If the content of THIS turns out to be 100% true it would not surprise me in the least….
The final Obama ‘fuck you’ to the Clintons…Though the only reason I can suss as to why Obama’s team wouldn’t dance around this until after the election is because they know they’re in deep trouble now and no longer care about Bubba’s usefulness. Perhaps they think the Clintons are boxed in. Bill can’t throw the campaign, see Romney win, and expect donors to pony up in 3 years. Nor can Hillary quit now and expect anything but derision from current Democratic players. However, when have the Clintons ever truly been boxed in? Hillary gets chucked overboard now…a torrent of memos come out..from somewhere…
Bill may want the White House back in 4 years. Hillary is out to preserve her legacy. I’m not convinced she wants to be President. I am convinced she doesn’t intend to roll for the Chicago Punk. Let’s not underestimate the gravity here. A murdered ambassador won’t go away. It becomes part of her narrative forever.
The Klein piece strikes me as true-ish because Biden cued it up last night, which means Axelrod and Jarrett were in the room at some point. Blaming Hillary stinks of Jarrett and her Chicago Mafia. They’ve already happily vivisected Susan Rice by making her so foolish her next job will be at Chuck-E-Cheese. Attempting to ruin Hillary Clinton is simply another amoral option as the scandal deepens. Biden goes along because he’s deluded enough to think he’ll become the President in 2017. Which is laughable.
Jarrett Rule #1: Obama’s never responsible for anything and always gets credit when it’s not due. So Hillary takes the fall here. It makes sense in their world. But…underestimate the Clintons at your peril. They’ve survived and thrived in the end every single time.
Tamerlane’s news hangout paints a pretty grim picture.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/12/White-House-Buck-Stops-Hillary-Libya
When I said that Benghazi might actually lead to impeachment proceedings even before the election, I was only half facetious. You can’t effing eff around with people being killed, including one of our ambassadors like they’re legos on a placemat. From people I know at the State Dept where I worked in early 90′s, and at the highest levels. including on the 7th floor, they are ready to BURN the Obama administration for this. I knew this s–t was weird and you all don’t know the half of it right now. It will come out – and before the election. The last debate is on foreign policy. If Obama thought the first debate was “a drag,” well . . ..
Oh Run, I so hope you’re right.
i hope that hillary doesn’t go down without a fight. i know the clintons will have their revenge and it will be sweet!
BTW: Thanks, John for bringing this whole discussion back to what matters!
Join in the thanks to John.
This is more important. We fritter away our brain-cells in even discussing Joe. Obama used him like a tissue to blow his nose in; Joe foolishly obliged, lured by fantasies of the Chicago machine delivering the WH to him in ’16. Joe’ll never be looked at the same way again — the images and soundtrack of his jackanappery are now ‘written’ in the Internet’s indelible ink, to live forever and a day.
RIP Joe Biden — we knew ye, and then we knew ye not.
Jackanappery is a very good word. I need to use that more often.
the thought of jb being president, makes me gag!
JWS – Confess! You were inspired by my posted tweet in the last thread, were you not?
I confess! Though this story has been on my nerves since it started. It stank from the get go. I knew it could move swiftly too. BHO’s 2nd term debacle..which happens to them all since LBJ…has begun and it may stop a 2nd term from happening. Know this: it’s not just Clinton who’ll will respond. The intelligence community isn’t going to allow these Chicago demons to keep screwing them either. They’ll bring down everyone if need be.
I’m not sure which Shakespeare to go to here. Obama is not a truly large enough figure to warrant comparison to W.S.’s grand anti-heros. He’s too small. Even the vain Richard 2 who is deposed because he’s such a fop is more sympathetic. Tragedy is about large people destroyed by their hubris. Nixon was a tragic figure because he did have grand designs and was destroyed by his character weaknesses. Had Bill Clinton’s story ended with the impeachment he would be tragic as well. He rose again though. Obama has the hubris, but he is not a grand figure. He’s a piker who had a lot of back up to get where he is. If and when Obama is laid low by his vanity we will learn the lesson…he won’t.
I hope Hillary & Bill can figure out a way to get themselves on top by throwing Obama under the bus before he throws them there, as it is pretty obvious to all but the willfully ignorant after Jay Carney’s ridiculous “When the Vice President of the United States of America says ‘we’ at the vice presidential debate he’s talking about himself & Obama *only* not the State Department” defense — which only the most truly moronic Obot could believe (you know, the ones who thought Biden’s clownish conduct at the debate was just “Biden being Biden” and not a planned strategy) — that Obama is getting ready to dump this all on Hillary sooner rather than later. This was probably always the contingency plan, although I think Plan A was to try to drag it out until after the election & *then* dump it all on Hillary.
But, I don’t know how un-boxed in Bill & Hillary are. Obama’s (or Jarrett — I’m using them interchangeably) MO has always been to get dirt on other people & use it against them (unsealing divorce records, etc). I was talking about this with my mother tonight & she’s been convinced since 2008 that Obama has something on the Clintons — as she put it “There is no way Hillary Clinton went from ‘Shame on you, Barack Obama’ in the primary to ‘Sure, I’ll be you’re SoS and Bill will campaign for you’ without Obama having *something big* to hold over her head.” I think my mom makes a good point (especially given what we know of Obama) & it certainly explains a lot of Bill & Hillary’s behavior over the last 4 years that I have trouble understanding.
I agree Angie with your feeling about the unsettling nature of the Clinton’s “alliance”with Obama. I have always felt the Obama technique was blackmail and bullying. And that he had material on-at least-Bill. The examples of sludge coming up in the media at interesting times (like the vanity-not-so-fair article that linked Bill and Gina Gerson-with no credible evidence btw).
If Obama doesn’t have real info, it is his technique to manufacture bs that the media will gladly peddle.
I would bet a lot on the premise that the Clintons have a Ton of stuff on Obie too, they didn’t use it in time because for too long, they didn’t take him seriously. While I wouldn’t expect a public announcement, leaks in the press would not surprise me.
Shakespeare would have reams of material for a new play in this mess of betrayal and treachery, oh wait, did he already cover this in Richard III or was it Macbeth ?
Angie, I agree with you and your mother, maybe Hill knew O was so Bad, he would quit or be impeached rather than run a second time, and there she would be, ready to ride in and save the Party..Even the smartest ones have blind spots.
We’re already seeing the leaks– that’s what the Klein article is.
Agreed. Klein is probably an authorized Clinton leaker.
Klein has been a professional Clinton hater for decades; especially Hillary whom he would cast as Lady Macbeth.
Anyone who thinks that a Clinton aide would so much as fart in Klein’s direction is seriously deluded.
If Clinton’s story had ended with impeachment, he’d be Othello.
Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate,
Nor set down aught in malice. Then must you speak
Of one that lov’d not wisely but too well
I think people underestimate the power the Clinton’s have. Obama needs them a whole lot more than they need him. If Hillary were to resign, it would destroy Obama’s re-election chances.
I’m a bit surprised that Hillary hasn’t already stepped forward to take all the blame. Depressing, but that’s what I expect will happen. Hillary will take full responsibility and completely clear the President, and President Obama will be viewed as charitable and supportive of her. But she hasn’t taken the usual step and followed the script yet, so that’s kind of fascinating. Perhaps she’s discovered something so awful about the situation that she just can’t stomach playing politics?
Seriously, Ed Klein?!
Scummy Valerie Jarrett’s more likely to be a reliable source about Hillary!
No really, I’m sure Hillary and Bill have Ed Klein on speed dial, the man who wrote “The Truth About Hillary” that included stuff like:
And more recently called her overweight.
I can just hear Hillary making the call. “Ed, honey? It’s Hill. Barack’s being mean to me again, can you help out a fat old les and plant a story about this? You will? Oh fab! You’re a peach. Listen, you wanna do a book about Chelsea like you did about me? I’ve got tons of dirt you can use! Okay, great; listen darling, gotta go, Bill’s raping the maid; we’ll be in touch. Kisses!”
Good lord.
Lol.
John you’re right of course about Shakespeare’s characters being larger than life, that’s why they”ve endured, but Obama is at least, Iago’ish, imo.
Yeah… there are plenty of lesser shakespeare lights that Obama fits nicely. Some how the dude got the lead…a job shakespeare would never have given him. Shakespeare’s big people… Rosalind, Lear, Hamlet, Cleopatra, Falstaff etc etc…are all so much more interesting than Obama. More alive. Obama’s a sub plot so far. The play WS would write here would be centered on the Clintons with Obama as a character in acts 3/4. And I actually think it’s not shakespeare’s people are larger than life it’s that we are smaller than Shakespeare…
ah to live on an south seas island with the perfect lover, ocassional ESPN, and the collected works… another escape fantasy of mine….
The #1 question to be asked at the next WH presser should be: “Was embassy security discussed in one of the PDBs the president skipped?”
read please:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215431/Death-U-S-ambassador-Chris-Stevens-revealed-AK-47s-grenade-attacks-smoke-filled-safe-room.html?ITO=1490
There’s not much new information in here, is there? I recall reading this in an earlier article in some Brit publication.
It wasn”t that long ago that I got most of my news from the NYTimes and the Peacock network, as did many others, did they change or did I ? At any rate, this is how I cancelled my subscription;;
Dear Times,
I can’t do this anymore, I’m just not that into you,in fact I can’t get past the headlines..
It’s not me, it”s you.
With sadness,
Sophie
Oh good grief, the second part of that horrible production of Atlas Shrugged is coming out. The first part was virtually unwatchable.
What I can’t get around is the media’s role in this affair. They have people on the ground in Syria. All they needed to do was ask.
With that, I offer this.
A different take: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/12/is-the-white-house-throwing-hillary-under-the-bus-on-the-benghazi-attack/
Interesting and a little funny — a relative works at a paper in Virginia, near where Obama is currently ‘preparing’ for his next debate. The paper where she works got a call that the White House will be letting them know when Obama decides to ‘go out for a burger’ locally so that they can be ready.
I mean, we know that this happens in the background all the time, but it’s still funny to hear.
Theatre. Every bit of it.
Would be hilarious if the response was…SO???
Sue: People very close to the Clintons do and have leaked material to Ed Klein with the Clintons’ ok. For example, there were only 5 people in the room before Chelsea arrived when Bill discussed HRC running against Obama for the primaries that Klein had in his last book. I know who leaked that conversation to Klein and it was with Bill’s blessing. I love the Clintons, but they don’t make the same kind of decisions many of us would. And, they actually really do play chess in these situations – 11th dimensional or otherwise. They hate Klein and he hates them – so what; they’ll absolutely use him if they see a reason to do so.
After all – remember, they used Dick Morris as an advisor for decades. There are probably not 2 people on earth outside of rival Albanian gangs who hate each other more than HRC and Morris. (Who do you think told Klein the “bill raped hillary” story?) But, it was she who called him in to save her husband’s political career when it was imploding in Arkansas back in the day. Yes – she (and certainly Bill – although there are few people that Bill genuinely hates) will make deals with the devil if they feel the need. After all, she joined BHO’s administration, too, didn’t she.
HT.. thank you Run!
The Clintons are whip smart and play an advanced political game, but there are certain people with whom they would never deal: Ed Klein, Christopher Ruddy, Andrew Sullivan and the late Christopher Hitchens, may he rest in peace/, and others.
HRC brought the toe sucker back for a brief period in 1995 and has regretted it ever since, no?
Sue – I worked for the Clintons, am close to their inner circle, and know whereof I speak. But, of course, you can choose to disbelieve me. I certainly am not going to “name names” about who leaks to whom just to prove what should actually be obvious to many people – that they use whom they need to use when they need to use them, no matter who they are. It’s actually funny to me the names that you mentioned, since people close to the Clintons have leaked great gobs of stuff to Sullivan and Hitchens.
And, it wasn’t ’95 that I was referring to when I mentioned Hillary bringing back Morris – it was in the early ’80′s when Clinton lost the AK governorship and they were frantic about his career being over before it had even begun. That’s when HRC first called in Morris who helped Clinton win the governship to begin with. That started the very bizarre “arrangement” they had with Morris for decades.
HRC thought they had been able to get rid of him when Clinton won the presidency, but realized they needed him again when Dems lost the house in ’94 and thought he might be a 1-term president. So, she called him again – and had to grovel this time – and the rest is history. But, ’95 certainly wasn’t the first time this had happened.
I’ve floated this conspiratorial musing at TCH, so I’ll share it here too. I’ve heard whispering from various places that Hillary Clinton might go for the World Bank top job after she’s SOS. That’s actually a move that makes sense.
What if Obama knows by now he was going to lose and was throwing her under the bus so he could take that gig? I’ve got nothing back it up, except for all the information I have about Obama’s character and how his operation works. It seems within the realm of possibility to me. Conspiratorial, yes, but also entirely plausible.
Just the image of O as the head of the World Bank makes me sick to my stomach and LOL all at the same time. This would be SO LIKE HIM to think he was qualified. Just like he thought he won the debate with Romney.
He’s really a piece of work.
In the meantime, some pretty straightforward questions are asked her re: Libya and the WH
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/our-fearless-misleader_653228.html
her=here
Hey there double F.
and this…
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/10/13/al-qaeda-video-shows-earlier-attack-on-benghazi-consulate/
Robert Stacy McCain (conservative blogger) has a short & and interesting “Prisoner’s Dilemma” take on the situation:
http://theothermccain.com/2012/10/13/the-obama-clinton-prisoners-dilemma/
I’ve heard of the prisoner’s dilemma but had not thought to apply it to this situation. Good one. I LOLed the pic of Obama laughing in the “Obama absorbs” quadrant, btw. Yeah, that’s never gonna happen. The chart is messed up though. Logically it should go like this:
Across: C absorbs | C accuses
Down: O absorbs | O accuses
The possible combinations are:
(O absorbs C absorbs)
(O absorbs C accuses)
(O accuses C absorbs)
(O accuses C accuses)
Since we know O never absorbs (never accepts blame) we can eliminate the first two possibilities. So it’s up to C to decide whether to absorb the blame or accuse.
I think they won’t openly accuse, but I don’t think they’re willing to go down either. So they are left with assisting a 3rd party to accuse O – which makes the leaks and the open cooperation with Issa seem a plausible method of doing that.
I completely agree (also you are spot on about the chart too).
I still think the most logical assumption is that Obama will do EVERYTHING he can do to not have to deal with this until Nov 7. OFA is doing everything they can to deflect this away from the President/Vice President right now.. they’re running for re-election, HRC has made it plain that she’s a one term SOS. Obama/Biden/Axelrod is pushing it off to State Dept. because they only need to sandbag for three weeks.. how long have they been doing it for Fast and Furious? 3 weeks of stalling/obfuscating in the spin cycle is nothing.
If Obama wins, it will get swept under the rug. There will be too much news about how he was the underdog and got re-elected and now has a new mandate for 4 more years of social change. HRC will finish out her term quietly and hopefully run in 2016.
If Obama loses, Hillary goes under the bus. She’s no longer politically expedient and there is no reason Barry wouldn’t just dump the failure on her as he will probably start blaming everyone around him for the loss. EVERYONE goes under the bus. The only thing of note in my mind if Obama loses is who will get pardons on his way out, maybe Blagoevich? Maybe Bill Ayers?
I stil think Obama is going to lose because Romney has more money.
But I also think that the news coverage of an Obama loss will drown out any fallibility that SoS Clinton had over the Benghazi debacle.
It’s a crapshoot, but I think that either way Hillary Clinton will be able to sidestep alot of the blowback over this.
It’s still a tragedy though, and POTUS/VP/SoS should all take some responsibility for it.
Remember when Deputy Sec. of State Armitage (under Powell) leaked Valerie Plame’s name to WaPo & no one held GWB or anyone in his “White House” responsible? Me neither. Obama can’t pretend the State Dept. isn’t part of his administration, no matter how much the MSM wants to cover for him (and lately, with even AP reporting on “Romney surging” and huge crowd sizes at his rallies, etc, they seem to be hedging their bets — the one thing the MSM loves more than Obama is themselves, and they’re going to want access in a Romney administration).
Further, Obama had this to say about Romney & Bain after Romney left but still owned his share of Bain:
Dan, while I hope you’re right, I think it’s fanciful to expect that Hillary will be a viable candidate in ’16 after Benghazi.
I don’t think they can evade this scandal for another three weeks. Especially if Hillary is called before the Committee, which is reasonable, now that the WH has dumped the blame in her lap.
The 9-11 Comission was set up in November of 2002 to investigate the deaths of almost 3000 people… about a year later the Sep 11 attacks. I know what alot of people will say is “Well yeah but that was the Republicans”.
Tamer I usually agree with your gut but I think the timeline is this:
1. W/O Oct 15 Inquiry on Benghazi attack begins, but I think will be overshadowed by debate prep/debate buildup
2. Debate Oct 16 – Romney (if he’s smart) will use Benghazi as a reference to counter any Obama football-spiking over killing Bin Laden… I think at this point we can all agree that the Benghazi attack was Al Qeuda, and possibly the Egyptian protest as well (AQ has shown ability to conjunctive attacks.. thats the first thing I noticed when the protest/attack was being reported).. the bad thing about Benghazi attack is that it negates the narrative that by state-sanctioned killing Bin Laden that the US is in a better place. If Romney connects those dots, Obama is screwed.
3. Post Debate – Oct 17-19 – Who won, how relevant was the debate, how important is what happened in Benghazi…. Depending on who wins on Oct 16. this can go either way….
Obama win.. its a matter of course.. hes the incumbent.. the conversation becomes how Obama rallied back and is now the frontrunner… Romney has to continue to play up the failure of the Obama administration.
Romney wins… More questions towards Obama and his administration… but the scorecard is essentially Romney 2 Obama 0.. if Romney wins the 2nd debate I think that undecideds are going to start leaning Romney.
3. Monday Oct 22 Debate… this is (allegedly) the foreign policy centric debate..
Obama (winner of debate 2) can go in saying that he’s strong on terrorism, killed Bin Laden, has been successful in proxy-war in the Middle East.. Behnghazi becomes an unfortunate sacrifice in getting to that point..but the ultimate point is that we are “safer”
Romney (winner of debate 2) continues to illustrate the failures of Obama’s foreign policy..using the Benghazi attack as a clear point of breakdown within the administration and failure of foreign policy..
If Romney walks away from debate 2 as a winner and into debate 3 with this.. I dont see how he loses on election day…. Not because he’s “better” just because of the glaring incompetence of the Obama administration.
On any quantifiable level, Americans were killed deliberately on the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, the fact that it’s still being “talked” about over 30 days later is damning to the Obama administration…no matter who takes the blame.
Insightful observations as always, Dan!
My point is, the obamalonians can’t put this story to bed within the next three weeks. The GOP can keep it going simply by holding hearings. If something truly damning is uncovered, so much the better.
Hey DE! I was thinking of you today as I was painting with the dark blue of Beach Place! LOL. Drop a line some time~!
Does anyone else find it very strange that Joe Biden & Co. said “We didn’t know!” when, during the Congressional hearings, it was stated by Charlene Lamb (I think) that there has been MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS and ATTACKS on this very building (“They blew out a wall”). Apparently that stuff had been on-going since at least May ’12 and you cannot tell me this information had not been reported in the PDB’s. The real question is after all that, why on earth did they still put the Ambassador in there?
It was also VERY CLEAR TO ME, by implication, that the “other agency” mentioned in the hearings that had the video was CIA. Now, if the CIA had a video of the attacks in progress, how can Rice, Obama, Carney, Cutter etc say it was the YouTube and expect the Intelligence Branch to just roll over. You KNOW Intel KNOWS POTUS & Company are lying their asses off.
I just cannot believe (rolls eyes) that the MSM has not gone after the Administration hammer and tong.
How nice: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/10/obama-campaign-holds-muslim-outreach-event-138337.html
In Virginia. Where he just happens to be, studying.
Ugh. Belch.
I got my ballot today! Oh, I shall vote soon…maybe tonight. Did you know there is a Republican running against Dianne Feinstein? How very odd. Also I’m in a different congressional district than i was last time. I thought a woman named Bass was my person. But it’s a man named Bercerra. ???
Who should I vote for? I’m tempted to fill in the bubbles and skitter across the street to the mail box and be done with it. BUT things can change rapidly in 3 weeks. What if i vote now and want to take it back? Where I am right now: Obama’s out. Some dude named Hoefling is out. The rest are still on the table. Barr, Johnson, Romney, Stein. 2 of these are probably no goes….ugh. I want to be detached this time but now that I’m looking at the ballot the seriousness of voting is real again…
The only vote I feel sure of is repealing the death penalty in CA. 12 plus props on the ballot. WTF? Do the bozos we pay to work in Sacramento actually ever do anything? If I have to think about this stuff and decide then I want legislator pay. In a representative republic we PAY people to make these decisions. But they are bought and paid for cowards and punt on EVERYTHING.
I would wait. Its only three weeks, and a lot of info is already coming out at a rapid pace that might change your perspective (particularly about foreign affairs). Just my opinion.
I tend to vote against every prop, because 1) they are so confusing & poorly written; 2) Californians love to create new expenditures & earmarks with propositions, but never raise the taxes to pay for them.
I’m not voting for any dems this year. Since we passed a prop that puts only the top two primary candidates on the ballot, that means a lot of blanks.
I am voting for Jill Stein for president, as she has the best plans.
Too bad there isn’t a Democrat running for president…sigh.
” The rest are still on the table. Barr, Johnson, Romney, Stein. 2 of these are probably no goes….ugh. I want to be detached this time but now that I’m looking at the ballot the seriousness of voting is real again…”
******
I am in a similar situation, in that my vote won’t mean anything in my “Red State”. I had decided months ago to vote “Green Party”, however, I now wonder if that is voting “present” in what is a very serious situation for the Country. Obama was bad for four years; if reelected there will be no “re-election” restraint on his narcissism/socipathy and he will be out of control of any of his handlers. Very dangerous, IMO.
Good point!
I am so stealing that “voting present” analogy for twitter.
I can’t argue against voting for MR in a swing state. But otherwise, your vote for a 3P candidate is very valuable as the first step in overthrowing the Uni-Party’s oppression, and telling them we’re not gonna accept their shit offerings anymore.
If Hillary botched this, and she may have, will her fans acknowledge it? Or will the focus be on how Obama done her wrong?
Intriguing question. What’ll you do, Jay?
I’m already making my peace (again) with the fact that she’s not perfect. But that’s not he heart of my question.
Interesting, Jay. I never thought she was perfect. I supported her, and love her, for entirely another reason.
If the embassy security risks were to show up in a PBD that obama skipped, he’s toast. Yet even if the security requests never made it out of State, he still looks weasely for passing the buck.
I think the key to this scandal/cover-up is the youtube cover story. Where did it originate? The WH says “the intelligence community”. Hillary’s people had informed her the attack was planned to ‘commemorate’ 9/11, but then she went public talking about the video — was she told to by the WH?
If the youtube story can be pinned on the WH, it’s over.
Agreed, Tamer. But with the relative blackout of the Benghazi story by the MSM, any truly damaging revelations are unlikely to surface before the election.
I am not stupid enough to believe that Obama did not know that there were no protests and that the attack was a planned, terrorist assault. I’m stunned anyone is buying the WH’s load of crap. Hillary has already said that the State Department did not believe the attack was video-induced. So I will have a very hard time believing that the cover-up came from her. It just doesn’t add up. The video BS trail leads straight back to the WH. Hillary’s crime, IMO, is not ratting them out sooner. It should have been immediate. Not a month later. But the video crap, nope, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that it came from Hillary. Not because I think she can do no wrong (she’s already done wrong by initially going along with the charade) but because it doesn’t add up.
Maybe it’s not just the relative blackout by the media. I think a lot of people are tuning out about this story – war fatigue. It’s almost like people have started to expect that bad shit is going to happen in bad shitty places and they don’t even want to hear about it anymore. But I could be wrong.
I’ve had a similar suspicion, Someone.
JWS and SHV, here’s my two cents: vote R and get O out. Then, if R is awful, get him out too.
I know and respect all the arguments I’ve heard here, and elsewhere, for voting third-party, but it’s my personal view that that’s like voting ‘present’ (h/t SHV) in this cycle.
In a solid blue or red state, voting 3P makes a huge difference. A vote for MR there tells the Gops & Dems they can continue to offer us the Brand “A” shit vs. Brand “B” shit taste test, and we’ll lick our lips.
I completely disagree. I’m a Stein supporter in the unfortunate position of living in a swing state. For me, a vote for Stein would be extremely heartfelt and satisfying. Instead, I’ll probably take one for the team and vote for Romney. I am not happy about it. Romney does not represent my political ideals. Jill Stein does. It sucks but there it is.
Don’t diminish the commitment of those who vote third party. It is not voting “present.” IMO, it is truly making your vote count.
Jay, further on the Benghazi thing, I don’t think there can be a situation where O and H are of equal culpability in the way they may have “botched” this. He’s POTUS and she works for him. The buck stops with O — he, and he alone, should take responsibility. Also, I suspect this Benghazi clusterfark is a direct product of his PC, cultural-sensitivity, Muslim-outreach b.s. Let’s not offend the host country by having a lot of white guys guarding our embassies/consulates, and the like intolerable rigamarole. Since one didn’t see this kind of nonsense during the WJC Presidency, I have to assume the wrong-headed notion springs from the vacuous and historically-challenged mind of O.
Obama — as POTUS — has ultimate responsibility, I agree, but Sec. of State isn’t a penny ante position — Hillary has responsibility as well — that doesn’t mean Obama has *less* responsibility (as he is weasly trying to say via Carney & Biden and which I’m sure the MSM will try to run with) but it doesn’t absolve Hillary either. It’s like an associate attorney at a firm who commits malpractice — the partners — even if they were completely unaware of the case the associate was working on, etc — are responsible for the associate’s malpractice, but so is the associate.
my thoughts are that hillary is responsible, but it is ultimately ob’s stupid foreign policy of not looking visibly guarded as to not offend, and for apologizing for our constitution that got us into this mess. he is ultimately responsible, so hillary can’t take all the blame. this foreign policy was his idea and the people of the united states have to realize that foreign policy choices are ultimately one of his jobs. if we find out he wasn’t going to the daily briefings that would have mentioned security in the middle east, then that is really his fault. if the video as an excuse came from the white house, then that is his fault too because that is a cover up and a scandal to lie like that.
I never liked and never believed in the supposed virtues of the “Arab Spring.” A democracy is only as good as its people — democracies in the underdeveloped Third World are necessarily a nightmare because the “demos” are still uneducated and non-secular, and utterly oppressive of women and minorities. I know this because I grew up surrounded by that “demos,” and let me assure you, they’re not made in the mold of the founding fathers. And, everyday I lived there I thanked the deities that a military strongman was in power, so that I could finish high school and get the eff out of that hellhole.
I don’t know how anyone could conclude that a virtually unguarded consulate in Libya was acceptable, or why Chris Stevens felt he was safe wandering around without a phalanx of Marines surrounding him. It’s delusional, dangerously naive — dare I say it, so ‘white,’ Maybe the State Dept. should be staffed and run by cynical former denizens of the Third World like me — at least we don’t have any naive ideological blinkers that preclude us from seeing danger where it hides in the open. It was obvious to me — and anyone else willing to SEE — that the romanticized Libyan Rebels were overrun by Al-Qaeda elements right from the get-go. (And, I read the same sources of information available to others.)
I never understood why Hillary felt such an urgency to interfere in Libya. And I hated it when she exulted at the mob/lawless murder of Qadaffy (murderous bastard though he was). They say she felt guilty about the WJC Administration’s failure to stop the Rwandan massacres, and didn’t want Benghazi to meet a similar fate. Understandable. But, it’s always a mistake to fight the last ‘war.’ It’s also a mistake to think that the US can fix systemic problems abroad. The Arab Spring was a Pandora’s Box we should’ve been in no hurry to open.
Perhaps these murderous convulsions are necessary ‘stations of the cross’ in the making of a modern nation-state, but it’s decidedly hard to look at. Harder to live through. The Arab Spring is for the men of that region, now unleashed en masse, waving the banners of their pernicious misogynistic religion; for Arab women, it was always a Nuclear Winter.
Thank you for stating the non-politically correct obvious. In the current environment we are not supposed to even think this although it is as obvious as the nose on our faces.
Maybe the State Dept. should be staffed and run by cynical former denizens of the Third World like me — at least we don’t have any naive ideological blinkers that preclude us from seeing danger where it hides in the open.
As another former third-worlder I like that idea.
I also agree about hating Hillary’s reaction to Qaddaffy’s death – seeing her laugh – that was a chilling moment.
Thank you, NES. Agree.
NES – can I ask where you grew up? I lived in Zambia, Malawi and Kenya in my early formative years: 10-16, and completely agree with you. I also – truth be told – was probably less inclined than many in the US to believe that having a black man as President would be transformational having lived in countries with black men as presidents who were abysmal. Not to say that a black man/woman, etc. can’t be just as good a president as any other race/ethnicity. It’s just that they can be just as bad too.
Run — It was where OBL met his end.
Great suggstion NES about the State Dept. Why can’t the West stop trying to paste Western thought and culture, on the Mideast, and N. Africa ? It smacks of “take the vile medicine, it’s good for you, someday you’ll thank me.”" , It is my understanding that girls ‘ schools are closing in many areas, almost guaranteeing the continuation of the status quo.
Because we operate on the false premise that free elections is a magical fairy who sprinkles fix-it dust on everything. In truth, democracy is an expensive luxury that only a healthy, strong society can afford. It is also very fragile, requiring the kind of constant care we here are not providing it.
I agree with Hillary’s statement that “freedom vs. stability is a false dichotomy”. Yet this administration did nothing to foster stability in those countries before its belated support of free elections.
Tamer, I agree with the first paragraph of your comment.
The theory of the second paragraph is sound, but how does one put it into practice? Perhaps the US hasn’t been successful (and it’s not just this administration) in fostering stability and modernization inside Third World countries because it doesn’t seem possible to do that from the outside. It has to develop from within if it’s not to be perceived as Western ‘soft’ imperialism. Can you think of a single example where the US has been successful in fostering democracy in a Thirld World country and had the results stick in the longterm? I don’t believing it’s for lack of trying by the US.
SNL Vice Presidential Debate cold open. Pretty funny.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/vice-presidential-debate-cold-open/1420805
LOL! I wonder how many Ryan fans will ever acknowledge he lost the debate.
Ryan didn’t win — but all he had to do was not lose.
Biden had to win. But he lost as much as he gained by his belligerency and buffoonery.
I think you’re wrong about Biden losing as much as he won, Tam; and the polls support that.
People can say what they want about negative campaigning and tactics like Biden used in the debate, but if well executed they’re effective.
But I’m curious why you say Biden had to win. Are you saying the VP debate affects the outcome of the election? I’ve never seen any evidence it does. I think it’s just one of the side shows.
Does anyone remember “The Faculty” movie where the teachers were drinking tons of water?
Just saying…
“But I’m curious why you say Biden had to win.”
Because Obama so flubbed the first debate.
I’m not a Ryan fan and I agree with Tamerlane. Ryan didn’t lose. And Biden didn’t win. Ryan came across as an earnest, young wonk and Biden came across like an old, belligerent asshole.
” the polls support that.”
Which polls? The national tracking & state polls all show Romney still surging, even with their ridiculous Dem skews. Biden’s antics may have pleased the proglodytes, but they clearly didn’t sway the general populace. There’s also a lot of anecdotal evidence that Biden’s bullying turned off women in particular.
“LOL! I wonder how many Ryan fans will ever acknowledge he lost the debate.”
Anon.: Not a Ryan fan, but I don’t think he lost the debate; to the contrary, I think he tied, if not won, by holding his own. Why do you think it’s some sort of unassailable ‘fact’ that all have to “acknowledge”? It’s not. I think we’re all mature adults here — if it was obvious Ryan lost, there wouldn’t be a dispute about it here.
I think Biden was good on many substantive points, but, overall, he lost by his jackenappery. That’s my view, but I accept that some others here view it differently; it’s not a ‘fact’ others have to acknowledge.
Zal: Did you ever disclose which polls you’re relying on to say Biden won? Perhaps you answered my similar question on the prior thread…haven’t checked that yet (apologies for re-asking if you have).
“I think Biden was good on many substantive points…”
I agree. Biden said much that I agreed with. The problem, for me, is that as soon as the words came out of his mouth, I yelled at the TV: Pretty words but you’re a lying sack of shit! I trust Biden and Obama as far as I can throw them.
“Surging” is overstating the movement. Makes it sound like there’s been some great swell of support for Romney/Ryan and that doesn’t appear to be the case.
And I’m sure both sides skew their polls. Fact is, neither is really ahead; the two campaigns have been and remain neck and neck.
But my point stands: why did Biden need to win? Does the VP debate influence voters? I say it doesn’t. Just Googled it and found that Gallup supports my take:
http://www.examiner.com/article/most-major-polls-show-joe-biden-beating-paul-ryan-vice-presidential-debate
I agree – a better talking point would be that VP debates don’t matter.
Sans yelling at the TV, that was my take exactly. I’d vote for someone who tried to do what Biden talked about but he’s just a liar. I actually believed Ryan, and liked him, but I don’t want public policy guidelines coming from Atlas Shrugged and the Vatican any more than from Goldman Sachs and LDS.
And as a snark I like it better too: Joe Biden, you don’t matter.
Good one!
““Surging” is overstating the movement.”
Google “Romney surging.”
My analysis of the polls show that the race has been very tight for some time. The latest polls indicate that there has indeed been a significant shift toward MR.
No, both sides do not skew the polls — in theory, there shouldn’t be “sided” in polling, but most pollsters are actively working to help obama. When reasonable adjustments are made to their raw results, MR comes out ahead.
Nonsense.
But we’ll see if Romney wins by a landslide.
I, too, found Biden grotesque and Ryan wonkish. But that Biden is a jackass and his posturing, gesticulating, idiocy were pretty fake. I’m still voting Stein and will not feel I’m voting present while I’m doing so.
To put this thread back on track, Axelrod was on FOX with Chris Wallace this a.m. throwing Hillary & State under the bus some more with the ridiculous “State Dept. is not part of the administration”logic:
Obama speak for “Thanks for all your heard work Bill trying to drag my sorry butt over the finish line despite my record of complete failure!! xoxo ~ bo”
David Axelrod is not part of the Human Race.
OOOh, even better, the State Dept. has posted the transcript of the 10/9 Libya conference call with reporters (h/t votermom):
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm#.UHmUMQQjpX0.twitter
Remember the precise words Hillary used the other day in Italy about Susan Rice: “Susan Rice was given the same information that all other senior officials were.” People in the MSM assumed (because they wanted to) that Hillary meant that all senior officials were given the video tape/spontaneous protest story that Rice went on 5 Sunday news shows repeating. Ha, ha!
And Hillary delivers another blow!
http://www.examiner.com/article/administration-plays-confusing-blame-game-with-libyan-attacks
Go back & listen to clips of Hillary discussing the video — she only ever refers to them in connection to “protests” in the ME, not directly to Libya ever like Susan Rice did on the Sunday news shows. Also, something everyone is forgetting: Obama made the UN Ambassador a cabinet level position, which means Susan Rice is not part of the State Dept.
Ha, ha! Obama really is an amateur.
Holy Christ, Angie. And, so it begins. . . .
Yep, run — time for the popcorn!
Angie, you’re right, Hillary didn’t link the video to Benghazi the way Obama and Rice did. I was concerned about her comments at the “transfer of remains” ceremony, but re-read her remarks just now and am satisfied she was careful to separate the “assault” on the Benghazi consulate from the video-related violent demonstrations in the region. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/hillary-clinton-speaks-at-the-transfer-of-remains-ceremony-for-americans-killed-in-libya/2012/09/14/049cd982-fe9e-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_video.html).
While I do believe all the facts should come out and the chips fall where they may, I’m relieved she didn’t try to pin the Benghazi deaths on the video. Obama and Rice have some ‘splaining to do.
Yes — Obama & Rice (and Biden) are the ones who lied to/mislead the public about the attack that killed our ambassador being part of a spontaneous protest about the video that turned violent.
That isn’t to say that Hillary and the State Dept. do not have responsibility for not providing adequate security to protect our people in Libya (and the fact that 4 are dead *proves* it was inadequate, so I’m not going to entertain any ideas that it was), but the cover up always is worse than the crime.
Furthermore, at this point I’d even bet that Hillary has emails/correspondence between State & the White House discussing security concerns in Libya prior to 9/11/12.
They’re rapidly running out of space in which to house this lie.
“But my point stands: why did Biden need to win? ”
The progs themselves said Biden needed to score big to undo obama’s stinker. The prog writers all claim Biden won, and that it mattered. Their faith in their cult leader has been shaken to the core; they were desperate for some tent-style revival.
Normally, VP debates mean precious little. But barry’s performance in Debate #1 was so atrocious, the obama/Biden ticket needed to recoup somehow. Biden should have gone for a field goal; he threw up a wild Hail Mary pass instead.
Well sure the “progs” needed Biden to win, and he did for them.
Otherwise it’s irrelevant.
And Biden did amazingly well considering what he was working with and against. He’s old, unattractive, uncool, rumored to be a drunk, been sidelined (like most VPs) the past four years. And he was up against a young good looking up and coming charming cool guy brimming with confidence. Biden delivered for the Obama base; he didn’t have it in him to do more, and it wouldn’t have mattered to the election if he did.
“He’s old, unattractive…”
Wait — you mean those giant fake chompers don’t score points with you?
After Obama went down in flames faster than the Hindenburg at his debate, only an Obama voter would need to ask the question “why did Biden need to win.” The momentum is all on Romney’s side. E.g.: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/12/romney-lancast-rally.html
Is there anything that Obama is going to say/do/show that’s new and exciting that will get more people to his side in the next 20 or so days? Romney, on the other hand is persuading more people every day that he is the one bet on.
If the VP debate doesn’t affect the election, Biden’s win or loss is irrelevant, which means Biden didn’t need to win. Not even complicated.
The contempt that the O campaign shows for its’ own supporters’ is enormous. They view them as low information or single issue, the more well heeled fall in the Broadway Barry camp. Leadership through celebrity is cool. Most of them consider Hillary collateral damage, after all she was the one who challenged their god. They won’t mind seeing her under the bus in the least.
Obama is counting on the above groups and some cheating to carry the day. The rest of us don’t count. Let’s hear it for the rest of us.
Even if Hillary doesn’t win this battle with the White House, there will always be the hearings in Congress and the book she plans on writing when she leaves. Nobody will throw this lady under the bus without a fight.