Patterico's Pontifications

5/9/2013

Still More Benghazi Hackwork from the L.A. Times

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:07 am

Opinion guy Michael McGough at the Dog Trainer declares Benghazi is no big deal, in his piece titled Nobody died at Watergate, but it was a bigger scandal than Benghazi:

The hearing didn’t alter that picture much, though it featured some poignant testimony from Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya whom Republicans hailed as a persecuted whistle-blower. Hicks was clearly frustrated that military resources weren’t marshaled to try to prevent further violence. He also scored points with Republicans when he said that his “jaw dropped” when he heard United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice say that early indications were that the attack stemmed from a protest over the “Innocence of Muslims” video.

But Hicks didn’t refute the argument that there wasn’t time to deploy special operations troops to Benghazi in time to prevent the second wave of attacks. And, dramatic as it was, the “jaw dropped” quote doesn’t prove that Rice or Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton concocted the explanation about the video to prevent election-year damage to President Obama’s record in combating terrorism. In fact, the idea the attack might be connected to worldwide outrage over the video was eminently plausible at that point.

The “jaw dropped” quote might not, but his account of talking to Hillary that night and telling her about the attack (not the “protest” but the “attack”) actually does provide evidence of that concoction. But McGough follows the approved JournoList response: nothing to see here!

See, to have something like Watergate, you’d have to have evidence of a cover-up. Here, all we have is an official who is praised until he questioned the talking points, and then is savaged — and is told not to talk to a Congressman investigating the matter. No cover-up there! Oh, and we also have a report that failed to interview key individuals, and falsely absolved high officials of responsibility for failing to provide adequate security:

No cover-up there!

See, there’s no evidence of cover-up if you can cover up the evidence of the cover-up!

By the way, hack extraordinaire Ken Dilanian actually had two pieces about Benghazi last night: the one I savaged in this post, and a companion that basically said the same thing, as evidence by the first few sentences:

Partisan politics loomed over a House hearing Wednesday on the deadly September 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, as Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of testimony from three witnesses who had little new to add to the story.

The hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee began with the chairman, Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), complaining that the Obama administration and Democrats on the committee have not supported his efforts to get to the truth.

The ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), promptly accused the Republican chairman of politicizing his inquiry and making baseless assertions about a potential military response that have been refuted by top generals.

Nothing in that piece, in Dilanian’s other garbage-journalism piece, or in McGough’s worthless opinionating has any hint of the cover-up that this newspaper is covering up.

We’ll see if it works. At this point I’m getting almost as interested in accountability for these reporters as I am in accountability for the Obama administration.

157 Responses to “Still More Benghazi Hackwork from the L.A. Times”

  1. Disgusting, but typical.
    C’mon Koch Bros., help us end this “national nightmare”.

    askeptic (932a68)

  2. Why do you hate gay marriage?

    SarahW (b0e533)

  3. H8ter.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  4. Here’s the LA Times view of the significance of this story. Guess what page you’ll find it today:

    Page 3

    AZ Bob (c11d35)

  5. You have high government officials, and the president himself, telling (no, shouting) a story they knew to be patently false – weeks before an election – and their response when questioned is what does it matter.

    No cover-up here.

    And don’t forget that their scape-goat is still in prison. But that’s way out in California, no concern to the LA Times.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  6. Here is another moving bit of testimony you may want to embed, answering sec. clinton’s (irrational) question as to what difference it makes.
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/benghazi-whistleblower-breaks-down-while-describing-his-lost-friends-during-testimony/

    Also, heard someone make the point on comparing the coverage of abu graib(sp) to this
    traitorism. not by legal definition, maybe not even by direct intent, but certainly so by direct consequence by intent to be partisan in attacking, not “loyal opposition”

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  7. Refuted by top generals—that’s the ticket Elijah baby.

    Comanche Voter (29e1a6)

  8. We know that 4 people died. How many other lives were at risk, and under what circumstances? Were they saved only by those former Seals disobeying orders?

    It seems to me that Barack and Hillary are lucky there weren’t dozens of body bags. But, on the positive side, at least the president got a good night’s sleep during a difficult campaign.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  9. Watergate was worse?? They went there, they really went there.

    Shame.

    Patricia (be0117)

  10. So true #6. If this had happened in a Republican Administration, the sobbing testimony would have been the lead.

    AZ Bob (c11d35)

  11. I think the situation might be a bit like a fatal injury that has not yet run its full course, but I think we actually crossed this point with Bill Clinton if not before.

    I have yet to find anyone who will disagree with the following premise- that any other person with the same behavior would have been fired or forced to resign in disgrace. That Clinton himself thought he was above consequences was bad, that everyone around him enabled him as well was worse.

    With that as the precedent which is still defended, anything honest is the anomaly.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  12. Well, judging by the comments section on that piece of tripe, nobody is buying the line of crap currently being pushed by the LA Times. Pretty much every comment blames the President and Clinton. There is one lone commenter who keeps throwing out “talking-point” insults to people who refuse to go along with the cover-up. I wonder if it’s the guy who wrote the column.

    Bets (717964)

  13. See, to have something like Watergate, you’d have to have evidence of a cover-up.

    Nnnno. To have a Watergate, or even an Iran-Contra scandal, you have to have an underlying CRIME, and evidence that it is being covered up.

    Oversold and undershot. That’s what yesterday’s hearings showed.

    Kman (5576bf)

  14. The hackery and intellectual dishonesty implicit in all of this is overwhelming. I that that the death of a US Ambassador was a big deal.

    A friend of mine said this about Benghazi: “Embassies get overrun and people die. It happens.”

    First: WTF?

    I made the mistake of replying: “How do you feel about burglaries in hotels in the early 1970s? That happens, too. Why wasn’t that ignored.”

    I was immediately “defriended.”

    That is how weird it has gotten, when you pick up the pom-poms.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  15. Conspiracy theories rely on the small chance that a conspiracy could maybe possibly have existed and still be kept secret.

    This comes down to the small chance that a conspiracy maybe possibly did NOT exist. And, if it did exist, making sure it is kept secret.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  16. It’s always cute when wingnuts and psychopaths all pretend to believe the same thing together, as if by all pretending to believe the same thing, they will be able to trick other people into believing it, too.

    You all know you are full of shit, and you know you are desperately grasping for whatever straws you can find to impeach Obama and destroy Hillary.

    In the end, *of course* the House GOP — tea bagging lunatics — will impeach Obama. For something, for *anything.* There just isn’t any way a Democrat was going to get through a second term without being impeached. Impeaching Democratic presidents, and thereby showing their contempt for the American people and our system of government, is what conservatives do. Ultimately you will have to impeach Obama for something that will fall far, far short of what the Founders would have considered “high crimes” or “misdemeanors,” but it won’t matter, because as far as you nuts are concerned, (a) Obama deserves to be impeached simply by virtue of the fact that he’s a Democrat and, you think, a liberal, and (b) you’re certain he has committed scores or hundreds of very serious crimes that you just don’t happen to have any evidence for and could never prove, so you won’t mind if they impeach him for trumped up bullshit — as long as it gets the job done.

    You people – you are hilariously pathetic.

    Big Wayne (bb5541)

  17. At the time the decision was made not to send help there was no way of knowing how long the battle would last. Claims that they didn’t have enough time to get there assume they had the ability to see the future. In fact, per Hicks they never even requested flyover permission from the Libyan government (ie: they decided immediately not to try). What guarantees were there that Tripoli was not facing a similar attack? No thought was given to prepare for that possibility and request flyover permission?

    In the aftermath, President Obama has stated countless times that we are doing everything possible to bring those responsible to justice. Hicks was the most senior US official on the ground in Libya to survive. He testified yesterday that he has never spoken to the FBI about the events of that night. Eight months later and the investigators haven’t interviewed the person who was in charge on the scene?

    Meanwhile OJ Barry is looking for the real killers on the golf course.

    Blue Ox (bf4380)

  18. If the Republicans hadn’t pushed sequestration, Benghazi never would have happened !

    Or something.

    Elephant Stone (65a34b)

  19. I suggest creating the Charles E Wiggins Award for Aggressive Intransigence and sending it to the LA Times political desk.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  20. In fact, the idea the attack might be connected to worldwide outrage over the video was eminently plausible at that point.

    Since they knew it was a terrorist attack immediately, no it was not “eminently plausible at that point”. Even without knowing that for sure it was not plausible. Nobody had even heard of the freaking video until the Egypt embassy criticized it. What exactly does he mean by “at that point” anyway? They stuck by the story for days.

    Gerald A (82a59d)

  21. This is a thorough take-down and a great post.

    It’s also maddening to see even a very poor media outlet shamelessly cooperate with a cover up.

    I used to think things were so bad that the media had blown it. The American people would now know, I thought, and would never trust the MSM propaganda. That is not true. Most people don’t even care. They just don’t care.

    Dustin (2da3a2)

  22. It wasn’t eminently plausible as much as eminently preferable for them to blame American freedom rather than Muslim terrorist hate.

    Besides – the grain of truth doesn’t ever justify the lie.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  23. “plausible” means plausible to people who don’t know any better.
    You have to admit they picked one they could figure most people would believe.
    Ask Molly Norris.

    Richard Aubrey (6c93a4)

  24. If only Ambassador Stevens had publicly come out of the closet, he would have received that urgent phone call from Barry Obama like Jason Collins did.

    Anyhow, if those Republicans weren’t all flying around on corporate jets, Adele and Beyonce wouldn’t have to sing at the White House at taxpayer expense.

    Or something.

    Elephant Stone (65a34b)

  25. In fact, the idea the attack might be connected to worldwide outrage over the video was eminently plausible at that point.

    Actually, it’s not. Not even the Cairo protest was over the video.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/10/jihadis-threaten-to-burn-u-s-embassy-in-cairo/

    Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya have issued a statement threatening to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground.

    According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: “The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"]

    The MFM’s refusal to report to truth goes back to the very start of this scandal. CNN and other outlets have reporters in Cairo. These groups publicized their attention and they reported on the protest in front of the Cairo embassy fairly straightforwardly. Until the Obama administration went into damage control mode and had to advance a narrative. CNN was particularly flagrant in its abandonment of the truth for a story they knew was a lie.

    We all know the MFM had these articles written according to script ahead of the hearings. As Jeffry Lord at the American Spectator observes they follow the same recipe as the Clinton-era coverups of Billy Jeff’s “bimbo eruptions.” Starting with claiming it’s old news, and then blaming the victim. Of course with operatives such as George Stephanopolous actually in the press it’s a lot easier to get their propaganda out in pure form. Not that it was hard back in the ’90s. And Hillary! was in charge of those cover-ups if you’ll remember.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  26. In fact, the idea the attack might be connected to worldwide outrage over the video was eminently plausible at that point.

    Since they knew it was a terrorist attack immediately, no it was not “eminently plausible at that point”.

    What? Why are the two things mutually exclusive? A more-or-less spontaneous attack on an embassy based on outrage over the video is still a terrorist attack.

    Benghazi was a security failure, and (to paraphrase Hillary) it doesn’t really make much difference whether it was a more-or-less spontaneous terrorist attack or a pre-planned terrorist attack. Either way, security was lax in Libya, and Republicans like Issa should have voted for beefing it up when the bill came through.

    Kman (5576bf)

  27. Fun fact of the day: Cheryl Mills, Hillary!’s chief assistant at DoS who angrily called Hicks after he talked to the congressional delegation without his department-assigned minder, was the deputy WH counsel who helped defend Billy Jeff at his impeachment trial.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  28. The LAT has no problem with Hillary, Rice, and Obama painting Libyans as a caricature of spontaneous hysterical Muslim murderers. That’s OK because Muslims wouldn’t have been to blame. They made it clear that it was damnable American free speech, the scourge of the world, that supposedly made the hapless Libyans do it.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  29. Obama had no problem intervening in Libya to bail out the Europeans seeking regime change, without even a nod to the congressional authorization demanded of his predecessor. I guess aiding Americans under attack while sent my him to do a dangerous mission without proper security is another matter entirely. We mustn’t violate Libyan airspace for that, at least not before an election.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  30. Just the beginning of the hackery.

    If the MSM had any shame, they’d be blushing.

    mojo (8096f2)

  31. If only the Republicans would have voted to find beefed up security this would not have happened.

    JD (271cea)

  32. JD if you’re right then why did Hillary send people to that post, when she could have closed it?

    If there is no funding to repair a bridge, you close the bridge. You don’t send more cars over it. That would be murder.

    No, yours is a disingenuous distraction from the blatant and pervasive incompetence, mismanagement, and politically motivated lying by this out-of-control administration.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  33. Disambiguation(?)
    JD, in comment #29, had his tongue firmly stuck in cheek, and has since gone to an ENT to have it removed.
    That is all, carry on.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  34. You teabagging teatards SLASHED security funding then have the call to politicize the deaths that your austerity measures caused ?!

    JD (271cea)

  35. Is that covered by insurance, MD?

    narciso (3fec35)

  36. “You teabagging teatards SLASHED security funding then have the call to politicize the deaths that your austerity measures caused ?!”

    JD – It is because we are homophobic h8rs.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  37. According to JD, Hillary knowingly sent those people into a death trap.

    JD, you’re a tool. Your non-sequitur ad hominem is so pathetic it’s embarrassing.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  38. JD – Plus everybody knows Islamophobic videos caused both WTC bombings, the USS Cole attack, the 1998 Embassy bombings, plus the more than 20,000 incidents of Islamic terror since September 2001. You can look it up!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  39. I dislike the left, not only because they are wrong on most things but also because they are so irretrievably dishonest

    Colonel Haiku (cd8c27)

  40. Is it dishonesty, or fantasy?

    Which is worse?

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  41. in New Mexico
    Tortuga walks teh desert
    headless without care

    Colonel Haiku (cd8c27)

  42. Dear mr fantasy
    Play them a tune
    Lead ‘em over teh cliff

    Colonel Haiku (cd8c27)

  43. Austerity is not when you are prevented from gambling away the farm. Austerity is when they come to break your fingers.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  44. There was nothing NEW. Nothing. The Democrats made an impassioned defense of our founding principles, as well as the heroic and valiant efforts taken by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Nothing new. Republicans tried to use the deaths of people to score political points against Obama and Clinton, after defunding embassy security. Nothing new. Republicans oversold and undershot in their efforts to impeach the first black President, and to damage Clinton’s electoral chances. Nothing new. Were it not for the responsible and objective media, teatards would be calling for the lynching of blacks and women, while trying to overturn legitimate democratic processes. Nothing new. Racist sexist anti-American fascists. Nothing new.

    JD (271cea)

  45. “Open up your eyes, look around sometime.”
    – Fallen

    mojo (8096f2)

  46. (innocent look)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)#31 – why would JD go to a sentient tree for such a thing ?

    Alasdair (867c8a)

  47. “Republicans tried to use the deaths of people to score political points against Obama and Clinton, after defunding embassy security.”

    JD – Democrats valiantly tried to expand American outposts of freedom in dangerous foreign lands as examples of what barbarous, backward, misogynist, antisemitic, homophobic, Anti-American people could achieve, while children, old people and minority hating Republicans voted to strip such outposts of all semblance of security and safety.

    The shame. The shame.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  48. Just more Chechens chickens coming home to roost.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  49. You don’t need a conspiracy whey you have the hive.

    askeptic (932a68)

  50. Painted Jaguar: You people are making me so confuzzled.

    MD tells me that Lee Harvey Oswald watched a video which caused him to shoot a JFK.

    Along with content from patterico and links from narciso, I always believe what MD tells me.
    (What’s a JFK?)

    Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (3d3f72)

  51. OMG – your violent paranoid racist wingnut teatard conspiracy theories are absolutely insane. Seek help psychopaths.

    JD (271cea)

  52. So was Ambassador Rice wrong, or was the Libyan President wrong about the little film?

    rochf, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy (f3fbb0)

  53. In my entirely unqualified opinion, JD’s position is unrefudiatable! I reccommend that no time be wasted in subscribing to his worldview.
    Hugs and kisses and lions and bears.

    felipe (3243af)

  54. Rochf – the teatards were the ones that are wrong wrong wrong.

    JD (271cea)

  55. Why are you wretched conservatives so obsessed about whether or not it was a terrorist attack versus whether or not some Libyan frat boys were simply out drinking and decided they wanted to murder some Americans ?

    What difference, at this point, does it make ?

    Elephant Stone (65a34b)

  56. Michael McGough at the LA., Times

    And, dramatic as it was, the “jaw dropped” quote doesn’t prove that Rice or Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton concocted the explanation

    And they didn’t. The perpetrators concocted that.

    The same way the second intifada was attributed toi Ariel Sharon going on to the Temple Mount. Not only is this not a logoical cause and effect but what happened required more planning than that amount of time would give you.

    about the video to prevent election-year damage to President Obama’s record in combating terrorism.

    This is a stupid reason. People assign Obama and company and imaginary motive. They thought it was true, and were anxious, for political reasons, to get the word out. This actually blew up in their faces.

    In fact, the idea the attack might be connected to worldwide outrage over the video was eminently plausible at that point.

    No, it was not at all plausible, and shouldn’t have been. But besides that, President Obama (and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) should have had inside information (from Hicks among others) that there was no protest at Benghazi, regardless of what went on in Cairo.

    Biut instead of relying on the State Department, Obama relied on the CIA, or the National Intelligence Director, to tell him what had happened and the analysis was being twisted to make the whole event look spontaneous, and not on White House orders.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  57. 14. Comment by Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 5/9/2013 @ 9:12 am

    Conspiracy theories rely on the small chance that a conspiracy could maybe possibly have existed and still be kept secret.

    No, conspiracies can contoinue to go on even though they’re not all that secret. Like starting the Waco fire.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  58. If there are no facts, there is a tape from Gamaa Islamiya, a drone flashing pictures of people with mortars, a video feed from the consulate feeding back to to DS headquarters, where is the dispute

    narciso (3fec35)

  59. And they didn’t. The perpetrators concocted that.

    Hogwash.

    This is a stupid reason. People assign Obama and company and imaginary motive. They thought it was true, and were anxious, for political reasons, to get the word out.

    More hogwash. They did not think it was true. As they were the ones that made it up in the first place.

    And you forgot SOOPERSEKRIT intelligence.

    JD (b63a52)

  60. It’s not a secret that the Waco raid was planned by friend of Bill Jay William Buford, and that he was instrumental in writing the search warrant.

    It’s not a secret, but nobody knows it.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  61. The Sekret stuff that was on the Facebook pages of Ansar Al Sharia, and other obscure elements.

    narciso (3fec35)

  62. “Obama relied on the CIA”

    Interesting, because they told him it was a terrorist attack.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  63. Just one question for LIBTARDS. Why was Obama still lying on SEPTEMBER 25th, 2 full weeks later, when he lied to the U.N.GENERAL ASSEMBLY??

    Pretty simple.

    Gus (694db4)

  64. Daley, isn’t it interesting that the EXCUSE Obama/Rodham/Carney and Susan Rice made, protected Obama.
    Everyone in the country knew the truth by the following Sunday. Susan Rice volunteered to lie.
    Obama was still lying 2 weeks later.

    Even our LIBTARD friends knew the truth by then.
    Why then would the Obama Posse continue to lie?

    THAT’S WHAT THEY DO.

    Gus (694db4)

  65. No one seems to get this one point. Obama/Rodham/Rice didn’t lie to keep the AL QUAEDA is DEAD meme alive. They didn’t send in Spec Ops or any form of assistance, because THAT WOULD BE A HUGE HUGE INCIDENT. Our troops of any kind, BOOTS ON THE GROUND or even AIR STRIKES would have made Obama look like a WAR MONGER and it would have been inconvenient for his campaign. Obama et al, thought Benghazi wasn’t WORTH saving VS. his campaigns needs.

    Gus (694db4)

  66. “Why did you blame the attack on the video, Susan?”

    “I don’t know”, said Susan Rice…

    Liyah!

    Colonel Haiku (74e958)

  67. “Everyone in the country knew the truth by the following Sunday. Susan Rice volunteered to lie.”

    Gus – Rice was just protecting lies both Hillary and Obama had told multiple times by Sunday. She had to keep the narrative going that was already in play. Hillary was just too smart to get trapped into repeating it on five Sunday news shows. Rice wasn’t.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  68. Gus – What people keep misunderstanding is that Rice did not create a new narrative on those Sunday shows, it had already been created by Hillary and Obama during the week. She was just reinforcing it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  69. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/9/2013 @ 5:40 pm

    I don’t believe Hillary is that smart.

    askeptic (932a68)

  70. You are correct on both posts Daley. 99% of Americans, and more than 90% of posters here, have no idea who and what Susan Rice is. She wasn’t some dumb broad given a few pages of notes and told to make the Admin case. She is a fellow travellor of the Marxist Opie. And she is young and very very very rich. In short, she is a LIBTARD/MARXIST user, mover and shaker. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing. Lastly, AMB to the U.N. works for the President directly. She does not work for STATE nor RODHAM. She was giving Rodham the cover that Rodham demanded. Hillary Rodham is NOT going to take a fall for Obama……………………..EVER.

    Gus (694db4)

  71. 65. Rice also thought she was going to be Secretary of State soon. I do still waver on whether she walked the plank of lies knowingly as a loyal sailor, believing it would put her in good stead with the WH and thereby secure her nomination–or whether she herself was lied to and was specifically put in that position because everyone in the State Department, CIA and WH already knew the truth and were too smart cautious protective of their careers to go public with their own altered and scrubbed talking points about the video and Benghazi but with no mention of AlQueda.

    elissa (621acb)

  72. 60. “Obama relied on the CIA”

    Interesting, because they told him it was a terrorist attack.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/9/2013 @ 5:06 pm

    What Obama and his minions relied on the CIA for was to create a fog that didn’t exist.

    It was perfectly clear to everyone in country there was no protest and the video was a “non-event.” It was perfectly clear, no matter how much Jay Carney wants to jabber about Ansar al Sharia’s supposedly conflicting claims on its twitter feed, that eye witnesses placed them at the attack at approximately sundown. And it was perfectly clear from DoS’s own timeline that their own diplomatic security agents and local guards say everything was all quiet until the attack commenced.

    It’s also clear Hillary! knew the only conclusion that could be drawn even if she wasn’t aware of all the underlying facts before the attack was even over. There was no protest. And the Undersecretary for Near East Affairs, Beth Jones, made it clear in her cable on the 12th of September to the Libyan government that Ansar al Sharia was responsible for the attack (no wonder Magarief was steamed when Rice insulted him when he was agreeing with what had previously been the DoS’s own conclusion on the attack).

    So they ignored the operational information that State had gathered and the people who knew the truth when coming up with those talking points. Which I think makes it obvious they didn’t believe what they were saying was true. They already knew it wasn’t so they knew what sources to avoid. Instead they turned to the intel community to get information that had already been ruled out to create an appearance of uncertainty.

    There was no fog. There was just smoke they were blowing.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  73. Daley, WHO gave Rice permission to go on the 5 major Sunday news shows?? Obama and Val Jarrett. PERIOD.

    Gus (694db4)

  74. Yes, the surprise is that they would continue with the cover story, on Letterman, on the View, then again we see the same pattern with the T-bros, don’t we, ‘knock off jihadis’ who seem to be on good terms, with every low to midlevel figures in the Caucasus.

    narciso (3fec35)

  75. Very good call Elissa. Rice had a carrot dangled in front of her greedy face. She isn’t stupid. She is as smart as Obama, and was salivating at the notion of being SEC STATE.

    Gus (694db4)

  76. narciso, surprising as it may seem to intelligent chaps like you. It worked. They lied, they LIED and they LLLLLLLLLLLLLIEDDDDDDDD. It worked. And even as the truth comes out, and OBVIOUS dishonesty is standing in front of LIBTARDS faces. They still drink the Kool Aid.

    Gus (694db4)

  77. 71. Daley, WHO gave Rice permission to go on the 5 major Sunday news shows?? Obama and Val Jarrett. PERIOD.

    Comment by Gus (694db4) — 5/9/2013 @ 5:59 pm

    You gotta love Sloe Joe Biden in this regard.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/298429-biden-praises-susan-rice-says-she-speaks-for-the-president

    Vice President Biden on Tuesday praised U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, saying that there should be no doubt she speaks for the president.

    “When she speaks … no one wonders whether or not she is speaking for the president,” Biden said at a dinner for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, where Rice was honored, according to reports.

    Thanks for the assist, Sheriff Joe. But what he said is by definition true. How many times after Stevens was killed did Obama call him his personal representative? Ambassadors don’t get to have their own agenda. When they speak they speak for President or they don’t speak very long as an ambassador.

    And Rice was Obama’s personal representative to the UN.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  78. 3 DAYS AFTER BENGHAZI.

    Rodham spoke in front of the 4 caskets of Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty.
    We all knew the truth by then. The fXING SEC’STATE CERTAINLY DID.
    Rodham said:
    “”“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with.”

    And libs still back her.

    Gus (694db4)

  79. Slow Joe Bidet… always pulling something out of his rear end.

    Colonel Haiku (74e958)

  80. Narciso. Not only was the HAG lying, but she was still trying to SELL the VIDEO lie. It’s obvious.
    Any Police Officer with more than a year on the job, would recognize such a ridiculously obvious misdirect and dodge. It was the OBAMA ADMIN plan.
    Just like MILLIONAIRES and BILLIONAIRES, and BALANCED APPROACH. The BIG LIE was discussed and carried out.

    Gus (694db4)

  81. Haiku, Joke Biden was at Andrews on Sept.14 too.
    He went to the family of Tyrone Woods, former Navy Seal and (as the media still reports) Contractor…..I knew he was C.I.A. on Sept 12 at 10am central. Biden went to the family of Woods at Andrews and said. “Has your son always had balls the size of cue balls??”

    Fxing disgusting.

    Gus (694db4)

  82. A friend of mine said this about Benghazi: “Embassies get overrun and people die. It happens.”

    I made the mistake of replying: “How do you feel about burglaries in hotels in the early 1970s? That happens, too. Why wasn’t that ignored.” I was immediately “defriended.”

    I’m guessing your friend is a liberal.

    I sometimes wonder if the most negative assumptions that can be made about left-leaning biases — and the people who embrace them — are unfair or excessive. I do wonder if studies that reveal liberals can very easily be just the opposite of what they fancy about themselves or what they believe like-minded liberals are all about, is a case of laying it on too thick.

    But the “what difference does it make?!” and “people die” reaction of liberals like Hillary and others truly says a lot about what, in fact, makes them tick.

    Even in this era of the left being more bothered by Israel than Islamism, and disdaining Christian conservatives far more than Sharia-law-loving Middle Easterners, I admit to still originally thinking they could retort with, “no, we’re not anti-Jewish! We’re anti-Israel!!,” and be taken at face value. But now, after seeing the following quite recently, I’m going to be far more cynical than ever before about what truly animates them.

    latimes.com, April 7, 2013: In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions “should be definitely limited” so as to “eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.”

    There is evidence of other troubling private remarks by FDR too, including dismissing pleas for Jewish refugees as “Jewish wailing” and “sob stuff”; expressing (to a senator) his pride that “there is no Jewish blood in our veins”; and characterizing a tax maneuver by a Jewish newspaper publisher as “a dirty Jewish trick.” But the most common theme in Roosevelt’s private statements about Jews has to do with his perception that they were “overcrowding” many professions and exercising undue influence.

    This attitude dovetails with what is known about FDR’s views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular. In a series of articles for the Macon (Ga.) Daily Telegraph and for Asia magazine in the 1920s, he warned against granting citizenship to “non-assimilable immigrants” and opposed Japanese immigration on the grounds that “mingling Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results.” He recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had “blood of the right sort.”

    ^ Re-cap: Among the pantheon of the Democrat Party (and liberalism) are Woodrow Wilson, a self-described progressive who supported Jim-Crow laws, Harry Truman (who wanted publicly funded healthcare) who wrote and said shockingly crude racist/bigoted things that would have made even a Klu Klux Klanner blush, Bill Clinton spouting off the “N” word towards black people he disliked, and now a liberal US president — and truly one of the biggest icons of the left — during the Great Depression, who some on the left thought Obama should pattern himself after.

    Bleech to them all.

    Mark (9ba6f2)

  83. In the hot tub at the health club, a 40 or so year old relatively intelligent guy, told me that Hillary Clinton had fallen on the sword for Benghazi, and that it had cost her the Sec/State job.
    Unless you TRY to educate yourself on the facts and the truth, you’ll get the PABLUM and KOOL AID, that the MFM serves.

    Gus (694db4)

  84. Too much hot water, might cause the brain to burn out, Gus,

    narciso (3fec35)

  85. a heartbeat away from the presiduncy, Gus.

    Colonel Haiku (74e958)

  86. narciso. I’m new and improved. The relaxation slows down the caps lock craving!

    Gus (694db4)

  87. Haiku, you are aware that Obama and his gang, picked Biden…..because… he is an idiot? Right? I mean, Biden is a lib, and a lifer, but he is for the most part, just enjoying the ride.
    Biden is the definition of useful idiot. And I’m serious.

    Gus (694db4)

  88. I think he’s more of a useless idiot, Gus.

    Colonel Haiku (74e958)

  89. Well, on the bright side at least our state run media have not started referring to citizens as “comrade” in print yet.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10045745/North-Korean-traffic-cop-may-have-saved-Kim-Jong-uns-life.html

    elissa (621acb)

  90. No Haiku, he has been USEFUL to them.

    Gus (694db4)

  91. Here’s a list of 8 hacks masquerading as journalists who helped bury the Benghazi story early and are still burying the truth about it now. See who all you might like to add to the list.

    http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/05/08/8-journalists-who-downplayed-the-benghazi-scandal/

    elissa (621acb)

  92. Good work Elissa. Here is a list of LIBTARDS still trying to divert and dodge responsibility for the LYING CONSPIRACY.
    OBAMA,
    RODHAM,
    KERRY
    CARNEY,
    SUSAN RICE,
    And all Democrats in Congress and the Senate, and specifically, Cummings, and Norton in congress.

    Gus (694db4)

  93. 86. I think he’s more of a useless idiot, Gus.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (74e958) — 5/9/2013 @ 6:59 pm

    Biden just can’t help it. He’s like a three year old. A lot of them he makes no sense at all but every once in a while he’ll blurt out something absolutely true. Like when he reminds us Rice was speaking for the President when she went on a tour of five Sunday talk shows and repeated the same demonstrable lie on each of them.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  94. Embassy attacks under Obama 2,
    under George W Bush 11

    Where was the outrage then?

    House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012….Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton WARNED that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

    CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien asked the Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) if he had “voted to cut the funding for embassy security.”

    “Absolutely,” Chaffetz said. “Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

    Is this really concern over lives lost or ankle biting at the Obama admin, or a desperate attempt to bring down Hillary who could be our next president if she wants it?

    Dad (c02b39)

  95. “What Obama and his minions relied on the CIA for was to create a fog that didn’t exist.”

    Steve57 – Plus that on the morning of September 15 in the White House, the Deputy Director of the CIA rewrote the talking points used by Rice on national television the next day to sanitize them of references to terrorism and Al Qaeda at the insistence of the White House and the State Department according to the timeline put together by Stephen Hayes. Someone had to do it before they were used.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  96. “Embassy attacks under Obama 2,
    under George W Bush 11″

    Dad – Complete BS. We had more attacks than two just last year. What is your source?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  97. Dad and Hill sittin’ in a tree
    K-i-s-s-i-n-g.

    elissa (621acb)

  98. “Is this really concern over lives lost or ankle biting at the Obama admin, or a desperate attempt to bring down Hillary”

    Dad – How about a search for the truth? Don’t you care about why four American lives were lost and what was or wasn’t done to help them? You would have if Bush were President.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  99. Dad. Get yourself fixed. No more kids Dad!! Ok?

    Gus (694db4)

  100. Look these up…

    1/22/02 – US Consulate Kolkata – 5 killed

    6/14/02 – US Consulate at Karachi – 12 killed

    2/28/03 – US Embassy at Islamabad – 2 killed

    6/30/04 – US Embassy at Tashkent – 2 killed

    12/6/04 – US compound in Saudi Arabia, 9 killed

    3/2/ 06 – US Consulate at Karachi – 2 killed

    9/12/06 – US Embassy in Syria – 4 killed

    3/18/08 – US Embassy in Yemen – 2 killed

    7/9/08 – US Consulate at Istanbul – 6 killed

    9/17/08 – 3/18/08 – US Embassy in Yemen – 16 killed

    TOTAL DEATHS: 60

    OUTRAGED REPUBLICANS: 0

    Dad (c02b39)

  101. Go back to you fantasy Faux News world … you’ll be more comfortable there than in reality

    Dad (c02b39)

  102. Obama lied on SEPTEMBER 25, 2012.
    At the U.N.General Assembly.

    Tell me why DAD?

    Gus (694db4)

  103. DAD. Why did Obama lie to the U.N.General Assembly on September 25th, 2012???

    Please Dad, I’d love to know!!!

    Gus (694db4)

  104. JD – Plus everybody knows Islamophobic videos caused both WTC bombings, the USS Cole attack, the 1998 Embassy bombings, plus the more than 20,000 incidents of Islamic terror since September 2001. You can look it up!

    Why stop there? Libyans and Algerians enslaved American sailors in the 1790s and 1800s, because they knew Islamophobic videos would be made in America. After all, they had a prophet, didn’t they?

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  105. daley–the thing that bothers me most about the horrible events on 9/11 in Benghazi is not that four good Americans were needlessly lost serving our country. It is that two of them bravely and desperately fought on alone even as they eventually came to fully know beyond all doubt that they had been abandoned by our government and left to die. They finally succumbed hours after the attack started. That truth is so terrible that I sometimes wake up at night thinking about it.

    But does that betrayal bother Dad and his ilk? Apparently not. It’s all just political gamesmanship to them. It’s sickening.

    elissa (621acb)

  106. Well since keeping a presidential scorecard on terrorist attacks is stupid because the departments of the federal government have literally billions of dollars that they can allocate for whatever they wish.

    The State Department is perfectly able to allocate resources based on need. If that means the Ambassador of France can eat foie gras, while the Benghazi consul facility is unprotected, then that’s a decision the department makes. So, your argument about a Congressional decision on the overall State Department budget is patently stupid.

    The attack on Benghazi occurred on Sept. 11 in a part of the world is not exactly friendly. Yet, apparently, no one in the U.S. Government thought that they may move resources closer to North Africa in case something may happen? Especially when they knew that the wonderful “Arab Spring” may be co-opted?

    So Dad, “Is this really concern over lives lost or ankle biting at the Obama admin, or a desperate attempt to bring down Hillary who could be our next president if she wants it?”

    I guess you vote for gross incompetence which is actually worse than a misguided attempt at a cover-up to spare a political operative.

    I tell you what, why don’t you go tell the families of the four lost that the most important thing is Hillary’s election to the Presidency.

    Fool.

    Ag80 (b50fe5)

  107. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012….

    Yet the State Dept has already stated, in public and on the record, that the security decisions made, or not made, in re Benghazi were not influenced by budgetary concerns. So, that is a lie, and you are a liar, “dad”

    JD (b63a52)

  108. Where was the outrage then?

    Could you please point out to us, “dad”, where in your list of Buuuuuuuush attacks a situation where the embassy begged for additional security and was denied, where stand down orders were given twice to prevent assistance, where the President went on national TV and to the UN and told. Bald faced lie about this being a result of a YouTube video, all in the midst of a presidential campaign where he was routinely spiking the football and bragging about decimating AQ? Kthxby

    JD (b63a52)

  109. I don’t know why I wasted my time.

    Yes, of course, Bush.

    Ag80 (b50fe5)

  110. In my attempts at parody today, I could not top “dad”. He hit every single point I predicted.

    JD (b63a52)

  111. “But does that betrayal bother Dad and his ilk? Apparently not.”

    elissa – Well, they knew after the fact ahead of time exactly when the fighting would stop in Benghazi and our people could be evacuated so that it was not worth even lifting a finger to send them any help at all, so publicly saying they did all they could to help our people even though they did nothing at the time is not really a lie lie.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  112. so publicly saying they did all they could to help our people even though they did nothing at the time is not really a lie lie.

    They did less than nothing. They gave 2 orders to stand down.

    JD (b63a52)

  113. Ted left a woman to die alone in a submerged car. A combination of personal embarrassment and political considerations “prevented” him from attempting a rescue or from making an emergency call for help which might have saved her life or at least given her family some comfort. A series of bad choices that night cost Mary Jo her life and cost Ted his dream of the presidency. National Democrats and even the media understood that, then.

    At the very least Hillary Clinton’s role in the Benghazi deaths, and her incompetence, poor judgement, lies and the attempted cover-up should forever knock her off the stage for any consideration for the presidency. In a sane country it would.

    elissa (621acb)

  114. Dad is back with his weak propaganda nonsense.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1397397/Karachi-car-bomb-kills-11-outside-US-consulate.html

    Karachi car bomb kills 11 outside US consulate

    By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor

    12:01AM BST 15 Jun 2002

    America closed all its diplomatic offices in Pakistan yesterday after a suicide car bomb exploded outside its consulate in Karachi, killing 11 people.

    The blast, the third in Karachi this year, killed the suspected bomber and Pakistani passers-by.

    This is typical of Dad’s misinformation, and frankly the Obama administration’s. The embassy wasn’t overrun and there were no murders on US soil.

    But it’s Bush’s fault because he didn’t stop a bombing inside Pakistan near a US diplomatic facility that was entirely under the jurisdiction of the host nation.

    Every one of the attacks Dad lists contains some sort of lie. The attack in January of 2002 in Calcutta? That attack was not on the Consulate. It was on a US cultural center near the consulate. It was not part of the consulate.

    So again sovereign US territory had been secured, and there were no US citizens murdered.

    The attack on the US compound in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia in 2004. The gunmen never breached the consulate’s defenses. It was never overrun like Obama’s mission in Benghazi. And the only reason s***birds like Dad can come up with a total of 60 killed is because they’re including the attackers in the body count. Of the 9 killed in the attack on the US consulate in Jiddah 4 were terrorists. In the attack in Yemen 6 of the sixteen killed were terrorists (and again they failed to breach the perimeter and no US citizens were murdered).

    Dad, you really shouldn’t ask people to check on on your BS. Because one thing DoS got right in their background briefing on Libya is that the attack on the US mission in Benghazi was unprecedented.

    …it would be very, very hard to find a precedent for an attack like that in recent diplomatic history.

    In US diplomatic history you’d have to go back to the Carter administration to find an assault comparable in magnitude to the Benghazi assault and back to 1973 to find the only other two ambassadors besides Stevens to die violent deaths at the hands of terrorists.

    Only a lying sack of s*** would try to compare the incidents during the Bush administration that took place outside the perimeter of US facilities abroad to Benghazi where the facility was sacked.

    And only an a**maggot would include the dead terrorists in the body count to plus up the numbers to make Bush look worse than Obama.

    When in fact Bush understood that US facilities were targets and he made sure they were defended. Obama didn’t give s **** and left people undefended, unsupported, in the end left them to get killed.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  115. Ouch, that is gonna leave a mark.

    JD (b63a52)

  116. 106. Where was the outrage then?

    Could you please point out to us, “dad”, where in your list of Buuuuuuuush attacks a situation where the embassy begged for additional security and was denied, where stand down orders were given twice to prevent assistance, where the President went on national TV and to the UN and told. Bald faced lie about this being a result of a YouTube video, all in the midst of a presidential campaign where he was routinely spiking the football and bragging about decimating AQ? Kthxby

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 5/9/2013 @ 8:41 pm

    You forgot to add, when did Bush buy advertising time on Pakistani TV or any other country’s TV networks to apologize for the attack on the 1st Amendment, inflaming the situation more just to perpetuate the cover-lie, then have a film-maker arrested and jailed?

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  117. *apologize for the attack and place the blame on the 1st Amendment*

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  118. Actually, it will have no effect on “dad”

    JD (b63a52)

  119. Dad is repeating the meme of the day at a number of liberal websites, but these websites ignore the following distinctions:

    1. It was Obama, not Bush, who tried to blame the Benghazi attack on a video-maker instead of acknowledging it was an act of terrorists.

    2. The Bush Administration immediately recognized embassy attacks were the work of terrorists, and in many cases the Democrats responded by blaming the attacks on the War in Iraq, Gitmo, and other Bush policies.

    3. It was Obama and members of his Administration who refused to let the diplomats present in Benghazi testify before Congress.

    4. How does anything Bush did as President make it okay for the Obama administration to obfuscate, lie or cover up its response to the Benghazi attack?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  120. Steve57–I highly doubt that “dad” stuck around to read your responses @112 and 114, but I’m glad that you wrote them anyhow.

    elissa (621acb)

  121. DRJ–it would be very interesting to know who the originator/author of this meme of the day appearing simultaneously at those liberal websites is.

    elissa (621acb)

  122. Some of “dad’s” comment was lifted directly from a Dana Milbank column in Oct ’12, the rest is an amalgamation of dailykos motherjones and HuffPo nonsense.

    JD (b63a52)

  123. There’s obviously a new version of JournoList, elissa. They’ve just gone further underground.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  124. Steve57,

    Like elissa, I’m also glad you wrote comments 112 and 114.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  125. elissa,

    It could also be the Clinton supporters in the media who are pushing these memes. This story is shaping up to be bad for Obama but terrible for Hillary, and I wonder if it is her supporters who are doing most of the story-telling here.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  126. From mediaite

    “Were you here on October 10 when the person who had those requests for additional security said money was not a factor – [Deputy Assistant Secretary of State] Charlene Lamb?” asked Issa.

    “I can’t remember if I was…” Clay said before being cut off.

    Issa turned to Nordstrom who was also on that panel. “She said that resources was not an issue,” he said. He added that the ARB report confirmed resources were not an issue.

    JD (b63a52)

  127. DRJ – agreed it makes HRC look bad, especially since she knew by 2AM the nature of the attack. We do have to give her credit for being on that call. Obama had gone to bed to rest up for his glitzy Vegas fundraiser long before that.

    JD (b63a52)

  128. It will be interesting to see if Obama and Hillary stick together as this story unfolds, or if one of them (secretly) throws the other to the wolves.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  129. A couple of headlines pertaining to “Dad’s” horse**** list:

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-12-embassy-syria_x.htm

    Attack on U.S. Embassy fails in Syria
    Updated 9/13/2006 7:59 AM ET

    DAMASCUS, Syria — Attackers tried to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Damascus on Tuesday but were thwarted by Syrian guards in a fierce gunbattle.

    Three of the four attackers and a Syrian guard were killed. No Americans were hurt.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0603/p07s01-wosc.html

    The US Embassy in Pakistan: fortress against terror threats

    Protective measures include daily car searches and ramparts reinforced with steel.

    By Gretchen Peters, Special to The Christian Science Monitor / June 3, 2003

    …The government compound looks more like a country club. Lush gardens surround an Olympic-sized swimming pool, tennis courts, a restaurant, and a softball field. Then a siren rings, and embassy staff pour out of the building. “Secure all classified materials. Close all windows,” blares the voice of a Marine guard over the loudspeaker. “At this time you are advised to evacuate.”

    Staff pile into armored vans, guided by agents from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the State Department agency that oversees America’s embassies and diplomats. “Squeeze in! Squeeze in!” shouts one agent.

    The cars prepare to drive off, when another bell sounds. The drill is over. Regional Security Officer Michael Evanoff checks his watch: It took less than six minutes to empty the compound.

    Maybe if the news on Obama’s watch was about failed attacks and fortified compounds with stringent security procedures there wouldn’t be the outrage.

    Oh, and of the 4 killed per “Dad’s” list in Damascus, 3 were gunmen.

    And I’ve accounted for 46 of the deaths on that little propaganda effort of his. Of those 46, 14 were terrorists involved in the attacks.

    What a scum-sucker “Dad” is.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  130. DRJ & elissa, I appreciate that. But I really couldn’t overlook that list. Because when you get down to it it’s a list of unsuccessful attempts to storm US diplomatic facilities in unsuccessful efforts to kill Americans.

    Far to0 many bystanders got killed outside US embassies and consulates, but that’s the fault of the terrorists detonating suicide bombs on the streets of host nations where the US has no authority.

    And many host nation security personnel got killed defending US missions. But the responsibility for providing security off of the diplomatic mission grounds, US territory, is per binding international convention the responsibility of the host nation. The Bush administration made sure they fulfilled their responsibilities.

    The Obama administration didn’t do that in Libya. They deliberately compromised security for political purposes; their “light footprint” and the “normalization” preferences trumped reality.

    “Dad” wants to know where the outrage was back when terrorists were trying and failing to attack US diplomatic facilities under Bush? When only under Obama have terrorists been able to do something they haven’t done in over 30 years, assault and take over a US diplomatic mission? And accomplish something they haven’t been able to do in 40 years, murder a US ambassador?

    Neither of these things ever happened at the same time. So our historic President has achieved a new historic first.

    Nothing remotely like this ever happened under Bush, but then he didn’t have cabinet secretaries that never read their emails and approach their jobs with a “what does it matter, at this point” attitude.

    Only a dishonest lowlife would list the terrorists who were killed in these unsuccessful assaults to falsify evidence that the Bush administration was as lax about security as Obama would attempt to equate these events to Obama’s Libya debacle. In other words someone who probably has something of a future as an alderman in Chicago.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  131. Seriously! What else do all of you expect from Dad? He’s a koolaid drinker from wayyyyyyy back!

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  132. This is why they say, Steve, ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’ it makes one incapable of ‘nuance’ or some such thing,

    narciso (3fec35)

  133. 125. DRJ – agreed it makes HRC look bad, especially since she knew by 2AM the nature of the attack. We do have to give her credit for being on that call. Obama had gone to bed to rest up for his glitzy Vegas fundraiser long before that.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 5/9/2013 @ 9:48 pm

    Some credit for being on that call, perhaps, but not a great deal as there’s as six hour time difference between Tripoli and DC. Hicks said at the start that all times in his testimony would be in Libyan time, so Hillary! managed to avoid nodding off until 8:00pm for that phone call.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  134. Steve 112 & 114: Thank you for clarifying the situation re: “Dad”. Between Cab, Perry, and now “Dad”, we are immersed in the kind of propaganda that has supported the current administration. It is heartening to know that truth will destroy them. What a shame that your talents must be used to channel the crap that these buffoons spew into fact-powered oblivion. But what a blessing for all of us that someone is willing to do the grunt work to expose them. This should be a lesson to us all. And thank you Patterico for providing the forum so that this can happen.

    Semper paratus.

    PS: We need to make note of Dad’s hash (c02b39) least he attempts to make another appearance using a different alias. At the very least he should be required to buy a new modem for each post that he inflicts on the rest of us.

    bobathome (c0c2b5)

  135. I thought I should mention the time difference because approximately 2 hours after talking to Hicks in Tripoli Hillary! began prepping the meme that the Obama administration would rather blame a demonstration over a video then resort to what they then knew was the truth.

    This written statement went out on 9/11/2012 during the 10 o’clock hour eastern time:

    http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197628.htm

    I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.

    This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.

    Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

    In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.

    Hillary! and DoS refuse to say who those “some” who told her that crap about the video are.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  136. Thanks for the kind words, bobathome. It wasn’t too hard to refute the silly list “Dad” put together. I have to put that pseudonym he uses in scare quotes because he can’t have any kids considering he was obviously born yesterday. Only someone who’s brain dead could possibly fall for his propaganda. For instance @ 92 he says:

    House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012….Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton WARNED that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

    CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien asked the Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) if he had “voted to cut the funding for embassy security.”

    “Absolutely,” Chaffetz said. “Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

    This ignores the fact that there were several buckets of money that state could have dipped into for embassy security. Such as the Overseas Contingency Operations budget that combined funding for DoD and DoS operations in a few select places like Iraq and Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, Hicks testified that Stephens was in Benghazi when he was killed because Hillary! wanted to use money freed up from Iraq (where they could use OCO money) to convert the Benghazi from a temporary facility to a permanent consulate. And he needed to go on a fact finding mission before the end of the fiscal year.

    Ignoring the fact that we already know the security at both Tripoli and Benghazi was inadequate. And let’s ignore the fact that we know that not all embassy security funding comes from the Departments budget. And let’s also ignore the fact that we already have testimony that DoD could have met State’s security needs in Libya out of the Defense budget.

    Let’s say although we know it’s a lie that budget constraints were driving reductions in security in Benghazi. A facility that was already substandard, and only the Secretary of State could have waived the requirements and stationed people there.

    What kind of complete idiot decides to make the temporary facility in Benghazi a permanent consulate if that’s the case. The answer is Hillary! And no Republican vote forced her to make that insane move. She did it all on her own.

    I can’t wait until she’s subpoenaed so she can try to dance her way out of that one.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  137. Is this really concern over lives lost or ankle biting at the Obama admin, or a desperate attempt to bring down Hillary who could be our next president if she wants it?
    Comment by Dad (c02b39) — 5/9/2013 @ 8:04 pm

    – Keep dreaming.

    Icy (2d4927)

  138. Thank you, Steve57.

    mg (31009b)

  139. Beckel tried that carp yesterday, they slapped him down with an oversize mackerel.

    narciso (3fec35)

  140. ‘Deja vu, all over again’

    http://diplopundit.net/tag/eric-boswell/

    narciso (3fec35)

  141. So, out of that leftist meme of embassy attacks and deaths, how many were actual attacks on the embassy, and how many were actual deaths of American personnel?

    JD (b63a52)

  142. http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=19149119

    So Carnie is lying to us. They weren’t just minor stylistic changes.

    JD (b63a52)

  143. I guess the cut in the budget was also the reason the WH lied and covered up a terrorist event. Huh. Who knew.

    If they really believed that, on 9/12 they would have blamed Republicans for the deaths in Benghazi and fingered poster boy Paul Ryan.

    But yeah, it is OK to lie at will for any reason so long as you claim “it does not matter really.” Boy, can’t wait for Republicans to trot that one out in 2018.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  144. Comment by Dad (c02b39) — 5/9/2013 @ 8:18 pm

    Why should people have been outraged about those (other than outrage at the attackers, which I assume isn’t what you mean).

    Gerald A (fd4d6e)

  145. JD – sorry about missing your parody, I guess I don’t engage in enough dialog here to remember where people stand, and I stupidly didn’t bother to find out before I launched my rant.

    I had a feeling I was missing something, too – we’ve interacted before and I should have known.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  146. Amphipolis – no apology necessary. It seems my pre-parody of “dad” Kmart etal was so good that you could no distinguish it :-)

    JD (271cea)

  147. It is sad when you cannot out-parody their nonsense.

    JD (b63a52)

  148. Notice how as more and more reporting establishes that the CIA did not create the “the video did it” talking point, that Sammy won’t abandon it.

    SPQR (768505)

  149. 142. So, out of that leftist meme of embassy attacks and deaths, how many were actual attacks on the embassy, and how many were actual deaths of American personnel?

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 5/10/2013 @ 5:21 am

    Well, they were all attacks on US diplomatic facilities. But they all failed. For instance in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, the attackers got past the first barricade but were stopped by a second, where they were killed by Saudi security forces (and then included in “Dad’s” body count supposedly numbering the victims of Bush’s negligence).

    The CSM article I linked to in #127 mentions a woman and her daughter associated with the embassy getting killed in Islamabad. But not as a result of the embassy attack in “Dad’s” listed in his Democratic Underground derived propaganda. She was killed at a church service in town in what the CSM described as one of many attacks on the small US community in Islamabad.

    I couldn’t find one instance of a US citizen getting killed in those attacks, because they didn’t succeed.

    It took Hillary! and Obama to give the terrorists the assist.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  150. JD, I should say I can’t find a case of a US citizen getting killed inside a US diplomatic facility in one of those attacks.

    It could turn out that one of the Pakistani passer-bys in a Karachi attack had US citizenship. But then outside the compound the US can’t protect people. Which is why I mentioned the US citizens associated with the embassy killed in a church attack in Pakistan.

    The bottom line is that there have been embassy and consulate attacks under every President since the 1950s. That’s not the measure of success. Was the security adequate to stop these attacks?

    Not under Carter, nor Clinton, and not under Obama.

    But Bush succeeded where they failed.

    Steve57 (9b1cdb)

  151. “Well, they were all attacks on US diplomatic facilities.”

    Steve57 – Seems like members of the religion of peace are more fond of attacking U.S. diplomatic facilities than any other group and that the pattern continued after Obama took office with the actual takeover of facilities in 2012. Are there any conclusions we should draw from that pattern or is it just pure coincidence?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  152. Look, covering something up in politics isn’t the same as covering up scratch on a table – it has to be covering up something FROM someone who WANTS to see it! You see the problem here: nobody in the media WANTS to see any of this, so it is not really being covered up from them!

    You just have to learn the liberal way of thinking, and then everything makes sense.

    Ray Van Dune (9f7b7f)

  153. I’m excited to uncover this website. If you don’t mind I would also share a tip. Fidning a Personal sexy muscles nude man could well be dificult, in the event you live in Sourthern California and you need a Personal sexy muscles love firm, simply click my link.

    sexy bodybuilder (8541ea)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5827 secs.