The Administration put forward a senior State Dept. official to pre-empt the House hearing today on the deaths in Benghazi during the 9/11 attack on the consulate there. The latest story leaves the previous Administration spin a bit wobbly:
After declining for weeks to provide details about the assault on Sept. 11, the State Department on Tuesday night arranged with little notice a conference call in which a spokesman gave new details on what happened.
The account provided by a State Department official, whom the agency declined to identify, differed from the initial Obama administration reports in some important respects. Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, had said that the attack on the consulate began with an angry protest about an anti-Islamic film that was “hijacked” by extremists.
But in the new account provided by the State Department made no mention of a protest. In this account, Mr. Stevens met with a Turkish diplomat during the day of the attack and then escorted him to the main gate of the consulate around 8:30 p.m. At that time, there were no demonstrations and the situation appeared calm.
Little more than hour later, there was gunfire and explosions. American agents, watching the compound through cameras, saw a large group of armed men moving into the Benghazi compound. The barracks for a local militia that was protecting the compound was set on fire, and the attack began to unfold.
Ms. Rice's various statements to the Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16 are gathered here. One sample, from Meet The Press:
“Putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of – of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding.”
Apparently that was not their best current assessment, but in their quest to win every news cycle Team Obama has done serious damage to their November goal.
Yesterday the State Dept official helpfuly explained that we can't expect the Administration to expect the unexpected:
Seeking to defend the State Department against charges of lax security, the official suggested to reporters that it could not have been anticipated. “The lethality and the number of armed people is unprecedented. There had been no attack like that anywhere in Libya — Tripoli, Benghazi or elsewhere — in the time we had been there,” he said. “It would be very, very hard to find a precedent for an attack like that in recent diplomatic history.”
More of this "C'mon, it was hopeless" defense will be on offer at the hearing:
WASHINGTON — The State Department official responsible for security for American diplomats in Libya testified before a Congressional committee on Wednesday that the attack last month on the mission in Benghazi would have overpowered even a reinforced security detail.
“The ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service,” said the official, Eric A. Nordstrom.
Oh, well then.
So, the key political question du jour - does this steaming mess end up sullying Hillary, or does it go all the way to Obama? One might not think that a State Dept. decision about consulate security would reach the White House, but on the other hand, we don't vote for Secretary of State. More importantly, we were being told by Jay Carney that the Man Who Killed Osama is on the case 24/7:
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.
Hmm. I don't see how Team Obama can afford to throw Hillary under the bus between now and November and risk alienating her husband and the couple's many supporters. But the First Golfer can hardly take the blame for this himself. So where does the buck stop and where does the bus roll?
ERRATA: CBS News reported on Sept 20 that there was never a mob outside the consulate. That is after the Susan Rice appearances, which leaves us up in the air over what she knew and when she knew it.
However, via Hot Air, I see there were earlier reports of no mob; the first seems to be McClatchy two days after the attack.
"So where does the buck stop and where does the bus roll?" Nowhere until after the election. HILLARY! and Bam are in the same boat here -- they stall (and the legacy Media goes along) until after the election.
PS: welcome back Tom!-- again..
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 01:28 PM
The plan came right from the top; Hillary and Obama. Susan Rice is closer to the President than Hillary and this was a knowingly false effort to deceive the American people from the very outset.
I don't even blame Rice necessarily. If she was lied to it was by the President and his advisers. There is no cut out on this one. Stevens died. Obama lied.
Posted by: matt | October 10, 2012 at 01:33 PM
"So where does the buck stop and where does the bus roll?".
The bus won't roll if it's high centered on Hillary and the President has been very concerned and engaged with a stirring defense of Big Bird.
BTW - "buck" is really a racially charged and very offensive term when used in conjunction with the President. Would you say "the squaw stops here" in reference to Elizabeth Warren's tenure on the faculty at Harvard Law School?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 10, 2012 at 01:35 PM
Again the candidate making all the liar statements, is shown to be a baldface liar of the first order. Projection thy name is Obama...
Posted by: GMAX | October 10, 2012 at 01:36 PM
Susan Rice is closer to the President than Hillary and this was a knowingly false effort to deceive the American people from the very outset.
I read somewhere, rightly or otherwise, that Rice was tight with the JEF and ValJar.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 10, 2012 at 01:38 PM
Let us not forget that a full 10 days after the attack, Hillary was appearing with Obama in an ad denouncing the Nakoula film on Pakistani television.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 01:38 PM
Rick:
the President has been very concerned and engaged with a stirring defense of Big Bird.
Calls from Ambassadors go to voicemail.
Posted by: hit and run | October 10, 2012 at 01:39 PM
There was an excellent profile of Susan Rice in Foreign Policy Magazine last month. She and Obama are very tight but having said that she is a real pro.
Unless she was deeply involved in the lie, she is going to be livid that her reputation has been besmirched. She is a feisty, hard nosed woman with a chip on her shoulder; the kind you not want to piss off from all the reports. I don't think she is willing to take a bullet for Bammers.
Posted by: matt | October 10, 2012 at 01:41 PM
We'll test the Mayan theory here - see if the other thread gets past 2012
Posted by: Bill in AZ sez it's time for Obama/Holder murder trial in Mexico | October 10, 2012 at 01:42 PM
Don't forget there was more than Amb Stevens murdered. IMO, there should already be high ranking people in jail over the decision to pull the protection from Libya.
Posted by: pagar | October 10, 2012 at 01:44 PM
Captain Hate:
That was pretty clear from the moment Obama put Rice in place as U.N. Ambassador, and simultaneously made it a Cabinet Level position, which essentially gave her co-eqaul status with Hillary. Indeed, his actual cabinet, with whom who rarely met in full, was mostly window dressing. He regularly installed his own people on the next rung down.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 01:47 PM
The Secretary of the Dept of Peace weighs in!
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 01:52 PM
"I don't think she is willing to take a bullet for Bammers."
Based on what I see of the garbage being put out from the different areas under the Obama regime. I doubt if there is anyone drawing a paycheck from the Obama regime that hasn't made such a commitment.
Posted by: pagar | October 10, 2012 at 01:52 PM
Reading the WaPo summary of the testimony so far, Cong. Elijah Cummings opening statement blamed the Republicans for not funding DoS security.
Then, every single person involved in the security of the Libyan embassy testified that they tried again and again to have more security assigned and/or extend the existing security detail through October/November at the minimum.
from the WaPo:
"In other prepared testimony, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state responsible for security at more than 275 U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world, provided a detailed account of the Sept. 11 attack on the post in Benghazi. Dozens of attackers “launched a full-scale assault that was unprecedented in its size and intensity,” she said. "
The administration lied from the outset.
Posted by: matt | October 10, 2012 at 01:54 PM
Bless his heart, Kucinich is making mince meat of Obama's convention claim that al Qaeda was on its last legs.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 01:55 PM
Yeah, JMH, Slick rarely met with his full Cabinet either which used to puzzle my lib friends.
Btw, to bolster what Sandy Daze said the other night about Kennedy:
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 10, 2012 at 01:55 PM
Kucinich does not disappoint.
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 10, 2012 at 01:55 PM
Chaffetz is en fuego.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 01:58 PM
That is after the Susan Rice appearances, which leaves us up in the air over what she knew and when she knew it.
I would hope Ms. Rice doesn't get her information from CBS News. I thought the State Department acknowledged that they knew from Day 1 that it was a coordinated attack. Rice is a liar.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 10, 2012 at 01:59 PM
--She and Obama are very tight but having said that she is a real pro.--
She may be a pro but IIRC she entirely shares his insane world view and is perhaps even more disdainful of Israel.
My assumption is any ideologue of that nature will voluntarily go out and lie through their teeth when asked.
When caught it's usually about 60/40 they'll take a bullet.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | October 10, 2012 at 02:01 PM
Kucinich:
"How many shoulder to air missiles that are capable of shooting down civilian passenger airliners are still missing in Libya since our intervention. Can you answer that question?...Anyone know?"
Mr Nordstrom:
"The figures that we were provided were fluid but the rough approximation is between 10 and 20,000."
Posted by: daddy | October 10, 2012 at 02:01 PM
State denied Nordstrom's security request -- but raised his hazardous duty pay. Per Chaffetz, so much for the excuse that State was strapped for resources (or was unaware of the dangers)!
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 02:03 PM
Here comes Jay Carney to give us the White House briefing.
Posted by: daddy | October 10, 2012 at 02:03 PM
I can't believe they turned down the request for additional personnel due to the danger, but increased the guys pay because it was more dangerous.
Unbelievable.
Will the press ignore?
Posted by: Jane - Mock the media | October 10, 2012 at 02:03 PM
First words out of Carney's mouth is about the Washington National's Baseball Team. What a jackass.
Posted by: daddy | October 10, 2012 at 02:04 PM
In fairness, Kucinich's question about if al Qaeda are stronger or weaker in Lybia today was a dagger to the heart of Obama's "we've got al Qaeda on the run" talk.
Posted by: Ranger | October 10, 2012 at 02:04 PM
Obama did a deliberate end around Hillary when he appointed Rice. This fustercluck was a WH operation from the beginning and Hillary is trying to save her skin.
Notice no one in the press is asking on whose authority Rice was spreading the bogus protest/video story. They know the order came from the WH. Truly, 'tis the dog that didn't bark.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 10, 2012 at 02:04 PM
Rice is a pro, if we're talking about working the party circuit in N.Y., not showing up at the U.N.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 02:06 PM
Matt-- whatever Rice's professional qualifications, she is in the Boat with Bam-- until Election Day -- at that point, when Bam loses, everyone's out for themselves and the truth comes out.
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 02:06 PM
Daddy,
What is Carney's excuse?
Posted by: Jane - Mock the media | October 10, 2012 at 02:08 PM
daddy-- that's not actual testimony.. is it?
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 02:08 PM
Carney, "Initial assessments made about the Embassy were based on the limited amount of facts and intell we had at the time and we said at the time that our info was preliminary at the time."
Translation:
"We did everything we could to cover our asses and bullshit you guys in the Press so that you would blame it on the video and we could get away with covering up our super massive cluster^&%$ of a Mideast foreign policy."
Posted by: daddy | October 10, 2012 at 02:08 PM
Unless she was deeply involved in the lie, she is going to be livid that her reputation has been besmirched. She is a feisty, hard nosed woman with a chip on her shoulder; the kind you not want to piss off from all the reports. I don't think she is willing to take a bullet for Bammers.
I rarely disagree with you, matt, but I have to here. First, Rice is intelligent, so she had to know from the beginning - along with most other normal human beings - that it was obviously a planned attack. So, she was involved with the lie.
Second, her career is nowhere w/o Obama's protection, so she's screwed either way. The best she can hope for is that he will provide her a soft landing if he does toss her overboard. So, she will take the bullet.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 10, 2012 at 02:09 PM
"Will the press ignore?"
YES!! until the election, then Libya becomes Bush/Romney's fault -- I kid you not.
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 02:09 PM
"everyone's out for themselves and the truth comes out."
I'm doubting that, my guess -you could get the truth from the Mafia before you got it from anyone connected with Obama.
Posted by: pagar | October 10, 2012 at 02:11 PM
Is Sideshow Carney calling all the intelligence people incompetent? Not a smart thing to do...
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 10, 2012 at 02:13 PM
I think the CW number for missing MANPADS in Libya was 20K+ and that is what Benghazi basically was - a hunting lodge for the ex-SEALS and other counter terror pros working on finding them. I think this is the kind of detail Chaffetz is trying to keep from being over-exposed.
Someone mentioned fustercluck but it was fustercluck starring the Keysone Cops. Even Max Sennett couldn't improve on this script.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | October 10, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Thanks Carney, Cards 4 - Nats 0 in the 3rd!
Posted by: henry | October 10, 2012 at 02:13 PM
She maybe a pro, which I will concede only for argumentation sake, but she is a Democrat working for a Democrat administration. Thus she is congentially predisposed to lie like a rug from an Afghan bazaar...
Posted by: GMAX | October 10, 2012 at 02:14 PM
We'll see... but I would note, DC is different than Cook County because with a change of administrations, the new guys get the files and subpoena power, that makes loyalty a very illusory commodity in DC. We'll see....
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 02:15 PM
Porchlight:
I think Rice can count on a soft landing. He pulls all his personal favs out from under the bus as soon as it seems safe to do so, (think Samantha Power!). If nothing else, he can't afford to alienate the folks who know too much -- and can't trust anybody else when he's trying to sell a lie.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 02:15 PM
Go Cards!
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 02:16 PM
Ahhh, what a wonderful feeling to have voted absentee yesterday! A straight GOP ballot with "yes" on the voter ID and traditional marriage amendments to the Minnesota constitution. I had held out hope that I would be up in Alaska before the election, but the delays have continued. Now I've given instructions to family and friends that if I die, my body is to be hidden until after the election, so there is no chance my vote will be voided.
Posted by: Mark Folkestad | October 10, 2012 at 02:17 PM
My Google lawyer instincts tell me that Kennedy just committed perjury.
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 10, 2012 at 02:19 PM
Ongoing investigation!
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 02:19 PM
Yowza. Missing 50 minute tape of the attack but the FBI doesn't have it. But another US agency has it (wink, wink).
Issa wants it before the press gets it. Good Luck with that.
Posted by: Jim Eagle | October 10, 2012 at 02:21 PM
Is this Cooper clown related to Mr. Whipple?
Please don't squeeze the witnesses.
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 10, 2012 at 02:24 PM
"Second, her career is nowhere w/o Obama's protection, so she's screwed either way. The best she can hope for is that he will provide her a soft landing if he does toss her overboard. So, she will take the bullet."
Sandy Burger stole national secrets and landed very softly. He is not greeting folks at WalMart.
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | October 10, 2012 at 02:24 PM
Interesting that there is some 50 minute tape that Issa is trying to get a hold of.
Issa: "I want the 50 minute tape before the Press has it and sees it."
Issa is obviously pissed off to find out about this 50 minute tape and that it has been withheld from his Committee by the Administration.
John Lewis (Dem) tries to forestall Issa's attempts to get the thing until "the proper authorities conclude their own investigation of the tape. You don't want to interfere with their investigation before it's completed properly do you?" (Words to that effect- not ver batim)
Issa ain't buying it and lets us know that when he showed up at some Administration meeting they were surprised to se him there and that was where he found out there was this 50 minute tape.
I think I got the above exchange pretty close to correct.
Posted by: daddy | October 10, 2012 at 02:25 PM
FP is generally conservative, so I have to go with their assessment. I disagree strongly with Rice's accomplishments at the UN, but it has been administration policy that we re-engage the UN for better or worse. Rice's ratings for doing her job were rated well by her peers and educated observers.
The question is obviously what did she know and when did she know it. Hillary was not on the talk shows. Rice was. Rice is very close to the President. Rice's version was exposed from the outset as a lie and she doubled down. Based on what information?
The DNI's office fell on their swords, but as more data comes out, the Libyan president who was vocal from the outset was proven to be correct. We would have known as much as he did as soon as he did since our people were dead on the ground and I am sure he was aghast.
My concern is that Obama is going to be pardoning the entire top level of his administration very shortly which in itself is criminal.
Posted by: matt | October 10, 2012 at 02:25 PM
I think Issa has the tape from a whistleblower and wants them to release the official copy.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 10, 2012 at 02:27 PM
You don't want to interfere with their investigation before it's completed properly do you?"
Yeah, Issa, you stupid wingnut! The FBI was on the ground for 12 HOURS some 3 WEEKS after the amb. was raped and mudered! You wouldn't want to interfere with an ONGOING INVESTIGATION!
Posted by: lyle | October 10, 2012 at 02:29 PM
You think the fallout will be as precise as a single bullet?
I was imagining something more like a cluster bomb -- plenty to go around; everyone gets share!
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 10, 2012 at 02:29 PM
My concern is that Obama is going to be pardoning the entire top level of his administration very shortly which in itself is criminal.
Well, I would be concerned, but Obama is so self centered, I doubt he will pardon very many. Holder for sure. Other than that, I doubt he cares enough to bother.
Posted by: Ranger | October 10, 2012 at 02:30 PM
Matts assertion that Rice is a pro is correct. She does take this stuff seriously and has spent considerable time on it. She might very well be in that 40% that won't take a bullet for Barry.
But she is utterly wrong on just about everything she believes.
Either she was misled on Libya or she was lying through her teeth. Don't think we know which yet.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | October 10, 2012 at 02:30 PM
As if those are distinct sets.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 10, 2012 at 02:31 PM
Trey Gowdy must be batting cleanup. Lets get on with it!
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 10, 2012 at 02:31 PM
Shades of 'Rules of Engagement' I think it was Ben Kingsley, who played the beleagered US Ambassador, with Tommy Lee Jones, being the exMarine defense attorney, turned investigator.
And Bruce Greenwood, played the slick Natl. Security advisor.
After all of Eli Lake's reportings, as well as Gorman and Entous, and Herridge, there is no way this cover story can stand.
Posted by: narciso | October 10, 2012 at 02:31 PM
Pardons are a way of controlling people after the election loss, very true. but they won't stop the truth from spilling out. Post-election, the DOS security people who requested more men and guns will spill all to protect themselves, and Pardon recipients like Rice effectively have immunity, so they are only at risk IF they lie, so she'll spill, IMO.
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 02:32 PM
Unfortuately NK, the problem with Washington is that there is a Party of Government and everyone else. The Party is going to keep the party going and we won't see any sort of housecleaning. The same thing happened when W came in, we wanted to see heads on pikes, now W's election was close and W's one fault was his christian compassion so nothing happened. But look what happened with Obama's election, nothing happened either. You would have thought that the leftists would have been able to find some Bush entrenchers to out and prosecute, but nope because the Party protects their own. The real people in power in this country are the Gorelicks and other functionaries in the alphabet soup agencies.
Posted by: tollhouse | October 10, 2012 at 02:32 PM
I missed all the earlier testimony, but it is very revealing to hear Lt Col Wood describe in detail right now just how chaotic and dangerous LIbya is and was during all the time he was there. Assassinations, no border control, massive amounts of exceptionally dangerous heavy weapons everywhere, many, many attacks on US targets in the country, etc.
Very, very sobering.
Posted by: daddy | October 10, 2012 at 02:32 PM
What of the possibility that the guy who thought he "won" that debate sees no criminality in anything his administration has done?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 10, 2012 at 02:33 PM
Rice is a liar and as crazy on FP as Obama.
JMH: "his actual cabinet, with whom who rarely met in full, was mostly window dressing. He regularly installed his own people on the next rung down." A tactic Clinton used. The Assistant Secretary's in his Administration ran the shops directly on WH orders.The cabinet that looked like America was a Potemkin one.
If they had money to make that stupid video apologizing for the video that had nothing to do with the attack, they had money to pay for security.
Posted by: Clarice | October 10, 2012 at 02:36 PM
Were the two exSEALs completely unarmed?
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 10, 2012 at 02:36 PM
Issa was also rightly pissed off that the updated Benghazi timeline was released to the press before the Committee was informed, too.
The big piece that's missing is what happened to Steven between his disappearance and the time his body showed up at the hospital. There are at least two pictures of him being dragged through the street, and (unsourced?) reports of him being raped. I've heard nothing about any autopsy, which would seem to be a gimme in these circumstances, wouldn't it?
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 02:36 PM
*Assistant Secretaries*
Posted by: Clarice | October 10, 2012 at 02:37 PM
By the way, the telly is reporting that the Turks just forced a civilian Syrian airliner down to inspect for heavy weapons.
In addition, today is the 6th day in a row that the Turks have been shelling Syrian positions on the other side of the border in response to Syrian shelling.
How many days does this have to happen before it's a war?
Posted by: matt | October 10, 2012 at 02:40 PM
tollhouse@2:32-- all true-- unfortunately. I was surprised Bush's AG didn't go after Clinton Admin shenanigans (or if they did, it was without public fanfare), I am NOT surprised Bush's people were not persecuted, because the Legacy Media demagogued Bush so much, the truth was far less interesting than the allegations. But THIS-- THIS is different-- an Ambassador was assassinated on 9/11, and --it appears-- the POTUS and SOS concocted a VERY PUBLIC lie to cover up their incompetence. That public lie included smearing a foreign power (I know, meh), and the SOS and POTUS continuing the lie in front of flag draped coffins, and throwing a man in prison as a convenient excuse. THIS one, is different IMO.
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 02:41 PM
matt:
"How many days does this have to happen before it's a war?"
I don't know. How long has Hamas been shelling Israel?
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 02:42 PM
Dem Gerald Connolly of Virginia trying to use Beirut in 83' as a similar chaotic situation, and as an example the Administration and the Left can use to push their excuse ie ("It happened under Reagan, everybody does it.")
Now he is trying to put Lt Col Wood on the spot about why did he only talk to Utah Congressman Chavitz (Repub) and not respond to the Dem's calls and E-mails. Trying to paint Wood as a Repub partisan engaged in a partisan effort. LTCOL Wood says he assumed all the info he was giving was going to go to everyone.
The Dem Congressman's tactic is evident. He is providing the nuggets MSNBC can broadcast about this being a partisan witchhunt.
Posted by: daddy | October 10, 2012 at 02:42 PM
There was an excellent profile of Susan Rice in Foreign Policy Magazine last month. She and Obama are very tight but having said that she is a real pro.
I'm sorry, but we're well past the point where we can or should excuse anybody working at a high level for the Zero Administration.
If she didn't know what sort of man she was working for before this, she was willfully blind and on that basis too stupid to be allowed to have the job she has.
If she did know and signed up anyway, she's a willing participant in evil, and this ought not be allowed to have the job she has.
Nobody who's a high-level appointee of this administration should be allowed anywhere near any position of power or responsibility ever again, and really they shouldn't be allowed to participate in polite society or even enter the homes of decent people for the rest of their lives.
Posted by: James D. | October 10, 2012 at 02:43 PM
Daddy-- great testimony summaries. Appreciate it, very much.
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 02:44 PM
Lt. Col. Wood-- when the testimony is bad for you, discredit the witness. Biased, self-serving, etc etc....
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 02:46 PM
I don't think he will pardon anybody, because it is so unlikely that a Romney administration would charge any of these people criminally.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 10, 2012 at 02:48 PM
Obama is so self centered, I doubt he will pardon very many.
Depends what they have on him.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 10, 2012 at 02:48 PM
Sandy Burger stole national secrets and landed very softly.
I probably wasn't clear, but that's what I'm saying, Frau (and JMH). She's going to land softly no matter what, thanks to Obama, so there's no reason not to take a bullet for him, as Berger did for Clinton.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 10, 2012 at 02:48 PM
McCain ignored Wood's attempt at communication? Wasn't this the sole area we could count on him to do the right thing?
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 10, 2012 at 02:49 PM
Difference with Berger? not to be too melodramatic, but nobody died in that case.
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 02:50 PM
Can Obama pardon himself?
Posted by: Jane - Mock the media | October 10, 2012 at 02:50 PM
I think this administration has really squeezed too much of the paste out of the tube. Romney will come in as a "healing" president, much like Bush did. Unfortunately, the gangster government of Obama will only have the effect of pushing the Party of government even further towards complete eradication of the rule of law. We have rapidly become a nation of many laws and many more exemptions for the politically connected since 2008.
Posted by: tollhouse | October 10, 2012 at 02:50 PM
If everybody except the "intelligence community" almost instantly recognized Benghazi as a terrorist attack, we meed a whole 'nuther hearing.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 02:50 PM
Terence Mann sees the ball players.
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 10, 2012 at 02:50 PM
What is Kennedy's background?
Posted by: Jane - Mock the media | October 10, 2012 at 02:51 PM
/[Can Obama pardon himself?]/
I don't see why not, but damn, think of the chutzpah of that.
Didn't this question come up back in 2000 with Clinton?
Posted by: tollhouse | October 10, 2012 at 02:52 PM
it is so unlikely that a Romney administration would charge any of these people criminally
Are there many preemptive pardons? I thought Ford's pardon of Nixon was the exception, and pardons are normally for people already convicted.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 10, 2012 at 02:53 PM
Difference with Berger? not to be too melodramatic, but nobody died in that case.
Of course you are right, NK...just using the analogy as an example of soft landings.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 10, 2012 at 02:53 PM
Tollhouse is being relentlessly analytical about the corrosive effects of the "permanent government" and Obama gangsterism. I'm getting depressed....
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 02:53 PM
No, a president can not pardon his or herself.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | October 10, 2012 at 02:54 PM
Ambassador Kennedy refusing to answer what appears to me to be a very straightforward question from a Repub Congressman.
Within 24 hours Ambassador Kennedy you wrote that you thought it was a terrorist attack, yet the Administration (Rice) for the next 7 days said it was an attack sparked by a protest over a video. That seems a discrepancy, so to get to the bottom of what I see as a discrepancy in the record between events on the ground and what Rice was saying tell, us when did you see the first reports that said that this was a Terrorist Attack?
Kennedy refuses to answer, says he cannot answer specifically because of imperfect recollection and Security classification nature of the reports. Says that his determination within 24 hours of the event that it was a Terrorist Attack was just his personal perception. Tries to say that Rice had reports but that her conclusion that it was not a terrorist attack was reasonable. Kennedy's answer here makes no sense to me.
Anybody else watching, does it strike you as Kennedy working his buns off to cover the Administration's ass?
Posted by: daddy | October 10, 2012 at 02:54 PM
James D @02:43 has said every that needs to be said about members of this admin.
Well said, James.
Posted by: pagar | October 10, 2012 at 02:54 PM
Taranto BOTW:
"There's no sign of recombobulation from Andrew Sullivan, whose political nervous breakdown in the wake of last week's Romney-Obama debate we chronicled yesterday. In a follow-up post titled "Obama Implosion Update," Sullivan defies Godwin's law by accusing Romney of a "Big Lie," namely supporting tax reform. Then he jumps from Hitler to Gary Hart:
I have no idea what the Obama campaign is doing now, but if "Where's the Beef?" brought Mondale back from the dead, then "Show Us The Math!" might be a good place to start.
Math, of course, is not Obama's strong suit. Or, for that matter, Sullivan's. He seems to have forgotten that after that "Where's the Beef?" retort, Walter Mondale went on to lose 49 states, carrying only Minnesota and the District of Columbia in November 1984."
Posted by: Clarice | October 10, 2012 at 02:58 PM
I don't think he will pardon anybody, because it is so unlikely that a Romney administration would charge any of these people criminally.
Well, then we really are f**ked as a country, aren't we?
We're not talking about criminalizing policy disagreements here.
Fast & Furious led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens, not to mention several Americans as well. Arguably you could call it an act of war against an allied nation on our border.
The military action in Libya was unconstitutional and illegal by the War Powers Act.
The openly stated policy of the Presidential Kill List is both grossly unconstitutional and, frankly, monstrous, and all by itself ought to have led to both Republicans AND Democrats running Zero out of the White House with torches and
pitchforks.
The debacle in Libya speaks for itself.
The bilions of dollars stolen from taxpauers and given to Zero donors and cronies for nonexistent Stimulus jobs and doomed to failure green projects certainly shoold merit prison time for all involved.
The open defiance of laws by the Holder Justice Department (and the EPA, and the Department of Energy, and...) demand prison time as well.
But I think you're right, Danube (and the others in this thread talking about pardons and soft landings and the Party of Government), and assuming you are, I don't see how even a 15 point Romney win and a Republican Senate and House and a weakened MSM will do any damn good.
Posted by: James D. | October 10, 2012 at 02:58 PM
Whoa! Issa: "Never take a knife to a gunfight!" Now you know why I called dibs on Issa so long ago.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 10, 2012 at 02:59 PM
The President can pardon himself, except in cases of Impeachment.
That brings up an interesting point, what if a Republican congress impeaches Obama and restricts him from ever holding office again.
Posted by: tollhouse | October 10, 2012 at 03:01 PM
Obama is unimpeachable.
Posted by: Threadkiller | October 10, 2012 at 03:02 PM
POTUS pardons himself? it's never happened, and it's not barrred by the explicit language of Art.II of the Const. There has been lots of opinionating on the subject in journals and blogs.
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 03:04 PM
PS: POTUS canNOT pardon himself to avoid impeachment, that is explicitly barred by Art. II.
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 03:06 PM
James D.
That's what I mean about the toothpaste tube. The toothpaste is legitimacy, the foundation of our system of law and custom. Are we past the point of no return? I don't know. I think we are close, very close to the edge.
I keep thinking about the blueprint to American fascism in Kratman's Caliphate.
Posted by: tollhouse | October 10, 2012 at 03:06 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not that naive. I know that the powerful look out for their own, always have, always will.
But this Administration has really crossed so many lines, and done it so brazenly, that if there isn't some real backlash, and some real punishment for at least some of the worst offenders, I think we're doomed as a society.
Posted by: James D. | October 10, 2012 at 03:07 PM
What is "Kratman's Caliphate"?
Posted by: NK | October 10, 2012 at 03:08 PM