Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Oh, no, no, no. Axelrod isn't laughing at Libya, he's laughing at Chris Wallace for bringing up Libya. That's his story, and he's sticking with it.
Follow the snarky guffaw
I wonder how funny that is to Tyrone Woods' dad? Or his widow and child? Or Sean Smith's mother? HA HA HA HA HA!
Is that slamming door still echoing?
"When Chris Wallace raises the topic of Libya, David Axelrod laughs."Need to fix the link. It didn't include Wallace's question or Axelrod's response to the question. Not sure how anyone can comment on Axelrod's response to Wallace's question without hearing the question or the response.
"Need to fix the link."I'll link when the transcript is up. It's not.
I won't miss seeing this dumb schmuck on the Sunday morning shows.
But the clip shows the entire question that made him laugh.Now, I can tell he's laughing to express the idea: I knew you were going to ask me that question.That's what he thinks of: His funny predicament being on a Sunday talk show and having to take the questions. A more somber mask, reflecting the seriousness of the incident, would have been appropriate, and he didn't think of putting on that mask.It is exactly what it is.
He's laughing because he knows he has successfully controlled any serious media investigation of this failure just long enough to get it past Tuesday.
He's laughing because he knows people like AF and Inga and garage don't give a damn about about those 4 murdered Americans.OT, but the Wis. State Journal endorsed Romney. As I've said, I don't think newspaper endorsements swing the needle much, but it is rather fun to see liberal heads exploding in the comments section:http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinion/editorial/our-pick-mitt-romney/article_902e45bc-25cc-11e2-a89f-001a4bcf887a.html
"I won't miss seeing this dumb schmuck on the Sunday morning shows."I don't watch him anymore.
whenever I look at Axelrod, I see Ehrlichman with a mustache. Same contempt for the rights of the people to know, same ethics, sane ego.../sarcPS: the comparison should not be considered flattering to either man...
When all the facts come out, the Republicans are going to get the last laugh on Libya.Hopefully we will see Axelrod, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and even Obama himself (assuming he loses to Romney) under oath during Congressional hearings, which will force them either to tell the truth or face legal consequences.
He's laughing because all the pro-democrat media outlets are talking about dog yawns instead.
"It is exactly what it is."Yes, and that's EXACTLY your point, isn't it, Ann?It is what it is...and what it is is emblematic of all that encompasses--that represents--the guiding Weltanshruung of Obama and his minions..
Well, there could be a reasonable response from the administration, but the fact they haven't offered one shows that there isn't one.Clearly these people see no downside to lying. An outgrowth of the too-big-to-fail mindset. When you start removing the penalty for failure to one party, you rationalize it for yourself.
"When all the facts come out, the Republicans are going to get the last laugh on Libya."I don't think anyone should be laughing about this at any point. It will never be funny.
from the SD UT:Patricia Smith, the mother of slain State Department employee Sean Patrick Smith, is now blaming President Barack Obama for her son’s death. “I believe that Obama murdered my son,” she said Thursday from the living room of her Clairemont home. “I firmly believe this.”Patricia Smith, who voted for Obama in 2008 at the insistence of her son, said reporting by Fox News is the basis for much of her belief that Obama is ultimately responsible for her son’s death. She said Sean, who went to Mission Bay High School but lived abroad, was a fervent supporter of the president.wonder why she can't get the soapbox that Cindy Sheehan isn't using anymore...
Axelrod personifies Chicago thug brain squirming like a toad.
Is it his mustache, or does Axelrod smile with his bottom teeth?
David Axelrod, RFB.**rat-faced bastard.
Ann, you're mentioned in a tweet screen-capped on this article (a tweet by Eric Boehlert and friends insulting the mother of Sean Smith) http://www.soopermexican.com/2012/11/04/liberal-media-matters-eric-boehlert-mocks-mother-of-sean-smith-slain-at-benghazi-deletes-tweet/I am so tired of being disgusted. I can't wait until Tuesday.
4 dead Americans and 4-6 weeks of lies from the Obama admin. about spontaneous flash mobs and "the video!". Turns out that was all a lie. It's not funny.
Ann, I see you''re mentioned in a tweet screen-capped on this post about Eric Boehlert and friends insulting Sean Smith's mother.http://www.soopermexican.com/2012/11/04/liberal-media-matters-eric-boehlert-mocks-mother-of-sean-smith-slain-at-benghazi-deletes-tweet/I am so tired of being disgusted. I can't wait until Tuesday.
Ann Althouse said... "I don't think anyone should be laughing about this at any point. It will never be funny".Maybe now the "law prof" realizes that A2S1C4 is not just some technicality, but is a real test, to the highest degree possible, of allegiance and attachment to America, an singular allegiance that can only be had by those born of parents whom are both US Citizens (See Federalist #68, preventing an "improper ascendant" ("improper ANCESTOR") in order to ensure that the chief magistrate is a "creature of their own" (natural born Citizen)).Benghazi is the worst example of a President's lack of allegiance EVER, and the useful idiots in the media are trying to evade it. The military is finally in full realization of the CIC's lack of allegiance also. Benghazi was the tipping point.When there is no legal President then there is no law and no Constitution, since the POTUS is the executor of the laws.
Would you all please lay out the theory for me...what is being covered up? It can just be a theory.
I think Axelrod believes that they have avoided the hit that any other (Republican) president would have taken from this by lying and using the MSM to keep the lid on. They don't know that the news has gotten out in the worst possible way; as evidence of lying and conspiracy.They are going to be SO surprised on Tuesday. They know Romney is doing better than they anticipated but they still don't know how badly Obama is going to do.
Actually, I think Axelrod can't believe Wallace's gaucherie.This wouldn't happen in Chi-town. And it's not supposed to happen in the big-time media.Certainly, Chris' father would tell him, no, you don't ask a question like that of a Democrat. You're supposed to be on his side.Ann Althouse said...When all the facts come out, the Republicans are going to get the last laugh on Libya.I don't think anyone should be laughing about this at any point. It will never be funny.True, but I think Larry was being metaphorical.50 years of phony Demo and Lefty high dudgeon are brought low by this. The days of people like Anthony Lewis crowing things like, "Between Watergate and Vietnam, the Left in this country constitutes a moral monopoly", are over.
"Conserve Liberty said...He's laughing because he knows he has successfully controlled any serious media investigation of this failure just long enough to get it past Tuesday."He controlled nothing. The media did that all on their own. Good to see Mick back!
Master Cylinder,If I may venture it, there are 3 timelines to be concerned with and all have a cover-up component.1st...before 9/11/12. Many requests for additional security were made and denied. Look to the State Department on this.2nd...on 9/11/12 for the 2 hours before the attacks [when it was known as inevitable] for the SEVEN HOURS of the firefight. What was going on? Who was asking for help? Who was authorized to render aid? Who did not give it?3rd...after 9/11/12 thru today. What was told to the American people about the terrorist attack, by whom and under whose authority.There are three areas that are ripe for inquiry. And AT BEST what you have is gross incompetence. At best.
Ruth Anne answers MC's question, but I would add: why was the Ambassador in Benghazi on 9/11? Why was he in an AQ stronghold with minimal security on a day to expect AQ to be active?
Do not question the great an powerful Axelrod. Eat what he feeds you.
He laughs because he's dismissively unsurprised by Chris Wallace's question about Libya.Axelrod, the laughing hyena.
Thanks Ruth Anne, I appreciate your response.
I love the smell of faux outrage in the morning. Starting wars and piling up bodybags and committing acts of torture under a GOP Administration= no problem around here. 4 dead Americans in a terrorist attack on Obama's watch, around here, though, is Huge. Or as Trump would say, Uuuuuuuuge.What's really sad. Very few on any side are drawing actual sustainable lessons from the string of tragedies that have accompanied our adventurist foreign policies.
Master Cylinder,You're welcome.
I think that Axelrod was trying to emulate Biden. The laugh was a dismissive and appear smart...."Oh you are so stupid, here comes that dumb question again. Why must I put up these moronic people. Sigh" with a big juicy smirk.Like Slow Joe laughing about the idea of nuclear Iran. Ha ha ha ha. It backfires because neither of those subjects....dead Ambassador and dead Americans or the possibility of a nuclear war in the mid east is a laughing matter. Whether you believe either of those premises, you owe the person you are debating with or the person who is interviewing you at least the respect of answering seriously.The lack of respect and supercilious attitude rankles and is insulting.
This schmuck won't be laughing on Wednesday, he"ll be looking for "the best revenge." Rioting in Chicago. Bank on it.
harrogate said...I love the smell of faux outrage in the morning. Starting wars and piling up bodybags and committing acts of torture under a GOP Administration= no problem around hereLast time for the intellectually dead - no torture until the Lefties needed a political advantage and, if the war started on the American side (and it didn't), Jimmy Carter started it.
Ann Althouse said...When all the facts come out, the Republicans are going to get the last laugh on Libya.I don't think anyone should be laughing about this at any point. It will never be funny.True, but I think Larry was being metaphorical.Yes, I was being metaphorical, and in fact that was my point - Libya is no laughing matter, and everyone who is either playing politics or trivializing the incident is ultimately going to fail. That is the "last laugh" - i.e. winning the battle, not actually laughing.
@master cylinderThe genesis of the coverup is the need for the Obama campaign to preserve the fantasy that Al Qaeda has been put down with the death of bin Laden. Recall the campaign slogan crowing about GM being alive and bin Laden being dead, which, incidentally, they don't repeat too often any more. Couple this with the illusion put forth by Obama that the Islamist threat could be turned by a smile from the LightBringer™, and it becomes all too clear that Axelrod has been running foreign policy, not Clinton. This makes it all the more incredible when administration apparatchiks blame Republicans for politicizing Benghazi; from start to inevitable finish, the tragedy was used as a campaign gambit by Obama.
It worked for Biden.
"When all the facts come out, the Republicans are going to get the last laugh on Libya."Do you honestly believe that after the drubbing the (R)'s are going to give the (D)'s Tuesday that this matter will be pursued further? The (R)'s won't have the stomach to kick a man when he's down. And in a newfound spirit of bipartisanship, a couple lower-level people will take the fall and it will just go away.Either that or a deal will be cut that will give 0bama some culpability (he'll no longer be needed) in exchange for letting Hillary! off the hook (she'll be needed in 2016).
Curious George said ....He controlled nothing. The media did that all on their own. IMHO the media does nothing on its own - it is neither creative nor intelligent enough to have an original thought.The media takes, in unison, its entire script from the Obama campaign.(As the father of a frustrated Insider, I know whereof I speak).
"WASHINGTON — A CIA security team rushed to the U.S. consulate in Libya’s eastern city of Benghazi less than 25 minutes after receiving the first call that the mission was under attack, while a second squad was dispatched by air from the capital, Tripoli, according to a timeline released on Thursday by U.S. intelligence officials. The timeline is the most detailed accounting to date of the U.S. response to the attack on the consulate and was released to rebut news reports that U.S. officials had delayed a rescue. “The officials on the ground in Benghazi responded to the situation . . . as quickly and as effectively as possible,” said a senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”" Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/11/01/173372/us-says-help-was-sent-to-benghazi.html#storylink=cpyI haven't seen this story get any traction on the right.Ruth Anne, add to that the ambassador arrived one day before 9/11, and saw the Turkish ambassador(?) that evening or the day of.MC, my fave conspiracy theory is covering up gun-running to Syrian rebels, including al-Qaeda.
Libya will go down in history as the final bathetic failure of a failed presidency. It's going to take this country a long time to work through the dilemma that our first black president was just not up to the job. For the next ten years or so, the narrative will be that Obama the idealist could have done such great things if he hadn't been stymied by the knuckle-dragging Rethuglicans. Eventually the cold light of historical analysis will cement the case that Obama was incompetent, deaf to the needs of his citizens, and driven by the desire to hang on to power at any cost.
Deborah: Most of the right is furious that it reached the point where an embassy was attacked. The fact the attack was mismanaged is a minor point next to the gigantic failure involved with reaching the point an ambassador was available for murder.
exiledonmainst said...He's laughing because he knows people like AF and Inga and garage don't give a damn about about those 4 murdered Americans.==========It is typical of selective partisan outrage on both sides to hold up dead bodies and angry mothers (why never fathers or wives or kids or siblings????) as proof positive of how awful, uncaring, beastly the opposition is. When the other Party is in PowerBut not give a shit about piles of dead bodies when "Our guy is in office".I am so fucking sick of that bleeding corpse gambit.Yes, when Bush was in office under the Spell of the Neocons - doing his idiot "Nation-Building" for Noble Iraqi and Afghan Freedom lovers and his dumb wife was prattling away about "women are now free of their Burquas!!" - the Left had conniptions about dead bodies, and the Total Moral Authority of Grieving Mothers.1.4 trillion. 40,000 American casualties! Innocent Aghans killed by bombs! And both wars are miserable failures. It will be decades before Americans not surrounded by security to protect them from noble freedom-loving Iraqis and Afghans -can walk either country freely. There will be no statues erected to "The American Churchill" - there - or here. Then Obama took office and the Let duly shut up about caskets at Dover, the dead innocents of Obama's drone strikes, and another 5,000 casualties.While the rightwingers started moaning about one dead Martyr on the Border and the 4DEAD HEROES of Benghazi. People in the middle can wonder - OK 4 DEAD HEROES....that's like the daily US death toll in Iraq day in day out in the worst years. But we were told by Bushies that that was an needed price to free our friends. The noble Freedom-Loving Iraqis and Afghans. Out new great friends and allies. So why are right-wingers going as ballistic about dead under Obama, shifting gears? Other than crass cynical "hold up bleeding corpses to rile up the rubes in the Base" politics at it's worst??And if Romney is elected, will the Left resume blubbering insincerely about "dead baby Afghans killed by Romney's drones"???Of course they will!!!!.And if Romney is elected, in all likelihood blunders on one of thousands of calls he has to make each year - and we have dead Americans overseas - the liberal and progressive Jewish media so adeptly manipulated by Axelrod's ilk, will raise a firestorm about it.
He laughs for the same reason that Obama laughs; they care only about being in power and believe that being dismissive will work with the media. So far, both have been right.
"But the clip shows the entire question that made him laugh."Actually, it doesn't. It only shows Wallace saying "I'm going to ask you a question about Libya."I'd like to see the transcript, but presumably Axelrod, who is Obama's political strategist and not a foreign policy expert, is expressing impatience at Wallace's intention to ask a campaign-related question about Libya.
Harrogate @ 9:55,You left out starting wars with the BIPARTISAN support of Congress. That you carefully phrased it as "under" a GOP administration rather by a GOP administration suggests they you know the truth but don't want it to get in the way of your partisan jab.Argue honestly or not at all.
"Yes, when Bush was in office under the Spell of the Neocons - doing his idiot "Nation-Building" for Noble Iraqi and Afghan Freedom lovers..."I just learned that the Neocons (atheists) used biblical scripture to press Bush II to invade Iraq, and some worry that Romney will be susceptible to the same because of some of the Mormon teachings about Israel, etc. re Bush; Gog and Magog:http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/08/gog-magog-and-george-bush
Matthew Sablan:"Deborah: Most of the right is furious that it reached the point where an embassy was attacked. The fact the attack was mismanaged is a minor point next to the gigantic failure involved with reaching the point an ambassador was available for murder."Matthew Sablan, it is a matter of record that the right has been furious about an ever-changing and quickly-abandoned litany of alleged failures connected with Benghazi. First came Romney's complaint about a twitter post by the Egyptian embassy. Then the complaint was that the Obama administration was too slow to call it terrorism. Then it was that Susannah Rice called it an opportunistic attack by extremists. Then there was this lie about "standing down." You all are just furiously slinging mud at the administration without any regard for the facts or the real issues at stake. The only common theme to the charges is that it is all Obama's fault.And then you have the gall to complain about others' not taking the issue seriously enough.
Not funny at all. Whatever explains his actions, clearly he has no intention of being sincere and honest. That just pisses me off more. If you are going to lie or avoid telling me the truth, do it with a sraight face. A 3 timeline clusterfuck, four dead Americans.
More than 4000 dead Americans in Iraq, where is the outrage?
I watched Fox News Sunday here in California, which is two hours later in the morning, and did not see the Axelrod laugh. Do you suppose the tape was edited in the interval ? I was watching for it and, either it had been removed or I missed it.I also watch George Stephanopolis, switching back and forth, and saw no mention of Benghazi. They are all so sure Obama is winning. Even Brit Hume seems depressed.
Shorter Inga. Squirrel!
Inga, GWB is not running for re-election.
" Inga said...More than 4000 dead Americans in Iraq, where is the outrage?"Yes, and 500,000 dead Americans in World War II.What an outrage !Hitler never attacked us.The left has selective outrage but never admits it.
"Then it was that Susannah Rice called it an opportunistic attack by extremists."This was a deliberate lie told five days after the attack, when the truth was known from minute one.
@Curious George'"Glad to see Mick back!"I don't know how you meant that, and I know most here consider questions about Obama's legitimacy to be either a) water over the bridge at this point or b) self-defeating by bringing up a subject the general public thinks is too "out there", but has it ever occurred to anybody that the things Mick says may be true DESPITE the fact that Mick says they're true? Today the American Thinker has a long post by Ronald Jay. Polland entitled: "Obama Reveled More Than His Birth Certificate Last Year" in which he argues (with many screenshots as proof) that the "2008 "Short-Form" certificate Obama posted on his web-site was actually a fake done on 2007 certificate paper (the design was changed between years) and further buttresses his claim by citing the fact that the State of Hawaii has officially refused to confirm the authenticity of the on-line "short-form" COLB scan-image posted on Obama's web-site upon which Obama defends himself and, further, Polland notes that the Hawaii State Health Dept has refused to confirm that they ever issued a short-form COLB to Obama "or anyone acting on his behalf."It all makes for interesting reading. Everyone should go check the art. out..
** either "water under bridge" or "over the dam."---Damn..
"This was a deliberate lie told five days after the attack, when the truth was known from minute one."A deliberate lie so well-planned and premeditated that they fabricated CIA briefing points to back it up. Like Matthew Sablan, you need to move on to BenghaziOutrage5.0.Meanwhile, the administration is responsibly investigating what actually happened and take appropriate action.
Michael K, it's not a laugh, but a broad grin and a suppressed laugh. Which as Althouse said meant, 'I knew you were going to ask me that.' But also, as Althouse said, inappropriate and ill-considered.
"A deliberate lie so well-planned and premeditated that they fabricated CIA briefing points to back it up..."What?
CIA Documents Support Rice's Account
Snackeater, yes I think the Republicans and the Romney administration will get the facts out - although they probably won't put Hillary et al under oath or try to exact a political penalty, figuring that losing the election will be penalty enough.
I notice you laughed when I asked. Why are you laughing? Do you think the death of 4 Americans at the hands of terrorists is funny?That would have been a nice follow-up by Mr. Wallace.
I've always thought that American action was bad for the reelection narrative and so didn't happen.That doesn't rise to more of a scandal than anything else Obama has done. Obama has come first every time.Say "saving" GM over contract law.That had huge effects that it will take years to recover from, if it's even possible (does contract law depend now on who's elected, etc).
Michael K said..." Inga said...More than 4000 dead Americans in Iraq, where is the outrage?"Yes, and 500,000 dead Americans in World War II.What an outrage !Hitler never attacked us.The left has selective outrage but never admits it.===============And militarist right wingers and loathsome Neocons - most who never served a day in the military -love to seek war and then rationalize all wars we are in as Good War! Great wars. And all casualties and deaths are inconsequential because of WWII being "A Good War". So all subsequent wars must be good wars as well.Not even the Civil War before that was successful under the criterion of "were our vital interests advanced to a degree that warranted the staggering cost, loss of lives, and maimings of Servicemen?"Not when you realize every slave-holding nation abandoned slavery without a war of mass destruction and butchery. At least Michael K as a rightwinger was close on WWII deaths - 420,000...Most Neocons have no idea how many died in WWII in any nation. All they fixate on is 6 million Jews having lost their lives in the war. Perhaps they know the Soviets claim they lost 23 million. (Half from Axis actions, half from Stalins regarding lives as readily expendable cannon meat and his scorched earth policies.)Good Wars? Revolutionary, War of 1812, Texan War of Independence, Polk's brief Mexican War, Spanish American War, WWII, Korea, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War. (Afghanistan if Bush had gone after AQ and anyone harboring them vs. expanding the war into Nation Building)Wars we had to fight, or chose to fight to advance vital US interests.
Heh. Murky yet intriguing. If you'll forgive a little conspiracy theorizing, it's believed by some that that the Benghazi Mission (it wasn't a consulate) was a CIA operation. Possibly engaged in gun-running to Syria. Can provide links later if wanted, but gotta run now.
Heck Biden laughed, Obama laughed,, so why not Ax? Dead Americans are a fucking joke to these people.
Oh vacuousness thy name is GOP shill. Most everyone playing the violin in this thread, including the blogger herself, lost credibility a long time ago in terms of lamenting wasteful American deaths overseas.Don't you value consistency at all? Where's all the "more Americans died in car crashes this week than died in the wars" type rhetoric, that I grew so fond of encountering in the 2000s.Where indeed. This caterwauling is an insult to the memories of those who died in Libya. Crocodile tears, is what it is.
More than 4000 dead Americans in Iraq, where is the outrage?So, Inga/Allie, Obama gets a pass on Libya, because of the dead in Iraq?!? And unless I missed it, you and the majority of other Americans expressed their outrage by (among other ways) voting Republicans out of office in 2006/2008.Question back to you: 4 dead in Libya, where is YOUR outrage?
Classic Laughter of Anxiety.Look it up.
harrogate said... This caterwauling is an insult to the memories of those who died in Libya. Crocodile tears, is what it is.The account put forth by Rice et al. in the days after 9/11 was patently false and was contradicted by video from the scene, by the Libyan government, and by emails revealed later. There was no mob incited by Nakoula Nakoula's ridiculous film as the administration repeatedly claimed, only a planned military attack by Islamists. The administration misrepresented the occurrences in Benghazi, and that's a matter of record. In the scheme of history, it was a relatively small thing, but the Obama campaign made the mistake of trying to marginalize its importance. They seem to have never learned, it's not the crime, it's the coverup.
Axelrod had a Joe Biden moment.
Axelrod is lying and you can see it on his face. In fact, i believe he is the one that has been directly telling the president to stay away from it all. His body language and involuntary facial expressions are the giveaway.
harrogate said... Oh vacuousness thy name is GOP shill. Most everyone playing the violin in this thread, including the blogger herself, lost credibility a long time ago in terms of lamenting wasteful American deaths overseas. Don't you value consistency at all? Where's all the "more Americans died in car crashes this week than died in the wars" type rhetoric, that I grew so fond of encountering in the 2000s. Where indeed. This caterwauling is an insult to the memories of those who died in Libya. Crocodile tears, is what it is.Claiming political consistency is for schmucks who think they have something to prove. You clearly do not care about how Americans die overseas in defense of this president in the name of his re-election and yet you call people shills? You wouldn't know what credibility was if someone beat you over the head with it much less are attempting to pretend you have any. Get lost.
Dear Harrogate,With 9 years of active duty Army service behind me, I've opposed, and also had friends killed in, virtually every military action since the first Gulf War. The special revulsion at the Libya fiasco is due to the utter predictability of it, stemming from an un-Constitutional "kinetic action" and precipitated by an complete lack of regard for security, followed by the repeated bullshit with which the nature of the attack was denied by the White House. The Obama administration put these people in harm's way, didn't plan for their protection, didn't support them in their time of need, and then disavowed any responsibility in order protect their political fortunes. Disgusting. As to the evaluation of the contamination of the memory of these abandoned souls, leave it to their relatives: "MOTHER OF SEAL: 'I BELIEVE THAT OBAMA MURDERED MY SON', says Patricia Smith."And finally, congratulations. You're eliciting a first from me on this (or any) blog: FUCK YOU, you sanctimonious prick.
All this talk of Rice and 9/11 provides an interesting comparison to 2001. Funny, the different take this time around. Sorry, but the stance seems purely political from the majority here. Reminds me of how frustrating it was to me when the reports came out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Bush made a big gag out of looking for them in 2004.
Democrats have a higher tendency toward assholism.
master cylinder said... Reminds me of how frustrating it was to me when the reports came out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Bush made a big gag out of looking for them in 2004.Those reports were written by fools. Al-Tuwaitha was all the proof needed and it was all there.
Calypso is a partisan shill par excellance. Just look at his post. A thing of beauty, really.There's of course nothing funny about dead Americans, causalties of our continuing policy bravado, naivety, and stupidity. But behold: there's everything funny about right wingers all of a sudden waxing concern for dead American diplomats and soldiers however.
It's not a laugh, it's a rictus of fear and guilt.
""When all the facts come out, the Republicans are going to get the last laugh on Libya."I hope not. I don't want it to turn out to be true that an American President would watch American heros die and refuse to lift a finger out of personal political considerations. I'd rather have the entire right wing proven wrong on this, and personally to be proven to be over-reacting. I'd love it, but there will still be the scandal of refusing to be transparent just because of an election, and the press has no excuse whatsoever.
I agree.And I’d add that there will also still remain the appalling fact that Obama chose to scapegoat the film maker.
Sorry, but the stance seems purely political from the majority here.2001. A military action taken with overwhelming bi-partisan support, including such luminaries as Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy who listened to the same CIA reports as Pres. Bush, with 1,000s of dead Kurds to prove the existence of WMD, and then provided effusive money and materiel to attempt to achieve security and success, backed by a President taking full, tragic responsibility for losses.2012. A virtually unprotected ambassador is put into an hostile environment on a particularly violent anniversary at the tail end of an unauthorized executive branch military action that destabilized the country, and when tragedy ensues, is disavowed by a President who knew the truth immediately but lied repeatedly due to fears for his election chances. Sorry, can't see the resemblance.Calypso is a partisan shill par excellance.Whereby harrogate proves he knows nothing about me, but is again willing to pull anything out of his ass in an attempt to score political points in what obviously amounts to a game for the distant, comfortable, couch-bound commenter.
"MOTHER OF SEAL: 'I BELIEVE THAT OBAMA MURDERED MY SON'To be fair, Maureen Dowd conferred absolute moral authority only to those parents whose children were killed in Iraq during Geo. Bush's presidency.
" Do you think the death of 4 Americans at the hands of terrorists is funny?"I've asked that question of our lefties here, because it seems they have pretty much the same reaction as Axelrod about even asking about Benghazi. As for Benghazi closed a door, that's how I feel about some of the commenters here. They can never be taken serious again.
harrogate said...Calypso is a partisan shill par excellance. Just look at his post. A thing of beauty, really.There's of course nothing funny about dead Americans, causalties of our continuing policy bravado, naivety, and stupidity.But behold: there's everything funny about right wingers all of a sudden waxing concern for dead American diplomats and soldiers howeverAnd I thought I was an asshole. You give a whole new meaning to the description.
Perhaps Harrogate will have to retire this sock and return to his Feeder Frederson persona.
"Not even the Civil War before that was successful under the criterion of "were our vital interests advanced to a degree that warranted the staggering cost, loss of lives, and maimings of Servicemen?"Not when you realize every slave-holding nation abandoned slavery without a war of mass destruction and butchery.At least Michael K as a rightwinger was close on WWII deaths - 420,000...Most Neocons have no idea how many died in WWII in any nation. All they fixate on is 6 million Jews having lost their lives in the war."I consider myself a libertarian but I guess we are all "rightwingers" to you.Wars are supposed to be "politics by other means" as Clauswitz described it. We now have a segment of society that believes no war is justified unless the enemy are invading. That is a bit late as France learned in 1940. A small war in 1936 would have saved about 100 million lives.Vietnam was botched by men who thought the "graduated response" had caused the Soviet Union to back down in 1962.The first Gulf War was to protect oil supplies need by the western world.The Iraq War was due to several circumstances that were agreed upon by the US Congress with the exception of a few loony tunes types like Barbara Boxer. One circumstance was the failing truce as Iraq kept shooting at our planes and violating the embargo with the help of most of our allies. After 9/11, Bush was faced with a dilemma. We could leave Saudi Arabia, a rather hostile ally, and let Saddam win the cold truce. The other alternative was invasion. I see no serious discussion of these alternatives on the left. Instead we get bumper stickers as policy for the Democrats. This is in keeping with Democrat foreign policy since they started the Vietnam War and lost it.Rumsfeld and Franks wanted to flatten Iraq and leave. Maybe that would have been better. Instead, we had Democrats enthusiastic until the casualties started and then they ran for the hills and became critics.Bush stuck it out and we had a reasonable prospect of success in Iraq until Obama took over and tossed it.Afghanistan should have been punished and left alone to sink back into the 7th century. Bush actually was leaving it on the back burner until Democrats discovered it as a club to beat Bush with and got enthusiastic, or pretended to.Now we have nothing to show for the casualties and should leave tomorrow, or last year.Libya is a perfect example of Democrat foreign policy.The Civil War, by the way, was started by Lincoln to keep the Union intact. Last time I checked, it was still intact.
But behold: there's everything funny about right wingers all of a sudden waxing concern for dead American diplomats and soldiers however.We see you're stuck on this because you've said it ten times. We heard it and rejected it the first time, and the second time, and the third time ... and the tenth time. See, the thing that's so stupid about you is your persistence in displacing our anger. You are correct of course it's not so much four good people are dead in a time and place of war, no, that's not the thing being talked about.We're talking past each other, this is going right past you, I realize that, and that's the reason we'll be handing you your ass on Tuesday and you can sit around an contemplate how awful and inconsistent we are.
More than 4000 dead Americans in Iraq, where is the outrage? Inga: Unless you are a pacifist, that is simply a stupid question.
Calypso Facto: Well said. It's tiresome and tiring to have to refute the same brainless anti-Iraq War talking points again and again. Thanks for taking the time.For those like Inga, harrogate, master cylinder et al. who are unable or unwilling to understand what comprises genuine concern for our military, here are a group of former Navy Seals speaking out against the Obama administration. They estimate that Seal community will not vote for Obama in the high ninety percents:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4NqWDTq5lw
@bagoh20: interesting that the links from Deborah and AF were ignored. One might think they're rejected not for their truth, but because they're politically inconvenient."..(T)he media mischaracterizations of what was done that night is a disservice to the men who had to make decisions under fire."
"We're talking past each other, this is going right past you, I realize that, and that's the reason we'll be handing you your ass on Tuesday and you can sit around an contemplate how awful and inconsistent we are."Chip you forgot to add, "...while we shill for more of these wars."You see, Chip, the reason I keep bringing it up is because you all keep caterwauling--one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten times, and on and on and on, as though--really!--you had a moral leg to stand on when it comes to our foreign policy, which as a matter of operation, wastes human lives.Whenever you guys play the violin you deserve to be called out for your bullshit. Taking you guys seriously on this topic would be like taking Michael Brown seriously while dealing with a hurricane.
OK leslyn, I'll bite. AF's link wasn't so much truth as it was more opinion. Deborah's quote simply begs the question. If efforts were made, what happened to them?
Harrogate, I apologize for conflating you with Freder. Freder is occasionally coherent. That last comment of yours was as long as it was pointless.
harrogate said... Calypso is a partisan shill par excellance. Just look at his post. A thing of beauty, really. There's of course nothing funny about dead Americans, causalties of our continuing policy bravado, naivety, and stupidity. But behold: there's everything funny about right wingers all of a sudden waxing concern for dead American diplomats and soldiers however.This is why your kind are simply unmitigated unpatriotic unamerican scum. I'll tell you like I told others here. I knew both Glen Dougherty and Ty Woods. I find nothing funny in their deaths and my concern for them and their families is out of my friendship with them. You can go behold yourself dying in a fire scum bag. Claimed that the right is somehow outraged over Benghazi as a function to attack the president is part of the foolish and childish stance of blaming the sin and not the sinner. Read this well you piece of filth. This ends at Obama's head. He did nothing, he's hiding the fact that he did and he's hiding other facts as well. We know what happened and how it happened. It's all there and people like you will defend those 4 men's deaths to see your 5th columnist traitor president back in the post to dismantle this country even more.
isn't it clear that the obfuscation on libya has been to avoid having toi admit that the benghazi consulate was being built as a CIA regional office so as to spy on the Libyans?also, for all of you self-righteous morons, help out Professor Althouse's side business by buying this book at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Assassins-Gate-America-Iraq/dp/0374530556. It will help you remember an instance of much more serious presidential ineptitude and obfuscation that you all defended for years, and years, and years.
leslyn said...@bagoh20: interesting that the links from Deborah and AF were ignored. One might think they're rejected not for their truth, but because they're politically inconvenient."..(T)he media mischaracterizations of what was done that night is a disservice to the men who had to make decisions under fire."Do you have anyone besides an unnamed source?hardly lends credence to your assertions.
Yeah, in the mind of the leftist, death is funny.Axelrod is a complete asshole.2 more days.
And yet, and yet...Zero outrage on the part of Inga, harrogate, or leslyn for our participation in the invasion of Libya.It was not approved by Congress, despite our involvement in combat operations going on longer than the time limit allowed by the War Powers Act.And President Obama didn't say one single word to the citizens of the United States why our participation was necessary until well after we had already place troops at risk.Clearly, to Democrats, the military are nothing more than pawns to be used or thrown away in pursuit of domestic political power.That Inga treats her own daughter as such an easily-disposable pawn is even more disheartening, but what can you do?
Nathan,When did I deny my outrage at our participation in invading Libya. The whole enterprise disgusts me, it is such a waste. I know that Stevens for example himself, had great faith in what he was doing on the ground, and I respect the hell out of him for putting it all on the line. But our presence there, our military actions there, I strongly opposed then and now.
What is it about Chris Wallace that incites laughter from these folk?
mojave,Wallace is funny generally and different people will perhaps cite different qualities as to what is funniest about him. But his pretentions to sincerity are the most comical of his attributes, as far as I am concerned. He plays it off very well.
I don't know what it means in predicting the election, but 'David I was bit when Santa Claus came to New York when I was 5,' is a much better and superb liar, excusa, PR professional.
thanks for sharing.
Virgil X said,""Glad to see Mick back!"I don't know how you meant that, and I know most here consider questions about Obama's legitimacy to be either a) water over the bridge at this point or b) self-defeating by bringing up a subject the general public thinks is too "out there", but has it ever occurred to anybody that the things Mick says may be true DESPITE the fact that Mick says they're true?"Really? Water under the bridge? It is too "out there". Americans (real ones, not "left wingers"), don't want to accept that the putative President does not have their best interests at heart, and is put in place to destroy America, not make it flourish. No legal President means no Constitution, no sovereignty and no protection from a tyrannical government.A picture on a website is proof of NOTHING (except that it a picture on a website). It is only prima fascia, and the facts described therein need to be ascertained. A picture on a website is not "evidence" in any court of law, and neither are third party "validations" of that picture on a website. They are like "notes from Epstein's mom" that you were sick, and out of school. It is really a joke that Americans have accepted this BS when they cannot get a job, or a passport without presenting the actual certificate. A picture on their laptop will not do.Jefferson said that the courts would be the Judas' of the Republic, and that has come true, refusing to allow any discovery into the prima fascia Birth Certificate, and blocking all legal inquiries. A2S1C4 is a self executing Constitutional provision, and needs no law or statute to enforce it.In all fairness to the Usurper, discovery could yield evidence that he is eligible. If his story, that Ann Dunham was indeed his mother, and that she was "married" to BHO Sr. is false, and that she was not married, then he is a natural born Citizen. So far the only "evidence" of their marriage is a divorce decree, and INS documents about BHO Sr. asserting they were married (but they are 3rd party assertions, not evidence.) His oft told story makes him ineligible, as the son of a British Kenyan exchange student whom was married to his mother, he was born a British subject and not a natural born Citizen.The travesty is that the military is now realizing that they are taking orders from a CIC without the necessary allegiance and attachment to lead them.
Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the worldدردشة عراقنا الجريح
Post a Comment