Does Obama have an anti-Osama film problem?

In the days after the Benghazi attack, the Obama administration pointed to the anti-Muhammad video, Innocence of Muslims as the cause. They also repeated another mantra, that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with the making of the video (a puzzling assertion).

The administration is still waffling on whether or not the anti-Muhammad film had a hand in the attack on the Benghazi consulate. They're already on record as having referred to the video as 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible', regardless of whether they settle on the video's ability to incite riots and murderous attacks. Therefore, regardless of whether Barack, Hillary, et. al. finally and conclusively decide that the attack was planned and coordinated, they still must believe that a movie could theoretically cause such an attack. Here we are more than a month later and they're still not sure.

Enter National Geographic, which is apparently being inundated with threats because of a film being distributed by major Obama supporter Harvey Weinstein, that is set to air on that channel two days before the election.

Via New York Post:

The National Geographic Channel has beefed up security at its Washington headquarters after being “bombarded” by threats over its upcoming film, “SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama Bin Laden,” a source said yesterday.

The movie has prompted enough threats from what one source called “Muslim extremist groups” that the network felt it had to take the action.

“They have been bombarded with phone calls and blog posts, saying that anyone airing a film like this is asking for trouble,” the source added.

“Enough threats have come in that the network is on higher security alert. They have a huge public building, with a museum and 1,600 people working.”

The network was already receiving sharp criticism for its decision to debut the feature-length TV movie Nov. 4, two days before the presidential election. Critics charged the timing was calculated to boost President Obama’s campaign.

This is quite the conundrum for the administration. If violence follows the airing of the Osama movie, will said movie also be 'reprehensible' and 'disgusting'? Will the onus then be placed squarely on the rioters? If yes, then such an onus should be placed squarely on the attackers in Benghazi and the administration should stop waffling.

The Daily Mail adds this:

A spokesperson for National Geographic told the Post that the channel will air the film 'no matter what,' adding, 'we are big believers in the First Amendment.'

The movie will be available on Netflix streaming 24 hours after its TV premiere.

So, the cable channel that is airing the pro-Obama / anti-Osama film two days before the election, which is being distributed a huge Obama donor, is citing its first amendment right to air the movie, regardless of whom it offends. Presumably, so is Weinstein. In this case, threats are preceding the airing of the movie. If we are to believe the Obama administration when it comes to Benghazi, either it didn't know about any such threats to attack over Innocence of Muslims or it ignored them.

Nat Geo CEO David Lyle insists that the timing of the pro-Obama / anti-Osama film has nothing to do with politics, despite Weinstein's status as a huge Obama donor.

Yeah, right.

Concerns on the right are not about whether Weinstein or Nat Geo has the first amendment right to distribute / air the film. They do. The concerns are about politicizing an event that could have national security implications. SEAL Team Six prefers needs to operate under the radar for a reason.

Responsibility for any riots or violence that takes place will fall solely on the perpetrators but for the Obama administration to be consistent, it will have to waffle on such a conclusion.

That said, any attempt by the administration to assert that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with this film will be a much tougher sell given the content, the timing, and relationship of the distributor to the President.

How much does the Republican establishment hate Todd Akin?

The three most prominent faces of resistance to Rep. Todd Akin in his Senate race with Claire McCaskill (D-MO) are Karl Rove, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. We already know that Rove's feelings of disgust for Akin reach the level of joking about the congressman's murder to a bunch of wealthy donors. Since Priebus and Cornyn appear to be following Rove's lead when it comes to withholding financial support for Akin, is it worth asking how much influence the former Bush senior adviser has over them?

When Akin made a bizarre comment during an interview in August about 'legitimate rape', the establishment suddenly had an excuse to withdraw its support while also calling for Akin to step down.

Earlier this year, Cliff Kincaid produced a source who charged that one of the reasons Rove so detests Akin is that the latter simply would not vote the establishment line during the Bush administration, to include "No Child left Behind". Which is the bigger mistake, Akin's comment this past August or that woeful piece of legislation? Akin's comment or Rove's joke about murdering him for staying in the race despite pressure to drop out?

Rove, et. al. also had a plausible excuse for denying financial support because Akin fell so far back in the polls, it would have been money wasted.

There's a problem. Akin has been scratching back into the race and still is getting no support from the establishment.

Now, the Akin campaign is outright claiming that Rove, et. al. would rather have McCaskill win than see Todd Akin take her seat.

Via Daily Caller:

Republican Rep. Todd Akin’s campaign is accusing influential GOP-affiliated organizations that refuse to spend money to help the Republican senate candidate of genuinely wanting Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill to win the hotly contested senate contest in Missouri.

Rick Tyler, a senior adviser to Akin, told The Daily Caller this week that Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s National Republican Senatorial Committee are trying to undermine Akin.

“I believed at one time they did want Akin to win, even though they didn’t want to admit it,” Tyler told TheDC. “I’m convinced now they don’t want Akin to win.”

In August, Akin told a news station that “the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down” if a “legitimate rape” occurs, prompting outrage and condemnation from both sides of the political aisle.

The race might even determine which party will control the U.S. Senate next year. But both Crossroads GPS and the NRSC, which are spending millions to help Republican Senate candidates across the country, vowed not to support Akin in any way after they determined his rape comment threatened to hurt other Republican candidates across the country, according to Tyler.

“It is incomprehensible to me how Rove and Crossroads GPS and the NRSC could possibly stay out of this race” unless they want Akin to lose in November, Tyler told TheDC in a phone interview.

The establishment is choosing to put itself into a box here. If Akin wins, the fire within the conservative wing of the Republican party will be given a huge dose of oxygen because a conservative candidate will have triumphed over prominent liberal incumbent without the help of the establishment. If Akin loses, especially if by a narrow margin, it will have meant establishment pride triumphed over conservatism at best, and that extreme liberals are preferred over conservative Republicans at worst.

Another dynamic is at work here is the establishment's double standard. Mitt Romney was their guy; he won. Conservative voters were not happy with the selection. The establishment asked conservative voters to get behind their guy whether they liked him or not. Conservative voters did just that. In fact, in the wake of Romney's first two debate performances, conservative support for him has reached an energized high.

The natural inverse would be that if a conservative candidate is going against a liberal incumbent, the establishment should do the same.

In the case of Rove, Priebus, and Cornyn, hypocrisy appears to be on full display.

St. Louis Fox Television affiliate KTVI has a news report on tonight's debate between Akin and McCaskill:



Read entire DC piece.

CNN's Crowley comes to Obama's rescue on Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate

There are two scandals that Barack Obama desperately wants to avoid talking about. One is Fast and Furious. The other is Benghazi-gate. Both came up in last night's debate and both times, CNN's Candy Crowley came to the president's rescue.

First, on Fast and Furious. Mitt Romney took the opportunity to segue from a question about an assault weapons ban and discuss the failed gun-walking operation, which was quite relevant. ATF, with the knowledge of Department of Justice leadership, allowed assault weapons to walk into Mexico and be placed into the hands of drug cartels. Hundreds of Mexicans were killed as well as Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The most credible argument for why the operation was implemented was to make the case that an assault weapons ban was necessary.

Evidence points to the administration creating a crisis it could exploit, to push its assault weapons ban treaty. That said, Romney was very much on point but Crowley didn't think so. In fact, watch as Obama makes eye contact with Crowley in this clip as soon as Romney starts talking about Fast and Furious. Finally, Crowley cut Romney off and essentially told him he was off-topic.

h/t Midnight Rider:



The next - and most blatant - effort to protect Obama by Crowley came on the matter of Benghazi-gate. Barack Obama asserted that on the day after the attack on the U.S. consulate there, he called it an 'act of terror'. Romney called him on it and when Obama told his opponent to look at the transcript, Crowley agreed with Obama, so much so, that Obama asked her to repeat herself in order to underscore the point.

The problem is that Obama never referred to the attack in Benghazi as an act of terror. In fact, for fourteen days, his administration - to include himself at the United Nations - repeated the lie that the attack was spontaneous and the result of a video.

Here is the exchange (h/t GWP):



In reality, this is what Barack Obama said in the Rose Garden on 9/12/12:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

While this may seem an exercise in semantics, it's really not. The difference between a terror attack and a spontaneous eruption is very simple; it's called premeditation vs. spontaneity. Not only did that statement in the Rose Garden not refer to Libya specifically but fourteen days later, at the United Nations, Obama was still pushing the lie that the Benghazi attack was the spontaneous result of a video.

For some reason, the way Crowley came to Obama's defense reminded me of this: