I like how Obama revealed the AP wiretaps to distract from the IRS scandal, to distract from the Benghazi cover-up, to distract from Fast and Furious gunrunning..
Nice "leadership".
And yet after all this, he'll still have people blindly believing whatever he tells them.
As I have said before (repeatedly), it's not the crime, but the cover-up. Today we learn that there were 12 revisions to the Benghazi talking points before they were released. Here's Carney saying that the changes to the talking points were "stylistic and non-substantive:
"Stylistic and non-substantive".
The evolution of the talking points, showing significant edits and revisions, specifically to remove references to al Qaeda. As you scroll down through the 12 revisions, note the "strike-outs", and how much the document changes from the original assessment.
All one has to do is a little exercise here. Read the original CIA talking points, then read the "official" talking points after all the edits by the White House and/or State Department. Which one is closer to the truth?
Kudos to Sharyl Attkisson, Jake Tapper, and now Jon Karl, seemingly the only MSM reporters actually interested in learning what happened, and the Administration response to it. Stephen Hayes also gets a large chunk of credit for uncovering proof that there were multiple revisions made to those talking points.
What will the rest of the MSM do with this new information?
Had the White House and State come out after the attacks, revealed what they were, and then gone after those that did it, they could have effectively managed this situation. Instead, they ignored requests for help from Stevens, refused to acknowledge an attack on 9/11 was terrorism related, did nothing to try and help those fighting for their lives, and tried to change the narrative.
The truth always wins out.
There will still be folks on the Left that will blindly follow the lead of the White House, and not turn a curious eye to the latest revelations, and ask their own questions of why the Administration acted in the way it did, and then lied about those actions later. They will choose to ignore that a week or so after the attack, President Obama was on Letterman, saying that "there was this video" that started the event in Benghazi, knowing full well the video had nothing to do with it.
It's the same type of story, but this time a high profile Democrat is the one being blamed.
Remember how we were told that Mother Sheehan had some sort of moral superiority because it was her child that was killed? The same courtesy will be extended to this mother, right?
When I see this mother making the rounds of all the morning network shows, and on all of the Sunday shows, and on all the shows on MSNBC, then I'll believe the MSM and the Left weren't using Mother Sheehan as a political prop.
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with. It’s hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable. The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia, did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts. And we will, under the president’s leadership, keep taking steps to protect our personnel around the world.”
The Secretary of State was still pushing the "it was because of a video" meme at the funeral of Ambassador Stevens, when it has been revealed that she knew it was a terrorist attack. Will be interesting to see which Democrat nominee brings it up during the debates in 2015.
The Democrats, predictably, are launching preemptive strikeson the Whistleblowers and the hearing itself before they testify.
What's truly sad here, is that the Left is more concerned with protecting their own, than finding out the truth about the death of four Americans that may have been prevented.
No matter what happens with Darrell Isaa’s congressional committee meetings this week, we are witnessing the beginning of the endof the Obama Administration, and the cause is Benghazi. It’s impossible to underestimate the blowback that has been gathering steam for the past seven months, now about to erupt with full force. Few reputations will emerge unscathed, Obama’s presidency will be crippled, Hillary Clinton‘s 2016 candidacy will be destroyed — and perhaps some new heroes will be born.
Time will tell if these predictions come true. Someone is going to have to toss someone else under the bus. Either Obama does it to Hillary!, or she does it to him. One of them will have to play offense. Whomever is forced to play defense will lose, and lose big time.
Great piece on how an issue is framed. In my role as a Sales Guy, I always want to be the guy writing the RFP, as opposed to being asked to bid on one. The guy that writes the RFP is the one who determines in which direction the conversation must go. In other words, if you aren't planning the dinner, you might be the meal.
I won't cut-n-paste from the linked piece, because it really needs to be read in its entirety to get the most bang for your buck. I will include his closing, because it needs to be read and understood:
Mankind is driven to create and innovate, not sit on his or her thumbs in caves. We were not scared to go out because of dangerous animals and we were not scared to create a fire because it might suffocate us.
John F. Kennedy, in a famous speech at my alma mater, Rice University, in September 1962, said, “Why go to the moon? … Why does Rice play Texas? … Because we choose to.”
What he DIDN’T say was, “It is very dangerous and carries a lot of risks and we don’t know how. Therefore, I propose we put a complete ban on going to the moon”.
JFK made a call to action for a noble, some might say quixotic goal that could be undertaken by our government. Similarly, I don’t oppose an effort on our nation’s part to find cheap, inexhaustible energy. In fact, according to NASA, we spent roughly $150 billion on 2011 dollars (roughly $24 billion in 1969 dollars) to send a man to the Moon. According the Brookings Institute, the US will have spent roughly $150 billion between 2009 and 2014 in Green Energy programs. The projects break down as $100 billion for renewable supply, $15 billion in conservation research, $10 billion in electric cars research and subsidy, $10 billion in high speed rail research and subsidy, $6 billion in “smart grid” research and $6 billion in nuclear power research and subsidy.
The difference? The government has competition for making energy available and low cost. The people of the US oil and gas industry stood up and took on the kind of challenge that President Kennedy laid down. In the last decade, they have raised the bar for what success looks like. The benefits are myriad, although they sadly seem to be lost on musicians, entertainers and armchair epidemiologists of various stripes.
It's sad that this Country no longer embraces the Put-Politics-Aside-And-Let's-Accomplish-Something-As-A-Unified-Body mentality. When MSNBC began running this ad, it made me laugh every time I saw it:
The Left in this Country today wouldn't allow a project like the Hoover Dam to move forward. There would be protests and environmental studies on snail darters or the preble mouse, or something else that would cause delays, shutdowns, and stoppages.
Remember how folks on the Left tried to pin the actions of the crazy guy in Tucson (who shot Gabby Giffords and others) on the "crosshairs" on Sarah Palin's website map? Remember also how there was absolutely zero evidence that the shooter was aware of the website, or that it contributed to his shooting spree?
How many times do we need to see these examples of double-standards and media bias, before some of the critical thinkers on the Left stop eating what is being spoon fed to them?
A few days ago, Max Baucus (D-MT) was complaining that Obamacare is too complex for folks to understand, and will become a "huge train wreck". Mike Pompeo (R-KS) reminds Baucus that Obamacare is in effect, because of his actions:
If it's a train wreck, Pompeo said, Baucus has no one to blame but himself.
"No one in the country bears more responsibility for the complexity of this law than you," Pompeo wrote in a letter to Baucus on Thursday.
Baucus, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was a key architect of the Affordable Care Act. Most of its major provisions were crafted in his committee, and the Finance draft was consistently treated as the primary bill even as other Senate and House committees worked on their own proposals.
"You drafted it, you twisted arms to get it passed, and, until now, you have lauded it as a model for all the world," Pompeo wrote to Baucus. "Your attempts to pass the buck to President Obama’s team will not work, nor will they absolve you of responsibility for the harm that you have brought via this law."
I'm sure Baucus' "clarity" on the legislation he voted for have nothing to do with his upcoming re-election race.
Is Obama going to do an end-around, and defy the Senate on gun control?
Vice President Biden told White House allies in the gun control fight Thursday that President Obama will be announcing new executive actions on gun violence in the days after the Senate voted down a gun violence bill.
On a conference call with "stakeholders," Biden told gun control advocates that the fight is not over and that eventual action on gun control will come. Press were not invited to the conference call; a participant provided BuzzFeed with access.
"Look I know you're going to say that I'm just being an optimist and I'm trying to put a good face on this. But you know I've been around here a long time and we've already done, because of you, some really good things," Biden said. "Number one, the president is already lining up some additional executive actions he's going to be taking later this week."
After the Newtown shootings, Obama took a number of executive actions to expand research into gun violence and other areas favored by the gun control community. He took the actions without Congressional approval, leading to outrage by some conservatives.
If he does use the Executive Order, I'll be pissed when it first happens. But then I'll calm down, and remember that Democrats were in support of it, and the President ignoring votes in the Senate; and I know they won't mind when President Palin uses Executive Orders to get her way as well. At some point, the opposing Party comes into power, and will uses the same tools his predecessors used, and in some case, expand on them (like Obama did with FISA wiretaps, extraordinary rendition, use of drones, targeting American Citizens w/o a warrant, etc.).
Payback is a bitch. Remember that as you stand idly by, and do nothing.
Recent Comments