White House press secretary Jay Carney had a tough week last week concluding with an absolutely deplorable press conference wherein he continued to spin totally unbelievable yarns about the administration's talking points regarding Benghazi.
This led George Will to say on ABC's This Week Sunday that Carney's "usefulness to this administration is diminishing rapidly"
MARTHA RADDATZ, SUBSTITUTE HOST: And they got those talking points out there. George Will, is this going to last? Is this going to have a lasting effect as an unacceptable way to do business at the White House?
GEORGE WILL: Lasting. A week ago, Mr. Carney - who's usefulness to this administration is diminishing rapidly - a week ago he said Benghazi was a long time ago as if it was the Punic Wars. This is a very live issue, because we now know three things.
We know that Mr. Hicks, the night of the attack, speaking from Libya, said pretty much what it was, an armed interaction, not a movie review conducted with rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.
Five days later on this program and on four other Sunday morning programs, the idea of an exceptionally boisterous movie review was still the administration's position.
And then, 14 days after the attack, at the UN, it was the same thing.
We started out with three arguments. Was security lax in Benghazi? Demonstrably. Could forces have been there to rescue them? Doubtful. Has the nation been systemically misled? Certainly.
Now, we need a select committee in congress because the State Department's misnamed accountability review board neglected to interview even the secretary of state.
#1
Paging Ron Ziegler. Ron Ziegler to the white courtesy phone, please.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
05/13/2013 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Less and less useful, more and more an idiot...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/13/2013 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Of course, when he leaves the White House to return to Time magazine, or wherever, he'll be the latest high profile case of toilet paper recycling inside the Beltway...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/13/2013 13:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Why would ANYONE in their right mind want to be Minister of Lies and Prevarications White House Press Secretary?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
05/13/2013 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#5
>Could forces have been there to rescue them? Doubtful.
They should have been ready before anything ever happened . . . I mean, its North Africa Libya, where theyve already had major problems. You know that al-Qaeda is operating there, and you have some of the other al-Qaeda-affiliated groups there like Ansar al-Sharia and others.
When we were there, on our watch, we were always ready on 9/11, on the anniversary, he recalled. We always anticipated they were coming for us, especially in that part of the world.
I cannot understand why they werent ready to go. Youve got units in the Defense Department that are superb. They practice for this contingency. And they didnt have anybody in the area.'
#13
Yeah, RandomJD, it boggles the mind that the Administration could possibly be so ignorant and incompetent to not even permit continuation of standard preparations as they were, so I fear it was intentional - which is far, far worse.
#15
There are Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) on the shelf for each diplomatic mission overseas. They are updated exercised in one manner or another periodically.
#16
Exactly, Glenmore. Rep. Issa noted during the hearing last Wed. that ascertaining the DoD's assets and readiness in the region (like Aviano) on that day would be a fruitful line of inquiry to pursue. For example, there is a discrepancy between Gen. Dempsey's estimated response time (20 hours), versus what the defense attache told Acting Amb. Hicks (2-3 hours, but no tankers) that I am curious to know more about.
Because right, that would go to the broader question of, was a previous "9/11 readiness protocol" in place, which was subsequently discarded? If so, whose decision was it to change the routine, and what would the response time have been in comparison to the new plan? If I'd was Rep. Issa, I'd be getting ready to subpoena Panetta too.
I'd think that anyone who truly doesn't want this to happen again, would be curious to know more details too.
#17
"There are Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) on the shelf for each diplomatic mission overseas. They are updated exercised in one manner or another periodically. "
True but most Embassies have MSGs, FEBR doors/windows, and dedicated interior safe havens. Benghazi was a CF from day one as far as physical security. I would very interested to look at their EAP as I have quite a bit of experience writing/updating them.
Posted by: Bangkok Billy ||
05/13/2013 20:25 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I'd like to see it as well Billy. I'd also like to have a beer with the RSO.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/13/2013 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Remember Mr. Empty Suit hiding under your desk in the oval office, THE BUCK STOPS HERE.
You can't blame a low level technocrat nor can you blame "an independent agency" nor can you say the WH was out of the loop. If you can fire a Navy Commander for running a frigate aground in the Philippines, you must access responsibility for the entire organization.
Of course, the IRS and the Benghazi gig were both done to further his re-election. Any moron can see that. THIS IS WORSE THAN WATERGATE.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
05/13/2013 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Nobody got killed in Watergate.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
05/13/2013 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Dems are now out for Champ's blood over the IRS scandals (they still don't give a sh*t about Benghazi--that really only concerns people who care about and/or like America).
The reason they are FINALLY willing to turn on the idiot is because he has crossed an uncrossable line. He is threatening the money! Dragging the IRS into a scandal raises the possibility of some house cleaning at the IRS, which in turn might mean less cash for corrupt politicians. I mean, why the hell get into politics at all if you don't have the power the spend lots and lots of other people money?
Champ is in serious denial about all of this. Hell, he still wants to talk about guns. He is completely, utterly and hopelessly out of his depth, and now he's going to pay for it.
#1
With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, hes already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were useless and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.
"Floodgates" may open, but I don't think it will be General Petreaus opening them.
#1
The UK firm Blue Mountain Security had the security contract just prior to the attack. Their solo employee and on-site project manager returned to the UK and nothing more was heard from them. Might be wise to discretely ask them a question or two.
[Dawn] THE votes have been cast and are now being counted. Whoever wins, we hope they are good for democracy, peace, the rule of law, growth and development: we hope they are good for Pakistain and Paks.
This election had a number of features that should be borne in mind going forward and will need further analysis and understanding.
The election campaign was very violent. It was not the political opponents who were going after each other, it was the anti-democratic forces of the Taliban that made it very hard for some parties, the Awami National Party (ANP), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement ...English: United National Movement, generally known as MQM, is the 3rd largest political party and the largest secular political party in Pakistain with particular strength in Sindh. From 1992 to 1999, the MQM was the target of the Pak Army's Operation Cleanup leaving thousands of urdu speaking civilians dead... (MQM) and the PPP, to run their campaigns on the same scale as others.
Though the reasons were different and related more to nationalism, it was equally hard to campaign in Balochistan ...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it... . Will and should there be questions about the legitimacy and acceptability of election results under these circumstances?
Will what has happened in the campaign give impetus to all politicians to come together to address the menace posed by the Taliban? Will the winners take the lead in this? Or will the various parties remain as divided as ever on how to deal with the threat they have been witnessing? If they do remain as divided, the next five years and the next election will be even harder.
In Punjab, many 'politicians' before an election try to gauge which way the establishment is leaning and which party has a greater chance of winning. Then they try to get a ticket from that party. Party loyalty means little. Since parties also need 'electables', switching sides is encouraged. The idea is that one is able to get more done for oneself and for one's supporters, if one is in power. And a lot of the time it is clear, before elections, which party has greater chances.
But this time, especially for Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa ... formerly NWFP, still Terrorism Central... , it was harder to predict the outcome between the PML-N and the Pakistain Tehrik-e-Insaf ...a political party in Pakistan. PTI was founded by former Pakistani cricket captain and philanthropist Imran Khan. The party's slogan is Justice, Humanity and Self Esteem, each of which is open to widely divergent interpretations.... (PTI). Hence the higher demand for party tickets from them. But interestingly a number of influential local politicians chose to contest elections as independent candidates. They have been promising supporters that if they win they will support the winning party and get benefits for their constituents that way.
Given that many people are predicting a 'split' mandate with none of the parties winning a majority, these independents could wield a lot of power -- heaven for those who contested as independents with the specific purpose of getting a price for their support post-victory. But how will this impact the politics of ideology, loyalty and political commitment remains to be seen.
The Election Commission of Pakistain (ECP) has strict and fairly stringent limits on how much a candidate can spend in an election. The idea of the limits is to reduce the role of money in politics and to make the playing field more even for candidates with different wealth and income levels and with varying abilities to elicit financial support. The limits were and are flouted, often quite flagrantly, but nonetheless there are limits and legal recourse is always available for aggrieved parties.
But this time it was the parties that went for massive advertising and not just individual candidates. The use of new and old media, and even mobile phones (I received three calls with recorded messages from Imran Khan ... aka Taliban Khan, who ain't the sharpest bulb on the national tree... twice and one from the PTI candidate from the constituency where I live), for communication with constituents was unprecedented.
The PTI took the lead and was more savvy but other parties learnt and caught up fairly quickly. Even parties that could not campaign in the normal manner because of security issues could use these means of reaching out to their supporters. How will this change the politics of the country? Will future campaigns be even more virtual?
And are advertisements a substitute for direct contacts between potential representatives and their constituents?
Posted by: Fred ||
05/13/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
Pondering why we can't talk about guns, Insty quotes Barry Snell
. . .we can't have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. . . and concludes:
As with most lefty causes, the key driver is a craving for moral superiority, usually driven by oikophobia.
Now, I've only been pondering modern political evil for a few years, but I'll opt for Nicolaitanism as an explanation:
Nico-, combinatory form of n?k?, "victory" in Greek, and laos means people, or more specifically, the laity; hence, the word may be taken to mean "lay conquerors" or "conquerors of the lay people". However, "Nicolaitan" is the name ostensibly given to followers of the heretic Nicolas --the name itself meaning "victorious over people," or "victory of the people," which he would have been given at birth.
An informal definition of Nicolaitanism could be: "Bossy little power-monger". That is, somebody who's life's quest is to acquire and exert as much authority over others as possible. Impediments to amassing power, such as freedom of speech and the right self-defense, must be obliterated.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
White House press secretary Jay Carney had a tough week last week concluding with an absolutely deplorable press conference wherein he continued to spin totally unbelievable yarns about the administration's talking points regarding Benghazi.
