Dishonesty, Incompetence or Plausible Deniability?

I posted a detailed question on Facebook last night concerning the President, Benghazi, General Petraeus and just what, exactly, is being reported to the President by his administration.  A few of my conservative friends jumped on the question with mostly partisan responses, which I expected.  In addition, I was attacked andb/or ridiculed by some Obama supporters who decided my question was irrelevant and that I was merely attacking the President.  They (those on the left) refused to give any kind of real answer to the question. 

Perhaps I've earned those responses from Obama fans since I've been very critical of him and his policies since he's been in office.  I seem to disagree with nearly everything he stands for and believes politically.  That's the nature of partisan politics.  However, last night's question was a bit different and I was hoping for a serious discussion.  Whether they (Obama fans) believe it or not, I would be asking the same question of a Republican President or an Independent President because I believe the answer is important for the country.  I'll let people decide for themselves what's important to them when I post the question here as well.  Maybe instead of only partisan responses (I did get one non-partisan response that supported my asking the question), I'll get some intelligent and thought provoking responses that address the actual question rather than attacking the one who asked it.  (Yes - that would be me.)

I prefaced the question with the following (modified slightly to give you more detail):

President Obama and Vice President Biden initially said they were not told about requests for increased security in Benghazi and also stated numerous times that the attack on the consulate was a protest over a video that went bad.

Today (yesterday now) Obama said he was not told that General Petraeus was under investigation by the FBI until General Petraeus resigned his position as CIA Director. 

These denials of knowledge lead one to believe one of three things (and I'd like someone to tell me which it is):

1. President Obama knew about both of these things and is lying, or...

2. President Obama's administration is incompetent and operates on their own without informing the President, or...

3. President Obama's administration leaves him in the dark intentionally to give him plausible deniability on major events. 

So which is it?

As I said - it didn't take long for me to be attacked by Obama supporters. 

One person went on and on about how Obama won and that's all we need to know.  Another said "you are asking loaded questions to appeal to your audience and, as any 5th grade logic student will tell you, none of your answers can be absolute and be true or false!"

Yet another said "We don't know what has been going on in the White House and we shouldn't.  So I agree all your questions are loaded.  You expect a miracle to happen."

Excuse me but - we shouldn't know what's going on in the White House?  The CIA Director resigned and four Americans died in a terrorist attack on our  Libyan consulate and we shouldn't know what's going on?  It's blind allegiance like that which will lead to a dictatorship in the United States of America.  Certainly there are top secret things going on that the public has no need to know - at least at the time.  But let's not put a blanket over the White House and never inform the public of anything - especially from a President who promised transparency.

As you can see, no one actually wanted to give me an answer to a question that I find very relevant and important.  If the President is not being informed of what's going on in the world and in his own administration then there is a problem, particularly if the events he doesn't know about are  serious.  One has to ask himself why this is happening.

Is it because there is a failure in the system and agency heads are operating on their own without consulting or at least advising the President?  Do we want that to happen?

Could it be there is an unwritten rule that they don't inform the President of certain things because if whatever it is goes wrong, the President can honestly deny knowledge of it.  And gee - how good would that be (for anyone but the President himself...)?

The other option is that the President is being kept informed of all these occurrences but chooses to lie to the American people about what he knows.  As we've seen from the amassing evidence from Benghazi, lying to the people can come back to bite you if the lies are uncovered.  And it is my own personal belief that continued denial or delaying the truth about an incident because it's "still under investigation" for months or even years will eventually hurt a Presidency.

One of my more reasonable friends suggested that Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI and a Republican, may have deliberately not informed the President of the Petraeus investigation (and apparently was not legally required to) because he (Mueller) would "love to see egg on the President's face."  That may or may not be true but if it is - the President should consider removing him from his position immediately if he sees Mueller as a problem.  Since Mueller is a Presidential appointee, Obama has full authority to do just that.

If, on the other hand, these agency heads have instructions not to tell the President about things that could be an embarrassment to him so that he can save face by denying any knowledge of them, then the problem is not with the agency heads.  It lies with the President and his advisers.

And if the President is simply lying to the people about what he knew and when, it goes against one of this biggest campaign promises in 2008...  "If elected, I will run an administration of absolute transparency and will hold all accountable, including myself."

President Obama has just been re-elected to a second term by an unquestionable majority.  As I said last week - it would be really wonderful to see him begin living up to that '08 campaign promise and be honest and straightforward with the people of the United States.  For those of you who follow blindly without questioning what he says and does, I must wonder if you'll do the same thing when a Republican is in the White House.  I'm guessing not.  That makes you hypocrites.  And before anyone asks - yes, I criticized Bush.  I didn't have a blog or Facebook back then but I criticized him plenty.  But criticizing Bush today (and still blaming him for everything) accomplishes nothing, except maybe to make Obama supporters feel better about Obama's failures.  But that's not really helping the country, is it?

I still welcome somebody to give me a logical, non-partisan answer to my questions.  Regardless of your party affiliation, I'd like an answer free of emotion or ridicule, and without a personal attack on the President or me.  That would be refreshing.  You can even come up with another reason for what I've outlined if you have one.  I'd really like an answer based on reason instead of emotion.  I'll wait...

Obama Won The Election - Let's Secede Now...!

Since the re-election of President Obama there have been petitions in at least 20 states submitted to the Federal government to allow each of those states to "peacefully secede from the Union."  These petitions basically cite disagreement with the Obama administration on policies and spending issues and base their request on the Declaration of Independence's dramatic assertion that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government."

Those who know me know I am basically an independent conservative.  I am not a Republican and have many disagreements with the Republican party but I find myself voting for Republicans in most cases because I am nearly completely opposed to the liberal agendas and policies.  I am also a Christian and find it nearly impossible (in my humble opinion) to reconcile Christianity with liberalism.  It just doesn't work for me.

One might think I'd be in favor of these secession petitions so those of us who disagree with the President's agenda and policies could form our own conservative government.  But nothing could be further from the truth. 

I'm not happy about the results of the election - that's no secret.  I'm no fan of Obama and disagree with nearly everything he stands for.  However, I'm not crazy enough to believe that secession, dividing the United States of America into two separate nations, is a good idea.  These are but a few reasons why:

First of all, with the possible exception of Texas, no state is powerful enough (or has enough funds) to stand individually as a nation.  Let's remember that even if a state was allowed to secede, those who love Obama would leave and remain in the union, which would reduce each seceding state's population, thus reducing the number of employed and revenue coming into the government.  Granted, Obama haters from other states would very possibly want to move to one of these newly independent states but that would take time and paperwork, particularly since no state would want to secede from the union without securing their borders to prevent people from entering illegally.

Seceding states would have to seek out and secure trade agreements with other seceding states since you can bet one of the first things that would happen is that states remaining in the union would be banned from (or would voluntarily ban) trading with the secessionist states.  Seceding states would be left on their own to seek out  trade and commerce wherever they could find it but I'm sure the remaining United States would not be part of that. 

Each state would have to fund their own military, without federal aid.  Very few could afford it.  In addition, the federal government would want all of its equipment back.  Sure, fat chance they'd get it but the feds' first move would be to call all active duty military people to leave the secessionist states and report to a union state.  How many would choose the freedom of a secessionist state over the union?  And how ugly would it get in the meantime?

If I was the President of the United States and for some reason allowed some states to secede, the first thing I is cut everything off from the seceding states, i.e., business transactions, etc.  In other words - since General Motors is based in Michigan (assuming Michigan did not secede) then no GM dealers in seceding states would receive vehicles for sale anymore.  Likewise with any and all major corporations based in union states.  Seceding states would have to create their own companies. 

Seceding states would also have to find their own energy sources.  Those states without oil or gasoline would have to find it in other seceding states and be able to purchase it - something that would be difficult since money from the union would likely no longer have value.  Certainly seceding states having an abundance would be willing share, for a while.  But that wouldn't last forever.  Could they survive?

Even if the states were able to successfully secede from the Union and survive on their own, would they join together to form a new country or would they attempt to stand on their own?  Either way - what happens if a large group of people in one of those states decides they aren't happy with their current government?  Further separation?  Independent cities or counties that secede from the state?  Where does it end?

These would-be secessionists are making a show and taking a stand but is it really a practical stand?  I believe it's not.  Many of us are unhappy with the country's choice for the next four years.  So be it.  What true conservative patriots need to do now is seek out and promote a good, solid conservative for the next election who is not part of the Republican establishment nor intimidated by them.  We also need to vote very carefully in the 2014 elections and get rid of as many establishment Republicans as possible.  Put independents in their places if necessary.  The Republican party has moved to the left in the last 20 years and they now criticize true conservatives.  It's time for them to go.

There was a time, in my younger days, when I believed President Lincoln should have allowed the Southern states to secede and try it on their own.  They had no real manufacturing capabilities at the time - only agriculture.  It is my guess that within about five years their government would have been hurting to the point that they asked to join the union again.  I could be wrong - times were simpler then.  But I don't think they'd have made it successfully for too long.

Seceding from the union was a bad idea in the 1860s and it's a worse idea today.  If, for some reason, it was allowed to proceed I would have to support President Obama's efforts to preserve the union, just as I support President Lincoln's efforts to preserve the union back then.  Destroying the union over one Presidential term is a ridiculous notion.  We have the power to correct things in four years.  If something drastic happens between now and then, other steps may need to be taken.  But if we allow the liberals to cause such drastic disruption in our nation that we decide it's time to divide the nation, they have won.

Thoughts On Obama's Re-election...

The election is over and President Obama has been re-elected to a second term.  Mitt Romney ran a fair race and it was a close competition all day.  In the end, Mr. Obama won the popular vote and the electoral college vote so he is the President by majority all the way around.  And I congratulate him.

He was not my choice but he is the President and will be for another four years.  And I will support him.  I may not always agree with him but that is my right as an American citizen in a free society.  Those who love him will decry my disagreement as racism, sour grapes, unwillingness to cooperate, etc., but the bottom line is I'm not going to change my beliefs and morals to please those on the left.  That is why there are different parties - we have different fundamental values. 

 What I'd like to see the President do in his second term is what he actually promised in the first campaign.  I'd like him to be honest and transparent.  He promised that when he was running in 2008 yet he has had one of the most secretive, covered up administrations in history.  His signature health care law was drummed up in locked offices and passed through coercion and back room deals.  Fast and Furious was initially blamed on George W. Bush (until facts proved that it was a completely different operation) and the Attorney General of the United States is most likely lying to keep it covered up.  President Obama told Dmitry Medvedev he would have "more flexibility after the election."  God, Obama and Medvedev are the only ones who know what that really means but if it's about reducing our nuclear arsenal it can't be good.

The President has been very difficult to read concerning Israel.  On one hand he says we will support Israel as our friend and ally and on the other he says he wants to see their borders go back to where they were in 1969.  It has also been rumored that if Israel attack Iran's nuclear facility without notifying the White House ahead of time they are on their own.  That's got to make Israel fully trust their "friend and ally", huh?

President Obama said there would be no tax increases on anyone making under $200,000 yet as the health care law continues to be implemented our taxes will go up.  He also raised taxes on many items used by lower and middle income consumers making them more expensive.  So "not raising taxes" is a myth.

During his first term, the President funded numerous green energy companies that failed miserably.  We all need oil to run the country and we will for at least 10-20 more years, until another viable source of energy can be created in an efficient and cost effective manner.  Yet he stopped oil drilling in many places, blocked the pipeline and sent billions to other countries so they can drill  for oil.  Gee - what about taking care of your own country first?

I'll be waiting to see changes in the Obama way of doing things.  I'll be waiting to see him make some positive changes for the nation instead of making pretty speeches, blaming other people for the problems and making his followers swoon.  Until that happens, don't ask me to happy about Obama's re-election nor to stop criticizing him.  There's a lot to criticize until he changes his ways.  And as long as I still have the freedom to speak my mind, that's exactly what I'll be doing.

The Republicans' War On Women...

The Republicans are waging a war against women in their 2012 election campaign.  From Mitt Romney on down to local state senators, they want to take over the government and immediately overturn Roe vs. Wade, end PAP smears and mammograms, destroy Planned Parenthood, overturn Obamacare so that women's health care disappears, and do away with contraception all together.  They all believe the same thing and if possible, they will return us to the days where women are completely subservient to men and remain in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.  It's true.  I've heard a few liberals, both men and women, say it on TV,  radio and on the internet! 

Only problem with all of this is - very little of it is actually true.

The only war on women raging in today's America is the one that the Obama campaign and the left in general is waging.  They are treating women like they are brainless beings who can't think for themselves and need to vote according to their reproductive organs to cast an intelligent vote.  Any woman with a brain and a little education knows, if she truly looks at what's being said, that it's all hype and make-believe designed to cause women to fear a Romney/Ryan ticket.  But let's look at the facts.

The Obama campaign has said over and over that Romney and Ryan will overturn Roe vs. Wade.  Even though Mitt Romney has repeatedly said he has no interest in overturning the law, people keep saying it and some women believe it.  The truth is, regardless of what Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan believe, as President and Vice President they would have no power or authority to overturn the law.  The President and Vice President do not have the authority to overturn a Supreme Court decision.  The only way the law could be overturned is if the Supreme Court  became very conservative and decided to overturn it.  Problem with that is - no one is seriously discussing doing that.  It's all campaign rhetoric and lies from the left.

Neither Romney nor Ryan, nor anyone else running as a Republican candidate for office, has even remotely suggested that PAP smears and mammograms disappear.  What has been said is that the American people shouldn't have to pay for a woman's birth control and/or abortions.  The reasoning is simple - most people in the country are able to pay for their own food, clothing, etc., and the general public is not required to pay the bills for them.  So why should the general public be required to pay for contraceptives and abortions?  Having sex is not a right afforded by the Constitution.  Why should the general public be forced to pay for a woman's personal choices? 

Statistically, single women favor President Obama and married women favor Mitt Romney.  Recent polls show married women are strongly backing Mitt Romney, 55%-40%, while single women favor Obama over Romney 50%-41%.  Could the contraception and abortion issue, as well as Obamacare be the reason?

Many Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood - take away their federal dollars.  Myself included.  Planned Parenthood kills unborn babies and is the single biggest cause of genocide for African American children.  Interesting how that works.  Democrats want to continue public funding to an organization that kills mostly black babies.  Hmmmm.

As for Obamacare - personally I think it's a disaster.  The CBO has gone back and forth about it but finally said it would cost far more than originally predicted.  And the taxes on the American people are going to go up, period.  We need health care reform but Obamacare is not the answer.

As for the notion that Republicans want to return us all to the 18th century - it's all make believe to make women fear Romney.  The President said it in 2008...  "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things."  That's exactly what Obama is doing right now.  Big Bird, binders, war on women....  it's all because his record as a President sucks. 

Tomorrow is the day to fix it.  Romney may not be the answer to all of America's problems but he'll certainly be better than another four years of the status quo.  President Obama is running on fixing roads and bridges, repairing our infrastructure.  That's the same thing he campaigned on in 2008 that should be done by now.  Has he offered anything different for the next four years besides his own failed policies and goals?  He's running on 2008 promises because he has failed on almost all of them.

Vote tomorrow.  Vote with your heart for the good of the country rather than your own agenda.  I can't fault you if you vote differently than I do but I may question your motives.  You can tell me if you wish - if you can explain it.  The future of the country is up to you....

Just Another Day In The Obama Administration...

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, George W. Bush was criticized by the mainstream media for his slow response to the people of New Orleans.  FEMA trailers were slow in arriving and food, clothing and federal funds seemed slow to arrive on scene.  The media and the liberal left blasted the Bush administration and even went so far as to say Bush hated black people and that's why the response was so slow.

Fast forward to October 2012.  Hurricane Sandy hits New Jersey and slams New York City.  The day after, the President travels to New Jersey for some pictures on Atlantic City beach, makes promises that everyone will be taken care of, and then flies to Las Vegas the next day. 

In radio interviews yesterday I heard people from Staten Island and the West Village say they are hungry, have no power and no water and are defecating in the hallways of apartment buildings.  There are also reports of people searching dumpsters looking for food.  While the President is traveling about the country in style seeking re-election, the people he promised help to  really need it.  So where is the main stream media.  If Bush was still President they'd be all over him.  Of course, they'd have blamed the hurricane on him too.

In other news, yesterday in Ohio, President Obama was giving a campaign speech and mentioned Mitt Romney.  The crowd, showing just how much class they had, began booing Romney's name.  The President help up his hand and said "Don't boo.  Vote.  Voting is the best revenge."

Here's a question for the current President of the United States and the leader of the free world...   Voting is the best revenge against who?  Against those of us who don't like your failed socialistic policies?  Against those who disagree that government is the answer to all problems?  Against those of  us who think you're in way over your head?  Or maybe just against those of us who disagree with Barack Almighty...?

And what, exactly, needs to be avenged?  Did our disagreement with you and your policies do something to the rest of the country that needs avenged?

Personally, I believe Mr. Obama was trying to be cute and sarcastic.  It seems he sometimes forgets the position he's in and the responsibility he has to act like an adult.  More than once he has allowed his temper to get the best of him an turn his actions and words into childish behavior.  But then - taking care choosing your words and actions are not really a part of typical Chicago politics.  Ask Rahm Emmanuel.

Finally, there are numerous reports in various states that voting machines are casting votes for President Obama even when the voters cast their votes for Romney.  If it was happening in one state/town, I could maybe see a glitch or a malfunction that was coincidental.  But it has happened in at least three states now:  Kansas, Ohio and North Carolina.  In Nevada,  the maintenance workers hired to maintain the voting machines nationwide are members of none other than the ever-popular SEIU, one of the President's favorite unions.  (You remember them - they're the ones who physically assaulted the black Tea Party member in St. Louis who was handing out "Don't Tread On Me" flags during a rally.  They have been tied to other political violence as well.

And speaking of unions - this week some non-union electricians from Alabama drove to New Jersey to assist with restoring electricity to the residents of the area hit by hurricane Sandy.  They were turned away by union electricians and told to "Go back where you came from."  They were called "scab" and "scum" and several vulgar names that I won't put in here. 

Apparently, in New Jersey, union labor is more important than the health, safety and comfort of the citizens.  These non-union electricians were there to help speed up the process of restoring power to the citizens but the Electricians'  Union didn't allow that to happen.  It's got to make an elderly person with no electricity and no heat feel really good to know that while they are suffering, at least there won't be any non-union workers helping out.  We can't have that.

A Hero's Family...

I just watched an interview with Charles Woods, the father of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya - the same one that killed three others including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

I must say that I'm very impressed with Mr. Woods and his family.  Mr. Woods wants answers.  He's not pointing fingers or singling anyone out for blame.  He said he didn't vote for President Obama or John McCain in 2008 so it's not a political quest.  He simply wants to know why his son and the others couldn't get assistance from the United States - the military and/or the CIA.  He wants to know why he and others at the CIA compound were told to "stand down" when the calls for assistance came in.  Most important of all, he wants to know why those calls for assistance were denied even as the President and others were watching the attack take place in real time in the situation room at the White House.  I must say that I agree with him - I want answers too.

The Woods family, being Christians, are forgoing anger and hatred for Christian love and understanding.  They want answers, certainly, but they're not harboring hatred for those who made poor decisions, or for those  who lied about it afterward.  They just want answers.  That, in itself, makes them honorable.

I learned a couple of things tonight that impressed me completely.  First - Dick Morris, a Democrat and former member of the Clinton administration, has raised $350,000 on his website, "dickmorris.com", for the college education of Tyrone Woods, Jr., the grandson of Charles Woods.  Secondly, and more poignant, Tyrone Woods, Jr., has enlisted in the Navy because he decided to follow in his father's footsteps.  His father got the chance to ask him why he was going to do that and he responded "America needs people who will serve and protect her.  If I don't do it, who will?" 

I watched the tears of pride in Charles Woods' eyes as he told this portion of the story.  I couldn't help the ones that formed in my own eyes.  What a wonderful, touching tribute to his hero father - a man who disobeyed orders and went to help fellow Americans who were under attack and saved several others before he finally was killed.  Honor apparently runs in the family.

President Obama - I call on you to come clean and tell the truth about Libya.  Your dedicated supporters would praise you for telling the truth and the mainstream media will never abandon you.  These grieving families need answers.  And you, Mr. President, are the only one who can produce them.  Only this time - tell them the truth.  Your lies about the attack and the aftermath have destroyed your credibility.  I can't believe anyone in the military would vote for you now.  If so - they are blind.

I'll tell you this - if you come clean and tell the truth, I'll respect you.   I won't vote for you but I'll respect you.  And these days, genuine respect is something you seem to need...

Admirals and Generals and Libya, Oh My!

I'm posting this for people to read and discern on their own.  This information has not been verified yet it seems to be very closely following the information we have already seen.  Even some of the liberal, main-stream media outlets have picked up on some of it but they will not report it honestly if it could in some way harm President Obama's chances of re-election.  In fact - they'll probably go out of their way to disprove it if they can.

What I find most curious (and disturbing) is the General and Admiral being relieved of command.  If these command officers attempted to take action to save the lives of Americans under attack, against the direction of the President, and they are being relieved of command because of it, then it means the President has not only lied about the entire incident but put his own political goals ahead of the lives of American citizens.  And if that's true it's not only disgusting but I believe it may be grounds for impeachment.

You can read the article and decide for yourself.  There are links included to give more information about each scenario.  Follow them to your own conclusions.

Where are Woodward and Bernstein when we need them.....?

Admirals and Generals Oh My… Are Being Relieved Of Duty

I will be updating this article as the information keeps coming in, so keep coming back to see if any new information has been posting.

I am not one to start rumors or spread them, but I find this very interesting considering the fiasco at Benghazi Embassy and our military being told to stand down. For the men and women in uniform, it mus

t have of been a hard thing to watch as former Navy SEAL’s are being murdered alongside our ambassador.

The stories that are now coming out;

Gen Ham was fired 30 seconds after deciding to intervene in Benghazi: I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below.

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

The Scuttlebutt;

The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africon.

That is true to some extent. Stripes confirmed that General Ham will be replaced by General Rodiguez but no explanation was given:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.

Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.

Rodriguez is the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command and has served in a “variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said.

He’s “a proven leader” who oversaw coalition and Afghan forces during the surge in Afghanistan, and “was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.

It also seems an Admiral in charge of a battle group in the Mediterranean Sea will also be relieved for “inappropriate judgement”;

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.

I find both these stories very odd since I am a former military member. I have never seen an Admiral of an entire battle Group relieved of his command in my 10 years experience. I have seen Commanders, but never Admirals.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has picked up on ithttp://goo.gl/YqyDF

UPDATE: BlackFive has a little “back and forth” with a legendary Delta Force Operator who said;

Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.

If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!

PJ Tattler has some more info http://goo.gl/olLwA

Hillary Clinton’s Lawyer allegely has documents that prove Obama held back security for the Embassy. She is witholding it incase Obama intends to throw her under the bus. If she decides to hold this from the American people, I will personally make sure the American people never forget that she put her career first before these Patriotic soldiers.

UPDATE: via GatewayPundit http://goo.gl/xGjq5

On Friday former Assistant Secretary of Defense Bing West told Greta Van Susteren that if Obama gave the order to secure the consulate in Benghazi on 9-11 there would be a paper trail.

This morning on FOX News Bing West doubled down.  West does not believe there ever was a presidential order:

“In my judgement the audio track will show the White House knew that there was an attack going on. The real critical issue is the president says that he immediately ordered all available assets to help. The military would have put out an order from the president. There’s no question about that… What I’m asking is, “Show us the order!” Mr. President if you said use everything available and our military immediately sent out the order, simply show us the order. I have great reservations that there is no such order.“

Former Asst. Defense Sec. Bing West: There Was No Order to Secure Benghazi
http://goo.gl/75El1 

Apparently Obama was also in the situation room when it was all going down, So he was directly involved.

http://www.citizens-news.com/2012/10/28/president-obama-watched-the-benghazi-snuff-film-from-the-situation-room/

UPDATE: I am trying to keep all the stories in one spot, so bear with me…

We have been hearing stories of Obama trying to pass the buck to different agencies. First it was the State Department, then it was the CIA and the military.

Michelle Malkin has info on CIA

CIA: We didn’t tell anybody not to respond to the request for help during the Benghazi attack

Also;  General Patraeus Throws Obama Under The Bus

UPDATE; Via National Review Online

Chris Wallace asked Virginia Senator Mark Warner, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on whether the American drones monitoring the Benghazi attack were armed.

I can understand how it would be politically embarrassing for the administration if it turns out those drones were armed and the weapons were not fired when those men, the Americans, were under attack for 7 hours. I can’t understand how it would give up valuable intelligence. Can you tell me directly, were the drones armed or not that were flying over Benghazi and were recording it in real time? 

And he stonewalls:
----------------------------------------------------------
Here's the shorthand of this story, General Ham was told to stand down. He said screw it and was going to send a QRF to aide the consulate in Benghazi. Roughly a min after this decision was made his second in command relieved him. An Admiral in Charge of the entire Battlegroup in the Mediterranean was relieved on the same night for "inappropriate judgement". 

Here's the thing, now we can add the relieving of Generals and Admirals to the list of CIA assets that were on the ground being ordered to stand down 3 times. Which if they hadn't have gone out and relieved the consulate 30 more people would be dead right now. OH, almost forgot the firefight went on from 9:40 at night to roughly 4 AM. We had jets within 20 minutes, Ac130 within 1 hour and, Special forces and other ground assets within about 2 Hours. THIS IS NOT CONJECTURE, it is FACT. There was a LIVE FEED OF THE ATTACK, that much like the Osama Bin Laden raid was piped up to the situation room in the white house. Conclusion: someone watched people die, only one person has the authority to grant or stop a rescue mission in these situations. So there it is folks, take from that what you will. 

http://www.citizens-news.com/2012/10/27/admirals-and-generals-oh-my-are-being-relieved-of-duty/

'STAND DOWN': U.S. HAD TWO DRONES, AC-130 GUNSHIP, AND TARGETS PAINTED IN BENGHAZI

Reports indicate two drones and an AC-130 gunship were in the area when Benghazi was attacked, yet their resources were not used.

This runs completely against the current explanation coming out of the White House, which is that Obama did everything he could once he learned of the attack.

You'll remember that in the second presidential debate, Obama said that as "soon as I was aware the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team." The not-so-subtle intimation is that Obama was stepping up to the protect the U.S. personnel who were in Libya. And in the wakes of their deaths, which weren't "optimal," we have been assured that stronger action wasn't taken stronger because those options weren't available.

Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta gave us another version this same excuse, saying: "The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over."

There are three huge problems with the excuses Obama and Panetta are making.

1. It is now known that the U.S. had two drones in the area -- both of which were filming the attacks, sending back feeds in real time, and at least one of the drones may have been armed.

2. Reports also indicate a Specter gunship, probably an AC-130, was in the area for backup. The gunship could have swooped in and not only leveled the playing field in the match between 50 attackers vs a handful of security personnel, it could have thrown the attack decisively in favor of the security personnel.

3. The security personnel in Benghazi had painted a laser mark on the attackers outside the consulate. This mark would have made possible a response by the drones or the AC-130 routine had they been allowed to zero in on it. The member of the security team who was on the roof of the consulate, spraying machine gun fire down on the attackers, continually asked for backup from the AC-130. It never came.

Obama says he was doing everything he could, and Panetta says we didn't react more strongly because we weren't sure what was going on. Yet we now know two drones were sending back video of the attack in real time, and at least one of those drones may have been armed. We also know a massive AC-130 gunship could have been used for backup as well, but it was not. And we know that security was begging for backup and even marking targets with lasers for the drones and/or gunship so they could make quick work of the attackers.

Yet Obama chose not to respond, and that's the bottom line.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/27/U-S-Had-Two-Drones-AC-130-Gunship-and-Targets-Painted-In-Benghazi-But-Obama-Didn-t-Pull-The-Trigger