One can only imagine the denizens that titular link bait will draw, huh? And all they’re gonna get is a pic of three half-bald admittedly attractive grannies who like to mind-rape powerful men. Opps, did it again didn’t I? This place could be fixin to be interestin …
Peggy Noonan is a camouflage artist. She can look perfectly reasonable, even blend in as relatively non-partisan at times, and then morph into Teahadi activist in a flash. Who’s to say which is the real Noonan? Here she comes riding in on an ideological bender waving this decade’s version of a semen colored dress — hey this is show business, man, right-wing demand for scandal must be satisfied like any other, and page hits equal ratings. It happens to have no such material on it, but that ain’t stoppin her from pitching the usual vague implications. This part is particularly bait worthy:
WSJ — The Obama White House didn’t want any story that might harm, get in the way of or lessen the extent of the president’s coming victory. The White House probably anticipated that Mitt Romney would soon attempt to make points with Benghazi. And indeed he did pounce, too quickly, the very next morning, giving a statement that was at once aggressive and forgettable, as was his wont.
The president’s Republican challenger was looking for gain and didn’t find it. But here’s the thing. More is expected from the president than mere politics. That’s why we tend to re-elect them. A sitting president is supposed to be bigger, weightier, more serious than his rival.
See, Romney carefully taking aim and shooting himself in the ass on Benghazi, then reloading and shooting himself again on live TV, was really a super clever eleventy-billion dimensional chess move forced on him by schemes laid out by schemers craftier than the entire Bene Gesserit guild of space witches in Frank Herbert’s sci-fi classic Dune. And after concluding with that dicey premise she throws in the seemingly idle follow up: Shouldn’t Obama be bigger, more serious, weightier than that? Nice.
(Someone should photo-shop Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton and whoever else sounds like fun into that image for me … oh Obama’s half-bald head on the tall one, of course!)
Do you SEE? Well, the fact that you may not see anything but a grifting opportunistic candidate who goofed up magnificently trying to capitalize on the deaths of four Americans, not once but twice, is proof of how well it WORKED and how evil Obama really IS! Now, do you SEE?
Did I miss something between those two paragraphs? Is she saying that Obama was somehow lessened because he did what?
I’m completely baffled about what her point is. I probably shouldn’t be surprised. For someone who prides herself on being Reagan’s speech writer, Nooners is an amazingly dense and purple writer. But of all the legitimate things you could criticize Obama for, the right seems fixated on attacking Obama merely for the fact that he is president, as if he radiated some kind Kenyan Kooties aura that demeans the presidency whenever he sets foot inside the Oval Office. It’s like they think that by the very act of drawing breath, Obama proves he is unworthy of the office.
It’s almost like there is something different about him that sets Obama apart from any of predecessors. I wonder what they could be?
Actually, if you’ve been following the revelations of the last week, Benghazi does look pretty damning. The only question that still has to be answered is whether it is damning to Obama, to Clinton, or to someone not yet named.
What we now know pretty much for sure is that the initial CIA report was that this was a targeted, planned Al Qaeda attack. And after they sent the report over to the State Department, SOMEONE changed the report so that it was a spontaneous mob attack — and the only reason they’ve been able to come up with for the change was that it would look bad to have an AQ attack so close to the election. The incidental splash damage was that Susan Rice, who has been doing an admirable job, was fed bad information and made to look like an idiot.
There were two other major bad decisions too. One was that a military team was ready to go, and might or might not have been in time to save lives from the second attack, but again, SOMEONE told them to stand down. And months before the attack, there was a plea from the ambassador to beef up the security which was laughably inadequate, consisting of basically four part time Libyans, and again, SOMEONE turned down the request.
So far, we don’t know who any of the SOMEONEs are. And even more so, people can’t imagine any motive for the last two actions. But if they all turn out to be Hillary — well, I for one am going to start questioning her judgment. And I say that as someone who has never voted for a Republican, and who a month ago fully expected to be campaigning for Hillary in 2016 as I campaigned for Obama the last two elections. Partisan as I am, I think you’ve got to acknowledge when the other side has got the goods. It may not be “Watergate times ten” like they’ve been saying, but it’s starting to stink a bit.
Oh Bruce, little of what you wrote has been established at all, it’s mostly wingnut mythology, remember how well taking that crap seriously worked for Mittens? He actually believed that crap and he ended up embaressing himself on live nat’l TV.
Best case scenario, all you have right now is updating points made available to the public as information was confirmed. Sorry charlie, if you have something new, by all means post it, but if it’s the same old “Aha! They changed talking points! And here’s a yarn spinning that into purposely not protecting our people even though they had scads of resources available because [nonsense]” you’re going to be laughed at.
Well, obviously it’s because they hate America and because socialism! Well, at least that’s the mantra on the right.
The testimony at the hearing was pretty clear that the so-called ‘stand down” order came from the Pentagon and was made because the forces were four hours away and would not have made any difference. And the request for additional security was turned down because there wasn’t any money in the budget for it. Of course, you won’t hear that from Darrell “I voted to slash the funding for embassy security” Issa.
Of course, SOMEONE has to be made a scapegoat this attack* and it’s just an amazing coincidence that it’s the one person republicans are most afraid of running against in 2016.
*Of course, no scapegoat was needed for the dozen or so embassy attacks that occurred during the Bush administration because those were the result of the fact that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms and we can never predict where they’re going to hit next. It certainly wasn’t the fault of anyone here in America or the administration and anyone who suggests differently is a traitor who wants America to fail.
Um yeah, it’s called racism. Duh.