Thank GOD that the long holiday weekend is over!
Frankly... I'm getting too old for this shit - as enjoyable as the "shit" is while I'm... er... engaged in "shitting."
What I mean to say is...
(*PAUSE*)
Well... let me put it like this!
That said... my friend Maria is a Goddess! My friggin' God... homemade - from friggin' scratch - apple pie, blueberry pie, peach & plum cobbler, baklava... and then there was Rob on the grill... chicken, shrimp, burgers, dogs...
(*TAKING A BREATH*)
...beer... beer... gin & tonics... more beer... other cocktails... more beer...
(*SIGH*)
And folks... this was just yesterday! Remember... the weekend started on Friday! Then a double-graduation party on Saturday... followed by taking the visiting relatives out to dinner at Prime 15 on Saturday night... followed by a Sunday Surprise Party for my father-in-law where the Guinness was flowing - and the Cider as well!
And today...? It looks like I'll either have a run to the city later today - or it might be delayed till Wednesday. Either way... right back in the saddle!
God bless all our vets and those serving! May God keep them safe and may Obama and the politician scum on both sides of the isles not needless put them in harm's way!
11 comments:
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/sharyl-attkisson-91871.html
Sharyl Attkisson has problems.
The Obama administration won’t answer the CBS News correspondent’s questions because her investigations — into Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Solyndra — often reflect negatively on it.
* HMM... I SUPPOSED THAT'S ONE WAY OF DESCRIBING IT; PERHAPS A BETTER WAY WOULD BE "BECAUSE HER INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING COMES UP WITH INFORMATION THE OBAMAITES WOULD RATHER THE PUBLIC DIDN'T KNOW."
Some colleagues at CBS News, where she has worked for two decades and earned multiple Emmy awards, dismiss her work because they perceive a political agenda.
* OR... TO PUT IT MORE BLUNTLY... SOME COLLEAGUES - AND SENIOR MANAGEMENT - AT CBS DETEST ATTKISSON BECAUSE SHE WON'T "PLAY BALL" AND COVER FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS IF SHE WERE "PART OF THE TEAM."
(*SMIRK*)
And now, she says, someone may have hacked into her computers.
* SHE "SAYS?" (YA GOTTA LUV POLITICO!)
Attkisson’s one piece of solace may come from finally gaining some like-minded colleagues in the media. For years, Attkisson has been one of the few mainstream reporters pursuing critical stories about the Obama administration.
* AND WHAT DOES THIS SAY OF MAINSTREAM REPORTERS...? (INCLUDING HER PEERS AND BOSSES AT CBS! INCLUDING YOU FOLKS AT POLITICO!)
Today, as “scandal season” takes hold in Washington, she has seen her longstanding skepticism of the White House and the Justice Department become the conventional attitude among a formerly deferential Beltway press corps.
* IS IT ME OR IS POLITICO ACTUALLY ADMITTING THAT LIBERAL BIAS HAS BEEN THE NORM?
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)
Attkisson is a dogged reporter, driven by a strong skepticism of government. Producers at CBS News once nicknamed her “Pit Bull,” a source said, because she gets on a story and won’t let go. But that is seen as both a strength and a weakness. Her drive can produce great journalism, but it can also cause her to push stories to the point that colleagues — especially those of a more progressive bent — suspect a political agenda.
* IF ONE BELIEVES LEFT IS CENTER... (*SHRUG*)
Among conservatives who rarely find champions in the mainstream media, however, Attkisson is widely respected. “She goes after the stories others won’t go after, and she was right to go after them,” Greta Van Susteren, the Fox News host, told POLITICO.
* NOTICE POLITICO DOESN'T LABEL VAN SUSTEREN A CONSERVATIVE. (SHE'S NOT!) BUT NEITHER DOES THEY LABEL HER "NON-BIASED" OR "CENTRIST." NO. INSTEAD THEY MAKE SURE READERS KNOW SHE WORKS FOR FOX, WITHOUT NOTING THAT SHE USED TO WORK FOR CNN.
“She is actually doing what journalists are supposed to do,” said Laura Ingraham, the conservative radio host. “That’s not easy in Washington, D.C., where we have a president with whom the majority of reporters agree with politically.”
* FAIR ENOUGH... INGRAHM IS INDEED A CONSERVATIVE.
Last year, in a rare moment of right-wing support for a mainstream reporter, the conservative watchdog group Accuracy In Media gave Attkisson an award for her “outstanding contribution to journalism.”
* RIGHT WING...?
Earlier this week, Attkisson told POLITICO her personal and work computers had been “compromised” and were under investigation. Though she said she was “not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity,” she said elsewhere that “there could be some relationship between these things and what’s happened to James [Rosen],” the Fox News reporter who became the subject of a Justice Department investigation after reporting on CIA intelligence about North Korea in 2009.
Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesperson, told POLITICO, “To our knowledge, the Justice Department has never ‘compromised’ Ms. Atkisson’s computers, or otherwise sought any information from or concerning any telephone, computer or other media device she may own or use.”
* WELL, FOLKS... IF IT'S ONE THING WE KNOW... IT'S THAT VERY, VERY OFTEN, HIGH-RANKING OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS "KNOW NOTHING" OF THE THINGS THEIR UNDERLINGS ARE DOING.
(*SMIRK*)
The bulk of Attkisson’s work over the past five years has focused on the failures or perceived failures of the Obama administration...
* HEY... HASN'T OBAMA BEEN IF OFFICE OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS...??? ISN'T ATTKISSON A WHITE HOUSE REPORTER....? (IN OTHER WORDS... WHAT SHOULD SHE BE INVESTIGATING... WRITING ABOUT...?)
In February 2011, Attkisson wrote a landmark report about the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal, which earned her an Emmy award.
* AND YET... HOLDER IS STILL ATTORNEY GENERAL! OBAMA WAS RE-ELECTED!
Months later, she went on Ingraham’s radio show and said that officials from both the White House and the Justice Department had yelled and screamed at her because of her report. “[The White House and Justice Department] will tell you that I’m the only reporter — as they told me — that is not reasonable,” Attkisson told Ingraham. “They say The Washington Post is reasonable, the L.A. Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable, I’m the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I’m unfair and biased by pursuing it.”
* AGAIN... IS IT JUST ME OR IS POLITICO REINFORCING THE CASE THAT LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS HAS BEEN AND IS ALIVE AND WELL AND MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN THE NEWS THE PUBLIC GETS?
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* OOPS! GONNA NEED TO MAKE IT A FOUR-PARTER! (Part 3 of 4)
White House spokespeople declined to discuss their attitude toward Attkisson’s reporting on the record, though they are said to view her recent work as being more in line with that of Fox News than CBS.
(*GUFFAW*)
Attkisson has caused similar frustrations within the Department of Energy for her extensive reporting on the administration’s failed green energy investments, including Solyndra, Beacon and Abound Solar — all of which have filed for bankruptcy.
* YES... ONE CAN SEE HOW THIS MIGHT... er... "FRUSTRATE" OBAMA'S ENERGY DEPARTMENT APPOINTEES... REPORTING THE TRUTH AND ALL THAT OTHER "BAD" STUFF."
But nothing has earned Attkisson a greater reputation for opposition to the administration than her sustained efforts to uncover information about the attacks in Benghazi. Outside of Fox News, Attkisson has been the most persistent media critic of the administration’s version of events there — a topic the White House has often dismissed as a partisan sideshow.
Liberal media watchdogs have tried to discredit some of Attkisson’s work. Media Matters for America....
* NOTICE, FOLKS... IT WAS "RIGHT WING" ACCURACY IN MEDIA... YET IT'S *NOT* "LEFT WING MEDIA MATTERS...
(*SHRUG*)
...has accused her of “shoddy, irresponsible reporting” and pointed to holes in her reporting on green energy and autism vaccines. This month, she quoted summaries of the email correspondence between the White House and State Department (about the Benghazi talking points) that gave an inaccurate depiction of what those emails actually said and of the White House’s role.
* NOPE. (SCROLL BACK THROUGH NEWSBITES...)
ABC News correspondent Jon Karl, who made a similar mistake, later issued a formal apology. Attkisson has not, although CBS News later reported on the discrepancies between the actual emails and the summaries that had been earlier provided by Republican sources.
* THERE WAS NO "MISREPORTING." THE SOURCES GAVE QUOTES. THE QUOTES WERE REPORTED. THE QUOTES THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PARAPHRASED DOCUMENTS. NO ONE TRIED TO PASS THE QUOTES OFF AS THE DOCUMENTS. THIS IS TYPICAL POLITICO BULLSHIT.
Attkisson declined to be interviewed for this article, but she defended her reporting on the Benghazi talking points in an email: “The talking point emails were never represented to me, or by me, as direct quotes,” she wrote.
* AS I WAS SAYING...!!!
“I accurately disclosed prominently, in every instance, that they were provided by a source who had taken handwritten notes and had repeatedly pointed out they may be ‘paraphrased’ since the Administration did not allow the Congressional committees to copy the actual emails.
(*PUMPING MY FIST IN THE AIR*)
The email paraphrases, as provided to me, matched up well with the actual emails when the Obama administration finally released them to the public a week later, and in no instance contradicted their general meaning.”
* AND THAT'S TRUE AS WELL...!!! (AGAIN... THIS WAS HEAVILY COVERED BY ME BOTH WITHIN NEWSBITES AND IF MEMORY SERVES A STAND-ALONE OR PERHAPS EVEN MORE THAN ONE!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 4 of 4)
In light of the Washington press corps’ current distrust of the Obama administration, much of Attkisson’s reporting now seems prescient — the sort of thing one might expect CBS News executives to celebrate publicly.
* ONLY IF ONE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT CBS NEWS EXECUTIVES CONSIDER THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS FIRST, EXECUTIVES OF A NEWS ORGANIZATION SECOND.
(*SHRUG*)
Instead, suspicions of partisanship have made Attkisson a polarizing figure within her own organization.
CBS News President David Rhodes is said to value her diligence, but there are others, most notably Pat Shevlin, the executive producer of CBS Evening News, who are wary of her motives and have even dismissed her, in private, as a partisan carrying water for Republicans.
* IF ATTKISSON IS FURTHER "RIGHT" THAN "CENTER LEFT" I'D BE SURPRISED. (FUNNY THAT THIS ARTICLE DOESN'T ENLIGHTEN US...)
Alternatively, some sources suggested that Shevlin’s own political bias, which they described as liberal, was to blame.
As of last month, Attkisson has been in informal talks to leave CBS News ahead of contract, though sources tell POLITICO that the network is making a concerted effort to keep her there. CBS News spokesperson Sonya McNair said that Shevlin and Rhodes would not be available to comment.
“Patricia Shevlin and Sharyl Attkisson are two of CBS News’ most respected journalists whose countless contributions speak for themselves,” McNair said.
In fact, Attkisson has written many stories about GOP failures as well as Democratic ones. Her 2008 investigations into the so-called “TARP Bait & Switch” under then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson won her an Emmy award for investigative reporting. In March 2012, she reported on GOP freshmen betraying their promises of reforming Washington and instead hobnobbing with fundraisers at a resort in Key Largo.
Attkisson has said before that she is not a Republican reporter, and sources at CBS News said that the effort to cast Attkisson as an agenda-driven reporter were misplaced.
“You ask what makes Sharyl tick: It’s that she’s highly skeptical of people in power, and right now the people in power are Democrats,” one source said. “I don’t see her as an agenda-driven reporter.”
“[Attkisson believes] that public officials and federal officials work for us, and that it’s gotten to the point where they don’t believe that they should be held accountable,” another source said. “That’s not partisan.”
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/302131-house-judiciary-investigating-whether-holder-lied-under-oath
The House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on the Justice Department’s (DOJ) surveillance of reporters, an aide close to the matter told The Hill.
The panel is looking at a statement Holder made during a back and forth with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) about whether the DOJ could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917.
“In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material - this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” Holder said during the hearing.
However, NBC News reported last week that Holder personally approved a search warrant that labeled Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen a co-conspirator in a national security leaks case.
* IN VIOLATION OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917...???
Johnson defended the attorney general, saying Holder’s statement was specific to the line of questioning about the Espionage Act and not meant to pertain to other investigations. “The attorney general’s statement that no journalists have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act during his tenure is accurate,” he told The Hill.
* HOLD IT! PUT THE BREAKS ON! LET'S RE-WIND! (LET'S RE-VIEW THE ORIGINAL HOLDER STATEMENT IN QUESTION...)
“In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material - this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” Holder said during the hearing.
* "POTENTIAL PROSECUTION...."
* "NOT SOMETHING I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN, HEARD OF..."
(*SMIRk*)
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the second-ranking Judiciary Committee Republican, told The Hill that Holder should resign. He accused Holder of misleading the panel during the investigation of the Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation, and again when he claimed to not know about the AP probe. “As we saw in Fast and Furious and are seeing now, Attorney General Holder refuses to hold himself accountable,” he said. “He misled the Judiciary Committee under oath when he said he had not heard about Fast and Furious and he misled us again when he claimed to be unaware of the AP scandal. The head of DOJ should be someone the American people can trust. Attorney General Holder should resign.”
* I AGREE. LET ME THROW IT OUT THERE... DO ANY OF YOU TRUST HOLDER... AUTOMATICALLY TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD... ASSUME HE'S A TRUSTWORTHY GUY?
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
The DOJ seized Rosen’s personal emails and used other surveillance methods to investigate whether he was complicit in a leak of classified information. It also examined Rosen’s phone records and tracked his visits to the State Department using security-badge data during the 2009 probe. Justice filed legal papers saying Rosen may have acted as “an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” by getting materials from a government official also under investigation.
* IN ORDER TO GET A SUBPENA...!!! AFTER JUDGE SHOPPING...!!! AFTER THE FIRST TWO JUDGES THEY APPROACHED SAID "NO!"
The investigation was primarily focused on rooting out Rosen’s source, said a State Department worker who is facing federal charges for disclosing classified national security information and could see a trial as soon as next year.
* ONE... MORE... TIME: "CO-CONSPIRATOR...!!!"
The DOJ has also faced criticism over its seizure of phone records belonging to the AP. Unlike the Rosen case, the AP was never a target of that investigation.
* AND YET... (*SHRUG*)
The House voted to find Holder in contempt over his refusal to turn over documents to lawmakers on Fast and Furious, an operation in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms purposely allowed guns to be illegally purchased in the United States and Mexico in the hope they could be tracked.
* YES! AND NOT ALONG PARTY LINES! (OR ELSE YOU KNOW THE HILL WOULD HAVE NOTED IT!)
The panel is investigating whether NBC’s report contradicts Holder’s claim that he had not looked into or been involved with a possible prosecution of the press in a leaks case.
* ERIC HOLDER IS THE MOST CORRUPT ATTORNEY GENERAL THIS NATION HAS EVER HAD.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/confidential-report-lists-us-weapons-system-designs-compromised-by-chinese-cyberspies/2013/05/27/a42c3e1c-c2dd-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html?hpid=z1
Designs for many of the nation’s most sensitive advanced weapons systems have been compromised by Chinese hackers, according to a report prepared for the Pentagon and to officials from government and the defense industry.
* NOW... READ THE FOLLOWING *VERY* CAREFULLY...
The Defense Science Board, a senior advisory group made up of government and civilian experts, did not accuse the Chinese of stealing the designs. But senior military and industry officials with knowledge of the breaches said the vast majority were part of a widening Chinese campaign of espionage against U.S. defense contractors and government agencies.
(*SHRUG*)
* SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD IS MANNED BY... IDIOTS.
The significance and extent of the targets help explain why the Obama administration has escalated its warnings to the Chinese government to stop what Washington sees as rampant cybertheft.
* ESCALATED ITS WARNINGS....?!?!
(*GUFFAW*)
In January, the advisory panel warned in the public version of its report that the Pentagon is unprepared to counter a full-scale cyber-conflict.
* AND... SO... WHAT'S BEEN DONE...? WHO'S BEEN FIRED? WHO'S BEEN HIRED? (LET ME GUESS: STATUS QUO?) (*SMIRK*)
For the first time, the Pentagon specifically named the Chinese government and military as the culprit behind intrusions into government and other computer systems.
* AND YET... THE DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD, A SENIOR ADVISORY GROUP MADE UP OF GOVERNMENT AND CIVILIAN EXPERTS, DID NOT ACCUSE THE CHINESE OF STEALING DESIGNS...
* FOLKS... THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM!
In a speech in March, Thomas Donilon, the national security adviser to President Obama, urged China to control its cyber-activity.
In its public criticism, the administration has avoided identifying the specific targets of hacking.
* I WISH PUTIN WERE OUR PRESIDENT...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324125504578509453007615858.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Raw-milk proponents celebrated a Wisconsin farmer's acquittal on three of four counts related to selling unpasteurized milk and cheese, bolstering their hopes of legalizing the products in America's Dairyland.
* THE GOOD NEWS...
Jurors found Vernon Hershberger, a 41-year-old Loganville, Wis., farmer, innocent of producing milk without a license, selling milk and cheese products without a license, and operating a retail establishment without a license.
The verdict means Mr. Hershberger can continue to sell his farm's products to members of the buying club he started, said one of his attorneys, Elizabeth Rich.
* THE BAD NEWS...
He was found guilty of one count of breaking a holding order issued by the state in June 2010, which barred him from moving any of the food he produced without a license.
He faces as long as a year in jail and $10,000 in fines for the one guilty count; a sentencing date has yet to be announced.
* WHAT A COUNTRY, HUH?
"This is a huge win for food rights," said Liz Reitzig, a founder of Farm Food Freedom Coalition, a group advocating for greater consumer access to natural, unprocessed food. The case "should give small farmers renewed courage to continue to operate within their communities."
Milk is commonly pasteurized to remove harmful bacteria, but advocates of raw milk say the process also wipes out many beneficial nutrients. Raw milk can be consumed on the farm but can't be sold legally in many states, including Wisconsin.
* I'M SORRY, BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE GOVERNMENT GETS SUCH A RIGHT.
The case followed a nearly four-year investigation of Mr. Hershberger and his farm, Grazin Acres LLC, by the state...
* CAN YOU JUST IMAGINE THE MONEY PISSED AWAY...?!
Some 30 states allow raw milk sales for human consumption, according to the Food and Drug Administration, although federal rules prohibit the movement of these products across state lines.
* AGAIN... WHY SHOULD GOVERNMENT HAVE SUCH POWER?
Last week, Minnesota officials announced that 25 people were sickened in an outbreak of salmonella from unpasteurized cheese. Minnesota law permits raw milk sales on the farm at which the milk was produced.
* SO...??? 25 PEOPLE...??? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME...?!?! IN ANY CASE... I SAY LET GOVERNMENT WARN... LET GOVERNMENT SET FULL DISCLOSURE STANDARDS... AND AFTER THAT IT'S CAVEAT EMPTOR!
Many mainstream dairies and public-health officials have long warned of raw milk's health concerns and see that, as well as its potential to steal away market share, as threats to the industry. "It's impossible to make an unsafe product safe," said Shawn Pfaff, spokesman for the Wisconsin Safe Milk Coalition, an industry lobbying group opposed to raw-milk sales. "We strongly urge lawmakers to keep it illegal to sell raw milk in Wisconsin to protect the state's $27 billion dairy industry and the public health of its residents."
* I DON'T KNOW SHAWN PFAFF... BUT I INTENSELY DISLIKE HIM!
The state's case consisted of dozens of photographs and video clips supporting the contention that Mr. Hershberger was operating a retail food establishment, with shelves and refrigerators stocked with Grazin Acres-labeled products, as well as items from neighboring farms. Mr. Hershberger and his attorneys argued he didn't need a license to share his food with about 200 members he considered to be part owners in the farm.
Mr. Hershberger wasn't charged with selling raw milk. The judge said he didn't want the case to turn into a debate about the merits or dangers of raw milk, and prohibited attorneys from discussing it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/349308/slaughter/page/0/1
* YOU SHOULD READ THIS. YOU REALLY SHOULD. NOT FOR THE COMMENTARY ON MUSLIMS OR ISLAM (THOUGH IT'S OF COURSE WORTH TAKING INTO ACCOUNT), BUT WHAT MY FOCUS IS ON IS THE "REGULAR" WHITE (CHRISTIAN?) BRITS...
(*SHRUG*)
I'D LIKE TO THINK THINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT HERE IN AMERICA... BUT EVEN IF SO... EVEN IF WE'VE NOT YET SUNK TO THE PATHETIC LEVEL OF OUR COUSINS ACROSS THE POND... WHAT ARE WE... FIVE YEARS BEHIND... FIFTEEN...?
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/349230/%5Btitle-raw%5D-jonathan-strong
Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes isn’t afraid to talk to the press.
After the Navy SEAL raid in which Osama bin Laden died, he spoke to The New Yorker, Newsweek, the Washington Post, National Journal, and Vanity Fair...
He also helped coordinate access for the filmmakers of Zero Dark Thirty.
He recently cooperated with a New York Times profile of himself, and his mother, Jane Rhodes...
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
...answered questions for a GQ feature about him and his brother, CBS News President David Rhodes — the byline of which included Ben’s former White House colleague Reid Cherlin.
(*SMIRK*)
But when Fox News camped out on his doorstep to interview him about his role in scrubbing the infamous Benghazi talking points of key information about the attack, all they got was a shot walking into his apartment complex, his dry cleaning slung over his shoulder.
It’s a contrast that extends more broadly than just to Rhodes.
Cataloguing public information about the bin Laden raid is a somewhat overwhelming task — there’s just so much of it. Meanwhile, almost nothing is known about President Obama’s actions on the night of the Benghazi attack. A top adviser dismissed the president’s location that night as a “largely irrelevant fact” on Fox News Sunday.
We know the exact number of minutes (38) the SEAL team was inside the Abbottabad compound.
We know the exact time (8:20 p.m. on Friday, April 29, 2011) that President Obama authorized the raid.
We know what the SEALs relayed over the radio to notify Washington that bin Laden had been killed, and we know that Obama “pursed his lips, and said solemnly, to no one in particular, ‘We got him,’” according to a New Yorker article that benefited from extensive cooperation by the White House.
We know that Vice President Joe Biden was thumbing a rosary in the Situation Room.
We know that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a cold.
Thanks to photographs taken by the official White House photographer and released to the public, we know exactly who was in the room, what everyone was wearing, and the expressions they had on their face.
At midnight, the night of the raid, senior White House officials held a briefing for select reporters to provide details. In the following days, then–CIA director Leon Panetta, then–White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, and then–deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough all filled the television airwaves.
Three days after the raid, Obama himself invited Steve Kroft from 60 Minutes into the Oval Office for a chat (sample question: “Mr. President, was this the most satisfying week of your presidency?”).
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
* NOW... IN CONTRAST...
The total information known publicly about Obama’s actions on the evening of September 11, 2012:
The President was told about the Benghazi attack at a previously scheduled 5:00 p.m. meeting with Biden and Panetta, and he spoke with Clinton at 10:00 p.m. by phone.
He also spoke to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently for an hour, but not about Benghazi, according to reports.
That’s it.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who is investigating the matter, told National Review earlier this week: “From what we can tell, he went to the residence,” the emphasis being on “from what we can tell.”
(*NOD*)
Obama’s phone call with Clinton is known only because CNS News pestered Obama spokesman Jay Carney and the State Department for information earlier this year.
It appears that shortly after her phone call with Obama, Clinton released a statement blaming the attack on “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” (However, only an approximate time of their phone call was provided, so the timeline is murky.)
The following day, Obama delivered a statement on the attack at the White House and then met with Clinton at the State Department before departing to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser.
Is it fair to compare the two instances?
Certainly they are different circumstances. Killing the world’s most notorious terrorist is a cause for celebration. A terrorist attack on an American diplomatic facility in Libya was a terrible event. It’s only natural that politicians try to publicize the details of events that put them in a good light.
However, it’s not simply that the White House hasn’t volunteered information about Benghazi; it has actively stonewalled the questions of legitimate reporters on the topic. Remember, when he sought election in 2008, Obama vowed to preside over the “most transparent administration in history.” Clearly, it’s not that they don’t know how.
Post a Comment