October 28, 2012

Are the media protecting Obama, pre-election, from the full impact of the Benghazi story?

"What we already know about Benghazi is a scandal of the highest order..."
... the ambassador asked for more security after a series of terrorist threats and attacks, but didn’t get it, even on the anniversary of September 11. The administration knew that four Americans had been killed in a successful terrorist attack by an al Qaeda affiliate, but lied about the event for weeks in hopes of minimizing political fallout. Extraordinarily courageous Americans fought a seven-hour gun battle against well-armed and well-organized terrorists who vastly outnumbered them before finally succumbing, during which time the Obama administration did nothing. And when the bodies of the dead Americans were returned to the United States, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton misappropriated the occasion to deliver politically-motivated lies, both to the victims’ survivors and to the American people. All of that we now know for sure. If, in addition, there is credible evidence that American soldiers, fighting desperately for their lives against our country’s most bitter enemies, called for help but were cynically left to perish in order to protect Barack Obama’s petty re-election campaign, Obama will not only lose the election but will be turned out of office in disgust by a clear majority of voters. Reporters and editors know this. It will be interesting to see how they respond during the coming days: will they do their jobs, or will they assist their candidate with his cover-up?
I presume they would say — if they deigned to answer Power Line's question — that the Benghazi story is too complicated and inflammatory to resolve in the narrow time before the election and that it's unfair to dump this hugely burdensome issue on the President now. It would have an undue effect on the minds of the voters, who must be protected from an emotional flare-up which will keep them from weighing all the issues in the proper proportion. This is especially true — they would not say out loud — when the skewing goes against their preferred candidate. Of course, an equivalent issue affecting the incumbent in 2004 would have been splattered everywhere.

A Romney victory would give us the benefit of leaving the Benghazi scandal in the past. It will still be important to investigate, but it won't — like the Watergate scandal, after the Nixon re-election — cripple a sitting President.

454 comments:

1 – 200 of 454   Newer›   Newest»
Paco Wové said...

I really, really, really wish "the press" would do its job here... right now, we have a bunch of unanswered questions, and all we are hearing is either a lot of speculation (from people who may be on the right track, but who are frankly partisan and anti-administration), or stonewalling silence.

Hassell Anderson said...

Yes. Next question.

dreams said...

"I presume they would say — if they deigned to answer Power Line's question — that the Benghazi story is too complicated and inflammatory to resolve in the narrow time before the election and that it's unfair to dump this hugely burdensome issue on the President now."

So now we have another excuse, its just unfair that world events have an effect on Obama's presidency. Liberals want everything to be fair.

Paul Zrimsek said...

If Obama is Nixon, we'd all better pray that Biden is Agnew.

madAsHell said...

I dunno.
This thing keeps growing legs.
I wish we had more than Fox News on this story. The story is entirely believable, but it feels unsubstantiated.

I would really like to hear from General Ham, but that ain't gonna happen.

Erika said...

it's unfair to dump this hugely burdensome issue on the President now

Poor poor President, how unfair that he might be forced to lie in the fucking bed that he made, how very unjust, the very idea that if he massively fucked up the job that we gave him that he might have to man up and cop to it.

David said...

Excellent job by Powerline. No one needs to buy into unsubstantiated rumors like the supposed role of General Ham and his supposed sacking to hold Obama culpable. Exaggeration only benefits Obama.

The NYT is committing institutional suicide by abandoning its role as an independent news source.

dreams said...

Do we have a right to expect the liberal media to deigned to do their job, is it fair to a Dem president? As Obama said being president is hard, apparently being a liberal reporter is not so hard because they don't even have to do their job but then neither does Obama.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

I seem to remember WaPo and the NYTimes once investigated a President for much more minor crimes, at least in that no one died in Watergate.

We had a press once, now we have Democrats with bylines. An arm of the government, where Democrats are involved.

This scandal suggests an awful, awful truth about Obama that cannot be ignored. The story has turned from simple fecklessness to murder.

The President ordered the military to let them die for no good reason. That's what we're discussing. Is there anyone left in the Administration with decency. At long last, do they have any shame at all, for anything?

Of course not. The Ambassador and the SEALs are just bumps on the road. And that is the message to us. For Obama and the Democrats, we're all just so many bumps on the road, in health care, the economy, the military.

ricpic said...

Most transparent administration evah.

Pastafarian said...

MadasHell: what part of this story do you doubt, that would make any difference?

Do you doubt the six to seven hour firefight? Because I thought that this had been corroborated by multiple sources.

Or do you doubt the sixty dead terrorists? Because I really don't see how a detail like that matters, whether it's sixty or thirty or ten.

(and I'd bet it's closer to sixty, if these two ex-SEALs were firing machine guns into a throng for six hours. But it really doesn't matter.)

Pastafarian said...

David: exaggeration? So it's the sixty figure you're worried about?

Why? If it's only thirty, or actually one hundred twenty, does this exonerate Obama?

Pogo said...

Biden's "cue balls" gaffe to the parent of the dead SEAL suggest he knows full well what happened.

He's such a 'regular guy', though, right? But not average Joe enough to tell the mom and dad what he knew.

Deceit and dishonor, rather than Death before dishonor. That's Joe's motto.

Steve Austin said...

When Joe Biden made the "cue balls" comment, what did he know and who else knows it?

And Hillary telling the father immediately that they would "get the maker" of that video? Sounds like someone trying to make sure the families of those killed just go with the company line about the video rather than stories from the field ops they might later hear from.

The father is the key here and that interview. All we need is one "Jake Tapper" type to do a follow up with the father.

And if we can't get Jake Tapper, maybe New Media Meade can get an interview with the father. (I'm serious)

Shanna said...

@Erika, that's about where I am as well.

If the president hadn't been lying about everything for weeks, maybe this wouldnt' all be hitting a week before the election.

The damn press needs to do their damn jobs or we need to get rid of all of them because they are utterly useless. Too bad we can't vote those bums out along with the one in office.

garage mahal said...

A Romney victory would give us the benefit of leaving the Benghazi scandal in the past

Indeed. If Romney were elected this story would completely disappear from right wing media.

elkh1 said...

Of course the Rathergate created out from thin air would not affect the voters as much as Benghazigate created by Islamists.

You wingnuts must realize what is more important, getting free abortions and free condoms for the freedom to be a slut, or sidestep a "not optimal" "bump in the road" occurrence. Your choice, women are sooooo emotional!

Jason Greaves said...

I am sure that Ann is right about the motivation of journalists. They don't think they are protecting Obama. They think they are protecting the American people. Was there ever an age when journalists actually performed their role as truth-seekers?

JAL said...

AA: It would have an undue effect on the minds of the voters, who must be protected from an emotional flare-up which will keep them from weighing all the issues in the proper proportion.

"undue effect" or

Ahhh -- the press has a duty to "protect" the voters! !

After all, they might vote with their emotions ! !

Because the voters must weigh all the issues in the proportion which the main stream media GIVES them. (They remind me of the vegetable wallahs in India who would slide a finger onto the scale.)

Stupid, stupid, stupid voters.

dreams said...

If Obama had been up to the job, he would have responded like a true commander-in-chief and the American people would have rallied behind him and our country thus assuring his reelection.

pm317 said...

Time to replace the CiC.

Bill Harshaw said...

At worst this seems more like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1982 or the Black Hawk Down in Somalia than Watergate. Watergate was malfeasance and felonies; those were screwups.

Paul Kirchner said...

If Obama is reelected, I predict he will have a very unsatisfactory second term. One reason is that the press, with nothing else to cover at that point, will have to pay attention to the Benghazi scandal as well as several others. Also, I'm sure a number of White House staffers will want to get their tell-all books out while the market is still hot.

Darrell said...

The story--what actually happened--should have been read in newspaper across America on Sept 12, 2012. With more details--not a complete reversal--known in the following few days.

wildswan said...

It's easy to understand that two brave men did go into harm's way to help Ambassador Stevens and the others. And the battle lasted seven hours. And it's known that no other help was sent. And the battle lasted seven hours. And earlier we sent drones and planes help to protect Benghazi civilians from a massacre. And this massacre lasted seven hours. And we sent no help from the outside. Two brave men did go to help but the President sent no help. The Commander in Chief sent no help. Neither the President nor the Commander in Chief knows what happened; he has said so repeatedly. The battle lasted seven hours; no help was sent; the President did not know what was happening, he has said so. Seven hours of struggle waiting for help and no help comes. Afterwards the President doesn't even know what happened. Even now he doesn't know.

If all this is OK with you, then may it happen to you someday.

pm317 said...

A Romney victory would give us the benefit of leaving the Benghazi scandal in the past

We will not elect Obama just to find out what happened in Benghazi. All we need to know about Benghazi now is that he mucked it up royally there too. The silence of his mediawhores speaks volumes in that respect.

rhhardin said...

So many scapegoats, so little time.

Pastafarian said...

Garage, do you consider this unimportant? Do you think it's just being hyped by right wing blogs, and that we shouldn't waste our time with it?

clint said...

If President Obama wins reelection -- this scandal will blow up into congressional hearings that will consume the next year.

You would think that would motivate the Clintons (and many others) to root for a Romney win...

Darrell said...

1) Did Obama order "Stand Down!" because the 150 attacking the embassy were part of the coalition for "The Arab Spring?"

2)Was it because they handed over Gaddafi's advanced weapons he had gotten from the Europeans--especially when he was antagonistic toward the US? That has more or less been confirmed by the Administration with their story of the Ambassador meeting with his Turkish counterpart to discuss getting the weapons back from Al Qaeda.

3) Or just to maintain the meme over at Kos, et. al., about Obama not allowing a terrorist attack on US soil. Like our Lefties were still pushing last Friday.

dreams said...

"The damn press needs to do their damn jobs or we need to get rid of all of them because they are utterly useless. Too bad we can't vote those bums out along with the one in office"

The new media is getting info out to the American people despite the liberal media. There would have never been a watergate if they would had the internet back then. The liberal media has lost control of the news.

wyo sis said...

We now know all those scenarios postulated by critics of the media about how Obama could kill a kitten and eat it on live TV and still get elected are not all that far fetched.

Tim Wright said...

I went to the online front pages of the NY Times and the Wash Post this morning (Sunday at 10 a.m.) Not one work on Libya/benghazi that I could see. The Times was willing to run a badly sourced story on Iranian negotiations in the top right lead story position a week ago to boost Obama, but won't touch the Libya story because it's political.

I've worked as a reporter and I've been reading the Times since I was a small child, and that's a longer time than most reporters there have been alive. It was a great newspaper once.

But at this point, as someone once told me, it doesn't matter that they've gone into the tank. It's just that they won't admit it. The name for it is simple dishonesty.

Tim Wright

Paddy O said...

Honestly, I think if Obama does win there will be a major Constitutional crisis at some point in the next couple of years.

Obama will not want to respond to questions about Benghazi nor will he feel it necessary to consult Congress about much of anything, and he has shown his willingness to go around Congress or ignore them.

At some point, Congress would have to respond more forcefully, re-asserting its role.

The result will be a mess no matter what side you're on.

Darrell said...

Oliver Cromwell illustrates that the option of taking action against a leader doesn't cease with his departure from the public office--or even this mortal coil.

elkh1 said...

Bill Harshaw said...
the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1982 or the Black Hawk Down ...Watergate was malfeasance and felonies; those were screwups.

You miss the point completely. The point is COVER-UP. Nobody covered up the bombing or the Black Hawk Down. Reagan said the buck stopped with him. Carter hasn't tried to weasel out either. But Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice blamed the whole thing on a silly Youtube video, scapegoating a parolee for causing the Benghazi "protests" that never occurred. Obama apologized for our Freedom of Speech in the UN. The death of four courageous Americans was "not optimal", was a "bump in the road".

It's the COVER-UP that makes it a "gate".

dreams said...

"We will not elect Obama just to find out what happened in Benghazi. All we need to know about Benghazi now is that he mucked it up royally there too. The silence of his mediawhores speaks volumes in that respect."

Althouse is just trying to rationalize her Obama vote.

Pogo said...

"Watergate was malfeasance and felonies; those were screwups."

The only thing that keeps Benghazi from being called malfeasance and felonies and murder was that it happened overseas.

And "felonies" is meaningless twaddle. Damn near everything is a felony nowadays.

Steve Austin said...

@Bill Harshaw......the problem isn't that an attack occurred. The problem is the coverup.

After Beirut, I don't recall Reagan coming on TV and telling the American people that the attack was the result of some Lebanese being riled up by a SNL skit defaming Danny Thomas.

Nor Clinton coming on after Somalia saying those warlords weren't at fault because they were angry at the Sam Kinson starving Africans comedy routine.

Obama falsely and unpatriocally going after the filmmaker is what makes this a scandal (BTW where is Russ Feingold on first amendment rights related to this story?)

dbp said...

The press is hit-or-miss, they sure underplayed the Bengahazi fiasco. But they will make up for it in a few days with wall-to-wall coverage of Obama's calm leadership in the aftermath of this hurricane. That is, if he does anything that even slightly resembles leadership.

James Pawlak said...

The Constitution
Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Need we look further?

Jack said...

Just checked in on all the lead-ins to the 3 mainstream Sunday talk shows. NOT.A.WHIFF. about Libya.

Michael K said...

Blogger garage mahal said...

A Romney victory would give us the benefit of leaving the Benghazi scandal in the past

Indeed. If Romney were elected this story would completely disappear from right wing media.


No, if Romney is elected I expect a flurry of pardons like Clinton did but they will include the liars. Unfortunately, Obama can't pardon himself but I could imagine a game of "chicken" with Romney in which Obama vows to veto any fix for the "fiscal cliff" in January unless Romney agrees to drop the Benghazi investigation. Obama is just that disgusting.

Darrell said...

Nobody covered up the bombing or the Black Hawk Down.

Actually "Blackhawk Down" was covered up. There were AC-130 gunships ready to roll that were called off by Washington political types. The race of the enemy dictated that decision.

Paddy O said...

The big trouble with not covering this, of course, is that if it does end up being a big deal (and it is a big deal one way or the other), then it will blow up at an even more inconvenient time and in an uncontrolled way.

There's only a couple of weeks left now, and if this builds up this week and explodes this next weekend, Obama will have his Second Term Scandal underway right when everyone gets to decide whether he gets that second term.

I have a lot of affinity for liberal goals, even as I think Republicans are better in this season. And for anyone committed to liberal goals, Obama really just needs to be left behind--he's doing more and more damage every day. Just as Trent Lott so totally undermined conservative goals in the 90s and last decade.

dreams said...

The NY Times can keep the Benghazi news off their front page but they can't it off facebook.

LilyBart said...

...and that it's unfair to dump this hugely burdensome issue on the President now.

Tyrone Wood and Greg Doherty were unavailable for comment.

Darrell said...

Has The US Disinformation Czar (one of 43 Obama Czars) been busy?
Not doing a very good job, I'd say. Did Linda Douglass come up with the YouTube video lie?

madAsHell said...

Well....a 6 or 7 hour firefight? Do two security men really carry that much ammo? I'll guess they were armed with one M2A1 (.50 Cal), and rifles bored for 5.56.

How do we know they illuminated the target with an infra-red laser? They're dead, and the casual observer can't see IR lasers.

If they could illuminate the mortar tube, then why couldn't they suppress the tube with .50?

Was there really an aircraft above? Can you really imagine the gunner NOT pulling the trigger on an illuminated target? Especially, if he can see the firefight in progress.

The drones were not armed?? I mean....this is President Drone-Kill.

How did 20 people escape unharmed?

I dunno. It feels like facts are being forced into a narrative.

Of course, I still can't believe the Marines in Tehran didn't cut that crowd in half....you know....the first whiff of grape-shot!

Conserve Liberty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
virgil xenophon said...

John Nolte@Breitbart.com makes some great points in an article yesterday ("Media Blackout: Why Obama Dodged the Libya Question") about the MSM "blackout" and attempts by Obama to run out the clock. The one that stands out for me--the "TELL""--that points to a joint MSM/Obama Admin shared strategy/conspiracy of studied ignorance about all things Libyan is the unusual fact that the Obama Admin didn't even bother to deny the bombshell Fox story on Friday a) about proof that the highest levels of govt were immediately informed of the situation and requests for help but turned them down and b) the existence of a C-130 gunship airborne in the area that could have been on-station to aid in a matter of minutes, NOT hours. Because, as Nolte in the Breitbart art points out, if Obama et al went on record as denying the FOX charge, the MSM would have to report--or at least mention--the formal denial itself, thus drawing the general public's attention in the direction of the rough facts of the original charge--or to some aspect of it of which they might have been heretofore totally unaware.

Nolte goes on to draw a good parallel between the media blackout of the John Edwards affair in an effort to aid him during his run for the presidency and the studied indifference the MSM has shown toward the Benghazi incident. Go to Breitbart--it's a good read

Skyler said...

In the Spanish Civil War, the USSR was able to control almost all of the Republican army by having usually only one person in a key billet, often the second in command, in every battalion. That one person in each battalion gave them complete control of the army, and thus the government.

I think the same method is being used by the Democrat party to contol the media. I find it hard to believe that so many people could be so treasonous as to not report this as the lead story every day. There are traitors in key positions in the media and the democrat party protecting the agenda.

Darrell said...

The former Seals (part of the CIA team as civilian contractors) were unarmed. They got their weapons and ammo from the attackers. As they killed the fucks...

garage mahal said...

Garage, do you consider this unimportant? Do you think it's just being hyped by right wing blogs, and that we shouldn't waste our time with it?

I'm saying you guys care about this as much as you cared when Bush invoked Executive Privilege in relation to documents about the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. Which is to say, not at all.

Bob Boyd said...

"All of that we now know for sure..."

They also abused their power to exploit the legal vulnerability of a U S citizen and have him arrested to further the "spontaneous protests" lie.

Darrell said...

Of course that's "SEALS."

Conserve Liberty said...

And if we can't get Jake Tapper, maybe New Media Meade can get an interview with the father. (I'm serious)

What a shame that John McWethy retired and passed away so soon thereafter. Now HE was a journalist. WATCH THE TRIBUTE video!

Maybe Jake Tapper will assume the Mantle but I'd bet he's been shut down by Diane Sawyer.

Darrell said...

Why do you think a SEAL lights up a target rather than firing on it?
Pretty sure he knew the alert message had gone out and what was in the neighborhood.

Rusty said...

Pastafarian said...
Garage, do you consider this unimportant? Do you think it's just being hyped by right wing blogs, and that we shouldn't waste our time with it?

crickets


madAsHell said...
Well....a 6 or 7 hour firefight? Do two security men really carry that much ammo? I'll guess they were armed with one M2A1 (.50 Cal), and rifles bored for 5.56.

Navy SEAL should say it all.Expert marksmen and totally unflapable.

How do we know they illuminated the target with an infra-red laser? They're dead, and the casual observer can't see IR lasers.


The survivors told us.

If they could illuminate the mortar tube, then why couldn't they suppress the tube with .50?

Mortars are for killing people where you can't see them. the mortars could have been miles away.

Was there really an aircraft above? Can you really imagine the gunner NOT pulling the trigger on an illuminated target? Especially, if he can see the firefight in progress.

So they say. Soldiers obey orders.

The drones were not armed?? I mean....this is President Drone-Kill.

Wierd huh

How did 20 people escape unharmed?


Our special operators are very, very good.

I dunno. It feels like facts are being forced into a narrative.

That's OK. just vote republican on Nov. 6

Of course, I still can't believe the Marines in Tehran didn't cut that crowd in half....you know....the first whiff of grape-shot!





Maguro said...

Uh, yeah, remember when the NYT didn't break the Al Quaa Quaa story because it was too close to the election, all the facts weren't known and it might unduly influence the voters?

Good times.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Seems pretty clear that the current basic outline of the story is true, because if there was evidence exonerating the actions/inactions of the President, it would have been released weeks ago.

BaltoHvar said...

Last night I happened to drop-in on a FOX New's segment of “Judge Jeanine.” Ann Coulter and (I think his name is) Jim Caldwell. This very question of MSM coverage was on the table. Of course Coulter was her usual self, delivering round-house after round-house in her thirty seconds or so.

Then the question was asked of Mr. Caldwell. He stated that he'd worked for both McGovern and Carter. I thought “...good! Fair and Balanced...” and all that. Instead, he went even more extreme in his condemnation of the MSM and this scandal. In fact I thought he actually held back sobs of anger and grief at the behavior they are exhibiting. I was stunned. Neither the Judge nor Coulter tried to interrupt him as is the usual back-and-forth on this kind of discussion. He kept going, and indeed was making a remarkable case for his beliefs. It was hard to watch, and I think the ladies were somewhat taken aback. I know I felt a twinge of discomfort watching.

I wish I could find the clip – and verify the gentleman's correct name. He's a FOX Regular.

Jack said...

On Meet the Press - during a roundtable with 3 libs (yes David Brooks is a lib) David Gregory says let's talk "trust" he takes Maddow and Dionne answers slamming Romney as Carly Fiorina starts to speak about Libya and trust he stops her in the middle of her 2ND SENTENCE...and says " well let's talk trust about the economy...uh uh and turns for help from another protectionist lib.

Absolutely appalling and very dangerous for our country.

Alex said...

Of course this isn't important. We should instead focus like a laser beam on Romney's Swiss bank account.

BaltoHvar said...

Paul Z - that's affirm. If it were Biden to take the podium and proclaim "... our long National nightmare is over..." I believe it would only continue.

edutcher said...

After this, I never want to hear some Lefty invoke My Lai or Watergate or Iran Contra or 9/11.

Ever.

One of the reasons our little weasel, shilol, is nowhere to be found.

Bill Harshaw said...

At worst this seems more like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1982 or the Black Hawk Down in Somalia than Watergate. Watergate was malfeasance and felonies; those were screwups.

I have a feeling a POTUS purposely hanging people out to dry in the interests of politics or statecraft or Reset buttons eventually gets into malfeasance and felonies.

virgil xenophon said...

Oh, I almost forgot to ans Ann's basic question: "Are the media protecting..."

Ans: Does the Sun rise in the East? Is the Pope a Catholic? Does a Bear shit in the woods? Is a Dog's dick red? Get real--to even ask the question is to answer it..

AF said...

If it Benghazi is a legitimate campaign issue, why did the Romney campaign abandon it, to the point of not answering a direct question about it at the final debate?

"Because they want to focus on the economy" is the wrong answer because they haven't abandoned other foreign policy attacks such as the "apology tour."

Alex said...

No the media is actually biased against Obama because they refuse to attack Romney all out.

Peggy Coffey said...

I understand that Althouse has to justify her vote for Obama, but 4 people ARE DEAD and the administration is covering it up and the media is now involved in a coverup. What the hell is wrong with these people! The administration needs to answer to all of us and the media needs to be shunned be everyone until this is resolved.

John Lynch said...

Why does the President need to be protected from anything? He's the most powerful man in the world.

John Lynch said...

Why does the President need to be protected from anything? He's the most powerful man in the world.

Greg said...

The Clinton calculation: Obama is re elected, eventually the Republican's are forced to impeach. The majority of voters, dems and indies just want to forget about it and move on. Republicans are punished in 2016 and - President Clinton II. Only thing wrong with the theory is Hillary's involvement in the mess, will it hurt her.

Darrell said...

"One of the reasons our little weasel, shilol, is nowhere to be found."

Five words--The Bumblebee Tuna factory accident.

Packed in oil, not Spring Water, as per his last wishes.

Alex said...

The reason Romney won't bring it up is because he knows the MSM will savage him over it. "Unpatriotic" and all that.

Alex said...

TheYoungTurks has uploaded Romney Cast as 'Economic Traitor' in New Ad.

Issob Morocco said...

Not the Media's call to make to defer reporting until after the election, if they are truly independent and seek the truth.

Nov. 6th

John said...

I am sure the media will get out the pitch forks and torches just as soon as President Romney takes the stage. It will be as if the past four years were only a dream. (A reference to the original Dallas for the experience challenged.)

Darrell said...

Weinstein’s Bin Laden film cast Romney as villain. Film, set to air 2 days before election “…originally included a scene showing Gov. Mitt Romney ‘appearing to oppose the raid,’ a complete fabrication of history.” We’re sure it also depicts Gen. Barack Patton himself killing OBL with a five iron. Fore! More yearz!

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/weinsteins-bin-laden-film-cast-romney-as-villain

Alex said...

Notice Bambi's Gallup approval down to 47% and now he's tied in Ohio.

dreams said...

The liberal media have shown that if Romney comments on the Benghazi news or cover up they will accuse him of politicizing the Benghazi tragedy. As to Obama's actions concerning Benghazi, we have a president who spent his senate years voting present. He isn't and has never been a profile in courage.

Original Mike said...

"Are the media protecting Obama, pre-election, from the full impact of the Benghazi story?"

Does a bear shit in the woods?

Alex said...

Does a bear shit in the woods?

I talk to Fred the Bear today and he said the dump he took this morning was very satisfying.

Steve Austin said...

@garage trying to equate this with Pat Tillman.

When did George Bush blame Tillman's death on the Dixie Chicks and get Natalie Maines jailed? I forgot that part.

Curious George said...

"Pastafarian said...
Garage, do you consider this unimportant? Do you think it's just being hyped by right wing blogs, and that we shouldn't waste our time with it?"

This a just one big joke to garage. "Benghazi Belly Flop."

Pathetic.

BDNYC said...

Can you imagine if Wisconsin becomes the decisive state and Obama narrowly wins, pehaps in part because AA grudgingly endorses him? What kind of pull does she have there!

edutcher said...

AF said...

If it Benghazi is a legitimate campaign issue, why did the Romney campaign abandon it, to the point of not answering a direct question about it at the final debate?

"Because they want to focus on the economy" is the wrong answer because they haven't abandoned other foreign policy attacks such as the "apology tour."


I believe the phrase, "twist slowly in the wind", covers it.

This thing just keeps metastasizing. Why give Barry a "how dare you question my patriotism" opportunity when he and his Administration are doing such a swell job of hanging themselves?

As Gallup notes, his approval has dropped 7 points in 3 days. It ain't outrage over his campaign tactics doing that.

Nichole said...

lame cherry has an interesting theory of a "Wag the Dog"... if it's true, it's really creepy.

http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/

John Siegel said...

A few things. First, I am troubled at the lack of outrage at what happened:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/osama-bin-laden-dead-so-are-tyrone-woods-and-glen-doherty_657876.html

Second, according to Obama himself, he was on the phone immediately to his National Security Advisor. On the phone? Our consulate is attacked by terrorists, and he's on the phone? No meeting with advisors, situation room, formulate a plan? On the phone? On his way to Vegas to raise campaign funds...can't keep those folks waiting, after all.

Lastly, I think I agree with the pundits that giving Obama a pass on Libya during the 3rd debate was a strategic decision, I suspect Obama was ready with his own version of the facts, and why give him an opportunity to speak directly to those who want to believe that there were legitamate reasons for his course of action...Romney would not be able to call him a liar, and it may have knocked Romney off balance for the rest of the debate. Also, his goal was to act nice and presidential, to appeal to women, and it seems to have worked, the gender gap seems to have disappeared after the 3rd debate.

Mogget said...

If it Benghazi is a legitimate campaign issue, why did the Romney campaign abandon it, to the point of not answering a direct question about it at the final debate?

Because the sort of questions that need to be asked are best posed while the party to answer is deposed by Congress under oath.

Hagar said...

The internet and Fox News are in an uproar.

The question is if some MSM "name" lets his ego and self-image as a "reporter" get the best of him, so that he brings up the story this week.

One goes, they all go.

The Drill SGT said...

a repost of what I said earlier:

These stories are frankly too unf'ing-believable to accept on the basis of what we've heard. Maybe they are true, maybe not.

If they are true, there are too many folks who know, and have traffic logs and orders logs to cover it up, even if all parties wanted to.

If it were true, ultimately it doesn't matter if Obama survives his relection, he wil be impeached. Not because of the Benghazi decisions (POTUS is supposed to make tough decisions, and half of them I'm not going to like.) (Example: Kennedy sending the Cubans to attack at Bay of Pigs, (act of war), but not allowing the Navy to provide support, because that would be an act of war), but because of the cover-up. If there was a cover-up, it will be torches and pitchforks time...

Issues that seem incontrovertible.

1. Tripoli sent a scratch team to Benghazi by plane to provide support. they landed and after a bit, got to the CIA compound. How does this square with Panetta's denial of support because of the fog of war? Same air miles. Better troops in Sicily, trained for this exact mission. If tripoli spt could land, why not send the Sicily team in behind them...

2. Air support. Why no low, mach 1 pass at night by an F/A-18? Put the fear of God into the Jihadi's? Note, I'm not talking here about GLDs and Spectres. It would be a clear command decision to use a Spectre or SDB's inside Benghazi. Most everybody here would have done it, but though we disagree, it was the commander's call (whoever that a$$hole was). What I am asking, is why no 'show of force' jet pass???

JAL said...

that it's unfair to ...

Yup. This is a presidency all about "fairness."

That's right in the fourth line of the Constitution ... um. Ooops. Nope.

This is a man and an adminstration and a group of voters for whom being "fair" to them and their potential vote pool is the bottom line. But "fair: always means doing it my way.

The hell with the Americans who get in the way of being "fair" to the fair haired Dream President.

So how come it isn't "unfair" someone / anybody couldn't give the word to a drone or A130 to take out that mortar ....

garage mahal said...

M PEACH!

Stoutcat said...

BaltoHvar said...

"I wish I could find the clip – and verify the gentleman's correct name. He's a FOX Regular.

I'm going to guess it was Pat Caddell, a Democrat and Fox regular. He worked for McGovern, Carter, and Gary Hart, among others, and seems to be the elder statesman of what I'd call the "honorable Democrats" if there were more than just him.

Ali Karim Bey said...

What do NYT editors say when someone tells says the word, "Benghazi" in front of them:

Go F*** Yourself (adapted from Argo)

" You keep lyin' when you oughta be truthin' "
(from Nancy Sinatra, These Boots Are Made for Walkin')

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Yes the media are protecting Obama in all circumstances, not just this Libyan screw-up and cover-up. The media just don't want anything bad to happen for Obama and so they aren't looking to push anything which might be negative for Obama. Teacher's pet versus teacher's most disliked student. Fish don't know they're wet nor do the the media know they are highly biased.

Paco Wové said...

"Garage, do you consider this unimportant?"

A simple yes-or-no question, you'd think. But Garage seems incapable of answering it.

garage mahal said...

Almost makes you wonder what Republicans would be running on had Benghazi not happened.

Kansas City said...

Excellent point by Ann. If you were focused entirely upon Benghazi and what is best for the country post election, it would be better for the country to elect Romney so that Benghazi can be put behind us.

Ann also is corrct that, in addition to pro-Obama bias, there also is a further MSM justification (only applicable when it would hurt a democrat) not to promote the effect of an isolated emotional issue prior to the election.

My principal problem is my disgust with how Obama is lying and otherwise handling the issue. He essentially is campaigning on the bragging about his response to the news of the attack:

"I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. . . . And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe."

There are obvious inconsistencies between Obama allegedly ordering "make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to" and Panetta not sending military help.

Obama obviously should not get away with bragging his way to re-election without scrutiny. He may.

I would tell Romney to personally focus on the issue as follows:

The only thing I am interested in regarding Benghazi is the truth. President Obama has bragged for almost two months that he immediately issued an order to do whatever needed to protect our people. Now, it is clear that the Obama administration did not send military help to Americans under attack. There are only two possible explanations. Either the president is not telling the truth when he brags about issuing an order to protect people or his secretary of defense did not obey his order. The American people are entitled to know the truth.

The Drill SGT said...

One note that may or may not please Garage;

We should not ascribe to conspiracies and cover-ups, that which can be explianed by basic incompetence and ignorance

Darrell said...

Almost makes you wonder what Republicans would be running on had Benghazi not happened.

The previous 44-odd months would be my guess.

Maguro said...

2. Air support. Why no low, mach 1 pass at night by an F/A-18? Put the fear of God into the Jihadi's? Note, I'm not talking here about GLDs and Spectres. It would be a clear command decision to use a Spectre or SDB's inside Benghazi. Most everybody here would have done it, but though we disagree, it was the commander's call (whoever that a$$hole was). What I am asking, is why no 'show of force' jet pass???

Yeah, I find this the most puzzling thing. Even if you are too risk-averse to send in special ops troops in, you have fighters in the area, why not send them in and see if you can scare the bad guys off? It is not guaranteed to work, but it was effective numerous times in Iraq/Afstan, so why not give it a try?

These dudes just had the crap bombed out of them by NATO, I'm sure they don't take the appearance of jet fighters lightly.

phx said...

"What we already know about Benghazi is a scandal of the highest order..."

Is Powerline more or less partisan than Rush?

Roger J. said...

As noted by a commenter above, Obama could have been a hero by supporting the embassy--I speech to the American people and rally them around the president.

The MSM will now have news "cover" with Hurricane Sandy to occupy the next 5 days of media coverage. Alas

grackle said...

The NYT is committing institutional suicide by abandoning its role as an independent news source.

The NYT has not been an "independent news source" and has been steadily loosing readership for a number of years yet has just as steadily carried water for the Left for many years before today and more lately Obama. For the folks at the NYT ideology comes first … always … no matter what.

The liberal media has lost control of the news.

If only it were true.

The Constitution Section 3 defines treason and its punishment … Need we look further?

Wishful thinking.

If it Benghazi is a legitimate campaign issue, why did the Romney campaign abandon it, to the point of not answering a direct question about it at the final debate?

Because Romney realized that the MSM would have made Romney's question the news instead of the answer(or non-answer) to the question – just as the MSM did with Romney's first reaction to Benghazi in the early days of the Benghazi incident.

The reason Romney won't bring it up is because he knows the MSM will savage him over it. "Unpatriotic" and all that.

Bingo!

The liberal media have shown that if Romney comments on the Benghazi news or cover up they will accuse him of politicizing the Benghazi tragedy.

Another Bingo!

The Benghazi incident reminds me of a Die Hard movie except in Benghazi the good guys ended up all getting killed. But it's got everything for a "Die Hard Benghazi": mealy-mouthed, clueless lower echelons, interfering, dithering high officials, ruthless politicians, double-crossed heroes and hordes of terrorists. I like Bruce Willis's interpretation of the classic action hero but he's a bit old to play either of the Seals. I can see Christian Bale and Jason Statham as the 2 SEALs.

Ali Karim Bey said...

Official WH response to questions about "Benghazi" --

Go F*** Yourself (adapted from Argo)

" You keep lyin' when you oughta be truthin' "
(from Nancy Sinatra, These Boots Are Made for Walkin')

Darrell said...

These dudes just had the crap bombed out of them by NATO, I'm sure they don't take the appearance of jet fighters lightly.

Well, you see Obama knew he had given Al Qaeda shoulder-launched missiles (MANPADS). Gaddifi wasn't keen on using them against NATO--he was still hoping for retirement in a nice villa.

Ali Karim Bey said...

What if there was a twitter hashtag:

" Benghazi Go F*** Yourself "

Mark said...

I wonder why Panetta, a former CIA director, was not more sympathetic to the plight of the folks at the safe house. Seems like should have been more invested in approving a rescue than just watching the drone video and refusing to help.

The Drill SGT said...

Kansas City said...There are obvious inconsistencies between Obama allegedly ordering "make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to" and Panetta not sending military help.

And between the ability of Tripoli to put a scratch force of 8 onto a plane/helo and get it to Benghazi (400 miles), when Panetta, with the same intel, lacked the ability/courage to put a team, trained for this mission 460 miles into the same airport

BaltoHvar said...

StoutCat - yes it was Pat Caddell, and I admire his courage. Guess my Ravens fan-ship clouded my recall. Thank you.

AllenS said...

Something else that needs to be said because people already have forgotten. Just within the last year we bombed these people. Anybody remember that?

BaltoHvar said...

I'd like to hear how Gary Hart compares and contrasts his treatment by the MSM then over the "Rice Affair" as opposed to the MSM's treatment of...

Seems they torpedoed his leaky campaign boat then with vigor...

The Drill SGT said...

Grackle said...I like Bruce Willis's interpretation of the classic action hero but he's a bit old to play either of the Seals. I can see Christian Bale and Jason Statham as the 2 SEALs.

Three roles for Bruce:
1. an outvoted General Ham, sent off under guard on orders of a backstabbing deputy (note, i don't believe this happened)
2. The grizzled Benghazi station chief (remake of John Wayne at the Alamo)
3. The SOF LTC Team leader loaded into an MH-130 from Sigonella headed for Libya when the Air Force orders the bird to turn around...

Colonel Angus said...

Obama figured that hundreds of dead Libyans from a Spectre flyover was much more unpalatable to his campaign then a few dead Americans.

Naturally those terrorists would have transformed into innocent women and children had the gunship been ordered in.

Then again, there weren't any al queda in Libya until Obama wanted to conduct regime change.

The Drill SGT said...

Darrell said...
, you see Obama knew he had given Al Qaeda shoulder-launched missiles (MANPADS). Gaddifi wasn't keen on using them against NATO--he was still hoping for retirement in a nice villa.


You'd have to be real lucky to get a tracking tone on a MANPAD at night.

In daylight, you point them at the plane, get a tracking tone and launch.

at night, you can't find the plane, and if a fighter makes a low level pass at mach 1, your neck would snap trying to track one even if you got lucky.

A Spectre firing is a different story, but over Bengahzi, one could have been above MANPAD range

Dad29 said...

Well....a 6 or 7 hour firefight? Do two security men really carry that much ammo? I'll guess they were armed with one M2A1 (.50 Cal), and rifles bored for 5.56.

Your guess is just that. The compound (and its 'safe house') had a lot of belt-fed AND 5.56, b/c they were CIA info/arms/cash stashes. Further, all we're talking about is several thousand rounds.

How do we know they illuminated the target with an infra-red laser? They're dead, and the casual observer can't see IR lasers.

They were NOT IR. They were lasers, period, which are visible. That's testimony which came in over the comms.

If they could illuminate the mortar tube, then why couldn't they suppress the tube with .50?

Umnnh....distance? When some armed and firing enemy are 30' away, you shoot THEM, not a mortar 200 meters out.

Was there really an aircraft above? Can you really imagine the gunner NOT pulling the trigger on an illuminated target? Especially, if he can see the firefight in progress.

No aircraft; it was a drone. Ergo, no "gunner."

The drones were not armed?? I mean....this is President Drone-Kill.

Ask pResident Drone-kill.

How did 20 people escape unharmed?

After the Ambassador was killed on American soil, 2 CIA security men came to the scene and covered the evac of the 20 civilians.

Kansas City said...

Panetta's excuse makes no sense - do not put troops in harms way wihtout real time information - becaue it is done all the time and because there was real time information.

But additionally, getting a rescue team in the air and to Banghazi would not have been putting them in harms way. It would have been putting them on the ground for availability. Also, obviously, puting drones or even manned attack aircraft on the scene would not be putting military in harms way.

I think Romney is likely to win regardless, but if the Benghazi cover up allows Obama to crawl across the finish line it will be the clearest example yet of the effects of a biased press.

Unknown said...

Why is the liberal media covering up for Obama. USA is supposed to be afair and just media. Why are you all covering up Nd protecting the President? Where is your conscience? Shame on you all.

Unknown said...

Why is the liberal media covering up for Obama. USA is supposed to be afair and just media. Why are you all covering up Nd protecting the President? Where is your conscience? Shame on you all.

JAL said...

We have had a family member with us for a week. She has Obama's birthday in her iPhone calendar.

Friday night ABCs NightLine had a (conveniently timed) piece on the rise of the KKK supposedly because of Obama's election. I wasn't particularly paying attention because it was pretty clearly a piece to feed the Left / guilt (condemn) the rest.

The family member suddenly went off as I have rarely seen her about racism, hate, (especially in the churches ... every church ... she would never! go! back! to! church!) and FoxNews.

I was a bit dumbfounded as we have this truce with only an occasional barb. I suggested that she might want to get her news from other sources than HuffPo and CNN. She denied that (!) I do know she watches Rachel Maddow. (Maybe one of an audience of three?) She declared huffily that she read the NY Times.

That's when I got pissed.

Friday was the day the news came out that "stand down" orders were given three times to the ex-SEALs. (They said the hell with that and if the story line is close to correct, went looking for the Ambassador and the other people at the consulate.)

So I informed her that *her* man refused to send help and she said "He wouldn't do that!!!!! They were friends!!!" She needed to get out more.

And of course none of this is in the NY Times.

She ended up with some sort of retort about "your guy" not having any foreign policy experience.

Unfreakin' believable.

She did come back and apologize (she was flying home in the morning) at which point I got to tell her that the pastor of my (theologically conservative) church voted for Obama and asked her what that meant.

Colonel Angus said...

I'm saying you guys care about this as much as you cared when Bush invoked Executive Privilege in relation to documents about the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. Which isto say,not atall.

That's a pretty bold statement. Then again based upon previous commentaty I've seen from you, you don't seem to have much in the way of principles so I guess its not all that bold.

Sammy said...

"Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton misappropriated the occasion to deliver politically-motivated lies, both to the victims’ survivors and to the American people. All of that we now know for sure"


It's the lies, to the family members and the American people, when the caskets of their bodies were 2 feet from them that so evil..

It has nothing to do with the election, Fast & Furious, is just as bad, selling thousand guns to Mexican drug dealers, and then the guns being used to kill 2 American agents, and hundreds of Mexican citizens...

The media wouldn't report, wouldn't demand answers from American officials, even lets Obama get away with lying about it, ( started under Bush) with hiding behind executive privledge.

Obama's Afghanistan surge of troops, has been a failure, the Tailban have gotten stronger, the hundreds of American soilders deaths in the last 3 years in Afghanistan in vain , does the media report, some excuse that the public isn't interested, as if that stopped them from reporting Iraq for 6 years, everyday the Night news would have a story on Iraq, report on American solders deaths.

Obamacare, has the media informed the public, of it's true costs and legistion , has the media once reported why the Obama administration gave up to 1700 waivers to businesses, to give them more time implementing the law ( after the election) these are companies that employ thousands , like Mc Donald's.

There as been so much the media has ignored these last 4 years, the corruption in Stimulus, the unemplyed, the stangant economy .

the public has to understand the democrat party and the media are one in the same.
They once worked for democrats, have family members, spouses , work in liberal activist groups or for democrat politcans , it's a incestuous relationship with a group think mentality.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Wait, so, Republicans are now opposed to lies and cover-ups? They're now in favor of honesty and transparency? Why the sudden change, guys?

I love the "we ALREADY know" bit... Precognition was invented by Republicans.

The Drill SGT said...

Was there really an aircraft above? Can you really imagine the gunner NOT pulling the trigger on an illuminated target? Especially, if he can see the firefight in progress.

too much technology now to just yell over the intercom, ' taking ground fire, open fire..."

If they could illuminate the mortar tube, then why couldn't they suppress the tube with .50?

as for the mortar, if it were me, I'd want to be 500 metere away behind a building with my spotter on the roof. That puts you out of m203 40mm rifle grenade range. at 500 meters, our guys on the roof would be able to see the mortar muzzle flash, but not the tube. they'd be lasing on the wall in front or behind, but with an SDB or hellfire, close works...

a mortar like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B14_Podnos

JAL said...

Above got posted before I edited it.

The question is -- how does one get the NY Times to cover this?

Where is the Washington Post?

As I mentioned on the other thread -- the Obama camp is praying for a truly horrendous Sandy so they can trivialize Benghazi some more.

A video? A VIDEO? That still does not relieve the CIC from his responsibility of defending and rescuing the Americans in Benghazi.

The video story only reinforces the point that Obama is trying to remain the tough guy OBL Killer instead of a guy who is blind to the his conveniently unnamed War on Terror.

If you don't name it, it doesn't exist in his universe.

They need to be fired or impeached.

The sooner (the election) the better.

Darrell said...

You're right, Shitmo, for the first time.

I consciously perceive that Obama goes down in a blowout. President Romney's term is eagerly awaited.

Saint Croix said...

At worst this seems more like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1982 or the Black Hawk Down in Somalia than Watergate. Watergate was malfeasance and felonies; those were screwups.

It reminds people of Watergate because of the cover-up. The refusal to tell us what happened. The secrecy and evasion.

Yes, a military mistake looks bad. But it's far worse--and dangerous in a democracy--to cover up the mistake and hide from it. It's dishonest.

What's particularly appalling is they are covering up the heroism of two men who died because they need to cover up the actions of the man who let them die.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I'm saying you guys care about this as much as you cared when Bush invoked Executive Privilege in relation to documents about the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. Which is to say, not at all.

It's true. For them, politics is the new morality. Whatever's good for the Republican party is, by their fucked-up definition, an unadulterated shining light of ethical goodness and righteousness.

LakeLevel said...

Here's what really happened in The Whitehouse (imho):

Gates: Mr. President, we can have gunships in place in 20 minutes.

Patreas: We have intel that they are trying to draw us in, in order to make you look bad a la Carters failed Iran rescue.

Obama: What might happen if we go in?

Gates: They do have some advanced weapons that our side gave them a few months ago to take down the government. But these are brave men defending American soil.

Obama: Stand down. We can have our friends in the press cover this up till the election, no problem. Look at how we had them crucify Romney for just mentioning the Egypt protest.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Go stick your cigarette up your butt, Darrell. After you hand over those dorky glasses of yours that were smashed in school.

There is nothing "conscious" about anything you are capable of perceiving.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

The lit end.

Roger J. said...

Totally an aside because so many pixels have given their life for the Benghazi story: How many readers/commenters even saw the Watergate hearings, much less remember them? Watergate is a totem to be invoked for any political failure. And how many commenters/readers remember it was the Republican Senatatorial delegation led by Hugh Scott, Republican of PA that delivered the news to Nixon that he would go down were impeachment to go forward--Somehow I cant see chuckie schumer or dirty harry reid up to that task.

Jane said...

Are any of Obama's actions (so far as we know them) actually impeachable? Or are they just really appalling?

The Drill SGT said...

LakeLevel said...

Panetta, not gates

Clapper, not Petreaus.

petreaus reports to DNI Clapper

besides, those guys were Petreaus' guys on the ground. I doubt he would abandon them and the CIA public statement implies he didn't

Darrell said...

The lit end.

Sorry! It went into your ass twenty minutes ago. Want another?

AprilApple said...

When Obama loses, I'd like the media to lose with him.

Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelly, et al... -
You're Fired.

Darrell said...

Shitmo is butthurt (not just because of the lit cigarette) because Bush wouldn't release all the information to the Left that they could twist to smear an American hero. Nice.

Maybe soaking your head will help.

Conserve Liberty said...

Then the question was asked of Mr. Caldwell. He stated that he'd worked for both McGovern and Carter. I thought “...good! Fair and Balanced...” and all that. Instead, he went even more extreme in his condemnation of the MSM and this scandal. In fact I thought he actually held back sobs of anger and grief at the behavior they are exhibiting. I was stunned. Neither the Judge nor Coulter tried to interrupt him as is the usual back-and-forth on this kind of discussion. He kept going, and indeed was making a remarkable case for his beliefs. It was hard to watch, and I think the ladies were somewhat taken aback. I know I felt a twinge of discomfort watching.

I wish I could find the clip – and verify the gentleman's correct name. He's a FOX Regular.


The speaker was Pat Caddell. Here is the clip, posted at The Right Scoop

Petunia said...

People died, Obama lied.

Saint Croix said...

At Google now, you type in "Benghazi" and Google suggests...

attack
emails
cover-up

Bing suggests...

attack
cover-up scandal
suspect held

Yahoo suggests...

cover-up scandal
attack
suspect held

AprilApple said...

Can we laugh all the blubbering drooling unprofessional hack media progressive democrat leftists off the stage yet?

It is dangerous. We have Chavez media.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Watergate is a totem to be invoked for any political failure. And how many commenters/readers remember it was the Republican Senatatorial delegation led by Hugh Scott, Republican of PA that delivered the news to Nixon that he would go down were impeachment to go forward--Somehow I cant see chuckie schumer or dirty harry reid up to that task.

Because you're not talking about a party so mindless that it would attempt to compare the lawless breach of an opponent's property to an endless investigation about someone's sex life. Apples and oranges, and the only difference between them that Republicans can perceive is that they threw one fruit and underwent the oh so horrible calamity of return-volley.

Listening to their crocodile tears is like listening to Palestinians complaining about the indignity of undergoing security measures in the face of exploding pizza parlor patrons. Sorry you feel so bad about it and all, but it just doesn't compare. Proportionality is just not your strong suit, and it hasn't been since deciding that the Southern Strategy was a nice way to reach out to those feeling "disaffected" by civil rights.

Paco Wové said...

...seeing Private Garage taking heavy ground fire, Captain Ritmo flies in and releases insult chaff... then follows up with a high-intensity projection grenade!

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Shitmo is butthurt (not just because of the lit cigarette) because Bush wouldn't release all the information to the Left that they could twist to smear an American hero. Nice.

They don't need Bushit for that. Just ask the family. Watch The Tillman Story.

Keep smearing them and their quest for justice, too. That's bound to help your crusade.

Rusty said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...
I'm saying you guys care about this as much as you cared when Bush invoked Executive Privilege in relation to documents about the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. Which is to say, not at all.

So we can safely say that's a big "fuck you" to the guys on the ground?

It's true. For them, politics is the new morality. Whatever's good for the Republican party is, by their fucked-up definition, an unadulterated shining light of ethical goodness and righteousness.


That's one hell of a cartoon you have runnin' there.
Is that ,like, sudlty or nuance? I keep getting those mixed up with you guys.

AprilApple said...

LOL. Come worship Obama!

Darrell said...

If you are accidentally killed by friendly fire, it takes away from your heroism?

In your case, Shitmo, it wouldn't be accidental. Not if I were behind you.

Or in front.

Or to the side.

Julie C said...

Saw the movie "Argo" yesterday. The first 10 minutes or so is the storming of the embassy. The people are massed outside, screaming, burning US flags etc. The embassy workers are quiet, watching out the window, murmuring to each other. Then, as soon as it becomes clear that things are going bad, there is a discussion about not wanting to use force because it might further inflame the demonstrators. A few people suggest the Iranian police and military will be there soon to assist.

I could not help but think of the people in the Benghazi consulate. I doubt I was the only person in the theatre thinking about that.

Inga said...

Wow, first me, then Garage, now Ritmo, some of these moral conservatives want us dead, hmmmmm. It would be so boring here without us.

Darrell said...

But of course you wouldn't be there, would you Shitmo?

Not unless it was THE Revolution. And you showed up a month after the fighting's done to come collect a house and loot some other shit you want. Just like the university intellectuals in Moscow that came to collect their booty.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

In your case, Shitmo, it wouldn't be accidental. Not if I were behind you.

Or in front.

Or to the side.


How many of the rest of you wish to endorse Darrell's standards for military integrity?

But yet, he will complain that facts are only released to suit partisan ends.

Here is someone who will kill its own for a partisan aim, and thinks the U.S. military should endorse and reflect that in its values.

But don't you dare get in the way of his demand for an investigation, with a pre-determined partisan outcome. No way.

What a disgrace. Amazing what dickless scofflaws and scumbags you tolerate.

Darrell said...

It would be so boring here without us.


Let's try it and see.

Roger J. said...

"Listening to their crocodile tears is like listening to Palestinians complaining about the indignity of undergoing security measures in the face of exploding pizza parlor patrons. Sorry you feel so bad about it and all, but it just doesn't compare. Proportionality is just not your strong suit, and it hasn't been since deciding that the Southern Strategy was a nice way to reach out to those feeling "disaffected" by civil rights."

I simply do not understand this paragraph. To whom is it addressed? Me? the Republican Party? not clear from what you have written.

Colonel Angus said...

. For them, politics is the new morality. Whatever's good for the Republican party is, by their fucked-up definition, an unadulterated shining light of ethical goodness and righteousness.

In light of the Democrats saying for weeks the attack was really a protest over an unwatched YouTube video off I must say you have created a new category of denial with your statement.



O Ritmo Segundo said...

Darrell is waxing boastfully about his dreams of murdering U.S. citizens while complaining about the ends of the Russian Revolution.

Not that I expect anything less cognitively dissonant from someone so depraved.

From Inwood said...

"It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder...."

Talleyrand

Darrell said...

How many of the rest of you wish to endorse Darrell's standards for military integrity?

Fucking liar. It's Darrell's standards for Darrell's integrity.
But you know it is only hypothetical. You wouldn't be within a thousand miles of action.
Or wearing an American uniform.

Saint Croix said...

Are any of Obama's actions (so far as we know them) actually impeachable? Or are they just really appalling?

The latter. It's not a crime for the commander in chief to let people die in order to save his campaign.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Darrell wants you to know that he is a morally superior murderer, as he leaves the belongings of those whom he's murdered alone.

Nice consolation prize. Anyone else here want to claim the little moral orphan as one of their own?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

You wouldn't be within a thousand miles of action.
Or wearing an American uniform.


And the only time that you would be caught in one is for those famous fifteen minutes before your insanity is acted upon and you're thrown in the brig, where you belong - you twisted toad of moral and intellectual corruption.

Darrell said...

In the Pew poll about a positive attitude toward America, the US only polled 80%.

Fucking Shitmo.

And his friends.

Saint Croix said...

He might be flirting with obstruction of justice

carrie said...

Read the AP update of the Benghazi story in the Sunday paper and you'll wonder what story they are covering.

carrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paco Wové said...

Darrell - if you keep feeding Ritmo's feelings of self-righteous butthurt, he will metastatize and consume the thread.

Cedarford said...

Bill Harshaw said...
At worst this seems more like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1982 or the Black Hawk Down in Somalia than Watergate. Watergate was malfeasance and felonies; those were screwups.

================
Big difference is not the coverup for lawyers and "rule of law"...the more serious charges of obstruction of justice happened deeper into Watergate.

We are at the early stages - people think there was incompetence, lies, obfuscation and a total unwillingness to take responsibility.

Constrast that with the Reagan and Clinton Administration responses.

1. On Day 1, Reagan was out there taking full responsibility for the Lebanon debacle. He explained the peacekeeping mission had become compromised by us unwittingly taking sides (manipulated by the Israelis into doing so) and by terrorist militias. Reagan said and the US would not stay and assume a combat role, he and the French peacekeepers had decided to end the mission. And that there would be reforms with ROE so that this did not happen again.

2. With Clinton and Somalia, Les Aspin took responsiblity on Day 1and resigned for not leaving the US force with armor backup. We relied on the Pakistanis.
Clinton was out explaining the screwups within days.

In both cases - Reagan and Clinton were denounced by the Opposition. But nothing was covered up.

Darrell said...

Don't choke on your lunch, Ritmo.

See? Always looking out for you.

Colonel Angus said...

Again, the last thing Obama wanted was media coverage of hundreds of dead 'innocent' Libyans chewed up by an American gunship. Heck, he may have to turn in his Nobel Peace prize.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

SOrry about the digression, Roger - had to deal with a murder-fantasist for a while who apparently got the comments section confused with one of his first- person shooter video games.

Anyway, yeah, it's about the Republican Party, whose confusion of political success with morality compels them to put Nixon's foul misdeeds and Clinton's harmless shortcomings on the same level. Among other things.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Darrell, you can continue crawling back to the underside of the rock that's housed you since your abandonment by your parents. Creatures like yourself shouldn't try to fake humanity (as much as your ability to continue staying alive depends on it), it just muddies the waters.

Roger J. said...

Ritmo--thanks for clarifying--I get the impression you are not a fan of the GOP :)

I do feel the same way about the Democratic party--so our votes cancel out.

exiledonmainst said...

Again, Inga, you seem much more concerned about death wishes coming from conservatives (and again, you hold all conservative posters for the remarks of a few) than you do about the very real deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi.

Again, what if it had been your daughter in that situation? Or is it unimportant to you because it wasn't your daughter?

You certainly don't display much compassion for the suffering of Charles Woods. His words might hurt Obama in some way and oh, dear, we can't have that.

Darrell said...

Your "million Mogadishus" wishes were well wishes then?

20,000,000 American dead.
80,000,000 wounded.
A million helicopter pilots dragged through the streets naked.

I just posited something that could never happen since we are talking about you. Like wishing the sun to extinguish.

Cedarford said...

Jack said...
On Meet the Press - during a roundtable with 3 libs (yes David Brooks is a lib) David Gregory says let's talk "trust" he takes Maddow and Dionne answers slamming Romney as Carly Fiorina starts to speak about Libya and trust he stops her in the middle of her 2ND SENTENCE...and says " well let's talk trust about the economy...uh uh and turns for help from another protectionist lib.

Absolutely appalling and very dangerous for our country

==============
Yep, noticed that. David Gregory instantly shut down discussion on Benghazi to control the conversation back on "can you trust Romney to tell the truth? Does this man Romney have any core values."

Unlike liberals and progressive Jews in the media endlessly promoting their Black Messiah as trustworthy, never lies about anything, has deep core values (that they are generally afraid to specify to the public, that silly distrust of socialism being what it is in backwards America)

Original Mike said...

It's been posted before but deserves to be repeated until we get answers. These questions are simple and concrete. And, importantly, they avoid the issues surrounding the "We're investigating" dodge. The White House alreadys knows the answers.

Why isn't the press asking them?

Inga said...

Exiled, you are assuming things.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Darrell - No one's talking to you.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I get the impression you are not a fan of the GOP :)

I'm sure I could be... In 1860. Or in 1962. But I kind of need nobility practiced at a frequency greater than every hundred years or so, you see. ;-)

Darrell said...

Darrell - No one's talking to you.

You apparently are. As you attempt to derail the discussion of Obama's incompetency--or worse.

Saint Croix said...

What's interesting are the people under the President claiming responsibility. First Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says it's her fault.

She's taking the blame for the lack of security in the mission. They asked for security, and they should have had better security.

But now the more damning question is why no help was given when the mission was under attack.

And so Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says it's his fault.

So we have the Secretary of State taking the blame for the lack of security at the consulate on 9/11.

And we have the Secretary of Defense taking the blame for not sending any help once the consulate is under attack.

Obama votes present.

And then goes to Vegas for a fundraiser. And parties with Beyonce and Jay-Z. And goes on Letterman and the View.

And blames that bad filmmaker who caused all this fuss.

Darrell said...

Lincoln would have seen you as a rail, Ritmo.

Yes, you would split. And should.

exiledonmainst said...

I'm making assumptions based on your comments, Inga.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

As you attempt to derail the discussion of Obama's incompetency--or worse.

If you need to derail that discussion (can't blame its ability to go nowhere on me) by indulging murder fantasies, then it's safe to say that either it wasn't going to go anywhere anyway or that it was overwhelmed by its proponent's inability to keep his lunacy contained. Or at least discrete.

My guess is both. But then, you've already proved your colors as a violent subhuman. So fuck off and leave me alone.

Thanks.

Inga said...

No, Exiled you are not. You are embellishing and exaggerating.

I'm not going to join the near hysterical commenters here in embracing conspiracy theories. Romney made himself look bad when he made accusations without facts, why are you doing the same?

Darrell said...

Your buddy Ward Churchill, Ritmo, said that soldiers should frag their officers. Later, in a question-and-answer period, Churchill was asked whether the trauma "fragging" inflicts on that officer's family back home should be considered, he responded: "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"

Bet you and your ilk were supporting that back in 2005. Not that you would tell the truth, mind you.

pm317 said...

Pat Caddell channels most of us

DEFEAT THE FUCKING MEDIA, VOTE ROMNEY!

Darrell said...

Of course your buddy, Bill Ayers, friend to Obama, was actually tring to frag soldiers at that USO dance.

Murdering subhumans indeed. You included, since you never seem to denounce their words or actions.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

A mind so gone that it would even bother to bring Ward Churchill into this is obviously beyond help. No point in saving face for the faceless.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

More anti-constitutional efforts to show guilt by association with individuals never associated with.

Desperate. Subhuman. Only worth referring to for those passing reasons.

Darrell said...

You associate in collective thought. Bet you did more--words-- but it not worth looking up.

Take your faux outrage back to Kos and the DU. Or start using one of your sockpuppet names to jump in.

Darrell said...

Ritmo--the guy (or whatever) to bring Nixon into the Obama fuck-up known as Benghazi.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

An animal that can't think at all, let alone for himself, accuses others of "collective" thought, whatever that means. It then guesses on what was done but plainly admits it somehow can't find any evidence for.

Not surprising. The forensic capabilities of other primates and rodents are similarly speculative and primitive.

Your rock is lonely and begging for its inhabitant to return home.

exiledonmainst said...

I'm not "embellishing and exaggerating" Inga. I'm going by what you have said in these threads. You were perfectly willing to swallow the adminstration's ridiculous lies about a video causing the attacks, but now, when the facts - the facts as we KNOW them to be - implicate the guy we all know you are going to vote for - then you cry conspiracy theory.

And yes, you do seem indifferent to the fate of those Americans and remarkably incurious about finding out the truth. If the NY Times and NBC aren't covering it, it can't be news, I guess. Just a bump in the road. Not optimal for Obama at this late date in the campaign. We have to focus on the important things - like Mitt's taxes.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

The rock inhabitant feels its faculties taxed at the prospect of dissociating a political aim from a moral aim, as Republicans proved incapable of doing both in the 1972 election and now.

edutcher said...

Any references to the Tillman death are efforts by the Lefties to smear the Bush Administration.

The cover-up was by service members who wanted people to think Tillman died a hero.

Fox News - and former SF Col David Hunt - did as much to bring the story to light as anybody.

More sophistry (surprise!!!) from Ritmo.

BaltoHvar said...

I'd like to hear how Gary Hart compares and contrasts his treatment by the MSM then over the "Rice Affair" as opposed to the MSM's treatment of...

Seems they torpedoed his leaky campaign boat then with vigor...


It wasn't the Establishment Media that broke the Hart story.

It was our new newspaper of record, the one that blew the whistle on John Edwards:

The National Enquirer.

Inga said...

Again, Exiled, you are embellishing and exaggerating. You seem quite reasonable most times, perhaps you should step back for a moment and examine what you are engaging in.

I won't respond to you, if you continue in this vein.

Calm down and think, I thought you prided yourself on being rational.

Darrell said...

Benghzi is political and moral. And Republicans are on the right side as usual, Shitmo.

Stop feigning butthurt. If you have it, it's for other more obvious reasons--not my words "it wouldn't be accidental."

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 454   Newer› Newest»