Posted by Tina
A retired U.S. Air Force Commander, Eric Stahl, spoke with Fox News recently about his role during the Benghazi attack and in the aftermath amd revealed new information:
The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation, multiple sources confirmed to Fox News.
The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks
Stahl is the pilot who flew the bodies of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty along with the wounded and survivors to Germany following the attack. He confirmed that when he landed in Germany a senior State Department official, rather than the FBI, was on the ground and first to question the CIA security officers. Major Stahl said he was never interviewed by the Accountability Review Board convened by Hillary Clinton. Apparently the board also never interviewed Clinton either.
On the one hand we have the Presidents lack of interest and on the other what looks like a loyal State Department and CIA willing to cover for Hillary Clinton. We need an independent special prosecutor to look into this.
Tina: “The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks”
This is a disingenuous framing. It relies on the assumption that “spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam film” and “terrorist attack” are two mutually exclusive things. They’re not. Again, Obama called this an “act of terror” the day after it happened, and no semantic word game makes that substantially different from “terrorist attack.” Unless it’s revealed what exactly was said in those conversations then we still don’t know how much planning went into the attack; the Senate Report said that it could have been put together in less than a day. And there is plenty of evidence that the video was a motivator, or at least an excuse; several journalists on the ground in Benghazi were told by the attackers that that was their exact motivation.
As far as I’m concerned the truth is what is needed. the administration is pretty uncooperative when it comes to revealing what happened AND did a pi$$ poor job of investigating what happened…that CNN found Chris Stevens journal lying around after so-called investigators were there and the fact that key witnesses were not even interviewed show a pretty sloppy and apathetic attitude toward the entire episode. Therefore, within the context of what has been discovered,The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry.”
The administration made a concerted attempt to hide the actual events and lousy security and response. The American people, and certainly the family of those involved, deserve the truth from this government. If Hillary was the perpetrator of the cover story then voters need the information.
It doesn’t matter that Obama called this an act of terror. The cause was being spun as being the fault of the video. Given the known decades old intention and goals of terrorists this fairy tale excuse is absurd!
The problem for the administration isn’t that they didn’t say it was a terror attack; it’s that they attempted to blame a stupid video rather than the terrorists for their actions…they did it publicly, they did it blatantly, and they did it to hide the incompetence and indifference they showed before during and after the event…for political reasons. Otherwise remarks by Susan Rice and others would have put the emphasis on the terrorists and made the video a minor contributing factor that was, as Bush would have said, unhelpful!
” … and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation, ….”
And? This analysis was made when? They reported this up the CIA chain how, when, and through how many people? This information then made it’s way to State how, when, and through how many people? There is no Batphone to the White House, you know.
You guys are still making unreasonable conflations of very little substance, making assumptions and conclusions when you are appallingly ignorant of how shit works.
It is so annoying.
I know Libby. This administration is perfect and all of the critics and witnesses are just bad people. There is nothing to see…your side is perfect….blah blah blah.
Dewey, you bring nothing to the table when you comment, just hate speech! Please say something factual, give us something we can reply too! You’re just spouting liberal hate rhetoric absent any factual evidence. That’s a big zero Dewey, it means absolutely nothing without supportive facts. For example, “There is a reason study after study puts Fox viewers as knowing less about the facts than just about any other group.” Oh yeah, well what studies would that be? I’ve never seen them, so enlighten us, don’t just do drive by attacks.
“This administration is perfect and all of the critics and witnesses are just bad people.”
For the hundred & seventy-seventh time, no. NO ONE is denying incompetence.
But you, YOU are asserting malice, some criminal conspiracy. This we do not have to deny, because it simply is not true.
Nothing Darrell has yet to contrive, including this, suggests, let alone proves, any such thing.
Now … just … go away, will you.
Now, hold on, here. I’m no fan of Dewey’s prose, but there was nothing hateful in that post. He disagrees with you, in a somewhat disjointed manner, but still, that’s all.
And as to the sad plight of the Fox News viewer, back in 2011 a climate change blogger named Chris Mooney put this together:
Here are five such studies—and note that this list may be incomplete. This is just what I’ve come across so far:
1. Iraq War. In 2003, a survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland found widespread public misperceptions about the Iraq war. For instance, many Americans believed that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been involved in 9/11, or that it possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S. invasion. But not everyone was equally misinformed: “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news,” PIPA reported. “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” For instance, 80 % of Fox viewers held at least one of three Iraq-related misperceptions, more than a variety of other types of news consumers, and especially NPR and PBS users.
2. Global Warming. In a late 2010 survey, Stanford University’s Jon Krosnick found that “more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, with less trust in scientists, and with more belief that ameliorating global warming would hurt the U.S. economy.” Notably, there was a 25 percentage point gap between the most frequent Fox News watchers (60 %) and those who watch no Fox news (85 %) in whether they think global warming is “caused mostly by things people do or about equally by things people do and natural causes.”
3. Health Care. Earlier this year, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform. The survey asked 10 questions, and compared the “high scorers”–those that answered 7 or more correct–based on their media habits. The result was that “higher shares of those who report CNN (35 percent) or MSNBC (39 percent) as their primary news source [got] 7 or more right, compared to those who report mainly watching Fox News (25 percent).”
4. Ground Zero Mosque. In late 2010, two scholars at the Ohio State University studied public misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”—and in particular, the prevalence of a series of rumors depicting those seeking to build the mosque as terrorist sympathizers, anti-American, and so on. The result? “People who use Fox News believe more of the rumors we asked about and they believe them more strongly than those who do not.” Respondents reporting a “low reliance” on Fox News believed .9 rumors on average (out of 4), but for those reporting a “high reliance” on Fox News, the number increased to 1.5 out of 4.
5. 2010 Election. Late last year, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) once again singled out Fox in a survey about misinformation during the 2010 election. Out of 11 false claims studied in the survey, PIPA found that “almost daily” Fox News viewers were “significantly more likely than those who never watched it” to believe 9 of them, including the misperception that “most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring.”
#5 Dewey: “There is a reason study after study puts Fox viewers as knowing less about the facts than just about any other group.”
Curios if this statement had any truth to it I decided to look on the internet and found this little gym.
“David Zurawik correctly points out that the questions were absurdly biased and, indeed, sometimes treated liberal opinion as fact.”
Are Fox News Viewers Least Informed?:
James Joyner – Monday, June 20, 2011
Jon Stewart told Chris Wallace that Fox News viewers are consistently the least informed. It’s actually not true.
PolitFact looks at a number of surveys on the subject and finds that Fox viewers do relatively well–indeed, Fox outperforms CNN and MSNBC–although not nearly as well as viewers of the Daily Show or listeners to Rush Limbaugh. But this is an artifact of selection bias, not the information quality of the programs.
We asked Michael Dimock, Pew’s associate director for research, what he thought Pew’s data meant for Stewart’s claim. He said it’s crucial to understand that different news sources appeal to different types of people — and that highly political programming of any type attracts regular readers and viewers “who are, most likely, already highly knowledgeable prior to their exposure to those particular sources. Separating what knowledge they bring with them from what they learn while reading or watching is virtually impossible.”
By contrast, Dimock said, for media outlets with a much broader reach — including Fox — “the average regular consumer of these sources is less informed than the more niche audiences, because these sources, by design, reach and appeal to a broader cross-section of the public. In most of our studies, the regular readers and viewers of these broad-based news sources are not significantly more or less informed than the average American, and there is no systematic pattern showing one broad-based source has a more knowledgeable audience than any other.”
Presumably, Stewart was basing his survey on a December study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. But David Zurawik correctly points out that the questions were absurdly biased and, indeed, sometimes treated liberal opinion as fact.”
While viewers were down for all networks Fox still led for the 149th straight month with more than all of the other networks combined.
May 2014 Ratings: Fox News #1 For 149 Straight Months:
“Fox News marked its 149th consecutive month as the most-watched cable news network in May, beating MSNBC and CNN combined in total viewers and ranking sixth among all ad-supported cable networks in both total day and primetime. The network had the top 14 shows in total viewers and the top eight shows in the demo in all of cable news. But despite its strong hold on the top spot, Fox News hit a series of 13-year lows among younger viewers this month.
The ratings for May 2014 (Nielsen Live + Same Day data):
◾Primetime (Mon-Sun): 1,455,000 total viewers / 221,000 A25-54
◾Total Day Mon-Sun): 902,000 total viewers / 177,000 A25-54
Fox News, like all the cable news networks, was down compared the same month last year: the network was down -27% in total viewers and -25% in the A25-54 demographic in total day and -26% and -28%, respectively, in primetime.”
In other words the left-leaning media are doing hit pieces in an attempt to discredit their competition by presenting biased studies as fact to the very uninformed viewers they serve.
Worth repeating Fox News has more viewers than all the other cable news shows COMBINED. You don’t get to be #1 for 149 straight months with uninformed viewers. You get there and stay there because the viewers have learned the news will be as accurate as possible and presented in a clear and concise manner to be able to realize the difference between news and commentary. Other news channels present their news with a biased slant and very limited opposing views.
Fox News has liberals Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Allen Colmes, Kirsten Powers and others on various shows every day. Sure don’t see anything close on the other channels of presenting the whole story and both sides of issues.
The question is who’s the “fool” and how many don’t have the intelligence to figure out the scam? Dewey apparently is and does.
Oops, “gym” should have been gem.
Tina: “it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry.”
Do you believe that if you continue to repeat this false dichotomy over and over again, it will magically become something other than a false dichotomy?
“It doesn’t matter that Obama called this an act of terror. The cause was being spun as being the fault of the video.”
No. “They motivated by the video” does not equate to “the fault of the video.” Spot the difference.
“The problem for the administration isn’t that they didn’t say it was a terror attack; it’s that they attempted to blame a stupid video”
Again, no. They did not “blame” the video. They said the attackers were motivated by the video (which they very well may have been!).
“rather than the terrorists for their actions…”
Obama made it very clear in his UN speech that the terrorists WERE responsible for their actions, and that the only proper response to bigoted speech is more speech. You know this, because you’ve cited his speech here before; you just imposed a psychological block on every part of it that doesn’t fit your narrative.
Jack, here’s one study showing that FOX News viewers were less informed than others:
More important is misinformation; another study showed that FOX News viewers were much more likely to believe that there were proven links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, that weapons of mass destruction had been found there post-invasion, and that would public opinion generally favored the invasion.
Libby: ” This analysis was made when?”
The evidence comes from the horses mouths. It isn’t an “assessment” but testimony from witnesses to the events in real time. It represents evidence. Evidence is what we gather when we think something should be investigated. It appears the administration has lied, failed to provide adequate security, failed to adequately plan ahead in obvious conditions, and failed to defend/rescue our people. This is serious stuff. I know you would be screaming if this was a republican administration and you do too.
” This we do not have to deny, because it simply is not true.”
I’m sorry Libby but that is bunk. Of course this administration has to answer to the people and to those tasked with asking questions and demanding answers. It comes with the territory; they are responsible for their actions or lack thereof.
Being mad at me for discussing the issues as they break in the news won’t change a thing and, in case you hadn’t noticed, it’s what we do at PS.
Libby at #8 and “misperceptions”.
Perception forms opinion. If those doing these studies hold different opinions than FOX viewers, ie, they believe in consensus science, then of course the FOX viewers will be deemed not as informed (read bright).
Studies like these are typical of the left. They are done to discredit, in this case, the most widely viewed news network on cable because it has made severe inroads in the market. They also take a shot at the right since most on the right watch FOX rather than other news outlets. The reason, of course, is those news outlets all operate from the same liberal bias. Look at the sycophantic way they covered (promoted) Obama, a man startlingly unprepared to be president.
Liberals believe they are right about everything and smarter than everybody. It gives them a closed loop, view of reality and that is a really really dumb way to view and be in the world, but there you are.
Thinking in lock step is not thinking at all. Instead liberals hold iron clad opinions and if you agree you are smart and if not, no.
The studies don’t impress me much and despite our liberal friends patting themselves on the back all the time here at Post Scripts, I think we have shown we are not only aware of what is going on but more often than not pretty savvy about how things will turn out. That requires perception as well as sound thinking.
And don’t even get me started about core values and grounding…liberals are all over the map.
Chris: “Do you believe that if you continue to repeat this false dichotomy over and over again, it will magically become something other than a false dichotomy?”
Do you believe if you keep accusing me of repeating a false dichotomy it will make the accusation true?
““They motivated by the video” does not equate to “the fault of the video.”
Sorry but that doesn’t wash. It might have had they not arranged for Susan Rice to repeatedly state that the attack began spontaneously in Benghazi as a result of the video and insist they did not have information that it was preplanned or premeditated. That was a lie!
There’s testimony from several sources that refutes this claim. There’s testimony that the attack was viewed in real time and the people watching knew immediately there was no protest. Chris Stevens reported in his last correspondence that there was no protest going on. Libyan President Mohammed al-Magariaf reported it was a terror attack.
The administration knew all of this before Rice told her story on the Sunday shows. Her statement that the spontaneous protest and video were the best or latest information they had at that time was just false…stupidly false!
I’m not blocking a dam* thing. I am posting information that breaks in the news for discussion. I find the Presidents and Hillary’s behaviors bizarre and I suspect the decisions made on that fateful night were all politically motivated from covering for incompetence and blunders to shifting the messenger away from either Hillary or Obama to attempting to keep bad news at arms length until after the election.
You don’t think it amounts to a hill of beans and you’ve said so. You’ve had your say and I’ve had mine.
I trust the people to figure it out for themselves. I have to tell you, it doesn’t look good and that has nothing to do with me.
It was a direct insult to the Libyan president. It was a lie told to the families of the dead.
In 2006 Pew did a study that Rush cited. Fox News viewers had less education, were slightly older, but scored only slightly less on being knowledgable than those who watched CNN. Since then Fox has taken a lot of market share from all of the alphabet channels so I imagine the stats have changed since then. The top performers were fairly balanced between left and right news outlets and viewers. Weekly Standard (right) and New Republic (left) were at the top followed by Rush Limbaugh. NPR listeners were 1% point higher in education but 9% points higher in knowledge. (see scoring posted at link)
In 2009 Politics Daily reported on another PEW study:
In 2012 Daily Caller reported on a PEW survey:
Professor Bainbridge cites Daniel Kline of the WSJ:
Here’s a NYT chart listing politics by profession that shows the idea that conservatives aren’t smart or informed is nonsense! More information here.
Isn’t this a bit silly anyway?
Yes. it’s silly, but I did find it interesting to know democrats’ low score on economic questions explains their lack of understanding we can’t spend and borrow ourselves into a balanced budget, solvent nation or improved living conditions.
It also verified the liberals on PS and in the media will continue to promote falsehoods to cover up their own shortcomings and the major mistakes made by this administration’s failures.
Everyone has heard about the IRS now saying they can’t provide Lerner’s emails for 2009 to 2011 from her and outside agencies like the WH and Treasury, but they still have them for that same time period for those she send to other IRS personnel.
Does this administration really believe anyone will believe this lie? We all know our emails are out there and so are hers. And we know NSA has all of her email metadata, which will give us a whole picture of that time.
One needs to only look at the dumb statements said and stupid decisions made to know what party is better informed and knowledgeable on issues important to our country and it’s solvent future.
Oh yeah, one more thing. Did you all hear that one of the five terrorist Obama let go has direct ties with the terrorist that flew the planes into the Twin Towers? It’s really heartbreaking seeing the daughter of one of those killed that day say she can’t believe her own president let one of the men responsible for her dad’s death go free.
Every week another scandal comes out validating just how uninformed this administration is and the lengths it will go to violate our constitution, the oath they took to uphold it and the rights of the people they are supposed to represent.
Tina, it IS true. You said this:
“it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry.”
That is a textbook example of a false dichotomy. The attack could have been a terrorist attack AND a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video. The two are not mutually exclusive. If you don’t understand that this is a false dichotomy, that is because you don’t understand what a false dichotomy is.
“Sorry but that doesn’t wash. It might have had they not arranged for Susan Rice to repeatedly state that the attack began spontaneously in Benghazi as a result of the video and insist they did not have information that it was preplanned or premeditated. That was a lie!”
No, it was not a lie. The CIA said the exact same thing in their talking points before the White House ever saw them. The CIA linked the attack to the protests in Cairo, which were motivated by the video. Several journalists in Benghazi also reported the same thing. And as of the time of the Senate Report, our intelligence community STILL did not know whether or not the attack was planned more than a day in advance.
You know all this. You have seen the documents which prove your accusations false. But you just. Keep. Making. Them.
You are not an honest or rational person.
“There’s testimony from several sources that refutes this claim.”
There was also testimony from several sources that supported it. Why do you feel more qualified than CIA analysts and government officials to judge which evidence was best at the time? It’s clear that there was conflicting information and that the White House probably jumped the gun by going with the official CIA line before waiting until all the facts came out. You couldn’t publish this as a political conspiracy theory because it would be too dull. Your incessant harping on this mistake, as if it’s “worse than Watergate” your words, is ridiculous. Especially when you ignore a much, much larger intelligence failure under the previous administration that led to a needless war and thousands dead.
“There’s testimony that the attack was viewed in real time”
No, there isn’t. This is such an old, tired Benghazi lie that it discredits basically your entire opinion on this issue. Despite your obsession with the conspiracy theories, you really have not kept up with this story at all; you have only managed to collect and store every bit of data that supports your narrative while discarding the rest. You’re not interested in the truth, you’re interested in what you want to hear.
Tina you’re right and Chris is wrong. Here is Charlene Lamb’s testimony about the night of the attack. She watched it live and a recording of it, therefore, must exist.
Charlene Lamb Deputy Asst Secretary Of International Affairs Watched Take Down Of Benghazi In Real Time:
“When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA. Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.”
Those are the words of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb from her testimony before House Oversight Committee, Washington, D.C.on October 10, 2012.
Once these words were uttered there should have been a stunned silence followed by an explosion of questions filled with outrage and disbelief, followed by more yelling and righteous indignation; sadly there was none.
Nowhere inside the Obama administration, the world press, radio, television and blogosphere, anywhere did “we” get what was just said and admitted. When Ms. Lamb testified in front of Congressman Issa’s committee she was opening a window into the failed emergency notification and reaction system that has been in existence for decades in the United States and refined after 11 years of continuous war.
Because of the terror attacks of 9/11, our government has worked at interoperability within our vast intelligence servicers: connecting the dots.
It is standard operating procedure for all of the agencies to be “tuned” in to what is happening and being reported especially on the anniversary of 9/11 and specifically when a United States Consulate is being burned and Americans are being butchered.
Ms. Lamb, who was at the State Department Operations Center in Washington, D.C. and the entire United States government, military, intelligence and counter-terrorism centers were listening in real time to a six-hour battle.”
The same information is available on several other links too.
Chris I’m not stupid, of course it’s possible. I am not saying that the video had nothing to do with the feelings of the terrorists. I have no way of knowing (nor do you, or Hillary, or Rice, or Obama) what was in the minds and hearts of the terrorists!
What we do have is evidence that there was NO PROTEST.
IF there was no protest, then the scenario that a protest became a “spontaneous attack” is a fabrication.
The question is, why did the administration choose to lie so blatantly to the American people and the families of the victims. And why did the administration make such a big public show of arresting the maker of the video as if the video was the direct and obvious cause? And why in hell did the administration take the opportunity to apologize for the video as if it were the cause? (As if the video were worse than the murderous acts of the terrorists)
It is you who refuse to even entertain the possibility that this administration did it because they didn’t want the truth about their egregious failures prior to, during, and after the attack to be the headlines discussed right before the election. You refuse to entertain the idea that the Obama administration and the CIA also did what they did to cover for Hillary knowing she wants the presidency and this would look bad on her resume.
That is a very real possibility, Chris.
“Why do you feel more qualified than CIA analysts and government officials to judge which evidence was best at the time?”
Why have you decided that the only reliable “government officials” are the ones who are friends of Hillary, Obama, and Rice? Why do you automatically dismiss the testimony of low level people who were on the ground who have nothing to gain or lose by telling what they know? Why do you dismiss the last telephone communication from Chris Stevens?
Why are you not curious?
“No, it was not a lie”
Susan Rice was on TV many days after the event. The video and protest were NOT the only information they had. In fact they created a false dichotomy when Susan Rice was sent out to place the blame on the video and Obama later said they didn’t didn’t have enough evidence to say for sure. If they didn’t have enough evidence to say for sure then why trot out Rice with a story meant to convince the public?
Chris this stinks to high heaven and you are just too partisan, not to mention angry at me, to relent.
“It’s clear that there was conflicting information and that the White House probably jumped the gun by going with the official CIA line before waiting until all the facts came out.”
Jumped the gun? The Sunday talk shows don’t coordinate with each other to get the same guest on Sunday…the administration arranged for Rice to be on ALL of them for the purpose of blaming the video. The move was calculated and strategic! There was no compelling reason for her to do that; the president said so himself later. think for once in your life…why would he send her out there to push the video/protest?
“No, there isn’t.”
Well if it’s true the President wasn’t watching in real time why the hell wasn’t he? He IS the commander-in-Chief and our nation was under attack! There is testimony that someone was watching in “near real time”…where was the President:
Our readers have watched events unfold and it isn’t just right wing nuts that have questions and it isn’t just Post Scripts writing about this.
An article in the Daily Mail tell us where Morell went to work after leaving his government position with the CIA:
The story is old and tired only because there are so many like you who continue to push the “nothing to see” narrative when clearly there is and you should be demanding the truth from Hillary and Obama!
You aren’t interested in the truth, Chris; it is you who dismisses data and testimony that doesn’t exonerate the administration.
I don’t pretend to know everything; I do have a lot of unanswered questions…and I am not alone.
Doug Schoen is a Democrat and a political adviser and pollster:
Pull your head out Chris.
Bill Whittle: Why Benghazi Matters: Breakdown of Bogus Memes, Deflections, Deception, Lies, Screw Ups & Cover-Ups
@ #6 Post Scripts
Okay…I’ve read Dewey’s response to this topic three times and it clearly does not include any “hate speech.” I’ve got to call out Post Scripts on this because for quite some time Pie, Toby, Tina, Chris, and Libby (I’m sure there have been others) have been at each other’s throats with blatant name calling. Post Scripts has not, to my recollection, chastised their words, so to do so with Dewey is unjust and wrong. If Post Scripts has reprimanded prior posts for “hate speech” I humbly apologize for this missive.
Like Libby, I too have a difficult time following much of what Dewey has to say or ask (Sometimes deciphering a San Francisco bus schedule is easier, but usually I can find his point somewhere. That said, I appreciate Post Scripts allowing Dewey to post his thoughts on your blog.
Finally, didn’t Post Scripts write something about being a friendlier, more tolerant and open discussion forum back at the start of the New Year? If you did…you have failed to meet your goal.
P.S. The Benghazi topic is old…don’t we have bigger fish to fry?
Did you delete my post?
LOL…there it is. I’m blaming Al Gore for creating internet problems!
Pete I’m sure Jack will respond to you as soon as he’s able.
We don’t generally delete any comments unless a person uses very bad language or issues continuous derogatory remarks with the intent to damage and without specifics.
Dewey doesn’t just insult people occasionally out of frustration. From my perspective his only reason for being here is to insult and demean not only us but others like the entire FOX News staff and the Koch brothers. He rarely offers information or even opinion. His posts are more like left wing soundbites fired in sequence at random. It’s perfectly within his right to hate the Koch’s and think they are involved in a conspiracy to gobble up all the wealth and whatever else he imagines. I have attempted to engage Dewey by asking him specific question in the last few weeks. He has responded to none of them.
I do my best to remain civil and usually don’t get nasty until someone kicks me in the teeth. I used to allow others to treat me that way as a conservative Republican and just walk away but I have chosen consciously to fight back with equal measure.
The Benghazi “deal” is not old as long as the administration is refusing to cooperate with the Congress. It is also part of a pretty serious package of failures and possibly illegal or unconstitutional actions involving not only the President and his staff but several governmental departments. If you find it boring the best thing to do is avoid the posts involving Benghazi, no?
What issue or subject would you like to see discussed on Post Scripts?
I hope you will stick around Pete, It’s always fun to get a different perspective. I promise i will treat you with respect as long as you do the same with me. Deal?
Finally, are all of your comments now posted?
#7 Libby and #23 Pete, re hate speech.
Libby and Pete you’re right in the context of what Dewey just said. It wasn’t that bad, although it didn’t have any supportive facts we could considered. However, please understand I’ve been dealing with Dewey for quite awhile and he’s pushed a whole lot of buttons around here and that is the context in which I was referring. That and Dewey likes to use the phrase hate speech when talking about Tea Party people, et al. It was kinda a right back at ya thing…but not really warranted in this case. (My bad!)
In the past we’ve asked commenters until we were blue in the face to please, please, please, try and be respectful, well, obviously that didn’t work. So after a long time of trying edit out stuff I guess I got fed up and just let the words fly and I shouldn’t have done that. Set a bad example. That’s my mistake and I’ll try to do better. But, try to understand I have a real problem with censorship, so it has to be pretty raunchy materiel before I will snip it and that gives folks a wide latitude to be snarky if they are so inclined.
Tina and I have never backed away from comments that are critical of us, PS or our positions and we never will. However, we frequently fire right back! It’s all part of the blog scene, but our real mission is to exchange information that is helpful to forming a balanced, well considered position.
Pete, thank you for joining us. We look forward to many more of your comments on anything you wish to talk about!
Pete, no way is Benghazi over. Did you hear the new information that came out just yesterday about the terrorist used the cell phone left at the burned out facility to call their terrorist leaders to tell them the attack had worked, and this administration knew the phones had been used? Did you hear about this over the past almost two year, cuz I sure didn’t?
Drip..drip..drip. The information is not being given over freely. And until it is Benghazi will not be over. Obama won’t be in office forever and the Dems won’t be in control of the Senate either some day.
The truth will come out one way or the other.
I completely understand the frustration with Dewey.
What I like about PS is that most topic respondents view issues in black or white. I’m more of a shades of grey type of guy. I enjoy reading all of the posts and though rarely do they change my mind on a given issue, I like to read both sides of an issue. We’re all bias to some degree, but I try not to be when it comes to politics and current events. Thanks for your continued contribution to our right to freedom of speech. Now, If we could just get more people to be involved in local, state and federal processes.
Benghazi is so far down on my list of issues that face our United States that it’s not on my radar. My concerns are: 1. Economic (Global, National and Local) 2. The geopolitics of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia, China, North Korea and other global entities. 3. Health care and how we as a nation will respond to the common good of our people. 4. The education of our children.
Benghazi is very low my list of priorities. I understand that it rates highly for you and that’s fine, but I just don’t have a dog this fight. In the not too distant future we will have a new president, democratic or republican, and in my view Benghazi will have gone the way of the birther debacle. Fight if you wish, but I see it as (in the long run) a waste of taxpayer dollars. I’m focused on the big picture and not what I see as a footnote in the annals of our history.
Have a wonderful week,
At #30 Pete
Pete makes an interesting comment that’s probably true for many people in America:
He’s right about the changing of the guard. It’s inevitable that we will soon have a new president due to the two term limit on the presidency.
I don’t agree with the apathetic approach he takes. The way a president comports himself in office matters and I don’t agree we should just shrug and let failures, lies, and deceptions go.
The President and his cabinet are not above the law. No one in government is or should be and when people are dead due to incompetence, when rights have been violated, the people should have recourse to get to the truth.
Benghazi isn’t even remotely like the birther issue, which for me was a point of interest only in the entertainment sense. What if, years from now, we discover the long form birth certificate we were shown was indeed altered. Will it matter? Not one whit. It will become a question on a quiz show. On the other hand as citizens we should care when our Commander-in-Chief is not taking his responsibilities seriously or is using the power of his office politically or against private citiznes. We should care enough to hold our elected leader to account.
It looks like the entire operation in Benghazi was on the order of a fly by night mission with loose goals and little, if any, planning or oversight. Either that or a poorly planned secret mission of dubious intent. It appears that State Department failures were epic.
What possible excuse can there be for not having tight security and an exit plan for the people serving our nation in a hot bed of radical terrorist activity? The fact that we didn’t is particularly troubling given full knowledge of recent attacks (including an attack on the Red Cross), the British evacuation, black flags flying in the vicinity, and considering the approach of a 911 anniversary.
This failure isn’t a result of choosing to take the wrong course. That type of mistake, as regrettable as they can be, is to be expected since no President is perfect. But a pattern of failure to lead, to take responsibility for failures, to knowingly deceive and cover up, to use government agencies against citizens for political purposes, to legislate without Congress, to ignore existing law, and to fail to keep the people informed and to admit the truth when trouble arises is not acceptable.
An apathetic citizenry is an enabling citizenry.
As citizens we have a responsibility to be aware and to hold our leaders accountable. We have a responsibility to learn from history so we can make better choices in future. We can’t do that if we are poorly informed and apathetic.
We bring the latest information available to our readers so we can all discuss it and at least attempt to learn from each other. We welcome people with differing opinions and views because they give everyone the opportunity to think beyond their own understanding.
Some think that our purpose in following Benghazi and other issues is to beat up on the President. I remind them they did a lot of beating on the last president and wonder what the complaining is about. We let them express themselves. We gave them the opportunity to post their own articles to the front page. Much worse to me than the natural contentions that come when people have strong opinions is the notion that when your guy is in office we should all take a hands off, cheer leading stance.
I don’t agree with Pete who thinks he doesn’t have a dog in the Benghazi fight. We all do, because of the current president’s involvement in it and because the Sec. of State in charge of this whole mess wants to be our next president. If she gets into the WH we’ll just have more horrible decisions being made by incompetent people who will tell more lies to pass off cover ups for even more mistakes no one will be held accountable for.
Obama is getting away with destroying this country we don’t need another incompetent liar to throw the last shovel full on it.
If the birth certificate issue does turn out to be a fake I have one question. If Obama was not eligible to be president what happens to all of the laws Congress passed and he signed? Are they still laws or are they null and void? If he broke the law and wasn’t eligible to hold the office in the first place what happens? We’d have one mell of a hess on our hands is the way I see it.
Pete: “The Benghazi topic is old…don’t we have bigger fish to fry?”
Think “Whitewater”. It’s all they’ve got, and they’ll never let it go.
Tina: “…it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry.”
No, it doesn’t. And even if it did … so what? We’ve already admitted that the administration was not on the ball here … so what more are you after?
Why does virtually every crisis seem to take the Obama administration by surprise?
Dewey: “Hilary while probably the most qualified by actual experience”
What experience would that be? She was first lady twice and as such spent most of her time trying to keep bimbos from erupting; she did nothing in the Senate, She did nothing in the state Department. It’s an impressive resume only to those who think titles are significant and accomplishment a footnote.
“find independent candidates.”
Libby: “…so what? We’ve already admitted that the administration was not on the ball here … so what more are you after?”
You may have admitted it. The man, his administration, Hillary, and your party have not…and will not. It is up to people like us to keep this alive since the left media (hacks all), like you, is uninterested in justice or holding the President accountable.
And don’t play possum with me. You are a fanatic when it comes to this type of failure if the people involved have “R” behind their names.
In neither Watergate nor Whitewater did anyone die. (Well not sure about whitewater; those Arkansans are a bit hillbilly old school.) But having said that the casual way you dismiss this is pathetic, even for you.
I only wish that some of our wonderful American citizens had put as much energy into investigating the evidence of going to war with Iraq as they do Benghazi. Benghazi is a tree within a forest of forests and Colin Powell’s presentation, justifying the need to go to war with Iraq, to the United Nations was an entire forest being clear-cut. Some citizens don’t see the forest for the trees. Too bad Colin Powell’s career ended with that speech; he was a good man screwed over by an overzealous Administration.
“You may have admitted it. The man, his administration, Hillary, and your party have not… .”
Yes, they have. Where do you think I got this information?
You still haven’t said … what more do you want? Resignations? I do believe that the pertinent people at State have been “re-assigned”, as the euphemism goes. And everybody’s on their toes now.
What more do you want?
“It is up to people like us to keep this alive since the left media (hacks all), like you, is uninterested in justice or holding the President accountable.”
Oh, that’s not a precedent you want to set … lest a certain former President gets convicted of committing the nation to a fruitless war on false pretenses. We’ve got a lot more hard evidence on that point than you will ever have.
Libby: “Oh, that’s not a precedent you want to set … lest a certain former President gets convicted of committing the nation to a fruitless war on false pretenses.”
Au contraire! I’m not at all concerned.
“We’ve got a lot more hard evidence on that point than you will ever have.”
I wouldn’t be so sure about that if I were you,but then, I don’t live in a liberal bubble.
Libby: “And everybody’s on their toes now.”
No, people are reassigned to give the impression that “everybody is on their toes” and to try to tamp down the narrative.
See Libby I remember very well how you and your lefty pals ragged on the former President and did everything in your power to undermine his presidency. You were relentless. I’m just taking my cue from you. Even after he’s gone five and a half years you cannot resist trying to destroy.
Resignation would be good except then we would have the hapless Joe running the country. No, he will probably stay and play a lot of golf while Valerie runs the show. I hope we can hold on. I hope we aren’t hit with another horrendous terrorist attack.
What I want is for the people of the United States to wake up and be aware of the shenanigans of this lawless administration. What I want is a President next time that is up to the task and who cares about our Constitution and respects the rule of law. I want our country to work again. I want our citizens to jobs again and opportunities to invest and to save for their own futures. I want someone leading the country that knows what the heck to do, who chooses capable people, and who respects our allies.
#38 Pete, The reason some of us are more interested in find out the truth on Benghazi is our involvement in the Iraq war based on the lies about the WMDs has already been explained. Guess since it wasn’t covered widely in the media you missed it. Remember Congress voted to go to war based on the false information, which included a bunch of Democrats who are denouncing their own actions today.
‘Curveball,’ Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, Iraqi Informant: I’m Proud My WMD Lies Led To Iraq War:
“LONDON — An Iraqi man whose testimony the United States used as a key evidence to build a case for war in Iraq says he is proud that he lied about his country developing mobile biological warfare labs.
The Guardian newspaper published an interview Wednesday with Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, who has been identified as the informer called “Curveball,” whose claims about weapon labs formed part of then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to the U.N. Security Council in 2003, shortly before the war began.
The Guardian quoted al-Janabi as saying: “I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that.”
Although some intelligence agents were skeptical of Curveball’s story, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee reported in 2004 that the Central Intelligence Agency “withheld important information about Curveball’s reliability” from analysts dealing with the case.”
I do agree with you it is a shame Colin Powell’s career pretty much ended because of his speech at the UN which was based on the informants lies. Even though he was a moderate republican he was a brilliant man with vast military experience we could have benefited from today.
#39 Jack, They’re taken by surprise because Obama doesn’t attend his security briefing meetings. He prefers to read the reports alone without direct input from his advisors. And because he has a bunch of inept, unqualified advisors preparing those reports.
Last night Bill O’Reilly and Brit Hume had a discussion on this topic.
Brit Hume: Obama Overwhelmed by His Scandals, Doesn’t Know What to Do:
O’REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I’m Bill O’Reilly. In “The Hume Zone” segment tonight, we have three hot topics, beginning with the southern border chaos.
Let’s bring in Fox News Senior Political Analyst, Brit Hume. So, you know, when I was giving Juan and Mary Katharine some jazz, I’m going, “The President is surprised. He’s surprised at everything.”
You’ve been a around a long time. Are you surprised that he is so surprised.
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, I wish I were not but — I mean, I wish I didn’t believe it. Unfortunately, I do believe it.
I believe that he is basically caught off guard by all these things. Because I think this is an administration that, we’re coming to find out, is one of almost unimaginable incompetence and, in many respects, disengagement.
O’REILLY: Very strong words.
O’REILLY: Do we not have a CIA. Do we not have a National Security Agency. We have all the drones in space.
With all of this stuff, he spent billions and billions of dollars. And he’s surprised? The border, he’s surprised at, surprised at V.A., surprised at Putin, surprised on Iraq. It’s just — it’s amazing.
HUME: Well, look, I’m not — it’s not clear to me if these agencies aren’t trying to do their job and to keep the administration, at large and as entity, informed.
But I don’t know if this President is paying that much attention.
O’REILLY: Do you really believe that. Does he really want to get down in history beside James Buchanan and Warren Harding. Because, look, a lot of people feel —
HUME: Look, I think he’s overwhelmed. I don’t think he really knows what to do. And I think he’s surprised about that. I think he’s surprised —
O’REILLY: Wait, wait, wait. Let me challenge you. Let me challenge you.
The man is playing golf —
HUME: Well, there you go.
O’REILLY: — while 2,000 people are being beheaded and gunned down in Iraq. I mean, —
HUME: Well, that’s not the best way to keep on top of the situation, is it.
O’REILLY: No, but it’s staggering.
HUME: I’ve got no objection to a guy playing golf. And there are times when it is useful for the President not to seem overly bothered by things. But I don’t think this particular weekend in Iraq is one of them.
O’REILLY: So, here’s a guy who’s brilliant enough to get elected president twice, all right, and head the Harvard Law Review, and he doesn’t understand that when he’s out on the golf course and 2,000 people are being gunned down by an invading al Qaeda army, that it looks bad. He doesn’t get it?
HUME: Well, it certainly looks bad. The problem is, I’m afraid, is that it is bad.
Look, you’ve got to understand, this is — the presidency is a job which separates — that it shows you the difference between being smart and being wise. This president is smart enough.
He is not wise enough for the job, in my judgment. And he is, continually now, because of mistakes made in the past, issues neglected. The chickens are coming home to roost and they’re coming home in droves.
O’REILLY: OK. So, all the foreign policy mistakes he’s made now are, all at once, collapsing in. And the same thing is going to happen in Afghanistan that has happened in Iraq if he pulls everybody out.
The Taliban is just going to come down and slaughter everybody. So, you know, I mean, come on.
But the border situation with the children, I mean, all of a sudden, you know, the public is told that what was described as a secure border — we have to have comprehensive immigration reform because we have a secure border now, is a chaotic mess.
HUME: I would say that the case had been put quite another way, Bill. I think we need comprehensive immigration reform because we don’t have a secure border, that much of the problem we’re having, particularly with these unaccompanied minors, these children who are coming, in many cases, by themselves or in small groups, unaccompanied by any adults, and not getting much of any help at all, are arriving here because our immigration laws mean, the way they’re now written and the way that they’re executed mean that they simply can’t be turned away. And I’m not sure they should be.
But, some years ago, we took the job of dealing with unaccompanied alien minors away from the Department of Homeland Security, you know, the Immigration Agency, and turn it over to the Department of Health and Human Services.
They’re the “Help Me People.” The other people, the “Deport Me People.” And what they’re trying to do is to look after these kids.
And, in some ways, that may be the right thing to do. But the laws dealing with all of this are chaotic.
O’REILLY: That’s for sure.
HUME: And they are not, basically, in the interest of the United States of America.
O’REILLY: All right, I only have 20 seconds. Do you believe the IRS lost Lois Lerner’s e-mails. Or do you believe it’s one fat lie.
HUME: I don’t believe for a minute that those e-mails are lost to the point of being irretrievable. Not for a minute.
Hey! Our Special Forces descended on Libya and kidnapped a Benghazi plotter.
I don’t think that’s quite legal. But I don’t seem to mind much. (The end of civilization is nigh.)
But thank goodness our government is ignoring you … and doing real work.
U.S. Captures Benghazi Attack Suspect:
“WASHINGTON (AP) — A Libyan militant suspected in the deadly attack on Americans in Benghazi has been captured and is in American custody, the Pentagon said Tuesday, marking the first time the U.S. has apprehended one of the alleged perpetrators.”
Finally, after almost two years they decided to bring in one of the guys walking freely on the streets of Libya.
Libby, something else we agree on. I too can’t wrap my brain around how the US can capture and kill individuals on foreign soil, but if they did they same over here we’d be screaming our heads off.
Just heard Greg Palcot (sp?) from Fox give an accounting of his interview with this guy not long after the attack. He said the guy wasn’t afraid of being captured. And he was affiliated with AQ, but not any more. Was he during the attack?
Also heard we’ve known where he’s been all of this time and a prior attempt to get him failed. With this administration’s history of dragging their feet on everything I do have to question why Obama gave the order on Friday to get him. Did his AQ involvement not fit in with Obama’s campaign rhetoric of Bin Laden is dead and AQ is on the run?