Daily news sites: election 2012| Find Breaking World News
Latest Updates
Tampilkan postingan dengan label election 2012. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label election 2012. Tampilkan semua postingan

The depths of the scandalous Benghazi episode are becoming clear

The depths of the scandalous Benghazi episode are becoming clear


The following timeline of events is what we know about the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya:
• April 5, 2011: Christopher Stevens arrives in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to forge ties with the forces battling Moammar Gadhafi. President Obama appoints him as ambassador to Libya on May 22, 2012.
• February: The U.S. embassy requests and is granted a four-month extension, until August, of a Tripoli-based “site security team” composed of 16 special forces soldiers who provide security, medical and communications support to the embassy.
• March: State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sends a cable to Washington asking for additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, and later says he received no response. He repeats his request in July and again gets no response.
• April 6: Two fired Libyan security guards throw an IED over the consulate fence.
• May 22: An Islamist attack on the Red Cross office in Benghazi is followed by a Facebook post that warns “now we are preparing a message for the Americans,” and another a month later highlights Ambassador Stevens’ daily jogs in Tripoli in an apparent threat. The Red Cross closed the office.
• June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through,” and four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade. The British close the consulate soon thereafter.
• July: The anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” is posted on You Tube.
• Aug. 14: The US security team leaves Libya, despite Ambassador Steven’s desire that they remain, according to team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood.
• In the weeks before Sept. 11, Libyan security guards are reportedly warned by family members of an impending attack. On Sept. 8, the Libyan militia tasked with protecting the consulate warns U.S. diplomats that the security situation is “frightening.”
  Sept. 10: Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.

The next night, Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans, including two who disobeyed orders and came to help defend the consulate, are murdered in an attack that was unquestionably not the result of an obscure anti-Islam video.

Even dedicated Obama apologists cannot ignore the evident rising danger leading up to Sept. 11 that included violence serious enough to close the Red Cross office and the British consulate, and the direct violent attacks on the US consulate, and yet the needed and requested security enhancements were not provided.

It gets worse. From The Hill: "High-level staffers removed vital pieces of information tying terrorist organizations to attacks. They knew early on that radical Islamic terrorists participated in the attack. The former Deputy Chief of Mission to Libya, Gregory Hicks, said in the [Congressional] hearing, 'none of us should ever again experience what we went through in Tripoli and Benghazi on 9/11/2012.' He went on to say he had personally told former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at 2 a.m. the night of the attack that it was a terrorist attack. Gregory Hicks also testified that Secretary Clinton's claiming the attack was incited by a YouTube video caused Libyan officials to hinder the FBI's arrival to the scene." For his forthrightness Mr. Hicks was demoted by the State Department.

Some question the veracity of the three witnesses who testified at the Oversight & Government Reform Committee. This is a predictable, if foolish, effort to discredit these witnesses. But these people are not bystanders; they are not people who are going to report on hearsay; they are not political operatives. In fact, Gregory Hicks is a registered Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary. These people were directly involved in different capacities before, during and after the attack. They are totally credible, and deserve not only our respect and appreciation, but our attention to their message.

So what went wrong? There are three possibilities: massive bureaucratic incompetence; the administration was asleep at the wheel; or the administration put political considerations ahead of doing the right thing. Negative repercussions of an Islamist terrorist attack on a US facility on the iconic date of Sept. 11, right before a presidential election, drove the administration to concoct an implausible scenario to try to deflect attention from the reality that al-Qaeda had indeed not been vanquished, contrary to Barack Obama's boasting to the contrary.

In answer to Hillary Clinton's asinine question: "What difference ... does it make?" It makes a huge difference. Four people died as a result of your and/or the administration's mishandling of this event, Ms. Clinton, and the people you worked for deserve to know who screwed up, and why.

We hired Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and every other public servant to act in the best interest of the American people and the nation, and expect them to put their personal political considerations aside. That clearly did not happen in Benghazi. There is no greater disservice.

Romney VS Obama - NFL Style Referee Needed!

Romney VS Obama - NFL Style Referee Needed!
By Dan Turner October 22, 2012, 4:30 a.m.

About the best thing that can be said about Monday's presidential debate in Boca Raton, Fla., is that it's the last one. In theory, debates should represent a terrific opportunity for voters to assess the competing arguments and policies of presidential candidates. It's a nice theory, but that's not what we were presented with Tuesday night, nor in the first debate.

What I heard, over and over again, was a lot of barking: One candidate barks out statistics or obscure references to his opponent's record or statements, followed by return barking to the effect that it's all a pack of lies. Sometimes they even bark over each other, such as the embarrassing exchange Tuesday between President Obama and Mitt Romney over whether oil drilling on public lands had increased or decreased during Obama's tenure.

 Was anyone edified by this? I doubt it. Republicans came away sure that Romney was telling the truth, Democrats equally certain that Obama was the honest one, and undecided voters were most likely pondering a move to Canada.

Source

A Question of Integrity, or the Lesser of Two Evils...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


The second tier of the rEpublican pArty presidential ticket doing a bit of twisting. Given that flip flops and spinning of the facts seem to be increasing in popularity with the rEpublicans begs a question... Is anyone in the conservative camp concerned with integrity any more? This from the Atlantic.

Again, we expect politicians to shade and shape their version of reality. But getting a reputation for doing this, as Ryan is doing during the campaign, is a particular problem for someone who has been set up as a uniquely honorable truth-teller.

Which brings us to Ryan and Norah O'Donnell today on Face the Nation. She presented him with another of the partial-truths from his convention speech, which he has repeated afterward. This is his slam of Obama for cutting defense spending, without mentioning that he has voted for these same cuts. I mention this less for what it shows about Ryan than for what it shows about O'Donnell. Take a look for yourself.



Skip

On the merits of what O'Donnell was asking Ryan about, see Think Progress. This is an issue I have followed. Ryan's thinly shaved rationalization here is consistent with the three I mention from his convention speech, in that each involves the deliberate omission of a major, elephant-in-the-room complicating truth. And, before you ask, when Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or other Democrats go as far as Ryan has -- not in presenting their opinions, or political "visions," but offering gross distortions-through-omission of their own records -- they deserve exactly the same treatment. {Read More}

Bedfellows politics and integrity do not make.

Fortunately there is a viable and proven alternative to Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden. The only question is... Will the American electorate bother to educate themselves. For certain the MSM won't bother to help.

Via: Memeorandum

The Power Of "The Lesser of Two Evils"...

The Power Of  "The Lesser of Two Evils"...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


"Voting for the lesser of two evils" amounts to compromising ones principles and values and ultimately rationalizing so that one can feel good about voting for a "littler" evil. Considering that "voting for the lesser of two evils" is still voting for "evil" does it make any logical sense to make that decision when there exits a different choice? One that could very well prove themselves worthy of America's trust, a person of integrity with a proven track record, a person with a vision of liberty and choice for all Americans.

Libertarian Party candidate for President Gary Johnson is just such a man. Yet because of faith in our corrupt and broken two party system a huge share of our electorate chooses to ignore a very viab;le alternative or simply remains ignorant of  of its existence. It has been said the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over while expecting different results. It seems to me that pretty much describes American politics and the current state of our union points it our quite glaringly.

Many will say that a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama. That voting for Gary is throwing your vote away. I've even been told that voting for Gary is insuring a Obama win and thus endangering the future of my children and grandchildren. To which I reply; a vote for Romney isn't? The inevitable outcome of either a vote for Obama or Romney. Such is the value of a "vote for the lesser of two evils."

This morning I received an email from C. Jeffery Small with a link to his site, Small Thoughts for a Complex World™ . His article is scheduled to be published in Septembers issue of the Liberty's Torch and is another another informed and powerful statement on the election of 2012. What is at stake. The challenges Romney must meet and overcome if he expects to win.

It's Romney's Job to Win Over the Johnson Voters

In most presidential elections within memory, there seems to always be a sizable portion of the public voting against one candidate rather than voting for the other one. Or to put it in different terms, many people continue to find themselves in the unenviable position of having to choose between the "lesser of two evils." Occasionally, a viable third-party candidate gains traction as an alternative to what is seen as the status quo being offered by the Republicans and Democrats. This happened in 1992 with the independent candidacy of Ross Perot, and this year we are seeing signs of growing support for the Libertarian party candidate, Gary Johnson.

Without a doubt, this is a critical presidential election. After suffering four years under Obama's administration, many people have come to the conclusion that he must be replaced at any cost, even if it means voting for the lesser of two evils and supporting a suboptimal candidate such as Mitt Romney. Other people, taking a longer range view, are choosing to support Johnson who most closely represents their values and principles, understanding that his chances of winning this fall are slim, but hoping that a significant showing in this election will produce a more favorable crop of candidates next time around and ultimately lead to a better future. Those who believe that Romney's election is of paramount importance are fearful that a majority of Johnson voters will come from people who would otherwise vote Republican, possibly swinging the election in Obama's favor. One such person commented that should Obama win, it would be Johnson's loony supporters who will be to blame.

I don't have a strong quarrel with how people choose to vote in this election. As is the case every four years, this country is in an unholy mess and the state of political leadership is disgraceful, so making a serious choice as to how to vote requires a strategy and calculation that can be complicated for intelligent, thinking people. However, one thing should be made clear. If Romney fails to convince enough people to vote for him and defeat Obama, then the responsibility will rest squarely on his shoulders. It will be Romney's inconsistencies, waffling, record of past actions and his inability to adequately sell his current soft and unfocused message that will be at fault.

If Romney and the Republican Party cannot convince a large segment of smart, informed voters that it is in their best interest to cast their ballot for him rather than for Obama or for a third party candidate who has almost no chance of winning, then it is really disingenuous for anyone to try and shift that blame from him onto those alternate voters who are pursuing what they believe is their best available option.

In truth, it would be a fairly easy matter for the Republican Party to convert a great many of the Ron Paul, Johnson and independent Obama supporters into Romney voters. All they would need to do would be to adopt some of the policies and positions that this voting block heavily favors. But instead of considering that, the GOP continues to kick this constituency in the teeth as it has recently done by forcing the exclusion of Ron Paul from a convention vote through procedural tricks, and by adopting an extreme abortion position that is impossible for liberty-respecting people to swallow.

If the GOP wants the independent and libertarian-leaning voters to come into its tent, then they have to actually demonstrate that they support individual rights, free markets and personal liberty, through action as well as words. However, not only do they fail that, they demonstrate repeatedly that they support the exact opposite! Look no further to see why there is a growing shift towards a third party. Johnson is an ineffective campaigner. It is not so much his performance that is drawing voters his way, but the GOP itself that is pushing them, with great force, in his direction. I suspect that this recent convention tactic will further swell Johnson's ranks with disaffected Paul backers.

Everyone in the Republican, Libertarian and Independent camps agree that Obama must go. There is no need to push that message. Obama's every action automatically does it for us, and people not long ago convinced of this are a lost cause. But for those of you who have decided that the only serious path forward is to elect Romney, I would respectfully suggest that you should stop attacking individuals who are leaning towards supporting Johnson. These people have good reasons for their choice. Rather, you should be directing all of your focused energy and anger towards Romney and the Republican Party, demanding that they abandon their quest to impose their own personal vision of morality on everyone else, and instead adopt a program that truly embraces individual autonomy, personal responsibility, stands for the equal rights of all citizens, and supports a strict application of the principles that form the bedrock of our Constitution. This is the pathway towards naturally expanding the Republican base and defusing any harm that a third party might represent.

It is not looney for people to follow their conscience and stand up for their principles. What's looney is an organization like the GOP that expects to receive support from those that it overtly despises and attacks, and then whines when it fails to achieve the results it wishes.

C. Jeffery Small
August 25, 2012

Read More...

I can't say there is much if anything Mittens can do that might change my position, but perhaps the article will strengthen the resolve of folks in the liberty movement and increase the strength that is growing in the liberty movement and the Libertarian Party.

With a Majority Believing Obama Has Changed the Country for the Worse, and Mittens Highly Suspect, It is Time for an Alternative...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


The Thinker Believes It Time For the Alternative

It comes as no surprise.

THE HILL - Two-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.

A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.

The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks reelection this fall.

Conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, the poll comes in the wake of last month’s Supreme Court decision that upheld the primary elements of Obama’s signature healthcare legislation.

It found 68 percent of likely voters — regardless of whether they approve or disapprove of Obama — believe the president has substantially transformed the country since his 2009 inauguration.

The feeling that Obama has changed the country for the worse is strongest among Republicans, at 91 percent, compared to 71 percent of Democrats who support Obama’s brand of change.

Strikingly, 1-in-5 Democrats say they feel Obama has changed the United States for the worse.

Compared to the sentiment about Obama’s impact, fewer people see presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney as a candidate who will change the country dramatically if elected.

Still, 50 percent of people think Romney will bring a “significant” level of change — a finding that may reflect the desire among anti-Obama voters for a reversal of the president’s policies. {Read More}

With the country in a state of dissatisfaction over inept leadership for the last 13 years and 6 months by both major parties wouldn't it make sense to consider an alternative?

Via: Memeorandum

Gary Johnson and the Case For A New Direction, Including the Protest Vote...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Gary Johnson,  LP Candidate for President 2012 - Washington Times Photo

Politico has Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for president chances at around zero. I agree. But then that really isn't the point. Certainly not in my considered opinion anyway.

In a time when Americans find much about both major party candidates distasteful, and in some cases outright unacceptable, the concept of a third alternative to the status qua can be intriguing. Indeed for some it offers the hope of real change. Rational change that has been proven effective in the State of New Mexico by an effective two tern Governor, Gary Johnson.

Candidate Johnson
, as reported by Politico is not interested in the protest vote. While thismay play well with those who do not view themselves specifically as protestors the "protest" vote is a critical part of the equation if we are to turn this country on the track of reasonable and sustainable political and economic growth in the future.

I certainly view myself as a "protest" vote. I protest both what the republican party and the democratic party have come to stand for. Neither party can be trusted to represent the interests of "the great" American middle class any longer. Nor can either be trusted to make decision that are in the best long range rational interests of the country and its people.

2012 is indeed a pivotal election in our countries history. Our future as a democratic republic as well as a nation with the economic engine for growth and prosperity may very well be determined by the results in November of this year. Given the major party candidates the prospect does not look encouraging regardless of who is found sitting in the Oval Office in January 2013.

Sure, one can be safe, voting for the known quantity. Which means more than ever before choosing between the "lesser of two evils." A choice true American patriots must cringe at, and therefore take a bold and decisive step to vote principle and vote for liberty, rather than the eventual tyranny either major party will bring to the people.

Mr. Johnson may not be looking for or seeking the "protest" vote, and that is fine. But I, and millions of patriots like me are certainly free to say hop aboard the liberty train and see where it takes you. For all who are disenchanted with both major parties, for those who realize the elephant train and the donkey train will ultimately take you to the brink of the same cliff, for those who believe America can do better than either major party candidate is offering, then consider this... Gary Johnson may not win the next election, but if he generates enough support it is just possible real change will occur non the less. Most importantly a strong showing will undoubtedly build the momentum for a viable, strong, and vibrant Libertarian Party.

Oh, I almost forgot, be sure to read the article that inspired this post. Please be sure to check out all the links as they are indeed to difference sites.

Via: Memeorandum

Gas Prices Continue To Drop... Perhaps Another 50 Cents In Time For the Presidential Election...

Gas Prices Continue To Drop... Perhaps Another 50 Cents In Time For the Presidential Election...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


The presidential election is just around the corner. As is to be expected there will be market manipulation to help the incumbent's reelection bid as well as media bias all around in the hopes of influencing the outcome of the election in the preferred direction.



I must say I'll certainly continue to welcome the relief at the pump. All the while knowing my vote goes independent of the prices at the pump as well as realizing prices WILL begin to rise again following the election. Just like most people do methinks...

Via: Memeorandum