Monday, September 24, 2012

State vs. CNN: Who is the Biggest Loser? And CIA Makes a Bid for the Title

Well, well, well. It just doesn't get better than this: a lovers' quarrel between the Obama State Department and one of the jewels in the Obama media crown, CNN! Akin to the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, it's tough for an outside observer to pick a favorite--better to let the battle continue.

Seems the intrepid lads and lassies at CNN, true to their vulture DNA, went picking among the ruins and carrion of the burned US Consulate in Benghazi and lifted a notebook belonging to the murdered US Ambassador. But wait! How did they get in! Didn't State's Victoria Nuland tell us that the administration would say no more about the 9//11 mayhem and murders in Benghazi because the charred Consulate was now a "crime scene"? The Keystone Cops FBI had it all well in hand; well, they hadn't arrived yet because it was too "dangerous," but they were thinking about it. That counts, right? Maybe they will bring Robert Hanssen out of retirement to help, or maybe the ATF, if it can pull itself away from selling guns to Mexican drug cartels? But, never mind. That Nuland-declared "vow of silence," after all, only lasted about 36 hours--then the hack Susan Rice launched a TV blitz telling us all we need to know, i.e., the whole thing resulted from some "folks" getting a little rambunctious, nothing to see here, move along.

Apparently the CNN crew managed to get under that police tape, past the vigilant CSI guys and gals, and violate--somehow--the tight crime scene chain of evidence regime, steal a dead man's notebook, hide that fact from the family, and then use it in their reporting. So what was in the late Ambassador Stevens' "diary" of note? He had serious concerns not only about security at Consulate Benghazi but also about his own personal safety, including the possibility that Al Qaeda had him on a hit list. The unscrupulous CNNers have created a dilemma for State. I am not surprised to see State furious and lashing out at CNN. The Obama narrative on Benghazi has completely disintegrated. If Stevens saw a threat to him and to Benghazi, the questions that flow are obvious: Why did he visit Benghazi on 9/11? Why have the consulate open on 9/11? Why have a consulate in Benghazi if it could not be adequately protected? What had Stevens said to his masters in Washington about all this?

It gets even more absurd. Soon after the attack, I saw press snippets and heard from a friend still active in the intel business that the attack was a major intel disaster for the US. According to these sources, the Consulate was a centerpiece in our collection efforts against Islamist radicals in eastern Libya. I had a hard time believing that a "lock-and-leave" facility would have sensitive materials and play a key role in combatting terrorist activity. It seems, however, that it did, and that the attack was a major blow to the CIA presence and operations in Libya. This might help explain the ferocity of the attack on the installation by the Islamist "folks," to wit, in one spectacular blow kill the Ambassador and knock-out a CIA listening post, and do it all on 9/11. If this proves true, then the stunning flood of stupidity and incompetence we have seen at Obama's State and Obama's NSC, also breaks like a tsunami over Obama's CIA and the rest of Obama's intel community.

So what does our Commander-in-Chief have to say? Not to worry, it is all just a bump in the road.

That bump comes from dead Americans.


  1. I'm at a loss of words. Lackadaisical is all I can muster. They are the jogger in Central Park at 3 a.m. .... a jogger covered in 100 dollar bills... with his headphones in.

    1. Yes, what can I say? You'e right, absolutely right.

  2. Off hand I can think of only three scenarios to account for States and Potus bhaviour.
    1.They knew it was coming but didn't care.
    2.They knew it was coming and didn't necessarily want to stop it.
    3. They knew it was coming but are really and truly incompetent
    to a surreal and criminal degree.
    I believe it is either 1 or 3. Number 2 I cannot go for, I mean what on earth could they believe they could gain from this? After the "bump in the road" comment I'll go with no. 1. Which means POTUS and those close to him are cold souless sobs.

  3. I'll muster it's blue on blue between cavalier and supercilious.

  4. Looking for deep meaning to this incompetence and mendacity? How about: they're all members of a clown posse, interested only in their own power. Sad, sad, sad. And tragic. Remember the old saw about history repeating the second time as farce? This is the second time and the farce is right in front of our eyes.

  5. According to "Debka File" Jordan is now the next target. Israel must make its move against Iran quickly. I think the main event is about to start and it'll be a doozy. It's better than even odds this administration will do nothing. I have no particular expertise at foreign events, but this is too obvious even for the general observer. When the Israelis go I wish them total success and that they kick the dog s**t out of these people. I wish I was a young soldier again to go and help.

  6. The linked emails at Buzzfeed to are enraging. Normally I would enjoy the Blue on Blue, but honestly.... seeing the unvarnished nature of the cretins running the current show just worries me.

  7. What's really troubling is the almost complete lack of interest in this by the MSM. This administration is a mass psychopathy overlaying weakness, emptiness and incompetence. They simply don't care that Americans are being murdered, or that they are abetting the murders of hundreds of Mexican civilians. They lie, bully, threaten, break laws and violate the Constitution without a second thought. Yet the MSM covers for them. Absolutely repulsive.

  8. After reading the email exchange at Buzzfeed and your post on the situation, all I can do is shake my head in disbelief. Are there any adults left in the State Department?