WHITE HOUSE’S SHIFTING IRS ACCOUNT from Politico
Scandals Expose the Truth about Obama……Followers Follow Their Leader
WHITE HOUSE’S SHIFTING IRS ACCOUNT from Politico
Scandals Expose the Truth about Obama……Followers Follow Their Leader
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is often called the “Bible” of psychiatric diagnosis, and the term is apt. The DSM consists of instructions from on high; readers usually disagree in their interpretations of the text; and believing it is an act of faith.
At least the Bible lists only 10 Commandments; the DSM grows by leaps and bounds with every revision. The first edition, published by the American Psychiatric Association in 1952, was a spiral-bound pamphlet that described 11 categories of mental disorder, including brain syndromes, personality problems and psychotic disorders. (The final category, “Nondiagnostic Terms for the Hospital Record,” contained Dead on Admission, the one diagnosis that psychiatrists have ever agreed on.) The DSM-II (1968) made homosexuality a mental disorder, a decision revoked by vote in 1973. In the general excitement about that progressive decision, few noted that voting didn’t seem to be the most scientific way of determining mental illness. Narcissistic Personality Disorder was voted out in 1968 and voted back in 1980; where did it go for 12 years? Doctors don’t vote on whether pneumonia is a disease.
.The DSM-III (1980) was an effort to jettison outdated theories and terms such as “neurosis” and replace them with an objective list of disorders with agreed-upon symptoms. The DSM-IIIR (1987) was 567 pages and included nearly 300 disorders. The DSM-IV (1994, slightly revised in 2000) was 900 pages and contained nearly 400 disorders. The new DSM-5, with its modernized Arabic number, is 947 pages. It contains, along with serious mental illnesses, “binge-eating disorder” (whose symptoms include “eating when not feeling physically hungry”), “caffeine intoxication,” “parent-child relational problem” and my favorite, “antidepressant discontinuation syndrome.” Now psychiatrists can treat the symptoms of going off antidepressants, which is good because the expanded criteria for many disorders allows doctors to prescribe antidepressants more often for more problems. Gone is the “bereavement exemption,” for example. You used to get two weeks after a loved one died before you could be diagnosed with major depression and medicated. Now you get two minutes.
If people treated the DSM the way most treat the other Bible—nod their heads to it, say they believe in it and continue sinning—we might be all right. Many psychotherapists who still practice therapy, rather than prescribe a cocktail of Zoloft and Risperdal with a tincture of Ritalin, do just that. They find a label that suits, for insurance purposes, and then get on with helping the client.
.But the DSM has grown too powerful to ignore; it is the linchpin of the pharmaceutical-medical complex. Adding more disorders allows doctors to be compensated for treating any kind of problem, from garden-variety sorrow to incapacitating depression. Drug companies encourage new disorders so that they can create medications or repackage old ones: Prozac, when its patent expired, was renamed Sarafem to treat “Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder.” PMDD had been relegated to the kids’ table (that is, an appendix) in the DSM-IV, thanks to protests by women clinicians who wondered why menstrual symptoms constitute a “mental disorder” when, say, Hypertestosterone Hostility Disorder is nowhere to be found. Alas, PMDD has moved to the adults’ table in the DSM-5. HHD is still MIA.
.Criticism of the DSM began to coalesce in the 1990s, with Stuart Kirk and Herb Kutchins’s “The Selling of DSM” (1992) and “Making Us Crazy” (1997), as well as Paula Caplan’s “They Say You’re Crazy” (1996). Now, Gary Greenberg, a psychotherapist and the author of “Manufacturing Depression” (2010), and Allen Frances, a psychiatrist who was task-force chair of the revision of the fourth DSM, have joined the chorus of critics. Their books share the goal of skewering the pretensions of the latest revision and using what is wrong about the DSM to remind us of what diagnosis and therapy should be for. But they diverge in one crucial way: Dr. Frances is sitting on the fence about what the DSM’s power means for psychiatry; Mr. Greenberg has leapt over it.
In “The Book of Woe,” Mr. Greenberg takes us on a rollicking journey from the DSM-5′s inception to its publication, regaling us with stories, alternately hilarious and infuriating, of internecine battles, personality clashes and political machinations. Mr. Greenberg is an outsider by virtue of not being a psychiatrist but an insider by virtue of serving as one of the investigators involved in field-testing some proposed diagnoses on actual patients. He interviewed the major players; he watched as feathers were ruffled and smoothed; he attended conferences, documenting with growing disbelief the failures of the American Psychiatric Association’s task forces to produce the scientific results they had aimed for.
And he was there when those scientific aspirations met reality and all hell broke loose. Mr. Greenberg gives us a front-row seat at the APA’s annual meeting in 2011, when results of the field trials were reported. Field trials are intended to test the reliability of diagnostic criteria—meaning that two psychiatrists observing the same person’s symptoms should have a pretty good chance of agreeing on a diagnosis. But the results were dismal. Agreement on identifying even Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder—what Mr. Greenberg calls the “Dodge Dart and Ford Falcon of the DSM, simple and reliable and ubiquitous” disorders—was low. Moreover, the field testing on patients failed miserably: 5,000 clinicians signed up to participate, 195 finished training for it, and only 70 enrolled any patients in trials. The APA tried to put a good spin on these numbers —”nearly 150 patients have joined the study”—ignoring, Mr. Greenberg notes, that their goal was 10,000. Only two months before the data had to be in, the clinician field trials had barely begun.
Why would the APA rush publication in spite of unfinished field trials and failures to find high reliability among clinicians, the very things that their claims to a scientific DSM rely on? Do the math, Mr. Greenberg answers. In recent years, the APA has been steadily losing income from dwindling membership and dwindling ad revenues for its journals. The DSM-IV, which has earned $100 million, keeps the organization in the black. Faced with a looming deadline and terrible data, Mr. Greenberg suggests, the DSM directors did what any reasonable, self-protecting institution would do: They lowered the statistical criteria for acceptable standards of reliability and turned defeat into victory. As Allen Frances puts it in “Saving Normal,” they accepted agreements among raters that were “sometimes barely better than two monkeys throwing darts at a diagnostic board.”
I encountered Allen Frances in the pages of Mr. Greenberg’s book before I read his own. Mr. Greenberg’s conversations, emails, and debates with Dr. Frances are woven through his narrative, and Dr. Frances emerges as funny, furious, defensive and courageous. Allies and adversaries, they never agree on whether criticizing the DSM is good for psychiatry or bad. Mr. Greenberg wonders whether he is helping to undermine a profession “that offers the last and only hope for some patients” with psychosis and other severe disorders. But he concludes that the truth needs to be told: Even in the hands of “honest and eloquent men” such as Dr. Frances, he writes, “psychiatric diagnosis is built on fiction and sold to the public as fact.”
Dr. Frances can’t go that far. “My critique,” he makes sure we know, “is directed only against the excesses of psychiatry, not its heart or soul.” In conversations with Mr. Greenberg, he worries that his words will be misused “by the antipsychiatry fanatics” who oppose psychiatric diagnosis and treatment altogether. “The field is a lot better,” he says, “than anyone would assume watching the DSM-5 follies unfold.”
Accordingly, in “Saving Normal,” Dr. Frances attempts the delicate task of debunking the DSM-5 while justifying his own DSM-IV. He was alarmed by the DSM-5′s proposals of “new diagnoses that would turn everyday anxiety, eccentricity, forgetting, and bad eating habits into mental disorders.” His 6-year-old twin grandsons wouldn’t have tantrums any more but “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder,” and his own normal forgetting of names and faces would be “mild neurocognitive disorder.” Yet the DSM-IV gave us a Disorder of Written Expression, Caffeine-Induced Sleep Disorder and Age-related Cognitive Decline, all of which I suffer on every deadline.
Dr. Frances describes his book as “part mea culpa, part j’accuse, part cri de coeur.” The mea culpa is admirable but also gives him the greatest difficulty. When he was at the helm, he contends, pet proposals were “consistently shot down” if the science wasn’t there to support them. The DSM-IV committees were “boringly modest in our goals, obsessively meticulous in our methods, and rigidly conservative in our product.” “Methodological rigor,” he claims, was their hallmark, even as he acknowledges that “all of our diagnoses are now based on subjective judgments that are inherently fallible and prey to capricious change.” It wasn’t the DSM-IV’s fault that it did not prevent “the rampant diagnostic inflating” or the “national drug overdose of medication” that followed its publication. The framers of the DSM-IV were, at worst, “naïve” in failing to worry that 56% of their experts had financial ties to drug companies.
Dr. Frances repeatedly chastises the writers of the DSM-5 for failing to ask Hippocrates’ question: Will this new diagnosis help patients or harm them? But the DSM-IV failed to ask the same question when, for example, it retained Multiple Personality Disorder. After the DSM-III included MPD in 1980, thousands of spurious cases emerged in the next two decades, and special psychiatric clinics arose to treat them. Yet faced with evidence of this disastrous epidemic, the DSM-IV did not delete the diagnosis. Instead, the manual renamed it Dissociative Identity Disorder. “MPD presented a dilemma for me,” Dr. Frances says. “We took scrupulous pains to present both sides of the controversy as fairly and effectively as possible—even though I believed one side was complete bunk.” How do you “fairly” argue for a diagnosis you think is complete bunk? Where’s the methodological rigor? Why did it take malpractice suits to close the psychiatric MPD clinics and not the presumed voice of scientific authority, the DSM? Dissociative Identity Disorder remains in the DSM-5.
Nonetheless, Dr. Frances does his best to save psychiatry. It is impossible to define “normal,” he explains, let alone “mental disorder.” But that doesn’t mean, he adds, that we can’t talk about the problems that cause human suffering. Mental disorders should be diagnosed only when a person’s symptoms are obvious, severe and haven’t gone away on their own. Watchful waiting should be the first step in treatment, and medication a last resort. A wise, and increasingly rare, approach.
Krauthammer: “This Is An Indictment Of People Who Believe In Big Government And Want To Expand It”
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: You know, Obama ran as a man who would not only change Washington but change the essence of politics itself in America as a kind of Olympian historic figure. He can’t even run the bureaucracy, that’s what we’re seeing. There’s arrogance here, of course, but there is incompetence of the highest order. You know, it’s not surprising he never ran a candy store until he became president.
The pose he has is the bystander. ‘I learned about it in the press.’ Attorney General: ‘I have no idea how any of this is happening with AP.’ Everybody is pretending DHS, who knows how the felons were released. They are all acting like the heads of the government are bystanders who get informed by reading the paper in the morning.
This is an indictment of people who believe in big government, want to expand it, have it control healthcare and cannot run the minimal essence of the duties of government. (Special Report, May 16, 2013)
A terrorist attack from the get-go
Pioneer Press twincities.com
After more than eight months, the Benghazi scandal has finally broken through the mainstream media’s self-imposed silence. It is now clear to anyone not from Mars that the assault was known to be a terrorist attack from the get-go and not a spontaneous demonstration gone amok.
The White House and most Democrats are claiming the scandal is nothing more than a political witch hunt. They are insisting that we should be focused on WHY Benghazi happened.
We already know WHY we have four dead Americans.
– Despite repeated requests, enhanced security in Benghazi was denied.
– Assets on the ground in Benghazi were told to “stand down” rather than try to rescue consulate personnel.
– Military support and rescue were never given the “go” command.
How can anyone determine WHY these decisions were made if they don’t know WHO to ask? We need to know the name and/or names of the people responsible for these egregious decisions.
One WHO we do know. We know WHO lied to the American people for almost two weeks regarding the motivation for the attack … U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
There is also a very important WHERE and a crucial WHAT that we don’t know. WHERE was President Obama during the eight hours of the attack and WHAT was he doing?
Diana V. Bratlie, Lakeville
Article sent by Mark Waldeland:
. . . in USA Today, no less. “IRS APPROVED LIBERAL GROUPS WHILE TEA PARTY IN LIMBO”
Comment: In other words Kirsten Powers believes Barack Hussein Obama lied frequently regarding the disaster at Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
It should be the first priority of every adult American of any Party, of any Religion, of any Neighborhood if they are truly a person devoted to the survival of the American dream of a popular government with personal liberties and respect for others, is to rely on honesty in its purest form to save ones soul, in the short run, but more importantly, in the long run of the human life.
“What a strange web we weave when we first practice to deceive”, was a reminder told to me when I was very young to older aged, first repeated by my mother and then by my own self to my self and others long before her death.
The maxim beats temptation time after time after time. I could never escape my God, I was warned, for God know all things. I was so Blessed to have been raised “Godfearing”.
Furthermore Life Owed Me Nothing, not even Life Itself. I was supposed to learn to decide matters; seek opportunities as I thought applied to me. I was to find whereever I might ‘fit’…..”God willing.”
We live in an ugly, a morally collapsing society which values cunning, rebellion, the slick, bizarre and profane, and are taught how much we are owed by simply breathing and pooping as long as we go to college to become a Marxist, a new religion which tells us how much we are owed for breathing and pooping if we vote for Obama and Obamalings.
Mr. Obama is a habitual liar. Benghazi isn’t his only Waterloo. He is a persuasive speaker; a con-artist who has an agenda sympathetic to Marxism and Islam and has the support of nearly all of the nation’s major institutions of persuasion. He didn’t really fool anyone if anyone would have personally bothered to listen and had amassed knowledge including those exposing Obama habits.
He used to advertise CHANGE….and for those who bothered to listen, who had some history background, who reviewed Mr. Obama’s personal background, especially his education and family life, honest people would have discovered he had an entirely different formula for America’s future than one depending on respect for others, freedom of expression, citizen rights, and a moral code based on truth, classic good, and personal responsibility.
Mr. Obama was never raised in a community devoted to those values. You read his background: who raised him, who educated him, who came to interest him, preach to him, educate him as a young adult.
He once “taught” Constitutional Law, I have read. Unbelievable for a person leading a political party which disdains the American Constitution as a white racist, out-of-date piece of paper with out-of-date ‘rules’ which we no longer need to pay attention to, as president or president’s administration……Hence, we have Obama arrogance, contempt, deceit, and efforts at dictatorship to develop a Marxist government beholden to the governing, not the people.
So, are you…..should anyone be, surprised that the Obama adminstration is so blatantly corrupt, blazingly antiAmerican in its respect for Constitutional Law, State Law, the Bill of Rights, anything beyond the change according to “ObamaLaw”?
I find Kirsten Powers a true patriot. I am a conservative….she is a female, probably has no male children, so she is a lefty…..but an honest one, an American one, a very, very rare breed these days among those who call themselves liberal and/or Democrat.
Powers: Obama Involved In “Repeated Lies” On Benghazi
KIRSTEN POWERS: What I don’t understand about what the president is doing is, to a certain extent, you could argue that he wasn’t really involved in a lot of this stuff. But he is so centrally involving himself with these repeated lies. And, I’m just going to call them lies because they’re lies. They’re on tape. Nobody thought that he called it a terrorist attack. Last night I went and I looked up at The New York Times how they reported it the day after. They never reference that we’ve had a terrorist attack against the United States. On September 20th, however, they run a story that says, “Libya envoy’s killing was a terrorist attack.” And they say, “Until now White House officials have not used that language in describing the assault.” That is September 20th. That is The New York Times. Now, at what point are people going to get tired of the president coming out over and over saying things like, “Don’t believe your lying eyes”?
Obama calls IRS’s targeting of conservative groups ‘outrageous’
By Justin Sink and Bernie Becker at the Hill:
President Obama said Monday that he would “not tolerate” political targeting by the Internal Revenue Service, calling reports that the agency had gone after conservative groups “outrageous.”
“If you’ve got the IRS operating in anything less than a neutral and nonpartisan way, then that is outrageous. It is contradictory to our traditions, and people have to be held accountable,” Obama said at a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron.
Obama said he first learned that employees of the federal tax agency had targeted conservative groups when news reports emerged on Friday.
“This is pretty straightforward,” Obama said. “If in fact its personnel engaged in the type of practices that have been reported … and have been intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that’s outrageous.”
The president said that concern over the neutrality of the agency should exist “regardless of party.”
“I have no patience with it, I will not tolerate it,” Obama said.
The IRS apologized Friday for having wrongfully singled out political groups that included “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status.
But an investigative report from the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, expected to be made public this week and obtained early by The Hill and other news organizations, suggests that the political targeting was more widespread and that senior IRS officials were aware of it as early as 2011.
An audit on the IRS’s oversight of tax-exempt groups, which The Hill obtained from congressional staff, says that the tax agency also targeted groups critical of government spending, debt, taxes, and those advocating making “America a better place to live.”
Senior IRS officials, including Lerner, also knew about the targeting in June 2011 –around nine months before then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told a congressional committee the agency was not targeting conservatives.
According to the report, scrutiny of some 300 conservative groups began in 2010. The IRS has said that while some of the groups under intensified scrutiny withdrew their applications, though none have been denied tax-exempt status so far.
The circulated Inspector General’s findings do not indicate who was responsible for making the decision to apply additional scrutiny to conservative groups — something likely to only fuel the controversy surrounding the disclosure.
On Friday, the IRS insisted the decision to target conservative groups was initiated by low-level workers in a Cincinnati field office. Shortly after Lerner was briefed on how IRS staffers were singling out Tea Party groups in June 2011, the agency developed new criteria that identified groups seeking tax-exempt status that were involved in politics, lobbying or advocacy.
Republicans took the lead in calling out the IRS and seeking investigations on the agency’s practices on Friday. But by Monday, Democrats were also saying they wanted a wide-ranging examination into the agency.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Twitter that he supported Finance Chairman Max Baucus’s (D-Mont.) plans to investigate.
On Sunday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told NBC News that “there has to be accountability” both for the IRS employees who targeted conservative groups and those “who were telling lies about it being done.”
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), in a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, called on Steven Miller, the agency’s acting commissioner, to resign. Miller did not head the agency during the time Tea Party groups were targeted, but is a veteran of the agency’s Large Business and International Division.
And Jenny Beth Martin, the leader of the nation’s largest Tea Party organization, said Monday that the IRS’s apology was not enough.
“A simple apology on a conference call is not enough by a long-shot,” Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, told Fox News. “Congress needs to investigate this and find out how many more lies the IRS is telling.”
On Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney looked to deflect criticism for the brewing scandal by noting that “the IRS is an independent enforcement agency” with only two political appointees. He also noted that Shulman was appointed commissioner of the agency by former President George W. Bush.
Obama: “I jusgt learned about the IRS situation on Friday” the Pinochio president stated:
The Bloody Hands of Barack Obama
By Stella Paul article sent by Lisa Rich:
The Three Whistleblowers at the Benghazi hearing spoke softly, but with the emotional wallop of The Three Tenors. They told the truth, and it blasted like thunder through Obama’s tissue palace of lies.
Listening to these strong, solemn men, I heard the sound of old America: a place of hardworking people who love their country and believe in something bigger than their own power.
The America of Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson, and Eric Nordstrom won World War II, walked on the moon, and defeated Communism. But today, their America is forced to serve a different god: a cold, smiling man with a hollow heart and hands that get bloodier by the day.
Obama stands center stage in this tragic opera of America’s downfall, cheapening, endangering, and destroying the lives of the best among us. The pile of corpses grows ever higher, and the lies more noxious.
Let’s pay tribute to some of his many victims, and vow to honor their memory by holding him to account.
BENGHAZI: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods.
Obama failed to attend a single intelligence briefing in the week before September 11, 2012. As the Libyan consulate in Benghazi came under attack that day, he disappeared for the evening, then jetted off the next day for a Las Vegas fundraiser.
Meanwhile, Ambassador Stevens was raped, murdered, and dragged through the streets by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, while three brave Americans died trying to defend him.
Having ignored Ambassador Stevens’s previous reports of a “security vacuum” in Libya, Obama allowed the abortion of two rescue missions ready to fly to Benghazi. Regional security officer Eric Nordstrom testified that “… whether or not you’re sitting off at a post, requesting resources, preparing for testimony before this committee, or standing on a building surrounding by an armed mob attacking you, the message is the same: ‘You’re on your own.’”
BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING: Martin Richard (age 8), Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi, and Sean Collier.
The Russians and the Saudis both say they warned Obama’s security team about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of two jihad-crazed brothers who set off fatal bombs at the Boston Marathon finish line and then killed police officer Sean Collier. The FBI interviewed Tamerlan, found nothing, and failed to inform the Boston police of Russia’s multiple warnings. The Tsarnaev brothers were free to pursue their murderous plot, while living the high life on taxpayer welfare.
After the city of Boston was put on lockdown, surviving brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured and began to talk about his schemes. But this potential life-saving information (reportedly, the brothers planned to attack New York) was squelched when Obama’s Department of Justice rushed to charge him with a crime and read him his Miranda rights. Dzhokhar immediately shut up.
The feds refuse to let the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth release Dzhokhar’s college records, claiming it would violate federal privacy law. Meanwhile, two illegal aliens have been arrested as accomplices; Obama’s Department of Homeland Security allowed one of them to re-enter the U.S. in January without a valid student visa.
OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS: Brian Terry, Jaime Zapata, and hundreds of unnamed Mexicans.
Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, conducted a secret gun-running operation that supplied thousands of assault weapons to drug cartels in Mexico. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata were both murdered with Fast and Furious guns. Their families have filed wrongful death lawsuits against the federal government.
The Terry lawsuit claims that the federal officials “created, organized, implemented and/or participated in a plan – code named ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ – to facilitate the distribution of dangerous firearms to violent criminals” and that they “knew or should have known that their actions would cause substantial injuries, significant harm, and even death to Mexican and American civilians and law enforcement, but were recklessly indifferent to the consequence of their actions.”
Eric Holder has been found in contempt of Congress for refusing to release requested documented to congressional investigators, and he appears to have committed perjury in his testimony.
FORT HOOD: Juanita Warman, Libardo Caraveo, John P. Gaffaney, Russell Seager, Justin Decrow, Amy Krueger, Jason Hunt, Frederick Greene, Aaron Nemelka, Michael Pearson, Kham Xiong, Francheska Velez (and unborn child, and Michael G. Cahill.
On November 5, 2009, Army Major Nidal Hasan opened fire on a group of soldiers preparing to deploy to Iraq, killing 13 and wounding 32. Associates raised repeated questions about his strange behavior but were squashed by what they call the Pentagon’s “political correctness.” A devout Muslim, Hasan was in extensive communication with al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, printed up business cards that read “Soldier of Allah,” dressed in Islamic martyrdom garb, and handed out korans the morning of the attack. He screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he opened fire.
Nevertheless, Obama refuses to deem the largest attack on a U.S. military installation in history a terrorist assault, insisting that it be classified “workplace violence.” Hasan’s victims have been denied Purple Hearts. Fort Hood hero Kimberly Munley told ABC News that Obama “betrayed” her and the other victims. “Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of,” she said. “In fact, they’ve been neglected.”
NAVY SEAL TEAM VI HELICOPTER CRASH IN AFGHANISTAN, AUGUST 2011: Jonas B. Kelsall, Louis J. Langlais, Thomas A. Ratzlaff, Kraig M. Vickers, Brian R. Bill, John W. Faas, Kevin A. Houston, Matthew D. Mason, Stephen M. Mills, Nicholas H. Null, Robert J. Reeves, Heath M. Robinson, Darrik C. Benson, Christopher G. Campbell, Jared W. Day, John Douangdara, Michael J. Strange, Jon T. Tumilson, Aaron C. Vaughn, Jason R. Workman, Jesse D. Pittman, Nicholas P. Spehar, David R. Carter, Bryan J. Nichols, Patrick D. Hamburger, Alexander J. Bennett, Spencer C. Duncan, John W. Brown, Andrew W. Harvell, and Daniel L. Zerbe.
On May 2, 2011, members of SEAL Team VI invaded Osama bin Laden’s Pakistani compound and killed him. Three months later, 30 American troops, most of them members of SEAL Team VI, were shot down by the Taliban over Afghanistan.
On May 9, 2013, families of the fallen held a press conference to accuse Barack Obama of complicity in their deaths. They charged Obama with endangering SEAL Team VI by breaking protocol and revealing its identity as bin Laden’s killers.
They also revealed that their sons were sent to battle with inadequate equipment and air support and denied requested pre-assault fire.
The families played a video of their sons’ military funeral. No mention of the Judeo-Christian God was allowed, but the Pentagon invited a Muslim cleric to speak, who cursed their sons in Arabic as infidels condemned to hell.
Karen Vaughn, mother of fallen SEAL Aaron Vaughn, said, “Why was there no pre-assault fire? We were told as families because pre-assault fire damages our efforts to win the hearts and mind of our enemy. In other words, the hearts and mind of our enemy are more valuable to this government than my son’s blood.”
Alas, I have no room to name all the troops killed by Obama’s crippling Rules of Engagement. “American troops are needlessly exposed to increased enemy attack, suffer unnecessary casualties, cannot secure or control the indigenous population and are not allowed to deny freedom of movement or maneuver to the Taliban,” according to a tactical commander in Afghanistan. As a result, more than twice as many American soldiers have died in Afghanistan under four years of Obama than in eight years under Bush.
Nor do I have room to list all the Americans murdered and maimed by the illegal aliens to whom Obama shows such special devotion. This week, Chris Crane, president of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers union, said Obama has “attempted to shut down” border enforcement and “absolutely” tied law enforcement’s hands. Recently, Obama released 5,000 criminal aliens from jail, blaming sequestration cuts, and created special protections against deportation for illegal aliens with “serious mental disorders.”
In the White House lives the man with the blood-red hands. The screams and sobs of his victims grow louder by the day.
ABC, CBS and CNN top executives all have siblings or spouses working directly for Obama
from the Examiner…sent by Lisa Rich:
The Democrat Party and the media are indistinguishable from one another and it doesn’t take much digging to prove it.
You knew the mainstream media was biased, but this is incredible. It was revealed today that CBS News President David Rhodes’ brother is Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, who was instrumental in rewriting the Benghazi talking points. But it gets worse. It is now learned that ABC President Ben Sherwood’s sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is a Special Assistant to Barack Obama on national security affairs. But even this isn’t it! CNN’s deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is the wife of Tom Nides, who until February was Hillary Clinton’s deputy.
Ben Rhodes is a top NSC advisor with absolutely no foreign policy or military experience. None! This idiot has advocated intervention both in Libya and now Syria. How has that worked out for us? He is responsible for helping to massage the Benghazi talking points to watered down drivel. His greatest accomplishment appears to be a Master’s Degree in fiction writing received from New York University. So perhaps we should call him Obama’s fiction writer!
In what may be a belated effort to salvage its reputation, or perhaps an effort to get the best scoop now that keeping quiet is out of the question, ABC published a story revealing that there were twelve revisions of the Benghazi memo. The final version eradicated all references to terrorists and al Qaeda. Nice work, Mr. Fiction Writer!
…The only mainstream media reporter really doing her job is CBS’s Sharyl Attkison. Attkison has also done a heroic job on the Fast N’ Furious Eric Holder gun running scandal. Now it appears CBS is pressuring her to leave. Gee, wonder why?
Whatever shred of credibility existed among the network news organizations has now been utterly obliterated.
The Pet Goat versus going to sleep during a terrorist attack. Cindy Sheehan versus Pat Smith. And Valerie Plame versus the Benghazi Four.
Gee, no bias there.
We have a fascist media on our hands, bound as tightly to the government as NPR. And it’s high time that we treat them as the pariahs they truly are.
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. Constitutional Law Professor my ass.
Why have we not heard Dianne Feinstein or Ed Schultz go addresses the Pico-Union area of Los Angeles and forcibly insist MS-13 members hand over their guns?
Hey. If the liberal model worked, people would be moving into California, Illinois, and/or New York. Not out of those states.
A LIE TOLD OFTEN ENOUGH BECOMES THE TRUTH…….(a Nikolai Lenin quote, deeply embedded in the politics of Barack Hussein Obama, his Democrat Party, and the New York Times and other institutions of the American mass media:)
Obama’s Benghazi video tale made a big difference
Editorial from the Examiner:
“The fact is, we had four dead Americans,” former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously exploded during a January Senate hearing on the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. “Was it because of a protest or was it because some guys out for a walk one night who decided they would go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”
Clinton’s outburst was portrayed afterward by the media as an example of her strength against Republican critics in Congress. But that narrative was rendered obsolete by testimony Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Operations Committee by a career U.S. diplomat posted in Libya during the assault. The first part of the answer to Clinton’s ringing question is now clear: The Obama administration’s ridiculous claim that the attacks were a response to an anti-Muslim YouTube video undermined U.S. efforts to figure out what actually happened.
Sign Up for the Opinion Digest newsletter! Please enter your email address below to begin receiving the Opinion Digest newsletter.
You must enter a valid email address in the field above!
Thank you for signing up for the Opinion Digest newsletter! You should receive your first newsletter very soon.
We’re sorry, there was an error processing your newsletter signup. Please click here to visit our Newsletter Signup Center to register for this newsletter.
President Obama, Clinton and White House spokesman Jay Carney repeatedly condemned the video for days afterward, with then-U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice even insisting a week after the attack that it was a “spontaneous” reaction to anti-video protests in Cairo. Obama mentioned the video repeatedly in a U.N. speech two weeks after the attack.
But at Wednesday’s hearing, Gregory Hicks, the 22-year Foreign Service veteran who was the deputy chief-of-mission at the U.S. Embassy, testified that it was clear from the outset that the assault was a pre-planned, coordinated terrorist attack. “The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” said Hicks. Hicks’ testimony was reinforced when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., read from a State Department email sent a day after the attack. Acting Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones wrote this in the email: “I spoke to the Libyan ambassador and emphasized the importance of Libyan leaders continuing to make strong statements,” adding, “I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.” Copied on the email were Cheryl Mills, counselor to Clinton, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland and Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy.
Shown a video of Clinton’s “what difference does it make” question, Hicks countered that such obfuscation had major consequences. “I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi,” said Hicks. And indeed, although Obama promised last September that the attackers would be brought to justice, the FBI investigation has progressed at a snail’s pace, with next to nothing to show for the effort.
Five days after the attack, Libyan President Mohamed Magarief publicly stated it was premeditated, so, according to Hicks, Magarief “was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world, his credibility was reduced,” when Obama trotted out the video illusion. Magarief then denied the FBI access to the scorched compound for a crucial 17 days. Since the area wasn’t secure during that period, vital evidence likely was lost forever. So to answer Clinton’s question, one difference made by the false video narrative is that Americans possibly will never know the full truth of about who murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his brave colleagues in Benghazi.