Jefferson Memorial from above


Must be rare to get such a reflection of the sky in a calm Tidal Basin pool; from the Department of Interior‘s Instagram:

Jefferson Memorial from the air, Department of Interior photo

From Interior’s Instagram: Last night we posted an aerial photo of the #Washington #Monument, which everyone seems to really enjoy. So we are keeping it going today with a #photo of the #Jefferson #Memorial. #NationalMall #DC

One commenter noted the photo almost makes it appear that the Jefferson Memorial is floating in the clouds.

There are more than 300 units in the National Parks System.  In the past two days we’ve had two spectacular photos from almost the same place, two memorials about a half-mile apart.  How many thousands of great photos are possible from all of these properties?  NPS’s job, caring for all of that stuff, is monumental.

 

About these ads

12 Responses to Jefferson Memorial from above

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    You’ve already forgotten the loss of the Blackhawk helicopter in Somalia? This weekend, rent the movie “Blackhawk Down.” As soon as you figure out exactly what went wrong there, write the author of the book and tell him where he went wrong.

    Then come back and tell us what your drone views show.

    Then we can talk.

    I don’t think you understand the situation, David, nor when we commit people to ground action. Our special fighting forces are good, but they aren’t in James Bond movies, and they aren’t Green Lantern.

    Like

  2. David xavier says:

    Here is a transcript of the press conference from Sec PANETTA and the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey:

    “Q: Can I follow up on that? One of the reasons we’ve heard that there wasn’t a more robust response right away is that there wasn’t a clear intelligence picture over Benghazi, to give you the idea of where to put what forces.

    But when there was, in fact, a drone over the CIA annex and there were intelligence officials fighting inside the annex, I guess the big question is, with those two combined assets, why there wasn’t a clear intelligence picture that would have given you what you needed to make some moves, for instance, flying, you know, F-16s over the area to disperse fighters or — or dropping more special forces in.

    SEC. PANETTA: You know, let me — let me speak to that, because I’m sure there’s going to be — there’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.

    We — we quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

    But — but the basic principle here — basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

    Q: So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren’t giving enough of a clear picture is what you’re saying.

    SEC. PANETTA: This — this happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.”

    So there was a drone overhead, there were special forces teams deployable in ships off the Libyian coast…hey but there wasnt enough intel. Got that ! Not doing something because there is no intel is a common excuse in these circles when they don’t want to do something.

    And how much intel was needed really? Benghazi had an extended profile and was the cause of the entire Libyan war. The consulate had an extensive intelligence apparatus and the Islamist groups would have been well mapped out. The Islamist militias and had descriptions of their armament would been known from intell reports. They perhaps didn’t know the exact number of attackers or every single possible detail, but you can never really know everything before going in.

    “There’s a basic principle here, and the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told a news conference.

    But there were already forces in harm’s way, who were trying to provide some real time intel from their point of view. What Panetta means is that the decision was made not to send aid to them, and it wasn’t about risking more lives, but about the politics of intervening in Libya and offending the Libyans. It was done for the same reason that US soldiers have at times been abandoned without air support in Afghanistan.

    Obama is ….just a ‘neville Chamberlain’, appeasing Arab street with American blood.

    Like

  3. David xavier says:

    from the washington Post

    “First, on the question of whether Woods and others were made to wait when they asked permission to move out immediately to try to rescue those at the consulate. The answer seems to be yes, but not for very long. There was a brief, initial delay — two people said it was about 20 minutes — before Woods was allowed to leave. One official said Woods and at least one other CIA colleague were “in the car revving the engine,” waiting for permission to go. Woods died about six hours later, after he returned to the annex.

    The main reason for the delay, several sources said, was that CIA officials were making urgent contact with a Libyan militia, known as the February 17 Brigade, which was the closest thing to an organized security force in Benghazi. The United States depends on local security to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities everywhere, and officials wanted to coordinate any response to the consulate attack. After this delay, Woods and his colleague proceeded to the consulate.

    Here’s my question: Was it wise to depend on a Libyan militia that clearly wasn’t up to the job? Could it have made a difference for those under attack at the consulate if Woods had moved out as soon as he was, in one official’s words, “saddled and ready”?

    Second, why didn’t the United States send armed drones or other air assistance to Benghazi immediately? This one is harder to answer. The CIA did dispatch a quick-reaction force that night from Tripoli, with about eight people, but it had trouble at first reaching the compound. One of its members, Glen Doherty, died along with Woods when a mortar hit the roof of the annex about 4 a.m.”

    Apparently , the administration is coming out with a detailed time line ….I will withdraw my accusations and wait and see.

    But , the ambassador was killed in the early stages of the organised terrorist assault. So Obama’s man was already gone. There appears there were no drones in the air…why ? we dont know. I assume if there were , then they would have to be used against a ‘friendly’ country, to save american lives , so best that the option was simply unavailable …especially considering the consulate was already lost and it was only the annex that remianed with a few ‘low level’ personnal , and a quick reaction force was on the way.

    There is a special ops team in Italy …now. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But an ambassador , travelling lightly ( so lightly he was scared) , on 911 aniversary , what could go wrong …that couldnt be foreseen?

    So where does the ‘buck stop’ ? ….with Romney according to you guys.

    Like

  4. JamesK says:

    So, David, you’re going to blame the Republicans for cutting half a billion from embassy security the last three years right?

    Like

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Got a citation for that? This guy wasn’t there, but claims to have inside knowledge? You claim there was “real time monitoring,” but that’s absurd as painted — the Secretary of State was in Asia, the President was not at the White House.

    I find it much more likely that the claims the White House knew exactly what was going on and refused to help to be repugnant. This was Barack Obama’s guy on the ground, and his foreign policy — and you allege he didn’t defend it, but is instead running a cover up?

    Unlikely. For a source, you cite a guy who wasn’t there, and doesn’t know what was dispatched, from where (there were no Special Forces in Italy, according to the testimony at the House hearings).

    What are you covering up, and why?

    See report in yesterday’s New York Times.

    What is clear is that even as the State Department responded to the June attacks, crowning the Benghazi compound walls with concertina wire and setting up concrete barriers to thwart car bombs, it remained committed to a security strategy formulated in a very different environment a year earlier.

    As the president said at the last debate:

    “While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release, trying to make political points, and that’s not how a commander in chief operates,” he said.

    Turning to glare at Romney, the president added: “The suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as commander in chief.”

    Like

  6. David.Xavier says:

    An administration that would not save its own and is covering up a scandal:

    “Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered…

    This attack went on for SEVEN hours. Our fighter jets could have been at our Benghazi mission within an hour. Our Special Forces out of Sigonella ( naval base Italy- 2 hours away) could have been there within a few hours. There is not any doubt that action on our part could have saved the lives of our two former Navy SEALs and possibly the ambassador.”

    – from: Retired Admiral James A. Lyons, former commander in chief of the US Pacific Fleet and senior US military representative to the United Nations

    The battle went on for 7 hours , lives could have been saved , yet Obama was in “transit”. Would you like to revise your defence of this administration.

    Italy is closer than Germany, a mere 2 hours. There was a drone over the battle site. The ex-seals in the consultate were laser targeting the mortars that were bombarding them, in a vain hope that the circling drones or any air cover would come to the assistance of an American Ambassador! – The result , an American ambassador is dragged through the streets and Obama and co. spins the “video” story, and goes on pakistani TV to beg innocence of the production of a video that the American author has evry right to make. These are the actions of a waning nation power.

    The ex-seals were told not to come to the aid of the ambassador, they disobeyed the Obama’s administrations direct order an saved lives at their cost. So after the dust had setytled and bodies were dragged through streets , and the response -the FBI ,was still held up at tripoli. Obama went to Vegas. This is particularily jarring !

    Like

  7. JamesK says:

    Fine. I’ll amend my closing statement.

    It’s time that David admit his dishonesty and try being the Christian he claims he is instead of the sociopathic liar he’s being.

    Like

  8. Ed Darrell says:

    I think the rebuttal is clear enough; let’s keep some of the Romney proponents around to discuss, and expose, the GOP agenda, eh?

    Like

  9. JamesK says:

    To quote:
    That also he was fore warned about a possible attack and the diplomats asked for sercurity upgrades.

    The requested security upgrades were for the embassy in Tripoli…not the consulate in Benghazi. Tripoli and Benghazi are the same distance, roughly, as Minneapolis and Chicago. Do you honestly think that security upgrades in Tripoli would have helped our people in Benghazi?

    And you’re going to say the Republicans should resign for cutting nearly a half billion dollars from embassy security, right?

    And where were your demands that George W Bush resign over 9-11?

    And obama said the attacks were an act of terror the next day. Do you want me to show you the transcript or would you like to be honest enough to admit your lie?

    Here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

    And here’s a video clip:

    You want to pay attention to the part starting at the 4 minute mark

    It’s time, David, you admit you’re nothing but a sociopathic liar and go away.

    Like

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    Maybe should have been more thorough; David said:

    1.That Obama or certainly those closest to him , were aware in real time of an organized military assault on our consulate and the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi. That also he was fore warned about a possible attack and the diplomats asked for sercurity upgrades. If Obama or his closest aides didnt know then Obama should resign as incompetant.

    Refer to my previous post. Of course Obama was “aware” of something in almost-real time. But he was on the road, as was Sec. of State Clinton. So was Romney. The House hearings clearly established that notes on potential attacks from the State Department do not go to the president. You assume the President is in active decision-making on any attack? That’s never been true.

    Aware that there’s an incident, and having enough information to act to save, and act wisely, are not the same thing. Romney was “aware,” but he spouted off anyway, suggesting Libya was to blame and we should pull out.

    We need security on the spot precisely for this type of circumstance. We cannot quickly move our Army across thousands of miles to support an embassy, nor our Navy, and Air Force support is inappropriate and inadequate. The House was warned four years ago, and the GOP said “pound sand.” If you’re pointing fingers, make sure you get the GOP in on it. If you didn’t protest their cuts then, make sure you include a mirror.

    2.As the assault was proceeding, the president rejected the urgent requests of the personnel under attack for military assistance that could have stopped the attack on the annex. Such assistance was possible , close and would have been effective.

    I see no evidence of that claim, none at all. First, military teams were scrambled. But they were in Germany. Could not travel that fast. To deny that there was a military response is false. It’s a lie. Again, we might wonder how things might be different with adequate budget instead of the austere, pre-austerity budget Romney proposes (he’s going to close down our embassies, perhaps?).

    But the military scrambled, and there is not a shred of evidence that Obama “rejected” any claim for help. That’s a whole cloth lie. (Got a source so we can see who made this stuff up?)

    3.Then, having refused to take action to stop the military assault, he ( and Hillary and Susan Rice ) concealed the very fact that this military assault had even occurred, claiming that it was only a spontaneous mob protest against an obscure anti-Islam video on the Web which had gotten out of hand, and, further, that the source of the problem was not organized jihadist enemies in the country we had “liberated,” but Islamophobia in the United States.

    Three whole cloth lies in one sentence. Obama never made a claim that well-organized terrorists were not involved, nor that it was only over the film — nor did Sec. Clinton, nor did Ambassador Rice. No one ever suggested that the problem was Islamophobia in the U.S. Where in the world did you get that fantastic claim, and why didn’t you reject it out of hand?

    4.He and his administration, in every conceivable venue, repeated this false claim for two weeks, only dropping it when the truth came out and the lie was no longer sustainable.

    Not only did this not occur once, it didn’t occur repeatedly after it didn’t occur.

    <blockquote<5.A month later, he told a bald-faced Orwellian lie in the second presidential debate that he had not concealed the nature of the attack, because he had said the day after the attack that it was a “terrorist” attack. The moderator, in an unheard of step, interjected herself into the debate to back the president up in this bald-faced Orwellian lie; the rest of the media backed up the moderator and the president; and the media also continued to spout the administration line that the only reason there is any issue about the Benghazi attack is that the Republicans are seeking partisan advantage from it. This despite the confounding statments by Hillary , Rice et al that it was a video , that Hillary was going to send the maker of the video to prison.

    Except, the transcripts show Obama said exactly what he claimed. It was Romney who got caught believing his own cover up. Mark Twain’s ghost just laughs. Kin Hubbard’s ghost shakes his head. Santayana’s ghost is either laughing or weeping, difficult to tell.

    Like

  11. Ed Darrell says:

    But President Obama, did he protect Americans when the same region again declared war on the US by killing an ambassador? No he did not.The Benghazi story grows more terrible by the day.

    Yes, Obama did more than Jefferson did. Don’t play dull-and-Romney on this.

    First, remember that Benghazi still exists because Obama saved it, and its 1.2 million people, from certain slaughter by Ghadafy’s army.

    Second, the cover up is on Romney — he’s the guy who claimed it was something other than it was, and now needs to cover up that he didn’t know what he was talking about.

    Think hard about this for a moment: Libya is one of the greatest international triumphs of foreign policy of the U.S. in at least 15 years, maybe longer. Obama and his administration, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were the architects of this stunning success (one more despot removed from office under Obama’s watch, who had been the target of every U.S. president since the U.S. came to power). The attack on Chris Stevens, probably by al Quaeda, is proof of the success of Obama’s strategy and how it cuts through the heart of the Islamic radical movement.

    Obama has nothing to gain by covering up anything, which is why the administration has been open about the non-CIA aspects from the start. The shameful unmasking of CIA’s U.S. supporting “assets” in the Middle East by the GOP, especially Issa and Chafetz, is tantamount to treason, and part of the great reason they are covering up yet. Fox News’s complicity in this anti-U.S. campaign is troubling.

    There is much troubling in your mischaracterization of the entire Libya affair, starting with what appears to be your assumption that Ghadafy is the guy we should have supported, as Romney earlier charged.

    Rethink. You don’t want reasonable people to ask, with good cause, “whose side are you on?”

    See these:
    Daily Beast/Newsweek report on the attack: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/21/truth-behind-the-benghazi-attack.html

    Mother Jones FAQ on Benghazi and subsequent statements: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/cutting-through-fog-benghazi-brief-qa

    Vanity Fair profile of Obama by Michael Lewis, reported at the time Obama was dealing with Benghazi’s liberation, and detailing the processes of the decision made: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama

    Washington Post transcript of Romney’s remarks on September 12 (the real reason for the GOP cover-up?): http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/mitt-romneys-statement-on-the-libya-ambassador-attack/2012/09/12/3d314562-fceb-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

    Soledad O’Brien’s questioning of Rep. Jason Chaffetz on his votes to cut funding for embassy security: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obrien-asks-rep-chaffetz-about-vote-to-cut-embassy-security-funding-absolutely-we-have-priorities/
    (This was shot the same day Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa outed our CIA buildings and people in Libya on national TV, and international TV . . .)

    Like

  12. David xavier says:

    The memorial is for President Thomas Jefferson. The president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad. President Thomas Jefferson did not shirk his duties when confronted by the Barbary pirates , he gave birth to the modern American miltary and had the US naval shell Tripoli in response to the murderous pirates that has declared war on the USA..

    But President Obama , did he protect Americans when the same region again declared war on the US by killing an ambassador? No he did not.The Benghazi story grows more terrible by the day.

    Charles Woods, the father of slain former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was killed along with another former SEAL by mortar fire at the CIA annex a mile from the Benghazi consulate where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and staff member Sean Smith were killed has spoken out. The story is that Woods and his colleagues asked higher ups for permission to go to the consulate and help, were told twice to “stand down,” then disobeyed orders and went to the consulate on their own, where they found Smith’s body and brought it out. Then the CIA annex itself came under an hours-long attack, and Woods and the others asked for air support, and were again turned down. These decisions must have come from higher levels of the administration.

    We now know:

    1.That Obama or certainly those closest to him , were aware in real time of an organized military assault on our consulate and the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi. That also he was fore warned about a possible attack and the diplomats asked for sercurity upgrades. If Obama or his closest aides didnt know then Obama should resign as incompetant.

    2.As the assault was proceeding, the president rejected the urgent requests of the personnel under attack for military assistance that could have stopped the attack on the annex. Such assistance was possible , close and would have been effective.

    3.Then, having refused to take action to stop the military assault, he ( and Hillary and Susan Rice ) concealed the very fact that this military assault had even occurred, claiming that it was only a spontaneous mob protest against an obscure anti-Islam video on the Web which had gotten out of hand, and, further, that the source of the problem was not organized jihadist enemies in the country we had “liberated,” but Islamophobia in the United States.

    4.He and his administration, in every conceivable venue, repeated this false claim for two weeks, only dropping it when the truth came out and the lie was no longer sustainable.

    5.A month later, he told a bald-faced Orwellian lie in the second presidential debate that he had not concealed the nature of the attack, because he had said the day after the attack that it was a “terrorist” attack. The moderator, in an unheard of step, interjected herself into the debate to back the president up in this bald-faced Orwellian lie; the rest of the media backed up the moderator and the president; and the media also continued to spout the administration line that the only reason there is any issue about the Benghazi attack is that the Republicans are seeking partisan advantage from it. This despite the confounding statments by Hillary , Rice et al that it was a video , that Hillary was going to send the maker of the video to prison.

    You have the president of the United States being asked for assistance during the raid on the consulate in Benghazi on September 11 but because he is running for re-election in part based on his having defeated al Qaeda he refuses to send support and instead heads off to a fund raising dinner in Las Vegas. Meanwhile, for two weeks or more, he insists in public that the reason for the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous demonstration about a Youtube video on the birth of Islam. He therefore does not do what he was elected to do, he fails to defend his ambassador when under attack when he could have done so, has the maker of the video which had nothing to do with the raid arrested and put in jail and then lies repeatedly for the following two weeks about what he had known almost from the very first hours of the attack.

    There is something so sickening about this that it defies my ability to understand such duplicity and deceit. Not only should the American people not re-elect this man; he should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. He should be shunned by all decent citizens. He should become an electoral pariah, poison to any other Democrat who might in any way be associated with him.

    What I cannot understand is the nature of the greater good the fourth estate, the media which speaks truth to power , see in Obama relative to Mitt Romney that they are doing all they can to hide these disastrous and dishonest actions they are hoping to preserve in having this man re-elected.

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,333 other followers

%d bloggers like this: