Obama Drama - TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.05.15:
Donald Rumsfeld – TheBlazeTV - The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.05.15:
Dana Loesch v. Leslie Marshall Debate IRS Scandal on Sean Hannity – 5-16-13
Listen to the shamelessly hacktastic Jay Carney try to spin the Benghazi talking points release into a “victory” for the administration, calling the concern over the WH lies a ”faux controversy” drummed up by Republicans: Piers Morgan Grills Jay Carney About IRS, Benghazi: Has This Been ‘Your Toughest Week’ Ever?
ABC’s Jonathan Karl reports on the Obama Administration’s Release Benghazi Emails:
One day after accusing the media of acting as President Obama’s “scandal condom” on the Benghazi story, The Five’s Greg Gutfeld was at it again, this time calling MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert “media hacks” for their highly critical commentary on Fox News’ coverage.
“People died, but what difference does it make?” Gutfeld said sarcastically, echoing Hillary Clinton’s infamous Benghazi hearing question. “The story will probably die, like the four in Benghazi with the lapdog media standing down, making these so-called journalists co-conspirators in the Benghazi cover-up, and that’s comedy when you’re winning.” He summed up the position of Maddow, Stewart and Colbert like this: “They refuse to actually cover the story. Instead, they want to cover people who care about the story, because then that kind of absolves them from having to deal with the ugliness.”
Bill O’Reilly brought on Bernard Goldberg tonight to analyze how much the media has covered Benghazi in the aftermath of yesterday’s big hearing. O’Reilly noted how Fox News gave it the most coverage, the nightly newscasts gave it a few minutes of coverage, and MSNBC pretty much ignored it. Goldberg said that MSNBC ignoring the story basically makes the network no more than a “public relations firm” in the employ of President Obama and the Democratic party.
O’Reilly cited statistics showing that Fox News covered the hearing live for almost two hours, CNN for roughly fifteen minutes, and MSNBC for absolutely no time at all. He pointed out that all of the network newscasts led with the big news story from Cleveland, but the CBS Evening News had the most coverage, clocking in at almost five minutes. The morning shows had similarly minimal coverage.
There are times, not many thankfully, when I get depressed, brought down by the sorry evidence that we live in a country fixated on shiny objects. This is one of those times.
A jury in Phoenix has found Jodi Arias guilty of first-degree murder. That’s not what gets me down. What I find so depressing is our collective fascination with trivia, with anything that we can follow without having to actually think.
By 2012, the major media had become so comfortable with Clinton lies that not a single one among them pointed out the grotesque irony of having an unrepentant sexual predator keynote a Democratic Convention whose theme was the “Republican war on women.”
So accustomed had Hillary grown to having her lies glossed over that she grew increasingly indignant even at the timid questions Congress threw her way at the January 2013 Benghazi hearing.
When asked by Senator Ron Johnson about her version of events, Hillary exploded in an outburst destined to be at least as famous as her “vast right wing conspiracy” jeremiad.
Said Hillary, summing up the state of public integrity in 2013, “What difference at this point does it make?” Say what you will, but as recently as January that was a legitimate question.
To be sure, Benghazi will damage Hillary, at least in the short run. But come the Iowa Caucus in 2016, look for the media to champion version 2.0 of the “Comeback Kid.” They have too much emotional equity invested in Hillary to do otherwise.
Charles Krauthammer called State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell’s response to the Benghazi Hearing “pathetic.” Ventrell told reporters earlier today, ”We don’t believe that new information was necessarily presented that hadn’t been already either entered into the public record through congressional testimony or investigated by the ARB or otherwise looked at.”
Thursdays With Michelle Malkin – Benghazi Whistleblowers Speak Out – Fox & Friends – 5-9-13:
Mark Levin says that Hillary Clinton was NOT made to take the oath back in January when she appeared before a House committee to testify on Benghazi and he says it’s a disgrace and a crying shame.
“What difference at this point does it make?” Secretary Clinton responded in January to questions about the nature of the Benghazi attack. “Let’s put this behind us,” Secretary of State John Kerry complained last month. Last week, White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed press inquiries about the attack by saying, “Benghazi was a long time ago.”
But many more questions remain. Here are a dozen:
Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security to Benghazi?
Were there really no military assets available to provide relief during the seven hours of the attacks? If so, why not? During the attacks, were any military assets ordered to stand down?
If the secretary of defense thought there was “no question” this was a coordinated terrorist attack, why did Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the American people that the cause was a “spontaneous demonstration” about an Internet video?
Why did the State Department edit the intelligence talking points to delete the references to “Islamic extremists” and “al Qa’ida”?
Why did the FBI release pictures of militants taken the day of the attack only eight months after the fact? Why not immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing?
Why have none of the survivors testified to Congress?
Why is the administration apparently unaware of the whistle-blowers who have been attempting to tell their stories? Is it true that these career civil servants have been threatened with retaliation?
Did President Obama sleep the night of September 11, 2012? Did Secretary Clinton?
When was President Obama told about the murder of our ambassador? About the murder of all four Americans? What did he do in response?
What role, if any, did the State Department’s own counterterrorism office play during the attacks and in their immediate aftermath?
Why was Secretary Clinton not interviewed for the ARB report?
And why, if all relevant questions were answered in the ARB report, has the State Department’s own inspector-general office opened a probe into the methods of that very report?
“If any of the brothers were a Republican, this news would have been trumpeted by the mainstream media as tangible proof of the Republican War on Women — a narrative invented by Democrat strategists and maintained by the media in a successful effort to defeat Republican candidates in the 2012 election cycle.
“However, when a real act of war on women is perpetrated by a Democrat voter in the manner that even the most zealous Democrat strategist couldn’t have dreamed up in their worst nightmares — involving abduction, imprisonment, rape, torture, malnutrition, beatings while pregnant, and killing babies — the media doesn’t think the party affiliation is relevant.”
– Oleg Atbashian, American Thinker, “Ariel Castro, Cleveland Kidnapper, Is a Registered Democrat”
That all Democrats have rape dungeons in their basements;
or
That every resident of Cuyahoga County is a sexual predator.
These are illogical inferences, and quite possibly harmful stereotypes. Some violent sex offenders might sue you for libel if you accuse them of being Cuyahoga County Democrats.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – The Missouri Legislature sent the governor a bill Wednesday that would expand gun rights and declare all federal gun regulations unenforceable, in a response to President Obama’s push for gun control legislation.
The Republican-led Legislature passed the measure hoping to shield the state from federal proposals that would ban assault weapons and expand background checks. But the U.S. Senate’s defeat of a background check expansion three weeks ago did nothing to assuage the fears of Missouri Republicans who pressed forward with their legislation.
The Missouri House voted 118-36 Wednesday to send the bill to Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. The Senate passed the measure earlier this month.
This is huge. ICE Union president Chris Crane was invited on the Mark Levin Show tonight to explain how the Obama administration is cooking the books on immigration enforcement. What he said was pretty shocking.
According to Crane, ICE agents can no longer make street arrests of people they suspect to be an illegal aliens, illegal alien gang members or illegal alien criminals, despite having the authority to do so by laws enacted by Congress. He says they are under orders to wait until the illegal alien commits a crime, gets arrested by law enforcement and booked into a jail before they can even intercede.
Then they must wait until the illegal alien is convicted of 3 or more criminal offenses before they can put them in deportation process.
When it comes to cooking the immigration books, Crane says the record number of deportations that the Obama administration touts is a complete fraud. He calls it a shell game, saying what really happens is illegal aliens caught crossing the border by the Border Patrol and then sent back across are now added to ICE’s numbers of deportations, thus inflating the numbers immensely. Crane said last year over 50% of the deportations in ICE’s numbers were from those the border patrol agents caught and sent back across.
In reality, Crane says they now have the numbers to show that since 2008, the actual number of ICE deportations has plummeted since 2008.
For some reason, the Obama administration has been hiding the identities of the Benghazi attack survivors since the attack took place, last September. Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said a parent of one of the survivors currently at Walter Reed, told him, “if you had called into the hospital previously, you would never have found that person because they changed his name on the hospital records.”
Frustrated that Congress has not made any headway on this matter after six months, Greta Van Susteren asked Chaffetz why they haven’t put the whisteblowers under oath and gotten the answers? Chaffetz didn’t have a good answer for that and meekly noted that they had tried to get the members of the Accountability Review Board to testify before Congress, but they were refused. They’ve been trying to get answers from the Regime but have been stonewalled at every turn.
“You’ve got subpoena power!” Greta blasted, ” I don’t understand…I mean, why are you all so afraid to get some answers? I don’t know what happened or didn’t happen in Benghazi, but the only way to get the answers is if you ask them, and if they don’t come up and answer, you a drop a subpoena on them and you get them under oath by order!”
I thought Greta was a tad hard on Chaffetz for not investigating Benghazi more aggressively considering her own lame, soft-ball interview of Hillary“What difference does it make?” Clinton not too long ago. That said, she makes a good point.
Regarding the talking points: one source who reviewed the documents said removal of the word “al Qaeda” from the talking points was initiated, at least in part, by one of the “press shops.” The source said press officers from the Defense Intelligence agency, the White House and the FBI were “looped in” from the start and that some of them expressed concerns in writing that the media would ask follow up questions if certain words or phrases were used. The source added that the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell were included in these emails.
When asked whether Clapper and Morell misled Congress when they didn’t disclose who changed the talking points (because they knew), one source said “the exact right question wasn’t asked.”
The documents indicated numerous other changes were made to the talking points, including removal of certain references to an “attack.”
The source who reviewed the documents also flagged several emails prior to the Benghazi attacks from officials in Libya to Washington, D.C., that supposedly specifically warned of an imminent attack within days of the Benghazi consulate.
Additionally, the source says “most if not all contact” between officials in Libya and Washington, D.C., once the attacks began reference al Qaeda, al Qaeda-affiliated cells or both as being the suspected instigator from the very start. The few references to demonstrations were by people who hadn’t directly observed any.
“It’s amazing that anyone would question who was behind the attack and keep the idea of the demonstration going for weeks,” said the source.
Yes, it was amazing at the time, too, because for anyone who was remotely paying attention, it was obvious that it was a terrorist attack and not the result of a demonstration, but the slack-jawed media went out and uncritically reported the lies, accusing anyone who questioned the Regime of politicizing the issue.
So now, six months later, after the Liar in Chief is reelected, the truth finally comes out. The President, his Press Secretary, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton are all culpable for lying to the American people. But the journolistas tell us that “nobody cares about Benghazi” and they’re probably right. Since most of the MSM has ignored the story, so do most of the American people.
FOX News senior political analyst Brit Hume has been making this crucial and very disturbing point for over a week: Obama is prepared to let Americans suffer needlessly as long as he can blame the GOP and and score propaganda points for Democrats.
Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor, last night, he called Obama’s lack of leadership during the fights over the sequestration cuts, “very unusual” which is putting it mildly.
Over at Big Journalism, John Nolte sayss that Obama’s blame game has backfired:
Thirty-eight percent of Americans place more blame on the Republicans in Congress for the failure, while 33 percent blame President Obama and the Democrats in Congress more. Nineteen percent volunteer that they blame both sides.
When you add up those numbers, you discover that 52% of Americans blame Obama for sequester, while 57% blame the GOP. In other words, all that campaigning and water-carrying by the media did next to nothing to help Obama. More than half the country blames Obama, and he’s only polling a measly 5% better than the GOP.
That’s what you call a backfire.
I would frankly need to see more Americans blaming Obama than Republicans before I would call it a backfire, but given the fact that most of the MSM aided and abetted Obama in his hyper, weeks long, sequester blame game campaign, I would agree that it was a narrative fail. It was certainly not everything the Regime had hoped for, thanks to a few brave journalists – Bob Woodward – first and foremost among them, who dared to speak the truth.
Meanwhile, Obama’s enablers apparently consider themselves Marvel comics superheroes when they rush to their boyfriend’s defense every time he’s criticized….
Over the weekend, Bill Keller had the temerity to assign some blame for the sequester to President Obama. Within a day, the left’s commentariat had settled the issue in Obama’s favor, each linking to the other and repeating the claim that Keller was all wrong. Over at the Huffington Post, Jason Linkins summarized this group effort as a “Marvel team-up”:
It takes a Marvel team-up of three different reporters, from three different news organizations, to perform this elementary act of real-keeping. Meanwhile, Bill Keller can, in one column, undo the work of Harwood, his New York Times colleague.
Linkins actually mentions four reporters at three different news organizations, though three of the four–Klein, Sargent and Chait–are progressives who can reliably be counted on to side with the President. As far as a takedowns go, “Three Like-Minded Progressives Defend Obama” isn’t exactly red letter stuff, even if you throw in a tweet from a NY times reporter.
Via Dan Riehl, and the Politico, here’s the entire email from Gene Sperling, economic adviser to the president, and Bob Woodward’s cordial response:
From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013
Bob:
I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.
But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)
I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.
My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.
Gene
Almost sounding like a character in The Godfather, Sperling cautions Woodward “As a friend” to rethink his position. He tells him that he thinks Woodward will “regret” his claim.
But he graciously allows at the end of the letter that it’s Woodward’s “call”. What does that mean? Does Bob Woodward, veteran Washington reporter, and consummate insider who has talked to all of the involved parties really need to be told that?
From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013
Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob
For his part, Woodward does come off looking slightly two faced in his email response, saying that he welcomed Sperling’s “personal advice”, but giving interviews afterward complaining that the letter made him “very uncomfortable.”
Whether Capus resigned or was forced out because someone on the NBC board finally decided his moral illiteracy needed to come to an end doesn’t matter. What matters is that a management style that either encouraged this fraud or was helpless to stop it is out.
Now, less than three weeks later, we have yet another example of journalistic fraud, coming not from the MSNBC primetime clowncar lineup, but from the supposedly straight daytime news.
Today, when hosting a “serious” discussion about immigration reform, Roberts focused on the leaked plan from the White House this weekend which Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) decried and labeled as “dead on arrival.”
Roberts set his entire segment up under the premise that Republicans had no real substantive opposition to the President’s plan; they just opposed it because they hate Obama. His question to his guest, Rep. Henry Cueller (D-TX) was, “Is this strictly because President Obama’s name is attached to it?”
To set up his question, Roberts showed a clip of Rep. Ryan on ABC News’ “This Week.” The clip was meant to make it look like the Wisconsin congressman was opposed to the bill simply due to the fact that the President is for it, and not on any substantive level. However, take a look at the clip. MSNBC selectively edited Ryan in a very deceitful way. The transcript of the Roberts edit is as follows:
Ryan: ”Leaking this out does set things in the wrong direction …EDIT… This particular move, very counter-productive.”
That quote certainly helps Roberts’ premise, doesn’t it?
But, read the full quote from Ryan. Read what MSNBC deceptively removed from the congressman’s statement (in bold):
“Leaking this out does set things in the wrong direction. Look, the question that we always have to ask ourselves, particularly with this White House, is the president looking for a partisan advantage, or is he looking for a bipartisan law?
And by putting these details out without a guest worker program, without addressing future flow, by giving advantage to those who cut in front of line for immigrants who came here legally, not dealing with border security adequately, that tells us that he’s looking for a partisan advantage and not a bipartisan solution. There are groups in the House and the Senate working together to get this done, and when he does things like this, it makes it much more difficult to do that, and that’s why I think this particular move, very counterproductive.
So Roberts plays the deceptive clip as a premise for a full segment on how Republicans only oppose the President’s plan because Obama’s name is on it. But Ryan had very specific, policy related reasons why he opposed it.
Watch video at link.
The culture of corruption and left-wing bias is so strong at MSNBC, it really doesn’t matter who’s steering this ship of fools. They just can’t help themselves….
National and internationalmedia are up in arms today over the story of Neil Heslin, father of slain Sandy Hook student Jesse Lewis, being heckled yesterday during a Connecticut legislative meeting. During his testimony, in which he called for stricter gun control measures, Heslin was reportedly interrupted by shouts from Second Amendment activists:
“The Second Amendment!” was shouted a couple of times by as many as a dozen gun enthusiasts in the meeting room as Neil Heslin, holding a photo of his slain 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, asked why Bushmaster assault-style weapons are allowed to be sold in the state.
***
Except no. Not really. MSNBC is propping up its story with a blatantly edited video. In fact, Heslin was not heckled. Gun rights advocates in the audience indeed voiced their support for the Second Amendment — after he asked why anyone would need “assault-style weapons or high-capacity clips.” You’d never know based on the MSNBC version, which completely cut out the footage of Heslin’s question.
How desperate are the ObaMedia to get their fubar candidate reelected?
How about this. They resurrect a tired old meme about rich Republican candidates being “out of touch” with the average American because the modern supermarket electronic technology befuddle and “amaze” them. Andrea Mitchell wants us all to remember poppy Bush’s “supermarket scanners moment”…Now all these years later, we find that Mitt too, is “confused and frightened” by modern technology because these “out of touch” Republicans are just like SNL’s Caveman Lawyer or something.
But MSNBC “selectively edited” the tape to make it look like Romney was bringing up Wawa’s touchtone ordering system for no other reason than to express surprise.
Reacting angrily to selective editing by NBC that suggested racial animus by George Zimmerman, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell complained to Fox News’s Sean Hannity last night that NBC News was engaged in an “all-out falsehood.” The story in question was a March 27 Ron Allen report on NBC’s ‘Today’ in which 911 audio was edited to make it sound like George Zimmerman said “he looks black” immediately after saying “this guy looks like he’s up to no good.”
In the actual 911 audio, Zimmerman only described Martin’s race after the dispatcher asked, “And this guy: is he white, black, or Hispanic?” “To edit that out is so distorting,” Hannity complained. “Sean, it’s not distorting, it’s advancing a falsehood, it’s worse,” Bozell corrected the Fox News anchor. [see video below page break]
On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer fretted over health care reform protesters legally carrying guns: “A man at a pro-health care reform rally…wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip….there are questions about whether this has racial overtones….white people showing up with guns.”Brewer failed to mention the man she described was black.
Following Brewer’s report, which occurred on the Morning Meeting program, host Dylan Ratigan and MSNBC pop culture analyst Toure discussed the supposed racism involved in the protests. Toure argued: “…there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black person being president….we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that.” Ratigan agreed: “…then they get the variable of a black president on top of all these other things and that’s the move – the cherry on top, if you will, to the accumulated frustration for folks.”
Not only did Brewer, Ratigan, and Toure fail to point out the fact that the gun-toting protester that sparked the discussion was black, but the video footage shown of that protester was so edited, that it was impossible to see that he was black. The man appeared at a health care rally outside of President Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, Arizona.
GOP Presidential candidate Rick Perry calls President Obama a black cloud over our economy. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz edits the clip to make it look like Perry is calling Obama a “black cloud.”
A few weeks ago, the same site fooled libs a number of libson the internet when it ran a story claiming that Ann Coulter caused a ruckus, and refused to board a plane because the pilot was a black female.
The Sarah Palin Story is a cautionary tale about what can happen when politics and celebrity meet.
Fox News and their once-upon-a-time darling Palin recently parted ways after three years. But never fear. Palin has a new media outlet by which to share her commentary.
Late last week Al Jazeera America announced the former vice-presidential candidate would be joining their news network. Al Jazeera America recently bought Al Gore’s failing Current Media that broadcasts the Current TV channel. Ironically, Fox News recently called Al Jazeera “an anti-American terror mouthpiece.”
“As you all know, I’m not a big fan of newspapers, journalists, news anchors and the liberal media in general,” Palin told the Web site The Daily Currant. “But I met with the folks at Al-Jazeera and they told me they reach millions of devoutly religious people who don’t watch CBS or CNN. That tells me they don’t have a liberal bias.”
Get it? Sarah Palin’s so stoopid she didn’t know that the devoutly religious people Al Jazeera reaches are Muslims!
The Suzi Parker story is actually a cautionary tale about what can happen when politics and liberal bias and gullibility meet.
Parker not so smoothly tried to correct her gaffe with a correction that still included a nasty dig at Palin:
UPDATE:
An earlier version of this post incorrectly reported that Sarah Palin planned to contribute to the Al Jazeera America news network.
The original article was titled “Sarah Palin’s plan to reach ‘millions of devoutly religious people’ through al-Jazeera.” The amended now reads “Sarah Palin tries to stay relevant.”
As you can imagine, Parker’s taking a beating in the Post’s comment section:
“LOL, look how stupid that woman is! … Wait. What?”
LOL…WaPo struggling to stay relevant…
New verb: Reporters who report parody articles as news have been “Onioned”.
What’s next Suzi? Is Al Gore joining Fox News?
Hey, Suzi, I just heard Palin has signed on to become the spokeswoman for the crab people who live at the center of the earth and are planning on conquering the surface world. Be sure to mention that without checking it out in your next hit piece, you dimwitted hack.
Looks like if Suzi dropped a few pounds, she might be as hot as Sarah Palin.
Nice job Suzi! I got a picture of Palin in bikini holding an assault weapon you might be interested in too. Geez!
You can watch the MSNBC video at the Caller. YouTube has many other examples of ObamaMedia wannabes posting similarly edited videos. Here’s one of the sloppier ones.
Neil Heslin, whose six-year-old son Jesse was killed in the Sandy Hook massacre is heckled by gun activists as he begs for tighter firearms restrictions.
The unedited clip tells a completely different story – one that is actually of no use to the gun grabbing community.
He wasn’t heckled AT ALL, as Treacherand everyone else on the planet who has seen the complete video, can see:
He asked the question and demanded an answer. There was complete silence. And only then, when he said that not one person could answer it — rather than remaining quiet out of respect for his feelings — did a few people answer it. You might not like their answer if you don’t like the Second Amendment, but that answer wasn’t unprompted. They were not heckling him.
How stupid do they think people are? Stupid enough to reelect Obama.
How desperate are the ObaMedia to get their fubar candidate reelected?
How about this. They resurrect a tired old meme about rich Republican candidates being “out of touch” with the average American because the modern supermarket electronic technology befuddle and “amaze” them. Andrea Mitchell wants us all to remember poppy Bush’s “supermarket scanners moment”…Now all these years later, we find that Mitt too, is “confused and frightened” by modern technology because these “out of touch” Republicans are just like SNL’s Caveman Lawyer or something.
But MSNBC “selectively edited” the tape to make it look like Romney was bringing up Wawa’s touchtone ordering system for no other reason than to express surprise.
Reacting angrily to selective editing by NBC that suggested racial animus by George Zimmerman, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell complained to Fox News’s Sean Hannity last night that NBC News was engaged in an “all-out falsehood.” The story in question was a March 27 Ron Allen report on NBC’s ‘Today’ in which 911 audio was edited to make it sound like George Zimmerman said “he looks black” immediately after saying “this guy looks like he’s up to no good.”
In the actual 911 audio, Zimmerman only described Martin’s race after the dispatcher asked, “And this guy: is he white, black, or Hispanic?” “To edit that out is so distorting,” Hannity complained. “Sean, it’s not distorting, it’s advancing a falsehood, it’s worse,” Bozell corrected the Fox News anchor. [see video below page break]
On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer fretted over health care reform protesters legally carrying guns: “A man at a pro-health care reform rally…wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip….there are questions about whether this has racial overtones….white people showing up with guns.”Brewer failed to mention the man she described was black.
Following Brewer’s report, which occurred on the Morning Meeting program, host Dylan Ratigan and MSNBC pop culture analyst Toure discussed the supposed racism involved in the protests. Toure argued: “…there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black person being president….we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that.” Ratigan agreed: “…then they get the variable of a black president on top of all these other things and that’s the move – the cherry on top, if you will, to the accumulated frustration for folks.”
Not only did Brewer, Ratigan, and Toure fail to point out the fact that the gun-toting protester that sparked the discussion was black, but the video footage shown of that protester was so edited, that it was impossible to see that he was black. The man appeared at a health care rally outside of President Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, Arizona.
GOP Presidential candidate Rick Perry calls President Obama a black cloud over our economy. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz edits the clip to make it look like Perry is calling Obama a “black cloud.”
Folks, I just finished reading some of the Twitchy posts, and I highly recommend you do too, so you completely understand just what it is we’re dealing with.
-
It’s confounding how many libs are peddling obvious lies. The video was debunked this morning, yet some news outlets are continuing with the BS. Piers Morgan will interview the Sandyhook dad on his show, tonight. Time will tell if he plays along with the left-wing narrative, or do the honorable thing and tell the truth.
-
See, these progs come in two types – 1. the ringleading committed lefty hacks like Eric Boehlert and Piers Morgan who dupe people for a living and are proud of it because the ends justify the means. Every lie they tell takes us one step closer to their Socialist Utopia in their minds. And 2. the mindless droneswho follow them. They have been conditioned to think what their betters tell them to think, not to think things out on their own. The truth to them is like garlic to a vampire. It’s not easy accepting that you’re entire worldview is based on left-wing agitprop.
-
Twitchy is doing God’s work tracking the organized left’s antics and exposing their lies and hypocrisy on Twitter. Little by little, we’re chipping away at their effectiveness by shining the light of truth on their putrid BS.
I rarely watch CNN and I sure as hell don’t watch the treacherous, phone-hacking, tabloid plagiarist, Piers Morgan. Lately, watching YouTube clips of his hysterical anti-gun antics has been hard to avoid, though, as he hectors conservative guest after guest, chiding them, insulting them and talking over them, because demagogue that he is, he understands that allowing the enemy to get their point across means death to his political argument. Better to interrupt and yammer on about tanks. The political strawman. What would left wing hacks do without it?
What fun Dana Loesch would have had if she had been privy to this information the other night, when Piers ridiculed her suggestion that the New York man who was viciously attacked by a gang of 7 might have defended himself with a gun had New York’s strict gun laws not been in place.
In 2004 Morgan penned an op-ed for the Evening Standard headlined “I can’t be liberal on burglars,” in which he said he said a series of home invasions and robberies at his home made him wish for a gun. Britain, which had banned all guns, had seen a rash of break-in burglaries, one of which took the life of financier John Monckton.
If Monckton “had killed one of those burglars while defending himself … then he would now be facing a jail sentence for manslaughter or even murder,” Morgan wrote. “No part of my liberalism allows me to deem this fair.”
“I am now so liberal on most things that my army-officer brother likes to refer to me as a ‘wet, pinko, cheese-eating surrender monkey,’” Morgan wrote. “I’m antiwar, don’t like foxhunting, feel threatened by ID cards, and think cannabis should be decriminalised.”
Heads up there for the next conservative who goes on his show, (not that I recommend it.) The next time he claims to be knowledgeable about guns because of his army officer brother (he’s actually done this), respond with a giggle, “oh, the one who called you a ‘wet, pinko, cheese-eating surrender monkey?” Just to knock him off his game, a little.
I wonder if that was before or after he resigned in disgrace from The London Daily Mirror for publishing fraudulent pictures of British soldiers abusing prisoners in Iraq. Given that the Regiment’s Brigadier said the pictures severely damaged the reputation of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment (QLR), and a former regiment commander of the QLR said the pictures actually put lives in danger, serving as a “recruiting poster” for al-Qaeda – it’s a wonder Piers’ brother didn’t have worse things to say about him. He got off easy with ‘wet, pinko, cheese-eating surrender monkey.’
But listen to Piers as he argues that violence is sometimes necessary and excusable if it’s to protect oneself and one’s property.
“I wouldn’t shoot anyone because, like most people in this country, I’m not licensed to carry a gun,” he insisted. “But if I woke up to find a thug in my house at 2am, stealing my hard-earned things, and posing a clear and present threat to my wellbeing and perhaps that of my children, then I wouldn’t hesitate to grab the hardest thing I could find and defend myself.”
“And if I killed a burglar in that situation, I would expect the law to be on my side, not the despicable little toerag defiling my life.”
Morgan applauded Sir John Stevens, then the commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police, “for urging the law to better empower householders to defend themselves properly” because “for an elderly woman living on her own a burglary, violent or otherwise, must be a liferuining experience.”
It almost sounded like he would shoot someone breaking into his home – if guns were legal.
Who else would Piers Morgan shoot if he owned a gun? Oh, after he was fired from the Daily Mirror, he described for The Daily Mail what he would do to his professional enemies, including Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson, writer A.A. Gill and editor Ian Hislop if he owned a fully automatic MACHINE GUN.
This latest gem from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas targets media hypocrisy in the gun debate.
Undercover journalists were dispatched to New York and DC to knock on the doors of notable anti-gun editors, commentators and journalists following the publishing of names and addresses of law abiding gun owners in the Journal News.
Their responses are as enlightening as they are hilarious.
Note- the anti-gun dorks at the beginning (including O’Keefe himself), are actors satirizing this video.
If you want to see more videos like these, please make a contribution to Project Veritas.
At the home of Star-Ledger columnist Bob Braun, the Veritas crew was told, “I am on your side on this, but I’m just wondering if that’s not an invitation to somebody with a gun…. it’s an invitation to come barging in.”
Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Candy Crowley, Sunday morning, National Rifle Association President David Keene said he doesn’t think there’s enough legislative support for another ban “right now,” but that might not necessarily hold.
“When a president takes all the power of his office and he’s willing to expend political capital, you don’t want to make predictions — you don’t want to, you don’t want to bet your house on the outcome,” Keene said. “I would say that the likelihood is that they’re not going to be able to get an assault weapons ban through this Congress.”
Keene said he doesn’t think regulations on high-capacity ammunition clips are likely either, saying they would be difficult to regulate because they’re so widespread.
“Even David Gregory could find one,” he said, after the NBC host was investigated by Washington, D.C. police for holding a magazine up on television last month.
When Crowley tried to accuse the NRA of ramping up fear of a gun ban in its members, Keene replied that it was Senator Feinstein and Obama who are the ones driving all the gun sales in this country – not the NRA. See video at MRC.
On Friday’s Special Report, the panel agreed that the chances of any major changes in our gun laws was looking highly unlikely due to the Obamocrats’ gross overreach after Sandy Hook, (which Jonah Goldberg found fascinating because the left was hoping for an anti- gun backlash, and the opposite happened.) See RCPfor video of that discussion. (Start at 2:17 for gun control portion.) After commenting on Biden’s assertion that Newtown was going to be “an inflection point” – a moment when the climate had changed, it obviously wasn’t, Krauthammer said:
“What is astonishing is the backlash against the attempt of the anti-gun people to use a moment to pass new restrictive legislation – the increase in NRA membership, the huge explosion in sales, and it shows that we are a country very different from any in the West if there’s ever going to be a change, it’s going to take a generation, it’s not going to happen from legislation, and it’s not going to happen in the near term.”
I think Keene is right, and the panel is a bit premature in their prognostications. Obama has shown time and time again – with the Stimulus, which inspired the Tea Party movement, the unpopular ObamaCare, which a majority of Americans opposed, and after the shellacking in the 2010 election, which was supposed to cause him to pivot to the right, that he doesn’t care a whit what most Americans, or at least a significant portion of Americans think. When he wants something bad enough, it’s full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes. And what’s to stop him now that he doesn’t have to worry about reelection? I wouldn’t be surprised to see him use “all the power of his office” including executive orders to get what he wants on . We’ll see what kind of backlash that causes if it happens.
Also, why is the president of the NRA ceding to the left the upper hand in gun verbiage?
AsDana Loeschnoted on her blog, yesterday there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.”
Any device used to assault (a behavior or action) someone can be defined as an “assault weapon.” There exist fully automatic firearms and semi automatic firearms, period. There technically is no such thing as an “assault rifle,” either. The term is a Nazi invention (Sturmgewehr) fully named Sturmgewehr 44, and is regarded as the first “assault” rifle. Firearms which shared the technical characteristics of Hitler’s rifle were casually defined with this sobriquet and it grew over time.
The problem with using this phrase to define scary-looking rifles is that it betrays a gross lack of knowledge on firearms. The rifle Lanza had in the trunk of his car (and there are various conflicting reports from a too-eager media about whether or not this rifle was used in the shootings) was not an “assault rifle.” Anyone claiming that it was is insisting that Lanza’s weapon was a military-grade rifle capable of selective fire, meaning, it has the giggle-switch to kick it from semi-automatic to fully automatic. I’ve shot so-called “assault rifles” and I own semi-automatics. They are not the same. Anyone calling any of these rifles “assault rifles” used in the Sandy Hook shooting and any other such tragedies are claiming that fully-automatic weapons, regulated to banned, are somehow in the civilian market used in mass shootings.
George Soros’ Center for American Progress (CAP) has published a list of 13 new pieces of legislation they claim we need right now, in the wake of the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary.
As you will see, these proposals–like others from liberals–would not have stopped the shooting from taking place: they would not even have hindered it. But they would make it harder for law abiding citizens to get the guns they need to defend their lives and families.
For example, one of new laws that CAP wants is an end to private gun sales. This would include, of course, an end to those dreaded gun shows.
Question: Did Adam Lanza buy his guns in a private sale? No. He took them illegally and used them illegally.
Another proposal by CAP is for states to turn over more personal information on citizens to the federal gov. so that background checks work better.
Question: Did Adam Lanza foil the background check system to get his weapons? No. As a matter of fact, reports indicate he purposely forewent the background check because he knew he wouldn’t pass it.
Freshman Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut told CNN today the National Rifle Association is flat-out wrong.
“Newtown fundamentally changed things. And the NRA just doesn’t get this. They’ve got to come to the table on gun control just as they say they’re coming to the table on mental health because their previous backers in the House and the Senate aren’t with them anymore.“
On Sunday night, December 16, 2012, a man went to the China Garden restaurant in San Antonio and opened fire. The gunman intended to kill his ex-girlfriend but as she wasn’t there, he continued on to the movie theater next door where he fired on panicked moviegoers, sending them to the exits, and ducking for cover.
Witnesses said numerous shots were fired inside and outside the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theater complex on Southwest Military Drive around 9:25 p.m., setting off the scramble to safety before police and EMS arrived. The complex was evacuated and sealed off for several hours.
“He was shooting at a marked unit,” Antu said. “He knows he was shooting at an officer so that’s (an) automatic (charge of) attempted capital murder.”
Witnesses said the shooting reminded them of the Dark Knight theater massacre last July that killed 12 people and injured 58 in Aurora, Colo.
The story was covered locally, but seeing as it happened just one day after the Sandyhook massacre in Connecticut, you would think it would have gotten more airplay in the MSM. Don’t stories like this one play right into their anti-gun hands?
No – not this one.
After the suspect reached the theater, an off duty Bexar County Sheriff officer who was working at the theater shot at him and possibly struck him, Antu said.
And nobody died. The armed officer’s quick response saved lives that night.
Officials said the officer, Sgt. Lisa Castellano, heard the gunfire inside the theater and ran towards the sound of the shooting to find out what was going on. Sgt. Castellano spotted Garcia coming out of a bathroom with his gun drawn and fired at him, shooting him four times.
“The officer involved, she took the appropriate action to try to keep everyone safe in the movie theater,” Bexar County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Detective Lou Antu said.
An off-duty San Antonio Independent School District officer who was also at the theater helped take Garcia into custody.
Garcia has since undergone surgery and is in stable condition at San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC). He has been charged with attempted capital murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. His bond has been set at $10 million.
So back to why the national media didn’t find this story to be worth their time, blogger Hardnox makes the point:
…. since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
RELATED:
Via Right Planet: Boy Uses Dad’s AR-15 to Shoot Invader – THIS is why we have the second amendment:
Marshall defended the newest Gun Control effort. When Sean Hannity asked her what she would do if someone broke into her house, she actually said it would not help to have a gun, instead saying she would depend on “a big mouth to scream with” to protect herself!
Well they WOULD have it covered if conservatives weren’t constantly jumping in, politicizing stuff, making mountains out of molehills, and generally mucking things up with their silly, obnoxious conservative spin.
… if folks are truly scandalized by the lack of generalized media outrage about Crowder’s treatment, they should take a second look at Crowder’s actions. Though he appears to have carried himself nobly while under attack, he’s gone buffoonish since then. He said on Twitter yesterday that this is “getting fun.” He challenged his assailant to a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fight. And he has generally sounded as if he’s enjoying this boost to his career prospects, in a way that his Halloween-candy-exposes-the-fraud-of-income-redistribution stunt did not.Given how Crowder has carried on, I, too, may well pass on the story of his beating, were I a network executive producer.
Of course, this is a standard applied only to conservatives – as Acenotes, Sandra Fluke also “engaged in a great deal of partisan political agitation with a strong component of self-promotion (hiring a PR firm, for example!)”
The media offered the same excuse for not covering Benghazi– Oh, we wanted to cover Benghazi, and would have covered it, but then Mitt Romney tried to raise it as an issue for us to cover, so we couldn’t of course cover it.
It’s important to note, here, that the conservative media did jump in right away and vigorously covered the Benghazi story, which had all the earmarks of a scandal, right from the beginning. The MSM used to be good at sniffing out scandals. But when there’s a hotly contested presidential race to win, and their Precious could be hurt by their reportage – not so much…
Ace continues…
Liberal sort of logic here, eh? If a conservative wants a genuinely newsworthy story covered (as Wemple admits this is, before these defend-the-media paragraphs), then the liberal media is required to shut that conservative out. The story becomes non-coverable simply because an important actor in it — a conservative — wishes it to be covered.
What liberals really want is for us to go back to the days before talk radio, and cable news, when their monopoly on the news business was complete. The choice for conservatives apparently is to either shut up and wait for them to cover important stories (like Benghazi, or Fast and Furious) on their own (which presumably they’d do with the conservative media out of the way) – or we continue to shine a light on the stories we know they would embargo no matter what we did.
Because it’s not about us, at all. It’s about THEM and their need to spin stories that are helpful to their side, and ignore the ones that aren’t.
Beyond its military operation targeting the Hamas terrorist infrastructure in Gaza, Israel is invested in an intense media campaign to make sure its side of the story is being heard overseas. But that’s not always easy to do.
In an interview with Israel’s top envoy to the United States on Saturday, MSNBC provided yet another example of how much work Israeli officials face in their effort to pass through the filter of the mainstream media and present their side of the story.
MSNBC’s Mara Schiavocampo began her interview of Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren straightforwardly enough, asking “What would be the trigger for a ground operation? What’s the red line here?”
Oren answered, “You have the equivalent of what would be about 170 million Americans under bomb shelters. If Hamas continues to escalate we will take the necessary and legitimate measures to defend our citizens.”
Schiavocampo’s second question might be considered more controversial, positing the argument that long-range rockets carrying warheads weighing between 20 and 90 kilograms — 46 to 198 pounds — aren’t actually dangerous to human life. She asked: “Living under the threat of rocket attack is certainly a psychological trauma. But what would you say to those who argue that the rockets are essentially very ineffective, they rarely do damage and that the response from Israelis is disproportional to the threat they’re under.”
Oren answered she might want to pose that question to the three Israelis killed by a rocket in Kiryat Malachi on Thursday (see TheBlaze’s story here and Glenn Beck’s segment looking at media bias and profiling the victims here). Oren suggested Schiavocampo envisage what would happen if Hamas were bombing America. He said:
“Imagine if one rocket had fallen in the United States and not now since the year 2009, our last operation, we’ve had something in the vicinity of 8,000 rockets fall on the State of Israel. That’s more than twice all of the German rockets that fell on London during World War II. And you saw how the British and Americans reacted to that.”
The IDF has taken over the frequency and is using it to broadcast warnings to the Gaza population.
According to Israel’s Channel 2 news, the broadcasts were replaced with IDF radio playing messages of warning to Gaza’s residents, and announcing another stage in operation Pillar of Defense aimed at crippling Gaza’s terror infrastructure.
IDF VIDEO: “Terrorists put an underground launch site next to a mosque. We targeted the site. The mosque was unharmed.”
Sorry, IDF, but mosques with or next to missile launchers should be destroyed. They lose house of worship status when they become rocket launching bases.
The dead child was paraded before the cameras during the visit of Egyptian prime minister Hisham Kandil, who kissed the dead child in the presence of Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh. But even the New York Timeswas suspicious.
Bloggers such as Elder of Ziyon quickly pieced together the evidence of Hamas fakery:
The IDF did not launch any airstrikes in Gaza while Egyptian PM Kandil was in Gaza…
If it was an Israeli missile, you can be sure that it would have been shown to the media! Furthermore, PCHR, which is keeping track of everyone killed in Gaza (and which admits that most of the dead have been “militants,”) did not list Mahmoud Sadallah or Aiman Aby Wardah in their list of victims of Israeli airstrikes, although they even include one person who died of a heart attack.
Put this together with the fact that Hamas and other terror groups were firing rockets throughout Friday morning while the IDF did not, plus the fact that over 100 rockets have fallen short in Gaza (both using past performance and IDF statistics as proof), and the fact that the shrapnel in the video matches almost exactly the shrapnel damage we have seen from rocket fire into Israel, and it is very clear: this child was killed by Gaza rocket fire, not by Israel.
Hamas has a well-established pattern of faking civilian deaths in Gaza, even as it seeks civilian deaths in Israel (and fakes that, too, pretending it is firing at military targets). Last week, Breitbart News caught Hamas using a month-old photo of a dead Syrian boy and claiming he had been killed by Israel–a double irony, since the Assad regime that killed the boy hosted Hamas for years before the outbreak of the Syrian civil war.
What lovely people.
Hamas released a new ad this week on Palestinian Terror TV. In the ad the terror group warns Israelis, “We may kill you in your sleep.”
Scharf and her husband also ran the Chabad House in New Delhi. During a home visit to Israel, Scharf, also pregnant, was killed by a missile that struck the apartment where she was staying in Kiryat Malachi. Her husband and three young children were all wounded in the same attack. As each was hospitalized, none was able to attend her funeral.
The horrible irony here is that Scharf had scheduled this trip to enable her to do two things: attend a memorial service marking the four-year-anniversary of the deaths of her colleagues, the Holtzbergs, and to give birth in Israel. Instead, the 25-year-old and her soon-to-be-born baby were laid to rest in Jerusalem on Thursday evening.
On Friday, a delegation headed by Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil arrived in Gaza to “broker a cease-fire” between Hamas and Israel. To call this ridiculous would be the understatement of the century. There is no need for “brokering.” The minute the rockets stop flying into Israel, there will be an end to Israeli strikes against Hamas targets in Gaza, pure and simple.
(TheBlaze/AP) — Gaza’s Hamas rulers are aiming high in the conditions they place on stopping rocket fire into Israel in indirect cease-fire talks launched this weekend. Emboldened by Arab support and confident in their arsenal, the Islamists say calm can only come if Israel opens the gates of the tiny, closed-off territory.
The question is how far Hamas will go to reach that long-sought goal, which Israel opposes out of fear of an influx of weapons to Gaza militants.
Not all that surprising, liberals disdain for Israel is well known.
Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans say that Israel’s current military strikes against Gaza are justified, according to a new national survey.
A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday indicates that 57% of the public says Israel is justified in taking military action in Gaza against Hamas, with one in four saying the attacks are unjustified. [...]
Perhaps its because the election is over and they can no longer lie about republican positions on the issues, the mainstream media is working hard via lies, spin and false reports, to sway opinion against Israel in its battle to stop the Hamas terrorists from firing rockets into her civilian areas.
Between Saturday and Tuesday of last week Hamas terrorists fired over 150 rockets from Gaza into Israeli Civilian areas, this was on top of another 700 rockets launched this year prior to that assault.
On Wednesday the IDF directed a precision attack on Ahmed Jabri, the head of Hamas’ “military wing” in the Gaza Strip. Jabri was a senior operative of the terrorist group and was directly responsible for executing terror attacks against the Jewish State in the past number of years.
The mainstream media acted as if they were unfamiliar with Jabri’s history, the weekend of terror coming out of Gaza and in some cases the fact that Israel left the Gaza strip over seven years ago.
Associated Press’ coverage of the incident referred to Israel’s air strike as an “assassination,” that resumption of “Israel’s policy of assassinating Palestinian militant leaders,” pointed out that “Israeli aircraft have previously assassinated the previous commander of Hamas’ military wing,” and noted that “Israeli officials had said that they were considering assassinating top Hamas officials following a wave of rocket fire.”
In case you missed it, Obama’s press conference went off just as predicted - the lapdog media threw mostly softballs and didn’t challenge the president who gave his usual long winded answers.
This noteworthy exchange on Benghazi gave him a neat opportunity to demonstrate righteous anger at the way his loyal underling, Susan Rice is being treated by mean ol’ Republicans, transcript via NY Times Politics:
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. As Senator Graham said, he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I’d like your reaction to that. And would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I’m not going to comment at this point on various nominations that I’ll put forward to fill out my Cabinet for the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed.
But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.
You know what’s outrageous? No one followed up with the question; “okay then, who in your administration supplied her with the bogus intelligence?”
Oh, because that’s still “under investigation.”
They’re looking at the guy, for God’s sake.
And you know, we’re after an election now.
Nice – the same pissy thing he told John McCain during the ObamaCare summit in Feb, 2010, “the election is over, John.” Whenever someone questions this corrupt regime’s maneuvers, you see, it’s “politics.” Pissant.
I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants. We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information. And we’ve got a full-blown investigation, and all that information will be disgorged to Congress.
Here’s some questions he could answer right now, but none of the lapdogs dared ask it: What did you, Panetta, and Biden talk about during your 5:00 meeting on 9/11? What were you doing on the night of 9/11? Did you watch any of the attack as it was being livestreamed in the situation room? Those answers might be interesting. But instead we get to hear twaddle like this:
And I don’t think there’s any debate in this country that when you have four Americans killed, that’s a problem. And we’ve got to get to the bottom of it, and there needs to be accountability. We’ve got to bring those who carried it out to justice. They won’t get any debate from me on that.
But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me. And should I choose — if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity — the State Department, then I will nominate her. That’s not a determination that I’ve made yet.
I’ve got a problem with liars, and thus I have a problem with this entire regime.
And so does Lindsey Graham:
Lindsey Graham statement: "Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi."
Also: “the intelligence she received.” Passive voice. Why does he avoid saying who gave her the intelligence? It’s a shifty construction. If there was nothing amiss, he should have no problems specifying who gave her this “intelligence.”
You avoid naming names when you have something to hide.
He calls the exchange, “sick-making.” Everything about this President is sick-making.
WOW! Obama was confronted today by Ed Henry from FOX News if he “made an order” to save the heroes in Benghazi. —
He says he gave the order to “keep our people safe.”
** But he WOULD NOT ANSWER if he gave a direct order to save our men in Benghazi!!
It was the only meaningful question from the whole press conference.
The lapdog media was particularly timid this afternoon.
You would think that after eight months, the media would be loaded for bear when the opportunity finally arose to ask President Obama serious questions about something other than a campaign — especially in the wake of Libya, an anemic economic recovery, and the oncoming fiscal cliff.
You would think the media would want some — no — would demand some answers as to why for two whole weeks we were told Libya was the result of a video as opposed to a premeditated terror attack.
But if you think that, you don’t understand our media.
A few questions were asked about Libya — but really only two. One Libya question was really about the President’s willingness to stand by and support U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice after Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham’s said today they would oppose her being nominated for Secretary of State. Many, including myself, believe Rice was willingly trotted out on all the Sunday shows a week after the September 11 anniversary attack to lie about Libya not being premeditated.
To this question, Obama replied forcefully, challenging McCain and Graham to come after him instead of Rice. In other words, like he did during the debates, Obama used faux indignation as a defense against his dishonest mishandling of Libya, because this is something he knows his media pals will eat up. And eat it up they have.
Today, President Obama held his first press conference in five months. It was a bizarre mix of softball questions from his press sycophants, false righteous indignation from the president over his administration’s Benghazi failures and lies, and an oddly blustery position shift on tax hikes as opposed to tax loopholes.
Obama opened his press conference with his usual patter about class warfare and the fiscal cliff, insisting on raising taxes first and foremost. Then a reporter asked him about whether he knew about the Petraeus investigation – or whether he should have known. “I have no evidence at this point that classified information was disclosed … there’s an ongoing investigation, and I don’t want to comment on the specifics of that investigation.” Obama then threw the ball to FBI Director Robert Mueller. Obama did say that “by his own assessment, he did not meet the standards” he needed to as director of the CIA. “It’s on that basis that I accepted [his resignation],” Obama added.
“We’re not supposed to meddle in criminal investigations, and that’s been our practice,” said Obama, ignoring his long history of meddling in criminal investigations including Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Trayvon Martin.
Sen. John McCain was asked Wednesday if there was a greater national security threat in the classified documents uncovered in the Petraeus scandal than in the Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: AYou called at it a show of passion, I would say it was his usual show of indignation, which is his default response whenever he feels defensive or backed into a corner. ‘How dare you attack my U.N. ambassador?’ And then he gives the strangest defense by saying she didn’t have anything to do with the Benghazi [attack]. Then why the hell are you sending her out there? Why didn’t you send out the Secretary of State, or the CIA Director, or [Secretary of Defense] Panetta or somebody, who did know?
And then he does play the sort of Lancelot defending the mistress in distress? It made Mitt Romney and the binders with women look positively feminist in comparison, this kind of patronizing attack on the two male Senators who would dare attack the girl, which what was intended in his tone. This is all the usual — you know, if you attack the pride, he’ll strike you on that. It was clearly defensive, and it was also a stonewall. I mean, after all, what she said was absolutely and completely misleading. Either inadvertently, in which case it’s complete incompetence or on purpose, in which case it’s deception. Then he basically, he took the bait on that and said, ‘Look, that wasn’t her speaking, that was me speaking. If you want to pick on somebody, pick on me.’
How can anybody pick on him or even question him, if he hadn’t had a press conference in eight months? You know, he clearly hasn’t been out there. He’s been hiding behind inquiries, behind investigations, and now behind Susan Rice. But now I think he’s out there, and he is vulnerable on this. I think he may regret having said that.
President reveals White House sent out UN ambassador to address Benghazi attacks, but says she had ‘nothing to do’ with Libya probe
With Kirsten Powers who makes many of the same points Charles Krauthammer did- video at link.
Powers seems to have turned on this president over the Benghazi issue.
And you know….go back and read that statement from Lindsey Graham. Obama’s not getting any kind of honeymoon this time around. (Outside of his biggest fans – the MSM, that is.)
RT @DarrellIssa: Would you want @hhsgov employees helping you find health coverage under #obamacare to have access to your SSN without a ba… 2 hours ago
