February 8, 2013

“Obama Blew Off Benghazi After Scheduled Meeting”

And the mainstream press yawns.

Because really, what difference does it make?

(h/t geoff B)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:45am
12 comments | Trackback

Comments (12)

  1. Either he did blow off the meeting or they’re establishing plausible deniability for him when the REAL scandal erupts.

    “Running guns to Syria via Turkey to arm the Muslim Brotherhood? Why, as we’ve established already, I was way out of the loop. Didn’t know a thing. I’m shocked shocked that our Libyan ambassador was involved in such a thing. Shame on him.”

  2. …and the lickspittle media kept the lid on it for just long enough…

  3. We also today get the storyline that Obama personally rejected arming the Syrian rebels. That he stopped a plan put forward by State, the CIA, Defense and the Joint Chiefs to arm and train selected groups.

  4. Now suppose that that rejection was because he was already doing it through a backdoor that didn’t go through the Cabinet at least officially. One that used Libyan factions and Turkey.

    Then you could say he went to bed when Benghazi happened because what was happening was already known to him. No need to lose sleep over milk that was planned for spilling earlier.

  5. The WaPo Editorial board doesn’t take the opportunity to notice that ObaZma had long ago fashioned a pattern of the non-vote “present”, taking no position either pro or con as a means to take any other position, say as jr. Senator or President, he may truly desire. The big Hawaiian king has other things on his prodigious mind.

  6. One that used Libyan factions and Turkey

    I think this is the key. When Hillary tried to act indignant about Rand Paul asking her about the gun-running between Libya and Turkey, you could see the “Holy shit! How did he know that?!” flit across her face before she came up with a lame “I’m not aware of anything like that. I’ll get back to you.”

    Yesterday, Panetta put the lie to that when he all but confirmed it during the Benghazi hearing.

    I wonder how many are going to end up with bus tire tracks before this is over.

  7. Where do you go for information when the subject of the claim, the person making the claim and the person reporting the claim are all liars?

  8. I still want to know whether “middle management” initiated action to back up Woods and Doherty and then were told to stand down. But we can’t trust the people answering the questions.

  9. Where do you go for information . . .

    Either Cranky’s Cudgels or Squid’s Store of a panoply of useful implements would make a good beginning for those purposes.

  10. sdferr I mean that in general, we’re bombarded with useless or confounding information. Most people don’t even have the resources we have, and so don’t even know they’re being bombarded with lies.

  11. sdferr I mean that in general, we’re bombarded with useless or confounding information. Most people don’t even have the resources we have, and so don’t even know they’re being bombarded with lies.

    Well, I think that ties nicely in with this debate – Huckley or Orwell?

    They don’t even so much care/realize they are being bombarded with lies, because they are being saturated with so much crap.

    People have face douche, and Honey boo boo, and John Stewert does such a nice job of digesting the news for us anyway – why do the heavy work yourself.

    Meaning, I don’t think it’s hard to figure out the truth – to read the news and think rationally for yourself. I just think people don’t bother.

  12. Quite so, Merovign. This is not a new problem however, all joking aside. And indeed, neither beatings with cudgels nor prodding with pitchforks will avail. In fact, the very statement of the problem as you have put forces on us a memory of the cave metaphor in the Republic, Bk. 7.

Leave a Reply