Posted on 10/21/2012 5:32:10 PM PDT by chessplayer
New York Times foreign affairs columnist Tom Friedman, who three weeks ago derided Mitt Romney for how he acts...as if he learned his foreign policy at the International House of Pancakes, on Sundays Meet the Press dismissed concerns over how the Obama administration handled Benghazi before and after the attacks. To me, he declared, this is an utterly contrived story in the sense that this is the end of, you know, Obamas foreign policy.
Over on ABCs This Week, host George Stephanopoulos ludicrously argued: Hasnt the White House been relatively transparent?
He justified his contention, in the question he cued up guest panelist Van Jones: We learned over the weekend that even the talking points that Ambassador Rice received on that Sunday morning from the CIA suggested there was no pre-planning.
Friedman maintained during the panel on the October 21 Meet the Press:
Its obviously been totally politicized at this point. I lived in a civil war in Beirut for 40 years, these are incredibly messy situations. People dont show up with uniforms....You can have a flash mob turned into a planned thing. You can have planned people inside of a flash mob. To me, this is an utterly contrived story in the sense that, this is the end of, you know, Obamas foreign policy.
Later, when panelists were asked to elucidate the question theyd pose at Monday nights upcoming third presidential debate, Friedman lived up to type, repeating his mantra about the wonders of a carbon tax:
Of course. The logical conclusion to this mess is that the attack in Bengazi was BOTH spontaneous and planned !
18 minutes, not 18 hours.
So our homosexual ambassador is still alive in Libya???
I knew theyd be out on the Sunday shows talking up the latest backstepping intel source that asserts it was not pre-planned.
Thatll be Obamas newest talking point tomorrow too.
So we have gone from spontaneous to pre-planned back to spontaneous again. Unreal. And the media will go “yup, that makes sense.”
"Relatively transparent" compared to Baghdad Bob? To Goebbels? I suppose you could argue that Obama eventually admitted he was at least a little wrong.
The article continues, He justified his contention, in the question he cued up guest panelist Van Jones: We learned over the weekend that even the talking points that Ambassador Rice received on that Sunday morning from the CIA suggested there was no pre-planning.
Maybe her notes suggested that, but Obama was selling the demonstration/video story with might and main.
I deleted This week from one of my DVRs but I may be able to recover it to see the context of it.
If he asked someone like Lins Graham-nesty that then I would see it as a softball for Lins to knock out of park. Graham-nesy was un-mercilessness in his criticism of O foreign policy yesterday. It was fun to watch. That would be good.
If he asked a Dem like Axelrod or a Dem MSMer that question then it was definitely a softball to him, purely to help O.
” Over on ABCs This Week, host George Stephanopoulos ludicrously argued: Hasnt the White House been relatively transparent?”
Yeah, and as a result, Obama will lose : )
Yep, I thought it doesnt help Obama a bit too.
We had people on the phone. We had drones flying overhead.
Your ambassador to a foreign nation is being attacked, and you don’t even care enough to get a briefing on what the phone conversation or drone intel revealed?
Ambassador Stevens and the three men who died with him, were brave people. They were doing our nation’s work. I respect them a great deal.
Van Jones is an insect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.