About the Benghazi attack and the statements various people made about it:
... I think one of the reasons that Susan Rice told the story she did, if the truth came out a few weeks before the election that our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had been overrun by an al Qaeda sponsored or affiliated militia, that destroys the narrative we’ve been hearing for months that al Qaeda has been dismantled, bin Laden is dead, we’re safer.... [T]he story she told reinforced a political narrative helpful to the president, but disconnected from reality....
The president said, why pick on her? She didn’t know anything about Benghazi. She was the most politically compliant person they could find.... Would this White House mislead the American people about national security events? I think they might simply because when the bin Laden raid occurred, they leaked every detail about the raid....
There are 10 militia groups all over Benghazi. I blame the president for…making this a death trap. I blame the president for not having assets available to help these people for eight hours. We need a select committee not only to look at intelligence failures...
Also in today's MTP transcript: the House and Senate intelligence chairs Congressman Mike Rogers and Senator Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein is clear that on Sept. 14th, David Petraeus said the Benghazi attack was terrorism. Why did Susan Rice say otherwise on Sept. 16th? Rogers says:
The intelligence community had it right, and they had it right early. What happened was it worked its way up through the system of the so-called talking points, which everyone refers to, and then it went up to what’s called a deputy’s committee... that’s populated by appointees from the administration. That’s where the narrative changed. And so how that thing got back to Senator Rice, I think, is probably another question.
Feinstein says the White House did not change the talking points (other than to change the word "consulate" to "mission"). Rogers says:
[T]here was no one in the professional intelligence community could tell us who changed what. So that-- there-- there goes the disconnect. So the intelligence community said this is-- this was a terrorist act.
The moderator, David Gregory, says he doesn't get it: "Why not just call it what it was? Who-- why are we protecting?" Feinstein says she doesn't know, and she seems to be really struggling to understand (even though I assume she's trying to protect her party's interests). Gregory asks "was there a cover-up?" And "Do you believe that the president or anybody serving the president deliberately misled the American people about the true nature of this attack for political reasons?" And Feinstein says "no, no." She's the Democrat. The Republican, Rogers, says:
Well, this is what I know. I know the narrative was wrong and the intelligence was right. Now, getting between there and there, I think you have to be careful about making those accusations.... But there were some policy decisions made based on the narrative that was not consistent with the intelligence that we had.
Posts
383 comments:
1 – 200 of 383 Newer› Newest»It was not "terrorism" since there was no attempt to terrorize anybody. It looka like a simple high-jacking raid on the CIA "Annex" starting with a diversionary attack on the consulate.
So, what was the object of the raid, and why is the administration, or at least some within the administration, so desperate to deny it and misdirect attention to other matters?
No fan of Senator Grahamnesty, I, but Ann's right.
He really lays it on the line there.
Nice to hear the truth. I guess you just have to remind some people of what the government's business really is.
I am still hung up on who made the order to stand down. It seems to me that if you say that the attack was a spontaneous riot, that helps the order to stand down to seem like a cautious response to an unknown situtation because who expects rioters to have mortars, etc. However, if you know if it is a terrorist attack and still order them to stand down, then it is essentially a death warrant.
I am still hung up on who made the order to stand down. It seems to me that if you say that the attack was a spontaneous riot, that helps the order to stand down to seem like a cautious response to an unknown situtation because who expects rioters to have mortars, etc. However, if you know if it is a terrorist attack and still order them to stand down, then it is essentially a death warrant.
The real righties here in SC don't like Graham very much. He's not pure enough. But Graham has a strong sense of honor and duty. When Clinton was impeached, Graham was truly offended by the President's actions. Graham's participation in the impeachment process was not political. He had a strong belief that Clinton's lying was a crime punishable by impeachment and conviction. Obstruction of justice indeed.
The sign of an advanced state of political decay:
every event is processed through the political transformer before it is released to the public.
I had given up on MTP after a few weeks of David Gregory, who seemed so feeble compared to the sainted Tim Russert, but I saw today's show, and it might pull me back in. Gregory really pushed.
Even before we get to the issue of what happened the question remains why the ambassador was at the consulate and why was the consulate open?
That’s where the narrative changed. And so how that thing got back to Senator Rice, I think, is probably another question.
If Rice were running for the Senate instead of Secretary of State... I suppose she could get away with fudging the truth... by as little as 1/16.
But..but...but in the debate the President said clearly...check the transcript...say that again, Candy.. that he was absolutely, positively, super-duper emphatic that he called it terrorism on September 12. So Susan Rice didn't say it wasn't terrorism and that it was the video. No.. Americans are simply suffering from a mass delusion that she said that. I mean the President absolutely, positively said is was terrorism days before Rice went on the talk shows, so she couldn't have said it was the video, because she always listens to what the President says, and he was absolutely, positively clear it was terrorism.
It's only taken the MSM 2 months to cover this story. Without the determination of Fox news it would have remained buried as the Obama adminstration planned. Unless we are so fortunate as to find a disgruntled insider to be Deep Throat or some audio tapes incriminating Obama, no hope of pinning this on the real culprits. Susan Rice will (deservedly) be thrown under the bus and Hilary of course is a lame duck and has made herself scarce on the advice of Bill, no doubt.
Belmont Club gets to what it means.
The attacks on Libya, Tunisia and Egyptian diplomatic had to be minimized in order to avoid the complete discredit of this [negotiations only] approach. Nor would it do to blame our Partners for Peace — the militias. The diplomatic corridor had to be held open at all costs; and the weakness of the “Leading from Behind” policy covered up whatever befall. This may have led the video-story and the accelerated program of retirements, firings and suspensions in senior military ranks, whose effects are still being felt today.
If this scenario is anywhere near close to the truth, the greatest danger is what happens if it falls apart. What happens if “Leading from Behind” crashes and burns and there is no Plan B. The military, emasculated by budget cuts and marginalized in the decision-making process, can no longer ride to the rescue any more.
There is a missing piece to this puzzle which nobody is talking about, and that is the mention of Libyan Al-Qaida detainees at the CIA place in Benghazi. Since this is illegal, lots of people would act in hard-to-understand ways to protect the information. It is an analogous situation to Iran-Contra in that regard. Layer upon layer of people in CYA mode creates quite a mess.
"Gregory really pushed. "
Now that the election s behind us, Gregory and fellow hacks are getting a dose of courage. Too little and way too late. Zero cred with me. Worthless.
The issue about what the administration said and when they said it is absurd on its face. There is simply nothing suspicious about the fact that it took them a week or two to reach a conclusion as to who was responsible. There is simply no motive to carry out a two-week coverup in September, the election being in November.
If you're trawling for reasons to criticize the administration focus on the amount of security that was in Benghazi. This ridiculousness about the administration's statements gives this the strong appearance of a partisan witch hunt.
" This ridiculousness about the administration's statements gives this the strong appearance of a partisan witch hunt. "
Well, somebody's talking points weren't changed.
The crew that attacked the consulate carried jerry cans (5 gal. cans) with diesel fuel that they poured over the floors and set on fire. Smoke inhalation is what actually killed the ambassador and almost got his bodyguard.
But this is a decidedly odd thing for an impromptu rioting mob to do.
AF gaffed:
There is simply no motive to carry out a two-week coverup in September, the election being in November.
No, remember that Romney called the attack an attack from the get go (or at least said don't apologize for Benghazi). Our President took a cheap political shot at Romney, accusing him of shooting from the hip.
How quickly AF forgets.
AF can downplay and pooh-pooh this all he wants--doesn't change the facts.
AF said...
The issue about what the administration said and when they said it is absurd on its face. There is simply nothing suspicious about the fact that it took them a week or two to reach a conclusion as to who was responsible. There is simply no motive to carry out a two-week coverup in September, the election being in November.
Nothing to see here, just move along.
No motive? With 6 weeks to go, Zero down 5 points after getting creamed in the debates and the economy tanking? News that he left 4 Americans to be murdered.
No, no motive at all.
If you're trawling for reasons to criticize the administration focus on the amount of security that was in Benghazi. This ridiculousness about the administration's statements gives this the strong appearance of a partisan witch hunt.
How dast thou question the Messiah's patriotism?
Or his veracity?
Even though everything he says has been proven to have an expiration date on it.
And the facts make a liar of him.
Seriously, why should we care?
Mitt Romney may or may not have raised the issue "from the get go," but then he dropped it. He dropped it when it mattered.
Why should we care any more than Mitt Romney cared about this in the third debate? If he couldn't be bothered to press the matter, why should we?
That Belmont piece rh linked to is very illuminating.
Why the sudden media interest in Benghazi?
It mattered weeks ago. Now it's just a bump in the road.
Nothing will happen, save a few chumps lose their promotion (but not their job) and we go along as before, supporting Islam's subjugation of yet another nation.
The message to US Muslim militants is pretty clear: violence and threats of violence will get you everything you ask for. Dead ambassadors tell no tales, and even the Secretary of State will lie for you.
This is what the majority of Americans want, or at least the majority of rigged voting machines.
Nothing the administration has said or done about this - before, during, or after - has made any sense, so yes, we definitely want to find out just what the heck just happened here!
David Gregory's performance was a Darryl Strawberry home run.
carrie said...
I am still hung up on who made the order to stand down.
Everything else is a distraction.
In the real world...Israel and Egypt are going to war...two peoples who managed to coexist and even work together for decades...because Barack Obama's policy favored Muslim extremists.
Why doesn't anybody ask a question abouth that?
"The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam."
Does anybody know what Obamas overall foreign policy is?
I mean... maybe except for Sarah Palin (still love her btw), everybody was at least aware or had heard of something called the Bush Doctrine.
Whats the Obama doctrine?
Destroy America and all its allies.
Lem said....
"Whats the Obama doctrine?"
"The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam."
Speaking of Palin:
Palin versus Clinton 2016?
None of this matters yet.
We still have to wait the results of the investigation Obama (and his trolls) promised us.
Until then...
@Lem "Whats the Obama doctrine?"
Support the creation of a Mediterranean wide caliphate?
Lem said...
"Does anybody know what Obamas overall foreign policy is?"
If one does not know by now, the upcoming sequestration will surely be illuminating.
His foreign policy is entirely consistent with his domestic policy.
Think "France," with vestiges of declining but still effective for now military.
The only question is, where will America's Dien Bien Phu be?
I figure... If we, here, closer to him, dont know or could not point to anything he has said... how the fuck are foreigners all the way around the flung forgotten corners in the far reaches of Tierra del Fuego going to know?
I cant find any Arabic/Islamic geographical designation starting with the letter f.
Maybe Hillary knows...
That picture was taken in 2009.
The Ermagerd brigade is still at it?
I would have thought a new nothingburger would be the "red plate" special by now.
Here's what I really wonder? What do some of you think is being "covered up"?
A lot of people, probably most Americans, look at the Libya attacks as a terrorist attack, and a tragedy in which some Americans in the field lost their lives. But I mean, what sort of thing is it, do you think, that underlies this basic tragic happening that is "scandalous"?? Is there a there, there?
Those on the right who are upset about the Benghazi attacks on policy grounds--that is, those who are critical of us being there, and everywhere else for years and years and years, have my sympathy. But the majority of caterwauling seems to emanate from those who support our fun brands of adventurism but who also are waxing outraged on this, simultaneously. This latter group is, refreshingly, getting very little attention or sympathy from the broader public.
So, Ermagerders: You shouldn't need much creativity to answer this question. What do you think is being covered up? If you're so concerned, so sure there's a cover up, you probably have a clear answer.
I was watching the video and it struck me that the FBI was sent to "investigate"...
It struck me because, in a war, the FBI would stay home... its a domestic service bureaucracy.
In light of the Belmont interpretation however, it makes all the sense in the world.
We are not at war, as far as Obama is concerned.
The only question is, where will America's Dien Bien Phu be?
Los Angeles
harrogate said,
"A lot of people, probably most Americans, look at the Libya attacks as a terrorist attack, and a tragedy in which some Americans in the field lost their lives. But I mean, what sort of thing is it, do you think, that underlies this basic tragic happening that is "scandalous"?? Is there a there, there?"
"tragic happening"? You make it sound like four people merely drove off the road and down a cliff. Brian Terry was a tragic happening?
you scream bloody murder -Bush lied people died! But you're strangely sanguine when it comes to when the liar is one of your own. Death only suits you when it can be used for your political purposes. You're not right in the head.
Who gave the order to stand down? Not once but three times. Who watched the attack in real time and did nothing.
If the left is so casual about the deaths of four state department operators, what do those of us who are not politically connected have to look forward to in terms of justice?
If there is no "there" there, why all the lying?
A simple screw-up would not be worth it.
The evident strategy of the trolls is to accuse anyone who disagrees with any Administration orthodoxy of being part of the Tin Foil Brigade.
Must be a bitch when all those people who don't see it Barry's way are supported by the facts.
Lydia said...
Speaking of Palin:
Palin versus Clinton 2016?
That's a debate i'd pay to see.
Hot oil, thongs.
Well, on one of them.
Tim said...
The only question is, where will America's Dien Bien Phu be
We had it 11/6/12.
Obama's favorite line from Bob Dylan is "It ain't me babe."
No buck stops anywhere near Obozo.
"Does anybody know what Obamas overall foreign policy is?"
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?"
The defense of President Obama I saw circulated on Facebook today goes something like this:
The Administration didn't want to reveal to the terrorists how much it knew about their activities, and how they knew--that's why they specific mention of the group responsible was omitted--it was classified...
To which I reply:
If the President was protecting classified information about the terrorists he knew were responsible, then why pin the blame on the video?
Why damage free speech?
How is that OK with folks on the left?
To which I got this reply...
*Crickets*
We still have to wait the results of the investigation Obama (and his trolls) promised us.
Who's running this investigation? I bet O.J. Simpson will find the real killer before the Benghazi report ever gets released.
harrowgate has revealed himself today by his comments, above, to be one of the most base, vile, odious apologists for the left imaginable. Any man who snidely, smugly, asks "Is there a there there" in sight of four dead Americans is utterly beneath contempt.
If you want to say the President always said it was terror...OK, let's go with that...
If you want to say the President needed to conceal what we knew in full, to protect classified info...OK, let go with that...
So why damage free speech?
You can't come up with any other cover story?
Really?
Ah, I've figured out Obama's foreign policy, and it dovetails nicely with his economic policy.
He weakens the U.S. to the point where we are militarily overthrown by China and other allies who happen to be big debtor nations to the US. Once we become their subjects, they have to forgive our debt! Deficit erased, and so is America's responsibility as the world's superpower. Genius!
I'm not "apologizing" for anything. I wish we weren't even in Libya But we are. And four of ours got killed by a terrorist attack. Big fucking surprise.
"Who gave the order to stand down?" sounds like a big heady question but really has nothing to it.
Again, what do you think is being covered up?
Again, you got nothing. You don't oppose the adventurist policies. You don't even oppose the waste of human life. You guys just want to bitch.
Fr Martin Fox said...
The defense of President Obama I saw circulated on Facebook today goes something like this:
The Administration didn't want to reveal to the terrorists how much it knew about their activities, and how they knew--that's why they specific mention of the group responsible was omitted--it was classified...
To which I reply:
If the President was protecting classified information about the terrorists he knew were responsible, then why pin the blame on the video?
Padre, if the Administration was so concerned about classified data, why was so much of it spilled hyping one of Choom's few "accomplishments" in the the year after the bin Laden hit?
PS: I stand corrected. I was wrong about harrowgate. I said "any man" when I should have said: "...any creature..."
The Democrat machine which now runs the country has absolutely nothing to fear from the "on fire" Lindsay Graham, whose every other word was don't get me wrong I want to work with the prez and what we need is amnesty and if this benighted party I'm stuck with could only get with the system and get on board with just a little more fairness and Romney is so yesterday how dare he suggest the Dem base is gibsmedat. Oh yeah, Lindsay Graham scares our marxist overlords silly.
The MSM, having turned away during the campaign, now feel secure enough to act like they will do their job.
The left wing, as we see from some commenters here, can't believe there were any politics involved or don't care that there was. Just admit you're glad to have won and stop acting like it didn't go down the way it obviously did.
harrogate said...
I'm not "apologizing" for anything. I wish we weren't even in Libya But we are. And four of ours got killed by a terrorist attack. Big fucking surprise.
"Who gave the order to stand down?" sounds like a big heady question but really has nothing to it.
Again, what do you think is being covered up?
Again, you got nothing. You don't oppose the adventurist policies. You don't even oppose the waste of human life. You guys just want to bitch
---------------------------
The US has hundreds of consulates around the world. What other consulates need closing because they are 'adventurist'?
Four dead Americans a tragedy, yes indeed. 4000+ dead Americans, no questions asked. Unfuckingbelievable.
Edutcher:
Another good question. I can't explain the Administration's actions.
Perhaps someone who believes in this Administration can.
Come on, Harrogate, this should be easy, right?
Why did the President trash free speech over Benghazi if he knew it was terror all along?
Have you googled and bowed to it then specified "Chris Farley Conan Sad Drugs" and if not why?
Why not I meant as it weren't; otherwise it would have been.
It looks like the the middle east is about to erupt again into conflict--I bemoan the loss of life of life by so called "militants" Here, it seems to me, to be a foreign policy issue that requires some sort of US response--I do hope that Mr Obama went under par for his round of golf.
I have every confidence thqt israeli's will protect themselves--but we now have Egypt in the mix--Our mid east policy is in shambles, I have no doubt that our president is not up to the task of rectifying it.
You might wonder, with reason why, why do I continually not simply sign out then sign in and boom!!!! no problems.
The answer, more than satisfactory to me, as it were, is.
Have you googled and bowed to it then specified "Chris Farley Conan Sad Drugs" and if not why?
Why not I meant as it weren't; otherwise it would have been.
Obama will do what he always does. He will vote present and go golf somewhere.
There will be a bunch of dead Jews. But that is no skin off his nose. And his pals like Cedarford will be happy.
This war between Egypt is just the appetizer.
Soon Iran will have a Nuke. Or there will be another war with Israel. Either way Obama won't give a shit.
Just like he didn't give a shit when these Americans died.
FORE!
"The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam."
Apologies--the 6:08 post was Roger J. I do not post anonomously
Inga said...
Four dead Americans a tragedy, yes indeed. 4000+ dead Americans, no questions asked. Unfuckingbelievable.
Military body counts only mater when a Republican occupies the White House. Students learn that the first semester of journalism school.
Baron Zemo said...
In the real world...Israel and Egypt are going to war...two peoples who managed to coexist and even work together for decades...because Barack Obama's policy favored Muslim extremists.
The President of the United States has said that the most beautiful sound in the world was the plaintive wails he heard from the minarets as a boy. He told the UN "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Has he told anyone lately that the future must not belong to those who shell Israel with missiles?
Of course not.
Those are his peeps.
I bet he is going to send them Obamaphones to set off bombs in Israeli pizza stores.
it has been intersting to me that during Iraq there were the weekly body counts and milestones--now that the Presdident has a D behing his name, there are no such reports. American soldiers are still being killed; consular officials are being killed, and there seems to be no interest in the carnage.
I can only assume that political affiliation of the leadership is more important that the troopers that die.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Why did the President trash free speech over Benghazi if he knew it was terror all along?
If I had to guess, I'd say that POTUS tried did/did it as at the behest of a Saudi Prince or King.
With respect to the current military situation in the mideast, I have no doubt tht the Israelis will do whatever is necessary to assure their survival
He did it because free speech is his enemy. Not Muslim extremists.
"The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam."
Obama fans:
Come on: defend your guy....
Explain why he pointed the finger at the video, and along the way, trashed free speech, when--as he says--he knew all along it was terrorists?
So far, looks like nobody can even marshal the necessary imagination to even make something up, that the facts suggest the Admin might be covering up about what happened at Benghazi.
When questions like this are at the heart of the matter: "Why did the President trash free speech over Benghazi if he knew it was terror all along?".... you know it's a bunch of sound and fury coming from the caterwaulers, signifying not a goddamned thing.
Hey Fr. Fox. Even if he HAD "trash[ed] free speech" while knowing it was a terror attack, so what? I am saying it was a terror attack and I am also "trashing" the speech you are freely exercising right now. Because you're spewing bad air, and deluding yourself into thinking you are raising real questions.
Seriously, ermagerders. Cannot one of you even suggest something that you think is being . . . . . DRUMROLL PLEASE . . . . . COVERED UP?
Er. Ma. Gerd.
Translation:
La La La, I can't hear you!
Harro:
He did trash free speech.
He attempted to censor the video by pressuring Google; fortunately, Google didn't buckle.
He had one of his generals attempt to "persuade" a citizen not to exercise his free speech.
And the maker of the video was interrogated in the middle of the night, and now is in jail.
Oh, of course, that's unrelated to free speech...just like the Pussy Riot arrest and conviction.
I notice you said, "so what"?
Noted you don't care when Obama trashes the First Amendment.
Calm down.
It wasn't a consulate. It's not listed.
And those other places that are not consulates but spoken as if they are and located near CIA places get up to things best not talked about. We were doing what it is we do, now hush up about unsightly details. Must you hang everything out on the line for the neighbors to see? They tell everybody. It's not good.
And don't go on about Vegas either it's the exact same thing as My Pet Goat. Appearance or normality.
The president decides what is best for himself, and therefore what's best for his Party, which redounds to what's best for the country, which is always what's best for the world. It's like a pyramid that way always with pharaohs. Now relax and experience Maat.
To be fair, I have no doubt that had Bush tried to have a video purged from the Internet...and deployed one of his top generals to suppress free speech...
Harrogate would be equally eager to defend the President doing what it takes to fight terror...even if some constitutional eggs have to be broken...
No doubt...
For real. I don't think i have ever seen a stupider effort to make something into a SCAAAAAAANDAL before.
I see that the election got rid of whatever hinges some of you had left. It won't be long before you are looking for codes in magazine article titles.
If you think it is going to work, then you have finally proven Mencken wrong. This time, you will go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
Harrogate is all in...
Defending Obama is more important than defending free speech.
So wait, Fr. Fox. WHAT is it again, you think it being covered up? Oh that's right, nothing. You are just bitching about a series of things Obama openly did.
Don't you see that is different? Hmmm. Maybe you don't.
Harrogate:
Exactly what was so worthwhile in Obama's strategy to trash free speech that made it worthwhile?
Or do you not consider the First Amendment worth anything?
Harrogate:
I am not speaking of a "cover up." That's your hobby horse.
I'm speaking of free speech.
Which the President trashed.
What would make that worthwhile?
Father Fox--a bit off topic, but I would be interested in knowing what your order is. When things get tough, I always want a jesuit on my side--
I'm a diocesan priest, not an order.
Or, if you prefer, we joke about "A.O." -- Apostolic Order.
Prediction: instead of defending the President's choice to damage free speech, if Harrogate responds, it'll be yet another ad hominem.
Thanks padre
Reba sang it.
I told you before about how the (in my case THIS) world ain't gonna stop, for my broken heart.
No I guess the world ain't gonna stop, for my broken heart.
Per Reba McIntire or somesuch
Chip, by all means, go on and on and on about Vegas and all the rest of your bullshit.
Cry it out from the rooftops!
Here's a hint for you, big boy. Everyone knows he went to Vegas after the Benghazi attack. It pissed off some people who already despised him, but that was about it. Most Americans didn't give a fuck that he went to Vegas. He did, Chip, win the election after all.
See, here's the thing. It is one thing to be all like, we hate Obama. Because of course you do. It's another to try to say that the things Chip listed add up to a conspiracy or a coverup. That is the way insane people do "adding up."
"A lot of people, probably most Americans, look at the Libya attacks as a terrorist attack, and a tragedy in which some Americans in the field lost their lives. But I mean, what sort of thing is it, do you think, that underlies this basic tragic happening that is "scandalous"?? Is there a there, there? "
The thing that some of us, not you of course, think is scandalous is the fact that Americans were left to die rather than inconvenience the president's reelection campaign. Johnson did something like this in 1964 when he delayed allowing a rescue of US civilians in the Congo. Otherwise it's just about never happened before. Of course, Wilson ran for re-election on the theme "He kept us out of war," and then declared war on Germany but that was just politics.
The people who will really notice are the US military but they don't concern you. After all, if they had stayed in school, they wouldn't be stuck in Iraq, or what ever.
Seriously Father you don't get it.
I am sure Obama would have been just as vigorous if someone had made a movie trashing the Pope.
I can see him saying: "The future must not belong to those who slander our Holy Mother church."
You could see that right?
""Who gave the order to stand down?" sounds like a big heady question but really has nothing to it."
Care to explain your reasoning here?
Baron:
Um, sure...
Fr. Fox,
So all you are concerned with is that Obama slammed the video? Seriously? So, you are not on board with Graham and McCain and all these Althouse commenters, etc., who think they are wanting to "get to the bottom" of something?
If that is right, then Good for you, man. Good for you. My apologies for assuming less of you. And yeah, if I had been President I would not have said a word about that stupid-ass video publicly. I do not think it is the President's job to do such commentary. So on that point, I agree with you.
harroguy said.....
He did, Chip, win the election after all
And there it is.
The answer to every crime he will commit in the next four years.
"I won."
"Hey you don' have a budget again and we are going over a fiscal cliff."
"I won."
"People are getting laid off so their company can have less then 50 employees and not be subject to Obamacare."
"I won."
Paco:
It is the job of the conspiracy-advocates to SHOW that something is being covered up, that you have big heady questions. You don't just get to screech things and then say "prove I am not right." I'm sorry but YOU have the burden of convincing here. It is that way and now some other way.
BTW. What do you think they might be ......drumroll please..... Covering Up?
Harrogate:
I didn't say that's "all" I'm concerned about. I said that's the point I'm making here; because while I can see some possible rationales for other aspects of this, I have yet to see anyone justify the attack on free speech.
Oh come on folks.
This happened right before the election. CIA had it right, the info was sent to White House. Facts got changed.
IT HAD TO BE ABOUT THE ELECTION. Simple as that. Only real question is, who all had access to this secret? I mean not just such as Axelrod, but who on the campaigned would have access and change it?
No one?
If a campaigner had access that shows huge incompetence of the White House, if not then one of OBAMA's top staffers did. And that shows deliberate misleading of the public.
But still it seems everyone misses the point.
Obama left them to DIE. Obama PUT THEM there to DIE. Obama then LIED as to what happened.
Truth to power...
"Iran has the bomb and is threatening to destroy Israel."
"I won."
Michael K:
Wait, what's that? It looks like you are trying to make a real argument but I am not entirely clear what you are charging Obama with? Are you saying that you suspect that Obama could have helped Stevens and the others but chose not to because it might make him look bad politically to save them from being killed? Help me to understand your position. I really am trying to see what it is.
"Some guy made a movie making fun of Mohamed's radio."
"Arrest that infidel. The future does not belong to those who
slander the prophet of Islam!"
Baron Zemo--irrespective of Mr Obama's positions, it is the israelis who are threatened with their survival. Mr obama cannot change that calculus. The israelis will do what that have to do. Mr Obama has absolutely no leverage to change that calculus.
Well, Fr. Fox, bully for you. So you're a big free speech advocate and I applaud you for it. If you think that there's a big scandalous coverup that Obama is guilty of, then I am sorry for your loss.
Of sanity.
harrogate said...
I'm not "apologizing" for anything. I wish we weren't even in Libya But we are. And four of ours got killed by a terrorist attack. Big fucking surprise.
"Who gave the order to stand down?" sounds like a big heady question but really has nothing to it.
There are four dead guys that would argue with that.
Again, what do you think is being covered up?
Culpability of a crime. When you work for the state department is there a reasonable assumption of security?
Again, you got nothing. Again the aforementioned deceased operators.
You don't oppose the adventurist policies.
This wasn't adventurist this was criminal incompetence.
You don't even oppose the waste of human life.
I don't know what I oppose more the casual acceptance of the death of four Americans or your casual acceptance of the death of four Americans. I mourn the former the latter fills me with dread.
You guys just want to bitch.
No. I want the truth. I want to know what happened. I want to know, when State and Defense had real time video and audio of the whole event, why no help was given when it was asked for. Three times.
Apparently party affiliation trumps justice.
The non-assassins, which I don't know of any, or ever will, ever, as Christ has destined for me, despite my bitch-cunt attempt to serve my beloved WIARNG, deserve better than my mere most meager attempts at whatever I attempt.
RogerJ here is a question for you.
Do you think that President Obama will back Israel in a war against the forces of Muslim extremism as practiced by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas or do you think he will force Israel to stop its actions to defend itself by withhold American resupply and intelligence?
Is Obama like Harry Truman? Or is he like Cedarford?
You make the call.
Harrogate:
What I think is that the American people have a right to know the facts of this whole mess, and the President and his defenders have not shown themselves eager to affirm the American people's right to know.
For example, Gen. Petraeus testified in a closed hearing, and then the Ds and Rs in the hearing room come out and give different accounts.
So why can't the American people hear from Gen. Petraeus directly? Surely our legislators and Gen. Petraeus can plan to keep the sensitive stuff concealed?
Why not publish the transcripts of his testimony?
Paul said...
Oh come on folks.
This happened right before the election. CIA had it right, the info was sent to White House. Facts got changed.
IT HAD TO BE ABOUT THE ELECTION. Simple as that. Only real question is, who all had access to this secret? I mean not just such as Axelrod, but who on the campaigned would have access and change it?
No one?
If a campaigner had access that shows huge incompetence of the White House, if not then one of OBAMA's top staffers did. And that shows deliberate misleading of the public.
But still it seems everyone misses the point.
Obama left them to DIE. Obama PUT THEM there to DIE. Obama then LIED as to what happened.
Truth to power...
Not sure if Paul has the /sarc tag on or not, but that's the issue(s) in a nutshell.
Did Axelrod or other political operatives have access to classified data?
Did Barry walk away and let those guys die?
If so, it's impeachable (I know, the trial is another thing...) and would destroy him - not to mention all the other people with impeachable - or indictable - offenses hanging over them.
I Won, indeed.
Baron Zemo: a good question indeed. Given the Presidents public proclamations and oratory, if I were the Israelis I would be keeping my powder dry.
The Israelis have their own intelligence and are not dependent on US resources. As to what Mr Obama would do, I have no idea, but were I counseling the Israelis I would advice them to assure their own survival.
And with respect to your other question, I can only hope that it is Harry Truman who is the leader.
Mr Obama is not up to the task.
Inga said...
Four dead Americans a tragedy, yes indeed. 4000+ dead Americans, no questions asked. Unfuckingbelievable.
Do you know the difference between apples and submarines?
Barack Obama couldn't sniff Harry Truman's jockstrap.
He will put all the pressure on Israel to back down and stop anything they will try to do to defend themselves. He will do whatever is in his power to stop them. And the Democrats in Congress will do nothing to stop him.
When Iran gets the bomb next year it will not be pretty.
Baron Zemo--recall that Harry Truman was apparently a very good poker player in his kitchen cabinet--He would not be so foolish to tell someone to "call his bluff" my money would be on Harry.
The loneliest thing to be in this world is to be an ally of Barack Obama's America.
""Who gave the order to stand down?" sounds like a big heady question but really has nothing to it."
That seems like a pretty simple question. Either there was no such order, or somebody gave the order. No conspiracies (or sneering) required.
If I may jump in, I'd say Rush's line about everything Zero says having an expiration date is applicable here.
He clearly doesn't like Netanyahu and his policy always favors this country's enemies.
He's on record as saying the Israelis better not bomb Iran and lost Jewish support in the last election for it.
As to Presidents, any from Ike on, with the probable exceptions of Willie and Jimmah, would support Israel here.
Barry is no Ike.
Also, LOL @ John McCain. Every time he opens his mouth it's stupider than the last time. Good Lord.
Seems to me as though if someone asserts that a question "really has nothing to it" that they put themselves on the hook to give some explanation - even a teeny tiny one - as to why that is.
Harrogate: seems to me the issue has moved beoynd senator McCain--but by all means you are free to make your point--which seems to be quite irrelevant
Four dead Americans a tragedy, yes indeed. 4000+ dead Americans, no questions asked. Unfuckingbelievable.
Yeah, whatever happened to the IRAQ and Afghanistan death counts that were so popular under Bush? Once the Obamao gets in office, they suddenly disappeared. Yes, yes, we all know a death under a Republican administration is intolerable, and deaths under the Obamao are OK.
So is throwing someone in jail to take the attention away from the reality.
See, Allinga, that's why you won't tell us your predictions for the Obamao's tenure. It's the team, not what's right and wrong.
" Blogger harrogate said...
Also, LOL @ John McCain. Every time he opens his mouth it's stupider than the last time. Good Lord."
Speaking of sniffing jock straps.
I'll repeat what I said before. That woman, Rice, had no business using her position if she didn't know what was going on. It's a travesty to the position. She should do the right thing, and find out who duped her, and the American people. And the press should demand it.
Same old song.
Different meaning.
Same old song.
You've been gone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wYoLQc-x5g
Really Paco? I'm not so sure. When the crazy meme started kicking around that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, most of us said "you can't back that up. there's nothing to that."
Less politically, I remember in the 90s and early 2000s when people argued that the refs were rigging games for the Lakers (whom I loathed). Seemed like a lot of bitching to me. Didn't seem that David Stern felt compelled to "prove" the arguments wrong.
Again, you don't get to just screech some things out and then puff your chests and pretend to be dignified, wondering why your screechings are not being taken seriously.
harrogate,
Here's what is being covered up:
We need answers to these questions:
Before the attack:
1) Why were requests for increased security denied?
2) Who denied those requests?
3) Why was security actually decreased with several different chains of actionable threat intelligence?
4) Did Obama make the decision to reduce security? Did Obama make the decision to deny increasing security afterwards? If so, why? And why didn't he tell us this 2 months ago?
5) If Obama didn't make the decision, did he delegate the decision? If so, to whom?
6)If not, why did that person make the decision without authorization? Has that person been punished or fired for making an unauthorized decision that cost American lives?
7) If Obama did not make the decisions to reduce and not restore security in the face of actionable threat intelligence, was he informed of those decisions? If not, why not?
Reason: security of American diplomatic personnel is extremely important. While routine decisions can be made w/o POTUS input, security decisions in the face of actionable terrorist threat streams would need his approval and input. If he gave it, he should be accountable, and it is a scandal that he stonewalled just to get re-elected. If he didn't give it, then he is a poor leader who can't control his subordinates, and it is a scandal that he stonewalled his leadership failure just to get re-elected.
During the attack:
1) Where the President was and what he was doing when the attack was going on?
2) At what time, exactly, did he become aware of what was going on?
3) When he did find out what was going on, to whom did he give the orders to protect US citizens in Libya?
4) If he did not find out what was happening during the attack, why not?
5) If he did find out what was happening while the attack was going on, why was nothing done to attempt to save lives?
6) Was an order given to stand down? (It is in the code of all military that we don't leave anyone behind who can be saved...the military would go to assist in defense unless given a lawful order to stand down)
7) If so, who gave the order to stand down?
Reason: The POTUS first duty is to protect the lives of citizens and our sovereign soil. Military lives can be sacrificed as part of attaining a military objective, just like firefighters and police may die while trying to save people. But to not even make an attempt to assist diplomatic personnel under attack, or CIA personnel protecting a CIA location/operation from attack, is a betrayal of their service. It is a decision to let someone die whom you could save; it is tantamount to cold-blooded murder. It is a scandal that this occurred when President Obama was trying to claim that al Qaida was on the run as part of his re-election campaign. This information is contained entirely within his chain of command. He can and should tell us why the four individuals died without any attempt at assistance from the US. He promised an investigation to get to the bottom of this; that he hasn't produced this information indicates he is not even attempting to investigate. The implications are that he already knows, and not only refuses to tell us, but is attempting to distract us with promises of an investigation into "who did this". Which is not the salient point at all.
(continued)
Its almost like someone asserting that a question "really has nothing to it" - and then yammering a lot of irrelevant snark about conspiracies and John McCain when asked why there is "nothing to it" - doesn't actually have an answer to the question.
1. People on Obama's deputy team wanted to downplay the terrorism angle of the Benghazi attack. The intelligence was right: terrorism. They twisted the narrative away from terrorism. Terrorism works against Obama's whole foreign policy platform, especially Libya, which is his war. Maybe it's political, maybe not.
We're all going to be a communtiy of nations, and the Muslims will accept international law and courts, and the terrorists are just going to disappear...Poof.
2. The security leading up to Benghazi was atrocious. It just wasn't up to snuff. State department and the administration have some responsibility for this.
3. Obama just wants this to go away. Maybe it's really bad. Maybe not. Maybe it's misleading, maybe it's just spinning things the way you want them, but this means you're not responding to the threats and facts on the ground.
Then it's time to change your platform and adjust.
But this is Obama, so....I'm not really holding my breath.
harrogate said...
Also, LOL @ John McCain. Every time he opens his mouth it's stupider than the last time. Good Lord
I'm beginning the think you're a not very bright 14 year old.
harrogate said...
Really Paco? I'm not so sure. When the crazy meme started kicking around that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, most of us said "you can't back that up. there's nothing to that."
No one says that Obama knew about the attacks in advance (though some sort of attack is more likely on those anniversaries, given their obsessions with numerology). It's that once they happened, why did he prefer to blame a false cause? Political expediency is the reason he seems unable to live down.
Go ahead and knock expediency--all politicians are guilty of it--but first admit to it.
"When the crazy meme started kicking around that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, most of us said "you can't back that up. there's nothing to that."
You might have said that, but it's not much of a response. Just an assertion, really, without an argument to back it up. You surely have reasons why you don't think the Truther scenarios are wildly implausible, beyond just "It can't be!", right?
That's ok -- you're not required to have well thought out arguments on the issues of the day -- but I just thought you might appreciate my bringing this misapprehension of yours (assertion = argument) to your attention.
chickelit,
I didn't draw the comparison because I think people are accusing Obama of knowing the attack was coming in advance (at least, you don't see that accusation very frequently). I drew it because the level of questions/accusations are equivalent in the two cases.
He is on fire, he's huge women.
I think I remember Inga saying that she would be outraged if it turned out they were lying about Benghazi.
Of course, it probably won't be outrage outrage.
Paco,
To be honest, I did not think the Truthers' accusations merited a deeply thoughtful response. Just because someone makes an accusation does not in itself, by definition, require that we all take it seriously. That's the point. All these guys on Fox and on these righty threads have been screaming about Benghazi, I grant you. But that in itself, demonstrates nothing.
After the attack:
1) Intelligence knew that the attack was an organized military action by a terrorist organization almost immediately. This is confirmed by the fact that the CIA agents were in contact and requesting support, and that there were drones providing live video of the attack as it progressed. As such, why did the Secretary of State purchase advertising in Pakistan apologizing for the video? Why did the POTUS spokesperson (Carney) insist the cause was a protest over the video? Why did UN Ambassador Susan Rice go on 5 different programs and say it was caused by a video? Why did President Obama talk about a the video in his address to the UN?
2) Why were family members of the slain agents told that the person responsible for the (offensive to Muslims) video would be punished?
3) Why did President Obama claim that he called this attack a video during the debate?
4) Why did the US Dept of Justice reveal the filmmakers name and address?
5) Why did the US Dept of Justice open a criminal investigation into the deaths of the Ambassador and the CIA agents?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57512420/feds-id-anti-islam-filmmaker-who-sparked-protests/
6) Intelligence clearly indicated to the Office of the President that the attack was an organized military operation conducted by a terrorist organization. Why does the Obama administration blame Intelligence? Who within the Office of the President changed the talking points to say the attack was a spontaneous protest?
7) Was UN Ambassador Susan Rice aware of the original Intelligence? If not, why not?
8) Why was UN Ambassador Susan Rice chosen to deliver the false information to the US populace?
9) Why will the Office of the President not explain why UN Ambassador Rice was given wrong information?
Reason: The longer this drags on without President Obama revealing basic, specific information, the clearer it becomes that they are
a) stonewalling in hopes this blows over, and
b) attempting to find a plausible excuse that avoids accountability.
The focus on the anti-Muslim video is part and parcel with that effort, because it successfully delayed discussion of the attack and much of the aftermath for more than two weeks. The firing of Petraeus and blaming the misinformation on an intelligence failure are also part of that effort.
There. You can no longer plead ignorance as to why this is clearly a scandal. All that is left is for you to admit that you don't care at all purely because of your ideology.
What's the over/under on the number of days until the Dems' talking point shifts from "what's your point?" to "that's old news"?
I'll set the opening line at 6.5.
Chip S.,
The meme in your comment, actually, is a magnet for both of the responses you articulate. There is no point and it is already old news?
"Just because someone makes an accusation"
"Who gave the order to stand down?" does not strike me as an accusation. Presumably, there is an answer to this question in the form of "This question is irrelevant, because ....", right?
I think I remember Inga saying that she would be outraged if it turned out they were lying about Benghazi.
Mostly I remember Inga yammering nonstop about that fuckin' video, demanding that Noogie Khabouly Noogie be arrested for treason or something.
I don't remember seeing her admit she was wrong, or renounce her fascist impulses.
Sheesh, harrogate, you could've at least given me enough time to book some bets.
Hint: "This question is irrelevant, because the person asking is a poopy-head" is not a good answer.
Chip S:
I was only playing. I think we can safely eliminate my comment from the matrix on this one.
I think it will probably be more like weeks, than days--maybe even a number of weeks- before we see the pattern of "get over it, it's done to death" responses.
Sheesh, harrogate, you could've at least given me enough time to book some bets.
Chip, Inga did that to me the other night--I posted a comment with a prediction and she posted right after as if to verify. I think we can safely say that we know these people.
The Obama administration is a snake in a circle eating it's own tail. That's what Benghazi has become. Susan Rice is a perfect tool, why? Because somehow, someway, she was/is being groomed to be the next SoC. Her going onto these shows when others could have done it proves to me at least, is that she was a very willing participant in the audition for that job and she was willing to get on the presidential couch to get it. This is a facet of what we are dealing with. These people will sell their souls for power.
And as squishy as Graham is at times, I think he has the knack right now to see through the whole charade and call it what it is.
I think it will probably be more like weeks, than days--maybe even a number of weeks- before we see the pattern of "get over it, it's done to death" responses.
To this day I have no fucking idea what the scandal is supposed to be. But they're positive there is something there! Whatever it is there that might be. There.
But I can understand why McCain is still bitter of getting his ass kicked by Obama. And I can understand that means his huckleberry closet case alter ego is upset as well.
Inga said...
Four dead Americans a tragedy, yes indeed. 4000+ dead Americans, no questions asked. Unfuckingbelievable.
This is the latest deep thinking from the stupid wing of the stupid left.
There are lots more possibilities. How about the over/under on the number of celebs who join a "Free Nakoula" movement?
I'd set that one at 1/2, just b/c of Clint Eastwood.
Garage writes:
"To this day I have no fucking idea what the scandal is supposed to be. But they're positive there is something there! Whatever it is there that might be. There. "
Don't worry, neither do they have any idea what they think is there. Or why they think it. But oh, how they do like to grandstand.
To this day I have no fucking idea what the scandal is supposed to be.
And I have no idea what the WH "investigation" is that's taking months to conduct.
But since Obama's promised to investigate, I guess he thinks there must be something to look into.
Michael, you want nothing more than your party of choice and beloved President Bush to be absolved of all responsibility for an unessessary war, yet continue to conjure up some non existent cover up for .......what??
I'm pointing out rank hypocrisy.
I'm pointing out rank hypocrisy.
No, you're trying to change the subject.
Now, about your shrill insistence that everything was the fault of a video....
Bull, there were many demonstrations of the video in 22 different countries and in 11 of those countries embassies WERE attacked, why do you forget this. SO if there was confusion or even a false narrative to mislead the attackers, SO FUCKING WHAT?
That is not a scandal or a coverup.
The scandal is trashing free speech.
The President tried to censor content on Google. Google, thankfully, resisted.
The President sent a general to "persuade" a citizen not to exercise his free speech.
And that citizen was taken in for questioning, and is now in jail.
And the so-called Progressives yawn..."scandal? what scandal? I can't make anything of it."
Do realize a Republican is likely to get back in the White House...and then she or he will use all these precedents for overreaching. Just as Mr. Obama built on all the abuses of the Bush Administration.
Inga:
The President said he did not make a mistake about the video. He told the world that he knew it was terror from the get-go.
Inga, are you aware that the video is still on youtube?
Where's the outrage?
More to the point, where's your embarrassment at having been so completely gulled by the lies told by representatives of the administration?
(Just kidding. I don't expect a goldfish to jump out of its bowl.)
garage mahal said...
To this day I have no fucking idea what the scandal is supposed to be.
Anybody want to put down any money that, if were talking about President McCain, President Romney, or President Palin, garage would know exactly what the fucking scandal was.
harrogate said...
Don't worry, neither do they have any idea what they think is there. Or why they think it. But oh, how they do like to grandstand.
And the last time, it was just about sex, right?
Who cares about molesting women and perjury and stuff?
Willie was an Alpha Male and needed to exercise his droit de seigneur, right?
But waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, something that happens to every combat swimmer as part of his training, that's TORTURE.
Even though Pelosi Galore and the rest of the Demos in Congress signed off on it when they thought their asses were on the line.
But, yeah, it's the Conservatives that are grandstanding over 4 dead guys. Maybe we should be grandstanding over the 1500 dead guys in A-stan on Zero's watch?
3 times in 4 years what Dubya's was in 8.
To this day I have no fucking idea what the scandal is supposed to be. But they're positive there is something there! Whatever it is there that might be. There.
Someone went to great lengths to make it seem like an anti-muslim movie, including putting the guy in jail.
Who cares if it's on YouTube? The cat is out of the bag. The demonstrations luckily did not result in the death of embassy staff in those 22 countries that did have protests, for the grace of God.
There IS a possible scandal and you fools keep missing it. Why were we still in Libya? Why didn't we withdraw our staff when the Brits did?
When, in years to come, a Republican President tries to get Google to pull videos for the sake of "national security," the so-called progressives will have helped that along.
Inga:
Who cares if the President tries to censor free speech?
Tries to intimidate people from exercising free speech?
Has citizens thrown in jail for free speech?
Who cares?
get over it, you lost, nothing is going to cum of this.
When is the next teabag protest?
Titus, do you ever find the topless FBI photo? Here it is:
Tits.
Fr.Fox, with all due respect, baloney.
"There IS a possible scandal and you fools keep missing it. Why were we still in Libya?"
They just don't. Know. how. to. ask. that. question. It's like a computer just freezing up, for them to consider it.
edutcher said...
Anybody want to put down any money that, if were talking about President McCain, President Romney, or President Palin, garage would know exactly what the fucking scandal was.
Garage embarrassed himself on Twitter today. He doesn't know the difference between environmental conservation and preservation.
Y'ALL:
The Election is O-V-E-R. Get-over-your-BIG-loss.
Get off the distinguished Susan Rice. Get off the Obama fiasco in Libya. Who cares about GOP?
POTUS OBAMA HAS BEEN RE-ELECTED BY ALL AMERICANS.
HE IS THE BEST. THE GREATEST. BIGGER THAN LINCOLN, FDR, KENNEDY, ETC. BIGGER THAN ALL.
NO ONE IN THE PRESS HAS RIGHT - ANY RIGHT - TO QUESTION THE WH.
NO ONE.
GOP -- Party of the Living Dead.
Anybody want to put down any money that, if were talking about President McCain, President Romney, or President Palin, garage would know exactly what the fucking scandal was.
There were a dozen embassies that were attacked under Bush. Don't recall anything from the right back then. Or from the left.
Good lord Chickelit, but you are a yenta.
Inga:
Baloney?
Are you saying the White House did NOT seek to censor content on Google?
Are you saying they did NOT depute a general to "talk" to the author of the video?
The maker of the video is NOT now in jail?
You are denying these facts? Please be plain in your reply, if you don't mind, so there's no misunderstanding.
"White House 'Innocence Of Muslims' Request Denied: Google Will Not Remove Film From YouTube"
The film maker was a felon out on parol, violated his parol, quit trying to canonize him.
Chip S. said...
Inga, are you aware that the video is still on youtube?
Where's the outrage?
IIRC, Inga was highly offended by that video--enough to surrender or offer up her own 1st Amendment rights. It's all here on record in the Althouse comment records.
Parole.
According to Inga, the story I just linked at Huffington Post doesn't exist.
According to Inga, if you violate parole, the White House is allowed to suppress free speech associated with you.
Except that it didn't happen.
Who knew David Gregory was a crazy right-wing conspiracy theorist asking irrelevant lunatic truther-like questions! After all, everyone compos mentis knows there's "no there there."
Obviously, there's nothing outrageous about the fact that, 2 months after the fact, the administration still hasn't provided answers to basic questions, and that CIA testimony (among other things) has conclusively shown that the administration's inconsistent, changing talking points (including those propagated by Rice) were not reflective of or based on intelligence, but in fact went against what was known early on to the CIA as well as the White House.
The outrage is asking the questions! Only crazy truthers ask such questions, expect answers to such questions (from a POTUS who won! did anyone miss the fact that he won? when you win elections, you don't have to answer questions-- that's how it works, right?).
harrogate, I suggest you write to rightwing NBC and get this guy-- obviously a crazy Obama-hating conspiracy theorist-- off the air. Given what you're arguing on this thread, David Gregory has really gone off the deep end.
Like, gone Glenn Beck.
Funny how, before the election it was: you guys asking questions about Benghazi are only interested because of the election, because you want it to hurt Obama politically. You guys are just partisans; you're not interested in the truth. What's the rush? Let the investigation into the facts proceed after the election.
After the election it's: you guys are still on this? Smirk. Obviously there was nothing to this; Obama won! Benghazi is old news. You guys are only interested in this because you're bitter about losing the election. You're not interested in the truth; you're just crazy.
But it if did--it would be right.
Garage embarrassed himself on Twitter today. He doesn't know the difference between environmental conservation and preservation.
Not sure what you were babbling about, but it didn't have much to do with my initial tweet.
Inga's mantra at the time was "Loose Lip Lips Sink Ships"
And garage was bending over backwards to mock Darrell Issa for "outing" the CIA. It's all here, folks.
According to Inga, the events in the following link did not happen:
"General asks anti-Islam preacher not to back film that sparked riots in Libya, Egypt"
Chickelit, why don't you go find the comments in which I stated I wanted to violate your First Amendment rights? Or my own.
Hey! Yashu's back!
Missed you!
According to Inga, this event was really--and only--about trespassing in a church, not political protest:
"Pussy Riot sentenced to two years in prison colony for hooliganism"
Oh, there is more than one scandal in Bengahzi. This president has always been an overachiever.
I missed Yashu as well.
Father did he DEMAND it or request it? Did the General or the President say they would kill him if he didn't comply, or something?
I must correct my prior statement in one regard: the White House didn't try to "persuade" the parole-jumper to silence his free speech; the target was someone else, who wasn't a parole-jumper.
But, if you choose to associate with parole-jumpers, you shouldn't expect the White House to respect your free speech.
Except, according to Inga, it never happened.
Inga, are you serious?
The White House sends a top general to you, and you call that a mere "request"?
Hahahahahaha!
When a Republican President makes such "requests," in the future, you'll be peachy-keen when people succumb to their "persuasion," right?
Nope, we are allowed to refuse, it's still a free country. The felon was jailed because he violated his parole.
Aw thanks chickelit! (Mwah, big kiss.)
Missed you guys too. Took a nice post-election break from all politics.
But: just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in.
Right; and Pussy Riot's arrest was merely about trespassing.
OK so now it's clear.
According to Inga, there's nothing wrong with the White House using it's power to, er..."persuade"...
Because, of course, no one would ever be intimidated by such a, er, "request"...
No, it's inconceivable that could ever be abused!
Gotcha.
Chip said...
The president decides what is best for himself, and therefore what's best for his Party, which redounds to what's best for the country, which is always what's best for the world.
Reminded me of something redounding at the rotunda.
And I don't give a rats ass about the felon parole violator, I do however think its beyond vile to try to smear a President with whatever nonsense Fox news can conjure up, why?
Because you simply loathe him. Yes even the man of God.
Post a Comment