Jennifer Griffin, Adam Housley Published November 12, 2012
Biographer Paula Broadwell could be facing questions about whether she revealed classified information about the Libya attack that she was privy to due to her relationship with then-CIA director David Petraeus.
At an Oct. 26 speech at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on the same day that Fox News reported that the rescue team at the CIA annex had been denied help, Broadwell was asked about Petraeus’ handling of the Benghazi situation.
Her response was reported originally by Israel’s Arutz Sheva and Foreign Policy’s Blake Hounshell.
Broadwell quoted the Fox News report when she said: “The facts that came out today were that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements."
Broadwell went on to explain more sensitive details from the Benghazi attacks, particularly concerning what the real cause might have been.
“Now, I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that's still being vetted.”
In the original Oct. 26 Fox News report, sources at the annex said that the CIA’s Global Response Staff had handed over three Libyan militia members to the Libyan authorities who came to rescue the 30 Americans in the early hours of Sept. 12.
A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and annex that night.
According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA Annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.
The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier.
The CIA categorically denied these allegations in response to a query by reporter Eli Lake: “The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the Agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.”
Broadwell’s affair with Petraeus was likely known to Holly Petraeus, according to family friends. The FBI reportedly knew about it months beforehand and White House Counterterrorism advisor John Brennan reportedly was aware that there was a relationship as early as the summer of 2011.
Broadwell, whose affair with Petraeus reportedly ended earlier this year, continued to serve as an informal spokesman for the CIA director. She suggests in her Denver speech that Petraeus knew almost immediately that the attack was a terror attack -- possibly to free militia members.
A few days later, Petraeus testified in a closed session to Congress that the attack was due in large part to an anti-Islam video and a spontaneous uprising, according to reports from the hearing.
Congressional leaders say privately they believe they were lied to by Petraeus when he testified shortly after the attack. Some of these members already considered charging Petraeus with perjury, but said they planned to withhold judgment until he testified this week. After resigning as CIA director, the CIA said acting director Mike Morrell would testify in his place.
All of this raises the question: what was the CIA really doing in Benghazi in addition to searching for Qaddafi’s stash of more than 22,000 shoulder held missiles that could bring down commercial airplanes, and who in the White House knew exactly what the CIA was up to?
By Jennifer Griffin, Adam Housley Published November 12, 2012
Biographer Paula Broadwell could be facing questions about whether she revealed classified information about the Libya attack that she was privy to due to her relationship with then-CIA director David Petraeus.
At an Oct. 26 speech at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on the same day that Fox News reported that the rescue team at the CIA annex had been denied help, Broadwell was asked about Petraeus’ handling of the Benghazi situation.
Her response was reported originally by Israel’s Arutz Sheva and Foreign Policy’s Blake Hounshell.
Broadwell quoted the Fox News report when she said: “The facts that came out today were that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements."
Broadwell went on to explain more sensitive details from the Benghazi attacks, particularly concerning what the real cause might have been.
“Now, I don't know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that's still being vetted.”
In the original Oct. 26 Fox News report, sources at the annex said that the CIA’s Global Response Staff had handed over three Libyan militia members to the Libyan authorities who came to rescue the 30 Americans in the early hours of Sept. 12.
A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and annex that night.
According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA Annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.
The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier.
The CIA categorically denied these allegations in response to a query by reporter Eli Lake: “The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the Agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.”
Broadwell’s affair with Petraeus was likely known to Holly Petraeus, according to family friends. The FBI reportedly knew about it months beforehand and White House Counterterrorism advisor John Brennan reportedly was aware that there was a relationship as early as the summer of 2011.
Broadwell, whose affair with Petraeus reportedly ended earlier this year, continued to serve as an informal spokesman for the CIA director. She suggests in her Denver speech that Petraeus knew almost immediately that the attack was a terror attack -- possibly to free militia members.
A few days later, Petraeus testified in a closed session to Congress that the attack was due in large part to an anti-Islam video and a spontaneous uprising, according to reports from the hearing.
Congressional leaders say privately they believe they were lied to by Petraeus when he testified shortly after the attack. Some of these members already considered charging Petraeus with perjury, but said they planned to withhold judgment until he testified this week. After resigning as CIA director, the CIA said acting director Mike Morrell would testify in his place.
All of this raises the question: what was the CIA really doing in Benghazi in addition to searching for Qaddafi’s stash of more than 22,000 shoulder held missiles that could bring down commercial airplanes, and who in the White House knew exactly what the CIA was up to?
Sunday, November 11, 2012
More Questions.....Drip...Drip....Drip...Drip....
Military timeline from night of Benghazi attack begs more questions
By Jennifer Griffin, Adam Housley Published November 11, 2012
FoxNews.com After more than nine weeks of trying to reconcile their story line with that of the State Department and the CIA, the Pentagon finally released its timeline of the Libya terror attack during a Friday afternoon, off-camera briefing with an official who could only be quoted anonymously
The news was overtaken almost immediately by the announcement that Gen. David Petraeus had resigned, due to an extramarital affair. He was slated to testify in closed-door hearings on Capitol Hill this coming week before the Senate and House intelligence committees. Petraeus no longer plans to testify.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told "Fox News Sunday" that she "absolutely" thinks Patraeus' resignation has no connection to the Libya matter but he could be called to testify before Congress at a later date.
"We may well ask," the California senator told Fox.
However, while the Petraeus resignation has since dominated attention in Washington, an examination of the military’s version of events reveals a number of discrepancies and gaps worth closer scrutiny.
THE FIRST DISCREPANCY
The Defense Department timeline on the night of Sept. 11 begins at 9:42 p.m. local time and states, “The incident starts at the facility in Benghazi.”
Right from the start, the Pentagon and the CIA timelines do not match. (The CIA timeline, which was released on Nov. 1, states that at 9:40 p.m., “A senior State Department security officer at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi called the CIA annex and requested assistance.”)
A source at the CIA annex that night told Fox News that when they first asked to go and help, they were told to wait.
Within 17 minutes of the start of the attack, AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham, who happens to be visiting Washington and was in the Pentagon that day, redirects an unarmed, unmanned drone to Benghazi.
PANETTA AND DEMPSEY ARE ALERTED 50 MINUTES AFTER ATTACK
At 10:32 p.m. (4:32 p.m. in Washington), 50 minutes after the incident began, the National Military Command Center, which is the operations center at the Pentagon where Ham is overseeing the operation, notifies Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.
That means for nearly an hour, no one told the defense secretary and Joint Chiefs chairman that a U.S. ambassador is in peril and his personal security officer has pressed his “personal distress button” which sends an SMS signal back to the command authority in the U.S. and a U.S. embassy has been overrun by attackers.
A CIA team left for the consulate at 10:04 p.m. -- 28 minutes before the Pentagon says Panetta and Dempsey were told the attack had occurred. Sources at the CIA annex in Benghazi told Fox News in an interview on Oct. 25 that they asked permission to leave for the consulate immediately and twice were told to wait. The CIA says the base chief was trying to arrange Libyan help.
PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MEETING WITH PRESIDENT: 78 MINUTES AFTER ATTACK
At 5 p.m. in Washington, D.C. (11 p.m. in Libya), nearly an hour and a half after the attack began, according to the Pentagon’s timeline, “Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey attend a previously scheduled meeting with the President at the White House.”
The attack has already been under way for 78 minutes, but no rescue forces from outside Libya have yet been mobilized.
By 5:30 p.m. (11:30 p.m. in Libya), all surviving American personnel are rescued by the CIA annex team and leave the consulate for the CIA annex. From 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Pentagon, Panetta, Dempsey and Ham meet to discuss additional response options.
MORE CALLS FOR HELP
Upon returning to the annex, the CIA team and those that were rescued immediately begin taking fire and at midnight, according to sources on the ground that night, begin making radio calls for help and air support. Almost immediately, they begin taking fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.
According to a senior U.S. defense official, “This was not one long continuous fight, but two separate incidents at two separate facilities with some separation of time.”
However, British sources who were near the consulate and annex that night tell a different story, saying there was almost continuous fire on the annex after the team fled from the consulate. Sometime over the next two hours, according to the official Pentagon timeline, Panetta gives the “go code” for two Marine FAST (Fleet Anti-terrorism Security) teams to prepare to leave Rota, Spain. A Special Operations force which is training in Central Europe is told to “prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in southern Europe (Sigonella, Sicily), and a Special Operations team in the U.S. is told to prepare to deploy to Sigonella as well.
It isn’t until 2:53 a.m. (about five hours after the incident began) that those orders are formalized by Panetta and the teams are told they can leave.
TEAM LANDS AT SIGONELLA 20 HOURS LATER
The Pentagon says that the European-based team of rescuers landed at Sigonella air base at 7:57 p.m. on Sept. 12, more than 20 hours after the attack began and 40 minutes after the last survivor was flown out of Tripoli on a U.S. C-17 transport plane.
Fox News has learned more details about the European rescue team. More than 30 Special Operations Forces, part of a Commander’s In Extremis Force, or CIF, which is normally on a short tether, are deployed in the event of a terror attack. They are a counterterror SWAT team.
The group ordered toward Libya was from the Charlie 110 Company, based in Stuttgart, Germany, but had been training in Croatia on an exercise known as “Jackal Stone.” The training involved counterterrorism exercises.
NO PERMISSION TO LAND
Military sources familiar with the orders given to the CIF team tell Fox News the CIF plane headed to Libya -- not to first stage at Sigonella as the Pentagon timeline suggests. The Pentagon denies this, saying simply that they were ordered to an intermediate staging base.
What cannot be confirmed is what time that team could have been outside Libyan air space. The Pentagon won’t say when they took off from Croatia.
Multiple defense sources say that the plane did not have permission to enter Libya. That permission would have to be secured from the Libyans by the State Department.
“FEET DRY OVER LIBYA”
Survivors of the attack at the annex say that they heard over the radio net that night that U.S. military assets were, “feet dry over Libya," which would refer to assets crossing from sea to land and hovering. The Pentagon denies this.
The original story board that shows the CIF movement that night is difficult to find, according to those who saw the original timeline. The official brief, according to those familiar with it, simply says that the plane landed at Sigonella at 7:57 p.m. on Sept. 12 -- 20 hours after the start of the attack, even though they were just a few hours away in Croatia.
This raises the question: what time did they get their orders and how long did it take the CIF to scramble?
The team was most likely flying on a modified MC-130 P Talon 2. A modified C-130 flying from Croatia about 900 miles from the Libyan coast could have been there under three hours from take-off. Croatia to Libya is the same distance approximately as Washington, D.C., to Miami.
Furthermore, the modified C-130 plane used by Special Operations teams can be refueled in flight, allowing them to extend their range and hover time, if an air refueling plane is available. It can fly for nine hours without being refueled.
“It’s not like you dial up the U.S. military and service members go down a fire pole, hop on a fire engine and go. That’s not how our forces work, especially from a cold start,” according to the senior U.S. defense official who briefed the Pentagon timeline. “We are an excellent military, finest in the world, always prepared, but we are neither omniscient nor omnipresent.”
The CIF, which included dozens of Special Operators, was never utilized to help rescue 30 Americans who had fought off attackers on the ground in Benghazi until 5:26 a.m. on Sept. 12. Pentagon officials say it did not arrive in time to help.
In the days following the attack in Benghazi, the CIF team was sent by Ham to Tunisia to remain on standby in case they were needed for other contingencies, such as a retaliatory strike, according to senior U.S. military commanders with knowledge of the operation.
“We were posturing forces to be ready for possible responses,” according to a senior U.S. defense official. “We were looking at the possibility of a potential hostage rescue.”
To date no retaliatory strikes have taken place, and questions remain about what could have been done to help those who were in peril on the ground.
According to the Pentagon timeline, the first conference call to AFRICOM, EUCOM, CENTCOM, TRANSCOM, SOCOM and the four military branches occurred nearly five hours after the attack began.
THE CIA RESCUE TEAM FROM TRIPOLI
Meanwhile in Libya, two hours and 48 minutes after the attack on the consulate began, a six-man rescue team organized by the CIA in Tripoli that included two Tier One Army Special Operators already in Tripoli on another assignment leave the capital to help.
However, they do not have a plane and end up chartering one too small to rescue the entire group in Benghazi and are required to make a round trip. They do not depart Benghazi with the last survivors and Ambassador Chris Stevens’ body until 10 a.m. the next day.
The CIA says that the Tripoli rescue team landed in Benghazi at 1:15 a.m. on Sept 12. The Pentagon says it landed at 1:30 a.m. Another official discrepancy.
More than four hours later, just before 5:26 a.m., former SEAL Glen Doherty, who arrived from Tripoli with the rescue team, and former SEAL Tyrone Woods are killed on the CIA annex roof by a mortar.
THE AMBASSADOR IS STILL MISSING
Security personnel at Blue Mountain Group receive a photograph of the ambassador’s body in a morgue at 7:15 a.m. At that point, Stevens’ body had still not been recovered from the hospital where Ansar Al Sharia, the presumed attackers, had surrounded it.
By 8:30 a.m., all KIA are accounted for, including the ambassador. The Pentagon’s critics say the president and defense secretary could have ordered more assets into Libya to help sooner.
Even by Wednesday morning, several challenges remained. Thirty Americans did not have a plane big enough to get them out of Benghazi; the U.S. consulate and CIA annex needed to be secured because sensitive documents remained at the consulate and annex; and an FBI team would eventually be held up in Tripoli and not be given access to the Benghazi sites for 24 days.
The two Marine FAST teams were not ordered to Libya until five hours after the attack was underway. The first FAST team didn’t arrive in Tripoli to secure the embassy until 8:56 p.m. on Sept. 12, nearly two hours after the rescued Americans had left Libya on a C-17 sent from Ramstein Air Base in Germany. The second FAST team of Marines slated to go to Benghazi was never sent to Libya. Libyan looters and journalists spent the next 24 days rifling through papers and potential evidence at the compounds.
According to the senior U.S. defense official who briefed reporters on the timeline, “There has been a great deal of speculation about the use of or desirability of military responses. Some have indicated manned and unmanned aircraft options would have changed the course of events. Unfortunately, no aircraft options were available to be used or effective.”
According to a source who debriefed those who were at the CIA annex that night, “When they asked for air support, they were told they could have an unarmed drone.”
By Jennifer Griffin, Adam Housley Published November 11, 2012
FoxNews.com After more than nine weeks of trying to reconcile their story line with that of the State Department and the CIA, the Pentagon finally released its timeline of the Libya terror attack during a Friday afternoon, off-camera briefing with an official who could only be quoted anonymously
The news was overtaken almost immediately by the announcement that Gen. David Petraeus had resigned, due to an extramarital affair. He was slated to testify in closed-door hearings on Capitol Hill this coming week before the Senate and House intelligence committees. Petraeus no longer plans to testify.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told "Fox News Sunday" that she "absolutely" thinks Patraeus' resignation has no connection to the Libya matter but he could be called to testify before Congress at a later date.
"We may well ask," the California senator told Fox.
However, while the Petraeus resignation has since dominated attention in Washington, an examination of the military’s version of events reveals a number of discrepancies and gaps worth closer scrutiny.
THE FIRST DISCREPANCY
The Defense Department timeline on the night of Sept. 11 begins at 9:42 p.m. local time and states, “The incident starts at the facility in Benghazi.”
Right from the start, the Pentagon and the CIA timelines do not match. (The CIA timeline, which was released on Nov. 1, states that at 9:40 p.m., “A senior State Department security officer at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi called the CIA annex and requested assistance.”)
A source at the CIA annex that night told Fox News that when they first asked to go and help, they were told to wait.
Within 17 minutes of the start of the attack, AFRICOM commander Gen. Carter Ham, who happens to be visiting Washington and was in the Pentagon that day, redirects an unarmed, unmanned drone to Benghazi.
PANETTA AND DEMPSEY ARE ALERTED 50 MINUTES AFTER ATTACK
At 10:32 p.m. (4:32 p.m. in Washington), 50 minutes after the incident began, the National Military Command Center, which is the operations center at the Pentagon where Ham is overseeing the operation, notifies Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.
That means for nearly an hour, no one told the defense secretary and Joint Chiefs chairman that a U.S. ambassador is in peril and his personal security officer has pressed his “personal distress button” which sends an SMS signal back to the command authority in the U.S. and a U.S. embassy has been overrun by attackers.
A CIA team left for the consulate at 10:04 p.m. -- 28 minutes before the Pentagon says Panetta and Dempsey were told the attack had occurred. Sources at the CIA annex in Benghazi told Fox News in an interview on Oct. 25 that they asked permission to leave for the consulate immediately and twice were told to wait. The CIA says the base chief was trying to arrange Libyan help.
PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MEETING WITH PRESIDENT: 78 MINUTES AFTER ATTACK
At 5 p.m. in Washington, D.C. (11 p.m. in Libya), nearly an hour and a half after the attack began, according to the Pentagon’s timeline, “Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey attend a previously scheduled meeting with the President at the White House.”
The attack has already been under way for 78 minutes, but no rescue forces from outside Libya have yet been mobilized.
By 5:30 p.m. (11:30 p.m. in Libya), all surviving American personnel are rescued by the CIA annex team and leave the consulate for the CIA annex. From 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Pentagon, Panetta, Dempsey and Ham meet to discuss additional response options.
MORE CALLS FOR HELP
Upon returning to the annex, the CIA team and those that were rescued immediately begin taking fire and at midnight, according to sources on the ground that night, begin making radio calls for help and air support. Almost immediately, they begin taking fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.
According to a senior U.S. defense official, “This was not one long continuous fight, but two separate incidents at two separate facilities with some separation of time.”
However, British sources who were near the consulate and annex that night tell a different story, saying there was almost continuous fire on the annex after the team fled from the consulate. Sometime over the next two hours, according to the official Pentagon timeline, Panetta gives the “go code” for two Marine FAST (Fleet Anti-terrorism Security) teams to prepare to leave Rota, Spain. A Special Operations force which is training in Central Europe is told to “prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in southern Europe (Sigonella, Sicily), and a Special Operations team in the U.S. is told to prepare to deploy to Sigonella as well.
It isn’t until 2:53 a.m. (about five hours after the incident began) that those orders are formalized by Panetta and the teams are told they can leave.
TEAM LANDS AT SIGONELLA 20 HOURS LATER
The Pentagon says that the European-based team of rescuers landed at Sigonella air base at 7:57 p.m. on Sept. 12, more than 20 hours after the attack began and 40 minutes after the last survivor was flown out of Tripoli on a U.S. C-17 transport plane.
Fox News has learned more details about the European rescue team. More than 30 Special Operations Forces, part of a Commander’s In Extremis Force, or CIF, which is normally on a short tether, are deployed in the event of a terror attack. They are a counterterror SWAT team.
The group ordered toward Libya was from the Charlie 110 Company, based in Stuttgart, Germany, but had been training in Croatia on an exercise known as “Jackal Stone.” The training involved counterterrorism exercises.
NO PERMISSION TO LAND
Military sources familiar with the orders given to the CIF team tell Fox News the CIF plane headed to Libya -- not to first stage at Sigonella as the Pentagon timeline suggests. The Pentagon denies this, saying simply that they were ordered to an intermediate staging base.
What cannot be confirmed is what time that team could have been outside Libyan air space. The Pentagon won’t say when they took off from Croatia.
Multiple defense sources say that the plane did not have permission to enter Libya. That permission would have to be secured from the Libyans by the State Department.
“FEET DRY OVER LIBYA”
Survivors of the attack at the annex say that they heard over the radio net that night that U.S. military assets were, “feet dry over Libya," which would refer to assets crossing from sea to land and hovering. The Pentagon denies this.
The original story board that shows the CIF movement that night is difficult to find, according to those who saw the original timeline. The official brief, according to those familiar with it, simply says that the plane landed at Sigonella at 7:57 p.m. on Sept. 12 -- 20 hours after the start of the attack, even though they were just a few hours away in Croatia.
This raises the question: what time did they get their orders and how long did it take the CIF to scramble?
The team was most likely flying on a modified MC-130 P Talon 2. A modified C-130 flying from Croatia about 900 miles from the Libyan coast could have been there under three hours from take-off. Croatia to Libya is the same distance approximately as Washington, D.C., to Miami.
Furthermore, the modified C-130 plane used by Special Operations teams can be refueled in flight, allowing them to extend their range and hover time, if an air refueling plane is available. It can fly for nine hours without being refueled.
“It’s not like you dial up the U.S. military and service members go down a fire pole, hop on a fire engine and go. That’s not how our forces work, especially from a cold start,” according to the senior U.S. defense official who briefed the Pentagon timeline. “We are an excellent military, finest in the world, always prepared, but we are neither omniscient nor omnipresent.”
The CIF, which included dozens of Special Operators, was never utilized to help rescue 30 Americans who had fought off attackers on the ground in Benghazi until 5:26 a.m. on Sept. 12. Pentagon officials say it did not arrive in time to help.
In the days following the attack in Benghazi, the CIF team was sent by Ham to Tunisia to remain on standby in case they were needed for other contingencies, such as a retaliatory strike, according to senior U.S. military commanders with knowledge of the operation.
“We were posturing forces to be ready for possible responses,” according to a senior U.S. defense official. “We were looking at the possibility of a potential hostage rescue.”
To date no retaliatory strikes have taken place, and questions remain about what could have been done to help those who were in peril on the ground.
According to the Pentagon timeline, the first conference call to AFRICOM, EUCOM, CENTCOM, TRANSCOM, SOCOM and the four military branches occurred nearly five hours after the attack began.
THE CIA RESCUE TEAM FROM TRIPOLI
Meanwhile in Libya, two hours and 48 minutes after the attack on the consulate began, a six-man rescue team organized by the CIA in Tripoli that included two Tier One Army Special Operators already in Tripoli on another assignment leave the capital to help.
However, they do not have a plane and end up chartering one too small to rescue the entire group in Benghazi and are required to make a round trip. They do not depart Benghazi with the last survivors and Ambassador Chris Stevens’ body until 10 a.m. the next day.
The CIA says that the Tripoli rescue team landed in Benghazi at 1:15 a.m. on Sept 12. The Pentagon says it landed at 1:30 a.m. Another official discrepancy.
More than four hours later, just before 5:26 a.m., former SEAL Glen Doherty, who arrived from Tripoli with the rescue team, and former SEAL Tyrone Woods are killed on the CIA annex roof by a mortar.
THE AMBASSADOR IS STILL MISSING
Security personnel at Blue Mountain Group receive a photograph of the ambassador’s body in a morgue at 7:15 a.m. At that point, Stevens’ body had still not been recovered from the hospital where Ansar Al Sharia, the presumed attackers, had surrounded it.
By 8:30 a.m., all KIA are accounted for, including the ambassador. The Pentagon’s critics say the president and defense secretary could have ordered more assets into Libya to help sooner.
Even by Wednesday morning, several challenges remained. Thirty Americans did not have a plane big enough to get them out of Benghazi; the U.S. consulate and CIA annex needed to be secured because sensitive documents remained at the consulate and annex; and an FBI team would eventually be held up in Tripoli and not be given access to the Benghazi sites for 24 days.
The two Marine FAST teams were not ordered to Libya until five hours after the attack was underway. The first FAST team didn’t arrive in Tripoli to secure the embassy until 8:56 p.m. on Sept. 12, nearly two hours after the rescued Americans had left Libya on a C-17 sent from Ramstein Air Base in Germany. The second FAST team of Marines slated to go to Benghazi was never sent to Libya. Libyan looters and journalists spent the next 24 days rifling through papers and potential evidence at the compounds.
According to the senior U.S. defense official who briefed reporters on the timeline, “There has been a great deal of speculation about the use of or desirability of military responses. Some have indicated manned and unmanned aircraft options would have changed the course of events. Unfortunately, no aircraft options were available to be used or effective.”
According to a source who debriefed those who were at the CIA annex that night, “When they asked for air support, they were told they could have an unarmed drone.”
The Libya Affair keeps going Drip, Drip, Drip....
The Libya Affair just keeps dripping along....making more of a national splash day by day...I'm not sure that Petraeus' affair had no connection with unanswered questions...IF Obama pushed for the resignation because he knew about how Petraeus would testify and didn't want the truth out then there is certainly a big connection....but Feinstein is a Democrat so you would expect her to protect Obama....
Feinstein: Hill inquiry into Libya attack will include questions on Petraeus, FBI
Published November 11, 2012 FoxNews.com
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said Sunday the Capitol Hill investigations into the Libya terrorist attack also will address the scandal surrounding CIA Director David Petraeus, including why the FBI failed to notify the committee about the extramarital affair that led to the director’s resignation.
The California Democrat told “Fox News Sunday” she found out about Petraeus’ resignation Friday as the rest of world learned the news and described being shocked and “heartbroken.”
“We will investigate why the committee didn’t know,” Feinstein said. “We should have been told.”
She also said the first committee meeting, scheduled for Thursday, is the start of an inquiry, not a hearing. Feinstein said Petraeus is no longer scheduled to testify but could be summonsed to Capitol Hill for future meetings. A similar, closed-door House intelligence committee hearing also is scheduled for Thursday.
Feinstein said she sees “absolutely” no connection between the director’s resignations and the unanswered questions about the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.
She said other major questions the committee will investigate include whether the United States adequately processed previous threats and attacks to increase security around the U.S. Consulate and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi.
“Changes were made, but the changes were not adequate,” Feinstein told Fox.
Feinstein: Hill inquiry into Libya attack will include questions on Petraeus, FBI
Published November 11, 2012 FoxNews.com
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said Sunday the Capitol Hill investigations into the Libya terrorist attack also will address the scandal surrounding CIA Director David Petraeus, including why the FBI failed to notify the committee about the extramarital affair that led to the director’s resignation.
The California Democrat told “Fox News Sunday” she found out about Petraeus’ resignation Friday as the rest of world learned the news and described being shocked and “heartbroken.”
“We will investigate why the committee didn’t know,” Feinstein said. “We should have been told.”
She also said the first committee meeting, scheduled for Thursday, is the start of an inquiry, not a hearing. Feinstein said Petraeus is no longer scheduled to testify but could be summonsed to Capitol Hill for future meetings. A similar, closed-door House intelligence committee hearing also is scheduled for Thursday.
Feinstein said she sees “absolutely” no connection between the director’s resignations and the unanswered questions about the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.
She said other major questions the committee will investigate include whether the United States adequately processed previous threats and attacks to increase security around the U.S. Consulate and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi.
“Changes were made, but the changes were not adequate,” Feinstein told Fox.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Christie's Career As A Republican is DONE!
Gov. Christie Lashes Out At Media
November 9, 2012 5:16 PM SEASIDE HEIGHTS, N.J.
(CBS) – New Jersey governor Chris Christie lashed out at the media during a news conference Friday afternoon over “careless reporting” in the aftermath of Sandy. After being asked a question about a price gouging lawsuit concerning Bergen County, the governor began his answer by saying, “I want to be clear on this because you guys are starting to really misreport things. We were not part of the lawsuit.”
Christie then referenced an article that was posted by a business news institution earlier in the week claiming the governor called the President to congratulate him and only emailed Romney. “Bloomberg had some incredibly careless reporting yesterday, saying that I called the president yesterday to congratulate him on his victory — absolutely careless, awful reporting,” said Christie.
“Listen guys, people take the stuff you write seriously and I try to speak with real precision behind this microphone. So don’t report that I called the president when I didn’t; the president called me.” Christie set the record straight saying President Obama calls him every day and at the start of the call in question he did congratulated him and moved on to discuss the situation at hand.
November 9, 2012 5:16 PM SEASIDE HEIGHTS, N.J.
(CBS) – New Jersey governor Chris Christie lashed out at the media during a news conference Friday afternoon over “careless reporting” in the aftermath of Sandy. After being asked a question about a price gouging lawsuit concerning Bergen County, the governor began his answer by saying, “I want to be clear on this because you guys are starting to really misreport things. We were not part of the lawsuit.”
Christie then referenced an article that was posted by a business news institution earlier in the week claiming the governor called the President to congratulate him and only emailed Romney. “Bloomberg had some incredibly careless reporting yesterday, saying that I called the president yesterday to congratulate him on his victory — absolutely careless, awful reporting,” said Christie.
“Listen guys, people take the stuff you write seriously and I try to speak with real precision behind this microphone. So don’t report that I called the president when I didn’t; the president called me.” Christie set the record straight saying President Obama calls him every day and at the start of the call in question he did congratulated him and moved on to discuss the situation at hand.
Let's Hope Charles is Correct....
Krauthammer: Petraeus sex scandal will drive media interest in Benghazi
8:28 PM 11/09/2012 Jeff Poor
On Friday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said the resignation of CIA director David Petraeus was a regrettable situation that might ultimately help shed light on the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya
. “We will unravel all the threads of this in time,” Krauthammer said. “We’re just in the first few hours, but I think it’s worth noting what we do know. This is the end of a career of a truly great American. He did something that hadn’t been done by a general since the Inchon landing in the Korean War, when MacArthur by a maneuver managed to save a war that was being lost and save South Korea.” “No one had done anything like that until David Petraeus did that in 2007 and 2008 in Iraq,” Krauthammer continued. “That was a lost war. It was headed for chaos, civil war, bloodshed and unending trouble for us. And he pulled off a surge that rescued the war. What happened after in Iraq and what happened after in Korea are other stories, but that is undeniable. It is one of the great achievements, and he pulled it off. He distinguished himself in Afghanistan. And whatever happens and whatever we learn, this is a real tragedy.”
Krauthammer added that Petraeus’ affair, which may have compromised national security, might actually have a silver lining.
“The other thing I would add is what John Bolton said, and I think he’s absolutely right. There is no way that this is going to get in way of the Benghazi story coming out. In an odd way and sort of [a] discouraging way, now that the story is attached to a sex scandal, it will become a story that will be pursued by the media. … They were holding off to protect Obama before, and also perhaps out of lack of interest. But just given the nature of our journalism, it will now become the hottest story around. And you can be sure that even the mainstream papers, which did not show any interest whatsoever in this story up until the election, are going to get on it and now it will become — it will unravel.”
8:28 PM 11/09/2012 Jeff Poor
On Friday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said the resignation of CIA director David Petraeus was a regrettable situation that might ultimately help shed light on the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya
. “We will unravel all the threads of this in time,” Krauthammer said. “We’re just in the first few hours, but I think it’s worth noting what we do know. This is the end of a career of a truly great American. He did something that hadn’t been done by a general since the Inchon landing in the Korean War, when MacArthur by a maneuver managed to save a war that was being lost and save South Korea.” “No one had done anything like that until David Petraeus did that in 2007 and 2008 in Iraq,” Krauthammer continued. “That was a lost war. It was headed for chaos, civil war, bloodshed and unending trouble for us. And he pulled off a surge that rescued the war. What happened after in Iraq and what happened after in Korea are other stories, but that is undeniable. It is one of the great achievements, and he pulled it off. He distinguished himself in Afghanistan. And whatever happens and whatever we learn, this is a real tragedy.”
Krauthammer added that Petraeus’ affair, which may have compromised national security, might actually have a silver lining.
“The other thing I would add is what John Bolton said, and I think he’s absolutely right. There is no way that this is going to get in way of the Benghazi story coming out. In an odd way and sort of [a] discouraging way, now that the story is attached to a sex scandal, it will become a story that will be pursued by the media. … They were holding off to protect Obama before, and also perhaps out of lack of interest. But just given the nature of our journalism, it will now become the hottest story around. And you can be sure that even the mainstream papers, which did not show any interest whatsoever in this story up until the election, are going to get on it and now it will become — it will unravel.”
As The Facts Come Out It Will Be Clear That Obama is a Major Problem......
Just one more example of Obama doing the wrong thing and playing politics to guarantee his reelection despite the fact that he again compromised the security of the United States....Obama is BAD!.....
Kessler: FBI Investigation Led to Petraeus Resignation
Friday, 09 Nov 2012 04:43 PM By Ronald Kessler
The resignation of David H. Petraeus as CIA director followed an FBI investigation of many months, raising the question of why he was not forced out until after the election.
In his letter of resignation, Petraeus cited an extra-marital affair he had been having. “After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,”
Petraeus said in his letter to President Obama. “Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.” Petraeus, who had a distinguished military career, revealed no additional details.
However, an FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption. Petraeus was commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011. The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan. The woman who was having an affair with Petraeus is a journalist who had been writing about him.
Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus’ email exchanges with the woman. The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk. Such a relationship is a breach of top secret security requirements and could have compromised Petraeus.
At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.
Neither Petraeus nor the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs had any immediate comment. FBI agents on the case expected that Petraeus would be asked to resign immediately rather than risk the possibility that he could be blackmailed to give intelligence secrets to foreign intelligence agencies or criminals. In addition, his pursuit of the woman could have distracted him as the CIA was giving Congress reports on the attack on the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11. The CIA ‘s reporting to Congress included a claim that protests over a YouTube video played a role in the attacks, thus allowing Obama to initially discount the possibility that the U.S. had suffered another terrorist attack just before the election. In contrast, based on real time video and reports, the State Department was reporting that the attack that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, was terrorist-related.
The State Department reported that there were no protests at the consulate. Still, the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.
FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged. “The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”
Michael Kortan, the FBI’s assistant director for public affairs, said he had no comment.
Kessler: FBI Investigation Led to Petraeus Resignation
Friday, 09 Nov 2012 04:43 PM By Ronald Kessler
The resignation of David H. Petraeus as CIA director followed an FBI investigation of many months, raising the question of why he was not forced out until after the election.
In his letter of resignation, Petraeus cited an extra-marital affair he had been having. “After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,”
Petraeus said in his letter to President Obama. “Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours.” Petraeus, who had a distinguished military career, revealed no additional details.
However, an FBI source says the investigation began when American intelligence mistook an email Petraeus had sent to his girlfriend as a reference to corruption. Petraeus was commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011. The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan. The woman who was having an affair with Petraeus is a journalist who had been writing about him.
Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus’ email exchanges with the woman. The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk. Such a relationship is a breach of top secret security requirements and could have compromised Petraeus.
At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.
Neither Petraeus nor the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs had any immediate comment. FBI agents on the case expected that Petraeus would be asked to resign immediately rather than risk the possibility that he could be blackmailed to give intelligence secrets to foreign intelligence agencies or criminals. In addition, his pursuit of the woman could have distracted him as the CIA was giving Congress reports on the attack on the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11. The CIA ‘s reporting to Congress included a claim that protests over a YouTube video played a role in the attacks, thus allowing Obama to initially discount the possibility that the U.S. had suffered another terrorist attack just before the election. In contrast, based on real time video and reports, the State Department was reporting that the attack that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, was terrorist-related.
The State Department reported that there were no protests at the consulate. Still, the White House, with concurrence by the FBI and Justice Department, held off on asking for Petraeus’ resignation until after the election. His resignation occurred three days after the election, avoiding the possibility that Obama’s ill-fated appointment of Petraeus could become an issue in the election.
FBI agents on the case were aware that such a decision had been made to hold off on forcing him out until after the election and were outraged. “The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source says. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.”
Michael Kortan, the FBI’s assistant director for public affairs, said he had no comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)