A Willing Suspension of Disbelief

...to quote someone famous.  That's what Americans need right now (at least those with half-functioning brains who are paying attention) to navigate through these scandals. 

Let's see, we are being told..

• The emails released on the Benghazi "side show" prove that the Republicans are partisan carnival barkers, despite the emails showing exactly what they had said-- the State Dept wanted facts removed from the talking points and the White House facilitated it

• Kathleen Sebelius is acting "on precedent" in soliciting donations from the health care companies she regulates.  And any criticism of her actions is the same as being a Birther

• The president believes strongly in the freedom of the press to do their jobs despite his Justice Dept classifying a high-profile Fox reporter as an un-indicted co-conspirator to espionage for doing his job

• Ditto for the AP, and maybe a CBS reporter

• The president, Jay Carney and a White House janitor were the only ones who didn't know an IG was auditing the IRS for violating the rights of conservative groups during an election season

• The president can never be given a heads-up on an ongoing issue of great import if an IG is studying it--he must either find out through press reports based on planted questions on a Friday evening or wait until the IG audit is done..no matter what, and everyone agrees this is proper

Meanwhile, as folks try to make sense of everything the Senate is busy passing a bi-partisan bill to make millions of illegal aliens legal, perhaps the largest amnesty not called amnesty in US history.

Sheer madness.  Squirrels are darting in every direction but it's hard to figure out which where to look right now.   And maybe that's as intended.   

Investigation Update

Another week, another Obama bombshell.  Today we learned that the Obama Justice Dept has been privately considering Fox News' James Rosen a "co-conspirator" for pursuing a leak regarding North Korea with a State Department staffer in 2009.   The case could go to court in 2014.  

So suddenly here's another story for everyone to chew on.  Reporters at the White House press briefing spent half their time trying to get something out of Jay Carney about it, but of course it's 'an ongoing criminal investigation' so he can't comment about what everyone's commenting about.

But wait, where did this story come from?  Yeah, it was first printed in the Washington Post, who has a link to the criminal complaint, but how did they get it?  Was it simply announced by the Justice Department or did someone in that department leak the story to the WaPo?   Or from some other agency?   How ironic, if so.  And just when Fox was enjoying some vindication for their years of dogged determination in doing their jobs.

There's another question pertaining to the Rosen case, the AP leak as well as the James Risen leak story that hasn't made as much news--is the Justice Department using Patriot Act "National Security Letters" in obtaining this dragnet of info?  If so, would they even be required to notify the journalist or his company within 90 days as many large news outlets reported last week?  If not, then was the Friday release about AP random or perhaps timed to coincide with the huge increase of reporter curiosity about Benghazi?   

Irrelevant!

It was Hillary's defense during her January testimony and it appears to be the new defense of the day.



Listen to this clip closely.  Notice not what Pfeiffer says, but what he doesn't:

Wallace--  "Was he in the Situation Room"?

Pfeiffer-- "He was kept up to date throughout the day". 

Since the event occurred partially at night that's either a verbal faux pas or a deliberate dodge.  Pfeiffer tries every trick in his bag, stock talking points about the 'independent ARB', 'looking forward to how we better protect diplomats', ie, Congress's fault, and even tries to turn around the discussion by attacking anyone who would dare question Commander-in-Chief Gutsy's whereabouts (ie, Wallace). 

Wallace is having none of it and simply reminds him that Obama claims he told his subordinates to do everything possible to help when last seen around 5 pm, yet help was not sent.  It's an excellent line of questioning because a truthful answer means either 1) the CinC was disobeyed, or 2) the CinC was not around to give specific orders to either deploy forces or not.  That's why his whereabouts are seminal.      

And by the way, twice Pfeiffer calls Benghazi a 'tragedy'.  Dammit, it was an attack, just like 9/11.  If our own political leaders can't even acknowledge simple facts there's little hope of ever effectively dealing with the threat.  Killing UBL didn't win the war.  They know it, but continue to think a drift backward to the 90s approach will allow them to get back to their grandiose domestic agenda, despite history's judgment.

MORE  5/19/13

While some of the media are busy circling their wagons so they can soon head back to the reservation, Bob Schieffer is old enough and has seen enough to say "not so fast".   His question as to why Pfeiffer was sent out was couched around the fact that Rice--another lower level person who didn't possess all the facts--was also sent out to shape the narrative about Benghazi five days after the fact but was low level enough not to know anything that might cause trouble.   This is actually brilliant journalism, the kind of stuff usually reserved for Republican guests.

Another old Bob-- Woodward-- also sees a little resemblance to the Watergate shuffle put on by Nixon. 

It will take old heads like these to keep the stories alive amidst the rabid 24/7 cycle.   Maybe that's why Obama went out today and tried to gin up the race and class divide again.

Side Tracks

Heading Back to the Reservation

The strategy is obvious.  The White House battled back on the tri-headed scandal monster early in the week with two contentious press briefings Tuesday and Wednesday followed by a give-in on the Benghazi emails (with no chance to pepper anyone with questions about them Thursday or Friday) and a mild mea culpa on Benghazi Friday to the one mainstream journalist who has been doing her job. 

Meanwhile they've continued their shocked face over the IRS Tea Bag Targeting Program, insisting that they didn't know anything until we did, followed by a dramatic mock firing of two people who simply took retirement.  The AP phone dragnet story has gone relatively silent now.

So here we are on Saturday morning and the love is returning...

The tensions continued with Mr. Carney’s defense of the White House in the investigation over whether the I.R.S. inappropriately targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny and his push back on questions relating to the the seizure of telephone records of Associated Press journalists, over which the press relentlessly grilled him. “I don’t take it personally,” he said of the tough questions lobbed by his former peers.

..from the New York Times;

As the Obama administration grapples with a series of recent controversies within its ranks, political observers in Washington have begun to calculate their potential political impacts. But while many Republicans believe the scandals could prove a boon to the party's prospects in the 2014 midterm elections, they it's equally important not to "overreach" on the issue -- and risk having their efforts blow up in their face.

..from CBS; and

Despite Democratic fears, predictions of the demise of President Barack Obama's agenda appear exaggerated after a week of cascading controversies, political triage by the administration and party leaders in Congress and lack of evidence to date of wrongdoing close to the Oval Office.

..from none other than an AP reporter.  Yes, the same AP targeted by the Justice Department.  And wait, lest anyone be left to think CBS is the network of Sharyl Attkisson, here's another for good measure..

I was told there was going to be a cover-up. After reading the 100 pages of emails related to the Benghazi media talking points, I'm hard-pressed to find evidence for the most damning accusations against the president and his staff. If they were involved, they were once again leading from behind.

And don't forget CBS' Mark Knoller, who on Wednesday actually asked his former colleague Carney how he was faring under the controversy.

Anyone on the right who thought the press had finally seen some kind of a light and turned the corner should understand that these guys like Jay Carney. A lot. That's why they don't go very hard on him and now feel bad for putting him through a mild ringer.

They like Obama--they all voted for him because they agree with his worldview. They don't like controversy about him. They are journalists yes, but only on stories that run outside their true beliefs. Most didn't get into journalism to report facts accurately, they got into it to save the planet and expose evil, which is of course on the right. 

So it appears that last week was a little lovers' spat.  The White House recognized it and took the rest of the week off so their old friends could cool down hoping all will be well come Monday.  It's not over yet, we will see if some of them can put their personal feelings aside and fairly report on what might be the most egregious misuse of power in the history of the nation, but barring more revelations it's clear the press is ready to dismiss the side shows, forgive their leader, and crown him the comeback kid.  Perhaps the only question is whether this administration can put aside their arrogance long enough to let it happen.  

A Side Show Mea Culpa

Sharyl Attkisson's CBS report on the administration's new line on Benghazi, "we were idiots but not on purpose" is not making the headlines it should, considering the administration tactics to date.  Maybe they figure a semi-apology coupled with canceling the Jay Carney show two days in a row will finally cure the disease (so they can concentrate on blaming the IRS scandal on the GOP). Who knows, it might. Fox News has been very quiet of late.

Attkisson's report is very interesting and worthy of an examination.  Here's a comment regarding Hillary and her non-appearance on the Sunday shows on September 16th:

The day before, on Sept. 13, the White House had asked the office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if she would appear on the upcoming Sunday morning political talk shows. "She'd rather chew tin foil," said someone who's close to Mrs. Clinton. Instead, it was decided U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice would make the appearances. Ultimately, the talking points would serve two purposes: provide guidance as to what Congress could tell the public, and guide Rice for the talk shows.

That's real 3 am leadership!  Hey, sometimes the leader has to chew the tin foil. If she wants to be president she better get used to the taste. But there may be no better quip to illustrate what the cover-up was really all about--the State Department didn't want Hillary damaged and she didn't want to expose herself directly on the record.  So Rice took the bullet (her payoff is coming).  Attkisson later mentions a possible rift between Langley and the White House:

On Sept. 14, the CIA's early version of the talking points credited the CIA with providing warnings on Sept. 10, 2012, that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, could come under attack and that Benghazi was in a precarious state. Others in the Obama administration saw this talking point comment as an instinctive, "knee-jerk cover your ass moment" on the CIA's part and some officials remain bitter today.

One of them said, "We thought, 'why are you guys throwing us under the bus?' ...They [CIA] made it seem like the State Department was given a warning they ignored. No specific warning was given." Petraeus, who resigned amid a sex scandal days after Mr. Obama's re-election, declined comment.

Amazing hubris.  Sure, it's likely the CIA inserted the prior warnings as a gentle reminder that hey--do not throw us under the bus on this. But State and the White House then proceeded to strip everything out of the talking points to render them, as Petraeus would allude, useless.

Attkisson should be up for a Pulitzer for her work on this story.  Here she mentions the survivors:

The FBI had interviewed the survivors previously in Germany, but a source says the FBI agents didn't type up or share their notes at the time because there was no "imminent danger" raised in the interviews. The Obama administration has resisted Congress' demands to turn over FBI transcripts of the survivor interviews.

Why would Congress or anyone else, like those crafting the talking points, need the survivors' interviews anyway?  One has to wonder if their interviews were known to the unknown people present that Saturday morning who whittled down the talking points.  More:

On Sept. 20, a team of Obama administration officials with fresh information agreed to brief the House and Senate in closed sessions. There, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper revealed that Benghazi "had all the earmarks of a premeditated attack." "It was a turning point," said the Obama administration official. "It was just a stark shift from Sunday with no groundwork laid. [Senators] just snapped... Susan was done."

Regards Clapper's revelation in closed session on September 20th keep in mind this was Thursday, a day after Matthew Olsen from the National Counterterrorism Center said it was a "terrorist attack" and the very same day that Anderson Cooper came out and announced that CNN had found Ambassador Stevens' diary talking about "AQ hit lists" and such, something Hillary had just dissembled on the day before in an interview.

It appears Clapper's mea culpa wasn't publicly announced until September 28th, eight days after his closed session revelation and three days after Obama's UN presentation where he once again blamed the video and urged everyone not to slander the Prophet.  One thing from that announcement is worth remembering:

“In the immediate aftermath (of the assault), there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo,” spokesman Shawn Turner said in the statement. “We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly.”

That certainly sounds like they are saying that Clapper's personnel were in attendance at the Saturday meeting and actually had the final word over the CIA.  Where did that information came from?  Did the victims/witnesses in Germany tell them that?  We already know Hicks and Thompson testified they never saw it that way.  It might be helpful to allow Congress to see the transcripts of the FBI interviews with the witnesses. 

As to the recent talking point email release:

An Obama administration source familiar with the process now says the talking points should have been handed over much sooner. "We should have released them six months ago,"

Six months ago? That would be November 17 or so. Did he really mean a few weeks after the election? Finally:

Several Obama administration officials said not using the word "terrorism" early on was not part of a conspiracy, but an "abundance of caution." They reiterate that any misjudgments or mistakes in the Benghazi response and aftermath would not have changed the outcome.

The outcome of what, the terrorist attack or the election? And by the way, where is this abundance of caution when a lone nut killer shoots people in a mall or school? They seem to have no problem blaming guns or hateful political rhetoric.

Back to the Leak

The revelation that Eric Holder's deputy Quick Draw McGraw subpoenaed dozens of phone records from AP journalists over a leak investigation has caused outrage on top of the current outrage.

But is this another Obama outrage?   Maybe, maybe not.   One must go back to the original story and employ some critical thinking before determining whether the former is a reasonable line of speculation. 

It was May 2012 and America had just passed the first anniversary of the UBL killing with vague assurances from the administration that no terror plots were in the works. On the political side the GOP primaries were in full stride.  Meanwhile UK's MI6, in coordination with the Saudi Arabian spy agency, had successfully inserted a spy (whom the media called a 'double agent') into AQAP's inner core and he had managed to break up another package bomb plot with the help of CIA and US authorities.  The Obama folks were filled with glee at the coming announcement of a major bust and how it would act to mute GOP criticism that Democrats are soft on terror.

Then suddenly they learned that someone had leaked the news of the bust to the AP, five days ahead of the planned announcement.   When the AP contacted the White House they were asked to stand down--at first due to national security loose ends then finally due to not undercutting them on the announcement, ie, politics. When the two friends couldn't decide how to handle it the AP backed out and went with their scoop on the Monday ahead of the planned announcement.  The White House broke their story the next day complete with pictures of the device. 

As the story broke other reporters went to the terrorism experts in the administration and outside for comment.  Questions began to be asked about why the administration had just said there were no active terror threats when the AP had just published a story about one.  John Brennan, then an advisor to the president, convened a conference call to provide talking points to the various experts who would be appearing on TV, supposedly to inform them we had 'inside coutrol' over the plot, so chill.  In other words, we were running a spy. 

Except we weren't running him, the Saudis and Brits were, who were now royally pissed as the agent evidently ran for cover since his own was now blown.

Nevertheless it's hard to understand how that leak was the worst Eric Holder had seen in 30 years since the White House forced the AP to wait until they had security concerns alleviated before they went to press.  Where was the harm?  Surely he doesn't mean Brennan's revelation about the spy not being a suicide bomber, otherwise he would have been gone long ago.

There were also leaks shortly thereafter about the Iran computer worm to the NY Times.  Holder's investigation was announced shortly thereafter using two US Attorneys (one for Stuxnet, one for Yemen) and the story disappeared off the radar until this past Friday--the same Friday the Benghazi story finally blew up in the White House press room.  


The questions are many but let's start with who leaked, why, and why it took so long--past the election--to track anything down.  Who had the motive to leak?   Well, since the official story says the administration was ticked at the leak because it spoiled their announcement that seems to take them off the hook.  Why would an admin official pee in their own Cheerios?    If that actually occurred one would think the administration would have given up such an individual to the FBI posse long ago.

What about somebody in the military-intelligence apparatus?   Well, we don't know the location of all the call traces but reports do not show them focused on Langley or the Pentagon.

Politicians?   Seems to be the most likely bet seeing as how most of the traces have involved the Congress.   So if it was a politician, which side?   Would a GOP congressman/woman want to leak a big terror bust to the AP?   Wouldn't that just help Obama?   Unless such a person, in the know about the plot, was reacting to the administration's public comments about no plots being in the works on the anniversary of 9/11 and wanted to speak truth to power.  So it's entirely possible.  But how many GOP congresspeople would trust the AP?  Seems they would leak to Fox but maybe they felt it would be more believable coming from AP.  Certainly the AP knows.    


But if not a GOP person trying to undermine Obama that leaves a Democrat source.  One might imagine an overzealous loyalist thrilled up their legs with the accomplishment but not on the official email list as to how the festivities would be going.

But there are problems with that theory.  One, not just anyone has the high level clearance required to know about the plot, which narrows down the field considerably unless a person who had a need to know spilled the story to someone who didn't, who couldn't wait and ran to AP with it.

Initial stories reported the following:

The CIA mission was such a secret, even top lawmakers were not told about it as the operation unfolded, one U.S. official said Monday.

That seems to eliminate most congresspeople but at the same time it doesn't specify at what point they were finally notified.  The AP leak was fairly late in the game.  It does however suggest only a handful would have known and one would think they've already been investigated by now.

No doubt the FBI has already traveled down these roads a few times but whatever happened left them so empty they took the draconian step of going outside the guidelines and throwing out a massive press phone dragnet, knowing they would have to tell the AP--and America--in 90 days.  Did they think the dragnet would produce a quick suspect so no problema on the notification?

One alternate theory is it was a high level Obama official all along, the Justice Dept knows this, and they are stringing people along to justify the huge media dragnet as a way to threaten and scare journalists to remain on the reservation for the benefit of future scandals. Of course there's no evidence so that's a WAG, but judging by the IRS and Benghazi stories these folks aren't averse to using cover stories.

So we await the next shoe drop.   As this is being typed the AP knows who leaked to them; the NY Times knows who leaked to them; and the leaker(s) knows.   We have to presume the FBI and administration still doesn't know but maybe they do and are waiting for the right time to spring it.  It's going to be a bombshell whoever it is, but on the record here for a moment--if it was a GOP partisan who leaked to push back against what he/she thought was an Obama lie about the terror threat on the anniversary of UBL's takedown then they deserve everything they get.  


MORE  5/18/13

Right Truth has a link to Mark Levin's reaction to a Washington Post story regards the DOJ's dragnet of AP.  Levin connects the dots that WaPo won't and concludes this recent announcement about trolling the AP's phone records is just simple revenge over their scooping the administration on the big Yemen terror bust announcement during the campaign season.  

If so then the recent announcement could serve as a de facto calling in of a chit, ie, if they don't want more then start going easy on us with these recent scandals.   Wow, that would be just as bad as using the IRS to intimidate and derail the Tea Party, but it would be the Chicago Way.