The 3AM Phone Call

Hillary Clinton, during her primary campaign against Barack Obama, famously reprised the ‘3 Am phone call’ ad to highlight the inexperience of then Senator Obama. The phone rang, no one answered. As Benghazi elbows itself back onto center stage it is clear that when the real 3AM phone call came neither Secretary Clinton nor the President answered the call.

The perpetual lesson no one in Washington ever seems to absorb is that the cover up is always worse than the failure. This Benghazi cover up has seen quite an evolution. Initially it was the video trailer that motivated the attack. (That filmmaker is still in jail six months later. Hillary promised retribution for the video and the man who produced it, on that, at least, she was correct.)

Move on folks, no terrorism to see here, just a demonstration. Cynicism prevailed over the initial explanation for the attack. As we progressed through ineffectual Congressional hearings to the ‘internal review’ the only thing that grew was prevailing cynicism. ‘Highly respected’ diplomat Thomas Pickering was held up as a bastion of integrity, however, to many his appointment signaled that a whitewash for Ms. Clinton was in full bloom.

A media, who in the pre Obama era was quick to the smell of a cover up yawned and fell asleep with the exception of CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson who, at least publically, contends confusion as to why so few of her colleagues took up the investigation although she does draw the appropriate comparison to their energy level during Republican administrations. Ms. Attkisson has more information than she has currently reported to security clearance issues. Worth note is that information has slowly over the course of the last six months gone from benign to ‘classified’. No, no folks move on, no cover up here!

Folks who were on the ground in Benghazi during the attack are still in no man’s land as the administration refuses to identify them to Congressional committees.

Republicans in Congress release a combined report by five Committee Chairman pointing out significant failures of the Pickering / Mullen internal review.

Now comes the whistleblower controversy and the cover up deepens as each falsehood demands more of the same in support of what looks more and more like a house of cards as each day goes by. The review by Messrs. Pickering and Mullen ignored individuals who requested to be interviewed for the report. The State Department is now playing bureaucratic ‘tag you’re it’ with lawyers attempting to represent the whistleblowers; State says, ‘no problem just have those folks (the whistleblowers) come on in and fill out the paperwork’. The whistleblowers who contend that they have already been subjected to intimidation know this little game for what it is. The context for the game has been set; Secretary Clinton; “what does it matter now”? Press Secretary Carney; “Benghazi was a long time ago”. Secretary Kerry; “I don’t want to spend the next four years taking about Benghazi.” The vast majority of media allies are attempting to support this narrative; even though that narrative is falling apart, brick by cover up, brick.

A special operator has appeared in a three part Fox interview. He contends that there were in fact resources that could have been brought to the aid of Benghazi. He contends that we know exactly who was involved in the attack and that man walks free.

The FBI, the day after Mr. Carney’s ‘long ago’ comment releases three photos of persons of interest in the Benghazi attack. Is the FBI tired of the game as well?

CNN, late to the game, now reports that known al Qaeda affiliate Mokhtar Belmokhtar, reputedly also involved in the oil facility attack in Mali, was also involved in the Benghazi attack as were three Yemini al Qaeda affiliates. CNN’s history in reporting on terrorism is, to be kind, weak. But the simple fact that they’re reporting it is a change in wind direction.

In a post months ago I contended that, eventually, the veil of silence would be broken by mid level operatives at the State Department who would grow frustrated with the narrative of the cover up and the comprehensive disrespect shown to Ambassador Stevens and those who died. They know, it could be them left to rot in the future.

We’re almost there.

  • Bob

    Here’s a conversation between President Obama and Press Secretary Carney:

    Mr.Carney: Mr.President what direction would you like the daily press conference to go to today? We need to avoid the Benghazi incident and there is no crisis to exploit.

    President Obama: Hmmmm How about how we captured the Boston bombers so quickly?

    Mr.Carney: Well that would open up the question of why the FBI gave him a pass after investigating him.

    President Obama: uh? Yeah! Lets cover how the economy is doing?

    Mr.Carney: Sir that would make us mention the unemployment figures.

    President Obama: Why don’t we…no lets not go there,uh? How about my Planned Parenthood speech?

    Mr.Carney; I’m afraid sir that may bring up the Dr.Gosnell trial.

    President Obama: Why don’t we bring up immigration and civil rights? Those two words together always draw sympathy from the useful idiots in the press.We can even use the republicans in the “Gang of Seven as shills and frontmen for cover.

    Mr.Carney:Perfect Mr.President!I’ll round up some kids to stand behind you while you give the speech.

  • Bill Hedges

    bob writes “We can even use the republicans in the “Gang of Seven as shills and frontmen for cover”

    1. ‘Gang of Eight’

    “What is the ‘Gang of Eight’ (and who’s in it)?”

    November 28, 2012

    “There is a rich history of congressional gangs, including the “Gang of Seven” freshmen House Republicans who made hay of the House banking scandal in the early 1990s and forced long-sought ethics reforms. In 2005, a bipartisan “Gang of 14? negotiated a compromise that ended a years-long logjam in the confirmation of several federal court nominees. A “Gang of Six” in 2009 unsuccessfully sought to negotiate a bipartisan compromise on health-care reform”

    “The current gang is led by Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who started talking in early 2011 shortly after the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission failed to earn enough support in Congress. Instead of abandoning the panel’s recommendations, the group embraced politically risky proposals, including calls to end corporate tax loopholes, force wealthier seniors to pay more for Medicare and to raise the Social Security retirement age.”

    “After months of talks, the gang agreed to a 10-year, $3.7 trillion deficit reduction plan that would immediately slash $500 billion in government spending and allow legislative committees to find additional savings by overhauling entitlement programs and rewriting the tax code. The goals mirrored Simpson-Bowles by forcing deep spending cuts, significantly reducing Medicare spending and reforming Social Security to keep it solvent for another 75 years.”

    “The “Gang of Eight” doesn’t have a seat at the table in negotiations between the White House and Congress, but they could become influential to securing bipartisan support for a final deal”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/wp/2012/11/28/what-is-the-gang-of-eight-and-whos-in-it/

    2. ‘Gang of Seven’

    “Young Dems won’t emulate early ’90s ‘Gang of Seven’”

    March 8, 2006

    “Back in 1992, seven Republican freshmen scandalized the Democratic-controlled chamber by exposing ethics abuses in the House bank and post office, forcing the release of the names of 355 lawmakers who had made overdrafts at the bank. They challenged both the Democratic Speaker and their own leaders. They appeared in a GQ-style black-and-white photo touting their efforts”

    “Their efforts embarrassed more than a few members of their own party, but in the fall Republicans picked up 10 seats, setting the stage for their takeover of the House in 1994”

    http://wassermanschultz.house.gov/2006/03/20060308.shtml

    Way to GO ‘Gang of Seven’. In the sprit of Sarah Palin cleaning up corruption of government disregarding the Party of the WRONG DOER. GOT her 90+% approval ratings. OR was that popularity ??? Their actions helped lead to Republican control of House & the many CONTRACT WITH AMERICA concepts that became law. Though buma TRIES to destroy…
    __

    “Shills”

    There are “shills” & there are “shills”. “Shills” helped pass welfare reform which both Clinton & Newt wanted. Which buma feels *** re·cip·i·ent *** should not have to work for welfare check. What a novel idea, work for check AND gain EXPERIENCE useful to find a job. Newt SO crazy.
    __

    REAGAN needed demo “Shills”. HE had no 8 year FULL CONTROL of Congress. Compromise __ GOOD __…

    Reagan on Compromise and those (WACHO BIRDS) EXTREMIST:

    “An American Life (his autobiography)” | 8/7/03 | Ronald Reagan

    “Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 4:05:04 PM” by Diddle E. Squat

    “When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.”

    “Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.”

    “I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’ ”

    “If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.”

  • Bob

    When President Reagan “began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento” IT WAS 47 YEARS AGO!POLITICS IS NO LONGER GIVE AND TAKE…….TIMES CHANGE GET WITH IT!BUT THEN AGAIN THE republicans ARE ALL GIVE TO THE LIBERAL LEFT.

    LMAO……..I especially get a kick out of you using Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Washington “Com-“Post as sources.You couldn’t find two more liberal sources!

  • Bill Hedges

    WHAT in the “two more liberal sources!” WAS INCORRECT ??? Epistemology. Truth is truth wherever is found…

    So COTRACT WITH AMERICA was 47 years ago too WHEN NEWT COMPROMISED balanced budget, welfare reform, last civil right’s bill, etc.. GET REAL. Compromise WAS REQUIRED to get bumcare passed. YOU “crazy birds”!?! “Really ?!?” Tunnel vision. Your announcement “IS NO LONGER GIVE AND TAKE” is you shooting prematurely again with facts ignored. Just being you.

    Glad you got your jollies off with my sources. Maybe YOU just read sources THAT AGREE with YOU. That’s called SHORT CITED.

    Then you are SHORT CITED. Misappropriation of good-honest-quoting TWISTED TO FIT YOUR FANCY. You have NO credibility for your comments. “HAVE YOU NO SHAME”:

    SUCH *** an·i·mos·i·ty *** shown. *** in·tim·i·da·tion *** doesn’t work OVER HERE. There is no *** am·bi·gu·i·ty ***. bob owes a apology for:

    A. bob partial quotes me. Leaving out the most pertinent part of my quote:

    “I watch a lot of movies.Have ban most politics from my cable.”

    I wrote:

    I watch a lot of movies. Have ban most politics from my cable. I research online.

    B. bob leaves off KEY PART OF MY QUOTE, then says:

    “I was taught that if you didn’t know what you were talking about as is clearly evident here YOU KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND NOT EMBARRASS YOURSELF!”

    bob neither *** a·pol·o·gies *** nor shows any sign of remorse. SHAMEFUL…

  • Bill Hedges

    Correction:

    Contract

  • Bob

    I suppose the head of the DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz would love to have republicans quote her as gospel.That doesn’t say very much for you or your fellow republicans as INDEPENDENT THINKERS however.

    LMAO……YES YOU’RE EVER THE HYPOCRITE ! When you were argueing with Democrats J.D. and Bones on this site and they gave a liberal source you would turn it down as not reliable……NOW IT’S BEING SHORTSIGHTED (NOTE THE CORRECT SPELLING).

    Oh ! and by the way the “Contract with America” wasn’t signed 47 years ago but 27th of September 1994.Tsk,Tsk,Tsk, a NEWT fan not knowing that!

    You can continue with your tired rhetoric now !

  • Bill Hedges

    FYI

    Reagan was President from 1981 – 1989

    http://www.google.com/search?q=when+was+reagan+president&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=

    I understand today’s date is May 3, 2013. SOOO 2013- 1989 = “47” ???

    For your memory:

    40. “Ronald W. Reagan
    Born: February 6, 1911, Tampico, Illinois
    Party: Republican
    Age when inaugurated: 69
    Term: 1981-1989. Reagan is credited with reviving national pride after the turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s. He enjoyed great popularity, though his conservative policies were controversial.
    Famous Fact: Reagan is the only President to survive after being wounded by a would-be assassin.”

    THINK BEFORE COMMENTING. Reagan raised TAXES. BUT reduced MUCH MORE. Many *** com·pro·mises ***. Did Reagan ever have FULL CONTROL of Congress ?

    http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/timeline-guide-us-presidents

    Must I give examples of *** com·pro·mise *** since Reagan ??? Feel the mountain falling on you in your mine shaft ???

    “GET WITH IT” bob. Don’t do NOTHING. IS WHY “wacho birds” are short term congress personnel. Thomas Jefferson compromised for the GOOD OF THIS COUNTRY. SO did BUSH. EVEN once, so did buma…

  • Bob

    LMAO…………You’re 6:42 PM post quotes Reagan saying “When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining IN SACRAMENTO” HE WAS GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA IN SACRAMENTO 47 YEARS AGO.

    TODAY IS MAY 3RD 2013 MINUS 1966= 47 YEARS

    IF YOU’RE THAT EASY TO AGREE WITH THE HEAD OF THE DNC IS CALLED “CAPITULATE” NOT COMPROMISE.THATS WHATS WRONG WITH THE RNC

  • Bill Hedges

    JD left because he claimed other peoples words as his OWN. As I recall Bones DID NOT claim to be a demo.

    I CONFRONTED JD with that fact. Flew he did. I gave exact quotes & link that he copied without giving proper credit and “”. Would expect you to bring up JD name…
    __

    “argueing” is really arguing

    __

    As usual bob misrepresents my words:

    “I suppose the head of the DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz would love to have republicans quote her as gospel”

    I wrote:

    WHAT in the “two more liberal sources!” WAS INCORRECT ??? Epistemology. Truth is truth wherever is found…

    Nothing said about:

    “quote her as gospel”

    __

    bob stumbles on his lack of understanding. Must I speak to you like I do to my grandchild ?

    You wrote:

    “Oh ! and by the way the “Contract with America” wasn’t signed 47 years ago but 27th of September 1994.Tsk,Tsk,Tsk, a NEWT fan not knowing that!”

    Of course not. I wrote:

    So COTRACT WITH AMERICA was 47 years ago too WHEN NEWT COMPROMISED balanced budget, welfare reform, last civil right’s bill, etc.. GET REAL. Compromise WAS REQUIRED to get bumcare passed. YOU “crazy birds”!?! “Really ?!?” Tunnel vision. Your announcement “IS NO LONGER GIVE AND TAKE” is you shooting prematurely again with facts ignored. Just being you.

    You stated “IS NO LONGER GIVE AND TAKE”. Why I said:

    So CONTRACT WITH AMERICA was 47 years ago too WHEN NEWT COMPROMISED balanced budget, welfare reform, last civil right’s bill, etc.. GET REAL.

    You no longer look the fool. You ARE a fool. GET REAL, as I said. My example of compromise was CONTRACT WITH AMERICA in resent times under Clinton. Along with ….
    __

    My be “tired rhetoric” to you. I see you drowning in THE DEEP BLUE SEA with your 200 ton lead anchor attachment to a 3 foot wood canoe…
    __

    A wart on the tip of your nose. Will make it A SURE BET you stay focused on your SHAME:

    SUCH *** an·i·mos·i·ty *** shown. *** in·tim·i·da·tion *** doesn’t work OVER HERE. There is no *** am·bi·gu·i·ty ***. bob owes a apology for:

    A. bob partial quotes me. Leaving out the most pertinent part of my quote:

    “I watch a lot of movies.Have ban most politics from my cable.”

    I wrote:

    I watch a lot of movies. Have ban most politics from my cable. I research online.

    B. bob leaves off KEY PART OF MY QUOTE, then says:

    “I was taught that if you didn’t know what you were talking about as is clearly evident here YOU KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND NOT EMBARRASS YOURSELF!”

    bob neither *** a·pol·o·gies *** nor shows any sign of remorse. SHAMEFUL…

  • Bill Hedges

    bob wrote:

    “LMAO……YES YOU’RE EVER THE HYPOCRITE ! When you were argueing with Democrats J.D. and Bones on this site and they gave a liberal source you would turn it down as not reliable……NOW IT’S BEING SHORTSIGHTED (NOTE THE CORRECT SPELLING).”

    NOT spelled “argueing” bob. Notice bob jumping ME for spelling FROM BACK THEN. Someone tell bob about living in a glass house.

    Got to double check YOU. Where is the link ? You’re PROVEN NOT responsible ***… Remember:

    SUCH *** an·i·mos·i·ty *** shown. *** in·tim·i·da·tion *** doesn’t work OVER HERE. There is no *** am·bi·gu·i·ty ***. bob owes a apology for:

    A. bob partial quotes me. Leaving out the most pertinent part of my quote:

    “I watch a lot of movies.Have ban most politics from my cable.”

    I wrote:

    I watch a lot of movies. Have ban most politics from my cable. I research online.

    B. bob leaves off KEY PART OF MY QUOTE, then says:

    “I was taught that if you didn’t know what you were talking about as is clearly evident here YOU KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND NOT EMBARRASS YOURSELF!”

    bob neither *** a·pol·o·gies *** nor shows any sign of remorse. SHAMEFUL…

    bob says I can “continue with your tired rhetoric now !”. That translates into destroy his comments. Destroy I did. Look and see…