The Hollywood Reporter Channels DaTechGuy on 13 Hours

Those Damn Pictures

Boss Tweed commenting on Thomas Nast’s cartoons

The Hollywood Reporter: ’13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi’: Film Review

Although it was never presented as such in news accounts, the siege on the diplomatic enclave and the secret CIA facility a mile away resembles in its dramatization nothing so much as the battle of the Alamo, albeit with a better ending as far as the Americans were concerned. As with so many accounts of Western involvement in the Middle East and other regions — Black Hawk Down, for starters — this is the story of a fiasco, one made less so by the fierce and selfless commitment of a few good men

DaTechGuy: The Alamo at San Antonio De Benghazi:

Like the Alamo these two men were fighting for time against a foe that outnumber them on the order of 50 to one. They understood that by going into that building their odds were very slim to come out alive but their honor and duty demanded that they act, that they do SOMETHING for their fellow Americans in danger and perhaps, just perhaps they would hold out long enough for help to arrive to rout their enemies.

The Hollywood Reporter: ’13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi’: Film Review

Although terrible damage has been done, the invaders are eventually repulsed by the small band of Americans doing some very expert shooting. Fighting continues on the streets in scenes that carry a violent video-game feel, a new wave of marauders is turned back and, as at the Alamo, a period of low-simmering anxiety permeates the night as a follow-up bombardment is awaited.

DaTechGuy: The Alamo at San Antonio De Benghazi:

Remember at the Alamo they beat back the first wave before sheer number overwhelmed the Texans who defended it.

Picture that night for a moment, In the end attackers lost 30-60% of their force but for the sake of argument let’s say only 25% of that was in the first wave. You’re attacking the compound, you’ve been attacking for hours and seen people fall all around you. You’ve been beaten back once and don’t actually know how many men are inside, what do you think would have happened if they heard the sound of a single helicopter gunship? A single plane? a single drone dropping a bomb on the force already bloodied at a rate that would cause most Western countries to declare the mission a disaster?

They would have run.

This movie is going to be hated by the left particularly when it makes a fortune.

The Age of Islamic Terror–1991 to present

See it?
See it?

By John Ruberry

“See it
For the same reason no one ever
Pointed a telescope at the sun”
The Clash, Red Angel Dragnet.

The last 100 years can safely be placed into the following eras. World War I (1914-1918), Interwar (1918-1939), World War II (1939-1945), the Cold War (1945-1991), and the present epoch, the Age of Islamic Terror (1991-present). Certainly there were Muslim-inspired terror acts before 1991, such as the assassination of Anwar Sadat ten years earlier by an Islamist. But the Cold War was the driving international political force then.

Now Islamic terror and the rest of the world’s response to it is the global impetus of change, for good or for ill.

And what has happened since 1991? Some of the atrocities include the first World Trade Center attack, Osama bin Laden’s two jihad fatwas, al Qaeda’s African embassy bombings and its bombing of the USS Cole, 9/11, the 2002 Bali bombings, the 3/11 bombings in Madrid, Hamas’ takeover of Gaza, Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon, the 7/7 bombings in London, Hezbollah’s war with Israel, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Fort Hood, thousands of sectarian murders in Iraq and Pakistan, the Boston Marathon bombings, the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria, Benghazi, the ascent of the Islamic State in Syria and northern Iraq, and this month’s Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris. This rundown reads like a listing of the theaters of conflict during the Second World War.

Sometimes radical Islamists attacks other Muslims, such as last week’s removal from office of the president of Yemen by Iranian-backed Shi’ites.

For the most part world leaders ignore or obfuscate the reality that they are living in the Age of Islamic Terror. President Obama regularly refers to Islamic terror as “violent extremism,” a term that is broad enough to include gang-bang murders on Chicago’s South Side. Great Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, says his nation is not at war with radical Islam, countering it’s “just a huge challenge our society faces.” But the war is there. Just as the sun is there as well–even if we don’t point a telescope at it.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Getting Caught Off-Guard is Not a Leadership Strategy

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT — “The Obama administration has been caught off guard…”

Fill in the blank.

The most recent version is that the Obama administration has been caught off guard by the escalation of violence in Iraq:

The Obama administration has been caught off guard by the worsening situation in Iraq, and Senator Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) is pointing to the failures of the president’s intelligence team as the reason.

I’m not real sure how they could be caught off guard by this situation unless the intelligence team is busy catapulting cows across the great divide or something.  Pretty much everyone could see this one coming.

The administration was also recently caught “off guard” by the Bowe Berghdahl backlash:

The White House has been caught off guard by the negative reaction to the deal that freed Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the last American prisoner of war in Afghanistan.

It has been particularly surprised by criticism of Bergdahl, who is accused of walking away from his unit shortly before being abducted by the Taliban.

Again, what?  How could they not see that backlash coming?  A five-for-one prisoner swap using Gitmo terrorists?  Nah.  No worries.  Go for it.

Team Obama was also caught off guard on the VA scandal:

The White House tried Tuesday to douse flames of criticism over allegations that dozens of veterans have died because of gross mismanagement at Veterans Affairs hospitals.

President Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, met frustrated Democrats on Capitol Hill who are outraged by reports of secret waiting lists used by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

And they were caught off guard by the NSA scandal, by Fast and Furious, by the failure of the Obamacare rollout, and by the Benghazi outrage.

Say what you will about this administration, but it does not instill a feeling of well being or of safety.  The legacy of this administration is one of corruption, of ineptitude, and of dishonesty.  We are considerably weaker that we were when this man was elected.

It will only get worse; I do not see this administration taking any steps whatsoever to ensure they are not caught “off guard” again; I don’t see any signs that this administration cares about being ON guard.

Like the fox guarding the hen house, I’d say.

Getting caught off guard is not an effective leadership strategy.


Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

‘Dude, this was like two years ago’

By Fausta Rodriguez Wertz

Before you read this post, keep in mind that an attack on an American embassy or consulate is an attack on American soil. The attack occurred on the 12th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack.

The Twitchy guys had a field day with The Breakfast Club-like response from former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor:


Bret Baier: According to the emails and the timeline, the CIA circulates new talking points after they remove the mention of al-Qaeda, and then, at 6:21, the White House, you,
Tommy Vietor: Me.
BB: add a line about the administration warning of September 10th, of social media reports calling for demonstrations. True?
TV: I . . . believe so.
BB: Did you also change attacks to demonstrations in the talking points?
TV: Maybe. I don’t really remember.
BB: You don’t remember?
TV: Dude, this was like two years ago.

Let’s interrupt this for a second to raise the issue of the video:
Andrew McCarthy, who convicted the Blind Sheik over the first World Trade Center attack, points out (emphasis added),

In the weeks before September 11, 2012, these jihadists plotted to attack the U.S. embassy in Cairo. In fact, the Blind Sheikh’s son threatened a 1979 Iran-style raid on the embassy: Americans would be taken hostage to ransom for the Blind Sheikh’s release from American prison (he is serving a life sentence). Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground — a threat that was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 “protests.”

The State Department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on September 11, the eleventh anniversary of al-Qaeda’s mass-murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It was well known that things could get very ugly. When they did, it would become very obvious to Americans that President Obama had not “decimated” al-Qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail. Even worse, it would be painfully evident that his pro–Muslim Brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al-Qaeda’s capacity to attack the United States in Egypt.

The State Department also knew about the obscure anti-Muslim video. Few Egyptians, if any, had seen or heard about it, but it had been denounced by the Grand Mufti in Cairo on September 9. Still, the stir it caused was minor, at best. As Tom Joscelyn has elaborated, the Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were agitating for the Blind Sheikh’s release and who had been threatening for weeks to raid and torch our embassy. And indeed, they did storm it, replace the American flag with the jihadist black flag, and set fires around the embassy complex.

But back to the Baier-Vietor interview:


10 seconds into the video:
TV: A couple of things: One, I was in the situation room that night, ok?, and we didn’t know where the ambassador was definitively,
BB: Was the President in the situation room?
TV: No, and the fact that your network at one time reported that he watched video feed of the attack as it was ongoing is part of what I think is being innacurate
BB: Let me get to the bottom of that. Where was the President?
TV: In the White House.
1 minute into the video:
BB: Where was the President?
TV: In the White House.

Watch the whole interview:

Only after a series of edits — with various State, White House, and CIA officials massaging the talking points — do the talking points themselves “spontaneously evolve” to include a direct claim that there were demonstrations in Benghazi. Vietor will have you believe “that’s what bureaucrats do all day long.”

The fact remains that

The most serious attack on a US mission since the storming of the country’s embassy in Tehran in 1979 has occurred in a nation that Washington claims to have liberated from tyranny.

A retired U.S. Air Force brigadier general who was on duty at U.S. African Command headquarters in Germany during the Benghazi attacks said today said commanders quickly concluded that the event did not evolve from a protest, but that it was “a hostile military action.” This took place in the height of the 2012 presidential campaign, with the talking points of “Obama killed Bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s on the run.”

Where was Obama? Where was Hillary?

So where were they on the fateful night of September 11? Tommy Vietor–formerly Obama’s van driver, now, apparently, a foreign policy spokesman–says that Obama wasn’t in the situation room. Where was he? Resting up for his big fundraising trip to Las Vegas the next day? And how about Hillary? As Paul wrote earlier this evening, retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell testified today that the military should have tried to rescue the besieged Americans in Benghazi. Why didn’t they? They were waiting, he testified, for a request from the State Department that never came.

Now there’s another Benghazi email,

The private, internal communication directly contradicts the message that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated publicly over the course of the next several weeks.

Jay Carney’s now saying those emails aren’t about Benghazi.

More questions: Why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi? Why were requests from an ambassador for additional security denied?


One more question: How did the attackers know the ambassador would be at the consulate in Benghazi rather than at the embassy in Tripoli?

But, hey, nothing to see here. “It’s all a partisan issue,” a phony scandal.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics and culture at Fausta’s Blog.

Book review – Eyes On Target: Inside Stories from the Brotherhood of the U.S. Navy SEALs

faustaBook review by Fausta Rodríguez Wertz

Eyes On Target: Inside Stories from the Brotherhood of the U.S. Navy SEALs by Scott McEwen and Richard Miniter, is a gripping read in many ways:
It tells the story of a group of men who will give their all to protect our country, from the point of view of several of the men themselves.
It is the history of the most-feared anti-terrorist force in the world.
And, as the book jacket aptly describes, it

is an inside account of some of the most harrowing missions in American history-including the mission to kill Osama bin Laden and the mission that wasn’t, the deadly attack on the US diplomatic outpost in Benghazi where a retired SEAL sniper with a small team held off one hundred terrorists while his repeated radio calls for help went unheeded.

The book could be divided in three sections: The history of the SEALs, and how they evolved ‘from pirates to professionals’; the missions in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Benghazi (which actually was not a mission); and the Appendix and notes, which includes The US House Republican Conference Interim Progress Report on the events surrounding the September 11, 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi.

Not to be missed is chapter eleven, “Why the Unique Culture of the SEALs matters,” where McEwen and Miniter make the case for why

We must, as a society, keep a group of warriors free of politics and bureaucracy, free of the distractions that keep them from doing their vital work.

While the Obama administration and its apologists continue to refer to the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi as a fake, phony scandal (a Google search yields 553,000 results on benghazi fake scandal), the details of the attack, as itemized on chapter ten, belie this “fake, phony scandal” narrative.

Authors Scott McEwen and Richard Miniter thoroughly researched the official timelines of the Defense Department, the State Department, congressional reports, Arabic-language newspapers and American media to construct the most detailed timeline of the 9/11 attack in Benghazi. They go back to April 5, 2011 and start with Ambassador Chris Stevens’s arrival in Benghazi, ending with the September 12 arrival of the Marine FAST platoon in Tripoli at 8:56PM, a full twenty-four hours after the attack began.

Eyes On Target is a gripping, well-researched, moving account of a group of heroic men, a book both for history lovers and especially for the general reader who wants to know the facts on Benghazi.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes on US and Latin America politics and culture at Fausta’s Blog.


Olimometer 2.52

Wednesday is here and and we remain $831 away from a paid mortgage with only six days to get it.

$139 a day six tip jar hitters a day at $23 will get us there. Unfortunately this business is as reliable as Justices Kennedy & Roberts you never know day to day what will come.

But you can make it happen if you hit DatipJar below


If 61 of you hit Subscribe at $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year and things will be a lot more like Alito and Kagan around here than Kennedy & Roberts reliable..

Beanie : $2.00USD – weeklyCap : $10.00USD – monthlyHat : $20.00USD – monthlyFedora : $25.00USD – monthlyGrand Fedora : $100.00USD – monthly


The NYT: They’re just on the other Side

Remember that famous Hypothetical concerning being a journalist vs an American that we talked about a while back

Moderator: Don’t you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all that you can to save the lives of Soldiers, rather than this journalist ethic of reporting report the fact?

Mike Wallace: No you don’t have the higher duty…

This brought the following response from the Marine at the table:

Col George Connell: I feel utter contempt. Noting if they found themselves wounded they would expect Marines to go & save them (and he’d send em.)

At the time Wallace said “Lord knows it’s a hypothetical”

Well it’s not a Hypothetical anymore. Fox news contributor, Richard Grenell asked this question of the times David Kirpatrick.

This was the answer:

A reporter on the ground talking to the people in the process of attacking and killing Americans.

Glenn used to remark about the anti-war folks on Iraq: “They’re not anti-war, they’re just on the other side.”


Via Hotair

Exit Question: How this is this not the top story in the News?

Update: While the NYT may not believe helping Americans under attack rises to the level of the Patriotic Duty of Americans the Libs at MSNBC have found something that does:

So signing up for Obamacare Patriotic Duty as Americans, aiding Americans under attack: Not so much.

If you want to know why the culture wars matter this is it.

Update 2: The Canada Free Press makes an interesting point

Whoa. Whoa? What? Grenell and others were quick to jump up and ask: Really? The New York Times had a reporter embedded in the pack of insurgents that attacked our diplomatic compound and killed our ambassador and three other Americans?
NYT: liberal elite’s roving damage control team

In reality, the only way that this is really true is that NYT paid off one of the militants and logged it in the ledger as “pay for reporter” instead of “bribe for terrorist murderer of Americans.”

There was a time when Times men were patriotic Americans, but those days are gone. Now, they are part of the liberal elite’s roving damage control team.


Olimometer 2.52

Might I suggest a media site that knows what side it’s on is a better choice for your funds?

Let me remind all that the need to shake DaTipJar each week will disappear as soon as we have enough subscribers to carry the site without the weekly goal.

Right now we are We remain 58 1/4 new subscribers at $20 a month to do this

It’s still the 8th day of Christmas so give yourself a Christmas present that will inform and entertain you 365 days a year in 2014. Subscribe below.

Why WOULD Barack Obama Talk on Benghazi or the IRS?

Yesterday the President had a press conference which was more notable for what wasn’t mentioned that what was.

The was one question that was asked concerning Benghazi by Ed Henry of FOX:

OK, thank you. I want to ask you about two important dates that are coming up. October 1st, you’re going to implement your signature health care law. You recently decided on your own to delay a key part of that. And I wonder, if you pick and choose what parts of the law to implement, couldn’t your successor down the road pick and choose whether they’ll implement your law and keep it in place?

And on September 11th we’ll have the first anniversary of Benghazi. And you said on September 12th, make no mistake, we’ll bring to justice to killers who attacked our people. Eleven months later, where are they, sir?

It’s always a mistake to ask a two part question on different subject By asking the question in this way Mr. Henry gave the President a chance to duck. He devoted 1145 words to Obamacare and the following sentences to Benghazi.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, the — I also said that we’d get bin Laden and I didn’t get him in 11 months. So we have informed, I think, the public that there’s a sealed indictment.

It’s sealed for a reason. But we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack, and we’re going to stay on it until we get them.

Q: And you’re close to having the suspects in custody?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I will leave it at that. But — but this remains a top priority for us. Anybody who attacks Americans anybody who kills, tragically, four Americans who were serving us in a very dangerous place — we’re going to do everything we can to — to get those who carried out those attacks.

113 words and not a bit about the attack itself, why relief wasn’t called for, or answering the question Chip Jones raised about Valerie Jarrett involvement this week.

But even that 113 words are 113 words more than he had to say about the IRS scandal where we have discovered that the IRS is CONTINUING TO TARGET CONSERVATIVES.

“In a remarkable admission that is likely to rock the Internal Revenue Service again, testimony released Thursday by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp reveals that an agent involved in reviewing tax exempt applications from conservative groups told a committee investigator that the agency is still targeting Tea Party groups, three months after the IRS scandal erupted.”

So we have a scandal that has gone on for 93 days and continues to develop and the president isn’t talking.


ABC isn’t interested, CBS isn’t interested, NBC & MSNBC isn’t interested, PBS isn’t interested, the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe et/al aren’t interested and the CNN has at best a very minor interest.

If no members of the press are pushing him on this, why would he ever, EVER consider giving out information that might make things difficult for him politically.

This is no upside for Obama in answering these questions, and as long as the press is unwilling to push these issues, issues which are contrary to their political proclivities, he never will and the american People will not know what this administration is up to.

For the MSM that’s not a bug that’s a feature..


Olimometer 2.52

Under 12 hours to go sill over $150 shy of a Paychcek

Care to change that? Hit DatipJar below


Relief of Benghazi Defenders? President Jarrett votes No!

My friend Chip Jones has a bombshell today:

Confidential sources close to Conservative Report have confirmed that Valerie Jarrett was the key decision-maker for the administration on the night of the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9/11/2012.

Jones’ story reports that relief was available not waiting in Europe for the call but on the tarmac of Tripoli:

Had the C-130 Spooky been on station, over the CIA Annex in Benghazi, moments before the mortar rounds were fired, the entire outcome of the Benghazi fiasco would have been different.

Add to that, a team of Green Berets on the ground to secure and/or evacuate the Annex, and the outcome would have been two SEALS still alive, and a mess of dead terrorists.

Now even though those assets were in Tripoli they are restricted in their use by “Cross Border Authority”

To initiate offensive military operations in a foreign country, law requires a Presidential order commonly referred to a Cross Border Authority or CBA. In the absence of cross border authority being granted directly by the President, no military operation could be initiated, including the commitment of troops to secure or rescue personnel from Special Mission Benghazi.

President Obama’s failure to issue Cross Border Authority allowing our men to die is bad but if it wasn’t him making the decision it’s worse

the decision not to take action was made by a person, to whom the people did not elect to give such authority to, nor did Congress even have confirmation power over.

The military-order, not to initiate action, saving our men in Benghazi, was issued by the President’s Advisor, Valerie Jarrett.

Combine this with the latest from CNN

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

and the whole “Phony scandal” Meme continues to melt away.

Update: Mike Rogers reminds us of some history

Turns out that Valerie Jarrett is so cautious about letting Little Barry get into hot water, that she alone vetoed the raid in January, February, and March, with the result that Obama’s indecision coupled with Jarrett’s caution drove Panetta and the military planners underground to work out the details without all the second-guessing – here’s an excerpt:

When the president consulted with the CIA director or the secretary of defense, he often seemed to be “playing for time”, canceling meetings with senior officials that would require him to make decisions or abruptly walking out midway through conferences with his senior advisors, cabinet secretaries and military officers.
When Obama walked out, he would wander the White House in search of Jarrett. If she had been in the meeting with him, he would signal for her to join him. Her advice and reassurance was critical, as always.

This suggests the actions in Benghazi are consistent with previous behavior.

Update: The Author of this base article will be my guest on DaTechGuy on daRadio Saturday Noon till 2 on FTR RAdio and the Money Matters Radio Network WPLM Plymouth, WESO Southbridge & WBNW AM Concord. You can call toll Free 888-9-FEDORA.


Olimometer 2.52

Monday is here and while last week’s paycheck was short a new work week means a new chance to get that elusive $305 weekly paycheck.

If 14 of you can kick in $20 with yesterday’s take a full paycheck can be made and the quest for a paid up mortgage can continue successfully.

Care to help, hit DaTipJar Below.


The Benghazi opening for Democrats in 2016

Lyndon Johnson’s loss had been due to a political fluke. He had been beaten not by his opponent’s friends but by his opponent’s foes. O’Daniel had won the Senate seat not because these men wanted hi to be Senator, but because they didn’t want him to be Governor.

The Years of Lyndon Johnson, the Path of Power Robert A. Caro 1982 pp 740

It’s not personal, it’s strictly Business

The Godfather 1972

There is one dynamic in the advance/non-advance Benghazi story that hasn’t gotten much play.

Yesterday Chuck Todd spent most of the daily rundown trying to undo the damage Morning Joe did by covering Benghazi as it actually is rather by painting it as one twenty years of attacks on Hillary Clinton.

On Twitter I was talking with Mike Hummell (who I really have to have on my show again sometime soon) and he tweeted the following


Forgetting the whole “not being prepared for an attack on the 9/11 anniversary or trying to save the Americans in danger” business That is an interesting point, but what Mike misses in his argument is who it actually applies to.

No doubt there are people who will take advantage of the situation politically but who is that political advantage of most value to?

What if you were, say a Democrat governor of a deep blue state who has presidential ambitions. You’ve backed the president time & time again making TV appearances, going to and hosting fundraisers and defended him and his administration even to the point of pushing his gun control agenda in your state despite a bit of a backlash.

And you realize that your reward is going for this loyalty is to be expected to stand aside for maybe 8 more years of Hillary Clinton or perhaps even Michelle Obama or both.

Now suddenly comes this Benghazi scandal. You looked the other way and supported the leftist chorus in attacking Mitt Romney before the election but now that it’s over there is no downside to you if this breaks wide open. You have no connection to the administration, as the Governor of a state you had no responsibility for any of these decisions. If the full truth comes out it won’t lay a glove on you.

So perhaps with the dramatic hearings fresh in memory you encourage friends in the media to cover the story rather than ignoring it and when it comes to a head maybe you go on one of those Sunday shows, deride the politics but insist that we owe it to the American People to let the truth come out.

It will sound so bipartisian.

I can see a certain Maryland Governor doing this, I can see a California Governor doing it too, or perhaps even one from New York whose family still feels robbed that some lascivious upstart from Arkansas was president instead of their patriarch.

It will be quiet it will be subtle but the moment will come and if those ambitions democrats see that moment coming and can quietly nudge it forward they will, particularly if they can do it without leaving fingerprints.

Count on it.

The Key Line in the Benghazi Testimony

DaTechGuy Blog October 29th 2012 The Alamo at San Antonio de Benghazi

Picture that night for a moment, In the end attackers lost 30-60% of their force but for the sake of argument let’s say only 25% of that was in the first wave. You’re attacking the compound, you’ve been attacking for hours and seen people fall all around you. You’ve been beaten back once and don’t actually know how many men are inside, what do you think would have happened if they heard the sound of a single helicopter gunship? A single plane? a single drone dropping a bomb on the force already bloodied at a rate that would cause most Western countries to declare the mission a disaster?

They would have run.

Gergory Hicks Testimony on Benghazi before House Oversight and Government Reform Committee May 8th 2013

“I believe that if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split,”

If you want to know why So many people remain angry on Benghazi, this is it.

MSNBC Viewers Discover Benghazi…for the First Time

Pseudolus: (to Hysterium) Calm yourself down! I’ll tell you when it’s time to panic!

Miles Gloriosus: (noticing the hourglass) I smell mischief here!

Pseudolus: It’s time.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum 1966

The Doctor:  They are questioning president Obama, they are asking him tough questions on the Bombings!

Rory:  So what’s wrong with, that isn’t that normal?

The Doctor:  Is it Rory, IS it?

DaTechGuy Blog: The Doctor, Obama & the Press Corps Sept 14th 2012

A few days ago I talked about how Morning Joe was in danger of losing me, today they gave a big reason for me to stay.

During the first segment which gets repeated in the 8:00 EST they covered Benghazi and the look at the table was somber.

There was simply no way to spin this as something other than what it was although to his (dis)credit Richard Wolffe was giving it his best shot and Scarborough was shooting him down. When Lisa Myers said Hicks critics like Cheryl Mill said he “not remembering accurately” Joe immediately bluntly said he was being called a liar.

In the 7 AM hour after a very brief diversion to soda and health they went STRONG on Benghazi and Hicks’ testimony. You could hear a pin drop on that set. David Gregory tried to spin and Walter Isaacson made a speech about wonderful it was that our system allows the truth to come out.

Meanwhile Deutsch & Gregory then ran to if this is “sticky” for 2016 but Joe brought up 2012 pointed out it was all about keeping the narrative before the election and Candy Crowley in the debate. Even Mika said there was no disputing the backdrop but she suggested it was no conspiracy.

Why does this matter? Two things:

1. Morning Joe is usually where you go for the left’s talking points for the day, that isn’t the case today.

2. The MSNBC viewer base has simply not seen this argument. As far as they are knew before today the Biggest villains on Benghazi were the makers of the worst film EVAH & Mitt Romney and anyone who suggested otherwise was part of a GOP conspiracy to bring down our beloved president before the election and their beloved Hillary after.

This is a story they never heard! As Stacy McCain put it

the only TV reporter not employed by Fox News who has treated the Benghazi cover-up as a legitimate story — Sharyl Attkisson of CBS — is being treated like an unprofessional pariah by her own network, while Chuck Todd of NBC News quite literally laughs off criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi attacks.

Really, they out-did themselves on this one. Check out the “Don’t Bother to Read This Dull Story” headline from the New York Times:

Official Offers Account From Libya of Benghazi Attack

Here’s another way you might headline the story, if you actually wanted to get readers to, y’know, read the story:

VIDEO: Benghazi Whistleblower Gregory Hicks Describes
‘Saddest Phone Call’ That Ambassador Stevens Died

Unless you saw that testimony — which was just one highlight of a six-hour hearing that the major networks did their best to ignore or dismiss as mere politics —  you would have no reason to suspect how riveting it was, if all you saw was that bland New York Times headline.

For the professional left, this story on Morning Joe is a double disaster.

In the short term it forces the MSMBC audience to confront the possibility that their heroes President Obama & Hillary Clinton left Americans to die in Benghazi & lied about it for political reasons. It gives a story they have been able to dismiss MSM credibility, that’s bad.

In the long term it raises the possibility that there is another story beyond the wall of silence. That there is a whole world of news they might be missing.

What happens if those viewers decide they want to see more. What happens if they visit Viral reads live blog of the testimony or Bryan Preston’s at PJ Media?? Or even worse what if they visit those sites the next day for news?

That’s worse!

The gatekeepers of the MSM can survive the former, it can’t survive the latter.

Update: The real tell on today’s Morning Joe

Update 2:Et-Tu CBS?

CBS’s (Sharyl) Attkisson’s minute-long report about the House Oversight Committee’s latest hearing on the attack on Wednesday’s CBS This Morning was actually the first time since November 23, 2012 that the journalist reported about the story on air, according a search on Nexis.

Update 3: When Al Shaprton & Donny Deutsch agree with John Poderhertz live on MSNBC you know the story has finally broken through.

Update 4: Chuck Todd playing the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Card painting this as a series of 20 years of the GOP going after the Clintons before adding a disclaimers at the end.

Morning Joe must have been more damaging that I thought.

I wonder how long it took the professional left to decide this was the best line to play?

All the News that Fit To Serve Democrats

A few hours after the Margaret Thatcher died in England of a stroke at the age of 87 I participated in a conference call put together by the group Special Ops Speaks;

They had submitted a letter to the congress supporting HR 36 looking to create a House Select Committee on the Terrorist attack in Benghazi  saying in part:

A longstanding American ethos was breached during the terrorist attack in Benghazi. America  failed to provide adequate security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked. Clearly, this is unacceptable and requires accountability. America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and

that every effort will be made to respond when  US personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel who may be deployed into dangerous environments. That message is that they will be left to their own devices when attacked. That is an unacceptable message.

This letter was signed by hundreds of special ops vets including 20 Generals, over 60 colonels, over 60 Lt Colonels and two who have been awarded the Medal of Honor winners.

During my conference call Captain Larry Bailey, a Navy SEAL with 27 years of service noted that Watergate involved a break-in and the theft of papers but lead to years of dedicated investigation from the congress culminating in the resignation of a president in the United States

That being the case you would think an event that lead to the death of an American Ambassador, an attack that took place on the anniversary of 9/11 just two months before an election might have gotten a little bit of traction in the press.

Alas the press that was so anxious to bring down a Republican president had no interest in dead Americans if it could hamper the re-election of a Democrat one.

With the president re-elected the thought was some attention might take place, Senators Kelly Ayotte, John McCain & Lindsey Graham  managed to use it to achieve hearings but the meat and the potatoes of what happened and why we didn’t act to stop it remains unclear.

What is clear is that with a Democrat majority in the senate and the media solidly behind them such hearing are of little danger to Obama.  Even if the midterm elections flip the senate, the Obama administration with two years to go is unlikely to face an awful lot of trouble from such a hearing.

So why such opposition to such a committee, why the knee jerk attempt to protect Barack Obama when he doesn’t need protecting?

Ah but it is NOT Barack Obama the mainstream media is protecting, nor is it the Obama administration that is being shielded, it is not even any type of covert operation that is being protected from public disclosure.

They are protecting Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton has been for a lot of year the poster child feminism.  This is an odd thing Mrs. Clinton owes her fame and notoriety entirely to the actions of her husband.  It was the embarrassment of his impropriety that advanced her in NY and the liberal lock that assured her of the Senate Seat she held.

But when forced to run in a contested primary that was considered hers by almost divine right she ran smack into the Obama Campaign’s take no prisoners campaign that brought down John McCain 2008’s  general election and Mitt Romney  four years later.

And while Mrs. Clinton was wise enough to eschew the Vice Presidency giving her plausible deniability for the economic wasteland that has marked the Obama years as Secretary of State she can’t dodge the repeated failures from Egypt,  Syria, Iran, North Korea  Afghanistan and the biggest of them all Libya.

Think about it what actual achievements does she have?  Meeting with foreign leaders, Betty Ford did that, Michael Jackson did that.  Margaret Thatcher’s death put the question in stark contrast:

Think for one second if Bill Clinton didn’t exist nobody would know who Hillary Clinton is, but how many people actually know Margaret Thatcher’s husband’s name? ((Dennis) I’d have to look it up.

Hillary Clinton is a shadow, a wraith, the person behind the curtain in Oz.  The last thing the media wants is that curtain to be drawn back and revealed for all to see.

And as long as we have a culture where only a few families serve,  whose heroes are movie starts and singers and moan the death of movie critics louder than those who died fighting, the media just might just manage to keep this hidden.

And that is almost as big of a disgrace as the act itself.

Update: A commentator notes it should be Navy SEAL all caps and the Medal of Honor is awarded not won, both corrected.


Olimometer 2.52


This morning I’m only $90 away from my first full paycheck in three weeks.

Only 4 Tip jar hitters of $24.50 are needed to assure me of a full paycheck and guarantee you at least two days of not seeing DaTipJar at the start of the day.

It’s all up to you

The empty chair on 9/11

Major General Gunther Blumentritt: This is history. We are living a historical moment. We are going to lose the war because our glorious Führer has taken a sleeping pill and is not to be awakened. It’s unbelievable. Think of it Kurt. Don’t ever forget it. We are witnessing something that historians will always say is completely improbable, and yet it is true. The Führer is not to be awakened!  I sometimes wonder whose side God is on

The Longest Day 1962

Lt. Kaminsky: You wanted confirmation, Captain? Take a look! There’s your confirmation!

Tora Tora Tora 1970

Do you remember when Clint Eastwood did his empty chair bit at the GOP convention. The left berated him as an old senile weirdo.

Then came the Denver Debate and the New Yorker Cover, conservatives laughed and liberals panicked.

While some thought it a joke and some thought it a farce the true meaning of the empty chair was never clearer than it was at the Benghazi hearings.

Under questioning from South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta could not explain why President Barack Obama spoke with him only once on Sept. 11, 2012 during the Benghazi terrorist attack, and never called back for any updates for over seven hours.

The actual testimony is astounding:

Sen Lindsey Graham (R-SC)….And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?

SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives.

SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them?

And the exchange between Sec Panetta & Sen Kelly Ayotte was simply incredible:

Ed Morrissey is incredulous as is Ace over the statements of the head of the Joint Chiefs of staff (as well he should be) but for all of that incompetence of man with the stars and all the snark of the Leon “Global 911” Panetta there is only one story here:

The story is that on 9/11 during an attack on Americans in Benghazi (including a person he knew personally) the President of the United States was uninterested.

Yesterday Ace wrote a story titled: I always wondered what happened to that empty chair saying it was it Reince Priebus office.

He’s wrong.

The empty chair is in the White House, we as a nation put it there…

…and Americans were left to die.

Update: Should have said “uninterested” instead of “disinterested” corrected. Thanks guys.


Weekly Goal Feb 3-9

[thermometer raised=282 target=300 Height=150 ]

Benghazi, “Fast and Furious on Steroids?”

Chip Jones has asked the $64,000 question concerning Benghazi:

Therefore, the question that is simply asked and objectively answered, without placing any of the SF or CIA operatives at mortal risk is a simple one. You see, the Kalashnikov rifle chambers a 7.62 mm round. The US M-4 rifle chambers a 5.56 mm round. What is widely reported and accepted is that at least two of the TDY Green Berets who were assigned by the CIA as ARSO’s (assistant regional safety officers) were badly wounded and were treated for multiple gunshot wounds after they rescued over 20 civilian CIA workers from the compound.

The single question that needs to be asked is: “Were the rounds taken out of the wounded ARSO’s 7.62 mm or 5.56 mm?” And when the answer comes back “5.56 mm”, it opens the door to the proof that the cover up was meant to hide the fact that the Obama administration had been caught once again arming offshore groups that did not have the interests of our country at heart. It would open the door to proof that Benghazi was “Fast and Furious on Steroids.”

Rest assured if it turns out that Benghazi was “fast and furious on steroids” we can be sure that the MSM be all over it sometime around the end of the 2nd Biden Term.

The Common Thread of the left: Today Morning Joe & Benghazi

Today’s entry on the common theme of the left and their problem with truth comes from Morning Joe

Item: On Morning Joe yesterday I saw the sudden post-election discovery of Benghazi (but not Senator Kelly Ayotte who Willie Geist refers to as “others”) in the context of the following arguments:

1. It is OK to send out a member of the administration to say something they know is false or as a dupe who doesn’t know they are sending out false information. (Unlike Iraq for example where the administration and every intelligence agency in the world believed what they were saying was true)

2. Questioning a black woman like Susan Rice is bad optics and racism (unlike questioning a black woman like Condi Rice which is simply asking questions to power plus she doesn’t count as black because she is republican).

3. It is foolish to demand accountability because such a demand is based on facts and accountability rather than deferring to a mandate of racial or sexual politics.

Note that the death of three four Americans is not the issue, the administration sending out a person before the election to deceive is not the issue, no it is the idea that two of the three Senators who have critiqued said person are white men (we’ll ignore female Senator in the group) and she is a black woman and because she is a black woman the standards of truth and honesty do not apply here.

In other words the offense here is against Truth, but well discuss more on that tomorrow.

Update: Should have said four dead Americans, corrected, thanks.