The NY Times commiserates with its readers:
Shifting Reports on Libya Killings May Cost Obama
By MARK LANDLER
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s shifting accounts of the fatal attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, have left President Obama suddenly exposed on national security and foreign policy, a field where he had enjoyed a seemingly unassailable advantage over Mitt Romney in the presidential race.
Hard to imagine - the Admiistration failed to anticipate terrorist attacks on the anniversary of 9/11,then misled the public about their failure, and this is news?
Unfortunately, this is not just partisan hackery the Times can pooh-pooh:
But the questions are likely to come not just from partisan Republicans. The Benghazi attack calls into question the accuracy of intelligence-gathering and whether vulnerable American personnel overseas are receiving adequate protection. Even allies of the president like Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have petitioned the White House for more information about how the government protects diplomatic installations abroad.
But not to worry- the Times won't be trying too hard to knock down Team Obama's spin. For example, here is this howler, reported without rebuttal:
White House officials dispute that the press secretary, Jay Carney, cited the anti-Muhammad video as the cause of the attack in Benghazi.
If the Times had a subscription to "WhiteHouse.gov" they would be able to find the transcript of this Sept 14 press briefing by Mr. Carney:
MR. CARNEY: In terms of the security at the Benghazi facility or post, I would have to refer you to the State Department for specifics about what security was there. There was a security presence. It was unfortunately not enough to resist the attacks that we saw and resulted in the tragic loss of life. But there was security.
It is also the case that in reaction to this the President has ordered that we review all of our security arrangements for embassy facilities and other diplomatic facilities around the world. But in terms of the specific security that was in place at Benghazi, I’d have to refer you to the State Department.
Q Wouldn’t it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?
MR. CARNEY: Well, as you know, we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The President is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But let’s be --
Q But saying you’re very vigilant and being very vigilant are different things.
MR. CARNEY: Jake, let’s be clear, these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region --
Q At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi --
MR. CARNEY: We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.
Q But the group around the Benghazi post was well armed. It was a well-coordinated attack. Do you think it was a spontaneous protest against a movie?
MR. CARNEY: Look, this is obviously under investigation, and I don’t have –
Q But your operating assumption is that that was in response to the video, in Benghazi? I just want to clear that up. That’s the framework? That’s the operating assumption?
MR. CARNEY: Look, it’s not an assumption --
Q Because there are administration officials who don’t -- who dispute that, who say that it looks like this was something other than a protest.
MR. CARNEY: I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned.
What is true about Libya is that -- well, a couple of things. One, is it’s one of the more pro-American countries in the region. Two, it is a very new government; it is a country that has just come out of a revolution and a lot of turmoil, and there are certainly a lot of armed groups. So the fact that there are weapons in the region and the new government is not -- is still building up its capacities in terms of security and its ability to ensure the security of facilities, is not necessarily reflective of anything except for the remarkable transformation that’s been going on in the region.
Well, Mr. Carney stuck to the line that it is under investigation, but to claim that he did not cite the movie as a possible cause is a long stretch. But not too long for the Times to ignore it.
And it really calls into question the Fifth Columnists in the media. Ready to hide every discordant fact.
I suspect this will make it more difficult to overtly play favorites in what is asked in the debates. It's quite a tsunami of relevant info the media has been trying to keep from voters.
Posted by: rse | September 29, 2012 at 07:50 AM
As this thread magically appeared on jOM I was writing an editorial for Tuesday headlined:
"Look! Squirrel!"
Posted by: sbw | September 29, 2012 at 08:03 AM
"suddenly exposed on national security and foreign policy"
Suddenly?
Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers ("Guilty as sin, free as a bird")and the other leftist and only leftists associates in his life preclude the use of "suddenly".
He has always been exposed on national security and foreign policy, IMO.
Posted by: pagar | September 29, 2012 at 08:20 AM
How can it be under investigation when there has been no investigation initiated? There are no investigators in Libya and as far as I can ascertain Holder has assigned no one to investigate. Maybe they'll get around to it on the Fourth of never or something.
Posted by: Clarice | September 29, 2012 at 08:40 AM
Suddenly and unexpectedly, a squirrel.
Posted by: sbw | September 29, 2012 at 08:46 AM
The only people whom reflexively shut up during federal investigations are criminals and their retained counsel.
To be told "Shut Up." is a bit more than just insulting.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 29, 2012 at 09:00 AM
Today's Mark Steyn column is spectacular!
Here's a taste: No doubt living in Obama’s future will be peachy. But in the meantime we have to live in his present — the one he’s nominally in charge of, the only one available. It is tempting to compare him to a great magician, artfully producing flags of many lands from his breast pocket while misdirecting the audience. In fact, Obama’s misdirection isn’t even that good: In essence, he’s promising to perform spectacular tricks at some unspecified point in the future even as he stands on stage with an empty top hat, and the girl in spangled tights he sawed in half is bleeding all over the floor.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | September 29, 2012 at 09:13 AM
Steyn: http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/328815
Posted by: MarkO | September 29, 2012 at 09:14 AM
Jane, my love. We double teamed it.
Posted by: MarkO | September 29, 2012 at 09:15 AM
'Squirrel' has been too often used, yes they had the intelligence, from the working group, the cable traffic from Cairo, the fatwa from Zawahiri,
but they ignored it, My piece follows the old Fielding Mellish line, from Bananas, 'two mockeries of a sham'
Yes I googled the defendant's name, Nakoula Basseley, and his whole public history, including interviews to Radio Sawa, comes up in the wiki.
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 09:17 AM
Remember when Carney-val Barker wasn't so careless to attach himself to a coverup?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-4272011
Hot potato lands in Dan's lap! Jay is in the clear.
Say, I remember this Dan guy. He is known for his accuracy, isn't he?
Oops.
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 29, 2012 at 09:20 AM
Mel, you have two sentences there, and I can't understand either of 'em.
If I learned only two things from Martha Stewart, it's how to make a pear and Camembert appetizer with a little honey/balsamic vinegar glaze and don't volunteer information to a federal investigator.
Second, I don't know who told who to shut up, nor what connection that has to the other sentence.
Posted by: bgates | September 29, 2012 at 09:21 AM
Well I've dubbed him, Alinsky's sorcerer's apprentice, because he really doesn't know what he's doing. I mean you can't say to the Pakistani
'we're confining our drone strikes to this area,
and then hit another, because among other things,
the ISI for instance had the likes of Colonel Imam, who trained Mullah Omar, the SSG which is their elite commando team, gives rise to the likes of Illyas Kashmiri.
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 09:23 AM
Is there even one reporter left in America? We need that one brave soul to ask President Obama exactly what he meant by "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
I don't want an explanation from anybody else. Ask Obama.
Ask Obama about the "crude and disgusting video" & what parts of the video this statement applies to - "message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity."
Has he ever even seen the video? Will a reporter ask?
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." - those should be Obama's famous 13 words.
Posted by: Janet | September 29, 2012 at 09:24 AM
bgates-
The veiled implication from Carney that any more questions on this subject will be met with "no comment, due to an ongoing..." when, in fact, there is little evidence of Any "ongoing...." at all is beside the point.
"Ignore that man behind the curtain and shut up.", he said.
They're just buying themselves some time until the next gaffe cycle can be manufactured and this sordid mess can be truly
and properly swept under the rug.
Have I mentioned that I am spittin' pissed about this and am fearful of what the next escalation these children are inviting?
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 29, 2012 at 09:38 AM
Mel,
Saw your question in the thread last nigh. I had already turned in.
I think you are talking about Saint Sixtus which is considered the world's greatest beer but you have to travel all the way to the monastery in order to drink it and buy it in very limited quantities. See if that rings a bell.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 29, 2012 at 09:40 AM
Mel,
Need to add that the "Abbaye' is St. Sixtus but the beer is called "Westvletern". It is down near Ieper (Ypres) and Poperinge in West Flanders. They only fire up the kettles once a week and cars line up at 1000hrs in order to get their limit of 10 cases at the small hatch by the "abbaye" or you can get it by the bottle and glass a small cafe nearby. My wife and I visited the cafe to drink it while touring the trenches.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 29, 2012 at 09:40 AM
I was asking for more specifics on a conversation I overheard by two beer geeks, one of whom had made the trek. It was years ago on the trading floor and I'd be hard pressed to find either of the boys.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 29, 2012 at 09:43 AM
Now I expect such idiocy from Carney, as It was patented by Jason Bateman in the early eighties, now I don't get this part,
Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University professor who worked on Mr. Bush’s national security staff, said there was no evidence that the administration was untruthful in its early accounts. But he said it was possible that the White House chose to emphasize certain elements, like the popular outrage in the Arab world against a video mocking the Prophet Muhammad, over other elements, like a possible link between the assailants and Al Qaeda. Such a narrative, he said, would have done less to draw attention away from the uproar over Mr. Romney’s response.
So I was wrong, Landler, re his byline will likely inherit Friedman's column, Widlanski has pointed out, that 'Flathead' got the whole whole
Sabra and Shatila story, wrong, from the get go
and that set the template, because among other things, despite?? having been taught by Professor Hourani, his Arabic is weak, plus he's a jackass.
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 09:43 AM
I know he's from Duke but regardless I've come to expect better from him, this piece seems to focus a little more,
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/29/msm-guilt-finally-kicking-in/
However, TM, you could throw up Eli Lake, who is
the real shoe leather reporter, on this story.
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 09:49 AM
We double teamed it.
And it was so well deserved.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | September 29, 2012 at 09:51 AM
Minus 14 at Raz today.
Leads Romney by 2.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 29, 2012 at 09:53 AM
Mel,
Believe me its St. Sixtus since it is the only "Abbaye" beer not bottled for retail sales anywhere. You have to go there on a Saturday only and sit in your car by the curb for the witching hour. Its the smallest of all the Trappist Abbaye's and dates to the 1830's.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 29, 2012 at 09:54 AM
"Minus 14 at Raz today.
Leads Romney by 2."
Trending Doom?
Posted by: MarkO | September 29, 2012 at 09:55 AM
Really, they do insult our intelligence more and more, when we see this;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/28/intercepts-show-attackers-on-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-bragged-to-al-qaeda.html
Now they outlined the method that was used, and
how bin Qumu, came up, which is classic 'blowback'
but Tom Weiner has moved on to the FBI beat.
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 09:58 AM
Peter D. Feaver, Professor of Political Science, Director, Triangle Institute for Security Studies and Director, Program in American Grand Strategy
http://fds.duke.edu/db/Sanford/pfeaver
♬ Ten thousand men of Harvard
want vict'ry today,
For they know that o'er old Eli
Fair Harvard holds sway.
So then we'll conquer old Eli's men,
And when the game ends, we'll sing again:
Ten thousand men of Harvard
gained vict'ry today! ♬
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 29, 2012 at 09:59 AM
--said there was no evidence that the administration was untruthful in its early accounts--
I suppose if one were charitable and didn't want to call this guy the effing jackass he is you could say, 'no, they were only untruthful in their medium and long term accounts'.
What the hell does he call Rice sitting there a week afterward bald faced lying to us about it being a spontaneous riot over the film clip?
What does he call Barry spending his UN speech blaming the recent violence in the ME on the film clip?
The Stupid Party lives...for now.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 29, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Yes, TK, I get that, and the piece suggests that AQIM, is the more prominent partner, although the Sinjar report referenced by Windrem, would indicate that they could gather sizable cadres who had fought in Iraq, and later Afghanistan.
Elements of the U.S. intelligence community were well aware of the threat al Qaeda posed in eastern Libya before the 9/11 anniversary. In August, the Library of Congress at the direction of a U.S. government research organization that focuses on counterterrorism concluded that al Qaeda was well on its way to resurgence inside post-Muammar Gaddafi Libya. The unclassified report commissioned by the Combatting Terrorism Technical Support Office’s Irregular Warfare Support Program said al Qaeda’s senior leadership “in Pakistan dispatched trusted senior operatives as emissaries and leaders who could supervise building a network. Al-Qaeda has established a core network in Libya, but it remains clandestine and refrains from using the al-Qaeda name.”
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Tonight I'll be drinking Ommegang's Hennepin Ale, a saison/farmhouse ale that was the only one of the Ommegang brand that Duvel decided to brew themselves in Belgium once they bought the brewery.
Who is this Feaver tenured dimwit; one of Brodhead's Gang of 88 who made complete asses out of the school? How did Pitzer miss out on this sooper jeenyus?
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 29, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Mel,
Pretty exclusive for a damn beer, eh?
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 29, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Thank you, TK; obviously he comes well recommended from Top Men.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 29, 2012 at 10:07 AM
;Well he seems to be currently affiliated with CNAS, but that was topline Vizzini work
http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/PoliticalScience/faculty/pfeaver
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 10:10 AM
It depends on the meaning of evidence.
Posted by: MarkO | September 29, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Ignatz, I'm hoping that they were being untruthful. If they seriously believed the notion of the attacks stemming from a spontaneous demonstration based on a six month old video, they fall below the minimum standards, even for a leftist Adminstration, that one needs to conduct American foreign and national security policy.
I am getting to the point where I have concluded that Romney losing to Obama would be more dangerous for our national security than Reagan losing to Carter would have been.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | September 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM
DNI, another bungling bureaucracy, now not even that level of incompetence, just another shill or deflection shield for the administration, Turner projecting Crapper, err, Clapper.
In the past, the intel took the fall becasue it had to protect the dictat, today it takes the fall becasue that is the only thing it is capable of doing.
Posted by: ABO becasue OMG ! Sandy Daze | September 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM
CH,
Ah, a saison. Hard to find here but if you ever come across it you have to try a Saison de Silly from the small town Enghein on the river Sille.
But saison's are an endangered beer in Belgium since they are small batch farmhouse ales and hard to compete in the big markets.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Thanks, Mel.
Now, because everybody loves quizzes:
Place your states. I got 98% with an average error of 5 miles.
Posted by: bgates | September 29, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Of course they were lying. Obama has made a life out of lying, about everything, including his father, his girlfriends, his academic records, his policies, his motives.
If he told the truth about this, it should ruin his chances of staying in power, so he had every reason to lie. What he failed to consider was that the media wouldn't have reported the truth anyway.
Posted by: MarkO | September 29, 2012 at 10:19 AM
"My foreign policy has three fundamental branches.
First, confidence in our cause. A recognition that the principles America was based upon is not something we shrink from or apologize for. That we stand for those principles.
The second is clarity in our purpose. Which is when we have a foreign policy objective, we describe it honestly and clearly to the American people to Congress and to the people of the world.
And number three is resolve in our might. That in those rare circumstances, those rare circumstances where we decide its essential for us to apply military might. That we do so with overwhelming force. That we do so in the clarity of our mission. Understanding the nature of the US interest involved. Understanding when the mission is complete. What will be left behind us when that mission has been terminated.
These elements, I believe, are essential to our foreign policy and I haven’t seen them from the President. As I’ve watched over the past three and a half years, the President has had some successes, he’s had some failures. It’s a hit or miss approach. But it has not been based upon sound foreign policy."
Things Mr Romney said.
Posted by: ABO becasue OMG ! Sandy Daze | September 29, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Yes, they couldn't really 'fix' the intelligence, so they denied it altogether, because it stemmed from one of their own initiatives, and in te process they undercut the administration, of someone who has served as an ally.
you're right, Sandy, this isn't the Carter administration, this is Barry Commoner level of
insanity, we're facing here, something out of Drury's darker tomes
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 10:22 AM
Obama is begging defense companies to not send out lay-off notices, pre-election due to the sequestor.
It will be interesting to see who complies. Gee those darn labor policies coming back to bite him in the ass.
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | September 29, 2012 at 10:23 AM
I am getting to the point where I have concluded that Romney losing to Obama would be more dangerous for our national security than Reagan losing to Carter would have been.
I passed that point a long time ago. Adultery of the Heart was a dimwit who got almost everything wrong but in his addled mind he only hated part of the country. The JEF hates it all and is willing to take everything down.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM
The truly stunning part of the story is this, which points up the success of Administration propaganda on foreign policy:
I mean, seriously? Did killing Bin Laden really enhance our security to the point it puts the President on a different FP plane from his challenger? For that matter, did it enhance our security at all? Does anyone else see an obvious problem with a security response to an organization of suicide bombers that entails hunting down individuals--after the fact--in retribution? If the goal is to make people feel better, it might be reasonable; but as a protective measure, it has some rather obvious drawbacks.Under GWB, the focus was on Al Qaeda's infrastructure and state sponsors. This approach targets capabilities, and leaves the detail work to host nations (i.e., putting pressure on nations to control their territory, and potential terrorists therein). The Obama approach seems to be one of rapprochement, targeting motivation. Color me crazy, but I doubt Al Qaeda is going to have difficulty finding folks to attack America . . . nor do I think the average Middle Easterner is going to go out on a limb to try to stop 'em (based on his good feelings for the West). Which policy made more sense? And even if feel-good policies worked, the execution is incoherent. Speeches don't outweigh news accounts of Hellfire missiles and punitive raids into Pakistan.
Bin Laden is dead. And that's good. But in the big picture his death made little difference, even in Al Qaeda's operations. Meanwhile, state sponsors of terrorism see little downside in flouting America, and Al Qaeda is mounting operations such as it hadn't even tried in years. Even amongst supposedly allied host nations, they watch as protesters overrun our embassy (and plant an Al Qaeda flag). This is foreign policy progress?
Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 29, 2012 at 10:26 AM
If Swiss Mitt wasn't suffering from 'premature politicization' he could have used this failure to gain much needed ground. Instead, he provided 'much needed' cover for the President.
Mitt is a closet Democrat and this has been the greatest political con job of all time.
Posted by: dublindave | September 29, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Didn't Clapper just come out and blame his own DNI on failing to get the G2 right about Libya and not the WH? Well he was a political appointee, wasn't he.
/Obama lied and People died.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 29, 2012 at 10:28 AM
I got 96% right on the states, average miss was 10 miles.
Got Arkansas first and missed it. Knew where it went, but without the reference of other state boundaries, I was off. Then I just wasn't paying attention to Maryland. Sorry OL.
Posted by: hit and run | September 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Well he's being a good 'kamikazi scotsman' and throwing himself under the bus, Anyone who actually read Landler's piece, emerged marginally
less informed than when they started it.
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 10:35 AM
I am getting to the point where I have concluded that Romney losing to Obama would be more dangerous for our national security than Reagan losing to Carter would have been.
As evil as the Soviets were, they were rational actors who behaved in a predictable manner. These Mohametans? Not so much.
That Brett Baier timeline video needs to be pushed out to the friends and relatives of every freedom loving person. It not only shows incompetence, but also a willingness to lie to the American public for political reasons.
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 29, 2012 at 10:37 AM
David Burge @iowahawkblog
#RIP Punch Sulzberger, and condolences to his survivors Pinch, Slap, Squeeze, and Wedgie.
Breaking News @BreakingNews
Arthur O. Sulzberger, former New York Times publisher, dies at 86, family says - @nytimes http://nyti.ms/PzDjw1
Posted by: centralcal | September 29, 2012 at 10:43 AM
As a career Intel guy, one would think that Crapper, err Clapper, would bring at least some professional experience to the position, JiB.
Sadly, whatever he may had had, is gone. Hell, even USAF 2LT Crapper, err Clapper, would have gotten the Benghazi call correct--without the entire United States Intelligence Community establishment sitting beside or below him.
Posted by: ABO becasue OMG ! Sandy Daze | September 29, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Meanwhile, the likes of Milbank, comments on the size of the clown nose on Mr. Reset;
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/27/3023882/a-hit-man-for-hillary-clinton.html
I couldn't find anything on Shawn Turner, when his first statements were vomited forth, so I imagine
they found him in the DNI coffee shop, and told him, there's your sign.
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Arthur O. Sulzberger, former New York Times publisher, dies at 86
I wonder if he's going to be wrapped in newspaper and deposited in a NYC Transit garbage can.
Too soon?
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 29, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Sandy,
My memory fails me but isn't Clapper the guy who was testifying before some Congressional committee and didn't know of some offending or terrorist attack somewhere????
I'll bet narciso knows what I am talking about here.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 29, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Arthur O. Sulzberger, former New York Times publisher, dies at 86
I hope they don't publish his obituary in the NYT. Outside liberal enclaves, no one will know he's dead.
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 29, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Janet @09:24, I don't think there is any need to ask Obama what he meant. As far as I can tell every thing that upsets the devote is considered slander. The activities listed in the link must certainly be slander.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/saudis-detain-900-women-for-traveling-without-a-male/
"Saudi authorities are holding 908 Nigerian women in poor conditions “with some needing urgent medical attention” at King Abdulaziz Airport in Jeddah and threatened to deport them, the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria said in a report submitted to Nigerian lawmakers Wednesday."
Remember, Obama will have a lot more flexibility once he gets rid of the 1st amendment.
Posted by: pagar | September 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Yep, and the three stooges, nodded in unison;
http://abcnews.go.com/US/director-national-intelligence-james-clapper-briefed-london-arrests/story?id=12458010#.UGcLolFX43w
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM
--I got 98% with an average error of 5 miles.
Posted by: bgates | September 29, 2012 at 10:19 AM--
90%,avg error 24 miles. The midwest killed me right off the bat. Pitiful.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM
" Ann Coulter: The Very Popular Birther Issue Has Nothing To Do With Obama Being Black"
http://youtu.be/VJTeA4M4eh4
Now you tell us
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM
"You’re not buying news when you buy The New York Times. You’re buying judgment.”
Well...that statement is half right.
/two minutes of Pinch hate
Posted by: Soylent Red | September 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM
As evil as the Soviets were, they were rational actors who behaved in a predictable manner. These Mohametans? Not so much.
That is exactly what Netanyahu said in his UN speech.
Posted by: Janet | September 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM
--Meanwhile, state sponsors of terrorism see little downside in flouting America...--
Iran sees at best an uninterested America when Barry stands by sucking his thumb while the green revolution is crushed and he endlessly dances with them over useless sanctions.
Meanwhile the tier of North African states which had been quiescent, even Libya, are now turned into hotbeds of Islamism. When Algeria has become the most reasonable actor on the block you know the neighborhood has gone to hell in the last couple of years. Must be Bush's fault.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 29, 2012 at 11:06 AM
but, but, but, it is predictable irrationality, is it not?
and if it is predictable rationality, can we not formulate a rational response to that irrationality?
Why yes, yes we can.
Posted by: ABO becasue OMG ! Sandy Daze | September 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Baier Timeline video again.
Posted by: Janet | September 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM
All you need to know about who is pushing the attack on our first Amendment.
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012/09/hillary-clinton-invites-islamic-un-nations-to-discuss-intolerance-ours-not-theirs-clinton-position-on-benghazi-becomes-clearer/
" The “devout” cannot embrace moderation. The Koran doesn’t allow it."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/barack_obama_president_and_protector_of_islams_prophet.html
Posted by: pagar | September 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Gag me with a spoon.
The right sidebar is a Nextag ad featuring "The Michelle Obama Radiant Beauty Figurine" $59.99, the "An Historic Change, Barack and Michelle" commemorative plate $34.95 and finally the "Blue Q-Mighty Michelle Shopper" tote bag, $7.91.
Somebody actually buys this crap?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM
"Trending Doom?"
Depends on the size of the Dem pop in Partisan ID on Monday. Ras has the full post convention pop in his model at the moment and if it is sustained (historically unlikely) then the situation becomes problematic. It's a 21 day moving average so don't expect sharp movement.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Let me add that certain portions of the Michele Obama Radiant Beauty Figurine did not appear to be rendered strictly to scale so perhaps they were factory seconds which would account for the bargain price.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM
BGates,
That map game was a hoot. I had no idea I had no idea where Iowa and Arkansas are!
Posted by: Jane - Mock the Media! | September 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM
This may have already been linked but here is a "fact check" of the video that our president claims is a slander against the execrable mohammad (pee be upon him).
Why is it Barry along with muslims can't handle the truth?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM
--Got Arkansas first and missed it.--
I guess it doesn't go in the same order every time then, which makes comparing scores tough. I had a bunch of unconnected midwest states without national or coastal borders right off the bat.
At least that's my story and...well, you know the rest.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM
((.... As I’ve watched over the past three and a half years, the President has had some successes..."))
nice speech but wth does he always insert props to Obama?
Posted by: Chubby | September 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Because he in part received his wisdom from Said, who according to Sir. Bernard Lewis, got so many facts wrong, that his conclusions aren't worthy
of considerations,
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM
I got 100% and 0 miles.
Of course, my first state was Florida and I stopped after that.
That Baier Timeline is devastating and allows me to unabashedly call both Odummy and HIllary truly POS squared.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM
BTW, if you think the mohammad trailer livened things up wait until this hits the screens of the world.
A historically accurate portrayal of mohammad's life from the perspective of him being a clinical narcissist and epileptic given to hallucinations, psychopathic violence and sexual predation.
Assuming the religion of peace allows the guy to live long enough to tell the truth about the big M.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM
NICK
Huh!? What kind of chump do you take me for?
ROCKY
First class!
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM
I wouldn't take any long odds on that,
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Thanks for the links, Ignatz!!
Posted by: Janet | September 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM
But Said is an authentic Palestinian, so he must be more correct than Lewis.
Recently, there was another case where the Administration used a fall guy/fall agency to shield the White House, and I believe there have been several other instances over the course of the past 3 1/2 years. Anyone have a handle on this?
Posted by: matt | September 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Wasn't Said actually an Egyptian from a prosperous background?
Hard to imagine an intellectual who has done more damage to US interests half-century than Said. And of course Obama is a fanboi.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Well this is the second time, that DNI has been caught flatfooted on an actual attack, the first time Admiral Blair was thrown under the bus, the first NCTC chief, Leiter, now a consultant to MSNBC, I think from the Windrem piece, and the NYPD's surveillance division, has been target, because of their solid track records, also see ATF in F&F, to obscure DOJ and even NSC's involvement.
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM
*in the last* half-century
Posted by: Porchlight | September 29, 2012 at 12:09 PM
it is predictable irrationality, is it not?
It is, and we could certainly come up with an effective approach to it, but that would involve slandering the Prophet, and destroying and desecrating some of his holy sites, and burning his book, because these things seem to distress them. Surely a cruise missile aimed at the rock in retaliation for their next attack might cause some of them to reconsider their approach.
Unfortunately, the future doesn't belong to those who would slander the Prophet. Or, maybe it does and Obama's full of shit.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Wasn't Said actually an Egyptian from a prosperous background?
Yeah, that's what I thought too. Another leftist phony background guy.
Posted by: Janet | September 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Due to mouse error and child knocking my elbow, I got 92% and 13 miles. I wouldn't have scored perfectly otherwise, but I certainly wouldn't have dropped New Jersey into the Atlantic either.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Been on the road and a bit out of touch, but will somebody tell me how in the name of bleeding Jesus Christ schoolkids in Colorado are being told what they can and cannot eat by Michelle Obama?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 29, 2012 at 12:12 PM
Looks like Preezy is making another of those "gutsy" calls by firing the current 4 star Marine General leading Afghanistan and replacing him with another 4 star Marine General who really knows this time how to unscrew us there.
This will work.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM
Yes he was born in Cairo, as was Arafat, in 1937, as I recall, Of the first generation of leadership, only Abu Mazen was born in Palestine proper, I believe.
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Extraneous:
B - 6 1
Or as JiB mentioned last week, but some stock in Corning.
Or as Kipling summarized years ago.
Posted by: ABO becasue OMG ! Sandy Daze | September 29, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Romney, must must must hammer Obama in the foreign policy debate about his administration ,with his permission LYING about the Benghazi attack. No fall guys aloud. This one sits squarely on Odummy's head. Hillary has finished her career with this one.
Posted by: maryrose | September 29, 2012 at 12:21 PM
(but--> buy)
OBTW - 2016 has been reposted on the web. If you missed it last weekend, here's another chance (until it is pulled again).
Posted by: ABO becasue OMG ! Sandy Daze | September 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM
maryrose, regrettably it seems that all are surviving in their careers. So much for Issa holding that lying sack of $h!t Holder's feet to the fire. A big nothing-burger. Same to with every other POS in the administration. Hillary is certainly not the worst. Where is the groundswell to FIRE Rice?
Well past time for a Black-Gray-White list to be made.
Posted by: ABO becasue OMG ! Sandy Daze | September 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM
the huntress always aims true;
http://patdollard.com/2012/09/former-obama-czar-we-need-death-panels/
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Remember the bigger your crimes, the lesser your proportional punishment. Post a video to YouTube, and you are re-incarcerated without bail.
Otherwise, you get a peace prize:
Posted by: ABO becasue OMG ! Sandy Daze | September 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM
are we talking Edward Said? LUN.
Of course there are two Said's to every issuee.
Posted by: matt | September 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Abe's son, has certainly proved not be a chip off the old block;
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/bolton-calls-obamas-benghazi-response-limp-wristed/
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM
I hope they don't publish his obituary in the NYT. Outside liberal enclaves, no one will know he's dead.
Think they'll mention how he ignored the Holocaust while it was happening? Duranty wasn't an outlying point.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 29, 2012 at 01:00 PM
Are these just the Duke and Duke farm team;
http://news.yahoo.com/goodbye--columbus--why-top-ohio-republicans-think-romney-has-lost-the-state.html
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 01:05 PM
Narciso, Amb Bolton seems to have stirred the anger of the anti American NYT. Judging by that article their editors could make extra money doing PR work for the Libya murderers.
Posted by: pagar | September 29, 2012 at 01:10 PM
narciso's brilliant "Alinsky's sorcerer's apprentice" is too good not to share.
Posted by: Frau Zauberlehrling | September 29, 2012 at 01:11 PM
Borrow freely, Frau, clearly Steiner is used to pyrrhic exercises;
http://www.columbusmonthly.com/January-2011/To-the-rescue/
Posted by: narciso | September 29, 2012 at 01:15 PM