When the White House Press Corps openly laughs at you…

You’ve probably told a whopper. Or a few. From the Washington Examiner, the White House can’t seem to get the Fast and Furious story straight:

And when Carney said that Obama’s decision to assert executive privilege over documents subpoenaed by Congress was “entirely about principle,” reporters openly laughed.

Whoops. The sad fact remains that most of the losers laughing will still vote for The Most Transparent Administration Evah.

This was after being twice corrected by Jake Tapper about the origins of Fast and Furious and the name of the Border Patrol agent killed as a result:

Next, Carney was forced to back off his attempt to pin Fast and Furious on the Bush Administration. “It originated in a field office during the previous administration.  It was ended under this administration, by this Attorney General,” Carney said. ABC’s Jake Tapper quickly observed that “The operation began in fall 2009.”

[…]

As Carney continued to field questions, he appeared to forget the family name of border patrol agent Brian Terry, who was death ignited the investigation after he was killed by drug smugglers armed with weapons obtained through Operation Fast and Furious.

“We have provided Congress every document that pertains to the operation itself that is at issue here when you talk about the family that you referred to,” Carney said. When Tapper provided him the name, he repeated it — “the Terry family.”

Smartest people in the room, eh? What an embarrassing administration.

UPDATE: linked by Pundette as a “Recommended Read” AND in this fabulous post. Read it. Thanks!

Linked by Pirate’s Cove. Thanks!

Advertisement

Waiting for Romney to pounce on security leaks

Because there’s so much to say, and little time left to say it. Jed Babbin writes at American Spectator:

The focus of the leak problem should not only be the questions of who leaked the information and what role the president played in the disclosures. The focus has to be the assessment of how much damage — and what kinds of damage –the leaks did to our national security.

Babbin explains the circus of investigations and which inquiries would lead to x results. We don’t have time for the drawn out mess most would entail. But one thing remains certain: Mitt Romney can choose to make this a campaign issue–a central and necessary one at that–and hasn’t yet. Babbin:

It is up to Mitt Romney, as the leader of the Republican Party, to choose to make the Obama leaks a campaign issue.

So far, Romney has been silent on this and too many other issues. If he chooses to remain silent on the Obama leaks, he will surrender the issue leaving Obama to continue the leaking and gain whatever political advantage within reach. Instead, Romney could and should seize upon the issue. Romney should speak out quickly, joining in the bipartisan call for an investigation and asking the intelligence committees to hold the closed hearings to obtain the assessments of damage.

When — and if — the committees hold those hearings, Romney should use whatever they may disclose to make a major speech on the issue, calling the Obama administration to account for its actions against our nation’s security. It’s all up to Romney: he can be the leader of the Republican Party or sit silent, absorbing the damage to his campaign and ignoring the damage to our national security.

I’m waiting for the leader of the GOP to step up to the plate. Will he? Hell, even McCain is hopping mad over the leaks. Justifiably so.

UPDATE: Linked as a “Recommended Read” by Pundette. Thanks!

The multiple coersions of Rev. Wright

The story grows deeper daily. Byron York writes:

At another point in the interview with Klein, Wright discussed the book he hoped to create. “What I was going to write on the Barack Obama thing was what it was like being the pastor of the one who ended up being the first African-descended president,” Wright told Klein.  “Before the media mess, what was it like?  And Martin said if you’re keeping notes about what happened, don’t publish that until after 2012, regardless of how the election goes.  So I really put it aside.  And every time I look at that box, with all those things in it — ”

When Klein asked more about the box, Wright revealed that in 2008 Eric Whitaker, a close friend of President Obama’s, offered him a substantial sum of money to stay quiet about his relationship with Obama until after the ’08 election.

“What’s in the box?” asked Klein.

“An email offering me money not to preach at all between the explosion of the media the first week in March [2008] and the November election,” answered Wright.

“An email from whom?” Klein asked.

“One of his friends.”

“Whitaker?” asked Klein.

“Yeah.”

“Eric?”

“Yeah.”

According to Klein, Whitaker’s offer, which was made through an intermediary at Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, was $150,000.  Wright declined. Wright also said that some time after he received Whitaker’s email, he spoke one-on-one with Obama, who did not offer him any money.

Um, isn’t someone else on trial for this?

 “Was [Obama] aware that Eric Whitaker had offered you money?” asked Klein.

“I don’t know,” said Wright.  “I didn’t mention that.”

“But he asked you not to appear at the NAACP or the — ”

“National Press Club,” added Wright.

“Those two things?”

“No — and don’t do any more public speaking.”

“What did you say to him?”

“I said, how am I supposed to support my family?” Wright said.  “I have a daughter and a granddaughter in college whose tuitions I pay.  I’ve got to earn money.  He said, ‘Well, I really wish you wouldn’t.  The press is gonna eat you alive.'”

“And that’s all he said?  Just that?”

Oh, the compassion.

Whitaker declined to comment. Who wants to place bets he’ll conveniently disappear for a while?

Liberals nonchalant over problems with Obama’s illegal fundraising apoplectic over anonymous (legal) donors against Obama

Heh. Turn about is fair play, y’all.

Via Doug Ross who points out the vast majority of Obama’s haul in 2008 was collected from illegal sources:

So two-thirds of Obama’s record haul derives from a website that intentionally disabled all the default security checks that prevent basic fraud like fake addresses and no-name matches ….Here’s the bottom line: Two-thirds of the record-breaking haul Obama raised for the final stretch of the campaign comes from a racket set up to facilitate fake names, phony addresses and untraceable cards

The Bamster’s online donations this go-round have also disabled credit card security codes. Ho, hum, nothing to see here. The WaPo, which buried the stories in 2008 of Obama’s credit card scammery, can barely contain the indignation now:

An anonymous donor gave $10 million late last year to run ads attacking President Obama and Democratic policies, escalating the money race that is defining the 2012 presidential campaign. And in the new, free-wheeling environment of independent political giving, the identity of this donor, like many others, is likely to remain a permanent mystery.

The donation went to Crossroads GPS, the conservative nonprofit group founded with the support of political strategist Karl Rove. Another donor gave $10 million in the 2010 midterm elections, according to draft tax returns that provide the first detailed look at its finances.

[…]

The tax returns show that Crossroads GPS has collected the vast majority of its donations from the super-rich. The forms show that nearly 90 percent of its contributions through the end of 2011 had come from as few as two dozen donors, each giving $1 million or more. Overall, the nonprofit group raised more than $76 million since it was founded in May 2010 through the end of 2011.

“That’s certainly not a grass-roots movement,” said Bill Allison, editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for transparency in government and politics.“These donors can have a very disproportionate effect on politics, and the fact that we don’t know who they are and what kind of favors they will ask for is very troubling.”

Emphasis mine. Apparently donations from the “super rich” whomever they may be raise red flags for libs because we don’t know what favors they’ll ask in return.  Like enabling illegal campaign donations from foreign nationals like Obama did in 2008? Or disabling credit card security so Pablo can use Ronaldo’s card with a phony address?

Don’t want to hear it. No wonder the Obami were so concerned in the wake of the Citizens United decision: their knowing and willful violations of law didn’t matter in 2008, but the playing field has been leveled.

Dead Mexicans not a concern of NYT and WaPo as long as Americans still have Second Amendment rights

Liberal logic flow at its best.

Mark Steyn waxes poetic on the lack of media concern for Fast and Furious. From The Daily Caller:

On Hugh Hewitt’s syndicated radio program Thursday, columnist Mark Steyn explained why he hasn’t ignored the story, and attacked the Obama administration’s involvement in the program.

“In this case the government of the United States is the gunrunner,” Steyn said. “That is basically what is happening here. There would be no guns running to these Mexican cartels if the United States government hadn’t instituted a program to facilitate it.”

Steyn noted the lack of media outrage compared with other scandals in the past.

“Now real Mexicans are dead,” he continued. “Does the president of the United States, does his attorney general, does CNN, does The New York Times, does NPR — do they not care about dead Mexicans?

“I mean, forget the United States Border Patrol guys that were killed about these ‘Fast & Furious’ guns. Real-live, or previously live, citizens of third world countries — the kind of people that NPR, The New York Times claim to love — are dead because of this.”

“Why isn’t that a national scandal?” he pleaded. “This is absolutely a — Iran-Contra didn’t rack of that kind of body count. Watergate didn’t rack up that kind of body count. Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s mother, or whatever stupid story they were chasing around Wasilla for months, that didn’t rack up a body count. There were hundreds of dead Mexicans from a gun running program run by the United States.”

When will the media have enough intellectual curiosity–or integrity–to ask the necessary questions of the Obama administration or of Eric Holder? Probably not. Holder has blood on his hands. Our Attorney General, already caught perjuring himself, knew of the gunrunning and never stopped it. I’ve read books with plotlines less crazy than this.

 

 

 

 

Funny that, a lawyer caught perjuring himself

Not so funny when it’s the U.S. Attorney General, is it?

Fast and Furiously destroying the Obama administration from within. Godspeed, CBS:

New documents obtained by CBS News show Attorney General Eric Holder was sent briefings on the controversial Fast and Furious operation as far back as July 2010. That directly contradicts his statement to Congress.

On May 3, 2011, Holder told a Judiciary Committee hearing, “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

Dear Attorney General Holder, please note that testimony before Congress is recorded. You might not have been aware of the fact. So much for sworn testimony! Oh, maybe they didn’t teach you that in law school.

Pundette has more: Documents directly link Holder to Fast and Furious.

Allahpundit:

No code words or euphemisms there. Nice and specific. And yet Eric Holder, upon discovering that 1,500 guns had been “supplied” to Mexican drug cartels in an operation managed by the ATF, apparently didn’t demand a full explanation. Fancy that.

I’ve seen the “Holder lied, people died,” tag and it’s much more true of Holder than it ever was of Bush. Funny that, eh? Or the comparison to Watergate, except that Watergate didn’t have dead bodies strewn about.

Will this bring down Holder? Obama? It should on both counts. I’m still AWED that CBS pursues this story.

Linked by Pundette as a “Recommended Read.” Thanks!

 

Team Obama challenge: Neutralize the only job growth in the country (and Rick Perry, too)

We can’t have private sector jobs. That leads to less welfare! Fewer bodies on the food stamp rolls! All beneficence should flow only from our liberal hands! 

Texas accounts for 45% of job creation in the entire country. Just let that sink in: we can blame one big old bubba red state for nearly half of the job growth. Figures, doesn’t it?  Something must be done. Quickly. Before that big hair smooth talker decides to run for President. We don’t want people getting any ideas.

White House alters bin Laden account?

 Via Politico, the story changes:

The White House backed away Monday evening from key details in its narrative about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, including claims by senior U.S. officials that the Al Qaeda leader had a weapon and may have fired it during a gun battle with U.S. forces.

Officials also retreated from claims that one of bin Laden’s wives was killed in the raid and that bin Laden was using her as a human shield before she was shot by U.S. forces

At a televised White House briefing Monday afternoon, Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan said bin Laden joined in the fight that several residents of the Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound put up against the Navy SEALs during the 40-minute operation.

“He [bin Laden] was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in. And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don’t know,” Brennan said.

At a Pentagon briefing earlier in the day, a senior defense official said bin Laden used a woman as a human shield so he could fire shots. “He was firing behind her,” the official said.

In another background briefing early Monday morning, a senior administration official also said bin Laden put up a fight. “He did resist the assault force. And he was killed in a firefight,” the official said.

Why release details if not true? Did these folks ever hear “The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf” as kids? Seriously. What parts of this am I supposed to believe if the story changes the next day.

SF newspaper to White House: Liar, liar

There’s something especially delicious about all of this. Maybe because San Francisco is the epicenter of liberalism? Journalists. San Francisco. Discover Obama and his minions are liars. Heh.

Editor-at-large Phil Bronstein:

In a pants-on-fire moment, the White House press office today denied anyone there had issued threats to remove Carla Marinucci and possibly other Hearst reporters from the press pool covering the President in the Bay Area.

Chronicle editor Ward Bushee called the press office on its fib:

Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.

The Chronicle’s report is accurate.

If the White House has indeed decided not to ban our reporter, we would like an on-the-record notice that she will remain the San Francisco print pool reporter.

I was on some of those calls and can confirm Ward’s statement.

Messy ball now firmly in White House court.

Another gem:

The hip, transparent and social media-loving Obama administration is showing its analog roots. And maybe even some hypocrisy highlights.

If the media were capable of performing its true function–inform, not obfuscate–that would be one thing. But the idea of the fourth estate turning on The One they helped elect is too much for me this morning. Of course they’ll make amends: there is, after all, an agenda to advance.

 Doesn’t make this any less fun, though, does it?

 

Of course it makes sense to nominate someone with no military experience to head the DOD in the middle of two wars and one “kinetic action.”

If your intent is to inflict as much harm to the military as possible.

From The Hill:

Obama two weeks ago said he wanted to find another $400 billion in savings from defense spending over the next 12 years, something Gates was said to be resisting. Now Panetta will be the man charged with pushing those cuts through a reluctant Department of Defense.

Shifting Panetta to DOD “probably means bigger cuts to the defense budget,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute.

“Secretary Gates was strongly committed to maintaining a robust defense posture, but Panetta will be more interested in getting along with the White House, which must find ways of cutting the deficit,” Thompson said.

More:

But aides and defense sources predicted a top charge for Panetta will be to keep alive the internal cost-trimming program Gates initiated last year. That effort uncovered over $100 billion in savings, most of which was redirected into hardware accounts, with some monies going to help pare the deficit.

While the outgoing defense secretary terminated or truncated over 50 hardware programs after Obama took office, he has argued strongly in recent months against going any further.

Gates spent ample political capital to convince White House officials to approve using those savings to beef up hardware accounts, warning against a defense budget-slashing drill that would create a “hollow force.”

How better to leave a lasting liberal impression on the military than by eviscerating it? The Code Pinkers would be pleased. After all, we can’t be the “world’s leading terrorists” if we’re left unable to fight or defend ourselves. Consider this gem from Politico:

Even though Obama is sympathetic to the desire to curb the negative impacts of a global U.S. military posture, he “doesn’t want to lose a war on his watch.”

Emphasis mine. Translation: Obama loathes the military, what it stands for, and its core purpose. Oh, but he doesn’t want to lose a war. Ha. He would have no better liberal bona fides than pulling out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya to embolden the likes of bin Laden, who, by the way, figured he could win a protracted war against us after watching Clinton abandon the mission in Somalia–a humanitarian mission initially–after the Mogadishu fiasco.

 

Cynical me wonders if this is what Michelle and Jill’s magical military tour is really all about, i.e. “supporting military families” through the transition to civilian life. Won’t it be grand not to have to worry about deployments? Just apply for that unemployment super-hero cape instead!More via Politico:

“Considerable cuts, beyond even the $400 billion-over-12-year target that President Obama announced earlier this month, will require a fundamental rethinking of the military’s role, something that Gates was unwilling to do,” said Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies for the libertarian Cato Institute. “It remains to be seen whether Panetta will tackle this challenge, or whether he will defer to others within the administration.”

As if there’s any question whether he will be an Obama hack or not. Pogues.

Bear in mind the military already faces cuts of 47,000 troopies.