The changing of the Benghazi Talking Points for Political Reasons was not Political according to CIA

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Susan Rice said it.  Hillary Clinton said it.  And President Obama said it.  Over and over again.  The attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was due to a YouTube video that incited a spontaneous protest that resulted with an attack on the mission with assault weapons and pre-sighted mortars.  Highly improbable but that’s what they said.  Over and over again.  It wasn’t a terrorist attack.  Because President Obama killed Osama bin Laden and won the War on Terror.  The 2012 campaign slogan was Osama bin Laden is dead.  General Motors is alive.  And al Qaeda is on the ropes.  On the run.  No longer a threat to the United States.  That’s why we had to reelect President Obama.  For he sure couldn’t point to any successes when it came to the economy.

Of course beefing up security in Benghazi would have harmed that narrative.  So while the British were pulling out of Benghazi because a resurgent al Qaeda was making it too dangerous the U.S. State Department denied Ambassador Steven’s request for additional security.  Because a resurgent al Qaeda was making it very dangerous in Benghazi.  But the American people didn’t hear that.  No.  All they heard was that Osama bin Laden is dead.  General Motors is alive.  And al Qaeda is on the ropes.  On the run.  No longer a threat to the United States.  Of course the murder of four Americans in Benghazi said otherwise (see Former CIA official: No politics in Benghazi memo by DONNA CASSATA, AP, posted 4/2/2014 on Yahoo! News).

The CIA’s former deputy director said Wednesday he deleted references to terrorism warnings from widely disputed talking points on the deadly 2012 Benghazi attack to avoid the spy agency’s gloating at the expense of the State Department…

Morell, a 33-year veteran of the agency who has served six Republican and Democratic presidents, insisted that politics had no bearing on the revisions to the talking points and said he was under no pressure to protect either President Barack Obama or then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton…

The White House, wrapped up in a fierce presidential campaign, made only minor editorial changes to the talking points, according to the onetime CIA official.

The intelligence community’s talking points, compiled for members of Congress, suggested the Sept. 11 attack stemmed from protests in Cairo and elsewhere over an anti-Islamic video rather than an assault by extremists.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of trying to mislead the American people about an act of terrorism in the final weeks before the November election.

Morell deleted references to extremist threats linked to al-Qaida in versions of the talking points that were used by Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in a series of Sunday talk show appearances. Morell said his actions were driven by the information provided by intelligence community analysts and the Defense Department.

The deleted references to terrorism in the talking points were not political?  His revisions to the talking points were not to protect either President Barack Obama or then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Funny.  As that’s exactly what they did.  They protected President Obama and helped him win reelection.  And they protected Hillary Clinton.  Who is now the Democrat frontrunner for 2016.  Well, so far, at least.

The left is still trying to blame 9/11 (the first one in 2001) on President Bush and Condoleezza Rice.  For missing the signs that al Qaeda was a threat.  And that something big was coming.  Can you imagine the fury over Benghazi had it happened under President Bush’s watch?  While they were in a campaign season?  There would be no talking point revisions.  They would have lambasted President Bush and Condoleezza Rice.  The press would have torn into this story like a pack of hyenas tearing into a gazelle.  The media would have crapped all over the Bush administration.  But the Obama administration?  When the president, Hilary Clinton and Susan Rice all lied about a YouTube video?  Over and over again?  When the CIA revised the talking points so it didn’t sound like there was a problem with terrorism anymore?  All lies.  And a huge cover-up.  But we hear nothing but the sound of crickets from the media.

Sure, they can say it wasn’t political.  But the result of those revisions was very political.  It helped President Obama win reelection.  Because he had al Qaeda on the run.  Which he didn’t.  In fact, his foreign policy has made the world a more dangerous place.  For al Qaeda is resurgent everywhere.  In Egypt.  Libya.  Syria.  Iraq.  Afghanistan.  Yemen.  And elsewhere.  Oh, and Iran is working on a nuclear bomb.  And Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea to Russia.  Because he could.  This stuff is happening in part because people voted for President Obama believing the lie that al Qaeda was on the run.  When it wasn’t.  And because we reelected President Obama his failed foreign policy continues.  As the bad people of the world stand up and take notice.

The United States of America under President Obama is weak.  It may talk the talk but it sure doesn’t walk the walk.  So the bad guys are getting bolder.  Knowing the time is right to push the United States around.  For we are a sleeping bear that just can’t be wakened.  Apparently.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chinese Girls can’t Catch a Break from the Womb to University

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 10th, 2012

Week in Review

Chinese girls just can’t get a break.  From the moment of conception it’s an uphill battle for them.  Because of China’s limit on family size and a culture that favors boys a lot of girls don’t make it out of the womb.  Those who do are treated as second class citizens.  In their families.  And in society.  Because Chinese culture just favors boys.  And now this.  Girls face another injustice for just being smarter than boys (see Bars should be lowered for boys in exams, lawmaker says by Gao Changxin and Wang Hongyi posted 3/9/2012 on China Daily USA).

A lawmaker’s proposal to give male students gender-specific education and easier access to college has sparked controversy.

Wang Ronghua, who is also director of the Shanghai Education Development Foundation, said male students are increasingly under-represented in the country’s leading schools and colleges, and are outperformed by female students in college entrance exams.

This under-representation, he claimed, will have a negative impact on the country’s science and technology innovation and international competitiveness…

The reason for that, Wang said, is that male students mature slower than their female counterparts in self-control and language abilities, which are emphasized in the current entrance exams.

Wang recommends that high school education should be more “differentiated” to give male students opportunities to develop their natural advantages in creative and practical skills…

Sun Baohong, a researcher at Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, said boys don’t do so well at school because they are generally spoiled by their families, as Chinese society traditionally has a preference for sons.

Talk about a political hot potato.  How does an American liberal feminist comment on this story?  Who supports affirmative action to increase the underrepresentation of black students in American universities?  Will they agree in an affirmative action program to increase the enrollment of underrepresented boys in Chinese universities?  Or will they oppose it?  While supporting that same policy in America?  A fascinating conundrum for the liberal feminist.  And one that would be equally fascinating to hear one respond to.

This is something that Condoleezza Rice can sympathize with as both a woman and as a black American.  Whose parents taught her she had to work harder than her white peers to get as far in life as they did.  And she did.  Without complaining about the injustice of it.  And look where it took her.  The fourth most powerful position in America in the presidential line of succession.  Secretary of State.  No small achievement.  For a woman.  Or a man. 

So why are the Chinese girls doing better than the boys?  For the same reason Condoleezza Rice had to work harder than her white peers.  Because her white peers were treated like Chinese boys where she grew up.  The deck was stacked against her.  While her white peers were spoiled by their families.  And by society.  But having to work harder made her smarter.  And more successful.  Just like those Chinese girls.  Who are smarter than the Chinese boys.  And these girls can be more successful one day.  If only they had the same opportunities that Condoleezza Rice had in the segregated South.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #12: “Feminists will forgive misogyny if the misogynist is a self-proclaimed feminist.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 6th, 2010

MOST WHO CONSIDER themselves feminists aren’t very militant.  And most aren’t probably that hardcore on the ‘equal’ thing.  Men and women are different.  They know this.  And that’s okay.  Many feminists don’t mind when a man holds a door for them.  Or that they have to sit down to pee.  You don’t have to be a man.  You can enjoy your femininity and have a career.  No one says you can’t.  Well, almost no one.

There is a very loud, a very angry and a very militant group of feminists that beg to differ.  It’s not that big of a group.  It seems like it, but that’s just because they get some prime exposure.  In the entertainment industry.  Some media outlets.  And through some rich and powerful friends.

This group believes in absolute equality.  You don’t dare hold a door for them.  Or compliment them on their appearance.  And if you ever think about patting them on the fanny, just realize that you may lose that hand in the process.  And probably your two best friends as well.  Then they’ll say something like “how do you like me now, bitch” to the newly castrated man.

Don’t call them the fairer sex.  Or the weaker sex.  They don’t like it.  They can be crude in their speech for they eschew any preconceived notions of lady-like behavior.    They’ll drop the f-bomb at will and ask a guy how’s it hanging.  They like their behavior rough and coarse.  Just like a man’s.  Like I said, absolute equality.

THESE HARDCORE MILITANT feminists (HMFs) have one overriding concern.  And that is not to let anything interfere with their chosen career or profession.  Anything.  And they’ve had some successes.  Glass ceilings have been shattering and restraints on women’s advancement are falling.  Everywhere.  Everywhere but one.  The uterus.

The HMFs don’t just eschew lady-like behavior, they detest the biological tyranny of the female reproductive system.  The uterus has destroyed more careers than the exclusivity of any old boys club.  Pregnancy.  The scourge of unbridled advancement in the HMF’s world.  Bodily change.  Leaves of absence.  And the possibility that the temporary leave may become a permanent one.  Motherhood.  Children.  The very thought of it sickens them.  And infuriates them.  It just ain’t fair.

They fight this oppression with religious fervor.  And their vehicle is reproductive rights.  Abortion.  It is their holy grail.  They’ve fought long and hard to get it.  And, by god, they intend to keep it.  And they base their political world on it.

At least, that’s what one would surmise based on the historical evidence.

CONDOLEEZA RICE HAS had a remarkable career that set a lot of firsts.  She has an incredible resume and achieved everything on it on her own.  From her PhD in political science to the third most powerful position in the country, Secretary of State, and everything in between, she worked hard and advanced herself.  On pure merit.  Unlike Hillary Clinton whose rise to fame was courtesy of the coattails of a successful man.

You would think that between the two, feminists would hold up Rice as the ideal.  She made it in the man’s world.  Shattered ceilings.  Set records.  Was in fact more successful than most men.  Clinton had to go old school and rely on a successful marriage for political success.  But, of course, it is Clinton they hold up as the ideal.  Not Rice.  Why?

Clinton is a Democrat.  Rice is a Republican.  Clinton is pro-choice.  Rice is less so.  Though very religious, she is kind of libertarian when it comes to abortion.  She’s not pro on-demand abortion.  She believes there should be certain restrictions.  And that’s enough.  Between the two, Clinton supports abortion more.  So the HMFs hold her up as the ideal.

STAND BY YOUR man.  Not exactly a feminist dictate.  If a woman’s husband has a history of extramarital activity, few feminists would say to stand by that man.  They may say something like if he has a problem keeping it in his pants, then just cut it off.  For there are few things as hurtful and humiliating than infidelity.

Bill Clinton has apparently had a problem of keeping it in his pants.  There’ve been many accusations about many women.  The Clintons met all of these with righteous indignation.  His wife attributed them to political attacks from a vast right wing conspiracy.  And she stood by her man.  Even after the infamous blue dress.

Well, it turned out that at least one of the accusations were true.  Now, Bill Clinton was personable, but he was no George Clooney.  Or a Tom Jones.  Women weren’t throwing their panties at him.  He just wasn’t sexy.  So it wasn’t a passionate animal attraction.  No, it wasn’t that.  It was power.  He was the most powerful man in America.  And she was just a 20 something year old intern.  He was 50ish.  He took advantage of her awe of his power.  And stuck his penis in her mouth.  And a cigar tube in her vagina.  But it wasn’t a big deal.  Most men just joked about it.  Thought it was pretty cool.  As long it wasn’t their daughter’s mouth.  Or their daughter’s vagina.

MEN ARE PIGS.  It’s no secret.  So it’s no big shock that a lot of men were okay with a little oral sex in the Oval Office.  They look at the young women in their offices.  They talk about them.  What they would like to do with them.  Some go too far.  Abuse their position of power.  They make inappropriate remarks.  Inappropriate contact.  And then all hell breaks loose.  And rightly so.

Get a job today and you have to sit through compulsory sexual harassment training.  Before you start working.  Employers live in fear of sexual harassment.  If they don’t do enough to prevent it, or if they don’t act fast enough when it happens, the lawyers sue.  The lawyers sue even when they do.  It’s a minefield.  One misstep along the way and BOOM.  Lawsuit.  We will not tolerate any abuse of power.  Unless, of course, you’re president of the United States.

WHAT IS MISOGYNY?  A hatred of women.  Objectifying them for pleasure.  The attitude that women are good for only one thing.  Sex.  A misogynist may ‘love’ being with women, but he doesn’t necessarily want to be with them.  Talk to them.  Or see them still there the following morning.  And he may leave cab fare out so they won’t be there later that evening after he’s ‘done’ with them.  Think of Charlie Harper from the television show Two and a Half Men.

A man that habitually cheats on his wife is a misogynist.  He doesn’t respect his wife.  Or the women he’s fooling around with.  He’s just having a good time.  Using them.  To fulfill some animal desire.  Thinking with the little head.  Always.

JFK was fooling around.  Teddy, too.  Two women died as a result.  Marilyn Monroe committed suicide.  Did she want more than JFK was willing to give?  Did she kill herself because of this?  We’ll never know.  All that we know is that she had sex with JFK.  And that she was depressed.

Ted Kennedy was probably going to have sex with Mary Jo Kopechne when he accidentally drove off that bridge.  His pregnant wife was home in bed at the time.  Kennedy panicked and left Kopechne to die.  This may have dashed his presidential ambitions, but he remained in the Senate for another 40 years or so.  A stalwart liberal.  The HMFs stood by him.  And JFK (posthumously, of course).  Teddy was pro-choice.  And a Catholic.  Talk about a coup for feminism.  They loved this man.  And never abandoned him.  I mean, Catholicism is about as anti-abortion as you can get.  In another era, the church would have excommunicated Teddy for such blasphemy.

The feminists never abandoned Clinton, either.  Bill or Hillary.  Why?  They’re pro-choice.  And with them in power, the HMFs know abortion will stay a choice.  So they will forgive the misogyny.  It’s like a ‘get out of jail free’ card.  In their world, he just didn’t do anything that bad.  Unlike someone else.

SAY THE NAME and the invectives fly.  Sarah Palin.  My, how the Left hates her.  And the HMFs.  Here’s another successful career woman, too.  She earned everything herself.  Didn’t marry into anything.  Again, a feminist ideal they could hold up for all young girls to emulate.  But they hate her.  Why?

They hate Sarah Palin because she’s that 1950s mom AND a successful career woman.  That just ain’t supposed to happen.  Remember, having babies is the scourge of career advancement.  Add to that the fact that she didn’t abort her last pregnancy after already having had 4 children.  Compound that with the fact that she didn’t change her mind about abortion after finding out her last baby would be born with Down Syndrome. 

Palin makes a mockery of the HMFs version of feminism.  Babies destroy careers.  Ergo, to succeed in a career, you can’t have babies.  But, being in a modern, liberated age, accidents happen.  And no one should punish a career woman for doing anything more than a man did.  She should be able to keep her career.  And abortion lets her.  That’s the model.  And then along comes Palin and blows that model all to hell.

THERE ARE MANY more examples.  All with a common theme.  Misogyny is okay as long as you are a feminist.  You can do pretty much whatever you want.  They won’t attack you.  They will, though, if you are pro-life.  Even if you only ‘lean’ pro-life.  Because if you take away abortion, the biological tyranny of the female reproductive system will go on unchecked.  And absolute equality will be but a fleeting memory.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,