[T]he reporters involved have indicated they were told by their sources that these were summaries, taken from notes of e-mails that could not be kept. The fact that slightly different versions of the e-mails were reported by different journalists suggests there were different note-takers as well.
Indeed, Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did). Clearly, of course, Republicans would put their own spin on what the e-mails meant, as they did in the House report. Given that the e-mails were almost certain to leak once they were sent to Capitol Hill, it’s a wonder the White House did not proactively release them earlier.
The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Despite Pfeiffer’s claim of political skullduggery, we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists.
May 21, 2013
3 Pinocchios for White House aide's assertion that Republicans "doctored e-mails... to smear the president."
WaPo's Fact Checker Glenn Kessler looks at something Dan Pfeiffer said on 3 Sunday talk shows relating to the development of the talking points that Susan Rice delivered on 5 Sunday talk shows last fall.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
150 comments:
Clever little bastards they are in the White House to set up the Republicans in this way. Clever. Little. Bastards.
Most transparent administration in History refuses to show us all the "talking Point" e-mails.
Typical that the pro-democrat hack media/White House aide would lie and report that e-mails were "doctored" by Republicans.
Bold face lie on national TV and suffer the Pinocchios that will never be seen by the same low information voters. It's a Saul Alinksy style win for Obamabots.
I have assumed from day one that every word from this administration is a lie.
Everything is optics. Everything is a narrative. There is no reality. There is no "There" there. Nothing bad that happens under his administration is ever Obama's fault. He has little agency is the affairs of mere mortals.
The coverups are getting more and more desperate. This is a horrid mess. God help our government.
Trey
God help our government.
God help us.
This government is unworthy of help.
"God help our government.
God help us.
This government is unworthy of help.
We need to help ourselves.
But we won't. See? The jugged-eared motherfucker's approval ratings are the same as ever.
We suck.
garage mahal and Kos hardest hit.
If cops had to copy search warrants in longhand, every criminal charge would be thrown out in court.
Scumbags being scumbags, news at Eleven.
It doesn't matter, the low information voters have their talking point and that's that, folks.
The administration knows journalists well: they simply are unable to get the facts straight in any story and seldom understand the issue they are reporting.
If the e-mail were changed, I want to see the "unchanged" emails, so I can make up my own mind and not force the presidents staff to waste time having unnecessary discussions, going back and forth, with people trying to maximize political damage against the president.
Is bad enough that the CIA and Muslim extremists are conspiring to smear this president to add mean republicans to the mix.
I wonder how the WaPo readers are taking all this?
Popcorn?
Why do Sunday talk show hosts continue to allow this Administration to send out PR flacks to spin issues of major national importance? The IRS is burning and they send another slick see-no-evil, hear-no-evil type to try to fool us all.
Give the WaPo fact-checker thing a rest. It's trying to rescue itself. That's good, but it has a long road ahead to catch up with online journalism.
Jay said...
It doesn't matter, the low information voters have their talking point and that's that, folks.
That might be true, but the journalists who got played (used) might not be so happy about it. Jake Tapper, namely.
Why only three?
Perhaps they should prove the email contents were doctored... by actually releasing them. I mean, at this point why should anyone believe a single word coming out of the administration?
Why do Sunday talk show hosts continue to allow this Administration to send out PR flacks to spin issues of major national importance? The IRS is burning and they send another slick see-no-evil, hear-no-evil type to try to fool us all.
That's a courtesy that's uniformly given to the accused. They have a right to make a defense.
Jay said...
It doesn't matter, the low information voters have their talking point and that's that, folks.
That is true. I wonder how many "We were wrong" comments we will get from the posters who parroted the talking points. Or will the truth continue to bounce off their head like an Obama shot off the rim?
Why only three?
There are so many lies being thrown around, they fear for the Pinocchio's safety.
They have sheltered him in place... backup and all that.
phx: "That's a courtesy that's uniformly given to the accused."
Uniformly?
Not by the IRS. If they decide you've underpaid your taxes, you have no recourse. They come in with armed men and confiscate your belongings, put you out of business, and destroy your life.
The IRS, or as they'll now be called, the Enforcement Arm of the Democratic Party: Unionized government employees with unchecked power over every aspect of our lives, who contribute almost exclusively to the Democrats.
Three?
For a democrat that's about as close to the truth as you'll get.
Truth telling is is kind of like a learning disability for them.
And we've obliged them with the "soft prejudice of low expectations"
They know we've never expected them to tell the truth in the past, why should they start now?
" we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists."
Well if you were willing to see it on both sides, you would see there was definitely something at play and it was the White House playing it.
When Reagan was POTUS, lefties called him "the teflon President" because they couldn't understand how the populace was failing to connect Reagan to the scandals (Iran-Contra especially) surrounding him.
There seems to be a similar disconnect today. Righties can't understand why the populace doesn't connect Obama to the scandals around him.
I don't know what to make of it. In Reagan's time, I thought lefties were over-hyping the scandals and the likelihood that Reagan was really involved. Today, I think the MSM is under-hyping the scandals and the (to me, obvious) likelihood that Obama is very involved.
But I'm a conservative on the flip side now.
Typical. They don't allow copies of the emails, so OF COURSE there will be discrepancies from memory.
The WH relies on the journalists being sloppy with what/how they quote, and then play "gotcha", blaming Rs for "doctoring" emails they never had original copies of!!
Bastards.
Schieffer was severely upset that the WH sent this little turd out to spin this instead of an actual factual spokesman.Until the media starts treating these flacks as hacks there will be no accountability.
phx said...
That's a courtesy that's uniformly given to the accused. They have a right to make a defense.
And now you know the White House defense was a misdirection and a lie. How do you feel about that?
Aren't you the least curious that we didn't see any of the first hours of emails?
Or that none of the emails discuss the White House's primary reason for the attack ... you know the evil video that 'caused' all this?
Are you honest enough to wonder how the White House's public information went from "terrorists attacking" to "demonstrators protesting"?
You must be OK with them continuing to lie to you.
phx,
"That's a courtesy that's uniformly given to the accused. They have a right to make a defense"
DO you think it's appropriate for the government to handle this like it was a criminal trial, where they will use every trick in the book to not be found guilty, even if it means justice is not served?
Or do you think it's appropriate for the government to cooperate fully, so that the truth comes out?
we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists.
By journalists? Or by someone else?
mark said...
That is true. I wonder how many "We were wrong" comments we will get from the posters who parroted the talking points. Or will the truth continue to bounce off their head like an Obama shot off the rim?
I think one look at the posts by phx answers those questions.
Sorry folks Blogger preview from Android.
It was also funny to watch the leftists pretend that because words were changed in a sentence, all the material facts regarding Benghazi were somehow in question.
They're idiots worshipping a false god.
phx said...
By journalists? Or by someone else?
Doink! "Ah man. Off the rim again! How can we get truthfully goodness into liberals?!"
DO you think it's appropriate for the government to handle this like it was a criminal trial, where they will use every trick in the book to not be found guilty, even if it means justice is not served?
Or do you think it's appropriate for the government to cooperate fully, so that the truth comes out?
My point was that it's normal for the Administration's spokespeople and spinmsters (yup, everyone has 'em in this business) to respond to the charges on Sunday morning talk shows. The guy I was responding to sounded outraged that the Adminstration's spokespersons were doing that.
From there you want to force me into a false dichotomy.
Doink! "Ah man. Off the rim again! How can we get truthfully goodness into liberals?!"
It was just a question. If the answer is "No, it was journalists" then fine, we can move on.
phx, Obama and Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice stand accused of concocting a ridiculous, laughable lie in order to win an election in the face of a Benghazi disaster that could have cost the election. I accuse them also of getting Candy Crowley to step in in the Presidential debate. They further lied to the families of the fallen and to the American people for months. Then when it started to come out, they started saying "it's an old story".
This is not just some liddle foul-up. Neither is IRSGate. Neither is Sebelius extorting money from health-care companies to support Obamacare politically. Neither are the leaks and other lies, and neither is abusing power to snoop on personal phone calls by the AP, and neither is investigating and gathering private data from James Rosen of FNC for doing journalism while conservative.
These are tremendous abuses, and saying "they have a right to defend themselves" is a joke. They're succeeding, apparently, so far, in getting the populace that these are rightist witch-hunts. These are lies and abuses of power.
These are tremendous abuses, and saying "they have a right to defend themselves" is a joke.
Sounds like another way of saying some crimes are so heinous innocence is no excuse.
Yeah, I watched a couple of the Pfeiffer appearances and this really pissed me off. The purpose of this lie (why only three Pinocchios?) was clear; to give the garages and Ingas of the world their talking points.
phx said...
That's a courtesy that's uniformly given to the accused. They have a right to make a defense.
It's revealing the left doesn't care that our government lies to us. Those on the right see these lies as a betrayal because to function well government has to understand itself to be our agent. Americans overwhelmingly support this philosophy, which is why government employees and leftists will give the idea lip service.
But they obviously don't agree with it philosophically or they wouldn't excuse it with inapt comparisons to individual criminal rights. The left doesn't care about the government lying to us because they believe government exists to make decisions for us rather than execute the will of the governed.
phx said...
Sounds like another way of saying some crimes are so heinous innocence is no excuse.
There is no excuse to lying and slandering to cover your ass as the White House did and is doing.
And there is no excuse to continue to spread those same lies and slander. The slander against those you hate may feel emotionally wonderful. But, it is still wrong.
The correct response is "Sorry. I was wrong to accuse the Republicans."
So you need to suck up that cathartic feeling you had when you first 'knew' that the Republicans doctored the emails. Man up and admit you were played by your side.
When the RICO suits against the IRS get going, you are going to see the rats fleeing in all directions. This will be a spectacle. Admission is free.
So you need to suck up that cathartic feeling you had when you first 'knew' that the Republicans doctored the emails. Man up and admit you were played by your side.
I didn't have any feeling at all hearing that "Republicans doctored the emails." I don't know if they did or didn't. It's one of those things I'm not concerned with until or unless a definitve answer can be arrived at.
One of you non-rabid partisans can let me know what was learned when the investigation into the emails is over.
You'll excuse me if I don't just take any partisan's word about these things I hope.
phx, I'm trying to understand how someone like you can be blind to what's so obvious. The IRS targets conservative groups, the White House makes up a story on Benghazi a few weeks before the election, all of these denials and other abuses go on and on and on, and there is exactly one common motive: retention of political power. Don't you see that?
Obama isn't standing like a kid in the principal's office. There's not a higher authority; there's no judge or jury who will convict him until people like you admit what's obvious. That's what happened under Nixon, under Reagan (Iran-Contra), and under Clinton (Lewinsky). Keep making arguments like "innocent until proven guilty", and you just look silly.
...and phx, Obama and Hillary went right out in the few days after Benghazi and sold out the American ideal of freedom of conscience. They said "we had nothing to do with this video", this video that they plucked out of the backwater of YouTube. They should have said "Americans get to say what they want, and I'm not going to go further into it."
They do not believe in that ideal, as further shown by IRSGate, APGate, JamesRosenGate, and the on-going intimidation of whistle-blowers. They think they should be able to control thought and expression. That's anti-American.
phx, I'm trying to understand how someone like you can be blind to what's so obvious.
She's under no obligation to be honest. It's unimpressive, and hopefully unrepresentative of most people who lean left, but it's not a crime.
phx said...
I didn't have any feeling at all hearing that "Republicans doctored the emails." I don't know if they did or didn't. It's one of those things I'm not concerned with until or unless a definitve answer can be arrived at.
One of you non-rabid partisans can let me know what was learned when the investigation into the emails is over.
Hysterical.
Um, no emails were "doctored"
There is no specific investigation into "e-mails being doctored"
By wallowing in such silly ignorance however, you are pretending these are legitimate points and therefore unable to criticize a Democratic Administration.
phx, I'm trying to understand how someone like you can be blind to what's so obvious.
I don't have to render my vote now. Nobody's waiting for me to decide what's what in this before they can do their work.
It's not like the right has never rushed into poor judgment before when assessing the Obama administration.
You want to hand out your guilty verdicts RIGHT NOW!, go right ahead. I'll wait.
If it were a Bush or Romney administration you'd want me to wait, too.
phx said "If it were a Bush or Romney administration you'd want me to wait, too."
No. I'd be calling for his head.
No. I'd be calling for his head.
Okay. Fair enough. Think of me as the Henry Fonda or maybe the Henry Morgan character though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lljIrAfBzYs
I say we wait until the judge gets back from Tucson.
I didn't have any feeling at all hearing that "Republicans doctored the emails." I don't know if they did or didn't. It's one of those things I'm not concerned with until or unless a definitve answer can be arrived at.
I think a definitive answer is that the Administration tried to pass off an obvious military styled assault on our consulate as nothing more than some excitable Arabs upset over an obscure YouTube video.
It's obvious why they did because an election was 2 months out and horrific visions of Carter 1979 danced through their heads.
It's obvious it was a pre-meditated terrorist attack and they lied about it from day one. The email discussion is just distraction.
"I don't know if they did or didn't."
-- From the start, you could have known. Kessler isn't saying anything new. You chose to remain ignorant of the topic.
So what was the last Pinocchio reserved for?
phx:
If we are to have sufficient information to make rational decisions regarding the various claims against President Obama, it would be helpful if he would make available someone with actual knowledge of the situations and not just an attack dog, who knows nothing other than that Republicans are lying scum. If this tactic were tried in a criminal case, the defendant would be convicted every time. For an innocent defendant, truth is the best defense.
I don't have to render my vote now. Nobody's waiting for me to decide what's what in this before they can do their work.
How about the facts as we know them now?
Obama engaged in regime change in Libya, a sovereign country that posed no imminent threat to us and after Ghadaffi's ouster, set up a consulate in Benghazi and provided our ambassador and staff, zero security in a country that was teeming with Islamists.
Despite warnings from the Libyan interim President about potential Islamist attacks and requests from Stevens himself for added security, the Obama administration did nothing.
Consulate attacked, Stevens and three Americans killed while we did nothing. Obama jets off to a fundraiser the very next day and we told the American people it was just a protest over a YouTube video and we should show Muslims more respect.
Seems pretty obvious this Administration defines incompetent.
phx said...
If it were a Bush or Romney administration you'd want me to wait, too.
Except you are not "waiting"
You're ignoring.
See, it isn't as if at some point in the future you will come back and say: "Yeah, that WH hack should have never lied on those Sunday talk shows" or anything.
the issue will eventually go away, and you'll be happy. Because that is what silly hacks like you do.
About two dozen protesters outside the JFK Federal Building in Boston, which houses an IRS office.
Nothing about Obama, and pretty tame. Nothing for Dana Loesch to complain about.
I think most of the people who care are at work, unlike the Obama base.
If we are to have sufficient information to make rational decisions regarding the various claims against President Obama, it would be helpful if he would make available someone with actual knowledge of the situations and not just an attack dog, who knows nothing other than that Republicans are lying scum. If this tactic were tried in a criminal case, the defendant would be convicted every time. For an innocent defendant, truth is the best defense.
Sounds like part of your closing summation. All I defended was the right of the Administration to send their point men on to the Sunday talk shows. If they botched it for you, I can't argue with that.
phx said...
I didn't have any feeling at all hearing that "Republicans doctored the emails." I don't know if they did or didn't. It's one of those things I'm not concerned with until or unless a definitve answer can be arrived at.
We have the answer as far as the Republicans go. We have all the information to render that judgement. We have the emails the notes were taken from. We have what the Republicans said based on those notes. And we have what journalists said from those notes.
And Glenn Kessler using the amazing power of literacy finds ... The Republican statements match the emails. Shocking! What a scandal! And you too can use that amazing power!
Obama engaged in regime change in Libya, a sovereign country that posed no imminent threat to us and after Ghadaffi's ouster,
I supported this action, btw, and I still support it. I know I'm only a low-information voter, but it seemed reasonable to me. Although for a moron I still retain an open mind.
We have the answer as far as the Republicans go. We have all the information to render that judgement. We have the emails the notes were taken from. We have what the Republicans said based on those notes. And we have what journalists said from those notes.
And Glenn Kessler using the amazing power of literacy finds ... The Republican statements match the emails. Shocking! What a scandal! And you too can use that amazing power!
Well then I promise never to use the Dems email talking points. Something which I NEVER have before anyway, btw.
Matthew Sablan said...
-- From the start, you could have known. Kessler isn't saying anything new. You chose to remain ignorant of the topic.
I'm actually pretty impressed with phx. I believe (s)he has developed a whole new variety of troll: the passive-aggressive troll. (S)he raises questions and says moderately critical things about Republicans. When a liberal trots out the already-disproven talking point, (s)he thanks them for clearing things up.
When (s)he is hit over the head with the blatantly obvious facts showing that Republicans were right or Democrats were wrong, (s)he retreats to an oh-so-reasonable sounding we need to wait for the definitive answer that (s)he will never acknowledge has already arrived.
"So what was the last Pinocchio reserved for?"
That's reserved for those issues where somebody died.
Oh, wait ...
How about the facts as we know them now?
Obama engaged in regime change in Libya, a sovereign country that posed no imminent threat to us and after Ghadaffi's ouster, set up a consulate in Benghazi and provided our ambassador and staff, zero security in a country that was teeming with Islamists.
Despite warnings from the Libyan interim President about potential Islamist attacks and requests from Stevens himself for added security, the Obama administration did nothing.
Consulate attacked, Stevens and three Americans killed while we did nothing. Obama jets off to a fundraiser the very next day and we told the American people it was just a protest over a YouTube video and we should show Muslims more respect.
Seems pretty obvious this Administration defines incompetent.
So typical of many righties on this issue though. First thing, right off the bat, you lead with a highly controverial premise that's very much in dispute and you express astonishment when not everyone sees it your way.
No wonder I exasperate most of you guys. You haven't learned to make an argument.
I supported this action, btw, and I still support it. I know I'm only a low-information voter, but it seemed reasonable to me.
Why? On what legitimate basis did we have to do so? What threat was Libya to the US? Now that the country is destabilized, with militia and Islamists roaming at will, its difficult to rationalize the 'reasonableness' of such an action, particularly in light of the liberal caterwauling about Iraq over the last decade.
Yes, Phx the twat is just the newest iteration of troll.
I think the passive aggresive description is quite apt.
The full on loonacy of the bug eyed bitch and the recently took his ball and went home Bitchtits doesn't serve as well in this situation, so we get dozens of Phx posts instead.
PHX - Why did the Obama administration and the State Dept mislead the American public on the "youtube video and the flash mob"?
Still waiting for your answer.
"You'll excuse me if I don't just take any partisan's word about these things I hope."
You think the Washington Post is shilling for the Republicans?
When a liberal trots out the already-disproven talking point, (s)he thanks them for clearing things up.
I don't know what this refers to.
Meade once said "We're all trolls." Maybe. I'll stand and give you my honest, nonsnarky response to anything you want me to though. You can hold me accountable for my thinking, and for the way I arrive at my conclusions. I'm a transparent troll if I'm a troll.
So typical of many righties on this issue though. First thing, right off the bat, you lead with a highly controverial premise that's very much in dispute and you express astonishment when not everyone sees it your way.
I'm sorry, what part of that premise was inaccurate and in dispute? Was Libya an imminent threat to the security of the United States?
Why did the Obama administration and the State Dept mislead the American public on the "youtube video and the flash mob"?
I don't know. What did they say? Did they admit they deliberately mislead the American public?
Bob Ellison said,
"When Reagan was POTUS, lefties called him "the teflon President" because they couldn't understand how the populace was failing to connect Reagan to the scandals (Iran-Contra especially) surrounding him."
IIRC, Reagan was the Teflon Prez because the press tried very hard to make something stick, and could never seem to do it. It's quite difficult to stick something when the guy takes blame on himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40YNPwSf9P8
The full on loonacy of the bug eyed bitch and the recently took his ball and went home Bitchtits doesn't serve as well in this situation, so we get dozens of Phx posts instead.
I'm just responding to MANY different people who are directing honest questions at me. I've been answer and replying to good questions or comments directed specifically to me. Passive-aggressive apologies if it offends you.
"No wonder I exasperate most of you guys. You haven't learned to make an argument."
-- That, uh, was a recitation of facts. They may have been colored somewhat, but, pretty much everything there is factual. You seem to not know what an argument is.
I'm sorry, what part of that premise was inaccurate and in dispute? Was Libya an imminent threat to the security of the United States?
You're right. I was wrong. Your premise is fine. I move my defense on the grounds that humanitarian intervention was called for and justified.
Non-passive agressive apology, Colonel.
"...and the recently took his ball and went home Bitchtits..."
What did garage get pissed about?
"Did they admit they deliberately mislead the American public?"
-- No. That's uh, part of the reason that people are upset. The fact that they did mislead them, and did so incompetently enough that people found out.
Keep up.
phx said...
No wonder I exasperate most of you guys. You haven't learned to make an argument.
That's funny.
You've never once made an argument here.
The "exasperation" comes from your silliness and dishonesty.
"I move my defense on the grounds that humanitarian intervention was called for and justified."
-- You do know that as soon as we started helping, the -rebels- started carrying out atrocities against Qaddaffi loyalists, right? Which was one of the arguments against going on: Both sides were bad guys. It enabled the rebels to put towns to the sword, but hey, we did it on the cheap.
Schieffer couldn't understand why they sent Pfeiffer.
Well nobody else in the West Wing, apparently, could say something that stupid with a straight face and Ed Schultz was busy.
I believe (s)he has developed a whole new variety of troll: the passive-aggressive troll.
Some of you guys are so used to namecalling and a scorched-earth policy of argumentation that you don't know what to make out of a reasoned, honest discussion with the opposition, in which everyone's accountable for their premesis and inferences.
For me, I try to be serious, but experience has taught me that arguing politics with anyone even slightly more than left of center is pointless. I can have honest debates with conservatives over issues I disagree with them; but once I go to the left, at most I get faux-philosophy and pseudo-arguments that are based around strawmen and flawed understanding of conservative thought.
On average, the same is true on the Internet.
- You do know that as soon as we started helping, the -rebels- started carrying out atrocities against Qaddaffi loyalists, right? Which was one of the arguments against going on: Both sides were bad guys. It enabled the rebels to put towns to the sword, but hey, we did it on the cheap.
This is exactly why I fear he will drag us into Syria where neither side is preferable.
I think the timeline I laid out above should have been damning enough without the sideshow of who Saud what via email. From a military and diplomatic standpoint the Administration dropped the ball on Libya and left our consulate unprotected in a hostile environment. Rather than own up, they lied about it and then hoped everyone would forget.
For example, take this: "That's a courtesy that's uniformly given to the accused. They have a right to make a defense."
The clear attempt is to make it -sound- like conservatives are on an extra-judicial witch hunt when all that was posed was: Why do journalists keep letting themselves get lied to?
No one would tell a wife she needed to believe that her husband was faithful, even though he hadn't been in the past. The question is asking us to look at our -trust- in the administration, not whether they've committed any crimes.
Hence, a weakly thought out strawman. So, before I needed an example at random, why waste the time addressing it? You didn't care enough to understand the point.
Matthew Sablan said...You chose to remain ignorant of the topic.
Rather chose to appear uninformed and so incapable of rendering an opinion. phx will regale us with the up to date liberal talking points on the Tea Party, conservatives, and so on. But never admit to holding an informed opinion of his own when he doesn't have that direction.
Haven't you ever been in a college BS session and witnessed a smugly sophomoric argument being made? The only facts are those consistent with a predetermined narrative. Anything insistent with the narrative is at best uninformed opinion and an intelligent and reasonable fellow would never....
phx said...
Some of you guys are so used to namecalling and a scorched-earth policy of argumentation that you don't know what to make out of a reasoned, honest discussion with the opposition,
There's no evidence this is true since there are no reasoned and honest opposition comments.
... in which everyone's accountable for their premesis and inferences.
Except you. You get to mantle yourself in unaccountability for making inference and accusation by disavowing any need to defend them because you obviously don't/didn't have all the facts.
Thoreau had a term for men like that.
As for Libya or Syria for that matter there is no point in regime change unless the following regime is better for us.
As FDR ( and I am no fan of FDR) said regarding Somoza " he is a son-of-a-bitch but he is our SO ". On that he was right.
Bob E I beg to differ. The real scandal that took place during the Iran-Contra was the democrats aiding and abetting communists in Central America by way of the Bolling Ammendment. Reagan's mistake was not in vetoing the entire budget and forcing the democrats to withdraw the amendment. To compare today's scandals with Iran-Contra is to equate apples and oranges.
As for PHX, folks stop harshing on him. He is trying very hard not to connect the dots but is grudgingly getting there.
cubanbob said...
As for PHX, folks stop harshing on him. He is trying very hard not to connect the dots but is grudgingly getting there.
Be serious. Wait for the facts / stop beating a dead horse is not engagement, it's obfuscation. A better troll would at least have a playbook with more than one play.
Original Mike said...
"...and the recently took his ball and went home Bitchtits..."
On one of the threads a couple days ago, Garage claimed that when posting under that name it was a parody, and has not been heard from since.
phx
"So typical of many righties on this issue though. First thing, right off the bat, you lead with a highly controverial premise that's very much in dispute and you express astonishment when not everyone sees it your way.
No wonder I exasperate most of you guys. You haven't learned to make an argument."
The news developing is that Hillary, over the objections of the CIA, sold stinger missiles to a;l qeada masquerading as "insurgents" and Stevens was there to try to buy them back.
Carter Ham, the commander of AFRICOM, was ready to send a rescue team in spite of orders to "stand down" and was relieved.
Now, the test will be when these folks testify under oath. Hillary will also be subpoenaed and we will see what she does.
They may need to build a new federal prison for the Obama administration before this is over, but I get my hopes up.
I knew these guys were crooks when they turned off credit card verification in 2008.
Now, I'm off to a Tea Party demonstration at the ITS office in Laguna Niguel. 108,000 people have RSVPed. We'll see how many show up.
Camera in hand.
Original Mike, here is his final post, if you were interested.
"In a rich bit of irony, you didn't know all along that this account has already been a parody of sorts. Meaning, under this moniker I never ever give a fuck. It's "separate" from me, even if you did know who I am I still wouldn't give a fuck.
Which makes your anger towards me and your tireless devotion of trying to discredit this anonymous moniker sort of funny. And tiring. It may be time to hitch up and take a ride. "
Sorry, IRS office.
I still find it puzzling why so much effort is spent responding to trolls around here. I especially find it tedious when someone responds to a troll with a venomous ad hominem. When you do that obviously you're giving them what they want, so stop it... please. They won't go away if you keep responding to their ramblings. They won't stop posting if you make a good argument that they can't effectively refute, they'll just ignore it. Ultimately they are not posting to make a real, honest argument. They are not posting in "good faith". They are posting to get a reaction. At best they are posting in the hopes of scoring rhetorical points.
"They won't go away if you keep responding to their ramblings."
I think that the bitchtits counterfactual is evidence against that proposition.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
Yes, Phx the twat is just the newest iteration of troll.
I think the passive aggresive description is quite apt.
The full on loonacy of the bug eyed bitch and the recently took his ball and went home Bitchtits doesn't serve as well in this situation, so we get dozens of Phx posts instead.
The Eristocracy needs something to do.
I can appreciate PHX's concern for letting the facts come out. My question for PHX is: by what mechanism are the facts to be known? Subpoena? Leaks? Special Prosecutor? It seems to me the administration is stonewalling, but others may disagree. So how, precisely, PHX are the facts to be known if the administration does not release relevant information in reponse to congressional inquiry?
And Nonapod: your point is well taken. Alas--it is the internet.
"Under pressure, the White House in March provided the e-mails to Capitol Hill Republicans surrounding the development of its talking points on the Benghazi attack when John Brennan was nominated to be CIA director. The talking points became an issue because they were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice on the Sunday public affairs shows the week after the attack. Republicans, however, were not permitted to have copies of e-mails, but could only take notes on them.
If the White House wanted the e-mails to be accurately quoted, they should have furnished copies, or allowed copies to be made. The committee members were only allowed to look, and that in a hurried fashion with other members breathing over their shoulders.
Mr. Pfeffer was flat lying when he said the e-mails had been furnished to Congress months ago.
(And the Professor also needs to be more careful when she reads things in the Pravda or Izvestia!)
Thanks, P-M-J.
Garage claimed his poo-flinging is parody? Bullshit.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
About two dozen protesters outside the JFK Federal Building in Boston, which houses an IRS office.
Nothing about Obama, and pretty tame. Nothing for Dana Loesch to complain about.
I think most of the people who care are at work, unlike the Obama base.
That's my excuse. Otherwise I'd be in Springfield.
I can appreciate PHX's concern for letting the facts come out. My question for PHX is: by what mechanism are the facts to be known? Subpoena? Leaks? Special Prosecutor? It seems to me the administration is stonewalling, but others may disagree. So how, precisely, PHX are the facts to be known if the administration does not release relevant information in reponse to congressional inquiry?
I can understand the concerns of appointing a special prosecutor. We end up getting bogged down with someone who's accountable only to themselves.
But honestly, if that's the route congress wants to go I won't stonewall or complain. Any good faith effort to get at the facts, judiciously and honestly "connect the dots" is good with me.
I've said before if they walk Obama offstage in handcuffs that's fine with me as long as the process is fair and transparent.
I could only stop by briefly on my lunch, but figured it was important to at least put in a cameo.
How the sweet little old ladys who comprised over half of the participants get smeared as dangerously violent racists, I will never understand.
Nonapod,
I mostly agree. But it is useful, once per thread, to respond to the troll so that the newcomers realize that whatever's being trolled is not quietly acceptable to the regular crowd here. Anything beyond that is counterproductive and shows lack of discipline on our part.
I can appreciate PHX's concern for letting the facts come out.
And is that snark or is it sincere? Just taking the temperature here.
Letting the facts come out before rushing to (poor) judgement is exactly my concern.
PHX--thank you. we will see how events unfold.
And PHX-- I try not to engage in snark--it has its uses, but not ordinarily to advance discussion.
Roger J yes, I didn't think you did.
Some people seem to be assuming I'm illegitimately trolling or being insincere or provacative. I don't really get that.
phx said, "I've said before if they walk Obama offstage in handcuffs that's fine with me as long as the process is fair and transparent."
I concur. There is a problem, though. Cops, prosecutors, litigating lawyers, many honest plaintiffs and defendants, and judges often know what's really going on. They just can't necessarily prove it according to the rules.
Sure, sure, this sounds awful. But it's true. We think justice prevails according to scientific rules made by the Yale and UW schools of law. That's wishful.
The rule of law prevails largely because people on the ground-- cops, prosecutors, lawyers, and such-- are willing to go on what seems obvious to them. They don't have to prove things; that's for the court.
But many people think proof according to court standards defines probability and guilt. It does not. Guilt is truth. Probability is what cops deal with.
Obama is guilty, guilty, guilty. I'll never be sued for saying so, thanks to Sullivan! But people like phx will say "well, you don't actually know that". I'm convinced. My vote is in.
But But But ... Watergate .. Bush. Wireta ... never mind.
In a way, what Dan Pfeiffer did is even worse than a direct lie. He was also trying to divert attention from what was in the e-mails and quotes, to an endless argument about what "given" or "delivered to" means.
Standard Wasington tactics, but it does not reflect well on the White House.
And I stll say Bob Schieffer had the only right question to as Dan Pfeiffer: "Why are you here?"
Seriously for just a minute, We know the name of the FBI agent who misled a Federal Judge into signing the warrant used to get James Rosens e-mails. who was the judge.
phx: "I can understand the concerns of appointing a special prosecutor. We end up getting bogged down with someone who's accountable only to themselves."
So, you are in accord with Obama and his admin on this one.
Phx: "But honestly, if that's the route congress wants to go I won't stonewall or complain."
You are not in a position to "stonewall". However, Obama is, and short of special prosecutor, that will continue.
phx: "Any good faith effort to get at the facts, judiciously and honestly "connect the dots" is good with me."
The dems have already categorized the republican efforts as not in good faith.
phx: "I've said before if they walk Obama offstage in handcuffs that's fine with me as long as the process is fair and transparent."
LOL
Define "fair".
Define "transparent" (and precisely who is supposed to be transparent).
Don't worry, I don't expect you to really have a response.
Your only comment will be more along the lines (like the admin) of
1) any investigation the rep's are up to will be out of line and
2) besides, the investigation is ongoing so we can't answer
right up until the time it becomes
3) that's just old old news and besides, what does it matter anyway?
...doctored emails.
Dr. Pogo please pick up the brown courtesy phone.
Your only comment will be more along the lines (like the admin) of
1) any investigation the rep's are up to will be out of line and
2) besides, the investigation is ongoing so we can't answer
right up until the time it becomes
3) that's just old old news and besides, what does it matter anyway
As long as you know my answers you don't need me.
If however I did respond with those answers it would be the first time. Make a straw man out me though.
"The rule of law prevails largely because people on the ground-- cops, prosecutors, lawyers, and such-- are willing to go on what seems obvious to them. They don't have to prove things; that's for the court."
Well, I went to the protest at the IRS office. Early on, there were more cop cars than protesters.
Then the cops forced all the protesters from the main entrance of the federal building to a distant corner of the parking lot.
This parking lot is enormous and is less than 1/4 filled. It's where I took my kids to teach them to drive.
The area "reserved" for the protest and the parking for protesters is about mile from the building and invisible to anyone driving by.
Sheriff's deputy Wallace, badge number 1404, told me that I would be arrested if I tried to park in any other area. The federal building parking lot is "off limits" to taxpayers, especially if they want to protest the IRS.
I suspect that this protest was successfully squelched by the cops. On whose orders is not yet clear. Officer Wallace insisted "I don't work for the IRS." I'd like to believe him.
"We end up getting bogged down with someone who's accountable only to themselves."
-- That's not how a special prosecution works. But, yes. It is better for the investigator to be accountable to themselves instead of the people they are investigating.
phx said...As long as you know my answers you don't need me.
True. But that's your choice. As long as you substitute liberal talking points for critical thinking your contribution to any thread will be as predictable as the sunrise.
Lerner is going to take the 5th tomorrow. Not that it looks suspicious or anything...
Have we gotten to the point where we should just put a special prosecutor on a president's ticket when he runs for a second term?
I sure that Garage Mahal will continue to post here. I look forward to mocking his Green Bay Packers this season.
The Giants will be kicking their asses this November 17th just like we did last year.
Don't spoil my fun buddy!
Via Vodkapundit:
Ralph Peters has today’s message of hope and change:
We don’t even know how many new states will emerge from the old order’s wreckage. But the Scramble for the Sand is on, with Iran, Turkey, treacherous Arab oil sheikdoms and terrorists Sunni and Shia alike all determined to dictate the future, no matter the cost in other people’s blood.
We had our chance to extend the peace and keep both Iran and Wahhabi crazies at bay after we defeated Iraq’s insurgencies. But a new American president, elevating politics over strategy, walked away from Baghdad, handing Iraq to Iran. Now it’s too late. If George W. Bush helped trigger the Arab Spring, Barack Obama made this Arab Winter inevitable.
He’s calling it “The Arab Collapse,” which is about as accurate a shorthand as anyone could manage....
The question now is, what is scarier to Lerner, doing some jail time, or dealing with the wrath of Obama if she rolls on the administration?
Of course, the leftards on kos are crowing that there is no scandal, IRS officials plead the 5th all the time, don't you know.
If there isn't an investigator assigned independent of Holder's justice department, its all a whitewash.
As long as you substitute liberal talking points
I think I have been very far from yammering out liberal talking points.
Sometimes I think you guys see me disagreeing with your arguments and that's all you need to know - you don't actually read my comments.
I really hope that Garage Mahal is not serious about not posting anymore. I can't give up mocking his Green Bay Packers.
The are scheduled to get their asses kicked by the New York Football Giants this Nov. 17th just like they did last year.
Don't spoil my fun buddy!
I can understand the concerns of appointing a special prosecutor. We end up getting bogged down with someone who's accountable only to themselves.
And it's a thoroughly legitimate criticism. Special prosecutors tend to be terrible ideas.
It's just, in this case --- WHO else can do it? Holder sure as hell won't do it nor will he allow anybody beneath him to do much of anything, either.
There aren't a lot of tools to work with.
It's just, in this case --- WHO else can do it? Holder sure as hell won't do it nor will he allow anybody beneath him to do much of anything, either.
There aren't a lot of tools to work with.
I'm completely agreed. And as someone who leans toward supporting Obama I would agree to a speci prosecutor without complaint, unless another great idea is forwarded.
No stonewalling by anyone.
"I really hope that Garage Mahal is not serious about not posting anymore. I can't give up mocking his Green Bay Packers."
You can pick on me, if you want, Trooper.
Not that you need my permision.
Thanks Mike.
I just want to spread the love.
Sort of like Aaron Rodgers in a bathhouse.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Just sayn'
That doesn't solve the problem though. Garage is an important part of the eco-system here.
Who are we going to mock for enjoying cooking and eating roadkill?
Maybe Meade can pick up the slack and stop making pancakes and whip up some cream of smushed possum for the Nutty Perfessor!
Fear not Baron, I'm sure bitchtits will be back before long. He took an extended leave of absence in the past, and showed up again like the turd that won't flush.
I hope not, to use your ecosystem analogy, I'd like to see that particular brand of troll go extinct. But I'm sure he will be back under various sock puppets, if not back already.
"Garage is an important part of the eco-system here."
Yes, bullshit feeds many organisms.
"But I'm sure he will be back under various sock puppets, if not back already."
How to recognize him? One useful test may be links to articles that don't support his claim.
Well Pres every river needs it's catfish. Just sayn'
I hope garage comes back even if it is under a different name. Sometimes a fresh start is the way to go.
Anyone else here have a problem with the cutesy "Pinocchio" label the Wash. Post chose to market its fact-checking schtick?
Seems to me its effect (and the Post's intention?) is to trivialize the whole concept of lying.
Via Insty:
JOURN-O-LIST CAVALRY TO THE RESCUE! Spotted: @joshtpm @CapehartJ @ezraklein & other lefty columnists headed into the West Wing as a group. POTUS coffee? Carney meeting? Anyone?
Watch for even-more-unified weaponized Administration-excusing talking points, coming soon to a publication near you!
Truth? Who needs it? All we need is a corrupt mob-like administration who lies and a lap dog media to cover their tracks and yell squirrel!
When garage does return--and he will, altho perhaps as "bailey" initially--there should be 4 Pinocchios waiting for him (and for roesch-voltaire and jay retread) for distinction in weaselly lying in this thread.
Seeing Red:
Link - You were not kidding.
Chip S. said...there should be 4 Pinocchios waiting for him (and for roesch-voltaire and jay retread) for distinction in weaselly lying in this thread.
And for Inga. Especially for her sock puppetry mockery of the dead in the related thread on the Benghazi hearings.
Who are we going to mock for enjoying cooking and eating roadkill?
Well. I have , on occasion, eaten road kill.
But in my defense I actually saw the deer get hit.
And I hit the goose.
Post a Comment