Posts Tagged ‘Benghazi’

Carney: Benghazi Happened a Long Time Ago(Video)

Wednesday, May 1st, 2013

Jay Carney offered more excuses on the question of the Benghazi disaster, and this time, he explained it away as having “happened a long time ago.”  This corrupt administration continues to stonewall, and after listening to their Secretary of State ask the question “What difference does it make,” we now see the new talking point emerge that Benghazi happened a long time ago.  I suppose on that basis, we should simply forget it.

Watch this remarkable example of White House AssClownery:


Covering Up the Cover-Up: Petraeus Sideshow

Wednesday, November 14th, 2012

The Main Event

I realize that the leftist media is happily pursuing former CIA Director and retired General David Petraeus, and I also understand that this is their way of giving Barack Obama cover.  This story is designed simply to cover up a cover-up.  You will remember that almost every media person asked has said that Petraeus had to go, because the affair left him subject to blackmail and coercion.  All those who said that are right.  The thing they missed is that such blackmail had already occurred, as we now learn that the Obama administration used the pending disclosure of the affair to force Petraeus to sing the administration’s song on Benghazi. The fact is that the Obama administration is proof-positive of the reason why we must have people of unimpeachable moral character in the highest offices of United States Federal Government.  On the opposite end of the blackmail of Petraeus sits a President who actually used blackmail or coercion to gain compliance from Petraeus to help conceal the truth about Benghazi.  This is the scandal, and this is the reason Barack Obama must go.  I say again: Barack Obama must go.

There can be no doubt that the character of a person who sits at the head of the CIA must be examined.  I don’t think there are very many people who would endorse the conduct of David Petraeus.  The problem is that as terrible as his actions had been, and as awful as the possibility of his vulnerability to blackmail may have been, the stunning fact remains that the man just re-elected to the presidency actually used that leverage against Petraeus.  Can we be blunt?  Anybody who uses his power as President to coerce or extort an appointed official in any respect does not belong in the office to which he had been elected.  Instead, he belongs in jail.

On Wednesday, Barack Obama held a press conference filled with softball questions during which he said that whomever might decide to “go after” UN Ambassador Rice would have a problem with him.  His threat was explicit.  I’ve got two words for our illustrious leader: Bugger off.  When Obama sent Rice out to all the Sunday shows to spread the administration’s garbage about an anti-Mohammed video as a cause of the attack on the Benghazi installation, she put herself squarely in the spotlight.  If Obama wants to absolve Rice of wrong-doing, there is a way he can do so:  He can publicly admit that he had given her those instructions, and that he is therefore directly responsible for misleading the American people.  If he’s not willing to do that, Rice is fair game.  When the Marxist thug finds the testicular fortitude to take responsibility for that, maybe we can then drop Ambassador Rice.

At the same time, we have the pending testimony of David Petraeus, but I would not expect too much dirt to be dumped by Petraeus.  You might wonder what could cause Petraeus to bite his tongue at this late date, no longer in the administration, but I will tell you why I now expect the Petraeus testimony to produce nothing of value: They used the affair to keep him quiet, but if he was willing to do that, what other untruths will he speak in testimony if the Justice Department is waving possible charges in his general direction?

Put another way, if Petraeus changes his story at this late date, that will mean an admission that his earlier testimony was false, particularly if his testimony was tainted due to administration coercion.  He’s damned if he tells the truth, because he will be subject to prosecution.  If he maintains his earlier lies, then the administration can let it go without prosecution.  Besides, given the clearances to which Petraeus has access, it is possible that charges may be filed related to the access that Ms. Broadwell may have gained by virtue of her relationship with Petraeus.  All of this means he’s likely to keep his lips stapled shut and claim the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. At this point, for him, it is much easier and safer to maintain a lie or say nothing than to tell the truth or make any disclosures.  He may be spitting mad and vengeful with respect to the Obama administration, but chances are that they have him over a barrel.  If there was any chance of him spilling the beans, he’d have wound up “suicided.”

Most media outlets have been distracted by the sex and sleaze aspects of this story, but that’s not the important part of this story except as the means by which to understand how Petraeus we being blackmailed.  The critical thing to expose is that Barack Obama and his administration concealed the whole truth from the American people in the run-up to the election.  They concocted a narrative that was demonstrably false about Youtube videos that they knew at the time was false.  Whether directing the cover-up, or as an adjunct to it, Obama had all the authority in the world necessary to prevent it.  Instead, they tried to bury the truth, both about the fact that it had been a planned terrorist attack, as well as the fact that they failed to take any sort of remedial actions once the attack had begun.

Four Americans were slaughtered, and to conceal their inaction, especially through the election, they used all the leverage they held over David Petraeus, and despite what some may think, through the prosecution powers implicit in the Department of Justice, they still hold him over a barrel.  We need more than some dog-and-pony show investigation.  This President misled the American people, and he should be considered to have suborned perjury if he instructed Petraeus to lie to Congress, which almost certainly occurred on September 13th.  The media is complicit, because they’ve helped to cover this mess for Obama, and they aren’t apt to tell us much because they’d be admitting their own dishonesty.  That shouldn’t stop us from demanding answers, because it’s our country.  Enough of the Petraeus sideshow, as it’s long past time we move on to the main event, in which Barack Obama is the rightful star of the show.

“It’s 3am”

Monday, November 5th, 2012

Where was Barack Obama?

Becoming the Media

Monday, October 29th, 2012

Time to Change the Game

One of the standard laments of conservatives has been and remains the unconscionable bias of the mainstream media.  The bulk of so-called mainstream media outlets are so thoroughly in the tank for Obama, and indeed any leftist cause, that it has become impossible to discern between them and the party they shamelessly favor in their reporting.  The Benghazi story offers abundant evidence of this trend, but the truth is that the media has been skewed heavily in favor of the left for the whole of my life.  What some will have noted is that the character of the bias has changed, having become more thoroughly unabashed.  I believe this owes to the success of talk radio in the 1990s, led by Rush Limbaugh, but also by “new media” of which I suppose I must now admit I am a part.  The mainstream media is too inflexible to roll with the punches, and instead have become the televised and print versions of a leftist talk radio.  For years, they tried with virtually no success to compete in that format, and having failed, they’ve simply decided to make television and newspapers resemble talk radio.  Expert at manipulating imagery like all true propagandists, they’ve simply turned the nightly news into a thirty minute screed for leftists views.

Naturally, the problem is that they still claim the mantle of “objective journalism,” all while carrying out purely partisan scripting and editing.  Rather than complain about them, however, we have an option.  We can’t expect them to “play fair,” whatever that means, but we have it in us to make them mostly irrelevant.  If we want to defeat the left, we will need to vanquish their media as credible sources of information.  Each of you has it in your power to take part in that effort.

Every one of you is a reporter.  With the advent of social media, like Twitter and Facebook, there isn’t one of you who doesn’t have a story to tell, and there isn’t one of you who doesn’t have something to add to the discussion.  Tell it.  Add it.  Do it relentlessly.  Whether you write a small blog like this one, post a points you’d like to make on Facebook, send out emails, or “tweet” your opinion one-hundred-forty characters at a time, get to it.  The lame-stream media doesn’t want to talk about Benghazi?  Fine.  You talk about Benghazi, but do it frequently and relentlessly.  Throw in remarks where appropriate, and don’t be afraid to share.  You’d be surprised what sort of an effect that will have, not only on the political discourse in the country, but also on a media that wishes to be relevant most of all. They want to shape stories, but more, they try to shape what is the story.  Your staunch refusal to move on to other issues and stories will put an end to their migrations away from topics they’d rather see finished.

You might argue that you’re just one small voice in an endless sea of voices, but believe me, the power of one voice in the right moment and context cannot be overestimated.  Sometimes, it’s just the weight of one more voice pushing against the dam that will make it burst.  Sure, at the moment the media is using the storm on the East coast to drive the discussion away from Benghazi, and any number of issues, including the stunted economic growth numbers, but nothing says you must participate in their cover-ups.  To the contrary, you can have an impact simply by talking about the stories that you see as important, and if enough of you do, the media will rush back to you, because what they dare not permit is that they would become irrelevant in the water-cooler talk of the day.  It’s up to you.  Sure, the media can try to bury stories, but they can only bury them if nobody is talking about them.  You have the power to change that.  You do. If sunshine is the best disinfectant, then what we need is a good deal more of it.

While some might argue that we’d have been better off never knowing the full scale of the depravity of Bill Clinton, what would we remember about him if not for Drudge?  He’s now one of the biggest voices in the sea.  What is the legacy of Andrew Breitbart?  The real message is that you can be “media” too, as the concept of “mainstream media” loses all meaning.  There is no reason Obama should get away with it, whatever is happening with hurricane Sandy.  We can follow more than one story at a time, and we’re able to shape the messaging.  Speaking to the occupant of the oval office, the father of the Benghazi hero Tyrone Woods proclaimed:

“It’s better to die a hero than live a coward.”-Charles Woods

With the loss he’s suffered in mind, having the courage to speak out as he has, what do we have to fear?  Engage.  Get the message out there, whatever your particular message may be, and do so fearlessly. It’s our country, and it’s time we take it back from the media. We decide what will be discussed and when, and we shouldn’t permit the so-called “mainstream media” to tell us otherwise.