Tag Archives: Chris Wallace

Benghazi Biggest Political Scandal in Modern History; Main Stream Media Continues to Set False Narratives

20100503_axelrod_146x97

Watergate was a “cover-up” of a group of over zealous Nixon administration officials hiring 5 men to burglarize  the “Watergate” building where the DNC offices were located. Wiretaps and burglarizing the Democratic National Headquarters were the crimes.  This to date, is the biggest scandal and “cover-up” of modern politics.  It pales in comparison to the “Benghazi-gate” cover-up.   Four fellow Americans are dead, and the White House’s “official” statements following the attacks were lies .  Veteran Political “Operative”, for the Obama Administration, David Axelrod took to the airwaves Sunday October 14, and Fox’s Chris Wallace attempted to hold his feet to the fire.  Yet, we are left with the same questions.  From that interview we  learn just what Veep Joe Biden was talking about in regards to his explanation on Benghazi:

WALLACE: But, David, just the day before, several State Department officials testified under oath that there were repeated requests for more security that were rejected. What is the vice president talking about?

AXELROD: I think the vice president was talking about what the White House knew. There are embassies all over the world and installations all over the world, and these requests go into the security professionals at the State Department. And there is no doubt, some of these matters went into the security department at the state security agency at the State Department. But it didn’t come to the White House and that what is the vice president was responding to.

WALLACE: So, we’re now getting into a definition of what the word “we” means. When the vice president says “we” he’s not talking about the Obama administration, because, the question was not about what you knew, it is that there were requests for more security. Biden is not talking about the Obama administration. He’s not talking about the State Department.

He’s just talking about himself and the president?

AXELROD: No, I think, Chris. Again, he was talking about was what he, the president knew because these matters were being handled at the State Department.

What?  Axelrod answers “NO” and then in fact answers the question with a definitive “YES”.    And what he is admitting to is this–that the President didn’t know there were “requests” for more security in Benghazi.  How would he know?  Obama has not been attending these “Security briefings”, in fact the day after the attack, instead of cancelling his campaign trip to Nevada, the President again, skips the briefings.  Axelrod admits to this in the Fox interview.

WALLACE: The reason I ask this is because you say, well, the president made a statement. Yes. The president made a statement, and then he went off to a fundraiser or to a campaign stop in Nevada.

Question, before he went to the fundraiser in Nevada, did he meet with his National Security Council to try to sort out the shifting stories, because State said they never said it was a spontaneous demonstration and intel did, you are quite right — did he meet with the national security council before he went to campaigning in Nevada?

AXELROD: Chris, I assure you that the president was in contact with all those who had information and responsibility in the national security chain about this incident.

As the “spin” intensifies, enter the Main Stream Media.  Watergate had “Woodward and Bernstein”.  We have lost any real journalist on that level who will risk everything in pursuit of truth.  The NY Times editorial on Sunday October 14th entitled “No Shame” cites the Republicans and Darryl Issa as the hypocrites, who cut the budget for security personnel.  That’s interesting, since Susan Lamb testified under oath that “budget” matters had no bearing on the denial of the requests for added security.  In an article by “Time Magazine” entitled “After Benghazi, Is Al-Queda back?” addresses the “Arab Spring” and the Democratically elected new leaders in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia as examples of pillars of “Islamist” who denounce Al-Queda.  This is just plain spin, and the facts are anything but what this article in Time Magazine is implying!  Morsi in Egypt is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  He has asked for the release of the “Blind Sheik” and here is footage from the rally held the night Morsi was elected.    That video is a Muslim Brotherhood Cleric speaking at the same podium Morsi took to just a few minutes later.

Yet, these Muslim Brotherhood backed Candidates, who are sweeping elections in all these Middle eastern countries, according to Time magazine, are the good guys?  This is what happened as a result of this so called Arab Spring.   Just as in Iran in 1979, we have radical Islamist organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood who backs and is in fact the Party in which President Morsi is leader of, taking power and bolstering this radical agenda, which has ties to Al-Queda.  Make no mistake, what is going on in the Middle East is anything but the Democratic process,  as Lara Logan knows too well.

As the spin continues to add up, the headlines on Benghazi are no where to be found in any major “Main Stream” source.  The questions that remain unanswered, are these:

Why did the Obama Administration roll out Susan Rice with a false narrative about a YouTube video?  I myself, link this back to the UN Blasphemy Laws Rice signed onto back in December 2011, and spoke to this in my last article here.    Who within the Obama Administration came up with this false narrative about this YouTube video?  This question goes to the heart of the cover-up, and remains unanswered. 

It is “malarkey” Joe Biden, to think that NO ONE at the State Department , after witnessing in real time that barbaric coordinated attack, that no one called over to the White House?  Yet, that is what you are trying to sell us, right Joe?  You and Barack, just didn’t know a thing!    You didn’t know about any of what was going on in the Security Briefings, you didn’t know about any “requests”,  you didn’t know your own State Department was watching a massacre in real time, you didn’t know 10 days after it had nothing to do with a YouTube video, and you didn’t know what the  White House approved of Rice to say, was not the truth.  May I ask, do you Joe, or Barack know anything about running this Country?

This is and should be the lead story on every paper and website in the US.  There should be journalist outside the White House lining up demanding answers to these blatant lies, and false narratives.  Nixon resigned instead of face impeachment.  Many say we lost all faith in the office of President at that time.  Benghazi is the place we lost all faith in our “Fourth Estate”.   And we must realize its dead and gone.  Carry on my fellow Americans, we will continue to seek the truth, I know we will.

Rep. Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran are "an act of war"

Rep. Ron Paul doesn’t get much time at the game show-style Republican debates to explain his policy views. Most of the questions he’s gotten center on his domestic policy which line up with a large portion of the Conservative base.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace took a few minutes to have Rep. Paul tell voters how he would shape American foreign policy – specifically on Iran.

Keep listening past the Iran segment and you’ll also get to hear his thoughts on a third party candidacy.

Fox/Google GOP Debate: "Search"ing for a Leader

The Fox/Google Republican debate was held in Florida Thursday night and it turns out Gary Johnson is still running for President.  Yes, the New Mexico governor is far more notable for his stance on legalizing marijuana than his Presidential aspirations – a fact his team should probably have noted before they allowed him to appear on television in a patterned tie that displayed psychedelic effects under the glare of the cameras.  Gary Johnson doesn’t seem like a bad guy.  He seems sort of smart.  But also, kind of high.  His lazy speech and obvious nerves gave the impression of a buttoned-up, paranoid stoner.  His stance on education was appropriately Republican and Johnson has an attractive air of sincerity about him.  But also, he may have been high.

The debate threatened to be the Romney/Perry show in the beginning as the Fox moderators devoted ample time to spirited back and forth between the two candidates.  Thankfully they moved on after about 30 minutes and were able to provide quite a generous amount of time to most of the other candidates from that point on.

Rick Perry looked tired.  His wrinkles seemed deeper and he even looked smaller in his high collared shirt and long suit jacket.  He didn’t seem like he really wanted to be there at that debate.  He stammered at times and began to repeat himself, especially on health care.  His foreign policy answer was a bit drawn out and difficult to follow.  It almost seemed as if he lost his place at one point. Perhaps he is still smarting from his collapse in the second half of the last Republican debate.   Where Perry was the strongest, as usual, was on states’ rights.  Perry even skillfully turned a question about his rumored rift with George W. Bush into a monologue on his strong support of states’ rights.  It was his strongest moment in an otherwise lackluster performance.  Perhaps the only other bright spot for Perry came when he defended his stance on the Texas “Dream Act”, refusing to back down from his obviously unpopular (among conservatives, at least) view.  The crowd seemed to appreciate that and offered applause.

Romney had strongest showing yet.  He may have been emboldened by Perry’s poor performance in the last debate.  He was well rehearsed, but loose.  Romney gave the best explanation of Romneycare he has offered to date, touting it as a states’ rights issue and breaking it down against Obamacare.  It may not be enough to erase the blemish, but it was a solid explanation and he made sure to assert that Obamacare is bad law and should be repealed.  Romney stopped short of guaranteeing a repeal, but he did guarantee waivers to all 50 states immediately.  Romney is hitting his stride and beginning to sound like he’s laying out a general election platform.  I didn’t even notice his hair tonight, so that says a lot.

Herman Cain garnered the most touching moment of the debate when Chris Wallace alluded to Cain’s recovery from cancer.  The audience offered a long, heartfelt applause to the man who had survived Stage IV colon and liver cancer.  Cain’s big, genuine grin as he thanked the crowd actually put a little lump in my throat.  You go, Herman!  Cancer is stupid and I’m glad you kicked it’s ass.  Cain had another strong showing, although it is quite obvious that he remains weakest on foreign policy.  He did try his best to let everyone know that he has a clear vision on Israel, and wants America to be as clear as possible when making it clear to other nations that we clearly stand behind our clear allies.  Clearly, Cain is still searching too much when it comes to foreign policy questions, but he is so strong on other issues, he seems able to make up for that shortcoming.  Cain took every opportunity to mention his 9-9-9 plan, as he has been doing consistently over the last few debates.  The plan is perhaps his greatest policy strength at the moment.

Michele Bachmann looked solid, but seemed to shy away from directly attacking Perry, which many expected her to do tonight.  The upcoming Florida straw poll will determine whether or not that was the right thing to do.  While she made sure to highlight her strong conservative values, she may have made a fatal mistake by choosing not to aggressively attack what many see as her biggest obstacle right now – Rick Perry .

Jon Huntsman was able to sound almost human in this debate.  Perhaps it was the amount of time he had to speak.  Thursday’s debate was the most time he has been given in a debate thus far.  Mentioning that he feels his family of seven children has been like a “clinical trial” at points did nothing to dispel me of the suspicion that Huntsman is actually very sophisticated alien technology.  But his daughter has juvenile diabetes so you see, he’s human.  Huntsman did seem the most animated he’s been through this whole process.  The only problem with Huntsman is that, no matter how human he seems, he’s still Jon Huntsman.  It will be hard for him to overcome…himself.

It was another strong showing for Newt Gingrich.  In this debate Newt came off less as “cranky Uncle Newt at family Thanksgiving” and more like “Jovial, witty Grandpa at Christmas time”.  He actually seemed warm at points, and even stirred up a few laughs.  As usual his answers were biting, provoking and intelligent.  His only low point in this debate is that he kept reminding viewers how old he was, and how he is such a part of the past in this country.  His goal was to highlight his history and his experience, but it came off as reminder that he is perhaps too connected to the “old” politics, and this is the “tea party” era.  It was another great performance for ultimate cabinet pick Newt Gingrich.

Honestly- and I’m being completely serious- I forgot Gary Johnson was even there until someone asked him a foreign policy question.  So, it turns out he was actually there, and his answer was quite logical and intelligent.  Also, he may have been high.

Rick Santorum debated with the passion and sincerity of a man who seems like he knows he has nothing to lose.  Santorum was straightforward, passionate and very engaged.  Much to the delight of the audience he stood clearly and strongly against the repeal of DADT, Obama’s attitude toward Israel, and benefits for illegal immigrants.  It seems unlikely that Santorum can win this nomination, but he hasn’t yet proven that he will lose it either.  He has made quite an impressive comeback during the two most recent debates and it will be interesting to see if he can maintain this momentum.

Ron Paul has clearly been through all of this before.  He speaks like a man who knows his platform by heart, and is inherently comfortable with it.  His answers were true to the libertarian position and as usual, the Paul fans were rolling deep in the debate hall.  Paul’s best moment may have come when he was asked to expound on his (somewhat) bizarre statement regarding a border fence working to keep Americans in rather than simply keeping illegal immigrants out.  Wallace asked Paul if he noticed many Americans rushing to take their money and leave the country.  It could have turned into another tin-foil hat moment for Paul but instead he turned it into a chance to explain that indeed, many Americans are taking their money and investing elsewhere because of stifling government regulation and taxes. It was a skilled turn-around, but then he went on to talk about data banks and tracking illegals meaning every body will be put in data banks one day (pssst…Google already does that. That battle has been lost).  Ron Paul proved why he’s lost two previous Presidential bids – Ron Paul is simply too libertarian for the Republican Party, and nowhere does that show more than his foreign policy opinions.

The closing question wasn’t the worst “fluff” question we’ve seen to date (that honor would be reserved for CNN’s “This or That”) – Who would you choose from this stage to be your running mate?  Newt refused to play the game, as usual, but did so with a rare showing of light-heartedness.  Relatively speaking, of course.

Bachmann declined to pick one opponent as well, instead taking the opportunity to speak directly to conservative voters and highlighting her qualities as a strong, true conservative candidate.  Bachmann obviously knows her base.

Perry wanted to mash Gingrich and Cain together in some bizarre, sicko, The Fly-ish experiment.  Well, he really just wanted to combine their personalities, but Romney rightly pointed out that it was a disturbing image, nonetheless.

Romney refused to answer either, but used the time to remind viewers that the real objective is to defeat Obama, and he would be just the man to do that – LAYING OUT HIS GENERAL ELECTION PLATFORM.

Gary Johnson, who really doesn’t seem like such a bad guy, chose Ron Paul. So…there’s that.  Also, he said his neighbor’s dog made more shovel ready jobs than Obama had, which was a DIRECT ripoff of a joke Rush Limbaugh told earlier that day.  I happened to be listening to Rush on Thursday afternoon when he joked that his new puppy had created more shovel ready jobs than Obama.  Maybe Johnson just forgot where he heard it originally and thought he could get away with the joke as his own.  Because he was high.

Paul deferred until he is a member of the top tier of candidates.

Santorum said he would pick Newt.

Cain acknowledged that it was just a game but said he’d play anyway, to the delight of the audience, who laughed and applauded.  He chose Gingrich.  The audience liked that too.

Jon Huntsman used his time to tell people that he still has a chance to win.

The overall debate format was a success.  Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly were good-natured, provoking and flexible. Google did an excellent job of highlighting their products and technology while integrating them into the format.  I was particularly impressed with the way they used search engine results to bring to light what viewers and voters were searching for, topic-wise, and which candidates were getting the most interest.  The “word clouds” were a very good illustration of results, placing the most searched words in  “cloud” like formation and enlarging the words in order of popularity.  The audience really responded to each result.  One of the first results revealed two of the trending searches were for “marriage” and “marijuana”.  Apparently there were a lot of lonely stoners watching the debate.

 

Romney was the clear winner in the Fox/Google debate. He stood out and looked confident.  Cain and Santorum came a close second and third.  Now all the candidates head into the much heralded Florida straw polls this weekend looking to place strong.  We may see some big changes in the field coming after the results are tallied.

Democrats Dumb Things Down Better Than Republicans

The debt ceiling debate will most-likely become the GOP’s fault. Not because the lion’s share of spending is from Republican policies, but because Democrats are much better at speaking in generalities, obscuring facts and planting doubt.

Republican Study Committee Logo

Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace facing Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland).

Chris Wallace made an interesting point, one that Van Hollen was eager to let pass without comment, that Jordan missed the opportunity to make a strong point on, and Wallace did a poor job of exploring: what happens if the debt ceiling isn’t raised on August 2nd?

Chris presented the issue by saying that if we pay Social Security first, some top government programs would have to take cuts of around 40%. A slide was displayed that listed programs like the Veterans Administration, the FAA, and more. Van Hollen let the slide go without comment realizing the trap. For Jordan, it perfectly illustrated the terrible situation America is in – we’re broke. After paying Social Security, many government programs are beyond our ability to fund. If we raise the debt ceiling, we are admitting that we can’t afford these programs and are too dense to do anything about it.

Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat on the House Budget Committee was flawless. Talking points firmly memorized and facts transmogrified into fear-mongering platitudes, he was able to defeat every one of Jordan’s responses with nothing but populist garbage.

Jim Jordon is one of the sponsors of the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation that will likely pass the House and fail in the Senate next week. Van Hollen falsely summarized the bill for the weak-minded: [paraphrased]: Their legislation would cut Medicare and give tax breaks to oil companies.

Jordan was ill-prepared for the debate. He was unable to contradict Van Hollen’s Mediscare talking point. In Jordan’s own committee bill (H.R. 2560 – Cut, Cap and Balance) there is a specific subsection that protects Medicare:

EXEMPT FROM DIRECT SPENDING LIMITS.—
Direct spending for the following functions is exempt from the limits specified in subsection (c):
(1) Social Security, function 650.
(2) Medicare, function 570.
(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function
(4) Net Interest, function 900.

And again, in another section of the legislation, Medicare is exempted from the measure:

(B) Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Control Act of 1985 shall not apply to this section, except that payments for military personnel accounts (within subfunctional category 051), TRICARE for Life, Medicare (functional category 570), military retirement, social security (functional category 650), veterans (functional category 700), net interest (functional category 900), and discretionary appropriations shall be exempt

There is only one more mention of Medicare in the entire bill and yes.. it also holds Medicare exempt from the proposed legislation.

Cut, cap and balance does not cut Medicare, in fact, it specifically protects it. Van Hollen was wrong and Jordan was not even able to quote legislation he sponsors to point that out. The fact that Chris Wallace was ill-informed is nothing new, but he let the Democrat get away with misleading information.

The right says: we only take in enough money to pay for 60% of our current responsibilities. We have to cut spending to affordable levels or we will face bankruptcy in the next 2 to 3 years.

The left says: they want to cut Medicare and give tax breaks to oil companies.

This is how Democrats intend to keep the spending faucet wide open – flat out lies. Class warfare, scare tactics on Medicare and other fabrications are all they have. Unfortunately, a large portion of America finds it easier to consume the dumbed-down rhetoric from the left, instead of trying to process the logic from the right.

Michele Bachmann – Fluke, Flake or Phenom?

Michele BachmannMichele Bachman is expected to formally declare her candidacy for President in Iowa today. Her name has risen from the  collection of unknowns in the GOP field to a virtual dead-heat with Mitt Romney in a recent Iowa poll. Is it just Iowa? Is she a serious candidate? Could she be the first woman President of the United States?

Is it just Iowa?

For some, Bachmann’s rise is just a happenstance. Iowa is an early primary state and Michele was born there. No need to look further.

Others point to her consistent and strong Social Conservative views which do play well in the Hawkeye state.

  • Pro-life
  • Pro-Second Amendment
  • Against the government takeover of health care (Obamacare)
  • For the enforcement of U.S. Immigration laws (would not support amnesty)

She is equally strong on fiscal issues. The founder of the House Tea Party caucus and one of the House members that is currently a thorn in the side of the progressive agenda, Bachmann was opposed to the TARP bail-outs and the government takeover of GM and Chrysler. Michele is for a balanced budget including entitlement reform and would reform Social Security and Medicare to make that happen.

Mitt Romney has decided to, figuratively speaking, skip Iowa. Has this given Michele Bachmann a boost in one state that is hardly a foreshadowing of the end result? Perhaps, but she’s showing well in other states too. In a recent Florida poll she came out as the most popular of all Republican candidates and only trailed President Obama by 9 points – her numbers would obviously improve if she became the Republican nominee.

Is Bachmann a serious candidate?

Ah, the Sunday news circuit. Chris Wallace asked this question in possibly the worst manner ever when he looked straight at Michele Bachmann in a sit-down interview and asked, “Are you a flake?”

While poor form, the underlying question is important – is she someone that should be taken seriously as a contender for the White House?

The path to the White House has been accomplished by a current member of the House of Representative only once. The typical path includes a Senate seat or Governorship – she’s done neither. That means she’s never even won a state-wide election – only 3 consecutive bids in Minnesota districts for her State Senate seat and 3 consecutive elections to her current position as a U.S. Representative in the house. All of those elections are single, small, local efforts.

Michele Bachmann 2010 campaign Finance

Source: OpenSecrets.org

In Bachmann’s defense, her 2010 run for re-election was supported by funds from all over the country. More than half of contributions to her campaign came from out-of-state.

Can Michele Bachmann win primaries at the state level to get nominated and then she best Obama in a full-on nation-wide campaign? The primaries will be the first test of her ability to pull in wide support.

Is she another surprise candidate?

Ronald Reagan was thought to have no chance. Bill Clinton came out of nowhere at the end of the election cycle. It’s been done before.

Michele Bachmann has something both of those previous candidates had – she sounds like a real person. She has convictions and flaws – just like a real person.

If Obama was the perfect candidate, and results are brought to bear, perhaps we’ve learned what happens when someone so groomed is elected into office. Michele Bachmann may just be another surprise President – not because she’s perfect, but maybe because she’s more like us than we’re used to.

 

Clinton/Gates Prep Nation for Obama’s Libya Spin Tonight: Fox left out again

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the rounds on the Sunday talk show circuit in a seemingly weak attempt to explain to the nation our unexplained involvement in the Libyan Civil War of 2011.  Let’s see here, they were on ABC’s ” This Week, ” NBC’s ” Meet the Press ,” and CBS’s ” Face the Nation. ”  Wait a minute, isn’t there a Sunday show on Fox ? Isn’t our Government supposed to be accessible to all major media networks ?  Then why would they refuse to go on Chris Wallace’s ” Fox News Sunday ” show ?

To say the least, Chris Wallace was somewhat surprised at the blatant unfairness in the Obama administration’s decision in not making Clinton/Gates available to ” Fox News Sunday, ” and its millions of viewers.  I personally caught the slight right away, and refused to give my viewership stat to the MSM Obama puppet propagandist stations, instead I was relegated to reading about it on the internet. However I did catch the following video clip from Fox News, explaining it :

This is typical of the Obama administrations pattern of picking and chosing  just who gets access to the important governmental officials of the last two years. How the entire American population can sit around criticizing other nation’s dictatorial treatment of the press, while allowing this kind of  denial of access to Fox News is beyond rationalizing. This also goes against the promise that this administration will be the most open and transparent in our history. Apparently that open government, now means open, only to those who fail to hold this administration’s feet to the fire for engaging in an illegal war in Libya without the permission of Congress. Open only to those who get all tingly when Obama speaks, while ignoring the blatant lies and misinformation coming out of the Whitehouse today.

These kinds of  pathetic manipulations of our media should not only be condemned by all Americans today, but also by the cronies that Obama is favoring here. Think about this after we take over the U.S. Senate and Whitehouse in 2012:  How about our new Republican President denying all the Obama media puppets access to anyone in our government for four straight years and only letting them go on Fox News ?  Maybe we will let  ABC, CBS, and NBC show reruns of all the Fox News  Sunday interviews during the following week, when it is already yesterday’s news. Think about that.