As his performance over the past week suggests, Rep. Darrell Issa's response to the tragic deaths of American citizens in the Middle East apparently depends on which party controls the White House. After all, in February 2007 Issa mocked the families of four Blackwater contractors slaughtered in Fallujah. Now, the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has accused former CIA Director David Petraeus of carrying water for the Obama administration's supposed Benghazi cover-up. That would be the same General David Petraeus Issa charged six years ago was being targeted by Democrats "as part of an ongoing partisan smear campaign against U.S. efforts in Iraq."

Appearing on Meet the Press with host David Gregory on Sunday, John Boehner's Benghazi Grand Inquisitor suggested that Petraeus and the members of the independent Accountability Review Board did President Obama's bidding on the Benghazi probe:

GREGORY: Chairman, my reporting of the immediate aftermath of this talking to administration officials is that CIA Director David Petraeus made it clear when he briefed top officials that there-- that there was a spontaneous element to this, that it was not completely known that this was a terrorist attack right away. You don't give any credence to the notion that there was some fog of war, that there were-- there were conflicting circumstances about what went on here.

Continue reading »

At the first presidential press conference held in months and after President Obama's re-election, a wide range of topics was covered, but none generated the passion and anger like the question about Susan Rice and Republicans' attacks on her this morning, particularly Lindsey Graham and John McCain.

As background, Susan Rice went on the Sunday shows the week of the Benghazi attacks and repeated what she had been given through intelligence reports, which included the claim that the attacks were the result of Muslim objections to an anti-Islam video put up on YouTube. We all know now this is not the case; however, that has not stopped them from going after Susan Rice with vicious intensity.

The president was angry as he responded to the question. Here's what he said, via Washington Post:

“If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me,” Obama said. “For them to go after the UN ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi…to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”

Lindsey Graham shot this back just after that moment:

Graham responded to Obama’s comments by e-mail just as the press conference concluded. “Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi,” Graham said in a statement. “I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack.”

Graham, McCain and Kelly Ayotte are threatening to hold Watergate-style hearings on the whole Benghazi attack. Evidently they saw a new memo that said it's perfectly all right to criticize our leaders here at home and abroad while in the middle of sensitive diplomacy when it's the other guy.

Update: Just for some memory refreshes, here is McCain and Graham's vigorous defense of Condoleeza Rice and her false claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Continue reading »

Sorry Fox. Following an investigation into the embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya last September, U.S. Intelligence has revealed in their report that the CIA was dispatched from their Benghazi office within just 25 minutes, followed soon after by a second team sent from their Tripoli office (in Western Libya) to the embassy in Benghazi (in Eastern Libya, 400 miles away), quashing Republican accusations that the Obama Administration ignored the embassy's pleas for help and whose "delayed response" cost the lives of four Americans.

From McClatchy News:

WASHINGTON — A CIA security team rushed to the U.S. consulate in Libya’s eastern city of Benghazi less than 25 minutes after receiving the first call that the mission was under attack, while a second squad was dispatched by air from the capital, Tripoli, according to a timeline released on Thursday by U.S. intelligence officials.

The timeline is the most detailed accounting to date of the U.S. response to the attack on the consulate and was released to rebut news reports that U.S. officials had delayed a rescue.

“The officials on the ground in Benghazi responded to the situation . . . as quickly and as effectively as possible,” said a senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

The timeline also revealed that a nearby CIA annex came under attack twice during the events, with the second assault coming more than seven hours after Islamist extremists first stormed the consulate.

[detailed timeline follows]

Naturally, Republicans will scoff at this report, asking "why did it take so long to release the report?" and dismiss it outright as being devised simply to help President Obama. And indeed, I know such a report would carry more weight with additional sources to corroborate it, but I wanted to get the report out there while it is still news.

A little reminder that Republican accusations of The Obama Administration being slow to respond is nothing new. Barely one year in the Obama presidency, following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico, Republicans accused the White House of failing to respond right away, when in fact, as I documented in a video I created at the time, the Coast Guard was on the scene "within minutes" of the explosion. Then, as now, Republican accusations that the Obama Administration was slow to respond were pure fantasy and made up of whole cloth.

But that doesn't stop them from saying it.

(ThinkProgress has more here.)

1. There is no media "silence" on Benghazi.

2. On the contrary, the media has extensively covered and aired analysis of Benghazi, along with every right-wing attack about the Obama administration's actions. But this hasn't swung the election for Romney, which is driving wingnuts like Jonah crazy.

3. The idea that the media shouldn't have covered George W. Bush's DUI in 2000 is pretty nutty.

Have a nice day, Pantload.

During yesterday's Fox "news" Sunday, host Chris Wallace started off with the tearful soundbite of Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods killed in the Benghazi embassy attack last September, questioning why the White House appeared to be less honorable about the events surrounding his son's death, than his son was risking his life to save the 30 people in that embassy.

"My son violated his orders to protect the lives of at least 30 people. He risked his life to be a hero [sic]. I wish that the leadership in the White House had that same level of moral courage and heroism that my son displayed with his life."

Wallace, after arguing with Senate Intelligence Committee member Mark Udall (D-CO) over whether or not the embassy attacks (which took place over six weeks ago) are being "politicized", then asks Udall if drones reportedly in the area were armed and if so, might they have stopped the attack? (a supposition based on a supposition.)

Naturally, Udall explains that he can not reveal our defense capabilities on national TV, and should not be making guesses about what our drones can and can not do prior to completion of the investigation.

But on a personal note, can I just point out how distasteful this entire exchange is? First exploiting a fathers' grief to score cheap political points, then denying you're doing it, then accusing The President of the United States of failing to protect American citizens by not using using weapons that some drone may or may not of had that may or may not have even been in the area?

Every time I hear these Cretins run for the pitchforks and light the torches over whether or not President Obama is guilty of a "massive intelligence failure on September 11th that resulted in Americans losing their lives, and then tried to cover it up", I want to smack them across the head with a 2x4.

...but maybe that's just me.

Last I checked, none of the three hosts of Fox & Friends have any personal experience in either foreign service, the military or intelligence. But that didn’t stop them from declaring that they know better than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the reliability of a Facebook post by an Islamic militant group claiming responsibility for attacks on the consulate at Benghazi, Libya last month.

In case you haven’t turned on Fox News any time recently, the entire network has been foaming at the mouth accusing the Obama administration of some kind of nefarious cover up in its response to the attacks on September 11, 2012. Their latest hyperactivity is over a batch of recently unearthed emails showing that the administration knew that a militant group had claimed responsibility in a Facebook post. What’s not mentioned so much is that the same group later denied responsibility.

But who needs to wait for a real investigation when you’ve got former sportscaster Brian Kilmeade on the case? And, of course, an election coming up in less than two weeks.

This morning, Steve Doocy, feigning balance, said in a scornful tone, “Yesterday, Hillary Clinton went out and …said, ‘Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence.”

Kilmeade interrupted to say, “In this day and age it is!”

"Yeah, absolutely!" Doocy agreed.

Kilmeade added, "And they did it on Twitter, though."

Oh, THAT makes a difference.

Doocy went on to quote another email that said the consulate was under attack by mortar fire. “Mortar fire means terrorists,” Doocy said. He was suggesting that only an organized terrorist attack would include such weaponry. But Special Agent Doocy left out a few facts: As the New York Times reported on September 21, 2012:

The organization and firepower used in the assault has also raised alarm in Washington about the possibility of links to Al Qaeda. But to Libyans, the assault underscored instability in a country where militias keep weapons at the ready.

The Los Angeles Times noted yesterday:

Militias rather than the central government are responsible for security across the country.

In other words, it's not just terrorists who would have weapons.

Even more importantly, Doocy cropped Clinton’s quote to leave out her overall assessment of the situation:

"Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence. I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be…

The independent accountability review board is already hard at work looking at everything, not cherry picking one story here or one document there, but looking at everything - which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach for something as complex as an attack like this.”

But on Fox News they don’t need no stinkin’ investigation because supposition is as good as facts.

I will not post the despicable disgusting image here that Mitt Romney's relative posted to Facebook. As a close relative of a foreign service official who served in dangerous countries, I find this image so utterly offensive that I simply refuse to post it. If you want to see it, read Josh Marshall's post. Be warned: It's graphic, full of gratuitious violent images, and utterly beyond decency.

Josh writes:

I guess this is what happens late in the tight presidential race. Ronna Romney is the ex-sister-in-law of Mitt Romney. She’s apparently remained close to the Romney family. She has a minor role in the Romney campaign in Florida and has recently appeared at campaign events in Michigan with her daughter.

Earlier this afternoon she posted these grotesque images of the mangled body of the late Ambassador Chris Stevens with the words “Obama killed him” surrounded by dripping blood.

One of the images in the montage wasn't Ambassador Stevens. It was Moammar Gaddafi.

This is sick, feeble, disgusting imagery intended to drip the blood of a dead United States ambassador all over President Obama. Can you imagine the outrage if we started creating photo montages of dead 9-11 victims or dead soldiers and overlaid them with the words "Bush killed them"?

Mitt Romney should immediately denounce this image and any like it. He should apologize for continuing to use the tragic deaths of Americans in Libya as a political wedge. And he should get a clue about the damage this does not only to us as Americans, but also to Americans abroad.

Posting this on the day of a national security debate was no accident. It was intended to be inflammatory and make people angry. All you need to know about tonight's debate is in this one image. Mitt Romney cannot ever be in charge of our foreign policy. EVER.

During Sunday's Meet the Press, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman pointed out the under-reported story of the Benghazi embassy attack in Libya was the outpouring of support for the United States in the immediate aftermath:

Remember the photos?

Hey, Rupert! You're full of it!

Fox’s Peter Johnson, Jr. – a legal analyst who also happens to be Roger Ailes’ personal attorney – visited Fox & Friends this morning to “ask” if President Obama deliberately allowed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans to die in Benghazi in order to avoid antagonizing Libya. Johnson posited this theory even though he admitted he had “no evidence” for it. But, of course, there was no challenge from host Heather Nauert.

The discussion was supposedly in response to a report that a U.S. drone witnessed the last hours of the attack on the Benghazi consulate. Predictably, Fox has pounced on that in its neverending efforts to use Benghazi to bring down President Obama. Just as predictably, neither of the two chickenhawks here mentioned how sensitive and risky a military intervention would have been.

Even if Johnson had served in the military, you have to wonder why Fox would trot out a legal analyst instead of say, a national security professional, to make such an accusation. Could it be because nobody with a national security reputation to maintain would be willing to do it? Not that that was any kind of problem for Nauert. She treated Johnson as if he were a legitimate expert. But I guess when you’re the boss’ attorney who’s going to argue?

As Johnson and Nauert talked, a graphic blaring “TERROR ON THE RISE” appeared behind them. A banner on the screen read, “POLICY OF APPEASEMENT.” Just in case anyone didn’t get the message.

Johnson said:

Have we become eyewitnesses, mere eyewitnesses to the attacks on America, without any action by us at all? Nothing… Did we trade off, and I have no evidence for this. Did we trade off the lives of our ambassador and three other Americans for that crowd? Were we afraid to fire into that crowd from above? (Were) we afraid to take on the militants in that crowd for killing other folks that were on the perimeter? Were these people expendable as part of a Mid East foreign policy? Were we afraid of inflaming the Arab street when we’re so concerned about the resilience of the Arab spring? These are the questions that need to be asked.

As the Fox Newsies beat their chests with showy patriotic concern for the deaths of the Americans killed in Libya, they seemed not to care a fig that Ambassador Stevens’ father has spoken out against the politicization of the tragedy and has said that it has no place in the presidential campaign. Apparently, that concern sits on the same dusty Fox News shelf as its concern for the thousands of “expendable” Americans in Iraq who died as part of George W. Bush’s Middle East policy.

Rahm is a weasel, but he's a very effective surrogate for the president, as he showed on This Week today. Notice how deftly he gets in that one-two punch on Darrell Issa over the Libya controversy:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about foreign policy. We can expect to see more tomorrow on the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, and in advance, some Republican members of Congress have been pressing the administration to be more forthcoming about what was known about the security situation in Benghazi. There was a letter sent Friday by the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa, and one of the things he asks is, whether based on political concerns or bureaucratic neglect, the actions of this administration contributed to an inadequate and ineffective security posture in Libya as it emerged from civil war. The American people deserve nothing less than a full explanation from this administration about these events, including why the repeated warnings about a worsening security situation appear to have been ignored.

And you know, that was the question the president didn't directly answer on Tuesday night. Who rejected the request for more security and why?

Now, I don't believe in attacking presidents over this kind of incident. These situations are extraordinarily complex and hard calls to make. But I'll just note here as a matter of interest that no one is answering that question. And that's the sort of non-response that makes some voters uneasy.

EMANUEL: Yes, but George, first of all, I have been fortunate in my life to work on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, and the president of the United States has ordered an investigation of what happened, who's responsible, and bring them to justice, just like he did Osama bin Laden, Awlaki and the leadership of al Qaeda. That's what you have to do in the Oval Office.

Now, I have also worked in Congress where you have an oversight responsibility. And with that oversight responsibility comes responsibility. And what Darrell Issa did by releasing names in that entire document of individuals who are working with America, put people at risk in Libya, and people around the world will now know that you're at risk if you cooperate with the United States.

That office, that chairmanship of that committee comes with responsibility. And you can't act reckless with it.

Now, we have a foreign policy issue. It is going to be handled. And people that did this will be brought to justice. And how it happened will be investigated so we can never see it again. But the idea that people from A, day one, have been trying to politicize this event in my view is absolutely reckless.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally--

EMANUEL: This is a time for the United States to come together, figure out what happened, which is what the commander in chief has to do, found out who did it, which is what the commander in chief has to demand, and then seek justice, which he has done repeatedly. And I would warn again, or at least highlight again, when it came to getting Osama bin Laden, Mitt Romney said that shouldn't be a priority of ours, and the president said absolutely different.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, Mayor, the New York Times is reporting this morning that Iran has agreed in principle to direct talks over their nuclear program. The White House has said there's no deal, though. President Obama first expressed his willingness to have direct talks when you were chief of staff in the White House. Do you believe Iran is ready now for direct talks or is this a stalling policy?

EMANUEL: George, that's a good question. Let me take -- I want to take one step back.

When the president walked into the Oval Office, on the issue of Iran trying to acquire and develop nuclear weapons, the United States was isolated from the rest of the world on Iran. Three and a half years later, the tables have been turned. Iran is isolated from the rest of the world. Now, that was steady, determined, dogged leadership, setting out a course.

We now know for a fact even when some questioned the course, not only have we organized the rest of the world to isolate Iran, we have put in place and the president has put in place, withering, very tough sanctions that are not only having economic impact and crumbling the economic capacity of Iran-- and we have seen the data. The fact that the economy is shrinking and not growing. And it's having a political impact. It's been clear that there's no idea of one-off or one-on-one discussions--

STEPHANOPOULOS: So now is the time for direct talks?

EMANUEL: But -- that's not for me to say and they'll determine that. I don't have all the information. But I do know this, that three and a half years ago, we as a country, the world was criticizing us on Iran. Today, the world is criticizing Iran on its attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. That's a direct change. The tables have been turned. And the result of that is because of the steady leadership and the course the president has done in building a coalition and forcing now a set of sanctions that Europe would never have considered three and a half years ago, to a point that Iran's economy is on its knees.

And I will say this, while you say we're going to turn to foreign policy -- the most important part of that foreign policy debate tomorrow will be, because I think the most important thing we can do as a country on our foreign policy is strengthen our economy here at home. It is our leadership abroad that comes from a strong economy. And the economic argument of who's going to make sure that this country is investing in itself after a decade of fighting wars overseas, I think we'll be sure to bring that peace home, and make sure that America is actually (inaudible).

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Mayor Emanuel, thank you very much for your time this morning.