Meanwhile, Elijah Cummings — the key Democrat in this week's committee hearings on Benghazi — said:
“I have not seen the e-mails... But I do know for a fact that our intelligence committee, [the] House Intelligence Committee, has seen every single one of the changes and they have concluded that there was no manipulation for political reasons.”The political manipulations, he says, are on the other side — a premature attack on his party's presumptive 2016 candidate, Hillary Clinton.
Meanwhile, here's the ad the Republican National Committee made, exploiting the Benghazi story, to attack Obama before the election. Powerful, and you can say now — now that you know Mitt Romney lost — that it should have been used:
I think it's easy to see why this was not run. You can say with hindsight that you think it might have worked, now that you know that what was done did not work, but you need to picture the outcry from the Obama campaign — the ugliness, the damage to national security interests, Romney's unreadiness to play on the international stage, the disrespect for the dead and their mourning families, and — it worked against Hillary's original 3 a.m. ad — the dog-whistle racism.
पोस्ट्स
९६ टिप्पण्या:
The devil was sighted leaving DC shortly after the hearings. Reports are that he'd bagged his quota of souls early and more cheaply than he'd expected.
the damage to national security interests, Romney's unreadiness to play on the international stage, the disrespect for the dead and their mourning families,
Yeah, the ad would have been more damaging to national security than having al Qaeda types shoving sticks up the ass of our Ambassador until he died.
And this whole thing has shown that after three and a half years the current Administration STILL wasn't ready for the international stage.
Finally, if the assholes in charge had paid more attention to what was going on, perhaps there wouldn't be dead people to talk about. But, you know, it was more important for the President to ... whatever the fuck he was doing that night and in the days and weeks preceding that night ... than to actually do his job.
Rumpletweezer, in DC souls are cheap - it's the votes and the writing of the laws & regulations that cost you.
"you can say now — now that you know Mitt Romney lost — that it should have been used"
Not because I know he lost, but because now I know it's true. Then I wasn't sure. I just wanted to know. See, someone was lying to me - right to my face on national TV. Someone who should never do that about something like this. It looked very much like someone was lying, but we didn't know for sure, but we knew the liar did know. Just like in 2008 when we didn't know anything about a candidate, who we knew had the info, but would not let anyone see it. You don't give people a pass with that. If the info is important to your decision, and they won't provide it, then they clearly have something to hide that would change your mind, and they know it. You simply must disqualify such a person. You don't even have to be smart to see that. You just have to be cruelly neutral and not a sucker.
I don't understand why we're supposed to be impressed when somebody starts screaming that one or the other party is "partisan."
I take it for granted that everything that both parties do is partisan. Which is as it should be.
So, whether or not some campaign emanating from either party is "partisan" is a given, and pointing to that partisanship is meaningless.
“I have not seen the e-mails... But I do know for a fact that our intelligence committee, [the] House Intelligence Committee, has seen every single one of the changes and they have concluded that there was no manipulation for political reasons.”
What a dumbass.
Of course, he's still trying to make death a part of life. Does he worship Santa Muerte?
Professor-
Part of what you quote does not match the text at the link. I don't know if their text changed after you copied it, or if you mis-read it. In either case, you probably want to update your quote, and note the change.
Your quote:
...citing warnings prior [to] attacks...
The linked quote:
...citing prior attacks that could've been warning signs...
I don't know how this incident will bear on Hillary's presidential chances, but here's what she did.
Victoris Nuland will gladly get thrown under the bus. White House Press Secretary is a good gig.
"I have not seen the e-mails..."
Why don't you want to? Four dead men and the first lost embassy in decades to our primary enemy in the world isn't important enough? You got sumpin pressing to do, like yapping about "Death is part of life" or some shit.
So, do you think he really hasn't seen the emails, and is lying, or has he been instructing his people to make sure he does not see them no matter what?
Notice this?
phx said...
I don't have an opinion on Susan Rice's testimony
With:
"I have not seen the e-mails..."
The Democrats believe the entire country consists of the low information voters supporting them.
That is obviously wrong.
Racism Professor? No, it is plain incompetence and deception.
The average person, the typical voter, about half of all the people who regularly pay attention to politics, don't care at all about any of this.
I recall something I read in Runner's World many years ago: "If you're running more than three times a week, more than twenty minutes a run, you should acknowledge that you're running for reasons other than your health."
The general principle animating that observation retains broad applicability.
So they scrubbed any possible mention of AQ or terror obviously for purely political reasons... and yet according to a lot liberals we on the right are the ones "playing politics" for focusing on this.
I don't have an opinion...I have not seen...
How convenient. Phx = Sgt. Schultz.
Democrats -
Why did the Obama administration and Hillary! in particular blame the Benghazi attack on a youtube video and a spontaneous flash mob that never happened?
Why were requests for reinforcement denied? Denied by the State Dept?
It's OK to delete facts if those facts hurt democrats.
If you remember Reconstruction, you know Cummings' role in DC and that one little change puts the lie to so much of Choomie's propaganda about his foreign policy "successes".
Rumpletweezer said...
The devil was sighted leaving DC shortly after the hearings. Reports are that he'd bagged his quota of souls early and more cheaply than he'd expected.
You assume the democrat Party accepts people who have souls at all.
PS The Romster didn't "lose" the "election", but, yeah, they probably should have gone with the ad, but Ms Bigfoot's Josef Goebbels imitation at the second debate made it tactically awkward.
Democrats can attack Republicans with their faux outrage and fake memes like "war on women" and "Romney caused cancer". but How dare the Republicans point out the real and actual failures, lies, cover-ups and incompetence by democrats.
It should have been run. Would have mattered a little but wasn't going to change the results. But the Rommney team failed to fire because they would get villified by the press for "playing politics". While the White House played politics and won. So who was the fool? Why do Republicans continue to play by these rules?
President Obama has struck a great blow for racial equality by proving that a half-black man can be equally as incompetent as any white man who ever held the office.
I take it for granted that everything that both parties do is partisan. Which is as it should be.
Exactly, ST. I just want the truth, and that is NOT partisan, at least for me.
National Journal says:
The administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. installations in eastern Libya was inaccurate, irresponsible and shrouded by campaign-style spin. It belied President Obama’s oft-broken promise to run a transparent government. If nothing else, Benghazi is a blow to the credibility of the president and his potential successor, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
The Democrats believe the entire country consists of the low information voters supporting them.
That is obviously wrong.
Right, only a little over 50% of the country supports the Dems.
...
Oh, wait, this is a winner take all system. We're screwed.
I am sick to friggin’ death of obfuscation by pols and media who are willing to defend stupid sacred ideological cows rather than the honest pursuit of facts, regardless of the consequences, in the quest for truth for the American people.
There seems a dearth of regard for the reputation of this country.
The foundations of this country seem to be steadily and tragically eroding.
Has it always been such?
Really, Madame?
The Democrats play "ugly," and that is fine. Why? Because that is what you expect from Democrats?
But Republicans should be held to a higher standard? Why? Because you expect better of republicans?
Or because you fear they might actually win elections if they fight fire with fire?
I like how Rep Elijah "Benghazi isn't important because we're all going to die anyway" Cummings — " there was no manipulation for political reasons.” - a vague, impossible to beat standard, means the changes are all hunky dory.
I mean, if you can't prove they weren't made for "political reasons" then there is no reason to ask for the emails, see the emails, and let's just move on.
Isn't that nice?
I wouldn't have run it without tacking on a 10 second montage of the White House Two Step trying to explain what happened.
As is, I agree with the decision to pull it. But if it were better made? You betcha!
The question now is whether ABC News will be thrown out of the White House. This is a rebellion against the Tyrant himself. Hello Gulag.
Has it always been such?
See Aaron Burr.
That such crap happeend in the past is some comfort, oddly, but the compliant press and the racialist politics of the left make things seem more perilous to liberty today.
Disrespect for the grieving families?
What about Hillary and Obama at Dover right next to the caskets?
Someone needs to hold Candy Crawley to account. Her collusion put a face on media corruption like no other.
the good is the ABC has 13 drafts. the bad, bordering on criminal negligence is that they could not be bothered to work the story 6 months ago...
@Shouting Thomas,
The current news media stylesheets apparently include these guidances:
- "objectively true facts that damage Democrat political prospects" = partisan opinions
- "doing whatever Democrats want" = bipartisan
- "slanted commentary that benefits the Democrat/liberal cause" = something to be implied to be objective truth, and as such requires no description or qualifier
I continue to be amazed at how Saint Barry hides behind the skirts of the women. Susie, Hillary and now Vicky!
El Pollo Raylan: "Someone needs to hold Candy Crawley to account. Her collusion put a face on media corruption like no other."
I would argue that Dan "memo" Rather's performance ranks right up there with Candy's.
This should have been run.
Why?
Because you never know if you will win or lose. You can't know whether this video will help you win or lose.
But the ultimate goal should not be merely to win or lose.
The ultimate goal should be to make the nation better and stronger, to rebuild it (for less than $6 million, amiright?).
And highlighting the Benghazi cover-up raises the issue so that those responsible are more likely to be held accountable, even if Obama wins a second term.
It should have been run as an insurance move, when low-information citizens were actually paying during a major election.
Now, too many low-information citizens don't care.
@Jay,
Brainfertilizer's 2nd Law:
The Democrat/liberal political future depends on maintaining and expanding the pool of low-information citizens.
The Drill SGT: "the good is the ABC has 13 drafts. the bad, bordering on criminal negligence is that they could not be bothered to work the story 6 months ago..."
Oh, it's not at all that they couldn't be bothered.
They knew precisely what they were doing in burying the information.
Very similar to CBS burying the interview with Obama that occurred the day after the Rose Garden statement.
The CBS interviewer asked Obama directly why he was not willing to call it terrorism. Obama went on to offer up his typical lame excuses why he didn't to call it terrorism yet.
That little video snippet would have completely put the lie to Obama's claim (with Candy's "timely" and strictly "coincidental" assistance) during the debate.
But hey, no bias there.
None at all.
Move along.....racists.
Eagerly awaiting the next Maureen Dowd column in the New York Times, wherein she trumpets Pat Smith's absolute moral authority.
I would argue that Dan "memo" Rather's performance ranks right up there with Candy's.
True, but I'm trying to stay on topic. Rather's performance enhances Crawley by comparison.
That being said, I think there's something to be said about liberals from Texas (like Rather, Bob Wright) and a couple I know in real life. They are the most sanctimonious of the lot.
I don't hold it against the administration that in a fluid situation they made the wrong decision. I don't even hold it against them that they tried to fabricate a story that made themselves look good post facto. I do hold it against the media that they accepted this story and denounced its skeptics as partisans....This is a scandal far worse than the outing of Valerie Plame, but that's not the way the media has treated it. They're not even trying.
Nice:
Sept. 16, 2012: Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations:
[B]ased on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what - it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video
These people are pathetic.
Nathan Alexander,
your comment on low information voters is absolutely correct.
So what have been the consequences of Libya in Mali again? How's the humanist, liberal internationalist vision working out? What's the plan in Syria? Is there a coherent foreign policy in there somewhere?
How's the war against radical Islam going? Afghanistan? How do we deal with the rise of Islamism?
How's the State Department being managed? How about the economy? Which international institutions actually have any validity or line up with the power we have?
@Drago: Plus I think that in Crawley's case it was worse because half the population denied it or didn't care/didn't notice. They liked the surprise element of the collusion like some courtroom drama episode.
OK,being a politician requires lying skills. But they are like salt that ad flavor and must not be over used or the politician insults the audience.
Obama and friends insult us with glee every time they speak.Ergo: they hate us.
Why do Republicans continue to play by these rules?
Because those are the rules, and they want to play.
Some aspiring Jimmy Olson could make rheir journalistic bones by getting Cong. Cummings on the record:
"Why haven't you seen the memos, Congressman, and when do you plan in seeing them?
"You say, Congressman, regarding the memos, that '...there was no manipulation for political reasons.'.. Then for what reason(s) were the memos manipulated?"
As for Cummings, every word out of his mouth is a lie, including "and" and "the."
Rather, Bob Wright...
Bill Moyers, Bob Schieffer, Molly Ivins (RIP)...we raise'em by the bushel down here. They usually have to go national to do damage, though.
There is something hilarious about public talking points somehow influencing the FBI investigation.
First, since when has the FBI been the major investigator of attacks in foreign lands?
Second, the FBI is is Surely going to get the CIA's classified opinion before heading to Libya to investigate deaths at a CIA outpost. They aren't going to get their information from Meet the Press.
That is aside from the fact that Libya was saying it was terrorism, and denying that actually held up the FBI from getting into Libya. The exact opposite of what they pretended they were concerned about! (I say pretended because that was an obvious cover story, due to reason #2 above)
"Then for what reason(s) were the memos manipulated?"
That's a great question.
since when has the FBI been the major investigator of attacks in foreign lands?
Since the administration needs the excuse We cannot comment on ongoing investigations." in order to deflect press inquiries.
That is, once the press can be dragged kicling-and-screaming into actually, you know, inquiring
I don't believe this new story that emerged, that the FBI "couldn't go the scene of the crime" because the putative Libyan PM had "secured the scene" and wouldn't let them in. Within three days of the attacks Fox News had correspondents on the ground taping inside and outside the compound. They were free to wander around and even marveled on tape at how easy it was to get in there. That's when they and a newspaper --maybe the Christian Science Monitor -- found sensitive documents just lying there in the burned out main house, less than a week after the incident.
That's a great question.
Thank you.
Of course, unless Chairman Issa subpoenas members of his own committee, it will never be asked.
jacksonjay said...
I continue to be amazed at how Saint Barry hides behind the skirts of the women. Susie, Hillary and now Vicky!
Il castrato - the ultimate metrosexual.
If Rice got was disqualified because she lied... Hillary should be disqualified on the same grounds...
Unless... might still makes right.
If Hillary gets the nomination, despite what we know now happened, then the so call 'transformative' presidency of Obama will have been everything but.
Mike- I can believe it was difficult to get FBI agents into Libya. I don't think it was necessary- the CIA should already there. Or we could have sent in people not announcing them as FBI. I'm guessing the Obama administration was in no hurry to get the FBI there, and so created a difficult path for themselves.
Victoria Nuland, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice -- hand'em subpoenas, get'em in a chair in front of the committee under oath and on the record.
Soften them up with questions about the night of and the memo brainstorming session after (if they've testified before, they have to remember what they,said) then move to the juicier and more recent topic of intimidating witnesses and whistleblowers. There should be a statute applicable to the latter somewhere in the Federal Register.
The rules the democrats apply to themselves are the rules they will apply on the rest of us. (future add against Hillary)
State was worried Congress would notice State had obviously ignored security warnings. Note they have never given a good reason for that.
Right now it looks like Obama owns Hillary.
Will Obama trow Hillary under the bus?
Remember, Clinton's State pushed to set up Benghazi as an eventual embassy, so it wasn't just a rogue Christopher Stevens, but one following a specific protocol.
Then Clinton stood next to his casket and blamed the video, stayed on message, and thanked him for his service.
Not exactly inspiring stuff. A leader sniffing the political winds, stonewalling and covering asses, then still expecting to go on to the next job and smiling for the cameras. Tells you a lot about politics.
I think all Americans can expect a little more for their leadership, but given the times, our politics is looking worse than usual, or maybe we're looking too closely behind the curtain.
Worth noting:
Liberals accuse GWB of altering intelligence reports to fool innocent Democrats into supporting the invasion.
Despite widespread liberal suffusion throughout federal civil service, not one email or document ever provided the slightest indication of that.
Now, less than a year after Democrats altered intelligence reports in order to fool the US populace into re-electing Obama, the Democrat Party allies in the media have obtained 12 drafts of the talking points, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Obama administration altered the intelligence reports to fool the populace.
Based on that, if GWB did have reports altered, we certainly would have evidence by now.
So now we know: Democrats accused GWB of lying in bad faith for a political purpose only because that's what they do whenever they get the chance.
Mr. Hicks' testimony must be more damaging than previously thought:
Democrats Actively Working to Undermine Testimony of Benghazi Whistleblower"
There is something called Benghazi going on," said [NBC's Lisa] Myers. "And I think the Democrats now are starting to worry about it. I started--I got calls from a number of Democrats yesterday trying to undermine Greg Hicks's testimony.
As with "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism -- Thomas Jefferson", "Whistleblowers are Cool" is so the-previous-administration-ago."
And people on the left accuse the right of being partisan. The benghazi coverup is polarizing and bad for the nation.
They all lie. They don't have the interests of the country at heart. And the press putting out this kind of crap:
The report comes at the end of the week when Republicans’ months-long effort to turn the Sept. 11 attack on Benghazi into a major scandal has been revitalized by a dramatic and emotional four-hour congressional hearing in which a career State Department officer lamented more wasn’t done to save four of his colleagues, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
See the bias. It IS a major scandal. Lying to the American people, throwing a guy in jail because it's expeditious, Candy Crowley, what do you need to make MO, BO, and Lizzy accountable?
Disgusting liberal press.
This reminds me of Christopher Hitchens' view that Bill Clinton should have been tried for war crimes for bombing that Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, to get Monica Lewinksy off the front page. And that disgusting Hillary Clinton and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Look in the mirror.
Professor, I don't see how you could see why this was not easy to run when they had 12 different versions to cover their backsides. Cummings saying he hasn't seen them is like Phx saying he doesn't have an opinion on Ambassador Rice' explanation on the Benghazi attacks being a spontaneous protest to a video that was never seen. Do these people know how to not shove their dicks into their mouths?
But here's the thing, Ann. How many times are you going to blog about Benghazi going forward?
How many other things will you and others let displace it or obscure it until those who say it was about nothing are proved right by default?
I wonder if the White House was texting MikaB during Ms. Myers' Morning Joe appearance.
Of course Obama Administration changed -- sorry, told Intelligence to change -- the talking points. But not simply because they were trying to hide terrorism for the election (though that was an added benefit).
No, it was to protect the plan for a second US outpost in Benghazi. Is this not obvious?
This Benghazi outposit was hugely important. So important in fact, that Clinton had Stevens in Benghazi on the most dangerous day of the year with virtually ZERO security. She needed Stevens to submit a report saying Benghazi would be a good outpost -- all by 9/30/12 -- so she'd have funding to open it.
All of this is contained in Hicks's and Nordstrom's testimony. But it is nowhere to be found in the report by the ARB.
The terrorist/Al Queda facts (and prior threats reported by CIA) would have blown Obama's and Hillary's big Benghazi plan. But blame some goofy video, insist it was a protest gone bad, and flatly refuse a military response to this "non-terrorist" attack? Why then, the Benghazi outpost plan might still stand a chance.
The big story -- which no media, not even conservative media is covering -- is WHY was the Administration so intent on having a Benghazi outpost? So determined, in fact, that it concocted an elaborate scheme to blame a video. WHY?
Nordstrom and Hicks did everything but scream the question, on Wednesday. Forced to speak in, and hampered by diplomatic language, they still constantly -- and bravely -- kept dropping hints.
Nordstrom said the ARB asked him about why US personnel weren't armed with machine guns. He said he answered the ARB by saying, if our people needed machine guns to be secure "why are we even there?" And, boldly, he said "there was strange-decision making by State regarding Libya" the entire time.
Hello! Nordstrom is saying the US never should have been in Benghazi, and he's begging anyone who is listening to find out why were we there.
Similarly, Hicks dropped several clues. He said "a political decision had been made" to make Benghazi an outpost. In calling it a "political" decision, Hicks is waving a huge red flag. Waving another one, Hicks said Stevens was in Benghazi on 9/11 because of "a political imperative." He elaborated by explaining that Stevens was hurrying to submit a report by 9/30/12 that supported Hillary's directive to open this outpost ASAP.
Hicks and Nordstrom connected nearly all the dots. Everything is mapped out. Now these men are waiting for the media to do its job and ask the obvious: why in hell did the US need an outpost in Benghazi?
At this rate, with all the attention focused on a million shiny talking points, Nordstrom and Hicks will be waiting quite some time. And so will we.
Peggy Noonan and Jennifer Rubin have good takes on Benghazi. I don't think that Rubin is alone in recognizing that Obama's instinct on the international scene is, whatever happens, to do nothing. I imagine ally and adversary alike take that into account.
Hillary knew it was a terror attack and went full bore with the video nonsense. One more confirmation, as if any were needed, that Hillary is a liar to her core. Will that deter Althouse from marking her ecstatic identity ballot for Hillary in 2016? Ha ha ha ha ha.
And, as expected, Scarborough blames Republicans for the media continuing to not give a shit.
"They overplayed their hand" --- by, mind you, being pretty damned accurate on everything they've said about Benghazi from Day One.
...speaking of Benghazi, has the media been caught against conspiring to insure a question they want answered was answered? I mean, when they did it to Romney, we were assured it was a common thing.
The Democrats believe the entire country consists of the low information voters supporting them.
That is obviously wrong.
Nah. The Dems know their audience well.
Part of what you quote does not match the text at the link. I don't know if their text changed after you copied it, or if you mis-read it. In either case, you probably want to update your quote, and note the change.
Pretty good catch.
This is their justification, that because the facts show that they were incompetent and negligent, they will have to lie and obfuscate because otherwise people will criticize them for their incompetence and negligence??
That if people know the truth, they will protest, so they can't know the truth??
I think that Noonan's point may have been accurate that the reason that nothing was done that night in response to the armed attack was because doing something militarily would have been an admission of failure on the part of the Obama Administration about their policies in Libya and in regards to the "Arab Spring". And, yes, I think that may also be the root problem behind their significant downgrading of security in Benghazi the month before, despite intelligence indicating that the danger was rising, not dropping. All for the "narrative".
Not sure though that we will get to the bottom of this, to the motives of the Obama people, in the near future. Probably more something that will come out when historians write their histories decades from now.
Choom is such a manly man, hidding behind the skirts of all those woman. As for Cummings's remark about dying he just made the case for repealing Obamacare, Medicaid and welfare in general. Nakoula the man is no poster boy but as a martyr he would have done the country a great service if his martyrdom helps derail Hillary's presidential ambitions and help to bring this excrement of an administration to full stop. The next president should give him a full pardon. It's not like he is in caliber of a Mark Rich.
To play the ad, to not play the ad, and how to react to the entire situation --
Look, let's be clear here. Most of the Republicans in Congress probably really do not care one way or the other. Not really. They care enough to use it to say to people, "Vote for us," but beyond this, they are all too happy to go along and get along. They are all too happy to go slap Hillary on the back and go have dinner with Obama in some back room.
I recall the Presidential candidate debate, sometime mid-October 2012, presided over by Jabba the well-rehearsed Hutt, where Romney brought up Benghazi and Obama deflected it with "The suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our UN ambassador, anybody on my team, would play politics or mislead when we lost four of our own, governor, is offensive,"
Remember this whenever someone sez it's just the State Department, or it's only Hillary. Obama's Team manufactured 12 different talking points and requested that the CIA scrub references to AQ. Also, Obama Team Member in Chief, Hillary Clinton, botched that 3am call.
The other excuse -- that everyone knew from the beginning that we were lying and covering up, so this is all old news -- is equally as bad.
"Scarborough blames Republicans for the media continuing to not give a shit."
It's his job to blame Republicans. He's in the media.
Off Drudge:
Funny how we heard about Paula Broadinthebeam right after Petraeus started making noise on this.
If we're all going to die, why investigate murders?
Cubanbob - "Nakoula the man is no poster boy but as a martyr he would have done the country a great service if his martyrdom helps derail Hillary's presidential ambitions and help to bring this excrement of an administration to full stop. The next president should give him a full pardon."
Nakoula was returned to jail to serve out the remainder of his sentence for internet fraud of banks and other investors, plus identity theft. It didn't help matters that when his place was searched, 6 different forged passports with various aliases were found.
It didn't help that the refugee scumbag appeared in public after the 7 embassies were overrun. Holding a conference under one of his aliases, faux Israeli Sam Bacile. In which he stated it was the goal of Israel, his Jewish investors in the video, and persecuted Christians - to incite Muslims to kill and injure Americans to draw attention to the plight of persecuted minorties.
Cuban Bob may be wise not to hold his breath for pardoning his Heroic "martyr".
The scum will be out of jail by 2016 anyways, unless he is back in for new crimes.
And like the Tsarnaevs, another refugee that bit the hands of the people that welcomed him in. By the video, by his welfare checks, by his multiple other crimes against American people and institutions.
AS I said, the Democrat Left ought to fund making "Nakoula, 1st Amendment Hero" t-shirts for right-wingers to wear...Just as more savvy Republicans would love to fund "Free Mumia!" t-shirts and have Lynne Stewart "1st Amendment Hero" support groups financed for Leftists to be seen participating in.
There's no end to my life
No beginning to my death
Death is life
dog whistle racism or "dog whistle racism"?
Please say the post is just listing how ObamaFan would have characterized this ad. Which is, yes, is dead balls-on accurate.
Retired diplomat @ The Diplomad cuts to the chase on why the Obama administration had to lie:
http://thediplomad.blogspot.hk/2013/05/the-battle-of-benghazi-still-not.html
And the crowd continues to chant, "INGA INGA INGA INGA INGA INGA INGA!"
In other news, the other refugee scumbag that set out to hopefully kill and injure Americans, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, has his grave locaton revealed and the role of the usual Fr Martin Fox-like love they enemy, milsop Christians
Martha Mullen, of Richmond, told The Associated Press in a brief telephone interview that she offered to help after seeing news reports about towns and cemeteries refusing to allow burial. She said she is not the only person who helped with arrangements.
"It was an interfaith effort," she said. "Basically because Jesus says love your enemies."
The cemetery is hidden among the rural woods and hills of Caroline County about 30 miles north of Richmond and contains only 47 graves in all. All were covered with reddish-brown mulch except for two that appeared newly dug, neither with any kind of marking and one of them presumably Tsarnaev's.
On one of the new graves lay a vase full of roses at one end and a single red rose at the other end. The other new grave was bare.
The rural, very "Redstate" locals are very unhappy with the Milksop Chhristians and their Muslim "interfaithcoalition" members.
Also in news was that Russia apparantly refused to take Tsarnaev's body. Stating that the US took him as a refugee, gave him residency status, financially supported Tamerlan - so his corpse was America's problem.
The rural, very "Redstate" locals are very unhappy with the Milksop Chhristians and their Muslim "interfaithcoalition" members.
"Redstate" locals.
In MA.
Of course.
Dog whistle racism?
What, are you still going on about the NIGht on the pajamas?
Jesus Christ, Althouse. You really should seek professional help.
Or are you saying that the Obama people would have raised that issue, even though it was completely unfounded? Because they would have raised that issue no matter what the content of the ad was, as long as it was effective.
I suppose you didn't notice Richmond or Caroline county. The Milksops buried the Mass trash in the state of Virginia. In a very "red" rural county.
Cedaford:
"Holding a conference under one of his aliases, faux Israeli Sam Bacile. In which he stated it was the goal of Israel, his Jewish investors in the video, and persecuted Christians - to incite Muslims to kill and injure Americans to draw attention to the plight of persecuted minorties."
Was this a a press-conference? Any video/audio available? Who was this conference for? I think I asked you this before, but you disappeared.
"AS I said, the Democrat Left ought to fund making "Nakoula, 1st Amendment Hero" t-shirts for right-wingers to wear...Just as more savvy Republicans would love to fund "Free Mumia!" t-shirts "
Mumia actually killed people. Nakoula simply made a video.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा