Let's start with David Brooks on Meet the Press. Could somebody please tell me how this dude ever got this job ? This guy's number one talent in life is avoiding saying anything I can possibly agree with. Today, he's blaming the CIA for exagerrating the talking points of the communication given to the State Dept. which then, by them, got scrubbed, until it was something the American people wouldn't rake them over the coals for (AKA "coverup").
So Brooks wants to blame the CIA for going too far in their assessment (making it appear that the scrubbing would be OK). There's a big problem with this "so clever" statement from Brooks however. He doesn't offer one shred of evidence to back up a word of what he says. So what do you say David ? You got any evidence upon which to base your attack on the CIA ? Or are we all supposed to just accept your spiel on faith, because you're such a cool guy ?
Then there's Diane Feinstein. Nothing but more coverup from her. I didn't hear anything substantial.
Typical Congressperson cowering in fear of the president of the United States, who can veto her legislation if he takes a dislike to her.
Then there was the mention of FBI director Robert Mueller and Joint Chiefs of Staff head, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and their assessments that help for the beleaguered defenders of the Benghazi US Consulate couldn't have arrived in time. First thing that comes to my mind is >> why not ? Dempsey's the top guy in that category. Has he not heard of the old expression ? >> an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why wasn't a scenario in existence where the consulate would have been able to defend itself WITHOUT help being called in, and why wasn't there a better military plan ?
I may not know the exact military calculation on this, but I know Dempsey and Mueller are both notorious Muslim ass-kissers, who have bent over backwards in the past, to appease even the most radical of Muslim jihadists, and just even hearing their names mentioned in this makes me cringe.
Then we have ex-Sect of Defense Robert Gates, who lends assistance to the overall coverup by saying he worked with Hillary Clinton for 2 years, and likes her very much. Gee that's nice. And it also possibly explains why he doesn't attempt to expose the administration for its obvious role in whitewashing this whole disturbing fiasco (2 weeks after Banghazi and receiving the intelligence report, they were still calling the thing a spontaneous protest of a You Tube movie - as was their mouthpiece Susan Rice on 5 seperate talk shows).
Look like the talk show con jobbing isn't over. Can you believe it ?
So Brooks wants to blame the CIA for going too far in their assessment (making it appear that the scrubbing would be OK). There's a big problem with this "so clever" statement from Brooks however. He doesn't offer one shred of evidence to back up a word of what he says. So what do you say David ? You got any evidence upon which to base your attack on the CIA ? Or are we all supposed to just accept your spiel on faith, because you're such a cool guy ?
Then there's Diane Feinstein. Nothing but more coverup from her. I didn't hear anything substantial.
Typical Congressperson cowering in fear of the president of the United States, who can veto her legislation if he takes a dislike to her.
Then there was the mention of FBI director Robert Mueller and Joint Chiefs of Staff head, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and their assessments that help for the beleaguered defenders of the Benghazi US Consulate couldn't have arrived in time. First thing that comes to my mind is >> why not ? Dempsey's the top guy in that category. Has he not heard of the old expression ? >> an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why wasn't a scenario in existence where the consulate would have been able to defend itself WITHOUT help being called in, and why wasn't there a better military plan ?
I may not know the exact military calculation on this, but I know Dempsey and Mueller are both notorious Muslim ass-kissers, who have bent over backwards in the past, to appease even the most radical of Muslim jihadists, and just even hearing their names mentioned in this makes me cringe.
Then we have ex-Sect of Defense Robert Gates, who lends assistance to the overall coverup by saying he worked with Hillary Clinton for 2 years, and likes her very much. Gee that's nice. And it also possibly explains why he doesn't attempt to expose the administration for its obvious role in whitewashing this whole disturbing fiasco (2 weeks after Banghazi and receiving the intelligence report, they were still calling the thing a spontaneous protest of a You Tube movie - as was their mouthpiece Susan Rice on 5 seperate talk shows).
Look like the talk show con jobbing isn't over. Can you believe it ?
