When in doubt...

As I'm sure you're aware, there have been some scandals going on in our country.  IRS targeting conservative groups, the DoJ targeting AP and Fox News journalists, the NSA apparently collecting massive amounts of information on innocent American citizens, and my personal favorite: the attacks in Benghazi.  Just to remind you, all of these scandals involving all of these different agencies have one thing (and one thing only) in common: The President, Barack Obama.

And when one criticizes this current President, the liberals come out swinging to defend him.  They don't particularly like to debate the issues though; they would much rather change the subject and deflect the criticism in another direction once their argument quickly runs out of gas.  If you try and debate one of these scandals with a liberal, there's a few signs to look out for to know when you've backed them into a corner and won the argument.  When in doubt, they will call you a racist, blame the (conservative) victim or blame George W. Bush.  I'm not here to talk about the race card today, because that is the flimsiest of the defenses, and I've previously covered their victim blaming.  I am currently more concerned with the current administration's (and its' defenders') continuing tactic of blaming Bush for everything that went wrong here recently.

Three of the four major scandals going on right now fall under this tactic to some degree.  The outlier is Benghazi  but we won't cover that today because everyone knows questioning the events in Benghazi means you're racist (against Obama), sexist (against Clinton), or on a partisan witch hunt.  Before diving into these scandals, I'd like to remind everyone that every single thing that went wrong for 8 years under George W. Bush was directly Bush's fault according to liberals.  9/11?  Housing market collapse?  Economic recession? Abu Gharib prisoner abuse?  Patriot Act?  Missing WMDs in Iraq?  Guantanamo Bay?  Hurricane Katrina? You name it and it was Bush's fault according to liberals, because it happened under his watch.  If a Democrat got a hang-nail while Bush was in office, it was Bush's fault.  To quote the movie Rules of Engagement, "Even if you thought it wasn't your fault, it went wrong, and you were there".

That's fine if you want to apply that logic, because accountability needs to start at the top.  The problem is that this logic is 100% ignored in reference to the current administration.  Benghazi attacks?  Boston bombing? Jobs disappearing?  IRS targeting political enemies?  NSA tracking innocent Americans?  DoJ suppressing freedom of press?  Guantanamo Bay still open?  Hurricane Sandy?  Obama wasn't there, wasn't involved, didn't know anything about it, and isn't accountable for any of it.  Yet somehow, Bush is still responsible.  It hurts my head.

When it came out that the IRS was targeting conservative groups, IRS chairman Doug Shulman resigned but refused to take any responsibility for his department's actions.  This man, a known donor to the Democratic party, was appointed by Bush in 2007.  That is the best defense the Democrats have.  George Bush tries to extend an olive branch to the other side, tries to appoint a Democrat specifically citing that we need someone impartial in this spot, and Shulman immediately turns his back on conservatives.  This man served one year under Bush, and four under Obama, but somehow this is still all Bush's fault.  Their defense is essentially "Yeah, he's one of us.  Yeah, he did all of these horrible things.  Yeah, he spent four times longer under Obama than Bush.  But its still your fault for hiring him!  Its your fault for trusting us!"  Let's not hold anyone accountable who was involved in these recent actions, rather let's blame the man who hired him six years ago.  How could it possibly be a partisan attack against conservatives if a conservative hired this man?  Disregard all of the actual evidence against him and his IRS.

To quickly mention the other two scandals, they also continue to blame Bush.  The DoJ is targeting journalists, and the NSA is engaged in surveillance against innocent citizens.  Liberals quickly make some vague connection to the Patriot Act and then take the next step of blaming Bush.  Nevermind that Obama has massively expanded Patriot Act activities; Bush is the one that invented it.  Nevermind that the DoJ and Eric Holder fall directly under the Executive Branch, and are thus accountable to the President.  Nevermind that the NSA is part of the DoD, which directly falls under leadership of our Commander-in-Chief.  Patriot Act, George Bush, blah blah blah.

The biggest difference between Bush and Obama is accountability.  When something controversial happened under Bush, his administration stepped up and took responsibility.  Enhanced interrogations?  Yep, we waterboarded the hell out of them.  Patriot Act?  Yep, the NSA is expanding surveillance for your protection.  Deal with it.  Secret CIA prisons?  You bet.  Under the most transparent administration in history with Obama, everything is done in t
he shadows.  Their story morphs from "the White House didn't know anything about that" to "Everyone in the White House knew about it except the President".  For some reason no Democrats have a problem with that.  The biggest difference between Bush and Obama, is that I don't like being lied to.  Bush pushed the Patriot Act into existence and was quite public about it, so I may not like it but I have no problem how it came about.  Obama demonized the Patriot Act and championed civil liberties, and then expanded the Patriot Act.  He stabbed every American citizen in the back over and over with empty promises and complete lies to get elected, and that is why I have such a problem with his administration.  I may disagree with most of what a man does, but I can deal with it.  Just don't lie to me.  Is that too much to ask?

Outrageous: Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hassan Still Paid Military Salary

Yet another scandal broke today, this time courtesy of the Fun Percent’s local NBC affiliate.  Apparently since Major Nadal Hasan killed 13 people and injured 32 more at Fort Hood November 5, 2009 he has been paid $278,000.  I wish I was joking.  The Department of Defense has continued to pay Hasan in the three and half years since the attack because, under the Military Code of Justice, his pay cannot be suspended until he has been proven guilty.  Now that’s a pretty sweet deal.  If I murdered someone, I don’t think my employer would continue to pay me while incarcerated.

Meanwhile, the Fort Hood Shooting victims are fighting to get combat injury benefits.  Initially at least one of the victims’ injuries were classified as combat related by an Army review board, but that decision was later overturned by higher-ups in the Army.  Classifying the injuries of the victims of the Fort Hood shooting as “combat related” would make them eligible for Purple Heart retirement and medical benefits.  These are the same benefits given to soldiers wounded during the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon.  So, why aren’t Fort Hood shooting victims being afforded the same benefits?  I’ll tell you why; because the Fort Hood shooting has been classified as “workplace violence” as opposed to a terrorist attack.  Yes, you read that correctly.  Nadal Hasan spent months communicating via e-mail with Anwar al Awlaki who, before he died, was a senior talent recruiter and motivator and was involved in planning terrorist operations for al-Qaeda.  Hasan reportedly asked al Awlaki when jihad is appropriate, if it’s permissible for innocents to be killed or injured in suicide attacks, and how to transfer funds abroad without coming to the attention of the authorities.  Allegedly their e-mail communication was consistent with Hasan’s research about Muslims in the armed forces and evidently did not raise any red flags within the DoD or FBI even though al Awlaki was a major influence on English speaking jihadis.  Right before Hasan opened fire at the Fort Hood Solider Readiness Processing Center he shouted “Allahu Akbar” which is a phrase often used by Islamic terrorists ("extremists" as our President would call them), including the 9/11 hijackers, before carrying out attacks. 

Several victims have estimated that over the past three and half years they have lost more than $70,000 in benefits because they haven’t been classified as having “combat related” injuries.  The DoD, the Obama administration and the country as a whole should be embarrassed that we are allowing a murderer (and terrorist, but shhh, we don’t call him that) to make way more a year than the average American while his victims are struggling to pay for their medical bills, pay rent or even buy groceries.    

So, why hasn’t the Fort Hood shooting been classified as a terrorist attack?  Well, as we all know Obama has a history of kowtowing to the Muslim world, especially in regards to Islamic extremists.  We wouldn’t want to offend anyone by calling someone who communicated for months with a known member of al-Qaeda and shouted “Allahu Akbar” before going on to kill 13 people a terrorist.  That might make them upset.  It could even spark protests in Muslim countries, just like that offensive YouTube video was the reason behind the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi.  Oh wait, Muslim extremists don’t need a reason to attack Americans.  Plus, if the shooting is classified as a terrorist attack, then the DoD, the FBI and the Obama administration would be on the hook for not taking Hasan’s communications with al Awlaki seriously.  So, let’s just call it workplace violence and sweep it under the wrong.  Problem solved.  Then again, it’s been a few weeks since Obama’s been on vacation, maybe he’ll instruct the DoD to classify the shooting as a terrorist attack so he can go on another apology world tour, I hear the Middle East is nice this time of year.   

The Word of the Day: Irrelevant

Remember when Obama's biggest criticism was that he took too many vacations?  Remember when his biggest problem was that people thought he played too much golf?  Remember when the biggest outrage was that he spent too much time hanging out with celebrities at the White House?  Do you think he would like to rewind back a few months to that time?

Remember when Democrats and the liberal media told us these things were non-issues?  Remember when they asserted that there was so few flaws in Obama's administration that Republicans were stretching to find anything to be upset about?

Well, in case you haven't seen the news lately, we are in the middle of three major scandals that happened under his watch.  Is he directly to blame for the Benghazi cover up  the IRS targeting of conservative groups, or the DoJ secretly going after AP and Fox News reporters?  Time will tell.  But now that there are legitimate scandals of massive proportions going down under his watch, Democrats will surely come around and join in on the outrage right?  When Republicans were complaining that he was taking too many vacations, they were the ones who basically yawned and said "Let us know when you find something real to complain about".  Well now we have something to complain about, and what is their reaction?  The exact same thing as before.

Apparently a terrorist attack on a US diplomatic mission in Benghazi and subsequent cover up is a non-issue.  An IRS scandal targeting individuals based on political ideology which could have influenced the outcome of the Presidential election is a non-issue.  The DoJ suppressing freedom of speech and press is a non-issue.  These things are "irrelevant" according to Whitehouse spokesperson Dan Pfeiffer.  These topics are unjust criticism.  These investigations are nothing more than right-wing partisan witch hunts.  In fact, you're probably a racist for even questioning the current administration.

There is proof in the released Benghazi emails that talking points were changed and the American people were lied to for some reason.  The DoJ has admitted it seized phone records of AP reporters and targeted a Fox News journalist in what is inappropriate at best; more likely criminal and unconstitutional.  The IRS has admitted it illegally targeted conservative groups for audits and delayed tax-exempt approval for them as well leading up to the election.  There have literally been laws broken, and somehow nobody is being held accountable, all while Dan Pfeiffer literally said the following words in response to a question of the legality of the IRS actions: "THE LAW IS IRRELEVANT".

Yes, you read that right.  In the eyes of the Obama administration, the law is irrelevant.  They do as they please, and will be shielded by plausible deniability and their pals in the liberal media.  Not only are these scandals, which all implicate top Democratic leadership, being disregarded as non-issues, but Democrats are somehow turning these things back onto Republicans.  Nancy Pelosi said these conservative groups targeted by the IRS "must make their goal social welfare and not politics".  Nevermind there's plenty of liberal groups who quickly and efficiently qualified for 501(c)(4) status.  Their political stances are irrelevant.  It only matters if you're conservative.  Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass) said "Even with the egregious actions that have been acknowledged by the IRS, there's still an underlying problem here, and that's 501(c)(4) being engaged in politics".

In other words, they were asking for it.  If you didn't want to be audited, then you shouldn't have been a Romney donor.  If you didn't want your tax-exempt status scrutinized and delayed, then you shouldn't have been a conservative group.  This is victim blaming at its best.  If that girl didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have been dressed like that.  Let's make it law that women should dress in burqas, and then men won't be tempted to rape them.  Democrats are essentially saying disregard any crimes committed and laws broken in this situation which benefits ourselves; instead let's focus on making sure this doesn't happen again.  The victims in this case brought it upon themselves, so rather than hold anyone accountable for these crimes, let's make sure these corrupt individuals aren't tempted in the future to commit further crimes.

To take a step back, this brings up more questions in my mind.  Republicans were attacking the President over non-issues like playing golf with Tiger, attending concerts, and taking too many vacations.  What exactly was going on behind closed doors while the Obama was spending his time as a full-time celebrity President? None of these mounting scandals concerned him while he was on the golf course?  He thought all of these issues were irrelevant while he was vacationing in Hawaii?  What the hell were his priorities for the last six months?  Where was his concern for terrorist attacks, freedom of speech, and freedom of press?  Has the President really has his head buried in sand this whole time?  My guess is that if anyone bothers to ask what the President was doing for the last six months, you'll probably get the same answer as Dan Pfeiffer gave us Sunday:  That's irrelevant.

What did the President know, and when did he know it? Apparently he never knew to begin with.

Today has been a day with yet another scandal breaking at the federal level; that the DOJ unlawfully targeted the AP's phone records in an investigation.  That is after Monday's scandal broke regarding the IRS targeting conservative groups.  And the Benghazi scandal in recent weeks.  However, I'm not here today to discuss any scandal in particular.  I'm here to discuss a pattern which seems to be developing in the White House.

The Obama administration, and everyone's favorite spokesman Jay Carney, seem resigned to the tactic of ignorance on all of these scandals.  Day after day, Carney speaks for the President, and occasionally the President himself speaks on his own behalf.  While initially on Benghazi they all pointed in the wrong direction regarding the events which transpired (and the cause and aftermath), since then it has pretty much been a mixture of the following excuses: We don't know.  We didn't know.

I'm not sure exactly how they expect us to believe this.  You didn't know what was going on in Benghazi leading up to the attacks.  You didn't know what was going on during the attacks.  You didn't know what was going on after the attacks.  You didn't know at the time that you were blaming the wrong factors.  You didn't know the IRS was targeting conservative groups with audits leading up to the elections.  You didn't know the DoJ was illegally obtaining phone records from the AP.  Your Attorney General didn't know anything about it.  Also you don't know what he knew, because Carney said today that the President has not spoken to the Attorney General about this matter.  Basically anytime a scandal breaks out in this administration, the administration doesn't know anything about it until they see it in the news like you or me.

Here is today's question: What exactly does the President see every day in his daily briefings?  Literally every morning a report is delivered to the President with the main activities, concerns and issues of the day to keep an eye on.  We are now supposed to believe the President never read anything in his daily briefings about Benghazi in the months leading up to the attacks.  His briefings never mentioned violence escalating or request for security.  It never mentioned terrorist activities behind the attack.  It never mentioned any link to Al Qaeda.  It never mentioned anything about the IRS audits targeting conservative groups, even though this information has been lurking around for the last two years.  It never mentioned anything about his hand-selected Attorney General heading up a Department of Justice which was illegally using AP phone records.  We have literally been told they didn't know about this story until they saw it on the news.  The President of the United States has the full resources of the most powerful intelligence gathering machines ever assembled in human history, yet he seems ignorant of these major scandals.  And nobody seems to blame him for anything that happens under his watch.

Let me rewind a few years.  Does anyone remember a man named George W. Bush?  He was President for about 8 years.  Does anyone remember how often Bush was blamed for activities under his administration?  Liberals basically blamed him for anything that happened for the entire 8 years of his presidency.  9/11?  Bush.  War in Iraq?  Bush.  Missing WMDs?  Bush.  Struggling economy?  Bush.  Prisoner abuse at Abu Gharib?  Bush.  Real estate bubble collapse?  Bush.  Hurricane Katrina?  Bush.   The Democrats and liberal media somehow managed to blame a natural disaster and act of God on George W. Bush.  It hit New Orleans and they weren't prepared, therefore George Bush doesn't care about black people.  Seems legit.  For eight long years, you could pretty much pick a bad headline out of any major newspaper, and you'd have Jon Stewart or Bill Maher informing us of how this somehow fell at the feet of George W. Bush.  Love him or hate him, George Bush took way more flak than maybe any President in history for things he wasn't even involved in.  For some reason, our current President doesn't take flak for anything even if it falls directly at his feet.  Heavy lies the crown Mr. President.  If you enjoy your position of power, it is time to accept the responsibility which comes with it.

So back to the President's daily briefings.  Remember that memo during the Bush administration entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"?  Democrats absolutely hammered Bush and his cabinet for ignoring these warnings.  Remember those memos requesting more security at Benghazi leading up to the terrorist attack which were ignored?  Democrats declare such a question a witch hunt and political sideshow.  It sure must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.

That leaves us with two possibilities.  Either the President and his staff are lying to us when they continue to plead ignorance and tell us they never knew anything all of these scandals currently mounting.  Or the President is completely asleep at the wheel, ignoring the intelligence provided to him, and caring more about partying with Jay-Z and golfing with Tiger Woods than reading his daily briefings.  Either way, I imagine things probably wouldn't be too much worse if you replaced the daily briefings with a booklet of Mad-Libs.  Of course, that is assuming we are dealing with ignorance, not lies.  Pay attention these next few weeks.  I'm guessing today won't be the last time the administration tells us "we don't know".

Are Domestic Terrorist Teaching YOUR Kids?

Hello everyone, I’m the classy half of the fun percent (meaning I drink $8 bottles of Barefoot Moscato instead of Natty Light) and I’m here to talk about something that really chaps my ass; a convicted terrorist teaching at Columbia.  Yes, you read that right.  Kathy Boudin was a member of the Weather Underground, a radical left organization, in the 60s and 70s, before she was arrested in 1981.  Weatherman (members of the Weather Underground) were responsible for bombing the Pentagon, the United States Capitol Building, the New York Board of Corrections and many other offices.

Boudin was involved in the Brink’s Robbery in 1981 where she and several other members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army robbed a Brink’s armored car, where one guard was severely wounded and one was killed.  Boudin did not take part in the actual robbery, but she was driving the getaway car.  After the robbery the other participants abandoned their vehicle and rejoined Boudin who was driving a U-Haul.  They all climbed in the back of the U-Haul while Boudin drove away.  A witness saw the men climbing into the back of the U-Haul and reported them to police.  Boudin was pulled over but feigned innocence and pleaded with the cops to lower their weapons.  At that moment 6 men armed with automatic weapons emerged from the back of the U-Haul and opened fire.  Two officers were killed and two were wounded.  Boudin was caught and arrested shortly thereafter.  Her lawyer arranged for a plea bargain; she pled guilty to one count of felony murder and robbery and was sentenced to twenty years to life in prison.

Kathy Boudin was paroled in 2003 and has held a position as an adjunct professor at Columbia since 2008.  Her Columbia School of Social Work biography does not mention anything about her radical history or time in prison.  Now what disturbs me about this is the fact that she now has an audience to promote her radical ideology to.  Teenagers and young adults are impressionable.  Do we really want someone who thought, or maybe still currently thinks, that bombings are an acceptable political statement and that murder is okay if you’re doing it to promote your ideology teaching the future leaders of our country?  Columbia is a private institution and therefore is able to hire whomever they want, but I can’t believe that there was not another qualified candidate who applied for the open position.  A candidate who is not a terrorist and who did not participate in the murder of 3 innocent men to promote their radical ideology. 

Can you imagine, in 20 or 30 years, Columbia hiring a paroled Dhokar Tsarnaev to teach political science or Islamic studies?  Sounds crazy right?  It's hard to imagine even a private institution hiring one of the so-called Boston Marathon Bombers.  What I'm asking you now is, what is the difference?  Both participated in the murder of innocent people to promote their radical ideology.  If it bothers you to think about a domestic Islamic terrorist potentially teaching college students, it should bother you that a domestic left wing terrorist and convicted murderer is currently doing so.

  

Benghazi: More questions than answers

I still haven't had the chance to digest the entire 6 hour testimony video from the Benghazi hearings yesterday, but I wanted to make a quick post about my thoughts today.  It is mostly questions, since the more we find out about Benghazi, the more questions we have.  I think there are three basic questions which we need answered, and once those questions are answered the rest of the picture will fall into place.

1.  Why were repeated requests for extra security denied for the embassy in Benghazi, and who denied those requests?

2.  Why was there a stand-down order issued during the attack, and who issued that order?  During an attack, there is no way to know how long the attack will last.  Even if it would have taken 20 hours to get a military response (as Democrats are claiming), how did anyone know the attack would only last ten hours?  Why did someone in this chain of command decide an hour or two into this attack to say "ah screw it, we probably can't make it in time to save anyone anyways"?  What if the attack went on for a day or two?  What if it turned into a hostage situation?  Now you're telling me it would have been two full days after the attack started before any military response was enacted?  If you sound the alarm and start the military response immediately, you can always cancel the response if it is deemed too late.  It doesn't work the other way around.

3.  Why was the YouTube video blamed for this attack, and who made the decision to blame this video when all evidence pointed to a coordinated terrorist attack?

Those are the three main questions we need answered, and my guess is that the person behind each of the three points above could be the same person.  However, this also makes me wonder about several other issues on the side.

-This administration is claiming that it would have been at least 20 hours to get a response of any kind to support the embassy during this attack.  Libya is located fairly centrally on the Mediterranean Sea.  What they are telling me is that if there is an attack in Benghazi they can't get any response there for 20 hours.  What if there is an attack in Egypt?  Algeria?  Morocco?  Tunisia? France?  Spain?  Greece?  If you're telling me it would take 20 hours to get a response to Benghazi, then you are telling me it would take 20 hours to get a response to almost any embassy located in a Mediterranean country (I'm assuming our Italian, Turkish and Israeli embassies would probably be alright).  If this is the case, then this is completely unacceptable to be this unprepared for an attack on sovereign US soil.  If you're telling me there's no problem getting an immediate response to any of these Mediterranean countries, then why was such a similar response seemingly impossible for Benghazi?

-This administration also continues to link the Benghazi attack with the attack on the Egyptian embassy and protests in Yemen over the YouTube video.  As everyone recalls, that was what the attack was initially blamed on, but even after that was shown to be false, Democrats continue to link the protests with this attack.  They make vague assertions such as "Well there were protests going on in Egypt and Yemen, so how could we say this wasn't a similar case in Benghazi?"  As absurd as this reasoning is, I will humor them for a moment.  Let's say all these incidents were related to the YouTube video and protests.  I would like to know if there was any military response or heightened security at the embassies in Egypt or Yemen.  Either one of two scenarios happened.  Either there was some type of military response to bring a halt to the Egyptian attack and protests in Yemen, or the attack/protests ran out of steam on their own.  If there was any kind of heightened security or military response in regards to Egypt/Yemen, then we demand an explanation as to why something similar couldn't happen in Benghazi.  If there was no additional action to bring a halt to the attack/protests in Egypt/Yemen, then we now know there are multiple embassies in hostile territory which are under-secured and completely unprepared for an attack.

Benghazi: The reason behind the reason

Previously we covered my four theories as to why there would possible be a coverup in Benghazi.  They were gross incompetence, intentional sacrifice, covert operation gone wrong, and hiding those behind the terrorist attack.  I maintain that it has to be one of those four reasons, but what about the reason behind the reason?  Why is it so important to make sure America doesn't get a black eye in this case (especially since Obama has no problem apologizing for anything and everything he can to the international community)?

I go with the theory of who stands to benefit the most.  Find out who they are trying to protect and you'll have your reason.  So let's rewind a bit.  After the Benghazi attacks, it took weeks for the Obama administration to clearly confirm that it was a terrorist attack, and even longer to admit the "Innocence of Muslims" Youtube video wasn't involved.  The fact that it wasn't immediately labeled a terrorist operation, as well as this dubious assertion that a Youtube video sparked it, is all the evidence I need to confirm a coverup.  A protest over a Youtube video, even if it turns extremely violent, doesn't suddenly conjour up RPGs, mortars and artillery which were confirmed as part of the attacks very early on.

When whistleblowers and family members of those slain in Benghazi started to speak up, they were silenced.  They report they have been silenced by senior administration officials who have not yet been identified.  The fact that they all report the same treatment confirms this as a tactic being used to defend the administration from this scandal.  Family members have asked for answers and gotten none.  Whistleblowers have sought permission from the government to divulge classified information to attorneys representing their interests in this fight.  Yet, when Obama himself is asked about this, he just tells us he is not aware of anybody being supressed from speaking about Benghazi.  In other words: Obama, I just told you this is happening, but you told me it is not.  These are not the droids you're looking for.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

Back to the reason behind the reason.  It was probably two-fold.  Win the 2012 election, and protect Hillary Clinton.  If Mitt Romney knew everything we know today during his campaign, he could have absolutely hammered Obama in the debates and the overall campaign on this issue.  However, Obama was able to hide behind the guise of an ongoing investigation and the facts which were hidden at that time, so Romney couldn't risk taking him on so directly on this issue.  Obama wins; mission accomplished.  What about Hillary?  I think she is the bigger reason now that Obama has secured his second term as President.

The Democrats need Hillary.  She is currently considered the frontrunner to take the Democratic nomination for the Presidency in 2016.  Obama is President for another four years. Democrats have locked up the Presidency for another four years.  He is old news.  Now they must ensure another 4 or 8 years on the throne with Hillary.  She has been groomed for this position for 20 years, and after having the rug pulled out from under her by Obama in 2008, it is her time to shine.  Plus, they have nobody else lined up if she fails.  Her fingerprints are all over this, and they need to be scrubbed.

It is apparent that not only did Hillary Clinton refuse to increase security at this embassy, but she refused immediate reaction to support them during the attack.  Her signature is on the denials requesting more security.  Her defenders will say this was an autopen used on all cables going out, and that she never saw these requests.  I'm sorry, but if your name is on it then you own it.  If you empowered someone to sign your name on your behalf, then you trusted them enough to stand by their decisions, and you are not allowed to back away when they do something wrong.  If I give someone power of attorney over my life and they completely screw things up, I have nobody to blame but myself.  Of course, that is assuming that she really never heard about these requests.  She also denied ever refusing help to the embassy during the attack.  This is in direct conflict with those on the ground in Benghazi who say they requested help during the attack.  There were troops 3 hours away in Tripoli ready to go.  For some reason nothing was done.  Either Hillary Clinton denied these actions (as one whistleblower would have you believe), or someone in the chain of command denied them on her behalf.  Again, this still falls on you Mrs. Clinton.  You were in charge when it happened.  You own this.  And if someone made these decisions on your behalf, then they should be exposed and held accountable for the deaths of these four Americans.

It is also apparent that Hillary Clinton lied under oath during the Senate hearings back in January.  I watced her 14 minutes of testimony, and it is chilling to hear her side of the story compared to what we now know.  She claims no support was ever denied for Benghazi, that she acted quickly to respond to this crisis, no delays in decision making, and no problems coordinating between agencies.  This is the exact opposite of what we are hearing from those on the ground in Benghazi.  If these whistleblowers are telling the truth, then Hillary Clinton should be held accountable and charged with perjury, impeding a federal investigation, and suppressing freedom of speech of those whistleblowers.

She also deflected the criticism over the claims that the Youtube video spurred on protests which caused this attack by saying, under oath, "What difference at this point does it make?".  So these aren't the droids I'm looking for.  Move along.  Nothing to see here.  This is a five alarm fire breaking out in a crowded neighborhood, and the entire Obama administration standing the way of the firetrucks trying to get to the scene and saying "Fire? What fire?"  The difference it makes is that Clinton personally tied these attacks to the YouTube video in the public, while all intelligence and evidence indicated this was a coordinated terrorist attack, and we wan't to know why.

Monday, Mike Huckabee, on his own radio show, said he didn't see how Obama could possibly fulfill his entire second term when all is said and done when this Benghazi scandal.  He predicted Obama will either resign, or be removed from office by impeachment.  If Obama was privy to any of the goings on which the whistleblowers say is true, then he directly failed in his Presidential duties to protect this country and its citizens.  Combine that with the fact that both Republicans and Democrats are starting to ask the same questions about this scandal, and it could be the beginning of the end of his Presidency.  Here is my question: Do Democrats need Hillary Clinton running in 2016 more than they need Obama now?  If this continues to escalate, and it comes down to one or the other, who will take the fall?  If Hillary Clinton takes the fall for this whole thing, then in 2016 Obama will be gone and Hillary is done.  I think they could end up sacrificing Obama's second term to protect Hillary.  Let Biden play President for a few years; at least it is still a Democrat on the throne.  Then your golden girl Hillary Clinton can run as the clear favorite in the 2016 election.  Everyone else in this administration can be led to the guillotine so long as Hillary Clinton (and another four years of Democratic Presidency) is protected.  That is the reason behind the reason.