The proverb, “For Want of a Nail” has been around for a long time.  Some people associate this with Waterloo, but it may date back to the 14^th century.  It is still true today.

For Want of a Nail

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

We may be seeing the modern version of this proverb in the bizarre story of General Petraeus and Paula Broadwell.

The whole situation in Libya never made sense.  Regardless of how anyone feels about President Obama, it is hard to imagine any White House reluctant to send in a military response to protect a U.S. Consulate under siege.  Then, after reviewing the timelines   I realized that by the time the White House was up to speed, there was no one left alive at the Consulate.  The CIA team from the Annex had rescued all the survivors and had brought them back to the Annex.  All of the fighting, from that time on, was at the CIA Annex.

So then I asked why the White House might be reluctant to send in our military to “save” the CIA Annex.  It turns out they may have had two very good reasons for that decision.  For one thing, it appears as though we didn’t exactly have permission from the Libyan Government to be there.  It would be easy for President Obama to justify sending in troops to save a U.S. Consulate.  It would not be easy to explain sending them in to save a secret, possibly illegal, CIA complex.  But what if this was a secret detention center, run by the CIA.  President Obama made a big show in 2009 of issuing an executive order forbidding these type of operations.  Perhaps they didn’t want to send in the Special Forces because they didn’t want them to know what was there.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.  Paula Broadwell, the woman who allegedly had the affair with General Petraeus, made some remarkable comments about Libya during an October 26 speech to the University of Denver.   It is clear that while General Petraeus was not talking to the press, he may have been talking to her.  This is beyond staggering:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/12/paula-broadwell-benghazi-attack-petraeus/1699207/

Following is a transcript of the remarks by Paula Broadwell about Libya contained in this video:

“But the challenge has been the fog of war. And the greater challenge is that it’s political hunting season, and so this whole thing has been turned into a very political sort of arena, if you will.

But 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.

They were requesting the, what’s called the CINC’s in extremis force — a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex that were under attack.

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.

The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this — they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.”

She drops three major bombs:

First, she says that the CIA personnel at the annex requested reinforcements from the “CINC’s In Extremis Force.”  She describes this unit as being composed of Delta Force personnel.  She said they could have come in and reinforced the Consulate and the CIA Annex.

Second, she asks the audience if a lot of them know about the Libya Militia prisoners being held at the CIA Annex.

Third, she says General Petraeus knew all this, but he was not allowed to talk to the press because of his new position as Director of the CIA.

It has been obvious from day one that the Obama administration was covering up something.  The Obama administration’s narrative on Libya didn’t even pass the snicker test.  It is one thing to lie.  It is another thing to tell such an obvious and stupid lie.  One had to ask why?

I went back and looked at the broadcast by Jennifer Griffin, October 26, 2012 on Fox News.  Jennifer Griffin said that during the attack the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers but were forced to hand them over to the Libyans.  Jennifer Griffin also brought up the Commanders In Extremis force.  Perhaps Ms. Broadwell had listened to Jennifer Griffin’s broadcast and she was just confused.  But, she seemed very clear in her comments that the prisoners in question were the motive for the attack, not just people who had been captured during the attack.

There are other, unconfirmed, reports indicating that this might have been a secret CIA prison:

Note the following excerpt from this article at Breitbart.com:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/12/New-Report-CIA-s-Benghazi-Annex-Was-a-Detention-and-Interrogation-Site

Unnamed sources tell Fox News that the CIA Annex in Benghazi held three Libyan militia members for days and that retrieving these detainees may have been a motive for the September 11th attack on the nearby US consulate.

Speaking on Fox News Monday, Griffin indicated new sources suggest the CIA annex may have been a detention site for local militia forces and even for some prisoners from other parts of Africa.

There are also reports that the CIA was preparing to shut this facility down.  That would make sense, because the situation in Libya was rapidly deteriorating.

Jennifer Griffin is a brilliant investigative reporter and even the main stream media pays close attention to her.  This is starting to make sense.  Why would you send in the “Calvary” to rescue a secret CIA station you were preparing to shut down?  It would hardly be the first time a U.S. Government abandoned CIA operatives to fend for themselves.

The problem here is that the Director of the CIA made a huge mistake with regard to his personal life and his out of control mistress may have spilled the beans.  The question is whether or not the real story will ever be told, at least in public.  There is already a bi-partisan demand for answers.  At a minimum, people like Senator Diane Feinstein are not amused at being kept out of the loop.  The next battle will be a desperate attempt by the Obama administration to have closed door hearings.  If they succeed, it may be a long time before the American public learns the truth.

It is impossible to predict all of the potential developments with regard to this story.  Who among us would have anticipated the resignation of General Petraeus within hours after Obama was re-elected.  Wouldn’t it be ironic if the entire Libyan narrative unraveled because the mistress of the CIA Director couldn’t resist sending e-mails to a woman she viewed as a rival for the attention of the man she loved?  “For Want of a Nail.”

TDM

A lot of us watched TV Tuesday night, earnestly praying that Mitt Romney would be elected President of the United States.  We watched in vain.  The die was cast before the first vote was cast last Tuesday.  A majority of the people who voted on November 6, 2012, almost certainly voted to elect Mitt Romney.  We definitely know that he won 59% of the white vote.  This was almost a replay of 2008.   Once again, Democrats out hustled Republicans with a massive early voting campaign specifically designed to get minority voters registered and to make sure they voted.  Then they worked to get minorities to vote on Election Day.  It worked brilliantly.  95% of blacks voted for Obama; so did 75% of Hispanics.

The first step in solving a problem is identifying the problem.  There are two problems:  1.  Black voters seem to just automatically vote for the Democratic candidate.  Hispanic voters are a little more flexible, but in this election they also voted in lock step.  2.  All of the early voting, absentee voting and massive voter registration activities cast serious questions on the integrity of the election itself.  This situation is a recipe for voter fraud.

In a democracy, it is impossible for any president, no matter how popular, to get much more than 60% of the vote in a fair and honest election.  The highest vote total by any president was James Madison, who received 64.7% of the vote.  In recent history, the following presidents won more than 55% of the vote:

Lyndon Johnson 61.1%

Franklin D. Roosevelt 60.8%

Richard Nixon    60.7%

Warren Harding 60.3%

Ronald Reagan   58.8%

Theodore Roosevelt   56.4%

The point is that when there is a secret ballot, and people have true freedom to choose, it is impossible to get a really high percentage of the vote.  This has nothing to do with race.  One can assume that most of the people living in places like South Korea are Korean.  They don’t vote in lock-step for anyone, if they have a freedom of choice.  There are places where we see such winning margins.  These are places with a single-party system.  There are also places like North Korea.  When you see anyone getting more than 65% of the vote, anywhere, anytime, you know that the voters did not have a true freedom of choice.

What really happened in this election is that the Democratic machine took over the minority voting blocks.  Regardless of whether you think their tactics were legal or not, ethical or not, they worked to an extent that is impossible in a truly fair and honest election.  We now have a situation where the outcomes of national elections are predetermined by a small percentage of the total voters because these people vote in lock-step.  Quite simply, the outcomes of the last two presidential elections were determined almost entirely by the black and Hispanic vote, which voted as a single voting bloc.  If you discount the bloc voting by minorities, John McCain won easily in 2008, and Mitt Romney won easily in 2012.

This explains why Democrats are fighting so hard against voter ID.  It also explains the desperation to preserve early voting with no restrictions.  It is the primary source of their political power.

Suppose you are a minority, living in a depressed area.  You may not even speak English.  A local representative of the Democratic Party shows up in your living room.  He or she smiles a lot and they speak your language.  They help you register to vote.  They help you get your absentee ballot and then help you answer the questions.  Then they graciously offer to put it in the mail for you or perhaps even drop it off in person.  This is happening in minority communities all over the country.  It is clearly working.  You don’t achieve a 75% or even a 95% margin for your candidate by accident.  You certainly do not achieve that by having a fair and honest election.

We must take action now to fix this problem.  We must start by alerting people to the problem and demanding voter ID laws.  We must also demand a return to the secret ballot, with one caveat–the ballot cannot be so secret that we have no way of verifying that it is legitimate.  A court case reported by the Denver Post explains the problem:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21601455/federal-judge-says-no-constitutional-right-secret-ballot

Democratic activists are working overtime to make it impossible to hold a free election in this country.  They are doing this under the cover of eliminating voter suppression.  If they succeed, your vote next time will matter even less.

There is bi-partisan support for this, and we must fix this problem before it is too late.  Voter-ID laws have strong support from Democrats as well as Republicans.  We must demand that systems be put into place to verify that voters are legal, that they are properly identified, that the secrecy of their ballot is preserved and that they only vote once.  We must be flexible enough to prove to the courts that we are not discriminating against the ability of legal minorities to vote in elections, but we must be absolutely firm in requiring a system that preserves our most precious freedom–the right to vote.  We must demand a return to free and honest elections.

If we do that, based on historical records, it will be impossible for any political party to achieve this type of lock-step voting in the future.

We must also reach out to the minority communities and tell them the truth about how Democratic policies are devastating minorities.  Democrats talk a good game about looking out for the little guy, but they have been throwing money left and right to defeat poverty in this country since 1964, and it has never worked.  It is worse today than when Lyndon Johnson started the war on poverty. When in doubt, always start with the cold hard truth.

We must also send a strong message to the white community.  If we do not fix this problem, the white community will no longer have any voice in future national elections.  The only alternative to a sustained situation where minorities are dominating elections by voting as a block is for white voters to vote as a block.  That, of course, would be unacceptable.  That would be racism.  There was a time in this country when white voters, at least in the South, did exactly that.  We do not want to return to those days under any circumstances.  But the harsh reality is that the last two presidential elections were won almost entirely by racial politics.  Barack Obama did not hesitate to tell black people they must vote for him because he is black.  He also did not hesitate to tell Hispanic voters to vote for him because all white voters are racist.  He did much more than that.  Democratic activists descended on minority communities in mass to make sure people voted their way.  They told lies about George Bush letting people die after Hurricane Katrina because they were black.  The Democratic Party is once again the party of racism.

There is hard evidence that white voters are not racist.  Even when minorities were voting in lock step for Barack Obama, 39% of white voters still voted for Obama.  When you think about it, Barack Obama got almost exactly the percentage of white votes one would expect a losing candidate to get from any voting demographic.  Mitt Romney got 58% of the white vote, also just about what one would expect for a winning candidate.

The lesson to Republicans is very simple:  we don’t have swing states.  What we have is voting blocs that don’t swing at all.  If Democrats continue to register new minority voters and the percentage of the minority vote goes even higher, and they continue to vote as a Democratic bloc, we will lose our Democracy.  This election has to be a real wake-up call.

TDM

There are only a few times in our lives when we realize our greatest hopes or our worst fears.  Unfortunately, tonight, we realized our worse fears.  The United States can recover from another four years of Barack Obama as President.  We have overcome more difficult things in the past.  But the more serious question is whether we can overcome being stupid enough to re-elect him? 

Obviously, my hope for a Romney victory, perhaps a landslide, was just plain wrong.  It turns out all those questionable political polls got it pretty right.  This was very close, perhaps the closest in history, but Democrats did get their people to the polls and they carried the day.  I did point out that if Democratic turnout was the same in 2012 as it was in 2008 that Barack Obama would win.  I didn’t think they could do that, but they did.  Republicans, on the other hand, did not turn out.  I didn’t predict that either.

All is not lost.  Barack Obama limps into his second term a deeply wounded President.  It is one thing to lose a close election for an open position.  It is quite another to win re-election by the barest of margins.  A lot of Presidents had serious problems during their second term in office.  Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra.  Bill Clinton had Monica Lewinsky.  George W. Bush had Hurricane Katrina.  History tells us that Barack Obama will have a much more difficult second term than he can imagine.  For one thing the media cover for Obama is likely to dissipate.  They will just move on, because as of tonight, Obama is a lame duck President and he is already yesterday’s news.  The 2016 Presidential election starts tomorrow in both parties. 

 Don’t be shocked if the press starts reporting the truth about Libya and the failures of FEMA with regard to Hurricane Sandy.  Don’t be shocked to see some very serious investigations of Libya.  There may even be bi-partisan support for a select committee to investigate this.  Republicans still control the House and they are more than a little angry.

 Mostly I am saddened and embarrassed.  I can’t believe that a majority of people voted to re-elect Barack Obama.  This should not have been even close.  President Obama is totally unqualified to be President and he has the worst record since Jimmy Carter.  It is disgraceful that the Republican Party could not do better than this.   Barack Obama won re-election by launching a vicious campaign focused on the politics of personal destruction.  Romney responded with a plan.

 Barack Obama won the election but he didn’t repeal the laws of gravity.  His policies haven’t worked in the past and they probably won’t work in the future.  He has never shown a hint of leadership ability before so we shouldn’t expect to see it now.  Remember that it is always darkest just before dawn.  I doubt that any of us were really enthusiastic about a Romney Presidency.  We just thought that anything would be an improvement over Obama.  Mitt Romney was a far cry from the fundamental change we need.

Perhaps, just perhaps, re-electing Obama was a necessary step in bringing about the fundamental change that is desperatedly needed.  Our government has been addicted to spending for a long time.  Addicts rarely change until they finally hit rock bottom. 

President Obama got his four more years and he now owns this mess.  Unless he changes course or his policies start working miracles those people celebrating today may become an angry mob tomorrow.   We will not be the first country to learn this lesson the hard way. 

TDM

What many people do not realize is that when they went to vote on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama was already on his way to election.  He was ahead by a massive 55% to 40% margin among the early voters.  John McCain was pretty much toast before the first vote was even cast on Election Day.

Republicans were caught by surprise in 2008, but they weren’t caught by surprise this time.  Every report, from both the left and the right, shows that Republicans have increased substantially in early voting and Democrats have slipped.  Gallup even has Romney ahead in early voting:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/29/Gallup-Shock-Romney-Up-7-with-early-voters

Ben Franklin once said that two things were certain:  death and taxes.  It is also certain thing that supporters of both sides prior to an election will always say they think their candidate is going to win.  No matter how bad the internal polls look, all campaigns put on the happy face at this stage of the election.

Ultimately, it is down to this:  If Republicans turnout like they did in 2004 and 2010, then Romney wins and by a big margin.  If Democrats turn out like they did in 2008, then Obama may win, but it will be a razor thin margin.

Is it possible that Democratic turnout will be that dramatic?  Yes, it is possible, but unlikely.  2008 was a perfect storm for Republicans and this was the highest Democratic turnout EVER!

Is there any evidence to support that kind of turnout this time?  No.  If anything Romney is the one drawing massive crowds and Obama is the one playing to half empty rooms.  Democrats are obviously hoping for this kind of turnout.

Is either campaign showing signs of panic:?   Yes, Bill Clinton is making four campaign stops in Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania is a state that wasn’t even on the radar a couple of weeks ago.   If Obama loses in Pennsylvania, a state he considered safe, he is in deep trouble.  Sending Bill Clinton into Pennsylvania the day before an election is evidence of pure panic.

Candidates who think they are losing tend to become angry.  Obama is becoming sullen and angry.  That is the real story with the “revenge” remark.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, looks very calm and extremely confident.

But what about all those polls showing a toss-up?  As far as I can tell, every poll shows Romney winning among independents.  Every poll also shows about 95% of Democrats voting for Obama and 95% of Republicans voting for Romney.  This means that all of the polls are being adjusted to reflect an anticipated high turnout by Democrats.  If Democrats do turn out by a 6 to 8 point margin, then Obama may win a close election.  If the turnout is roughly equal, than Romney wins by a comfortable margin.  If Republican turnout is higher than Democratic turnout this will be a landslide.

I have been watching elections for many years and I have learned to always pay attention to Michael Barone.  He not only studies polls and turnout, he knows this down to the county level.  I can’t begin to recall the number of times when an election appeared to be trending in one direction or another and Michael Barone predicted the final outcome based on his analysis of a particular county.  I have never known him to get it wrong.   Barone is flat out predicting a Romney landslide because he says the fundamentals are all tilting toward Romney.

How could Barone be wrong?   I think the only way he is wrong is if there was a major swing in the election because of Obama’s sterling performance with regard to Hurricane Sandy.  Obama did get the chance for some nice photo shots, wearing his Commander in Chief gear and he benefited greatly from the “bromance” with Chris Christie.  Obama would hardly be the first political leader who benefited significantly from showing leadership during a crisis.  In other countries, losing campaigns have turned into landslide victories.  But in this case Obama left town and went back campaigning.  In the meantime Hurricane Sandy is turning into a real mess, with millions of people without food, without water, without gas and without any sign of FEMA.  The warmth from Obama’s Presidential moment has begun to fade.  This may even turn into a backlash, if people blame him for the FEMA disappearing act.  For example, take a look at the following video:

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-sandy-victims-beg-help_660345.html

Finally: the wild card.  The Libya narrative has literally collapsed.  While the television networks and the cable news networks are focusing on Hurricane Sandy, the newspapers are reporting on Libya.  In addition, the internet is literally on fire.  Today an ad is being released by 500 former Admirals and Generals endorsing Romney and slamming Obama.  They paid for it themselves.

Summary:   I believe the Gallup running average of Romney 52% to Obama 46% remains accurate.  The most recent Gallup polls almost certainly overstate Obama, because they represent a running 7 day average.  That means a lot of this data is from the glow days following the Hurricane.  But even if Gallup is right and it is 48% to 48% then Romney probably wins 51% to 48%.   Today Pew has it Obama 48% and Romney 46%, but it also has Democrats plus six.  That means the real number is probably Romney 49% and Obama 45%.   Pretty consistent with where Gallup has been for quite a white.

I think they are all wrong.  I don’t think Democratic turnout will be even close to what it was in 2008.  I think that Republican turnout will be at a record level.  I have several reasons for believing this:

1.  The early voting shows exactly this trend.
2. Democratic voter registration is down in every state.
3. Early voting is way down in key Democratic counties.
4. Republic Registration is up in 47 states.  The only exceptions are Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, where Republicans remain very strong.
5. Evangelical Christians are fully motivated.  They will show up in mass to vote Obama out of office.  This will be another Chick fil-A moment.  Evangelical Christians do not talk to the media because they despise the media.  In 2008, 10 million Evangelical Christians did not vote.  They won’t make that mistake in 2012.
6. Romney saved up his cash and he is running massive media campaigns which Obama cannot match.  In 2008, Obama outspent McCain 10 to 1.
7. The Tea Party has 41 million members.  They are beyond motivated.  The Tea Party is a true grass roots political movement and they will turn out their vote.
8. The internet is on fire telling conservatives this is the last chance to save the country.  A lot of people believe them.
9. Romney is drawing record crowds, Obama is not.
10. Senior citizens used to vote overwhelming for Democrats, because of Medicare.  Democrats thought they could attack Paul Ryan and play the Mediscare card one last time.  It didn’t work.  Romney an Ryan are doing very well among seniors.
11. Recent polls show Romney competitive in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.  None of these States voted for George Bush.  No one considered these states to be toss-ups just a few weeks ago, they were all either lean Obama or safe Obama.
12. Early voting, when combinded with no Voter ID, is a recipe for voter fraud.  While the main stream media ignored the problem, the Republican party did not.  That is why there are voter ID laws in a lot of states and why early voting has been reduced significantly.  In addition, all those states with a Republican Secretary of State are purging voter rolls and there is an army of volunteers watching for voter fraud.  It is just a lot harder to steal votes this year and that will have more of an impact on this election than anyone can imagine.

I believe that tomorrow night we will be introduced to President elect Mitt Romney.  I also think he is going to win by a margin that is beyond shocking.  He is very likely to bring the U.S. Senate with him.  But this will not be a landslide victory for Mitt Romney; this will be a landslide repudiation of Barack Obama.  It will also be a repudiation of the liberal left and the biased main stream media.  It won’t be perfect, but this will be the final curtain for the liberal left, at least for the current generation of the liberal left.

TDM

Obama got a bounce from his early response to Hurricane Sandy.  He benefited greatly from Governor Chris Christie praising him to high heaven.  The fawning main stream media seized the opportunity to portray Obama as “Presidential” and contrasted that with the performance of George Bush after Katrina.   This, they explained, was what real leadership looked like!   However, they spoke much too soon.  The reality of the storm is starting to hit home and the miraculous results promised by Obama are nowhere to be seen.  Instead they have been replaced with pictures of huge generators supporting the New York City marathon while people in Staten Island struggled to stay warm.  Mayor Bloomberg finally wised up and cancelled the New York Marathon, but the damage has been done. 

In Bridgeport, Connecticut residents started pelting utility workers with eggs because residents felt power was restored to rich neighborhoods first.  Perhaps Obama doesn’t like poor people.

There are a lot of people who really expected FEMA to show up with food, water and generators.  After all, President Obama was going to fix everything.  Remember?  He even promised to return phone calls with 15 minutes.  That lasted for about 24 hours before he was back on the campaign trail.  Now, when things are getting ugly and people are desperate; Obama is long gone.

If some recent news reports are accurate, FEMA may have dropped the ball big time.  Everyone knew this storm was coming for about a week, but there apparently was no pre-positioning of food and water.  There is even one report that FEMA, in an act of desperation, had to order water from a private vendor and waited until Friday to do that.  If this is true, the political backlash against Obama may be bigger than the storm itself.

The following report from ABC Nightline is revealing:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/were-going-to-die-staten-island-residents-plead-for-help-3-days-after-sandy/

Senator Chuck Schumer, who was probably hoping for a nice Obama like photo stop moment, ended up being confronted by desperate residents pleading for help.  Check out the two minute mark where James Molinaro, Staten Island Borough President, asks how this can happen in American, with a sheepish Senator Schumer standing right behind him in a bright and shiny new FEMA jacket, but without any significant supplies of food or water. 

FEMA did finally get to Staten Island, but not because of anything done by President Obama.  My guess is that Senator Schumer threw a full-fledged hissy fit after being embarrassed on national television:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/video/#!/news/local/Federal-Help-Finally-Arrives-on-Staten-Island/176896931

I wonder if anyone in the main stream media realizes something.  There was not one single documented death from dehydration after Hurricane Katrina.  This is because FEMA had pre-positioned food and water at both the New Orleans Superdome and the New Orleans Convention center.  It just may be that FEMA did a lot better during Hurricane Katrina than it did during Hurricane Sandy.  The following article from realclear politics does an excellent and balanced job of reporting what really happened during Hurricane Katrina.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/katrina_what_the_media_missed.html

President Bush may gain significantly if there is an “honest” comparison with how FEMA responded to Katrina and how FEMA responded to Sandy.  President Obama did a great job with photo stops after Sandy, but in terms of actually helping people he doesn’t appeared to have delivered on his promises. 

The real lesson we should have learned from Hurricane Katrina is that the last thing we need during a disaster is a bunch of grandstanding politicians trying to micro-manage.   After Hurricane Katrina, when the first responders communicated with each other without the help of publicity hungry politicians they got things done.  When the politicians got involved there was just a lot of arguing, finger pointing and chaos.

In terms of actually helping people, the best decision George Bush ever made was to not visit New Orleans during the early hours after the storm.  His reason for staying away is that he did not want to interfere with those brave first responders who were involved in the greatest rescue operation in the history of the world.  He was highly criticized by the main stream media for this decision, but I suspect historians will be far more objective.

The good news is that those politicians who try to exploit these situations for political gain frequently end up with just a lot of egg on their face.

Initially, Hurricane Sandy created a little surged for Obama, but now that has turned into an Ebb Tide that may just sweep him out of office.

TDM

The story in Benghazi is heating up and it is hitting the main stream media.  McClatchy just released a story saying the “CIA sent security team to the Benghazi consulate 25 minutes after attack, refuting claims of delay.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/11/01/173372/us-says-help-was-sent-to-benghazi.html

This is a major development.  It means the White House’s efforts to stonewall this story has totally collapsed.  This story just hit the main stream media.  No news outlet can continue to ignore this.

You would think from the headline that the White House has now explained everything and there was no delay in providing assistance.  That certainly is the spin being provided by the main stream media.  But there is a lot more to this story then how long it took the CIA compound to respond.

At 9:40 p.m. the CIA compound in Benghazi received an urgent request for help from the Benghazi Consulate.  This was only a mile away and CIA personnel could hear gun shots and sirens wailing.  The few trained military personnel available immediately gathered up their weapons and were ready to roll.  This was probably the last chance to save Ambassador Stevens life.  But they were delayed in leaving for 24 long minutes.  The reason for the delay was that the station chief was on the phone trying to call the “February 17 Brigade, other militias and the Libyan intelligence service seeking vehicles with .50-caliber machine guns.”  No one responded so the base chief reluctantly let the rescue mission proceed.  It was under the leadership of a career CIA officer.

The team consisted of six members.  They only get a few blocks before they are stopped.  The scene must have been beyond chaotic.  Our Consulate was under attack and here is our make-shift rescue squad, a couple of blocks away, reduced to begging the local militia to kindly lend them a .50 cal machine gun.  They don’t get the gun, but they do pick up three volunteers.  The CIA team arrives at the Consulate at 10:20.  They are engaged in a fire fight for 15 minutes and do not get into the main Consulate building until 10:40 p.m.,  one hour after the first call for help.  Odds are that Ambassador Stevens was already dead.

They cannot find Ambassador Stevens.  An unarmed drone shows up at 11:11 p.m., but it cannot provide much help.  At 11:30 the CIA team leaves the Consulate with those State Department personnel still alive.  It takes them six minutes to get from the Consulate to the CIA Compound.

At 11:56 p.m. the CIA compound comes under fire.  Eventually a 7 person rescue team is dispatched from Tripoli.  They have to charter a plane.  The plane arrives at the Benghazi Airport at 1:15 a.m., after a 45 minute flight.  They then spend the next three hours at the airport trying to negotiate permission to leave while frantically developing a game plan.  They finally leave the airport at 4:30 a.m. and arrive at the CIA compound at 5:04 a.m.  There is a major fire fight and this is when the two former Navy seals are killed.  Finally, at 6:00 a.m. a Libyan rescue team arrives, with 50 vehicles and escorts our survivors to the airport.  The first group of Americans leaves Benghazi for Tripoli at 7:00 a.m.  The final group leaves at 10:00 a.m.  From Tripoli they depart for the U.S.

It is easy to see why the White House was desperately hoping this story would not break before the election.  This is nothing short of embarrassing.  The most powerful nation on this earth comes under assault from terrorists and this is the best we can do?  Are you kidding me? We have a CIA compound that didn’t even have a vehicle with a .50 caliber machine gun.  There were only six people available to provide any kind of military support.  Benghazi was one of the most dangerous places on earth, but our Consulate fell so far short of the minimum security standards that someone had to sign a waiver to allow us to use it.  Ambassador Stevens had sent cables pleading for help, but nothing was done.  Actually, that is not true.  It was worse than that.  Security had been reduced.  The National Guard Special Forces unit that might have saved the day wasn’t available because it had been ordered back to the United States.

The local heroes who tried desperately to save the day should be praised.  The leaders who put them in this impossible situation must be held accountable.

The White House did not even convene the Counter Terrorism Security Group (“CSG”) during this event.  That is the whole point of the CSG.  The purpose of the CSG is to coordinate a response to a terrorist attack.  This is probably why General Ham and Admiral Gaouette were so angry.  The White House and the CIA were trying to handle this with a key stone cop’s response while the greatest military force in the history of the world was apparently kept in the dark.

My prior blog, “Send in the Drones” unfortunately may have been accurate.  The following article shows that there are drones and Special Forces teams in Libya desperately trying to find “someone.”  There is still a potential that they will kill or capture someone giving President Obama once last chance to spike the football.

http://freebeacon.com/post/34820407527/pentagon-secret-u-s-military-commandos-deployed-to

The White House is now claiming there was no delay in response because:

Instead, they said the often outmanned and outgunned team members made all the key decisions on the ground, with no second-guessing from senior officials monitoring the situation from afar.

Let me word that a little differently.  The White House sat on its collective ass and watched our local personnel engage in a desperate life and death struggle without even considering offering guidance or assistance.  Our local people were put in this position as a direct consequence of the gross incompetence and dereliction of duty by the State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA and the White House.  I wonder if anyone in the main stream media will notice.  If they do notice, will they care?

TDM

The Libya narrative is unraveling at the speed of light.  The only question is whether this will happen in time to influence the election.  Newt Gingrich said that he was informed by a U.S. Senator that at least two media networks were given copies of e-mails from the office of the National Security Advisor ordering a counterterrorism team to cancel a rescue mission at the U.S. consulate and the CIA annex in Libya.

Following is a link to that story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJVLaLd_h-8

The key minute comes at the 9:59 minute mark.

Although Gingrich describes these as rumors, he is very specific with regard to what was on those e-mails.  I doubt that this was an accident.

The Hill, which is also not a right wing media outlet, is reporting on this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/265089-white-house-shoots-down-rumors-it-nixed-benghazi-intervention

The White House issued the following statement:

“Neither the President nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi during the attack,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Hill via email

That fact that the White House even responded to this report is significant.  It is proof that someone in the press is starting to demand answers.  There is almost no time before the election, but there is evidence that the main stream media is starting to pay serious attention to this issue.  Check out the following article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-benghazi-questions-the-administration-must-answer/2012/10/30/02d02538-22e2-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html

David Ignatius has been providing cover for the White House with regard to Libya.  He argued that CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of the Benghazi attacks:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

Yet even Ignatius is acknowledging that the Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin:  has raised some questions about the attack that deserve a clearer answer from the Obama administration.

This is an admission by the Washington Post that Fox News has done some serious and credible reporting and that there are important questions that demand answers.  When someone like David Ignatius makes this kind of remark it is time to pay attention.

Fox News is reporting that they have a cable sent a month before the attack that clearly warns of the danger:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/exclusive-us-memo-warned-libya-consulate-couldnt-withstand-coordinated-attack/

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

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

There is more.  Two major U.S. military commanders were recently removed from their commands.  General Ham suddenly decided to retire.  Admiral Gaouette was removed from command of a carrier group operating in the Middle East.  The odor of a system cover-up is overwhelming.

We already know Libya was bad.  We know there were requests for more security that were ignored.  We know the Obama administration lied to cover-up something.  We know that Obama’s foreign policy is in tatters.  What we already know is bad enough.  It is shameful that the main stream media continues to ignore this story.  If this is not important, what is important?  How bad, exactly, does it have to get before they wake up?  Is there not one single competent reporter in the main stream media who has figured this out?

TDM

General Carter F. Ham suddenly retired.  He was Command of the U.S. Africa Command.  Following is an article regarding this decision.  I have no way of knowing if this is accurate:

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2012/10/general-ham-no-order-to-protect-benghazi-consulate-congressman-jason-chaffetz-interview-ham-over-africom-forces-available-but-no-order-to-use-them-given-2447844.html

It is definitely a fact that General Ham suddenly retired.  It sure looks like he was fired.  It is also a fact that Admiral Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, was relieved of command of the US Aircraft Carrier the John S. Stennis because of questions regarding his leadership judgment.  Is that a coincidence too?

http://mynorthwest.com/646/1986835/Navy-Admiral-kicked-off-his-ship-sent-back-to-Bremerton-Why

There was a report that President Obama was in the situation room watching the live video from a drone on scene of the Libya attack.  That seems logical since this was 4:00 in the afternoon and he was in the White House.  He also is known to be fascinated with drones.  The bottom line is that he is the only one who could have given the order to intervene.

The only thing certain is that the whole situation stinks to high heaven.  I don’t think the main stream media is really, willing or even able to cover this story before the election.  However, if this was a Republican President the main stream media would be in full attack mode.  Unfortunately I doubt seriously that the American people will learn anything about this until after the election.  That is probably the greatest tragedy of all.

What is obviously true is obviously true.  At best, we have an incredibly incompetent administration.  At worst?

TDM

This major storm hitting the East Coast will have a major impact on the election.  The new media apparently thinks this will help Obama because he can look Presidential.  It won’t.  The reality is that he can do nothing to affect the impact of this storm.  That is up to the local Mayors and Governors.  Obama will make a big show of declaring a state of emergency, but in reality there is little he can do.

The labor department is hinting that they may not be able to release job numbers Friday.  If they do, I predict another miraculous reduction in the unemployment rate.  That would easy to do.  They can just correct it after the election, and blame the weather.  Who knows what these clowns will do.  The least likely outcome is a straightforward report, delivered on time, with accurate information.

This storm will devaste Obama’s re-election for one simple reason.  It is going to hit the most heavily Democratic part of the country.  There is no way that this won’t decrease voter turnout.  But it will impact Democrats more than Republicans.  Republicans are so anxious to vote Obama out of office that they will crawl two miles through broken glass on bloody knees if necessary.   Democrats not so much.   The Obama administration has to know this, so don’t be surprised if they try desperately to delay the election.  At a minimum, they will trying get an emergency injunction increasing the length of time when people can vote.   But the storm is hitting a week early and it will be long gone by next Tuesday.  The only thing certain is that this is going to be a big unprecedented mess.

Romney is now leading in all the credible polls, including in Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.  The Obama adminstration is starting to show signs of panic.  You can bet your bottom dollar that after Obama loses this election he will blame his loss on this storm.  That is just the way liberals view the world.

The storm clouds over Libya are even more serious than the ones from Hurricane Sandy.   Fox News reported that Obama was in the White House and watched the attack on a live feed.  The same person said that Obama was the only one who could have authorized sending assistance.  If that story hits the main stream media, it will be beyond devastating for Obama.  No one is the main stream media is challenging the Fox News report, they are just refusing to cover the story.  My hunch is that they will bury the lede and say they were too focused on the big story, which is the hurricane.  They are clearly willing to do anything to avoid asking Obama tough questions about Libya or anything else.

I now think that Romney wins by a margin higher than anyone can even imagine.  I also predict that Republicans will do much better in the Senate elections than is currently predicted.  But the biggest loser is likely to be the main stream media.  The bias, the laziness and the arrogant incompetence is now too obvious for anyone to ignore.

Romney was already surging and he can only benefit from the storm surge.

TDM

If the following report is true, Hillary Clinton, at the urging of Bill Clinton, just threw President Obama completely under the bus.  According to Ed Klein, Hillary Clinton requested additional security for the Mission in Benghazi and that the request was turned down by President Obama.

http://nation.foxnews.com/hillary-clinton/2012/10/26/report-hillary-asked-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no

This is from Joe Klein, who is the author of The Amateur.  The man has connections within both the Clinton and the Obama crowds.  This is coming out on the same day Fox News is reporting that the CIA agents in Benghazi were asking for assistance and were told to stand down.

If these stories are true, and they certainly look legitimate, it will eliminate any chance of Obama getting re-elected.  He was already on his way to defeat, but apparently the Clinton’s were unwilling to risk any chance of Obama winning.  Obama already tried to throw Hillary Clinton under the bus and if Obama was re-elected the truth may never have seen the light of day.  That would have left Hillary Clinton unelectable in 2016.  Ultimately, Hillary may go down too, but she will not leave Obama standing.

Hillary even dropped a hint that she wouldn’t mind being a Secretary of State under Mitt Romney.  Hillary knows that this will never happen.  What she was really saying is that Mitt Romney is acceptable as President.

Remember that a couple of days ago Bill Clinton skewered Obama when he said that he thought Obama was about to cry when talking to the black guy in the debate because he realized how badly he had let people down.

For those of you who doubted my War of the Roses theory, doubt no more.  It doesn’t get any worse than this.

TDM