U.S. Embassy Attacks

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

I believe the Libyan Governments view is correct....but its a more frightening prospect for the United States Administration which is trying to avoid being toppled during the next General Ellection

I suppose that by the time shyte hits fan, Obama will be gone from office and may not see it as his problem what happens in the future, should this attack have been pre-planned and cause another wave of terrorism, it wont be his job.

Tell me...what honours do they bestow upon Presidents leaving office?? In England...a terrors of the commons are often blessed with a seat in the house of lords where they can continue to distroy the country

An "Adios"! Oh, and usually a presidential library named after them.

Here is an interesting article I saw on Drudge. I think it probably sums up how the Obama administration and his Middle East policies are viewed by Israel:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...emium-1.465210

Israeli Foreign Ministry: U.S. ignored Arab radicalization

Foreign Ministry official on signs of 'radicalization' in Arab world: ‘We knew what was happening, but the Americans preferred to find excuses.’

By Barak Ravid and Jonathan Lis | Sep.16, 2012 | 1:01 AM

For months before the most recent attacks on U.S. embassies in North African states, Foreign Ministry and U.S. State Department officials had been arguing over developments in these countries. Senior figures in Jerusalem claimed that Washington was burying its head in the sand and ignoring the increasing radicalization in states such as Tunisia and Egypt.

Stay informed on all latest news and analysis from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world - subscribe now to Haaretz digital editions. Use our special offer for the High Holy Days - 3 MONTHS FREE with purchase of an annual subscription.

The Obama administration, which since the beginning of the Arab Spring has aided, directly or indirectly, the forces that brought down the dictatorial regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Lybia, now finds itself in a position of helplessness. The attack on the consulate in Benghazi, in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed, and the storming of the U.S. embassies in Tunis, Sanaa and Cairo, proved the great hostility to the United States and the unwillingness of these country's new leaders to challenge domestic public opinion.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials say their conversations with their Washington counterparts have focused on what Jerusalem terms "radicalizing trends" against not only Israel but also against the United States and the West in general.

One of the most recent such meetings took place a week ago, during a visit to Jerusalem by the acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, A. Elizabeth Jones.

"The Americans were constantly trying to supply explanations and excuses for events in the post-revolution Arab states, and simply ignored the problems," one senior Israeli official said, adding, "In practice the administration's ability to affect events in the Arab world has decreased immensely."

The Foreign Ministry official presented the example of Tunisia, which was expected to be moderate despite the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood. Several weeks ago Israel's ambassador to Poland, Zvi Rav-Ner, reported that the Tunisian ambassador to Poland had been called back to Tunisia unexpectedly, ending her posting there. Rav-Ner added that all five women serving as ambassadors of Tunisia in various countries had been recalled at around the same time.

The Israel embassy in Washington was instructed to report the matter to the State Department and determine whether it was aware of the development. Several days late U.S. officials reported that the measure was technical only, involving the replacement of all ambassadors from the previous regime, and had nothing to do with gender discrimination.

The Foreign Ministry conducted its own examination and determined that many male ambassadors from the previous regime had not been recalled. "We knew what was happening, but the Americans preferred to find excuses," said the senior official.

A similar pattern emerged as to Israeli efforts to prevent a clause being added to the new Tunisian constitution outlawing normalization or contacts with Israel. The Foreign Ministry asked the United States to intervene, but was not satisfied by the response. "They told us, 'Don't worry, it's going to be all right, the clause will be left out,' but the clause is still in there," the official said.

Israel has also called American attention to the fact that for the past year Egypt has been dragging its feet over talks on reopening the Israeli embassy in Cairo. U.S. appeals have failed to speed things up.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials said the latest riots at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, and the weak condemnation of President Mohammad Morsi, demonstrated that despite its massive military and economic aid to Egypt the United States had failed to achieve any real influence over the Muslim Brotherhood. "Only now, after what happened to their embassies, the Americans are beginning to understand the situation," the senior official concluded, "to hear the president of the United States declared that Egypt isn't an ally, but also isn't the enemy - that's a real earthquake," he said.

In related news, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has launched a new public relations offensive in the United States. He has recorded interviews that will be broadcast today on important Sunday-morning political shows on CNN and NBC, all in an effort to persuade the American public that setting "red lines" for Iran will cool Tehran's enthusiasm for its nuclear program and reduce the likelihood of a wider military confrontation. Netanyahu is expected to point to the violent demonstrations at U.S. embassies around the world and to say, "Think what would happen if these people had nuclear weapons."

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Bonnie

An "Adios"! Oh, and usually a presidential library named after them.

Here is an interesting article I saw on Drudge. I think it probably sums up how the Obama administration and his Middle East policies are viewed by Israel:

Oh...if only we could do that with ours...Maggie Thatcher...can you believe it...is STILL in the House of Lords....(The SENIOR House which has to sign off...OR REJECT...the laws created and discussed in the Commons....where she was Prime Minister aproximately a quarter of a century ago!!)



Benyamin Netenyahu has never really gotten on with Barack Obama, it has to be said...and Barack Obama has not really supported Israel vocally...For example, when the Turkish Flotilla was invading the water territory, Obama paid them off!! When Israel moved to develope a housing establishment on the west bank, Obama told them off!! He's done F All about Palestine either...and ad far as the Israelis are concerned...he isnt dealing with Iran.

You do realize that Israel is mere weeks away from launching airstrikes on parts of Iran...they will move BEFORE the US Ellection so to cause as much problems for Obama as possible...they plan on buying his silence with threatening his Jewish Vote.

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Oh...if only we could do that with ours...Maggie Thatcher...can you believe it...is STILL in the House of Lords....(The SENIOR House which has to sign off...OR REJECT...the laws created and discussed in the Commons....where she was Prime Minister aproximately a quarter of a century ago!!)



Benyamin Netenyahu has never really gotten on with Barack Obama, it has to be said...and Barack Obama has not really supported Israel vocally...For example, when the Turkish Flotilla was invading the water territory, Obama paid them off!! When Israel moved to develope a housing establishment on the west bank, Obama told them off!! He's done F All about Palestine either...and ad far as the Israelis are concerned...he isnt dealing with Iran.

You do realize that Israel is mere weeks away from launching airstrikes on parts of Iran...they will move BEFORE the US Ellection so to cause as much problems for Obama as possible...they plan on buying his silence with threatening his Jewish Vote.

Look at this video of Amb. Susan Rice talking about these attacks and our current relationship with Israel, saying, "it's never been better". The things she is saying are absolutely ridiculous!

http://video.foxnews.com/v/184396065...deast-violence

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Bonnie

Look at this video of Amb. Susan Rice talking about these attacks and our current relationship with Israel..."never been better". The things she is saying is absolutely ridiculous!

http://video.foxnews.com/v/184396065...deast-violence

You know we have a REAL problem looming here...

I see tensions between Israel and Iran and I dont like it....I also see Tension between Germany and Greece...There is the issue of Syria and the Arab Spring...There is the issue of a new wave of Anti-Americanism on the verge of a Presidential Ellection...The Austrailian Republicans moving against the commonwealth and China and Japan squabbling over south pacific islands.

Has anyone considered the possibility that Iran ALREADY HAS Nuclear weapons and are waiting for Israel to conduct an airstrike so they can retaliate in a nuclear capacity? Israel is rather predictable...if she feels threatened she will attempt to assert control...all you need is a few enlightened individuals in Iran and you could, in effect, set a trap.

I find the international stage at the moment VERY frightening

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Benyamin Netenyahu has never really gotten on with Barack Obama, it has to be said...and Barack Obama has not really supported Israel vocally...For example, when the Turkish Flotilla was invading the water territory, Obama paid them off!! When Israel moved to develope a housing establishment on the west bank, Obama told them off!! He's done F All about Palestine either...and ad far as the Israelis are concerned...he isnt dealing with Iran.

You do realize that Israel is mere weeks away from launching airstrikes on parts of Iran...they will move BEFORE the US Ellection so to cause as much problems for Obama as possible...they plan on buying his silence with threatening his Jewish Vote.

Article about it:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09...ip-fanaticism/

Netanyahu: US must draw a 'red line' with Iran over nuclear weapons

Published September 16, 2012-Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a direct appeal to American voters on Sunday to elect a president willing to draw a "red line" with Iran, comparing Tehran's nuclear program to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and reminding Americans of the devastating repercussions of failed intelligence.

His remarks were an impassioned election-season plea from a world leader who insists he doesn't want to insert himself into U.S. politics and hasn't endorsed either candidate. But visibly frustrated by U.S. policy under President Barack Obama, the hawkish Israeli leader took advantage of the week's focus on unrest across the Muslim world and America's time-honored tradition of the Sunday television talk shows to appeal to Americans headed to the polls in less than two months.

Tehran claims its nuclear program is peaceful. Netanyahu said the U.S. would be foolish to believe that, using football metaphors and citing example of past terrorist attacks on U.S. soil to appeal to his American audience.

"It's like Timothy McVeigh walking into a shop in Oklahoma City and saying, 'I'd like to tend my garden. I'd like to buy some fertilizer ... Come on. We know that they're working on a weapon,'" Netanyahu said.

The past week, Netanyahu has called on Obama and other world leaders to state clearly at what point Iran would face a military attack. But Obama and his top aides, who repeatedly say all options remain on the table, have pointed to shared U.S.-Israeli intelligence that suggests Iran hasn't decided yet whether to build a bomb despite pursing the technology and that there would be time for action beyond toughened sanctions already in place.

Netanyahu disagrees, estimating that Iran is about six months away from having most of the enriched uranium it needs and warning that letting them reach the "goal line" would have disastrous consequences.

Obama's Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, has said he is willing to take a tougher stance than Obama against Iran, although his campaign has declined to provide specifics. He has also aligned himself personally with Netanyahu, casting the Israeli leader as a longtime friend.

Meanwhile, Obama is reported to have a strained relationship with Netanyahu, chastising Israel for continuing to build housing settlements in areas disputed with the Palestinians.

America's ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, responded Sunday by saying there is "no daylight" between the U.S. and Israel and that Obama "will do what it takes" to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But, she said, "we are not at that stage yet."

"Our bottom line — if you want to call it a red line — the president's bottom line has been that Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon, and we will take no option off the table to ensure that it does not acquire a nuclear weapon, including military," Rice later said.

But Netanyahu has said that's not enough and employed historical examples known to most Americans to make his case: President John F. Kennedy's demand that the Soviets remove its missiles sites in Cuba "maybe purchased decades of peace," Netanyahu said. And absent a similar "red line," then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein faced a U.S. attack in 1991 after invading Kuwait.

"Maybe that war could have been avoided," Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu also pointed to America's inability to prevent the 9/11 hijackings as proof that intelligence can fail.

He insisted that his motivations were not political but reflected a key sense of urgency. Israeli officials point to Iranian enrichment of uranium, a key ingredient in building a bomb, the movement of Iranian nuclear research facilities to fortified underground bunkers impervious to attack and Iran's refusal to open its facilities to U.N. inspectors.

"I think that there's a common interest of all Americans, of all political persuasions, to stop Iran," he said. "This is a regime that is giving vent to the worst impulses that you see right now in the Middle East."

Rice said the window to act "is not infinite" but that the sanctions "reached their high point in July." Rice says that for the first time the Iranian economy is shrinking at a rate of negative 1 percent, Iranian oil production has dropped 40 percent over the last several months and their currency has plummeted 40 percent in that time as well.

"This pressure, even to use the Iranians own words, is crippling," Rice said, adding "What is clear is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon."

Netanyahu and Rice spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" and NBC's "Meet the Press." Rice also spoke on Fox News Sunday and appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation."

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

You know we have a REAL problem looming here...

I see tensions between Israel and Iran and I dont like it....I also see Tension between Germany and Greece...There is the issue of Syria and the Arab Spring...There is the issue of a new wave of Anti-Americanism on the verge of a Presidential Ellection...The Austrailian Republicans moving against the commonwealth and China and Japan squabbling over south pacific islands.

Has anyone considered the possibility that Iran ALREADY HAS Nuclear weapons and are waiting for Israel to conduct an airstrike so they can retaliate in a nuclear capacity? Israel is rather predictable...if she feels threatened she will attempt to assert control...all you need is a few enlightened individuals in Iran and you could, in effect, set a trap.

I find the international stage at the moment VERY frightening

It is frightening and I was just about to ask the question, "Who doesn't believe Iran already has nuclear weapons or is close to having them?" Oh, wait, apparently our President doesn't.

If they don't already have them, I believe they're not far from it. And you could be right about them just waiting for Israel to strike and then say they are justified... Scary scary stuff!!!!

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Bonnie

them just waiting for Israel to strike and then say they are justified... Scary scary stuff!!!!

I am very worried about that possibility

[Bonnie]

Why isn't main stream media doing it's job of asking hard hitting questions of the practices and policies of the Obama administration? Why aren't they asking questions like, "Why does an advisor/aide to the President get a full security detail, but our Ambassador to Libya is basically left defenseless on the anniversary of 9/11?"

Instead, the main stream media continues to actively suppress legitimate news stories of anything that would be negative for this President, and are acting as his agents for his campaign and his administration. They are a disgrace!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...libyan-embassy

No Marines for Libyan Ambassador, Full Security Detail for Valerie Jarrett Vacation - by Ben Shapiro 14 Sep 2012

Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell.

That’s the pathetic foreign policy of the Obama administration, says Caddell today in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News. “Jarrett seems to have a 24 hour, around the clock detail, with five or six agents full time,” Caddell explains. “The media has been completely uninterested. We don’t provide security for our ambassador in Libya, but she needs a full Secret Service security detail. And nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with this. And nobody in the press will ask. What kind of slavish stoogery are they perpetrating here?

“This country has reached the point of absurdity. There are people dead because we don’t have security details for them. But she’s privileged to have a full Secret Service detail on vacation?”

Caddell points out that Americans are already unhappy with President Obama on foreign policy aside from the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Caddell, along with Republican pollster John McLaughlin, runs Secure America, a nonpartisan advocacy group. “We’ve just finished two polls coming out in the field today,” says Caddell, “but we already know that people feel strongly about Iran; they feel strongly about the administration’s policy with regard to Islamic extremists. They don’t like the Obama administration’s handling of these issues. And this election won’t only be about the economy. The American people aren’t stupid. They can walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Caddell does reserve heavy criticism for the Republican establishment, which he believes has ignored foreign policy issues for far too long. “When three quarters of the American people believe Iran will give nuclear weapons to terrorists, you can see that Americans care about this issue. And people overwhelmingly believe that Obama’s sanctions policies will not work. The pronounced minority who disagree with those positions seem to be centered in the mainstream media – and ground zero seems to be at NBC and MSNBC.”

Here's another article I found. I just copied a part of the article, see the link for the full article:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...louffe-Donilon

The Audacity of Cronyism: Jarrett, Plouffe, and Donilon - by Patrick Caddell8 Sep 2012

It’s hard to know which is worse: the arrogance of the Obama administration in assuming that its White House staffers can get away with anything, or the apathy of the media in not holding those staffers accountable.

Actually, let’s scratch the word “apathy” and call it what it really is: abjectness. The media have been abject in their willingness, even eagerness, to serve the political interests of this administration and its re-election effort.

Let’s consider the cases of three staffers, all at the top rung of the White House ladder: Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, Senior Adviser David Plouffe, and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.

Valerie Jarrett has been a mentor and ally of Barack Obama for two decades; by all accounts, she has an unshakable bond not only with him, but also with Michelle Obama. And now her clout is apparent to all: aprofile of Jarrett, written by Jo Becker and appearing in Sunday’s New York Times, was headlined, “The Other Power in the West Wing.” As in, there’s the President, and there’s Valerie Jarrett.

The Times story, all 3300 words of it, was one of those stories that everyone in DC thought they had to read; as another Times reporter, Jodi Kantor, tweeted on Sunday, “The political world pauses as one to dissect Jo Becker’s profile of Valerie Jarrett."

Indeed, Becker’s story was full of grist for Beltway mills. One anonymous presidential adviser (who sounds a lot like re-election campaign guru David Axelrod) pronounced that “Valerie is effectively the chief of staff... She’s almost like Nancy Reagan was with President Reagan, but more powerful.” And a “former senior White House official” (who sounds a lot like ex-White House chief of staff Bill Daley) added, “She is the single most influential person in the Obama White House.” Whoa. Wait a second. Did the former official really mean to say that Jarrett was “the single most influential person in the Obama White House”? If so, where does that leave the President? Is it possible that Jarrett, working with Michelle Obama, is more powerful than Mr. Obama? No, that doesn’t seem possible--unless, of course, it is possible.

If the former senior official quoted above is Bill Daley, he should know about Jarrett’s vast power. As the Times article recalls, he was basically pushed out of the White House by Jarrett after a battle over the Obamacare contraception mandate. That mandate infuriated Catholic and conservative groups, but it has been championed by Jarrett inside the White House and by feminist groups across the country--and Jarrett and the feminists have prevailed. So, in assessing Jarrett’s power, we can include in her coalition the nation’s feminists as well as Mrs. Obama. And inside today’s Democratic Party, that’s big power. No wonder the man who currently holds the title of chief of staff is so obscure--he has learned that you last longer if you keep a low profile.

Look, Jarrett’s defenders might say, there’s nothing wrong with being powerful. Somebody has to be powerful. And that’s true, but there is something wrong with abusing power. Consider this passage from Becker’s Times piece, describing Jarrett’s ways: “She can also be imperious — at one event ordering a drink from a four-star general she mistook for a waiter—and attached to the trappings of power in a way some in the White House consider unseemly for a member of the staff.” Attached to the trappings of power how, exactly? Here comes the answer:

A case in point is her full-time Secret Service detail. The White House refuses to disclose the number of agents or their cost, citing security concerns. But the appearance so worried some aides that two were dispatched to urge her to give the detail up.

She listened politely, one said, but the agents stayed.

So let’s get this straight: Jarrett gets a security detail from the US Secret Service (USSS). That means 24/7 protection, at a cost of millions of dollars a year. Of course, it also means an air of importance for Jarrett--her own taxpayer-funded entourage. The idea that someone such as Jarrett--who officially plays no role in national security or counter-terrorism--would receive USSS protection would be laughable if it weren’t, in fact, real. It’s like a tale out of the Versailles Court of the Sun King--the sort of anecdote that provokes the peasants, eventually, to revolution. But in the meantime, before the deluge, Jarrett plans to live it up; surrounded by agents with guns, she is queen of her own court. In other words, for pure conspicuous consumption, Jarrett puts her fellow Chicagoan, the laughably self-important Desirée Rogers, to shame.

As an aside, on the issue of who merits government security, we might recall the case of Molly Norris. In 2010, the Seattle-based cartoonist took part in the international “Draw Muhammad” campaign and, after she receiving death threats, the FBI told her that she was on her own. That is, the US government could not--more precisely, would not--protect her. Instead, Norris was advised to leave her job, change her name, and go into hiding. And that’s what she did; what choice did she have?

At the time, some of us wondered how Uncle Sam could let the jihadists win a victory such as this inside the United States. Now we know that government security resources were, in fact, spread thin--because Jarrett was being well taken care of. Bottom line: Norris faced real threats and received no protection, while Jarrett faces no threats--at least no threat that 100 other West Wing aides haven’t also received, and none of them have details--and yet she receives all the insulation from the world that her ego demands.

In the wake of the USSS revelation, the press could be asking all sorts of questions: Who made this decision? How much is this costing? Does Jarrett drive her own car--or do those same Secret Service agents chauffeur her around? Most likely, the MSM will not ask any of these questions. Yes, as was said of Becker’s Times piece, the political world will stop to read it, but most readers will be reading it with an eye towards power calculations in DC, as opposed to cost calculations for the taxpayers, or any concern about the modesty of public officials.

[Bonnie]

Article:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...merican-media/

Obama’s Security Breach In Libya Is Ignored By American Media

The Right Politics written by Scott Paulson - September 17, 2012 2:08 PM

As the liberal American press and ultra-liberal bloggers inundate the Internet and newsprints with criticisms of what Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential challenger to President Barack Obama, said about Obama during the Libyan attacks and murders, throngs of foreign press and few American outlets tell the real story involved with the White House’s role in the incidents that we now know could have been prevented.

After the American media grabbed and held the pro-Obama headlines against Romney’s comments and took Obama’s “Romney shoots first and aims second” quote to iconic proportions, the rest of the world is reporting that the Obama administration knew about the planned-attack on the Benghazi, Libya Embassy where four Americans, including United States Ambassador Christopher Steven was murdered.

That strong allegation needs to be “the story”, not the political-trouncing of Mitt Romney, a man who has nothing to do with the White House, the U.S. Embassy, or the deadly and non-deadly attacks on our United States Embassy’s around the world. “The story” obviously involves the White House and the president within – Barack Obama – not the Massachusetts challenger.

The reporters and bloggers who have made Mitt Romney the story – instead of the attacked-United States Embassy, the innocent Americans who were attacked, and the White House with its president in abstention as he continually treks the campaign trail regardless of the duties left behind in Washington, D.C. – are guilty of letting another American tragedy remain buried.

All attention must be given to the more-than-strong suggestions that the Libyan attack didn’t “just happen” to have happened on September 11 – the commemorative day of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City – but were planned well-in-advance.

While the movie trailer of “Innocence of Muslims” may have added fuel to the venom’s fire regarding the protests throughout the Middle East, the murderous attack on the U.S. Embassy and its American occupants in Benghazi, Libya was no accident – simply orchestrated by a few who had no plan or memory of 9/11.

Reports from a number of knowledgeable sources are being widely-circulated regarding the United States State Department’s having received knowledge of the attack in Benghazi as early as September 9 – two days before the four Americans were killed. That’s “the story”. There were also similar reports that the attack in Cairo was revealed prior to its occurrence. The knowledgeable sources report that no warning was given to persons in the U.S. Embassies in Cairo or Benghazi after the State Department was warned. In Libya, there were approximately 30 people in the main consulate building who could have been warned but weren’t.

Additionally, Wanis el-Sharef, Libya’s deputy interior minister, told the Associated Press that the heavily armed militants “used” a protest of an anti-Islam film as a “cover” in their deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy while screaming “God is great!”

Yet, American reporters and bloggers waste their printed space writing about their belief that Mitt Romney stepped on Obama’s toes with a political misspeak.

So what!

That is no reason to ignore – or totally replace – “the story”. And anyone who doesn’t realize that has no business reporting or blogging whatsoever. Save the “OMG, a politician dissed another politician” for a slow news day. And the way things are going in this country, there is no clear sign of a slow news day coming anytime soon. There’s a story here, and it’s being ignored by people who wouldn’t challenge President Barack Obama and his White House if their lives depended on it. And, ironically, their lives may depend on reporting “the story” instead of their worthless “Romney piece”. It’s absolutely maddening and totally ludicrous that they are ignoring “the international story”.

If for no other reason, in the name, honor, and memory of United States Ambassador Christopher Steven, information management officer Sean Smith, private security guard and former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, and security personnel Glen Doherty, allow “the true story” to be told.



About Scott Paulson

Scott Paulson writes political news and commentary for CBS Local and Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.

[rearnakedchoke]

Originally Posted by Bonnie

Why isn't main stream media doing it's job of asking hard hitting questions of the practices and policies of the Obama administration? Why aren't they asking questions like, "Why does an advisor/aide to the President get a full security detail, but our Ambassador to Libya is basically left defenseless on the anniversary of 9/11?"

Instead, the main stream media continues to actively suppress legitimate news stories of anything that would be negative for this President, and are acting as his agents for his campaign and his administration. They are a disgrace!


:

like i said, this election is over ... if only mitt were latino, it'd be better for him ..