Skip to main content

This is really sad and pathetic. It's not just Chucky Krauthhammer with his head up his ass, now it's rapidly becoming the standard GOP line that there's still something "fishy" about Benghazi.

Just listen to Ron (Right-Wing Weasle) Christie try to continue to argue that "Romney was Right" about the "Act of Terror" not really meaning "Act of Terror" in the Rose Garden.

Christie: The American people did want the truth, the American people have not gotten the truth from this President.


Chris Kofinas: Governor Romney made a mistake. Can you admit that he made a mistake?

Christie: No, he did not make a mistake.

Kofinas: He did make a mistake.

Christie: This Administration made a mistake Chris.  The fact of the matter is that ..

Kofinas: In terms of what he was attacking the President on in this debate, he was factually wrong.

Christie: This actually, former Governor of MA, was factually right!

Kinda makes your head want to explode doesn't it?  Just wait, it gets worse - over the squiggle of power.

Christie: The fact of the matter is, Ed let me state this very clearly, the Governor said "Mr. President as a fact you came out in the Rose Garden on Sept 12 and said 'Act of Terror' but you weren't specifically speaking about Benghazi.

Ed: So he didn't go far enough in his verbiage?

Christie: But here's the thing... --crosstalk--

Ed: He did say "Act of Terror".

Christie: No, The President did say "Act of Terror".  He absolutely did.

Ed: But Mitt Romney didn't...

Christie: The President was corrected by Governor Romney for saying you weren't speaking specifically about Benghazi.

Ed: So we're now word-smithing, we're now word dissecting and coming to a determination that the President admitted that it was a terrorist attack.  That's where the criticism is?

Christie: No, no no. That's not where the criticism is.. this is not a partisan issue for me, Ed and Chris. This should be, the President of the United States needs to be...

Ed:  I, I, get that Ron.. but it seems to be a partisan issue for Mitt Romney because of the way he reacted within 12 hours of what happened without all of the information. He was putting a label on all of this, which I think is dangerous.  But Candy Crowley, why is she being criticized?  The Truth Matters.  Chris, doesn't the truth matter?

Kofinas: Of course it matters. At the end of the day here, again, I think this is Republican frustration with what they thought was going to happen in that debate. And what they thought was going to be an ability to attack the President on Libya.  They weren't successful, and they can sit there an attack Candy Crowley all they want but the reality is what the President said, what Romney attacked him about was wrong.

They then go to showing video from Megan Kelly on Fox news where she claims with a straight face that an "Act of Terror" is somehow different from a "Terrorist Attack".

Exactly how is it different?  How exactly can you perform an act of terrorism, without it being terrorism?  What is it - a bar mitzva gone bad?

And then Christie gets to the meat of his "issue".

Christie: Here's why - I was in the White House on 9/11. I think terrorism is not a partisan issue.

Ed: Sure.

Christie: I think this is a very, very serious issue that we're dealing with. I think the American people weren't leveled with by this Administration. I think the President would have been very smart to come out and said, immediately, "This was an Act of Terrorism".

Ed: Well, they didn't have all the information. They have said that they didn't have all the information.

Christie: Oh, C'mon. The National Counter-Terrorism Center said, 24 hours later, this was a Act of Terrorism. I think this is a Cover-UP. I think this is more significant than Watergate. No one died in Watergate.

Kofinas: You can not say that.  You can not say that on National TV, that's "It's a Cover-up" with no evidence of anything like that. It isn't.  You can argue that the Administration didn't handle this well, but you can not say it was a cover-up. That is a Sinister Agenda, that is going too far.

Christie: Look, my friend. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations came out that Sunday and said it was all related to the video. 17 days later..

Kofiinas: NO, that is not correct.

Christie: ..wait a second. You're sounding like the President They came out 17 days later and said in fact, this was not a spontaneous demonstration. This in fact was a.

Kofinas: That's not correct.

Christie: ... terrorist attack.

Kofinas: Ambassador Rice Qualified What She Said. Listen to exactly her comments. She qualified it and made if very clear they didn't have all the information.

Bottom line, Kofinas was Dead on it and it needs to be said again and again.   I said it in a Diary days ago Ambassador Rice never said definitively whether this was an act of terrorism or not.  But she certainly did not rule it out - she said they would have to wait until they FBI Investigation was completely to know the full story.

Gregory: you talked about this as spontaneous. can you say definitively that the attacks on our consulate in lybia that killed ambassador stevens and others there was spontaneous? was it a planned attack? was there a terrorist element to it?

Rice: let me tell you the best information we have at present. first of all, there's an fbi investigation that's ongoing and we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. but putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. what we think then transpired in benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. they came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately, are readily available in post revolutionary libya. and it escalated into a much more violent episode. obviously, that's our best judgment now. we'll await the results of the investigation, and the president has been very clear we'll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

If this was an attempt to "coverup" that this could have been a terrorist attack, Ambassador Rice did horrible job of making that case.  The fact is she didn't make that case.  She never said that the demonstrators attacked the Consulate, she said Other People Came with Heavy Weapons and attacked the Consulate while demonstrations were taking place.  They have been confused about which demonstrations where taking place where - but they Never Said the Attack was because of the Video.

Christie claims this isn't "Partisan" but having been in the White House on 9/11, he should know by now the danger of jumping to the wrong initial conclusions!

Let me put it this way...

Christie was part of the White House who Jumped to the Wrong Conclusion on Iraq, Saddam's connection to al Qeada, their nuclear aspirations and their "WMD Stockpile".  They were Wrong On Every Count, and they couldn't be convinced otherwise.  They can't even admit it now.  Now they tried to blame it on "Bad Intelligence", but the intelligence wasn't wrong. They were.

There was a dispute between the State Dept and CIA over the "Yellowcake" memo, remember?  State said it was a forgery, but the CIA - as directed by Dick Cheney - kept digging and ultimately sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger to get some answers.

He came back and essentially confirmed he Yellowcake receipt was fake.  And just how was this information received by the Bush Administration?

Not very damn well.

In the IRAQ NIE included a long dissent by both the State Department and the Energy Dept who said the "Aluminum Tubes" were of the wrong composition to be used as centerfuges disputing the conclusion that Saddam was reconstituting his Nuclear program.

They didn't listen.

When European CIA Chief Tyler Drumheller tried to warn George Tenet not to use any information from Curveball about "Mobile Labs" because he couldn't be trusted.

They didn't listen.

When the UN Inspectors said the U.S. WMD intel on the ground was yielding nothing but garbage after garbage.

They didn't listen.

When General Hussein Kamel told U.S. Intelligence that "Saddam had destroyed his WMD's", President Bush said "Why doesn't he tell us something useful!."

They then had him go on to Forge a Letter claiming that Saddam was Responsible for 9/11

President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of a backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, an explosive new book claims.

The charge is made in “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism” by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, released today.

Suskind says he spoke on the record with U.S. intelligence officials who stated that Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, his book relates, Bush decided to invade Iraq three months later — with the forged letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam bolstering the U.S. rationale to go into war.

The Bush people have argued they had nothing to do with the letter, but they never said that Habbush didn't tell them Saddam didn't have any WMD's.

They just didn't LISTEN.

Ultimately the Duelfer Report confirmed exactly what Habbush had told them before the War Started.  Saddam had destroyed his WMD in 1992.

Now, you wanna talk about Cover Up? Dick Cheney outed the identity of a CIA Agent simply to protect his cover up.  Yeah, that's worse than Watergate.

To see the difference taking the time to get the right answer makes you can also look back to the example of how Chris Wallace came after Bill Clinton over "Why they didn't do something about the Bombing of the U.S.S. Cole?"

There’s a new book out, I suspect you’ve already read, called

The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops. Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.

CLINTON: OK, let’s just go through that.

WALLACE: Let me — let me — may I just finish the question, sir?

And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

As we all know, Clinton's reaction to this was rather explosive, but I bring it up now to focus on this relevant portion.
Clinton: When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror.

And you’ve got that little smirk on your face and you think you’re so clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could.

The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaida was responsible while I was president.

This is key.  When you have different agencies with different conclusions do you pick the one you like the most or do you wait and let the disagreement be resolved?

Clearly, the Obama Administration has learned  the hard lessons of Shooting First and Aiming Later and are doing the responsible thing.  Letting the FBI and other agencies do their investigation and updating the public as the facts become more clear.  There's no Conspiracy of COVER-UP in that.

In fact, there's good reason for the Administration to be cautious about what it calls "Terrorism" and what it doesn't.  The reason is that when the Administration determines something is "Terrorism" - is has the Force of Law.


    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

If the President says that Benghazi is "Terrorism", he can legally Unleash Holy Hell upon those who he believes are responsible, and he doesn't have to ask the permission of Congress, or a Judge, or a Jury, or the UN (under Security Resolution 1368)
The resolution called on all countries to co-operate in bringing the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of the attacks to justice and that those responsible for supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors would be held accountable.[2] The international community was called upon to increase efforts to suppress and prevent terrorist activities through co-operation and implementation of anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 1269 (1999).

Resolution 1368 concluded with the Council expressing its readiness to take steps to respond to the attacks and combat all forms of terrorism in accordance with the United Nations Charter.[3]

This isn't something to be taken lightly.  It's not something to done quickly, without all the facts on hand.  That's something that someone who was "in the White House on 9/11" should know better than anyone.

The fact that he doesn't is clearly partisan and a God Damn Shame that he would stoop so low as accuse the Obama Administration of perpetrating a "Cover-Up Worst than Watergate" just to undermine the President and the nation's security while beating a hollow drum of False "Patriotism".

Sadly most of the GOP would happily do the same.

President Obama has been doing the right thing on this right from the start, we all need to understand that and back him on that.

Taking the time to Get The Facts Right Matters. Being willing to adjust your conclusion when the differ with they facts, matters.  In fact it's a Life and Death Matter.


3:56 PM PT: Talking Points Memo explains that Christie is no Outlier, the GOP Punditburo has been pushing the "Cover Up" line for some time.

If you had been listening to Republicans or watching Fox News in recent weeks, you knew that what Romney said wasn’t simply an off-the-cuff or clumsy error. For weeks now, opponents of the administration have been trying to paint the Benghazi attack not just as a possible security or intelligence failure that resulted in the deaths of Americans abroad, but as a scandal that the Obama administration tried to cover-up. And a key part of the Benghazi cover-up theory is the suggestion that the administration made a political decision to avoid or delay calling the assault on the consulate “terrorism,” and to resist the possibility that the attack was planned.


People with experience in intelligence and national security who spoke with TPM this week downplayed much of the debate. They said they see nothing unusual or nefarious in the official story having evolved over time. In fact, they said, it is all but expected that the first official account of a complex and fast-moving event will turn out to be wrong or incomplete.

“Sorting out what happened — in terms of the source of the attack, who knew what before the attack — is a very difficult, complicated, time-consuming process,” Vicki Divoll, former general counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told TPM. “And it is legitimate for it to take several weeks or even longer before you have the answers you need.”

Yeah, what he said.

4:14 PM PT: What the latest Intelligence and Reporting says as of now via Hardball.

According to these reporters there was both an attack and a protest, but rather than the protest occurring first and then escalating into an attack - the attack happened first and a separate, apparently unconnectedk, protest of the video happened later.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Quite accurate. (6+ / 0-)

      And of course the Republicans have and will continue to bring the "terrist!" fear-filled screaming back in any way possible since it's the only fear of the other that has propelled their candidates and policies to victory in the past.  They have become the conveyors and purveyors of domestic terrorism on the nation and a majority of Americans now realize that.  Those snarling, rabid dogs don't hunt no more.  And Joe McCarthy's Zombie scent leads to a dead end.

      Chief neoconservative/fundamentalist allied belief: All things are possible if only you lie.

      by blueoasis on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:27:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Am Proud To Say This (6+ / 0-)

        I live in a rural area. Not really liberal. We have a huge mosque just a few miles from my house. Dude nobody cares. I live in a town of 5,500 people and we have 13 churches. That mosque wasn't and isn't protested. I like to think it our midwestern senseability. To each their own.

        I went there a few months ago and took pics to write a story about it, like here, and decided not to do it, case well their harmony is such I see no reason to upset it.

        When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

        by webranding on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:34:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Charles Pierce had an item on Ron Christie's ... (9+ / 0-)

    appearance on Ed Schulz's show:

    Here's what I don't understand. Ron Christie went on television last night and was rude to the host, rude to his fellow guest, rude to the host, and trafficked in the most obviously laughable falsehood since the last time Willard Romney gave a speech. Why, then, would you ever have this fellow back? There are other conservatives. What purpose does having Ron Christie on your air serve?
    (BTW: You have 'is' twice in your title.)

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:10:45 PM PDT

  •  Chris M just had on 2 NYT reporters covering this (4+ / 0-)

    and they said it is HIGHLY PLAUSIBLE THAT this was a mixture of video protests that the terrorist then took advantage of. They completely contadicted the BS put out by the AP today. This confirms the Obama administration's difficulty in identifying the absolute etiology of the melee at the beginning. I am very confident that Obama can handle this on Monday's debate. Chris seemed very satisfied with their answer.

  •  I think there was a Talking Points Memo. (5+ / 0-)

    Apparently this is the moment they've been waiting for.

    Course, it's kinda like waiting for The Rolling Stones, and being told that there's been a late replacement with Keith Richard doing a monologue about the importance of not doing drugs.


    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:14:55 PM PDT

    •  Hey Maybe An Intelligence Failure (6+ / 0-)

      but what stuns me and I will NEVER get is 9/11. That happened on a Republican watch! Do I blame them, nope, but if you want to do down this road, we are weak, then I will bring it up 24/7.


      Next topic .....

      When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

      by webranding on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:23:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If 9/11 Hapened Under Gore Or Kerry (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, IreGyre

        we wouldn't be able to win a national election for a decade or so. But for Republicans it is like it never happened.

        When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

        by webranding on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:37:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes and no blame for "you've covered your ass" (0+ / 0-)

        after.wards... considering it came after months of serious direct warnings from the CIA etc.

        How does that direct denial at the very top involving all the top advisers and cabinet members as well as President Bush... compare to the current accusations by Republicans that "Obama administration officials" were allegedly ignoring or downplaying security warnings for Benghazi...

        I doubt that Obama and those at the top including Clinton were ignoring or downplaying months of direct dire warnings... and the result of 4 deaths and the burning of the Consulate as tragic and horrible as it was does not begin to compare with 4 airliners and the destruction of 3 very large buildings and serious damage to more than a few plus thousands of lives... and the direct failures of President Bush and all of his top security team in both strategy focus and actual dealing with direct intel.

        And yet Republicans seem to imply that Benghazi dwarfs 9-11 in all ways that should matter to voters and the US... this is false equivalency on steroids at all conceptual levels.

        Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

        by IreGyre on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 03:06:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And Bush went on to two terms... no blame (0+ / 0-)

          no impeachment... gets reelected and now in 2012 after a consulate attack that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans, Republicans claim Obama should not be reelected ... crazy considering that Republican-led cuts to Embassy security funding made protecting all US staff worldwide more difficult...

          Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

          by IreGyre on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 03:11:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Ah that explains it... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, IreGyre

      I was curious way the trolls were going nuts over this thing.

      Mitt throw the baggers a sop, and got sandbagged by the,

      I am sure he is thrilled about that.

  •  They want to argue about semantics... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    webranding, Tonedevil

    Perhaps those that attacked the embassy in Libya opportunists and did it on the fly.

    That doesn't make it any less of an "act of terror" or a terrorist attack. but it does mean that they were prepared for soemthing to happen.

    The GOP wants to pursue the line that this was planned long in advance and the Administration should have known it, that they do know it, and are covering it up.

    and yes, terrorism IS a legal term

    as far as Mis...Ron Christie is concerned, don't get me started.

  •  They can't admit... (4+ / 0-)

    that their candidate actually sucks and might lose the election.

  •  The Wingnutosphere is clawing desperatelyi (7+ / 0-)

    to turn this into a "Jimmy Carter-style debacle' they can hang around Obama's neck ina hail mary attempt to elect rmoney.

    They are seizing on absolutely anything.

    I am spending a lot of time right now at yahoo news where it seems like a cross between the sean hannity show and the chik-fil-cowz. Those cretins are just fit to be tied. It's a sea of stupid.

    They are beyond reason about this.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:22:30 PM PDT

    •  That's true... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xxdr zombiexx, Tonedevil

      they really, really think if they keep saying the same thing over and over again, that it will be effective.

      I have no idea of what they are talking about.   Anyone who has two neurons to rub together could have figured out it was an act of terrorism....

      and didn't need Obama to say it.

      Where were these guys when they were accusing Clinton of wagging the dog and bombing aspirin factories he tried to get OBL?

      Most of em don't have a clue what continent Libya is one.

      Or who the hell Chris Stevens was.

    •  it's because they're desperate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      webranding, xxdr zombiexx

      and they know that without a game changer Obama is going to win.

      so they're trying to will a game changer where there isn't one.

      my hope is that by pushing such obvious BS that it backfires on them and they end up losing by  more (and creating down-ballot coattails for Obama.)

  •  they've cried wolf too many times (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheChocolateChips, Tonedevil

    someone was all in a dither on huff po that the press was ignoring benghazi.

    but really two weeks or so of did he use the words terrorist act and whenb did he use them might have soured the press from going all nuits over the word optimal

    the repubs have basically trashed their use of  benghazi for votes

    "With malice toward none, with charity for all..." -Abraham Lincoln not a modern republican

    by live1 on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:23:21 PM PDT

  •  Dems should have prosecuted the Bush admin. (6+ / 0-)

    This shit is starting to enrage me.   Just imagine if 9/11 had happened when a Democrat was president.  

    The Republicans got off easy.

    When the going gets rough, the average go conservative. --Henry Rollins

    by Beelzebud on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:33:47 PM PDT

    •  The republicans got off. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:44:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Democratic Mole-hills vs. Republican mountains... (0+ / 0-)

      obviously any alleged security lapse in Benghazi much, much worse than months of high level dire warnings of specific terrorist attacks involving planes and buildings back in 2001... and the then president saying ... "OK, you've covered your ass" to the bearer of a direct intel briefing on it a month before it happened on US soil with almost 3k deaths, 4 airliners crashed and destruction of major buildings...

      The proof that it amounts to less then the Benghazi attack is in 2001 the then president neither accepted or bore any blame for any of that, was not "investigated" by political opponents in Congress, had a big spike in popularity after using and redirecting the nations grief and outrage and then parlayed that into starting 2 wars, imposing constitutionally damaging policies and laws and went on to reelection as well...

      or is it just a double standard on Mountains and mole hills depending on whose they are?

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

      by IreGyre on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 03:25:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is just crazy BS (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    webranding, xxdr zombiexx, Tonedevil

    I'm hopeful this BS is just too obviously BS to work with anyone. It's just crazy. Seriously. Crazy. How desperate they are to take political advantage of a tragedy should backfire on them in a huge way, it's sad if it doesn't.

  •  Ron Christie always has been as dumb as a box of (0+ / 0-)

    rocks.  But then, that's a pretty common condition among RW 'pundits' and 'analysts' and whatever else they call their media types.

  •  It's not just that. (0+ / 0-)

    It's not just that they understand anything above 4th-grade English, and need to have the words "T e r r o r i s t  A t t a c k" written out for them v e r y  s l o w l y because that's the only way they can understand it.

    No, it gets worse.

    The worst of it is: Why the freaking fricking fracking fruckety-fruck does it even matter whether the President said the words "T e r r o r i s t  A t t a c k"? Exactly what would have changed had he said it like that? Four Americans would still be dead. The President would still be directing an investigation into what happened, and why, and, most especially, by whom. He'd still be directing efforts to hunt down the killers and bring them to justice. Just what the hell is being covered up by not saying those words? Who the goddamn hell cares whether or how quickly the President said those words -- aside from people who hope to use those words for political gain?

    (Of course, the above tirade is not directed at you, Vyan.)

    Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

    by Nowhere Man on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 03:53:38 PM PDT

  •  The trad media (0+ / 0-)

    is aiding this. They are keeping this story alive and doing their best to support the Romney/repub version of what Obama did or do not do.  It is crazy!  Between this and the complicity in dismissing the good job numbers with repub conspiracy theories, it is not surprising that this race is tied.  

  •  they have been so utterly embarrassed by this (0+ / 0-)

    it is really amazing (even for them) that they think they have some advantage here. Let it drop! Quietly!

    (and let's not forget Megyn Kelly saying 'calling something an act of terror doesn't necessarily mean you called it a terror attack).

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 04:10:02 PM PDT

  •  I am so sick of Ed Schultz. (0+ / 0-)

    I am just sick of him. Why even have Ron Christie on your show? We all know that these hacks want to twist events. I am sick of Ed Schultz.

  •  CNN is GOPers' accomplice on that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 04:17:06 PM PDT

  •  i remember that it was the MEDIA (0+ / 0-)

    who hyped the 'video' story into the stratosphere.

    remember ,the Egyptian press reported  on Egyptian protesters protesting the video. This happened about the same time as the attack on our embassy, in the news cycle anyway. It was likely very difficult to tell if the two incidents were related ,as they were both unfolding..we, (the public) certainly could not tell, and i bet intelligence and news items were flying ..

    I do not remember the White house pointing to the video, AT ALL. what i do remember is the video 'story' growing like wildfire, partly due to MSM , partly due to social media.

    so Romney is WRONG in assigning blame to the white house for spreading that particular story.

  •  Rude & Arrogant Christie = GOP Shill (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    MSNBC should drop Christie from ANY further appearance on ANY show.  Period.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site