... the ambassador asked for more security after a series of terrorist threats and attacks, but didn’t get it, even on the anniversary of September 11. The administration knew that four Americans had been killed in a successful terrorist attack by an al Qaeda affiliate, but lied about the event for weeks in hopes of minimizing political fallout. Extraordinarily courageous Americans fought a seven-hour gun battle against well-armed and well-organized terrorists who vastly outnumbered them before finally succumbing, during which time the Obama administration did nothing. And when the bodies of the dead Americans were returned to the United States, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton misappropriated the occasion to deliver politically-motivated lies, both to the victims’ survivors and to the American people. All of that we now know for sure. If, in addition, there is credible evidence that American soldiers, fighting desperately for their lives against our country’s most bitter enemies, called for help but were cynically left to perish in order to protect Barack Obama’s petty re-election campaign, Obama will not only lose the election but will be turned out of office in disgust by a clear majority of voters. Reporters and editors know this. It will be interesting to see how they respond during the coming days: will they do their jobs, or will they assist their candidate with his cover-up?I presume they would say — if they deigned to answer Power Line's question — that the Benghazi story is too complicated and inflammatory to resolve in the narrow time before the election and that it's unfair to dump this hugely burdensome issue on the President now. It would have an undue effect on the minds of the voters, who must be protected from an emotional flare-up which will keep them from weighing all the issues in the proper proportion. This is especially true — they would not say out loud — when the skewing goes against their preferred candidate. Of course, an equivalent issue affecting the incumbent in 2004 would have been splattered everywhere.
A Romney victory would give us the benefit of leaving the Benghazi scandal in the past. It will still be important to investigate, but it won't — like the Watergate scandal, after the Nixon re-election — cripple a sitting President.
Posts
451 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 451 Newer› Newest»Fratricide is reprehensible, Ritmo.
Know what's even more reprehensible?
Leaving your comrades to die at the hands of the enemy. Making a conscious decision to do so when other courses of action were available. For political reasons. So you can go to bed early to get an early start on a Vegas fundraiser the next morning.
That's treachery. That's cowardice. That's total fucking dereliction of duty. That is a wholesale abdication of professional honor.
If you think that's acceptable in a commander-in-chief, then fuck you.
Ritmo, your outbursts have inspired me to haul out the old Visa card once again and donate to R/R. Do you work for Karl Rove? You are the very model of a modern major leftist asshole.
Ta, ta, I leave you to your 2 minute hate (which in your case seems to go on 24/7). I'm going canvassing for R/R in Wisconsin. The GOTV effort the GOP has in place here is really quite remarkable. I'm feeling better about this election every day. Continue to dream up ever more colorful invectives to throw at conservatives, because you're really helping out the team here. Our team.
And Republicans are on the right side as usual...
Usually including every political imperative except what they're best known for: Watergate, Whitewater, and remind me again how the Southern U.S. flipped from the party of Wallace to the Republicans? Must have been seeing the light on Civil Rights.
Rock Man beats his chest and announces wonderment at the sound! The hills are alive with the sound of Rock Morality!!!
Has anyone anywhere ever had a productive discussion with a troll?
I'm pretty sure, no, actually, I'm certain the answer is no.
But if it's mere sport, play on!
Maybe the New York Times can re-run that story about George W. Bush's DWI.
Ritmo, your outbursts have inspired me to haul out the old Visa card once again and donate to R/R. Do you work for Karl Rove?
The declining returns they seem to be reaping from this vast empire of political wealth is reminiscent of the bubble economies they presided over and touted during the 1920s and 2000 - 2008.
Your investment decisions are inspiring, in the same way that an exotic financial instrument like a CDO is.
Jason, thanks for making the case for pursuing honorable ends. Just realize that people like Darrell do not. And there are many more like him, who think like him, whether you think Obama shares his same category or not.
Ritmo,
You have proved your toughness to yourself by insulting people anonymously. However, we are talking about Benghazi. What do you think happened?
It is truly sad that this has devolved into the usual nonsense with the usual people saying the usual things.
Mostly the saying the same thing.
Squirrel.
The truth will come out. It always does. It will not be pretty. The mainstream media will take a big hit.
Hopefully a fatal one.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
And Republicans are on the right side as usual...
Usually including every political imperative except what they're best known for: Watergate, Whitewater, and remind me again how the Southern U.S. flipped from the party of Wallace to the Republicans? Must have been seeing the light on Civil Rights.
Quite a prejudice Ritmo has against Southerners. Don't tell him the only people in Congress who voted against the Civil rights Act were Demos.
And, lessee now, Whitewater wasn't Republican. That was Willie and Hilla, and, oh yeah, somebody died in that one, too.
And, as for Watergate, I recall Hugh Scott, Barry Goldwater, and John Tower walked up Constitution Avenue to tell Nixon he had to resign for the good of the country.
But who was it who told Willie he had to resign after he was impeached and proven a liar?
An honorable end would be Obama's firing in eight days.
Exactly as will happen.
You have proved your toughness to yourself by insulting people anonymously. However, we are talking about Benghazi. What do you think happened?
I don't know. I do support investigating it. I don't rule out the possibility that Obama or others might have acted irresponsibly, negligently, or even immorally.
I just don't trust Republicans to pursue it with that sort of open-minded and ethical disinterestedness. They are too impassioned with hatred to care for it to have any other aim than a political aim. And for that reason, neither do I at this point.
Get back to me on November 7th.
Quite a prejudice Ritmo has against Southerners. Don't tell him the only people in Congress who voted against the Civil rights Act were Demos.
And these Democrats were from where, exactly... The North?
What is your prejudice against the North all about? Why do you blame them for what happened in the South. Were they responsible for slavery, too?
You know what's really clever?
When Lefty assholes keep changing their blogging handles--Ritmo Brasileiro, Ritmo Re-Animated--like that. Really clever.
And bringing in Nixon, of course, to a discussion of Benghazi and the betrayal of Americans counting on automatic backup once the digital alert was triggered.
The only appropriate answer to your question is, "Well, DUH!"
Of course they are. They are partisan hacks.
The legacy media has him covered like a blanket. I do not use any of the alphabet soup news organizations for news.
Darrell: No one will top you at lacking for cleverness. You stand miles above everyone in that regard.
Just don't think your stupidity makes you a good, decent, moral or ethical person/subhuman. It actually makes you the opposite.
I suppose some unclever individuals might actually have decent motivations. You are certainly nothing of the sort, however.
"I don't rule out the possibility that Obama or others might have acted irresponsibly, negligently, or even immorally."
But you DON'T support the media asking questions before the election. Or am I wrong?
Ritmo is the one who wants us to get all hot and bothered over Republican scandals and forget the one going on now, as Troop notes.
He wants us to forget the wrecked economy is due to the expansion of the CRA and subprime mortgages, too.
But let's not let him change the subject. Let's remember the topic here is whether the media is trying to protect Choomie.
And, from Ritmo's presence, I think we can give a definitive, "Yes!".
PS Yes, some Demos who were from the North did vote against the Civil Rights Act.
But you DON'T support the media asking questions before the election. Or am I wrong?
They can ask any questions they want to.
I'm not in favor of a Ken Starr-style fishing trip, however. ANd realize that this won't happen, either. The press is motivated by things that can actually reveal something meaningful, and at this point it looks like there are a whole lot more many issues to look at in this election.
This particular issue, while being an especially potent motivator of the ever-churning conservative bile machine, doesn't look like it can serve much more of a larger, non-partisan interest, though. I can tell that the noise is a thousand times stronger than the noisemaker, the heat a thousand times stronger than any light source.
And I can see all that because the party in power when 9/11 happened sees an election turning an issue that, at most, when it comes to any possible dereliction, is a thousand times less damning.
+-
edutcher said...
Any references to the Tillman death are efforts by the Lefties to smear the Bush Administration.
The cover-up was by service members who wanted people to think Tillman died a hero.
Agree. I was in combat, and a commander, but never a combat commander like Roger J. What I saw with Tilman, was low level commanders telling one or both of the white lies that have always been told to families:
a. It was quick, he didn't feel a thing
b. he died a hero.
Robert Byrd--the Democrat Exalted Cyclops from the KKK as the “Conscience of the Senate,” is a good example of Democrat righteousness. I rememmber the Democrats trying for years to kick him out.
I got fifty more Democrat "great moments" if you want to hear them. Or maybe it's five hundred. Go ahead and see.
And before you leave, how about commenting about the actual topic? Thanks.
Remember Abu Ghraib was on the front page of the NYT immediately and stayed there for a month straight, and nobody died. They seem to get a lot more excited when U.S. service people look bad.
"They can ask any questions they want to."
But they're not. That's the topic of this post.
Yes or no: Do the American people deserve to know at what point Obama became involved?
Bagoh, you say no one died because of the Abu Ghraib scandal? The retaliatory attacks on our troops increased exponentially and the terrorits used it as a recruitment tool for suicide bombers.
And I can remember all the claims that Bush was responsible for Abu Ghraib, because he set the tone, and a fish rots from the head and all that. I don't see how the facts of Benghazi could possibly turn out anything but a degree of magnitude more disgusting and directly related to the W.H..
SECRET ROUTERS
Mike - I answered your question. Are you going all Ken Starr on me?
Baggie needs to understand that if a sudden decision, to depart from longstanding precedents and the norms of Western civilization for the purpose of torturing is not worth investigating, then why did its strongest political denunciation this season come from Republican ROn Paul.
PS: the police white lies are:
c. he was taken to the hospital in serious condition (said of cops, with thru and thru head wounds.)
d. he died on the operating table after our best efforts
police never die at the scene. The are always transported. The family is told there has been a shooting. The family is met at the hospital by the chief, chief's wife and chaplain, where, 'he died in the operating room..' is delivered.
control the message and setting. same with Tilman. it helps everybody...
The people of the left are always chilled by the lengthening shadow of fascism. If the press is actively engaged in obscuring this story, then the shadow of fascism is very long indeed, and we should all feel a little chilly......I don't know the degree of culpability that the Obama people had in this screw up, but the degree of culpability of the press in surpressing this story is obvious.....Valerie Plame gets a Vanity Fair cover and a major motion picture. These men get a quick burial......The closest the USA ever came to fascism was during the Roosevelt administration. During that time there were many screw ups and abuses that passed unremarked in the press, the movies and on the radio.
Doesn't it ring hollow when these political types say "The blame is mine" then go on like nothing ever happened. If you really did fuck up on Benghazi, RESIGN. That is the only honorable thing to do That is what happens in the private sector. To keep from being sued the company often takes actions up to and including dismissal or demotion. Alas not in Washington they don't.
Conserve Liberty pm317 - thanks to you both for the link - although CL I tried your imbed and it failed. I was able to go there and see it though. It is powerful.
4 people dead versus three thousands on the watch of a CIC immediately given the benefit of the doubt and an institutional change in orders to reverse Western moral norms in the prosecution of war.
Seriously? Equipoise?
You guys are all out of whack. The way you avoid any appropriate understanding of equivalencies shows the bright partisan streaks of hackery buried underneath the supposed concern for honorably executed authority.
It gets more desperate with each comment.
Yeah, you did Rtimo. The American people deserve to know what Obama did; on November 7th.
The retaliatory attacks on our troops increased exponentially and the terrorits used it as a recruitment tool for suicide bombers."
Yes, but the President at the time was not the one showing the world that over and over with such obvious glee. A principled news organization would be less likely to run with it 24/7 when such danger is inherent, but the partisanship of the media simply overpowers their ethics, as it is today.
Your point shows just the opposite of what you intended.
The Drill SGT said...
Any references to the Tillman death are efforts by the Lefties to smear the Bush Administration.
The cover-up was by service members who wanted people to think Tillman died a hero.
Agree. I was in combat, and a commander, but never a combat commander like Roger J. What I saw with Tilman, was low level commanders telling one or both of the white lies that have always been told to families:
a. It was quick, he didn't feel a thing
b. he died a hero.
Quick question:
Does the rumor going around that Barry intended to give Stevens to the crazies so he could be exchanged for Sheikh Rahman make any sense at all?
We still don't have a definitive reason why those people were left hanging, unless you want to chalk it up to cowardice, but I can't believe Panetta, having talked Gates and Hillary into doing an end run to hit bin Laden (if true, and I'm starting to think it really is), wouldn't have cut the Gordian Knot here, as well.
I don't doubt for an instant Petraeus would have backed him up.
The American people deserve to know what Obama did; on November 7th.
Well Republicans already know everything they need to now because they come to predetermined outcomes and conclusions anyway.
And they weren't going to vote for him. Not that it matters.
Again, show me the evidence that Republicans are separating a political concern from a moral one. Yes, they can be merged, but their recent history when it comes to this is shockingly bad. Remember how they substituted their outrage over Clinton for something that American people actually cared about? Oh yeah, you probably don't.
Now go tell me how Bush was a much greater president for letting a thousand more people die in lower Manhattan. Not abroad. Right here.
So partisan it's astounding.
The partisanship in the media forces them to handle stories wrong in both ways, either wildly over-playing them or hiding them from us. You either want a fair and rigorous press or you don't, but what we have now is just a dangerous lack of ethics.
The only enumeration we need is knowing that you, Ritmo, are part of a collective--The Left--that has more blood on its hands than any other in human history--hundreds of millions of human lives. About the only group that may challenge your "record" is the Muslims, if their handiwork in India can ever be substantiated adequately.
Obfuscation. Obama wants to be re-elected as Commander in Chief. It is pertinent how he performed in that role on Sept 11. The rest is bullshit.
Almost makes you wonder what Republicans would be running on had Benghazi not happened.
Easy - how Obama diddled with redistribution through healthcare and transfers to campaign contributers instead of really working to improve the economy.
also, how our place in the world is diminished.
Also, how he managed to increase the problems of race and class in our society.
I could go on.....
The press is motivated by things that can actually reveal something meaningful,
You have to be joking.
You either want a fair and rigorous press or you don't, but what we have now is just a dangerous lack of ethics.
Oh, but wait, Bag! We have FOXNEWS, an equal and opposite sensationalization machine, and even with that we can't seem to manufacture enough outrage to win over independents to the intended goal of what covering this event is supposed to accomplish.
And if you want an informed public, the ostensible goal of the media, keep in mind that even FOX doesn't use ALthouse's most trusted polling source, Rasmussen. Just as an aside when it comes to measuring the ability of the American people (or at least certain American people) when it comes to their willingness to constantly make ill-informed decisions.
Bush had a vague warning--an attack, anytime, any place, any target. Obama was given the actual date. And he was given an actual call for assistance that was already in motion. And he issued the "Stand Down" order. Gutsy call.
Now he will pay with his job. Right and just, our duty and our salvation.
And the election question remains front and center: Is there anything Obama could do that would cause you to stop supporting him? Every day it becomes clearer that, no, there isn't.
Is there anything Obama could do that would cause you to stop supporting him? Every day it becomes clearer that, no, there isn't.
Well, he could advocate a return to the economic policies of the 1920s. But only Romney-Ryan are doing that.
Well....thanks for your responses to my questions, but it still doesn't create a coherent story. I think this story is just too much red meat for some of us.
...and yes, my ballot is in the mail. I voted out the incumbents, and no new taxes.
I even voted down legalizing marijuana, cuz they wanted to legalize it to pay for schools, and the children. What a bunch of horseshit!!
Why do so many liberals still love and worship Obama?
Obama's dead fish handshake.
Bagoh, you say no one died because of the Abu Ghraib scandal? The retaliatory attacks on our troops increased exponentially and the terrorits used it as a recruitment tool for suicide bombers.
Of course. Because up to Abu Ghraib, Islamic nutbags had no reason to kill Americans.
Does the rumor going around that Barry intended to give Stevens to the crazies so he could be exchanged for Sheikh Rahman make any sense at all?
no,
you could not hide the communications needed before the attack.
I have a suspicion that there was a political decision not to use airpower inside Benghazi, but no proactive hostage swap fantasy.
1. they could survive without it.
2. even if they got help it would not matter and heavy collateral danage would make us enemies and not make good reelection press
3. it might save the Americans, but a couple hundred dead Libya "women and children" (all bad guys morph into women and children), would be a political and diplomatic setback.
I think the political calculus was against providing support
Fair enough.
I see the metaphor of Uriah The Hittite is starting to be invoked. I'd guess sacrificing 4 people on the altar on one political ambition is no different from doing it on another.
Maybe people should be able to just vote for two terms for a new President. If it doesn't matter how your choice actually turned out to be in office the first term, then why have to come back after four years and struggle through the fortress of obstacles the Republicans set up to supress your vote?
I fact, I heard that if you voted for Obama the first time, you don't have to vote again, because your power of good intentions is enough, so just stay home and hope really hard.
the following is the quote from Romney's press conference.
"I also believe the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values."
In light of what we knew then and what we know now, what is the problem?
"The press is motivated by things that can actually reveal something meaningful,..",
Or as our President would call it "bumps in the road", "not optimal", but hardly meaningful.
Yea, we get it.
Edu - "Does the rumor going around that Barry intended to give Stevens to the crazies so he could be exchanged for Sheikh Rahman make any sense at all?"
Not from what I see. You think kidnap, then the operation should be short and sweet. Bag him and run.
The objective appears to be something else.
Why amass perhaps 100+ jihadis? To over-run the Consulate grounds and find the more valuable objective. Bring enough force to quickly secure the area and acquire the objective. They left the Ambassador to his fate.
The objective was not found, or only a portion was. They then laid down a fusillade on the vehicle(s) escaping the Consulate and headed for the Annex.
Did they want what was in the vehicle(s)? I think they believed "it" was in them and being transported to the Annex. Once there, the Annex then became the focus of the attack. Up thread it was mentioned (paraphrase) being a CIA operations base, there were WEAPONS/cash and intel to be had.
Plenty of loot for the remaining jihadis, even if they suffered 50% casualties.
I fact, I heard that if you voted for Obama the first time, you don't have to vote again, because your power of good intentions is enough, so just stay home and hope really hard
Careful. Ritmo and Garage will turn you in to a Congressional hearing on Republicans suppressing the vote after Obama loses the election. They tried to make hay with an email joke about Kerry voters going on Wednesday, so there is precedent.
If it doesn't matter how your choice actually turned out to be in office the first term,...
I'm wondering how many times Baggie will have to be told about something called "Congress" and the "Tea Party" before he understands that the president couldn't do anything for the last two years with a faction in power that:
1. Didn't mind a credit-rating downgrade,
2. Kept the unemployment rate 1.5% higher by laying off state and local employees,
3. Accept that there is no ideological end destructive enough for them to reject.
Baggie won't do it. His denial of the consequences of others' actions might force him to acknowledge that he is not an omnipotent Randian God-Person.
The Republicans on Althouse have told me repeatedly that they think destroying an economy for political gain is an acceptable tactic for them. Which liberal has done the same?
I think it's treasonous, but hey - they've got political priorities, BagO - and don't mind duping you into going along with them.
GOod luck. But credibility and intellectual honesty would help you -- and your business.
Does anyone on the left see any possible downside to so many members of the media suppressing a major news story?
Ritmo, We agree then, Obama has sucked. We only differ on who's fault it is. Clarity at last.
Is the all-powerful, ratings-crushing FOXNews in on this suppression conspiracy, William?
We only differ on who's fault it is.
We also differ on grammar. It's "whose", not "who's". Maybe next you'll be hanging out in Brooklyn and telling me "you'se".
Minor detail. ANyway, glad to see that you're only against personal responsibility when Republicans refuse to display it.
Very strange. Remind me again how this will help your business.
The "left-wing" media is not covering right-wing media stories the way the right-wing tells them to! What an outrage!!!
Far be it from a right-winger to see the irony there.
Huh. The one time Republicans voted for an Obama plan--raising the debt ceiling (Budget Control Act of 2011) (Aug. 2, 2011), the credit rating is downgraded (four days later) to AA+.
They should never repeat that mistake again.
But they won't have to do anything with an Obama plan under Romney, but dismantle it, will they?
"...the president couldn't do anything for the last two years..."
I think you just don't realize that Obama leads from behind. It looks like failure, but really it's not.
Shorter Baggie:
It's OBAMA'S fault for not dictating the Tea Party agenda!!!
The UK media can cover it. The world is already laughing at the PartyStream Media.
...Obama leads from behind.
It's called a co-equal branch of government. Neither one can dictate terms to the other, but one can certainly obstruct the other's ability to get anything done. Stop being a douchebag. Does your economic vision for America include widespread ignorance of basic civics?
The Chinese would like that.
I'm consciously perceiving the future--again--and seeing Obama stepping down to head up the New World Order. They'll sell magazines like Publishers Clearing House. But without the contests. That would be giving, not taking.
"Totally an aside because so many pixels have given their life for the Benghazi story: How many readers/commenters even saw the Watergate hearings, much less remember them? Watergate is a totem to be invoked for any political failure. And how many commenters/readers remember it was the Republican Senatatorial delegation led by Hugh Scott, Republican of PA that delivered the news to Nixon that he would go down were impeachment to go forward--Somehow I cant see chuckie schumer or dirty harry reid up to that task."
I remember the Watergate hearings well and I watched almost all of it. I'm a long time news and political junkie. The Watergate hearings provided Fred Thompson with his first taste of fame. And I can still remember Sam Ervin very well.
With the hindsight of history I believe it was a big mistake for the Republicans to join the Dems in calling for Nixon to resign. If he hadn't resigned and held on with the support of the Republicans as the Dems did for Clinton in his impeachment then today we wouldn't think Watergate was so important. Plus, Watergate caused a lot of our current problems by helping get more Dems elected, inspiring the growth of even more liberal journalists and they continue to use it against us whereas the Clinton impeachment has been largely judged a mistake.
One commenter mentioned a fox news hours that had ann coulter and wangted to know the identity of the other person being interviewed. It was patrick caddell. For some interesting perspectives go to fox news's campaign insiders, a monday show available on their website with caddell and schoen.
tim wright
"Unlike liberals and progressive Jews in the media"
But in the meantime Cedarford keeps ripping off his "three timelines" from James Rosen bwahahaha.
In case you missed this pointed tweet yesterday, from the official USMC twitter account:
@USMC: "Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong." — Ronald Reagan, Libya (1986)
You know what else China likes?
Obama making Ted Kaczynski's Manifesto the US Energy Policy. And that was for his first term when he was playing "centrist." God help us all.
Any comment yet from inga, garage, ritmo et al on their hero Biden's "cue balls" line to Woods' father?
With the hindsight of history I believe it was a big mistake for the Republicans to join the Dems in calling for Nixon to resign. If he hadn't resigned and held on with the support of the Republicans as the Dems did for Clinton in his impeachment then today we wouldn't think Watergate was so important.
With the hindsight of something excluding "accuracy", you don't seem to understand that a Democratic Senate probably would have had the votes to remove the private-property abusing bastard.
But thanks for revealing that you, too, don't distinguish between politics and morality. Mao would be proud.
Right wing media stories:
A U.S. embassy overrun and 4 brave Americans killed while defending themselves while the W.H. sat on it's hands and watched.
Hundreds killed by government gun running.
Billions lost on foolish and corrupt financing of "green" industries.
Left wing news stories:
Binders, bayonets and birth control
God help us all.
Yeah, you certainly need a lot of help from someone or something.
Bag:
Feel free to return to your advocacy of 1920s economic policy and your blame of Obama for not being able to make Congress a branch unequal in power to the executive. It will make your analysis of newsmaking even more credible.
" Stop being a douchebag."
Stop blaming me, I didn't vote for him. You sound really dissatisfied with his performance, and you are lashing out at everyone else, except the cause of your dissatisfaction. You're like a battered spouse. Better put some ice on that.
Stop blaming me, I didn't vote for him.
Your refusal to understand and accept how AMerican government works makes your comments not worth taking seriously. And your political opinions accordingly suffer from the same downgrade in credibility.
Why not go lobby Congress to do something they don't have the legal authority to do? You have the money, you have the fantasy and ignorance... It would be a fantastic thing to waste your money on. Please Bag, make some lobbyist rich asking him to do something that can't be done.
Mao would be proud.
But Ritmo, he was one of yours, too. Lots of Dems in the Obama Administration still love the cocksucker, you know. If you guys could resurrect him, he could challenge Byrd for that longest run in the Senate record.
Darrell - someone here just defended private property abuser Dick Nixon and said that it was wrong to waste the Republicans' political fortunes on impeaching and advocating his resignation. You must agree with this seeing as how you're willing to toe the Republican line no matter what.
Didn't know you had that much contempt for private property.
"With the hindsight of something excluding "accuracy", you don't seem to understand that a Democratic Senate probably would have had the votes to remove the private-property abusing bastard.
But thanks for revealing that you, too, don't distinguish between politics and morality. Mao would be proud."
My point was that Nixon shouldn't have resigned and the Republicans shouldn't have encouraged/forced him to resign. Obviously they couldn't control the Dems.
If you think you're angry now, just wait till November 7.
But seeing as how that's the case, I will have no choice but to take that smoking cigarette out of your mouth and reinsert it, lit end first, in your ass.
It's hard to tell which orifice is which with a guy like you, anyway.
My point was that Nixon shouldn't have resigned and the Republicans shouldn't have encouraged/forced him to resign.
Back then, some of them actual had moral, apolitical notions in life.
But not now.
But it's been in your ass for twenty minutes now. Care for another?
I see you are repeating yourself. Maybe it's time to go to Rutmo Tercero. You'd still be a turd dropper, but what can we do?
Hey, it looks like the MULe (aka Ritmo) has sufaced. Most of us thought that he'd lay low after that line he wrote for Joey Plugs about "balls as big as cue balls" backfired.
Obama will have to resign and then we'll have President Joe Biden.
Lord have mercy.
Inga, you ignorant slut.
Alex, you Moby dick.
Alex, were you just testing to see if I was still here?
@O Ritmo Segundo:
You need to go to "Time-Out." because you're very immature.
Nixon was wrong. And he's dead.
It all worked out. Now why do you keep bringing up Nixon on the "Obama Stop Order" thread?
Oh yeah, you've got nothing relevant to say.
Have you tried nothing? It's what the Democrats have in their quiver after "Tax" and "spend."
Well, dreams, I sure wish I could see the maturity in defenses of fragging and a resurrection of Nixon's political right to break and enter, but I'm just not seeing it.
but I'm just not seeing it.
Did you check your talking points?
Say something on topic or depart, why don't you? Else we'll think its intentional. And by that I mean the one person who doesn't think it's intentional will change his/her mind.
Fragging: the act of deliberately assassinating (or purposefully allow to be killed) another member, or members of the military, particularly a member(s) of one's own command.
So we come back around full circle to the subject at hand: Benghazi.
OK, the Ben Ghazi is being covered by Fox News but the fact that the coverage is almost exclusive with them tends to support the Administration's spin that this story is "partisan and politicized"....There really is a downside to a press and a media that is so blindly supportive of one side. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? Back in those days there were very few members of the press reporting on the grandiosity and hubris of the Johnson administration. Something went very wrong at BenGhazi, and the press is not reporting it.
Nixon authorizing a break-in?
The worst crime in history.
The Obama Administration authorizing automatic weapons given to drug agngs that resulted in over 300 deaths as part of the plan?
Well, what about Nixon?
You are an honorable man, Ritmo. In some non-blue-sky universe.. .
"Well, dreams, I sure wish I could see the maturity in defenses of fragging and a resurrection of Nixon's political right to break and enter, but I'm just not seeing it"
I suggest you take a time out, you have plenty of time to live and learn. You're going to be forced into a new perspective on November 7.
So we come back around full circle to the subject at hand: Benghazi.
Nah Bag - you're missing the point. Darrell thinks he has the right to kill any serviceman, whoever they are, real, imagined, in front of him or else - simply because he disagrees with them politically. That takes some balls, don't it?
You're going to be forced into a new perspective on November 7.
WHich perspective is that? The one where Bag O' tries to convince me that the president doesn't require the votes of Congress to pass legislation?
It's an interesting perspective, but I'll pass.
And the topic at hand--Obama issuing a "Stand Down" order that left the Americans on the ground without support. Support that was on its way, triggered by the digital alert that the Ambassador was in mortal danger. Which requires immediate acknowledgment. Which requires the aide to show it to the President. Which requires his acknowledgment. Which requires a "Stand Down" order to circumvent the emergency response in progress.
And probably ID codes. If the system is meant to be foolproof.
Darrell says in your case, it wouldn't be accidental. I typed this slowly so you can read it.
Ritmo is away commenting elsewhere that Cheney's heart should explode. He'll be back shortly.
Darrell says in your case, it wouldn't be accidental.
Which I said when I was bitch-slapping Ritmo for trying to smear Pat Tillman and Bush. For those of you joining us late...
I thought CHeney's heart already exploded. Isn't that why they had to rebuild it from scrap parts? I guess that's what happens to people who have so much hatred, fear and need for control in their hearts. And cigarettes in their ass (although in his defense, Darrell's mouth and his ass are easily confused).
Darrell is trying to defend his thoughts of murder by saying that the movie Pat Tillman's family helped produce is a "smear" of him.
ALso, he's showing his willingness to "take one for the team" by endorsing murder as a way to bootlick George Bush. An honorable history of doing that in their party. Just ask Scooter Libby and the goons in Nixon's squad. They're so loyal they don't need to be ethical AT ALL.
"Any comment yet from inga, garage, ritmo et al on their hero Biden's "cue balls" line to Woods' father?"
I guess not.
Gary, I think it was a crass thing to say. So now what?
I said you were trying to smear Bush and Pat Tillman--mostly the men around him at the time. Tring to take away from Tillman's heroism--to be exact. Me? I don't care if you smear me--I always consider the source. And a member of the Leftist collective that represents the greatest taking of human life in history doesn't even draw my interest. If I wanted to do you in, I'd mention Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin.
I believe the Professor's thesis/suspicion is on point. The senior editors of the major outlets have decided to be patriots and postpone "aggressive reporting" until after the election. I suspect they see a Pulitzer in the story but know that the story's significance will actually be enhanced if it involves a sitting President. Meanwhile the intellectual underpinings of liberalism, real liberalism, have eroded or collapsed to the point where a remark concerning jailing a film maker is no longer worthy of observation much less remark. Progressives are reduced to one liners, non sequiturs about Nixon or coming together after 9-12-01. The press once attracted a determined and independent group of decent writers anxious to follow a story to its end wherever it might end. I think the current crop begin their careers thinking the job is to further their teacher's views of social justice and to look the other way if those with the "right" thinking will be shown in a bad light. Thiose attracted to this line of work are not as smart as those who went before. Sadly our journalism schools are only a notch above, or tied with, education departments.
I've openly stated that Romney holds wrong-headed left-leaning views on global warming. And he buys the leftist bullshit when they say shit like farm dust causes 35,000 deaths per year - or "climate change" over a million. Numbers out of their ass without a bit of science behind them. He never said that he would rip the administrators out of their seats when they stretch existing rules and regulations to unheard-of areas, all to further the left's goals.
But Obama is ten-times worse. And he is now fired. Good riddance!
Romney can see reason. Or he'll be joining Obama in four years as well.
Now search for any deviation from the Dems/Leftist position in any Ritmo comments. Allow plenty of time to go through all the years worth. Proving once again that Ritmo is wrong. I call them as I see them.
I believe the Professor's thesis/suspicion is on point. The senior editors of the major outlets have decided to be patriots and postpone "aggressive reporting" until after the election. I suspect they see a Pulitzer in the story but know that the story's significance will actually be enhanced if it involves a sitting President. Meanwhile the intellectual underpinings of liberalism, real liberalism, have eroded or collapsed to the point where a remark concerning jailing a film maker is no longer worthy of observation much less remark. Progressives are reduced to one liners, non sequiturs about Nixon or coming together after 9-12-01. The press once attracted a determined and independent group of decent writers anxious to follow a story to its end wherever it might end. I think the current crop begin their careers thinking the job is to further their teacher's views of social justice and to look the other way if those with the "right" thinking will be shown in a bad light. Thiose attracted to this line of work are not as smart as those who went before. Sadly our journalism schools are only a notch above, or tied with, education departments.
I call them as I see them.
I don't know what you think you're calling out but your sight couldn't be worse if your eyeballs were located on your ass. Now shoo! Begone! You are nothing but a pest!
As for Michael's eyesight, it's nice to know that he likes his comments well enough to repost them minutes later. No one else does.
You are nothing but a pest!
Classic Leftist projection. Goes well with your constant deflection-- for those at home keeping score.
Beside from being the blog comment counter/duplicate analyst, do you have anything relevant to say? Like on the topic at hand--Obama's Benghazi clusterfuck?
I thought not. Do you get paid by the word for the misdirection? I hope it's only a penny. And even then not worth the copper alloy.
They probably have lives. You should try having one, too, D. It might not be, well, a fully human life, but it would give you an approximation of what that's like and might even bring some small measure of happiness into your dull and drab existence - as well as a glimpse into what normal people have going for them.
For you though, doing that might be like peering from the small hole of a jail cell. Altogether too great a reinforcement of your own shortcomings to result in anything other than rage and rebellion.
BaltoHvar said...
Does the rumor going around that Barry intended to give Stevens to the crazies so he could be exchanged for Sheikh Rahman make any sense at all?
Not from what I see. You think kidnap, then the operation should be short and sweet. Bag him and run.
The objective appears to be something else.
The rest of the theory is the unexpected presence of the 2 former SEALs knocked everything into a cocked hat.
Thus, the rationale for the calls for help being rejected.
I admit to being disappointed, although not really surprised, at Inga.
One might think that she would imagine herself at the soldier's recent funeral, horrified at the lack of answers, embarrassed by the VP's crass response, and brought to tears by these recent revelations.
To wonder if the POTUS denied the ambassador and soldiers a rescue for political reasons, and then lied about it, should strike at her very core.
But it does not.
And I find that demeaning to a mother of a soldier. I'm ashamed for her.
Pogo, do you see the family of Glen Doherty demanding answers publically and IMMEDIATLY? I would hope I would comport myself as they do, God forbid.
well, a fully human life
Well you are the expert at human life--at least taking it--being a member of the collective left with hundreds of millions of deaths on your blood-stained hands.
The "dull and drab" part off mu existence is seeing you still commenting here. Without being on topic once. There should be an APP for that.
The Iraqi commenter is more on topic than Ritmo.
Not one Nixon link.
Inga,
I would hope your heart would go out to the families of the dead soldiers, and support them in finding out the truth.
I see you abandoning them. I'm just surprised is all.
Yes, deflection position will now be: "Of course we want answers, but not until after the election." Priorities.
I don't think that's ethical in a case like this which is not just a partisan issue, but overrides partisan politics. The press should handle it exactly the way they would if it was G.W. Bush in office right now. In addition, Obama forfeited any right to a respect for the timing of the election when he decided to proactively lie and prevent the electorate from getting the truth about a serious matter of foreign policy.
I completely understand his reasons. His main claim of competency on foreign policy was that he had finished off Al Qaeda. Clearly this attack on U.S. soil smacks that down, and that could not be allowed. The lies were a shortsighted gamble that the truth would come out too late. We still don't know if it was too late for the election, but it is definitely too late for his getting away with it.
The waste this will lay to his second term is just another reason to vote him out. We don't have time to fight with him over this for the next year. We have very important things for the President to handle in the coming months other than covering his ass 24/7.
Allie/Inga surprised me when the story broke.
She still is surprising me--but not in the good way. Go figure.
Liebya
Pogo, why do you think my heart doesn't go out to them? Because I'm not grasping onto unsubstantiated reporting? I believe, expect and want the truth to come out, whatever it is. I don't think wasting time and emotion on rumors worthwhile or productive.
It's surprising and dissapointing that you would try to make it appear as if I dont have sympathy for these families.
Inga,
If it turns out that the worst is true: that Obama sat and watched them die, refused to let anyone help, then went to bed, and off to Vegas the next day, and then sent everyone out to lie about it for two weeks; do you still want him to win reelection?
Bagoh, No, I wouldn't .
Then, of course, you want to know if that's what happened, or how much of it did, IMMEDIATELY.
If the truth was something much less damaging, then I would think he would be anxious to get it out there IMMEDIATELY. Why is he doing the opposite?
Bagoh, is the truth known by anyone yet? I don't want crap information IMMEDIATELY. I would think we should want accurate information, even if it takes a while to get it. IF we should discover your worst case scenario is true, then it's all over for Obama, most everyone would agree.
There is someone who knows exactly what happened, and how he handled it. For some reason he's still trying to figure out exactly how to say it.
Inga. The WH knows the truth. And some in intelligence. And some at State. And as is always the case they will start talking as some already have. The Dick Tracey dodge is running out, the witnesses are all dead, but someone received the CRITIC in the WH and it did not alert them to a protest. And someone sent the CRITIC and they arent dead.
Our curiosity will be satisfied, I am sure of that. The press has not shown itself in a good light
Inga,
If you cared more, you would grasp at partisan narratives designed to make the president look bad. That's what caring about the troops is all about.
Inga, an IMMEDIATELY revealed factoid is MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FULL INVESTIGATION! We HAVE A RAGING APPETITE FOR POLITICAL BLOOD, AND IT CAN'T WAIT FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION!!!
Bag O' the supposed registered Democrat says so.
With screaming caps lock, nonetheless.
YES! Next question: Why?
Next answer: Why not? Keepin'on keepin' on.
To be clearer and fair, IF Fox news starts substantiating their reports on Benghazi, they would be more credible. If there were substantiated reports available, my guess is every alphabet network would be reporting it also.
What exactly is fluid now?
The attack happened Sept. 11th. What's to figure out? I'm sure the EXCRIT system retains all IMs. It couldn't have been dumped by now? The regular emails couldn't have been printed out? What exactly is the problem--making the fib believable? Is the FBI going to get sworn statements from the surviving terrorists attesting to their motivation? Is that before or after they actually enter the scene of the "crime." Are the White House printers a bunch of 10th Century Irish Monks doing elaborate illuminations? WTF.
Is the light better after Nov. 6th, is that it?
Yeah Ritmo, I guess I just don't care enough to believe in Fox news reporting. I'm a bad person whose moral compass is broken, a bad mother, a bad citizen, not a patriot and I should go back to the country of my birth, then die. This is a list of things some moral conservatives have told me in the past few weeks.
The purpose of an investigation is to find out what people are hiding. Obama knows exactly what info he got, when, and what he did about it. That's the only truth that's important to know before the election and Obama already knows it without an investigation. Everyone knows that, including people like Ritmo who are going to try and play a silly game of pretend that is fooling no one.
Why do we have to force the truth out of someone else when the President has it? Is he on our side or not? Doesn't he want to tell us what happened so that his supporters can vote for him with a clear conscience?
The only reason that can be inferred from his silence and the earlier proven lies is that he knows something so damaging that it will cost him the election. Don't you want to know what it is that even the President thinks would cause you to vote against him?
Ritmo says: "No, please Mr. President don't tell me the truth, I don't want to stop loving you blindly. You and I and our relationship is all that matters. Don't ruin it.
Look at it this way: Rasmussen reports are too partisan for even FOX, the propaganda arm for the Republican party, to trust them. Yet Althouse uses them as her sole source for polling.
To trust that any issue pounded upon by Althouse and her crew of cacophonous cacklers is to assume that you should be even more partisan than FOX is about it. That goes for this issue, as well. It's an issue that FOX can, as usual, tiptoe around the tulips with innuendo, speculation and the usual pretension to suppression/conspiracy theories. But at the end of they day even they can't come up with anything factual to piece together.
Bush was given the benefit of the doubt about letting over three thousand Americans be killed using our own transportation infrastructure on American soil in the heart of the financial district. The way these goats are braying on about 4 dead in the deserts of hostile or unsettled Arabian territories is shamefully inappropriate. It's unhinged, bare naked partisan blame-mongering, whatever the facts reveal.
Yeah, Fox News should give up its sources in the Intel community and military. That's the ticket. I've sure that WaPo would have done so had Nixon asked. See? Now you have Nixon to kick around again. This time maybe on topic.
Bagoh, this is far too important to make inferences.
Help in theater--on the way. Stand Down order.
The End--
of Barack Obama President and CinC.
Don't forget to tip your server.
Ritmo says: "No, please Mr. President don't tell me the truth, I don't want to stop loving you blindly. You and I and our relationship is all that matters. Don't ruin it.
Bag O' descends into Glen Beckian levels of conspiratorializing. We fear having to soon call for medical attention at the anticipation that he will soon be playing with his poop and yammering on about how the gov't implanted small listening devices in his bowels.
Get a fucking grip, Big Boy.
"I guess I just don't care enough to believe in Fox news reporting."
So the refusal of the rest of the media to do it's job is a good thing? Yes, it does help, if supporting Obama is your top priority.
It's like if your fiance was missing for the weekend and refuses to tell you where he was. Your girlfriend seen him, and you say: "No, please don't tell me. If he wants to, he can tell me after the wedding. Brilliant.
Rasmussen had Romney ahead when the Fox joint poll had him behind. Do you ever think before writing? Or are you as stupid as everyone says?
Bagoh, why do you believe it to be fact that the rest of the networks are refusing to report on Bengahzi?
Bag O' wants an investigation so thorough and complete that it should be finished and its findings published in less than 9 days.
Maybe that shit works on CNBC but not in the real world.
Also Bagoh, if Obama wins the election and your worst case scenario is true, he can be impeached, no?
After all, on CNBC you just get a bunch of over-indulged fucks to yell into a microphone on a trading floor and markets and governments worldwide immediately react -- humungous, crashing housing bubbles notwithstanding.
Let's see...Sept. 11. And today is October 28th. Nine days in Ritmo time.
I'm thinking you're not a math major?
"Bagoh, this is far too important to make inferences."
Agreed. So the man who knows and wants your vote should tell you first.
The reality is that you guys are just making every deflection and excuse to avoid knowing. The reason for that is that even you believe it's not good and would cost your beloved the election.
If you thought the truth was harmless, you would want answers now, not later, so that it would help him win. Don't you see how obvious you are, and how unflattering it is?
Bag thinks that with a few magic words, housing bubbles will be immediately removed and global markets immediately restored to full economic health.
Also, by saying just the right majic words, an investigation of military decisions and their role in an attack in the Libyan desert, all will be revealed - in about 6 seconds or less. Your money-back guarantee.
You can see why this snake oil-salesman (I use that term affectionately) fears regulation so.
" if Obama wins the election and your worst case scenario is true, he can be impeached, no?"
Do you promise now to take up the cause if that comes to be, or will you continue to play this awful game?
Shorter Ritmo: I surrender.
Mary Mopes (strikeout) Mapes would have had a thousand pages at Kinkos by now if this was a Bush fuck up.
Should CBS hire her back?
If you thought the truth was harmless, you would want answers now, not later, so that it would help him win. Don't you see how obvious you are, and how unflattering it is?
If truth is always a good thing, then why does Romney lie with every breath that escapes his hissing lips?
I'm in favor of truth. Republicans are in favor of easy things to believe in.
Obama tended his resignation on Sept. 11th.
It was short and to the point. "Stand Down," it said.
In case anyone here didn't know it, Bag is an entirely disinterested party to this whole discussion. He has no stake in whether the president stays in office or not -- HE JUST WANTS THE TRUTH!!!
If you believe that then there's a sweatshop in China your job should be shipped to.
How long did it take to publish the results of the investigation of the 9/11 Commission? How long did the investigation take? I believe the Commision Report was published in July of 2004.
Take heart, I doubt it will take that long.
Ritmo it is customary when vanquished to stop blabbering about how "It's just a flesh wound."
Yet everything Romeny said was true. It just didn't match Obama's magical nymbers like employment up 2.5 million when the correct number is around 350,000. Shit like that.
Was Obama saying "Stand Down" to the guy blocking the big screen when the Military attache gave him the CRITIC? Did he hit confirm because he really wanted that guy to stand....down?
I hate that song, "Tell me sweet little lies". Fleetwood Mac?
Ritmo it is customary when vanquished to stop blabbering about how "It's just a flesh wound."
I didn't blabber about how vanquished Bush was when he ignored reports of how someone who had attacked America as repeatedly as bin Laden did was determined to attack in the U.S. But apparently you think I shouldn't have because that's the sort of admirable thing that gets you re-elected. Four dead in a foreign desert is the far worse, un-re-electable offense.
Dude, do yourself a favor stop jerking yourself off to this fever dream. Unless, you just happen to like jerking yourself off that much. Or should I say, "THAT MUCH".
9/11 was complicated--we still do not know who the terrorists were with any certainty because they all had fake passports and many of the owners were probably already dead for years (Afghanistan/Bosnia/Iraq I/Kuwait).
The questions that need to be answered here can all be answered in five minutes. Who gave the Stand Down Order? If no order was given, why didn't the Commander’s In-Extremis Force deploy with a target like the ambassador in mortal danger, as designed?
Inga, It's simple. You don't want the President to tell you what he knows about the murder of 4 Americans, even though you know that what he knows is crucial to the election. It proves you don't care about the truth as much as who wins.
I admit that I think it will cost him the election, and I want that. The difference is that you said it would change your vote, but you don't want to know in time to do the right thing.
Look!! Housing bubbles!! Nixon!! Bush!!!!
Just arrest the fucking film maker and shut up. Housing bubbles!! CNBC!!! Bush!!
The questions that need to be answered here can all be answered in five minutes.
You have the questions you want, but for me the answers I NEED are very simple:
1. 3,000+ on American soil in the cultural capitol of the world using our own air transportation infrastructure.
2. 4 dead in a foreign desert.
Very simple. America would decide accordingly, as well.
Ritmo, Do you really think your attempts at changing the subject are proving anything good about your side?
Darrell! What if there was NO stand down order at all? What source said there was one, again is it substantiated? Who reported there was a stand down order?
It's no subject-changing - it's called pointing out precedent. You wouldn't know the difference because you live in an entire world of ego confined to your own head. Other people, of course, look at how different performances compare between individuals with the same responsibilities, capabilities, what have you. They will not judge Obama any more harshly than they judged (at first) his cheerleader-in-chief predecessor.
Neither should you, but you are devoid of any proportional, rational understanding of how the world works. Republicans have the excuse of being blind partisans. You OTOH are just a blind partisan to the cause of sweatshop-competing profits.
BUt it's good to know how far that cause will take you.
Anyway, the damage is done. The next week will either produce some unimaginable explanation that exonerates the President or Romney will win. Anyone who is not an Obama fangirl, is gonna say what I just did: If he didn't have something terrible to hide, he would tell us before the election. There will be a lot of people moving this week from leaning Obama to voting Romney.
There had to be one Inga.
The system is designed that way. It would have been triggered when the CRITIC was sent informing about the situation with the ambassador being in mortal danger. Given the target, the POTUS would be at the top of the list of recipients. The messages must acknowledged. And responses are mandatory. The military aide would not have left without a response from Obama.
There will be a lot of people moving this week from leaning Obama to voting Romney.
Yep. Ohio hates their auto manufacturing jobs so much that they're willing to project greater outrage on 4 dead in the Libyan desert.
You heard it from the California-based entrepreneur, first.
Bagoh, you're not in my head. I do want to know and if uncontroverible evidence is presented before the election, all the better. If its after, the election he can be impeached if he did as you all think he did.
1. 3,000+ on American soil in the cultural capitol of the world using our own air transportation infrastructure.
Spoiler alert: Osama Bin Laden did it. In the study. On Jamie Gorelick's wall.
“Attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we’re going to deal with the challenges in the Middle East."
People died.
Obama lied.
2. 4 dead in a foreign desert
Spoiler alert: Obama did it. He was out of gutsy calls for his first term. And Valerie Jarrett was "visiting her aunt."
Osama Bin Laden did it. In the study.
Right. He might as well have. Because a tiny event (4 dead) invites terrible scrutiny with the pre-determined outcome of execrable guilt for any involved at the top. 3,000 dead gets you enough mass hysteria and patriotism that you can launch two unfunded wars for a decade or more and years before an investigation telling America about the duty you were derelict in a month before.
But whatever. There's some partisan and parochial hatred involved so that explains it.
Is a military call grounds for impeachment? In what universe?
They'd have better luck with Fast and Furious--Obama Style. With a time machine to secure all the paperwork before it was "recycled" of course.
“Attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we’re going to deal with the challenges in the Middle East."
Romney is just so damn awesome in laying out an agenda and not attacking the president. He won't tell you any of the details of what he really plans but he will do a lot of cheerleading and blowing sunshine up the butts of the factory owners like Bag.
Which is really all that a narcissist like him really wants or needs.
Dude, whatever shortcomings you grew up with are really standing out now. You really do need to go back and ask yourself what your family could have provided you that would have led you to feeling more secure and less intensely driven to screw over half the country.
It's good to know every war except Iraq and Afghanistan were fully paid for without any borrowing.
Ritmo, I promise I will not vote for G.W. Bush this time. You aren't worried he's gonna beat Obama are you? It seems like a lot of Obama supporters are. Is a Bush comeback a major concern in your circle?
Inga
He can be impeached and then we have Preident Biden. Not optimal, no matter how big his balls are.
Yeah. Osama was threatening to attack. Tomorrow or ten years from tomorrow. Any target in the US (or in US interest abroad). Stop it, Ritmo.
Obama? Sept. 11th 2012--Your embassy Libya--signed, Libyan Intelligence. P.S. It's al Qaeda.
Except for the exact time. No exact time.
Yeah, Ritmo. Similar puzzles.
Is a Bush comeback a major concern in your circle?
The comeback of someone who has no other political role-model than Bush is a big concern.
But with Willard you never know. Apparently Calvin Coolidge provided an even more formative impression.
ROmney doesn't even know that Iran has access to the sea through something called the Persian Gulf and you are touting him as competent on foreign affairs. Amazing. He can't even go to London without making them feel insulted. It's just astounding how badly you will warp reality.
Darrell - shut up already. No one is listening to your drivel. Save it for a FOX Nation chat board.
No matter how large, Biden's balls are bigger than his brain. Ask Dr. Jill.
Educator.
And the things he can do on/with soft wood would really blow your mind.
Darrell - shut up already. No one is listening to your drivel
Again you apparenbtly are.
Is that your stock response whenever you get beclowned/bested?
Bag must be really looking forward to a third unfunded war -- this time with a country whose sea access eludes his own preferred candidate.
Bag will blame the cost on people who make less than he does. Because he can. THat's just the kind of integrity the man lacks.
Or you can make me.
Post a Comment