Some Questions For Congress To Ask On Benghazi

May 7, 2013 7 Comments

Jay Carney told us the other day that the Benghazi attacks happened “a long time ago.” Carney said this as though it was outrageous that anyone was still talking about the terrorist attack that killed our Libyan ambassador which happened just eight months ago. Congress is holding hearings on the Benghazi attack this week, several whistleblowers are scheduled to testify. The administration’s response is to declare that the State Department already investigated the matter and their conclusions are “unimpeachable.” In other words, the administration already made its determination and how dare you question it. You must be one of those people concerned about government tyranny or something.

It’s  the job of Congress to investigate these matters, especially when an ambassador dies. The Obama administration spent two weeks lying about why the Benghazi attack happened. For two weeks they claimed it was because of an anti-Muslim video on You Tube. In reality it was an al Qaeda terrorist attack. The media never questioned Obama, even after it was revealed that the attack was terrorism. You’ll recall at the second Presidential debate CNN’s Candy Crowley openly sided with Obama despite Obama not telling the truth. Blaming the You Tube video was a cover up, part of an extensive cover up in fact. The Obama administration could have done something but Obama chose not to. Congress is right to investigate.

Obama presented himself last year as the hero of the War on Terror. He was the killer of Osama who hadn’t allowed any terrorist attacks during his time in office. He intervened in Libya, taking out its terrorist dictator. Then a terrorist attack happened which resulted in our ambassador dying and being dragged through the streets of Benghazi. The administration could have stopped the attack, we had drones and special ops in the area but they were held back. Obama went to sleep that night not knowing or caring about the end result of the terrorist attack. When it turned out to be a potential political disaster for Obama, the administration blamed a video no one had ever heard of to protect the President. The media ate it up and refused to do any investigations themselves.

One wonders why the media isn’t concerned about administration threats against whistleblowers. One wonders why the media doesn’t seem to care that the State Department won’t vouch for the credibility of any whistleblower. In doing this the State Department is essentially telling us all the whistleblowers can’t be believed or in the alternative the career diplomats are too afraid of losing their jobs to speak up. Whistleblowers used to be the sort of people the media championed because they spoke the truth while entrenched power lied. These days the overtly partisan press won’t challenge the President they agree with and ignore or disparage whistleblowers against him.

It isn’t just Obama of course, Hillary Clinton is right in the middle of this mess. The Democrat press badly wants her to run for President in 2016. If there is one thing that can derail Hillary it’s Benghazi. Her fingerprints are all over this mess. The ambassador died under her watch, she’s responsible for ensuring his security. She’s responsible for him being in Benghazi rather than Tripoli. It is Hillary who never requested additional security or help for the ambassador on the night of the attack. Hillary went along with the video excuse and sent Susan Rice off to deliver the lie on all the Sunday talk shows less than a week after the attack. Benghazi could take down or limit the power of both of these Democrats.

While the media wasn’t much interested in Benghazi in September and October last year, they’re showing at least minimal interest now. The follow questions need to be asked and answered in the next week or so, if not by Congress than by the media. 1. Who in the administration came up with the idea of blaming the You Tube video? 2. Who helped construct the story? 3. Who gave the final go ahead with releasing the excuse? 4. Who in the administration was asked by the Benghazi consulate for additional support? 5. Who in the administration decided not to provide it? 6. Which members of the administration aided in the making of that decision? 7. We need a minute by minute accounting of Obama’s whereabouts and who he was with on the night of Sept. 11-12. 8. Were American special forces or the US military every denied authority to attack or otherwise provide aid during the Benghazi attack. 9. Why was our ambassador in Benghazi on Sept. 11? Answers to these questions will aid Congress and the public in determining what actually happened.

Filed under corruption Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Drone Strikes On Americans Deserves Public Debate

February 6, 2013 2 Comments

The Justice Department has declared that drone strikes on American citizens is legal. The Federal government must believe that such Americans are going to engage in an imminent attack on the United States. Unfortunately the government hasn’t defined imminent and they don’t have to have clear evidence that a specific attack will happen in the immediate future in order to launch a drone strike on an American citizen. Jay Carney calls this “ethical and wise” but we really need to take a second look at these drone strikes. Perhaps it’s time to take a second look at drone strikes. Not just against American citizens but against all targets.

Drone strikes have increased dramatically under the Obama administration. Bush started the practice, though his use of drones was largely limited to using them in declared war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has extended the practice, allegedly to attack al Qaeda all over the world. All of these attacks and all of the arguments the government is making regarding the attacks are centered around al Qaeda. For obvious reasons we’re at war with al Qaeda and perhaps more importantly they’re at war with us. It isn’t per se a bad thing that we’re attacking al Qaeda via drone strike.

The problem is that we cannot view drone strikes in a vacuum. It’s impossible to limit their use and the arguments for their use only to al Qaeda. Eventually al Qaeda will no longer exist yet we will have set a precedent for the use of drones which can then be extended to other situations. The precedent isn’t just set for the United States, it’s set for the whole world. Don’t think Iran wouldn’t love to get hold of a drone to chase around Israeli’s or our President with. If the President of the United States can play judge, jury and executioner with drones, you can bet that other nations will want similar power.

The President playing judge, jury and executioner is even worse when we’re talking about American citizens. We all understand when the police shoot a suspect who points a gun or even something that looks like a gun in their general direction. The police are in immediate danger and their shooting is generally justifiable. But when government shoots missiles from a drone at an American citizen in a foreign country because they think that maybe, perhaps they could be involved in some sort of crime against the country. That’s something else entirely. We’re too quick to give a pass to the government because of what al Qaeda has done. With the precedent the Obama administration is setting, what American is safe?

The government could very easily act on bad information. The government could target political opponents they don’t particularly care for. It would be easy to take the precedent being set for al Qaeda abroad and apply it here in the United States to other groups. Left, right, religious, secular, no group is safe if these drone strikes can be extended beyond al Qaeda. With our Federal government, they very rarely give back power. Our government almost always extends their power. That’s what makes these drone strikes so dangerous. We ought not have our vision clouded by the name al Qaeda. This is a serious issue that requires serious debate. The Obama administration is making a massive power grab argument, we the people need to have a say in this.

Filed under freedom Tagged with , , , , , ,

Why Was Ambassador Stevens In Benghazi?

September 21, 2012 21 Comments

Something doesn’t add up in the Libyan attack on the American consulate  in Benghazi. We know that this was a planned, staged attack as opposed to a spontaneous riot. Even CBS acknowledges this. Libya says they warned the US three days before it occurred. We all know the results, Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed along with three others. On the anniversary of 9-11, why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi rather than Tripoli? We have an Embassy in Tripoli which is secure, it has a security team. From all accounts Benghazi is a very dangerous city. Why was our Ambassador there without a security team?

If we step into coverup land, we could note that ABC had just three weeks before the attack reported that one of the guys killed with the Ambassador was in Libya to recover Gaddafi’s arsenal of weapons. If we want to go into Glenn Beck land the attack on our Ambassador was an undercover arms deal gone bad. This is a plausible explanation, in the very least it explains why the Ambassador may have been at an unsecure consulate without security in Benghazi as opposed to the bunker Embassy in Tripoli.

There could be other reasons why he might be in Benghazi ranging from undercover actions to shear stupidity. We have yet to be told why Stevens was in Benghazi, the government has said nothing. In fact, until the other day the Obama administration wouldn’t even call this a terrorist attack. Whether these guys, presumably al Qaeda, had it in for Stevens or whether Stevens was up to something that didn’t work out remains to be seen. What we’re not getting is information from the administration. They appear to be slow to respond or they appear to be covering something up. How does it take eight days to declare this a terror attack? Remind me again why our Ambassador was in Benghazi.

Meanwhile there are reports out there that Obama is negotiating with Egypt for the return of the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman. The Blind Sheik is responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. He’s in the slam for life for the terrorist attack. Several media outlets have reported this and Rep. Peter King has confirmed it. The Justice Department issued a statement calling the reports “utter garbage.” Such a term is a little odd coming from the Justice Department. But let’s be honest, this isn’t a Justice Department issue, it’s a State Department issue. So the ‘utter garbage’ comment is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Something is up in the middle east. This entire situation is fishy. These people were not rioting over a meaningless, poorly produced video on You Tube. After all, there are much worse attacks on Mohamed on You Tube and elsewhere. We’re not being told the whole story. It makes no sense for our Ambassador to be in Benghazi, especially if he’s supposedly on an al Qaeda hit list. Unless of course he’s up to something and the hit list isn’t real. Why are the Egyptians rioting in the street with seemingly no opposition from their government? Could it be a demonstration meant to provoke (read: intimidate) Obama into releasing the blind sheik?

We need journalists who are willing to do some real investigative reporting. Something isn’t right here, none of the official explanations for what’s happened make any sense. In fact, they continue to shift as their official explanations get shot down with facts. The big key though is why was Ambassador Stevens in a dangerous city like Benghazi without adequate security? Why was a member of his security team quoted by ABC as being some sort of arms investigator? Something isn’t right her. When we discover why Stevens was really in Benghazi this whole episode in the middle east will start to make sense.

 

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Holder Argues Government Has Right To Kill American Citizens

March 6, 2012 6 Comments

Attorney General Eric Holder believes the US government has the lawful right to kill US citizens. Holder is of course referencing the September killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen who became a leader in al Qaeda. It’s one thing to suggest that the US military has the right to kill American citizens who wear the uniform of an enemy. It’s another thing to suggest the US government can legally target an American citizen who wears no uniform but whom the government suggests is an enemy combatant.

What Holder suggests is that the executive branch gets to play judge, jury and executioner in one blast from a predator drone. No doubt Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person who worked for al Qaeda and sought the destruction of the United States. It’s very easy to get caught up in the idea that Holder only wants to kill Americans who are working for dreadful organizations such as al Qaeda. But it isn’t as simple as that. Holder is creating a precedent that the executive branch may declare who is an enemy of the United States and then may kill such enemies without charge or trial even if those people are American citizens. It’s an incredibly dangerous precedent.

No President since Lincoln has argued for the right of the government to kill American citizens. Obama is rightfully targeting al Qaeda throughout the world. But when that includes targeting American citizens for murder, more comes into play than simply killing an enemy. Everyone knew Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen yet the government targeted him for killing anyway. No attempt was made to arrest him and he fired on no one. That’s not to say he’s innocent but as an American citizen he has the right to the presumption of innocence, he has the right to a trail.

Holder’s statements, made at Northwestern’s law school, along with the actions of the Obama administration (and to a lesser extent the Bush administration on this issue) create a dangerous precedent. The government can now decide who an enemy of the US government is and may kill them. Everyone cheers when al Qaeda members are killed. But what will happen if legitimate American organizations are declared “enemies of the state or people” and its leaders targeted for murder? The government at that time can trot out the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda leader who the state killed. No declaration of war was ever made (or could be made)against al Qaeda. As such, the government could argue that any group they declare enemies can be legitimately targeted for murder.

You may say this is the argument of conspiracy theories. It’s not a matter of conspiracy theories, it’s a matter of precedence. Like it or not, lawyers love to pick apart old cases and argue there is a precedence for even the most absurd of arguments. It’s best to not create a precedence in the first place because once a precedence like this is set, all kinds of arguments can be made for why the government may target this group or that group. With this administration currently attempting to weaken the Constitution at every opportunity, a generation from now another President could legitimately argue that what we might consider mainstream Americans may be targeted as enemies and thus murdered by an executive branch that serves as judge, jury and executioner all in one.

We cannot let our values be blinded by our hatred of groups like al Qaeda. Anwar al-Awlaki was likely guilty of any number of crimes, not the least of which is treason. But just because he’s a member of al Qaeda doesn’t mean that his rights as an American citizen are forfeited. In order to protect all of our rights, in order to limit the power of government over our life and death, even people like Anwar al-Awlaki must be afforded their Constitutional right to a trial by jury. The government has no business targeting Americans for execution absent a conviction in a court of law.

Filed under freedom Tagged with , , , , ,

Photos, Videos of Dead Osama Must Be Made Public

May 2, 2011 Leave a comment

The Obama administration is debating whether they should release photos of a dead Osama bin Laden. I don’t understand what there is to debate, the administration must release photos of his dead corpse. It’s almost unbelievable that the administration is even debating this subject. It seems so obvious, the world needs visual proof that Osama is dead. A DNA test may prove it to Americans but to people in the middle east with no or limited understanding of DNA, only a photograph or video will prove Osama is dead.

After Hitler committed suicide in 1945 the Soviets never released his body or any photographs of his body. The end result is that a cult of Hitler formed that was a problem throughout the world until the 80′s. Absent a body, Hitler followers were convinced that he was still out there orchestrating a return of the Third Reich. Not having a body created a cult following that made Hitler more popular.

President Bush knew this, which is why he pushed to have Saddam Husein’s execution shown on television in Iraq. At the time Saddam still had a following in Iraq and there were some who believe Saddam would be able to return to power and lead Iraqi’s in a battle to remove the US from their territory. Once Saddam was executed on television it ended the hopes of Saddam’s supporters who believed he would return to lead Iraq’s revolt against the US. Only visual proof would have ended their hopes, which Bush knew. If there was still a chance Saddam was alive, his cult followers could continue to recruit with a strong argument that he was still alive and capable of escape. With Saddam dead, there was no way he could lead and his supporters became uncoordinated and weak.

Al Qaeda is going to exist with or without Osama. Just because he is dead doesn’t mean his cause goes away. Arguably Osama has had little control of his organization over the last several years. Other radical Muslim groups have grown in size and power since al Qaeda has become weaker, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood come to mind. But we still need to show the world that Osama isn’t coming back. We cannot allow al Qaeda to claim Osama is still alive and in control of the organization. They will no doubt make him a Martyr but they should not be allowed to create a cult of Osama. A cult of Osama will extend beyond the radical Muslim world into parts of the world that simply hate the United States.

Only the Obama administration would debate whether to publish photos of Osama’s dead body. Only the Obama administration would not show American forces killing the man. This is an administration that has spent the better part of two years apologizing to the world for being the leader. In particular this administration has spent an inordinate amount of time pandering to Islamic socialists and assorted Muslims. The Obama administration is more worried about the feelings of radical Muslims, who they have supported in Egypt and Libya, than showing the Muslim world that a dangerous tyrant is dead. Only this administration would run from showing the Muslim world that we have killed a dangerous terrorist.

Talk is cheap and without a photograph or video at some point in the Muslim world they will begin to doubt our story. I have no doubt that Osama is dead but it isn’t going to take long for Muslims in the middle east to doubt. It may not take long for someone to claim they are Osama and attempt to lead al Qaeda in its terrorist efforts. It is essential that the United States put an end to this before it even begins. Photos of Osama have to be published, video of his death must be made public. It may be grisly but it’s the only way to prove once and for all that Osama is dead.

Filed under islamic socialism, Obama Tagged with , , , , , ,

President Obama Presides Over Osama’s Death, Three Wars and a Terrible Economy

May 2, 2011 2 Comments

Osama is dead! President Bush has been vindicated with the death of Osama bin Laden. It appears the Navy Seals killed him in a firefight. We can all rejoice that this tyrant who was responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans has finally been brought to justice. New Yorkers celebrated in the streets, which should come as no surprise. No city was more affected by the 9-11 attacks than New York.

There are however lingering questions about this death. First and foremost was it actually him? I suspect it was but the fact that he was buried at sea so quickly will no doubt cause speculation to run wild. The 9-11 truthers will no doubt dismiss Osama’s death as a fake. It wouldn’t surprise me if the birthers and others who doubt everything Obama does will speculate that this is a ploy to boost Obama’s ratings. While I have no doubt Obama’s poll numbers will increase for the next week or two, I have a hard time believing the Obama administration would waste a golden poll boosting lie a year and a half before the election. If this was a lie, they would have saved it for the week before the election.

One thing that did strike me as strange though was the celebration outside of the White House. It was odd to say the least. Celebrations outside the White House are rare, they’re even more rare when the participants are almost exclusively college students. The White House street celebration appeared to be staged. Why would so many college students converge on the White House like that? Why were the participants almost exclusively college students? It appeared very staged and very organized. It’s as though the Obama administration wants people to believe that people are celebrating his leadership rather than the death of Osama.

This is going to be a short term positive for President Obama, as it should be. Osama was our #1 enemy and we can all rejoice that he is burning in Hell today. However after the euphoria of Osama’s death wears off, which in today’s world is around 10am today, we have to face facts that Osama has been largely irrelevant for the last 5 or 6 years. Al Qaeda has been severely limited in its capabilities, they haven’t been able to pull off a major terrorist attack since 9-11. They were involved in Iraq and they are currently involved in Libya (interestingly fighting on the same side as Obama), but it isn’t clear if they have been under the direction of Osama or someone else. Furthermore, with Osama dead there is now less reason to be in Afghanistan, which President Obama has escalated since he took office. Not to mention Iraq, which we’re still involved in.

Osama’s death is something to be excited about. But President I and me, I mean President Obama, still has us involved in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. We still have a struggling economy, with high unemployment and high inflation. We had a nearly a million people apply for 50,000 hamburger flipping jobs at McDonald’s just a few weeks ago. That says quite a bit about the state of the economy and the job market. Osama’s death is important, we can rejoice knowing that this murderer is dead and burning in Hell. But let’s not lose ourselves in the excitement of the day. President Obama may have ordered the attack that killed Osama but he still presides over the worst economy since Jimmy Carter and he still presides over three wars that have no end in sight.

Filed under foreign policy, Obama Tagged with , , ,

State Senator Obama Believes Libyan War Is Dumb and Rash

March 31, 2011 Leave a comment

In 2002 then Illinois State Senator Obama claimed that using force to remove a brutal dictator was a “dumb war.” Obama was of course speaking of Bush’s plan to remove Saddam Hussein which was being debated back in 2002. Obama said the following:

Now, let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him….

I don’t oppose all wars.  … What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

The speech is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it’s clear that Obama didn’t start speaking in a condescending way when he ran for President. He’s been talking like that his whole life. ‘Now let me be clear’ is one of Obama’s trademark condescending terms.  But beyond that then State Senator Obama makes several arguments against President Obama’s actions in Libya. Libya is a rash war, it isn’t well thought out. It doesn’t have clear goals or purpose. Rather than Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz playing weekend warrior (which is insulting and untrue in the extreme) we have Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power stamping their feet for war. Not to mention George Soros.

Libya is a grossly rash war. Al Qaeda has swooped into Libya and is now infiltrating the rebels. The very rebels the administration debates arming. The fact that al Qaeda is heading to Libya to fight against Gaddafi should come as no surprise to anyone with a little knowledge about the history of Gaddafi. In 2003 Gaddafi made peace with the United States by providing the Bush administration with information about al Qaeda. That information has turned out to be very useful. Gaddafi hates al Qaeda and they certainly hate him. So it should be no surprise that al Qaeda is fighting with the rebels against Gaddafi.

The fact that al Qaeda is willing to fight Gaddafi calls into question why we’re aiding the rebels. Do we really want a nation such as Libya to fall into the hands of terrorists like al Qaeda? I understand that Gaddafi is a brutal dictator and himself a terrorist. But if Obama thinks he’s such a bad guy, why did he become the first American President to meet with him in 2009? Gaddafi didn’t suddenly become a bad guy since 2009.

Libya is a rash war with no real American purpose. It is not our duty to save every nation from brutal dictators. If it is, Libya surely should not be the only nation we bomb. We ought to start bombing North Korea, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela and maybe we should go bomb China as well. The argument that it is our duty or the world’s duty to fight brutal dictators is absurd and impossible. Especially so when we likely cannot even agree on who the brutal dictators are in the world.

The Obama administration is supporting Libyan rebels, some of which have al Qaeda ties. Others have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that the Obama administration has supported in Egypt and elsewhere. All of the revolutions taking place in the middle east, largely supported by the administration except oddly in Iran, are aiding al Qaeda. We already know they’re aiding the terrorists who want to destroy Israel in the Muslim Brotherhood.

As Americans we have to ask ourselves why Obama is supporting these people? Why is he making conditions for Muslim terrorists easier? Is this the sort of foreign policy we want our nation to have? We’re talking about people who believe it is ok to murder women who have been raped. We’re talking about people who believe in murdering people who leave the Muslim faith. We’re talking about people who believe in oppressing women and who rejoice when their children die as human suicide bombs. Are these the people we want to support in the middle east? Because that’s who Obama appears to be supporting. The President has bragged about passing off leadership in the Libyan war to NATO, yet in Turkey, a NATO member, the Photo of the Year was of a bloodied Israeli soldier. Do we really want NATO running our wars?

The war in Libya was not well thought out. President Obama rushed to war at the behest of Samantha Power who believes in a Soros doctrine that demands the world protect everyone from dictators he doesn’t like and Hillary Clinton who was tired of being badgered by the British and French. The President hasn’t clearly laid out for us who we’re actually supporting. I dare say if the American people knew we might start arming al Qaeda support for the war and this President would drop substantially.

Filed under foreign policy, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Claims War in Libya is a ‘Kinetic Military Action’

March 24, 2011 1 Comment

The Obama administration has declared that the US is not at war with Libya. No sir, we’re engaged in a ‘kinetic military action.’ And when I rob the 7-11 later today I’ll be engaging in ‘product redistribution’ rather than robbery. Press Secretary Jay Carney called the mission “a time-limited, scope-limited military action.” It would be nice if the action and time were defined, which they have not been by the administration.

What is the deal with liberals constantly changing the language to deflect attention away from what they’re actually doing? Why can’t the Obama administration be truthful about what they’re doing in Libya? There is no need to put a fancy name on what’s going on in Libya, it’s a war and nothing else.

There is no way around calling the action in Libya a war. This is more than just a no fly zone, we’re bombing Gaddafi’s military infrastructure, tanks, anti-aircraft installations and yes we have bombed some civilians. This is in no uncertain terms a war. It isn’t some fancy name that liberals have decided to use in order to not call it a war. We’re killing people and breaking things, it’s a war.

It’s a war that the President authorized a week ago and still hasn’t explained to the American people. We still don’t know why the President decided to go to war with Libya, other than the UN signed off on it. We still don’t know what the mission actually is. Are we trying to get rid of Gaddafi or are we going to allow him to stay in power? We don’t know the answer to that yet. After a week, President Obama still hasn’t held a primetime speech to explain the war to us. That is shocking to me.

Interestingly al Qaeda supports the UN/Allies/American action in Libya. While al Qaeda doesn’t have a presence there now, they hate Gaddafi. You’ll recall that when Gaddafi made peace with Bush back in 2003 he began feeding our government information about al Qaeda. Apparently some of this information was good. So there’s no doubt that al Qaeda hates Gaddafi and wants to rid Libya of him. We already know the Muslim Brotherhood hates him and wants him dead, they so much as said so when they won in Egypt. It begs the question why Obama is on the same side as al Qaeda in this matter.

This war would be much easier to stomach if Obama spoke to the American people and gave us concrete reasons for war with Libya. Instead, we have no reason and the allies are all over the place in terms of what is going on there. Obama says we’ll be out in days, France says weeks. If Obama is telling the truth, what exactly is the mission? Surely Gaddafi isn’t going to be removed in a matter of days. If removing him isn’t the point, what exactly is? We’re not aiding the rebels by imposing a no fly zone for two weeks.

What Obama is doing in changing the language of war is nothing short of a lie. Don’t buy the lie that this isn’t a war with Libya. We still don’t know why we’re in Libya and terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood support the allied effort against Gaddafi. The allies have no idea what they’re doing and aren’t on the same page at all. This is a mess, all thanks to our anti-war President who started a war and is now going to lie about not starting one.

Filed under islamic socialism, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers