September 27, 2012

"A definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack."

Let's look at all the statements, in order. On the 12th, we were told that what happened in Libya was "clearly a complex attack." On the 13th, there was the muddying swirl about "protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet." Note that doesn't specify the murder of the ambassador in Libya.

Then, on the 16th, we heard Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stolidly deliver the talking points on "Face the Nation":
“Based on the best information we have to date ... it began spontaneously...
What's the scope of "it"?
... in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.... We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
So there first thing that happened was the video-related protests, and then others joined in, but we don't know whether they did that spur of the moment or if it was planned. "We do not have information" about those"extremist elements, individuals," but we do have "the best information" about things beginning spontaneously.

On the 20th, Jay Carney was saying "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," but claiming a lack of info on whether it was "a significantly preplanned attack" and asserting however much it might have been preplanned — what does "pre-" add to "planned"? — it was still "opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive." Note the clever merger of the planned attack with the cover provided by the offense taken at the video.

Obama kept stressing the video and avoiding saying "terrorism," though Hillary Clinton called it terrorism on the 21st. Confronted with her statement on the 25th, Obama would only say we're "still doing an investigation, and "it wasn’t just a mob action." That was on "The View."

Yesterday, Carney was asked whether "there any reason why the President did not — he was asked point-blank in The View interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or no?  Is there any reason why he didn’t say yes?" Jeez, "The View" was too tough. Carney said:
“He answered the question that he was asked, and there's no reason that he chose the words he did beyond trying to provide a full explanation of his views and his assessment that we need to await further information that the investigation will uncover.  But it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the President’s view, that it was a terrorist attack.”
It's our view and his view, but he wouldn't say it on "The View."

113 comments:

edutcher said...

He refused to meet with anybody at the UN, but he had time for the Lefty broads.

He's been caught in his own lies (and everyone else's) and they still think they're fooling everybody.

You couldn't make up this stuff.

(Diamond doing his Bob Beckel imitation in 5, 4, 3...)

Icepick said...

what does "pre-" add to "planned"?

You never worked in the corporate world, apparently. All planning meetings have to have pre-planning meetings. There are often memos or emails sent around before hand, or sometimes it is even all done verbally to maximize secrecy. At the pre-planning meetings various attendees decide who will be thrown uunder the bus when things (inevitably) go wrong. The person (or frequently, group) to be thrown under the bus is never at these meetings of course. Which means they're having their OWN pre-planning meetings to decide which of the people at the other pre-planning meetings should be thrown under the bus.

I seriously doubt that the terrorists used pre-planning meetings. Failure would not lead to some bureaucratic in-fighting, but to actual death. So the fact that Carney is talking about pre-planning (and the inevitable meetings that entails) tells us more about how the Administration works than anything else.

chickelit said...

Chronologies are always timely.

cubanbob said...

Only a tool like Carney believes in a spontaneous coordinated attack.

I suppose if there is a silver lining in this (as if such a thing could possibly be worth the murder of our people) is that this ends Hillary's aspirations for 2016 and hopefully will be the final nail in this cluster of an administration.

Icepick said...

Remember, it's a very Dilbert-esque world we live in, here in the West.

Fen said...

An ambush with mortars is not spontaneous.

pduggie said...

Ann: what "pre-" add to "planned"

Its a pleonasm. for emphasis. or extra emphasis.

The Drill SGT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Drill SGT said...

Fen cheated, he used fewer words :)

pduggie said...

checking wikipedia, I see I may get to use "You, a Law Professor" on you for not knowing that

"Some pleonastic phrases, when used in professional or scholarly writing, may reflect a standardized usage that has evolved or a meaning familiar to specialists but not necessarily to those outside that discipline. Such examples as "null and void", "terms and conditions", "each and all" are legal doublets that are part of legally operative language that is often drafted into legal documents."

CWJ said...

How about a timeline of what actually happened when and where and by whom in Libya rather than this obsession about who said what about it.

The Drill SGT said...

It was a coordinated preplanned attack (at least to the extent those terms can be applied to Arab militas).

You don't have a mob of demonstrators crystalize into an assault team, base of fire team and indirect fire team. Let's just for a second talk about mortars. I'm going to assume these were man portable, let's say 82mm. a mortar that size is going to have a team (emphasis on team of at least 6 folks, carrying, tube, base plate, bipod/sight, ammo, more ammo and more ammo.

it takes you minutes to set up, range your target and using radios (likely) bring fires to bear. Mohammed, Abdul and 4 other people didn't randomly bring the right pieces to a demonstartion and look at each other and says, "Insha Allah, we've got the fixings for a mortar attack, let's do it"

I think the CIA Station and its files was the target, not Stevens.

Ann Althouse said...

That "pre-" observation was ripped off from George Carlin.

edutcher said...

A couple of headlines off Drudge:

15 days after Benghazi attack, FBI still investigating from afar...

WSJ: The more we learn, the more Benghazi looks like a gross security failure...

When will those eagle eyes in the media use the words - cover up?

traditionalguy said...

The Japanese street mob's spontaneous demonstration at Pearl Harbor on Dec.7, 1947 also used a handy 6 aircraft carriers and 400 airplanes and trained air crews that always steamed around 200 miles north of Oahu full armed...they were handy in a moment of passion.

Ergo: If we would just quit insulting the Emperor of Japan and the Muslim's god prophet we would be living in peace. Peace, peace and more peace.

The Drill SGT said...

that FBI BS is just that. A stall to avoid answering the hard questions. It was an act of war. If the CIA didn't police the station for evidence, no crack team of FBI a month later can find squat.

It does raise the frightening policy issue. We appear to be back to the Gorelick/Holder regime of treating attacks as criminal events. We gonna send FBI to all our wars?

They are going to need better body armor in that case.

Cedarford said...

You had two competing schools of stupidity regarding the Muslim problems after 9/11.

1. Obamites insisting that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with organized terrorism.

2. Right wingers claiming that the riots and assaults on 20 other American interests in 20 locales other than Benghazi had nothing to do with a vile incitement against the Prophet. Since Benghazi was an al-Qaeda attack.

1. The Obamaites insisting the thing to do was apologize to Muslims for the video.

2. Rightwingers insisting the thing to do to stop Islamist violence was teach Muslims in foreign countries to worship our American Sacred Parchment and its "free speech clause"....instead of their Qu'ranic sacred parchments.

pduggie said...

the wiki article on pleonasm also notes that Carlin unfairly accuses "hot water heater" of redundancy.

Love wiki-frickin-pedia pedantry :)

(just learned tmesis)

Victor Erimita said...

"The day I am inaugurated, Muslim hostilities will ease." Barack Obama 2008.

I'm pretty sure Bush was behind those assassinations.

ndspinelli said...

We need to ask what would the MSM be doing if this were ANY other prez. It would be wall to wall coverage. I think normal people understand this. Where's Allie on this now?

cold pizza said...

Dwayne T. Robinson (Die Hard) had it right: "We're gonna need some more FBI guys, I guess." -CP

Patrick said...

A: I want to buy a hot water heater.

B:

B: What the hell for?

Colonel Angus said...

It was an Islamist flash mob.

edutcher said...

Great comment off Malkin:

I believe the main reason that Hillary is the one meeting with world leaders at the UN is that they wanted to talk to someone man to man and Urkel doesn’t qualify.

Hagar said...

There is no evidence of any demonstrations of any kind in Benghazi. The evidence all points to an al Qaeda raid that would have taken place on 9/11 regardless of the video.

The administration is lying.

Bryan C said...

"When will those eagle eyes in the media use the words - cover up?"

As soon as they can figure out how Romney is responsible.

Seriously, for the honest non-troll Obama supporters out there, are you satisfied that recent events in the Middle East are being given appropriate attention in the press? Do you sense anything fishy about this at all, or harbor any doubts about the President and his administration? Are you prepared to maintain that same level of coverage and trust for another four years, come what may?

Basically, are you guys OK with all this? Because it seems like you're OK with all this.

prairie wind said...

That was on "The View."

Oh, dear God. The President speaks to the country through the gossipy filter of a coffee klatsch.

Thirty-nine days.

Chip S. said...

People died, Obama lied.

Original Mike said...

"We gonna send FBI to all our wars?

They are going to need better body armor in that case."

Original Mike said...

Oops. Sorry, cold pizza.

Sloanasaurus said...

Why would Obama lie so outrageously about this.

I mean Obama lies as a matter of course. But this lie is so ridiculous you have to wonder what planet he lives on now.

And seriously, people support this guy for re-election.

Absurd.

Original Mike said...

"But this lie is so ridiculous you have to wonder what planet he lives on now."

He lives on the same planet as you and I. A planet on which the media covers for him.

chickelit said...

Cedarford's false dichotomy calls for a third way called Romney & Ryan.

Lem said...

Meanwhile, what Romney said that was deemed a gaff has turned out to be pretty close if not dead on.

Go back and find out what the AP reported.

I know this post is about the administration timeline... but I believe this incident caused Obama to dig in his heels with this video mantra.. had he shifted, it would have confirmed what Romney claimed.

[Romney].. accusing the administration of sending "mixed signals to the world" and failing to lead in the face of violence... .. saying the administration's response seemed to "sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

When the press colluded to press him on the perceived gaff.. "Romney stood firm" said the AP.

The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth, but also for the words that come from his ambassadors , from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department," Romney said. "They clearly sent mixed messages to the world. The statement that came from the administration — and the embassy is the administration — the statement that came from the administration was a statement which is akin to apology. And I think was a severe miscalculation."

So, here are are weeks later, and the administration still muddled, still sending contradictory signals... but when Romney called them on it... it was called a gaff.

Its a gaff to speak clearly.. when the clarity means standing up for our values w/o equivocation and prevarication, in the face of attacks... That cant be the story.. the narrative.. anything but that.

chickelit said...

Colonel Angus said...
It was an Islamist flash mob.

Who gave them free cell phones?

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Cedarford said...

2. Rightwingers insisting the thing to do to stop Islamist violence was teach Muslims in foreign countries to worship our American Sacred Parchment and its "free speech clause"....instead of their Qu'ranic sacred parchments.



"Rightwingers" don't give a flying fuck if Muslims in Libya or Egypt permit free speech. We do give a flying fuck when the President of the United States uses law enforcement organs in this country to shut it down.

bagoh20 said...

Even the Obama supporters have got to admit this administration is getting scary. Another 4 years without reelection pressures mitigating it, and this guy looks dangerous, in both his aggressiveness and his passiveness - his passive/aggressiveness.

It's really just incompetence, that manifests itself as all kinds of confusion and unreliability whether you are friend or foe. He doesn't know what to do, so he waits for things to happen assuming he can respond, but then again, he still doesn't know what to do, and shit just happens. He then claims it was beyond his control. This is not good foreign policy.

Lem said...

Back there when I mentioned the press pressing Romney... I had Chip Dry Cleaners/Meet the Press flash back.

Jay Vogt said...

W/r/t Ambassador Rice's comments (which I had not heard before) she asserts:

"... in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video."


Ah, the old, "of course, as you know. . . " gambit. It's been a while since I've seen this version of the more well-know Pravda variant, which is ". . . As is commonly known. . ."

It's a crude tool of argumentation & persuasion, but often effective on the weak or the dull.

Nice to see some of the old stuff make a comeback.

Methadras said...

They are lying. What more do you need to know that this was a terrorist attack and they new it and tried to hide it. Did they really think they could suppress this information and pawn it off on a movie no one has seen, then to try and drag it's film maker for inquisition in the middle of the night? For those of you that believe in this guy and will vote for him again you will be willing co-conspirators in that lie against your country and against your fellow citizens. That's what you will be voting for again.

Roger J. said...

I second the observations of both my fellow treadhead Drill Sgt and Fen--Mortars are crew served weapons. Base plates, tubes, and ammuntion are not something that one individual can move. I also second Drill's observation that the target was not the ambassador, but the files and intelligence docs in the consulate. The Ambassador was, with all due respect to the Ambassador, collateral damage.
Now it is possible he may have been a target for hostage purposes. And clearly there was inside information in the Embassay about the office of the consulate and tha Ambassador's travel schedule.

But to suggest this assault was spontaneous is absolute bull shit. it was a well planned and executed attack.

The question remains why has the administration and its lackey in chief Jay Carney continued to lie about it? (I suspect I know the answer, but that would be speculation on my part).

Lem said...

And of course.. had Obama admitted that our ambassador was killed on 9/11 do to his incompetence (the embassy and the ambassador were unprotected) it would not have looked good for the purposes of his priority.

So the lie had to be made to stand.

Roger J. said...

Addendum: I have to wonder how Mr Carney is able to sleep at night. Press Secretaries do bear the brunt of the administration screw ups, but Carney has lowered the already low bar for mendacity.

Lem said...

This kind of thing happens under Bush and impeachment would be the story.

There is no doubt in my mind.

Lem said...

When Obama commented on the killing of Trayvon Martin he said "if I had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon".

Had the ambassador looked like Obama... he might still be alive?

What.. not fair?

I tell you what's not fair. An American goes to a fragile country to serve and he was left unprotected... making matters worst... it appears there will be no consequences.

An Obama etch a sketch.

Rabel said...

There's probably a bus waiting for this guy:

Boswell

Michael said...

Chauncey Gardner.

alan markus said...

Who gave them free cell phones?:

Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone

Chip Ahoy said...

I kept hearing the name Rice on Sunday and wondered what she had to do with it. It took something like 4 incidents of that in the background until it sank in they were not talking about Condoleezaa.

And then when I did listen to her. Stopped and listened carefully. Within 13 seconds I realized that Susan Rice cannot be listened to. She is a liar. Over and over an dover an dover five times, but who's counting?, somebody did.

We know that State Dept knew what happened within 24 hours, but we remember that four days later Suddenly Susan appeared out of somewhere and told us, "Hello Everybody, I'm a big fat liar." And then later, "Hello everybody I'm a big fat liar." And then later, "Hello everybody I'm a big fat liar." And then later, "Hello everybody, I'm a big fat liar, see how wearisome this is?, and if that were not enough to drill the point, Suddenly Susan does it again, she goes, "Hello everybody, I'm a big fat liar, and by now you might be thinking stupid as well, but there you go."

CBS Face The Nation
NBC Meet The Press
ABC This Week
FOX Chris Wallace
and CNN State of The Onion.

In one day. I'm never that motivated.  

The internet. Should be kept away from the kids. Those were only the things I checked when I heard she was on all the big networks, which I wouldn't see myself, and those places do talk about her being there and what she said while on.

Colonel Angus said...

The question remains why has the administration and its lackey in chief Jay Carney continued to lie about it?

Because the parallels to Carter and 1979 are far to damaging to Obama. Embassy attacked by Islamists, ambassador and staff killed, by rights that should gave sunk this administation, particularly considering the response is more feckless than Carter's. Consider also we lost six Harriet jets in Afghanistan yet hardly a peep in the media.

Why did Carney lie? Because he can. Evidently no one is calling the administration out on it.

Chip Ahoy said...

I'm sorry Condoleezza for misspelling your name but I went to insert another z in there and hit an a instead. I realize this shows an overconfidence in z-hitting, to not check, but it's underlined anyway. Can we just move past this please? Your name is weird.

Cath said...

Early reports of the attack mentioned other Americans, besides the 4 dead, who were injured. What has become of them? They never seem to come up in any of the current news reports.

Seems like they would be a good source of details about the attack.

yashu said...

Agree with Lem that in retrospect, events (including this admin's actions) have vindicated Romney's early remarks (not that anyone in the MSM would grant that, ever). Also agree that if Bush were prez this would be a MAJOR scandal, Watergate level or worse, and there would be talk of impeachment. (Of course I thought the same of Fast and Furious. No dead Americans involved in Watergate.)

Lying and covering up the facts about a terrorist attack, in order to deflect any inquiry into admin policies, preparation, security? Spinning equally before the Sunday shows, the View, and the UN, making it all about that cover story (the "disgusting" video and reaction to it) and nary a mention of terrorism? And invoking an FBI investigation as an excuse for stonewalling, when to this day the FBI hasn't so much as set foot on, hasn't gotten near the vicinity of, that "crime scene"? It's beyond egregious.

Even the Obama supporters have got to admit this administration is getting scary. Another 4 years without reelection pressures mitigating it, and this guy looks dangerous, in both his aggressiveness and his passiveness - his passive/aggressiveness.

And of course, bagoh, without any supervision or questioning from a fourth estate watchdog-- an MSM who for the most part is only a watchdog on Obama's behalf, rubbing against their master's leg, barking to keep any political threat at bay.

Lem said...

Recall when the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

The bombings occurred three days before general elections in which incumbent José María Aznar's PP was defeated, despite its small but narrowing lead in opinion polls.[10] Immediately after the bombing leaders of the PP claimed evidence indicating the Basque separatist organization ETA was responsible for the bombings, an outcome generally thought favorable to the PP's chances of being re-elected,[verification needed][11][12] while Islamist responsibility would have had the opposite effect,[verification needed] as it would have been seen as a consequence of the PP government taking Spain into the Iraq War, a policy very unpopular with Spaniards.[13]

The predominant view among political analysts is that the Aznar administration lost the general elections as a result of the handling and representation of the terrorist attacks, rather than because of the bombings per se.


If you are Obama, which would you rather have?

An Al Qaeda attack on 9/11, on an unprotected target, in a country you, albeit reluctantly, intervened to change its government.

Or a hateful christianist, on probation for fraud, inciting hate towards a religion of peace?

If anything, there shouldn't be any doubt as to what Obama is prepared to do to win.

Sloanasaurus said...

It seems Obama's big lie is all to maintain his middle East Policy in general that muslims will like America better with Obama in charge. In addition, that his "killing" of Bin Ladin made us safer.

These are proven false by the Libyan incident.

But, the media keeps covering for Obama, by not covering the big lie!

Lem said...

Sorry, I forgot to link to what I quoted.

2004 Madrid train bombings.

Icepick said...

I'm never that motivated.

Which is why you won't be the next Secretary of State if Obama gets re-elected. Even if Secretary of State Suddenly Susan does sound stupid.

chickelit said...

yashu describes: an MSM who for the most part is only a watchdog on Obama's behalf, rubbing against their master's leg,* barking to keep any political threat at bay.

That's an implicit Chris Matthews leghumping visual.

Thanks, yashu!

yashu said...

Heh, you're... welcome?

Lem said...

...barking to keep any political threat at bay.

There.. because Obama would not be running again (should he prevail over Romney)... the need for protecting Obama would be moot.

Not all in mass, mind you, as they are for his reelection for example... but I do expect that if he wins again, some may start looking at what bagoh20 calls Obama's passive/aggressiveness administration style... if not the substance and its repercussions.

Lem said...

Nice catch chickelit.

I had forgotten about Mathews.

Bryan C said...

"There.. because Obama would not be running again (should he prevail over Romney)... the need for protecting Obama would be moot."

It's not just about protecting Obama, the man. It's about preventing people from understanding the consequences of the policies his party has pursued. Policies they personally support.

When Obama has left the Presidency they'll vigorously protect whoever he anoints to be his even more fabulous and brilliant successor.

yashu said...

I'd like to think that in a hypothetical 2nd O term, the fourth estate would do a better job of its job. But I mostly doubt it. It probably won't be as bad as this re-election season has been (nothing is as bad as election season, that's when stuff like Rathergate happens); but we've already heard from O that next term he'll focus more on the "stories" getting out to the American people.

Journolist 3.0 will be an integral part of that.

And thing is, for the MSM to defend/ vindicate Obama is also a way to defend/ vindicate their own coverage of Obama, which led to his election (and will have led to his re-election, if god forbid he's re-elected).

Obama isn't just any old prez, not even any old Dem prez, for the press. He's a symbol of many things they hold dear (even if they're disappointed by the man), and that symbol has to be kept burnished.

Lem said...

In one day. I'm never that motivated.

Reminds me of William Ginsburg..

I know I'm going back... and I know I'm veering off topic.. but a second Obama term holds out great political amusement possibilities.

I'm not giving up on Romney yet.. but I believe no matter how this election turns out.. conservatism should do well.. if its articulated and offered as the legitimate alternative to the economic disaster we are facing.

whoresoftheinternet said...

Too bad Inga the Lying Obama Whore's daughter wasn't one of the victims of the embassy attacks.

Synova said...

Please go pretend to be on my side someplace else, whore.

Sloanasaurus said...

I'm not giving up on Romney yet.. but I believe no matter how this election turns out.. conservatism should do well.. if its articulated and offered as the legitimate alternative to the economic disaster we are facing.

This is a good point. I think we are headed for disaster regardless of whether Obama or Romney is in charge.

furious_a said...

"Spontaneous" as a Shuttle launch.

whoresoftheinternet said...

@Synova:

Ha. You're just a little lickspittle---pretending you're working for good, then succumbing and accommodating evil for the sake of just "getting along." And demanding I follow a set of "civility" rules that you don't impose on trash like Inga.

You empower evil, dirtbag.

Synova said...

If there was even the remotest chance that you were "working for good" even in your own mind whore, I might bother to explain how being an ass on purpose hurts your cause.

But there is no chance that this is true so no point in explaining it to you.

I don't think you're even anything as interesting as a moby. Just a liar. Boring.

yashu said...

Lem, thinking optimistically about the future of conservatism is all well and good.

But if we're e.g. stuck with Obamacare (and a 2nd O term means we're stuck with it for good; there's virtually no political possibility of eradicating or extricating ourself from that million-tentacled monster once its got its grip health care, for all the future conservative politicians in the world), or with a nuclear Iran (to just name two things), for me dreaming on conservatism's rosy future is not adequate compensation.

We may be stuck with those things even if Romney wins-- e.g. in the event the GOP doesn't take the Senate, and who knows what will happen with Iran. But in my view 2012 victory for Romney is our only fighting chance. And by the way, I know many on the right have internalized the Romney = RINO mantra of the primaries. But to me, picking Paul Ryan (and Romney's record as a number cruncher) tells me that Romney means business-- real fiscal reform-- if he's elected; he's not just mouthing conservative rhetoric. For god's sake, at the very least we'll be sure to get a freaking budget from DC. Almost an entire presidential term without a budget-- once again, how is this not a freaking SCANDAL?

Besides, once a country goes far enough to the left (with 8 years of Obama "fundamentally transforming" us), there's usually no going back right. Look at Europe. For every step supposedly to the right (Sarkozy's so-called "austerity"), there will be 2-5 steps left (Hollande). Once you go socialist (enough), you can't go back. Look at GB's largely laughable Tories. The only way politicians try to get our of their fiscal holes is to dig deeper. Look at the vicious protests at the mildest of "austerity" moves, in Greece or Spain or France etc.-- OWS is kindergarten recess compared to that.

A Republican congress? Obama doesn't give a fig what congress thinks, now that he's acquired the habit of executive ordering whatever he likes. And if there are no more elections to worry about, and the MSM doesn't call him on it, what's to stop him from being as flexible as he likes? Impeachment? Yeah, that'll go as well as the Fast and Furious investigation.

furious_a said...

C4: 2. Rightwingers insisting the thing to do to stop Islamist violence was teach Muslims...

...that the next one over the embassy wall is 'Pink Mist'. The 'sacred parchment' lesson is for those in our own Executive Branch who swore an oath to protect defend it rather than the Muzzies' hurt feelings.

yashu said...

"whores" is a troll. IMO it's best not to address him; denote him a troll and ignore him.

Robert Cook said...

I'm surprised at the naivete on display...the "outrage" that Obama lies! He's unique among Presidents in his propensity for dissembling!

Shit. They all lie! As Claud Cockburn said, (lefty Irish journalist father of the recently late lefty Irish/American journalist Alex Cockburn), "Believe nothing until it has been officially denied."

They all lie...every government! The incredible circumstance would be for a President or other high official to tell the truth!

yashu said...

Robert Cook, it may be true that all politicians lie.

But not all politicians have an American press so extraordinarily uninterested in reporting, questioning, probing, and calling them on their lies.

Robert Cook said...

"...once a country goes far enough to the left (with 8 years of Obama "fundamentally transforming" us)...."

Anyone who thinks Obama is taking this country "leftward" has no clue.

furious_a said...

Officials were also able to dismiss pointed questions by referring to an ongoing investigation.

THAT -- not to sift an already contaminated and picked-over crime scene -- is why the Administration has sent the FBI, who, btw, have yet to visit the consulate grounds.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Dang. 74 comments and no questions about the "fact checker's" unwonted lack of Pinocchios?

Michael K said...

The Obama supporters have their eyes closed and ears covered securely so as to shut out any of this nasty business. A caller today to Michael Medved was going on about "War is not the answer" and would not be shut up. He finally gave up and went to another break after keeping her on for 5 minutes, an eternity in radio.

Limbaugh this morning was on the topic of the polls, which are lying, of course.

Robert Cook said...

"...not all politicians have an American press so extraordinarily uninterested in reporting, questioning, probing, and calling them on their lies."

Our press was no more diligent in calling Bush on his lies. The professional (sic) press corps is composed largely of servile careerists, jealous of their closeness to power, their perks as Washington "insiders," and their inflated celebrity and unearned salaries. Rare is the intrepid journalist who will actually challenge a sitting President--of either party--on matters of great moment, (as opposed to gossip sheet bullshit).

Colbert's takedown of Bush and the press corps at the Washington Correspondent's Dinner was just that...a takedown of Bush and the Washington Press Corps. They knew it, too. The awkward silences, and nervous, scattered tittering from the audience was not engendered by what Colbert was saying about Bush, but reflected shock at what Colbert was saying about them.

furious_a said...

For context the timeline should note that...

1>...the Libyans gave warning three days before the Benghazi assault and that...

2>...the Administration waited until the day after the assault to announce deployment of Marine security details to US diplomatic installations in Libya.

whoresoftheinternet said...

@Robert Cook:

Anyone who thinks Obama is taking this country "leftward" has no clue.
---The left lies...and lies...and lies...and enablers like Synova enable them. And treat them with respect.

And we wonder why the economy is in the toilet.

yashu said...

Anyone who thinks Obama is taking this country "leftward" has no clue.

Robert, we have very different meanings of the word "left" in mind, and this is a big part of our disagreement.

You have in mind a certain pure ideological vision of what "left" means: so, for instance, in your mind "left" is incompatible with "crony capitalism."

Whereas I see "left" in its manifestations in actual political reality, and see no incompatibility between "left"-- not rhetorically, but as actually manifested by leftist/socialist politicians and government-- and crony capitalism. Actually, IMO the more leftist/ socialist a government is (with more centralized power to "redistribute" or impose "fairness"), the more that government will be susceptible to, corrupted by, and encouraging of crony capitalism.

It's an old argument, of course, but I consider e.g. fascism more an outgrowth (or as much of an outgrowth) of the "left" as the "right". Certainly when it comes to centralized power over the economic system.

whoresoftheinternet said...

@Robert Cook:

Colbert's takedown of Bush and the press corps at the Washington Correspondent's Dinner was just that...a takedown of Bush and the Washington Press Corps

---Note how the leftist argues: his knee-jerk leftwing propagandist is a truth-teller, comrades! Simple-minded, poor comedy based on stereotypes is genius! Seig Heil, Mein Obama!

Synova said...

"Anyone who thinks Obama is taking this country "leftward" has no clue."

That's because your definition of "leftward" is preferential of your own prejudices.

You're not entirely without fellow travelers, of course. But "leftward" has always meant more government oppression and ever less accountability.

whoresoftheinternet said...

@Synova, the Enabler:

If there was even the remotest chance that you were "working for good" even in your own mind whore, I might bother to explain how being an ass on purpose hurts your cause.

--Please explain how never calling leftists on their lies, being polite to them while they shit on your chest and call you a war criminal, and then having Obama shred the Constitution monthly is in any way "helping" your cause, bitch.

Civility is bullshit.

whoresoftheinternet said...

To a lefty, they are always the bellwether of what "left" means.

Changing definitions is what helps lefties forward. Newspeak at its most ghastly.

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

Cook writes: Colbert's takedown of Bush and the press corps at the Washington Correspondent's Dinner was just that...a takedown of Bush and the Washington Press Corps. They knew it, too.

Pity that there's no one with the ciccones to do that to Obama. All the poll manipulation, ego stroking, and leg humping is giving POTUS an election.

furious_a said...

Robert Cook: Our press was no more diligent in calling Bush on his lies.

Seriously?

Back during Bush Jr. they just made sh*t up(e.g., Dan Rather's fake-but-accurate Abilene Kinko's TimesNewRoman IBM Selectric TANG memos).

Now they've morphed into Obama's Praetorian Guard. The POTUS SS detail can stay back at the hotel with their Colombian hookers and cocaine -- the White House press pool and their layers of fact-checkers and editors are more than happy to take a bullet for President Ladies' Tee's re-election campaign.

chickelit said...

Inga gets one free hug and I despise whores.

Inga said...

WTH Chickie, I hope you are not calling me a whore too. Now come'ere and give me that hug.

yashu said...

Our press was no more diligent in calling Bush on his lies.

!!! On this point, it seems we've lived in alternate realities.

If you're thinking of a Judith Miller example, please consider the aftermath for Judith Miller and the media's subsequent take on the Iraq War. (NB I don't myself grant that these were "lies"-- as opposed to faulty-- and it turns out maybe not so faulty, in retrospect, not that media would ever report that, intelligence. But for the sake of argument, my point is, Judith Miller was a single reporter, an exception that proves the rule.)

Hello, the disgracefully distorted reporting on the Valerie Plame ado. Hello, Rathergate (an MSM attempt that fortunately-- but might not have-- failed).

"Bush lied" was the constant mantra not only of the left, but the press.

Has the press (not FOX, but NYT, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, and not in obscure columns or blog posts but front page headlines) ever suggested Obama is a liar? No. They rationalize his lies away, and attack Republicans for daring to call him a liar.

whoresoftheinternet said...

Becareful, Chicklit---Inga the Lying Obama Whore may "abort" you if it means her hourly wage will go up. It's the left-wing way!

Cedarford said...

Roger J. said...
"I second the observations of both my fellow treadhead Drill Sgt and Fen--Mortars are crew served weapons. Base plates, tubes, and ammuntion are not something that one individual can move."

================

True by US Army and maybe Marine doctrine, but my limited AF training on base security was that even lone individuals outside the fence that appeared suspicious could do mortar launches. This was based on Vietnam, if I remember where the instructor said the enemy liked to do light mortar attacks on AF bases from multiple directions all at once. And one person would set up a mortar on a biped, at the right angle and at the right mark placed earlier for the range to target that the angle would drop a round close to.
Shoot one, reset angle and tube. Shoot another. A third if the commie had it.
Then scoot! Disappear before the US found and fixed the attacker's spot.

BTW - I remember in KSA in 1991 having a conversation after watching one of our allies training with RPG-7s - and blowing stuff up very convincingly and with good accuracy to the applause of all watching the show - why we didn't have them.
The answer I got was if they cost 20,000 vs. 80 dollars people paid for a CHinese RPG-7 and two rounds, America would have bought tens of thousands of them once the defense lobbyists worked their magic in Congress and the Pentagon procurement folks.

Revenant said...

The awkward silences, and nervous, scattered tittering from the audience was not engendered by what Colbert was saying about Bush, but reflected shock at what Colbert was saying about them.

Nervous laughter is a common human response to someone making an ass of himself in public.

I'm not saying the press corps isn't worthy of derision -- just that the manner Colbert chose to do it showed a lack of class.

yashu said...

Compare e.g. the reporting on Abu Ghraib (the investigation of which was initiated and assiduously pursued by the military & admin, who never attempted a cover-up)-- blamed by the MSM entirely on the Bush admin.

Whereas on Fast & Furious and Benghazi, among other examples, the MSM largely just accepts the O admin's lies, contradictions, deflections, and on top of that colludes with them (e.g. turning Benghazi into an scandal about something that Romney said! which turned out to be exactly right).

yashu said...

A minute of "My Pet Goat" became an indelible meme for the MSM.

Obama going to sleep and then going off to fundraise/ party in Vegas, knowing very well the gruesomeness of what may have happened, was happening, and had happened in Benghazi (and then other embassies being attacked)... crickets.

Sheridan said...

Yashu - I believe that the media regards Obama as the second coming of JFK. No way they are going to do anything to endanger "Camelot Redux" or allow anyone else("Lee Harvey" Romney)to bring-down their guy.

yashu said...

Yashu - I believe that the media regards Obama as the second coming of JFK. No way they are going to do anything to endanger "Camelot Redux" or allow anyone else("Lee Harvey" Romney)to bring-down their guy.

Yes. Except I believe the MSM largely respected Kennedy's competence as POTUS, and protected him-- covered up for him-- on what they considered 'extraneous' matters (e.g. a level of sexual debauchery that makes Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout, choirboy, monk).

There's a means/ end balancing the media did there when it comes to their reportage... and that has turned out to be a slippery slope. In Obama's case, they're protecting him and covering up not just 'extraneous' things (I'm willing to believe Obama is a perfectly good family man) but the most central and fundamental things of concern to American citizens, e.g. basic executive competence, the economy, fiscal sustainability, national security, civil liberties/ constitutional rights, etc. Not Oval Office peccadilloes but the crux and core of a POTUS's performance on the job, the job the American people hired him specifically to do.

The fact that the MSM has largely blacked out (or underreported) Woodward's latest book-- Bob freaking Woodward, liberal journalist icon extraordinaire-- speaks volumes.

In many cases, I honestly don't know what they're thinking. IMO it's clear that the liberal MSM believes that the American people (or a democracy) can't handle "truth" per se, but only a thoroughly massaged version of reality, a largely fictional version of reality that would nevertheless guide benighted citizens toward an overall larger truth, as the MSM sees it (the goodness of liberal/ Dem policies).

Hagar said...

and CBS News as of this evening is still going with the video having caused the attack in Benghazi.

Steve Cardon said...

Cmon... you don't believe in "spontaneous" planning? If you really want an amusing example of O'bama lying and being pinned to the wall for it, watch the "Univision" interview of O'bam six days ago. I was the most honest and relentless grilling I've seen yet. This is what Journalistic integrity means;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOd7INj2oIM

yashu said...

PS Insofar as the MSM and historians have ignored or underreported Kennedy stealing the election through fraud, that's not quite so 'extraneous.'

Certainly helps their current narratives that (1) Republicans' concerns about vote fraud are bogus and (2) Republicans are trying to steal the election (e.g. by suppressing minority votes or whatever).

Because Democrats (the only party shown by history to have won a presidential election at least in part through fraud) would never steal an election; that's only something Republicans do.

Aridog said...

Cedarford...with all due respect for your background, the accuracy of the six HE mortar rounds fired at the purported secret "safe house" precludes the idea of a rapid spontaneous deployment, such as used by NLF, and later PAVN, in Vietnam. Even US forces have used a one man hand held version of the M224 60 mm mortar in Afghanistan, but with nowhere near such accuracy.

If the mortars were the larger 81 mm, or 82 mm Combloc mortar, as speculated here, then the rapid deployment issue is even greater, as Drill SGT, Fen, Roger J have said. 60 mm mortar with 6 HE round kit weighs about 69 lbs, and an 81 or 82 mm mortar kit with 6 rounds would weigh 148 lbs. A bare minimum crew of 3 to 4 men would be required for the 81 mm, or at least 2 for the 60 mm version.

Normally, the 60 mm crew is 3 and the 81 mm crew is 5. Given these were rag headed irregulars, they might try fewer, but for them to be so accurate would mean they planned well in advance, set markers in advance for known targeting.

A ragged tribe of insurgents do it spontaneously, not a chance...the Vietcong/Viet Minh had been fighting in their homeland for well over 20 years, nearly a 1000 years if you count the Cochin China area disputed by the northern Tokinese Viets and the Khmers of the south. Nothing they ever did was spontaneous.

We used to joke (seriously) about how every mess tent and quonset was zero'd in for mortar fire compete with marker sticks in plain sight.

And yes, the NLF & PAVN did give the US Air Force fits continuously as a result...especially at Chu Lai. We figured the Vietcong were in the labor crews who helped build it. Hell, the likely were in the barber shops that cut our hair too.

Robert Cook said...

"But 'leftward' has always meant more government oppression and ever less accountability."

Government oppression and less accountability exists in authoritarian governments of both right and left persuasion.

Or are you one of those who considers that a "dictatorship" by definition means "leftist" tyranny, and can never be right wing?

Lawyer Mom said...

@Michael -- actually, I think Obama is pre-Chauncey Gardner, because surely he can't be post-Chauncey, right? Right!?

Oh, but that's just a pre-thought I'm typing out on my prepaid, though not pre-owned, i-mac, while my preheated oven cools off in my pre-owned house, as I sip on a pre-bedtime drink.

Also, what the Drill Sgt. said. Darn it, but he always preempts me.

PackerBronco said...


Lem said...
Meanwhile, what Romney said that was deemed a gaff has turned out to be pretty close if not dead on.

I know this post is about the administration timeline... but I believe this incident caused Obama to dig in his heels with this video mantra.. had he shifted, it would have confirmed what Romney claimed


Well done Lem. I wouldn't be surprised to see the MSM use your observation to blame the cover up on Romney after all!

PackerBronco said...

Yashu - I believe that the media regards Obama as the second coming of JFK. No way they are going to do anything to endanger "Camelot Redux" or allow anyone else("Lee Harvey" Romney)to bring-down their guy.


I think it comes down to a desire that the first African-American president be perceived as a success. They truly believe it will be bad for race relations if Obama is considered a failure and is not re-elected.

Now, the 2nd African-American President when he/she is elected will have more scrutiny and criticism; but Obama? He MUST succeed for the good of us all.

whoresoftheinternet said...

@Robert Cook:

Government oppression and less accountability exists in authoritarian governments of both right and left persuasion.


By definition, liar, a government that is totalitarian IS leftist. It might make overtures towards SOCIALLY conservative ideas(bans on homosexuality, respect/assistance for the local dominant religion, etc.) but GOVERN MENTALLY they are ALWAYS LEFTIST.

Kirk Parker said...

C4,

"one person would set up a mortar on a biped"

That's the typo of the evening! LOL!!!

Bruce Hayden said...

By definition, ..., a government that is totalitarian IS leftist. It might make overtures towards SOCIALLY conservative ideas(bans on homosexuality, respect/assistance for the local dominant religion, etc.) but GOVERN MENTALLY they are ALWAYS LEFTIST.

Agreed - which is why I always find it humorous when national socialism (e.g. Fascism and Nazism) are considered right wing. Can't be. They were Italian and German answers to Russian communistic socialism.

And note the level of crony capitalism and the associated level of corruption have increased drastically under the Obama Administration. Hundreds of billions of dollars (of borrowed money) given to political cronies, in one guise or another, whether as "Green Energy" investment "loans", TARP bailouts, auto industry union pension protection abuse, etc.

For crony capitalism to work effectively, you need a big government, and the bigger the government, the more it takes of GDP, the greater the incentives for buying financial success through the purchase of political power.

DEEBEE said...

No teleprompter telling zero to call it a terrorist attack, so move on.

Texan99 said...

They constantly send Carney out to answer questions by insisting that the question already has been answered.

He has no self-respect. They have no self-respect.