Sunday, 19 May 2013

THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Lots and lots to choose from today.  But, since Watergate was mentioned in the previous blog, I think I'll go with Watergate titan Bob Woodward's comment about the Obama administration's prevaricating on Benghazi:

"You look at the whole Benghazi thing. You look at those talking points and the initial draft by the CIA very explicitly said we know that activists who have ties to Al-Qaeda were involved in the attack. Then you see what comes out a couple of days later and there is no reference to this. This is a business where you have to tell the truth and that did not happen here."

Great quote.  Just as damning about the Obama administration as it should be.  I only wish the first part of the final sentence were as true as the end of it.

But, in the great scheme of things, that, admittedly, is a minor carp.  Mr. Woodward calls Obama & Co, out as the liars they so clearly are, which more than makes up for his gossamer view of how journalism works these days.

Quote Of The Day honors are his.


WHY THE BENGHAZI SCANDAL IS NOT GOING AWAY

Ken Berwitz

In case you are wondering whether the Benghazi scandal has a chance of going away any time soon.....

...we have this morning's exchange between Fox Sunday Morning anchor Chris Wallace and Obama flak Dan Pfeiffer (I have put key parts in bold print):

WALLACE: Let's turn to benghazi. He had a meeting with panetta in the afternoon, heard about this on an unrelated subject, wanted them to deploy forces as soon as possible. The next time he shows up, hillary clinton says she spoke to him at around 10:00 that night after the attack at the consulate, not the annex, but the attack at the consulate had ended. Question:  what did the president do the rest of that night to pursue benghazi?

PFEIFFER:  The president was kept up to do throughout the entire night, from the moment it started till the end. This is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are in risk, people who work for him. I recognize that there's a series of conspiracy theories the republicans are spinning about this since the night it happened, but there's been an independent review of this, congress has held hearings, we provided 250,000 pages of -- 250,000 pages of documents up there. There's been 11 hearings, 20 staff briefings. Everyone has found the same thing. this is a tragedy. The question is not what happened that night. the question is what are we going to do to move forward and ensure it doesn't happen again? Congress should act on what the president called for earlier this week, to pass legislation to actually allow us to implement the recommendations of the accountability review board. When we send diplomats off into far-flung places, there's inherent risk. We need to mitigate that risk.

WALLACE: With all due respect, you didn't answer my question. What did the president do that night?

PFEIFFER:  Kept up to date with the events as they were happening.

WALLACE: He didn't talk to the secretary of state except for the one time when the first attack was over. He didn't talk to the secretary of defense, he didn't talk to chiefs, the chairman of the joint who was he talking to?

PFEIFFER:  His national security staff, his national security council.

WALLACE: Was he in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  He was kept up to date throughout the day.

WALLACE: Do you know know whether he was in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  I don't know what room he was in that night. That's a largely irrelevant fact.


WALLACE: Well --

PFEIFFER:  The premise of your question, somehow there was something that could have been done differently, okay, that would have changed the outcome here. The accountability roof board has looked at this, people have looked at this. It's a horrible tragedy, and we have to make sure it doesn't happen again.

WALLACE: Here's the point, though:  the ambassador goes missing.  The first ambassador in more than 30 years is killed. Four americans, including the ambassador, are killed. Dozens of americans are in jeopardy. The president at 4:00 in the afternoon says to the chairman of the joint chiefs to deploy forces. No forces are deployed. Where is he while all this is going on?

PFEIFFER:  This has been testified to by --

WALLACE: Well, no. no one knows where he is, who was involved, the --

PFEIFFER:  The suggestion of your question that somehow the president --

WALLACE:I just want to know the answer.

PFEIFFER: The assertions from republicans that the president didn't take action is offensive. It is absolutely offensive and there's no evidence to support it.


WALLACE: I'm simply asking a question. Where was he? What did he do? How did he respond?  Who told him you can't deploy force?  How did he respond?

PFEIFFER:  As I said, the president was in the white house that day, kept up to date by his national security team, spoke to the joint chiefs of staff earlier, secretary of state, and as events unfolded he was kept up to date.

Can you imagine what the press would have done if the President were George Bush and his "aide" was this intentionally vague, then this insulting, to an interviewer trying to get the answers to basic questions about the President's involvement during the Benghazi massacre?

Remember, it's not like this is an engaged President. His answer to just about everything is "I don't know, I wasn't involved, someone else was in charge, I heard about it the same way you did". The questions by Chris Wallace, therefore, were perfectly reasonable - and perfectly ducked by the ridiculous-sounding Dan Pfeiffer.

Could it be clearer that, after all the lies and all the deflections, this administration still is hiding the truth?

That is why the Benghazi scandal is not going away. 

Nor should it.

 

Zeke ..... ..... .... Is Dan Pfeiffer after Jay Carney's job (Presser Briefings). .... .... Maybe Baghdad Bob is after Carney's job. ..... ...... Or, maybe the script writers of Fantasy Island are after Carney's job. ..... ..... (05/19/13)


MAHER & MOORE: CAPITALIST FLIMFLAMMERS

Ken Berwitz

I post this not in anger but in amusement.

Suppose you are a pseudo-leftist hypocrite like bill maher or michael moore - i.e. someone who makes a fortune spouting hard left BS, while living like a 1%-er on the money you make spouting it.

Well, now you are faced with the Obama & Co. - probably the closest you will get to having an administration which buys into your BS - exploding with major scandal after major scandal - Benghazi, and LIE-RS, and bugging the communications of Associated Press reporters, among others.  What do you do now?

Well, you attack people to their right (which is just about everyone) for hating the USA, that's what.  Hey, why not?  The people you appeal to will fall for it hook, line and sinker. 

Can't believe this is their way of getting around the Obama scandals? Well, read these two quotes from maher's latest HBO "Real Time" show and see for yourself:

MAHER:  "What about trying to repealing [Obamacare] for the 37th time? Is that a wise use of our resources and time? I mean, at some point obstruction becomes, I don't know, treason, you know? I mean they've also blocked Obama's head of the EPA. There's no head of the circuit court in D.C. You know, at some point it just becomes more about hating him than loving your country."

MOORE:  "No, they hate America.  That's really what it is. I think these conservatives and right-wingers for as much as they say they love this country, they hate it. They hate the government. They hate the people."

I did not - and will not - watch the show.  But - pathetic though it is - I would bet money these two got great audience reaction from the maherginalized suckups who think he is so terrific that it is worth attending the show's taping.

As you might expect, it is very hard to reason with people unconditionally dedicated to the mahers and moores of the world...the ones who eat their stuff up like it was the finest caviar, instead of the lowest kaviar (and if you don't know the difference, be warned that finding out almost certainly will disgust you).

That said, however, I do admire the success these two have had exploiting the capitalist system....while simultaneously laughing at how completely they have flimflammed the people who have made them so rich into thinking that they aren't solidly in the 1%-er category.

Let me end by saying that I am sure you will hear more such, er, intelligence from these two in the future.  Or put another way, there's moore -- or is it maher -- where that came from.


WHY THE BENGHAZI SCANDAL IS NOT GOING AWAY

Ken Berwitz

In case you are wondering whether the Benghazi scandal has a chance of going away any time soon.....

...we have this morning's exchange between Fox Sunday Morning anchor Chris Wallace and Obama flak Dan Pfeiffer (I have put key parts in bold print):

WALLACE: Let's turn to benghazi. He had a meeting with panetta in the afternoon, heard about this on an unrelated subject, wanted them to deploy forces as soon as possible. The next time he shows up, hillary clinton says she spoke to him at around 10:00 that night after the attack at the consulate, not the annex, but the attack at the consulate had ended. Question:  what did the president do the rest of that night to pursue benghazi?

PFEIFFER:  The president was kept up to do throughout the entire night, from the moment it started till the end. This is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are in risk, people who work for him. I recognize that there's a series of conspiracy theories the republicans are spinning about this since the night it happened, but there's been an independent review of this, congress has held hearings, we provided 250,000 pages of -- 250,000 pages of documents up there. There's been 11 hearings, 20 staff briefings. Everyone has found the same thing. this is a tragedy. The question is not what happened that night. the question is what are we going to do to move forward and ensure it doesn't happen again? Congress should act on what the president called for earlier this week, to pass legislation to actually allow us to implement the recommendations of the accountability review board. When we send diplomats off into far-flung places, there's inherent risk. We need to mitigate that risk.

WALLACE: With all due respect, you didn't answer my question. What did the president do that night?

PFEIFFER:  Kept up to date with the events as they were happening.

WALLACE: He didn't talk to the secretary of state except for the one time when the first attack was over. He didn't talk to the secretary of defense, he didn't talk to chiefs, the chairman of the joint who was he talking to?

PFEIFFER:  His national security staff, his national security council.

WALLACE: Was he in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  He was kept up to date throughout the day.

WALLACE: Do you know know whether he was in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  I don't know what room he was in that night. That's a largely irrelevant fact.


WALLACE: Well --

PFEIFFER:  The premise of your question, somehow there was something that could have been done differently, okay, that would have changed the outcome here. The accountability roof board has looked at this, people have looked at this. It's a horrible tragedy, and we have to make sure it doesn't happen again.

WALLACE: Here's the point, though:  the ambassador goes missing.  The first ambassador in more than 30 years is killed. Four americans, including the ambassador, are killed. Dozens of americans are in jeopardy. The president at 4:00 in the afternoon says to the chairman of the joint chiefs to deploy forces. No forces are deployed. Where is he while all this is going on?

PFEIFFER:  This has been testified to by --

WALLACE: Well, no. no one knows where he is, who was involved, the --

PFEIFFER:  The suggestion of your question that somehow the president --

WALLACE:I just want to know the answer.

PFEIFFER: The assertions from republicans that the president didn't take action is offensive. It is absolutely offensive and there's no evidence to support it.


WALLACE: I'm simply asking a question. Where was he? What did he do? How did he respond?  Who told him you can't deploy force?  How did he respond?

PFEIFFER:  As I said, the president was in the white house that day, kept up to date by his national security team, spoke to the joint chiefs of staff earlier, secretary of state, and as events unfolded he was kept up to date.

Can you imagine what the press would have done if the President were George Bush and his "aide" was this intentionally vague, then this insulting, to an interviewer trying to get the answers to basic questions about the President's involvement during the Benghazi massacre?

Remember, it's not like this is an engaged President. His answer to just about everything is "I don't know, I wasn't involved, someone else was in charge, I heard about it the same way you did". The questions by Chris Wallace, therefore, were perfectly reasonable - and perfectly ducked by the ridiculous-sounding Dan Pfeiffer.

Could it be clearer that, after all the lies and all the deflections, this administration still is hiding the truth?

That is why the Benghazi scandal is not going away. 

Nor should it.

 

Zeke ..... ..... .... Is Dan Pfeiffer after Jay Carney's job (Presser Briefings). .... .... Maybe Baghdad Bob is after Carney's job. ..... ...... Or, maybe the script writers of Fantasy Island are after Carney's job. ..... ..... (05/19/13)


SARAH HALL INGRAM WATCH

Ken Berwitz

Sarah Hall Ingram headed the tax-exempt division of the IRS during the time when it singled out groups most likely to be critical of President Obama. 

Since then, Ingram has been promoted, and now heads the IRS enforcement division in charge of ObamaCare.

Here is what President Obama had to say about the IRS scandal (or the LIE-RS scandal as I call it) on Thursday (bold print is mine):

Well, with respect to the IRS, I spoke to this yesterday.  My main concern is fixing a problem, and we began that process yesterday by asking and accepting the resignation of the Acting Director there.  We will be putting in new leadership that will be able to make sure that -- following up on the IG audit -- that we gather up all the facts, that we hold accountable those who have taken these outrageous actions.  As I said last night, it is just simply unacceptable for there to even be a hint of partisanship or ideology when it comes to the application of our tax laws...

...So in addition to making sure that we've got a new acting director there, we're also going to make sure that we gather up the facts, and hold accountable and responsible anybody who was involved in this.  We're going to make sure that we identify any structural or management issues to prevent something like this from happening again.  We're going to make sure that we are accepting all of the recommendations that the IG has in the report.  

The "fact" is that the same person who was specifically in charge of "these outrageous actions" is currently in a position do do even more damage than she did while heading the tax-exempt division.

At what point, Mr. President, will Sarah Hall Ingram be held accountable?  Or is the only one you will "hold accountable" the acting Director, Steven Miller, whose resignation was absolutely meaningless since he was leaving in less than a month anyway?

Why does Sarah Hall Ingram still have her job?


AND IN CASE YOU THINK IT IS JUST CHRIS WALLACE

Ken Berwitz

I know they're out there.  I can almost hear them. 

I can almost hear the Obama supporters reading my previous blog and saying things like "Who cares, Chris Wallace is just some right winger from Faux News", or words to that effect.

So, in the spirit of debunking the surfeit of BS being tossed out by Dan Pfeiffer and his fellow Obama flaks (this time about Benghazi, but it is far from the only one) let me also post the following verbatims from CBS's career political liberal Bob Schieffer's interview with Pfeiffer on this morning's Face The Nation show. 

First we have Pfeiffer pumping out the same talking points he used with Wallace.  Then we have Schieffer's first reaction (which I disagree with -- more on that further on). And, as the Pfeiffer BS continues to fly, Schieffer's increasingly exasperated subsequent responses:

DAN PFEIFFER, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: The point that our Chief of Staff is making is that this is the Republican playbook here which is try, when they don't have a positive agenda, try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations. We're not going to let that distract us and the President from actually doing the people's work and fighting for the middle class.

BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: You know, I dont want to compare this in any way to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren't born then I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said, These are all second-rate things. We don't have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people's business. Youre taking exactly the same line they did.

SCHIEFFER: But Mr. Pfeiffer, and I don't mean to be argumentative here, but the President is in charge of the executive branch of the government. Its my, I'll just make this as an assertion: when the executive branch does things right, there doesn't seem to be any hesitancy of the White House to take credit for that. When Osama bin Laden was killed, the President didn't waste any time getting out there and telling people about it.

But with all of these things, when these things happen, you seem to send out officials many times who don't even seem to know what has happened. And I use as an example of that Susan Rice who had no connection whatsoever to the events that took place in Benghazi, and yet she was sent out, appeared on this broadcast, and other Sunday broadcasts, five days after it happens, and I'm not here to get in an argument with you about who changed which word in the talking points and all that. The bottom line is what she told the American people that day bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed.

But what I'm saying to you is that was just PR. That was just a PR plan to send out somebody who didn't know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn't the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew and if he knew nothing say, We don't know yet? Why didn't the White House Chief of Staff come out? I mean I would, and I mean this as no disrespect to you, why are you here today? Why isn't the White House Chief of Staff here to tell us what happened?

When even a usually Democrat-friendly Bob Schieffer can't take it, the "it" being tossed out by Obama & Co. must be pretty lame.

My only disagreement with Mr. Schieffer is his comment that "I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch" - his meaning, apparently, being that it is not as significant as Watergate.  In point of fact, Benghazi is far more significant. 

-Watergate was an attempt at political espionage that blew up in the Nixon administration's faces, mostly because of the subsequent lies and cover-ups.  No one died in Watergate and it is a virtual certainty it did not affect the 1972 election outcome. 

-By contrast, in Benghazi we lost four of our people, including our Ambassador who was raped and tortured before being killed, and gave al-Qaeda and its associates a huge "victory" over the USA - PLUS the subsequent lies and cover-ups, which are still in progress.

But, then again,  if lies and cover-ups are all Obama & Co. have, what else can they do?  It is eminently clear that they do not consider coming clean and telling the truth to be a viable option. 

That is why Benghazi is not going away.  And that is why even the folks who usually defer to Mr. Obama - like Bob Schieffer, for example - can't do it this time.


MAUREEN DOWD NAILS IT (THE LINE OF THE YEAR?)

Ken Berwitz

You have to love this...no matter what you think of Barack Obama.

From Maureen Dowd's latest column in today's New York Times, in which she writes about the major scandals hanging over President Obama and his administration:

Democrats are not worried that the rumpuses will hurt Obama's personal appeal or reputation for integrity.

SAY WHAT???????????

Yep, Maureen, Democrats are completely unworried about Benghazi, the LIE-RS scandal and the fact that the Associated Press (among others) is outraged at the bugging of its reporters avenues of communication, both at the office and at home.

You sure can tell by the comments some of them have made.

But that isn't even the main event.  It's that "reputation for integrity" line that jumped out at me.  Because, unlike most of what Ms. Dowd writes about Barack Obama, in this case I completely agree with her.

See, I don't think Barack Obama has any reputation for integrity.  Maybe does to some people, but not me.  And his integrity level certainly is not improved by the rope-a-dope tactics he is using on every scandal:  

-first, denying it exists,

-then, telling us there was less there than we were being told,

-then, telling us he didn't know a thing about it;  he found out the same time we did,

-then, blaming it on everyone but himself and his fellow Democrats, 

-and then, sternly telling us he will do everything necessary to get to the bottom of the thing that didn't exist/was unimportant/he never knew about/was someone else's fault -- without actually doing anything at all.

This is why Ms. Dowd is 100% correct.  These "rumpuses" (is that what they call scandals in Dowdville?) cannot affect Barack Obama's reputation for integrity.  Because when a reputation for integrity is zero, the only thing that can affect it is something that brings it up, not down.

Can anyone tell me what Mr. Obama has said/what actions he has taken on these scandals, which would do that?  Personally, I can't come up with any. 

For this reason, I congratulate Ms. Dowd on her conclusion.  In my mind, four and a half years of Barack Obama's lies and inaction on scandal after scandal, have kept his reputation for integrity perfectly intact.

An insight that accurate has to be in the running for Line Of The Year.


AND IN CASE YOU THINK IT IS JUST CHRIS WALLACE

Ken Berwitz

I know they're out there.  I can almost hear them. 

I can almost hear the Obama supporters reading my previous blog and saying things like "Who cares, Chris Wallace is just some right winger from Faux News", or words to that effect.

So, in the spirit of debunking the surfeit of BS being tossed out by Dan Pfeiffer and his fellow Obama flaks (this time about Benghazi, but it is far from the only one) let me also post the following verbatims from CBS's career political liberal Bob Schieffer's interview with Pfeiffer on this morning's Face The Nation show. 

First we have Pfeiffer pumping out the same talking points he used with Wallace.  Then we have Schieffer's first reaction (which I disagree with -- more on that further on). And, as the Pfeiffer BS continues to fly, Schieffer's increasingly exasperated subsequent responses:

DAN PFEIFFER, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: The point that our Chief of Staff is making is that this is the Republican playbook here which is try, when they don't have a positive agenda, try to drag Washington into a swamp of partisan fishing expeditions, trumped up hearings and false allegations. We're not going to let that distract us and the President from actually doing the people's work and fighting for the middle class.

BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: You know, I dont want to compare this in any way to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren't born then I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said, These are all second-rate things. We don't have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people's business. Youre taking exactly the same line they did.

SCHIEFFER: But Mr. Pfeiffer, and I don't mean to be argumentative here, but the President is in charge of the executive branch of the government. Its my, I'll just make this as an assertion: when the executive branch does things right, there doesn't seem to be any hesitancy of the White House to take credit for that. When Osama bin Laden was killed, the President didn't waste any time getting out there and telling people about it.

But with all of these things, when these things happen, you seem to send out officials many times who don't even seem to know what has happened. And I use as an example of that Susan Rice who had no connection whatsoever to the events that took place in Benghazi, and yet she was sent out, appeared on this broadcast, and other Sunday broadcasts, five days after it happens, and I'm not here to get in an argument with you about who changed which word in the talking points and all that. The bottom line is what she told the American people that day bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed.

But what I'm saying to you is that was just PR. That was just a PR plan to send out somebody who didn't know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn't the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew and if he knew nothing say, We don't know yet? Why didn't the White House Chief of Staff come out? I mean I would, and I mean this as no disrespect to you, why are you here today? Why isn't the White House Chief of Staff here to tell us what happened?

When even a usually Democrat-friendly Bob Schieffer can't take it, the "it" being tossed out by Obama & Co. must be pretty lame.

My only disagreement with Mr. Schieffer is his comment that "I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch" - his meaning, apparently, being that it is not as significant as Watergate.  In point of fact, Benghazi is far more significant. 

-Watergate was an attempt at political espionage that blew up in the Nixon administration's faces, mostly because of the subsequent lies and cover-ups.  No one died in Watergate and it is a virtual certainty it did not affect the 1972 election outcome. 

-By contrast, in Benghazi we lost four of our people, including our Ambassador who was raped and tortured before being killed, and gave al-Qaeda and its associates a huge "victory" over the USA - PLUS the subsequent lies and cover-ups, which are still in progress.

But, then again,  if lies and cover-ups are all Obama & Co. have, what else can they do?  It is eminently clear that they do not consider coming clean and telling the truth to be a viable option. 

That is why Benghazi is not going away.  And that is why even the folks who usually defer to Mr. Obama - like Bob Schieffer, for example - can't do it this time.


MAHER & MOORE: CAPITALIST FLIMFLAMMERS

Ken Berwitz

I post this not in anger but in amusement.

Suppose you are a pseudo-leftist hypocrite like bill maher or michael moore - i.e. someone who makes a fortune spouting hard left BS, while living like a 1%-er on the money you make spouting it.

Well, now you are faced with the Obama & Co. - probably the closest you will get to having an administration which buys into your BS - exploding with major scandal after major scandal - Benghazi, and LIE-RS, and bugging the communications of Associated Press reporters, among others.  What do you do now?

Well, you attack people to their right (which is just about everyone) for hating the USA, that's what.  Hey, why not?  The people you appeal to will fall for it hook, line and sinker. 

Can't believe this is their way of getting around the Obama scandals? Well, read these two quotes from maher's latest HBO "Real Time" show and see for yourself:

MAHER:  "What about trying to repealing [Obamacare] for the 37th time? Is that a wise use of our resources and time? I mean, at some point obstruction becomes, I don't know, treason, you know? I mean they've also blocked Obama's head of the EPA. There's no head of the circuit court in D.C. You know, at some point it just becomes more about hating him than loving your country."

MOORE:  "No, they hate America.  That's really what it is. I think these conservatives and right-wingers for as much as they say they love this country, they hate it. They hate the government. They hate the people."

I did not - and will not - watch the show.  But - pathetic though it is - I would bet money these two got great audience reaction from the maherginalized suckups who think he is so terrific that it is worth attending the show's taping.

As you might expect, it is very hard to reason with people unconditionally dedicated to the mahers and moores of the world...the ones who eat their stuff up like it was the finest caviar, instead of the lowest kaviar (and if you don't know the difference, be warned that finding out almost certainly will disgust you).

That said, however, I do admire the success these two have had exploiting the capitalist system....while simultaneously laughing at how completely they have flimflammed the people who have made them so rich into thinking that they aren't solidly in the 1%-er category.

Let me end by saying that I am sure you will hear more such, er, intelligence from these two in the future.  Or put another way, there's moore -- or is it maher -- where that came from.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!