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.

I realize this will not be a terrible shock to anyone who pays attention to Sunday talking heads shows, but lean in for the secret anyway. Yes, it's true. With only a couple of exceptions, the Sunday shows are full of old conservative white men who outnumber progressive/liberal voices by a substantial margin. If one were to split the "neutral" classification down the middle on the graph at the top, it would still leave conservatives as the dominant voice on Sunday television.

MediaMatters studied all of the guests on the Sunday shows from the beginning of January through April 5th. They concluded that Sunday shows need a major facelift in terms of ethnic and diversity and much more balance in terms of the ideological points of view represented.

In the first three months of 2013, the broadcast networks' Sunday morning talk shows once again skewed strongly to the right and featured a startling lack of diversity among guests. For better or worse, these shows -- ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, NBC's Meet the Press, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday -- occupy an elevated space in the national political discussion. This is where influential people -- like senators, representatives, presidential administration officials, Fortune 500 chief executives, and leaders of prominent non-profit organizations, for example -- get to set the terms of debate and frame the issues of the week. The shows enjoy considerably high ratings as well -- approximately 10 million weekly viewers collectively, according to recent numbers from TV Newser.

With that in mind, who the broadcast Sunday shows invite on as guests has significant implications for how discussions on major issues are framed. And once again, Republicans and conservatives have an edge over Democrats and progressives on these programs.While our report found that elected and administration officials hosted on these shows were much more likely to be Republican than Democratic, between the lines is an even more salient point: The findings run in stark contrast to previous trends and statements from the networks themselves.

The numbers on how women and minorities are represented on these shows are striking, and that runs across all of the networks with one exception: Up with Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry both defied the norms on MSNBC. It would be good for other networks to pay heed and consider shaking up their bookers' contact list a bit.

The entire report is fascinating. You can read the full report here.

DOWNLOADS: (90)

PLAYS: (543)

Embed

On Face the Nation today, John McCain expressed frustration with Rand Paul and his gang of libertarian obstructionists who threaten to block any gun measure from coming to the floor for debate.

The Hill:

“I don’t understand it,” said McCain on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand.”

“What are we afraid of? Why would we not want… if this issue is as important as all of us think it is, why not take it to one of the world’s greatest deliberative bodies – that’s one of the greatest exaggerations in history by the way – but you know why not take it up, an amendment and debate. The American people will profit from it,” said the Arizona senator.

“I don’t understand why United States senators want to block debate when the leaders said we could have amendments,” McCain added.

A number of GOP lawmakers, including Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Marco Rubio (Fla.), and Ted Cruz (Texas) wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowing that they would “oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.”

Interesting that it's the young wingnut guns opposing the "elder statesmen" of the Republican party. There is a definite civil war brewing just under the surface there. But I digress.

When 90 percent of Americans support background checks, it should be a slam dunk. As the president noted last week, 90 percent of Americans can't agree on what to have for breakfast, much less gun safety laws. Yet there we are, with a vast majority of the country in support of such a thing. I'll take the question one step beyond McCain and ask why they aren't rushing to get this done if they expect to be re-elected again?

Yes, there should be a debate. But for me, it just makes me furious that we're settling for a debate on background checks and little more. Background checks go without saying. Why can't we have a debate on clip size and assault-style weapons? Why can't we get these wingnuts on the record so they have to own their words after an assault weapon offs a lot of people in one place yet again, simply because they lacked the integrity or the guts to do the right thing? Instead we get this wimpy, simpy "Oh, won't it be grand if we get background checks!" nonsense.

Appearing with McCain, Sen. Charles Schumer expressed optimism that if the bill proceeded to the floor, a measure on background checks could pass.

“If we go to the floor, I’m still hopeful that what I call the ‘sweet spot’ background checks can succeed. We are working hard there. Sen. [Joe] Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. [Mark] Kirk [R-Ill.] have a few ideas that could modify the proposal.”

McCain said he would welcome a debate on background checks on the Senate floor.

“Everybody wants the same goal to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disabled. Background checks are being conducted. Are they sufficient, are there ways to improve those? Then I think that’s something that the American people and certainly Congress could be helped by if we have a vigorous debate and discussion,” said McCain.

Message to Americans: If we are so lucky as to get these young bucks to deign to debate this measure, won't it be grand to get a watered-down toothless background check measure that probably won't even come up in the House? Hey, at least we can say we passed...something.

Doesn't it seem like we're all being asked to simply 'bite the bullet'?

DOWNLOADS: (77)

PLAYS: (666)

Embed

It cannot be repeated enough: He who frames the argument wins the debate.

And so it is telling how the networks wish to frame the debate for marriage equality. Who do they book?

• Meet the Press: Ralph Reed, head of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and who narrowly missed conviction for his role in the Jack Abramoff scandal.
• Face the Nation: Tony Perkins, whose Family Research Council is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for their persistent and ongoing hate speech against the gay community.
• and Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, who also showed up on CNN’s State of the Union.
• Fox News Sunday: Gary Bauer, president of American Values

With the exception of Hilary Rosen on Meet the Press, did the news shows bother to book a gay person whose life and rights are directly affected? Pffftt...silly liberal!

What really matters is how conservative Christians who are out of step with the majority of Americans (no matter how much they want to deny it and not have that challenged), doncha know?

You can't have a discussion on Villager TV with any politician or beltway pundit about Israel or Iran unless there's sufficient fearmongering over the impending doom if the Ayatollah gets his hands on some nukes. I've had this post in the back of my mind for weeks, but I almost forgot about it since Schieffer didn't even do a follow up to these remarkable words. And I never imagined that I'd hear Gen. McChrystal, the man who was tasked to lead our forces in Afghanistan, say this on my teevee.

It's quite remarkable.

SCHIEFFER: What do you think is the greatest threat to our national security at this point?

MCCHRYSTAL: In the near term, it's clearly our economic challenges. Our inability to make tough decisions to move our economy forward, that worries me in the near term. In the long term it's our education because that is the future.

SCHIEFFER: Not terrorism, education.

MCCHRYSTAL: We can handle terrorism. We can handle a nuclear-armed Iran. We can't handle a future where young Americans are not educated enough to take our country forward.

SCHIEFFER: General, I want to be one of many to thank you for your service. Thanks for being with us today. We'll be back in one minute with the mayor of Los Angeles.

I had to reread these words over a few times before they sunk in because they are so alien to what any of his military predecessors have ever uttered about terrorism or Iran.The general is more worried about our education system and the state of economy than the ongoing fight that's destined to be with us for years to come. here they are again:

MCCHRYSTAL: In the near term, it's clearly our economic challenges. Our inability to make tough decisions to move our economy forward, that worries me in the near term. In the long term it's our education because that is the future.

SCHIEFFER: Not terrorism, education.

MCCHRYSTAL: We can handle terrorism. We can handle a nuclear-armed Iran. We can't handle a future where young Americans are not educated enough to take our country forward.

The general was featured on every news network when he released his book so I find it very distressing that these words were never picked up by the villagers covering him.

***These are words that could actually calm Americans instead of frightening them?
***Haven't Americans been through enough these last twelve years?

See what happens when a person in the know changes direction and diverts from the Villager narrative?

DOWNLOADS: (262)

PLAYS: (455)

Embed

I'm actually kind of relieved to hear this denial. The idea that a political staffer was part of national security meetings was repugnant to me, just as it was when Karl Rove was part of every decision in the Bush White House:

Senior Obama political aide David Axelrod said little today about a past fight with Attorney General Eric Holder, but flatly denied reports that he attended high-level national security meetings.

"I know there were weekly meetings dealing with terrorist threats and planning around it, but I did not attend those meetings," Axelrod said on CBS' Face the Nation.

As for a new book's report of a 2009 confrontation with Holder over the attorney general's concerns about political interference in legal matters, Axelrod said:

"First of all, let me say, Eric Holder is a great friend of mine. We actually went to the same high school. So we may have gone chest to chest back in the day. But we have a strong relationship. And I'm not going to get into the details of that, other than to say I respect him."

Axelrod, a former administration aide who now works with Obama's re-election campaign, also told CBS: "I obviously never tried to interfere in anything that he (Holder) did, never talked to him about a governmental matter or a Justice Department matter in all of the years I was in the White House."

DOWNLOADS: (371)

PLAYS: (922)

Embed

Oh mah stars! Gather mah smelling salts, I feel the vapuhs a-comin'!

According to Wikipedia, Bob Schieffer is 75 years old. He was born during FDR's first term and has lived through twelve presidencies since. If he had the least bit of intellectual honesty, he'd know that presidential campaigns rarely follow Marquess of Queensbury rules of fair play. Is he so forgetful that McCain's illegitimate black baby whisper campaign, Michael Dukakis' Willie Horton smear, or Donald Segretti himself has slipped his mind? I hope that this doesn't shock Mr. Schieffer's precious sensibilities, but politics are a full-contact sport and bruising comes with the territory.

But perhaps Mitt Romney's fee-fees are just a might bit over-sensitive, and the enablers in the traditional media need to stick up for him. It's not nice to hold up his record as governor of a state that was 47th in job creation during his tenure. Apparently, it's a cheap shot to point out that his entire business experience was in maximizing profits for his company without concern for layoffs or debts incurred by the companies he arbitraged. And Bob Schieffer was going to make damn sure campaign adviser David Axelrod knew it.

Schieffer brought up some of the more negative campaign tactics being used by Obama in contrast to saying in 2008 he wanted to run on ideas, not negative campaigns. Schieffer asked Axelrod why, now, the campaign has gotten rather negative on their side, with ads going after Romney instead of touting his accomplishments.

Schieffer was specifically referring to the Bain Capital ads being lobbed at Romney by the Obama campaign. Axelrod told Schieffer that most of the ads the campaign has run have been positive ones that have not gone after Romney. Schieffer almost bewilderedly asked Axelrod if he thought they’ve been running a positive campaign.

Why is it that President Obama has to be positive and we see no pearl clutching over Romney outright lying about Obama's record, grading his presidency an "F" and doing cheap stunts like the Solyndra presser?

The truth, though Schieffer will not see it, is that the media has been far more negative in its coverage of Obama than it has been towards Romney. It is incumbent (pun intended) upon Obama to make Romney as unattractive an alternative as possible, given how difficult the economy still is.

Republicans have settled on a strategy for extending the Bush tax cuts that seems counterintuitive and destructive to the economy: Revive the debt ceiling battle. John Boehner tossed the first salvo this week when he held a press conference to declare that there would be no further increases in the debt ceiling without one-for-one spending cuts. This is his declaration after he also declared that the triggers in the last "deal" weren't ones he was willing to abide by. In other words, he will renege on the deal made last summer in order to try and kill Social Security and Medicare.

Mitch McConnell played that card in his interview with Bob Schieffer this morning where he dropped a few bombs into the dialogue. He begins with his usual snide comments about how President Obama "needs to act like an adult", which is nothing other than code for calling the President to heel to Republicans' demands. And what are those demands?

McConnell told host Bob Schieffer that the president has had three-and-a-half years to tackle the deficit, but "we could not get this president to do anything serious about entitlement reform, for example, the single biggest threat to future generations."

This is, of course, untrue, but McConnell doesn't stop with that generalization. No, he elaborates, saying that US national debt exceeds the US economy, which "makes us like Greece." Not so much, Senator McConnell.

Here are some questions Bob Schieffer should have asked and didn't:

1. Why are Republicans intent on cutting Medicare and Social Security when the bulk of our national debt is the result of Bush tax cuts?
2. Why are Republicans ignoring the FACT that federal spending and the deficit are lower today than they were at the end of the Bush administration?
3. Why is Republicans' word worthless? They agreed to the "deal" made at the last debt ceiling raise, and they're reneging. Who's the adult again?

Continue reading »

It's been coming from all sides as if it's a settled fact, so it's interesting that Leon Panetta says Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons:

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta let slip on Sunday the big open secret that Washington war hawks don’t want widely known: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

Appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Panetta admitted that despite all the rhetoric, Iran is not pursuing the ability to split atoms with weapons, saying it is instead pursuing “a nuclear capability.”

That “capability” falls in line with what Iran has said for years: that it is developing nuclear energy facilities, not nuclear weapons.

“I think the pressure of the sanctions, the diplomatic pressures from everywhere, Europe, the United States, elsewhere, it’s working to put pressure on them,” Panetta explained on Sunday. “To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”

Republicans have been beating the drums of war in recent weeks as tensions in the Iranian gulf have soared. Iran has threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil transport hub crucial to global industry, if U.S. warships return to monitor their activities.

Iran said it was planning to hold military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz in the coming weeks, and prior wargames saw the Iranians test missiles that are designed to sink warships.

DOWNLOADS: (970)

PLAYS: (44738)

Embed

Our number four most viewed C&L video for 2011 comes courtesy of Dave Neiwert with serial liar Michele Bachmann making an appearance on CBS's Face the Nation, piling lies upon more lies. From back in June before PolitiFact decided to make a complete mockery of themselves.

Bachmann's response to her twenty some plus "pants on fire" lies... Obama lies too!!! Pay no attention to anything I've said.