Ben Rhodes does America a favor and tells us why the MSM is so twisted.

From the mouths of drunks and fools occasionally a serious and honest  statement blurts out.  Ben Rhodes made a splash after pushing through the Iranian deal by lying to the MSM about its value and it’s underlying bad deals.  When interviewed, his arrogant and dismissive statement that the reporters he fooled were 27 year old and had no worldly experience shocked the  27yr year old naive reporters.

The words stung like he had slapped them with the slimy tail of a long dead fish! Did they abandon him or do their job in retaliation? No, because they were, and are, Obama lovers, true believers because they know nothing else.  But you have to know it stung nevertheless.

The profile of one Ben Rhodes running in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine is not unsympathetic, which makes it all the more devastating.

Perhaps the key sentence is this: “His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling.”

Rhodes comes off like a real asshole. This is not a matter of politics — I have voted for Obama twice. Nor do I mind Rhodes’s contempt for many political reporters: “Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Imagine that moment when you thought the guy in the lead, who you thought was on your side, actually considered you nothing more than cannon fodder to be abused and thrown aside.  Ouch.

However, Rhodes is right. I watched the last presser with Trump, I listen to the likes of Don Lemon and Rachael Maddow and I have realized we can put the “journalists” into about three categories.  1. The young, dumb, naive crew that loves liberalism because that’s all they know.  Think of them as Maoist youngsters during the Mao reign.

Image result for photos of red guard children mao

Best way to describe young “journalists” of today. They believe what they know. They know no truths.

2. The corrupted liberal/socialist/or WORSE types like Van Jones, Maddow, Matthews, Lemon, Pelly, et al.  They are more like Walter Duranty of the New York Times who reported on Russia during Stalin’s era of mayhem and murder and kept saying “All is well, communism is utopia”, and we know he knew better. So let’s call them liars  and charlatans. Jon Lovitz plays it perfectly.

 

You can almost hear the likes of Rather and Lemon and Olbermann shouting with a wink, “Yeah, that’s the ticket!”  The Federalist article gives examples on how these more professional type act. It isn’t always a straight out attack on the person, although Trump’s presidency has encouraged that manner of attack.  But what they do is less a commission as it is an omission. By using the Benghazi attack as an example, the Federalist shows the continuous soft bias of the media.  It isn’t what they ask, it is they don’t ask, thus never demanding an embarrassing answer.

Buried deep beneath the Michael Flynn hysteria this week was Judicial Watch’s release of newly obtained State Department documents related to the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. One email confirms—again—that the Obama administration knew the day after the attack it was not a random act of violence stemming from an anti-Muslim video. That was the excuse shamefully propagated by top Obama administration officials (including the president himself) and swallowed whole by a media establishment desperate to help Obama win re-election six weeks later.

According to the summary of a call on September 12, 2012 between State Department Under-Secretary Patrick Kennedy and several congressional staffers, Kennedy was asked if the attack came under cover of protest: “No this was a direct breaching attack,” he answered. Kennedy also denied the attack was coordinated with the protests in Cairo over the video: “Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint.”

 It’s somewhat ironic—galling?—that this email was disclosed the same day the anti-Trump universe was spinning into the stratosphere over Flynn’s resignation as President Trump’s national security advisor. It begs for a little trip down memory lane, to a kinder, gentler time when the media gave a great big pass to another national security advisor in the days after four Americans, including an ambassador, were murdered in Libya by Islamic terrorists under her watch.

Lying to Us Only Matters If We Dislike You

Fun fact: While Trump press secretary Sean Spicer fielded 55 questions on February 14 related to the Flynn debacle, Obama’s press secretary Jay Carney received only 13 questions from reporters on September 12, 2012, three of which were set-ups to blast Mitt Romney’s criticism of the administration after the attack. 55 to 13.

55 to 13.  Think about that. Trump’s presser is an example of a President fighting to get his message out while the media wants to only ask him trick questions nobody cares about. Imagine had the media kept hammering over and over what was becoming quickly recognized as a cover up concerning what we were doing in Libya and what happened on 9/11/12 maybe the truth gets out, maybe Romney wins, maybe. But at least we would know what our government is doing in our name. It’s not like they didn’t know the truth.

But they didn’t.

(Washington DC)—Judicial Watch today released 54 pages of new State Department documents, including a transcript of a September 12 2012, telephone conference call with congressional staffers in which then-Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy admitted that the deadly terrorist assault on the Benghazi Consulate was not “under cover of protest,” but was, in fact, “a direct breaching attack.”

The documents were produced in response to a January 29, 2016, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the State Department failed to respond to an August 27, 2015, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:16-cv-00153)). The recently settled lawsuit sought:

  • All records of security waivers issued for the Special Mission compound in Benghazi, Libya under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act (SECCA);
  • All records concerning, regarding, or related to the Special Mission compound in Benghazi, Libya being “excepted from office facility standards and accountability” under SECCA as noted by the Benghazi Accountability Review Board.

The transcript was contained in an email from Julie K. Bulgrin, the State Department Bureau of Legislative Affairs director for Global and Functional Affairs:

From: Bulgrin, Julie K.

Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:55 PM

To: H_Egypt; Canedo, Denese; Lang, Alan; ‘Rodriguez Miguel’; ‘Arguelles, Adam’; ‘Lundebergy, Greta’; ‘Ortiz, Michael’; ‘Lee Collin’; Pitkin, Douglas A; Maier, Christina A

Subject: Write up of U/S Kennedy Call with Hill re Libya

The call ended up starting around 6:30. Here are the raw notes.

***

  • Rob Carter – was this an attack under the cover of a protest?
  • No, this was a direct breaching attack.
  • Do we have any ideas of who launched? Leads?
  • Some claims from someone who has never made threat before, but everyone is looking at this closely.
  • Do we believe coordinated w/Cairo?
  • Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint.

The call notes also detail that Amb. Stevens got of the compound, but “collapsed” and was taken to the hospital.  Kennedy also said that it was his personal opinion that the attack “was semi-complex.”

When asked why no Americans troops were inserted, Kennedy responded that “the entire thing lasted approximately 4.5 hours. No US forces within time to get there.”  (This was false, troops were available and could have arrived in time to provide support during the second attack on the CIA annex, which according to Kennedy, was assaulted by 100 attackers.)

One of the reasons the Leviathan of the administrative government is panicking is that people who want to know the truth are now in charge.  The people at State and the CIA were hoping for another four years to completely cover up the mistakes- or crimes- they committed.

If I were the new CIA director my first act would be to have all the Benghazi files brought to me, the RAW files. Not the smoothed over crap the CIA was peddling.  Sure, it’s embarrassing, but when your people are getting killed, you have an obligation to explain why you allowed that to happen. Further, the CIA/STATE operation had nothing to do with keeping America safe, but everything to do with upsetting the balance in the Middle East. We were meddling in the Middle East trying to use force to overthrow a government.  While now we complaining that Russia had the audacity to do it to us, with emails…? Sorry you don’t get a “For God and Country” for that mess.

Andrew Klavan over at PJ Media, like me no Trump fan, points out what is really happening. For YEARS our “leaders” were picked from a rarefied group of acceptable politicians, who all knew which side the real bread was buttered on by the Leviathan cooks.  Now they are facing a true outsider who is wanting the truth of things, and thinks we have a right to know.  They response is they will try to destroy him.  You should take note of that.  When given the choice between serving the American people and telling the truth- they went the other way.

Those whose opposition to Trump has overcome their dedication to the American idea support even the worst of this — appallingly enough. Never Trumper Bill Kristol tweets: “Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.” Leftist filmmaker Rob Reiner says hopefully: “Intelligence community will not let DT destroy democracy.” From Leftist Harvard Law Prof Lawrence Tribe: “Props to the intel officials! They’re putting their duty to protect the nation from hostile Russian acts above their loyalty to this POTUS.”

It’s ugly to accuse people of being unAmerican. But the idea that freedom is served by the CIA undermining our elected president — that’s unAmerican.

If you care about liberty, there’s really only one side here. In the fight between Donald Trump and the Deep State, I’m for Trump one hundred percent. Unconstrained bureaucrats, rogue spies, and their media fellow travelers — I hope he defeats them all.

Yep, but he will need help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply