He may get re-elected. I have no idea. I'm not a psychic. But for people who identify left to applaud this garbage, this piece of human trash who is responsible for the Drone Wars, who is responsible for keeping the prison at Guantanamo open, who is responsible for keeping Bradley Manning behind bars, who is responsible for attacking the Constitution and everything else?
That's disgusting. People will kid themselves and delude themselves, clearly.
I get that. My profession means that I get that.
But are we that unable to wake up?
After 9-11, I saw this blind worship of Bully Boy Bush. I wrongly -- goodness, was I wrong -- thought, "It's a right wing thing."
I reasoned that the right likes structure and conformity and that they were, therefore, more likely to fall for a cult of personality and authoritarianism.
Turns out my side was just as likely.
We have seen that for the last four years.
Priss B. can do whatever he wants and gets away with it.
He can lie, he can kill -- He claims he has the right to kill American citizens on his own. No court is needed. He just goes through his kill list and makes a decision.
This is outrageous.
I cannot believe how awful our government has become. Right after Watergate, I really thought we were going to get it right. I thought we were going to fix corruption and have a more open government.
All we got really was public financing.
You know who killed that right?
After Watergate through 2008, we had public financing in the general election for the presidential candidates.
Then came Priss Barack. The greed will be what people look back on in wonder.
They will be right to do so.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday,
October 16, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, three Nouri had
arrested have their names cleared, the governor of the central bank is
replaced, England gives up their Basra consulate, the attack on the US
Consulate in Benghazi continues to garner interest, name the idiot
writer who tries to find the 'bright' side of the assault on the US
Consulate by chirping, "But no one died in their sleep," and more.
Let's start with cholera. Al Mada reports that UNICEF declared that the cholera problems will not go away in Iraq while the poor sanitation continues. The World Health Organization explains,
"Cholera is an acute intestinal infection caused by ingestion of food
or water contaminated with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae. It has a
short incubation period, from less than one day to five days, and
produces an enterotoxin that causes a copious, painless, watery
diarrhoea that can quickly lead to severe dehydration and death if
treatment is not promptly given. Vomiting also occurs in most
patients." Al Mada explains that the Ministry of Health is implementing
a plan which includes visiting schools to provide information to
students (who would then speak with their families). That is a nice
start but it really looks like the Ministry of Health is actually
letting UNICEF do the work and letting UNICEF foot the bill. The
article notes that UNCIF is sending water kits and water purification
tablets and water (2 million liters per day) into effected areas in
Iraq. AFP notes that there have been 4 deaths and 272 confirmed cases including thirty-one that are children.
Violence was widespread across Iraq yesterday. Iraq Body Count
counts 17 dead from Monday's violence. 17 dead would normally be
reason for headlines. They also count 88 dead from violence so far this
month. All Iraq News reports 2 Amiriyah bombings left five people injured and 2 Latifiyah bombings have left three people injured. Alsumaria notes the Amiriyah area has been blocked off by security and that the number injured has risen to six. Alsumaria adds
2 police officers were shot dead (guns with silencers) in Baghdad
during a football game, a Baghdad bombing injured one police officer, 4
corpses (shot dead) were discovered in a car in the Sulaymaniyah
village of Gafran and there were 28 arrests throughout Iraq.
In other news, Sam Dagher and Ali A. Nabhan (Wall Street Journal) report
that Abdul-Baset Turki ("head of the Supreme Audit Board") has been
named interim central bank governor. They quote Kurdish MP Mahmoud
Othman declaring, "This is another sign that things are not going in the
right direction and that politics is affecting everything." Why?
Because the position wasn't empty this morning. Hadeel Al Sayegh (The National) reports
Parliament held a vote and decided to replace Sinan al-Shabibi.
Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Moussawi is quoted stating, "The parliament
today made a unanimous decision to vote for Abdelbasset, who is
already handling many financial governmental decisions including the
country's fiscal budget. Subsequently, a decision was made to remove
powers from Mr Al Shabibi as central bank governor." Ammar Karim (AFP) reports
al-Shabibi is now in Europe (he was in Japan when the arrest warrant
was noted -- in Japan at a conference) and that Parliament's integrity
commission is stating it's "not about money, but about procedures that
led to the weakening of the dinar against the dollar." Sam Dagher and Ali A. Nabhan (Wall Street Journal) state,
"The Iraqi dinar, which currently trades at around 1,200 to the dollar,
fell as low as 1,280 earlier this year amid allegations that
neighboring Iran and Syria, both subject to international sanctions that
restrict their access to hard currency, were using local fronts to
participate in the Iraqi central bank's auctions."
This morning, All Iraq News noted that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc was accusing Nouri of targeting the Centeral Bank due to the independence of the institution. Hadeel Al Sayegh (The National) reports other voices have joined that chorus:
Iyad
Allawi, the leader of the opposition Iraqiya bloc, said the
independence of the bank, which was necessary to maintain the exchange
rate and prevent inflation, was threatened by the move against Mr Al
Shabibi.
Magda Al Tamimi, a member of the parliamentary finance committee, agreed.
"The
decision to issue a warrant for arrest against Sinan Al Shabibi and a
number of officials at the central bank, was planned and ordered from
some political forces," said Ms Al Tamimi.
"It
is a political decision and not professional. Although we recognise the
existence of some corruption cases in the bank, we are not happy and
have reservations about this method, because of its impact on Iraq's
reputation and the national economy."
Aseel Kami (Reuters) adds,
"Since an inconclusive 2010 election, opponents of Maliki, a Shi'ite,
have accused him of failing to fulfil power-sharing agreements in Iraq's
delicate sectarian and ethnic balance among Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish
political blocs. He accuses them of blocking his attempts to make the
government work. Some lawmakers said the central bank should stay
independent despite the dismissal." in 2011, Nouri publicly tried to
take over the Central Bank and to take over the electoral commission
which brings us to other news of the day, Al Rafidayn notes
that Faraj al-Haidari, Karim al-Tamimi and Osama al-Ani have been
cleared of charges by an appeals court. Faraj al-Haidari was
president of the Electoral Commission. al-Tamimi and al-Ani served on
it. From the April 16, 2012 snapshot:
Yesterday Farah al-Haidari and Karim al-Tamimi were released from jail as was expected -- AFP reported Friday that they would "be jailed until Sunday, a fellow commission member told AFP." As noted in Friday's snapshot,
last Tuesday the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy Martin Kobler was
praising the Independent High Electoral Commission to the United
Nations Security Council and discussing how important it was to the
upcoming provincial elections next year and then the parliamentary
elections scheduled for the year after. So news that Nouri's had two
members of that commission arrested on Thursday, as reported in real time by Raheem Salman (ioL news), was startling and alarming. Karim al-Tamimi serves on the commission while Faraj al-Haidari is the head of the commission.
How outrageous were the arrests? Saturday, Al Mada reported
that Moqtada al-Sadr declared that the arrests were indications that
Nouri al-Maliki might be attempting to delay the elections or call them
off all together. He makes it clear that the the arrest needs to be
based on eveidence and not on some whim of Nouri's and that it shouldn't
be done because Nouri desires to "postpone or call of the election." Xinhua reported,
"The government in Iraq's northern semi-autonomous Kurdistan region
said Saturday that it has called on the central government in Baghdad to
release the electoral commission's head and another member arrested on
corruption charges." The Oman Tribune notes
that the KRG issued the following statement on Friday: "The decision of
the authorities in Baghdad to issue a detention order against Faraj Al
Haidari and Karim Al Tamimi amounts to a gross violation and dangerous
infringement of the political process. Such a decision is targeting the
independence of the electoral commission ... We call (on the
authorities) to reconsider the detention order immediately and refrain
from persisting in insulting the democratic operation." As Mohamad Ali Harissi (AFP) observed,
"Key political factions accused the premier of moving towards a
dictatorship with the arrest of Iraq's electoral commission chief, a
charge the prime minister denied on Saturday." W.G. Dunlop (AFP) quoted
Iraqiya MP Haidar al-Mullah stating, "When the head of the independent
electoral commission is being targeted, it means it is a message from
the one who is targeting him that he is above the law and above the
political process. The one who is standing behind this is the head of
the State of Law coalition (Maliki), because he wants to send a message
that either the elections should be fraudulent, or he will use the
authorities to get revenge on the commission. This arrest is an
indication that the judiciary has become an obedient tool in the hands
of Mr Nuri al-Maliki."
Al Rafidayn explained Nouri al-Maliki released a statement Saturday decrying those who doubted the arrests were sound.
Again, their names have been cleared by an appeals court.
Again, their names have been cleared by an appeals court.
Staying with the political, Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports
the other political blocs are accusing Nouri's State of Law of
preventing progress on proposed legislation due to a walk out State of
Law staged. Iraqiya says State of Law's goal Monday was to disable the
Parliament with their walk out.
From yesterday's snapshot:
Today Al Mada reports Yassin Majeed, an MP with Nouri's State of Law, is declaring that KRG President Massoud Barzani is a threat to Iraq. Majeed held a press conference outside Parliament to denounce Barzani. Alsumaria notes that among Barzani's supposed outrageous offenses is objecting to the infrastructure bill and objecting to the recent weapons shopping spree Nouri's been on ($1 billion dollar deal with the Czech Republic, $4.2 billion dollar deal with Russia). All Iraq News notes that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani issued a statement noting that, at a time when they are trying to resolve the current political crisis, the remarks are not helpful.
Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports today that State of Law is rushing to walk away from Majeed's remarks after Talabani and Iraqiya both called out the "reckless" remarks yesterday. Alsumaria reports Iraqiya stated there was no way to justify the remarks and called on everyone to condemn the remarks and this method to destroy a foundation of unity. In addition, All Iraq News notes the Kurdistan Alliance announced yesterday that there is no political difference between Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani and that the Allliance's statement was in response to the verbal attack on Barzani from Majeed. Hussein Ali Dawed (Al-Montior) notes Talabani statined "he considered these statements a 'call to war'." State of Law has never walked away from their constant smack talk before. The difference here appears to have been a united push back from the blocs at the same time that Nouri wanted it to appear he was trying to reach an understanding with everyone and be a national leader. Majeed's remarks were in keeping with State of Law's trash talk in the past. A month ago -- or maybe a month from now -- they wouldn't have raised an eyebrow and are part of State of Law's never-ending attacks on other politicians.
From yesterday's snapshot:
Today Al Mada reports Yassin Majeed, an MP with Nouri's State of Law, is declaring that KRG President Massoud Barzani is a threat to Iraq. Majeed held a press conference outside Parliament to denounce Barzani. Alsumaria notes that among Barzani's supposed outrageous offenses is objecting to the infrastructure bill and objecting to the recent weapons shopping spree Nouri's been on ($1 billion dollar deal with the Czech Republic, $4.2 billion dollar deal with Russia). All Iraq News notes that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani issued a statement noting that, at a time when they are trying to resolve the current political crisis, the remarks are not helpful.
Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports today that State of Law is rushing to walk away from Majeed's remarks after Talabani and Iraqiya both called out the "reckless" remarks yesterday. Alsumaria reports Iraqiya stated there was no way to justify the remarks and called on everyone to condemn the remarks and this method to destroy a foundation of unity. In addition, All Iraq News notes the Kurdistan Alliance announced yesterday that there is no political difference between Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani and that the Allliance's statement was in response to the verbal attack on Barzani from Majeed. Hussein Ali Dawed (Al-Montior) notes Talabani statined "he considered these statements a 'call to war'." State of Law has never walked away from their constant smack talk before. The difference here appears to have been a united push back from the blocs at the same time that Nouri wanted it to appear he was trying to reach an understanding with everyone and be a national leader. Majeed's remarks were in keeping with State of Law's trash talk in the past. A month ago -- or maybe a month from now -- they wouldn't have raised an eyebrow and are part of State of Law's never-ending attacks on other politicians.
In a move that's surprising some, England's closing a consulate. BBC News reports
that the UK government has announced they will be closing the Basra
consulate but somehow maintaining an 'office' in Basra -- one without
"permanent staffing." Kitabat reports
that British companies and citizens doing business in Basra are
objecting to the decision and stating that China and Korean businesses
will not benefit at Great Britain's loss. The Foreign Office Minister for the Middle East, Alistair Burt, addressed the UK government's decision noting:
Iraq
is a huge country and what we're doing by making these changes is to
make sure we can cover all parts of it even more effectively than we've
done up to now.
We can make sure we're covering Basra by deploying more people in Baghdad.... It's not a zero sum game. Many British companies have told us that they would rather we had a presence in Baghdad and that we beef that up. So we're doing that as well as increasing our support for Erbil. Businesses value our influence in Baghdad, they know key decisions are made there more than in Basra and being able to cover both more effectively we will actually be doing better for British companies, better for Britain and helping the long term development of Iraq all at the same time.
What's very important is that we maintain an influence and work with the people who are on the ground. It used to take 48 hours to get from Baghdad to Basra because we had to fly people through a different route in order to keep them safe. Now you can do it in an hour. And you can stay there and people will be safe. Our team in Baghdad will do the job in Basra that needs to be done. It's a very important area for us with the oil fields, with the potential for infrastructure development. We're already doing well with contracts there.
It is right that we look at the resources we've got and we're able to deploy them effectively. If we weren't able to change resources we wouldn't be able to respond to the differing needs and demands. What we will see is British companies and our own diplomats continuing to build the relationships they need.
We can make sure we're covering Basra by deploying more people in Baghdad.... It's not a zero sum game. Many British companies have told us that they would rather we had a presence in Baghdad and that we beef that up. So we're doing that as well as increasing our support for Erbil. Businesses value our influence in Baghdad, they know key decisions are made there more than in Basra and being able to cover both more effectively we will actually be doing better for British companies, better for Britain and helping the long term development of Iraq all at the same time.
What's very important is that we maintain an influence and work with the people who are on the ground. It used to take 48 hours to get from Baghdad to Basra because we had to fly people through a different route in order to keep them safe. Now you can do it in an hour. And you can stay there and people will be safe. Our team in Baghdad will do the job in Basra that needs to be done. It's a very important area for us with the oil fields, with the potential for infrastructure development. We're already doing well with contracts there.
It is right that we look at the resources we've got and we're able to deploy them effectively. If we weren't able to change resources we wouldn't be able to respond to the differing needs and demands. What we will see is British companies and our own diplomats continuing to build the relationships they need.
Speaking to the BBC, Burt went on to defend what's being called "fly-in, fly-out diplomacy." The Argus notes
that the decision "was condemned by former Foreign Office minister
David Mellor as 'short-sighted' and 'deeply damaging' to British
interests."
Basra was always a problem for the UK. From the November 22, 2006 snapshot:
In England, This Is London reports:
"Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett this afternoon surprised MPs by
signalling the countdown to a withdrawal from Iraq. She told the Commons
that Basra, where the bulk of the UK's 7,200 personnel are stationed,
could be handed over from British military control to Iraqi forces as
early as next spring." Basra has been a violent area for British
soldiers (and for Iraqis). Earlier this month,
on England's Rememberance Sunday, four British troops were killed while
on a boat patrol in Basra and three more were wounded. The four killed included Sharron Elliott who was "the second British female servicewoman to die in action." The other three were Jason Hylton, Ben Nowak, and Lee Hopkins. Mortar attacks have been common in Basra and, in August, a British soldier died as a result of wounds received from mortar rounds. In October, a British soldier died in Basra from road traffic. The end of October
was also when the British consulate in Basra was evacuated after it was
decided it was no longer safe after two months of mortar attacks. (In August, British troops 'evacuated' from their base in Amara due to repeated mortar attacks.)
This followed British troops fleeing their nearby base in Maysan earlier that year. From the August 24, 2006 snapshot:
Meanwhile British troops of the Soldiers of the Queen's Royal Hussars are . . . on the move. Ross Colvin (Reuters) reports
a lot of talk about how they're 'stripped-down' and mobile (in
Landrovers) but the reality is that they're also homeless -- they've "abandoned their base in Iraq's southern Maysan province on Thursday".
Though the base was under "nightly attack" and though it has, indeed,
been abandoned, British flack Charlie Burbridge disagrees that "the British had been forced out of Amara".
From the August 25, 2006 snapshot, the day after the British military fled their base:
In other violence, despite the British military flacks that were so eagerly allowed to spin in this morning's New York Times, Haidar Hani (AP) reports:
"Looters ravaged a former British base Friday . . . taking everything
from doors and window frames to corrugated roofing and metal pipes". As
Ross Colvin (Reuters) reported yesterday, the base, which had come under nightly, heavy attacks, was abandoned. The AP story
today notes: "Iraqi authories had complained that the British
withdrawal had caught them by surprise" and allows flack Charlie
Burbridge to holler Not-true-we-gave-them-24-hours-notice! Well,
Charlie, on a rental, you usually have to give a minimum of 30 days
notice. But it is good to know that as they packed up everything they
could carry, someone did think to make a quick call saying, "Hey, we're
about to split. If there's anything you want, better grab it quick,
dude!"
Basra and the southern region in general were never easy locales for the United Kingdom.
Consulates
were already being analyzed for costs due to the global recession (some
estimates say the UK will save 6 million pounds by closing the Basra
consulate). No doubt the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate
in Benghazi, Libya also factored in and added safety issues to the cost
issues as various countries rethink the nature of their presence on
foreign soil. Days after the Libya attack (14 days, September 25th), rockets were fired on the US Consulate in Basra.
Chaning
topics, if press stupidity and press whoring were executable crimes,
there'd be a lot more people on death row today and two who would be
facing the needle/gas chamber/electric chair? The editorial board of
the Los Angeles Times and The Atlantic's Garance Franke-Ruta. Franke-Ruta is disgusting.
She brings up the father of the late US Ambassador Chris Stevens saying
that his son's death shouldn't be made "into a campaign issue" but
slides past because she wants to do just that. Grasp that.
Let's also grasp what we're talking about. From last week's US House Oversight Committee hearing.
Committee
Chair Darrell Issa: On September 11, 2012, four brave Americans
serving their country were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.
Tyrone Woods spent two decades as a Navy Seal serving multiple tours in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2010, he protected the American diplomatic
personnel. Tyrone leaves behind a widow and three children. Glen
Doherty, also a former Seal and an experienced paramedic, had served his
country in both Iraq and Afghanistan. His family and colleagues grieve
today for his death. Sean Smith, a communications specialist, joined
the State Dept after six years in the United States Air Force. Sean
leaves behind a widow and two young children. Ambassador Chris Stevens,
a man I had known personally during his tours, US Ambassador to Libya,
ventured into a volatile and dangerous situation as Libyans revolted
against the long time Gaddafi regime. He did so because he believed
the people of Libya wanted and deserved the same things we have: freedom
from tyranny.
Realize
please that you come off like a stuck up bitch every time you say "an
attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others." What is
that? "And the rest here on Gilligan's Island"? You can't list three
more names? They aren't important to you? They're just props? That's
what it sounds like. If you gave a damn about four Americans and were
writing because you gave a damn, you'd list their names.
If
you want to honor the dead, you don't do it by rendering them
nameless. And you don't write sentences like this, "Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton on Monday said the first line-of-duty death of a U.S.
ambassador since the Carter Administration was on her." It's the bad
writer who's turning it into Chris Stevens and Three Backup Singers.
We'll deal with Hillary in a bit.
Let's deal
with the father's feelings first: Important in the private world. Note
that we're not even mentioning the man's name. But here's reality, 4
Americans died -- and, everybody get it through your damn heads, it
wasn't just Chris Stevens. You've got four families. I believe the
mother of Sean Stevens wants answers -- wasn't that what she told
Anderson Cooper on 360 last week? But even if all four were calling for
a press black out, too damn bad.
This was not
a suicide. This is four Americans killed in an attack in a foreign
country, killed because they were Americans. Your child and your
memories of them are for your private consumption, fine. But a
terrorist attack isn't Little Susie or Little Johnny pissed themselves
at school and let's not embarrass them by telling the whole world. This
was a terrorist attack and that made it an international concern and a
public event.
Unlike me, GF-R can't find a
clue so she pretends like the father's making a request that would or
could be honored. But she then dismisses the request. That's pretty
craven. Some might argue that what she's about to share is politicizing
the deaths -- GF-R says tilting her head and biting her cringing lips,
but -- "But this isn't how you put out a self-serving account."
How stupid is this woman?
If
you want to put out a self-serving account, how do you do it? You do
an on-background briefing. Then it's never traced back to you. And
that's what she's praising. A State Dept "on-background briefing" from
last week. Again, how stupid is this woman?
In
a democracy, government is supposed to take place in the open. We
don't rush to embrace one or several officials who won't even go on the
record.
It only gets worse as she tries to
make it better. This woman earned a college degree? Seriously? The
same woman who wants to argue, "But no one died in their sleep." That's
her spin? That's her 'up' in the equation? What a moron.
And
what an offensive column. "But no one died in their sleep." Well,
Garance, as far as we know, no one died in their sleep in the Twin
Towers, at the Pentagon or in the planes on September 11, 2001 either.
That didn't make that attack any less tragic. What a moron.
"While
Republicans continue to charge administration cover-up and denial, the
State Department's moves have repeatedly undermined both charges," the
idiot writes. Did she attend the hearing? Of course not. If she had
actual facts, she'd never be able to do that 'creative writing' that's
become her hallmark. I was at the hearing. (Community coverage
includes: "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot," "2 disgrace in the Committee hearing," "The White House's Jimmy Carter moment" and "What we learned at today's hearing.")
I also know what was said on the Sunday chat & chews. The
Republican members of the House Oversight Committee praised the State
Dept and Hillary by name. (The only exception being US House Rep Jason
Chaffetz.) Darrell Issa, the Committee Chair, started the hearing by
thanking Hillary and the State Dept for what they were doing and for the
information they were providing. So exactly what Republicans in
Congress is the idiot GF-R referring to? Oh, that's right, the ones
talking in her head.
And after Hillary's media appearances late yesterday, did the Republican Congress members pile on? Not according to Hillary Is 44 which notes:
Consider
Senator Lindsay Graham. Early yesterday Graham sent Obama a letter
asking Obama whether he knew of the previous attacks on the Benghazi
compound and if so what Obama did about it?
Years
ago Representative Lindsay Graham was an impeachment manager against
Bill Clinton. Did now Senator Graham attack Hillary Clinton and demand
her immediate resignation? No. Senator Graham's response to the Lima statement by Hillary remained focused on Barack Obama:
"Her remarks drew a quick response from three Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, including ranking member John McCain.Clinton's statement of responsibility was "a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever," the Arizona senator said in a joint broadside with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."
Senator Graham and Hillary Clinton know where the buck stops: [. . .]
Competing with The Atlantic for the dunce cap is the Los Angeles Times which may win as a result of bad editorials like the one today containing this:
The Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, in which U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens
and three other Americans were killed, was a tragedy. Was it also
preventable? At a congressional hearing last week, Eric Nordstrom, the State Department's
former regional security officer in Libya, criticized his superiors for
ignoring his concerns about the growing risk of armed militias and
extremist groups in Benghazi. But he also acknowledged that posting a
few more Americans at the site would not have been sufficient to repel
the onslaught by heavily armed extremists.
No,
the editorial board wasn't at the hearing. No, Eric Nordstrom did NOT
say "that posting a few more Americans at the site would not have been
sufficient to repel the onslaught by heavily armed extremists." He
didn't say it, he didn't acknowledge it. He allowed that it might not
have made a difference. That's not the same thing. Nor was he the only
security witness at the hearing. There was also Lt Col Andrew Wood.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: Now, Lt Col Wood, I understand that you were the senior officer of the SST team. Is that correct?
Lt Col Andrew Wood: That's correct, sir.
US
House Rep Dennis Ross: And do you have any reason to believe that if
you had to go up your chain of command at AFRICOM for a request from the
State Dept that they extend the tour of duty of an SST, that your chain
of command would not grant that?
Lt
Col Andrew Wood: Absolutely Gen [Carter F.] Ham was fully supportive of
extending the SST as long as they felt they needed them.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: So the resources were available for the SST?
Lt Col Andrew Wood: Absolutely.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: And had they been there, they would have made a difference, would they not?
Lt Col Andrew Wood: They made a difference every day they were there, when I was there, sir. They were a deterrent effect.
So
you had one security witness stating it might not have made a
difference and another stating it would have made a difference, no
maybes about it. The editorial board is less than honest -- not since a
sex scandal in a hotel -- well a nudity scandal, the prostitute had
left -- back before Barack was in the White House has the Los Angeles
Times editorial board been such a joke. And, let's repeat, four people
died. Say their names, write their names. Do not pretend you're
'honoring' the four when you reduce them to 'Chris Stevens and three
people I don't care enough to even try to name.' The four names are
Glen Doherty, Chris Stevens, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods. If that's too
many names for your meager minds to hold, then you don't need to be
writing about the Benghazi attack to begin with.
Now let's deal with Hillary. Here for a transcript of her interview with Elise Labot of CNN (here for video of it). Hillary gave a series of interviews late yesterday where she stated she took accountability. Language warning, Larry Johnson (No Quarter) does not feel she takes responsibility and his thoughts include,
"What she is doing now with respect to Libya and covering [for] Obama
is politics of the most disgusting. She insists that she takes
responsibility, but, rather than resign for her failure to protect the
Consulate and the Ambassador, she only says it was the fault of the
intelligence community." As we noted earlier, others see it
differently.
No one plays word
games better than lawyers and Hillary has a law degree and was a
practicing attorney for many years. In other words, let's go to the
State Dept press briefing today:
MS.
NULAND: All right, everybody. Happy Tuesday. The Secretary is just
finishing her program in Latin America and will be returning later this
afternoon. I have – or later this evening – I have nothing for you at
the top.
QUESTION:
Can I ask you about the series of interviews she gave on this trip? We
didn't have one, so we didn't get a chance to ask her directly. But she
said she took responsibility related to the Benghazi attack. I just
wanted to be clear on what she's taking responsibility for.
MS.
NULAND: Well, if you have a chance to get up on our website, you will
see transcripts of five TV interviews that the Secretary gave yesterday,
as she always does when she's traveling and she has TV crews with her
or TV correspondents with her. I think she was extremely clear what
she's taking responsibility for. She is the head of this Department. She
takes responsibility for this Department fully. She's never made any
secret of that. That's been her position all the way through this.
QUESTION: What is she taking responsibility for, though? She just said, "I take responsibility," full stop.
MS. NULAND: Brad, you can go back and reread that interview. The question was clear.
QUESTION: I have reread it.
MS. NULAND: The answer was clear. I'm not going to try to improve on it here.
QUESTION: Why won't you?
MS. NULAND: Because she was –
QUESTION: She doesn't finish the thought.
MS.
NULAND: She was extremely clear what she takes responsibility for,
which is the operation of this Department, all of the men and women
here, and certainly she is personally, as she has said again and again
and again since September 11th, committed to getting to the bottom of
who did this and learning the lessons that we need to learn from it.
QUESTION:
So you said she takes responsibility for the operation of this
Department and the people who work here. So she wouldn't be taking
responsibility for things like intelligence assessments, per se, because
that is something that might not be done by this building; is that
correct?
MS. NULAND: Brad, I am not going to stand here and parse the Secretary's words. She was very clear in her interviews.
QUESTION: Well, if she was so clear, why can't you answer a question like that?
MS. NULAND: I want you to go back and read the interviews.
QUESTION: I have read all of them.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. I think she was very clear.
What
did Hillary take accountability for? What she appears to have taken
accountability for is her department. I think, I could be wrong and
often am, Larry Johnson is responding to the press summaries and
interpretations as opposed to Hillary's words.
On
September 12th, as revealed in last week's hearing, the State Dept was
briefing Congress that the attack was a terrorist attack (Patrick
Kennedy specifically was doing that). I believe, and I could be wrong,
that Hillary is stating, "I am responsible for my department." As in,
"I am responsible for my department and other Secretaries are
responsible for their departments and the President is ultimately
responsible for all." As explained in last week's hearing, the attack
was monitored live and footage exists of the attack -- a little over 50
minutes of footage. The FBI has told Congress they are not holding onto
the footage or preventing anyone from seeing it. But an unidentified
element of the Executive Branch is keeping it off limits to the public
and to Congress. It appears to me -- and I could be wrong and often am
-- that Hillary was taking accountability for what she was responsible
for and indicating that she couldn't take responsibility for things
others were responsible for.
If I was
responsible for the State Dept, I would be very glad to know that we
were telling Congress the truth from the start and that, even in our
overseas interviews such as William J. Bruns' interview to Al Jazeera
last month, we did not blame the attack on a YouTube video or a protest
over a YouTube video.
elise labott
