I have always felt that ultimately Barack Obama would be laughed out of office.  Bill Clinton nailed this early on when he said the Obama candidacy itself was a big joke.  But the joke was on Clinton as he soon was faced with screams of racism.  Clinton backed off big time and the rest is history.

The entire Obama narrative has been a joke from the start.  But the main stream media just couldn’t bring themselves to see the truth.  Instead they chose to see people like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly as just loud mouth extremists shouting at windmills.  They made the classic mistake of judging facts based on their personal distaste for the person, without realizing that facts are stubborn things.  They convinced themselves that the bitter folks on the right could see a mountain in every mole hill.  The left had an explanation for everything.  Obama’s birth certificate controversy was written off as racism.  William Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood.  Reverend Wright was a nice guy who just got overheated during one sermon.  Obama just happened to be the only politician in Chicago who was personal friends with Anthony Rizzo without being corrupted.  So what if Rizzo helped Obama buy his house.  So what if Rizzo is in prison for bribing public officials.  This is all just a coincidence.  They ignored the video by Percy Sutton explaining how he personally arranged for a Saudi prince to fund Barack’s great adventure.  They were happy to discount this as just nonsense from an old man.  They ignored the obvious fact that someone with Obama’s academic record would have needed to buy his way into Harvard.  Some, but not all, even convinced themselves that the deliberate cover-up of Benghazi was just another political witch hunt over a minor issue.  Sure, technically, there were all these smoking gun documents showing that Obama deliberately lied to us, but they shrugged that off too.  The man was untouchable.  The conspiracy theories about him unthinkable.  Until now. 

Now the IRS got caught red-handed targeting conservatives and the evidence is so overwhelming that they had to admit it.  But Barack Obama said:  “if this is true.”  If?  If this is true?  They admitted it.  Then the news broke that Eric Holder had conducted wide spread surveillance of the Associated Press.  Suddenly the lights went on in the city and a whole lot of people on the liberal left are coming to the grim realization that those folks at Fox News have a lot of really inconvenient facts. 

The following skit from Jon Stewart will do more harm to Barack Obama than all of the congressional committees combined.  He didn’t just shred Obama’s defense, he laughed it off the stage.  A politician can recover from being hated.  A politician can recover from scandal.  But a politician cannot recover from becoming a laughingstock.  If you do not believe that, talk to Sarah Palin:

http://clashdaily.com/2013/05/stewart-destroys-obama-over-irs-scandal-youve-vindicated-conspiracy-theorists/

First, watch this video and laugh out loud.  It is incredibly funny.  Then get down on your knees and thank God for Jon Stewart.  He has done something that Issa, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Graham and a cast of thousands could not have done in a million years.  He has laughed Obama right off the stage and he will never recover.   It won’t happen overnight, but it may happen faster than anyone thought possible.  Democratic politicians all over the country will watch Jon Stewart and they will be confronted with the ugly truth about Barack Obama.  A picture is worth a 1,000 words, but a Jon Stewart sketch like this is worth a million.

Democratic politicians are going to start deserting the ship in droves.  Hillary Clinton would be the pied piper leading the parade if she hadn’t personally mucked up Benghazi.  Obama just got a full taste of “Pain Stewart” and nothing will ever be the same again.

(I have a picture of Paine Stewart in my office, so obviously no disrespect intended for one of golfing’s greats, both on and off the field)

It’s a beautiful thing.

TDM

I thought that Jay Carney was terrible during the Friday press conference.   He looked frustrated and he gave answers that were so obviously incorrect that even the liberal media noticed.  Then I saw Obama at his press conference today, and he made Carney look good.  Obama is still claiming that he declared it an act of terrorism on September 12, but we know that is a lie.  The following interview given to CBS the same day proves that Obama did not call it an act of terrorism.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/05/benghazi-attack/1684503/

Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?

Obama: Well it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans

CBS conveniently did not release this interview until the day of the November election.  If they had released it right after Obama told the same lie during the debate it might have had a major impact on the election.

But what may cause the most problem for Obama is when he said the following:

“Keep in mind by the way these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice, five, six days after the event occurred, pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing.” 

He claimed that the daily Presidential briefing pretty much matched the talking points prepared for Susan Rice.  The President’s Daily Brief is prepared by the Director of National Intelligence.  That would be James Clapper.  Since the CIA reported that this was a terrorist attack and never mentioned the video, it seems unlikely that the Presidential Daily Briefing would even mention the video.  Clapper denied making the changes to the original CIA talking points.  It is hard to believe that Obama’s Presidential Daily Briefing made any reference to the video.

Somebody is going to demand to see that Presidential Daily Briefing.  Even if they can’t get access to the briefing itself, they can sure call Clapper and ask him if the Presidential Daily Briefing made reference to the video.  Based on past performance, Clapper has tried to avoid answering questions that could embarrass the President, but I don’t think he will lie if asked a direct question.

Investigators now have grounds to ask:  “what did the President know and when did he know it.”  In his clumsy attempt to put out the fire, Obama just may have poured gas on it.  Perhaps as bad as Jay Carney was last Friday, Obama would have been better off if he had sent in the Carney.

TDM

The Benghazi story has turned a new corner and it is devastating for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Up until now, the main stream media refused to acknowledge the lack of integrity from this administration.  I think deep down they knew this, but they couldn’t bring themselves to believe it.  They were able to convince themselves that this was all just partisan politics.

This reminds me of when Bill Clinton bombed Iraq, during his impeachment trial.  Ted Koppel was on ABC News and he commented on the political convenience of the attack, but he said he would not consider the possibility of that because it would be “unthinkable.”

The main stream media remains liberal and it remains anti-Republican.  That is not going to change.  But they have now been confronted with irrefutable evidence that this administration deliberately lied to them.  No matter how one spins this, this administration conspired to deceive and they did it for purely political purposes.  It is a breach of trust that has sent shock waves through the main stream media.

Many people think that the print media is dead and buried, but that is not true.  Ultimately, with regard to a story of this magnitude, the print media still matters.  That is because television is severely limited by time and everyone knows that a creative editor can really distort things.  A well written news story is much harder to ignore.  We are starting to see major newspapers who are fully engaged.  Following are just some examples from today.  First, the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

The media is shocked that the White House is still trying to defend this:

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.

Maureen Dowd has written a column in the New York Times that is beyond devastating:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=0

The following paragraph is particularly stunning in that she uses the term “Clinton Rules.”  Note that the New Yorker also made reference to Bill Clinton’s definition of the word “is.”

Clinton Rules, defined by a presidential aide on the hit ABC show “Scandal” as damage control that goes like this: “It’s not true, it’s not true, it’s not true, it’s old news.”

She even admits that some of the worst detractors on Fox News have a point:

The conservatives appearing on Benghazi-obsessed Fox News are a damage patrol with an approach that goes like this: “Lies, paranoia, subpoena, impeach, Watergate, Iran-contra.”

(Though now that the I.R.S. has confessed to targeting Tea Party groups, maybe some of the paranoia is justified.)

a simple truth: The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.

She is forced to acknowledge that the State Department sent people into harm’s way without coming close to providing adequate security:

Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A., which had more personnel in Benghazi than State did and vetted the feckless Libyan Praetorian Guard. When the Pentagon called an elite Special Forces team three hours into the attack, it was training in Croatia — decidedly not a hot spot.

She then shreds the administration’s claim that no military assistance was available:

The defense secretary at the time, Leon Panetta, insisted, “We quickly responded.” But they responded that they would not respond.

But perhaps most shocking is the following comment regarding Hillary Clinton.  The main stream media has been pretending that Hillary Clinton was an outstanding Secretary of State and they were engaged in a full scale puff Hillary campaign.  The liberal left had moved on from Obama and was now focused on replacing him with Hillary in 2016.  Maureen Dowd punctured that entire balloon with the following sentence:

Looking ahead to 2016, Hillaryland needed to shore up the mythology that Clinton was a stellar secretary of state.

In other words, the reason they lied is that the truth would destroy the myth that Hillary Clinton was a good Secretary of State.

I do not know the final outcome of Benghazi.  It will definitely be bad for the President and it will be devastating for Hillary, but so far I don’t see evidence of an impeachable offense.  However, the main stream media has been forced to recognize that the Obama administration looked them straight in the eye, and lied. That really matters.

It won’t stop at Benghazi.  They are now going to challenge every statement made by this administration on every subject.

The first impact will be with regard to Fast & Furious.  The media is going to take a second look at that story and it will be very skeptical of the story told by the administration.  This may also affect the next judge who is wondering whether all those supoena’s are necessary.  The administration had given the courts probably cause to investigate everything.

I haven’t even commented on the new story about the IRS targeting the Tea Party.  That has already generated bi-partisan outrage.

Ronald Reagan once said that when dealing with Russia, we should “trust, but verify.”  With the Obama administration we are now at a point where we definitely cannot trust and verification is a first priority.  Obama has been exposed as nothing more than a Pompous Prevaricator.  The bully pulpit is more appropriately named the “BS” pulpit.  He still lectures people, only now everyone knows he’s lying through his teeth.  A lot of us already knew that.  Now the main stream media knows it too.

TDM

The Screwtape Letters is a fictional story by C.S. Lewis.  These are letters from Demon Screwtape to his nephew, Wormwood, explaining how to undermine faith and promote sin.  The letters reveal a secret strategy to distort and mislead.  It is becoming obvious that the e-mails from the State Department to the CIA are the modern version, so I will refer to them as “The Shrewtape Letters.”  Use your own imagination to identity the shrew

They should probably own up to the truth and throw somebody expendable under the bus.  But instead they are trying to pretend that black is white and that Benghazi is just about over reach by hysterical republicans.  As a result, they are still trying to cover-up the cover-up.  Ultimately, the cover-up to cover up the cover-up will do more damage than the cover-up itself.

Jay Carney is still pretending that the White House and the State Department needed more time to understand who was behind the Benghazi attack:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/8/white-house-stands-its-benghazi-story-hearing-unfo/

“What I can tell you is that it was the assessment of our intelligence community that the attacks were participated in by extremists,” he told reporters at a regular daily briefing. “That’s what I’ve said. That’s what Ambassador Rice said. She said on that Sunday that extremists were involved. What we didn’t know is what their exact affiliation was.”

“As you know, with regard to this group, there was a claim of responsibility, then there was a disowning of responsibility. So anybody who pretends to have known all the facts instantly is just mistaken,” he continued. “And it is always the case that things like this require careful investigation.”

If this is the best they can do, they are in deep trouble.  Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Rice and Jay Carney all said this was the result of a disgusting video.  That was patently untrue.  There was zero evidence that the video caused this problem.  They didn’t just suppress the truth; they replaced the truth with a deliberate lie.

As a side note, there was only one demonstration remotely connected to that video on September 11, 2012, and that was in Cairo.  The sympathy demonstrations all over the Middle East occurred after Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama went on their apology tours.  One could argue that it was Clinton and Obama who lit the fuse that exploded across the Arab world later that week.

The State Department and the White House are just digging themselves a deeper hole.  They are adding lies and distortions to cover up lies and distortions.  The arrogance and stupidity of the Obama administration will keep this story alive.

The Benghazi story has gone to the next level.  ABC ran a report showing 12 revisions to the CIA talking points and e-mails from the State Department requesting those changes.  There are also e-mails from the White House to the CIA saying they needed to listen to the State Department.  Even MSNBC is reporting on this.

NBC is reporting that they are getting calls from the State Department trying to discredit Gregory Hicks:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democrats-actively-working-undermine-benghazi-whistleblower_722036.html

It is now clear that Republicans have lots of documents from whistle blowers.  Some of these documents are classified.  We are watching a classic cat and mouse game.  Republicans are demanding copies of e-mails that they already have in their possession.  But Democrats do not know what the Republicans do and do not have.  If they refuse to release them, Republicans will eventually get them through subpoena or disclose them through witness testimony.  The administration’s attempt to withhold these documents just increases their value.  If they try to change them, they risk being exposed with copies of the originals.  The White House and the State Department have walked into a mine field they set for themselves with their sloppy attempt to replace the obvious with the ridiculous.

Even MSNBC is covering this story and has broached the possibility of impeachment:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-panel-benghazi-scandal-makes-white-house-look-terrible-possibly-an-impeachment-issue/

The best way to describe this panel is that they think the mean ole nasty Republicans who hate Barack Obama and hate Hillary Clinton just may have the kind of smoking guns necessary to remove Obama from office.  This is an astonishing discussion, particularly on MSNBC.  If you have any questions about how bad this is for Democrats, watch this video.  When your supporters talk like this, you are in big trouble.

This story is going to escalate slowly, and that is the most dangerous type of story.  It is what happened during Watergate.

TDM

I have often thought that being the Press Secretary for President Barack Obama has to be one of the most difficult jobs in the world.  I remember Robert Gibbs trying desperately to explain why black is actually white and up is actually down.  Perhaps his most famous effort was in explaining why President Obama thought being on The View with Whoopi Goldberg trumped meeting with world leaders.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/23/foxs-chris-wallace-to-robert-gibbs-obama-has-time-for-whoopi-goldberg-but-he-doesnt-have-time-for-world-leaders/

One gets the sense that Gibbs just got tired of having to do this on a daily basis.  I can remember watching him many times and wondering how he could give some of those answers with a straight face.  Following is the definition of a “Robert Gibbs” in the urban dictionary:

Robert Gibbs left the White House in February, 2011 and was replaced as Press Secretary by Jay Carney. Jay Carney has had a rocky ride, to say the least.  Now the Benghazi scandal creates a serious problem for Carney.  When the Press Secretary speaks, there is almost always a camera there to record what is said.  Here is what he said on November 28, 2012:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/28/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-11282012

Ambassador Rice was using unclassified talking points that were developed by the intelligence community and provided not just to her, not just to the executive branch, but to the legislative branch.  And they represented the best assessment by our intelligence professionals about what had happened in Benghazi at that time.  And that is not just me saying so; that is what the DNI and the CIA have said.

This was patently untrue.  The CIA had reported, in writing, that this was clearly a terrorist attack and they never mentioned the video and there was no mention of a demonstration.

The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two — of these two institutions were changing the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility,” because “consulate” was inaccurate.  Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.  They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened. 

This is a bald-faced lie.  We now know that the CIA talking points were heavily redacted, up to 12 times, at the request of the State Department and the White House.

We have to get our facts straight when we’re talking about this story, okay?  There was basic information developed by the intelligence community that was provided to Ambassador Rice, to Capitol Hill, to me and others.  We used that to describe what we understood to be known at the time in the immediate aftermath of Benghazi.  As we learned more information, we made it available. That’s the long and short of it.

The problem was not a shortage of information.  They knew this was a terrorist attack and they knew who was claiming responsibility.  They chose to put forth a story for which there was no evidence and falsely represented it as the consensus of the Intelligence community.

That November Press conference may prove to be extremely damaging to the Obama administration and specifically to Jay Carney.  We now have indisputable evidence that this was a bald-faced lie.  Almost everything that Jay Carney said about the talking points during this press conference was a lie. 

At some point a report is going to ask Jay Carney a direct question:

Why did you lie to us on November 28, 2012?  Did you decide to tell this lie on your own, or were you instructed to tell this lie?  Who, specifically, told you that the only revision to the talking points was the changing the word consulate to diplomatic facility.

How could he possibly answer this question?  The best he can say is that he was just repeating what he was told.  At that point, there are going to be loud demands to know who told him this.  Is he going to say that he knew the truth, but lied anyway, because he thought that was the right thing to do?  Or is he going to say that he knew the truth, but he was told to lie?

Carney is in the ultimate lose-lose situation.  There is no chance that he will survive as Press Secretary.  He has told one too many lies.  Some news reporter is already preparing videos where he or she will play Jay Carney’s words on November 28, 2012 and his words now.  It will be a non-survivable event.

His last press conference was a disaster and future press conferences will be much worse.  There are a lot of people in the main stream media who will spin furiously to protect this President and/or Hillary Clinton.  But there are not a lot of people who will tolerate bald-faced lies.  Even these left wing liberal wackos have a limit.

This story is ratcheting up too fast and heads are going to roll.  You can bet on Jay Carney being near the top of the expendable list.  Somewhere, Robert Gibbs is down on his knees thanking God he is no longer Press Secretary for this President.

TDM

President Obama was re-elected in November, 2012.  Democrats held a picnic to rejoice over their great victory.  Now, just six months later, they are showing signs of panic.  The White House held a deep back ground off the record meet and greet with selected White House news reporters today.  It is an act of desperation:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/white-house-holds-offrecord-benghazi-briefing-163704.html?hp=l1

The White House has moved into full crisis management mode.  The Benghazi story is picking up steam.  It is exploding faster than anyone predicted. We could easily be on our way to a select committee:

These “off the record” meetings are designed for the administration to leak information to the media that they would never say publicly.  One possibility is that they will blame everything on Hillary.  Obama always blames somebody else for everything.  Obama would blame Bush, but that is clearly not an option.  But I wonder if Obama understands the size of the “protect Hillary at any cost brigade?”  A huge part of the main stream media is already in their full Hillary protection mode.  They will not respond well if Obama throws her under the bus

The least likely scenario is that this administration will just tell the truth. 

To add salt to the wound, the families of the Navy Seals killed in a helicopter crash held a Press Conference.  They played a video of a Muslim cleric speaking at the funeral for these Seals in Afghanistan.  No Christian clergy was allowed to participate.  We didn’t want to risk offending Muslims.  If the translation is accurate, this Muslim cleric chose to rip the Seals at their own funeral service.  I can’t imagine many things that will be more infuriating to Americans.  Following is the link to the video.  Judge for yourself:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/09/families-say-muslim-cleric-disparaged-dead-navy-seals-at-their-own-funeral/

This is what happens when our politicians let political correctness over-ride common sense.  When Osama bin Laden was killed, we went to great lengths to give him a proper Muslim funeral.  Yet there was total disregard to the religious beliefs of our own Navy Seals.  This is disgraceful. 

TDM

In the Presidential debate “moderated” by Candy Crowley, President Obama told one of the biggest lies since Bill Clinton said he “didn’t have sex with that woman:”

“And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our UN Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as President. That’s not what I do as Commander-in-Chief.”

Actually, that is exactly what he did.

When Clinton told his lie, one senior political analyst said that if he was lying, it was the end for him.  As we now know, it wasn’t the end, because every single Democratic Senator voted for acquittal.  They decided it wasn’t an important lie because it was just about sex.

We already know that when Obama made the above statement, he was lying.  The evidence is overwhelming that the White House and the State Department knew the truth and they deliberately lied.  It is impossible to believe that Obama was not part and parcel of the cover-up.  The only real question is who was leading on this dance, Hillary or Barack.

Now the only remaining question is whether Democrats will ignore this too, because lying by a liberal Democrat apparently doesn’t matter.  Democrats like to pretend that Bush lied and people died, but they have a problem.  There is not one single instance where there is evidence that Bush lied about anything.  When Bush said he thought there were WMDs in Iraq, it was because he believed there were WMDs in Iraq. The United States Intelligence community believed there were WMDs in Iraq.  The head of the CIA said it was a slam dunk.  John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, Jay Rockefeller and a whole lot of other top Democrats believed there were WMDs in Iraq.  Bush was wrong, but he wasn’t lying about what he believed.   Democrats searched desperately for one lie by George W. Bush and they came up empty.  That is why they screamed loudly about the 13 words in the State of the Union address, that also turned out to be accurate.  It was as close as they could come to finding a lie.  With Obama, we have the opposite problem.  There are so many lies that it is hard to choose which one matters the most.

Obama told a lie, a paper thin red lie and the main stream media knew or should have known that.  I believe this was, to quote Hillary Clinton, the “willing suspension of disbelief.”  The news media knew that the administration’s theory that the Benghazi attack was caused by a video was utter nonsense.  Even Candy Crowley knew that, which is why she pretended that Obama called this a terrorist attack.  I think the main stream media hoped that someone in administration really believed this.  Apparently having our government run by people who are naïve and stupid wasn’t a big concern.  But now we have cold hard unambiguous evidence that they knew the truth and they deliberately lied.  They came, they saw, they lied and the media played along.

No one in the administration really believed that the Benghazi attack was the result of that video.  The CIA and the local State Department employees on site reported within minutes that it was connected to al Qaeda.  They told the White House and the State Department this in writing.  There is no possibility that anyone at the White House or the State Department misunderstood the information.  It was far from ambiguous.  This was a deliberate decision to lie to the American people for purely political purposes.  How on earth can anyone in either party trust an administration that would do this?

TDM

I used to manage the tort litigation for a major corporation.  As a result, I had the chance to watch some really brilliant trial attorneys in action.  I remember one trial where the testimony of one particular witness was a great concern.  I happened to be in the court room when the plaintiff’s attorney was questioning this witness.  My attorney suddenly swallowed his water wrong and started choking.  He was an older gentleman and everyone in the court room was worried about him.  Fortunately he recovered and the trial proceeded.  I later realized that no one in the jury had even heard what that witness had to say.  They were too distracted by the drama.  I still am not sure if this was coincidence or a really good acting performance.  Whenever I asked the attorney about this he just smiled.   I do know that either way it had a major impact on that trial.

Wednesday there are some witnesses scheduled to testify in front of congress.  Based on the sneak previews this testimony is guaranteed to be high drama and there will be direct accusations against Hillary Clinton.  I guarantee you that there are people who are more than a little concerned about this hearing.  Don’t be surprised if there is at least some attempt to divert the news cycle away from this story.  Almost anything is possible.  Bill Clinton literally launched an air strike against Iraq during the middle of his impeachment trial.  I do not know what will happen, but I expect it to be major, I expect it to dominate the news cycle and I expect the main stream media to use this as an excuse to avoid covering this hearing.  Think of Hillary Clinton erupting in rage during her hearing and asking:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

We will soon know how serious this is by how much effort is spent in kicking the can down the road.

TDM

The Benghazi story just exploded.  Watch the following video from CBSnews:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/

Bob Schieffer is as main stream as media gets.    The rest of the main stream media will sit up and take notice.  It is a stark reminder of how the news media used to operate.  He started with the following:

Well we start with the story that won’t go away…. today there is new information raising questions about whether there was a cover-up by the State Department to deflect criticism that it had ignored requests for more security for its people in Libya.

Note:  It was Schieffer who used the word cover-up and he brought it up again several times.  It was also Schieffer who said it was to “deflect criticism for ignoring requests for more security”.  The exchange between Schieffer and Issa is remarkable.  Schieffer is the one pressing the issue and Issa is being very careful to provide only documented facts.  Issa didn’t take any cheap shots, even when given the opportunity.  He oozed credibility.  There is an old saying among lawyers. “If you have the facts, pound the facts.  If you don’t have the facts, pound the opponents.  If you can’t do either of the above, just pound.”  Issa was pounding the facts and Schieffer was paying very close attention.

There were more fireworks on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:

 http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-rep-benghazi-talking-points-it-was-scrubbed-it-was-false-information-theres-no-excuse_720805.html

Stephen Lynch, Democratic congressman from Massachusetts was on and he was doing his best to stick to the Democratic talking points.  That is until Wallace confronted him with the hard cold evidence that the original CIA talking points were deliberately altered.  Lynch’s attitude changed in the blink of an eye.  He simply said that what the administration told us was wrong, that it was deliberately wrong and that there was no excuse for it.  Then he asked Jason Chafee if Democrats could please be part of the investigation. 

Schieffer looked genuinely annoyed that Susan Rice had come on his show and deliberately lied to his face.  The bottom line is that the main stream media was confronted with irrefutable proof that this administration will not only spin things, they will look you right in the eye and lie.  I really think this is a watershed moment.

TDM

Have you ever noticed that nearly all of the predictions by the global warming alarmist crowd turn out to be ridiculously wrong.  A case in point is the following article published in the Atlantic on July 8, 2011.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/an-era-of-tornadoes-how-global-warming-causes-wild-winds/241639/

Following is typical of the nonsense routinely spouted by these guys:

Recent studies published in Nature and Science conclude that extreme weather events (heavy rainfall events and heatwave intensity) are linked to climate change. And the heat buildup in the deep ocean helps explain why.

I should have bet on having fewer tornadoes in both 2012 and 2013.  This is not because I have any meteorological expertise, I don’t.  It is rather because these guys are almost always wrong.  So, common sense would indicate that if they were predicting more tornadoes, we could expect the exact opposite.

Bingo.  There turned out to be a lot less tornadoes than usual in 2012.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/28/tornado-season-2012-recor_n_1711679.html

Of course the ever predictable Huffington Post blamed this on a drought, caused by…..GLOBAL WARMING.  The reason there weren’t enough tornadoes is that it was too hot.

Oops.  The tornadoes forgot to show up this year too.  What’s up with that?  Last year it was because it was too hot.  This year it is because it is too cold.  But, I can safely predict that the global warming crowd will not be discouraged by mere facts.

http://www.examiner.com/article/very-few-tornadoes-so-far-2013-thank-the-cold

Perhaps I am wrong, I haven’t exactly spent hours researching this stuff, but it sure looks like the global warming crowd is spectacularly good at getting things wrong.  One would think that once in a while even they would accidently nail it.  I mean even a broken clock is right twice a day.  But not these guys! They are very good at getting it exactly wrong!

So, I will safely predict when we will see more tornadoes.  It will be right after the global warming crowd says they missing because of global warming.

TDM