Patterico's Pontifications

1/15/2014

Part Two of My Dismantling of Robin Abcarian’s Hack Work on Chris Christie, Benghazi, and the IRS

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:30 pm

This is Part Two of my dismantling of the hackwork of Robin Abcarian. Part One, which took apart her implied claim that the IRS didn’t truly target tea party conservatives, is here.

Tonight we’ll take apart Ms. Abcarian’s claims that the Obama administration didn’t do anything wrong with respect to Benghazi:

As for Benghazi, no any amount of reporting can change the fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton did not cause the tragedy that befell four Americans at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, nor that the Obama White House did not lie about what happened.

Poor Lara Logan and CBS’ iconic news program, “60 Minutes” are paying the price for falling into the partisan trap.

Will the events of Benghazi affect the presumed White House aspirations of former Secretary of State Clinton? Probably not. The people hammering away on the Benghazi tragedy were never going to support her anyway. And we see that exhaustive reporting, most recently by David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times, has done nothing to quell her critics, who, like Issa, operate purely out of partisan instincts, not a quest for the truth.

Let’s unpack that. Abcarian says “no any amount of reporting” (whatever that means) can change the fact that Hillary Clinton did not “cause” the Benghazi killings. Depending on how you interpret that, it’s either a fantasic strawman or an unproved assertion. Nobody is saying that Hillary Clinton “caused” the deaths; obviously, the terrorist caused the deaths, and saying anything else is a strawman. But did Hillary Clinton contribute to the dangerous situation, through action or inaction? If that is the issue, I submit that it is far from a “fact” that she cannot be blamed in any way.

We have discussed this before, but let’s review. In this post I discussed a December 2011 memo from a State Department bureaucrat who had pledged “to rapidly implement a series of corrective security measures” at Benghazi. It never happened, and former State Department officials say the responsibility lay with Hillary Clinton, who (given applicable protocol) was likely consulted on such a decision. And if she was not, she should have been.

And just today, we see a bipartisan Senate report blaming the Obama administration for not preventing the attack. Again: bipartisan.

So, Ms. Abcarian, is it a “fact” that Hillary Clinton did not cause the deaths? Only in the silly and meaningless sense that she was not personally one of the killers. Otherwise, the evidence is there to suggest she had a role to play in the weakening of security.

As for the “fact” that “the Obama White House did not lie about what happened” . . .

Was Susan Rice part of the Obama White House? Or is Ms. Abcarian doing some Clintonian parsing to claim otherwise. Because here’s what Susan Rice said to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday:

The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.

This was not a case of misspeaking: Rice said some variant of this on five different shows. On ABC’s This Week, she described it by saying “it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo.” On “Face the Nation” she described it as a “spontaneous protest” and added: “we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” On “Meet the Press” Rice said that “what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.” And on CNN’s “State of the Union” Rice described the attack as “that horrific incident where some mob was hijacked ultimately by a handful of extremists.”

As James Rosen reported yesterday, however, newly declassified documents corroborate what widespread reporting had already told us: Obama was told as the attack was happening that it was a terrorist attack — not a “spontaneous protest” as Rice repeatedly described it days later. Rosen says:

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Yet Ms. Abcarian describes it as a “fact” that the Obama White House did not lie about Benghazi. What arrant nonsense. “No any” amount of partisan column-writing can change the facts that show they did.

Abcarian makes a big point in her column that the IRS and Benghazi scandals did indeed generate headlines. OK, but what kind of coverage came under those headlines? Unlike the endless pumping of the Christie lane-closure thing, organizations like Abcarian’s L.A. Times were turning out utterly hackish articles. For example, when Greg Hicks testified about how his career was suddenly ruined the second he questioned Rice’s dishonest talking points, the L.A. Times had a headline, all right — but the headline was “Envoy describes night of Benghazi attack.” The article claimed that the heading “shed little new light on the key questions at issue in the hearing: whether there was anything more the U.S. military could have done to thwart the attack and whether the Obama administration intentionally misled the American people” — while never mentioning the fact that Hicks had been attacked and effectively demoted for questioning the White House’s effort to whitewash the affair through misleading talking points. I detailed all this in this outraged post.

As for Abcarian’s statement: “Will the events of Benghazi affect the presumed White House aspirations of former Secretary of State Clinton? Probably not. The people hammering away on the Benghazi tragedy were never going to support her anyway.” Yeah? Will Christie’s scandal affect his presumed White House aspirations? The people hammering away at it were never going to support him anyway. That’s what an airy and dismissive wave of the hand looks like when it’s coming at you, Ms. Abcarian.

As for that Kirkpatrick article, its reporting has been contradicted by witnesses on the ground. Don’t expect to hear that from Ms. Abcarian.

I’ll leave you with this Twitter exchange from today:

She has not given me an answer and frankly, I doubt I will get one. Surprise me, Ms. Abcarian. Surprise me.

This is what Big Media Arrogance looks like, ladies and gentlemen. That’s it, right there. When they ask for an example in the future, I trust you’ll have this post bookmarked.

174 Comments

  1. Ding.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 1/15/2014 @ 6:38 pm

  2. It would be helpful if you would add a link in Part One to this post. That way I can link to the beginning of your argument without needing to include a second link.

    Comment by aunursa (7014a8) — 1/15/2014 @ 6:44 pm

  3. dong…

    you gotta admire their gall.

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 1/15/2014 @ 6:44 pm

  4. journalism isn’t a reputable profession anymore

    it’s kind of like being an obamacare navigator or one of those ladies what give handjobs for money

    it’s just not what you want for your kids

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:00 pm

  5. Despite the fact that their industry is circling the toilet, they still think they are smarter than you.

    Flushing is always appropriate.

    Comment by Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:00 pm

  6. Try as they might, to writ Hill coronated, Dhims seem to find her uninteresting, unexciting, unsexy and, dare I say, unwanted.

    She droops from every vantage and together the Clintons look like an advert for blood doping, RNA therapy and plastique surgery.

    Yes a live alternative has yet to emerge, but she’d best stay out of the Sun until the convention.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:02 pm

  7. “I pledge to flush only after a deuce and not a single.” – Jason Bateman

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:02 pm

  8. No any answer yet?

    Comment by Dave (in MA) (35a832) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:06 pm

  9. “that horrific incident where some mob was hijacked ultimately by a handful of extremists.”

    And of whom, sixty souls, unprepared to meet their maker, were lost at the hands of two retired SEAL mercenaries, alerted by the RPG explosions, on their arrival from a mile distant.

    Imagine the horror if the compound had been secure.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:20 pm

  10. Well done, Patterico.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:22 pm

  11. Yes, it happened to occur on September 11th, on the anniversary of one of the major dates in the Islamic calendar, the 25th of Shawwal,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:31 pm

  12. 10. “What arrant nonsense.”

    A keeper if ever.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:32 pm

  13. 11. Rather like strolling a dark alley, surfing on one’s smartphone, with wads of money hanging out of one’s pockets.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:37 pm

  14. Does the NYT and LAT not know that reports are coming out on Benghazi, including previously classified material, that contradict their claims? Or do they know, and think that if they ignore the facts and make stuff up that enough people will believe them anyway?

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:42 pm

  15. A Robin Abcarian anthology. The stuff Patterico has posted is moderate for her. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-robin-abcarian-perspective-20130402,0,4893484.storygallery#axzz2qU2kGzso

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:47 pm

  16. we’re in the hands of top men,

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/director-national-intelligence-counterterrorism-map-misspells-israel_774694.html

    Mazzetti, wrote the report, he won a pulitzer for the one on the destruction of the interrogation tapes, suggesting it was a bad thing,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:48 pm

  17. 14. My guess is that they we’re relying on the fact that the sole Department of Defense fax machine set aside to handle FOIA requests has been out-of-service lo these past several months.

    Some fool bureaucrat must have had advance warning Congressman Ryan was on the job.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:49 pm

  18. since they don’t read their own paper, one has to do it for them;

    http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-benghazi-report-20140116,0,642656.story#axzz2qWv8JR4g

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:52 pm

  19. 15. Gag me with a spoon.

    That’s my best Valley dialect.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 7:58 pm

  20. I am so glad I no longer read that rag and don’t see what they write. Otherwise I’d be forced to write 10,000 word takedowns, too.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:02 pm

  21. she looks like one of those indie film characters what gets fired as a reporter and has to move back home to beaver fart north carolina where she learns the lost art of canning after finding some notes in the family bible so there she is canning rutabaga and squirrel for the winter and she has an epiphany to where she understands now that she actually likes girls not boys and she puts on some lesbian music and dances around her kitchen, canning rutabagas and squirrels in perfect proportion, canning with joy and gusto, and just celebrating being herself for the first time in a long time

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:02 pm

  22. If I were a journalist and seriously interested in facts and setting the record straight, I would jump at the chance to do just that when publicly challenged (Twitter). What an incredible opportunity defend one’s reporting and to clarify and affirm assumptions and conclusions.

    It’s perhaps telling that Ms. Albacarian remains silent… Or perhaps she has other things to do. I do hope she responds because we desperately need to know shether the LAT has any credibility left.

    Comment by Dana (a0013d) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:05 pm

  23. Ok, I get the squirrel, but why rutabaga.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:05 pm

  24. [Clinton's] plastique surgery

    If only.

    Comment by Kevin M (536c5d) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:06 pm

  25. it’s a fall vegetable, locally grown

    she no doubt found herself a bushel at the farmer’s market

    where she met elspbeth, who makes soap made of fascinating herbs her coven has collected from as far away as Ohio

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:08 pm

  26. I wonder how they’d do in zone 4.

    http://www.burpee.com/vegetables/rutabaga/rutabaga-burpee-s-purple-top-prod000885.html;jsessionid=90470E2D4798AEC929A392AE966F3F4A.node5?catId=2219&trail=&_requestid=3035733

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:15 pm

  27. I wonder how they’d do in zone 4.

    this is not that kind of movie Mr. gary this is envisioned to be a very artistic, contemplative film

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:21 pm

  28. with like, lots of epiphanies and stuff

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:21 pm

  29. She has not given me an answer and frankly, I doubt I will get one

    Gaads, is she an idiot. She’s such a leftwing loon that her biases ooze out of every pore of her body. If she were a rightwinger being just as absurdly partisan and dishonest, I’d be no less embarrassed for her.

    My snide comments aside, there has to be something intrinsically, innately distorted or corrupt in the brains of people like Abcarian. There’s a saying that liberalism is a mental disorder, although I think it’s just as much a case of arrested development. And in the case of Abcarian, she ain’t no teenager or college-aged kid.

    Moreover, I bet in real life, she’s no more truly humane or compassionate, or tolerant, than anyone else, and perhaps, if anything, is less so than the average person. That’s what makes her ilk even more contemptible and pathetic.

    Comment by Mark (e29967) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:26 pm

  30. Ah, I haven’t the sensitivity for epiphany. I may have to miss out.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:26 pm

  31. well it’s very empowering so it would behoove you to at least make the effor

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:27 pm

  32. *effort* I mean

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:27 pm

  33. If she were a rightwinger being just as absurdly partisan and dishonest, I’d be no less embarrassed for her.

    Thing is, if she were a right-winger being just as absurdly partisan and dishonest, she would probably at least write with a snide wit and a sense of panache. Since she is a lefty, all we get is this angry, dull, earnest-but-dumb hectoring, like Hillary Clinton without the benefit of focus groups and speechwriters.

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:34 pm

  34. 29. I think feets feels her tho, note in the nk link Liz Cheney “Sold out her gay sister”.

    Bet she’s butch and the twitter avatar is under a wig.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:34 pm

  35. The rot is deep and widespread. Abcarian is obviously mentally ill.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (bab0ba) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:44 pm

  36. More evidence from twitter: RA asks why a Frenchwoman should be so upset her bf was having an affair that she’d be hospitalized.

    Profound lack of sympathy for the entrenched.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:46 pm

  37. And more evidence: RA goes on in support of the First Lady stuck in a sham marriage to Mean Girl and her dissertation on sharks in HI.

    She’s a dyke.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 8:51 pm

  38. Well to be fair, Clinton didn’t have many like Gayet, the one from Highlander was a notable exception Elizabeth Gracen,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/15/2014 @ 9:34 pm

  39. NTTIAWWT, to be sure.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 9:35 pm

  40. 38. Oh, that Clinton.

    On closer inspection, the avatar may not be a wig. I detect a bit of a shadow tho. Possible endocrine issue.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 9:48 pm

  41. 20 years ago Harry Nilsson died. They don’t make em like Harry anymore.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/15/2014 @ 9:49 pm

  42. Yes, I meant the Razorback Borgia, what did you think I meant;

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/15/2014 @ 9:50 pm

  43. Another of her twitter links:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/opinion/the-next-frontier-in-fertility-treatment.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

    I tell you a pattern is forming.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 9:53 pm

  44. 42. The Whitewater Piranha, the Little Woman, standing by.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 9:55 pm

  45. The incoherent snark when called on her lies is hilarious.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/15/2014 @ 10:13 pm

  46. 37. I misread the tweet, RA’s admiration was for her cohort finding time to cover the sharks while bustling about trying to cover the clandestine movements of the Mooch.

    She has a number of spats over Streep’s slander of Disney.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 10:14 pm

  47. Mr. Feets – Don’t you need batteries for an epiphany?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/15/2014 @ 10:14 pm

  48. 45. She is definitely a hack, and routinely combative over gender.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/15/2014 @ 10:17 pm

  49. What made me laugh is the title – “Christie conservatives”. Anyone enamored with Chris Christie is unlikely to be an actual conservative.

    Comment by Blacque Jacques Shellacque (bff3f0) — 1/15/2014 @ 10:36 pm

  50. Ah, I haven’t the sensitivity for epiphany. I may have to miss out.

    in this part of the world they call it three kings day. hope that helps.

    Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 1/15/2014 @ 10:39 pm

  51. Isn’t it ironic that Hillary had trouble with the 3 a.m. phone call.

    Comment by AZ Bob (ade845) — 1/15/2014 @ 10:46 pm

  52. offered without comment.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7djuDhK6JHw

    ‘septing I’ll go to my grave thinking Swede Vejtasa didn’t hit that zero by accident.

    Comment by Steve57 (f8d67f) — 1/15/2014 @ 10:54 pm

  53. according to her FB profile, she’s originally from Berzerkley, which would explain everything.

    kind of hard to grow up sane & intelligent when you live at Ground Zero for st00pid.

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 1/15/2014 @ 11:40 pm

  54. Isn’t it ironic that Hillary had trouble with the 3 a.m. phone call.

    you misspelled “predictable”

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 1/15/2014 @ 11:41 pm

  55. One cool cat.

    http://www.alexvraciu.net/

    ALEXANDER VRACIU – HELLCAT ACE

    My Paisan.

    Comment by Steve57 (f8d67f) — 1/16/2014 @ 12:29 am

  56. For your listening pleasure,Italy’s King of Swing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92I9IwyB3A

    Hep Cats 2013, Emanuele Urso, Flying Home

    Comment by Steve57 (f8d67f) — 1/16/2014 @ 12:45 am

  57. Her article should have also noted that the Kulak farmers are expecting a bumper crop this spring – just like Stalin promised.

    Comment by RC (63aa41) — 1/16/2014 @ 4:03 am

  58. well about that;

    http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/01/16/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in-syria-chemical-attack-undercuts-u-s-claims/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/16/2014 @ 5:44 am

  59. What did Jefferson say about newspapers;

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/15/214631/senate-report-on-benghazi-cia.html

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/16/2014 @ 6:19 am

  60. Who says the Times doesn’t have a sense of humor;

    http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/01/16/obama-was-angry-at-the-revelations-privately-excoriating-mr-snowden-as-a-self-important-narcissist/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/16/2014 @ 6:33 am

  61. What they think they know is often untrue;

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/stevens-cabled-washington-cia-says-aq-al-qaeda-training-camps-within

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/16/2014 @ 6:45 am

  62. 58 and following.

    I think I see a trend.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/15/senior-uk-defense-advisor-obama-is-clueless-about-what-he-wants-to-do-in-the-world.html

    He’s not Jewish tho, so its Ok.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/16/2014 @ 7:58 am

  63. Part of the story behind China’s record holdings of US reserves.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-16/who-are-top-holders-us-treasurys

    What do you do with funny money in your possession? The rest of the story has to do with average maturity of those holdings. Last year the world was selling and the Fed buying but I’d think 2012 data is as good as we’ll find at this point.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/16/2014 @ 8:30 am

  64. Here’s a June 2012 paper on 2011 data.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/656631-u-s-debt-maturities-evidence-of-looming-default-in-u-s-bonds

    Obviously China knows that we know the music will stop any moment.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/16/2014 @ 8:43 am

  65. Patricia Abcarian

    Poor Lara Logan and CBS’ iconic news program, “60 Minutes” are paying the price for falling into the partisan trap.

    Patricia Abcarian is right here, or more right than she thinks.

    I do indeed think that Lara Logan fell into a trap, because the witness was lying.

    And it was a trap, because their FBI source was unreachable until after it as broadcast.

    It looks very much like a Clinton-scandal type trap where they would get someone to make a provably false accusation against them.

    Actually I don’t think it is quite exactly a partisan trap – the Democratic Party in the United states couldn’t arrange this. But somebody did. And somebody in the FBI was involved in that lie. At first they couldn’t get to their sources.

    But whoever it was, it wasn’t a Republican.

    I don’t think any Republican was trying to make people trying to investigate Benghazi fall flat on their faces.

    That would have been somebody who wanted to hide the truth.

    What Republicans were saying may have possibly helped lead her astray (she should have known that her source could not have bene at the mission that night) but if so, these Republicans were themselves led astray.

    Of course Patricia Abcarian doesn’t mean it that way. She doesn’t mean to say it was a partisan Democratic trap – because if she does, that’s a very hard hitting accusation against the Administration! Regardless of what actually happened in Benghazi.

    She thinks the trap is of CBS’ own making – that they believed so much what Republicans were saying, they fell for lies.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (ee49e7) — 1/16/2014 @ 9:47 am

  66. But why were these lies told? For money? I think theres more to it than that. He could have had a perfectly good book without it. And somebiody also had to steer the publisher, (now owned by CBS) to that book.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (ee49e7) — 1/16/2014 @ 9:49 am

  67. Abcarian says “no any amount of reporting” (whatever that means) can change the fact that Hillary Clinton did not “cause” the Benghazi killings. Depending on how you interpret that, it’s either a fantasic strawman or an unproved assertion

    I think that would mean that, no matter what extra you might find out or claim, it was not so predictable so that she could be blamed for the deaths.

    That actually is an open question.

    There is, first of all, an open question as to why she refused extra security, which question Robin Abcarian does not raise at all, where how badly this would be regarded would depend upon what her motives were.

    But there is also the question of how predictable does something have to be so that you could say somebody “caused” it? It is not a complete strawman.

    She may be mentioning it though, as a sort of straw man: i.e. the worst can’t be too much.

    As for the “fact” that “the Obama White House did not lie about what happened”

    She doesn’t mean to say that everything was right, but they were mistaken, because they were relying on the CIA.

    Which is actually true. There really was Sooper Sekrit intelligence taht it was caused by a video, and the New York Times heard the same thing.

    Now you could say people in the CIA should have some common sense, and also not disregard other information, but that’s another story.

    Persdonally, really, I think it is impossible really for people to be so stupid – these people in the CIA must have been moles. Saudi moles, probably.

    Obama was told as the attack was happening that it was a terrorist attack — not a “spontaneous protest” as Rice repeatedly described it days later

    That was before the Sooper Sekrit intelligence came in!! From Libyan and some foreign intelligence agences.

    Sooper Sekrit intelligence saying that it wasn’t planned and it was caused by a video.

    Why is this so hard to comprehend???

    It’s perfectly obvious that this is what happened.

    You think Susan Rice would have gone on television with her story if she thought it would come apart right away? And it is not a miracle is fell apart.

    They believed it at the White House, – it is clear from he Benghazi e-mails – and it was such “good news” they had to get it out there.

    That was not what (Prince Bandar?) had intended.

    The disinformation was intended to remain closely held, and then it might have worked, although there’s obviously still a lot of disinformation being accepted, because they are not getting anywhere with finding the culprits, and the Obama Administration is doing a lot of other stupid things with regard to the Middle East.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (ee49e7) — 1/16/2014 @ 10:03 am

  68. “She doesn’t mean to say that everything was right, but they were mistaken, because they were relying on the CIA.”

    Sammy – Why do you keep saying they were relying on the CIA? Hillary blamed it on a video on 9/11 and the White House jumped on board the Hillary excuse train.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/16/2014 @ 10:55 am

  69. the report has too much ‘weasel wording,’ like that,
    there was no reference to the LOC report, but a few to supplementary presentations, to DIA and other agencies, which made it impossible to consider that
    there would not be an attack.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:01 am

  70. Sammy – Did the CIA get its information from Hillary? Who was relying on the CIA and what CIA provided information were they relying on at what point?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:35 am

  71. Sammy is back to his Saudi conspiracy theory, I see.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:36 am

  72. What was your first clue?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/16/british-defense-analyst-blasts-obama-military-and-foreign-policies-as-clueless/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:41 am

  73. Why Susan Rice, because almost as much as Hillary, with the exception of Samantha Power, she pushed for the NATO intervention, which blew back spectacularly,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:47 am

  74. Susan Rice went on TV armed with administration talking points that were approved by the highest levels of the WH and State Department. She was acting as the administration’s official spokesperson, so if the WH knew that it was an attack on the day it occurred (and they certainly did), then the WH lied about it afterwards. This simply cannot be denied.

    What is interesting, however, is watching Obama’s personal response after the attack. In every case, he gave lawyerly responses, going out of his way to give the impression that the attacks were the result of a spontaneous protest, but then using weasel words that could be interpreted to mean (in retrospect) that it might have actually been a terrorist attack.

    Comment by John Scotus (e7a6a6) — 1/16/2014 @ 7:42 pm

  75. That was before the Sooper Sekrit intelligence came in!!

    EPIC

    Comment by JD (5c1832) — 1/16/2014 @ 8:37 pm

  76. JD – EPIC STOOPID

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/16/2014 @ 9:39 pm

  77. “That was before the Sooper Sekrit intelligence came in!!”

    Comment by JD (5c1832) — 1/16/2014 @ 8:37 pm

    EPIC

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/16/2014 @ 9:39 pm

    JD – EPIC STOOPID

    But it is all true.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (c9bf51) — 1/16/2014 @ 10:16 pm

  78. They started out right, or closer to correct, and then they went wrong, getting wronger as the week went on.

    At first, they said it was an attack, and there was nothing about a demonstration, and it was done by a terrorist group.

    CIA Director David Petraeus told the Senate Intelligence Committee that it was terrorism.

    The first draft of the “talking points” written entirely by the CIA, on Friday, September 14, 2012 at 11:15 a.m. sought to backtrack on the connection of the attack to terrorist groups.

    It said:

    Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leaders did not order the attacks but did not deny that some of its members were involved.

    Then there is something about Ansar al-Sharia’s That may seem to come out of nowehere, but the point is a claim of responsibility had been made on Ansar al Sharia’s Facebook page. The initial version of the talking points does not repeat that fact. And of course it wasn’t just press reports that linked it to terrorism.

    The first version of the talking points also says:

    “We believe based based on currently available information

    To understand this correctly, you have to understand that “currently available information” means: as opposed to what we thought before!

    What was the updated information?

    “that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.”

    Where did it come from?

    “We are working w/Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.”

    All the italics here are mine.

    The only place information about a demonstration could have come from was Sooper Sekrit intelligence. It didn’t come from the State Department, it wasn’t made up in Washington, and it certainly wasn’t made up by the U.S. State Department.

    Anything not so secret, Susan Rice would have said in order to excuse herself.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (c9bf51) — 1/16/2014 @ 10:28 pm

  79. What Hillary Clinton did at the time, is choose not to fight other people in the Administration about this – and she didn’t want anyone else in the State Department starting up a fight with the CIA either.

    (except on the issue of warnings. The CIA tried to make it look like they’d predicted this, but they hadn’t. They hadn’t predicted anything on this scale, anything the minimal security couldn’t handle.)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (c9bf51) — 1/16/2014 @ 10:29 pm

  80. Sammy – Where did Hillary get the information she used in her announcement on 9/11?

    Did she make it up? Did she get if from the NY Times reporter who was rooting for talking to the attackers in Benghazi? Where?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/16/2014 @ 10:43 pm

  81. 70. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:35 am

    Sammy – Did the CIA get its information from Hillary?

    No. Absolutely not. But she chose not to fight them on this. Because she doesn’t care about the truth, and this did not concern her because this did not impact on her. The CIA claiming they had issued warnings, did, and she chose to fight them on that.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/16/2014 @ 10:56 pm

  82. On 9.11.2012 she was talking about Cairo. The Cairo Embassy had gotten bad information about a demonstration that might happen because of a video (that was not at all the theme of the demonstration and mild assault on property) and had tweeted about how the U.S. government should not be held responsible for a video.

    Can you link me to her various statements?

    I think during those first few days she chose her words very carefully.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:00 pm

  83. Who was relying on the CIA and what CIA provided information were they relying on at what point?

    People in the White House were relying on the CIA, and the daily briefs the CIA prepared for the president, which, we have been told, were saying more or less the same thing as those talking points.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:07 pm

  84. Some people the White House “knew” that the attack was not premeditated and were anxious to correct the record.

    You can see this in the Benghazi “talking point” e-mails.

    At 8:43 pm on Friday, September 14, 2012 Tommy Vietor [At that time a National Security Council spokesperson] wrote to Jacob J Sullivan [Assistant to the Vice President for Foreign Affairs?] and Benjamin J. Rhodes [deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, a former speechwriter who had coined the term "kinetic military action"] as follows:

    Subject: RE: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for review [HSPCI = House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.]

    There is massive disinformation out there, particularly with Congress.

    They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptioons or briefings. So I think this is a response to not only a tasking from the
    house intel committee but also NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record.

    This message was itself a reply to something Jacob J Sullivan had
    written at 8:40 PM saying he did not understand the nature of this exercise. The reply was that this was needed to correct the disinformation… which was that the attack was planned and not spontaneous!!

    Note that somebody at the National Security Council had told underlings at the White House that they needed to “correct the record” that this was a planned attack, like the earlier briefings they had gotten had said.

    Also at 9:34 on Friday Sept 14, 2012 Benjamin J Rhodes wrote, in part, in a similar vein:

    There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress from people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capacity
    to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened misimpression.

    Now it could be, of course, that some people in he White House, like James Clapper maybe, knew that it was the CIA that was peddling disinformation, but it came to the U.S. government through the CIA.

    It was real, not sometthing invented in the White House. The New York Times heard the same story about ther being a demonstration in Benghazi about the video.

    Nobody can ever get to the bottom of this with the idea that they made up the idea of a spontaneous demonstration morphing into an assault in the White House.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:09 pm

  85. The earlier brefings members of Congress had gotten.

    Romney was all confused because he didn’t understand that the Administration had gone from a more or less correct position to a wrong one.

    NOw maybe Obama was kind of careful in his words on sept 12, but they had more or less told members of Congress it was terrorism.

    Then, as I said, Sooper Sekrit Intelligence came in saying the contrary.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:12 pm

  86. A guy with the experience offers a valid opinion.

    http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/302491-Macchi-C-200-Saetta-%28and-some-C-202%29-flown-by-a-British-pilot-Comparative-test-Forums

    Macchi C.200 “Saetta” (and “some” C.202), flown by a British pilot. Comparative test | Forums

    …Sleek, supremely fast – the sight of their high, white-crossed fin would have struck fear into our hearts had the Italians pressed home their attacks. The odd pilot proved that the 202 was capable of mixing it in a dogfight – out-turning our P-40s with ease; but the majority would pull away effortlessly into a climbing roll or a roll off the top when things became at all hectic. There is nothing more exasperating, when you are caning fifty-four inches of boost out of an engine, than to see your enemy indulge in carefree aerobatics; but although we did our damnedest to get near enough to shoot at them,we seldom succeeded. Their aircraft was superior to ours on all counts. No wonder we wanted to fly one….

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:30 pm

  87. 68. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/16/2014 @ 10:55 am

    Why do you keep saying they were relying on the CIA? Hillary blamed it on a video on 9/11 and the White House jumped on board the Hillary excuse train.

    And where do you think the Cairo embassy got the idea that there was going to be a demonstration about a video, if not from the CIA station chief??

    Hillary didn’t start the video story. It was the perpetrators who started the video story, one of a number of red herrings.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/16/2014 @ 11:51 pm

  88. The Senate Intelligence Committee report released on Wednesday, says that the video story came from the CIA.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/15/senate-intelligence-committee-released-major-report-on-benghazi-preventable-ample-warnings/

    The report also addressed the White House’s initial claim that a YouTube video prompted the attacks on the consulate.

    “In intelligence reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the U.S. mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion,” the report noted.

    “The [Intelligence Community] took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers,” it added.

    The nature of the non-open source limited intelligence is not described because it remains SOOPER SEKRIT.

    See Finding Number 9 (page 32ff)

    The report is in the middle of that page, and can also be seen here: (also with a separate scroll bar)

    http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/senate-intelligence-committee-report-on-benghazi-attack/748/

    Finding Number 10 is that the State Department did not disseminate any independent analysis for at least a year after the attacks.

    It is clear that the State Department chose not to fight the CIA.

    Finding Number 11 is that Direcor of National Intelligence did not give accurate information to Congress during its review ofthe Benghazi attacks. They didn’t get the documents they were supposed to. We are talking October 2012.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 12:48 am

  89. Sometimes when my neighbor who goes to work at 3 in the morning fires up the F150, I roll back to sleep.

    Sometimes I start a pot of coffee.

    Today, it’s coffee.

    If there has ever been a finer sight than a Tomcat taking off at twilight, I’ve not heard of it.

    http://www.free-hdwallpapers.com/wallpapers/aircraft/163770.jpg

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 1:34 am

  90. How elissa sees me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmC9AVCbG-A

    Das Panzerlied

    How I see myself.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWw55XhTehg

    stevie ray vaughan & dick dale pipeline

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:14 am

  91. Is that on a carrier, Steve57?

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:15 am

  92. I would ask HTF does this happen, but I know all too well.

    Leading Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm leaves £1.8million estate in his will

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537496/Leading-Marxist-historian-Eric-Hobsbawm-leaves-1-8million-estate-will.html#ixzz2qeLCLMxg
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:18 am

  93. We rarely embark Panzers on aircraft carriers.

    We’re funny that way.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:20 am

  94. This was on a carrier.

    http://images.auctionhelper.com/images/10343/Zotz/Zotz18F14d.jpg

    http://www.andysmodels.me.uk/models/images/Misc/ARC/VF111_NL200_161621_001.jpg

    Sniff. Sniff. I think dust must have gotten into my eyes cuz I’m tearing up.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:22 am

  95. Do you have Dale’s hair style?

    A nazi? No way.

    You seem to me as one of the only sane people on this site.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:23 am

  96. Painting the shark’s teeth on the tanks wasn’t my idea.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:23 am

  97. 95. …You seem to me as one of the only sane people on this site.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:23 am

    Thank you. Once again, I must insist that the shark’s teeth on the drop tanks was, in my opinion, overdoing it a tad.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:26 am

  98. I think they match the nose nicely.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:29 am

  99. Well, yeah, I never doubted that the maintainers couldn’t pull it off.

    Still, what was next? Shark’s teeth on the missiles? The bullets?

    You have to draw the line somewhere.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:33 am

  100. Sharks teeth on obama’s balls would be nice.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:36 am

  101. AIRPAC actually issued an instruction in reaction to how we were painting our planes. They didn’t mention our squadron by name, but they made a point about b****ing about just about everything we put on our aircraft. In a passive aggressive sort of way. As in, “Oh, by the way, we won’t mention who’s doing this but don’t put this c*** on your airplanes…”

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:39 am

  102. The news that we are heading for a crackup is now the New Normal.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/10577104/Fatal-spiral-of-fiscal-crises-threatens-global-economy-in-2014.html

    Even the Davos Lords of Gaia hold forth on the reality.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:42 am

  103. 100. Sharks teeth on obama’s balls would be nice.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:36 am

    On the drop tanks, the shark’s teeth are just gratuitous.

    Your suggestion, on the other hand, …

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:42 am

  104. 102. The news that we are heading for a crackup is now the New Normal.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/10577104/Fatal-spiral-of-fiscal-crises-threatens-global-economy-in-2014.html

    Even the Davos Lords of Gaia hold forth on the reality.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:42 am

    Along those lines, a completely unsolicited endorsement for Excalibur crossbows.

    http://www.excaliburcrossbow.com/

    I think there’s something to be said for being able to change strings without a bow press.

    And, killing silently.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:49 am

  105. Well, not exactly silently.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:51 am

  106. Some people are screamers.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:52 am

  107. To the degree that attracts the attention of other combatants, who then feel compelled to render aid, that’s a good thing.

    Just so long as they don’t know where the shots are coming from.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:56 am

  108. Mr Fudd would have a hard time shooting wabbits with that crossbow.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/17/2014 @ 3:01 am

  109. Apropos of nothing, Red Ramage’s MoH Citation:

    For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as Commanding Officer of the U.S.S. Parche in a predawn attack on a Japanese convoy, 31 July 1944. Boldly penetrating the screen of a heavily escorted convoy, CDR Ramage launched a perilous surface attack by delivering a crippling stern shot into a freighter and quickly following up with a series of bow and stern torpedoes to sink the leading tanker and damage the second one. Exposed by the light of bursting flares and bravely defiant of terrific shellfire passing close overhead, he struck again, sinking a transport by two forward reloads. In the mounting fury of fire from the damaged and sinking tanker, he calmly ordered his men below, remaining on the bridge to fight it out with an enemy now disorganized and confused. Swift to act as a fast transport closed in to ram, CDR Ramage daringly swung the stern of the speeding Parche as she crossed the bow of the onrushing ship, clearing by less than 50 feet but placing his submarine in a deadly crossfire from escorts on all sides and with the transport dead ahead. Undaunted, he sent 3 smashing “down the throat” bow shots to stop the target, then scored a killing hit as a climax to 46 minutes of violent action with the Parche and her valiant fighting company retiring victorious and unscathed.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 3:03 am

  110. 108. Mr Fudd would have a hard time shooting wabbits with that crossbow.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/17/2014 @ 3:01 am

    I’ve got a red dot sight on mine. Not saying it’s guaranteed, but it makes things a whole lot easier. It compensates for the drop of the bolt, so if you have a rough idea of the range you know which dot to put on the target.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 3:12 am

  111. Hunting Jack rabbits with a crossbow would be a challenge. Those rascals never hop the same.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/17/2014 @ 3:19 am

  112. Not saying Red Ramage wasn’t a b***sy hombre, but how does a sub skipper get a MoH and the rest of the crew doesn’t?

    http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4039/4657700829_15100aa7e8_z.jpg

    Must be an earlier version of the Barb’s battle flag. I only see three Navy Crosses.

    http://www.homeofheroes.com/profiles/fluckey_barb_flag.jpg

    Five on this one. And more Bronze and Silver Stars than I can count.

    But only one Medal of Honor. How does that happen? Far be it from me to second guess Lucky Fluckey, the Galloping Ghost of the China Coast, but I figure if I rate a MoH for something that happens while I’m captaining a boat the whole crew rates it. Dunno. Maybe it’s because the crew is acting under orders. Still.

    Oh, yeah, that’s a choo choo train on the bottom of the flag. The Barb sank a train. Just for s***s and giggles they sent a party ashore when the started running out of targets afloat and blew up a train with one of their scuttling charges. So infectious was their enthusiasm for the mission that a Japanese POW caught the bug. He wanted to go along; he promised not to try and escape.

    Maybe he was serious. We’ll never know.

    Nimitz didn’t know Fluckey was still in command of the Barb. He thought ADM Lockwood would have the good sense to relieve him after he had earned the MoH for a previous patrol. But Fluckey had cut a deal. If you can call one more war patrol a good deal.

    In his later years he wore a smile you’d have to use a belt sander to get rid of.

    http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=33160

    USS Pasadena Deploys with “The Galloping Ghost”

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 3:32 am

  113. 111. Hunting Jack rabbits with a crossbow would be a challenge. Those rascals never hop the same.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/17/2014 @ 3:19 am

    Somebody used to make a device for converting a compound bow into what amounted to a BB gun.

    Just the thing for hunting Jack Rabbits.

    I don’t know if they’re still in business.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 3:44 am

  114. In “Operation Petticoat” a submarine sinks a truck on a pier.

    That happened.

    http://veramarnavalproducts.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/USS-BOWFIN-SS-287-Battle-Fl.gif

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 3:48 am

  115. 100. Sharks teeth on obama’s balls would be nice.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:36 am

    Wait. I get it. Trick question.

    Michelle doesn’t allow Tiger Beat to have balls.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 4:54 am

  116. R.I.P. Professor

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/arts/television/russell-johnson-the-professor-on-gilligans-island-dies-at-89.html?_r=0

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 5:26 am

  117. “The Senate Intelligence Committee report released on Wednesday, says that the video story came from the CIA.”

    Sammy – That’s not what it says. Read it again.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/17/2014 @ 5:48 am

  118. It looks very much like a Clinton-scandal type trap where they would get someone to make a provably false accusation against them.

    That I can totally see. It’s classic Clinton — lie, evade, obfuscate, muddy the waters, distract, until people lose interest and there are so many versions of the story out there that nobody knows what to believe. It helps if you have Robin Abcarians in the media who will treat your BS as Revelation from Mt. Sinai.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/17/2014 @ 6:25 am

  119. 74. Comment by John Scotus (e7a6a6) — 1/16/2014 @ 7:42 pm

    if the WH knew that it was an attack on the day it occurred (and they certainly did), then the WH lied about it afterwards. This simply cannot be denied.

    They “unknew” it. And this is for real. In the “talking point” Benghazi e-mails you cn see that Tommy Vietor and Benjamin J. Rhodes want members of Congress and the public (also) to unlearn it.

    Now as to how the CIA’s mistake was made. It looks very, very, deliberate to me. There is a big coverup. I think there are moles. But I also think Obama is really not aware of that. I don’t think Obama wants there to be moles. And if he did, why’d he try to discourage David Petraeus from resigning as FBI Director. It was the moles who conspired to get rid of him, I think. The whole investigation was peculiar.

    Obama is too much of a hands-off person, aware of his own limitations, (although he doesn’t let on, of course) and afraid to interfere in things he doesn’t completely understand, so that’s why things are like this..

    If Obama thinks he has found a good person in the military/national security field, he doesn’t want to let him go. It is not just David Petraeus. He didn’t want Bob Gates to resign either, and managed to get him to stay on for 2 1/2 years as Secretary of Defense.

    What is interesting, however, is watching Obama’s personal response after the attack. In every case, he gave lawyerly responses, going out of his way to give the impression that the attacks were the result of a spontaneous protest, but then using weasel words that could be interpreted to mean (in retrospect) that it might have actually been a terrorist attack.

    It is interesting, bit the reason should be obvious. This was because he really didn’t know whether it was a terrorist attack or not, and he also was pretending that he was more certain about the facts than he was.

    Obama did not want to say “I don’t know” and also he hoped it wasn’t planned, or somebody in the White House did, because they were quite anxious to get the word out.

    It is not that Obama was hoping a lie would stick. The thing is that “spontaneous demonstration” story wasn’t holding at all – except maybe inside the White House bubble.

    That’s why it popped so quickly when Susan Rice went public with it. The media knew it was wrong, from their own sources.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 7:22 am

  120. “The Senate Intelligence Committee report released on Wednesday, says that the video story came from the CIA.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/17/2014 @ 5:48 am

    Sammy – That’s not what it says. Read it again.

    What do you mean?

    That’s what everybody says it says.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ryan-mauro/new-york-times-discredited-on-benghazi/

    The report also attributes the administration’s false statements about the Benghazi attacks to an intelligence failure.

    It says that analysts incorrectly concluded that protests preceded the attacks and took too long to correct the record (finding 9) and that the DIA’s Office of Analytic Integrity and Standards did not provide complete and accurate information to Congress (finding 11).

    It also says that the White House did not sanitize the CIA’s talking points on the attacks. The revisions happened during an internal CIA review before it was presented to the senior leadership or other agencies.

    OK, maybe they only meant the story about the protest, but the idea that the (nonexistent in Benghazi) protest had something to do with the video came from somewhere else? Is that what you are saying?

    The two ideas – protest and video, are linked together.

    If you say the (nonexistent) protest in Benghazi was “inspired” by the protests in Cairo, and also not planned, you mean the protests were about the video, because the video was the only new factor in the equation.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 7:32 am

  121. I think maybe the CIA mostly talked – or put down on paper – just the demonstrations, without actually saying what they allegedly were about.

    If the CIA left out mention of the video, or communicated that only orally, that only shows you how conniving they were.

    The demonstration story is the video story.

    The New York Times even told in its recent late December article how their reporter was told it was about the video. He first heard about the video from the attackers.

    The attackers had placed some guards there, and attracted a crowd by saying American guards had killed or shot some peaceful protester(s) and every person that passed by who was not one of them was lectured by these few guards about the video.

    The New York Times reporter wss one of the people who came by when he heard about the demonstration which supposedly was occuring or had occurred. It was news, and sounded like it would safe to go there. The Ansar al Sharia or whatever guards wouldn’t let him get too close.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 7:44 am

  122. “looks very much like a Clinton-scandal type trap where they would get someone to make a provably false accusation against them.”

    nk @ 118:

    That I can totally see…. and there are so many versions of the story out there that nobody knows what to believe.

    Not just that. But reporters, or anybody investigating or wanting to investigate thus thing doesn’t know whether to believe what he’s being told or not.

    So it takes a long time to publish anything, and things proceed slowly, as every little fact must be verified, and many outlets just drop the idea.

    And someone tryng to whistleblow doesn’t get anywhere.

    After what happened to CBS and Lara Logan people will be even more careful about anybody purporting to tell the truth about Benghazi.

    Most people don’t know enough to really distinguish between truth and falsehood. And reporters are not distinguisd by their deep comprehesive knowledge of facts eyond what they themselves know.

    The whistleblower may also pick the wrong outlet to talk to. It could be someone in league with the people doing the cover-up.

    Never, ever, leak to just one news outlet or even just a few. They can string people along.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 7:58 am

  123. Here also:

    http://www.cafemom.com/group/115890/forums/read/19526308/Bipartisan_Senate_Report_Faults_State_Department_for_Lack_of_Security_in_Benghazi_Says_Attack_was_Pr?last

    Incredibly, the report finds that the CIA based its claim about a demonstration largely on the word of some of the attackers themselves. The report notes “open source reports and intelligence on which analysts appear to have based their judgments include the public statements by Ansar al-Sharia that the attacks were a ‘spontaneous and popular uprising.’”

    It was disinformation from the perpetrators.

    And also from foreign intelligence agencies, which means either the other intelligence agencies were fooled, or they were the perpetrators. If any foreiegn intelligence agency was a perpetrator they were they probably would have supplied information to he CIA, and what better disinformation to supply than there was nobody behind it, the attack was unplanned, and theer is nothing to see here?

    Or you could say maybe they didn’t plan it, but they wanted this lie, but that’s very fast action.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:02 am

  124. I don’t know if it necessarily helps to have the Robin Abcarians of the MFM have your back. I find they can do more harm to your cause (not my cause, it’s probably not necessary to say) then good when they pitch in.

    I forget the name of the guy who wrote that BS article in the NYT claiming that AQ wasn’t connected to the attack on the Benghazi facility.

    It wasn’t true, but let’s pretend it is. What does that mean? That means Obama’s entire strategy for engaging in the Muslim world is a complete failure based upon sheer idiocy. Because his fling with the MB in Eqypt was based upon the notion that anything short of AQ is not a terrorist organization. We are not at war with the Muslim world, we aren’t even at war with extremists like Erdogan or Morsi. We are only at war with AQ (although the way things are shaping up in Syria I’m not even sure about that anymore) and by making kissy face with the MB we prove to the Muslim world that we’re not their enemy.

    So if AQ didn’t kill Stevens, Smith, Doherty and Woods, then who did? Exactly the people Obama thinks we can make friends with.

    Good job, NYT! Proving yet again that no matter how hard you try you can’t polish a t***.

    Speaking of which, I was reading the Senate report and a couple of things stood out.

    First off, absolutely nothing was within range to arrive until 24 hours after the attack on the Benghazi watchamacallit.

    Sometime between midnight and 2:00a.m. Benghazi time, Secretary Panetta also ordered two teams of special operations forces to Benghazi, but like the FAST platoons, neither made it to Libya before the Americans had already evacuated the next morning after the attack:…

    o One special operations force-which was training in Croatia-was ordered to prepare to deploy to an intermediate NATO staging base in Sigonella, Italy.

    o The other special operations force-based in the United States–was ordered to deploy to the intermediate NATO staging at Sigonella. The first special operations force would take II hours to be airborne. As Major General Roberson testified: “The CIF [Commanders In-Extremis Force] in Croatia is on an meaning it would take II hours of preparation time before it could begin the flight from Croatia to Benghazi. 110 The CIF from Croatia only made it to the staging base at Sigonella by 7:57p.m. Benghazi time, on September 12, almost 10 hours after all Americans were evacuated from Benghazi. 111

    o The other special operations force–from the United States–did not arrive at the staging base at Sigonella until 9:28p.m. Benghazi time , on September 12. 112

    I really don’t get it. Everybody was issuing press releases about attacking embassies in North Africa. And by everybody I mean the terrorists.

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

    And I mean the White House.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/10/readout-president-s-meeting-senior-administration-officials-our-prepared

    I think the fact I retired as an O-4 makes it clear that I’m not the second coming of Clausewitz. But even a dim bulb like me can put two and two together. Especially with everyone practically firing flares to get my attention.

    How does it never come up that Obama issued a statement to the press on 10 September 2012 claiming to be all prepared to deal with any forseeable contingencies on the anniversary of 9/11. The most foreseeable of which was the assault on the US Embassy in Cairo. You just don’t attract that large of a mob without advertising.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obama-alone-this-president-does-not-need-intel-briefers/2012/09/13/c11e1a52-fda5-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

    When I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if the president had attended any meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) since Sept. 5, he repeatedly refused to answer. He noted that Obama had attended a principals meeting of the National Security Council on Sept. 10 and reiterated that he reads the PDB. “As I’ve told you every time you ask, the President gets his PDB every day,” Vietor told me by e-mail, adding this swipe at Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush: “Unlike your former boss, he has it delivered to his residence in the morning and not briefed to him.” (This new line of defense was echoed this morning by my Post colleague, Dana Milbank, who writes that Bush was briefed every day by his intelligence advisers because he “decided he would prefer to read less.”)

    Vietor’s reply is quite revealing. It is apparently a point of pride in the White House that Obama’s PDB is “not briefed to him.” In the eyes of this administration, it is a virtue that the president does not meet every day with senior intelligence officials. This president, you see, does not need briefers. He can forgo his daily intelligence meeting because he is, in Vietor’s words, “among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet.”

    I’m not being partisan when I observe that had I issued a press release on 10 September 2012 claiming to be ready for 11 September 2012, I’d have been, dunno, mebbe ready for 11 September 2012. Call me crazy.

    Oh, I’d have been doubly sure to make ready if I had my minions telling the press that I was one of the most sophisticated consumers of intel on the planet.

    Seriously, this is a real mind f*** for me. I don’t have any respect for Barack Obama. But how do you, yourself, advertise you’re aware of a threat and then do nothing to prepare for it? It slipped their mind to move the FAST to Sigonella on the same day they were bragging about being ready? They waited until the next day when, oh s***, they found out they had nothing available?

    The mind boggles.

    Second:

    Diplomatic Security (DS) agent working in the Tactical Operations Center (TOC) of the Mission facility immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System. 7

    These messages are unclassified. When you’re under attack, you have more pressing concerns than keeping secrets.

    That was clue number one that Rice was lying. I’m fairly thick, but I put the pieces together within a day.

    How do these people get away with it? It’s all right there, out in the open. Not even the Robin Abcarians of the MFM can keep a lid on it.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:04 am

  125. From Cafe Mom:

    The Democratic letter is mostly focused on the talking points controversy. The Republican letter is much longer and includes a section titled “Complete Absence of Accountability.” Republicans argue that neither the attackers nor the State Department employees responsible for security decisions have been held accountable for their actions by the administration.

    What about the people responsible for the faulty intelligence analysis!!!

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:12 am

  126. Ӏ enjoу looking through your site. Τhanks a lot!

    my homepage :: Recommended Reading

    Comment by Recommended Reading (0b5b75) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:12 am

  127. 119. …It is not that Obama was hoping a lie would stick. The thing is that “spontaneous demonstration” story wasn’t holding at all – except maybe inside the White House bubble.

    That’s why it popped so quickly when Susan Rice went public with it. The media knew it was wrong, from their own sources.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 7:22 am

    Can you just stop.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:21 am

  128. Marc A. Thiessen in the Washington Post, September 13, 2012:

    It is apparently a point of pride in the White House that Obama’s PDB is “not briefed to him.”

    Because you can learn a lot faster by reading, than by listening, or having it read aloud. More words per second.

    In the eyes of this administration, it is a virtue that the president does not meet every day with senior intelligence officials.

    It probably never occured to him that he can ask questions.

    Possibly because he would not be getting the briefing from the person who wrote the report.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:31 am

  129. Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:04 am

    So if AQ didn’t kill Stevens, Smith, Doherty and Woods, then who did? Exactly the people Obama thinks we can make friends with.

    If it is not al Qaeda, they are probably easily appeased or reconciled with, that’s the idea.

    It’s all just a misunderstanding. I mean, if not for the video, everything would have been OK. Supposedly.

    And even if not, they are a small group, easily defeated. Having this not be al Qaeda mans it is a smaller problem.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:43 am

  130. I’m not being partisan when I observe that had I issued a press release on 10 September 2012 claiming to be ready for 11 September 2012, I’d have been, dunno, mebbe ready for 11 September 2012. Call me crazy

    Obama was told in the same briefing! both about the danger, and that it was being taken care of, and so he issued the press release.

    Earlier today the President heard from key national security principals on our preparedness and security posture on the eve of the eleventh anniversary of September 11th.

    Over the past month, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan has convened numerous meetings ….

    This means that (according to the White House) there was preparedness.

    Obama is no expert. So he wouldn’t know if maybe something extra should be done.

    He just tells them (again)- he reiterates:

    do everything possible to protect the American people, both at home and abroad.

    Oh, I’d have been doubly sure to make ready if I had my minions telling the press that I was one of the most sophisticated consumers of intel on the planet.

    He is a consumer, not a producer of intelligence, and has very little curiosity. He relied on other people to tell him what he needs to know. Never thought of making any inquiries on his own initiative.

    Seriously, this is a real mind f*** for me. I don’t have any respect for Barack Obama. But how do you, yourself, advertise you’re aware of a threat and then do nothing to prepare for it?

    What do you mean do nothing to prepare for it?

    Doesn’t he tell you that John Brennan had all these meetings for an entire month (!), and they had come up witgh some unspecified measures, and in addition that he authorized them to do anything they needed to do?

    Where you’d think he’d get embarassed would be on September 12th.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:52 am

  131. Sammy, I hope you’re getting paid well for this.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 9:00 am

  132. Obama is no expert. So he wouldn’t know if maybe something extra should be done.

    There are so many things wrong with those two sentences it’s impossible to know where to start.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 9:07 am

  133. Everybody was issuing press releases about attacking embassies in North Africa.

    With what?? How?

    What they evidently did in the Administration, was, first, Step 1, lay out what kind of possible attacks might take place. Lay out the scenarios.

    And then, Step 2, make sure that people at lower levels were satisfied they could handle those particular scenarios.

    Everybody of course, wanted to say everything is A-OK.

    So if it turned out there was something they couldn’t handle, they probably thought some more, and modified the scenario.

    As for moving or readying the special operations force: They didn’t figure on any kind of attack that would go on long enough so that a special operations force in another country could help.

    Whether it was in Croatia or in Sigonella it;s he same thing, and besides, Benghazi wasn’t on the top of their radar screen.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 9:41 am

  134. …And then, Step 2, make sure that people at lower levels were satisfied they could handle those particular scenarios.

    Everybody of course, wanted to say everything is A-OK…

    Nobody at the lower levels is comfortable saying things are OK unless they know things are OK.

    Or, unless they don’t think they’ll get in trouble for screwing up.

    Some things pretty much happen automatically. Somebody had to put some effort into stopping things from happening in this case.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 10:01 am

  135. Steve57 @ 134:

    Nobody at the lower levels is comfortable saying things are OK unless they know things are OK.

    Or, unless they don’t think they’ll get in trouble for screwing up.

    Well, both maybe. Probably nobody took these scenariois seriously, and if one of them was going to happe, it probably wouldn’t be what they were involved.

    And nobody ever gets in trouble for screwing up in the Obama Administration. Except with regard to their personal life.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 10:11 am

  136. Of course, back in 2012, everybody might not know yet that they wouldn’t get in trouble for screwing up in their job, as long as they put in the hours.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 10:12 am

  137. 135. Steve57 @ 134:

    Nobody at the lower levels is comfortable saying things are OK unless they know things are OK.

    Or, unless they don’t think they’ll get in trouble for screwing up.

    Well, both maybe. Probably nobody took these scenariois seriously, and if one of them was going to happe, it probably wouldn’t be what they were involved.

    And nobody ever gets in trouble for screwing up in the Obama Administration. Except with regard to their personal life.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 10:11 am

    136. Of course, back in 2012, everybody might not know yet that they wouldn’t get in trouble for screwing up in their job, as long as they put in the hours.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 10:12 am

    This makes for fascinating reading.

    You’d almost never know 9/11/2001 even happened, what with nobody knowing they’d get in trouble for falling asleep at the switch.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 10:53 am

  138. I could (A) believe what you write, Sammy. Or, alternatively, I could (B) just remember things.

    Why do you think I’d choose option (A), Sammy?

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 10:55 am

  139. There’s nothing wrong with what you remember.

    You’re just missing a few points. You’re intepreting things alittle bit wrong.

    Now, you remember that Obama and others were told right at the start that this was a terrorist attack.

    You’re missing the point that this was “corrected” and unlearned as a result of Sooper Sekrit intelligence (not just the publicly available information) that this was an unplanned protest over a video.

    A small thing, but it makes a great deal of difference.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 11:39 am

  140. Here is page 33 of the Senate report:

    In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the IC [Intelligence Community] receoved numerous reports, both classified and unclassified, which provided contradictory accounts that there were demonstrations at the Temporary Mission Facility [the publicly acknowledged U.S. facility in Benghazi where Ambassador Christopher Stevens was staying] In some cases, these intelligence reports – which were disseminated widely in the Intelligence Community – contained references to press reports on protests that were simply copied into intelligence products [but in other cases, the disinformation was indepedently received!] Other reporting indicated there were no protests. For example, the IC obtained close circuit television video from the facility…

    Something else is censored, probably CIA or Libyan police video.

    Now, some people might think nothing could trump the closed circuit video.

    They got around to viewing it on September 18, but it still took till September 24 to say there was no demonstration.

    Now if you are thinking somebody was deliberately acting very stupid at the CIA, I would agree. I would just disagree that the problem emanated from the White House. I think it emanated from moles, who didn’t want General David Petraeus to interfere, and got rid of him before he got rid of them.

    And Obama is too clueless to figure any of this out. Maybe the Senators too.

    The Senate report tells you how the CIA even disregarded what their station chief said on Sept 15, and then, on January 4, 2013, made an excuse for disregarding it.

    There was I think, Sooper Sekrit intelligence that there as a protest about a video.

    It is so Sooper Sekrit it is not described at all in the senate report, who try tothrow bame on more public sources, but it is alluded to.

    The Senate report tries to obscure the CIA’s reliance on the Sooper Sekrit intelligence by repeatedly mentioning other sources. e.g. page 34:

    Of the 11 reports cited by the CIA’s Analytic Line Review [dated January 4, 2013] six were press articles, two were the public statements of Ansar al-Sharia, and the three others were [Sooper Sekrit] intelligence reports.

    We know from the early versions of talking points that “Libyan authorities” and “intelligence partners” [that is, the Saudis, or Qataris] provided information.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 11:42 am

  141. 137. Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 10:53 am

    You’d almost never know 9/11/2001 even happened, what with nobody knowing they’d get in trouble for falling asleep at the switch.

    Tell me something: Who got in trouble for falling asleep at the switch on September 11, 2001?

    This was not like what happened after Pearl Harbor.

    After September 11 2011, some people tried to blame Bush, that was all.

    There was a whole 9/111 report, but no individuals got into any kind of trouble.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 11:45 am

  142. “OK, maybe they only meant the story about the protest, but the idea that the (nonexistent in Benghazi) protest had something to do with the video came from somewhere else? Is that what you are saying?”

    Sammy – The CIA does not constitute the entire Intelligence Community. The Intelligence Community as a whole was faulted in the Senate report. There was no mention of a youtube video in either the first or final draft of the talking points for which the CIA served as scribe. Their content was driven by political operatives at the White House and unnamed individuals reporting through Victoria Nuland at State.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/the-benghazi-emails-what-do-they-show.php

    Obama knew it was a terrorist attack on 9/11 and you have still not answered the question of how Hillary determined on 9/11 it was a protest over a youtube video which got out of hand, especially after she talked to Greg Hicks and an alert was sent directly to Washington from Benghazi.

    All you are doing is rehashing old and busted talking points.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:23 pm

  143. “What about the people responsible for the faulty intelligence analysis!!!”

    Sammy – Are you referring to all those warnings about the deteriorating security situation that the State Department insisted be removed from the talking points with which the White House concurred?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:27 pm

  144. “He relied on other people to tell him what he needs to know.”

    Sammy – President Blameshifter doesn’t get to hear the things he needs to hear from the people he relies on if he skips all the briefing meetings. Derp.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:31 pm

  145. Sammy, is there anything you think the president can be held responsible for? Or accountable for? Are there any questions you think he should be asking his staff and advisors and cabinet appointees without them “telling” him first? Is there any information he should be seeking out on his own? Or verification he should be demanding when others tell him stuff?

    Comment by elissa (1d372d) — 1/17/2014 @ 3:47 pm

  146. 142. …The CIA does not constitute the entire Intelligence Community. The Intelligence Community as a whole was faulted in the Senate report…

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/17/2014 @ 2:23 pm

    You know who else besides CIA is a member of the intel community? State Department.

    http://www.state.gov/s/inr/

    The Bureau of Intelligence and Research’s (INR) primary mission is to harness intelligence to serve U.S. diplomacy. Drawing on all-source intelligence, INR provides value-added independent analysis of events to U.S. State Department policymakers; ensures that intelligence activities support foreign policy and national security purposes; and serves as the focal point in the State Department for ensuring policy review of sensitive counterintelligence and law enforcement activities around the world.

    The bureau also analyzes geographical and international boundary issues. The Bureau of Intelligence and Research is a member of the U.S. intelligence community.

    So when the Egyptian radical Muslims were issuing press releases, holding press conferences, tweeting, posting on facebook, and putting up fliers all over Cairo advertising well in advance of their planned activities

    so they’d have a good turnout for their 11 September protest/US embassy assault in honor of the Blind Sheik, it was INR’s job to know about it. And put the word out. I have no reason to suspect they didn’t do their jobs.

    The fact that nothing was done to prepare for an emergency in Cairo is bizarre. In order for something not to have been done, somebody would have had to interfere with what would have been normally set in motion by these indicators. Somebody would have had to prevent the system from working.

    And, of course, we have a pretty good idea who that somebody was. Here she is, pounding the table demanding to know, at this point, what difference does it make?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka0_nz53CcM

    That had to be among the stupidest things I’ve ever heard anyone say in a Congressional hearing. But then there was Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing. Plus we still have another three years of listening to Sebelious prattle on about about Obamacare, so it’s best not to count your chickens.

    It makes all the difference in the world. The Obamateur administration has spent 5 years obstinately refusing to face facts. Obama picks people for his team precisely for their ability to say stupid things. Like Clapper when he said the Muslim Brotherhood was largely secular. Or to shut up if they can’t bring themselves to say things like that, as Gates reveals in his tell-all book when he discusses how he quietly seethed instead of doing his duty to the country and speaking out when it would have saved lives.

    So Hillary! was a good German and obediently toed the party line that only Al Qaeda, specifically “core Al Qaeda,” was a terrorist threat. Not the Muslim Brotherhood. Not Islamic fundamentalists. This had no basis in anything actually happening in the Muslim world. But it served Barack Obama’s domestic political interests to say up is down, black is white, Al Qaeda is on the run, and he refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. So he and his minions insisted on saying it was so, no matter how much reality begged to differ.

    That, Hillary!, is why it makes a difference. A huge difference. Anybody who could say what this woman said is not qualified to be the Preezy.

    Now for this administration’s encore performance, those Mullah’s in Tehran really aren’t that bad. In fact, they’re quite moderate. So we really don’t have to worry if they acquire nuclear weapons.

    What we really can’t abide is those pesky Israelis obsessing over their precious national security. We’re going to have to take a hard line with them Joooooz.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 4:26 pm

  147. the best piece of finished intelligence was that by the Irregular Warfare Office of the Pentagon, it described the environonment in ways I had’nt seen before or since,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/17/2014 @ 4:31 pm

  148. 145. Sammy, is there anything you think the president can be held responsible for? Or accountable for? Are there any questions you think he should be asking his staff and advisors and cabinet appointees without them “telling” him first? Is there any information he should be seeking out on his own? Or verification he should be demanding when others tell him stuff?

    Comment by elissa (1d372d) — 1/17/2014 @ 3:47 pm

    President Ditherington Plausible Deniability McMomJeans transparently dismantled the apparatus that previous Preezy’s had in place to try to keep track of what their administrations were up to.

    http://patterico.com/2014/01/17/open-thread-26/comment-page-3/#comment-1433518

    21. 18.“If they don’t tell him, if they don’t spell it out for him, how’s he gonna know?”

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (a94ecd) — 1/17/2014 @ 10:12 am

    If you really believe that is the way things operate, Sammy, you are way out there, daddy! Totally gonesville, wackeydoodle. Yer wiggin’

    I think that’s the way things operate in the Obama Administration.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 10:31 am

    For some reason Sammy seems to feel obligated to go along with the charade. Barack Obama is unaware. In fact, Barack Obama is unaware of when he became aware of what was previously unknown to him. He didn’t know he had ordered an investigation into how long his administration was doing things without his knowledge until he saw himself on TV announcing the investigation. So he’s ordered a new investigation to look into what he knew and when he knew it.

    In fact, he already has a press conference scheduled for next Friday to announce that he was shocked to discover that he had read the draft findings from that investigation. He only became aware of the fact that he had knowledge of the report when he saw himself mentioning it during a fund raiser last week in Chicago. Consequently, there will be a reinvestigation into the extent of his knowledge. But of course he can’t discuss the substance of an ongoing investigation, so, income inequality!

    Sammy looks at this and says to himself, “wow, this guy is slick.”

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 5:02 pm

  149. 119. …Obama is too much of a hands-off person, aware of his own limitations, (although he doesn’t let on, of course) and afraid to interfere in things he doesn’t completely understand, so that’s why things are like this..

    Three words: health care debacle.

    President “who knew buying insurance is harder than we thought” really is one to not interfere in things he doesn’t completely understand all right. President “I’m a better speech writer than my speech writers, I’m a better campaign manager than my campaign manager” is totally aware of his own limitations.

    …If Obama thinks he has found a good person in the military/national security field, he doesn’t want to let him go. It is not just David Petraeus. He didn’t want Bob Gates to resign either, and managed to get him to stay on for 2 1/2 years as Secretary of Defense.

    Three words: Vice President Biden.

    Four words: Secretary of Defense Hagel

    Four bonus words: Secretary of State Kerry.

    …It is not that Obama was hoping a lie would stick. The thing is that “spontaneous demonstration” story wasn’t holding at all – except maybe inside the White House bubble…

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (92657d) — 1/17/2014 @ 7:22 am

    Double face palm. Tiger Beat really built himself one finely crafted bubble which we can’t hold him accountable for, he?

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 5:23 pm

  150. why so many weasel words, he used to work at the Daily News, so I answered my own question,

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fog-benghazi-al-qaeda-dead-americans-emerging-threat/story?id=21570269&singlePage=true

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/17/2014 @ 5:26 pm

  151. http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2012/09/03/did-the-new-york-times-just-get-obama-fired/

    This is the guy who is aware of his own limitations and doesn’t like to interfere in things he doesn’t completely understand, Sammy?

    With such a title, and from such a friendly organ, at first I thought Jodi Kantor’s piece would be a collection of Obama’s greatest political wins: His rapid rise in Illinois, his win over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries, the passage of health care, and so on.

    But the NYT piece is not about any of that. Rather, it is a deep look into the two outstanding flaws in Obama’s executive leadership:

    1. How he vastly overrates his capabilities:…

    Bear in mind, Obama doesn’t just robustly compete. The leader of the free world spends many hours practicing these trivial pursuits behind the scenes. Combine this weirdly wasted time with a consistent overestimation of his capabilities, and the result is, according to NYT’s Kantor:

    He may not always be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr. Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

    Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

    What color is the sky on Planet Finkelman?

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 5:32 pm

  152. Ground Control to Sammy… http://youtu.be/w9YoKevSdAs

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (a94ecd) — 1/17/2014 @ 5:40 pm

  153. “119. …Obama is too much of a hands-off person, aware of his own limitations, (although he doesn’t let on, of course) and afraid to interfere in things he doesn’t completely understand, so that’s why things are like this..”

    Three Word: Shovel Ready Jobs

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/17/2014 @ 5:46 pm

  154. The thing is, Obama could probably do his underlings’ jobs better than his underlings. At least, better than those he’s responsible for hiring.

    In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/the-spine/the-multitudinous-disasters-the-obama-administration-here-syria-and-iran

    Barack Obama, wrong about Syria since at least 2008. And before that he was no doubt wrong about it, it just didn’t matter to me because he was just a Senator and pretty much a no show Senator.

    I wish he were a no show President, too, but I digress.

    THE SPINE MARCH 8, 2010
    The Multitudinous Disasters Of The Obama Administration. Here: On Syria And Iran

    BY MARTIN PERETZ

    I’ve written myself about the Obama administration’s more-than-flatfooted policies on Syria (here, here, and here) and Iran (here, here, and here). So I am particularly gratified when I find myself in alignment with Barry Rubin, a truly brainy scholar with a slight polemical touch. His latest analysis is below.

    Syria is a galling instance of the president’s obsessions … and for several reasons.

    Pardon Me, Obama Administration, But Isn’t Your Policy on Fire?

    By Barry Rubin*

    March 8, 2010

    …MR. CROWLEY: Well, I would point it in a slightly different direction. It came several days after an important visit to Damascus by Under Secretary Bill Burns….We want to see Syria play a more constructive role in the region. We also want – to the extent that it has the ability to talk to Iran directly, we want to make sure that Syria’s communicating to Iran its concerns about its role in the region and the direction, the nature of its nuclear ambitions….”

    In other words, I’m going to ignore the fact that the first thing that Asad did after Burns’ visit was a love fest with Iran and Hizballah. But even more amazing, what Crowley said is that the U.S. government thinks Syria, Iran’s partner and ally, is upset that Iran is being aggressive and expansionist. And it actually expects the Syrians to urge Iran not to build nuclear weapons!

    One Lebanese observer called this approach, “Living in an alternate universe.”

    …Oh wait! Now it’s March 3 so time for something new. The ófficial Syrian press agency reports that Syria’s government opposed an Arab League proposal to support indirect Palestinian Authority-Israel negotiations. Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem asserted that Syria is “no way part” of the consensus supporting the plan.

    But guess what? First, Senator John Kerry opened a meeting of his Senate Foreign Relations Committee by erroneously praising Syria as supporting the plan, giving this as an example of Damascus’s moderation. The New York Times quoted from the Syrian report, making it sound like Moallem is praising the United States, but left out the paragraphs attacking the U.S.-backed plan! And the State Department circulated the Times article as proof of its success in winning over Syria when in fact Syrian behavior proved the exact opposite!

    Oh, and that’s not all! Not only did Syria oppose the plan but it attacked the Arab states that supported the U.S. effort and blasted the Palestinian Authority for not following the path of resistance, that is urged it to carry out terrorist violence against Israel.

    Hey, that’s not all either. Syria also issued a statement accusing Israel of “framing” it by dropping uranium particles from the air to make it seem that Syria had been building a nuclear reactor for making nuclear weapons. Not exactly evidence of rational moderation I’d say.

    Obama picks his underlings precisely for their incompetence. Gates was right; Joe Biden has been wrong on every major foreign policy issue for the past 40 years. But then, so has John Kerry. That’s why Obama chose them. They’re hacks. They won’t challenge his assumptions. Tiger Beat is incapable of learning. He’s uninterested in learning. Consequently he chooses dullards to surround himself with, so they won’t challenge his assumptions. But make no mistake, he is aware of certain facts. That’s how he knows what he studiously needs to avoid.

    This administration’s main operating principle is if you pretend that the elephant in the room doesn’t exist, maybe it will go away. But first you have to know the elephant is there before you can start pretending it’s not in the room.

    Bonus video. Prom Queen describes his massive ego problem to Bryant Gumble in a moment of equally massive self-unawareness.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VotwxIljeg&feature=player_embedded

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 6:01 pm

  155. 153. “119. …Obama is too much of a hands-off person, aware of his own limitations, (although he doesn’t let on, of course) and afraid to interfere in things he doesn’t completely understand, so that’s why things are like this..”

    Three Word: Shovel Ready Jobs

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/17/2014 @ 5:46 pm

    Sammy’s analysis is a comedy gold mine.

    Comment by Steve57 (648e1f) — 1/17/2014 @ 6:02 pm

  156. The harder this administration tries to cover its a$$ the worse their story gets.

    January 16, 2014, 06:00 am
    Pentagon’s hands tied on hunting down Benghazi attackers, transcripts show

    The U.S. military cannot hunt down and kill people responsible for the deadly 2012 attack on an American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as long as the terrorists are not officially deemed members or affiliates of al Qaeda, newly declassified transcripts from congressional hearings show.

    …It still has “no indications that core Al Qaeda was involved in directing or planning this attack,” State spokeswoman Marie Harf said Wednesday. Even if there are “guys who may have ties or loose affiliations with al Qaeda,” it doesn’t mean core al Qaeda was involved,” she said.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/195627-benghazi-preventable-says-bipartisan-panel#ixzz2qiOd2SDK
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

    Prom Queen’s permanent campaignistration is sticking by their politically expedient story that as long as five guys in a cave in Pakistan weren’t involved, it wasn’t AQ attacking our diplomatic facility. And since we’re only at war with the very narrowly defined entity they call core al Qaeda, well, these guys walk. Because we want Muslims to know we’re not at war with them generally, so it doesn’t matter how big the body count gets we’re going to maintain the farce.

    Comment by Steve57 (0c758c) — 1/17/2014 @ 7:04 pm

  157. The Obama administration, doing a bang-up job winning hearts and minds.

    According to a report from the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, Moshe Ya’alon said that Kerry’s proposed pace plan was “not worth the paper it’s written on.”

    “American Secretary of State John Kerry, who turned up here determined and acting out of misplaced obsession and messianic fervor, cannot teach me anything about the conflict with the Palestinians,” he reportedly said.

    Ya’alon also suggested that the Israelis and Palestinians weren’t making progress.

    “In reality, there have been no negotiations between us and the Palestinians for all these months, but rather between us and the Americans. The only thing that can ‘save us’ is for John Kerry to win a Nobel Prize and leave us in peace,” he said.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/195415-white-house-slams-israeli-official-over-kerry-comments#ixzz2qihOfpgy
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

    Comment by Steve57 (0c758c) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:11 pm

  158. Words fail,

    http://americanglob.com/2014/01/17/obama-invokes-boston-tea-party-in-speech-about-nsa-spying/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:18 pm

  159. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/16/us-security-alqaeda-idUSBREA0F18R20140116

    Winning! Winning!

    From Falluja to Maghreb, a new, diffuse al Qaeda

    LONDON, Jan 16 – More than two years after the death of Osama bin Laden, the turbulent aftermath of the “Arab Spring” has helped his group – or more accurately, its offshoots and successors – gain ground.

    …”There are probably more people fighting now under the al Qaeda banner than ever before,” says Richard Barrett, head of the United Nations al Qaeda and Taliban monitoring team until last year and now at the Soufan Group consultancy. “But that doesn’t mean they are necessarily fighting for the same thing or even on the same side.”

    The bitterest fights are always within the family. Real passion is involved. But it’s important not to see what you wish to see. Unless you are angling for a slot in the Obamateur campaignistration. There it’s part of the job description to see things for what they aren’t in order to fit the narrative.

    Others, however, fear complacency.

    “Many want to trumpet the demise of core al Qaeda and take solace in the belief … that what we are seeing in Africa and the Levant is not part of some grand strategy,” says Georgetown professor and sometime U.S. official Bruce Hoffman, one of Washington’s leading experts on the group. “Wishful thinking.”

    I actually wish Charlie Sheen was in charge of foreign policy. At least I know he can occasionally wake up and smell the coffee, and manage to string together a few days in a row when he’s not s***faced.

    Comment by Steve57 (0c758c) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:23 pm

  160. With Charlie Sheen, you can hold out hope that maybe you’ll catch him on a good day when he’s lucid and coherent.

    But with Joe Biden or John F’n Kerry the thought of asking whether they’re having one of their “good days” can’t be seriously entertained.

    Comment by Steve57 (0c758c) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:28 pm

  161. “With Charlie Sheen, you can hold out hope that maybe you’ll catch him on a good day when he’s lucid and coherent.”

    Not if he’s driving one of those damn Abarths! Small but wicked.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (a94ecd) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:30 pm

  162. 158. Words fail,

    http://americanglob.com/2014/01/17/obama-invokes-boston-tea-party-in-speech-about-nsa-spying/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:18 pm

    With President Mean Girl, they often do. I still am floored by his proud display of historical ignorance in that Cairo speech.

    As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

    That’s what’s called a target rich environment right there. It’s hard to know where to begin.

    How about in Segovia, Spain.

    Maybe the next time Obama or his wife Gollum goes on a taxpayer subsidized junket to the Costa Del Sol they can swing by and take a peek at the Roman aqueduct bridge and ponder the majesty of the arches that Islam had f*** all to do with.

    http://bc.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/spain/segovia/aqueduct/aquewhol.jpg

    Also the Chinese want their magnetic compass back. And India wants their algebra back.

    It’s blatant, naked, pathetic sucking up like that which has garnered Obama the respect he deserves in the Muslim world.

    http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/12/iranian-fm-iran-able-to-resume-20-uranium-enrichment-in-1-day-2774374.html

    Comment by Steve57 (0c758c) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:48 pm

  163. the Palestinians like to talk about occcupation, well the Moors occupied Spain for a little short of eight centuries, the first three they were copacetic, but after that they wore out their welcome.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/17/2014 @ 8:55 pm

  164. Colonello, the Fiat Abarth is a nice package but I have to think that the Ford Fiesta ST is a better deal. It’s priced under $22K, it’s turbo 1.6 has almost 40 more ponies and 30 extra foot pounds of torgue. The six speed manual means you get about the same gas mileage in the Ford as you do in the Fiat, even though the Ford is a slightly bigger, more powerful car.

    Comment by Steve57 (0c758c) — 1/17/2014 @ 9:00 pm

  165. http://www.topspeed.com/cars/fiat/2014-fiat-500-abarth-ar160256.html#main

    While the regular 500 undercuts the Mini Cooper significantly on price, the $6,000 Abarth premium makes life more challenging versus the hottest Mini performance cars. Even so, the Mini ’s dated styling means the trendiest shoppers have long since moved on to something more current.

    The 500 Abarth also undercuts the equivalent Mini Cooper S engine on price, but moves this tiny machine past $26,000 for the Abarth 500C – which is uncomfortably close to the Subaru BRZ and other performance cars.

    The arrival of the American-spec Ford Fiesta ST certainly complicates the theoretical comparison test for these performance supermini’s.

    http://www.topspeed.com/cars/ford/2014-ford-fiesta-st-ar160024.html

    Endlessly lauded by the English car mags, the Fiesta ST’s American debut was partially delayed by a Fiesta-wide nose restyle and revamp for this year. The two models launch together with deliveries starting in September to Ford dealerships nationwide – and both have an EcoBoost engine option for the first time.

    The base Fiesta’s turbo-charged 1.0-liter triple marks a first in this modern age of fuel economy, but still lags nearly two seconds behind the potent ST’s 1.6-liter turbocharged four-cylinder at the drag strip.

    Power is only part of the fun with this flyweight sports car – the other half comes from its responsive corner attitude and impressive agility while changing direction quickly. Even the quickest luxo-barges like the Bentley Continental GT have nothing on the Ford when it comes to transient handling dynamics – like you need on the tightest of race tracks.

    In this regard the Fiesta ST is indeed the most accomplished in a U.S. market class that also includes the Chevrolet Sonic RS and the new Kia Forte5 Turbo .

    Comment by Steve57 (0c758c) — 1/17/2014 @ 9:08 pm

  166. I’m a Fiat guy, Steve and I have a 2012 Abarth, along with an “enhanced” mid-engined X1/9, so I’m biased. But I’ve driven both the Focus and Fiesta STs and, while they’re fun, I’m happy with my choice.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (a94ecd) — 1/17/2014 @ 9:48 pm

  167. I’m not criticizing. I thought those X1/9s looked cool as hell with all those Forza Faza speed parts in those ads in back in the ’70s. I especially liked that F1 snorkel the used to sell that would stick up above the rear window.

    This one doesn’t have the snorkel, but it sure looks like one b****in’ ride.

    http://www.perbeer.dk/20090503_jyllandsringen/fiat01.jpg

    Still, I have a soft spot for Fords. The cars they build in Europe show that Ford does know how to put together a driver’s car even if their domestic efforts fall short of the mark. When I was a kid my classmate’s dad used to drive us to school in his English spec Ford Cortina. I thought it was cool. I also thought the Mercury Capri was one of the few bright spots in the dark, dreary days of the ’70s.

    http://www.scenicreflections.com/ithumbs/Ford%20Capri%20RS%20Cosworth%20Wallpaper__yvt2.jpg

    I especially had a soft spot for turbo Fords. I always thought they were under appreciated. Maybe drag racing isn’t your thing, but here’s a Turbo 2.3 Pinto spanking a ’69 Road Runner in the quarter mile.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTsOww5ie88

    There are people who drag race turbo pintos because they’re cheap to build, fast, and they compete in the import class. Rice Rockets don’t stand a prayer.

    http://pintopage.fordpinto.com/Poisonous%20Pinto.htm

    Joe Morgan is our kind of guy. He likes to go fast but insists on low cost and the utmost in streetability. After we watched his “76 Pinto run a string of 10.75s at 118 mph, we assumed it was powered by a small-block Ford. We caught up with Morgan, a high-school teacher from Corona, California, for the straight skinny on his 400 hp four-popper-powered, 2,500-pound turbo bomb and how anybody can duplicate it for less than seven grand.

    The primary ingredients in the tasty little recipe include a light body, a junkyard 2.3L turbo motor, a C4 automatic transmission, a big bottle of nitrous oxide, and a few inexpensive speed parts. Roll them all together, as Morgan has, and you’ll end up with a 10-second screamer that gets more than 20 mpg, runs all day in traffic, and passes California’s tough emissions schedule. Its one of those rare situations where one plus one equals three. Morgan’s favorite pastime is cleaning house at the import-car drag races.

    By virtue of its cast-in-Brazil engine block, the officials are obliged let him compete, and the results are always the same: Morgan’s name appears in the winners’ column.

    But they have one drawback; it’s a Pinto. I drove a Thunderbird Turbo Coupe for a while back in the ’80s before I got an ’88 5.0 LX convertible. I probably would have been better off keeping the Turbo Coupe. Or getting a turbo Mustang. At least with the Mustang you can get suspension parts to fix everything that Ford did wrong when designing the Fox platform.

    Plus you can use the engine’s vacuum to trick the waste gate into thinking it’s seeing less boost than the engine’s actually making. You can actually control how much power you’re making from inside the car. A friend of mine had a mid-80s Mustang-based Mercury Capri and he installed an adjustable boost valve and the performance was impressive.

    http://www.turbotbird.com/techinfo/GillisValve/GillisValve.htm

    Also, it’s not a Pinto.

    Comment by Steve57 (0c758c) — 1/17/2014 @ 10:27 pm

  168. Yeah, you can see the snorkel on this page.

    http://www.x19world.de/Abarth_geschichte_en.html

    The engine had a 16V cylinder head designed by Abarth (100 pices were built), which was mounted on a 1600 Block rebored to 1756 cm³ (Type Abarth 232) respectively 1840 cm³ (Type Abarth 232 G). Equipped with two 44 IDF (1756 cm³) respectively 48 IDF (1840 cm³) carburettors, the engine achieved 210 HP. The car was faster than the 124 and the successor of the X1/9, the 131 Abarth!

    …From the outside, the most remarkable point was the “snorkel”, from which fresh air came directly to the carburettors. The optical appearance was finished with flared wings and a front spoiler unit (which also contained the fog lights), which was riveted to the body.

    I used to see those ads in Road & Track and think I needed one of those. I don’t remember if they were sold under the name Forza Faza or Forza Azure, now that I think about it.

    It could have been something else.

    Comment by Steve57 (0c758c) — 1/17/2014 @ 11:19 pm

  169. Fix It Again Tony

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/17/2014 @ 11:23 pm

  170. I could spend $22k on a Ford Fiesta ST. Or I could spend closer to $30 on a Fiat Abarth.

    Or…

    http://monstermiata.com/

    1992 MONSTER MIATA FOR SALE $ 24,250.

    FORD MUSTANG 5.0 H.O. TFS HEADS, E303 CAM, EXTRUDE HONED INTAKE MANIFOLD, GT 40 THROTTLE BODY & MAF, 24# INJECTORS, CHIP, DYNO TUNED 320 HP. 1 5/8″ CERAMIC COATED HEADERS, 3G 95A ALTERNATOR

    50 STATE SMOG LEGAL TREMEC T-5 SPEED, FORD 7.5″ W TRAC LOC POSI, A/C, CRUISE CONTROL, POWER WINDOWS, AM/FM/CD, HEADREST SPEAKERS, CHROME ROLL BAR, MONSTER BIG BRAKES, KYB ADJUSTABLE SHOCKS, DUAL EXHAUST, TOP AND WINDOW ARE IN XLNT COND. 30 K MILES ON CONVERSION CALL MARTIN@ 760 510-9682

    Comment by Steve57 (0c758c) — 1/17/2014 @ 11:29 pm

  171. Definitely not a Pinto. Although I must admit the idea of putting a Ford 460 into a Pinto appeals to my evil streak. Somehow I resist the urge.

    Comment by Steve57 (0c758c) — 1/17/2014 @ 11:36 pm

  172. Steve… I likes me some Mustangs, especially the coming 2015!

    Other than for long distance cruising with our kids (before they were grown), I’ve always preferred small, light, great-handling cars. My first car was a ’64 GTO and I also owned a ’68 Nova (both 4 speeds) and lusted after many a Road Runner and Hemi ‘Cuda, but once I bought my first new car (a ’74 X1/9), I went in a different direction. Like with most cars, you have to own and live with a particular car to love it, “meh” over it, or despise it.

    I am amazed at the technology they use these days.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (a94ecd) — 1/18/2014 @ 7:45 am

  173. On the X1/9s, also know of a guy who does K20 drivetrain conversions, which bring the power to weight ratio up to super-car levels… otherwise keeps ‘em pretty stock… 240 HP in a 2,000 lb. car

    http://youtu.be/Z9WE4pNzABE

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (a94ecd) — 1/18/2014 @ 7:54 am

  174. Nice post. I used to be checking constantly this weblog and I am inspired!
    Extremely useful information specifically the final section :
    ) I handle such information much. I used to be
    seeking this certain info for a long time. Thanks and
    best of luck.

    Comment by soothsayer (2c42d1) — 1/20/2014 @ 9:21 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4021 secs.