Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category
This op-ed exposes a disturbing thought process:
For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.
On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.
Why the media thought that the Republicans’ investigation into Benghazi is a matter of the media’s bias. Common sense always said that the administration wasn’t telling the truth on what happened in Benghazi. That and Libyan president Mugariaf telling Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer that it was a planned terrorist attack that took the lives of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
The hearings have identified who ordered the rewriting of the State Department’s CYA document. What the hearings haven’t done yet is identify who told Lt. Col. Gibson not to attempt to rescue the diplomats stationed in Benghazi. The hearings haven’t identified who eliminated the FEST option. YET.
When President Mugariaf told Schieffer that terrorists had killed Christopher Stevens, most thinking people bought into that because presidents of countries know what’s happening in their countries. When Susan Rice started with the administration’s ‘the video made them do it’ lie, most people knew that was BS. A video that’d been seen by 100 people worldwide didn’t start the uprising.
We now know that the Petraeus-led CIA got it right the first time with their report on what happened that night. Similarly, we know that the State Department, with help from the NSC’s Ben Rhodes, turned the CIA intelligence report into a political talking points document.
What’s most disturbing, though, is the media’s intellectual curiosity was essentially nonexistent. The notable exception to that is Sharyl Attkisson. She dug into the administration’s spin and uncovered important facts. The good news is that the media finally appears to be getting curious. Jonathan Karl’s article is a step in that direction, though Steve Hayes’ article opened the floodgates on the subject.
The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”
Omitting the “five other attacks” and the “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack” is like omitting the hijackers names from the initial 9/11 report. The ARB’s ‘investigation’ is filled with the same omissions.
Question: Are people in DC incapable of asking straightforward questions?
This is my third post on Benghazi in the past 24 hours. My first post on the subject highlighted the whistleblowers coming forward. The second post highlights how the whistleblowers are destroying the administration’s credibility. This post deals with the fact that the media wall is crumbling. Here’s what CNN is reporting:
In an interview with congressional investigators, the former top diplomat in Libya expressed concern that more could have been done by the military on the night of September 11, 2012 and morning of September 12, 2012, to protect those being attacked at the U.S. compound and annex in Benghazi, Libya. Specifically, he wondered why the military did not send a plane as a show of force into Libyan airspace, and why four U.S. Special Operations soldiers were not permitted to travel to Benghazi on a Libyan plane the morning of September 12.
“The Libyans that I talked to and the Libyans and other Americans who were involved in the war have told me also that Libyan revolutionaries were very cognizant of the impact that American and NATO airpower had with respect to their victory,” Greg Hicks, then the US deputy chief of mission in Libya, told investigators on April 11 of this year. “They are under no illusions that American and NATO airpower won that war for them. And so, in my personal opinion, a fast mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.”
Hicks went on to say he believes “if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced”, around 9:30 p.m. that night, “I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”
Prior to this article, most of the reporting on Benghazi had been done by Sharyl Attkisson and Lara Logan from CBS and Catherine Herridge and Jennifer Griffin of Fox News. With this article, CNN is now jumping into the issue. With that, the media freeze-out is almost over.
Brit Hume has as good of instincts on the DC media as anyone. Here’s his observations on the Benghazi coverage:
The media didn’t cover this properly for the longest time, mostly because they wanted President Obama to win re-election. Had the DC media investigated the Obama administration’s decision to leave Christopher Stevens and his diplomatic team to die going into the debates, it isn’t a stretch to think it might’ve changed the election landscape.
This Strib/DFL hit piece is what I’ve been expecting considering the infighting between Ann Lenczewski and Tom Bakk over their tax increase bills. Here’s the lede in Neal St. Anthony’s Strib article:
Regardless, businesspeople aren’t united on these issues. Case in point: Even “United for Jobs” members are lobbying for increased funding for their favorite causes or to retain their tax breaks.
And not every businessperson opposes a tax hike if Dayton can make the case.
“An increase in the marginal income tax rate would have no affect on our business or whether to expand,” said Harvey Zuckman, 62, executive vice president and an owner of Minneapolis-based FirstTech, who also is president of the Twin Cities Metro Independent Business Alliance.
“Our hiring decisions are based on consumer demand and revenue. I put the question to our MetroIBA members and a number had a similar response.”
By St. Anthony’s standards, anything short of unanimity of opinion equals division within the anti-tax increase ranks. It didn’t occur to St. Anthony that there are lots of disagreements within the business community. Apparently, St. Anthony isn’t too sharp on DFL tax increase history. Apparently, St. Anthony doesn’t know about this DFL tax increase disaster. Similarly, St. Anthony isn’t aware of Gene Pelowski’s opposition to Rep. Lenczewski’s 2009 ‘tax reform’ legislation:
Pelowski said lawmakers won’t have enough votes to override a Pawlenty veto of a DFL tax plan, and said the proposals are a “fiction” that will force lawmakers to scramble to craft another budget proposal after Pawlenty’s veto. “We have to do what is real and not go through an exercise of what-ifs,” Pelowski said. “There are no what-ifs. There is only the stark reality of this budget deficit.”
This year’s fight within the DFL on the differing tax increase proposals isn’t something unanticipated. Here’s a post I wrote about the infighting within the DFL over Rep. Lenczewski’s ‘tax reform’ proposal from 2009:
“This bill proposes the most significant tax overhaul in 20 years,” said the bill’s chief author Rep. Ann Lenczeswki, DFL-Bloomington.
In addition to the tax hikes, Lenczewski’s bill removes a variety of tax breaks for homeowners and businesses. Charitable contributions, the mortgage interest tax deduction and the property tax deduction for homeowners are eliminated and replaced with a tax credit based on income. The bill also eliminates several business tax breaks, like the Research and Development credit and parts of the governor’s JOBZ program.
Lenczewski said she wants to clean up the state’s tax code. “Which is to sweep the tax code clean of all of the preferential treatment and subsidies and things we can’t afford anymore and instead bring a fairer, more progressive income tax to Minnesotans based on the ability to pay,” she said.
Here’s Sen. Bakk’s response to Rep. Lenczewski’s proposed tax increase:
Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said eliminating the current mortgage interest deduction could hurt Minnesota’s high rate of home ownership and higher alcohol taxes would drive some liquor shoppers across the Wisconsin border.
Simply put, the DFL has been split on which taxes should get increased for years. The notion that the business community is hopelessly split in its opposition to Gov. Dayton’s tax increases is DFL spin.
Convenience store operators think that raising the cigarette tax will hurt their retail outlets. What’s more, they can verify the fact that the DFL’s cigarette tax increase will hurt their businesses.
With regards to the Dayton/DFL income tax increase on “the rich”, Teresa Bohnen really has talked with 4 different companies who will likely expand their companies in other states:
St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce President Teresa Bohen says she’s recently talked with four local companies who say they may have to transfer their investments to other states, if the Governor’s plan goes through.
Most important in this is whether the Dayton-DFL tax increases will hurt Minnesota’s economy, strengthen Minnesota’s economy or cause Minnesota’s economy to tread water, gaining a little hear, hurting a little there.
What’s most likely to happen as a result of the Dayton-DFL tax increase is that convenience stores will get hurt, some businesses that were started in Minnesota will expand in other states while other businesses won’t be affected by the tax increases. In other words, the best Minnesota should hope for from the Dayton-DFL tax increase is for Minnesota’s economy to continue treading water.
That’s unacceptable. Then again, that’s what doesn’t get reported when the Strib writes articles that could pass for DFL press releases.
Tags: Ann Lenczewski, Tax Reform, Tom Bakk, Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction, Mark Dayton, Tax Increases, Cigarette Tax, Liquor Tax, Unemployment, Economic Stagnation, Outmigration, Convenience Stores, Gene Pelowski, DFL, Teresa Bohnen, St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce Small Businesses, Capitalism
This video is proof that Kirsten Powers kicked Bill O’Reilly’s butt in a debate about sequestration:
Don’t mistake this as saying President Obama has consistently laid out specific proposals about sequestration. He certainly hasn’t. That said, O’Reilly lost the fight when Kirsten Powers talked specifics about Medicare savings. Powers said that President Obama proposed saving money for Medicare by negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies for perscription medications. That fired up O’Reilly, who asked which companies the administration would negotiate with for these savings.
When Powers said that it would be the same companies that Medicaid negotiates with, O’Reilly said that that wasn’t specific enough, that President Obama had to state specifically in legislation which companies they’d negotiate with. O’Reilly’s counterargument was a non sequitur counterargument, saying that the proposal wouldn’t be effective.
I agree with Mr. O’Reilly that the proposal wouldn’t be effective in cutting the deficit. That isn’t what he was arguing with Ms. Powers about. He started the argument talking about whether President Obama hadn’t offered specific proposals to cut the deficit. The sad thing is that he would’ve won the argument had he done his research.
President Obama has frequently spoken in generalities. Had O’Reilly started with that argument, Ms. Powers likely would’ve agreed with him. Had O’Reilly not insisted that President Obama list the drug companies that HHS would negotiate in legislation, he could’ve won the debate.
It’s important to note that President Obama has ignored the GAO report that Sen. Coburn has been talking about. Had Mr. O’Reilly asked Ms. Powers why President Obama hadn’t adopted the savings from the GAO report, she likely wouldn’t have put up a fight. There might’ve been consensus reached.
If you haven’t watched it yet, it’s imporant that you watch it ASAP. Rather than talking about cutting spending in general terms, the GAO report lists hundreds of duplicative programs spread across the federal government and how much money is getting spent on those programs. If conservatives want to win this fight, and they’d better, they need to be authoritative. Bloviating from an obnoxious TV host won’t cut it.
What’s frightening about Chris Matthews’ latest declaration is the stunning stupidity displayed in it:
Chris Matthews: “It’s a down and dirty world when you decide chopping down the government and hurting the economy is the smart move. But bring it all down is now the hard right battle cry. Slash spending, short the pentagon, screw up traffic control, whatever raises the noise level, bashes Democrats and lowers hope. Is this the tea party dream? Is this John Boehner’s version of feeding time at the zoo, giving the crazies what they want so they will sit in their seats and behave? Is this final payment to insanity the last vestige of what calm Republicanism is ready to cough up? But how else can you explain the readiness of the GOP leadership to let this Frankenstein’s monster, this doomsday machine, this sequestration go all out berserk? How else can we understand the party of Lincoln doing such economic damage to the Republic, such damage and moral to the people?”
This is utter stupidity. Since when did lightly trimming $85,000,000,000 from a $3,600,000,000,000 budget constitute “chopping down government”? Since when did that constitute slashing spending?
There’s a reason why MSNBC is a laughingstock. Chris Matthews is a significant contributor to that reputation. Incoherent diatribes like this make Matthews and MSNBC look infantile.
As for Matthews’ question about sequestration being a “doomsday machine”, that’s the hysteria featured at MSNBC on a seemingly daily basis. People didn’t hear Matthews complain when spending jumped from $3,000,000,000,000 to $3,500,000,000,000 in a single year. That’s before factoring in the $850,000,000,000 stimulus bill.
Matthews can’t justify trillion dollar deficit after trillion dollar deficit. Perhaps MSNBC sent out the directive that, rather than defending President Obama’s history of trillion dollar deficits, which are indefensible, they’d mindlessly attack Republicans instead. By doing that, MSNBC and Matthews are cementing their reputation as buffoons.
Just like MSNBC isn’t a news organization, Chris Matthews isn’t a pundit. MSNBC is a media outlet, not a news organization. Chris Matthews is a court jester, not a serious news analyst.
Kirsten Powers’ op-ed exemplifies why she’s my favorite liberal:
In a recent interview with The New Republic, President Obama was back to his grousing about the one television news outlet in America that won’t fall in line and treat him as emperor. Discussing breaking Washington’s partisan gridlock, the president told TNR,”If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News…for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”
Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!
President Obama has gotten adulation from the Agenda Media since before he’d been elected to the Senate. Books have been written about the media’s slobbering love affair with President Obama. Still, that isn’t enough for the messiah.
Anything less than constant adoration isn’t acceptable with this administration.
Here’s a warning from Ms. Powers that liberals should pay attention to:
Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.
In fact, if you are a liberal, as I am, you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.
That more liberals aren’t calling out the White House for this outrageous behavior tells you something about the state of liberalism in America today.
That’s the same message being sent by FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. Mr. Lukianoff is a proud liberal who’s fought the good fight against campus censorship. Whether it’s fascists implementing ‘speech codes’ or whether it’s the fascist staff in the White House, the result is the same: censorship.
There’s no such thing as acceptable censorship.
This is particularly appalling information:
What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze.
On the heels of Dunn’s attack on Fox, Brock wrote a letter to progressive organizations bragging about the U.S. government trashing a news organization: “In recent days, a new level of scrutiny has been directed toward Fox News, in no small part due to statements from the White House, and from Media Matters, challenging its standing as a news organization.”Point of order: who put Media Matters in charge of determining what is and isn’t a news operation?
A Media Matters memo found its way into the public domain and if you care at all about decency and freedom of the press, it will make you throw up. If you like McCarthyism, it’s right up your alley. It details to liberal donors how they have plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.
It complains of the “pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club” and outlines how they are going to change that through targeting elite media figures and turning them against Fox. They say they want to set up a legal fund to sue (harass) conservatives for any “slanderous” comments they make about progressives on air. They actually cite one of the best journalists around, Jake Tapper, as a problem because he questioned the White House about calling a news outlet “illegitimate.” Tapper can see the obvious: if the White House can call one news outlet illegitimate for asking tough questions, then guess who is next? Anyone.
Whether it’s this administration, MMFA or other hardline fascist/progressive organizations (think ABM in Minnesota or ProgressNow nationally), the goal is the same: to stop informed debate.
That’s why I’ll proudly join with Kirsten Powers and Greg Lukianoff in fighting against the tyranny of censorship.
This LTE contains a disturbing scene:
I attended both Voter ID public hearings in the city of Rochester during this election year. I went there hoping to learn more about the proposed amendment, along with hearing more from the opposing point of view.
I didn’t realize I was in for such a rude awakening. Most of the hearing consisted of people shouting and talking over the representatives from both sides on the issue.
I completely respect the idea of the First Amendment and the freedom of speech. Unfortunately, people seem to believe it applies only when the speaker’s point of view agrees with their own.
When speaking with Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer after the hearing in Rochester, she stated this was the worst reception she had ever received. One lady verbally attacked her right in front of me, along with a young man grabbing her arm on the way out of the forum.
I decided, with a group of like-minded individuals, to escort her out of the building.
This is the face of DFL activism. Though this incident involved the proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment, this isn’t the only time DFL activism has gone way past the line. I wrote about another incident where the DFL activists’ behavior was disgusting. This is a firsthand report from a legislator:
What became unnerving was that last night as we moved closer to the vote they got louder and faster. There was one woman who screeched every time the main doors opened. Made me long for a pair of socks. It was an experience I will remember a long time. Especially seeing the backs of the state troopers–as they lined up shoulder to shoulder to keep the crowd from touching us. And the screaming, “Shame! Shame!” at us. Doesn’t really go with earlier in the evening when they were singing Amazing Grace, and shouting “No Hate”. Of course, they seemed to think it was perfectly loving to scream “Bigot” 10 inches from my face and spit on one of the other reps. (By the way, he has MS, walks with a cane and is a little slower. No hate, right?
This past session, the DFL spoke in public about the need for compromise. They spoke of it as the political Holy Grail. The DFL’s hypocrisy was exposed because they took a my-way-or-the-highway approach when they were the majority party in the legislature. From 2007-2010, there weren’t calls for civility and compromise. Those words were quickly forgotten.
Thanks to ABM’s lies and the Twin Cities’ media’s unwillingness to call them on their disgusting pattern of lying, progressive fascism has displaced Minnesota Nice. Here’s hoping that Republicans take principled stands against the DFL’s bad policies.
More importantly, here’s hoping the GOP articulately explains why they’re opposing the DFL’s counterproductive policies. Only through clear articulation of our principles will we win debates. We won’t win elections if we don’t win the debates.
The good news is that positive solutions will quickly discredit progressive fascism’s chalking points.
This video of Tom Ricks’ interview with FNC’s Jon Scott shows off his infantile logic:
This statement is outrageous:
I think Benghazi was hyped, especially by this network. Now that the campaign is over, [Sen. McCain's] backing away from his previous statements.
When Scott asked how it’s possible to hype the killing of 4 American patriots, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Ricks asked if Scott knew how many security contractors were killed in Iraq.
That type of infantile logic is typical of progressive thinking. First, Chris Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq during the Bush administration, didn’t request additional troops to protect the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. Similarly, he didn’t request additional troops for any of the U.S. consulates in Iraq.
Next, these security contractors know that they’re being hired to be the front line of defense against terrorists and militias. While there’s no question ambassadors in some nations have a dangerous job, they aren’t expected to be the front line of defense against RPG-armed, well-trained terrorists and militias.
Another key distinction that’s worth noting is that the Bush administration didn’t attempt to hide the fact that security contractors had a dangerous job. They didn’t manufacture stories about a non-existent mob got out of control, then killed a U.S. ambassador. They didn’t send out someone who didn’t know what had happened and wasn’t accountable for what happened to explain what happened.
Furthermore, during the second presidential debate, President Obama said that he’d called the terrorist attack on Benghazi a terrorist attack from the outset, then went to the UN and repeatedly apologized for a video that nobody had seen.
President Obama’s clear intent was to hide the fact that his administration’s inaction led directly to the deaths of 4 American patriots. If Mr. Ricks is suggesting that the needless killing of 4 American patriots isn’t a big thing, then I’d love debating him about that.
Finally, no progressive diatribe would be complete without them accusing FNC of being a campaign instrument of the GOP. Here’s the obligatory FNC is the GOP’s lacky statement:
I think the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox is operating as the wing of Republican Party.
It’s apparent that Mr. Ricks is an operative for the progressive movement. He doesn’t think for himself. His logic is infantile. He’s willing to overlook the possibility that this administration is willing to say anything to hide their incompetence. He’s willing to say things that hide the fact that this administration’s decisions led directly to the unnecessary deaths of true American patriots.
That’s the responsibility of progressive spinmeisters.
Greta van Susteren is pissed at the Obama administration. That isn’t the daintiest way of putting it but it’s what’s called for. I could say that she’s upset with this administration. I might’ve said she thinks they’re playing games. I won’t say that because that’s pussyfooting around what Greta thinks. In Greta’s opinion, it’s time to take the gloves off and blister this amateurish, corrupt administration. She did that in this post:
The Obama Administration is playing dirty. Trying to put a price tag on access — either a news organization plays ball and accepts what they dish out without challenge, or the news organization is excluded, punished. Check this out:
Fox News has been aggressively reporting on Benghazi because it is newsworthy when 4 Americans are MURDERED and because it was obvious the Obama Administration was telling “silly stories” that didnt’ make sense and were not supported by the facts. The Administration’s Benghazi story got more curious when the Administration sent out Ambassador Susan Rice to sell the silly stories on 5 news shows. Two months later, the American people still don’t have the straight story. It is our job to get the facts. We are trying.
The Obama Administration has done everything but give us the straight story and they are fighting us on getting the facts.
And why do I say the Obama Administration should grow up? Because the Obama Administration is trying to punish Fox for trying to get the facts from the Administration (do I need to remind anyone that 4 Americans were murdered?) The Administration in what looks like a coordinated effort is denying Fox to information that they are handing out to other news organizations. Why exclude Fox? That is simple: to punish, to try to teach us a lesson not to pry, not to look further for facts.
This isn’t just Greta’s opinion, though it’s fair to say this is what she believes. Top flight attorneys know that opinions don’t stand up at trial if they aren’t supported by evidence. Greta is a top flight attorney who knows when to stick the dagger in. That’s what she did with this information:
Here is my proof. The Administration is now 3 out of 3:
1. The State Department called a media conference call the night before its employees testified on Capitol Hill and OMITTED FOX FROM THE CALL; (they claimed it was an accidental oversight);
2. About 2 weeks after the above State Department conference call to all in the media, the CIA had a media wide briefing and released their timeline. The CIA invited major news organizations to the briefing but THE CIA EXCLUDED FOX FROM THOSE INVITED TO THE BRIEFING.
3. and now the latest: DNI Director James Clapper told Capitol Hill last week that the DNI did not know who took the term Al Qaeda out of the talking points that was given to Ambassador Susan Rice. It turns out that is not true and the DNI released a memo to the media last night indicating that DNI Director James Clapper was wrong last week when he said that (incidentally two plus months after the murders.) The [DNI/CIA] removed Al Qaeda from the talking points memo given to Ambassador Susan Rice. But that’s not all; it isn’t just the “who is on first” at the DNI, it is also what the DNI did to Fox last night. The DNI LEFT FOX NEWS CHANNEL OFF ITS DISTRIBUTION LIST last night when it released this new memo to the media.
Only idiots from Media Matters or Huffington Post will be stupid enough to argue with Greta about this. Not even Paul Begala is stupid enough to question Greta about this information or Greta’s opinions.
This is a vindictive administration. They’ve repeatedly said on national TV that they intend on making an example of FNC. First, here’s a golden oldie from David Axelrod:
White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news.”
“I’m not concerned,” Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” when George Stephanopoulos asked about the back-and-forth between the White House and Fox News.
“Mr. [Rupert] Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. The only argument [White House communications director] Anita [Dunn] was making is that they’re not really a news station if you watch even; it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming.
“It’s really not news; it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view.”
It’s the height of stupidity to say that Bret Baier, Catherine Herridge, Jennifer Griffin, Ed Henry and Jim Angle aren’t great reporters. They’ve broken stories that’ve put this administration in a difficult position.
Contrary to this administration’s belief, it isn’t the media’s job to hide their mistakes and divert the public’s attention from their mistakes. And Benghazi was far greater than a mistake. It’s a continuing national tragedy. It’s a full-fledged scandal. It’s a failure of this administration’s top national security officials.
Had this happened during the Bush administration, the compliant liberal media would’ve called for the firings of the Bush administration’s national security team. Frankly, they would’ve been justified had Bush’s national security team been this incompetent.
Hillary said no to Christopher Stevens’ pleas for additional security. Leon Panetta fiddled while Christopher Stevens was assassinated. Susan Rice said an obscure video sparked protests outside the Benghazi consulate when she knew there wasn’t a protest outside the consulate. Finally, the DNI scrubbed the mention of Ansar al-Shariah from the briefing document Ambassador Rice supposedly relied on.
Simply put, this bunch of incompetents and yes men/women did what they were told, including punishing a news organization for attempting to report the truth:
We at Fox are not simply accepting what they say, what they dish out. We are looking for facts and corroboration when there are inconsistencies and discrepancies. To the extent we get anything wrong is because the Administration is doing whatever it can to thwart us from getting the facts.
They are trying to punish us into going away, hoping we get their message that we will never have access to them as long as we dare to challenge what they put out. And guess what? What they have put out and what we have challenged shows they are cagey and not giving the straight story.
This won’t end well for the Obama administration. This will be Obama’s Watergate, Obama’s Iran-Contra. On steroids. The difference is that people didn’t die during the Watergate burglary or the Iran-Contra negotiations. Four American patriots died as a result of President Obama’s and Hillary’s mishandling of the Benghazi terrorist attack.
Tags: President Obama, Hillary, Leon Panetta, Susan Rice, James Clapper, National Security, Benghazi, Nixon’s Black List, Terrorist Attack, Democrats, Greta van Susteren, Investigation, Catherine Herridge, Jennifer Griffin, Reporting, Scoops, Fox News Channel
Bill O’Reilly touts Bernie Goldberg as an expert on the media, which says something in and of itself. Call it the Mindless Bloviator praises the Expert Pontificator. This weekend, Goldberg’s column offers ‘proof’ of a GOP civil war. At least, that’s the Gospel according to the Expert Pontificator. Here’s the Expert Pontificator’s proof:
So I’m driving in my car listening to Rush two days after the election and a caller comes who describes himself as a traditional family values conservative. He is a combination of angry and deeply depressed over how the election turned out, but mostly angry. And he’s calling, he says, to inform Mr. Limbaugh that he did not vote for Mitt Romney and will never vote for a moderate Republican. Then for good measure he adds that if he ever hears a Republican say he wants to “reach across the aisle” he will never vote for him either.
One day earlier, conservative radio talk show star Laura Ingraham tweeted this:
“Face it Repubs, you wish we had a candidate who–teleprompter or not–could speak as forcefully for conservatism as Obama speaks for liberalism” and “JUST A THOUGHT…Next time, GOP might want to think about nominating a conservative.”
And out in Middle America, Steve Deace, a conservative radio talk show host and well-known conservative in Iowa told his listeners: “There will never be another establishment candidate like that [Romney]. Mitt just killed Republicans in my home state. People are angry, especially because Matt Drudge and Karl Rove told us it was all in the bag all along, after they got done smearing conservatives in the primary and dumping on Todd Akin. It’s on like Donkey Kong.”
That Goldberg thinks that 3 callers on talk radio constitutes a GOP civil war speaks to Mr. Goldberg’s habit of overdramatizing things. If that’s the criteria defining an intraparty civil war, then the GOP has fought civil wars while winning landslide victories and while suffering humiliating defeats.
Of we could just call this what it is: a tussle that happens to all political parties after a defeat.
I’ve talked with lots of conservatives since the election. None has suggested that they’re upset with Mitt Romney’s policies. A fair number of these conservatives think he ran too cautious of a campaign, especially with regard to Benghazi and the EPA.
That isn’t the same as saying they’re ready to go headhunting. Yes, there will undoubtedly be some angry conservatives venting on talk radio. A fair number of them will have constructive ideas moving the GOP forward, too.
That, however, doesn’t constitute a full-blown intraparty civil war in the GOP.