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.


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

FT169: “College is more about making Democrat voters than giving students marketable skills.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 10th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Another Big Reason why College Tuition has been Soaring is because of Public Sector Unions

College tuition is rising.  With increases greater than the rate of inflation.  With some tuition costs growing greater than costs in health care.  There are many reasons for this.  Unlike private sector business colleges cannot produce more with less.  That is, they cannot use productivity gains to educate more students with fewer professors.  Auto manufacturers can use robots to replace people on the assembly line.  Reducing wage, pension and health care costs.  The biggest costs that go into a car.

Universities are big campuses with lots of buildings that basically do one thing.  Sit students down in front of a professor.  This hasn’t change since the first days of higher education.  The only things that have changed are the buildings are a lot nicer.  And university employees all have better pay, pensions and health care than they used to have.  Which is why tuition costs keep rising.  For universities, unlike auto manufacturers, can’t speed up their assembly lines by using robots instead of people.  But it’s not only the auto manufacturers and the universities that have high labor, pension and health care costs.

Another big reason why university tuition has been soaring is because of public sector unions.  Who have negotiated some extremely generous union contracts.  Cities and states everywhere are drowning under the costs of their labor, pension and health care costs.  Forcing them to cut back spending elsewhere to pay for those generous public sector union contracts.  So they’re cutting back on their subsidies for higher education.  And what the state cuts the universities just tack on to the student’s tuition bill.

Universities lure High School Kids into College with Promises of a Big Paycheck for an Easy Degree

Today’s tuition costs will saddle a student with the kind of debt that can pay for a house.  A very big house.  One of those McMansions.  Depending on where you go to college.  Which is all well and fine if a student gets a high-paying job after graduating.  Sadly, though, a lot aren’t.  A lot are taking jobs that they could have gotten out of high school.  Without that massive student loan debt.  Debt they will be paying for a long, long time.  Making it very difficult for them to buy a house and start a family.  And the reason for this is too many students are taking degrees with no market value in a high-tech economy.

Today’s businesses are looking for people with a strong science and math background.  For this is what businesses in a high-tech economy need.  Not people with degrees in anthropology.  Philosophy.  Women’s studies.  Art history.  Comparative literature.  Communication.  Or a myriad of other degrees that a business just can’t use.  Yet our universities are selling these degrees.  Telling their prospective students who don’t want the heavy math load a science and engineering degree requires that these other degrees are just as good.  And that they, too, can have that big paycheck.  Just like engineers and chemists and doctors and physicists.  All they need is a student loan.  And the world can be their oyster.

So these kids starting their adult lives start that life by making one of the worst decisions of their lives.  Because they really want to go to college.  For the fun.  Universities lure these high school kids into higher education.  Appealing to them as adults.  Who can live away from home out from under the judgmental eyes of their parents.  For on a college campus there is a lot of fun to be had.  Sex.  Drugs.  Alcohol.  And health services.  Such as birth control and access to abortion services.  For all the consequence-free fun a high school graduate could ever ask for.  This is the bait.  And all they have to do to have all of that grownup fun is to borrow enormous sums of money that they will probably never be able to pay back.

Liberals say You should Never Rush to Judgment, Especially if we can’t Blame Conservatives

For the universities, though, it’s not just the money.  For their curriculum is the product of those Sixties’ radicals.  Who tried to overthrow capitalism.  And replace it with communism.  As they were never able to incite the workers’ revolt in the United States they changed tack.  And continued their revolution from the inside.  By becoming college professors.  Who eventually got tenure.  And went on to write the curriculum.  Basically an anti-capitalist, America is responsible for all the world’s problems and an anti-religious/anti-tradition curriculum.  Hence the socially liberal campus where anything goes.  And those college degrees that have no market value.  That advanced a relentless attack on capitalism and business.  And made their students eschew American greatness.

This curriculum has helped President Obama win reelection despite a horrific economic record.  And a brutal attack on the American mission in Benghazi.  The result of a failed foreign policy that tried to make nice with America’s enemies.  Who have been trying—and at times succeeding—to kill Americans.  The Fort Hood shooting by a radical Islamist.  The underwear bomber (failed Islamist plot).  The Times Square bomber (failed Islamist plot).  As well as other smaller and lesser known incidents.  Both successful and failed Islamist plots.  Then Benghazi.  And the death of 4 Americans.  Despite earlier witnessing an increase of anti-Western violence in the city.  A resurgent al Qaeda.  And an anniversary date holy to radical Islam.  9/11.  The U.S. mission in Benghazi requested additional security.  The Obama administration denied it as it would not fit the 2012 campaign meme.  ‘Osama bin Laden is dead.  And General Motors is alive.’  President Obama had won the War on Terror with the killing of bin Laden.  Therefore, they couldn’t have a terrorist attack in Benghazi before the 2012 election.  So the Obama administration made up the story about an anti-Islamic YouTube video that led to a spontaneous protest in front of the U.S. mission.  A protest that naturally got out of hand when the people pulled RPGs and mortars out of their pockets and started a military assault on the American compound.

The Obama administration then started to disseminate the lie.  They sent Secretary Rice to the Sunday morning television shows with severely edited talking points to downplay any role of radical Islam.  Then President Obama and Secretary Clinton made numerous public statements denouncing that YouTube video.  Even made a video to air in Pakistan.  And the mainstream media, the product of that anti-capitalist, America is responsible for all the world’s problems and anti-religious/anti-tradition curriculum never questioned anything.  They just dutifully carried the administration’s water.  And now that signs of a cover-up are coming out the administration is saying the only reason why they made any edits to those talking points was to prevent anyone from rushing to judgment.  Something they say we should never do.  Especially if we can’t blame conservatives.  Or Christians.  Like they did with the YouTube video that proved to be a red herring.  And as they—and their friends in the mainstream media—have rushed to judgment in the past.  By quickly blaming radical conservatives for every other massacre.  Only to see it turn out to be someone who wasn’t a conservative.  But a radical Islamist(s) instead.  Or someone suffering from mental illness.

Of course this wouldn’t be possible without higher education.  Where college is more about making Democrat voters than giving students marketable skills.  One could even blame those deaths in Benghazi on that anti-capitalist, America is responsible for all the world’s problems and anti-religious/anti-tradition curriculum.  (As well as being the reason why these kids can’t find any high-paying jobs; the vote for anti-business Democrat candidates whose policies discourage economic growth.)  Because protecting Americans in Benghazi would have been bad for the Democrats in 2012.  So perhaps we should be addressing the high cost of higher education.  And follow the example of the automotive industry.  By producing more graduates with fewer professors.  And put an end to the liberal Shangri la of the college campus.  By replacing the bulk of higher education with online studies.  For if a 15-year old girl can make medical decisions about the morning after pill by reading the contents of the packaging without consulting a doctor or parent then she can get her higher education online.  Without all the fun.  Or student loan debt.


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

Obama Playing with Terror Alerts like George W. Bush?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 9th, 2010

The Left said George W. Bush played with the terror alert levels for political purposes.  To boost their chances at congressional elections.  By scaring the people.  He even had Al Jazeera broadcast Osama bin Laden accepting responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on the eve of his reelection.  To distract the people from the quagmire that had become the Iraq War.  That Bush and those rascally Republicans were worse than Nazis.  That’s what the Left would have you believe.  They, who are pure as the wind-driven snow, would never play with national security for political gain.  Never.  Ever.

(Interestingly, many on the Left claimed Bush was using Osama bin Laden’s broadcast for political gain.  While at the same time many on the Left were claiming that Bush masterminded the 9/11 attacks for political gain.  Sort of a damn Bush if he did and damn Bush if he didn’t thing.  Guess it covers all the bases.)

Well, some would disagree with that.  But you won’t find anything in the American mainstream media.  As apparatchiks of the Democratic Party, they only report the continued successes of the president and the Democrats in Congress.  Dutifully following their talking points.  They attack the Republicans.  The Tea Party.  And when one of their own is caught in a lie, cheats on their spouse, says something inappropriate, commits a crime, facilitates the subprime mortgage crisis, etc., they circle the wagons.  Become apologists.  Deflect.  Then blame George W. Bush.

To find someone who will dare say the king is wearing no clothes, you have to turn to the British media.  And what are they saying?  Well, the Guardian has an interesting article by Simon Tisdall and Richard Norton-Taylor (see Barack Obama accused of exaggerating terror threat for political gain).  And by the title you can see that there are some who believe that the Left would play with national security for political gain.  Even with the national security of our allies.

So who’s saying this?

A US terror alert issued this week about al-Qaida plots to attack targets in western Europe was politically motivated and not based on credible new information, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials have told the Guardian.

What instigated this?

The non-specific US warning, which despite its vagueness led Britain, France and other countries to raise their overseas terror alert levels, was an attempt to justify a recent escalation in US drone and helicopter attacks inside Pakistan that have “set the country on fire”, said Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain.

For what purpose?

Hasan, a veteran diplomat who is close to Pakistan’s president, suggested the Obama administration was playing politics with the terror threat before next month’s midterm congressional elections, in which the Republicans are expected to make big gains.

He also claimed President Obama was reacting to pressure to demonstrate that his Afghan war strategy and this year’s troop surge, which are unpopular with the American public, were necessary.

I know, if you didn’t know any better, you’d swear the Left was talking about Bush again.  Could it be that, perhaps, the Left isn’t as pure as the wind-driven snow?  Possibly.  And by ‘possibly’ I mean ‘yes’.  It sure would be nice to hear the American media cover this story.  But with the Democrats in control of the White House, Senate and House, they’re all for cross border incursions.  Blowing things up.  And killing people.  Apparently.

But it’s just politics.  I mean, what’s the worst that can happen?

“The government does not want to go down this road,” he said. “But people feel abused. If they [the Americans] kill someone again, they will react. There is a figure that there are 3,000 American personnel in Pakistan. They would be very easy targets.”

Even Bush didn’t draw threats from our allies to kill Americans in their countries.  An interesting development for the man that the Norwegians awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to about a year ago today.


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

Who’s a Bigger Crook? Christine O’Donnell or Your Typical Senator?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2010

Christine O’Donnell, Republican candidate for the Joe Biden’s Senate seat in Delaware, is apparently a crook.  Or so says Melanie Sloan, executive director of the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).  According to Sloan she embezzled campaign funds and evaded taxes.  Like Timmy Giethner.  Charlie Rangel.  And [enter any Democrat or RINO here].  Oh my.

Sloan said, “…Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on much these days, but both sides should agree on one point: Thieves belong in jail, not the United States Senate.”  (See O’Donnell embezzlement accusation called ‘frivolous’ on the Washington Times website).   She’s a little late.  The Senate is a den of thieves.  If O’Donnell is a crook, she’ll fit right in.  If not, maybe she can make a difference.  Make the business of the Senate about the people and not the Senators’ pockets.

Yes, embezzlement is bad.  But the rape and pillage of a nation is a tad bit worse.  And by a ‘tad’ I mean whole frickin’ lot.

Perhaps I’m not being fair.  I mean, both congressional chambers are corrupt.  It was their legislation, after all, that caused the current recession/depression.  The subprime mortgage crisis.  Putting people into houses who had no chance in hell of paying off their mortgages.  The whole point of a subprime mortgage was to help unqualified people get qualified for a mortgage.  Why?  The government was reviewing their books.  And if they didn’t like what they saw, well, they made it known.  And, of course, any deficiency in minority approvals guaranteed a visit from Jesse Jackson or some other fair housing advocate.  The message was clear.  Approve.  Or else.  And they did. Then all those ARM interest rates reset.  And, well, you know the rest of the story.

It’s kind of funny.  Not in a ‘ha ha’ kind of way but more of a tragic, ironic way.  By trying to put more people into houses we may end up making more people homeless.  Which sometimes happens when a long-ass recession turns into depression.  Funny.  That wacky government.

I don’t know much about Christine O’Donnell.  But she has an ‘R’ next to her name.  And if we get enough ‘R’s in the Senate perhaps we’ll be able to return to the good old days.  When gridlock ruled.  Remember those days?  Good times.  One thing you can say about gridlock.  It’ll be a whole lot harder to create another subprime mortgage crisis if the government can’t conspire against the people.

It’s hard to take an attack on a Republican serious anymore.  With the biased media and their talking points, the Hollywood elite and the college professors corrupting our youth, it’s worse than the fable of the boy who cried wolf.  After awhile you just lose credibility.  When you know what they will say before they say it, what they say just doesn’t matter anymore.  We get it.  Republican bad.  Why?  Because they’re Republican.  ‘Nuff said.

I don’t know about you, but that’s just a weak argument.


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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #7: “High on the endangered species list is the objective journalist.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2010

JOURNALISM USED TO be about gathering information.  Journalists answered the six questions: who, what, when, where, why and how.  For instance, if someone was murdered, they would ask witnesses who, what, when, where, why and how.  They’d then write their story.  In the process, though, they’d never say anything like the dead son of a bitch had it coming.  Even if he was a bad, bad man.  Because that was opinion.  And journalists dealt in facts, not opinion.  At least, they used to.

Before journalists report today they check their talking points.  On the Left, if a radical pro-life activist kills an abortionist it gets huge coverage.  If a leftist anti-American radical kills a group of soldiers on an American military base, though, it doesn’t.  Radicalism on the Right is all right and encouraged.  Radicalism on the Left is swept under the rug as best as it can.

We’re talking about journalists in the mainstream media (MSM) here.  FOX News ran both stories without editorializing.

FOX NEWS IS the most attacked media outlet perhaps in the world.  It’s them against everyone else.  That fact alone should tell you something.  It tells me something.

Lots of things come in twos.  The struggle between good and evil.  Great sport rivalries.  Binary numbers.  And, apparently, news.  There’s the news put out by the MSM.  And the news put out by FOX News.  They both accuse the other of bias.  FOX says the MSM leans left.  The MSM says FOX leans right. 

But sometimes the MSM is being disingenuous when they include opinion pundits like Glenn Beck.  He’s not a news reporter.  He provides opinion.  The Left doesn’t like his opinion.  That’s okay, but you can’t call FOX biased because of Beck.

THERE ARE MANY examples of bias on the Left.  And it’s coming from their news departments, not their pundits.  We’ve noted two already.  Here’s another.  One of the biggest was and continues to be about the Reagan tax rate cuts.  The political Left repeats ad nauseam that the tax rate cuts exploded the deficit.  And the MSM repeats the lie.  The tax rate cuts didn’t explode the deficit, though.  The facts are there for anyone to check.  The lower tax rates brought in more tax money into the treasury.  No, it was explosive spending that exploded the deficit.  Somehow the MSM always omits this very important and salient fact when discussing the effects of tax rate cuts.

The MSM broke Watergate and Iran-Gate (both with Republican targets) but not Trooper-Gate (the one with Paula Jones and the Democratic governor).  When another trooper-gate broke out (this one with a Republican governor) the MSM was all over that like ugly on a pig.  Ideology, apparently, matters in determining what is news.

The MSM did not follow or investigate President Clinton’s adolescent daughter.  That’s good.  When the MSM learned that Sarah Palin’s unmarried adolescent daughter was pregnant, though, lookout.  They pounced on her like a pack of hyenas.   Not good.  The political left, though, was okay with it.  Even the feminists didn’t object.  Or, if they did, they were not very loud.  Political expediency apparently dictates whether an adolescent daughter is off limits.

When it comes to the MSM, it would appear bias counts.  News is news when it agrees with your bias.  News is not news when it doesn’t.

THEN BIAS BECOMES political activism.  Ronald Reagan won two presidential elections with huge majorities.  In his reelection he carried all but one state.  He didn’t pretend to be a Democrat.  He campaigned as a conservative.  A lot of Democrats liked his message.  They became Reagan Democrats.

The 8 years of Reagan was an embarrassment to the Left.  When it was conservative versus liberal, conservatism won.  At least that’s what history has shown.  The Left took the biggest drubbings ever during the Reagan elections.  And they weren’t happy about that.  They wanted an opponent in the 2008 general election who wasn’t a bona fide conservative.  Enter John McCain.

The MSM fawned over John McCain during the 2008 Republican primaries.  They said he was the future of the Republican Party.  Or should be.  They said the era of Reagan was over.  And the MSM hammered home that message.  McCain good.  Reagan bad.  Moderate independent good.  Conservative bad.  The MSM lauded McCain’s ability to reach across the aisle.  They warned people about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism.   

DURING PRIMARY ELECTIONS, politicians compete against each other for their party’s base.  In 2008, though, some Independents and Democrats crossed over and voted in the Republican primaries.  Republicans, Independents and Democrats, then, nominated the Republican candidate.  Kinda defeats the purpose of having a Republican primary election.

When it got time for the general election, then, well, you can see what happened.  The independents and Democrats who voted for McCain during the primaries then voted for the bona fide Democrat in the general election, not McCain.  Surprise, surprise.

The MSM got what they wanted.  The general election was not conservative versus liberal.  It was moderate/independent versus moderate/independent.  And the Democrat version won.

IT WOULD APPEAR that not only is the MSM biased, but they are working with the Democrat Party.  The Democrats issue talking points and the MSM dutifully recites them on their media outlets.  The only one not toeing the party line is FOX News.  And if you believe in a free press, then that’s a good thing.  It’s good to have at least one objective voice left for the people.


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