It's About the Best Way to Predict the Future...Thing

Dear America,

“They can’t beat us on the battlefield, 

so they try to terrorize us

 into being afraid,” 

Mr. Obama said. 

“As president, I will not let that happen.”

[from NY Times, 11/22/15]

Who even listens to this guy anymore?

My immediate question is wondering why, if "they can't beat us on the battlefield" [ISIS]  -- then why aren't we ON the battlefield, beating them into submission, if not totally extinguishing every single one of them muthafuckas?  [Excuse my french...but I do believe the French would agree with me totally on this one.]

So, while you attempted to sound like a commander in chief, and get all macho-man and all -- your point, I guess, was reminding all Americans that you are not going to let them scare us.  Yeah, like all, 'not on my watch' kinda way.

And yet --

just today, you have issued a TRAVEL WARNING to ALL AMERICANS ABROAD to be afraid:

"U.S. citizens should exercise vigilance when in public places or using transportation," the alert said. "Be aware of immediate surroundings and avoid large crowds or crowded places. Exercise particular caution during the holiday season and at holiday festivals or events."

Hmmmmm but now that contradicts the message to all Americans here at home.  

At least according to Jeh Johnson, who counters the international warnings with this statement for the states:

"With this holiday season coming up we want the public to continue to go to public events, celebrate the holiday season, travel, be with their families and the like..."

Fly, be free...Love one another and be happy...

Hmmmmm wonder what the intelligence reports really say?

But let's go back to September -- at The Daily Beast --

Exclusive: 50 Spies Say ISIS Intelligence Was Cooked

or 

Exclusive: This Is the ISIS Intel the U.S. Military Dumbed Down

Let's bring the New York Times back in for another good quote from the president -- The Times being the proverbial shelter, providing political cover of a presidency that revels under the cover of darkness 24/7:

“One of the things I insisted on the day I walked into the Oval Office was that I don’t want intelligence shaded by politics. I don’t want it shaded by a desire to tell a feel-good story,”

Hilarious, isn't it. (no. not really.)

Obama went on to add, he wasn't aware of the "details" on this -- sounding eerily familiar to the way he says, "oh I learned about this the same time you did" or “I heard on the news about this story, that, uh, Fast and Furious.” or “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.” or  [IRS Scandal] “from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.” or  [wiretapping] “found out about the news reports, uh, yesterday on the road.”  For more on all of that, go HERE.

The thing is, he goes fast and furious, like gone in 60 seconds, from acting in the cover of darkness to acting like he is totally in the dark about all of it.    He IS an amazing piece of work at work.


Re: Dumbing Down of Intelligence --

 “The cancer was within 

the senior level 

of the intelligence command,” 

one defense official said. 

[The report comes complete 

with two senior analysts signing off, 

and "seconded" by an additional 50 other analysts.]

It's strange, really.

Centcom intelligence is being messed with to fit the narrative of this administration...and the president cries 'duh, I dunno"...actually, it went something more like this: “I don’t know what we’ll discover with respect to what was going on in Centcom,” Mr. Obama said. “What I do know is my expectation — which is the highest fidelity to facts, data, the truth.”

Right.   Like Benghazi, for example.

Well, perhaps, just maybe, go look for that letter documenting the written, formal, complaint -- and highlighted here on the old G Thing, above, provided courtesy of The Daily Beast. That would be a good start, considering you get your news like the rest of us.  

Then perhaps, look in the Oval Office; it should be sitting on your desk by now.   

But then again, speaking of smudging lines of truth and dares, just a few hours ago, you kinda sorta warned the media to censor their coverage of ISIS...so as to not inflame a violent response from a few [Islamic] bad seeds.  Let's see, what did you say:

The media needs to help in this, I just want to say. You know, during the course of this week — a very difficult week — it is understandable that this has been a primary focus. But one of the things that has to happen is how we report on this has to maintain perspective and not empower in any way these terrorist organizations or elevate them in ways that make it easier for them to recruit or make them stronger.

Oh okay.

And just who is "elevating" these actions?  Is it elevating simply by reporting on it somehow?

Really?  "The media needs to help in this..."    This propaganda tango is sounding more Venezuelan than American, just sayin.'   Just what perspective are you searching for, Mr. President; what narrative do you want the media to use?   

Seriously?  You have stooped to a new low.  For some erroneous reason as to refrain from feeding into the ISIS frenzy for recruitment purposes, you call on the media for an assist?   What, like, tone it down?  Ignore it?   It's all starting to sound vaguely familiar.  Where have I heard about the deliberate dumbing down of the truth (you know...besides Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS Scandal....and so on).....

So the truth is --  it wouldn't be a stretch to think that, as President, you may have mentioned to somebody, to talk to somebody, to dumb down the Centcom Intelligence to fit the narrative of your administration.  I mean, your legacy is at stake, right; your Nobel Peace Prize is staring at you in the face, and you've got to be somebody -- a president who wholeheartedly and genuinely deserves the prize, the legacy, a library in Indonesia, a round of golf everyday, and whatever else you want.

Rest assured -- the truth will come to the surface soon enough, as another post at The NY Times highlights a story about the Pentagon...expanding it's inquiry....here.   I feel good about that; you feel good about that?  Yeah, yeah, nothing and no one stands in the way of getting to the bottom of it, I'm totally confident in the process.

Oh my word -- all of a sudden I have a BMW commercial ringing in my ear.  Have you heard this line, blurted out somewhere in the middle of it?

"Best way to predict the future is to create it."

Just you wait.

Just you wait.

Once this president is out of office, everything KNOWN and UNKNOWN will come to light.  And in no uncertain terms, America will discover all the intelligence it needs to know, and, with great shock, realize that treason was committed on her friendly shores -- our shores -- over and over and over again.  

We've been attacked from within.  It's done.

The president's allegiance is not what it appears to be; it never was.  The dumbing down of the truth began some time during his first campaign -- with a fawning mainstream media already wide eyed and bushy-tailed to follow the charismatic leader of a whole new world with no (real) questions asked. 

what a long day it's been.

Make it a Good Day, G

It's from Belly Laughs to a NewsBusters Thing

Dear America,

"oh and by the way, 

in the spirit of tonight 

we are brought to you by 

the letter O and the number 16 Trillion"

Romney

I am out of breath; not sure if I can keep up; between binders and big bird, from Biden to Benghazi, there is not enough time in the day, nor enough space on a page, to record everything, everyday, in the day and the  life of America.

But it's days like this, when we get to report seeing both candidates acting out of character and yucking it up at the annual Alfred E. Smith dinner in New Yarrrk last night -- and we suddenly find ourselves getting rewarded with a few giggles right smack in the middle of a rather contentious campaign.   We are joyfully reminded of our connection to one another, along with our ability to laugh at ourselves......and we feel good.  We feel genuinely, whole-heartedly really good.

The feeling lasts about a nano-second in 24/7 news cycle, but no matter.

Fast forward to a little visit with Jon Stewart -- aka the exact same day -- take it away Mr. President --

"Here's what I'll say: 

If four Americans get killed, 

it's not optimal. 

We're going to fix it. All of it."

what?

"It's not optimal."  ah no you di-dint

I'm sorry, did I fall down a rabbit hole again?  How did we get here?  We go from shock and horror, to two full weeks of falsely blaming a reprehensible video made by some idiot and throwing him in jail for his rightful expression of free speech, to 'no, no, I said it was a terrorist attack from day one'...to today...and this:  "it's not optimal."

I guess the notion of getting to the end of the Libyan fiasco will have to wait to see the light of another day.

The president also added this:

"Every piece of information that we get, 

as we got it 

we laid it out to the American people. 

The picture eventually gets fully filled in."

Seriously?

Earth/Satellite communications to Obama:  A DRONE filmed every minute of the attack upon our consulate as it happened -- aka real time on the day of.  And you know what else?  Your Situation Room knew it.   But heck, to save us all a whole lot of time in the future -- especially yourself -- why wait?  Why not just flick a switch and air it in real time on cable?   Or would you rather me say, on our "Black & White TV's"?   You know, America really loves it's reality show.

For a real live take, read the post of Eli, here.

A drone knew more than the president; all he had to do, as duly noted by Bryan Preston of PJ Media/PJ Tatler, was stay up past his bedtime to watch the real live feed.

So let's review, on one hand we get the message 'still not ready to call it a terrorist attack' -- this on September 13 -- aka the day after the infamous Rose Garden speech; while on the other hand, we get 'nine days later, same verse same as the first.', thus, per communication well received from the president via the second debate, taking a position in direct contradiction of his own White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney.

Memo to Mitt for Monday:   track the two week "terrorist" time-line to the day of it's true presidential debut (October 16) and take us all through it, one by one, in real time.  See also, The Hill; Family Security Matters; the Heritage Foundation for any extra help.

And then, go back to the question posed at the second debate that was NEVER answered by the president:

Who was it that denied enhanced security [in Libya] and why?

The thing is America --  if ordinary people in ordinary time can piece together the truth and make grand overtures to what really went down and when, then why can't a president?  Right, of course he can; so why the delay, why the denial, why the deliberate decoy by distraction?  [see also Rules for Radicals]

Intelligence matters; truth matters.  But to coin a phrase well worn by the president, making up stories to enhance optimal support and perhaps save a re-election campaign "is not what we do."

And  Mitt -- Make him say it; on behalf of the American people, make him adMitt that he made a big mistake and that the video was not part of the truth coming out of Libya.

AND read this stunning piece from Krauthammer, here.

The reality is, you kinda sit in the catbird's seat; you're like a drone flying at 10,000 feet with the amount of information at your fingertips.  Even though the next debate is focused on foreign relations, I wanna give you some something good to read that centers on the general essence of the president's agenda and you.   But first, speaking of you, you really rock when you are direct, speaking in simple terms, breaking things down when your naturally genuine, thoughtful, experienced background rules the day....And now here's some opinion to hopefully pump you up, offering more talking points just in case your people are running a little low -- it's from Rich Lowry:

"President Barack Obama has been onstage with Mitt Romney now for a collective three hours and has yet to enunciate anything within hailing distance of a second-term agenda.

He wants to “win the future,” he just doesn’t have a very clear idea about how to do it. His slogan is “forward,” but his campaign is unmistakably backward-looking. His case for reelection has about as much to do with the last four years of the Bush administration as the next four years of the prospective second Obama administration."

Continue Reading

Convince us of the bigger, brighter future that awaits, foreign and domestic, as you let this final thought from Rich sink in:

"Obama hasn’t taken his opponent or the public seriously enough. He has allowed his reelection to be driven by his barely concealed personal contempt for Romney, and has assumed that what voters most need to hear from him is fusillades against the other guy. It can’t be pleasant for Romney to be at the receiving end, but the president has inadvertently handed him an incalculable gift: He has ceded him the future."

Obama is spending millions of dollars on an empty, childish, yet calculated, rhetoric relying on ridicule to rally another four more years, or one thousand two-hundred twenty-four days in the life. Binders, Big Bird, Benghazi, and Bain -- a re-election bid brought to you by the letter B and the number 19 days left.  The voters are beginning to realize he is not the man of substance they thought he was; and he is certainly not bringing the change in Washington many believed he was capable of bringing; it's a let down and it's a pretty big deal.

By the way, don't do anything extreme with what I am about to say -- like don't quit your prospective day job -- but you seem to have a wee bit of a comedic genius inside you... you so funny...gosh, I needed that.

[while our president is just so predictable, give him a day in New York, he hits the circuit...Jon Stewart, Dave Letterman...flashing his smile, making things up as he goes along, making up lies to cover up everything we already know]

Make it a Good Day, G

"get the transcript"

post script

AND one more thing.  Did Candy Crowley actually have the Rose Garden transcript with her at the debate?  Wide speculation is that she sounded like she did. Hence, the in-your-face moderator collusion with President Obama happening on the fly, in real time.   She appeared to have had the answer at her fingertips, confirming that Obama called the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism.

My take, after delving in, it seems she was talking out the side of her big fat mouth, having noted after the debate she had 'studied up' -- see here...

Candy to Anderson, via NewsBusters:

"Well, you know again I heard the president's speech at the time. I sort of re-read a lot of stuff about Libya, I knew we'd probably get a Libya question, so I wanted to kind of be up on it. [OR DID YOU get a message to THE PRESIDENT to redirect the Libyan question his way? ?] So we knew that the president had said these acts of terror won't stand or whatever the whole quote was. And I think actually, because right after that, I did turn around and say you were totally correct. They spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape, and you know this riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't. So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word. You know, they're going to parse and we know about what the definition of 'is' is, but you know in the end, I think John's probably right. I think there is a lot more to do with jobs and the debt crisis, and all of that kind of stuff. I just think probably it was one of those moments, and I could even feel that here. You know, when you say something, it's just that was the natural thing to come out of me. Actually he did call it an act of terror, and when you know, when half the crowd clapped for that, and the other half clapped for, but they kept telling us this was caused by a tape. In the main and the thrust of what Governor Romney was saying, which is why I went back and said that. But I just think he picked the wrong way to go about it. If that makes sense?"

What is even more questionable, as it would turn out, is WHY would the president even say "get the transcript" at all?  Why like that? Why turn to Candy for a little help, when she is supposed to be taking the role of an UNbiased moderator?  More important, who talks like that in the middle of a debate?

So, are we to understand, transcripts and back up material from memory, are all doable in a debate now?  Going to the audience, phoning a friend, like we are playing Who Wants to be a Millionaire, is fair game?

Really, Mr. President?  No, seriously, why would you 'go there' in the first place...Let's say if you wanted  all of us to follow up at our leisure later on this issue -- wouldn't you have directed your words out to the audience better and chosen a slightly different tact?

But nooooo, you kept going after her, didn't you?

For you add only seconds later..."Can you say that a little louder, Candy?"

What is that?  What a fool you made of yourself and the office of the presidency...am I the only one in the world who sees it?

 Here's more on the whole charade.  And Here.  And Here.

It's Playing Politics in a TownHall Thing

Dear America,

so liberals have all

swallowed a morning after pill

and have come away 

thinking Obama won the debate...

just a G take

Typical; but now it's time for the rest of us to go to work -- and look at the fine print. And this is in response to just one of only ten questions that made the cut with the folks of the Town Hall...

In the Rose Garden, September 12, 2012...

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.[referring to the VIDEO]

But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence.[referring to reaction to the VIDEO]  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."

Moving into a more general tone, he adds this:

"Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi."

And then making a sweeping declaration in a brand new paragraph, he says "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

So throughout the president's entire speech in the Rose Garden, he uses descriptive phrases like: "shocking attack" "killers who attacked our people" "senseless violence" "brutal acts" "this attack in Benghazi" "terrible act" and then generally, generically hangs out a blanket "acts of terror."

[G note: Now the rest of today gets rather LOOOOOOONG.  I have included full text pertaining to the question of 'acts of terror' controversy and sideline action...If your memory serves you well...just skip through anything that you have heard before...]

Let's fast forward in rewind to last night.  If you recall, the question posed in the debate was simply this:

Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

And we got this:

OBAMA: Well, let me first of all talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren't just representatives of the United States, they are my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks and I know their families. So nobody is more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team and I gave them three instructions.

Number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in Libya, but at every embassy and consulate in the region.

Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure folks are held accountable and it doesn't happen again.

And number three, we are going to find out who did this and we're going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I've said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.

[which is funny, considering number 3 sounds an awful lot like number 2, but I digress...or did he?]

Anywho, and in addition, we got this:

OBAMA: Now Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release, trying to make political points, and that's not how a commander in chief operates. You don't turn national security into a political issue. Certainly not right when it's happening. And people -- not everybody agrees with some of the decisions I've made. But when it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. I said I'd end the war in Libya -- in -- in Iraq, and I did.

and this:

I said that we'd go after al-Qaeda and bin Laden, we have. I said we'd transition out of Afghanistan, and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their own security, that's what I'm doing. And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable. And I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home. You know that I mean what I say.

President Obama never answered the question.

Crowley turns to Romney --

ROMNEY: Thank you Kerry for your question, it's an important one. And -- and I -- I think the president just said correctly that the buck does stop at his desk and -- and he takes responsibility for -- for that -- for the failure in providing those security resources, and -- and those terrible things may well happen from time to time. I -- I'm -- I feel very deeply sympathetic for the families of those who lost loved ones. And today there's a memorial service for one of those that was lost in this tragedy. We -- we think of their families and care for them deeply. There were other issues associated with this -- with this tragedy. There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration, or actually whether it was a terrorist attack.

and this:

ROMNEY: And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading, or instead whether we just didn't know what happened, you have to ask yourself why didn't we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could we have not known?

and this:

But I find more troubling than this, that on -- on the day following the assassination of the United States ambassador, the first time that's happened since 1979, when -- when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn't know what happened, that the president, the day after that happened, flies to Las Vegas for a political fund-raiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, other political event.

I think these -- these actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance and perhaps even material significance in that you'd hope that during that time we could call in the people who were actually eyewitnesses. We've read their accounts now about what happened. It was very clear this was not a demonstration. This was an attack by terrorists.

and finally this:

And this calls into question the president's whole policy in the Middle East. Look what's happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and -- and Israel, the president said that -- that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel.

We have Iran four years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria -- Syria's not just a tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a strategic -- strategically significant player for America.

The president's policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and -- and -- and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes.

Saying the word "terrorist(s)" three times in less than thirty seconds.

Back to Crowley, for she didn't want to leave things quite like that --

CROWLEY: Because we're -- we're closing in, I want to still get a lot of people in. I want to ask you something, Mr. President, and then have the governor just quickly.

Your secretary of state, as I'm sure you know, has said that she takes full responsibility for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?

OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I'm the president and I'm always responsible, and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.

The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime.

And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander in Chief.

Oh yeah, Mr. We are NO longer going to let the media document our soldiers coming home in caskets, except maybe just this once?

and then we go to a whole-notha-level in like mach-six seconds:

CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to...

ROMNEY: Yes, I -- I...

CROWLEY: ... quickly to this please.

ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.
It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.
CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...
OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?
CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.  [COMMENTS THAT WERE WALKED BACK immediately after debate...]
ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
CROWLEY: It did.

ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest -- am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the -- your secretary --

OBAMA: Candy?

ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how --

OBAMA: Candy, I'm --

ROMNEY: -- this was a spontaneous --

CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me --

OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation --

CROWLEY: I know you --
OBAMA: -- about foreign policy.
CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to -- I want to move you on and also --
OBAMA: OK. I'm happy to do that, too.

So given your Secretary of State has just spent the better part of the last 24 hours taking full responsibility, I guess, as the president -- if I am hearing you correctly, sir --  last night also served the purpose of canceling each other out?  Kinda like votes in the case of polar opposites?  But honestly, where does the buck really stop?

For full debate transcript, go to Fox News here.

For full Rose Garden speech, care of Fox News, go here.

For full Fact-Checking on Libya, care of Fox News, go here.

For a fabulous breakdown of the 'un-biased' moderator drone attack on stage, go here.

In reality -- we all know how it went down; and it has become a narrative nightmare ever since.

For as we watched all the talking heads making their media rounds on Sunday, September 16th -- everything is centered on the video. All apologies, are centered on the video.  All appearances, are centered on the video.  We interrupt this broadcast to finally admit:

"Yes, they were killed 

in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." 

Matt Olsen

Director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center

September 19, 2012

No, scratch that -- all guest appearances, like on The View, continue to be centered on "mob action" attributed to the video; all apologies, are centered on the video; the United Nations speech is centered on the video...and that day being September 25 even!

"And the suggestion 

that anybody in my team, 

whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, 

anybody on my team 

would play politics 

or mislead 

when we've lost four of our own, governor, 

is offensive. 

That's not what we do. 

That's not what I do as president, 

that's not what I do as Commander in Chief."

Then if it's not about politics, then why not tell us the truth right from the start -- considering that well within 24 hours after the news that a shocking act of senseless violence by killers who want to brutally attack and kill our people occurred was already known?  

And then why not say it's an "act of terrorism," thereby exhibiting an act of leadership and strength the whole world needs to see, but mostly for the purpose of reassuring the American people that the buck truly stops with you?

In any event, the question was never really answered, was it, Mr. President?

Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

For this happened [the DENIED enhanced security] months before the senseless act of violence at the hands of killers who want to kill our people on September 11, 2012, wasn't it? And really now, what good is it to beef up security after the fact?

For this happened [the DENIED enhanced security], even when all the signs written on the consulate wall were pointing to serious vulnerabilities and misguided priorities -- see also, the ambassador's diary, multiple requests for security denied, random bombings.

So, if I am hearing you correctly, YOU are responsible for that -- as you say "I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home. You know that I mean what I say.........Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I'm the president and I'm always responsible, and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do..." 

Perhaps a simple "I did" would have been the right response, for starters.  

But now as to the why?   Why now, that IS a real doozy.... 

....given that it is, after all, Libya...[to the rest of us recognized as"Obama's war" or is it "Kinetic Military Action"?]

....given that the unrest (including bombs bursting in air and tearing holes through walls) had been well documented for months leading up to the senseless act of violence at the hands of killers who want to kill our people, see also Lindsey Graham letter,

....given that it was the eleventh anniversary of September 11th, 

....given that you say you are "ultimately responsible for what's taking place there because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home. You know that I mean what I say."

Do you not see how some Americans might find your in-action totally alarming, your lack of being up front somewhat insulting, and the amount of time it took for you to stop blaming the video and tell the truth grossly offensive? 

But more important --

even though the question of

'Who was it that denied enhanced security and why'

was never really answered,

it is to blame for this day in the life.

Along with Terrorists...

yeah, yeah

lots and lots of terrorists...

"Obama, Obama, there's a billion Osama's!" 

Make it a Good Day, G