WSJ: House Report Finds No Attempt to Mislead Public Over Benghazi

So, how does the House Intelligence Committee explain the apology ad? Just curious.

According to the Wall Street Journal:


GOP-Led Panel Says Administration ‘Talking Points’ Were Flawed; Military, CIA Responded Properly

A House report on the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, concludes that the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. military responded properly and that Obama administration “talking points” were flawed, but didn’t find that administration officials attempted to mislead the public.

The two-year-long investigation by the Republican-led House intelligence committee is the latest congressional probe to examine the attacks, and its conclusions deflate allegations suggesting misconduct by the Obama administration.

Among other findings, the report concluded that a CIA response team hadn’t been ordered to “stand down” after an assault began on the U.S. compound, and didn’t delay a rescue operation.

The report also said there had been no intelligence failure prior to the attacks, and that intelligence on those who participated in the attacks “was and remains conflicting” concerning their identities, affiliations and motivations.

So, there was no misleading in the attempt to coverup the lack of security, or no attempt in covering up the cause of the attack?

Panel members said they have “endeavored to make the facts and conclusions within this report widely and publicly available so that the American public can separate the actual facts from the swirl of rumors and unsupported allegations.”

The report by the House intelligence panel is unlikely to be the last word on the furor over Benghazi. A separate investigation by a House select committee is under way and members said Friday they have reviewed the House intelligence report.

The issue is certain to be raised in the 2016 presidential race if Democrat Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state in 2012, decides to run. GOP attacks over Benghazi have focused on Mrs. Clinton, as well as on Susan Rice , then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and now the White House national security adviser.

Ms. Rice, appearing on television news programs a week after the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks, described the events in ways later found to be inaccurate.

The report Friday found that while public statements by Ms. Rice and other U.S. officials eventually were proven wrong, the inaccuracies stemmed from poor intelligence rather than manipulation of the information.

Rather than accusing Ms. Rice and the administration of deception, the panel said, “The early intelligence assessments and the administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate.”

Early intelligence indicated that the attacks evolved from a protest, the report said. Other available early intelligence—which turned out later to be correct—didn’t assert there had been a protest.

Nonetheless, the CIA initially assessed that the attacks grew out of a protest, the House report said. The CIA changed its initial assessment nearly a week after Ms. Rice appeared on Sunday shows to discuss the event, determining there had been no demonstration…

In a statement, Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), the committee chairman, and Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D., Md.), the senior Democrat, said the report stemmed from “thousands of hours” of investigation, including interviews with senior intelligence officials and security personnel and an extensive review of documents and intelligence assessments.

“Based on the testimony and the documents we reviewed, we concluded that all the CIA officers in Benghazi were heroes,” Messrs. Rogers and Ruppersberger said.

A bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report released in January sharply criticized American diplomats and intelligence officials, and found that the assault in Benghazi was “likely preventable” through improved security and intelligence operations.

Write to FELICIA SCHWARTZ

Pelosi Doesn’t Remember Gruber

Nancy Pelosi
According to a Washington Post story, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that, not only did Jonathan Gruber not play a significant role in drafting Obamacare, but that she doesn’t even “know who he is.”

Pelosi on Gruber: “I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill.” According to the Washington Post, Pelosi mentioned Gruber and his work in November 2009, at the height of the Obamacare debate.

Here’s the transcript published by the Washington Post, via Nexis:

Q: As you know, the Republicans released their health- care bill this week. And I wanted to get your comment on the bill, and specifically on the CBO analysis that it would cost significantly less than the Democratic plan and that it would lower premiums.

PELOSI: Let me just say this. Anything you need to know about the difference between the Democratic bill and the Republican bill is that the Republicans do not end the health insurance companies’ discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. They let that stand. That’s scandalous, the fact that it exists. I don’t understand why they have not heard the American people, who have said preexisting conditions should not be a source of discrimination.

And secondly, the Republican plan ensures about 3 million more people than now, and ours does 36 million people. So that’s a very big difference in that.

We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.

So again, we’re confident about what we set out to do in the bill: middle class affordability, security for our seniors, and accountability to our children.

In trying to distance herself from Gruber, Pelosi’s spokesperson Drew Hammill told the Post that the minority leader meant that she didn’t know Gruber personally. He posted this statement via Twitter to clarify the comment.

Mr. Gruber, who has been touted as a leading architect of ObamaCare, according to Pelosi and Hammill, played no role in drafting th bill

Apparently “the stupidity of the American voter” is something the Democrats are clinging to, somewhat like conservative cling to their guns and Bibles.

Justice Roberts Bought the Lie

Justice Roberts got ObamaCare wrong: ObamaCare was written as a fine because had it been written as a tax, it would not have passed. The American people bought this garbage legislation and SCOTUS gave it a stamp of approval.

President Obama wasn’t lying to conservatives, but rather liberals to get the Affordable Care Act passes. At least we know which group of people the Democrat party believes to be stupid, as no conservative believed the lies.

Chief Justice Roberts interpreted the law as written (a fine) to mean a tax. In Mr. Gruber’s words, “this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If the CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.” Words have meaning, especially in laws and legal proceedings. Justice Roberts bought the lie.

SCOTUS has the opportunity to get it right when the ACA comes before them again soon. We’ll understand if the letter of the law matters or if just the intent of the law is acceptable, no matter how fuzzy or deceitful the language . If intent is good enough, then our system of government is finished.

It’s just — you can’t do it — politically. You just literally cannot do it. OK, transparent financing. Let’s start with transparent financing – transparent spending. I mean, the, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If the CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay. So its written to do that. In terms of, in terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you get a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. Okay. Just like the lack of — people — transparent — lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. And, you know, it’s the second best argument, look, I wish Mark was right and we could make it all transparent, but I rather have this law than not. So its kind of like his reporter story, you know, yeah, there’s things I wish I could change, but rather have this law than not.

We should congratulate Mr. Gruber for his honesty.

1984: Just 30 Years Late

1984firstGeorge Orwell’s 1984 is a step closer to reality, albeit 30 years late. The top European Union court has deemed that if something on the Internet doesn’t suit you, it must be scrubbed. Left or right, this is a dangerous idea.

[T]he European Union’s top court that EU citizens have a legal right to control the availability of “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant or excessive” information about them, material that would otherwise remain permanently available via Google and other search engines. …

The “right to be forgotten” is the quintessential example of a slippery slope. It starts off with a seemingly undeniable premise, which is that the Web has made it easier than ever before to commit and disseminate libel and slander. Moreover, I think most of us would agree that there’s something decidedly discomfiting about the equally undeniable fact that a 12-year-old can post foolish comments about another person (or about himself) that will be universally accessible forever after. There oughta be a law, right? But the trouble with such arguments is that they have a way of running into the law of unintended consequences, at which point terrible things can happen. …

All this serves as a valuable reminder of how our existing notions of “truth” are being undermined by the migration of information from the printed page to cyberspace, which is infinitely malleable. George Orwell predicted as much when he wrote in Nineteen Eighty-Four of the ceaseless and insidious activities of the Ministry of Truth, one of whose functions was to alter previously published newspaper, magazine and encyclopedia articles to bring them into more perfect accord with the latest dictates of Big Brother. Any evidence to the contrary was promptly dropped down the nearest “memory hole” and whisked away to an incinerator. Today such rewriting is vastly easier: Any editor who longs to change history need only alter the electronic text of his online edition, instantly and at will. It’s carved in mush, not stone.”

Read the WSJ story Airbrushing the Internet

Neil Young: This Must Be a Joke

Neil Young: Special DeluxeThe talented Neil Young has released a turkey of a song, Who is Going to Stand Up. To make matters worse, but illustrates the hypocrisy of many celebrities that are concerned about global warming, this coincides with the release of his book Special Deluxe: A Memoir of Life and Cars. Last I checked, the vast majority of cars run on fossil fuels.

Young addresses the contradiction, in the epilogue, writing: “I would have to come clean about a lot of my feelings concerning fossil fuels, global warming, and American politics that might end up driving away readers. The automobile is only one symptom of the big problem, and the big problem is turning the ship of earth around and heading in a different direction.”


Lyrics “Who’s Going to Stand Up”

Protect the wild, tomorrow’s child
Protect the land from the greed of man
Take down the dams, stand up to oil
Protect the plants, and renew the soil

Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
Who’s gonna say that she’s had enough?
Who’s gonna take on the big machine?
Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
This all starts with you and me

Damn the dams, save the rivers
Starve the takers and feed the givers
Build a dream, save the world
We’re the people know as earth

Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
Who’s gonna say that she’s had enough?
Who’s gonna take on the big machine?
Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
This all starts with you and me

Ban fossil fuel, draw the line
Before we build, one more pipeline
Ban fracking now, save the waters
And build a life, for our sons and daughters

Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
Who’s gonna say that she’s had enough?
Who’s gonna take on the big machine?
Who’s gonna stand up and save the earth?
This all starts with you and me

Who’s gonna stand up…

Obama the Albatross

Sen Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) was laughed at by the audience at the New Hampshire Senate Debate on Tuesday when she would not give a clear answer on whether she approved of the job President Obama is doing.

Watch the video and read the full story on Breitbart

10 Life Lessons to Change the World

Ten life lessons to change the world, from Naval Admiral William H. McRaven, University of Texas (Austin) 2014 Commencement Address.

  1. Make your bed. You will have accomplished something as your first act of the day.
  2. Find someone to help you accomplish your goals.
  3. Measure people by the size of their heart and skill.
  4. Get over trying to be perfect. No one is.
  5. You will fail. It will make you stronger.
  6. Be fearless and innovative.
  7. Don’t back down from danger, stand your ground.
  8. Be your very best in the darkest moments.
  9. Never give up hope. Inspire others with your hope.
  10. Don’t ever give up.

Obama Gets His Briefings from News

obamasurprised
Barack Obama only read about (insert scandal here) in the newspaper.” This incompetence is what we get for elevating a mediocre community organizer and hack lawyer to the office of President.

Listen to Obama, ‎Jay Carney and others explain that they are getting their information from the news:


Maybe President Obama should stay off the golf course once and a while and go to briefings.

empty-chair-obama

“GM has been firmly anti-woman”

More to come on this idiocy. I heard some childish spokesperson on Mitch Albom’s show own WJR claiming that Angela Davis would be a more appropriate commencement speaker than CEO Marry Barra. We’re no fan of General Motors, especially the illegal takeover and bankruptcy of the company by the Obama administration, but this child-spokesperson had nothing good to say about GM nor Marry Barra, and what she did say was incoherent.

Audio to come. In the interim, here is the infantile manifesto of this organization.

GM’s CEO Should Not Be Honored at Commencement

Resolution issued by the Graduate Employees Organization (AFT Local 3550, AFL-CIO) and approved by the Student Union of Michigan, April 2014

General Motors CEO Mary Barra will give the UM commencement address on May 3 and will also be awarded an honorary doctorate by the university. According to the University Record, “Barra has established an exemplary career in the predominantly male world of the auto industry.” The same article praises her “vision,” “business acumen,” and “leadership.”

The results of GM’s business acumen are nothing to applaud, though. Barra and her company have done enormous harm to people and the environment. Although Barra is now being depicted as some sort of feminist, it is in fact women who have been the most negatively affected by her and her company—after all, it is women who tend to bear the heaviest burdens when family members lose their jobs, when the banks foreclose on struggling households, when the environment is poisoned, and when people are killed in preventable car accidents.

The most visible evidence of GM’s crimes is the ongoing scandal over its belated vehicle recalls. So far, defective ignition switches in the Chevy Cobalt and other models have been linked to at least 13 deaths, and possibly hundreds more. Each replacement ignition switch would have cost only 57 cents. But 57 cents was too much. Instead, GM lied to the victims’ families and even threatened them. Barra’s precise level of knowledge about the defects is still unclear, but recent evidence confirms that she had been aware of certain problems in the Cobalt and other vehicles several years ago (she served in several senior VP positions for GM prior to becoming CEO in January).

The recall scandal is just the tip of the GM iceberg. A less publicized scandal is GM’s illegal firing of injured workers from its Chevrolet plant in Colombia. GM cut corners on plant safety and, when workers were injured, it fired them and got corrupt Colombian officials to cover it up. Again, the effect on women has been disastrous. While the injured male workers have waged a public campaign for justice, their wives, daughters, and mothers have shouldered the private burdens of sustaining their hungry families. Jhessica Ospina, whose disabled father Manuel was fired by GM, has been forced to work 60 or more hours a week to help keep her family in their home. Jennifer Bohórquez, the wife of injured worker Carlos Trujillo, has borne the primary responsibility of caring for the family’s four small children.
Many more examples could be cited: GM’s abuse of assembly line workers here in the United States, its role in creating Michigan’s foreclosure crisis, its major contribution to global warming, and its dumping of toxic chemicals in the United States, Colombia, and elsewhere. GM is also linked to the U.S. military-industrial complex that has profited off human suffering in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where women have been disproportionately impacted by the sexual violence and multitude of hardships that accompany war; Mary Barra herself sits on the board of General Dynamics, the sixth-biggest Pentagon contractor. All of these issues are women’s rights issues, and in each case GM has been firmly anti-woman.

The Graduate Employees Organization at the University of Michigan calls upon the administration to rescind Mary Barra’s speaking invitation and honorary doctorate, and to replace Barra with someone who has instead made a positive contribution to women’s rights and human welfare.

1 2  Scroll to top