Tag Archives: David Petraeus

Americans in Benghazi attack sent distress calls, pleading for their lives

chris-stevens1Clockwise from top left: Ambassador Christopher Stevens; Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith; former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Rest in Peace

This makes me weep . . . .

Americans trapped in Benghazi that awful night of Sept. 11, 2012, were pleading for their lives — for someone to rescue them.

But their Commander In Chief was thousands of miles away that night in the White House and disappeared for hours – hours about which the White House refuses to account. Their Commander In Chief was so blasé, he actually went to bed and slept, then hopped onto Air Force One the next day to fly to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

Later that month, in an interview, their Commander In Chief airily dismissed their deaths as mere “bumps on the road“. Later still, when she was hauled before a Congressional hearing, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, too, dismissed their deaths with the quip, “What does it matter?”

See also “Former Ambassador: Benghazi “Stand Down” Order Came from Obama,” July 31, 2013; “Obama thinks 4 Americans being killed in Benghazi is funny,” Jan. 28, 2013..

~Eowyn

POS and Broomhilda

Catherine Herridge reports for Fox News, Nov. 20, 2013:

State Department employees at the Benghazi compound knew they were in a death trap and made a series of radio distress calls to the CIA annex during the terror assault last year, according to congressional sources familiar with recent testimony on the attack from five CIA personnel.

Sources told Fox News that the radio calls, which were described in closed testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, were characterized as almost frantic, with State Department employees who knew they could not defend themselves “pleading” for their lives. 

When the CIA team arrived from the annex about a mile away, they found the State Department employees without guns that could adequately protect them; one of the agents was found hiding in the consulate, apparently in a closet. The testimony lends more weight to repeated claims, in the wake of the attack, that the consulate was not adequately protected despite being located in a volatile and violent area prone to attack. 

When the CIA personnel were asked for their reaction to the administration’s initial explanation that an anti-Islam video and a demonstration gone awry were to blame for the attack, Fox News is told they were seething with anger because everything on the ground — from their perspective — showed it was a premeditated attack. 

At least three of the five — who were all in Benghazi — responded to the scene that night. The witnesses testified that five mortars rained down on the annex in less than a minute. They pointed to those details as more evidence of a professionally trained team, describing the attack on the annex as akin to a professional hit on the operation in order to drive it out of Benghazi.

Congressional sources say the testimony seems to further conflict with and undercut the briefing three days after the attack by then-CIA Director David Petraeus, who likened the attack to a flash mob. When pressed on the number and precision of the mortars, Petraeus offered that Benghazi was flooded with mortars, and played down their accuracy by suggesting they could have been fired from the back of a pick-up truck.

When Petraeus appeared on the Hill in November, following his resignation from the CIA over his admitted affair, he tried to claim that he knew it was a terrorist attack all along and insisted that he did not put the emphasis on the anti-Islam film.

Ex-Diplomats Report New Benghazi Whistleblowers with Info Devastating to Clinton and Obama

ok, by now i hope we all know ambassador Stevens was not in Benghazi to build schools and do WHATEVER it is ambassadors do. nope he was there doing some kind of shady biz which I’m sure goes on all around the world all the time. according to this story you’re about to read , this seems like a really stupid thing to have done. wanna guess where it leads.?  ———— ~ steve ~————

——————————————————————————————–

http://pjmedia.com              by Roger L Simon         May 21st, 2013 – 12:05 am

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.

According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

hillary

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

stevens

Gen. Ham

Gen. Ham

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.

He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White Housecalled his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

He told us. Did he not?

He told us. Did he not?

The White House motivation in all this is as yet unclear, but it is known that Ham retired quietly in April 2013 as head of AFRICOM.

PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.

We will report more as we learn it.

 H/T    The I-Man

                                                                       

PJ Media HERE!!

General Petraeus To Testify On Benghazi This Week

Yep, I’m going to beat Benghazi Like A Dead Horse.

DeadHorseTheoryamplido

OK,   This article looks like things are going to rock and roll when

General Petraeus Testifies this week. Seems he may have an ax to grind with skippy. I’d like to pull one paragraph out and highlight how Jay Carney answers a reporter’s question. It just amazes me how these people can say so much and not even come close to answering your question..LOL

I’ll run the whole story after the pull out. Am I confusing you? Cause I’m sure as heck confusing myself.   :D         ~ Steve~

OK,  This is reporter’s question.

“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”

And this is Carneys response.

“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”

Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

 Just what in the hell is he saying? I know he did not answer the question, and seems he threw the C.I.A. under the bus. Now if memory serves who was the director of CIA at time of Benghazi? Hmmmm-

—————————————————————————————————

Watch out for Petraeus in Benghazi                    scandal

http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/joseph-curl/

By their second term “inside the bubble,” presidents have completely lost touch with reality: Aides and confidants conspire to keep the chief executive insulated from the real world — the bad news, the worse press coverage. They think it’s their job, and lounging on the Oval Office couches, they nod along with the president’s every musing.

But this presidency has taken OOCS to new heights. Mr. Obama has only a few trusted aides, and occasional leaks from the West Wing show a paranoid president suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Supremely confident, convinced by the fawning minions at his feet that he is untouchable, the president dismisses all controversy as partisan attacks by an overzealous opposition. A pliant press corps of stenographers follows in lockstep.

Not surprisingly, every president in the past 60 years has had a major scandal in Term 2: Dwight Eisenhower had the U-2 “incident”; Richard Nixon had Watergate; Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton had Monica (literally); George W. Bush had Katrina (and let’s not forget those WMDs that never turned up); and now, this president has Benghazi.

Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal. Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.

For months before, there were warnings about weak security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya; no one paid attention. During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.

And after? That’s when the Obama scandal falls into the predictable second-term pattern his predecessors all learned the very hard way. Faced with a crisis, the Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up.

So little is known about what happened in BenghaziWhere was the commander in chief that night? No pictures from the Situation Room this time. Why didn’t the Pentagon authorize a quick-response team to swoop in? Members of the military say they were ready — burning — to go. The call came in: Stand down. Let them die. There were dozens of witnesses to the attack that night: Where are they? What do they know? What really happened that night?

And who forced the heavy-handed redactions of those infamous “talking points,” the ones that sent Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations onto the Sunday talk shows to declare that the attack was just the culmination of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube?

Carnival barker Jay Carney looked almost ashen Friday as he took the podium to face a suddenly invigorated press corps. Of course, the public briefing came after a private session with “reporters who matter,” a sure sign the White House is in full hunker-down mode — and, more precisely, terrified.

“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”

“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”

Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

Speaking for the White House, the flack said the CIA was fully to blame for the talking points. Fully. “That is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA,” he said.

“Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants.” That line was stricken: Everything was fine there — fine fine fine.

And: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That line, too, was deleted by … someone. Instead, this was inserted: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning. And the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat: the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.

With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.

petraeus_web_20121112_0007_s160x146General (Retired) Petraeus

A warning to those West Wing sycophants suffering from acute OOCS: Don’t walk down any dark alleys.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/?page=2#ixzz2TB1BiC00

Obama purges U.S. military command (Part 1)

Several days ago, FOTM’s lowtechgrannie posted a video of a media rarity — a reporter who doesn’t toe the party line and isn’t afraid to speak the truth. He’s Fox19 Cincinnati news anchor and investigative reporter Ben Swann.

At the end of the video, Swann noted that in the space of less than one month after the 7-hour Islamic terrorist attack of September 22, 2012, on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four high-level U.S. military flag officers had been removed, for one ostensible reason or another. The four are Generals Petraeus, Allen, and Ham, and Admiral Gaouette. (In the U.S. military, flag officers are general officers in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard of such senior rank that they are entitled to fly their own flags to mark where the officer exercises command.)

Swann withheld speculating on what this quite unprecedented attrition of senior U.S. military officers means. But this attrition cries out for some effort at explanation, no matter how speculative.

We’ll begin with the facts that we’ve been told.

1. General David Petraeus

Gen. Petraeus and Paula Broadwell

Gen. Petraeus and Paula Broadwell

A highly-decorated four-star general who had served over 37 years in the U.S. Army, 60-year-old David Petraeus had been Commander of the International Security Assistance Force; Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan; 10th Commander, U.S. Central Command; and Commanding General of Multi-National Force – Iraq who oversaw all coalition forces in Iraq.

On September 6, 2011, Obama recruited Petraeus to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. A week before, in anticipation of that appointment, Petraeus had retired from the U.S. Army.

Petraeus lasted 14 months as CIA director. On November 9, 2012, he resigned from the CIA, citing his extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell, a married woman who is the principal author of Petraeus’ biography, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. Petraeus claims that the affair had begun in late 2011 when he was no longer an active duty military officer, and ended in the summer of 2012. The affair reportedly was discovered in the course of an FBI investigation into harassing emails that Broadwell had been sending to Jill Kelley, a Tampa socialite and a longstanding family friend of the Petraeuses whom Broadwell perceived to be a romantic rival.

2. General John R. Allen

Gen. Allen (l); Jill Kelley (r)

Gen. Allen (l); Jill Kelley (r)

A four-star general of the U.S. Marine Corps, 58-year-old General John Allen had succeeded Petraeus as Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan on July 18, 2011. He was nominated to be NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, pending confirmation by the United States Senate.

As part of the fallout of the Petraeus-Broadwell affair, correspondence between Allen and Jill Kelley also came to light. The FBI reportedly uncovered 20,000 to 30,000 pages of correspondence — mostly email — between Allen and Kelley from 2010 to 2012.  Reportedly, their correspondence was “flirtatious” and “inappropriate” as Allen and Kelley are both married, but not to each other. (Good grief. How could a 4-star general even have so much free time as to write 20,000 to 30,000 emails in the space of two years to ANYONE?)

On November 13, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta suspended Allen’s confirmation hearing, pending investigations into the general’s “inappropriate communication” with Kelley. Panetta also requested Congress to speed the confirmation of General Joseph Dunford to take over as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In effect, not only will Allen not be promoted, he has lost his present command post in Afghanistan.

3. General Carter F. Ham

U.S. Army General Carter Ham

A well-decorated U.S. Army general, 60-year-old Ham became Commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) on March 8, 2011.

U.S. AFRICOM is one of nine Unified Combatant Commands of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). As one of six that are regionally focused, AFRICOM is devoted solely to Africa. James S. Robbins of The Washington Times writes that Gen. Ham “is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. ‘Kip’ Ward.”

On October 18, 2012, in a DoD news briefing, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that Gen. Ham was relieved fired: “Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.”

According to Joint doctrine, “the tour length for combatant commanders and Defense agency directors is three years.” But Gen. Ham had only been in the commander position at AFRICOM for a year and a half and the informal word was that he wasn’t scheduled to rotate out until March 2013.

Pat Dollard of BareNakedIslam claims that the scuttlebutt is that, on September 11, 2012, Gen. Ham had received the same e-mails the White House received — from our people in Benghazi, requesting help/support as the terrorist attack was taking place. Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had the unit ready. Dollard writes:

“General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.”

Gen. Ham’s “second in command” is not named. The Pentagon’s official line is that Ham had retired.

4. Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette

Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette

Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette

The recipient of various personal decorations and unit awards, including the Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale Award for inspirational leadership in 2003, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette was promoted to Commander of Carrier Strike Group 3 (aka John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group) in April 2012.

Carrier Strike Group 3 is one of five U.S. Navy carrier strike groups currently assigned to the U.S. Pacific Fleet. U.S. Navy carrier strike groups are employed in a variety of roles that involve gaining and maintaining sea control and projecting power ashore, as well as projecting naval airpower ashore.

The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis is the strike group’s current flagship, and as of 2012, other units assigned to Carrier Strike Group 3 include Carrier Air Wing Nine; the guided-missile cruisers USS Mobile Bay and USS Antietam; and the ships of Destroyer Squadron 21, the guided-missile destroyers USS Wayne E. Meyer, USS Dewey, USS Kidd, and USS Milius.

Carrier Group Three formed the core of the naval power during the initial phase of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001. “Operation Enduring Freedom” is the official name used by the U.S. government for the War in Afghanistan, together with a number of smaller military actions, under the umbrella of the Global “War on Terror”. On 16 July 2012, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that the scheduled deployment of Carrier Strike Group Ten was advanced by four months, with its anticipated area of operation shifting from the U.S. Seventh Fleet in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and North Arabian Sea. On 27 August 2012, four months ahead of schedule, Carrier Strike Group Three departed for an eight-month deployment to the U.S. Fifth Fleet under the command of Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette.

On October 27, 2012, the commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Vice Admiral John W. Miller, ordered the temporary re-assignment of Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette pending the results of an investigation by the Naval Inspector General. Gaouette’s chief of staff, Captain William C. Minter, will lead the strike group until the arrival of Rear Admiral Troy M. (“Mike”) Shoemaker, who will assume command of the strike group.

Tom Lombardo writes for the Navy Times, Oct. 27, 2012, that Adm. Gaouette was relieved, mid-deployment, and is accused of “inappropriate leadership judgment,” according to a Navy official familiar with the case. Gaouette was told to go home — to return to the Carrier Strike Group’s homeport in Bremerton, Washington, until the investigation is complete.

There you have it. Within two months after the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged:

  • Gen. Ham, on October 18.
  • Adm. Gaouette, on October 27.
  • Gen. Petraeus, on November 9.
  • Gen. Allen, on November 13.

Ostensibly, Petraeus’ “retirement” and Allen’s suspended promotion are due to both men’s moral conduct. But surely we are not so naive as to think that Petraeus and Allen are the only U.S. military officers who’ve ever committed adultery or written flirtatious email. As for Ham’s “retirement” and Gaouette’s “temporary re-assignment” (reassignment to what?), there is not even a whisper that either man’s morals or personal conduct is at issue.

So what should we make of all this? Is it all just coincidence or something more sinister?

Ann Barnhardt, in her blog of Nov. 13, 2012, calls it Obama’s “night of the long knives.”

The last step in Hitler’s quest for total, dictatorial power was the purging of the German military of any factions that were in any way autonomous and not 100% loyal to him, specifically the SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Detachment). The SA was run by Ernst Rohm. On June 30, 1934, the “Night of the Long Knives” was executed when Hitler had Rohm and the rest of the SA leaders killed. Hitler publicly explained that the purge was executed because of sexual perversion in the ranks of the SA who were “plotting” against him.

Barnhardt writes:

And now, the Obama putsch regime is purging them and anyone else they deem to be a threat. It won’t surprise me if Petraeus is indeed court martialed and stripped of his pension, because that is what the rest of the flag officer corps fears more than death. Make an example of Petraeus, and maybe Allen, and that will whip the rest of them into line.

This process of a totalitarian oligarchy constantly purging its own ranks in fits of paranoia and demands for total personal loyalty is as old as the hills. Lenin and Stalin eventually murdered almost every person that entered their inner-circles. Same with Mao. Same with Saddam Hussein. Same with the three Kims in North Korea. Beyond the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler was also having his own people killed continuously.

Just as the Night of the Long Knives in ’34 was just the beginning, so too is this situation in the former American republic just the beginning.

Writing for Veterans Today, Gordon Duff has an even more provocative take on the four military officers:

The decision [to fire Admiral Gaouette] was made based on a conversation with the Secretary of Defense who, at the end of the talk, believed Gaouette was part of a group of military officers who have been under suspicion for planning a “Seven Days in May” type overthrow of the US government if President Obama is re-elected.

This is not conjecture, dozens of key officers face firing, hundreds are under investigation, all with direct ties to extremist elements in the Republican Party and the Israeli lobby.

Reports received are sourced at the highest levels of the Pentagon and indicate that the administration has been aware of these plans for months.

Whatever the truth, one thing of which we can be sure is that the firings of three generals and an admiral have something (or everything) to do with the Benghazi attack. It’ll be interesting if the newly-elected 113th U.S. Congress will conduct serious investigations and hearings on Benghazi, although Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) is already on record as being opposed to an independent investigation.

I wouldn’t hold my breath….

Click here for Part 2 of “Obama purges U.S. military command”.

~Eowyn

Ben Swann Reality Check- 3 Generals & Benghazi

GOP lineup for November 2012!

How about this for a Republican slate!!

Here is a winning strategy that would set Skippy and his Cronies way, way back on their heels. If Romney would take this advice, it would clearly send a message to the Republican establishment that conservatives aren’t going to do business as usual any more.

It would shake the establishment, and pull together and really energize conservative voters. Here is a little something else this would do…It would shake the Obama campaign to its core.

Rather than a leisurely march toward a VP nominee or a surprise VP announcement like we got in 2008, vet the possible VPs NOW and stand ready to announce the running mate in a nationally televised press conference the day after the delegates are in hand.

Allen West, Vice President

Having Congressman West in the VP slot makes him a TRIPLE THREAT and a VP who WILL redefine the role. Triple threat?

  1. As the Vice President he would attend to the regular duties and be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
  2. Vice President West would also act as a second Secretary of State in difficult diplomatic negotiations.
  3. AND…A Vice President West would work in concert with the Secretary of Defense to realign our military and redefine its role.

Triple threat. Oh but this is just the START of the strategy!!!

As soon as Romney has introduced West as the running mate…ROMNEY WOULD THEN INTRODUCE HIS CHOICE FOR SECRETARY OF STATE!…

John Bolton, SECRETARY OF STATE

As a former Ambassador to the United Nations there is nobody with a better handle on the world’s issues or more familiar with the players. John Bolton is tough, straight forward, and not likely to appease ANYONE.

Now, you have the nominees on stage, the VP choice and the Secretary of State nominee…Let’s not stop there. Next to walk onto the stage…

Sarah Palin, Secretary of Energy

Palin’s directive…Set us on the path toward energy independent in 10 years. Anyone more invested in that goal? Anyone who is more knowledgeable or adept? Can you feel the ground starting to shake? Next out of the wings and onto the stage…

General David Petraeus, Secretary of Defense

The nominee for Secretary of Defense. Enter General David Petraeus. As great as he was fighting a PC war, imagine what he’ll be like once he and West have pressed the reset button on our rules of engagement. In Petraeus we will have a Secretary of Defense whose mission will be to win. PERIOD. When our case is just, VICTORY IS NOT A BAD WORD!

Oh…but we’re not done yet…

Attorney General – Pam Bondi

Bondi is a no nonsense fighter who has taken on the current administration over Obamacare and WILL clean out the corruption rampant in that office today.

Okay, where are we? Who is now standing on the stage? The nominees so far are: Allen West, John Bolton, Sarah Palin, General Petreaus and Pam Bondi. How about a Secretary of the Treasury? We would need someone who has worked for YEARS in the tax field who understands the overwhelming burden of tax codes and who has, for years fought to restructure those codes.

Michele Bachmann, Secretary of the Treasury

By now, fissures should be opening in the ground, rumbling coming from the sky and the faint odor of ozone should be in the air. We will need someone new…someone with new ideas to head up the Fed.

Please welcome Ron Paul. Do ya’ think he’d kick butt? Do you think the Fed would tremble? You betcha!

Governor Bobby Jindal, Secretary of the Interior…

COME ON DOWN!!!!!

And finally…We need someone to head up the Department of Homeland Security. We must have someone who understands the issues we face. Someone who has worked in federal law enforcement. Someone who won’t take any crap from anybody.

Please…a round of applause for…!

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Department of Homeland Security

Never before has a presidential nominee entered the full-on campaign with a fully assembled team. Can you even imagine the shock-and-awe wave which would be sent through the Obama regime were the Romney to do this? Think about it.

Instead of just Romney against Obama we would have:

Allen West vs. Joe Biden

John Bolton vs. Hillary Clinton

Sarah Palin vs. Stephen Chu

General Petraeus vs. Leon Panetta

Pam Bondi vs. Eric Holder

Michele Bachmann vs. Tim Geithner

Ron Paul vs. Ben Bernanke

Bobby Jindal vs. Ken Salazar

Sheriff Joe Arpaio vs. Janet Napolitano

**Think about that!**

Let that sink in…all of them campaigning at once. There would be no way out for Obama as each and every key player on his team would be exposed and held to account from the word GO.

It’s bold, brash and completely against any business as usual strategy. Imagine! An entire assembled team of key cabinet positions. Each one a pit-bull on a T-Bone, hammering their liberal counterparts on every issue, every day, from the word GO until November 6th, 2012.

Well, a girl can dream! Not saying I would support each choice yet you have to admit, these choices would have the liberals’ heads exploding! (And some of them might actually do a decent job.)

h/t Kelly

DCG