Universal Deceit

Krauthammer: “We’re Living In An Age Where What You Say And Its Relation With The Facts Is Completely Irrelevant”

I have been saying this for quite a long while, especially about liberals. The truth doesn’t matter to them on any level, other than what is politically advantageous to them in their own minds. Period.

This is why I didn’t bother to watch Hillary lie her ass off in Congress yet again. Why bother, you know what you’re going to get.

According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

So let the Right wingers vent. Let the Leftist Media spin it. She’ll Fake “stress” and “regret” and come out looking “tough”.

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Speaking in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi Thursday afternoon, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted to claim she didn’t blame the September 11, 2012 attack on a YouTube video. 

“Where did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madame Secretary,” Ohio Republican Jim Jordan pressed Clinton.

“I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said some have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks,” Clinton said. 

Jordan also pointed out that while Clinton was telling the American people a video was to blame, she was emailing her family, the Libyan government and the Egyptian government about a terror attack. At the same time the Obama administration was arguing the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Information Management Officer Sean Smith were a result of a spontaneous protest that got out of control, not the result of a terror attack. 

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest,” Clinton wrote to the Egyptian prime minister the night of September 11, 2012.

Not only did Clinton blame the attack on a video “offensive” to Islam, the Obama administration and the State Department purchased $80,000 worth of commercial airtime in Pakistan apologizing for the video.

It also should be noted that the person who made the video was hauled off to jail in the middle of the night.

Clinton blamed the video for the attacks, Obama blamed the video, Susan Rice blamed the video, they all blamed the video. Clinton’s mincing of words doesn’t change those facts.(Katie Pavlich)

Except that the facts don’t matter.

“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

And their is no one more deceitful than the Once and Future Queen, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

With the exception of his Royal Highness, King Barack Hussein Obama! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Smokin’

Judicial Watch announced today that on February 11, 2015, it uncovered documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing that top aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group. The documents were produced as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State ((No. 1:14-cv-01511). The documents make no reference to a spontaneous demonstration or Internet video, except in an official statement issued by Hillary Clinton…

Despite her three top staff members being informed that a terrorist group had claimed credit for the attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, issued an official statement, also produced to Judicial Watch, claiming the assault may have been in “a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” (DC)

Her whole “3 a.m.” shtick in the 2008 campaign was that she was ready for responsibilities that Obama wasn’t prepared for, yet when a crisis finally landed in her lap here, she couldn’t move fast enough to pass the buck to some random American whose big sin was free speech that was “unhelpful” to the administration’s goals.

And she’s already the un-corronated Queen of All She surveys by the Left and Leftist Media who are on a Media Re-Make Tour right now!.

From the very first moments of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides were advised that the compound was under a terrorist attack. In fact, less than two hours into the attack, they were told that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility. These revelations and others are disclosed by a trove of e-mails and other documents pried from the State Department by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The FOIA litigation focuses on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the government actions before, during, and after the Benghazi attack, in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was murdered by terrorists. Also killed in the attack were State Department information management officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were contract security employees and who had fought heroically, saving numerous American lives. At least ten other Americans were wounded, some quite seriously.

At 4:07 p.m., just minutes after the terrorist attack began, Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, and Joseph McManus, Mrs. Clinton’s executive assistant, received an e-mail from the State Department’s operations center (forwarded to her by Maria Sand, a special assistant to Secretary Clinton). It contained a report from the State Department’s regional security officer (RSO), entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack.” The e-mail explained that approximately 20 armed people had fired shots at the diplomatic mission, that explosions had been heard as well, and that Ambassador Stevens was believed to be in the compound with at least four other State Department officials.

About a half-hour later, another e-mail — this one from Scott Bultrowicz, then director of diplomatic security (DSCC) — related: 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is.

At approximately 1600 [4 p.m.] DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 [4:14 p.m.] RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire.

At 6:06 p.m., another e-mail that went to top State Department officials explained that the local al-Qaeda affiliate had claimed responsibility for the attack: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli” Despite this evidence that her top staffers were informed from the start that a terrorist attack was underway and that an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group had claimed credit for it, Secretary Clinton issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” This was a reference to an obscure anti-Islamic video trailer for a film called Innocence of Muslims. Secretary Clinton’s statement took pains to add that “the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” — further intimating that the video was the cause of the attack.

I have previously recounted that this official Clinton statement was issued shortly after 10 p.m. — minutes after President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke briefly on the telephone about events in Benghazi, according to Clinton’s congressional testimony. The White House initially denied that Obama had spoken with Clinton or other top cabinet officials that night. The president’s version of events changed after Secretary Clinton’s testimony.

As I’ve also previously detailed, Gregory Hicks, Ambassador Stevens’ deputy who was in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi attacks, was the main State Department official in Libya briefing his superiors that night. He testified before Congress that he briefed Secretary Clinton and her top aides at 8 p.m. He further testified that the video was a “non-event” in Benghazi. Hicks added that he was clear in his briefing and other communications with his superiors that the Benghazi operation was a terrorist attack. Indeed, at the time he briefed Clinton, the pressing concern was that Ambassador Stevens might then be being held at a hospital that was under the control of terrorists.

An hour later, at 9 p.m., Hicks learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens had been killed. At 12:11 a.m., about two hours after the issuance of Secretary Clinton’s statement suggesting that the video had prompted the violence, Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief-of-staff, e-mailed State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to ask, “Can we stop answering emails for the night Toria b/c now the first one is hanging out there.” This appears to be a suggestion that the State Department allow Secretary Clinton’s statement stand alone as the department’s narrative for the media.

At the time, the attack was still ongoing and there were still press inquiries about Ambassador Stevens’s whereabouts and well-being. The revelations in the newly released e-mails were unveiled by Judicial Watch this afternoon at a press conference in Washington. In a press statement, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton asserted that the e-mails left “no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened.” Mr. Fitton further opined that “it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about ‘inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.’ The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them.” (NR)

And it’s 2015 before we got them!

What Difference does it make? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Fear is Hope 2014

On the one hand, California U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi claims that Democrats are not “fear-mongers;” on the other hand, she believes civilization is doomed if Republicans take control of the Senate from Democrats in November.

It’s time to go Bat Crazy with Nancy. Same Bat Time (elections). Same Bat Channel (Vote for a Democrats because Republicans are evil assholes!).

The former speaker of the House made those dramatic, incongruous statements on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” which aired live from Washington, D.C. Friday.

Maher asked Pelosi about recent polling which shows that the GOP is likely to take over the upper chamber and asked, given gridlock in Washingon, why it matters that Democrats keep control.

“It would be very important for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate,” Pelosi told Maher. “Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if the Republicans win the Senate.”

Democrats currently hold 53 seats in the Senate. Republicans have 45. Two independents caucus with Democrats.

Maher asked about voter turnout for Democrats, which he asserted was too low to carry the party in the mid-term.

“Nobody comes about to vote to say ‘thank you,’” Maher said. “The people who get health care now — they’re the people least likely to vote. The people who come out to vote are the angry people.”

“That’s true,” said Pelosi. “Fear is a motivator, and we are not fear-mongers. The Democrats are messengers of hope, and that’s what we will continue to be.”

 fear is hope bumper sticker-JSee also: https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/fear-is-hope-2012/

On the one hand, as the president made clear, we’ll be involved in sustained airstrikes against ISIL targets in Iraq, and to the extent necessary, in Syria. We’ll also be building up the capacity of partners on the ground — Iraqi security forces, our Kurdish partners and, also, with the support of Congress, we hope the moderate Syrian opposition.

So we will combine that with a political strategy in support of inclusive and representative governance in Iraq. We will also support the Sunni elements inside of Iraq to take the fight to ISIL, since they are the ones most directly affected by the ISIL terrorism.

And so this will be a political, diplomatic, as well as military strategy. It will involve partners in a broad coalition from the countries in the region who met today in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia with Secretary Kerry and pledged to support this effort, to partners in Europe and Australia and others in the West. It will be a broad coalition to deal with the threat that ISIL poses.

BLITZER: It sounds like a war to me.

Is it fair to call it a war?

RICE: Well, Wolf, I don’t know whether you want to call it a war or a sustained counterterrorism campaign or — I think, frankly, this is a counterterrorism operation that will take time. It will be sustained. We will not have American combat forces on the ground fighting, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is what I think the American people think of when they think of a war.

So I think this is very different from that. But nonetheless, we’ll be dealing with a significant threat to the region, to American personnel in the region and, potentially, also to Europe and the United States. And we’ll be doing it with partners. We will not be fighting ourselves on the ground, but we will be using American air power, as we have been over the last several weeks, as necessary. (RP)

“The United States stands shoulder to shoulder tonight with our close friend and ally in grief and resolve,” Obama said.

“We will work with the United Kingdom and a broad coalition of nations from the region and around the world to bring the perpetrators of this outrageous act to justice, and to degrade and destroy this threat to the people of our countries, the region and the world,” he said.

Just Like Benghazi…Fast & Furious…etc… 🙂

153625 600 Dogs Of War cartoons

At Least until after the election….

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

153635 600 Striking ISIS cartoons

153627 600 More Missing IRS Emails cartoons

 

13 Hours

On September 11 and 12, 2012, in an attack by Islamist militants on the U.S. Diplomatic Compound (unofficially sometimes called a consulate) in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed — the first death of an American ambassador by a violent act since 1979. Chris Stevens had earned the admiration and respect of many local Benghazans by making improved relations between Libyans and Americans his calling — one that he was willing to take great risks to accomplish. Also killed that fateful night was the affable State Department computer specialist Sean Smith, known ironically to his friends in the online gaming world as “Vile Rat.”

Far more people would have died had it not been for the efforts of the Annex Security Team, a group of private security contractors, each of whom had served in the United States Marines, Army, or Navy, working for an organization called the Global Response Staff (“GRS”), who risked their lives and defied orders by leaving the nearby CIA Annex in order to save the State Department staff at the Diplomatic Compound.

But the terrorists weren’t finished. A few hours after the “consulate” burned, killing Stevens and Smith by smoke inhalation in what was supposed to be a safe haven within the primary residence on the walled property, they massed in force and attacked the CIA Annex to which the Team and the evacuated State Department staff had fallen back.

In that series of firefights, two more men, Glen “Bub” Doherty — who had arrived from Tripoli as part of a group of reinforcements — and Tyrone “Rone” Woods — a Team member and former Navy SEAL who also had paramedic training — lost their lives. Another member of the team, Mark “Oz” Geist, suffered devastating injuries to his arm (requiring 15 surgeries so far), while a Diplomatic Security agent, Dave Ubben, was also badly hurt.

The deaths of Bub and Rone, and the injuries to Oz and Ubben, occurred in the last major violent episode of the battle: a series of mortar attacks that were too precise to have been just “good luck” for the terrorists and belie the Obama administration’s early claims of a disorganized protest that simply turned violent.

The story of the attacks on both Compounds, the bravery of the Annex Security Team and others — as well as the apparent cowardice of some, including the CIA station chief on location — is told in a riveting new book entitled 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi.

The book, written by New York Times bestselling author Mitchell Zuckoff in collaboration with the remaining members of the Team, is a riveting account of heroism and tragedy, something that you might expect to find (and equally not be able to put down) in a Tom Clancy novel and from which there will no doubt be a most adrenaline-pumping movie.

After all, how could a director improve on Oz, his body pounded and his left arm shredded by a mortar blast, about to be carried on a stretcher to the evacuation airplane, standing up and saying “Hell no! I walked into this country and I’m going to f***ing walk out of this town”?

Of the five surviving Team members, three use their real names in the book: Mark “Oz” Geist (Marines), Kris “Tanto” Paronto (Army), and John “Tig” Tiegen (Marines). Two others use pseudonyms, going by Jack Silva (Navy) and Dave “D.B.” Benton (Marines). Each of them, including Rone, is a father, making even more remarkable the risks they took for their countrymen and more scandalous the reasonable conclusion that but for poor decision-making by high-ranking State Department and others the deaths in Benghazi, and perhaps the attack itself, might never have happened.

The book begins with Jack’s arrival in Benghazi, being wary of surveillance as soon as arriving at baggage claim, and being shown to the CIA Annex by Rone, who “told Jack that the summer in Benghazi would be his last job for the GRS… he wanted to spend more time with his wife and to help raise their infant son.”

After descriptions of the other team members — in which you really feel as if you know them at least a little bit — and an introduction to Ambassador Stevens, whose “optimism was tested from the start by instability and violence,” 13 Hours moves quickly into the violent events of the night of September 11 and the morning of September 12, 2012, beginning with the State Department Compound’s Libyan gate security fleeing — though they were unarmed in any case — allowing in “armed invaders ([who]… roamed freely through the dimly lit Compound, firing their weapons and chanting as they approached the buildings in packs, some stealing what they could carry, all trying to find the Americans.”

Your next enthralling hour or two of reading is of battles and tactics and bravery and confusion which for civilians is only imaginable as a 21st century Alamo — under attack by al Qaeda instead of Santa Ana’s army: “As Tig moved to join in, a [friendly] 17 February militiaman on the west side of Gunfighter Road fired two rocket-propelled grenades toward the men outside the Compound gate. The grenade-firing militiaman was positioned about twenty yards behind Tig, who heard the alarming sound of shells whizzing over his head. The grenades didn’t faze the attackers, who kept firing.”

And while I’ve offered an example involving John “Tig” Tiegen, every member of the team demonstrated almost inconceivable — again, at least to civilians — courage and determination. They would (and do) say that it’s simply what they were trained to do. Which does not lessen my admiration for them by even the smallest measure.

Yet despite everything, and this is the intention of the surviving members of the Team, if one person comes through the book as most memorable and, although I hesitate to suggest degrees of heroism, a man whom the other heroes themselves see as a hero, it is Tyrone “Rone” Woods, whom everyone on the team liked, trusted, and respected, and who lost his life in a terrorist mortar attack on a roof in Benghazi:

The former SEAL with the King Leonidas beard, who’d extended his stay in Benghazi to help protect Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who intended to retire from GRS operator trips to work with his wife, who was eager to raise his infant son and see his two older boys grow into men, who instinctively and compulsively watched over his fellow operators, who led the rescue charge into the Compound, who searched through a burning building for two missing men, and who answered the first two explosions by rising with a machine gun and returning fire, had absorbed the deadly concussive force of the explosion.

13 Hours recognizes but deliberately avoids partisan politics. Regarding some of the most common questions about what happened in Benghazi, such as “During the attack, was the U.S. military response appropriate, and if not, why not?”

Most answers have fallen on one side or the other of a partisan divide… Media reports have run the gamut on who, if anyone, in Washington deserves blame and punishment, and whether the attacks should be considered a tragedy, a scandal, or both. However, by early 2014 one conclusion had gained considerable traction across partisan lines: The attacks could have been prevented. That is, if only the State Department had taken appropriate steps to improve security at the Compound in response to the numerous warnings and incidents during the months prior.

Yes, the brave men of Benghazi are simply telling their story, but the words of Pericles ring as true as ever: “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” Simply as a matter of “the buck stops here” management responsibility, one can’t avoid the feeling that 13 Hours means that Hillary Clinton has more ’splainin’ to do if she seeks to be the next president of the United States.

As you look beyond the incredible story, the events in Benghazi offer as many questions as answers. Again, one cannot help but ask questions that might have political implications despite the authors’ explicit declarations that they are not trying to make political statements but simply to get the truth of that night’s events into the public sphere.

On Monday, in an exclusive interview for The American Spectator, I asked a few of these and other questions of Mark “Oz” Geist and John “Tig” Tiegen — three men who after enduring Benghazi have been willing to risk their own now-civilian privacy in order to tell their story:

Ross Kaminsky: Many aspects of that night seem like they might have been preventable. Let’s start with the initial situation on the ground. What did you make of it at the time and what do you make of it in retrospect?

Mark Geist: It was about like every other Third World country I’d been in… kind of a piece of crap. It was a lawless city. After the fall of Gaddafi, it was controlled by several different militias and they were all vying for control of various entities within the city, like the airport, the port, commerce, things like that, so they can make money.

RK: Did you think that the State Dept. security people, the State Department more broadly, even the CIA, had taken their own security seriously enough and done enough to be prepared for what could happen in a lawless city, much less in a lawless city on September 11th?

John Tiegen: Our side, we took measures, from the get-go, when we first got into Benghazi. For the State Dept. guys I’d say no. Even the very first trip that I did down in Benghazi, they were shorthanded. There’d be only like two Americans on that Compound, no principal officer, just two RSOs [Regional Security Officers] sitting there, not doing anything. Or they’d go on a move and only leave one American on the Compound. They were always understaffed and basically no security. I mean, the guys at the gate, they had no weapons; I don’t even think they had batons. There was a total lack of security over there.

RK: Did you think at the time that there was an unsafe reliance on Libyans for the security at the Compounds?

MG: My personal opinion is because of the relationship that people felt they had with the Libyans — most of the Libyans who lived there were supportive of us — it gave a false sense of security to some people. You have a town that’s controlled by militias. The militias weren’t friendly. At best, they were neutral to us. Some of them I guess were quasi-friendly but not somebody you’d want to trust your life to.

RK: One thing that I don’t really know even after reading the book: What was your team’s explicit responsibility, if any, for the State Department Compound?

JT: We had no requirement to go rescue them or do anything with them. We were augmenting our time to even escort the ambassador to the different events he was attending, just so they’d have extra security.

RK: During the attacks, you told the Team Leader that you wanted aerial military support as well as surveillance. What happened and didn’t happen when you made that request?

JT: It was Tanto who made that request. He made it pretty quick. He requested the IR and a Spectre gunship within 10 or 15 minutes. They just kinda said “Roger that. We’ll look into it.” All we ever got was the IR (drone surveillance), obviously.

RK: Did you ever figure out why?

JT: No.

RK: What do you make of the fact that you never figured out why?

MG: I think somebody was either afraid to make the decision or they felt that the situation wasn’t as grave as it was, which could lead you to the conclusion that maybe that’s [also] why they had us stand down and hold off for 30 minutes. Because they thought it could be handled in an easier manner, or they didn’t want the exposure or something.

RK: It’s not as if you guys are the type of people to call and say you need help except in the absolute worst possible situations. I just can’t imagine who would hear a call from any one of you and say “Well, maybe it’s not that serious.” I suppose that’s more of a comment than a question…

MG and JT: I would agree. I would agree with that.

RK: You talk in the book about the CIA station chief in Benghazi, whom you call “Bob,” and who refused to be interviewed for the book, as I gather from the book’s notes. Bob made some decisions which you’ve made clear you believe cost American lives. What did Bob do or not do, and what were the impacts of his actions or inactions, and perhaps you can include any thoughts on why he did what he did.

JT: Initially it would be to coordinate with [supposedly friendly militia] 17th Feb[ruary] guys so they knew we were coming. But it doesn’t — it shouldn’t — take 30 minutes to coordinate. That’s just “Hey, we have guys coming over. Don’t shoot at them…” kind of thing.

RK: In the book, you go a little further… it really seems that you guys think that Bob was a bit of a coward.

JT: Well, there were quite a few incidents in Benghazi before this where somebody would get tied up at a checkpoint, even at gunpoint, and he wouldn’t let the QRF team leave, not even just to get to the area. We don’t just rush in and start shooting people just because something happened. We go in, assess the situation, and then we adapt to it. And he just never would — I don’t know, maybe he just didn’t know what our capabilities really were. He just blatantly didn’t want us to ever do anything.

[Note: The Daily Beast reported in May 2013 that “Bob” received “one of the [CIA’s] highest intelligence medals.”]

RK: Tell us what that time was like from the moment when you guys got into the vehicles to get ready to go [from the CIA Annex to the State Department Compound which was under attack], waiting for Bob to give you the “go,” and what happened over the next 30 to 40 minutes.

JT: A lot of anger. A lot of us were getting extremely pissed off.

RK: What did Bob say to you?

JT: He told me directly, he just looked right at me when I got out of the car, “Hey, you need to stand down. You need to wait.” And that was it. It wasn’t, “You need to wait for this.” It was just, “You need to wait.” And from previous experiences, his “stand down” or even just “wait” meant “you ain’t gonna leave this compound.”

RK: Did he use the actual words “stand down” or did he just say “wait”?

JT: He used the words “stand down.”

RK: So do you believe that the delay caused by the CIA station chief probably cost the lives of Sean Smith and Chris Stevens?

JT: I strongly believe that if we had left immediately, they’d still be alive. They didn’t die of gunshot wounds or knife stabbing. They died of smoke inhalation. And that takes time. It’s not something that just happens in a split second. Their house was on fire. Every second counts. Firefighters know every second counts. So, yeah, it directly impacted their deaths.

MG: I wasn’t there at the time that the stand down order was given, but in any emergency situation, every second is critical. And how you use that time is critical. And to save those five people there and the 20-plus people at the Annex, the time had to be used in a very efficient manner. With the delay, I think we’re lucky that they all didn’t die.

RK: So Bob was a CIA guy. One thing I’m still trying to understand is why was there a relatively significant CIA presence in Benghazi at that time?

JT: They’re trying to gather information on terrorists. [Islamic radicals] were all over [the port city of] Derna [about 150 miles northeast of Benghazi]. Derna was pretty much overrun by [terrorists] months before Benghazi. So they’re out there collecting intel.Initially, they were out there trying to find the yellow cake [uranium] that Gaddafi had.

RK: Some people wonder whether the CIA was trying to send arms to Syria through Libya. Do you have any opinion about that?

JT: I’ve been there three trips and I never once even heard them talk about running AKs or anything. Yeah, they would try to find the shoulder-fired missiles, but they did that in just about every country, so [terrorists] couldn’t shoot down airliners. But for running AKs and stuff, I even went to the port with them and that never came up, and I was in a meeting there and they were just discussing the situation at the port. That’s all it was.

[Note: Another new book on Benghazi continues to assert that the State Department and Ambassador Stevens were involved in highly secret arms transfers, both within Libya (to keep large quantities of weapons out of the hands of the most radical militias) and from Libya to Turkey and then on to Syria.]

RK: Did this experience change how you think about government and bureaucracy?

MG: I was in the Marine Corps for 12 years. We don’t do the job that we do because of government or higher-ups in the chain of command. We do it because there’s a need to serve people and protect people. To me, it’s a calling. It’s just something I do. Like a firefighter who runs to the fire instead of away from it. We’re the same way.

RK: Does the government understand national security?

JT: This administration, I’d say no.

RK: I know what you’re going to say but I’m going to ask you anyway: What goes through your mind when someone calls you a hero?

JT: I’m no hero. I mean, this is something we’ve been trained to do. We all joined the military and we like doing it. We like protecting people, obviously.

MG: It seems to me that everybody should just be this way, be there to help people who can’t help themselves. If doing that… that’s just helping other people. That ain’t being a hero.

RK: How are you guys doing now? Are you happy? Do you miss that aspect of your life? Do you feel like that was just a chapter of your life and now you’re on to a new one, or do you feel as if you’re missing something fundamental?

JT: We’re always going to miss it. I mean, you’re working around people who think the same. The camaraderie that was there. I mean, God, I miss it every day. It was fun. I enjoyed it.

RK: So did you give it up mainly because you have kids?

JT: I’d probably say yes. That’s one of the main reasons. I mean, I went back. I did two trips. My twins are only two and a half. They weren’t even six months old when Benghazi happened. The first trip was kinda hard. The second trip was even harder. I just said, “That’s it.”

MG: I can’t work doing that anymore, at least not in that capacity, due to my injuries. It’s hard to say why… but I’d go back in a heartbeat. But I also am glad that I’m able to be home now because out of — I started contracting in 2004, so since 2004 I’ve probably been gone for two thirds of that time. So my two older kids, one who’s 18 and one who’s 13, I’ve missed a lot of their growing up. So it’s really nice to be home but there’s always that — like we said — camaraderie, being around people who think like you and can understand why you think the way you do and why you look at things the way you do. You, having grown up on a military base, probably understand that a little more than most. But the civilian population doesn’t think like we do.

JT: Plus it’s a job where you get to take out terrorists. I mean, you’re taking out the bad guy. It’s not as if you’re sitting around not accomplishing anything. It’s a very rewarding job even though the public doesn’t get to know about it.

RK: Last question for you: What question should you be asked that people are missing and not asking you?

MG: The thing that should be asked is, “Why did we write the book?” And the answer to that is because it’s the story that hasn’t been told. The media has talked about the beginning and what should have been done and they’ve talked about all the things that happened since and why people did what they did. But nobody’s asked the question of what happened during those 13 hours. Not because we care about some political thing — but because we want people to know what happened on the ground. And to honor Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and the sacrifices they made to try to save Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. And to honor them, too. Because they were serving their country, in a different way than we did, but they were serving their country and they died doing it. You know, no one has honored them the way they should be honored, all four of them who died.

Published today, 13 Hours may indeed set the record straight on what really happened during a night which has itself become a political RPG and could threaten the presidential aspirations of the next would-be President Clinton, whose infamous “what difference at this point does it make?” should be disqualifying, even if her failure to protect Ambassador Stevens were somehow overlooked.

More importantly, 13 Hours is also an incredible, harrowing, engrossing story of American warriors demonstrating heroism and bravery at a level that most of us can barely imagine — fighting against a much larger, well-armed radical militia force and saving the lives of many despite cowardice, cynicism, and incompetence all around them. (American Spectator)

If you see something that is not within the ideology, say nothing or lie, that’s the Democrat way.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell


Reading is Fundamental

Librarian Fired for Actually Getting Kid to Read

A library aide has been fired for successfully doing her most basic job — getting a kid to read more. And so, too, has the library’s director, who started the reading controversy in the first place.

Lita Casey was dismissed on Monday after working for 28 years at the Hudson Falls Free Library in upstate New York. Her offense? Defending a nine-year-old child whose voracious reading appetite and abundant (and free!) library books makes him read too much. So much, in fact, that Weaver dominates the library’s annual reading competition, having won his 5th straight reading title by absorbing 63 books in the 40 day competition.

That should be good news, right?

Not in the eyes of library director Marie Gandron, who said the soon-to-be fifth grader Tyler Weaver “hogs” the contest with his no-good-dirty-rotten-book-stealing reading habits. Gandron had hoped to change the structure of prizes awarded in the contest to encourage other kids to get involved in the reading contest, as “Other kids quit because they can’t keep up,” Gandron said. Instead, Gandron wanted to award prizes for the reading “contest” by picking names out of a hat. Why that would actually encourage reading, we can’t say. It’s not as if those prizes were the main reason Weaver — the self-described “the king of the reading club” — was picking up those books in the first place. All little Weaver has won in his five year reign is an atlas, a T-shirt, a water bottle and certificates of achievement. That’s nothing special.

Casey stood up for this injustice back in late August, calling the idea of changing the prizes “ridiculous.” Well, she has since paid the price for standing up for her beliefs. “I could not believe it, and I still cannot believe it,” she said after she heard she had been let go in a phone conversation. Gandron, too, has paid the same price herself, as she was also fired from her job last week after 41 years at the library.

With two of the library’s six employees gone over a dumb controversy, it’s hard to find much of a winner in this story. That is, except for our friend Weaver. If only these librarians had put down the books and watched some of The Wire, they would have known a good life lesson: You come at the (reading) king, you best not miss. (Atlantic Wire)

“I could not believe it, and I still cannot believe it,” Casey said Tuesday.

She said she was called by board member Michael Mercure, who is a lawyer and the Washington County public defender.

“I asked why I was being terminated, and I was told the board would not give a reason. I asked if I could come down and talk to the board. He went away for a minute, came back and said no.

Yeah, don’t ask a high and mighty government official, your Lord & Master, to explain themselves! That’s tantamount to insurrection!

Just Ask Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Eric Holder…

So naturally, when the whole tempest in a teapot explodes in the Liberals face it’s time to “put it behind us and move on” response.

After all, “What difference does it make??”

Let’s not dwell on our mistakes (we obsessed on other peoples).

The Good News from Hudson Falls Free Library: Kids Are Reading!

Let’s Turn the Page on Unfortunate Controversy

Statement from:

Michael Herman

President

Hudson Falls Free Library Board of Trustees

August 21, 2013

For more than four decades, the goal of Hudson Falls Free Library’s summer reading program has been to encourage and inspire children toward a lifelong love of reading — and we have been immensely successful.

This year, 30 children read 10 or more books over their summer vacation. That’s the good story we should be sharing and celebrating, and we’re sorry that some unfortunate comments have overshadowed the accomplishments of Tyler Weaver and all of the participants in our program.

Tyler has achieved an impressive record of reading the most books in our program for five years in a row, and deserves our applause for that. In an era where technology too often keeps children’s noses pointed at text messages and video games, Tyler and the other “Dig into Reading” kids have embraced the wonderful world of books, and for that they should all be proud.

Looking forward, the Library Board and staff will be reviewing the way in which our program works to ensure that it continues to meet its goal of encouraging as many children as possible to spend time reading over the summer.

We thank Tyler and all of our young friends of Hudson Falls Free Library for sharing their love of reading with us, and we look forward to reading and learning with them for many years to come.

I was “unfortunate” and let’s put on a happy face and just move on. Nothing to see here.

Like Liberal Government incompetence.

Just like Benghazi.

And after that response I think my saccharine intake for to next 10 years has been filled.

Comment field by “common man”:

What a perfect example of a failed effort to promote meritocracy over excellence. Much like not keeping score for youth sports and giving everyone a trophy, efforts to level the playing field to avoid hurting the feelings of those less talented or uncompetitive only teaches our children that life should be “fair”. To create an atmosphere where what is utmost important feeling good about yourself regardless of one’s efforts to achieve excellence only sets up a child for a life of disappointment. Life is not “fair”, not everyone has the same ability to be the best. Hard work is rewarded and laziness will only get you the bottom slot in life.
“Heroes rise above the mediocrity that surrounds them”

BRAVO.

But if this were the Obama Administration we just have to wait 8 months and the Library Manager will have a new job as the assistant/advisor to the head of Board, just like Susan Rice. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Benghazi: One Year Later

So what have we learned in the last year?

That Obama Lies. Hillary Lies. Susan Rice Lies. The State Department Lies.

Everyone in the Administration lies about it.

Then the Ministry of Truth buries it.

And you get scorn and ridicule if you even bring it up to The Left.

“What Difference Does it Make?”

It’s deliberate. It’s Calculated. And it’s 1000% political.

That’s what we’ve learned in the last year.

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi “talking points” when Congress asked for them, and using the word “spontaneous” while avoiding the word “terrorism.”

And blaming a You Tube video that had been out there 3 months prior and had had no effect in the region. But the Administration arrested it’s maker. It’s the only arrest they’ve made to date.

And that  arrest wasn’t for making the video, which is a legal, constitutionally-protected exercise of free speech. It was for violating his probation in an earlier bank fraud case dating back to 2010.

Twelve months ago, the Christopher Stevens became the first US ambassador assassinated in the line of duty in more than three decades.  He was murdered along with three other Americans during a chaotic, hours-long terrorist raid on two US compounds in Benghazi, Libya.  Since that day, none of the terrorists responsible have been captured or killed, even though our intelligence services know where they are.  Not a single government official has been fired over the historic security failures.  And more than a dozen US diplomatic missions in “high risk” zones remain under-protected to this day.  Nine months ago, I posed twelve unanswered questions about the Benghazi massacre; as of this writing, ten of them have yet to be adequately answered.  The responses to the others reveal US incompetence and a politically-motivated cover up.  Chris Stephen, the left-wing UK Guardian’s Libya-based correspondent, has meticulously reviewed the record of what really happened in Benghazi on 9/11/12, and contrasted it with the Obama administration’s “official” story.  Here is the introduction from Stephen’s lengthy report:

The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was striking for a number of reasons: the date, 11 September, the toll – four diplomats killed, including an ambassador – and the knock-on effects on the careers of senior American politicians. But what is perhaps most striking is the inconsistencies: the US version of events compared with those of witnesses and the facts on the ground. The two do not tally. And so, a year later, there remain pressing questions about what happened that night – and what the Americans say happened

Read the whole thing ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-consulate-benghazi-attack-challenge).  It’s a harrowing account of terror and confusion, an indictment of the administration’s reckless ineptitude in the weeks leading up to the bloodshed, and an expose of the government’s numerous attempts at revisionism.  Meanwhile, why haven’t any of the perpetrators been brought to justice?  Part of the equation is the Obama administration’s dangerous obsession with treating these terrorists as common criminals.  They want to build legal cases against the attackers, then try them in civilian court.  Madness. But another element of the delay is the Libyan government’s ongoing efforts at obstruction, and the White House’s lack of urgency (via the New York Times):

A year after the attacks in Benghazi that killed the United States ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, the Justice Department has indicted suspects. Intelligence officials have a general idea of where they are hiding. And the military has a contingency plan to snatch them if that becomes necessary.  But the fledgling Libyan government, which has little to no control over significant parts of the country, like Benghazi and eastern Libya, has rebuffed the Obama administration’s efforts to arrest the suspects…Some military and law enforcement officials have grown frustrated with what they believe is the White House’s unwillingness to pressure the Libyan government to make the arrests or allow American forces to do so, according to current and former senior government officials. Mr. Obama acknowledged last month at a news conference that the suspects had been charged but were still on the loose.  “Whether he likes it or not, he is going to have to deal with this issue,” said a former senior American official, referring to Mr. Comey. “There’s a huge frustration on the issue among the agents about why nothing has happened to these guys who have killed Americans.”

In fairness to the Libyan government, they can barely keep themselves safe, and wield virtually no sovereign control over much of their nation.  They live in constant fear of Islamist reprisals.  It’s also possible that the Libyans may still harbor a grudge over the public humiliation they suffered at the hands of the Obama administration in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.  You may recall that Susan Rice’s false talking points directly contradicted the assessment of Libya’s president, prompting the Libyans to delay the arrival of US investigative teams at the attack site.  Most gallingly, American officials on the ground are venting frustration over their assessment that regardless of the Libyans’ posture, The White House isn’t applying much pressure or leadership to resolve the situation.  365 days have passed since four Americans were murdered by a gang of radical Islamists, and that outrage has gone unanswered.  No arrests, no military strikes, few (if any) lessons learned, no accountability — even of the token variety — and no justice.  Appalling.  I’ll leave you with two video clips.  The first features Hillary Clinton standing next to the Benghazi victims’ flag-draped coffins and blaming the attacks on an “awful internet video,” followed by President Obama vowing justice for the fallen.  The second clip is of Amb. Susan Rice disseminating information that the administration knew to be false, days after the raid.  She has since been promoted.  Both spectacles speak for themselves: (townhall)

And it took almost a year to get Susan Rice her payback for her bold faced lies.

She the National Security Advisor.

Finally, someone who is nearly as good an example of the Peter Principle as Janet Napolitano.

The State Department, under the direction of Secretary of State John Kerry, is still refusing to provide requested Benghazi eyewitnesses to the House Oversight Committee for interviews about what happened one year ago today.

Yesterday, Chairman Darrell Issa sent a letter to Kerry stressing the only people who can provide a full picture of the 9/11 terror attack are witnesses who survived.

“The survivors of the attacks are the only people who can give testimony to the Committee about what happened on the ground in Benghazi,” Issa wrote in the letter. “Details provided by the survivors will not only help the Committee determine what took place during the attack, but will also help the Committee and other interested parties determine ways to prevent future tragedies.”

A request was made by the Oversight Committee on August 14, 2013 for transcribed interviews with Benghazi survivors. The State Department responded on August 23 by saying it was “not prepared to provide witnesses for those interviews.” The Accountability Review Board [ARB] has interviewed Benghazi witnesses Issa is requesting. 

“The ARB considered the surviving eyewitnesses to the attack to be part of a ‘core group’ of witnesses,” Issa said. “Furthermore, the ARB recommended that the Department establish a panel of outside independent experts to identify best practices and evaluate security issues at diplomatic posts around the world. That panel, chaired by former U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, enjoyed the Department’s full support, with unfettered access to documents and personnel. The panel met with over 200 people, including at least one individual whom the Department is now refusing to make available to the Committee.”

It is suspected the State Department has allowed witnesses to speak to the media for interviews. Issa’s letter cites a recent article in Vanity Fair in which great details are described regarding the Benghazi attack, including “details that only persons who survived the attack could possibly know.” Fox News has also been able to get in contact with some of the witnesses.

“The State Department has further restricted the Committee’s access to these witnesses, claiming that they must be insulated from congressional investigators as they ‘would very likely be witnesses in any criminal proceedings relating to the Benghazi attacks,'” Issa said. “The Department’s claims that it needs to ‘insulate’ witnesses ‘from any perception of political accountability in fulfilling their responsibilities’ actually creates the impression that the Department is exerting its own political influence to prevent survivors from speaking to Congress.”

President Obama pledged to cooperate with Congress after the attack as did Secretary Kerry.

“The State Department has not lived up to these unequivocal commitments to ‘provide answers.’ Instead, the Department has attempted to limit the Committee’s access to important documents and information, including witnesses such as the Benghazi survivors.”

Issa is demanding Kerry provide interviews with witnesses by September 24 or be issued subpoenas. (Katie Pavlich)

“We made mistakes, but without malice”–One Administration official was said to have decried.

The Justice Department says it’s “using every tool and resource available…to ensure that anyone who played any part in that attack will face justice, no matter how long it takes and no matter how far we must go to find them.” (Meanwhile, he’s suing Texas over Voter ID laws).

Well, that’s ok then, no problem…After all, “What Difference does it make?”

So the lesson to be learned here is , that if lie to cover up your bosses mistakes you will get a promotion and you get to ridicule and stonewall anyone who dares to challenge your lies.

Now, that’s Government you can trust. 🙂

 

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Convict Bureaucracy

Hilarious quote of the Weekend:

Before everyone in this town convicts this person in the court of public opinion with no evidence, let’s actually get the facts and make decisions after that. There’s nothing that suggests she did anything wrong,” *(ROTFL)*  White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, appearing on four Sunday morning political talk shows, offered strong support for Sarah Hall Ingram, who led the agency’s tax-exempt division as it admittedly targeted conservative groups. She recently was promoted to chief of the health care reform office, tasked with implementing “Obamacare.” (WT)

Close Second:  White House Press Secretary Jay Carney appeared on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Live” Thursday night to answer questions related to the three separate scandals that have turned the federal government on its head over the last two weeks.

Carney’s answers summed up: There are no scandals.

“You’re concocting scandals that don’t exist,” Carney said, when show host Piers Morgan asked how the Obama administration would “restore the faith that some Americans have lost” in its transparency.

“Especially with regard to the Benghazi affair that was contrived by Republicans and, I think, has fallen apart largely this week,” Carney said.

He continued, . And we are committed to that. The president is committed to that.” (Blaze)

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

This from the Valerie Plaime, Trent Lott, Tea Party “Violence” ad nauseum “Vote for me!- The Other Guys an asshole” convict-everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-in-the-media crowd.

2005: (from a  Progressive Liberal website)-

Today comes the revelation in The Wall Street Journal that “A key department memo discussing Joseph Wilson’s Niger trip was classified ‘Top Secret,’ and the passage about his wife’s CIA role was specially marked ‘S/NF’ — not to be shared with any foreign intelligence agencies.”

Perhaps even more damning are reports that the Top Secret-S/NF document was apparently first delivered to Air Force One when George W. Bush and Colin Powell (who had apparently requested it from analysts within the State Department) were flying to Africa in 2003.

Somehow – nobody knows at the moment – the information in this Top Secret-S/NF document (the identity of Joe Wilson’s wife) then migrated from Air Force One to George W. Bush’s assistant, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney’s assistant, Scooter Libby. Rove and Libby then immediately began “dialing for dollars” – calling reporters with this juicy bit of Top Secret-N/SF information – in an attempt to politically assassinate Joe Wilson.

Which raises the question: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”

But they are as as silent as the grave on Obama when you pose that same question now. 🙂 Is there such a thing as Anti-Silence? 🙂

SILENCE WILL FALL!

Hilarious!
But predictable. After all, Don’t do as I do, Do as I say. You aren’t allowed to use their own tactics against THEM. They are holier-than-thou.

“I think we’re going to find that there’s a written policy that says we were targeting people who were opposed to the president. I can’t believe that one rogue agent started this. It seems to be too widespread,” said Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican and potential 2016 presidential candidate.

His Republican colleague Sen. John Cornyn of Texas agreed that there must be more to the story.

What did THIS President know and when did he know it? No one in the White House, The Democrats or most of the Media wants to know. But 8 years ago they were a ravenous pack of velociraptors over this very same question.

Fascinating… 🙂

“Bureaucrats don’t take risks unless they have a signal, either explicit or implicit, from their higher-ups that what you’re doing is exactly what we expect you to do,” he said during an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “I have a very hard time believing that this was something cooked up in Cincinnati by midlevel employees.”

Or in Phoenix ATF (Fast & Furious anyone?) 🙂
Bureaucrats are creatures of safe, secure habits.
Bureaucracy is “a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation.” (Webster Dictionary). And a Bureaucrat is a creature of Bureaucracy. They are risk takers or rule-breakers unless it’s safe to do so.
Bureaucracies are criticized for their complexity, their inefficiency, and their inflexibility.
The dehumanizing effects of excessive bureaucracy were a major theme in the work of Franz Kafka, and were central to his masterpiece The Trial. The elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy is a key concept in modern managerial theory], and has been a central issue in numerous political campaigns. Others have defended the existence of bureaucracies. The German sociologist Max Weber argued that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and rational way in which human activity can be organized, and that systematic processes and organized hierarchies were necessary to maintain order, maximize efficiency and eliminate favoritism.[14] But even Weber saw bureaucracy as a threat to individual freedom, in which the increasing bureaucratization of human life traps individuals in the an “iron cage” of rule-based, rational control.
What better place for people who believe if you tell a lie often enough that it becomes the truth but bureaucracy.
And what better bureaucrat to head the chief weapon, ObamaCare, than a loyal partisan bureaucrat.
AN APPARATCHIK!
Which is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government, i.e. an agent of the governmental or party “apparat” (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management. James Billington describes one as “a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details.” It is often considered a derogatory term, with negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described. (Wiki)
But utterly loyal to the Party and will do whatever the Party requires.
Susan Rice, anyone?
Eric Holder?
The Mainstream Media?
The Wall Street Journal is reporting President Obama’s top attorney knew about the IRS targeting weeks ago before news broke, but of course, Obama still didn’t know about it until he learned about it “from the news.”
She just didn’t tell him? 🙂
Fascinating…
Victor Davis Hanson:In then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, he ran to the left of Hillary Rodham Clinton as a moral reformer. Mr. Obama promised to transcend the old politics and bring a new era of hope-and-change transparency to Washington. Five years later, those vows are in shambles.True, the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, has become a mess of partisan bickering, but the disturbing facts now transcend politics. The Obama administration — the president himself, Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state, U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice, White House press secretary Jay Carney — all at various times blamed an obscure video maker for the “spontaneous violence” that killed Americans last September.The problem is not just that such scapegoating was untrue, but that our officials knew it was untrue when they said it — given both prior CIA talking-point briefings and phone calls from those on the ground during the attacks.

One theme ties all the bizarre aspects of the Benghazi scandal together — the doctored talking points, the inexplicable failure to beef up diplomatic security before the attacks and to send in help during the fighting, the jailing of a petty con artist on the false charge that his amateur video had led to attacks on our consulate, and the shabby treatment of nonpartisan State Department whistleblowers.

There was an overarching pre-election desire last year to downplay any notion that al Qaeda remained a serious danger after the much-ballyhooed killing of Osama bin Laden. Likewise, Libya was not supposed to be a radical Islamic mess after the successful “lead from behind” ouster of Moammar Gadhafi. Facts then had to change to fit a campaign narrative.

As the congressional hearings on Benghazi were taking place last week, we also learned that the Internal Revenue Service, administered by the Department of the Treasury, has been going after conservative groups in a politicized manner that we have not seen since Richard Nixon’s White House. There was no evidence that any of these conservative associations had taken thousands of dollars in improper tax deductions — in the manner of former Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, the onetime overseer of the IRS.

Instead, groups with suspiciously American names like “Patriot” or “Tea Party” prompted IRS partisans to scrutinize their tax information in a way that they would not have for the tax-exempt MoveOn.org or the Obama-affiliated Organizing for Action. On top of that, the Justice Department just announced that it had secretly seized the records of calls from at least 20 work and private phone lines belonging to editors and reporters at The Associated Press in efforts to stop suspected leaks.

At about the same time as the Benghazi and IRS disclosures, it was widely learned that there was a strange relationship between the Obama White House and the very center of the American media — odd in a way that might explain the unusually favorable media coverage accorded this administration.

Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications in the Obama administration, is linked to the doctoring of the Benghazi talking points. He also happens to be the brother of CBS News President David Rhodes. CBS recently pressured one of its top reporters, Sharyl Attkisson, for “wading dangerously close to advocacy,” as one report worded it, in her critical reporting of Benghazi.

Unfortunately, such relationships are not rare with this administration. The head of ABC News, Ben Sherwood, has a sister who works for the Obama White House as a special assistant, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall.

There is more. The CNN deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Mrs. Clinton’s former aide at the State Department, Tom Nides, who is also a former Fannie Mae executive. Mr. Carney, Obama’s press secretary, is the husband of Claire Shipman, the senior national correspondent for ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Apparently, in the logic of the Obama White House and the Washington media, there is nothing improper about wives dispassionately reporting to the nation on what their husbands are doing, or brothers adjudicating the news coverage of their own siblings.

Last month, the congressional architect of “Obamacare,” Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, announced his plans to retire — in part because he feared his legislative child would become “a train wreck.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who shepherded the bill toward passage, has echoed that worry.

Democrats are panicking because before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is even fully implemented in the midterm election year 2014, it appears neither affordable nor protective of patients. That reality was long ago foreseeable — given that Obamacare passed on a strictly partisan vote, with a number of questionable legislative payoffs to skeptical fence-sitting Democrats, and even after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who helped ram the bill through the House, admitted that, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

What is the common denominator in all these second-term administration embarrassments? “Hope and change” is fast becoming the 1973 Nixon White House.

But this Nixon, has the Press and a  24/7 News Lying cycle to try and cover it all up.
That’s why this is not 1973, but 2013.
America, The Land of The Bureaucrat and The Home of The Spin Liars Club of Washington.
America, What a Country! 🙂
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Michael Ramirez Cartoon