Thursday, January 24, 2013

Cruising the Web

Why would the Obama administration be stonewalling CBS News on supplying information on the attack in Benghazi? I thought Obama said that his administration had provided the public all the information about what happened in Benghazi. Sharyl Attkisson disagrees. But an administration that believes that it doesn't make any difference if they lied to the American people about the murder of an American ambassador because the reality was inconvenient to a president campaigning for reelection obviously thinks that they can stonewall forever and the media and American people won't care. Perhaps they're right. After all, a stonewall was the choice Bill Clinton made as soon as the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.

And of course, Hillary was lying when she said that she never blamed the video and always said the attack was always terrorism. How inconvenient that that is not the truth. And why is she not at all troubled that Tunisia, without any consultation with the U.S., released the one suspect arrested for connection to Benghazi?

I know that the Democrats would like to blame Republicans for the lack of security at the Benghazi consulate, but the overall security budget has more than doubled since 2004. And the woman who was Deputy Assistant for Diplomatic Security at the time of the attack did testify that money was not the issue when it came to considering security at the consulate. But then that is just an inconvenient truth. And an administration that spent more than a billion dollars on a global-warming initiative and removed existing resources from Libya shouldn't get away with blaming Republicans for budget cuts.

Why are sending F-16s to an Egypt governed by a guy who warns American senators that the Jews are controlling the media in our country? But then, as Allahpundit writes, is that all that different from what Chuck Hagel has said about the Jewish lobby intimidating Congress?

Oh, dang. Adjunct professors are so very surprised that Obamacare is resulting in their universities and colleges cutting back on their jobs so that they don't have to pay for health care. This wasn't what they expected. I guess that is because they didn't bother reading all the analysts who said that this is exactly what would happen.

Oh, the irony. France is disturbed that Britain might decide not to obey all of the EU's rules and regulations.
“[N]obody in Europe can accept that a state can pick and choose [which rules it accepts],” says one Hollande adviser.
Ed Morrissey reminds us of how Charles De Gaulle pulled France out of military cooperation with NATO. France wanted to assert their own independence from the U.S. Morrissey recommends that Cameron say that Britain would just be following the De Gaulle precedent.

Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg is horrified that Cory Booker would have the temerity to challenge him in the primary for the 2014 election. The 89-year old senator jokes that he may have to give a "spanking" to Booker just as he had to give his children when they were young. Classy. Jim Geraghty writes,
Ah, an elderly white senator threatening to spank a younger black male politician for being too ambitious and not knowing his place. Ahem. I guess we should be glad he didn’t call Booker “boy” or threaten that a primary fight would result in a “whuppin’.” Say, mainstream media, you might want to take note of this, if you want to have even a shred of credibility the next time some no-name state lawmaker makes some racially insensitive comment and you demand every Republican in the country ritually denounce the unknown yokel in order to prove no racial maliciousness lurks in their hearts.
Of course, it's not racist if it's a Democrat making such an infelicitous comment.