October 10, 2012

The State Department tells the Benghazi story — devoid of mobs angry at that video.

ABC reports:
Asked about the initial reports of the protests, the official said that while "others" in the administration may have said there were protests, the State Department did not.

"That was not our conclusion," the official said. "I'm not saying that we had a conclusion."
ADDED: Lots of links at Instapundit (which sounds like the most generic teaser ever, but specifically on this story, check it out).

324 comments:

1 – 200 of 324   Newer›   Newest»
RichardS said...

Stevens died. Obama lied . . .

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I wonder, which MSM news source will be the first to use the term Benghazi-gate?

John said...

Another fascinating glimpse into Obama and his administration...

Shouting Thomas said...

I just took a look around the NY Times site and did a couple of searches.

Appears to be a non-story, in the view of the Times.

MayBee said...

Via Ace, Ben Howe has a video timeline.

Fprawl said...

I am very dissapointed that we have been lied to about this event.
There is one CBS female reporter that has been covering this, all the other reporters have been covering this up.
On the other hand, I don't want to go to war in Libya, I am sick of wars and I think OBama is on the right track pulling out everywhere.
If Romney and Issa get the country roiling about this, are we headed to another war, or can we be appalled by a 9-11 attack and do something other than send troops.

AllenS said...

Hillary and Barry are meeting at the White House. Probably to get their stories straight. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Barry doesn't have a clue as to what happened. The only person in custody remains the film maker.

Michael K said...

Why would we go to war with Libya ? "The wicked flee when no man pursueth."

How are things under your bed ?

Brennan said...

BOOM! *crickets*

Seems like an explosive story no?

AJ Lynch said...

Can the State Dept throw the president under the bus? Is that even allowed?

Paddy O said...

What's weird is that there was no reason to lie. We're used to terrorist and jihadis in other countries. If it was just stated as what it was, and Obama stood strongly against it, then it would have been an important, but not necessarily political issue.

The coverup makes it so, so much more curious.

MayBee said...

Obama went to bed when the embassy was under attack and the ambassador was missing.
He woke up, made a statement about Ambassador Stevens and the video, and then went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas.

What about that seems right to anybody?

X said...

allie, don't you have anything stupid to say?

MayBee said...

Heh, AJ Lynch.

Sorun said...

"Can the State Dept throw the president under the bus? Is that even allowed?"

Hillary certainly can. She's got nothing to lose. And right now, Obama is probably trying to figure out how to throw her under the bus.

Tank said...

CYA time.

Curious George said...

"X said...
allie, don't you have anything stupid to say?"

It's "Inga" this month, and HAHAHA!

ndspinelli said...

The bigger question here is what will Inga fka: Allie Oops, Allie say?

Jay said...

All these people screeching that "Romney lied" in the debate are all upset about the Obama Administration's lies on this, right?

*GIGGLE*

Bryan C said...

"That was not our conclusion," the official said. "I'm not saying that we had a conclusion."

"In fact, we never reach conclusions. We haven't even concluded that 'Benghazi' is a real place. Now, let's talk about Big Bird."

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

The coverup is almost always worse than the crime. You would think Obama would know this.

Darcy said...

@Paddy O

There was a very good reason to lie. It's the reason everyone lies: to not be exposed.

The State Department refused to defend the consulate adequately despite many documented pleas for better security. Obama's administration and the State Department failed and people died because of it.

Brennan said...

Jay Carney can't be found. Ditto for Hillary. The White House is trying to bury this story with silence. POTUS isn't taking questions.

Surely the NY Times Editorial Board will slam the White House for this.

Paul said...

My what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.. especially if the lies are taped for everyone to see.

Hope for change in 2012 (fire Hillary first and then fire Obama in Nov.)

Mary Beth said...

They could watch the video feeds of people attacking them. I can't decide whether knowing or not knowing exactly what is going on is more horrifying.

Meanwhile the other agents in the compound had gone to Building B to get helmets, body armor and their "long guns."

I'm trying to figure out why "long guns" is in quotations.

MayBee said...

Paddy O- Obama is campaigning on the idea that he has AlQaeda on its heels. He said it on Monday at a campaign event.

That's hard to say when your ambassador has just been killed by an alQ affiliate. Better to think of another reason for the attack.

Calypso Facto said...

"the State Department did not."

Only the head of the State Department, the Secretary of State did. Apparently she does not speak for the State Department.

edutcher said...

On the under the bus theme, I think Insta said it first.

Watching this Administration self-destruct is almost more fun than sex.

Marshal said...

edutcher said...
Watching this Administration self-destruct is almost more fun than sex.


You must be doing it wrong.

Brennan said...

I'm also interested in hearing more from Lara Logan. She, after all, is personally acclimated with the savagery of the enemy. Is she working a story for 60 Minutes about the White House covering up the situation in Afghanistan?

ndspinelli said...

When we adopted our son from Colombia in 1987[Pablo Escobar, narco terrorist's peak of power]the American Embassy in Bogota was a fortress. I realize this was a consulate, but the security was inadequate to anyone w/ a fucking brain

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
exhelodrvr1 said...

Maybee,
"What about that seems right to anybody?"

Can you please say that in a way that is not so repulsive?


EDH said...

The agent in the TOC looked at one of the camera feeds monitoring the perimeter and saw a large group of armed men entering the compound.

Ambassador Stevens didn't even have a "Little Friend" he could ask the terrorists to say "Hello" to.

Patrick said...

Seems like only yesterday that a few of our resident lefties were uttering such nonsense as "Mitt's Lehman Brothers Moment," and more. Recently I watched some video clip of the President saying how he likes to know what he's talking about before he speaks. It would be a joke if it weren't so disgusting and tragic.

It was a "Lehman Brothers" moment, but not how they thought.

X said...

now Barack "The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Insult The Prophet of Islam" Obama can back to the real business of the American people; enforcing probation violations of those who insult the prophet of islam.

edutcher said...

Marshal said...

Watching this Administration self-destruct is almost more fun than sex.

You must be doing it wrong.


I said 'almost'.

EDH said...

Ambassador Stevens didn't even have a "Little Friend" he could ask the terrorists to say "Hello" to.

A lot of diplomats don't even like the Marines having loaded weapons.

Larry J said...

MayBee said...
Obama went to bed when the embassy was under attack and the ambassador was missing.
He woke up, made a statement about Ambassador Stevens and the video, and then went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas.

What about that seems right to anybody?


This was about the time when Samuel Jackson was making that commercial saying, "Wake the Fuck Up!"

Instead, they just let him sleep. Perhaps it was for the best. Obama does less damage to the country when he's asleep.

Rusty said...

Paddy O said...
What's weird is that there was no reason to lie.

That's the whole maddening thing about this. With this administration is the lying pathelogical? Or are they simply incredibly inept?
Either way they don't belong in position of power. They are clearly out of their depth.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

edutcher said...

Watching this Administration self-destruct is almost more fun than sex.

Marshal said...
You must be doing it wrong.

I didn't know there was a wrong way to watch this administration self-destruct.

Renee said...

Wow!

So shocked the media is reporting this.

Scott said...

The reason for the lie is simple enough. Hillary (and likely Obama, though we have no direct information there) have been studiously ignoring the difficult security situation in Benghazi, even in the face of mounting cries for more support from the people on the spot. Now that the whole thing has blown up, and we have several corpses (including an ambassador), this policy has obviously failed rather spectacularly. For Obama (who is trying to find something in his record worth defending) this is a disaster, as it undermines his ability to claim success in foreign policy, while Hillary is now looking at a blot on her escutcheon that even the vaunted Clinton spin cycle is unlikely to be able to remove.

Since they both face disgrace if their role in this becomes evident, it isn't difficult to imagine why they at least tried to steer the storyline elsewhere. If they could convince everyone that it was just a mob of crazy muslims (and we all know that they are subhuman barbarians with poor impulse control anyway, right?), then nobody would ask any uncomfortable questions about why a planned attack wasn't foiled or at least responded to with enhanced security...

Levi Starks said...

The ministry of truth will clean up all the messy details in a few days, and it will all go away, and no one will ever know it happened.

Paddy O said...

Darcy, for sure. That explains the lie. But it still seems so utterly weird to me.

If they had been honest about the events, questions about security would have been asked but nothing really would have come under it. By attempting to change the metanarrative, the details now get much more discussed.

Nothing new here--it's Nixon and Clinton all over again--but it's weird. Their first instinct was to tell a big lie.

Patrick said...

Watching this Administration self-destruct is almost more fun than sex.

It would be fun if they weren't taking the whole country down the drain with them.

Hagar said...

I do not know how it happened that we went to war in Libya in the first place, nor who exactly authorized it, or why, or exactly what did we do there, and I still do not understand what this was about nor our government's reaction(s) to the mess.

This is even murkier than the "Fast & Furious" saga, and I hope there will continue to be intense pressure to find out just what has been going on here.

Patrick said...

Meant to put this in the cafe thread last night, never did. This story is well worth the read. Bravery beyond what most of us can comprehend, followed by the kind of forgiveness we can only hope we are never called to give. Redemption for the sins of the father.

Eric Lomax

Chip S. said...

This is shaping up as Romney's biggest gaffe evah.

Curious George said...

Sorun said...
Hillary certainly can. She's got nothing to lose. And right now, Obama is probably trying to figure out how to throw her under the bus.

"We're gonna need a bigger bus"

SteveR said...

This is easy. The submission of Al Qaeda is a "success" story for the Obama administration, spiking the football. That not being the case, as demonstrated by the Benghazi incident, doesn't fit into the re-election campaign timeline. Thus politicians and political appointees lie while the career State and Intelligence folks say otherwise.

Curious George said...

"Paddy O said...
What's weird is that there was no reason to lie."

The total failure of the administration to protect our people, as well as the truth that AQ is not under control, is plenty of reason to lie. Obama has been shielded for any recriminations of is lies for years. Of course he thought this would continue. So why not lie?

Darcy said...

@Paddy O

I partly agree with you. It would be very hard for most people to admit responsibility for deaths. If the facts coming out are true, I don't know how anyone comes to the conclusion that this administration didn't let these people down. Powerful stuff in an election year.

I think they believed they could hide the facts until after the election and possibly for a time beyond that where it wouldn't be such an explosive story. And I think they almost succeeded.

Mark said...

NYT new motto: "All The News That Fits The Narrative."

Pogo said...

US citizens are bumps in the road for Obama.

Libya, Benghazi, Medicare, unemployment.

The list grows.

TWM said...

"There were so angry mobs, there were so." Barry and his cronies . . .

paminwi said...

There was a conference call about this story last night so the State Department could set the stage for the hearings today.

Guess what news organization was left out of the conference call?

Maybe because they have been hammering the administration over this story?

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/videos#p/86927/v/1889721066001

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paddy O said...

"Obama has been shielded for any recriminations of is lies for years"

Precisely because Obama has been shielded from any recriminations of his truths as well.

Had they not made such a huge stinking deal about some an alternative, false narrative, it would not be getting such news. They could have stated the incident exactly as it happened and easily dodged any further examination.

Had the news been: the ambassador was attacked and killed, there would have been questions for a time but they would have been brushed aside. Much like Fast and Furious is.

Mark said...

"On the other hand, I don't want to go to war in Libya, I am sick of wars and I think OBama is on the right track pulling out everywhere."

Does it seem to anyone else that Obama is making his supporters dumber every day?

Paddy O said...

"I think they believed they could hide the facts until after the election and possibly for a time beyond that where it wouldn't be such an explosive story. And I think they almost succeeded."

And they would have succeeded too if not for those meddling kids!

What you said here is exactly true, I think. That's what makes it weird to me. Had they told the truth about the basics, it would have taken an intrepid reporter a long time to piece through what did and did not happen, probably also a congressional investigation. Would have taken months, if the issue was just about the security.

By making up the overall story, however, it becomes big news and quickly news that the administration lied about what is relatively pretty easily discoverable stuff.

Maybe it's not so much weird as utterly inept approach to a coverup.

Colonel Angus said...

What's weird is that there was no reason to lie.

Of course there is. Remember the liberal argument that there was no al Quaeda in Iraq before Bush toppled Saddam? Well there weren't any in Libya before Obama toppled Quadaffi.

So Obama followed the Bush Doctrine of regime change against a country that didn't attack us, posed no imminent threat and had no post Quadaffi contingency plan. Sound familiar?

That war of choice and his lack of involvement in its aftermath should alone sink his re election but evidently Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan could not be reached for comment.

Darcy said...

Well, they had a willing media for a time pushing their coverup. And it got that filmmaker arrested. On top of the deaths, the arrest is abominable.

But look here, Big Bird might be saved.

chickelit said...

I'm very proud of my congressman, Darrell Issa, doing the heavy lifting here and on F & F. I could easily picture him climbing even higher or switching to the Senate to displace a retiring liberal.

Mark said...

"What's weird is that there was no reason to lie."

The whole "mistakes were made" response might have worked if the Administration had been seen to have taken the situation seriously.

Instead, Obama goes to bed while his Ambassador and other Americans are being slaughtered, gets up the next morning, jets out to Vegas for a fundraiser and (if memory serves) some more golf.

The optics are bad, bad, bad. (Hillary's "3 a.m. wakeup call" commercial comes to mind.) And I think someone in the Whitehouse (I don't think it was Obama, I think he's out of those kinds of loops) tried to spin some preemptive damage control. And then the damage control spun out of control.

So now the tactic is to point in a different direction and say "Look! A Big Bird!"

chickelit said...

That is an awesome avatar, Darcy. Maybe your best ever?

Bruce Hayden said...

I think having Hillary! involved just brings back how badly her husband handled terrorism during his tenure as President. They tried to view terrorist attacks against us as criminal matters, having little, if any, relationship to geopolitical realities. And, as a result, we got the Goerlich "wall" (the creator of which went on to make millions in a Fannie May sincecure) which helped prevent the FBI and CIA from communicating prior to 9/11/01, along with major cuts to our intelligence budgets and capabilities.

And, we now have almost the same people involved this time around it seems, showing again why it is physically dangerous to trust Democrats in the White House to protect us from Islamic terrorists. They just don't seem to get the fact that these people are willing and seemingly eager to die to destroy us, in order to impose their 7th Century vision on the rest of the world. And that treating them with respect, and not with a show of overwhelming power, just emboldens them.

Tank said...

Wasn't Zero hesitant about getting involved in Libya, and Clinton and others [+ other countries who actually have interests there] pushed him into it?

MayBee said...

Tank- that's the story, but Obama wasn't hesitant enough to wait to get Congressional support for going.

LordSomber said...

"Can the State Dept throw the president under the bus? Is that even allowed?"

Hillary certainly can. She's got nothing to lose.



Nothing except 2016.

furious_a said...

now Barack "The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Insult The Prophet of Islam" Obama can back to the real business...

...we need a "The Future Does Not Belong to Those who Murder Our Ambassadors" President instead.

traditionalguy said...

Obama knows that bumps in the road kill American heroes all of the time. So What? Nobody lives forever.

That 12 year war in Afghanistan was a hell of a bumpy road that Obama doubled down on for political cover while he arranged the defeat of our military next summer and pulled them 100% out of Iraq after they dared a victory.

Obama hates the American military for real. He only pretends to hate rich guys, but he secretly loves them.

grackle said...

There is one CBS female reporter that has been covering this, all the other reporters have been covering this up.

Actually the reporters at FoxNews have been hammering away at Bengazigate from the start.

Can the State Dept throw the president under the bus? Is that even allowed?

Allowed? We are seeing it as it happens in real time.

If it was just stated as what it was, and Obama stood strongly against it, then it would have been an important, but not necessarily political issue.

Everything is a political issue.

I think they believed they could hide the facts until after the election and possibly for a time beyond that where it wouldn't be such an explosive story. And I think they almost succeeded.

They haven't failed yet. See any MSM outlet(other than FoxNews) using the words "scandal," "cover up" or "incompetence?" No, just that the incident was generically "tragic." Like a hurricane or an earthquake.

I predict Obama will use some sort of military action in an attempt to regain the narrative. Navy Seal team? Multiple "surgical" drone strikes? A joint US/Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would make this story go away in a heartbeat. But I think perhaps the Israelis want to wait until after the election in order to deal with a President who is on their side. Also, they probably do not want to help Obama get reelected.

furious_a said...

Well, they had a willing media for a time pushing their coverup. And it got that filmmaker arrested. On top of the deaths, the arrest is abominable.

...and BenghaziTroofers C4 and Allie pushing the "al-Quaeda-as-co-Producer" laugh line.

Inga said...

Were the demonstrations in Egypt related to the film? There WERE demonstrations in Egypt, no?

Sammy said...

The Libya story would have taken down a Republican Presidency.... But not Obama , the media will piece meal this until after the election.... But if the President had been a Republican it would be feeding frenzy, no day light... Evey day....


That's one of the reasons a can't wait to see the back of the Obama ' s get some accountabilty back in the the executive branch...

This incestiuos relationship between the media and the left in the country is disastrous for America.

Inga said...

WHY was the Benghazi consulate attacked?

Chip S. said...

In the annals of doubling down, Inga has no peer.

MayBee said...

Inga- Benghazi was attacked because they wanted to kill the Ambassador of the United States.

furious_a said...

Get'em under oath, and on the record...

First Witnesses Called for House Hearings on Benghazi...

Wonderful thing, a subpoenee.

Seeing Red said...

Benghazi was attacked for intel and probably impunity.

ndspinelli said...

ChipS, Inga fka: Allie Oops, Allie, is doubling down w/ 15 showing. Stupid, crazy, or a hybrid?

Jay said...

Inga said...
Were the demonstrations in Egypt related to the film? There WERE demonstrations in Egypt, no?


No.

Next question.

Tank said...

Tank said...

Wasn't Zero hesitant about getting involved in Libya, and Clinton and others [+ other countries who actually have interests there] pushed him into it?


My point, which I forgot to make, was that the above, along with Clinton being the head of the State Dept, makes it sort of awkward for her to "throw him under the bus" without getting run over herself.

Colonel Angus said...

WHY was the Benghazi consulate attacked?

When have Muslim terrorists needed a reason to murder?

caseym54 said...

Say, has anyone in the media apologized for the way they jumped on Romney's criticism of the Administration's apologies and video-blaming?

Seeing Red said...

Oh, look, Egypt SQUIRREL!

They went in for the intel.

Marshal said...

Jay said...
Were the demonstrations in Egypt related to the film? There WERE demonstrations in Egypt, no?

No.


Your link is to Benghazi, which is in Libya, not Egypt. You remember there were two events that day, right? A little less typing and a little more thinking might be in order.

Inga said...

No kidding Marshal, I'm talking about EGYPT not Benghazi, in my first comment.

Inga said...

Or are you addressing Jay?

X said...

you answered my question

Seeing Red said...

Inga, they were lying then or they're lying now.

Doesn't change the fact they knew things were coming and they did nothing.

How's that "flexibility" working for you now?

furious_a said...

Joe Biden: "bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive."

Angry Muslims in Cairo: "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!"

It's not really doubling down on stoo-pid until C4 shows up with his 'sacred parchment' rap.

And Jews.

Matthew Sablan said...

The events in Egypt were, most likely, part of a concerted effort to create a smokescreen in the hopes the administration would lose track of what was important and waste days of investigation.

It worked. We will probably never truly know what happened in Libya at this point because people were worried about a video instead of dead bodies.

X said...

inga, are you mad obama duped you into carrying his bullshit water?

MayBee said...

Inga- the protestors in Egypt said they were there because of the film, because Osama Bin Laden was dead, and because Ayman al-Zawarhi's brother called for protests against his brother's killing (and he attended the protests).

ndspinelli said...

Seeing Red, if you want Inga fka: Allie Oops/Allie to understand you then you'll have to take a Berlitz course on "How To Speak Crazy in 2 Weeks." You can get it on Amazon.

Seeing Red said...

Conveniently on the anniversary of the day the West pushed the Muslims back in Vienna.

These aren't the droids you're looking for, move along.

Patrick said...

Inga, of how many reasons can you think that would be both plausible and acceptable for what the terrorists did?

gerry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

X, I never carried his water, why would I be mad? I stated from day one that it was a very real possibility that Benghazi was an attack. There were demonstrations against the film in Egypt however. Who knows why the attack occured in Benghazi? They don't need excuses , but they've shown that they damn well will act on any excuse, because it helps them recruit and makes them look justified in their actions to the Islamic world.

Seeing Red said...

If anyone should have picked up on the con, it should have been Inga with her family background.

The 60s boomer mentality did a real job on Inga & The Professor.

Inga said...

Patrick, why would you ask me such a question? Have I stated their actions were justified?

Seeing Red said...

Benghazi had something they wanted.

Tunisia was weak or they also had something they wanted.

gerry said...

Were the demonstrations in Egypt related to the film? There WERE demonstrations in Egypt, no?

Quick! Quick! Change the subject to a straw man so lame liberal logic can maintain its "reality"-based bullshit!


10/10/12 12:22 PM

X said...

Inga, are you saying you never said that the video caused the deaths? did you delete all those comments?

Seeing Red said...

Inga, Rantburg or The Belmont Club might answer the questions you have.

Whether you agree with or like the answers, that's up to you.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Who knows why the attack occured in Benghazi?"

-- Because after multiple probing attacks, including an IED attack in June, they saw that security was actually lowered, they saw that the hired mercenaries were going unpaid and hungry, and they knew the armed Americans were not allowed to be as heavily armed as they could be.

So, they saw a soft target get softer with a ready and able bribe-able mercenary crew waiting for an excuse to look the other way.

In short, Benghazi was attacked because the administration screwed up.

Consider this a question in choosing your questions carefully.

Shouting Thomas said...

Patrick, why would you ask me such a question? Have I stated their actions were justified?

Yes. Repeatedly and forcefully.

jille said...

Hillary better throw Obama under the bus soon or 2016 isn't looking so good!

Patrick said...

No, you haven't at all. I'm curious why the reason they attacked would matter. Maybe my question wasn't clear, or maybe it was unfair, but my point is nothing could justify what they did, so why does it matter what they tell themselves? And really, how would we know anyway? That's all.

Seeing Red said...

And they leave out FoxNews in the talking points. After giving the wife of Univision's head a UN job so Univision would shut up about F&F, I wonder if Univision was included?

Nice party you have there, Inga.

Shouting Thomas said...

You're wrong, Patrick. Inga has stated repeatedly and forcefully that the attacks were justified because the jihadi's feelings were hurt by the video.

Why else would she support the jailing of the video-maker?

Inga is something of an expert in hurt feelings. It's the subject of almost every one of her posts.

Matthew Sablan said...

In her defense, I don't think she's saying it is justified. She's saying that, say, wearing provocative clothing is a bad idea. Men shouldn't rape the woman, obviously they are still the guilty party, but really, women should just cover up so as not to tempt men into rape. That general line of reasoning: The actor doing bad is -bad-, but the person who had something bad done to them could have acted differently to avoid it.

Basically, it is victim shaming on a national level.

Inga said...

X, I said the attack on Benghazi and the demonstrations in Egypt on the SAME day, could've been a direct result of the film, I'm not saying anything new here. If new info proving the attack wasn't related to the film is uncovered, I have no reason to believe otherwise. You ALL are guessing that the film had nothing to do with either Benghzi or Egypt, we ALL are guessing, none of us know for sure...yet.

furious_a said...

...at least the Administration provided Marines as pallbearers for the Americans killed in Benghazi.

TrooferAllie: Who knows why the attack occured in Benghazi?

The Administration is all over it, three weeks after CNN, al Quaeda, local looters and curiosity seekers have had a go at the unsecured premisis.

TrooferAllie: They don't need excuses...

Yet here you are providing one for them.

TrooferAllie: ...they've shown that they damn well will act on any excuse...

...and you've shown you'll be happy to echo-echo-echo-echo-echo it.

chickelit said...

@Inga: Your statements and feelings on the Benghazi attack are a matter of record here if you'd care to check it.

You lost many friends and allies that day. I respect many of your opinions, but not that one on that day.

Inga said...

Shouting Thomas, so now you're a mind reader, huh? Such talent.

Shouting Thomas said...

Shouting Thomas, so now you're a mind reader, huh?

Why do I need to read your mind when I've got your direct statements to work with?

Inga said...

Chickelit, you seem to think that I state my opinions with keeping or losing Internet "friends" in mind? Strangers on the Internet are neither my friends or my enemies, they are commenters o a political blog. You need to quit getting so personal.

Seeing Red said...

The SAME day in 1683?

If you want to believe it's about the video.....

Inga said...

ST, feel free to go look for a comment in which I stated the attack and deaths were justified.

Shouting Thomas said...

You need to quit getting so personal.

Jesus Christ, that is hilarious.

Pouting, hurt feelings, constantly running to the boss to tattle...

I would attempt to instill a bit of self-awareness in you, Inga, but it's hopeless.

garage mahal said...

Boston’s local NBC affiliate WHDH reported this morning that Doherty’s mother objected to Romney using the story in a campaign speech. “I don’t trust Romney. He shouldn’t make my son’s death part of his political agenda. It’s wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama,” said Barbara Doherty. WHDH even suggested that it reached out to Romney’s campaign for comment, reporting that “there was no response from the Romney camp.”
Yet Romney used the same story in stump speech today in Ohio. Watch it


Romney is such an epic douchebag. Almost no words.

Marshal said...

Inga said...
No kidding Marshal, I'm talking about EGYPT not Benghazi, in my first comment.

10/10/12 12:10 PM

Inga said...
Or are you addressing Jay?


English has this very intricate code whereby we put a series of letters at the front of a comment which, when deciphered, identify the person we are addressing. I only mention it because last week you started a comment with a series of letters which in this code identify me, but then later claimed not to be addressing me. So I thought maybe there's some different practice among lefties that explains your confusion.

Patrick said...

. Inga has stated repeatedly and forcefully that the attacks were justified because the jihadi's feelings were hurt by the video.

Well she may have, I don't know. I don't recall it, but I don't read every comment on these threads. But saying that the jihadi's feelings were hurt by the video is a long way from saying that the attacks were justified.

As I noted, I asked her that question because I don't understand why the answer to her question matters. Like Mr. Sablan says, choose your questions carefully.

Matthew Sablan said...

Romney tells a story: Is a douchebag.

This is brought up in a thread detailing how Obama's administration (note: Maybe not him specifically) let four Americans die. Why do I feel like Romney telling a story isn't that big of a deal?

Shouting Thomas said...

ST, feel free to go look for a comment in which I stated the attack and deaths were justified.

Inga, you really need to retire from commenting.

This is just too stupid.

You spent several days arguing that the attacks were justified, and that the U.S. should alter the First Amendment to satisfy the attackers.

You've moved into new territory with the "deaths" bit. Nobody said that you justified the deaths.

This strategy you are using now is too lunk headed to take seriously. Go back and read your own comments. They're too stupid for me to wade through again. It was bad enough the first time.

Patrick said...

Garage: SQUIRRELL

Also: another terrific insult added to his repertoire. I think he may have peaked at "douchrocket."

Shouting Thomas said...

But saying that the jihadi's feelings were hurt by the video is a long way from saying that the attacks were justified.

Inga did say that the attacks were justified.

She was willing to concede to the jihadis the goal of the attacks... which is to impose anti-blasphemy laws in the U.S.

She not only justified the attacks. She agrees with the goals of the attackers.

Inga said...

ST, you need to wipe the spittle off of your chin, it's making you look demented....again.

Darcy said...

Huh. Romney's a douchebag for recalling the story of having met the SEAL who died and remembering him as one who died running into battle greatly outnumbered.

I don't think you watched the video, Garage.

In any case, if it distresses the mom that Romney spoke so highly of her son, he definitely should not share that story anymore. I can agree on that.

garage mahal said...

Garage: SQUIRRELL

Right, because it's not related to this post in any way.

Inga said...

ST, you really ARE a whore, as you called YOURSELF in a argument with Crack a few days ago. You will LIE, you will do anything low and base to make a point, won't you? Crack was right about you, you have no morals at all.

Seeing Red said...

Inga, I don't recall you defending the 1st Amendment.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

B. Franklin

Darcy said...

Really, what qualifies a candidate as a douchebag these days...well, I do get confused!

I won't be confused in November, though.

Tsunami.

Shouting Thomas said...

ST, you need to wipe the spittle off of your chin, it's making you look demented....again.

You've been so stupid here, Inga. Massively stupid.

Got to be embarrassing.

You were willing to concede to one of the Jihadi's demands for imposition of Sharia law, and you were wrong on the details of what happened.

And, now you're back to your one stupid defense tactic.

I'd suggest you retire from commenting and find something to do that you are capable of doing.

Seeing Red said...

GM - Barry also got called on using a story someone didn't want him to use.

Can you post that one, to be fair?

Shouting Thomas said...

Inga, I don't recall you defending the 1st Amendment.

No, she was calling for the imposition of one of the tenet's of Sharia law.

Anti-blasphemy laws.

She not only justified the attacks... she approved of the ultimate goal of the attacks.

Paul Risenhoover said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshal said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Romney tells a story: Is a douchebag.


Before we accept either that Romney is a douchebag (not saying you do accept that) or that the mother's comments are accurately characterized we should consider the likelihood that her belief Romney is using her son's death politically was likely fed to her by a reporter creating his desired story, not her independent assessment. I read a blurb on this the other day, and Romney's comments seemed more intended to recognize the deceased's contribution. It was an opening recognition, moved on from quickly.

Inga said...

Screaming Thomas, are you capeable of being a human being, Why do you revert to being a snarling dog so easily?

You are another one of Althouse's conservatives that repel and disgust liberals and moderates.

Shouting Thomas said...

Which of the other tenets of Sharia will you agree to impose upon the U.S. in order not to offend the Jihadis, Allie?

Have you learned anything from this?

Have you learned why the First Amendment functions as it does?

Inga said...

ST, you're going to be very busy all day finding my comments that prove your despicable lies, what a pathetic person you are. Don't EVER attempt to address me in any other thread on any subject, I won't acknowledge you anymore.

Darcy said...

You're right about Romney's words, Marshal. I watched the video this morning. He did end his comments with regard to that recollection with something like "That's what Americans do!"

Very moving, but not particularly political as far as pointing to any issue in the campaign. I'll bet you're right and the comments were mischaracterized to the mother. Or it could just be that she feels any mention of her son on the campaign trail is inappropriate, I don't know.

He should refrain from mentioning him again regardless. But it really is a sad state of affairs that this is deemed offensive on Romney's
part.

But hey, Big Bird. :P

Darcy said...

Getting kind of personal, Inga.

Inga said...

Yes Darcy, isn't it?

Seeing Red said...

--You are another one of Althouse's conservatives that repel and disgust liberals and moderates.--

4 dead, 1 ambassador and a cover-up isn't repelling & disgusting?

Inga said...

Seeing Red, yes that IS disgusting.

garage mahal said...

Yea I'm sure it's the mother's fault. She's too stupid to know the words coming out of her mouth.

Methadras said...

Well, Althouse got a shout-out by Rush this morning so her street cred just went up a little more. The leftards around her will start throwing their hate her way and label her a war-mongering, xenophobic, right winger, conservative kook-bag. It'll happen.

Darcy said...

@Inga

Just sayin'. You keep telling chick to stop being so personal while you attack a lot of people personally.

And you did think that we should limit free speech due to what you thought was the fallout from it. You were not "wait and seeing". And you DID think the government should turn over every rock of this filmmaker's life to see if they could find something he'd done wrong. Well, they did, and he was arrested.

Happy?

Darcy said...

Such a mischaracterization, garage. Beneath you. I hope.

Shouting Thomas said...

The long term goal of the Jihadis is the imposition of Sharia law. The cornerstone of Sharia law is anti-blasphemy law.

Inga caved in completely, and now she's pissed off at me for pointing out that she did.

Marshal said...

garage mahal said...
Yea I'm sure it's the mother's fault. She's too stupid to know the words coming out of her mouth.


The issue is not whether she knows what she said, but rather whether the question she responded to accurately reflected what Romney said about her son. Note how slyly - and dishonestly - garage mischaracterized what I wrote as an attack on the mother.

You can see how garage misspent his eduation. He learned how to mischaracterize and misdirect rather than learning something productive. Probably why he believes unproductive people should run the country.

Inga said...

Darcy, that was beneath YOU. Why would I be happy?

Patrick said...

He learned how to mischaracterize and misdirect rather than learning something productive.

It's either that or his wonderful insults!

furious_a said...

Still waiting on Benghazi Troofers C4 and AllieOops' blockbuster revelations of aQ's Byzantine conspiracy to incite the riots by co-producing the Copt perp's video.

...and Jews, of course.

Jay said...

Marshal said...

Your link is to Benghazi, which is in Libya, not Egypt. You remember there were two events that day, right?


Oh, my error. There were protests in Egypt. Which is of course irrelevant.

Shouting Thomas said...

Darcy, that was beneath YOU. Why would I be happy?

Because this is the result you wanted.

You wanted to limit or shut down the First Amendment to please the Jihadis.

You are very confused. Take some time to read the First Amendment and try to understand why it exists and why it is virtually absolute in the U.S.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

Romney is such an epic douchebag. Almost no words.


HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA

Hey fatshit, has anyone in the military every criticized Obama? Any military families?

Where were you then, dumbass?

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rusty said...

Here's an unsettling thought.
Biden might actually be the smart one.

Nathan Alexander said...

Screaming Thomas, are you capeable of being a human being, Why do you revert to being a snarling dog so easily?

I can't speak for ST, but you have a documented history of abandoning responsibility for your own words. When called on things you actually typed, you call the messenger a liar.

Or, in this case, a snarling dog.

You act as if your opinion is objective, as if your own deception/denial of your own recorded words is not far uglier than anything you feel disgusted about.

Your rhetorical combat tactics have been exposed, repeatedly.

Face up to what you said. Learn to say, "I was wrong" and/or "I'm sorry for calling you names for holding me accountable for my words."

I'm sure that's too much to hope for...if you had any integrity or accountability, you'd already be a conservative.

Methadras said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

The issue is not whether she knows what she said, but rather whether the question she responded to accurately reflected what Romney said about her son

Ah, the issue here is this mother doesn't trust Romney and she wants him to shut the fuck up about her kid.

chrisnavin.com said...

Don't get in the way of Obama's outreach to the Muslim on the street, even if it's just more incompetence and lack of leadership. They acted on the intelligence they had.

Even if the Muslim on the street can't conceive of freedom of speech, and is spitting mad and demanding an apology for any perceived slight and militantly upset at our way of life, he doesn't know what's best for him! They're so melodramatic!

Slowly, if we show that our power is not a threat, that there's a 'family of nations' welcoming the Muslim on the street away from the embrace of unreformed, unenlightened Islam and its moral absolutism, its tribal, militaristic and usually autocratic and backward societies...

...wait...check that...all of those Muslims are 'moderate' and civilized (like Americans waiting to jump out) and only the extremists post a threat...

then we win! Peace is next! The seas have stopped rising and Prince Barry the healer has bridged the divide.

***DISCLAIMER, Gitmo, the Afghanistan surge, drone strikes and "kinetic military action" will be used in selected countries to protect our citizens, not to be discussed during this or any other election season.

Barry's slowly guiding the 'narrative' folks. In a few generations, we'll have world peace, social justice, and equality for all.

Methadras said...

Methadras said...

Look folks, trying to shove Inga's words in her defense of not insulting Islam as a function of what occurred in Libya and Egypt as a means to get her to admit that she in fact and repeatedly has stated that she believes that the 1st Amendment shouldn't come into effect in insulting Islam and that we should all not offend Islam will simply not work. She will lie, twist, parse, obfuscate, conflate, prevaricate, and use any means necessary to hide, if she can, any and all references to what she said when these attacks first occurred. We know it, we saw her say it, she defended it multiple times that the film maker (even though it wasn't his fault) shouldn't be afforded 1st amendment protections in offending a religion, in this case Islam.

You will be subjected to her nonsense over and over again, she will carpet bomb the entire thread to make it so that she will appear the victim while the attackers (you) will be be busy defended your attacks against her while her original intent goes unchallenged and hidden.

We all know that the attacks were terrorist attacks, we know that the administration lied about it for nearly 10 days, they are still lying about it contrary to evidence. The MSM wishes it would go away by not reporting it and running cover for the administration and Inga is just another unwitting tool in that struggle to squelch the truth while the 1st amendment gets the life choked out of it so she and her other comrades in the left, liberal, and progressive movements can continue the assaults on The Constitution overall. This is the goal, this is the endgame, this is what they want. They/she will tell you otherwise, but her/they're very nature condemns them for what they are. 5th column enemies of this country.

Inga is defending, in her own special way, a religion that has no moderation in it, sees everyone, even it's own as infidels, has precepts that allows for it's worshipers and agents to use any form of subterfuge for it's dissemination and infiltration to any other society and religion to use whatever means necessary to bring about that collapse so that Islam will prevail. She is in essence, through sheer ignorance that Islam and jihadism is nothing more than the ongoing wing of Nazism except instead of a swastika, it's replaced with a crescent. There is more than ample proof and evidence that Islam and the Nazi Party were fellow travelers and collaborators and even though one is replaced with another. The Muslim Brotherhood found a much larger purchase and legitimacy through that alliance which was largely funded by the 3rd Reich. The Mufti of Jerusalm, Amin al-Husseini, The head of the Supreme Muslim Council worked directly with Hitler to conscript Arab jihadists at the time to become Waffen SS. It is still going on today and has expanded beyond the brotherhood and the 'Arab' spring.

This is what Inga and her ilk defend, wittingly or unwittingly. Anyone, in my opinion, who defends this repulsive woman is in effect is defending Nazism and Islamic Jihad, which is what all of Islam is. Period.

Patrick said...

Right, because it's not related to this post in any way.

I will admit that this far down the thread I no longer recall the original topic. Isn't Inga v. S Thomas?

Inga said...

Wow, just wow. You Methadras, truly are amoral. Or you are insane.

Marshal said...

garage mahal said...
Ah, the issue here is this mother doesn't trust Romney and she wants him to shut the fuck up about her kid


If you want to get really specific the issue is that you're a partisan hack who can't debate anything honestly and should be ignored or ridiculed.

Bryan C said...

"Romney is such an epic douchebag. Almost no words."

President Obama gets her son murdered and goes to bed, offhandedly refers to the deaths as a "bump in the road" in a campaign speech in Vegas, uses those deaths as a pretext to arrest a guy for posting a YouTube video, and repeatedly lies about the circumstances of these deaths for weeks. Epic.

(But, in fairness to mom, if she's getting her news from the usual sources all of that may new to her.)

And then this Romney dude comes out and says her son was stand-up guy, and that he's proud to even have briefly met him.

Yeah, get a load o' that Romney bastard. What a douchebag.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

Ah, the issue here is this mother doesn't trust Romney and she wants him to shut the fuck up about her kid.


So says your left wing Web site.

It is cute when you stupids pretend to care about military families.

Really, we believe you.

chrisnavin.com said...

Please re-elect this man. Give early and often. Give with or without ulterior motives and proof of ownership of your credit card.

Prince Barry and Jumpin' Joe Biden call on YOU to make that shared sacrifice.

Call the number on the screen today, fellow passengers, fellow Americans, black and white, living and dead, gay or straight, married or unmarried, employed or unemployed...

Hear the call of brother Ezra, and sister Hilary and lay your wedding gifts upon the altar that belongs to us all.

Come, COME into this family of nations, and brotherhood of peace.

Please re-elect this man.

garage mahal said...

Really, we believe you.

Not sure what gave you the idea that I ever gave a shit what you believe. But, now you know.

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Wow, just wow. You Methadras, truly are amoral. Or you are insane.


Truth hurts that which is evil, namely you. You know you said it, you know you defended it. It's all there. You're credibility is less than zero. You are too busy defending yourself and portraying yourself again as the victim in all of this, again, and you are simply a liar. You can deflect it any way you want, but the facts are there to name you as such. You are a shameless saboteur of the truth.

Your pointless characterizations of anyone who calls you out is meaningless. You're words mean and hold no sway in attempting to deflect that you are a repulsive, evil human being who defended a religion that would kill you while you tried to pacify it. You are born and bred of a society that embraced and help to shape it's goals of today. You are an agent of an ideology that promotes death and immorality while trying to paint yourself as an arbiter of an ideology that sees itself as the rescuer of mankind through dissemination of authoritarian control of a citizens life via government sanction. Oh, you may not articulate it that way, but thinking instead a little honey is better than a bitter herb to forward the cause. Right, comrade?

Stop trying to hide it and claim you are the oh, so poor innocent little woman living somewhere in Wisconsin taking care of the needy, the poor, the downtrodden, the ill, the maimed. I know what you are and others here do too. You can never hide from the light of that truth, lady. You've been unveiled for a long time.

Darcy said...

Yeah, get a load o' that Romney bastard. What a douchebag.


See? Confusing! ;-)

Shouting Thomas said...

Methadras, cool it.

Inga is not evil. She's afraid. She's afraid for her daughter. She's caving in our of fear.

That doesn't entirely account for her stupidity, but it does ameliorate it, somewhat.

Inga said...

Insane.

Another fine specimen of Althouse's conservatives that repel and disgust liberals and moderates.

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

Almost no words.


Well, that's just because you are to fucking dumb to even think that deep. You're thinking is about as deep as a children play pool. I won't disgrace this Seals mothers opinion by bashing her since she has earned every right to say whatever she wants without repercussion. But I knew both of those guys that died in Benghazi and they were both hero's for what they did and what they did to save many lives hasn't even been reported by the MSM and never will.

You are just a retarded scumbag.

Bryan C said...

"Ah, the issue here is this mother doesn't trust Romney and she wants him to shut the fuck up about her kid."

I don't care either way, frankly. Her son was a grown man, a soldier. I'm sorry his mother is forced to deal with the grief resulting from her son's senseless death. Right now, however, we're in the midst of a public discussion of national security, and she has no special moral authority to demand anyone be silent.

Darcy said...

Hang on. I will not call Inga evil. I think that's wrong. Just like I think it's wrong to call someone "good".

I think people can choose to do evil, and we can choose to do good. I think we've all done both. I know that I have.

Shouting Thomas said...

We're going to be going through this back and forth over whether the Jihadis are really serious about imposing Sharia law in the U.S. for quite a while.

Get used to it.

There will always be a contingent that claims that we can avoid this war if we only concede a little here and a little there to the Jihadis.

I think they are wrong. But, only time will tell.

Methadras said...

nga said...

Insane.

Another fine specimen of Althouse's conservatives that repel and disgust liberals and moderates.


And you repeat that repugnant line again as if it has meaning in any way, shape or form. Liberals aren't worthy of any of the legacy this country has to offer. They should seek refuge elsewhere. Moderates are just simpletons in liberal form. Murky in their thinking and timid in their actions. For you to try and non-sequitor your way out of this is laughable. You are the enemy of this country and what it stands for. You may not say it directly, but we know what you are. Deal with it.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Pass the popcorn!!!

Supporting and promoting lies like this regime' routinely does is tiring and ultimately impossible even with a fawning press.

Watergate??? Bwahahaha!!!!

Baby shit.

Jay said...

Stop trying to hide it and claim you are the oh, so poor innocent little woman living somewhere in Wisconsin taking care of the needy, the poor, the downtrodden, the ill, the maimed

Don't forget that inga/allie has a bunch of conservative friends who never ever mention social issues!

Those friends won't vote for Romney because Ryan wants to ban abortions and stuff!

What silly inga/allie can't seem to grasp is when the jihadists whom she continually apologizes for are going to do a hell of a lot more than ban abortions if they take over.

Methadras said...

Darcy said...

Hang on. I will not call Inga evil. I think that's wrong. Just like I think it's wrong to call someone "good".

I think people can choose to do evil, and we can choose to do good. I think we've all done both. I know that I have.


Then don't call her evil. Let her continue to co-opt the narrative and set the tone, once again for the flailing she does. Evil has many forms and many shades, from overt to subtle, but it's still evil. Maybe you don't have the stomach for it, and that's fine. But frankly, I see her for what she is.

This is the greatest country on earth that has ever been produced by any group of people anywhere at any time. There is none like it, there will be none like it again. This is the only one and it harbors people like her because it's values and laws allow for it. She and others like her shit on it daily. I won't have it.

Shouting Thomas said...

Inga, I really do understand your fear.

My mother has, in a certain way, been a wreck for 60 years because her brother was killed in the Korean War.

And, he was killed in a training exercise! The ultimate insanity. He didn't even get to the war theater.

My mother is sort of a nut about all things and the U.S. military because it is personal to her. She doesn't give a shit about the bigger issue of why the U.S. was in Korean.

All she cares about is that her brother died for no apparent fucking reason.

So, you see, I understand your point of view.

Nathan Alexander said...

Romney will no longer tell the story honoring her son because she wanted Romney to stop:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/10/romney-wont-tell-story-of-meeting-former-seal-killed-in-benghazi-after-seals-mom-objects/

So is he still a douchebag?

After all, the mom has absolute moral authority because her son died. Remember Cindy Sheehan?

Of course, this woman has no such moral authority, because she doesn't abhor Republicans.

Seeing Red said...

Via Vodkapundit:

Conceding that he failed to deliver at last week’s debate, President Obama says he was “just too polite” and that voters should expect “a little more activity” next week in round two.


Barry was "too polite?"

LOLOLOLOL

furious_a said...

"Can the State Dept throw the president under the bus? Is that even allowed?"

There is a precedent of sorts, where the CIA threw then-Speaker Pelosi under the bus over who-knew-what-when about waterboarding aQ detainees.

Looks like the undercard is State v. CIA:

Then:
Five days after the attack, citing the best information she had at the time, United Nations ambassador Susan Rice tied the violence to the video protests, in line with a CIA memo that said the Benghazi crowds "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo"

Now:
But in a briefing yesterday, Hillary Clinton's State Department said they never believed such accounts, with officials blaming "others" in the executive branch for those conclusions.

...or maybe it's State v. State:

Deputy Secretary of State Charlene Lamb told the panel, quote, "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11."

[..]

One scheduled witness Wednesday, Eric Nordstrom, is the former chief security officer for U.S. diplomats in Libya, who told the committee his pleas for more security were ignored.

Seeing Red said...

Via Insty:


On Tuesday, anonymous state department officials told reporters that the US government had never concluded the sacking of the Benghazi mission was motivated by a US-made video ridiculing Muslims.

They said it was instead a co-ordinated assault involving several groups of men armed with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades over an expanse of more than a mile.

The 11 September Benghazi assault, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others died, was unprecedented in recent diplomatic history, officials added.

However, in the days after the attack Mr Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, initially described it as a “spontaneous” one that arose out of a protest against the film.

Nathan Alexander said...

Remember, per the Obama campaign, talking about things that are normally news during other times must not be mentioned during election season, because that would be politicization. Er, at least they may not be mentioned if they hurt Obama's campaign. You can talk about things that hurt Romney all you want, like how he was asked by the mother of the deceased to stop honoring the life/sacrifice of a man who died in service to the nation, because calling Romney a douchebag for that isn't politicization, at all, in any way.

Patrick said...

A United States Ambassador was shot and killed, and dragged through the streets. Upon hearing this, our President went to sleep. He then went to party in Vegas, where he referred to the death of the Ambassador as a "bump in the road." He then went to visit his buddies JayZ and Beyonce and their $350,000 champagne fountain. Then he went on Letterman (but couldn't come within 6 trillion dollars of guessing the US Debt. He went to visit his friends on "The View," instead of visiting with US Allies who were in town at the time, because he was too busy.

And the main topic here is Inga?

Methadras said...

Seeing Red said...

Via Vodkapundit:

Conceding that he failed to deliver at last week’s debate, President Obama says he was “just too polite” and that voters should expect “a little more activity” next week in round two.


Barry was "too polite?"

LOLOLOLOL


The new cruel civility.

yashu said...

Well, of course the outrage of the day is that Romney dared to praise and honor the memory of a Seal who died.

Just like the outrage of the day(s) after the Benghazi attack was that Romney dared to make a forceful statement denouncing the attacks and dared to criticize the admin statements of implicit apology to/for the "protesters" (re video).

Outrage! What a douchebag. Got that MSM, let's lead with that. The day of the hearings into Benghazi debacle and cover-up, the story is: Romney "gaffe"! Garage is always sure to inform us of the talking point of the day, very helpful.

Like god, if Romney gaffes didn't exist (even when they don't), it would still be necessary (and is necessary) for the MSM to invent them.

Jay said...

Conceding that he failed to deliver at last week’s debate, President Obama says he was “just too polite” and that voters should expect “a little more activity” next week in round two.


Hilarious.

He's going to come out in a Fro and give the black power sign.

That will go swell.

Nathan Alexander said...

So.

What has President Obama done in response to the death of our Ambassador?

Anything?

Does anyone really want to re-elect a President that blows off* the murder of an Ambassador?

*until I get some evidence to the contrary, yes, that is the most accurate description of President Obama's demonstrated attitude to date. He went to sleep with the Ambassador missing, went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas the same day as receiving the news of the Ambassador's death, sent in an FBI team (treated it as a crime, rather than an attack on the US), and is talking more about his debate and Big Bird than the sacrifice these people gave for the nation.

Jay said...

A United States Ambassador was shot and killed, and dragged through the streets. Upon hearing this, our President went to sleep. He then went to party in Vegas,

And garagie, who is like all super duper upset because one of the fallen's mother is upset, was completely outraged by Obama's behavior.

Really, he was.

garage mahal said...

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.
[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
Link

AJ Lynch said...

Allie stated "Conservatives [on this blog] that disgust and repel liberals and moderates".

Since when is it in my internets surfing job description to treat innumerate idiots like you with respect Allie/ Inga?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 324   Newer› Newest»