Patterico's Pontifications

2/23/2014

Susan Rice: I Have No Regrets Over Benghazi Statements

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:19 am

Of course not:

National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday that she has no regrets about comments she made in 2012 about the Benghazi attacks that killed two U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens.

Rice, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said during numerous talk-show interviews after the incidents that an inflammatory anti-Muslim video appeared to have sparked the violence.

Speaking on “Meet the Press,” Rice acknowledged her statements turned out “not to be 100 percent correct,” but she said the mistake was not intentional and that the Obama administration did not try to mislead the American people.

She said that her Benghazi comments had not been a planned attempt to mislead, but a “spontaneous reaction” to a video of Mitt Romney criticizing the president. She closed by saying that if you like your doctor, you really can keep him — as people will soon see, now that Obama is ending the “era of austerity” that has dogged his presidency. (This entire paragraph is made up, but it could be real and nobody would blink.)

Everybody knows that she lied, and is lying about whether she lied. I think everyone knows the proof, but if you have forgotten, I laid it out at this link.

If you want to see video of David Gregory laying into Rice and dismantling her denial with a point-by-point rebuttal, crushing her arguments with a simple recitation of undeniable facts, you may view that video here.

100 Responses to “Susan Rice: I Have No Regrets Over Benghazi Statements”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Democrats go on Meet the Press to get tongue-baths from a cowed and compliant media.

    JVW (709bc7)

  3. But she meant well. Isn’t that the only standard the media cares about when it comes to Democratic politicians?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  4. Nobody in the Obama Administration, from the big cheese on down, has enough self-awareness to have regrets over anything.

    JVW (709bc7)

  5. DRJ, “meaning well” in this case of course equates to “helping the President get reelected,”

    JVW (709bc7)

  6. Okay, as long as we’re clear that meant well only works one way.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  7. Okay, I read the last para and immediately clicked view that video link here, all the while thinking, seriously?! (albeit simultaneously coupled with disbelief and a smattering hope, too)…

    Shame on me.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  8. Absolutely Dana. Everyone knows that conservatives are to be judged by their results while liberals are to be judged by their intentions.

    JVW (709bc7)

  9. Yep.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  10. Intentions are such nebulous creatures. Malleable, easily camouflaged, and even more easily denied or claimed.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  11. Obama and Hillary broke the single most sacred bond we have with our fighting men. They closed their eyes and ears, turned their backs, and not only refused to come to their aid, they prevented others from mounting rescue operations. Then they ran for cover, hid behind lies and excuses to conceal their treachery, then like the cowards they are, sent a stupid patsy out to sell a cock and bull story on national TV. All of them, cowards, cheap belly crawlin’ swine, liars and worse, each and every one of them.

    ropelight (20b2f2)

  12. ropelight, it makes me wonder how they live with themselves. It’s unfathomable their consciences are that seared? Yet, clearly, they are.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  13. Dana #12,

    It’s Alinsky (1972:25): “He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of ‘personal salvation’; he doesn’t care enough for people to be corrupted for them.”

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  14. If you like your doctor you can keep him, but you have to pay for him your dang self, over and above what you shell out for insurance, deductibles and sky-high stop-loss provisions.

    SarahW (267b14)

  15. Republicans are so mean we have to lie.
    Just because the WH was ready to toss free-speech under the bus, is no reason to call Obama on the carpet about it.

    SarahW (267b14)

  16. Headline: Shameless liar not ashamed about pushing obvious WH lies.

    In other news.

    Water is Wet.

    Ice is Cold.

    It is Easier to See in the Daylight than in the Dark.

    Fire is Hot.

    There is no Replacement for Displacement.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  17. Rice got the consolation prize, National Security Adviser, while Kerry continues Hillary’s Grand Tour. Not a bad spot to be in. Until the world blows up, of course.

    Mike K (cd7278)

  18. she was only following orders…

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  19. Facts, schmacts. Who needs facts when the media doesn’t use them? What matters is whose side you are on.

    Kevin M (dbcba4)

  20. ropelight (#11)

    You are being too kind. IF the facts of Benghazi night ever come out, you will see that it wasn’t indifference and delay, it was an active cover-up from the word go. Hilary wanted these men dead because she screwed up and dead men tell no tales.

    Kevin M (dbcba4)

  21. By the way, saw House of Cards 2 now. It’s it amazing the way the fictional press goes after a fictional Democrat president, just like they’d go after a Republican?

    Oh, wait, it’s a fictional press.

    Kevin M (dbcba4)

  22. Kevin M., don’t forget that Hillary! acting on Obama’s orders (or permission if she came up with the idea) inflamed the Muslim world by buying TV time to promote the “anti-Muslim” video cover-up.

    She bought advertising in Pakistan, at least, to a) blame the video and b) insist the USG had nothing to do with it.

    Thereby only making matters worse in a country where people think it’s the government’s job to prosecute blasphemy.

    Those two would put a match to a powderkeg if that’s what it took to further the lie upon which both their political futures depended upon maintaining.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  23. She said that her Benghazi comments had not been a planned attempt to mislead, but a “spontaneous reaction” to a video of Mitt Romney criticizing the president. She closed by saying that if you like your doctor, you really can keep him — as people will soon see, now that Obama is ending the “era of austerity” that has dogged his presidency. (This entire paragraph is made up, but it could be real and nobody would blink.)

    I knew that “spontaneous reaction” could not be a quotattion from her, and was wondring if hat was a paraphrase – if they were wiggle quotes. As for the doctor business, you fauiled to mention that she was asked any questions about it.

    On Fox News, it was said that the white House put her on only one Sunday news interview show today, and that they would have asked her questions.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  24. Rice acknowledged her statements turned out “not to be 100 percent correct,” but she said the mistake was not intentional and that the Obama administration did not try to mislead the American people.

    Which, you have to realize, is true. It’s quote clear from the Benghazi e-mails that they thought that story about the spontaneous demonstration was the truth.

    What is not true is that she has no regrets.

    That’s because of the idea, apparently popular among Democratic political consultants, that the worst thing you can do is “apologize” – it doesn’t matter for what, and Democrats will regularly misrepersemnt any kind of an apology.

    Also not true, is that saying that it was merely “not 100% correct”

    The Senate report is still clinging to the idea that it was inspired by the events in Cairo which in turn were inspired by a video made in California.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  25. 24. …What is not true is that she has no regrets.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 2/23/2014 @ 12:30 pm

    I see your Truth-O-Meter is functioning and well calibrated today, Sammy.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  26. Comment by Kevin M (dbcba4) — 2/23/2014 @ 12:01 pm

    Hilary wanted these men dead because she screwed up and dead men tell no tales.

    They had no real time information.

    How would it help Hillary Clinton for more people to be dead?

    The only one who complained about security was the Ambassador. The only way she would want him dead ws if she was part of the plot to get rid of him from the beginning – if before he went to Benghazi she knew the attack would happen. So far nothing that would point to that has surfaced.

    She may have suspected who was behind the attack, and in in that case maybe been afraid to let that person be found out, because then maybe, if the U.S. took too strong action against him, he might reveal he had killed Vincent Foster.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  27. Never forget, the Obama administration lied about the events in Cairo on 9/11/2012 as well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPszLCEyu-I

    CNN’s Nic Robertson Interviews Brother of Blind Sheik

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  28. Comment by Kevin M (dbcba4) — 2/23/2014 @ 12:01 pm

    Hilary wanted these men dead because she screwed up and dead men tell no tales.

    They had no real-time information as to where the Ambassador was and what had happened to him. How could that be so?

    And how would it help Hillary Clinton for more people to be dead? The only one who had complained about security was the Ambassador.

    The only way she would want him dead was if she was part of the plot to get rid of him from the beginning – if before he went to Benghazi she knew the attack would happen. So far nothing that would point to that has surfaced. I don’t completely rule it out. But there’s nothing that points to that so far.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  29. 26. Comment by Kevin M (dbcba4) — 2/23/2014 @ 12:01 pm

    Hilary wanted these men dead because she screwed up and dead men tell no tales.

    They had no real time information.

    How would it help Hillary Clinton for more people to be dead?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 2/23/2014 @ 12:35 pm

    Sammy, are you shooting that heroin/fentanyl cocktail that’s sweeping the East Coast these days?

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm

    Background Briefing on Libya

    …Building B is another residence on the compound. It has bedrooms and it has a cantina. That’s where the folks dine. The Tactical Operations Center, which is just across the way from Building B, has offices and a bedroom. That’s where the security officers had their main setup, that’s where the security cameras are, a lot of the phones – it’s basically their operations center. So I’ll call it the TOC from now on.

    …About 7:30 in the evening, he has his last meeting. It is with a Turkish diplomat. And at – when the meeting is over, at 8:30 – he has all these meetings, by the way, in what I call Building C – when the meeting is over, he escorts the Turkish diplomat to the main gate. There is an agent there with them. They say goodbye. They’re out in a street in front of the compound. Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m. There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.

    … At 9:40 p.m., the agent in the TOC and the agents in Building C hear loud noises coming from the front gate. They also hear gunfire and an explosion. The agent in the TOC looks at his cameras – these are cameras that have pictures of the perimeter – and the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.

    …SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL NUMBER TWO: The calls were made to Tripoli at the moment that the – at the same time the agent in the TOC sounded the alarm and then proceeded to make calls. I’m not going to go into any details about the number of security personnel who moved.

    You know the content of those calls, Sammy? It’s called “real time information.”

    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Because of the – this was a post and not a – and we – this post held no classified documents. They had computer communications with Washington, but the material would arrive on the screen and you would read it on the screen, and then that was it. There was no classified paper, so there was no paper to burn.

    More real time information, Sammy.

    But more important than the real time information the DSS agent provided while in communications with the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington was that they were eye witnesses.

    Your question about why it would help Hillary! to have these people dead is mind-numbingly stupid, Sammy. Sorry, but it is.

    How does it help any criminal to have the eye-witnesses dead, Sammy? Ponder that.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  30. Her remarks on the five shows was a spontaneous reaction to events?
    Right!
    It had nothing to do with the slime being pushed by Michael Morell?

    To paraphrase an ad agency meme about Buicks:

    When better liars are found, we won’t forget Susan Rice.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  31. But…

    Hillary Clinton may have suspected who was behind the attack, and in in that case maybe been afraid to let that person be found out, because then maybe, if the U.S. took too strong action against him, he might reveal he had killed Vincent Foster.

    But this would be more of an explanation as to why she didn’t fight the CIA more about the “talking points,” not why the Ambassador wasn’t rescued, and how more attacks (against the CIA annex this time) were allowed to happen without any kind of reinforcements being sent.

    That has its own reasons, probably principally consisting of multiple lies told by some Libyan government officials.

    That would be an interesting tale to know in itself.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  32. Oh, and it’s important to note the elements in communications with each other. The Benghazi Tactical Operations Center was in communications with the DS Command Center in Washington.

    The real time information available to the people in Washington providing the most accurate picture of what was going on, particularly that nothing unusual happened all day and everything was quiet until the assault began, was operational information. Not intelligence.

    Anyone with a modicum of experience in these matters knew Rice was lying when she kept claiming that the WH was basing their cover-story on “the best intelligence we have available.”

    It wasn’t an intelligence matter. So when I started piping up that Sunday or Monday that Rice was clearly lying, it wasn’t a brilliant insight on my part.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  33. Sammy, just answer the question. Does it help criminals when they eliminate witnesses?

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  34. Public officers of the United States are allowed to discuss, in private, what there suspicions are, they are not supposed to act on them – particularly in ways that may be harmful, or tend to cause harm, to the status of the United States vis-a-vis other sovereign states.
    Hillary in this episode, demonstrated once-again, why she is not qualified to be a leader of this country – in any capacity.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  35. 30. Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 2/23/2014 @ 1:06 pm

    Her remarks on the five shows was a spontaneous reaction to events?
    Right!
    It had nothing to do with the slime being pushed by Michael Morell?

    Of course they weren’t, but as I was reading I thought she could have said something similar to that, but not exactly that.

    This is an important point. The talking points were based on what the CIA said.

    This is a very important point, and people persist in not noticing that.

    And they want to say the lies originated in the White House.

    The White House would never have originated such patent lies, doomed to fall apart, already known not to be true.

    The lies were intended only for the president and his top advisers, but in the White House they took it as such good politically exculpatory news, because it meant that it couldn’t have been prevented, because it couldn’t have been anticipated, that they wanted to make it very very public.

    Hillary Clinton, and everybody else in the State Department (which did not include Susan Rice, although she was attached to the State Department) knew that the attack had come out of the blue and there had been no demonstration in Benghazi.

    The State Department only objected to claims by the CIA that they had been warned, and some minor issues like the matter of it not being really a consulate.

    But on the issue of the demonstration, the State Department was quiet. Mb> That is the thing Hillary Clinton needs to answer for.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  36. 33. What was Ambassador Stevens a witness to?

    Only to his own objections about lack of security – in Tripoli.

    I’d rather say he was killed (and the CIA panicked out of benghazi) in order to put a halt to the U.S. efforts to ship Manpads to the Islamist rebels in Syria.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  37. 35. …This is an important point. The talking points were based on what the CIA said.

    This is a very important point, and people persist in not noticing that.

    And they want to say the lies originated in the White House.

    The White House would never have originated such patent lies, doomed to fall apart, already known not to be true.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 2/23/2014 @ 1:13 pm

    Your convoluted word-salad rationalizations about why the WH would never do this illustrates exactly why they thought they could get away with this. Or launching a non-functioning website after proclaiming how wonderful it is.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/20/former-cia-official-accused-misleading-lawmakers-on-benghazi/

    misleading lawmakers on Benghazi
    Catherine Herridge

    By Catherine Herridge
    Published February 20, 2014
    FoxNews.com
    Facebook922 Twitter713 Gplus23

    Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell is facing accusations from Republicans that he misled lawmakers about the Obama administration’s role in crafting the bogus storyline that a protest gone awry was to blame for the deadly Benghazi attack.

    Among other discrepancies, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee allege Morell insisted the talking points were sent to the White House for informational purposes, and not for their input — but emails, later released by the administration, showed otherwise.

    “We found that there was actual coordination which could influence then — and did influence — what CIA conveyed to the committees about what happened [in Benghazi],” Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., told Fox News.

    Burr was one of six Republicans who leveled the allegations against Morell, who also served as acting director, in an addendum to a recently released Senate Intelligence Committee report. According to the claims, in late 2012, Morell testified the so-called Benghazi talking points were sent to the White House “for their awareness, not for their coordination.”

    The 16-page addendum continues, “No effort was made to correct the record … the Acting Director’s (Morell) testimony perpetuated the myth that the White House played no part in the drafting or editing of the talking points.”

    All we need to know about the alternate universe you live in, Sammy, is that you find it inconceivable that a criminal would try to eliminate any eyewitnesses who could contradict the criminal’s defense.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  38. lying whores lie what can I tell you

    she’ll be quite the lil shipoopi in a Hillary white house

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  39. 36. 33. What was Ambassador Stevens a witness to?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 2/23/2014 @ 1:15 pm

    Yes, Sammy, when I was referring to the DS Agent in the TOC who was in telephonic and computer communications with the DS CC I was of course referring to Amb. Stevens.

    Can your evasions get any more unhinged, Sammy? I’m sure we’ll find out.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  40. But the question is, why when the “talking points” were being circulated, why was the State Department quiet about there never having been any kind of protest in Benghazi – just a surprise attack?

    Possibly:

    SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE was coming in from “intelligence partners” (which means Saudi Arabia and Qatar) as well as from some people in the Libyan government) that it had started with a demonstration over a video.

    If Hillary Clinton knew that a prime source of that disinformation was the man who probably had a secret unscheduled meeting in the White House with President Clinton and Sandy Burglar during the hours Foster was missing * she might not have wanted to dispute it.

    A much milder alternative possible scenario for letting this go by would be, she went along to get along and it wasn’t her battle. But that’s not very admirable.

    * There was a whole article in the New Republic by Fred Barnes of the New Republic and published on page 10 of the March 14, 1004 New Republic, right at the time when Foster case leaks were reaching a crescendo, that was basically only about why this unscheduled meeting had taken place.

    It said unscheduled meetings were a kind of routine thing for Clinton to have, which they told Fred Barnes, were called “preorganized encounters” among Clinton aides.

    And this one, involving Prince Bandar “in July” – which can only have bene July, 1993 – was an example. Except that they story doesn’t really add up, since the plane sale had already agreed to, and the whote House was also careful to specify that what happened here wasn’t typical!

    I filed FOIA case number 9700879, which was a roundabout way of attempting to confirm this meeting, after I found out the Secret Service claimed it kept no records and referred me to the White House counsels’s office which claimed immunity from FOIA requests.

    This was finally answered early in the Bush administration, but was of no help in confirming this meeting or getting the date.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  41. Michael Morell is a dedicated Obamatron.
    He was doing the WH’s bidding.

    When he left the CIA, did he go off to a cushy sinecure in academia like so many of his predecessors?
    No, he joined CBS as their Senior Security Correspondent,
    joined Beacon Global Strategies LLC, as ? (Beacon’s four founders/partners are closely associated with the Clinton Foundation and believed to be key advisors for the Clinton-’16 Prez run),
    and he’s on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board –
    which would seem to be a direct conflict of interest with his position at CBS.

    Mr. Morell has a lot to answer for, though it is doubtful whether anyone on The Hill has the spine to question him.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  42. It’s quote clear from the Benghazi e-mails that they thought that story about the spontaneous demonstration was the truth.

    Oh BS. I didn’t think you customarily, blatantly lied Finkleman just emphasized different facets.

    …. by the country’s top military officers on what was known in the earliest moments of the September 2012 attack in Benghazi, and by all indications,ethe Pentagon had no doubt a terrorist attack was unfolding and briefed President Obama to that effect shortly afterwards.

    According to the transcripts, Gen. Carter Ham, then the top commander in the region, testified that he learned the U.S. Consulate was under attack within 15 minutes from when it began and knew at that time that Ambassador Chris Stevens “had been targeted and had gone missing.”

    He immediately briefed “then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff” who were on their way to a “previously scheduled” meeting with President Obama, Fox News’ James Rosen reported.

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/01/14/newly-declassified-benghazi-testimony-pentagon-told-obama-it-was-terrorism-94176

    red (ac28a9)

  43. —-They had no real time information.

    Sorry, you are making up “facts”. See my post immediately above.

    red (ac28a9)

  44. Comment by Steve57 (a7ff60) — 2/23/2014 @ 1:23 pm

    Yes, Sammy, when I was referring to the DS Agent in the TOC who was in telephonic and computer communications with the DS CC I was of course referring to Amb. Stevens.

    No, I didn’t know who you were talking about.

    Yes, the fewer people who survived, the fewer the accounts of how the attack actually happened, but for this to be a motive in not getting help, Hillary Clinton must have wanted the attack to happen before it happened, and been in on the planning of it.

    She would have had to send the Ambassador to Benghazi to be killed. I’m not saying that didn’t happen. Such a thing is possible with Hillary Clinton, albeit she needs a motive, and we need a some clues.

    I’m saying that if that didn’t happen, then her decisions that night were NOT motivated by an attempt to have more Americans die.

    That is to be distinguished from going along with
    a story that other people were telling.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  45. One thing pointing to the idea that the Ambassador’s murder, not just the attack, was planned in advancem, and the attackers had inside information:

    Ambassador Christopher Stevens wasn’t there too often, and Sept. 11th was a particularly bad to be there, just on general principles.

    Ambassador Stevens was killed because some people where the “safe room” he would be taken to was,, and that it was a firetrap.

    There were some other things too. In all, this was almost certainly planned only by people with complete knowledge of the security procedures in that villa. Otherwise they were really, really, lucky.

    There is a tendency of people defeated in a combat situation, or who analyze a defeat, to believe in the enemy’s luck.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  46. Also keep in mind that Doherty and Woods were former SEALs. SEALs are trained in Special Reconnaissance. It’s one of their core missions; they infiltrate enemy held territory or remain behind if other forces withdraw to report on the enemy situation.

    They are trained observers as well. If they were in communications with CIA they were also providing real time information. And would have been devastating witnesses against the administration lie. I’m sure the other contractors have similar backgrounds in SF/SPECWAR. Which is why Obama installed a political fixer as CIA director.

    Because one of the lies they would have blown apart are these:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/panetta-military-lacked-enough-information-to-intervene-during-benghazi-attack/

    “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

    Even pogues like me know this is the height of BS on so many different levels it’s gobsmacking. Starting with the fact that the US already had forces in harm’s way. And ending with the fact that as far as special operators who’ve commented on this are concerned, it’s practically a dream set-up for them. They normally are the ones sent into harms way without knowing what’s going on to find out what’s going on (but the USA and USMC will use regular infantry if that’s all that’s available). In this case there were already SF/SPECWAR on the objective providing real time intel and effectively engaging the enemy. As one operator observed, that isn’t an assault. That’s a link-up.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  47. “It’s quite clear from the Benghazi e-mails that they thought that story about the spontaneous demonstration was the truth.”

    Comment by red (ac28a9) — 2/23/2014 @ 1:32 pm

    Oh BS. I didn’t think you customarily, blatantly lied Finkleman just emphasized different facets.

    …. by the country’s top military officers on what was known in the earliest moments of the September 2012 attack in Benghazi, and by all indications,ethe Pentagon had no doubt a terrorist attack was unfolding and briefed President Obama to that effect shortly afterwards.

    I’m talking about the people in the White House, several days later, and you’re talking about the Pentagon!!

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  48. Always fun to watch some people’s reactions to hyperbole.

    Kevin M (dbcba4)

  49. Hillary Clinton, and everybody else in the State Department (which did not include Susan Rice, although she was attached to the State Department) knew that the attack had come out of the blue

    Sammy, I know you lean left, and I know you’re surrounded by like-minded people. Therefore, don’t trust your instincts. Don’t trust the biases that sway your way of thinking.

    Anyone with half a brain — with a bit of common sense — could have determined from the get-go that the idea of a nonsensical, non-viral video posted to Youtube made by some obscure guy in California being the origins of the violence in Benghazi didn’t pass the smell test. To have even toyed with that bit of propaganda and, in turn, exploited it says a lot about the oddly ruthless, heartless, corrupt nature of people like Hillary and Barack.

    Then again, Clinton’s daring escape from deadly sniper fire on a tarmac in Bosnia several years ago apparently has damaged her nerves and sense of perspective, so I guess she deserves some benefit of the doubt.

    Keep in mind that the cast of characters in the current administration is among the originators of the PC idiocy and lunacy of the Nidal-Hasan-ization of the US military, and undoubtedly other departments of the US government too. So the arcane points of who or what truly knew about the specifics of Benghazi — before and after — becomes even more a case of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    hotair.com May 9, 2013: Mother of Benghazi victim: Hillary and Susan Rice told me “nose to nose” that the Mohammed video was to blame

    This makes two parents of men killed in Benghazi who’ve claimed that Hillary told them personally that the video was the prime mover in the attack. Tyrone Woods’s father went a step further and alleged that she vowed to have the filmmaker “arrested and prosecuted” — which, courtesy of California authorities, is what ended up happening.

    Why did she think it was some sort of comfort to the bereaved that the attack might have been motivated by the Mohammed movie? She went so far as to mention it in her remarks a few days afterward at the ceremony at Andrews AFB when the victims’ bodies arrived.

    With Stevens’s remains right in front of her, she interrupted her praise for his service to note that “rage and violence” had been directed at American embassies “over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

    Even if that were true, who cares? Why would Mr. Woods or Mrs. Smith give a wet shinola about what motivated a group of degenerates to kill their kids? State’s duty to protect its diplomats doesn’t dissolve depending upon whether an attack was foreseeable — which of course it was in the case of Benghazi, given the consulate’s repeated warnings about a growing jihadi presence in the city.

    BTW, commentator Pat Buchanan is known to love blood and violence. Oh, and Barack Obama at his core really isn’t a leftist.

    Mark (aea093)

  50. According to the transcripts, Gen. Carter Ham, then the top commander in the region, testified that he learned the U.S. Consulate was under attack within 15 minutes from when it began and knew at that time that Ambassador Chris Stevens “had been targeted and had gone missing.”

    Meaning, really, he concluded that was the idea.

    He immediately briefed “then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff” who were on their way to a “previously scheduled” meeting with President Obama, Fox News’ James Rosen reported.

    Yes, but then the SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE ame in, and caused some people in the whote House to change their minds, and attempt to “correct” WHAT HAD BEEN TOLD TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    I’m talking about the Benghazi e-mails. What the Whiote House knew or thought, after being misled by the CIA.

    The White House was getting its information from the CIA, not from the Pentagon or the State Department. The CIA has a lot to answer for, and Obama for letting this thing happen.

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

    Subject: RE: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for review [HSPCI =3D House Permanent select Committee on Intelligence]

    There is massive disinformation out there, particularly with Congress.

    They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptions 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:

    Skinnying list. I do not understand the nature of this exercise. And some of the statements below are new by me. Can we have a conversation before this goes out:

    The reply, in other words, was that this was needed to correct the disinformation that the attack was planned and not spontaneous!

    Here we see that the White House “knew” that it was not premeditated and wanted to correct the record.

    And there’s a further e-mail that indicates that:

    At 9:34 on Friday Sept 14, 2012 Benjamin J Rhodes writes, in part, in a similar vein:

    There is a ton of wrong formation geting 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 here you see, oth that they are convinced that what they later sent Susan Rice out to tell what they thought was the truth, and that it was important to get that out there.

    and consider what was it that people who ARE particularly informed HAVE OR KNOW that others do not?

    It can only have been SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE.

    That’s what told them the attack was not planned.

    U.S. government sources would have led to quote different conclusions.

    If not, people in the White House were making an incredible bluff.

    They had to believe what they were saying.

    What Obama is covering up now is how stupid he and his people were.

    And also he is buying excuses.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  51. 44. …No, I didn’t know who you were talking about.

    DS Agent in the Tactical Operations Center was unclear? If it was, why didn’t you bother reading the link to the DoS Background Briefing on Libya? Or would that have interfered with your reimagineering of history?

    Yes, the fewer people who survived, the fewer the accounts of how the attack actually happened, but for this to be a motive in not getting help, Hillary Clinton must have wanted the attack to happen before it happened, and been in on the planning of it.

    …I’m saying that if that didn’t happen, then her decisions that night were NOT motivated by an attempt to have more Americans die.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 2/23/2014 @ 1:34 pm

    It’s patently ridiculous to claim that the only scenario in which it makes sense that Hillary! would engineer a cover-up and attempt to eliminate/silence witnesses would have to have been if she had to have wanted the attack to happen “and had been in on the planning of it.”

    It would also have been enough if her rigid ideology and blind ambition had blinkered her to the reality of the situation. And consequently leading to errors of judgement and misfeasance and nonfeasance as Secretary of State so huge as to be disqualifying for higher office if not criminally negligent.

    She has no foreign policy achievements as SecState. She was trying to hang her hat on Libya, and that blew up in her face. That alone would be enough for her to deliberately saw off the branch onto which she had ordered these men.

    Although her inane table pounding session when she demanded to know, “what difference, at this point, does it make” before answering her own question by acknowledging it was their job to find out what happened so it doesn’t happen again does suggest that she was to some degree complicit.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  52. 47. …I’m talking about the people in the White House, several days later, and you’re talking about the Pentagon!!

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 2/23/2014 @ 1:40 pm

    Aww, sweet bejeebus, Sammy.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  53. I guess when Susan Rice and the rest of the WH gang were talking about basing their “spontaneous reaction to a video” on the “best available intelligence,” you agree that the proper source of that intel was David Axelrod at campaign HQ?

    Because it’s freakin’ insane to think they should be getting any of that info from the Pentagon.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  54. “Hillary Clinton, and everybody else in the State Department (which did not include Susan Rice, although she was attached to the State Department) knew that the attack had come out of the blue.”

    NO advance warning.

    48. Comment by Mark (aea093) — 2/23/2014 @ 1:44 pm

    Sammy, I know you lean left, and I know you’re surrounded by like-minded people. </i.

    No, I don't really "lean left" as l;eft is ordinarily understood, and I'm not surrounded by like-minded people.

    Anyone with half a brain — with a bit of common sense — could have determined from the get-go that the idea of a nonsensical, non-viral video posted to Youtube made by some obscure guy in California being the origins of the violence in Benghazi didn’t pass the smell test.

    It didn’t to me, but it did seem to me that some people on the left might believe that. At last if they also believed that Mohammed artoons had caused riots.

    Not only was it possible that some people beleived that, it was certain, becaus ethat wa sthe premise of the State Department tweets from the Cairo Embassy.

    If that means that the people in the Cairo Embassy and in other places in the U.S. goverment didn’t have a half a brain, or had it tied ehnd their back, so be it.

    Not everybody is ready to assert that some things just don’t jibe woth common sense and CANNOT be true.

    I’m satisfied that Susan Rice did believe this nonsense, or at least thought that other people did. Maybe she had no real opinion herself.

    To have even toyed with that bit of propaganda and, in turn, exploited it says a lot about the oddly ruthless, heartless, corrupt nature of people like Hillary and Barack.

    Yes. Hillary definitely should have known there were a lot of problems with that. At least with the idea that the bideo itself caused it. she was arguing this was illogical – but that may have been because it was the official position in the U.S. government, that that’s what motivated the attack.

    And after Benghazi, demonstrations were organzied in many many countries about the video.

    Then again, Clinton’s daring escape from deadly sniper fire on a tarmac in Bosnia several years ago apparently has damaged her nerves and sense of perspective, so I guess she deserves some benefit of the doubt.

    Of course that was a lie.

    I think this business of arguing about the video was caused Hillary Clinton’s policy of not contradicting President Obama, or some other officials. It wouldn’t do any harm to make this counterargument, so she did.

    Keep in mind that the cast of characters in the current administration is among the originators of the PC idiocy and lunacy of the Nidal-Hasan-ization of the US military, and undoubtedly other departments of the US government too. So the arcane points of who or what truly knew about the specifics of Benghazi — before and after — becomes even more a case of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    I think there are some different people involved, but anyway.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  55. 53. Comment by Steve57 (a7ff60) — 2/23/2014 @ 2:01 pm

    I guess when Susan Rice and the rest of the WH gang were talking about basing their “spontaneous reaction to a video” on the “best available intelligence,” you agree that the proper source of that intel was David Axelrod at campaign HQ?

    Because it’s freakin’ insane to think they should be getting any of that info from the Pentagon.

    Not the Pentagon, and not David Axelrod.

    The CIA and the DNI.

    They were supposed to give him a finished product, and what they told him, and other people in the White House, was supposed to be “the best available intelligence” to the U.S. government.

    That was what they were tasked to do.

    President Obama never cross-examined his intelligence briefers – often he was content to take his briefings in writing.

    Now you may have a question: How, when he discovers that he was badly misinformed, HE DOES NOTHING!

    But he always does nothing.

    Nobody ever gets fired or replaced for incompetence in the Obama Administration.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  56. Willing lying shill
    Truth means nothing to these gimps
    sorry… no dice Rice

    Sent from my iPhone as I sit on teh beach at Half Moon Bay

    Colonel Haiku (5f5b8b)

  57. hotair.com May 9, 2013: Mother of Benghazi victim: Hillary and Susan Rice told me “nose to nose” that the Mohammed video was to blame

    This makes two parents of men killed in Benghazi who’ve claimed that Hillary told them personally that the video was the prime mover in the attack.

    Tyrone Woods’s father went a step further and alleged that she vowed to have the filmmaker “arrested and prosecuted” — which, courtesy of California authorities, is what ended up happening.

    Why did she think it was some sort of comfort to the bereaved that the attack might have been motivated by the Mohammed movie? She went so far as to mention it in her remarks a few days afterward at the ceremony at Andrews AFB when the victims’ bodies arrived.

    I looked at that and I don’t think she really said he was to blame for the attack. She thought it was a comfort because she thinks all people want is a scapegoat. Because they’re dumb.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  58. With Stevens’s remains right in front of her, she interrupted her praise for his service to note that “rage and violence” had been directed at American embassies “over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

    Which was true – after September 11, 2012.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/spread-of-protests-sparked-by-anti-muslim-video.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/middleeast/mideast-turmoil-spreads-to-us-embassy-in-yemen.html?pagewanted=all

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/anti-american-protests-over-film-enter-4th-day.html?pagewanted=all

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/world/asia/crowds-storm-us-consulate-in-pakistan-and-one-dies.html

    It was believed that the Cairo protest had also been about the video, although it reall;y wasn’t about the video:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/middleeast/egypt-hearing-from-obama-moves-to-heal-rift-from-protests.html?pagewanted=all

    Note also, Hillary Clinton used the word “embassies.”

    The word “embassies” excludes Benghazi, which was NOT the site of an embassy.

    Clintonian parsing. Remember that?

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  59. Even if that were true, who cares? Why would Mr. Woods or Mrs. Smith give a wet shinola about what motivated a group of degenerates to kill their kids? State’s duty to protect its diplomats doesn’t dissolve depending upon whether an attack was foreseeable — which of course it was in the case of Benghazi, given the consulate’s repeated warnings about a growing jihadi presence in the city.

    Do you guard against remote contingencies?

    It maybe looked like you’d have plenty of notice before an attack they couldn’t beat back would occur.

    BTW, commentator Pat Buchanan is known to love blood and violence. Oh, and Barack Obama at his core really isn’t a leftist.

    Yes, he does. On the The McLaughlin Group this week he pretty much endorsed a crackdown by the Ukrainian government.

    And Obama is not a leftist. Obama is principally a fraud, although he is aleftist by default in many things because he doesn’t care in many cases what’s truly right or wrong.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  60. —-I’m talking about the people in the White House, several days later, and you’re talking about the Pentagon!!—

    You are right sammy. One of the hallmarks of the Obama administration is that all of the executive departments are independent satrapy’s. This is why Obama frequently can appear in press briefings and say that he only learned what one of his departments is doing in the newspaper. Never before have Americans encountered this new form of government somewhat similar to feudal lordships. It is quite sophisticated of you to recognize this.

    Now on to American in geosattelite communications 2014…Maybe Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates or the CEO of Dutch Shell can get away with saying that he doesn’t know what one of his divisions is doing, but we elect a “Chief Executive”. His real responsibility in the “Situation Room” is to ensure that departments are sharing operational statuses and coordinating responses.

    red (ac28a9)

  61. “It said unscheduled meetings were a kind of routine thing for Clinton to have, which they told Fred Barnes, were called “preorganized encounters” among Clinton aides.”

    Yes, Slick Willie had several of those with Monica Lewisky…

    Colonel Haiku (2d77cf)

  62. Not the Pentagon, and not David Axelrod.

    The CIA and the DNI.

    And why not the Pentagon? They are part of a department of our government are they not? They had immediate situational reportage.

    You are probably not aware that the Pentagon (DIA) is part of the intelligence community that reports to the DNI.

    You are imagining a stovepipe of bungling miscommunication so that you can excuse this massive lie to the American people.

    red (ac28a9)

  63. Note wheren Morell has slithered off to, the outfit set up by Phillip ‘reset’ Reines, coincidence or enemy action;

    http://beaconglobalstrategies.com/our-team/

    narciso (3fec35)

  64. Sammy, are you dedicated to the principle of not knowing how things work and obstinately refusing to find out?

    The White House Situation Room is a fusion center. Which means it creates its own finished products from various inputs. And one of those centers providing input is the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon, with which the WHSR is in direct communications.

    The WHSR room is staffed with senior, experienced members of the military and IC (and now DHS to I guess dumb things down) precisely because they’re not supposed to take what they’re fed at face value. They can and will reach past the NMCC and go to the command originating the report (they can and do read intelligence reports produced by DoD intel centers worldwide) to ask WTFO.

    I know this because a command I was intimately familiar with received just such a phone call. I never thought it would be necessary to explain this to an intelligence watch officer, but no matter how slow the day or how “cute” the story, news tabloid stories about UFOs do not belong in the air activity section of a daily intelligence summary. The watch officer got a call within the hour of sending the message from the WHSR telling her to never do that again. And the CO got a follow-up call in the morning.

    If the National Security Adviser’s staff cut all that out of the loop to collude with the CIA to create talking points, that’s further evidence of malicious intent. It could be no honest mistake.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  65. —-I looked at that and I don’t think she really said he was to blame for the attack. She thought it was a comfort because she thinks all people want is a scapegoat.

    What an emotionally impoverished being you are. People who have real human emotions want to know the truth. They don’t want to be lied to like children.

    On top of this contemptible devaluation of the grieving families, an innocent person was framed for this geopolitical spectacle. Sent to jail for an extended period of time.

    I would think that some people would be more outraged by the creation of a scapegoat by our own government given its history in the mid 20th century.

    red (ac28a9)

  66. own government given its history

    To be more clear:

    …given the history of scapegoating in the mid 20th century

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Hitler_use_the_Jews_as_a_scapegoat_for_Germany%27s_problems?#slide=1

    and in our own time

    http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/french-anti-semitic-comedy.html

    red (ac28a9)

  67. I was expecting to see a video of David Gregory dismantling Susan Rice but was instead directed to a wikipedia entry on Fantasyland. Bad link? Inside joke?

    Bird Dog (130699)

  68. 58. I looked at that and I don’t think she really said he was to blame for the attack. She thought it was a comfort because she thinks all people want is a scapegoat. Because they’re dumb.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 2/23/2014 @ 2:21 pm

    It was a comfort only to the guilty party who needed to shift the blame to a scapegoat, Sammy.

    It was no comfort to the people who lost their loved ones and wanted both the truth and the actual guilty parties to pay.

    Can you just stop pulling inanities out of your @$$, Sammy? You can’t rationalize this without demonstrating yourself to be just as malodorous as the people for whom you’re desperately trying to invent excuses.

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  69. Bird Dog, did you seriously expect to see one of the administration’s water carriers in the MFM actually dismantle that fraud’s flimsy lies?

    Steve57 (a7ff60)

  70. Anymore then Gregory would inquire of his better half’s part in Fannie and Freddie,

    narciso (3fec35)

  71. They seek him here
    they seek him there
    Sammy’s a dedicated follower
    of nonsense

    Colonel Haiku (2d77cf)

  72. 68. Got it. Inside joke.

    Bird Dog (130699)

  73. #67, Dog, you been rick rolled. Never gonna give you up, never gonna make you cry,…

    ropelight (20b2f2)

  74. so Barry is going to have Shrillery arrested?

    that would be epic comedy gold.

    8-)

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  75. She has no regrets that she lied in order to cover for President Obama’s crack “smart power” team led by Ms. Clinton.
    She is all kinds of snake in the grass liar and also has the audacity of the media behind her, so no one like Gregory will ever challenge her assertions

    steveg (794291)

  76. I looked at that and I don’t think she really said he was to blame for the attack. She thought it was a comfort because she thinks all people want is a scapegoat. Because they’re dumb.

    Sammy, even at this last, late minute you’re still making lame excuses for liberals like Hillary. You’re implying her wonderful, beautiful, loving big heart was the reason she was both lying to and bringing up irrelevant (if not also nonsensical) matters in front of the grieving family members of those killed in Benghazi.

    On the The McLaughlin Group this week he pretty much endorsed a crackdown by the Ukrainian government.

    The way you approach not just a Hillary but also an Obama, and then — for the full effect — also someone like a Pat Buchanan is another reason why I pegged you as of the left awhile back. I don’t say that derogatorily (although, yea, I don’t trust the judgment of liberals in general), but descriptively.

    The following are the musings and rantings of a commentator who, in your words, loves blood and violence:

    townhall.com, Pat Buchanan, February 21: [T]he reality in Kiev is more complex than the black-and-white cartoon of Vladimir Putin vs. the freedom fighters drawn by our resident Russophobic elite. Perspective is in order.

    First, though portrayed as a tyrannical thug, Viktor Yanukovych won the presidency of Ukraine in 2010 in what international observers called a free and fair election. He may not be Marcus Aurelius, but his remains the legitimate government. Second, high among the reasons Yanukovych chose Russia’s offer to join its custom union over the EU is that Putin put a better deal on the table. Moscow put up $15 billion in loans and cut-rate oil and gas. The EU offered some piddling loans and credits, plus a demand for reforms in the Ukrainian economy monitored by the IMF, but no commitment to full membership in the EU.

    As for the “protesters” who came to Maidan Square in November, not all came simply to protest. Many set up tents and shacks, threw up barricades, seized government buildings, burned the headquarters of the ruling party, battled police and demanded the overthrow of the regime.

    How many Western countries would permit a planned putsch in their capital city? Still, after weeks of protest, Yanukovych offered to negotiate. He fired his prime minister and tendered the post to the leader of the opposition Arseniy Yatsenyuk. He offered to make Vitali Klitschko, the ex-heavyweight champion and the head of another opposition party, the deputy prime minister. His offer was rejected.

    Yanukovych then had parliament repeal the tough laws against protests he had had enacted and delivered a full amnesty to those arrested during the months of occupation. In effect, Yanukovych offered peace and a coalition government with his opponents until new presidential elections new year.

    Does that sound like an unyielding tyrant?

    President Obama is telling the Yanukovych government to respect the protesters. No violence. But how would Obama react if thousands of Tea Party members established an encampment on the Mall, burned down the DNC, occupied the Capitol and demanded he either repeal Obamacare or resign?

    And Obama is not a leftist. Obama is principally a fraud, although he is aleftist by default in many things because he doesn’t care in many cases what’s truly right or wrong.

    ^ Finally, this of all things not only tells me that you don’t perceive things correctly, but it says to me that you, for some reason, favor separating Obama from his liberal/leftist roots. Why? You apparently (1) don’t want him to be portrayed as he really is because you don’t want liberalism/Democrats to be tarnished more than they have to be, or (2) you don’t want people on your side of the ideological/political aisle to be associated with such a disgrace and debacle, or (3) he isn’t liberal enough for your tastes and therefore can’t possibly have the heart of a true liberal/leftwinger.

    Sammy, in all of this, if you at least — at least — eventually realize that liberal biases don’t necessarily imbue a human with wonderful, beautiful, compassionate, sophisticated, tolerant — and certainly intelligent — qualities, then there’s hope for you.

    Mark (aea093)

  77. They will arrest some guy, place a “very bad actor and so he did it” in the media and there ya go… just like the dunce/dupe Coptic guy who made the video

    steveg (794291)

  78. Somewhere in hell Qaddafi is wondering why he took a bayonet in the ass for those two lying b*****s

    steveg (794291)

  79. Abu Khattalah, is very small fry, in the big scheme of things, like one of the minor Crowe gang.

    narciso (3fec35)

  80. “It said unscheduled meetings were a kind of routine thing for Clinton to have, which they told Fred Barnes, were called “preorganized encounters” among Clinton aides.”

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (2d77cf) — 2/23/2014 @ 2:38 pm

    Yes, Slick Willie had several of those with Monica Lewisky…

    Interesting point.

    The Starr Report details how every single one of them happened. She was, of course, already in the White House, as an intern, and later an employee, for the earliest ones. She had various excuses to see him.

    Later on, she was sent away, and Bill Clinton blamed some anonymous people in the White House for it, and promised to bring Monica Lewinsky back after the election, but was lying to her.

    I think in most of the later cases, she signed in that she was going to visit Betty Currie, who was Bill Clinton’s personal secretary. She had a way of arranging to see him, which he probably didn’t want, but couldn’t refuse because maybe she could turn on him. He never wanted to actually break off with her – just keep her dangling. Linda Tripp finally decided to break it up by making it public, because Monica Lewinsky was absolutely miserable, always complaining to her..

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  81. That was all later than 1993.

    I suspected that what this leak to Fred Barnes meant was that there must have been a record of that visit by the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and the date and time it happened, and the fact it was unscheduled.

    Or there never would been a leak to Fred Barnes about it.

    Th leak meant there was a record that somebody else could find. It was leaked to provide an explanation for it. It would be all there, on the record, in advance, in case anybody got curious, and nobody could say this was a story made up later after a investigation started.

    So I thought there must be a record. But I also thought it probably wouldn’t be so easy to crack the case. I didn’t really have high expectations.

    It wouldn’t be reasonable to think that the cover-up would be so vulnerable – and indeed I found out that was the case because I could never get this confirmed yes or no.

    The Secret Service claimed they kept no records, and only the White House counsel’s office did.

    Of course if you didn’t know the rest of the story, if you didn’t know that the Saudi Arabian Ambassador’s residence was right across the street from Fort Marcy Park, you’d never suspect this story in the New Republic dated March 14, 1994 was a Foster case leak.

    Later on, in 1998, they released records of visits to the White House and the whole release was misleading; Records of entry into the White House were never vulnerable to a Freedom of Information Act request . I know. I tried.

    The release of overnight stays in the Lincoln bedroom, however apparently damaging it was to Preident Clinton, was entirely voluntary (or there was some other legal proceeding that might have forced it out).

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  82. I never tire of SOOPER SEKRIT intelligence.

    JD (0c14a5)

  83. “I looked at that and I don’t think she really said he was to blame for the attack. She thought it was a comfort because she thinks all people want is a scapegoat. Because they’re dumb.

    Comment by Mark (aea093) — 2/23/2014 @ 5:45 pm

    Sammy, even at this last, late minute you’re still making lame excuses for liberals like Hillary.

    Is this an excuse? I’m saying she attempted to make hem feel better, on a false basis.

    You’re implying her wonderful, beautiful, loving big heart was the reason she was both lying to and bringing up irrelevant (if not also nonsensical) matters in front of the grieving family members of those killed in Benghazi.

    You – and Steve57 also – are minunderstanding me. I don’t think that was because she had any kind of a big heart. It was because she didn’t want them to be a problem. I think also she didn’t really mean to imply that the person respoonsible for the video was responsible for the attack because hat would have been expecting them to be really stupid. These were two separate statements.

    She wanted them to feel a little good about the video person so they wouldn’t be so demanding about finding the culprits, which she knew, was not likely to happen, although she promised them that they’d get that.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  84. 79. Pat Buchanan is making out Yanukovich to be the one of the good guys. I’m saying, because he loves blood and violence.

    This is apparently not ready yet, but shoud be soon:

    http://www.mclaughlin.com/transcript.htm?id=996

    I think he said the Ukrainian government should have used more force. He was ready to justify it in advance, like he does in your quote:

    How many Western countries would permit a planned putsch in their capital city

    What do you think he’s getting at?

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  85. A “liberal bias”” is a bias toward stupidity. It is not a bias to doing wrong things.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  86. Yanukovich, is an old party boss, but ran a very reactionary regime, in social terms, that appeals to Pat as with Putin, they were a major support for the Syrian regime,

    narciso (3fec35)

  87. Comment by Mark (aea093) — 2/23/2014 @ 5:45 pm

    you, for some reason, favor separating Obama from his liberal/leftist roots. Why? You apparently (1) don’t want him to be portrayed as he really is because you don’t want liberalism/Democrats to be tarnished more than they have to be, or (2) you don’t want people on your side of the ideological/political aisle to be associated with such a disgrace and debacle, or (3) he isn’t liberal enough for your tastes and therefore can’t possibly have the heart of a true liberal/leftwinger.

    I don’t think that liberalism is a character flaw, and if someone has a character flaw, that is not, in and of itself, liberalism.

    Now, most of what passes nowadays for liberalism is not really any good. It’s stupidity. Sometimes it is doctrine. It always pretends to be good. If someone actually thinks this or that is good, and it’s not, it is not then a character flaw. It may be an intellectual flaw.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  88. Interesting thing about Syria: After Obama talked to Putin, and they were talking about UKraine, Putin suddenly agreed to a UN resolution about Syria.

    Not much, just that both sides or all sides shold not interfere with food shipments, but he previously vetoed something loike taht three times.

    You have to wonder if another shoe is going to drop – is this like the Hungarian Revolution?

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  89. the deal with Syria, was contigent on the back channel with Iran,

    narciso (3fec35)

  90. There is no real deal with Syria, except on chemical weapons.

    Which is being slow-walked, not because Assad wants to use them any more, it’s too risky, but because so long as he’s getting rid of them, the United States under Obama will not want to interrupt that process.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  91. Sammy’s pretty happy to be prattling on about Clinton so as to avoid answering for his complacent acceptance of”

    – the Secretary of State lying directly to the face of families of American heros
    – the Secretary of State apologizing to the Muslim Middle East for our free speech.
    –the President apologizing to the UN for our free speech
    – for the ‘scapegoating’ of an American resident filmmaker to support her lies.

    This isn’t the kind of lying government that Americans deserve. And it doesn’t respect the American people’s God given rights as recorded in the Constitution.

    red (ac28a9)

  92. Comment by Mark (aea093) — 2/23/2014 @ 5:45 pm

    Sammy, in all of this, if you at least — at least — eventually realize that liberal biases don’t necessarily imbue a human with wonderful, beautiful, compassionate, sophisticated, tolerant — and certainly intelligent — qualities, then there’s hope for you.

    No it doesn’t, especially the intelligent part, but, except for the intelligent part maybe, it doesn’t imbue someone with character flaws.

    Now you may find this with many liberal politicians, but that would be because they have to know what they are promoting is wrong, and it is all a fraud.

    Comment by Mark (aea093) — 2/23/2014 @ 5:45 pm

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  93. 94.Comment by red (ac28a9) — 2/23/2014 @ 6:47 pm

    Sammy’s pretty happy to be prattling on about Clinton so as to avoid answering for his complacent acceptance of”

    It only looks like complacent acceptance because of wrongheaded accusations.

    – the Secretary of State lying directly to the face of families of American heros

    The big lie there maybe was the promise they would find the people responsible. I don’t believe there was an attempt to try to claim that the maker of the video was the man to hold responsible.

    – the Secretary of State apologizing to the Muslim Middle East for our free speech.

    Very bad. That stopped after some criticism. And of course the oremise heer is that the video was actually causing something. Organizers were causing things.

    –the President apologizing to the UN for our free speech

    Not really. I remember going over that speech.

    – for the ‘scapegoating’ of an American resident filmmaker to support her lies.

    The scapegoating really came from DOJ. Now the real problem was that the whole case was covered up, because I think Nakoula was part of the plot.

    He made the video to help the Islamists. Films attacking Mohammed don’t just happen by themselves, you know!!

    Nakoula lied to everybody about what he was doing. He lied to the actors, he lied to people he rented things from, he claimed this was about persecution by Copts, the title “Innocence of Muslims” implies it is pro-Moslem =- he lied about where he got the money from, blaming Jews, later his wife’s family in Egypt, when the money, probably really came from the Moslem Brotherhood or some offshoot.

    And he never made a movie – just a hodgepodge.

    This isn’t the kind of lying government that Americans deserve.

    Did I say it was?

    And it doesn’t respect the American people’s God given rights as recorded in the Constitution.

    ??? It doesn’t respect the public anyway.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  94. “I looked at that and I don’t think she really said he was to blame for the attack. She thought it was a comfort because she thinks all people want is a scapegoat.”

    I should have said she made som3 reference to that thinking ot would help satisfy a desire for revenge.

    66. Comment by red (ac28a9) — 2/23/2014 @ 2:45 pm

    What an emotionally impoverished being you are. People who have real human emotions want to know the truth. They don’t want to be lied to like children.

    Of course. I never said there were any good intentions here – the intention here was gto prevent the families from being a political problem.

    On top of this contemptible devaluation of the grieving families, an innocent person was framed for this geopolitical spectacle. Sent to jail for an extended period of time.

    He was blamed for the wrong thing. But he was not an innocent character at all – he was part of the plot and had probably been paid by the Moslem Brotherhood or other Islamists to make the video. And blame Jews for it, too.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  95. No it doesn’t, especially the intelligent part, but, except for the intelligent part maybe, it doesn’t imbue someone with character flaws.

    Now you may find this with many liberal politicians, but that would be because they have to know what they are promoting is wrong, and it is all a fraud.

    In my book a character flaw includes people who have a combination of a major lack of common sense, logic and honesty and, in turn, a tremendous surplus of willful naivete — similar to that of a brat-faced teenager, yet are well past their 30s or 40s (eg, 52-year-old Barack Obama).

    I don’t believe there was an attempt to try to claim that the maker of the video was the man to hold responsible.

    Yes, you’re correct.

    BTW, it’s well known that Hillary Clinton was being a truly honest, honorable person when she mentioned in public settings during her campaign in 2008 that as First Lady she successfully dodged sniper fire in Bosnia. So honest and honorable about that entire episode in her noble life that she even repeated the same heroic story — in a public setting, no less — even after being vetted about it in the media.

    Incidentally, commentator Pat Buchanan loves blood and violence.

    Mark (aea093)

  96. Comment by Mark (aea093) — 2/24/2014 @ 7:43 am

    In my book a character flaw includes people who have a combination of a major lack of common sense, logic and honesty and, in turn, a tremendous surplus of willful naivete — similar to that of a brat-faced teenager, yet are well past their 30s or 40s (eg, 52-year-old Barack Obama).

    A lack of common sense isn’t really a character flaw, although perhaps maybe you think a person can’t have alack of common sense and logic without it being a character flaw.

    Certainly, a person should admit to the truth.
    When it becomes clear.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  97. Comment by Mark (aea093) — 2/24/2014 @ 7:43 am

    Incidentally, commentator Pat Buchanan loves blood and violence.

    http://www.mclaughlin.com/transcript.htm?id=996

    MR. BUCHANAN: John, there’s a real problem here, though. Look, whatever you say about Yanukovich, he was elected democratically. He served about three fourths of his term. He would have been up for election next year. He’s a democratically elected president. Protesters came in the streets not to protest. They set up barricades. They started throwing Molotov cocktails. They engaged police. They seized buildings. They burned buildings. This is not, you know, a March on Washington demonstration. This is a coup d’etat —

    MS. CLIFT: Oh, Pat.

    MR. BUCHANAN: — by these protesters, who are overthrowing a democratically elected president.

    MS. CLIFT: Pat, you sound like — you sound like you were there in the streets —

    MR. BUCHANAN: Well, look, you saw the television, didn’t you?

    MS. CLIFT: I saw it from the beginning. And these were peaceful protests, and it was the government that cracked down.

    MR. BUCHANAN: And they built encampments in the middle of your capital. Would you tolerate that in D.C.?

    MS. CLIFT: I wouldn’t tolerate setting the army on them.

    MR. ZUCKERMAN: We wouldn’t have responded with bullets and guns, killing hundreds of people and —

    MR. BUCHANAN: After three months?

    MR. LOWRY: One of the reasons you had the protests intensify —

    MS. CLIFT: We didn’t storm the Occupy Wall Street settlement, and they were there for more than three months.

    MR. BUCHANAN: They cleaned them out. They didn’t — they weren’t sitting in Lafayette Square and the Mall in the thousands.

    MR. LOWRY: When there was the initial —

    MS. CLIFT: (Inaudible.)

    MR. LOWRY: When there was the initial reaction after Ukraine pulled back from a deal with the EU in November, at the prodding of Putin, who offered them $15 billion to do it, then there was a reaction in the streets. Then you had the government passing anti- protest laws. And that was really fuel on the fire for these demonstrations. And there’s no excuse for firing on these people in the middle of that square.

    MR. BUCHANAN: Is there any excuse for —

    MS. CLIFT: And it’s not about —

    MR. ZUCKERMAN: The violence was extraordinary.

    MS. CLIFT: It’s not about —

    (Cross talk.)

    MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let Eleanor —

    MS. CLIFT: It’s not about —

    MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let Eleanor in.

    MS. CLIFT: It’s not about the democratically, small “d,” elected president. It’s about President Putin trying to exert his sphere of influence. And now he sees that he’s backing a losing horse, and he’s ready to negotiate.

    MR. BUCHANAN: Let me tell you —

    MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question.

    MS. CLIFT: So in the modern world —

    MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Excuse me. Excuse me.

    MS. CLIFT: — it’s about the best outcome you (could ask for ?).

    MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let me in here. Please relinquish.

    Exit question: What are the odds that this accord will stand? Pat Buchanan.

    MR. BUCHANAN: I think they’re pretty good, because if it’s not for this accord, the army will be called in to clean these guys out and sweep them out of the square, which they should do. And secondly, I think Yanukovich realizes the end is near, and he ought to get out with the best deal he can.

    MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Eleanor.

    MS. CLIFT: When you start talking about cleaning these guys out, and they’re your citizens and the citizens of your country, you’re in trouble.

    MR. BUCHANAN: And they’re shooting at your police.

    MS. CLIFT: If anything, this accord is going to get tougher on the president.

    MR. LOWRY: It’s, I think, a 50-50 thing. You have hotheads in the protest movement who don’t want to take it, even though they should. And it’s not clear whether Putin really wants to accept this deal.

    MR. ZUCKERMAN: I think, at this stage of the game, I think Putin will not interfere the way he might have interfered before all of this violence. I think that is something that Putin cannot associate with himself, whatever Pat says about this thing. My impression was by far and away the overwhelming amount of violence came from the armed forces of this president.

    MR. BUCHANAN: The Polish foreign minister, John, told the protesters, you know, give up and take this deal or you will all be dead.

    MR. LOWRY: I know, but that’s a statement about the nature of this government to go in and mow these people down. That’s what he’s saying.

    MR. BUCHANAN: Well, they’re shooting —

    MR. LOWRY: This is — Rado Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, is not a friend of Putin’s Russia. He knows what Putin’s about.

    MS. CLIFT: (Inaudible) — the president a couple of months ago. (Laughs.)

    MR. ZUCKERMAN: I double-parked recently. I got the hell beaten out of me by the police because I wasn’t parked in the right — no, excuse me. That’s not right. That happened in Poland.

    MR. BUCHANAN: They’re shooting police also.

    MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You left your (card in the window ?).

    That’s how they knew it was your car.

    The odds are low.

    Don’t forget, the McLaughlin Group has its own website, and you can watch this program or earlier programs on the Web at any time, from anywhere in the world, at McLaughlin.com.

    Sammy Finkelman (1df645)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5090 secs.