Obama Scandals

Michael Medved Comments on, and Plays ABC`s Jonathan Karl`s Devastating Benghazi Report (CNN: Untrue; BBC Editor: Changed Mind)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via Jonathan Karl, of ABC:

…Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya.  These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?  Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted…

(ABC)

Formerly Skeptical BBC Editor Changes Tune (The Blaze):

BBC Editor Mark Mardell on Friday admitted that he had all but dismissed allegations of a Benghazi cover-up before ABC’s bombshell report on the Benghazi talking points, which were deliberately edited to remove references to terror.

“This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll,” Mardell writes. “The White House will be on the defensive for a while.”

The BBC editor said ABC’s report on the talking points provide the “first hard evidence that the State Department did ask for changes to the CIA’s original assessment.” He predicted that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will inevitably have to explain why her department made the significant edits.

“In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little,” Mardell admitted, later adding that the “evidence is there in black and white.”

He goes on: “Mr Obama’s critics are often not very clear what is behind their allegations. I presume they think that the White House wanted to avoid claims the murders were the result of terrorism because this would undermine his claim that al-Qaeda was seriously ‘degraded.’ There’s also a vague sense he’s ‘soft on terror.’”…

Kirsten Powers calls Obama`s defense of Susan Rice `silly, sexist` and `paternalistic`

Published by Papa Giorgio

From Hot Air:

….[Kirsten Powers] makes a good point in her op-ed today too: Why are liberals ignoring how badly Obama has treated Rice here? She had nothing to do with Benghazi, yet he plucked her from her post as ambassador to the UN, briefed her with defective intel, and then sent her out to do damage control as the face of the administration. Like I said yesterday, he could have sent Carney or Robert Gibbs or some other full-time flack but he chose Rice, I assume, because he wanted to leverage the extra gravitas of her position. She’s worked in diplomacy for years, yet now she’s famous chiefly for being the White House’s designated stooge in its biggest counterterrorism failure. Way to do right by a loyal deputy, champ. You’re a real feminist hero. Click the image to watch.

CBS Releases Previously Withheld Portion of `60 Minutes` Interview (The Blaze & Breitbart)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(click pic to zoom over to the Blaze to watch the video)

Via Breitbart:

CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama’s behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong.

That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss–and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election–perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether.

Fox News’ Bret Baier, who has been following the timeline of events closely, noted in his analysis this morning:

These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.

Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.

How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?

There are many questions, and here are a few more.

Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama’s claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?

Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional “60 Minutes” interview material from Sept. 12?

Why wasn’t it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that “60 Minutes” tape — why didn’t they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?

Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don’t add up.

…read more…

Susan Rice the White Houses `Fall-Guy`? ~ President Still Holds To This False Narrative

Published by Papa Giorgio

This narrative all but collapsing have caused some to wonder if the White House used Susan Rice as a fall-girl. Her responses over last weekend were likened to “borderline ignorance,” and the President — as of yesterday — is holding to this false narrative. Gateway Pundit comments on this dilemma:

Sorry, Barack… Only a useful idiot would think the violent mobs storming embassies was a “natural” reaction to an offensive video.

The Daily Caller reported:

President Barack Obama said he thinks Muslim protests against Western criticism of Islam are “natural.”

“The natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests,” Obama said during an hour-long town-hall interview on the Spanish-language Univision channel.

Obama did not use the interview to champion the right of Americans to speak freely amid criticism and threats from Islamic advocates.

He did briefly mention free-speech, saying that democracy also includes “looking out for minority rights… respecting freedom of speech… [and] treating women fairly.”

Our Representative, Buck McKeon (the 25th district), gives his own 2-cents on the matter, and nails it:

HotAir also points out the waste of taxpayer monies in trying to dissuade these protests.Something that will not happen… that is… the dissuasion of violence in Islam:

….What you’re about to see is, essentially, an official statement of patriotic disapproval, not from the Defense Department but from State. They’re spending $70,000 to air this on Pakistani television in the naive hope that the lunatics who were throwing rocks at the embassy in Islamabad this morning and who are planning massive — and state-sanctioned — “protests” tomorrow might be placated. It’s a hostage video, with American diplomats in Pakistan and American soldiers in Afghanistan as the hostages. And, as always when the government strains to show respect for Islam, there’s nothing genuinely respectful about it. The thought of Hillary cutting a video like this for the Israeli market in response to some U.S. citizen’s anti-semitic propaganda because she “respects” Judaism is unimaginable. The motive here is fear, not respect. And bizarrely, the embassy seems proud enough of it that it’s willing to advertise this clip on its own Facebook page….

…read more…

Pat Condell also points out the bottom line, in his patented way:

Verizon Suing the FCC-Right On!

Published by Papa Giorgio

Big Government has this GREAT story, makes me happy to be a Verizon customer:

Verizon Communications has become the first of what many expect to be many, to sue the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to undo its voting themselves Internet Overlords on December 21st.

This is an FCC self-inflicted wound; they flung wide open the door to lawsuits aplenty with their dictatorial vote – and the sloppy, self-contradicting and unauthorized order on which they voted.

The FCC decided to again usurp authority over the Internet – so as to then impose Network Neutrality – in a manner similar to the one it attempted in 2007 with the Comcast-BitTorrent situation.

A manner which the D.C. Circuit Court last April unanimously said the FCC is not statutorily authorized to execute.

A manner which FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski himself – just two months before calling for the vote and casting an “Aye” – readily acknowledges he and the FCC don’t have the juice to execute.

For their outrageously outsized part – completely unqualified “Public Interest” Group (PIG) Free Press was cited in the FCC order a ridiculous 53 times – the Media Marxists were livid with the order, somehow asserting that the FCC didn’t go nearly far enough outside its clearly demarcated legal bounds.

Leftists, after all, never allow facts to get in the way of a good beating.

And these PIGish Media Marxists were caught utterly unawares by Verizon’s lawsuit, which (as an admitted non-attorney) I find to be some of the best lawyering we’re likely to see for quite some time.

In layman’s terms, Verizon claims in their suit that the FCC order alters wireless licenses (which it certainly appears to do).  A clause in the 1996 Telecommunications Act stipulates that if the FCC alters someone’s wireless license and that someone sues, they are guaranteed an expedited hearing in – the D.C. Circuit.

…(read more)…