Pinnochio

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Carney tried to explain why he and the president still insist on conditionally condemning the IRS’ actions, depending on “if” something inappropriate occurred.  Reporters from the AP and CNN both pushed back, noting that the IRS has already acknowledged wrongdoing and apologized.  Alas, it seems admissions of guilt still aren’t sufficiently dispositive for our fact-finder in chief

On Libya, a detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message on what happened on September 11. In fact, they changed their message from day to day — and it’s clear that the administration’s actions in the days and weeks after the Benghazi tragedy was all political maneuvering.

Benghazi was a terrorist attack.  The September 11th murders of 4 Americans in Libya wasn’t about some You Tube video and the Obama administration did apparently leave those people out there to die.  They did apparently conceal the truth and they did think we’d be stupid enough to believe them.

And anybody who thought things would be different is, quite frankly, an idiot.

Especially right before the Re-coronation of the King of All Media and your sovereign Lord of all Things, Barack Hussein Obama!

Nothing could be allowed to get in the way. Nothing.

The Agenda is The Agenda.

The Message is The Message.

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

After all, we are talking about the King of the Orwellian Parse.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

 

The Facts

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

    Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”

    Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”

OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie — or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time–and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Four Pinocchios (WP)

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Going all WoodWard & Bernstein

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

“Dangerously close to advocacy”?  That’s how CBS News apparently views the work of a reporter who is doggedly seeking truth about an issue of enormous importance that many of her colleagues have scrupulously ignored.

So going all “Woodward and Bernstein” and relentless pursuing a story is now a bad thing and it gets you the shiv at work if you’re doing it wrong.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect.

Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

So going all “Woodward and Bernstein” on Big Brother is not politically correct and can get you branded as an “extreme partisan”. 🙂

[The media establishment and liberals] can’t stop conservative media from existing, but they can ghettoize it as illegitimate and “partisan” in a way that their own partisan garbage isn’t….Skepticism about Benghazi is fine for the wingnuts at Fox, but bringing such unhelpful nonsense into an “impartial,” i.e. pro-Obama, outlet like CBS risks lending credence to the GOP’s accusations. The proper line to take on Benghazi is to dismiss the new hearings with a sneer, a la Joe Klein, or, in the case of “impartial” news coverage, to dismiss them more lightly by referencing Hillary’s long-ago whining about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to discredit the Clintons. “Going where the story leads” is unhelpful to liberalism in this case, ergo it’s advocacy by definition.

Attkisson’s reporting makes Benghazi harder to pigeonhole as a right-wing conspiratorial obsession.  CBS News owns a(n unjustified) platinum reputation in lefty media circles, rendering one of their correspondent’s tireless work on an unhelpful subject doubly unhelpful.  Thus, the suits are marginalizing her and questioning her integrity, accusing her of walking dangerously close to the activism line.  Shameful.

See BS News, the home of Big Brother, not Winstons.

Who’s tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers…

So would there be so much coverage of this Benghazi hearing if John Kerry had been SecState at the time?

Message one: Only out-of-touch old white guys and nutty conservatives care about this story.  The Chick-fil-A reference was a dead giveaway, just in case the other descriptors were a little too subtle.  Message two: Republicans are only beating the drum on Benghazi (you know, that unresolved terrorist attack that killed a sitting ambassador and three other Americans) to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016.  In other words, this is just another political food fight, America.  Feel free to move along.  

The mainstream media is corrupt. (Guy Benson)

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Testimony given Wednesday on Capitol Hill by Greg Hicks, Benghazi whistleblower and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, exposed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a liar.

“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya.”  This simple statement of fact explicitly and forcefully contradicts the White House’s dishonest “online video” spin, which was repeated ad nauseam

Hicks, who was on the ground in Libya on September 11, 2012, said Clinton called him around 2 a.m. from Washington to ask “what was going on.” Hicks responded by saying the consulate was under attack. He never told her about a protest outside the consulate because there wasn’t one.

“The only report that our mission made through every channel was that this was an attack,” Hicks said. “No protest.”

In his recollection of events the night of September 11, 2012, Hicks stated that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens called him and said, “We are under attack,” just before he was brutally murdered and dragged through the streets. Again, no mention of a protest.

“The video was not instigative of anything that was going on in Libya,” Hicks said. “We saw no demonstrations related to the video anywhere in Libya.”

Hicks also noted that Twitter feeds were being monitored and showed Ansar al-Sharia took credit for the terrorist attack and had control of the hospital where Ambassador Stevens was taken.

Despite knowing Benghazi was a terrorist attack from the very beginning, after all she was briefed by Hicks who was on the ground, Clinton shamelessly stood in front of the flag draped caskets of dead Americans and blamed a YouTube video anyway.

“We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless and totally unacceptable.”

Shortly after, when violence in the Middle East was raging, President Obama in partnership with Hillary Clinton spent $70,000 in taxpayer money on a commercial that aired on Pakistani television apologizing for the “video.”

The American Embassy in Islamabad, in a bid to tamp down public rage over the anti-Islam film produced in the U.S., is spending $70,000 to air an ad on Pakistani television that features President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denouncing the video.

The State Department said Thursday the embassy had compiled brief clips of Obama and Clinton rejecting the contents of the movie and extolling American tolerance for all religions into a 30-second public service announcement that is running on seven Pakistani networks. Obama and Clinton’s comments, which are from previous public events in Washington, are in English but subtitled in Urdu, the main Pakistani language.

Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the aim was to get the messages to the widest possible audience in Pakistan, where tens of thousands of protestors angry about the film tried to reach the U.S. embassy before being turned back by Pakistani police. She said embassy staffers had decided the ads were the best way to spread the word. The seven networks have a potential audience of 90 million people, she added.

“It is in response to a video.” -Jay Carney September 14, 2012.

Ambassador Rice on 5 Talk Shows blamed it on a Video.

President Barack Obama blamed the irrelevant video in front of the world at the United Nations. Not to mention, Obama  described the man who made the video, who is still in jail after being dragged out of his house and arrested in the middle of the night, a “shadowy character.

“It was a crude and disgusting video. I have made it clear the United States government had nothing to do with this video.”

Hillary Clinton lied, Rice lied, Barack Obama lied, Jay Carney lied, the Obama administration lied. The men in Libya were left to die as military forces were told to stand down.

Then the most infamous comment, by Hilary, “What difference does it make?”

To the left, the cover-up and the whitewashing and the marginalizing of it means everything!

Especially to Big Brother Heir-Apparent President Hilary Clinton.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/08/hillary-clintons-big-benghazi-lie-n1591097

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html

So, the lesson here is that the prized “Woodward and Bernstein” crusading “journalism” has been turned on it;s head it order to protect it’s Big Brother’s own ass instead. And anyone who does anything different is an extremist partisan and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Don’t Believe Him, he’s an Extreme Partisan!

Much Like “Vote for me, the other guy’s an asshole!”.

It says nothing about the speakers extreme partisanship, nor are you supposed to ask. For asking, is a thoughtcrime citizen. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 

The Slow and Deliberate

Worth Reading: http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama#.UFsQT41lQ18#LPFWLP_S

Michael Ramirez Cartoon The Fast & Furious report from the Inspector General’s Office is in and guess what no one important is to blame for Fast & Furious.

What a shocker.

The script for this Dog-n-Pony show was written before it was it started.

The Wolves have investigated the Chicken house and decided a couple of pups got over excited and they can eat those, but over all, no big deal.

And Brian Terry is still Dead.

100’s maybe thousands of Mexicans are still dead.

But at least one of the Wolves pronounced after nearly 2 years that the Pack leader didn’t do it.

They feel better now. Move on. They have more important Romney bashing to do.

Oh, and it’s Bush’s Fault!  Imagine that! 🙂

The White House’s refusal to release communications related to the Fast and Furious gun-walking program and the refusal of a White House official to be interviewed about the matter “made it impossible” for the inspector general (IG) of the Justice Department to “pursue that aspect of the case,” the IG, Michael Horowitz, testified.

But Obama repeatedly said he had nothing to do with it. 🙂

The IG report states, “We also sought to interview Kevin O’Reilly, an official with the White House National Security Staff, about communications he had in 2010 with Special Agent in Charge William Newell that included information about Operation Fast and Furious. O’Reilly declined through his personal counsel our request for an interview.”

Bill Newell was the ATF Special Agent in Charge for the Phoenix, Ariz., office that was running Operation Fast and Furious.

The IG report says, “We sought to interview O’Reilly in light of e-mail communications he had with Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell in 2010.”
newell

“Newell told us that he had known O’Reilly during previous field office assignments and that the two shared information about firearms trafficking issues relevant to their geographic areas of responsibility,” the report said. “According to Newell, O’Reilly was also friends with ATF’s White House Liaison and through that relationship O’Reilly would be included on some information sharing between Newell and the ATF Liaison about ATF’s efforts on the Southwest Border, and that O’Reilly eventually communicated with Newell directly.”

Operation Fast and Furious was run by the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), which is overseen by the Department of Justice, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder. The program, which ran from the fall of 2009 to mid-December 2010, allowed guns to “walk” into the hands of Mexican drug cartels through straw purchasers.

More than 2,000 firearms, largely AK-47s and 5.7 caliber pistols, were sold and allowed to walk. The ATF recovered only about 100 of the 2,000-plus weapons. In January 2010, a straw purchaser, Jaime Avila – well known to the ATF — bought three AK-47s at a Phoenix-area gun store. Two of those weapons were later found at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on Dec. 14, 2010.

After Terry’s death, Operation Fast and Furious was halted and Avila was arrested.

O’Reilly’s attorney reportedly said that his client would agree to a telephone interview  (he was in Iraq) with the committee but only if the White House said okay. White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler has stated that O’Reilly will not be permitted to give an interview.(CNS)

The report our attorney general used to justify withholding evidence of who was responsible for the administration program that led to the deaths of two U.S. agents is out. It delivers more scapegoats than answers.

The release by the Department of Justice’s inspector general of a 400-page report on the administration’s gun-walking operation, Fast and Furious, is no big surprise.

As Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform (OGR) Committee, Fast and Furious represented a “pattern of serious failures” by various agencies.

But he let the buck stop short of where it belongs — Attorney General Eric Holder’s desk.

Horowitz mysteriously chose to lump Fast and Furious, as Team Obama does, with a Bush-era program, Wide Receiver. That operation was run out of Tucson between 2006 and 2007, ending before Bush left office and before Fast and Furious began in 2009.

Both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious were part of a bigger effort called Project Gunrunner, which began in 2006. Even so, the differences between the two are vast, starting with the fact that Wide Receiver produced no dead bodies. It was run in close cooperation with Mexican authorities, as Fast and Furious wasn’t, and involved gun-tracing and not gun-walking.

The report was repeatedly invoked by Holder as a reason for withholding answers and documents on Fast and Furious from OGR Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Along with Sen. Charles Grassley, D-Iowa, Issa led the investigation of the operation that saw Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata murdered with guns supplied by the program. Holder, held in contempt by the House, still isn’t very forthcoming.

The report incredibly found “no evidence … (Holder) was informed about Operation Fast and Furious, or learned about the tactics employed by ATF in the investigation.” But Holder’s own statements contradict that.

So scapegoats had to be found, and the report cites 14 other department employees for potential wrongdoing and recommends Justice consider disciplinary action.

Jason Weinstein, the deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division, is resigning after the report essentially concluded he was the one best positioned to stop Fast and Furious. That’s false — Eric Holder was.

As early as Oct. 22, 2010, before agent Terry’s murder, a DOJ official sent Holder a memo saying: “It’s not going to be a big surprise that a bunch of U.S. guns are being used in (Mexico), so I’m not sure how much grief we get for ‘guns walking.'” Holder said he didn’t recall the memo.

Nor does he probably recall a speech he gave to Mexican authorities in Cuernavaca, Mexico, on April 2, 2009, taking credit for Gunrunner as well as Fast and Furious for himself and the Obama administration.

Holder told the audience: “Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels…(and) to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner.”

It’s important to note that Gunrunner and Fast and Furious both ran guns to Mexican cartels under the DOJ umbrella and the chains of command all led to Holder.

The report doesn’t contain the answers the Terry and Zapata families, or the American people, were looking for. But it does show that either Holder is culpable or incompetent. And either way, he should be fired. (IBD)

But at least we now know it was Bush’s Fault and all is right with the Liberal World.

Kumbuya.

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy