-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
Happy New Year to you both too.
Here’s a toast to 2014.
The Most Biased Media Moments of 2014:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/12/30/biased-media-moments-2014/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
I’m sure there are lots more, but these are pretty good.
I hope everyone survived the New Year’s festivities relatively unscathed?
I had one chocolate drink and I was safe in bed by 11 pm.
It’s not so bad living life in the slow lane. I was up at 7 after a restful nite’s sleep, ready to face the day. The downside is I can’t do much, everything is closed and it’s still 32 degrees out (Butte City), so forget my outside projects…at least for awhile.
Anyone have any New Year’s resolutions to share?
Mine is simple, continue with the diet!!!! If I lose 180 pounds I will be back to my normal weight…I’m kidding, I’m not that heavy. My actual goal is to lose another 30 pounds, already lost 11 lbs. So, I was 41 lbs. overweight. But, it feels like I’m trying to lose 180 lbs, because the older we get the harder it is to lose it. And we have this natural expansion of the waist line as we age (past 60) even without the extra pounds, we still see a wider girth.
I’m on the Auschwitz diet (aka nutrisystem) and I can’t seem to lose any more at the moment, I’ve plateaued! So we shall see who lasts longer, my stubborn metabolism or my will power. The good part is on this diet you can actually eat most anything, as long as it will fit in a thimble. Man, the portions are really tiny, no joke!!! Right now, I’m looking at this 2.5 oz cup of rigatoni and says “dinner.” Can’t wait to chow down on that feast. At the moment I’m having a bowl of corn flake (said singular on purpose), so excuse me while I eat my flake with three drops of milk…ummmm…so filling.
Happy new year everyone, see you tomorrow!
The slow lane works for me.
Off topic again, sort of.
Another year gone by and still no answers on Benghazi.
From the desk of Sheryl Attikisson.
Unanswered Benghazi Questions: Fifth in a Series:
http://sharylattkisson.com/unanswered-benghazi-questions-first-in-a-series/
Thanks for that link Peggy, you always come up with good stuff. Five commandos guarding the C.I.A. base in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012, say that their base chief stopped them from interceding in time to save the lives of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and an American technician during the attack on the diplomatic mission there.
In a new book obtained by The New York Times, the commandos say they protested repeatedly as the base chief ordered them to wait in their vehicles, fully armed, for 20 minutes while the attack on the diplomatic mission was unfolding less than a mile away. The book is called, 13 hours.
“Put yourself in the Chief of Base’s shoes. What happens if you blindly send out a rescue operation — with no backup or support — into a situation where you don’t know how many militants and weapons your team will encounter? Could your rescuers all be ambushed and killed? Might they have to be rescued themselves? What happens if you then stretch your limited security resources too thin—will the Annex get overrun as well? These are factors the Chief of Base had to consider that night. The Chief of Base properly sought to obtain additional information, support and weaponry before sending his men into this situation. No one questions the bravery of the security personnel and their willingness to deploy into the fray. At the same time, it is unfair to second-guess the decisions of an officer responsible for not only organizing a rescue, but also ensuring more lives aren’t lost during the course of that terrible evening.
If the security officers had left immediately, without the Chief of Base trying to gather backup, and didn’t survive, the conversation today would be different. People would be asking why didn’t the Chief of Base secure backup.
It’s interesting how the lore and narrative of the ‘stand down’ order has evolved over time. Both the House and Senate intelligence committee reviews of Benghazi have determined that there was no ‘stand down’ order preventing officers on the ground from rendering aid. These reviews reaffirm the Chief of Base’s decision to try and obtain additional support for the rescue mission was the right call.
The officers on the ground in Benghazi responded to the situation at the Temporary Mission quickly and effectively. The security officers in particular were genuine heroes. Before these officers left to help their colleagues, a prudent, fast attempt was made to rally local support for the rescue effort and secure heavier weapons. When it became clear that this additional support could not be rapidly obtained, the team moved out and put their lives on the line to save their comrades. At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could. There was no second guessing those decisions being made on the ground, by people at every US organization that could play a role in assisting those in danger. There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/09/16/fox-news-benghazi-and-13-hours-a-critical-look/
Chris, as I understand it the Base commander did not want to deploy the soldiers because he didn’t trust the threat assessment he was getting from his own “eyes on the ground” and instead he wanted to go thru the Libyan militia for confirmation. So, rather than use his own American sources, who were trained to assess such things, we messed around with incompetent militia people.
He and others that could have issued orders based on good intel, but they were too cautious. The next thing you know the Ambassador is dead from smoke inhalation…only took about 25 minutes.
Now I understand what you are saying, but this really was a screw up and the people at the scene, who were there and witnessed it all, have more credibility than what Congress heard from 3rd party bureaucrats repeating mostly hearsay or lying to cover themselves.
People in charge were naturally reluctant to make the big decisions and they fiddled around looking for a plan B, when plan A was good enough and in time. I don’t think its much more than that…could be, but I doubt it.
Oh … Chris … please … no.
You waste your breath … and dredge it up.
2014 was a pestiferous year … any which way you care to consider it … and good god damned riddance.
Jack, I read the book “13 Hours” and challenge anyone who reads it to call those men liars. They swear they were told to stand down/don’t leave/stay put for over 20 minutes. With the time they spent getting there they all said they may have been able to save the lives of Chris Stevens and Sean Smith since they died of smoke inhalation.
Peggy, I wish Chris would read that book! He might finally open his mind to the truth.
Top CIA officer in Benghazi delayed response to terrorist attack, US security team members claim:
“Word of the attack on the diplomatic compound reached the CIA annex just after 9:30 p.m. Within five minutes, the security team at the annex was geared up for battle, and ready to move to the compound, a mile away.
“Five minutes, we’re ready,” said Paronto, a former Army Ranger. “It was thumbs up, thumbs up, we’re ready to go.”
But the team was held back. According to the security operators, they were delayed from responding to the attack by the top CIA officer in Benghazi, whom they refer to only as “Bob.”
“It had probably been 15 minutes I think, and … I just said, ‘Hey, you know, we gotta– we need to get over there, we’re losing the initiative,’” said Tiegen. “And Bob just looks straight at me and said, ‘Stand down, you need to wait.’”
“We’re starting to get calls from the State Department guys saying, ‘Hey, we’re taking fire, we need you guys here, we need help,’” said Paronto.
After a delay of nearly 30 minutes, the security team headed to the besieged consulate without orders. They asked their CIA superiors to call for armed air support, which never came.
Now, looking back, the security team said they believed that if they had not been delayed for nearly half an hour, or if the air support had come, things might have turned out differently.
“Ambassador Stevens and Sean [Smith], yeah, they would still be alive, my gut is yes,” Paronto said. Tiegen concurred.
“I strongly believe if we’d left immediately, they’d still be alive today,” he added.
In a statement to Fox News, a senior intelligence official insisted that, “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”
Baier put that assertion directly to the operators.
“You use the words ‘stand down,’” Baier noted. “A number of people now, including the House Intelligence Committee insist no one was hindered from responding to the situation at the compound…so what do you say to that?”
“No, it happened,” said Tiegen.
“It happened on the ground– all I can talk about is what happened on that ground that night,” added Paronto. “To us. To myself, twice, and to– to Tig, once. It happened that night. We were told to wait, stand– and stand down. We were delayed three times.”
In a statement to Fox News, a senior intelligence official did allow that the security team was delayed from responding while the CIA’s top officer in Benghazi tried to rally local support.”
w/video
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/06/top-cia-official-in-benghazi-delayed-response-to-terrorist-attack-us-security/
I believe them, it fits, they were there, they have no agenda other than to tell the truth. This is part of their soldiers creed. It is about their honor. I do not believe those contradictory 3rd party versions that were rehearsed and sanitized for Congress. That was just CYA bull-s. Some people can chose to believe those liars because it fits what they want to believe, the liars are on the left, but then they would be simpletons and fools who suborned their intellect for the sake of partisan politics.
Ouch is right!
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/226389-obama-boasts-ending-war-afghanistan-marine-familys-open-letter-puts-perspective/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Military
Who said anything about them being liars? The point of the article I posted is that their story doesn’t really contradict that of the White House, or the findings of seven different bipartisan investigations for that matter. There was no stand down order from the White House–it came from the base commander in Benghazi. That does not at all support the conspiracy theories from those determined to turn this tragedy into Obama’s Watergate.
Chris I accused some of those testifying of not telling the whole truth and being just wrong in what they said. As far as the White issuing stand down orders, I don’t think that’s where we are here? If that is the issue then I didn’t know it. I just though we were (1 ) talking about somebody, who is yet to be identified, screwing up, delaying the rescue for reasons less than legit and ( 2 ) that there was no accountability by anyone for getting people killed unnecessarily. And… (3 ) that the full story has yet to be told into the Congressional record for who did what and when.
Chris, will you read the book 13 Hours? If so I’ll get you a copy, if you promise to read it.
I might if I have time, but don’t spend any of your money on me. Thanks for the offer, though.
Chris you are most welcome.
We have this lingering hope that as a bright, educated, young man, fresh from the extreme indoctrination one often gets in today’s higher education, that if we hang in there long enough, provide you with good information, inspire you with food for thought and expose you to some of the left’s deceptions, when we can… that maybe you (and a few others) will have a more balanced view of how the world works and you’ll be a better person for it. Tina is far better at this than I, because she really goes that extra distance for our readers. Tina is great and there isn’t a day that goes by that I am not thankful I get to co-write with her.
Here Chris read this. Sharyl Attiksson does an excellent job explaining the issues with the report and the various committee’s findings and the witnesses questioned.
26 Ways the Media Botched Their Reporting on the Latest Benghazi Report:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/12/31/26-ways-media-botched-reporting-latest-benghazi-report/
Jack I appreciate your remarks more than you will ever know. It means a lot to me that you have placed confidence in me.
We finally got ATT to the house and I hope our problems have finally been ironed out…not holding my breath but the service/tech said he will come back if we again encounter problems.
Chris’s remarks revel a possible flaw in the lefts thinking. Yes, the right points to problems and questions about the administrations handling of Benghazi from the lack of preparedness, to the obviously flawed story that a video precipitated the attack, to the failed response in real time. The purpose behind the questions and doubts is to find out what happened and not simply to place blame.
The left is steeped in placing blame. It is the very foundation of their political game. Undermining and destroying the political opposition, rather than competing in the arena of ides has been their MO for decades. Discovering truth is irrelevant in the Benghazi incident for the left. The ONLY thing they are interested in is how the public perceives what happened and protecting the reputations of Obama and Hillary…even if they are culpable! This is what motivated the Susan Rice Sunday video tour. It’s what motivated the lack of immediate, thorough investigation. It’s what motivated the downplaying and dismissal of the Libyan leader’s statement that the group responsible was linked to Al Qaeda and any number of other facts.
There are many unanswered questions. The opposing testimony of the underlings with boots on the ground and theirs superiors should inspire distrust or at least questions that demand a full investigation. That is exactly what the left would demand, and get, were the situation under right leadership. They would be asking for heads to roll.
My own assessment, given what we have discovered thus far, is that Hillary was more vulnerable politically than Obama even though he is her boss and the leader of our nation. Prior to the election they were both at risk but she was more vulnerable long term.
The reason this is important is that American lives were put more at risk than was necessary. Had proper security measures been taken, had adequate measures been in place to evacuate our personnel, had the response been up to what we’ve come to expect of our military, none of this would have gone down. OF COURSE we should know for certain what happened so that corrections can be made. I’m not entirely convinced that those we have put in charge have the experience or competence to oversee these operations and that is a huge problem. The public should know whether Hillary had what it takes to be the Secretary of State much less Commander-in-Chief and we certainly should have known if Obama acted as a competent Commander-in-Chief prior to the 2012 election.
I look forward to reading the latest from Sheryl Attikisson. Thanks Peggy.
Tina, it sounds like I had a similar problem with ATT that you are having. My old and new computer was so slow I couldn’t view videos. It would take forever to load and then would constantly drop out of service and I’d have to go through the steps of rebooting the modem. Real pain.
It turned out it was the phone lines in my area are so old, probably not even fiber-optic, they couldn’t handle the internet speed of the current computers.
I didn’t want to switch to Comcast, but had no other choice since Dish and Direct don’t have internet service here. Since I switched I now have a 60 speed modem with new lines in the house and from my house to the main line installed by Comcast. The ATT modem was only 6. Big difference.
After years of pulling my hair out and screaming at my computer I’m now able to enjoy it without any problems at all.
Anyway, just thought I’d let you know and, hopefully, help save some of your hair loss.
The new year doesn’t appear to be going very well for big Al.
Sharpton Inc.: Civil Rights Leader Accused Of Making Money Through Shakedowns
“How has civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton made his money over the years?
According to The New York Post, the debt-ridden MSNBC host has generated revenue for himself and his nonprofit organization, the National Action Network (NAN), by peddling influence.
Sharpton’s most common tactic is by selling his silence, The Post reports. But there is other evidence that Sharpton lobbies lawmakers directly in some instances.
“Al Sharpton has enriched himself and NAN for years by threatening companies with bad publicity if they didn’t come to terms with him,” Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, told The Post. “Put simply, Sharpton specializes in shakedowns.”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/05/sharpton-accused-of-making-money-through-shakedowns/
Tina: “The left is steeped in placing blame. It is the very foundation of their political game. Undermining and destroying the political opposition, rather than competing in the arena of ides has been their MO for decades…The opposing testimony of the underlings with boots on the ground and theirs superiors should inspire distrust or at least questions that demand a full investigation. That is exactly what the left would demand, and get, were the situation under right leadership. They would be asking for heads to roll.”
The problem with these claims, Tina, is that there are plenty of examples of security failures leading to embassy attacks and deaths under Republican presidents, while there are zero examples of Democrats making a concerted effort to use those attacks to bring down those Republican presidents through a series of “investigations” that continue to find nothing.
Yes, there were security failings. Every investigation has come to that conclusion, and every investigation has offered plenty of corrections that can be made so that this doesn’t happen again. What the investigations haven’t found is any political cover-up, which is the lynchpin of the right’s obsession with Benghazi. If it weren’t about blame for you and your party–if it were just about objectively seeking truth, and making sure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again–then you would have been equally vigilant in going after the Bush and Reagan administrations when their errors in judgment led to far greater death tolls.
Also, if you were simply interested in following the facts regardless of where they might lead, you would admit that Susan Rice’s claim that the attackers were motivated by the video was entirely correct, instead of continuing to accuse the administration–despite all available evidence–of concocting a “story” for political gain–a claim that has never made sense, since neither Obama nor Clinton had anything to gain by making up such a story, and a lot more to lose. Given that you continue to make such claims, it is very hard to take seriously the idea that you are simply looking for the truth, rather than for something to confirm your preconcieved biases. It also makes your aspersions towards the Democrats, who never used embassy attacks or the security failings involved in them to call for impeachment against Republican presidents or invent conspiracy theories, deeply ironic and hypocritical.
Peggy thanks for sharing your problems and solution. I can’t get Comcast where I live. We had a dish service at one time but it wasn’t that great either. I do think we have fixed the problem so my already thinning hair (meds) is safe for now 😉
Chris I sat through months and months and months of televised congressional hearings that happened over several decades all run by democrats. The only media during most of it was neatly sitting in the pockets of those democrats; there were no alternative voices with much sway or clout during much of it. So please do not lecture me. You have little experience to draw from and a considerably biased education about such things.
As for Susan Rice’s claim you are once again simply choosing to ignore anything that contradicts the power narrative you have chosen to believe (See the article posted by Peggy, linked below)
Also, stating that, “…neither Obama nor Clinton had anything to gain by making up such a story,” is either incredibly naive or just another example of dismissing facts in evidence. The story broke just before the election and just after the President told the nation that we had al Qaeda on the run…it turns out neither were true but he needed it to be true for the election. Benghazi had the potential to blow a hole in his assertion that our military efforts in eradicating the enemy were going along just peachy! Damn straight he had a “motive.” As for Hillary, the failures of her office would land on her desk with a decidedly loud and ugly plop. Her foreign policy credentials were at risk. Her captains, those hoping for a spot in her future cabinet, circled the wagons of protection to keep her reputation unmarred. Of course there was motivation! I don’t think they succeeded except with those who are willingly duped or who play on the team for fundamental transformation.
“…Democrats, who never used embassy attacks or the security failings involved in them to call for impeachment against Republican presidents or invent conspiracy theories…”
Do comparisons make for equal charges? No they do not. the situations in each were different. But, does it have to be embassy failures? Ever heard of Oliver North? How about Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Scooter Libby, Sarah Palin? And let us not forget the daily televised hearings about a little politically motivated break-in at the Watergate that pushed Nixon to paranoid idiocy and ended his presidency (He put the nation above himself; he stepped down). Every democrat involved in that witch hunt knew exactly what they were doing and why and every one of them crawled all over each other to attend his funeral. they KNEW they targeted him Alinsly style.
Some of the charges being considered (But not very seriously) for an Obama impeachment match those brought against Richard Nixon with harder evidence! Nixon only thought about threatening his opponents through the IRS.
I don’t expect you to “take me seriously.” I don’t expect you to believe anything I say. Your opinion about me is entirely irrelevant.
I do care that it appears we are being taken for a ride to protect those in charge of making decisions. I think democrats should at least be treated the way the people listed above were treated IF that is how our media and democrats are going to play it. I think you should care about this too but have pretty much given up that you might at least have an open mind…apparently you aren’t even curious. How do I know? Your selective approach to the facts and willingness to buy the left narrative…move along nothing to see here.
Here’s the Atkisson link Peggy provided in Jack’s “New Rules” post. Atkisson mirrors my perspective (Actually, I hers) and puts my questions to paper in perfect order.
Funny, if a conservative dares to question he’s inventing conspiracy theories. A progressive doing the same is called informed. Talk about hypocrisy! Blind hypocrisy if nothing else.
If you have Dish please contact them and tell them to turn Fox back on today. Today is a huge day in DC and we won’t know what’s going on unless we watch liberal biased channels.
Here’s the link.
http://dishstandsforyou.com/
Tina: “As for Susan Rice’s claim you are once again simply choosing to ignore anything that contradicts the power narrative you have chosen to believe (See the article posted by Peggy, linked below)”
I’m not sure which article you’re referring to, and I don’t see anything that contradicts the fact that the attackers at Benghazi explicitly stated that they were motivated by the video.
Republicans have spent the last two years claiming the video had nothing to do with it and that this story was just made up by the Obama administration. That was a lie, and remains a lie every time you repeat it; Rice was correct to say that the attackers were motivated by the video.
“Also, stating that, “…neither Obama nor Clinton had anything to gain by making up such a story,” is either incredibly naive or just another example of dismissing facts in evidence. The story broke just before the election and just after the President told the nation that we had al Qaeda on the run…it turns out neither were true but he needed it to be true for the election. Benghazi had the potential to blow a hole in his assertion that our military efforts in eradicating the enemy were going along just peachy!”
I’ve explained the holes in this conspiracy theory many times, but you continue to gloss over them.
If Obama knew right away that what happened in Benghazi was an Al Qaeda attack, he must have ALSO known that this would likely come out prior to the election. And that’s what happened; doubt was cast on the administration’s original narrative within days. This was due to new information coming to light. Do I think Obama lies? Of course he does. But this would be a particularly stupid lie to tell right before an election.
Don’t forget that in the run-up to the election, Republicans made a very large effort to accuse Obama of lying about Benghazi, and these accusations were reported on often in the mainstream media. The public didn’t care, because Benghazi was not an election issue, and was never going to be an election issue. Obama is a savvy enough politician to know that it wasn’t going to be an election issue. So again, the fact that an election was coming up did nothing to give Obama motive to tell a lie that a) he had to know was going to be exposed within days, and b) had no chance of influencing the election anyway. If anything, telling such a lie would have been obviously counterproductive, since “Obama lies about Benghazi!” is a more damaging headline than “Benghazi Attacked by Al Qaeda!”
There was no lie. The video was a major motivator according to the attackers, and the admiistration did what it could to send help. There were security failures, but no greater than those of previous administrations who let actual embassies (as opposed to CIA compounds, which this was) be attacked. Did the administration downplay the possibility of Al Qaeda involvement? Yes. Some of that is justifiable due to the conflicting information, and some of it is probably political–like you said, the administration did have a narrative about Al Qaeda. But to act as if this is the greatest political scandal of the age is totally out of proportion.
“But, does it have to be embassy failures?”
I think it’s most helpful to compare what happened in Benghazi under Obama to the reaction to similar attacks which resulted partially from security failings. Republicans are acting that this is the first time such a thing has ever happened.
“Ever heard of Oliver North?”
Of course. I don’t see how the comparison is valid. North is a proven criminal. Are you implying that the investigations into his criminal wrongdoing were simply political and had no validity to them?
“How about Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Scooter Libby, Sarah Palin?”
Some of these may have been merely political, some of them were (IMO) justified. None of them compare to the right’s obsession with using four deaths in Benghazi as a pretense to impeach the president.
“And let us not forget the daily televised hearings about a little politically motivated break-in at the Watergate that pushed Nixon to paranoid idiocy and ended his presidency (He put the nation above himself; he stepped down). Every democrat involved in that witch hunt knew exactly what they were doing and why and every one of them crawled all over each other to attend his funeral. they KNEW they targeted him Alinsly style.”
…the outrage over Watergate was a “witch hunt?” LOL, OK. You’re really bringing out the weapons grade crazy now.
“Some of the charges being considered (But not very seriously) for an Obama impeachment match those brought against Richard Nixon with harder evidence! Nixon only thought about threatening his opponents through the IRS.”
You must have missed the latest update on the IRS investigation. Issa and his fellow attack dogs found no evidence that the White House was involved in any such thing.
“Charges” are not the same thing as “proof,” Tina.
“I don’t expect you to “take me seriously.” I don’t expect you to believe anything I say.”
Well, I hope this lack of expectations extends to the rest of America too.
“Funny, if a conservative dares to question he’s inventing conspiracy theories.”
You don’t seem to understand the difference between “questioning” and “lying.” When you accused the Obama administration of inventing the video story, you were lying. You have been presented with proof that it’s not true, but you continue to say it anyway, because it helps you politically.