Patterico's Pontifications

6/29/2016

When You’ve Lost Chris Matthews…

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:33 pm

[guest post by Dana]

If mainstream journalists reporting on Benghazi had been relentless in demanding answers (that added up) from every official involved in this debacle instead of providing them cover in order to receive favor, or let partisanship get in the way, there’s a pretty good chance we wouldn’t still be gagging on the bullshit that Hillary Clinton and President Obama have been allowed to ram down our throats.

(At first I was struck by Becerra’s apparent lack of concern that the Commander in Chief gave an order and it was not followed, but then I remembered that Rep. Xavier Becerra is Congress’ highest ranking Latino – and, according to some reports, has been named as a potential running mate for Hillary Clinton.)

–Dana

30 Responses to “When You’ve Lost Chris Matthews…”

  1. It’s troubling that I find myself rooting for Matthews.

    Dana (995455)

  2. Lol … Yes, it is. Obama gave an order? Doubtful.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  3. Chris Matthews’ legs seems to have lost that thrill. Or maybe he was just hung-over. Again.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  4. the brainslug occasionally slips out, he just attaches a new one the same day, ie; morning joke,

    narciso, (732bc0)

  5. Leg. Not legs.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  6. I don’t know, Col:

    According to the report issued by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered U.S. forces to deploy sometime between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. ET, about three hours after the attack began at 3:42 p.m. ET.

    The report asserts that Panetta believed his orders were clear, and they were to “deploy the identified assets immediately,” not “order the preparation to deploy or the planning to deploy or the contemplation of deployment.”

    “Yet nearly two more hours elapsed before the Secretary’s orders were relayed to those forces. Several more hours elapsed before any of those forces moved,” said the report.

    The report asserts that during that time the White House held a two-hour interagency meeting to discuss the deployment of forces and exchange information.

    During that meeting, officials discussed details such as whether deployed Marines should wear their uniforms or civilian attire to avoid the appearance of an invading force.

    Dana (995455)

  7. that meeting, not revealed till yesterday, was about procluding intervention,

    narciso, (732bc0)

  8. This Hillary woman needs to be promoted to Commander in Chief. How does January sound?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  9. This Hillary woman needs to be promoted to Commander in Chief.

    That’s what Donald Trump said.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. Since the official Obama narrative was that the “uprising” against the consulate was caused by a hateful anti-Mooslim video, it would have been further evidence of said infidel’s hatefulness to send in the marines, and if the marines WERE to be sent in, it should have been in respectful native garb so as not to further insult the Prophet. A tailor capable of providing such garb was not available.

    The day after the “uprising” the creative video narrative was repeated by Obama’s minions for days and weeks as well as himself, and Hillary told the surviving family members when the dead were returned to them at Andrew’s Air Base that she would find the people who made that hateful video responsible for their loved ones deaths if it was the last thing she did!

    VOTE FOR HILLARY… She is a mother and she feels your pain!!!

    Pts (ce7fc3)

  11. Panetta said previously that Obama just said “do what you have to do” and left. Did he go to the family quarters and just go to bed?? This would be pretty shocking for any commander, let alone the C in C.

    In an absence of any leadership, I guess the military brass sat around arguing about whether or not to wear uniforms or not. That’s another thing: why wouldn’t they show force? Their ambassador had been attacked, which is an act of war! Maybe a show of strength would have saved the last two guys. The leadership from the top down are nothing but a bunch of PC pu**ies. Disgusting.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  12. because they are feckless weasels, general ham was relieved of duty, mad dock mattis was dismissed, petraeus was checkmated, mccrystal was fired without cause, need I go on,

    narciso, (732bc0)

  13. White riot November 2016. The main squeeze will be turn coat clinton republicans.

    mg (31009b)

  14. Teh Fog of Fog.

    Colonel Haiku (c7ccf8)

  15. 13. White riot November 2016. The main squeeze will be turn coat clinton republicans.
    mg (31009b) — 6/29/2016 @ 11:37 pm

    …..

    Spoken like it was 1933. Sig Heil or else.

    Luke Stywalker (01824e)


  16. Spoken like it was 1933. Sig Heil or else.

    mumbled the Branch Davidian’s in a crowded hour, as best they could through choked coverage and cracked busted lip.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  17. When Hillary’s husband attacked Waco was that more an attack on religious liberty, or more an attack on the right to self defense?

    I know the popular answer is to use the word ‘and’, but if you had to say it was more of one than the other, which would it be?
    Naked aggression against the social conservative’s freedom of religion, or armed suppression of the constitutional conservatives’s right to keep and bear arms?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  18. Abatement of public nuisance.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. If we’d done it to the hippies in the ’60s, we wouldn’t have all the problems we’re facing now.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. To answer papertiger’s question, I heard on the radio that a number of conservative Christian groups, who have spent years fighting for religious liberty, are struggling with the question of religious liberty for Muslims. (Others, to their credit, recognize that there is no point in struggling to attain a blaring and counterproductive constitutional inconsistency).

    They want religious freedom for Christians, you see – but not for Muslims. Is that the “social conservative’s freedom of religion” that you’re talking about, papertiger? Similar to the “constitutional conservative’s right to keep and bear arms,” no doubt; for me and not for thee.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  21. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/29/2016 @ 6:44 pm

    Obama gave an order? Doubtful.

    I think it’s too strong to call it an order, but that’s the way the Gowdy Committee decided to refer to it, and the Democrats apparently did not dispute that because it immunizes President Obama from criticism in hindsight.

    It’s always been acknowledged that Obama did say something around 5 pm Washington time, when he was first notified of an attack and told it was over and they thought the Ambassador was safe but they couldn’t find him.

    It was probably more like an authorization. An authorization to use whatever force was necessary to get all the Americans in and around Benghazi out safely. Maybe a bit stronger, but not so targeted at the military: That everybody should be doing all they need to do in order to find the Ambassador and others and take them all to safety.

    At the Pentagon meeting later they discussed whether or not they needed Libyan government permission.

    I think they decided that, if any troops were to be sent to Benghazi from outside the country, it would need a second authorization if it was done without getting Libyan government permission. That’s general policy about crossing borders. You want to avoid starting wars, and getting people shot at, you know. The Libyan government was telling people not to worry about anything more happening, if I am correct, and that everybody would be able to leave soon. The big problem remaining was finding out where the Ambassador was, and rescuing him, if necessary. They were getting conflicting information about that, and that was the big reason for maybe sending American troops there. But if he was free, or going to be freed, then there was no problem.

    I suppose another issue might have been whether or not any use of force was necessary. Presidwnt Obama had authorized necessary force, not unnecessary force. There was the question of whether or not they’d be getting new people into danger. They want to evacuate people from Benghazi, and they’re putting more people there? If they are all going to get out very very, soon, like teh Libyan government was telling them, why send anybody else into Benghazi??

    And there was the question of whether or not they’d be safer with or without uniforms. With uniforms, they might become targets for anyone firing on American personnel. Without uniforms, they might be able to get everybody out safely without taking any fire. It was assumed that potential attackers were very unprofessional, or acting without orders, and they might only fire on people who were identifiably American, while the Americans would have no intention of firing on anybody unless fired upon or they needed to free captured or trapped Americans.

    The committee seems to have written a carefully worded sentence which might mean that, while some armed American personnel were in a place where they could reach Benghazi before the incident in which more two Americans were killed hours later, none of the people put on any kind of alert, but not sent, were that close.

    Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f)

  22. Leviticus (efada1) — 6/30/2016 @ 8:19 am

    struggling with the question of religious liberty for Muslims.

    There are certain religious doctrines that should not be taught freely. Doctrines like that it is meritorious to kill people, or to rob them. And they are seriously being taught in places as religious doctrine, especially in prisons.

    But that’s not all varieties of Islam.

    Even if the jihadists insist that killing innocent people, at least when following orders, is at the core of Islam, it really isn’t, and that’s where anyway we have to draw the line. Persecuting Islam is going too far, and totally unnecessary. It’s the doctrine that it is all right to kill innocent people that we have a problem with – not the doctrine that Mohammed was a prophet or that the Koran is the word of God.

    In the United States, under the First Amendment, it probably is unconstitutional to prohibit the teaching that it is meritorious to kill people at random, but it can be a factor in immigration law, and corruption also can be prohibited, as well as stealing money, or intimidating opeople in order to continue being in charge of a mosque or whatever. It is also legal, or should be, to watch people to make sure they don’t cross the line into actively trying to get other people to kill others. And you don’t have to make them chaplains in federal prisons.

    Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f)

  23. 11. Patricia (5fc097) — 6/29/2016 @ 8:56 pm

    Panetta said previously that Obama just said “do what you have to do” and left. Did he go to the family quarters and just go to bed?? This would be pretty shocking for any commander, let alone the C in C.

    No, he didn’t go to bed. He got on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, (which was alreadsy past midnight in Israel) probably in order to urge him not to send military force into Egypt. Netanyahu, who wasn’t worried about the fate of the Israelis in Cairo, having already heard directly, one way or another, from Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, proceeded to argue with Obama about the need to do something about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and the telephone call, which was supposed to last about half an hour, went on for an hour.

    Before that call, Obama also directed that an investigation be made into who was responsible for the attack in Benghazi, and that we try to ensure that legal proceedings are brought against them by the Libyan government.

    As late as 10:27 pm, about five hours after he said “do what you have to do”, Obama was still awake. At that time he went on the phone with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was at her residence, and probably discussed Egypt and what kind of public announcements to make. She probably told him everything was OK in Egypt, and that things seem to have quieted down in Benghazi, but that they’d heard the Ambassador was dead in a hospital, and they’d probably get everybody out of Benghazi very soon. Obama probably said to announce the Ambassador’s death, but only after his body and everybody else in Benghazi was out of Libya.

    Only after that did he go to bed. He had to get up early to go on a plane for a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas.

    Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f)

  24. Leviticus – surely the radio reports you claim to have heard have names and refer to actual christian groups that want to deny religious freedom to anyone.

    I’ll be waiting. I’m sure I’ll be surprised. not.

    Steve Malynn (4bc33a)

  25. To answer papertiger’s question, I heard on the radio that a number of conservative Christian groups, who have spent years fighting for religious liberty, are struggling with the question of religious liberty for Muslims. (Others, to their credit, recognize that there is no point in struggling to attain a blaring and counterproductive constitutional inconsistency).

    They want religious freedom for Christians, you see – but not for Muslims. Is that the “social conservative’s freedom of religion” that you’re talking about, papertiger? Similar to the “constitutional conservative’s right to keep and bear arms,” no doubt; for me and not for thee.

    Leviticus (efada1) — 6/30/2016 @ 8:19 am

    I am going to need to know whose radio show you heard this on, and which Christian groups are struggling with Muslims being allowed their religious liberties. And what do these freedoms that Christians are allegedly struggling with, entail?

    Dana (995455)

  26. Leviticus in between ascribing powers to the Methodists and investing me myself the tiger with the power to confiscate firearms,
    I reading you as being more vocal about religious liberty but more personally involved and impacted by 2nd amendment infringement.

    So can I put you down as a big old 2nd amendment fan worried about Grandma Clinton’s gun grabbers?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  27. When You’ve Lost Chris Matthews…

    You’ll regain your leg tingles?!?!

    Colonel Haiku (32652f)

  28. Perhaps Leviticus would care to comment?

    “LIBERALS SAY ISIS IS TO ISLAM WHAT THE KKK IS TO CHRISTIANITY.

    Klan-admirer Woodrow Wilson (D-NJ) could not be reached for comment.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/237511/

    Colonel Haiku (32652f)

  29. That’s a lot of “probably” Sammy.

    And legal proceedings are brought against them? That is just weakness. This was an act of war, not a breaking and entering.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  30. I think Muslim bakers and caterers should be permitted to say no to providing services against their conscience for same sex weddings, just as I think Christians (and Jews as well) should be allowed.
    They should not be allowed to kill people for being gay,
    also as Christians are not allowed to.

    Satisfied??

    MD in Philly (f9371b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2716 secs.