October 29th, 2013

Chris van Winkle Matthews wakes…

…from his 20-year slumber, and learns that we have always been at war with Eastasia.

I guess it was 60 Minutes told him so.

28 Responses to “Chris van Winkle Matthews wakes…”

  1. M J R Says:

    Was that a pig I just spotted flying past my window?

  2. Matt_SE Says:

    “…I’m going to ask that question until I get an answer.”

    Or until the next shiny comes along.

  3. conei Says:


    This may brighten your day Neo.


  4. Ymarsakar Says:

    Should get that spine of his tapped. Shivering is a prognosis for paralysis.

  5. CV Says:

    That 60 Minutes “expose” that gave Chris permission to express outrage must have been carefully timed.

    Just as the MSM looked the other way when Bengazi happened right before the 2012 election (nothing must impede The anointed one’s second term!), now it’s about what might help or hurt Hillary in 2016.

    If the canonized saints of journalism (60 Minutes that is, not shouting Chris M) admit what happened in Bengazi now, before Hillary announces her candidacy, it doesn’t really
    matter whether Obama is blamed or not. In fact, maybe it’s better if people start pointing fingers at the lame duck, because it will be old news in 2016 and the “official expose” is already out there. In a sane world the Secretary of State would be held accountable for a monumental debacle like
    Bengazi, but that’s not the world we’re living in.

  6. Lizzy Says:

    Call me cynical, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the way the MSM inoculates Hillary against Benghazi questions in 2016. They stir up the story now (but not too much, just enough to look like they’re doing their job), Hillary gives one, maybe two one-on-one interviews with a friendly reporter where she provides prepared answers to questions she’s fed them, and then when Benghazi comes up during her 2016 campaign she brushes them off as old news/questions that have long ago been answered. This is textbook Clinton tactics.

  7. blert Says:


    I’d say you’ve nailed it. This is a modified limited hang-out for her.

    She can absorb a mote of blame — standing last in line after Barry and Petraeus — just doing it for the team — it was such a ‘military’ decision, anyway.

    And, “What difference does it make?”

    That’s a quotable quote if there ever was one.

    She’s setting the stage for a Move-On moment.

  8. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    “EastAsia”?–that would be China, Japan, the Koreas, etc. Don’t you mean the Middle East and North Africa?

    P. S.–taking the long view, Islam and the Muslims of the Umma–the “House of Islam,” have declared war i.e. Jihad against and been at war with all “unbelievers”–in what Muslims term our “House of War,” for close to 1,400 years now, ever since the death of Muhammad in 632 A.D.

    The Jihad has waxed and waned in intensity depending on the strength of Islam, but it has never ended.

    To name just a few, the Muslim Barbary Pirate’s Jihad against the just created United States starting in the 1780s, the Beirut barracks bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, 9/11, Maj. Hasan’s Jihadi attack at Ft. Hood, the attempted Times Square bombing, the Boston marathon bombings and current Jihadi attacks against the U.S.–at home and abroad–are merely a continuation of and the latest episodes of that eternal Jihad.

  9. Tesh Says:

    Wolla Dalbo, “EastAsia” is a reference to Orwell’s 1984. Shorthand for “ministry of truth” propaganda spin.

    Technically, yes, it’s likely that Jihadists are a bigger problem.

  10. Mitsu Says:

    The “stopped en route” thing is bogus, as I’ve already pointed out. There was no stand down order. The officer in question later said he made the decision on his own to keep the assets in Tripoli in case the embassy there was attacked. This is a really old trope, but of course, cable news anchors don’t bother to actually do any research.


  11. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Tesh–I see.

  12. Matt_SE Says:


    Funny how all the military commanders in the region just decided, on their own, to not respond…in opposition to their missions and the military ethos.
    The CIA personnel in Benghazi were ordered not to aid the ambassador; an order they disobeyed.
    This whole thing stinks of cover-up.

  13. Highlander Says:

    Sure, now it’s important! Curiously, Matthews wasn’t interested in asking “… this question until I get some answers” prior to the election. Spare us your righteous indignation Chris.

  14. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Talking about the “military commanders in the region” and Benghazi I note this very recent article about how many of them, and many other officers as well–at least 197 in all–have been removed from command on one pretext or the other during the Obama administration (http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamas-military-purge/) .

    I have no idea if this number of firings is within the norm for a five year period, but I have my suspicions.

  15. Lizzy Says:

    Mitsu, So one officer says there was no “stand down” order – wouldn’t it be helpful to hear from others who were involved the night of the 7+ hour attack, such as:

    *Obama – Where was he, who was he in contact with, what orders did he give (if he didn’t give the “stand down” order as your linked article claims). What did he know and/or authorize regarding the ambassador’s earlier requests for more security & intel from the British & others that an attack was imminent?

    *Hillary – Where was she, who was she in contact with, what did she ask Obama and others to do in order to save her ambassador? Had she been in contact with Stevens about his earlier requests for more security, what had she done about these written (and possibly verbal) requests?

    *Benghazi attack survivors saved by Woods, Doherty and others – Who are they, where are they, what can they tell us about the attack and anything useful they know about events leading up to it (observations/requests for security, etc.). Why was Ambassador Stevens at the consulate – especially on 9/11?

    *DoD personnel involved with the ongoing monitoring and decision-making process the night of the attack – A timeline that includes: Who were they in contact with, what did the request/offer to do, what were they ordered to do and by whom, what information did they have during the attack (such as communication with those at the consulate, drone footage, etc.).

    That doesn’t even cover all of the lies about it being a spontaneous mob reaction to an obscure video after the attack, but it would be a good start.

  16. Mitsu Says:

    What I don’t understand here is, what the theory is. That Obama or Clinton hear about the attack in Benghazi and go, “Hey, great opportunity to kill off one of our ambassadors! This will surely help us in the next election! Call off the calvary!”

    There are many reasons to think there were major fuckups with respect to Benghazi. I can’t see any reason whatsoever to think that the Obama Administration or the State Department actually actively WANTED Stevens to die. The subtext behind a lot of this is that this is somehow plausible.

    Yes, there’s a motive for State to try to cover their asses about their flawed security assessment, which they clearly did, we know that there was pushback in terms of the talking points. But there’s not only no reason whatsoever to think that State actually WANTED our own personnel to die, it just flies in the face of any sort of logic, conspiratorial or not, unless you really believe that the entire point of the Obama Administration (despite drone strikes, special ops, etc., etc.) is to aid and abet terrorist attacks on US installations.

  17. neo-neocon Says:


    Very nice demonstration of the strawman argument.

    No one is saying what you assert they are saying.

    But as to why Obama and Hillary would fail to attempt a rescue once they knew there was an attack (which is a more relevant question), it’s really quite simple.

    They probably calculated that sacrificing a few people and claiming there was no way to have saved them was better—much better—than what could happen in a failed rescue attempt, especially “what could happen” in the political sense.

    For precedent, see this (“Carter and many experts concluded that the failure to free the hostages played a major role in Reagan’s victory in the 1980 U.S. presidential election”). Even if you don’t know the history and political repercussions of Operation Eagle Claw, be assured that Obama and Clinton do.

  18. parker Says:

    Mitsu is a robot repeating the talking points on command as programed. He has absolutely no idea of how he/she/it got there.


  19. Ymarsakar Says:

    Leftists will eventually understand this simple thing.

    Either they are on this side or they are on the other side.

    There won’t be enough resources for prisoners.

  20. Mitsu Says:

    >a failed rescue attempt

    I suppose this is where we just have incredibly divergent judgement, Neo. Yes, I remember what happened to Carter, like I said, we’re not that different in age. But come on — there’s no parallel. In Iran you had a hostage situation that had been going on for hundreds of days and everybody in the world knew about it. Nobody knew what was going on in Benghazi until after it was over. To think there was any calculation about the embarrassment of a “failed rescue” doesn’t make any sense. After the fact the entire attack + any rescue attempts would have been viewed as a single event, and of course Americans would assume we tried to send support, not be upset that sent support somehow “failed”.

    This is the same president that ordered a raid on bin Laden’s compound, something with FAR more potential for embarrassing blowback had it failed. It’s not an operation that was likely to be able to be kept secret, since it happened inside Pakistan and the Pakistanis themselves would have made a huge row about it (as they did, despite the fact that we killed bin Laden in the process). If we’d done that raid and it had gone badly, it would have been about 10000x worse than a “failed” attempt to aid one of our own embassies. By your logic Obama would call of pretty much every military operation anywhere because it might “fail”.

    Finally, the only evidence that the CIA sent a “stand down” order comes from a Fox News report quoting unnamed sources. The CIA itself categorically denies the report, and it’s undisputed the CIA team was on site within less than half an hour. There was a response team also sent from Tripoli later on. If the White House completely wanted to prevent the perception of a “failed rescue attempt” why not stop the response team?

    They did fuck up. They didn’t send the FEST team in which was a clear mistake. There’s incompetence here, and idiocy within the State Department, and there’s plenty to be angry about. But it’s not some sort of political conspiracy to kill people. It’s amazing that the level of distrust in our country is so high that this seems credible to you.

    Speaking of unattributed sources, here’s one for you: ‘”We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots,” said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. “It’s actually closer to us being idiots.”‘ (from a CBS news report). They were idiots, but they’re not traitors.

  21. Ymarsakar Says:

    Obama has been doing a great job convincing Americans that evil and the Left co exists together.

    I haven’t had to lift more than a finger on the nets to get the work done, the Left’s been doing most of the ground work so far.

    Mitsu might have been able to conduct some damage control for the Left’s reputation and PR in the days before they went active, but ever since 9/11 ocurred, the Leftist fanatics and crazies have been going Active. On too many subjects is there a sea of Leftist incursion going on, for one damage control agent to make much of a difference plugging a leak at one blog over one subject.

    It’s as futile as Americans trying to convince people Obama was a future tyrant in 2007 and that Sarah Palin was right. Even Republican voters weren’t ready to believe such things.

  22. neo-neocon Says:


    I keep vowing not to answer you, but your assertions are so profoundly bizarre that you keep tempting me back.

    Not to get too longwinded about it: whether the situations in Iran and Benghazi are exactly parallel is hardly the point. But if there had been a failed attempt to rescue Stevens and the others in Benghazi, that would have run the risk of even greater loss of life and greater publicity on it than actually occurred, and great criticism of Obama (a la Carter) if it failed.

    The criticism in that case wouldn’t have just been from the right (which it was when Stevens was killed), who after all weren’t going to vote for him anyway. It would have been from the left and liberals, his own constituency, which he needed to stick with him if he was going to win the election. So inaction was considered the more cautious approach, with denial and stories about videos and spontaneity part of the coverup.

    And why would I care in the least that an Obama administration official characterizes himself and the rest of the administration as idiots rather than traitors? Would he admit to being a traitor? I happen to think they’re both, by the way. But not as idiotic as the people who believe them.

  23. Mitsu Says:

    I think perhaps the problem here is that you and I really have very different ways of thinking about military engagements. I think a LOT about these things, about operational details, about how these things actually work, on the ground. For you, it seems, a rescue attempt is a rescue attempt, regardless of the operational details.

    It’s not that the analogy between Iran and Benghazi isn’t exact — it’s that there’s no similarity AT ALL. The biggest difference? In Iran, the hostages weren’t under fire. In Benghazi, they were. The risks of a mission in Iran were MUCH higher because the hostages were not directly under fire, they were being held hostage. That’s not what was happening in Benghazi — they were taking direct fire.

    In other words, what happened in Iran COULD NOT have happened in Benghazi, i.e., that Obama would have been “blamed” for sending in a rescue mission. When personnel are ALREADY under fire there’s no sense in which a rescue mission could be risky in that sense, because the risk has already occurred: they’re taking fire.

    There’s another reason why what happened to Carter could not have happened in Benghazi — there were no operational difficulties. The rescue teams would just fly into Benghazi airport from US air bases. Carter, on the other hand, had an operational problem and the helicopters famously never even arrived because they all broke down in the desert. I mean, it was that level of military incompetence which just sealed the deal when it came to Carter being perceived as weak.

    The idea that Democrats or liberals would criticize the President for sending in a rescue mission when personnel were already under fire — it is really amazing to me. Of course they wouldn’t have done so.

    But all of this is beside the point, because there WAS a failed rescue mission, first on the part of the CIA and secondly a mission sent from Tripoli.

  24. neo-neocon Says:

    Mitsu: Of course Obama could have been blamed if the mission was mishandled and especially if a fiasco. Not by you, of course. People would have said going in was worse than leaving well enough alone, if more people had died (moderates—whom he needed—and people on left and right, although certainly not the most loyal on the left). People would have said he was a lousy Commander in Chief. It might have even negated all his crowing about killing Osama, bragging which was essential to his re-election efforts.

    Remember also that, in foreign and military affairs, inaction seems to suit Obama’s nature and/or tendencies (he is far more into action in domestic and “progressive” affairs). On foreign affairs, he has a Hamlet-esque history. So inaction suited him for that reason, as well; it would have been his kneejerk, default position in a military matter (he apparently also took a lot of time making the Osama decision).

    So there were many reasons.

  25. Mitsu Says:

    It seems to me you have a strange internal model of the way liberals react to things — even though you were once one yourself. Do you really think you, in your liberal incarnation, would have felt critical of a president (any president, Republican or Democratic), for sending in a rescue team to a diplomatic mission that was under fire? How could sending a rescue team in exacerbate a situation that was already about as bad as it could get?

    Do you really think liberals are so aghast at any use of military force that they’d react that way? I can’t even begin to imagine such a reaction from anyone I know. This is not a case of bombing a country that hasn’t attacked us, nor even a case of going in guns blazing to a hostage situation. It’s a situation of clear self-defense — we are being attacked. With guns. Directly. Liberals and conservatives are not different at all when it comes to that scenario.

    Furthermore as I keep saying — there were at least three levels of response that actually occurred. The CIA team that was on the ground right away, a team from Tripoli that arrived in Benghazi later, and an elite team that was scrambled to a base in Italy, but by the time they was being scrambled it was over, Stevens was dead by then. What they did NOT do was send in an elite team that could have gotten there in a couple of hours (the FEST team) and they also probably didn’t realize that a mortar attack might be in the offing since hostilities seemed to have hit a lull for several hours, so they didn’t understand the urgency, and thought perhaps the CIA team on site was enough to hold the fort. All of these were mistakes, not treason.

    But, okay, I think we’ve written enough to understand each other’s POV. At least I understand the theory you’re putting forth, which, while I think it is not remotely plausible, is at least logical.

  26. neo-neocon Says:


    Read this, this, and this. There are tons more, of course.

  27. Mitsu Says:

    I’ve investigated the Hicks testimony: the man Hicks claims was complaining about being told to “stand down” — Colonel Gibson, himself testified later that Hicks was incorrect — he had no orders from above to stand down. He made the decision himself, to hold forces back in Tripoli in case the embassy there was attacked:


    The Jennifer Griffin report regarding the CIA offers has not been corroborated by anyone on the record; she relies on anonymous sources, and the CIA itself has categorically denied her report. At no point, according to the CIA, were any personnel told not to intervene in Benghazi.

    Another CIA team was sent to Benghazi less than three hours after the first reports of an attack, a private charter; they arrived about 15 minutes before the mortar attack.


    All in all two CIA teams were on site before the mortar attack.

    Finally, a CIF team WAS dispatched to Signorella but they hadn’t even arrived in Italy before the attack was over:


  28. Mitsu Says:

    THIS, however, is a real scandal: State directly nixed sending in the FEST team:


    I see no evidence of treason here, just incompetence and stupidity, however. Kennedy made a totally bad call here, neither understanding the nature of the situation or, likely, that the FEST team was trained for precisely this situation.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge