LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

"Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?"

vetteman said:
Damn, looks like mom just heard you call from the bathroom. Please, have some consideration and be a big boy...:(:D
Click to expand...

Just keep your scat deviancy tendencies to yourself next time. We all know how self-conscious you are about any affront that threatens your straight-edge beard here, you don't wanna lose that mask. See, I'm tryin' to help you out here, other people, they'd just put you on a billboard and broadcast how much you fixate on men's asses and poop. :D
 
Weird that Miles takes Koala's place 'neath your nutsack, Vette. Isn't there competition between those two jockeying for your Scooby status snacks?
 
Al-Qaeda Linked Radical Was Hired By Obama Administration to Run Security at Tripoli Embassy

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, October 31, 2012, 7:37 PM








Unbelievable.

Commander of the Tripoli Military Council, Abdelhakim Khwildi Belhadj, an Al-Qaeda ally. (Tunisia Live)

Leaked security documents reveal the Obama Administration hired a top al-Qaeda brother to run security at the US embassy in Tripoli.

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack reported, via Jihad Watch:


A treasure trove of secret documents has been obtained by a Libyan source who says that secularists in his country are increasingly wanting to see Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama on November 6th. This charge is being made despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last July which resulted in victory for the secularists. One of those documents may help explain this sentiment.

It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to Al-Qaeda in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012.

The National Transitional Council, which represented the political apparatus that opposed Gadhafi in 2011 and served as the interim government after his removal, made an extremely curious appointment in August of 2011. That appointment was none other than Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an Al-Qaeda ally and ‘brother’. Here is a translation of the letter:


National Transitional Council – Libya
8/30/11

Code: YGM-270-2011

Mr. Abdel Hakim Al-Khowailidi Belhaj

Greetings,

We would like to inform you that you have been commissioned to the duties and responsibilities of the military committee of the city of Tripoli. These include taking all necessary procedures to secure the safety of the Capital and its citizens, its public and private property, and institutions, to include all international embassies. To coordinate with the local community of the city of Tripoli and the security assembly and defense on a national level.

Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil

President, National Transitional Council – Libya

Official Seal of National Transitional Council

Copy for file.

As for Belhaj’s bonafides as an Al-Qaeda ally, consider the words of the notorious Ayman al-Zawahiri. In a report published one day prior to the date on the memo above, ABC News quoted the Al-Qaeda leader as saying the following – in 2007 – about the man the NTC put in control of Tripoli in 2011:


“Dear brothers… the amir of the mujahideen, the patient and steadfast Abu-Abdallah al-Sadiq (Belhaj); and the rest of the captives of the fighting Islamic group in Libya, here is good news for you,” Zawahiri said in a video, using Belhaj’s nom de guerre. “Your brothers are continuing your march after you… escalating their confrontation with the enemies of Islam: Gadhafi and his masters, the crusaders of Washington.”


Abdel Hakim Belhaj (center left), a prominent militia commander, walks with Transitional National Council Chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil in Tripoli on Sept. 10. The battle to oust Moammar Gadhafi produced a number of leaders who will have to work together to form a new government. (NPR)

UPDATE: Abdel Hakim Belhaj is still active in Tripoli and leader of the Al-Watan party. He’s also writing opinion pieces at The Guardian warning Westerners to stay away from Libya.
Unbelievable.
 
THe documents might be forged, but the story is still true!!!

Benghazi: No ‘October Surprise’
Jonah Goldberg, NRO
October 31, 2012

If you want to understand why conservatives have lost faith in the so-called mainstream media, you need to ponder the question: Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy?

Unlike some of my colleagues on the right, I don’t think there’s a conspiracy at work. Rather, I think journalists tend to act on their instincts (some even brag about this; you could look it up). And, collectively, the mainstream media’s instincts run liberal, making groupthink inevitable.

In 2000, a Democratic operative orchestrated an “October surprise” attack on George W. Bush, revealing that, 24 years earlier, he’d been arrested for drunk driving. The media went into a feeding frenzy. “Is all the 24-hour coverage of Bush’s 24-year-old DUI arrest the product of a liberal media almost drunk on the idea of sinking him, or is it a legitimate, indeed unavoidable news story?” asked Howard Kurtz in a segment for his CNN show Reliable Sources. The consensus among the guests: It wasn’t a legitimate news story. But the media kept going with it.

One could go on and on. In September 2004, former CBS titan Dan Rather gambled his entire career on a story about Bush’s service in the National Guard. His instincts were so powerful, he didn’t thoroughly check the documents he relied on, which were forgeries. In 2008, the media feeding frenzy over John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, was so ludicrous it belonged in a Tom Wolfe novel. Over the last couple of years, the mainstream media have generally treated Occupy Wall Street as idealistic, the “tea parties” as racist and terrifying.

To be sure, there have been conservative feeding frenzies: about Barack Obama’s pastor, about John Kerry’s embellishments of his war record, etc. But the mainstream media usually have tasked themselves with the duty of debunking and dispelling such “hysteria.”

Last week, Fox News correspondent Jennifer Griffin reported that sources on the ground in Libya say they pleaded for support during the attack on the Benghazi consulate that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens. They were allegedly told twice to “stand down.” Worse, there are suggestions that there were significant military resources available to counterattack, but requests for help were denied.

If this is true, the White House’s concerted effort to blame the attack on a video crumbles, as do several other fraudulent claims. Yet, last Friday, the president boasted that “the minute I found out what was happening” in Benghazi, he ordered that everything possible be done to protect our personnel. That is either untrue, or he’s being disobeyed on grave matters.

This isn’t an “October surprise” foisted on the media by opposition research; it’s news.

This story raises precisely the sort of “big issues” the media routinely claim elections should be about. For instance, defense secretary Leon Panetta said last week that 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.” If real-time video of the attack and communications with Americans on the ground begging for assistance don’t constitute “real-time information,” what does?

This is not to say that Fox News is alone in covering the story. But it is alone in treating it like it’s a big deal. During the comparatively less significant Valerie Plame scandal, reporters camped out on the front lawns of Karl Rove and other Bush White House staff. Did Obama confiscate those journalists’ sleeping bags?

On October 28, of the five Sunday news shows, only Fox News Sunday treated this as a major story. On the other four, the issue came up only when Republicans mentioned it. Tellingly, on NBC’s Meet the Press, host David Gregory shushed a guest when she tried to bring up the subject, saying, “Let’s get to Libya a little bit later.”

Gregory never did get back to Benghazi. But he saved plenty of time to dive deep into the question of what Indiana U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s comments on abortion and rape mean for the Romney campaign. Typically, Gregory’s instincts about the news routinely line up with Democratic talking points, in this case Obama’s ridiculous “war on women” rhetoric.

I am willing to believe that journalists such as Gregory are sincere in their desire to play it straight. But among those who don’t share his instincts, it’s hard to distinguish between conspiracy and groupthink. Indeed, it’s hard to think why one should even bother trying to make that distinction at all.
Click to expand...
 
Benghazi Reveals Obama-Islamist Alliance
James Lewis, The American Thinker
November 1, 2012

The nature of the Benghazi disaster is now clear. Ambassador Stevens was engaged in smuggling sizable quantities of Libyan arms from the destroyed Gaddafi regime to the Syrian rebels, to help overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. Smuggling arms to the so-called "Free Syrian Army" is itself a huge gamble, but Obama has been a gambler with human lives over the last four years, as shown by the tens of thousands of Arabs who have died in the so-called Arab Spring -- which has brought nothing but disaster to the Arab world.

For the last four years, the Obama policy has been to offer aid and comfort violent Islamic radicals in the delusional belief that their loyalty can be bought. We therefore betrayed Hosni Mubarak, our 30-year ally in Egypt, so that the Muslim Brotherhood led by Muhammed Morsi could take over. Obama indeed demanded publicly that Mubarak resign, for reasons that never made any sense at all. Egypt went into a political and economic tailspin, and the Muslim Brotherhood were elected. The Muslim radicals have now purged the only other viable political force, the army and police, to protect their monopoly on power. We have colluded in that betrayal.

In Libya, we betrayed Moammar Gaddafi, who had surrendered his nuclear program to the Bush administration. In Afghanistan, we betrayed the central government set up by the Bush administration and negotiated with the fanatical war sect of the Taliban to take over. The Taliban entered our history when they gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the years before 9/11/01 to plan, train, equip, and implement the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The Taliban are our fanatical theological enemy, as shown by their sadistic attempt to assassinate 14-year-old women's rights advocate Malala Yousuf.

Afghanistan has many thousands of Malalas we will never hear about.

Our consistent policy of betrayal of moderate Muslims in favor of radical Islamofascists goes hand-in-hand with our appeasement of the Iranian Khomeinist regime, which is the most America-hating Shiite regime, now facing competition from America-hating Sunni regimes in Egypt and elsewhere. It also fits our cooperation with Turkey's "neo-Ottoman" regime, which has also purged the Turkish army and police to remove modern-minded Turks from power. Egypt and Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles.

We have therefore followed a single "community disorganizing" policy toward the Muslim world, consisting of betraying moderates to bring theocratic fascists to power. Obama "explained" that policy in a publicized argument with Hillary Clinton at the White House when Mubarak was overthrown. His explanation? Fascist revolutions are "organic," and therefore more stable than moderate revolutions. Obama's fantasy policy runs contrary to U.S. foreign policy since World War I.

The biggest loser in this mad administration has been hundreds of millions women of the Muslim world, who were on a path to modernity and freedom until Obama and Hillary Clinton betrayed them. Today they are shut inside the prisons of sharia law.

The second-biggest loser has been relative stability in a great geographical swath of the Muslim world, from Afghanistan and Pakistan across the Middle East, all the way to Tunisia and Morocco.

The third-biggest loser has been our anti-proliferation policy against the spread of weapons of mass destruction among developing nations. From fighting proliferation, we have turned to aiding it.

Those three Horsemen of the Apocalypse are now out of the barn and riding free.
Click to expand...
 
Dances With Falsehoods seems profoundly disappointed that there was no "October Surprise". :(
 
In Benghazi, al-Qaeda showed that they could not be bought even by our back-stabbing policy. Our Benghazi arms-smuggling base was attacked by elements of AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Maghreb) in an act of betrayal against our fantasy-driven way of doing things. The American betrayer was itself betrayed, and Obama-Hillary could do nothing to defend the Americans under attack at the Benghazi arms-smuggling base, because any public revelation of the truth would rip the cover off our mad actions and focus the hatred of Muslim nations on the United States.

The evidence now shows that Obama was aware of the attack within 55 minutes of the start. It lasted for six or seven hours, and Obama consistently countermanded standing orders to protect Americans under attack in the Africom command area. General Ham has now been fired for following standard U.S. policy to defend American personnel. He took an honorable stand and was fired.

In Syria, the Assad regime now has a legitimate basis to convict us of deadly dabbling in the Syrian civil war. Russia and China are likely to take up Assad's cause at the United Nations. They would be right on the facts.

Because the Benghazi attack coincided exactly with the AQ attack on our Cairo Embassy, both on September 11 of this year, this was apparently a central command decision by AQ, presumably ordered by Osama bin Laden's successor, Al Zawahiri, in Pakistan using a video released on the web shortly before those attacks. The message was "al-Qaeda lives!" Everybody who saw the news photos that day got that message. Only Obama is in public denial.

Because the Egyptian regime chose not to defend our embassy, we know that Muhammad Morsi was in cahoots with the AQ attack. Host governments always have the first responsibility to defend accredited embassies. Egypt "forgot" to defend us, and that was the message.

The purpose of the AQ attacks was to embarrass the United States, and to show us to be a paper tiger, precisely the way Ayatollah Khomeini did to Jimmy Carter. AQ also wanted to tear off the cover of the Benghazi arms-smuggling operation, to make us look like a treasonous ally, which, as it turns out, we are. All of our allies around the world, from South Korea and Japan to Israel, Australia, and Norway, must now be reassessing our reliability. One major betrayal of our allies is enough to shatter sixty years of faith in American leadership.

Here is the evidence as published in the Jerusalem Post, in an interview with retired counterintelligence professional Clare Lopez. The credit for the exposing the U.S. arms-smuggling conspiracy that just capsized goes to Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org) and other alert conservative columnists around the web.
Click to expand...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/benghazi_reveals_obama-islamist_alliance.html
 
Why Obama Chose to Let Them Die in Benghazi
Karin McQuillan, The American Thinker
November 2, 2012

The burning question is why Obama didn't give orders to defend our consulate and American lives in Benghazi. The answer is becoming clearer each time President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta issue a denial or explanation of their inaction.

To the president's surprise, he chanced on an honest reporter during a local interview on the campaign trail in Denver. On October 26, for the first time, Obama was asked directly about the explosive reports on CBS and Fox News, a week earlier, that the CIA and our military denied direct requests for help by the Americans fighting for their lives during the seven-hour battle in Benghazi.

Denver TV's Kyle Clark twice tried to pin Obama down by asking the key question: "Were they denied requests for help during the attack?"

Obama's answer is the proof of his guilt, and it gives us a clue as to the doctrine informing his decision to do nothing. The most damaging part of Obama's evasive answer is this:

... the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. ... I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe.
Click to expand...
This is the blatant lie that condemns the liar. The president says here that immediately, "the minute I found out what was happening," he gave the order to the military, the CIA, to everyone, to secure our personnel in Benghazi and do "whatever we need to."

Yet the undeniable fact is that nothing was done. We know that the CIA security agent in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods, asked for permission to rescue Ambassador Stevens when Stevens was still alive and in the safe room. Woods was told twice by the CIA to stand down. He then disobeyed direct orders and rescued the survivors at the consulate, but it was too late for Stevens and Sean Smith.

Secretary of Defense Panetta tells us the military had gunships and Special Forces less than two hours away in Sicily but felt it was too "risky" to send in reinforcements or air cover. It would have been normal military procedure to pre-position air cover and assets from Sicily to Benghazi, but Panetta says this was not done. The air support and FAST platoons, we are told, were left in Sicily. All the U.S. military did was send two unarmed drones to observe the battle.

So if President Obama is not lying about his directives, he is saying that the CIA and the Defense Department and our military chain of command disobeyed the direct order of our commander in chief to do everything in their power to rescue our people under attack in Benghazi. And that as commander in chief, Obama did nothing in response to their dereliction of duty.

That doesn't happen. No one believes that; the president is lying. He did not issue directives to the CIA, our military, and State to "secure our personnel" and "do whatever we need to do."
Click to expand...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/why_obama_chose_to_let_them_die_in_benghazi.html
 
4 dead white men

who cares!


G Rivera said there is no issue

Everyone says its a NONTREVERSY!

We needa talk REAL ISSUES


Contraception:cool:
 
Gotta get down to it,
al Qaeda is gunning us down,
Should have been gone long ago...



Fast&Falafel!
 
Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made an unwise choice the last few days, throwing in with his new-best-friend Barack Obama. The president’s future does not look great, even if he is reelected, and especially if he is reelected while losing the popular vote, as well could happen.

As a president who was “selected but not elected,” he we will face a whirlwind more vast and even more enduring than Sandy and that whirlwind’s name is Benghazi. He lied to the American people (and to the world) big time about the cause of the deaths of four courageous Americans whose lives were at risk there and, as the French say, mentir est honteux, lying is shameful.


One way or the other, Obama will pay. And as he pays, through the relentless accusations of an impeachment, inevitable or otherwise, his party will be constantly on the defensive, the reputations of their leadership incalculably besmirched. Though they do not realize or choose to ignore it now, the Democrats will be lucky if Obama loses on November 6.

If he wins, not even the mainstream media will save him. Although a few will try, the walls are already crumbling, first, tentatively, from David Ignatius in the Washington Post, now more strongly and courageously from ABC’s Jake Tapper. More will follow. They will be forced to as the revelations pile up and the justifiably angry whistleblowers, which are sure to come, emerge. And we in the new media will be here to make sure attention is paid. We have the power to do that now.

Nevertheless, it is that fundamental dishonesty, that lying to the public, that is the missing ingredient from Tapper’s otherwise well wrought summation of the situation so far — The Benghazi Drip-Drip-Drip. Yes, there are myriad questions to answer about why the tragedy was allowed to happen in the first place (questions that should make Hillary Clinton cringe) and many questions about the timeline to be resolved and whether a rescue was possible. But no matter how that ultimately plays out, Obama clearly lied (let’s use that word instead of the more polite misled). High road and low, in front of the United Nations and on The View and on Spanish-language television, he told despicable untruths about what happened in Benghazi with the conscienceless calm of a Middle Eastern potentate at on OPEC meeting.

Even to someone like me who never much liked Barack Obama, it’s hard to believe he would do such a thing. But he did. And, pathetic as they are, some of the reasons for the prevarication are painfully obvious, like trying to convince the public that al-Qaeda was on the run when, if anything, the reverse was true. Al-Qaeda and its myriad clones were making inroads across the region. AQ, after all, was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which now controls Egypt and, soon enough, possibly Syria.

But it all came down to election-year politics over the graves of dead Americans. This will come back to haunt Obama in a manner no one can fully foresee but cannot be good. In an election he cannot win except by a narrow margin, Obama will have no real mandate to govern or to push a program. (He doesn’t have one anyway, even if he had a mandate.) He will be president again by default. There will be a vacuum and, as we all know, nature abhors a vacuum. It will soon be filled. In fact, it’s being filled now.

Benghazi!
Click to expand...
Roger L. Simon, PJMedia

Four dead in Benghazi!
 
zipman said:
It's as if you're the son of meemie and busybody.

Keep spamming those C&P lies. I'm sure you're changing lots of minds. :D
Click to expand...

Go fuck yourself.

This is how you react to heroism in the face of cowardice? Figures.



Make me the issue, ignore Obama, once again, Democrats good, everyone else black hat.

Your AV says it all. Black and White world...
 
The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.

Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation.

No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the POTUS has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks.

Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already “in country” in Libya — such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already “in country,” so CBA rules do not apply to them.

How might this process have played out in the White House?

If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: “I think we should not go the military action route,” meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed. Another possibility is that the president might have said: “We should do what we can to help them … but no military intervention from outside of Libya.” Those words then constitute “standing orders” all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost.

When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself “unavailable,” then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.

Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his “standing orders” not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.
Click to expand...
http://pjmedia.com/blog/benghazis-s...ive-‘cross-border-authority’/?singlepage=true

It might have upset, or even halted his campaign. He had money to raise and voters to cajole and FOUR DEAD guys with a willing and compliant press trump abandoned helicopters burning in the desert or Black Hawk Down and heroes being drug through the streets...



... not to mention GUN RUNNING TO al Qaeda being disclosed!!!

:mad:

And all zippy cares about is protecting his party and president.

Typical Democrat Behavior.
 
Dances With Falsehoods said:
Go fuck yourself.

This is how you react to heroism in the face of cowardice? Figures.

Make me the issue, ignore Obama, once again, Democrats good, everyone else black hat.

Your AV says it all. Black and White world...
Click to expand...

"Cowardice" is making comments from the safety of the iggy bunker.

He's merely pointing out your seeming inability to change anyone's mind here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
The following, while related to the election, transcends politics - it is a message of hope for all who seek unity and peace. Plus, there's a coupon.
Replies
10
Views
1K
bobb64
B
F
David McCallum, star of hit TV series 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E.' and 'NCIS,' dies at 90
Replies
10
Views
1K
butters
butters
Rightguide
Trump Dismantling All Of the Fake Democrat Green Companies
Replies
20
Views
213
ll74
ll74
1
The REAL Insurrection
Replies
3
Views
186
ll74
ll74
M
Do you have any naked pictures of your wife? Do you want some?
Replies
5
Views
498
Rob_Royale
Rob_Royale
Back
Top