Puzzling life-form types it up for the Post: Yesterday morning, Lindsey Graham made an odd statement on Meet the Press.
Basically, it was a minor point. We assumed it was just a misstatement—but it did seem rather odd:
GREGORY (11/18/12): Why did the office of the Director of National Intelligence on September 28 issue a statement in which they—effectively bolstering the very remarks that Susan Rice made on this program and others, that there was a spontaneous element to this and there was contradictory information? Was she not working off the same talking points that the intelligence community was working off of and that were changed, or were not said publicly, as Senator Feinstein said, for some reason to—to cover up or to not tip their hand that they were investigating these terror groups?Graham really brought the thunder on yesterday morning’s program. He kept raising his voice and emoting. In this way, he let us see he was very upset that the administration had “taken al Qaeda out of the equation” when they gave their initial account of the Benghazi attack.
GRAHAM: Isn’t it kind of odd, if the reason is to take al Qaeda out of the equation, to make sure that al Qaeda doesn’t know that we are onto them, that the story they told helps the president enormously three weeks before the election because I don’t buy that for one bit. That makes no sense to me. Al Qaeda knew we knew about them. We had people in Germany that survived the attack that could be interviewed. We had drones overhead. I think it’s very odd that the storyline they chose omitted al Qaeda which would help the president enormously, and I don’t buy it.
Graham was really bringing the thunder. Inside our plush viewing chamber, we made one of the analysts keep turning the volume down. But why did the overwrought senator say that the administration’s story helped the president so enormously “three weeks before the election?”
Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday shows on September 16. Presumably, that’s when they took al Qaeda out of the equation as they told their disturbingly bogus tale.
Susan Rice appeared on September 16.But that was a bit more than seven weeks before the election. It’s a minor point, but we were puzzled by Graham’s remark. Surely, he doesn’t think this outrageous story appeared three weeks before the election?
We could see that Graham was very upset. But why the heck did he say that?
We wouldn’t have wondered about it again. But just now, we looked at Karen DeYoung’s news report about Graham’s overwrought appearance.
Is Karen DeYoung an actual human? Here's how she started her report in this morning’s Washington Post:
DEYOUNG (11/19/12): Republican and Democratic lawmakers sharply disagreed Sunday over whether and to what extent the Obama administration soft-pedaled its initial public explanation of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.Presumably, DeYoung watched Graham on Meet the Press. Almost a full day later, her report appeared in the Washington Post, with Graham’s counterfactual comment faithfully included just as if it made perfect sense.
“I think it’s very odd that the story line they chose omitted al-Qaeda, which would help the president enormously” three weeks before a hotly contested election in which President Obama claimed to have vanquished the terrorist group, said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).
The White House, Graham suggested on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “would withhold information to prevent [Obama] from looking bad.”
It doesn’t exactly make a big difference. But is Karen DeYoung an actual human? Surely, an actual human would work around this slightly peculiar but obvious misstatement by the overwrought Republican solon.
Unless she’s so used to typing up crap that it’s become second nature by now. From Graham's mouth right straight to your ear!
It's obviously wrong, and it does tilt the tale. But so what? All circuits whirring, "Karen DeYoung" just typed the misstatement on up!
Especially odd since, by inserting the final quotation marks write before specifying three weeks, DeYoung makes it sound as if that part of Graham's statement was being actively confirmed by her as a reporter. (But we all know that MSM like WaPo are biased toward liberals, don't we?)ReplyDelete
I ceased reading the comments section when fixed battles raged between Bob's "sheep" and those who despised Bob for betraying an earlier better Bob and predicted that all things Bob would die off and be buried.ReplyDelete
As a long-time fan of Bob, I've been hugely enjoying the recent Daily Howlers, particularly with the dearth of Bob-hating comments.
As one of those "sheep", I rarely agree with Bob on matters of policy, and I sometimes don' t agree with him on non-policy matters.Delete
I always read him though. He's the sharp and thorough voice you respect.
I do wish that Romney as candidate had occasioned a more intense examination of current business practices. I had hoped to read more on it here, but Bob never promised that, I know.
Anyway, Bob's critic often point to his obsessiveness on some things and they're correct to a degree. However, I don't know how anyone can not be a fan of this blog or this blogger even if you're fairly sure he couldn't stand in the same football stadium with you.
He's more than just smart and that makes it worth anyone's time
So taking issue with Somerby is "Bob-hating"?Delete
I am sure you are very much at peace not having to hear from people who think outside your box.
I'd described it not as a personal hatred. It's more like the sort of rage one might see from fanatics over an act of heresy.Delete
Taking issue with Bob is hardly the issue. Comments questioning Bob's honesty and diligence - in short, classic ad hominems directed at Bob (I seem to recall an entire thread debating whether or not Bob was a fifth columnist, sapping "liberal" energy with his obsessive quest for rectitude. That rose way beyond polite disagreement and became something quite nasty.ReplyDelete
And those of us who, disagreeing with Bob or not, stuck up for his mission were labeled, insulting as sheep. Hating some?
I suspect, in the absence of any other rational reason, that Lindsay Graham was actually suggesting that the wave of support for Dubya after 9-11-01 would have accrued for Obama if he had just said "al-Qaida". What that would really show is Graham is dumb as a stump.ReplyDelete
Is to question whether someone is "actually human" to engage in dehumanizing rhetoric?ReplyDelete
Review my ωеblog ... london tantra
Whеnevег cravіngs or hungеr агosе, patients mаssageԁ the drοpReplyDelete
for aѕ tantгіс massаge to help reduce the inorԁinateness smooth you mіght havе in youг custody, fееt and аnklеs.
She getѕ entігely nude paіnting
and lаys depresѕeԁ on thе massagе tabular array, сall
us today. This allows the osteоρath tο "show off" the metallic
elemеnt bowling ball anԁ prοрertу into a sеaled соntаіner until yοu are ready
to usе it.
My blog - Erotic massage In London
Неrе is my hοmеpage: