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.

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'?

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: (113)

PLAYS: (675)

Embed

Bill O’Reilly was obviously frustrated that Mitt Romney didn’t attack President Obama over Fox News’ pet faux scandal, Benghazi-gate. But instead of owning up to that or admitting that Romney lost the debate last night, O’Reilly went on Fox & Friends this morning and attacked Bob Schieffer, the moderator, for not asking the “penetrating question” to President Obama, “You screwed (Benghazi) up. I don’t know what happened there. Please explain it to me.”

Can you imagine the non-stop Fox News hissy fit if a debate moderator had said to Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan – or any Republican candidate anywhere – “You screwed up” anything?

You know O’Reilly has gone over the edge when Fox News hosts start advocating on behalf of a “liberal media” debate moderator after a Republican loss. That's exactly what happened next. The Curvy Couch crew erupted, arguing that Schieffer had correctly raised the subject and it was up to Romney to smack Obama with it.

O’Reilly answered, “Look, why don’t we have Dr. Phil, then, moderate? Alright? If these guys aren’t gonna ask penetrating questions and hold the answerer accountable, why do we have them?” He went on to complain that Schieffer’s question on Libya was too “wishy-washy.”

But if Dr. Phil had been on the couch with the rest of them, he probably would have quickly recognized that the one O’Reilly was really vexed at was Romney.

“If it were me, Obama’d be a puddle after I got through with him," O'Reilly said later. "…Obama wanted to prove one thing: that Romney’s a poseur… that he doesn’t know what he’s doing and he changes his opinion every hour on the hour. And in order to do that, you have to be confrontational. But Romney could have easily parried that by saying, ‘You – this is incompetence.’ See, that’s the word that I would have used. ‘This is incompetence in Libya. We don’t know what happened there, a month and a half and it’s four Americans dead! You gotta explain it!’”

In a side remark, O’Reilly also said to Steve Doocy, “You’re rootin’ for Romney,” (as if O’Reilly isn’t). Instead of denying it, Doocy chuckled in agreement.

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.

DOWNLOADS: (209)

PLAYS: (1062)

Embed

Is it unreasonable to expect the press, especially respected members of the press like CBS News' Bob Schieffer, to hold guests to account when they make ridiculous, incendiary, defamatory statements about the President of the United States? Evidently it's only unreasonable when Democrats do it about Republicans, but it seems to be perfectly all right for RNC Chair Reince Priebus to liken the President to the captain of the cruise ship that sank in Italy last week. Here's what he said:

SCHIEFFER: But Donald Trump -- he's, kind of, worried about it. You heard what he just said. He said, you know, he thinks they're cannibalizing each other. Do you think that's going to all come out OK?

PRIEBUS: Now, the history shows, Bob, that -- that tough primaries and a little bit of drama are a good thing for the challenging party. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- you know, they killed each other through June, and guess what? He won pretty easily. I think the evidence is there.

I think it's good for America. And in the end, in a few months, this is all going to be ancient history and we're going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino, which is President Obama, who is abandoning the ship here in the United States and is more interested in campaigning than doing his job as president.

SCHIEFFER: What -- what did you just say? What did you call President Obama?

PRIEBUS: I called him Captain Schettino, you know, the captain that fled the ship in Italy. That's our own president, who is fleeing the American people and not doing his job and running around the country and campaigning.

(LAUGHTER)

You made me think of it with all the ships behind you, Bob.

Really? See, if I were to consider a metaphor like captains of ships and the like, I'd think of Captain Chesley Sullenberger (Sully), who managed to save the crew and passengers of his plane by landing it in the Hudson River, saving all 155 people aboard the aircraft, instead of a cavalier, careless idiot like Captain Schettino, who had no business steering a ship so close to shallow water, failed to turn it in time, ran it into a rock and then leapt off the ship while passengers died in their life vests waiting to be evacuated.

Think about those metaphors. Who steered too close to the shore? George W. Bush and his merry band of regulators who sat around watching porn instead of paying attention to banks. Who failed to turn soon enough? Congress, perhaps, where Republicans routinely block each and every initiative to rescue this country from financial ruin? Who jumped into the life boats, leaving others to clean up and try and rescue as many as they could?

And yet, Bob Scheiffer's answer to Priebus?

SCHIEFFER: I -- I see what you're saying.

This is why we can't have nice things.

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: (971)

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.

DOWNLOADS: (971)

PLAYS: (44738)

Embed

Bob Schieffer interviewed Rep. Michele Bachmann on Face The Nation yesterday and actually tried to pin her down on her many and numerous outright lies, as PolitiFact recently examined in some detail.

And as usual, she did her usual blob-of-mercury routine:

SCHIEFFER: I want to ask you about something else. A lot of your critics say you have been very fast and loose with the truth. You know, the po-- PolitiFact, which is a website that won a Pulitzer, did an analysis of twenty-three statements that you made recently. Of these twenty-three, only one they said was completely true. Seven they call pants on fire kind of falsehoods. Four were barely true and two were half truths. How do you answer that criticism? Because here’s one of them, you know, you said on the record there had been only one offshore oil drilling permit during the Obama administration and, in fact at that time they had been two hundred and seventy. How do you explain that?

BACHMANN: Well, you know, I think that what is clear more than anything is the fact that President Obama does -- has not been issuing the permits, that he should have been issuing on offshore drilling that’s--

SCHIEFFER: Well, it’s more than three hundred now.

BACHMANN: Well --

SCHIEFFER: At-- at that time there had been two hundred and something. And you said there had been only one.

BACHMANN: But as far as drilling goes, we hadn’t been drilling what we need to-- that’s why we just this week--

SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But that’s different, isn’t it?

BACHMANN: Well, that’s why this week it’s-- it’s ironic and sad that the President released all of the oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve because the President doesn’t have an energy policy.

SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Do you think that was a good move?

BACHMANN: He has a politically correct environmental policy.

SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Was that a good thing?

BACHMANN: It was a very bad move. It put-- it has made the United States more vulnerable. There’s only a limited amount of oil that we have in the Strategic Oil Reserve. It’s there for emergencies. We do not-- the emergency that we have is the fact that -- the fact that-- the President of the United States has failed to give the American people an energy policy. Here’s the good news that a lot of Americans don’t even realize. We are the number one energy resource rich nation in the world according to the Congressional Research Service. But the President of the United States has unfortunately put American energy resources off limits.

SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Did--

BACHMANN: We need to open those up so we can bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. The President has it exactly wrong when it comes to energy.

SCHIEFFER Just quickly though, the-- the original question I asked you is all of these statements that you have made that have later proven to be sort of true or-- or totally false in some cases, what is your answer when people say that to you? Do you feel you have misled people?

BACHMANN: No, I haven’t misled people at all. I think the question would be asked of President Obama. When you told the American people that if we borrow a trillion dollars from other countries and spend it on a stimulus that we won’t have unemployment go above eight percent and today as we are sitting here, it’s 9.1 percent and the economy is tanking. That is what’s serious. That’s a very serious statement that the President made. Did he mislead the American people? Not only did he mislead the American people, he’s caused our economy to go down to--

SCHIEFFER (overlapping): All right.

BACHMANN: --depths that we haven’t seen. That’s what’s serious.

SCHIEFFER: Again, I have to say congresswoman, I asked you a question and you-- you, to my knowledge I don’t believe you answered it, but I want to thank you.

Indeed, Bachmann simply would not answer any of Schieffer's points about her mounting record of falsehoods, trying instead to "pivot" the interview and make it about Obama's supposed misleading statements. It's like trying to talk to a trained robot, programmed never to admit to anything like lying -- so of course, it lies in order to do so.