Will Hillary now retaliate and protect herself by leaking word that the White House did too know? Will her husband continue to tour the country trying to pull Obama’s bacon out of the fire (as he did at the convention) even as Obama points a finger at his wife? Will they all cut some sort of deal in which Hillary agrees to take the fall and Bill soldiers on … in exchange for, what? Have they already cut a deal? Is the White House going to try to hang its hat on the idea that Obama and Biden didn’t know, but maybe their staffs knew? Will that really fly? Aren’t they responsible for their staffs? Will the staffs fight back?That's a lot of internal intrigue to keep under control until the election. What an October surprise!
They October-surprised themselves.
Posts
101 comments:
Kaus has an extremely unattractive face and body.
I am going to see Argo today.
tits.
Eric Hoffer “Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.”
Biden must think Romney needs to be elected in 2012
This administration is heavy on blame - light on taking responsibilty.
Don't Blame Me!
When Joe through the spooks under the bus, he unleashed the Administration's worst nightmare.
Next, of course, is the Hildabeast or, more accurately, Willie. He was counting on that third term and the fresh crop of interns and fortyish groupies it would bring and it's going to go a-glimmering forever, now that Hillary's bottomless incompetence has been revealed.
Love the line, "They October-surprised themselves.", but the real surprises haven't even started.
Yet.
Watching the Democrat Party turn on itself and rend is going to be so much fun, seeing as how they've done it to the country for 50 years.
s/b threw, not through.
I can't imagine anything that would persuade Hillary to take the fall, especially for Obama.
I think we're just going to see stonewalling for the next 3+ weeks.
And I think at some point Bill will haul out the 'well, sometimes these things just happen' line and cite some bogus instance from his administration, and the press will pretend to be satisfied with that answer.
I think what Obama is acknowledging is that Hillary is the one who answered the 3 am phone call.
When narcissists collide.
Adults are most creative when inventing why "It wasn't me!".
The shitty economy isn't Obama's fault either. Nor the failures of Solyndra and GM. The coming health care clusterfuck will also not be his.
None are his fault. Fix it mommy.
I suspect this is too simple of a blame game of either White House or Hillary as the CIA's activities in the area, which was revealed in testimony will remain classified for awhile-- obscuring just who was responsible. In any case, it was a mistake, and a lapse in judgement.
No big deal. It's just Joe being Joe.
This seems to be a real test of the American media.
They have dined out for decades on the role of the Watergate investigation in removing a president from office as proof of their value in policing the government and holding those in power accountable to the court of public opinion.
Well, it wasn't exactly easy, but the media didn't share a lot of ideological views with Nixon, and he didn't go out of his way to be friends with them. But how much harder must it be now, for the media to be in a position to hold an administration accountable when it contains the people they are simpatico with. How much harder must it be, when they don't know if the trail will end with Clinton or Obama, frustrating even their internecine bias. How much harder must it be, right before a presidential election?
...not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills...
No one said it would be easy.
The blame goes all the way to the top.
First, the DNC convention displayed vast amounts of "We killed Osama" bragging. (which is fine, but not smart)
What is more visible? An obscure youtube video - or the DNC convention?
We all heard The Middle East riot chants on the news. "Obama! we are all Osama! Obama we are Osama!” Were those angry chants due to the obscure "shadowy character" video? Really?
9/11 arrives and something horrible happens. 4 American citizens are murdered, including our ambassador. (Obama jets off to Las Vegas.) Come to find out they asked repeatedly for more security.
4 weeks go by and we hear nothing but an endless parade of coordinated media pushing one excuse. They assured us… "It was the video. I was the video. It was the video". Again, it was a coordinated effort by an incurious media from the top down.
OBAMA: I don't care how offensive this video was, it was terribly offensive and we should shun it.
HILLARY: This video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.
CARNEY: Let's be clear. These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.
OBAMA: You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character, an extremely offensive video.
CARNEY: The unrest we've seen has been in reaction to a video.
OBAMA: A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.
RICE: It was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video.
First Hillary cuts a deal to stand by her man after the last bimbo kept a testable bit of DNA. 'My principles for the presidency'. Fair enough. But throwing her under the bus now? Like this? By the guy who effed up the old deal? What more could she demand to have to put out for this? Why? A skeleton? No grainy super 8 could be worth it.
This is exactly the excuse this administration used for Fast and Furious. Two hundred Mexicans and an American border patrol agent are slaughtered and nobody in charge new. Here we have more Americans and an ambassador murdered and again nobody knows anything. How can a civilized media keep letting them get away with this? The indecency of it all; It makes me sick.
There are getting to be lotsa bumps on Obama Road.
Hillary is responsible for the lack of security. The cover up, is so dumb that it had to be from the White House. I can't see Hillary saying "A youtube video, yea, that's the ticket", but hey she married Bill, so she might be a sucker.
Y'all still don't get it.
With the assistance of the MSM, they'll just ride it out. There will be so much noise re the election in the next three weeks that it'll just get lost in the background.
Rules for Radicals, #13
Much more to come, I predict, as this continues to unravel.
We need a new President just so we can have someone to take responsibility for stuff. They can just do a weekly list of apologies, so that we don't waste so much time and energy just trying to get that.
"Is the White House going to try to hang its hat on the idea that Obama and Biden didn’t know...?"
Where is the buck? Or is the buck a pin ball now?
One less golf, one more briefing, one less GM Volt and recharge station in Vienna ...
Wherever the missing buck is, it stops at the President's feet.
The likely response from Obama's team is going to be:
"So what?
"We didn't care. We don't care. So what? Because, frankly, you don't care either. Furthermore, you know what? Yeah, we are far-left commies. So what? You are still going to vote for us. So what does it matter?
"So what if we've destroyed the present economy and have poisoned it for the future? You are still going to vote for us. You will always vote for us because we validate your embrace of killing innocent life, of objectifying human persons, and of self-centered entitlement and dependence. We encourage you in your delusion that vice is really virtue, that convenient and pleasurable evil are actually good. Without us to give you cover, you would have to actually confront your own shortcomings, moral and otherwise. So you will always vote for us.
"You will vote for us this time around too, no matter what, so whether we knew the security risks, or whether we planned the whole thing and armed the killers ourselves, so what? It doesn't matter. We don't care, and we don't care that some Republicans do care -- they can go eff themselves. You're still going to vote for us."
The relationship that this administration has with the press makes it one of the most dangerous in history, and that's not even the administration's fault. This is a very strong argument for a Republican President. The Press clearly can't function correctly otherwise.
The buck stops over there.
Yeah.
Next to her.
Right by her cankles.
Can't I just eat my waffle?
The buck stops in the voting booth.
The problem isn't just that Obama is a Democrat. He's black, and thus, above criticism or vetting.
The cause of racial justice is so important that all demands for accountability and performance must be suspended so that Obama can be said to have succeeded.
This makes Obama extremely dangerous.
The buck stops under the bus.
Cat fight within the Obama Administration?
Does it really matter?
How many Obama voters will no longer vote for Obama now?
My best guess is, almost none.
They are immune and impervious to Obama's failures.
Bush's fault. If he were not so blood thirsty to start the Iraq war, there wouldn't be an Arab Spring; Gaddafi would still be in power, we would not have a diplomatic mission in Libya, no Benghazi, no dead ambassadors. Totally Bush's fault.
Clearly, it's Romney's fault.
If Obama ever holds another press briefing, and if (as if) they ask him about it, he should just do that weird Biden laugh-sneer and roll his eyes and say 'Malarkey' a buncha times.
ST,
I was going to say we need a white Republican to get an honest Press, and then I thought about it. No, they would tear down a conservative Black even more than a white one. I think a Black conservative is probably the most hated identity by the left. See Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Herman Cain, and just recently Stacey Dash - the black actress who endorsed Romney and got the most vile and violent verbal responses possible.
It really does mirror the response that an 1860 plantation owner would take to an escaped slave. Now THAT is "ugly".
Tee hee.
Sometimes, karma is fun!
bagoh20 said...
"The buck stops in the voting booth."
Yes.
The problem is, alluding to Rumsfeld, we don't have the voters we want; we have the voters we have.
And 53% of them are confirmed idiots.
Hopefully, enough of them have learned from the previous four years they made a mistake, but I fear they will not.
Stupid people are stupid because they cannot learn from their mistakes.
"My Foot Will Stop These Bullets!!!"
That night when Chris was killed by imaginary protestors, I have just eaten the most delicious hushed puppies. You know you have to hush those puppies before you put them in your mouth. What a racket! Delicious though.
I digressed. I was so full and sleepy, I went to bed and let Hillary deal with her departmental intrigues. Boy, wasn't she incompetent! Now the Clintonistas want to blame me. The little secretary wants to blame her boss. What nerves! Michelle is right, helps are not as good as they used to be.
The morning of Obama's inauguration, Bush handed Obama two sealed letters, and gave his successor this advice. "Nobody knows more than me how hard and lonely this job is. When things get desperate, open the first letter and follow my instructions."
"And when that no longer works, open the second letter."
Obama opened the first letter two weeks into his presidency. It read "Blame everything on me."
He put the second letter away, and forgot all about it until the end of the Biden-Ryan debate. He retrieved it, hoping it offered a way out, and opened the envelope.
"Write two letters."
Of course he did. Bigger problem, bigger bus needed with which to pitch the bitch.
But in the viewpoint of others in the community, the blame lies squarely with Choom and Slow Joe.
Who wants to bet this news will not cross Brian Williams lips, Diane Sawyer's lips, Georgie Stephanopolous' lips, Scott Pelly's lips etc...
The IRS urged a bankruptcy judge to reject solar panel maker Solyndra LLC’s bankruptcy plan Wednesday, saying it amounts to little more than an avenue for owners of an empty corporate shell to avoid paying taxes. “The undeniable conclusion is that tax benefits drive this plan,” attorneys for the IRS wrote in a bankruptcy pleading.
In any case, it was a mistake, and a lapse in judgment.
It was criminal negligence as you well know you turd from hell.
Let's just say that I think Billy Jeff will just let Obama's chestnuts roast.
But Machiavelli could have taken lessons from Billy Jeff, so we'll see what actually occurs.
Edutcher--don't go there with Hillary's
"bottomless incompetence".
Just gives Billy Jeff an excuse to stray.
Hillary: I think I really should do something about our embassies, with 9/11 coming up and all.
Huma: Do not listen to the rantings of Zionist pigs, my sweet.
Hillary: But Huma, I am Secretary of State and I feel tha...
Huma: Do you want me to withdraw my affection?!?!
Hillary: Oh Huma.
The scariest thing might be if it turns out - and I think it is likely - that neither the White House nor Hillary's section of the State Department did know.
One might have expected that Obama would be a better intelligence community organizer.
I suspect I'm the only commentator here who has worked with the branch of State that provides embassy security, though only very briefly.
The people I met were smart (a quality one does not always find in a federal agency) and very dedicated. I cannot believe that the people I met would have left Benghazi unprotected except under direction from above.
That doesn't necessarily mean Hillary Clinton, but someone near that level.
Check out the blogads sidebar.
Now everyone's calling the election for the Romster.
Keep in your heart the Gospel According to Saint Yogi of Berra.
PS Comanche, good one.
PPS Where's shilol?
Over at the RCP average:
Lotta red.
"One can imagine a meeting with Obama on the planeride to his Las Vegas fundraiser and meeting Beyonce` herself after Obama didn't take that 3AM phone call.
Axelrod:
"It's going great Boss. My fellow progressive Jews...."
You're the only one who imagines this shit.
Obama will stop providing information and will stop allowing executive branch members from testifying, declaring "executive privilege" and or protection of an ongoing investigation.
As Rantburg said, blue on blue.
And a pic of a bowl of popcorn.
LOLOL
And our Founding Fathers weep.
"Trust me", said Plugs. "Who are you going to trust?" asked the political plagiarist, Gaff-Prone Joe during the vice-presidential debate.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, here’s what I know, we were just talking about responsibility and as president of the United States, it’s pretty clear to me that I’m responsible for folks who are working in the federal government and you know, Harry Truman said the buck stops with you.
Vice President Joseph Biden speaks only for himself and President Barack Obama, and neither man was aware that U.S. officials in Libya had asked the State Department for more security before the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, [according to] a top White House official . . . .
Who ya gonna call?
The reality of who won vp debate is in these headlines. Ryan had the most amazing self discipline in the face of some seriously demented antics. Biden had more tics than my hunting dog in June.
Today, Biden and crew are cleaning up his mess. Focus is on how he acted and what he said. Ryans few mis-steps were minor compared to the 8-11 major issues team Obama is juggling from Joe's performance.
Great reading in this post comments.
Paul said...
"One can imagine a meeting with Obama on the planeride to his Las Vegas fundraiser and meeting Beyonce` herself after Obama didn't take that 3AM phone call.
Axelrod:
"It's going great Boss. My fellow progressive Jews...."
You're the only one who imagines this shit.
===================
You don't think Axelrod doesn't have his kindred souls in the media wrapped around his finger and HASN'T been pulling their strings since 2007??
Doesn't even have to be done by an organized cabal bigger than Ezra's Kleins JournoList cabal.
All you need are people on the same wavelength as Axelrod..that know what needs to be done to promote the Narrative aimed to achieve the Progressive Transformation of America.
The greatest favor you can do for an enemy..is willfully deny their existence.
Which does not explain why they have doubled and tripled down on their story.
Also note that IIRC, the ambassador and his associates were not killed in the consulate, but in the CIA compound where they had sought refuge but apparently found nobody home.
WTF? The CIA knew - and knows - nothing about this, but they had packed up and left their base just before the al Qaeda attack?
I don't see how, ultimately, Hillary isn't responsible, as in the buck stops here (as head of the State Dept.) It appears she went along with the Muslim vid excuse. Was that quid pro quo for covering up her responsibility? Have I missed something...when State said, 'we never bought the video explanation,' are they separating themselves from Hillary?
Hagar, according to this article, the safe room was inside the Benghazi consulate compound:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215431/Death-U-S-ambassador-Chris-Stevens-revealed-AK-47s-grenade-attacks-smoke-filled-safe-room.html#ixzz293IacjDz
Um, C4, the "phrase "my fellow progressive Jews" is only echoing around inside your fevered and demented imagination.
You really can't help yourself can you? You and Crack are slaves to your twisted obsessions and just put people off with your monomania.
Via The Belmont Club:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States must look past the violence and extremism that has erupted after the “Arab Spring” revolutions and boost support for the region’s young democracies to forge long-term security, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday…. “We recognize that these transitions are not America’s to manage, and certainly not ours to win or lose,” Clinton said in a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
(more…)
Not feeling so charitable here.
Or is this Danegeld?
Someone at National Review said--of the White House throwing both Hilary and the intelligence folks under the bus, "this won't end well."
If Obama goes down, the Clintons won't want any shadow of a fingerprint.
One of the things I'm watching for is someone answering the question, where did the story about a protest originate? Isn't the White House saying that, too, came from intel? I wonder if there will be stories--prompted by leaks--answering that question, pointing to the White House.
All that said, it seems to me that if the Clintons want revenge, and want Hillary well positioned for 2016, they'd rather something else bring Obama down, not this; because it's hard to see how she doesn't get hurt by this. If that's right, I wonder if some other trash will come out about the President?
Meanwhile, I wonder if they'll find some underling to take the fall, the way Poindexter did in Iran-Contra?
When Joe through the spooks under the bus, he unleashed the Administration's worst nightmare.
Nancy Pelosi learned this lesson the hard way. You'd think the Administration would be smart enough to learn from someone else's mistake, but no.
The buck stops early in the Obama administration. They will bribe some lesser light at State to fall on his/her sword while acknowledging that he/she should have referred the decisions to increase security to someone "higher up", but didn't.
Regarding the other coverup, interesting that David Petraeus may have the election in his hands. Picture him resigning in protest of the intelligence community being blamed and saying, "We were the only ones with boots on the ground and I can promise you that we knew there was no demonstration over the video and never said otherwise - to anybody. Any claim to the contrary is false!"
The word in the WW-WH is that in the 2nd term, we will give Hillary whatever she wants. She really wants to be in the SCOTUS. So, we made a deal. She takes the fall (assuming the press covers it) and then in the 2nd term, as soon as Ruth Bader Gingsburg or Kennedy leave, she is the top choice. That would be her legacy (and it would make it easy for democrats not to have her compete for POTUS in 2016).
This is what is being discussed. Please do not repeat. I have top-secret-security and so do not share it.
Another headache for the Administration courtesy of the Mouth-that-Roared -- hiding behind the military regarding the Afghan Surge and the Pentagon budget:
Where things really got dicey was when, in response to the charge that the Afghan surge withdrawal timeline was driven by political considerations, Biden tried to hide behind the military. Raddatz pressed him on the complaints she is hearing -- we all are hearing -- but Biden dismissed it as nonsense. He pretended that the withdrawal timeline was proposed by the Joint Chiefs rather than imposed by the White House.
That is not true. The Joint Chiefs and the Afghan combatant commander did go along with the White House order, but they proposed a slower, conditions-based timeline and they certainly did not want it announced at the outset.
[..]
Biden tried the same gambit on the defense cuts: "That was the decision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recommended to us and agreed to by the president. That is a fact....They made the recommendation first."
Yet, as he surely knows, the White House came up with a budget cut number and then asked the defense department to come up with a strategy that fit under that number. The defense department did not come up with the budget cuts first, they came up with the strategy that they thought, barely, could be viable under those cuts.
"All that said, it seems to me that if the Clintons want revenge, and want Hillary well positioned for 2016, they'd rather something else bring Obama down, not this; because it's hard to see how she doesn't get hurt by this. If that's right, I wonder if some other trash will come out about the President?"
If State (i.e., Hillary) was overruled on security measures for Benghazi by the NSC (which is within the Office of the President), or otherwise directed by the WH to have a "light footprint re: security in Libya," and there is information/confirmation of that, then it will come to our attention, probably within a day or two.
Otherwise, you're probably correct. The Clinton's will find another way to exact revenge.
I forgot to add to the "10/13/12 12:26 PM" posting (my SO GF distracted me) --
The reason that this story will not be covered in the press today is that there is no one like Woodward or Bernstein. My favorite movie of all time is All the President's men. I view it every few months. It is wonderful and what you saw was the reporter's true instinct to get to the bottom: follow the money (in that case).
TODAY, there is no follow the money. What we have is: Follow the Road to Access to Power (for future benefits - tv show, book etc).
There will no coverage of what really happened. First, this is not a GOP administration. THus, there is no motivation from the NYT or big-wigs in NBC to cover it.
Second, the press did not vet the Obama, so now there is no reason to vet (it creates complications).
Thus, there will be no pulitzer prize (like it went to woodward and bernstein) for Bengazi (like Nixon watergate).
Anyone who deals with the Obama Administration has known for long time that they are clueless, micromanaging blowhards. The tone was at at the top.
But Benghazi is something else again. Benghazi has actually rattled the ruling classes in a way that Fast & Furious didn't: a likable & talented one of their own was brutally murdered, and the fingerprints of incompetence are everywhere. It's three weeks until the election and the administration is in full CYA & backstab mode.
Even if a chattering classer wants desperately to have a clean conscience to pull the lever for Obama again, this just sticks in the craw, and no amount of single malt scotch will wash it down.
They October-surprised themselves.
They are indeed looking like the gang that couldn't shoot straight. At this point anyone who is defending the major fail that is this admin's middle east policy proves he/she is a partisan hack that shouldn't be taken seriously. What plan did Obama's team have for Libya after they decided Khaddafi had to go? Why did they decide to put ambassadors there if they couldn't defend them adequately? What reasonable excuse is there for deciding to run with a blatant lie about a video and scapegoat an American citizen?
They are not competent enough to be allowed to stumble along for four more years with their misguided PC-based "lead from the ass-er behind" foreign policies. While we can't know if Romney will put together a team that can "fix" the mess that is the ME, we can at least hope it can't be worse than the current bunch of intellectual buffoons. Even the "idiot cowboy" Bush admin. had basics like defending our embassies in hostile environments down.
That Romney is not higher in the polls after this fiasco, and "the Fast and Furious" fail, is largely due to our media that shirks its duty as our watchdog whenever Dems. are in control. As with the intellectual class in general, they are letting us down because their ingrained biases, IMO particularly against conservatives, are clouding their judgement. It is easier for them to blame those "racist white-Americans", then to consider that their progressive policies are flawed.
Fr Martin Fox said...
One of the things I'm watching for is someone answering the question, where did the story about a protest originate?
With all due respect, Father, you are just trying too hard to make sense out of nonsense. The entire Executive Branch, including the office of the POTUS, is rife with liars. They are supported by legions of appointed, but institutionalized, senior executives in all branches and departments.
Truth is simply never a product of our government these days, and hasn't been for some time.
I do admire your optimism. Mine wore out after years in service to that government. You reach a point where either you no longer smell BS, or you realize everything is BS and that makes it no longer distinguishable.
But Benghazi is something else again.
Yeah, Fast&Furious was dead Mexicans. BenghaziGate is all huero.
@furious,
Yeah, Fast&Furious was dead Mexicans. BenghaziGate is all huero.
Yes, exactly. That (and more) is what I meant by the the phrase one of their own.
(oops - "than" not "then" in the last sentence of my comment above)
@Deborah,
They are not very clear about that; the "safe room" was in a house a mile or more away from the "consulate."
There are articles saying the CIA lost their Benghazi base and a lot of secret equipment and records in the attack.
So, whatever, but if it was not in that house, where was it? And in any case and wherever it was, they did not know about it at the time, or they knew, but did not tell anybody?
There is not any of this that makes any sense!
I wouldn't be surprised if the next debate has an even larger TV audience. There is a sense of an unraveling of this administration that reminds me of a soap opera. Will Hillary rat out Obama ? Who is going to take the fall ? Will Turkey invade Syria before the election ? Will Petraeus resign ? He could be in line for a major Romney post if he does.
There was a book written a few years ago about how the Joint Chiefs should have resigned over Johnson's micromanaging the Vietnam war, The author, a colonel at the time, is now a major general at Fort Benning, the Infantry Center. That fact that his career was not harmed by the book suggests that careerism hasn't totally destroyed the army. Maybe there will be a resignation or two.
Obama's got to hope that he can keep this quiet enough over the next three and a half weeks so he can pull off his re-election.
Otherwise, come January, this is all going to be under investigation by the Executive Branch, the House, and maybe the Senate, and the truth will come out. That won't be real good for The Legacy.
I have noticed lots of righties trying to press this. Relax. It's not becoming a "thing."
When it comes to killing OBL the buck stops with Obama/Biden. But when it comes to lack of security at an embassy that is stormed and it's ambassador murder, why the buck stops with the state department.THey can't wait to throw them under the bus.
Now, ask yourselves liberals. If this were George Bush's white house and an embasssy were attacked under his watch would the buck stop with him or would you accept the argument that he personally wans't told directly about a request for security so can't be blamed?
Be honest.
I have noticed lots of righties trying to press this. Relax. It's not becoming a "thing."
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. I guess Romney gaining in the polls in most swing states is not a "thing" either.
I'm completely confused, Hagar, but then, I linked to the Daily Mail :)
My take on events--the Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place. They can the blame on Hillary and have to deal with Bubba. They can blame the fiasco on the CIA, but it was interesting that Hayden and Chertoff made statements today re CIA. Now they are no longer administrators, but I regard their comments as a shot across the Obama administration's bow. The CIA knows where the skeletons are buried and can do considerable damage. So what is poor Mr Obama to do? fire Hillary and have to deal with Bubba? Pin it on the CIA which will leak faster than sieve.
My guess is they will do nothing and hope the fiasco goes away, and with the press in their pocket they just might get away with it.
But it is a most interesting situation for the white house. No easy road out of their dilemma.
I expect Mr Romney to hammer on Bengahzi in the next debate and the final debate on foreign policy.
This story isnt going away Mr Obama's minions nothwithstanding--and he has no easy answer.
The larger issue, it seems to me, that the Benghazi attack gives lie to the President's assertions that he vanquished AQ and has moved the Arabs to his side. As sad as the Benghazi attack was, it vitiated Mr Obama's foreign policy in the mideast.
"Axelrod'd progressive Jews always swallow that"
And who knows more about swallowing than Cedarford?
I never thought much of game theory, but Stacy McCain's use of the prisoner's dilemma game is on the mark. What is Obama and Ms Clinton going to do?
excuse please: in my previous post on game theory: what are Mr Obama and Ms Clinton going to do.
Roger J wrote:
The larger issue, it seems to me, that the Benghazi attack gives lie to the President's assertions that he vanquished AQ and has moved the Arabs to his side. As sad as the Benghazi attack was, it vitiated Mr Obama's foreign policy in the mideast.
It also makes Biden look like a jackass with his admant promise to be out of Afghanistan by 2014 no matter what. Things can happen, especially in that region that we can't account for. And people make projections about things that aren't borne out by reality. How is it remotely reasonable to make a promise about something happening in 2014 when we have no idea what might happen in 2013 that might screw up our plans? Is it Biden and Obama's assertion that if on the eve of a pullout Al Qaeda, say, assassinates the leader of Afghanistan we're going to say "nope. We said back in 2012 that we're going to leave so no matter what is happening right this second we are going to abandon ship even if we leave a country that is without a president and is being attacked by an insurgency led by Al Qaeda as we speak".
That makes no sense at all. We all would like our troops back as soon as possible but for god sakes, you pull troops out when its strategically feasible not because you are making election promises that have no bearing on facts on the ground. How could Biden and others think that's remotely wise?
Trust. But verify. If though Afghsnistan is not yet ready to govern itself without an inexhorable collapse into a terrorist state the day after we leave, then perhaps a little adjustment of our timetable is warranted. At the very least lets at least look at the plan and its feasabliity in 2013 and not during a presidential debate.
Thats what passes for "smart diplomacy"? Sticking to timetables that may have no basis in reality?
If Obama and co don't care about losing in Afghanistan than why did they bother escalating there? if they went throught the trouble of expending blood and treasure, then hows about a plan that doens't cause us to lose all our gains because we refuse to even address current reality?
What a bunch...
"Fast & Furious" Holder, 'Turbo Tax' Guther, Joe "Buffoon" Biden, Hillary "Col.Klink" Clinton, and what, Misunderstood Messiah" Obama?
I suspect they have decided backstabbing time has come. Just who gets backstabbed and if it's fatal will soon be found out, in Nov. 2012, election day.
Keep in mind Hanlon's razor:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I believe you pull chestnuts out of a fire, not bacon. But maybe Mickey has his own recipe.
I think we're just going to see stonewalling for the next 3+ weeks.
With the MSM's cover-up of the cover-up that should be easy enough to do.
With the assistance of the MSM, they'll just ride it out.
Should the controversy persist after the election of Obama, some underlings could of course be burned at the stake(roast Lamb, anyone?), Obama and Hillary could both be found to have excuses of some sort which could then be portrayed by the MSM as "obviously" exonerating both of them, and the MSM would simply declare the matter over and done with.
Obama/Clinton Benghazi agreement: Hillary endures a few more days of stress on her and the State Department – taking the heat off him. In exchange Obama guarantees that Hillary will be vigorously defended by him and his staff. They both know that the MSM will protect them.
Memes to disseminate:
The right-wing extremist GOP is out to get Obama.
The right-wing extremist GOP is out to get Hillary.
It's the GOP's fault because the GOP cut funds to Benghazi security.
The fiasco was caused entirely by Charlotte Lamb's incompetence, in violation of State Department policy.
Operative phrases for character destruction: loose cannon, bungler, inept, out to lunch, bumbling, fumbling.
Possible headlines:
Benghazi Accusations - Has the GOP Gone Too Far?
How Bad Was Charlotte Lamb's Bungling Of Benghazi?
Is Loyalty Obama's Strongest Virtue?
Partisan Politics Cast A Pall Over House Hearings.
Is The GOP Attacking Hillary To Get To Obama?
Benghazi Allegations: Sour Grapes From The GOP?
I cannot believe that the people I met would have left Benghazi unprotected except under direction from above.
Depends on which level of authority is referenced by the comment. Down at the level of Nordstrom and Wood, maybe. Their superior, Charlotte Lamb, strikes me as a well-meaning State Department liberal who believes in the idiotic "military low profile" philosophy and would go along(cutting security, denying security requests, etc.) to get along. There's policy and then there's(wink, wink) unofficial policy. It goes no higher than Charlotte Lamb unless she has some concrete documentation from higher-ups squirreled away – which judging from her expression at the hearings – she does not.
Clinton already sold his soul by latching on to Obama's economic policies. If by doing that he has his wife thrown under the bus and her career ruined, well that's what happens when you lie for the sake of party and hitch your wheels to someone like Obama.
Nearly EVERYTHING that he fought for as president has been undermined with Obama and the current democrats. from welfare reform, to holding Sadaam accountable for WMD's to DOMA, to Dont Ask Don't Tell, even to his economics. He did deregulate the banks after all. Dems are SO stupid that they can and will hold up Clinton as the guy with the only positive economic plan for democrats since 50 years ago but then forget how he got his so called positive economy. The details are not important to most dems who are ignorant of their ignorance.
But Clinton should know.
but now for his loyalty, his wife is about to get shived. Way to go Mr President.
As our esteemed hostess notes, quite the october surprise. I rather thought the October surprise would be videos of Mr Romney drinking a coke or having a cup of coffee. This october surprise is much more interesting.
furious_a,
I noticed that, too - the lies that it was the Defense Dept that asked for the cuts.
roesch/voltaire said...
I suspect this is too simple of a blame game of either White House or Hillary as the CIA's activities in the area, which was revealed in testimony will remain classified for awhile-- obscuring just who was responsible. In any case, it was a mistake, and a lapse in judgement.
If you were an any bigger tool you'd have "True Temper" tatood on your forehead.
Did the country ever get a real answer on just where the " video protest" story came from? IIRC, the WH is saying, from the intel folks; and the intel folks have refuted that, am I correct? So where did it come from?
I assume the WH, but who? Have I missed out on that part?
What's bad is that their story (that it was a protest over a movie no one had even seen) is actually worse than what happened. What makes security for the Ambassador and the other staff look worse: That a bunch of terrorists using co-ordination, tactical skill and military weapons such as mortars were able to kill a US Ambassador, or that some random mob was able to do it on the spur of the moment?
Even if the cover story were true it would make them look like even bigger incompetents. (Which is a pretty high bar for this lot.)
Most of the thinking public knew this wasn't spontaneous very early on. There was, for example, the report in the Independent.
Most people don't spontaneously bring mortars to several sites at the same time. Not rocket science to see this was an operation. Further, there were several people from the consulate staff quite publicly saying "What demonstration??!" Why would they lie?
The CIA knew better -- one of the sites taken was theirs. That dog don't hunt, and it just means that Admiral Clapper is a stooge. I expect the CIA to leak something really damning soon. They cannot be happy.
The real question is not "Was there a cover-up?" but "Why was there a cover-up?"
Nov. 6, same reason they are stonewalling on Fast & Furious. The voters won't know the (official) real truth till after the election. The media will continue to say mistakes were made, but no proof it goes to the WH.
The interesting twist here, of course, is that Hillary's chance of winning the WH in 2016 might be better if Romney wins.
Depends on whether you think Romney will be an effective President and/or that the economy will turn around in time to make the then-President's position nearly invulnerable.
If Hillary thinks Romney will flop, expect this to turn into an internal take-no-prisoners, leave-no-leak-unleaked kind of month.
I'm waiting for the November surprise, when we'll see these words: "How Romney lost me."
Bender, your 10/13/12 10:18 AM comment could have been boiled down into one sentence:
"In the end, you will always kneel." - Loki, The Avengers
Fr Martin Fox said...
Did the country ever get a real answer on just where the " video protest" story came from? IIRC, the WH is saying, from the intel folks; and the intel folks have refuted that, am I correct? So where did it come from?
I assume the WH, but who? Have I missed out on that part?
No doubt, Father
We are all wondering.
There seems to be a mad scamble for scapegoats on Pennsyvania Avenue lately.
Rusty said...
Fr Martin Fox said...
Did the country ever get a real answer on just where the " video protest" story came from? o where did it come from?
No doubt, Father.
We are all wondering.
Stop wondering. Consider the fact midday of 12 Sep 2012, no less a light than Chairman, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, was telephoning, and publicizing it through Reuters and HuffPo, a no account rabble rousing itinerant preacher in Florida about his alleged support for the video trailer, as a potential(?) inflammatory piece harmful to US interests, military and civilian....in Afghanistan.
Now by that time on 12 Sep 2012 Reuters had detailed information and pictures posted, vis a vis Benghazi, which implies General Dempsey is a blithering idiot or a White House tool, or both. He reports directly to the White House & the CIC President.
I hate to say it, but my last 10 years of experience working in both the military and government informed me that 9 times out of 10, who ever is talking is lying. Lying to your face at times when challenged, threatening pulling of rank if necessary...e.g., we outrank you therefore you are wrong. If a matter of law violation is involved, suddenly a fog bank is blown over all salient points and promptly ignored. You really think one mouse can roar?
No need to believe me or dispute me on this anymore. After the VP debate, there should be no doubt in any functioning mind. Your government lies to you bold face and demands you believe.
Post a Comment