The Republicans are determined not to let their trumped up, clearly partisan-based outrage on the attack on the Benghazi consulate go down the memory hole, like so many of the Republican failures of the last dozen years. Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Rep Darrell Issa promised brand new information to CBS News on Benghazi attack.

So the CBS News breathlessly brings on Issa to deliver this new information which will implicate the Obama administration in this great conspiracy that will no doubt bring the presidency down.

Except...

This great new information? It's testimony from US deputy chief of mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks. The problem? Hicks wasn't in Benghazi at the time of the attacks and has no actual idea what happened. Everything he testified about was his suppositions based on reports. The same reports that have issued forth in the months after the attack.

"I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning," Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens - then the U.S. ambassador to Libya - and three other Americans.

When he appears this week before the committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Hicks is expected to offer testimony at odds with what some American officials were saying in public - and on "Face the Nation" - just five days after the attack. Benghazi whistleblowers have rallied attention to discrepancies among the administration's reaction to the attack, which The Weekly Standard suggests was frayed by ever-evolving talking points that sought to remove references to al Qaeda.

On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice hit the media circuit, appearing on all five Sunday talk shows to dispel the notion that the strike was a premeditated terrorist act and to perpetuate the case that it began "spontaneously" out of protests in Egypt. Rice's spot on "Face the Nation" that day was preceded by the new President of Libya Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had "no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined."

"For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens's front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable," he said. "I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris - Chris's last report, if you want to say his final report - is, 'Greg, we are under attack.'

"...I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day," Hicks continued in his interview with investigators. "The net impact of what has transpired is, [Rice,] the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world, has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar of doesn't know what he's talking about. ....My jaw hit the floor as I watched this."

Though the White House has said it was in contact with officials in Libya the night of the attack, Hicks said in the days following, he was never consulted about the talking points. One day after Rice's Sunday show blitz, Hicks said he called Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for near eastern affairs at the State Department, and asked, "Why did Amb. Rice say that?" The tone of her answer - "I don't know," he said - indicated that "I perhaps asked a question that I should not have asked."

The net impact of Rice's statements, Hicks said, was "immeasurable." On top of his personal belief that "the reason it took us so long to get the FBI to Benghazi is because of those Sunday talk shows," he said, Magariaf lost face "in front of not only his own people, but the world" at a time of democratic transition in his country. He added, "I have heard from a friend who had dinner with President Magariaf in New York City that he was still angry at Amb. Rice well after the incident."

Notice anything particularly evidentiary about Hicks' testimony? It's "unbelievable" that Stevens didn't call in a demonstration? Rice's statements have caused "immeasurable" damage? Um, hearsay anyone? Why is Hicks' opinion any more compelling than anyone else not actually there?

You know what I noticed didn't get mentioned in Schieffer's interview of Issa? The seven other attacks on US consulates between the years of 2002 and 2008 that haven't got Republicans' collective knickers in a bunch:

Benghazi was not unique. There have been eights attacks on six different U.S. consulates in and around the Mideast since the 9/11 attack. They include:

1. Karachi, Pakistan, 2002, 2003, and 2006
2. Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 2002
3. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 2004
4. Damascus, Syria, 2006
5. Sana’a, Yemen, 2008
6. Benghazi, Libya, 2012

And what role Congress itself played:

Congress also shares a portion of the blame for the fate of Ambassador Stevens and the three others killed:

The State Department is still reeling from deep cuts made by Senate and House appropriations panels to the Obama administration’s budget requests for next year, with some officials warning of national security risks. (2011-10-01)

The quote seems particular damning, but read the whole article. There was an 22% across the board cut, but a separate request for spending on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan was approved. Including the separate request the State Department budget was still down $3.5 billion from the prior year, a very short sighted move given that Arab Spring was only ten months old at the time the decision was made.

Three autocratic governments blown away, two countries sliding into sectarian conflict, two others facing massive protests, and four that were compeled to introduce reforms by their restive population. And the response from Congress to this seismic shift? Budget cuts.

But yes, let's all wring our hands over Gregory Hicks' feelings and assumptions. It's so much easier than taking an honest look at Benghazi.

(h/t Mediaite)

Saturday Night Live's executive producer Lorne Michaels reserves the right to change his show right up to airing, the privilege of broadcasting live. Famously, Billy Crystal was part of the original cast and had a featured skit on the very first airing in October of '75, until Michaels cut it the day of broadcast and it took years for Crystal to officially join the cast. I offer this up as a caveat that it is not necessarily anything political that caused Michaels to cut the original cold open for last night's SNL episode, replacing it instead with a skit about CBS trying desperately to fill airtime during the 35 minute blackout during the Super Bowl. It is entirely possible that Michaels felt this was the funnier or more biting satire of which he likes to think SNL is capable. Whatever his reasoning, they did allow the dress rehearsal to be available online for comparison.

It is not hard to imagine the pearl clutching and cries of outrage (Outrage, I tell you!) had this skit gone out on the airwaves, depicting the blatant pandering and ridiculousness of the dialogue in Washington surrounding the hearing on the nomination of Chuck Hagel to the position of Secretary of Defense. I'm sure that Lindsey Graham and his BFF Grampy McCain would be issuing a proclamation of censure and a threat to deport Lorne Michaels back to Canada. How dare SNL mock the "When did you stop beating your wife?" line of questioning that the Republicans proffered to prove how much more they love the state of Israel? I'm still wondering if anyone in the Beltway media will ever wonder why blind obeisance to Israel is considered a requirement for holding an American political office.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend its borders. I'm just not sure that it should be a requirement that we have to act as an extension of that.

Personally, I thought Fred Armisen's imitation of Bernie Sanders was perfect and the skit was worth airing for that alone.

The problem with this is, there have been instances of storefront check cashing agencies and payday lenders taking loan payments and fees out of a recipient's Social Security checks -- even though it's illegal. Good idea to get some solid oversight in place to protect the poorest and most vulnerable from illegal practices:

Several consumer groups are urging the Treasury Department to revise plans to eliminate paper Social Security checks, saying the changes are needed to prevent potential abuses by creditors.

In April, the Treasury said it would stop issuing paper checks in 2013 and make all payments electronically. More than two million people who receive Social Security checks in the mail would have their benefits deposited directly into bank accounts or onto prepaid debit cards.

The proposal to eliminate paper checks is intended to save taxpayers money and make benefits more secure. Currently, 80% of Social Security recipients choose to have their benefits deposited directly in banks.

Last week, consumer groups including the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union asked the Treasury to provide more safeguards to prevent potential abuses from "payday lenders" and banks getting access to Social Security and disability benefits before beneficiaries receive them.

The requests come after congressional hearings about high-interest lenders, which provide small, short-term loans that are secured by coming pay or benefits checks, having access to Social Security funds of customers who owe them money.

"We're working to implement strong consumer protections against abusive or deceptive practices," said Dick Gregg, a fiscal assistant secretary at the Treasury.

Tim Geithener testified yesterday morning in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and I still don't know why we should give Geithner the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn't question him because we don't know how much worse it would be if he hadn't done all these things, right?

WASHINGTON — In heated questioning that at times took on the air of a cross-examination, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner on Wednesday defended his role and the government’s actions in bailing out the American International Group, saying Washington did what was necessary to prevent “a second Great Depression.”

But Mr. Geithner, who led the New York Federal Reserve Bank at the time, said he was not involved in the decision not to release information about deals that sent billions of taxpayer dollars from the bailout of A.I.G., the insurance giant, to big banks.

“I withdrew from monetary policy decisions,” Mr. Geithner said, “and day-to-day management of the New York Fed.”

The committee called Mr. Geithner, former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and other officials to explain, once again, the confounding results of an $85 billion rescue loan made to A.I.G. in September 2008. The loan sheltered big banks from any losses, but saddled A.I.G. with a debt so crushing that the Treasury soon had to step in and provide even more rescue money.

The questions aimed at Mr. Geithner focused almost immediately on his role in the A.I.G. bailout and why those negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers did not push the banks to make concessions, like returning the collateral to A.I.G. or accepting less than full value for their contracts with the insurer.

Throughout the morning, Mr. Geithner tried to persuade lawmakers that the government acted “in the best interests of the American people,” and not in the interests of big banks, in particular, as many lawmakers asserted, Goldman Sachs. Mr. Geithner, while keeping his composure throughout the questions, was forceful in his defense.

“I think the commitment to Goldman Sachs trumped the responsibility that our officials had to the American people,” Representative Stephen F. Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts, told Mr. Geithner. His voice rising, his finger pointed at Mr. Geithner, Mr. Lynch expressed his frustration at the financial bailouts, and the bonuses now being paid by banks. “It stinks to the high heavens what happened here,” Mr. Lynch said. “I don’t like the obfuscation. And to top it all off, the disclosure was not there.”

In his comments, Mr. Geithner called for better controls on risk-taking by large financial institutions, and pointed out that more than a year after the near-collapse of A.I.G., the government still had no systems in place to cope with such failures. At times, the hearing took on a scolding, even berating, tone. One lawmaker, Representative John L. Mica, Republican of Florida, called upon Mr. Geithner to resign.

“I believe either you made a bad decision there, or there was the attempt to cover up one of the biggest bailouts, backdoor bailouts, in history,” Mr. Mica said. “Now, you’ve tried to frame it as you did it in the interest of the people and the failure of the system, I’m telling you, these are lame excuses. You were in the charge and did the wrong thing, or participated in the wrong thing.”

Continue reading »