Wednesday, October 17, 2012

THIS JUST IN! CANDY'S CAMPAIGN!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE


IN NEW YORK LAST NIGHT, THE DUOPOLY ARRANGEMENT WAS HIT WITH A MAJOR SET BACK AS PLANS BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO SHUT OUT THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES WAS IGNORED.

GOP CANDIDATE, GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY, FACED NOT ONLY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, BUT A HENCEFORTH UNKNOWN RIVAL, ONE CANDY CROWLEY OF THE PREVIOUSLY UNHEARD OF CNN PARTY.

MS. CROWLEY MADE CLEAR FROM THE START THAT SHE WAS GOING TO HAVE EQUAL TIME AND THAT HER OPINIONS, IN HER MIND, WERE AS IMPORTANT AS ANY CANDIDATES. 

SHE WOULD GO ON TO TAG TEAM, WITH BARRY O, MITT ROMNEY ON THE LIBYA ISSUE AND ONLY LATER, BASKING IN THE GLOW OF HER AGGRESSIVE DEBATE PERFORMANCE ON CNN, WOULD SHE ADMIT THAT MITT ROMNEY WAS BASICALLY RIGHT ABOUT LIBYA.

LAST NIGHT, IT WAS ALL ABOUT CANDY!


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Changing topics, if press stupidity and press whoring were executable crimes, there'd be a lot more people on death row today and two who would be facing the needle/gas chamber/electric chair?  The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times and  The Atlantic's Garance Franke-Ruta.  Franke-Ruta is disgusting.  She brings up the father of the late US Ambassador Chris Stevens saying that his son's death shouldn't be made "into a campaign issue" but slides past because she wants to do just that.  Grasp that.
 
Let's also grasp what we're talking about.  From last week's US House Oversight Committee hearing.
 
Committee Chair Darrell Issa:  On September 11, 2012, four brave Americans serving their country were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.  Tyrone Woods spent two decades as a Navy Seal serving multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Since 2010, he protected the American diplomatic personnel.  Tyrone leaves behind a widow and three children.   Glen Doherty, also a former Seal and an experienced paramedic, had served his country in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  His family and colleagues grieve today for his death.  Sean Smith, a communications specialist, joined the State Dept after six years in the United States Air Force.  Sean leaves behind a widow and two young children.  Ambassador Chris Stevens, a man I had known personally during his tours, US Ambassador to Libya, ventured into a volatile and dangerous situation as Libyans revolted against the long time Gaddafi regime.  He did so because he believed the people of Libya wanted and deserved the same things we have: freedom from tyranny. 
 
 
Realize please that you come off like a stuck up bitch every time you say "an attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others."  What is that?  "And the rest here on Gilligan's Island"?  You can't list three more names?  They aren't important to you?  They're just props?  That's what it sounds like.  If you gave a damn about four Americans and were writing because you gave a damn, you'd list their names. 
 
If you want to honor the dead, you don't do it by rendering them nameless.  And you don't write sentences like this, "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday said the first line-of-duty death of a U.S. ambassador since the Carter Administration was on her."  It's the bad writer who's turning it into Chris Stevens and Three Backup Singers.  We'll deal with Hillary in a bit.
 
Let's deal with the father's feelings first: Important in the private world.  Note that we're not even mentioning the man's name.  But here's reality, 4 Americans died -- and, everybody get it through your damn heads, it wasn't just Chris Stevens.  You've got four families.  I believe the mother of Sean Stevens wants answers -- wasn't that what she told Anderson Cooper on 360 last week?  But even if all four were calling for a press black out, too damn bad.
 
This was not a suicide.  This is four Americans killed in an attack in a foreign country, killed because they were Americans.  Your child and your memories of them are for your private consumption, fine.  But a terrorist attack isn't Little Susie or Little Johnny pissed themselves at school and let's not embarrass them by telling the whole world.  This was a terrorist attack and that made it an international concern and a public event.
 
Unlike me, GF-R can't find a clue so she pretends like the father's making a request that would or could be honored.  But she then dismisses the request.  That's pretty craven.  Some might argue that what she's about to share is politicizing the deaths --  GF-R says tilting her head and biting her cringing lips, but -- "But this isn't how you put out a self-serving account."
 
How stupid is this woman? 
 
If you want to put out a self-serving account, how do you do it?  You do an on-background briefing.  Then it's never traced back to you.  And that's what she's praising.  A State Dept "on-background briefing" from last week.  Again, how stupid is this woman?
 
In a democracy, government is supposed to take place in the open.  We don't rush to embrace one or several officials who won't even go on the record.
 
It only gets worse as she tries to make it better.  This woman earned a college degree?  Seriously?  The same woman who wants to argue, "But no one died in their sleep."  That's her spin?  That's her 'up' in the equation?  What a moron.
 
And what an offensive column.  "But no one died in their sleep."  Well, Garance, as far as we know, no one died in their sleep in the Twin Towers, at the Pentagon or in the planes on September 11, 2001 either.  That didn't make that attack any less tragic.  What a moron.
 
"While Republicans continue to charge administration cover-up and denial, the State Department's moves have repeatedly undermined both charges," the idiot writes.  Did she attend the hearing?  Of course not.  If she had actual facts, she'd never be able to do that 'creative writing' that's become her hallmark.  I was at the hearing.  (Community coverage includes: "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot,"  "Iraq snapshot," "2 disgrace in the Committee hearing," "The White House's Jimmy Carter moment" and "What we learned at today's hearing.")  I also know what was said on the Sunday chat & chews.  The Republican members of the House Oversight Committee praised the State Dept and Hillary by name.  (The only exception being US House Rep Jason Chaffetz.)  Darrell Issa, the Committee Chair, started the hearing by thanking Hillary and the State Dept for what they were doing and for the information they were providing.  So exactly what Republicans in Congress is the idiot GF-R referring to?  Oh, that's right, the ones talking in her head. 
 
And after Hillary's media appearances late yesterday, did the Republican Congress members pile on?  Not according to Hillary Is 44 which notes: 
 
Consider Senator Lindsay Graham. Early yesterday Graham sent Obama a letter asking Obama whether he knew of the previous attacks on the Benghazi compound and if so what Obama did about it?
Years ago Representative Lindsay Graham was an impeachment manager against Bill Clinton. Did now Senator Graham attack Hillary Clinton and demand her immediate resignation? No. Senator Graham's response to the Lima statement by Hillary remained focused on Barack Obama:
"Her remarks drew a quick response from three Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, including ranking member John McCain.
Clinton's statement of responsibility was "a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever," the Arizona senator said in a joint broadside with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."
Senator Graham and Hillary Clinton know where the buck stops: [. . .]
 
Competing with The Atlantic for the dunce cap is the Los Angeles Times which may win as a result of bad editorials like the one today containing this:
 
The Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, in which U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was a tragedy. Was it also preventable? At a congressional hearing last week, Eric Nordstrom, the State Department's former regional security officer in Libya, criticized his superiors for ignoring his concerns about the growing risk of armed militias and extremist groups in Benghazi. But he also acknowledged that posting a few more Americans at the site would not have been sufficient to repel the onslaught by heavily armed extremists.
 
No, the editorial board wasn't at the hearing.  No, Eric Nordstrom did NOT say "that posting a few more Americans at the site would not have been sufficient to repel the onslaught by heavily armed extremists."  He didn't say it, he didn't acknowledge it.  He allowed that it might not have made a difference.  That's not the same thing.  Nor was he the only security witness at the hearing.  There was also Lt Col Andrew Wood.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  Now, Lt Col Wood, I understand that you were the senior officer of the SST team.  Is that correct?
 
Lt Col Andrew Wood: That's correct, sir.
 
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  And do you have any reason to believe that if you had to go up your chain of command at AFRICOM for a request from the State Dept that they extend the tour of duty of an SST, that your chain of command would not grant that?
 
Lt Col Andrew Wood: Absolutely Gen [Carter F.] Ham was fully supportive of extending the SST as long as they felt they needed them.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  So the resources were available for the SST?
 
Lt Col Andrew Wood:  Absolutely.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  And had they been there, they would have made a difference, would they not?
 
Lt Col Andrew Wood: They made a difference every day they were there, when I was there, sir.  They were a deterrent effect.
 
So you had one security witness stating it might not have made a difference and another stating it would have made a difference, no maybes about it.  The editorial board is less than honest -- not since a sex scandal in a hotel -- well a nudity scandal, the prostitute had left -- back before Barack was in the White House has the Los Angeles Times editorial board been such a joke.  And, let's repeat, four people died.  Say their names, write their names.  Do not pretend you're 'honoring' the four when you reduce them to 'Chris Stevens and three people I don't care enough to even try to name.'  The four names are Glen Doherty, Chris Stevens, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods.  If that's too many names for your meager minds to hold, then you don't need to be writing about the Benghazi attack to begin with.
 
Now let's deal with Hillary.  Here for a transcript of her interview with Elise Labot of CNN (here for video of it).  Hillary gave a series of interviews late yesterday where she stated she took accountability.  Language warning, Larry Johnson (No Quarter) does not feel she takes responsibility and his thoughts include, "What she is doing now with respect to Libya and covering [for] Obama is politics of the most disgusting.  She insists that she takes responsibility, but, rather than resign for her failure to protect the Consulate and the Ambassador, she only says it was the fault of the intelligence community."  As we noted earlier, others see it differently.
 
 
No one plays word games better than lawyers and Hillary has a law degree and was a practicing attorney for many years.  In other words, let's go to the State Dept press briefing today:
 
MS. NULAND: All right, everybody. Happy Tuesday. The Secretary is just finishing her program in Latin America and will be returning later this afternoon. I have – or later this evening – I have nothing for you at the top.
 
 
QUESTION: Can I ask you about the series of interviews she gave on this trip? We didn't have one, so we didn't get a chance to ask her directly. But she said she took responsibility related to the Benghazi attack. I just wanted to be clear on what she's taking responsibility for.
 
MS. NULAND: Well, if you have a chance to get up on our website, you will see transcripts of five TV interviews that the Secretary gave yesterday, as she always does when she's traveling and she has TV crews with her or TV correspondents with her. I think she was extremely clear what she's taking responsibility for. She is the head of this Department. She takes responsibility for this Department fully. She's never made any secret of that. That's been her position all the way through this.
 
QUESTION: What is she taking responsibility for, though? She just said, "I take responsibility," full stop.
 
MS. NULAND: Brad, you can go back and reread that interview. The question was clear.
 
QUESTION: I have reread it.
 
MS. NULAND: The answer was clear. I'm not going to try to improve on it here.
 
QUESTION: Why won't you?
 
MS. NULAND: Because she was –
 
QUESTION: She doesn't finish the thought.
 
MS. NULAND: She was extremely clear what she takes responsibility for, which is the operation of this Department, all of the men and women here, and certainly she is personally, as she has said again and again and again since September 11th, committed to getting to the bottom of who did this and learning the lessons that we need to learn from it.
 
QUESTION: So you said she takes responsibility for the operation of this Department and the people who work here. So she wouldn't be taking responsibility for things like intelligence assessments, per se, because that is something that might not be done by this building; is that correct?
 
MS. NULAND: Brad, I am not going to stand here and parse the Secretary's words. She was very clear in her interviews.
 
QUESTION: Well, if she was so clear, why can't you answer a question like that?
 
MS. NULAND: I want you to go back and read the interviews.
 
QUESTION: I have read all of them.
 
MS. NULAND: Yeah. I think she was very clear.
 
 
What did Hillary take accountability for?  What she appears to have taken accountability for is her department.  I think, I could be wrong and often am, Larry Johnson is responding to the press summaries and interpretations as opposed to Hillary's words.
 
On September 12th, as revealed in last week's hearing, the State Dept was briefing Congress that the attack was a terrorist attack (Patrick Kennedy specifically was doing that).  I believe, and I could be wrong, that Hillary is stating, "I am responsible for my department."  As in, "I am responsible for my department and other Secretaries are responsible for their departments and the President is ultimately responsible for all."  As explained in last week's hearing, the attack was monitored live and footage exists of the attack -- a little over 50 minutes of footage.  The FBI has told Congress they are not holding onto the footage or preventing anyone from seeing it.  But an unidentified element of the Executive Branch is keeping it off limits to the public and to Congress.  It appears to me -- and I could be wrong and often am -- that Hillary was taking accountability for what she was responsible for and indicating that she couldn't take responsibility for things others were responsible for.
 
If I was responsible for the State Dept, I would be very glad to know that we were telling Congress the truth from the start and that, even in our overseas interviews such as William J. Bruns' interview to Al Jazeera last month, we did not blame the attack on a YouTube video or a protest over a YouTube video.


Posted by at