Recent Activity
Search BL Rag
Powered by Squarespace
About This Site

The BL RAG is dedicated to the idea of free expression, thus we welcome and encourage reader  commentary on current events and issues, music, sports, or other topics of interest, no matter what one's political leanings or worldview.


Site Management:

Front Page Section Editors: Machiavelli, Skinnydipinacid, and Redbeard

Miscellanea Editor: Zoy Clem

Poetry Editor: Lenny

Music Editors: see schedule below


Site Editors: Skinnydipinacid and Zoy Clem

Maintenance Man: Master Admin Dude


Eric Olsen, Fornax, GrayRider, Winston, Jimmmco, and WesMorgan1


KRAG Music Section Schedule:

Sunday - Jgeagle5

Monday - Rhythm & Truth

Tuesday - Machiavelli

Wednesday - GrayRider

Thursday - Skinny

Friday - Fornax

Saturday - Zoy Clem

On-call - Schwabman

« Warning: Unhinged, Senile Liberals Ahead | Main | Lost Innocence Open »

NY Times Explained in One Simple Chart

(skip to most recent comments)

Ben Gozzi?   Who's that?    Is he a Republican?   No?   Well, then who really cares?   Right?

Oh, and here's a real shocker:  The NY Times also endorsed Obama... enthuastically at that.

I know, didn't see that coming... did you?

In fact many left-leaning news outlets considered Plame-gate one of the greatest scandals in American history, even worse than Watergate.    After all "nobody got killed in Watergate" (their words, not mine).   So going by that comparison, why does the MSM and the same Democrats that made Scooter Libby a household name by screaming it weekly seem so unwilling to even mention Benghazi now?   Is it really just a complete double-standard or is it simply to close to the election to be fair and act like real journalists, especially since it could hinder the re-elecion of the current administration they so "secretly" support?

I tell you what... the only reason I get up before 8 am on Sundays is to see what the talking heads are saying, or in today's case not saying... and today they weren't saying anything about Benghazi.   I didn't catch McCain bring it up on CBS (off topic of course), but I was flipping around most of the morning expecting every one of them to at least mention what's been going on, but once again it was only the "biased, non-news network" Fox that brought it to the table as an actual topic.

However the tide does seem to be turning on media bias (well, at least it is here in the Midwest).   Just this past week multiple papers that have not only displayed a left lean in their past reporting/editorials and went for Obama in the last election (not to mention every other Democrat since Nixon too) made a surprising turn to the right and endorsed Mitt Romney, even writing scathing criticisms of Obama and the performance of he and his administration over the last 4 years.    There really isn't any great way to spin it for Obama (but that doesn't mean Stephanie Cutter won't try... desperately)

Even this rag formerly known as the QC Times-Democrat endorsed Romney.

*  Hat tip to Doug Ross for the clever chart.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (58)

You see Skinny what Benghazi doesn't have but Plame-gate did was a "fashionable", "good-looking", "liberal", "Washington insider" couple named Joe Wilson and Val Plame who were willing to blame Bush for all of America's ills. Of course that heathen Scooter Libby went and outed that glorified secret agent secretary Val Plame. Thank God she maintained her secret identity on the Vanity Fair cover with the Channel scarf! So where are they now after the books that didn’t sell, the unattended public lectures and movies that bombed? In New Mexico I believe dialing Letterman, Stewart, MSNBC, CNN, anyone who will take they're call for a gig. It seems America doesn't or never really did care about this narcissistic 15-minutes of "Plame" couple. Unfortunately a good man named Scooter Libby had his reputation forever damaged by these two P’s OS.

October 29, 2012 at 09:23 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

The hand-wringing in the comment section of the Quad City Times is a riot.

It looks like the comment section of the Cedar Rapids Gazette just before they disabled all online comments.

Today Mitt Romney visits that Quad City area, supported by Dan Gable, the legendary Iowa Wrestling coach. I wish I could get away from work to attend.

Read Dan Gable's bio, the man is intense and driven.

Dan Gable has always stood for intensity, hard work, and no excuses. Now he stands with Romney/Ryan.

October 29, 2012 at 09:31 | Registered CommenterDuff, man

Did you ever stop to think that the whole point of a Benghazi type attack is to spread fear and get a reaction out of our country? That the current right wing freak out over Benghazi is exactly the type of reaction that terrorists who launched the attack could only have dreamed of? In any case I'm sure it is just as obvious to those who write newspapers as it is to the rest of us, that the Republicans are only interested in politicizing this event in order to attack Obama right before an election.

And can we can the false equivilence? The Plame situation was about Bush's war in Iraq, an action that cost over 4,000 American lives. Bengazi was a unprovoked terrorist attack which cost 4 lives. Big difference.

Has anybody but me noticed that's latest website gimmick, the Bias Alert, only seems to find media bias benefitting President Obama? Amazing that nothing ever happens which benefits Mitt Romney. Shocking!!!

October 29, 2012 at 09:34 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Plamegate was always a politically contrived scandal. If your job is working behind a desk at CIA HQ, then by definition your identity isn't a secret.

October 29, 2012 at 09:49 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Yeah Mach, our govenrment is in the habit of appointing special prosecutors to find out who leaked the identity of a person who by definition [their] identity isn't a secret.

October 29, 2012 at 10:20 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Refresh me on the timeline again; was Val a secret agent before or after the Vanity Fair Cover? LOL.

October 29, 2012 at 10:54 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

the Republicans are only interested in politicizing this event in order to attack Obama right before an election.

Actually, we're interested in the truth... and the problem for you Kwawk (and your party) is so are some Democrats and many Independents. Obama isn't going to lose any Republicans from this fiasco since we already assume he mishandled this attack more and more as additional information becomes known.

What the left fears is losing their base and Independents more than they do the truth.... so really, who's politicizing things here? Your party would love to sweep this under the rug until Nov 7th... if that's not the definition of playing politics with a tragedy, it has to be a synonym, at least.

Are you also admitting Plume-gate was purely political? That's the conclusion I draw given your train of thought and drawing the conclusion that politics is the only thing fueling Benghazi's disaster.

October 29, 2012 at 11:02 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Obama says he instructed that "everything be done to protect our people in Benghazi on Sept. 11th." Yet we had drone assets taking real-time video, a Seal painting an Al-Qaeda mortar team for an aerial (A-130 gunship or Reaper Drone) and Delta Force Spec. Ops troops two hours away and nothing happened due to "STAND DOWN" order. A stand down order could only come from one of two people, the President of the United States or the AFRICOM Commander. Patraeus has said it wasn't the CIA and Sec. of Def. Panetta has said it wasn't the military. Who could it be????

Yeah, this is just a Republican witch hunt. Btw, our best estimate is 60 Al Qaeda fighters were killed that night. There were just two Seals. Just think what a A-130 gunship could have done to level the field.

My guess is people who work at the WH and State Department should start lining up good defense attorney's. Someone is going to jail.

October 29, 2012 at 11:06 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

The basis for the Valarie Plame incident was purely political. Her husband Joe Wilson, a respected ambassador wrote an Op-Ed piece serverly critical of the Bush administration, which rankled a lot of feathers. The Bush Administration reacted to politically defend itself and in doing so outted WIlson's wife in the CIA though it had nothing to do with Wilson's arguements. The investigation into the outting of Plame was a reminder to politicians to not attack government workers who's lives may be at risk for political purposes.

You give a lot away when you say this:

we already assume he mishandled this attack

Breathlessly running to Foxnews with every new scrap of information whether verified or not, is not a search for the truth, it is an attempt to attack and sway voters in the time close to an election. Yes, it is a tragedy from a human perspective that 4 people died in Benghazi, but what it isn't, is a tragedy from a National Security perspective.

I'm as interested in finding out what really happened in Benghazi so that our government can assure it doesn't happen again. But I also recognize that the people who work for our government are human and will make mistakes.

The definition of terrorism is to use violence or threat of violence to achive political goals. If you allow every attack by those that hate us in the world to be used as a political excuse to attacke the current incumbant then you're doing half of the work of the terrorists for them.

What scares me the most about a Romney victory is empowering people like yourself so that you feel justified in your continual refusal to admit the mistakes of the Bush era. It is very disconcerting that the right in this country rather than have a mea culpa moment and acknowledge the errors of the Bush years, are hell bent on trying to rehabilitate Bush. Everything else be damned.

October 29, 2012 at 11:27 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Obama says he instructed that "everything be done to protect our people in Benghazi on Sept. 11th." Yet we had drone assets taking real-time video, a Seal painting an Al-Qaeda mortar team for an aerial (A-130 gunship or Reaper Drone) and Delta Force Spec. Ops troops two hours away and nothing happened due to "STAND DOWN" order. A stand down order could only come from one of two people, the President of the United States or the AFRICOM Commander. Patraeus has said it wasn't the CIA and Sec. of Def. Panetta has said it wasn't the military. Who could it be????

Tom. Military units do not act unless they are told to stand down. Military units stand down in these situations until they are told to act.

The fact is we don't know about anything about Benghazi yet. What has been said is that we didn't send in additional troops because we didn't know what was going on. Had we sent in Delta Force and ended up with another Mogidishu you'd be screaming just as loud. Had we sent in a drone to fire and ended up killing our own people or friendlies, thus turning Libyans against us, you'd be screaming just as loud.

You're simply looking for a reason to attack Obama no matter what. Facts be damned.

October 29, 2012 at 11:34 | Registered Commenterkwawk

I don't watch Fox News kwawk...
I don't even get that channel anymore.

Any other excuses you want limp out?

When more and more military and ex-military personnel (i.e., not Fox News reporters) come out say Obama is one of only a couple people who could have stopped it, and the CIA is saying they didn't put a stop to it, and Obama is ducking questions flat out asking if they denied requests for help n Benghazi...
... you've pretty much lost the Fox News / purely political talking point.

Maybe try blaming it on Bush.
Does that still carry water?

October 29, 2012 at 11:37 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

These people have removed all doubt that they hate America.

October 29, 2012 at 11:39 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

Bullshit Skinny. Foxnews is the only news outlet covering Benghazi with breathless zeal. As the original topic of this post shows, you're not getting all of the Benghazi crap from the New York Times.

October 29, 2012 at 11:39 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Foxnews is the only news outlet covering Benghazi with breathless zeal.

No, they really aren't the "only news outlet".
There's this thing called the internet now...

October 29, 2012 at 11:52 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Would military units two hours away have saved Christopher Stevens from dieing of smoke inhalation in that burning building? Nope. Would a drone attack? Nope.

October 29, 2012 at 11:53 | Registered Commenterkwawk

"Tom. Military units do not act unless they are told to stand down. Military units stand down in these situations until they are told to act." Huh, WTF?

So all U.S ships at sea, military aircraft in the air and army units not at base are what in mutiny? Because their out in space DOING SOMETHING!! Most likely protecting U.S. assets or training.

We know the aerial assets were at Benghazi. They were sent by someone and then told to Stand Down by someone after a request from the Seals for assistance. That's irrefutable. Who called the order??

October 29, 2012 at 12:01 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Would military units two hours away have saved Christopher Stevens from dieing of smoke inhalation in that burning building? Nope. Would a drone attack? Nope.

Seriously... do you think it's possibly to stretch yourself any thinner with this excuse?

First off, if the Reaper drones were armed (which it's probably safe to say they were, considering a Navy Seal was risking his life to laser-target the enemy in hopes of air support FIRING UPON THEM AND SAVING THEIR LIVES) they would have put a quick stop to the mortars, easing if not eliminating the threats coming at them. Secondly, troops were not "two hours away". A CIA counter-terrorism team in Italy was, but it wouldn't have taken 2 hrs for any kind of support. Third, even if it was 2 hrs (per Claire Lopex, ex-CIA and Center for Security Policy Middle East analyst) the Navy Seals didn't get killed until the very end of the 7 hr plus long battle. 7-2 = 5 (that's a lot of time). We basically let them die.

Now, let's pretend the drones weren't armed. I guarantee that AC-130 sure the fuck was.

Even if Stevens was dead at that time (which even you don't know) wouldn't it make sense to at least kill the terrorist attacking our embassy and save the lives of our Navy Seals?

Again, the benefit of the doubt you offer up this president is rather sickening. I'd expect nothing else from a man who gets his (non-)information only from political shields like the NY Times.

But on the bright side Kwawk, you're nowhere near the heckling jackass of Winston...
... so at the very least I will give you props for that.

October 29, 2012 at 12:59 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Oh great, now Rush Limbaugh is saying pretty much what I just said... Navy SEAL painted target and gave himself away because AC130 was armed and ready to fire... now I'll probably be accused of "spouting Limbaugh talking points" despite such a conclusion being based on the reality of the situation and basic common sense.

October 29, 2012 at 13:18 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

All I can say is that if you'd ever been in the military you'd understand that it is the job of anybody in the military to sacrifice themselves to save the lives of others. In the Marines especially, you'd learn that the job of the officers is to accomplish the mission not to concern themselves with your life. Your safety and well being are second to accomplishing the mission.

It sounds like the sercurity personelle in Benghazi did their jobs honorably and we should be thankful to them for that. We lost the ambassador but it sounds like they saved many more people.

Having lived through many mortar attacks in Iraq I can tell you that a mortar attack is not like you see in the movies. First a mortar round isn't a 500 lb bomb. It has a very small destruction radius, it doesn't cause buildings to implode or fire to fall from the sky. It takes a near perfect strike, within 10 to 20 feet unobstructed for people to be killed. And secondly a lot of the times these people firing the mortars aren't very good with them, so they don't come close to that perfect strike. Third, when they do attack with mortars, it is generally a hit and run attack. They set up, launch the mortars, which take a minute to fly to the target and then run like hell before a counter strike can be launched. They might sit in place for a small period of time to walk a few rounds close into the target if they have a spotter located in place that can radio back to them aiming adjustments. But they have a tendency to fire and run, which makes it hard to fire back on them if you're not already prepared with a locating radar or something.

October 29, 2012 at 13:23 | Registered Commenterkwawk


The two Seals defied orders and went to the rescue of the Ambassador. I suppose if they lived they could have been court martialed for defying orders. As for the mortar attack; reports are the total consulate attack took seven hours. I realize the mortar attack did not take place over the whole seven hours but it does seem like it was not a shoot and scoot deal.

October 29, 2012 at 14:48 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

If they had lived they might have had to have been thankful that they did. Piecing this together, it sounds like the two seals or former seals, were part of a 6 man quick reaction force. If the group attacking the consolate was really 100 person strong, there probably wasn't going to be much they could do. It's possible that the QRF was held back because the higher ups didn't know if they were being sent in to be slaughtered by a much larger force.

It also sounds like the entire event took 7 hours, not that they were under attack for 7 hours. They went to the consulate and rescued who they could, and took them back to the safe house. Then later on in the evening a mortar round landed on the roof killing two people.

There was another security detail in Tripoli which was sent to gather everyone up and take them back to someplace safe.

October 29, 2012 at 14:59 | Registered Commenterkwawk

I'm so glad President Obama reminded us to be ready seven days after we all knew the hurricane was coming. Millions of people would have been unprepared without ‘The One.’ So if your windows aren't taped, bottle water isn’t purchased and sand bags placed, Obama is the man to remind you. If you’re a Seal stuck on a roof-top in Benghazi calling for help three times, covered in your own blood, he has no answer. Or more like he won't take your call

October 29, 2012 at 16:24 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Pretty obvious attempt to downplay the role mortars played in that battle (despite countering your own argument by noting that two were killed inside the building they fell back to by one... funny). Did your extensive online research tell you what size mortars they were Kwawk, or did you just assume they were smaller than 80mm? Once you find out what exact size they were, you let us know... then we can start talking about how they got those mortars/rockets/guns in the first place.

Yes, I am aware of sacrifice... yes, I'm aware of the risk those soldiers too... and i'm also aware of what classifies as dereliction of duty. Maybe you can enlighten us on how Obama didn't abandon those soldiers to die, right after you answer why a target was painted by those SEALs and we denied them the air support they should have received... air support that would NOT have taken "2 hours" to get there.

I know you'd much rather spin this any way you can to claim Obama made the right call, but that seems to be hard for you to do... so instead you desperately try to divert the topic elsewhere. Sending a unit in to take on 100 enemies is one thing (although two brave men who are dead now did so willingly and we've dishonored their heroism by lying about what happened for weeks now)... HOWEVER, sending in a fucking AC130 or armed Reaper, especially if the troops on the ground are requesting it and have the target painted is not that tough of a call to make, unless of course one is worried about their re-election and how attacking "protesters mad about some YouTube video" (just sounds stupider every time I hear that) might look to his base and independents.

If this administration would have had some guts, maybe those heroes would be alive today.
The call was bad... the cover-up is worse... and your spin to downplay that is just dreadful.

October 29, 2012 at 18:34 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Skinny I don't even know what to say to you. Do I know what size mortars they used? Nope, but considering Gaddafi probably used the same arms dealers that at Saddam Hussein did, it's a pretty good guess that they were using the same style of weapons we saw in Iraq. And they probably got them the same way. When the war was over the Iraqi military went home with their weapons and possibly raided a few munitions dumps for good measure.

Let me say first that these were Navy Seals. When you're a Navy Seal you are trained to go into environments where you're not going get air support any time you want. And I'm not sure these were even active Seals, they were former Seals hired as private contractors, making hundreds of thousands of dollars to do their job. Once the safe house was under attack it was decided that the best course of action would be to send reinforcements from Tripoli and that is what happened. Those that died at the safe house were killed on the roof not in the building.

If anybody is disrespecting them it is you with all of this talk about conspiracies and cover ups. Instead of blaming the people who killed these heros, you're blaming your own President as if he is supposed to be some form of superhero who can save everybody.

Honestly, if you'd shown half the outrage and anger in relation to the 14 Marines who were killed in my battalion in Iraq or the thousands who died before and after in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd be inclined to take you a bit more seriously. But as it was you defended the inept handling of those wars by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld right down to the bitter end.

October 29, 2012 at 21:15 | Registered Commenterkwawk

I was under the impression that an attack on an American Embassy was an act of war. Where am I wrong?

October 29, 2012 at 22:38 | Registered CommenterGrayRider

81 or 82 mm... 82's is what the Libyan rebels generally used, but there's a chance we sold them 81's to help topple the previous regime, and now they're turning those same mortars against us. I wouldn't dare go so far as to say it's Iran Contra bad, but it would be a black eye to the President.

81mm mortars would definitely tear shit up beyond 10' or so.

We all understand the responsibility a soldiers carries with them into battle. That doesn't grant you a pass on one real simple question kwawk... Why wouldn't we fire on painted targets that are attacking our embassy, especially when our ambassador, soldiers and others are in danger? Again, you have no more information than the rest of us, but you still seem to grant the President an awfully generous benefit of the doubt. Just because those SEALs were trained to go into extreme situations doesn't mean we make it more difficult on them with inaction on our part.

And actually if you remember way far back I criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war because I felt Iraq was merely cutting off an arm to our greater enemy and thought we should take advantage of our position and go for the head. We keep dancing around Iran without taking the problem head on, then wonder why we're not getting anywhere.

We can debate those wars another day, as I have plenty of bitching I reserve for them, however I don't scream about them just as I haven't screamed about Afghanistan under Obama, which under his leadership seems to be the forgotten war. You haven't heard me screaming about Pakistan and chances are I wouldn't have criticized us being in Libya either if we hadn't lied about our level of involvement in the first place (again, purely due to politics). Apparently that too was another one of those "just and/or necessary" wars we all have a differing of opinions over. What I can't stomach however is growing suspicions of an apparent scandal, not to mention gross incompetence, and that appears more and more to be the case with Benghazi.

(again... I am in no way shocked or surprised, not with this administration)

And no, Grey... we're anti-American if we think that way... just ask Winston.

October 30, 2012 at 00:31 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid


If you can show me how those 14 Marines would be alive today due to Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld not taking a call or making a decision on air support or Spec Ops rescue, I'll be right next to you condemning them. Otherwise this game of qualifying everything Obama has done by the prism of what is Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did in a different time and war is useless and stupid.

October 30, 2012 at 06:56 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Back to the main topic. Does anyone, including any honest lefties in their private moments, really believe that The New York Times is an objective news organization? If so, I'll get my deed to the Brooklyn Bridge ready to go. Money to be made here.

October 30, 2012 at 08:01 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Sure, someone always tries to make money. Darn Capitalists.
You just wait, when Obama is re-elected, he is going to create a Secretary of Business.
Likely job duties include stamping out little profits from business before they have a chance to get big.

October 30, 2012 at 09:21 | Registered CommenterDuff, man

An 80mm mortar has a kill radius of about 120' on troops out in the open. Which means that 50% of troops within that range would be expected to die. If you are in a covered position on a rooftop the round needs to be much much closer to being on target.

Why might the higher ups not ordered a strike on a 'painted target'. Perhaps because it was well after mid-night, pitch black out and they couldn't be sure that the right target was painted as the actual mortar tube could have been 2-3 miles away. Mortar tubes are also portable and the odds that a mortar tube would still be there after a helicopter spent 2 hours flying in is pretty slim.

In any case you guys seem to think that calling in air support is as easy as ordering a pizza. Not to mention that there was probably some concern about taking the word of somebody who has painted a target, who has already shown themselves willing to disobey orders.

October 30, 2012 at 11:01 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Tax returns Bloomberg got through a Freedom of Information Act request indicate Clueless Plutocrat used what tax attorneys call a “charitable remainder unitrust” to have the Mormon Church’s tax-exempt status as a charity defer his taxes for more than 15 years. It’s legal but disgusting, in that the maneuver maximizes the donor’s tax shield while minimizing what the “charity” actually ultimately receives—generally, as close to nothing as humanly possible. (This may explain the extraordinary lukewarmth so many top influential Mormons feel about his candidacy.) If we actually had liberally biased news sources they’d have made Clueless Plutocrat’s failure to release tax returns a daily story instead of letting it die quietly.

In other news, desperate to carry electoral-vote-rich Ohio, Lying Assweasel is lying to its voters, while his surrogates frantically try to convince them he’s not as severely conservative as he claimed to be a few short months ago.

Meanwhile his useful idiots try desperately to politicize everything from the deaths of American diplomatic workers to storm recovery efforts even as they agitate to dismantle FEMA and give its job “back to the states.”

In still other news, a finance chair to one of the GOP’s congressional campaigns admits when it comes to the Detroit bankruptcy matter, Thurston H. W. Shape-Shifter III is . . . . uh, lying.

When he loses, will you people promise to move to Somalia? Please? I’ll pay your way.

October 30, 2012 at 11:41 | Registered CommenterWinston

They Are Really, Really, Really, Really F***ing Desperate: Part XXXVIII.

Here’s an example of what the Extremist Right regards as a “news” source.

No wonder these people are catastrophically misinformed pretty much all the time. But never forget—being ignorant and misinformed at this level is their conscious choice. They actively prefer rank stupidity to permitting any outside information to contaminate their perfect bubbles of bigotry, resentment, and attitude. “Epistemic closure,” I think someone called it. They certainly would have appalled the Founding Fathers.

October 30, 2012 at 11:50 | Registered CommenterWinston

I just love a good Media Matters Winston retort as anything more reliable than shit stuck to the bottom of my shoe. In the meantime, I'm sure we all thought last weeks "Sacrificing the Virgin" campaign commercial was the low-point in the re-elect Obama campaign. We were wrong. or the sub-chapter re-elect Obama organization has some foul mouthed grannies and grandpa's talking about "burning this mother-fucker down" and punching "Romney in the nut-sack and cock punching him." You can find the YouTube link all over the net. It's so sad and pathetic even MSM outlets find it disgusting. It’s interesting to know that life-long libs never did have class because if I have to hear from a 97 year old grandma the words "cock-sucker" and "mother-fucker" that pretty much tells me this was a no class bitch from day one. Maybe she’s related to Steph Cutter?

October 30, 2012 at 12:14 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Listening to Tom "the President's a POS who molests his daughters, black men are criminals, Stephanie Cutter is a b!itch whore and I'm free to make s**t up endlessly" (“The Firehose of Bullsh!t ™”) Miller lecturing anyone in the known universe about "klass" is simply beyond endurance. Go soak your head, Tom. In a urinal. "Klass" lectures from a proven racist thug? Too funny.

Will you America haters finally leave when Lying Assweasel is returned to the private sector? Somalia's got a good no-gummint-regulations-weak-state bristling-with-guns regime that should look hospitable to ya.

October 30, 2012 at 12:32 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

I just love a good Media Matters Winston retort as anything more reliable than shit stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

Funny, that's the way I feel about World Nut Daily, FauxNooze and Drudge. The difference being MM shows while the propaganda dispensers just tell, or rather, fabricate. Still, you prefer staying colossally ignorant by depending on the resentment-stoking you get at the rightwing "nooze" outlets--the ones that leave you time and time again with your pants down around your ankles. That's your choice. I do hope you're entertaining your family members, friends, coworkers and neighbors with your nonstop pottymouthed hatemongering. You should spread your philosophy far and wide so everyone can see it.

October 30, 2012 at 12:51 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

But if a drone is on site and ready to shoot at them, the 2 hrs excuse pretty much goes out the window. If there's an AC-130 on sight the dark of night excuse is shot too.

(per the article I linked to earlier, just in case any are unfamiliar with the AC-130)

There are two state-of-the-art fire-control systems (FCSs) in a AC-130U, using television sensors,infrared sensors, and synthetic aperture strike radar. These fire control systems can see through the dark of night, clouds, and smoke.

The two FCSs on the AC-130U control a 25mm Gatling gun for area suppression, a precision 40mm cannon, and a 105mm cannon which can engage hard targets.

What this means is that we have the forces in the air and on the ground to have stopped the attack at any point, eliminating the terrorists and saving American lives.

We also never said it was easy to call in air support, we said it wouldn't take 2 hrs for a fighter jet to reach the scene. That's assuming we are talking about a pilot on standby with a plane fueled up and ready to go, however by the sounds of it those steps had already been taken care of, so there wouldn't be that delay in assembling it again. Support was already in the air, so you're adding factors (or asking the steps to achieve them be repeated) to the situation. It only required a go or a no-go and unfortunately for our soldiers they got a "no" from somebody. Given Obama's reluctance to answer whether he denied such support or not (this shouldn't require an investigation... it's pretty direct... did YOU give that order, Mr. President?)....
.. "perhaps" he just botched this, badly.

Is that not a rational hypothesis to you, Kwawk? Because there seem to be a lot of military personnel that think it is, in fact many military whistle-blowers are going on the record just so they don't run the risk of having their military career ruined now by an administration that's politically desperate, or later on in Senate public hearings. Not exactly the acts taken by people who think we did the right thing(s) in Libya.

And I was wondering how long it was going to take for you to mention they defied orders as a factor in the endless excuses. Personally I expected to hear it sooner. Sadly, there will be a small percentage of people that don't agree with what those soldiers did. The rest of America sees them as heroic. You can bet your ass that every person they saved feel that same way.

October 30, 2012 at 12:56 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

So much projection from Winston and so little time or should I say gives a f**k? I guess Somalia is the new Canada for the left. Will I run into Barack there after the election? LOL.

October 30, 2012 at 13:00 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Skinny - I did a google search on AC-130 and Benghazi and couldn't find one credible news organization that is reporting that an AC-130 was on site and ready to fire. The only references I can find to this are from right wing blogs.

I also included Foxnews in the Google search and came back with nothing.

What credible news agency is reporting this?

October 30, 2012 at 15:53 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Three's your answer, kwAwk...

outed that glorified secret agent secretary Val Plame. Thank God she maintained her secret identity on the Vanity Fair cover with the Channel [sic] scarf!

If your job is working behind a desk at CIA HQ, then by definition your identity isn't a secret.

Plame’s NOC status status was well established, but long-discredited rightwing zombie lies must be spouted, not least because the Nooshnutz know how irritating it is to have them constantly trying to relitigate history. What seems to enrage Tom more than anything is the Wilsons being a bit glamorous. Fact remains Scooter was convicted of multiple felonies for lying, was fined and disbarred and only escaped jail through C-plus-Augustus commuting his sentence. Refusing him an outright pardon in turn enraged Cheney. Good.

October 30, 2012 at 20:45 | Registered CommenterWinston

Everytime I see Val I think 14:59.

October 30, 2012 at 22:03 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

First off, let me say how proud I am to se you really digging into the story kwawk. I feel like we're making some real progress here.

Now it appears you're already assuming the reapers weren't what the targets were being painted for (my first suggestion, despite being nowhere near as deadly as the AC-130) so we're just skip that and move along. The AC-130's, along with A10 Tankbusters, were stationed in Libya back in March 2012. (I think that's where everybody is getting this "AC-130 was in the area"). Now let me save you the time of making the next Obama excuse for you. It would make sense they moved them back out to Italy, but we don't really know that now, do we? Wouldn't details be slick?

Per ABC News:

The Pentagon says it did move a team of special operators from central Europe to the large Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy, but gave no other details. Sigonella is just an hour's flight from Libya. Other nearby bases include Aviano and Souda Bay. Military sources tell CBS News that resources at the three bases include fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships, which the sources say can be extremely effective in flying in and buzzing a crowd to disperse it.

So WORST case scenario, they're an hour out (probably faster if the fighter jets are hauling ass), and our SEALs were killed at 4 am their time (attacks began just after dark there). That's plenty of time we just wasted... but even if you want to continue the Leon Paneta line of reasoning and make excuses for obscene hesitance, those reaper drones WERE INDEED overhead the entire time, one coming in and replacing the other at one point, for a total of two being in place.

(Last link from Fox News. Now say what you want about Fox News... but Jennifer Griffin is a damn good reporter. She's not some right-wing partisan hack like Hannity or whoever. As Ms Griffin said in this follow up video, when asked how solid her sources were, she replied "as good as they get". She isn't just winging this story.)

That being said, why in the hell would any soldier be risking his life on the roof of that building, painting and target and screaming his now famous last words of "where the fuck is the spectre?" ... if either those reapers were not armed or that AC130 was a ways out yet (or worse, not coming)? That's not exactly an action somebody takes if they don't think air support is coming or ready to strike.

I also find this a bit peculiar, a US Naval Commander removed for “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment” that arose during the strike group’s deployment to the Middle East. (per Politico). Originally the Pentagon claimed this was unrelated... I'm not buying it:

(Politico) This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette’s firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to “assist and provide intelligence for” American military forces ordered into action by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military intervention in Libya who, like Admiral Gaouette, was fired by Obama. And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders:

“The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready. General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.”

So they made the call to do it anyway? Wow. If an admiral and a general are willing to ignore Obama's deni... er, wait... excuse me... "somebody's denial and carry out the rescue mission anyway, that doesn't show a great deal of support for the decision making that day. No wonder this is being held tightly under wraps and not making the front page of any NY Times, at least not likely before election day. Fortunately for the military it's quite obvious to most that they are getting the boot for directly disobeying the commanding officer (Obama or "somebody else"). If there is a "growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders" and we have to base a judgement off only what we know right now, I'm sorry but the military leaders win that one hands down.

Did you also notice that said Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group? So there was an aircraft carrier there in the Middle East ready to assist after all. Maybe the next question you'll start asking is where it was located and how quickly they could have gotten there to assist. Sounded like they were ready to Rock and Roll... chances are they'd have gotten there pretty fast in fighter jets.

Even if they were TWO hours out (which the military claims 1, but we're splitting hairs now), we had a responsibility that we let slip away... to give aid to our soldiers in need and to destroy our enemies in the process. Even if it's just blown off as "monday morning quarterbacking", it's pretty unanimous whoever the quarterback was made a bad call by letting those murderers walk away.

So... is Obama botching this badly a rational hypothesis yet, Kwawk? ;o)
Or do we need to keep this up all week? (I really do have a lot of shit to do) lol.

October 31, 2012 at 00:49 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

It’s legal but disgusting,

What is? Donating to churches?

What if it's a black church?

(Still disgusting? RACIST!)

October 31, 2012 at 01:09 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

"While it did not take long it was expected. Former vice president Al Gore put out a statement on his blog on Tuesday and blamed the intensity of Hurricane Sandy on "global warming pollution."

Maybe he'll go to NYC and hawk some carbon credits?

October 31, 2012 at 05:56 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Plame’s NOC status status was well established...

And clearly if the government wants to keep it a secret that someone is an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, then it makes total sense for that person to be assigned a desk at Langley. Fucking brilliant!

October 31, 2012 at 06:51 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Maybe he'll go to NYC and hawk some carbon credits?

Haw haw haw. It speaks volumes about their obliviousness that—after the past few days—climate change denialists think mocking Al Gore to be the height of in-the-know snark. To ninety-nine-point-seven per cent of the population able to look out the window they just look like particularly oblivious dumbasses unless they're actually getting checks from the oil & gas industry. I'd like to think Tom's getting paid to act this dumb. But somehow I doubt it.

October 31, 2012 at 13:02 | Registered CommenterWinston

Skinny - Do you realize that link you claim it to Politico is actually an open forum, somewhat like a Daily Kos diary, and it is referencing a leaked Russian intelligence report? Couldn't be misinformation on the part of the Russians could it?

In any case, you keep saying why would these soldiers be on the roof of the building. Well, first of all they weren't soldiers, they were private security contractors who worked for the State Department or the CIA and not the Department of Defense.

Why would they be on the roof? Observation and security. Where else would they be? Can't tell you how many hours I spent on roof tops when I was in Iraq. Most of the time just keeping an eye out and nothing happening. Was once in a small town where we were trying to retake the old police station back in Oct. 2004. First they hit us with a car bomb soon after we got there, so we went into a heavy defensive parimeter. I ended up getting stationed on the roof for the first couple of hours, and then took shifts manning a 240G in a humvee securing the parimeter.

The lobbed mortars at us the for the next day or so and on the second day they finally lucked into putting one on the roof. Nap time for me ended pretty quickly that day. A couple of people were hurt pretty bad, but nobody was killed luckily.

Sometime on the second day I seem to remember that they had the area buzzed by an F-16 dropping flares as a show of force, and battalion commander wasn't shy about using artillery long about the second day but for the most part proceedures for that type of attack are to wait it out.

Don't know why air support wasn't in place but it could just be that what you're describing as a 7 hour attack was actually multiple attacks hours apart, and that with all of the Libyan security forces in the area they simply felt that the overall situation was under control. After all, the embassy was stormed and destroyed but the safe house wasn't.

In any case according to the Washington Post an official timeline of events should be out sometime in the next couple of days. Hopefully it'll shed more light on the situation.

October 31, 2012 at 14:01 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Global warming caused Hurricane Sandy! It's true. Just ask our boy Winnie. Forget the NOAA guys who say that no such thing can be proven.

October 31, 2012 at 14:05 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

I remember that day on the roof top. We were up there for like half an hour or so and a buddy of mine sitting about 15 feet said outloud upon hearing a whistling in the air, "Hey, is that a mortar?" And we all got down and then BOOM about 100 yards away.

We had only been there a couple of weeks at that point.

October 31, 2012 at 14:08 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Forget the NOAA guys who say that no such thing can be proven.

Oh, I underrstand that perfectly well; correlation isn't causation. You could never "prove" any particular lung cancer was "caused" by smoking either. In fact the GW denialists modeled their PR techniques and pseudo-science on the tobacco lobby's old scam. It's just that at some point the public does start looking at the denialists funny and treating them like the flat-earthers and industry shills they are. Please feel free to piss away your own credibility by clowning about "the GW hoax" everytime it snows. Your idiocy is its own reward. It goes with the rest of the Republicans' demented anti-science cohort of drooling creationists and people who think women can't get pregnant while being "legitimately" raped.

October 31, 2012 at 16:26 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>