Tip toeing around the secret of where was POTUS on 9/11/12 ......
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-mystery-night-91788.html
OPINION COLUMN
The mystery night
On “Fox News Sunday” last weekend, White House aide Dan Pfeiffer was asked about President Barack Obama’s whereabouts the night of the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi.
This was the night when we lost our first ambassador in 30 years, and when three other Americans were killed in an attack that lasted all night long at multiple locations within the eastern Libyan city. Since the president is commander in chief, one would think where he was and what he did during such an event would be of obvious public concern.
Continue Reading
Not according to Pfeiffer. He deemed the president’s location, and specifically whether he was in the Situation Room, “a largely irrelevant fact.” If it is so unimportant, why not simply tell us? It’s not as if we haven’t heard largely irrelevant information before. Humor us. Then everyone can judge the value of the fact for himself.
Obama’s actions and nonactions on that terrible night are a blank spot in his presidency. We simply don’t know much about them, and the White House has always been perfectly content to leave it that way.
We know he was meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey on an unrelated matter at 5 p.m. Washington time, when he learned of the attack. In congressional testimony, Panetta said he had no contact with the president or the White House after that point.
Dempsey said he didn’t hear from the president, either. Although he did stipulate that “his staff was engaged with the national military command center pretty constantly through the period, which is the way it would normally work.” Fine, but one wonders: What is the standard operating procedure when a U.S. ambassador goes missing and is killed?
Next, we know that the president talked to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at 10 p.m., when the assault that killed Chris Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith was over but the mortar attack that killed two former U.S. Navy SEALs at another facility hadn’t yet taken place.
What about the rest of the time? Pfeiffer assures us that the president kept “in constant touch that night with his national security team and kept up to date with the events as they were happening.”
He must have experienced the loneliness and responsibility of command during all his unspecified phone calls with unspecified national security personnel from an unspecified location until unspecified hours of the night.
When the White House has a good story to tell, we hear about it. As Boston Herald columnist Michael Graham points out, the president has been in constant evidence responding to the Moore, Okla., tornado. The White House blog on Wednesday informed us, among many other things, that the president spoke to Mayor Glenn Lewis and Gov. Mary Fallin “to reiterate that he had directed his administration to provide all available resources to support the response led by the governor and her team.”
The Osama bin Laden raid will be one of the most documented episodes of his presidency. Immediately after killing bin Laden, Obama gave a long, detailed interview to “60 Minutes.”
He talked about what information the CIA first brought him about bin Laden’s location and what orders he gave in response. When the planning began and how it proceeded. How involved he was in multiple meetings in the Situation Room. Every nuance of his thinking. The dynamic of the debate among his advisers. The mood in the Situation Room during the operation. And on and on.
In the case of Benghazi, the military maintains that nothing could have been done to save the lives lost that night, and it may well be right. But no one could say how long the attack in Benghazi would last or if there would be follow-on attacks in Tripoli. An engaged commander in chief would have been coordinating with his military and prodding it to see if it could do more, faster to respond to an attack that resulted in a national humiliation.
The day after his mystery night, Obama publicly emerged. He gave a statement at 10:35 a.m. condemning the Benghazi attack — and left Washington at 2:20 p.m. for a fundraiser in Las Vegas.
and the alternative view , fwiw......
Barack Obama Was High On Cocaine The Night of Benghazi Attack – Report
Saturday, May 25, 2013 19:49
Subject: Barack Obama Was High on Cocaine the Night of Benghazi Attack
Yesterday, Rich Lowry at Politico wrote about “The Mystery Night” on September 11th, 2012 when the current US President disappeared for many hours and was seemingly unavailable…despite the fact that the first US Ambassador in 30 years had been murdered in the line of duty. Lowry wonders where Barack Obama disappeared to that fateful night…and why White House aide Dan Pfeiffer insists it’s “irrelevant” where Obama was in those missing hours.
If you’ve ever known anyone who is a drug addict, you’d see it’s obvious that Barack Obama was high on cocaine the night of Benghazi; it is the only logical explanation for his disappearance and the White House’s refusal to comment on what he was doing at the time. Since this was a night of great crisis for our country, the only logical reason that the White House won’t explain where the president was is if this man was high as a kite on illegal narcotics at the time.
Lowry did a great job in his article fleshing out the last time Obama was seen on September 11th of last year…and then noting when he reappeared again the next day, briefly, before jetting off to fabulous Las Vegas for a fun-and-games fundraiser event he had scheduled there (where, it also should be noted, not only Chippendales but also Thunder From Down Under male revues are regularly held…which certainly establishes the appeal of heading to Las Vegas instead of managing a national crisis back in Washington for this particular president).
After reading Lowry’s article, my good friend Justine in California emailed me to ask whether I thought Obama was having sex with Reggie Love during the “missing hours” and if that’s where he was. Justine was an actress and model in Los Angeles back in the late-1970s and ran in the same circles as friends of closeted gay men like Rock Hudson…so her first instinct with Obama and Benghazi is that he and Reggie Love were getting at it and Obama didn’t want to be disturbed.
I think Obama doing cocaine is a much better explanation for his missing hours, simply because at his age and with all the men he’s been with it’s not like he couldn’t just stop romancing Reggie for a little bit…and then get back to it when they were in Vegas. I know the stereotype of gay guys is that we’re all sex-crazed and can’t control ourselves, but even the biggest gay sexual glutton in the world can pull himself away from a hot guy long enough to take care of something important (if need be). It’s not like this would have been the first time that Barack Obama was having gay sex…so surely he could have pushed “pause” to be president for a while (before getting back to whatever he was up to when the crisis was over).
However, once you take drugs you are pretty much on another astral plane for however long it takes for the drugs to leave your system. I’ve sadly watched a lot of incredible people in the nightlife scene ruin their lives with cocaine over the years, and once these people got high they stayed high until the drugs metabolized enough for them to function. In fact, a few years ago I dated a day trader here in Chicago who (unbeknownst to me at first) would use cocaine in the evening when he came home from work…and he’d process the drugs in his system enough to be back at his office early the next morning. Unless you really knew what to look for, this guy seemed totally normal in the morning…but he could not function or be responsible for anything overnight while the drugs were racing through his system.
The timeline Lowry fleshed out perfectly fits a scenario where Barack Obama retired to his private quarters (perhaps with Reggie Love…or maybe one of the other low-ranking young men who are forever suspiciously palling around with this president, unlike any president before him) sometime around 6pm EST or so on 9/11/12. He then seems to have taken drugs (which I believe most likely involved cocaine). Hillary Clinton either showed up to kill his buzz or she kept calling on the phone over and over again until he answered at 10pm. I’m sure he hung up on her as fast as he could, because the woman scares him (and no doubt scolds his sorry ass every chance she gets).
From then until the staff was finally able to rouse, dress, and make him presentable enough for the public at 1030am the next day Barack Obama appears to have been out of his mind high on drugs.
Since the White House deliberately is insisting that it’s “irrelevant” where Obama was during those missing hours that Lowry has asked about, we must assume I’m correct and the President of the United States was incapacitated from heavy narcotics use.
I would gladly retract this story if the White House would sufficiently explain Barack Obama’s whereabouts during those missing hours and prove he was not out of his mind on cocaine at the time (or gluttonously engaged in gay sex, as my friend Justine believes).
You should know by now that whenever the Obama Regime stonewalls and absolutely refuses to reveal information mysteriously, there is a reason for it.
Read more http://hillbuzz.org/barack-obama-was-high-on-cocaine-during-the-missing-hours-of-the-benghazi-attack-last-september-90072
While we are on the subject of mysteries and Benghzai , thinking about those talking points , just who is Ben " Jack Ryan Rhodes and how did he rise so unexpectedly in the first place ?
For some possible context to President Obama’s current trip to Israel, I thought back to yet another of the New York Times’s oddly unsatisfying “profiles of power.” This one, which was published last week, introduces us to a highly influential Obama foreign policy adviser:
We don’t really learn much about Rhodes’s either, beyond the fact that he is quietly pushing for more US intervention in Syria, on the heels of a successful push to convince a supposedly reticent Obama to bomb the heck out of Libya, purportedly for human rights reasons. Some now know better—that removing Qaddafi had precious little to do with helping innocent people and a lot to do with oil companies, banks and intelligence agencies.
What’s especially strange about the article is that, for those of us who continue to wonder how a virtual cipher rose so quickly from the Illinois legislature to become the most powerful person in the world, we end up wondering the same thing about an aspiring novelist from New York City who fairly catapults to enormous influence in shaping policy regarding some of the most complex and sensitive matters facing this country.
Somehow, beyond noting that “In many ways, Mr. Rhodes is an improbable choice for a job at the heart of the national security apparatus,” the Times is not sufficiently curious about any of this to probe further. Instead, it provides a clutch of clichés. We learn that the Rhodes family is fiercely divided between Yankees fans and Mets fans. We learn the father is a conservative-leaning Episcopalian from Texas, the mother a liberal Jew from New York.
Though the Times never underlines this, the careful reader comes to realize that Rhodes’s guiding philosophy is as hard to discern as the precise reasons that he has the president’s ear. In 1997, he briefly worked on the re-election campaign of New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican. Shortly after 9/11, the aspiring novelist suddenly decided to do his part for society, moving in 2002 from Queens to Washington, and quickly found himself “helping draft the 9/11 Commission report as well as the Iraq Study Group report.”
The Times, of course, does not think it is worth pointing out how strange this is. It is almost as if all 24-year-olds with no apparent credentials of any kind go directly to explaining the most massively controversial and complex set of circumstances to the American people.
We are never even told what kind of education Rhodes got, or where, or whether he has ever been anything beyond an aspiring novelist. There’s no indication of what he did on Giuliani’s campaign (he would only have been about 19 or 20 at the time) or whether his preference for the mayor who presided over the 9/11 response had anything to do with his going to Washington, or miraculously being hired by Democrat Lee Hamilton to explain 9/11 to the public.
From these improbable beginnings, Rhodes is suddenly a speechwriter on Obama’s presidential campaign. How did he come to Obama’s attention? The article doesn’t say. However, it does note that the Iraq Study group report on which Rhodes worked “was a template for the anti-Iraq war positions taken by Barack Obama” as a senator and candidate.
Yet, without explaining how that report made Obama an Iraq dove, or what Rhodes himself believed, we learn that Rhodes is now essentially the opposite—a hawk pushing Obama to intervene abroad. Again, this contradiction seems totally lost on the poorTimes reporter.
Only a news organization so hopelessly compromised by nepotism and thoroughly woven into the power structures of this society could not think the fact of Rhodes’s brother’s job and connections worthy of a single full sentence.
If the Times does get around to explaining that, may we ask one question? Did Benjamin Rhodes even attend college? (No thanks to the Times, we learn from a brief Wikipedia entry that he did—Rice University in Houston, Texas). OK, here’s another: what did Rhodes do, prior to 2002, that made him sufficiently expert to help craft the 9/11 report? (No easy answers on that one.)
Once we start asking questions about Benjamin Rhodes, this leads to questions about Obama, about the Times and CBS and journalism in general. And it leads to questions about how much we, the most smugly self-assured people on earth, understand about how anything of significance actually works.
In this case, it’s not unreasonable to wonder whether some particular faction or other might have spotted “talent” and “agreeability” in Rhodes, and helped hasten his rapid ascent to the top. Because it’s mostly just in movies where someone lacking experience or credentials is plucked from obscurity and invited to help decide the important issues of our time.
The great exception to this rule being, of course, presidents themselves. Obama’s own rapid rise from obscurity, like that of George W. Bush (he at least of famous lineage), was astounding, and, if you think about it, it’s kind of remarkable how little we really understand about how and why Obama himself got to the top beyond the package of smarts and charisma—or about what exactly he believes in. We’re a long way from JFK—whose death 50 years ago blunted a tradition of edgy frankness and risk-taking we also associated with FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, etc.
What better topic to pursue at the start of Obama’s second term than who this man is and what he really believes and where he is leading this country?
Yesterday, Rich Lowry at Politico wrote about “The Mystery Night” on September 11th, 2012 when the current US President disappeared for many hours and was seemingly unavailable…despite the fact that the first US Ambassador in 30 years had been murdered in the line of duty. Lowry wonders where Barack Obama disappeared to that fateful night…and why White House aide Dan Pfeiffer insists it’s “irrelevant” where Obama was in those missing hours.
If you’ve ever known anyone who is a drug addict, you’d see it’s obvious that Barack Obama was high on cocaine the night of Benghazi; it is the only logical explanation for his disappearance and the White House’s refusal to comment on what he was doing at the time. Since this was a night of great crisis for our country, the only logical reason that the White House won’t explain where the president was is if this man was high as a kite on illegal narcotics at the time.
Lowry did a great job in his article fleshing out the last time Obama was seen on September 11th of last year…and then noting when he reappeared again the next day, briefly, before jetting off to fabulous Las Vegas for a fun-and-games fundraiser event he had scheduled there (where, it also should be noted, not only Chippendales but also Thunder From Down Under male revues are regularly held…which certainly establishes the appeal of heading to Las Vegas instead of managing a national crisis back in Washington for this particular president).
After reading Lowry’s article, my good friend Justine in California emailed me to ask whether I thought Obama was having sex with Reggie Love during the “missing hours” and if that’s where he was. Justine was an actress and model in Los Angeles back in the late-1970s and ran in the same circles as friends of closeted gay men like Rock Hudson…so her first instinct with Obama and Benghazi is that he and Reggie Love were getting at it and Obama didn’t want to be disturbed.
I think Obama doing cocaine is a much better explanation for his missing hours, simply because at his age and with all the men he’s been with it’s not like he couldn’t just stop romancing Reggie for a little bit…and then get back to it when they were in Vegas. I know the stereotype of gay guys is that we’re all sex-crazed and can’t control ourselves, but even the biggest gay sexual glutton in the world can pull himself away from a hot guy long enough to take care of something important (if need be). It’s not like this would have been the first time that Barack Obama was having gay sex…so surely he could have pushed “pause” to be president for a while (before getting back to whatever he was up to when the crisis was over).
However, once you take drugs you are pretty much on another astral plane for however long it takes for the drugs to leave your system. I’ve sadly watched a lot of incredible people in the nightlife scene ruin their lives with cocaine over the years, and once these people got high they stayed high until the drugs metabolized enough for them to function. In fact, a few years ago I dated a day trader here in Chicago who (unbeknownst to me at first) would use cocaine in the evening when he came home from work…and he’d process the drugs in his system enough to be back at his office early the next morning. Unless you really knew what to look for, this guy seemed totally normal in the morning…but he could not function or be responsible for anything overnight while the drugs were racing through his system.
The timeline Lowry fleshed out perfectly fits a scenario where Barack Obama retired to his private quarters (perhaps with Reggie Love…or maybe one of the other low-ranking young men who are forever suspiciously palling around with this president, unlike any president before him) sometime around 6pm EST or so on 9/11/12. He then seems to have taken drugs (which I believe most likely involved cocaine). Hillary Clinton either showed up to kill his buzz or she kept calling on the phone over and over again until he answered at 10pm. I’m sure he hung up on her as fast as he could, because the woman scares him (and no doubt scolds his sorry ass every chance she gets).
From then until the staff was finally able to rouse, dress, and make him presentable enough for the public at 1030am the next day Barack Obama appears to have been out of his mind high on drugs.
Since the White House deliberately is insisting that it’s “irrelevant” where Obama was during those missing hours that Lowry has asked about, we must assume I’m correct and the President of the United States was incapacitated from heavy narcotics use.
I would gladly retract this story if the White House would sufficiently explain Barack Obama’s whereabouts during those missing hours and prove he was not out of his mind on cocaine at the time (or gluttonously engaged in gay sex, as my friend Justine believes).
You should know by now that whenever the Obama Regime stonewalls and absolutely refuses to reveal information mysteriously, there is a reason for it.
Read more http://hillbuzz.org/barack-obama-was-high-on-cocaine-during-the-missing-hours-of-the-benghazi-attack-last-september-90072
While we are on the subject of mysteries and Benghzai , thinking about those talking points , just who is Ben " Jack Ryan Rhodes and how did he rise so unexpectedly in the first place ?
NYT’s Rhodes To Nowhere: A Cipher In The Oval Office
By Russ Baker on Mar 21, 2013
Obama’s Mysterious “Rhodes” Scholar
As President Obama prepares to visit Israel next week, he is turning, as he often does, to Benjamin J. Rhodes, a 35-year-old deputy national security adviser with a soft voice, strong opinions and a reputation around the White House as the man who channels Mr. Obama on foreign policy.
Mr. Rhodes is drafting the address to the Israeli people the president plans to give in Jerusalem, but his influence extends beyond what either his title or speechwriting duties suggest. Drawing on personal ties and a philosophical kinship with Mr. Obama that go back to the 2008 campaign, Mr. Rhodes helped prod his boss to take a more activist policy toward Egypt and Libya when those countries erupted in 2011.
Unfortunately, the article never really explains what that “philosophical kinship” is. It would be of particular interest to those who have always wondered, and still do not know, what Barack Obama’s overarching philosophy is.We don’t really learn much about Rhodes’s either, beyond the fact that he is quietly pushing for more US intervention in Syria, on the heels of a successful push to convince a supposedly reticent Obama to bomb the heck out of Libya, purportedly for human rights reasons. Some now know better—that removing Qaddafi had precious little to do with helping innocent people and a lot to do with oil companies, banks and intelligence agencies.
What’s especially strange about the article is that, for those of us who continue to wonder how a virtual cipher rose so quickly from the Illinois legislature to become the most powerful person in the world, we end up wondering the same thing about an aspiring novelist from New York City who fairly catapults to enormous influence in shaping policy regarding some of the most complex and sensitive matters facing this country.
Somehow, beyond noting that “In many ways, Mr. Rhodes is an improbable choice for a job at the heart of the national security apparatus,” the Times is not sufficiently curious about any of this to probe further. Instead, it provides a clutch of clichés. We learn that the Rhodes family is fiercely divided between Yankees fans and Mets fans. We learn the father is a conservative-leaning Episcopalian from Texas, the mother a liberal Jew from New York.
Though the Times never underlines this, the careful reader comes to realize that Rhodes’s guiding philosophy is as hard to discern as the precise reasons that he has the president’s ear. In 1997, he briefly worked on the re-election campaign of New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican. Shortly after 9/11, the aspiring novelist suddenly decided to do his part for society, moving in 2002 from Queens to Washington, and quickly found himself “helping draft the 9/11 Commission report as well as the Iraq Study Group report.”
The Times, of course, does not think it is worth pointing out how strange this is. It is almost as if all 24-year-olds with no apparent credentials of any kind go directly to explaining the most massively controversial and complex set of circumstances to the American people.
We are never even told what kind of education Rhodes got, or where, or whether he has ever been anything beyond an aspiring novelist. There’s no indication of what he did on Giuliani’s campaign (he would only have been about 19 or 20 at the time) or whether his preference for the mayor who presided over the 9/11 response had anything to do with his going to Washington, or miraculously being hired by Democrat Lee Hamilton to explain 9/11 to the public.
From these improbable beginnings, Rhodes is suddenly a speechwriter on Obama’s presidential campaign. How did he come to Obama’s attention? The article doesn’t say. However, it does note that the Iraq Study group report on which Rhodes worked “was a template for the anti-Iraq war positions taken by Barack Obama” as a senator and candidate.
Yet, without explaining how that report made Obama an Iraq dove, or what Rhodes himself believed, we learn that Rhodes is now essentially the opposite—a hawk pushing Obama to intervene abroad. Again, this contradiction seems totally lost on the poorTimes reporter.
In writing Mr. Obama’s speech next week, Mr. Rhodes is likely to focus on America’s unshakable support for Israel. But if history is any guide, he will slip in a reference to Syria’s democratic future.
“Ben always holds on to the pen,” Mr. McFaul said. “Because of his close personal relationship with the president, Ben can always make policy through the speeches and statements made by President Obama.”
Almost as an afterthought about this fellow who rocketed from obscurity to being one of Obama’s most influential advisors, the writer, quoting Rhodes’ older brother on the family’s baseball feud, notes that the brother “is now the president of CBS News.” Searching sources other than the Times, we find that David Rhodes was a production assistant at the fledgling Fox News Channel around the same time Benjamin was volunteering for Giuliani—and was the conservative channel’s news desk Assignment Manager when the planes struck the Twin Towers. Highly trusted by Fox’s chairman Roger Ailes, he managed Fox’s coverage of three presidential elections, including the one where his brother was writing Obama’s speeches, was hired by Bloomberg TV right after Obama’s election, and in 2011 was named president of CBS News.Only a news organization so hopelessly compromised by nepotism and thoroughly woven into the power structures of this society could not think the fact of Rhodes’s brother’s job and connections worthy of a single full sentence.
If the Times does get around to explaining that, may we ask one question? Did Benjamin Rhodes even attend college? (No thanks to the Times, we learn from a brief Wikipedia entry that he did—Rice University in Houston, Texas). OK, here’s another: what did Rhodes do, prior to 2002, that made him sufficiently expert to help craft the 9/11 report? (No easy answers on that one.)
Once we start asking questions about Benjamin Rhodes, this leads to questions about Obama, about the Times and CBS and journalism in general. And it leads to questions about how much we, the most smugly self-assured people on earth, understand about how anything of significance actually works.
In this case, it’s not unreasonable to wonder whether some particular faction or other might have spotted “talent” and “agreeability” in Rhodes, and helped hasten his rapid ascent to the top. Because it’s mostly just in movies where someone lacking experience or credentials is plucked from obscurity and invited to help decide the important issues of our time.
The great exception to this rule being, of course, presidents themselves. Obama’s own rapid rise from obscurity, like that of George W. Bush (he at least of famous lineage), was astounding, and, if you think about it, it’s kind of remarkable how little we really understand about how and why Obama himself got to the top beyond the package of smarts and charisma—or about what exactly he believes in. We’re a long way from JFK—whose death 50 years ago blunted a tradition of edgy frankness and risk-taking we also associated with FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, etc.
What better topic to pursue at the start of Obama’s second term than who this man is and what he really believes and where he is leading this country?
No comments:
Post a Comment