Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified this morning on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:
Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o'clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us."
In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that night. There were no calls about what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.
[WASHINGTONTIMES] Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley will urge state lawmakers on Wednesday to pass legislation requiring residents to obtain a license before purchasing a handgun, but Second Amendment advocates hope to drown out his message.
Mr. O'Malley, a Democrat, will testify before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in favor of his bill, which would also ban assault weapons, limit magazine capacities to 10 rounds and require prospective gun buyers to complete a safety course and pay a $100 application fee.
However, gun-rights advocates will descend upon Annapolis to rally against a bill that they say tramples on gun owners' rights and won't stop criminals who carry illegal guns.
"The overriding problem with the governor's bill is that it does little to address the bad guys with the guns," said Delegate Michael D. Smigiel Sr., Cecil Republican, who said rally organizers are expecting 1,000 to 3,000 people. "It deals with ways of curtailing law-abiding citizens from being able to exercise their full Second Amendment rights."
Mr. O'Malley proposed his legislation last month in an effort to fight gun violence and prevent incidents similar to last year's deadly shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo.
While requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public is the norm throughout most of the U.S., only nine states currently require a license or permit to purchase a handgun, according to Johns Hopkins University's Center for Gun Policy and Research.
Maryland would join Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York as states that require applicants to also provide fingerprints and give state officials authority to reject applications.
Connecticut and Iowa require fingerprints but have no authority to reject applicants. Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska and North Carolina require licenses, but do not reject applications or require fingerprints.
I don't dispute those that clearly have aided/abetted, or have bared arms against U.S. Mil/civilians, etc, needed to be clipped - absolutely, clip'em all.
The issue is a gov't entity simply "accusing" whoever of being a terrorist or "an imminent threat" -and we are supposed to take their word for it like it's gospel. No thanks, not w/the same hacks that gave us benghazi. It's a slippery slope. Same thing w/the ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens accused of terrorism. Or, a film-maker who put out a shitty but unpopular film. That guy's in jail for some petty b.s. but Corzine is out walking free? Umm, okay.
The drone policy is idiotic. The reason we are zapping these guys is that 0 doesn't want to put any more prisoners in Gitmo, even if he can't close it. So he kills everyone. This will have consequences. And not the least among them is the loss of intelligence from interrogations. But 0 doesn't want to do anything that might be construed as torture. So he uses high tech assassins. He might want to contemplate how well that has worked in the past.
[WASHINGTONEXAMINER] Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reportedly believes the military should receive a pay cut in order to respond to the budget cuts facing the Pentagon -- a position that might strengthen the Republican push to reverse President Obama's executive order raising the salary of Vice President Joe Biden and other federal officials.
"Panetta will recommend to Congress that military salaries be limited to a one percent increase in 2014," CNN reports, explaining that Panetta is "effectively decreasing troop salaries next year . . . The decision comes as the secretary is stepping up the rhetoric about dire cuts at the Pentagon if sequestration goes into effect."
The debate about sequestration did not stop Obama from ending a pay freeze for some government officials, effectively authorizing a pay raise that costs $11 billion.
"Panetta will recommend to Congress that military salaries be limited to a one percent increase in 2014," CNN reports, explaining that Panetta is "effectively decreasing troop salaries next year . . .
Pretty much everything that is FUd up with this government is contained in that paragraph.
Well, everyone knows it's the soldiers, sailors, Airmen, and Marines [less than one percent who serve our nation] who are responsible for the country being bankrupt. We simply must find the money to pay for SES and congressional pay raises somewhere. While we continue to change the gender and demographics ratios, we know a large percentage of men of the ranks are southern conservatives anyway. [sarcasm off]
"Panetta will recommend to Congress that military salaries be limited to a one percent increase in 2014,"
This is the joke of Beltwayspeak. Cutting = less future expansion in expenditures.
You don't cut pay, you cut missions.
Pull the remaining ground based commitments to Europe, Japan (Okinawa), and Korea, leave a MAG team. These are first world countries.
Pirates are terrible, but we can't afford to provide the world with a free navy to keep the lanes clear anymore. Your problem. What the heck are any American flag merchants doing in the Indian Ocean? If one is jacked, you go in, burn the port to the ground holding them. It'll reduce recidivism and costs to a minimum.
You want to really cut pay, you cut everyone's pay by the same percentage. That includes Congresscritters, Executive Branch patronage appointments, and even the Judges [the 'no cut in pay' line in the base document is overcome by the Judiciary's 'interpretation' of the 14th and the 'equal before the law' they've been using for decades for the rest of us]. Soldiers understand 'shared' experience, otherwise 4000 years of history usually means they end up running the place when you start playing that game. Considering they rebuilt German, Japan, and Iraq, they have a better track record than the corruption class running this place now. That's the real danger, because if they display competency that these hacks lack, people might actually prefer them to be in charge.
Only if all government staffers, including members of Congress, the White House (including the President) and the Justice Department all take pay cuts as well.
You do not want to see our men and women pissed off at you. Our military hasn't even come close to crossing the Rubicon yet so don't give them a good reason to and throw your worthless butts out of office. Even though I hate everyone of the current Administration's worthless asses that is a precedent I do NOT want to see set.
I've got a very limited amount of sympathy for the DOD on the sequester issue. Pancetta is throwing this out because it is politically unpopular. But the DOD wastes money like no one's business. Just my personal experience saw the USMC choose a paper proposal for a weapons system that was only marginally less expensive than a proven, off-the-shelf alternative (ours). That winning contractor could never deliver a working system. Both they and the USMC spent $millions trying until they exhausted both patience and $$ so the program was dropped. Stupid from the start. Same crap, different day with the DOD (and lots of other federal, state and municipal agencies). So make the cuts. They need to focus on missions and stop pissing money down rat holes. Perhaps having a bit less will force them to do that.