Response to Beheading of US Journalist Jim Foley

Posted by Tina

President Obama took time out from his vacation to speak about the gruesome video beheading of journalist Jim Foley and the taunting threat from the terrorists group ISIL. He said he was “appalled” and that a global effort was needed “so this cancer” doesn’t “spread.” (Where has he been? It has already spread)

He also said, “…the act of violence that killed Jim Foley shocks the conscience of the entire world.” And then he was off to play another round of golf.

I know it’s tiresome to nit-pick but I can’t ignore obvious expressions that seem odd or just plain nuts. What makes our President avoid placing blame on the individual? It wasn’t the terrorists who committed the horrendously brutal act, instead it was an “act of violence” that brutally murdered Jim Foley. In Obama-speak the terrorists is just a bystander witnessing a random occurrence.

An appeal: Please, speak plainly Mr. President!

Full remarks and video here.

The shocking decapitation did move Briton’s Prime Minister David Cameron to suspend his vacation:

Yesterday, a video depicting the beheading of American journalist James Wright Foley was posted on YouTube. The jihadist in the video spoke with a London accent, prompting questions about whether the man was in fact a British national.

In response to these questions, British Prime Minister David Cameron suspended his vacation and vowed to get to the bottom of the situation.

Breitbart takes this opportunity to remind us of the words of our former President in 2006:

“If we leave Iraq before the job is done, it will create a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, a terrorist state much more dangerous than Afghanistan was before we removed the Taliban, a terrorist state with the capacity to fund its activities because of the oil reserves of Iraq.”

And in 2007 he warned of this outcome once again:

During a speech to the CENTCOM Coalition Conference the following year, in 2007, Bush again warned of the consequences of a premature Iraq withdrawal. Here he is apparently responding to intense pressure from both the media and Democrats to cut and run:

Withdrawal would have emboldened these radicals and extremists. It would have confirmed their belief that our nations were weak. It would help them gain new recruits, new resources. It would cause them to believe they could strike free nations at their choice.

Withdrawal would have increased the probability that coalition troops would be forced to return to Iraq one day, and confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. Failure in Iraq should be unacceptable to the civilized world. The risks are enormous.

Even though he’s been president for nearly six years, with the help of his lapdog media, Obama can run around blaming everyone else for the rise of ISIS. But there’s one thing Obama can’t do…

Say he wasn’t warned.

Those of us with our eyes wide open know that arrogance caused this president (and most of the left) to dismiss Bush’s warnings as the rantings of a stupid war monger. They brushed his warning aside to usher in an era of peaceful coexistence that their mere presence woulf inspire.

Time has proven Obama and friends delusional and wrong; the world is paying a heavy price for their arrogance.

Business Insider informs that the US government believed Foley was being held in a Syrian prison under the control of pro-Assad forces and speculates on how Foley came to be in the hands of ISIL:

In May 2013, GlobalPost President Philip Balboni released the following statement on behalf of himself and Foley’s parents: “We have obtained multiple independent reports from very credible confidential sources … that confirm our assessment that Jim is now being held by the Syrian government in a prison … under the control of the Syrian Air Force Intelligence service. …

…What is unclear is if previous investigations into Foley’s whereabouts were inaccurate, if ISIS militants somehow captured Foley from some of the regime’s most elite security, or if the Assad regime provided Foley to ISIS.

“Until recently, James Foley was thought to be in hands of pro-Assad forces. If Assad is handing over Westerners to ISIS to be killed, it indicates Assad feels cornered, looking for leverage,” BBC’s Kim Ghattas tweeted, adding that the assessment jibes with what her sources in Damascus have told her recently.

Ghattas added that Assad providing Foley to ISIS “would confirm Assad tacitly working [with] ISIS and silence any suggestions Assad is the better alternative.”

The President also took some time before speaking about Jim Foley to send out a fundraising appeal according to The Weekly Standard.

Class act.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Response to Beheading of US Journalist Jim Foley

  1. Dewey says:

    OMG who are you?

    John McCains friends ISIL?

    have some respect I know Obama bashing is your hobby but really? No comment about RW media posting the video of the act?

    Fox news owner Rupert Murdoch’s pic on the washington post?

    Not Christian

    Or how about the real story

    Congress is required constitutionally to act…. They have to debate whether we declare war…what we do it is constitutionally the responsibility of congress, of course any money spent will be put on a leash to make things worse

    Time is running out but congress is campaigning while on our paycheck

    Also seems you forgot a big big thing…

    Remember that little letter from osama Bin laden? Of course not!

    They want to draw us into wars to bankrupt us……. funny McCain convinced the Saudi King to fund them… constant war…. for profit

    Really when does the country become important above Obama bashing?

  2. J. Soden says:

    Da Prez was so “appalled” he ordered another truckload of hand lotion to prevent chapped hands at the white house from all of the hand-wringing.
    And then he went out for another round of golf . . . . .

  3. Tina says:

    Dewey go soak your head.

    Are we supposed to just accept this idiocy?

    Obama is the leader of the nation and the Commander-in-Chief. It is his JOB to engage Congress on these issues and present HIS case for their approval and funding. He is avoiding doing his job. He doesn’t even engage his own party. He is a terrible president and the world is in a big fat mess because of it.

    I am concerned for the country you dope. What are you contributing? Nothing! You make excuses for the failed leader and attack people who do care about the country and do express their disapproval and a wiser course of action.

    Un-scatter that brain, it’s all over the place.

    Obama is doing a fine job of bankrupting us here at home all by himself and his overseas contingency operation policy has, as was predicted, emboldened and strengthened our enemies.

    If you work you make a profit, so knock off the hypocritical rants about profit.

    Nobody like war. We also don’t appreciate people who behead journalists and commit genocidal, tyrannical acts against fellow human beings. No action is not an option and it isn’t too much to ask or expect a competent response. Yes it costs money…SO WHAT? War will not bankrupt us any more than this presidents ridiculous redistribution has.

    Are you defending and supporting the animals that beheaded Jim Foley? Or do you simply think you can stand on the sidelines and pretend to be above or outside of it all?

    Bullies and thugs cannot be appeased or managed. They do not make friends. They have no intention of going away. they do not care that Obama and Holder will prosecute if captured. Our milk toast responses give them and their giant ego’s a big fat boost to commit greater and greater acts of war requiring an extended, exhausting, never-ending, MUCH MORE COSTLY response.

    Democrats in congress are frustrated with Obama’s handling of ISIL:

    Democrats in Congress complain that President Barack Obama is personally distant and politically aloof and that he is endangering chances that his administration’s agenda can be implemented in the remaining months of his term, The New York Times reported.

    A leader must lead. A leader with a lousy agenda creates chaos. There you go!

  4. Tina says:

    J, More likely a trainload…his buddy Buffet needs the profits!

  5. Peggy says:

    Here is one vet who did respond. There are two people one should never upset, mom and a vet.

    ‘A Subtle Message to ISIS’ From a Ticked Off Military Veteran Should Send a Chill Down the Spine of Every Terrorist:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/21/a-subtle-message-to-isis-from-ticked-off-military-veteran-should-send-a-chill-down-the-spine-of-every-terrorist/

  6. Chris says:

    Tina: “I know it’s tiresome to nit-pick but I can’t ignore obvious expressions that seem odd or just plain nuts. What makes our President avoid placing blame on the individual? It wasn’t the terrorists who committed the horrendously brutal act, instead it was an “act of violence” that brutally murdered Jim Foley. In Obama-speak the terrorists is just a bystander witnessing a random occurrence.”

    An appeal: Please, speak plainly Mr. President!

    Either you didn’t even bother to read the transcript that you linked to, or you are straight-up lying about what President Obama said.

    Here is what he said about the terrorists who killed Jim Foley:

    “Today, the entire world is appalled by the brutal murder of Jim Foley by the terrorist group, ISIL.”

    “Now, Jim Foley’s life stands in stark contrast to his killers. Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practice a different religion.”

    ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.

    “The world is shaped by people like Jim Foley and the overwhelming majority of humanity who are appalled by those who killed him.

    If that’s not “speaking plainly” enough for you, then I’m afraid there is no language plain enough for you to comprehend.

    Your remarks quoted above are not “nit-picking.” They’re simply dishonest. Speak plainly, Tina, and don’t pussyfoot around with such weasel words.

  7. Tina says:

    Well Chris, you probably have a point here but frankly I don’t give a rip…the world is on fire thanks to this dweeb and his cohorts and nothing he says is of much consequence anymore anyway except his diddling is getting a lot of people killed while we back-peddle and gain ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

    The day you can admit to that will be the day you have said something.

    I was, as I plainly acknowledged, nit-picking!

    The President has a history of using euphemisms instead of speaking plainly. I gave one example, “overseas contingency operations.” There are many such examples. Talk about weasel words!

    My nit-picking (“weasel words”) get more of a rise out of you than a man that delivers a speech thinking he’s done something and then goes off to yuk it up and play another round of golf with his buds! You’re amazing!

  8. Chris says:

    Tina: “Well Chris, you probably have a point here but frankly I don’t give a rip…the world is on fire thanks to this dweeb and his cohorts and nothing he says is of much consequence anymore anyway except his diddling is getting a lot of people killed while we back-peddle and gain ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!”

    Than you for admitting you believe it is OK to lie about people you hate.

    “I was, as I plainly acknowledged, nit-picking!”

    No. Again, the word you are looking for is “lying.”

    “I gave one example, “overseas contingency operations.” There are many such examples. Talk about weasel words!”

    Oh, brother. “Overseas contingency operations” is the term used instead of “War on Terror.” That is an upgrade. Trying to fight a war with a concept or a tactic is a fool’s errand. “Overseas contingency operations” is more accurate. Maybe it doesn’t light a fire under your belly like “War on Terror,” but it’s still more accurate.

    “My nit-picking”

    Lying

    “get more of a rise out of you than a man that delivers a speech thinking he’s done something and then goes off to yuk it up and play another round of golf with his buds!”

    “I see our president criticized for playing golf. I don’t. I think he ought to play golf,” Bush said. “I know what it’s like to be in the bubble. I know the pressures of the job, and to be able to get outside and play golf with some of your pals is important for the president. It does give you an outlet.”

    –George W. Bush

  9. Tina says:

    Chris: “Than you for admitting you believe it is OK to lie about people you hate.”

    I do not hate the President!

    I do hate his policies, his ideology, and his determination to make this nation into something other than a republic. I do hate the language he uses to manipulate and control. You want to criticize someone try going after one of the biggest liars ever to hold the office!

    Also, I did not lie; I critiqued the words in a single sentence. Your insistence that I lied just demonstrates that your passion is to hate me and it’s overcome your sensibilities.

    I acknowledged your point, that my nit-picking was over the top in light of his full remarks, for which I provided a link. But had I intended to fool anyone I wouldn’t have said I was nit-picking up front and I wouldn’t have provided a link to his full remarks.

    The Presidents unwillingness to use words, like war, to describe military operations against our enemy, or to call a terrorists a terrorist, or to describe and name our enemy clearly and plainly deserves criticism…and rejection. There is no moral equivalence and it is dangerous to perpetrate such deceptions!

    “Trying to fight a war with a concept or a tactic is a fool’s errand.”

    Is that right? Unfortunately for you, that “errand” ended in a stable Middle East, a badly damaged enemy, co-operation and respect around the world from our allies (Other than the socialist sympathizer mob that loves to wreck economies and hamper freedoms).

    After the “upgrade” Iraq is greatly compromised, our enemy is stronger, more vicious, better trained and armed, gaining in territory from which to practice jihad, and gaining in strength all around the world. The once stable ME is on fire. so much for a phony bologna upgrade.

    It’s incredible that you, who I recall as being extremely critical of Bush (You relished in piling on), should use a Bush quote to excuse this president. Bush was defending the presidency, any president, after having to face a hostile media and a turncoat opposition party as well as a determined enemy!

    George Bush’s remarks were made by a president who actually did the job he was elected to do! A man who worked tirelessly for American interests, who stepped into the war footing as required and expected. (It was not what he anticipated would be his job; he did it anyway.) The remarks were made by a president who took our enemies seriously, who understood their determination and faced the task squarely despite his many (nasty) critics (YOU among them), and…who did not work to fundamentally transform the nation to fit a personal socialist ideology and agenda!

    (He did deserve the occasional game of golf!)

    It will be fascinating to watch you when a republican is back in the presidency. I remember well how you treated Bush and I expect you will revert to the same unreasonable, partisan criticism.

    Your criticism of me is, and has been hypocritical. You support the party that wrote the book on hate, lying, and the politics of personal destruction. I’ve watched it play out over decades. I’ve seen good people have their lives trashed and their names smeared all in the name of winning power or turning public opinion…the truth and best interests of the nation be damned! I’ve seen them use these tactics to create unhealthy dependency and ignorance. I’ve seen it acted out every single day for decades. The radicals that rule the Democrat Party deserve nothing less than in kind treatment…as I wrote previously…I don’t give a rip about what you think I’m doing. As far as I’m concerned you should be working to straighten up your own party.

  10. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #3 Tina : Dewey go soak your head. Are we supposed to just accept this idiocy?

    Why do you encourage such idiocy by giving this lunatic twit a voice?

    Re Chris and Tina: Obama gives an ineffectual speech and then goes to play golf. I can see how Chris would be impressed by that. Here he only calls Tina a liar. Calling others with whom he disagrees racist bigots is right around the corner. Chris is a broken record, and this pseudo-intellectual turd tosser is encouraged by Post Scripts. Frankly, I think you deserve him for giving this foul, bile filled jerk a voice.

    We should be at least supplying heavy arms to the Kurds instead of fiddle-schmucking around.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Pie, I can appreciate what you’re saying, but from day one Post Scripts was created as a free speech podium. As long as the commenter complied with the ER’s guidelines were we obliged to publish the comments, although we reserved the right to debate those comments we took exception too and we frequently do! In that sense (debating) it brought forward more points for the reader’s consideration. Yes, Chris has been incredibly rough on Tina, but it’s her call to allow his attacks. I can’t speak for Tina, but I think she feels she’s ultimately serving a higher purpose when debating her points with our predictable naysayer.

  11. Pie Guevara says:

    You are not obliged to publish any comments whatsoever, except by your own self imposed rules. This is something the twins will never appreciate. You enable these sociopathic scum just like you enabled that evil lunatic Quentin Colgan. In the name of free speech? Well, of course, it is your blog, and you are free to assist these horrid people in taking a crap on you and your other readers all you like.

    I have to wonder if the parents of Dewey and Chris are proud of the dysfunctional and insane monsters they have created.

  12. Pie Guevara says:

    I hope my above comments do not sound like a whine. As much as I love Post Scripts it is also a rank and offensive sewer. A sewer calling “free speech” the bile, the mocking, the name calling (calling people bigots, racists and liars IS name calling) and sheer stream of lunatic hatred and infantile demagoguery from Dewey and Chris. These two have assumed the sick and deranged mantle of the nasty, extremely offensive, and gratefully dead Quentin Colgan.

    Frankly, I can see no reason to continue to swim in this sewer you have allowed Chris and Dewey to create.

    Can you imagine if either of these two twin towers of garbage were to treat people in person the way they treat Post Scripts and Post Scripts readers?

    1) On the street or in a bar they would either be dead or hospitalized.

    2) In a place of business they would be thrown out bodily.

    3) In the workplace they would be fired.

    I do not request nor insist that you stop allowing Chris and Dewey to post, but I have had enough of the Post Scripts Dewey and Chris sewer for now. I have had enough of witnessing these two miscreants defecating on Jack, Tina, and the rest of the Post Scripts followers with their cacophony of obnoxious and acid lunacy. Best wishes, but I no longer see any reason to be assaulted with this ugly noise in the name of “free speech”.

  13. Tina says:

    Pie at #10 My personal philosophy is that everyone, and everything, that comes into my life is there to serve a purpose. Sometimes that purpose is personal and sometimes it has very little to do with me but may affect others. I go with the flow and try my best to observe and learn and encourage the same in others.

    Were I to play therapist, an unsolicited and perhaps unwelcome posture, I would ask what power “the twins” have to get you so riled up? I know I’ve had to ask myself that question and struggle with my responses and approach.

    Bottom line…this is the enemy of America. this is the thing we have to defeat. this is the insidious cancer that has infected our republic, our schools, our legal system, our political system, our lives…we cannot shrink from it. We cannot ignore it. We cannot leave it to hope or chance.

    These people literally do not know about our heritage and history. They are unaware of the values that support and sustain freedom. These are the things that allow people to become the authors of their own lives and to achieve their dreams. It’s important to engage them, to provide a platform for that engagement even when much of it is disposable in terms of value. I pan for the nuggets in the sand.

    I have to ask, Pie. You wrote: “…you are free to assist these horrid people in taking a crap on you and your other readers…”

    Do you actually think these two have the power to do harm? I see them exposed as adolescent and uninformed…as game players who always resort to name calling. I see their belief systems exposed as faulty and harmful. I admit it is often difficult and frustrating but I’m not convinced there is no value.

    I could be wrong and I’m willing to hear and consider all opinions.

    Maybe we could use your input as an opportunity. What would you prefer to find on this blog on a daily basis and…how do we get there?

    Anyone?

  14. Chris says:

    Tina: “I do not hate the President!”

    Wow. In that case, I’d hate to see what kind of awful things you would say about a person you do hate.

    “Also, I did not lie; I critiqued the words in a single sentence.”

    Apparently I need to quote your lies again:

    “What makes our President avoid placing blame on the individual? It wasn’t the terrorists who committed the horrendously brutal act, instead it was an “act of violence” that brutally murdered Jim Foley. In Obama-speak the terrorists is just a bystander witnessing a random occurrence.”

    As the Obama quotes I cited from your transcript show, every single one of these sentences is false: Obama did blame the individuals, he did say it was the terrorists who committed the horrendously brutal acts, and he did not ever imply that the terrorists were just bystanders witnessing a random occurrence.

    In my first comment, I left open the possibility that you simply had not read Obama’s full statement, and were simply critiquing his words out of ignorance, not intentional dishonesty. But then you said you “did not give a rip” whether what you said was truthful or not. At that point, you revealed that you were perfectly OK with saying things that are not true about Obama, simply because of the real or imagined crimes you believe he has committed.

    That is immoral, Tina. You claim to care about preserving our nation’s sense of morality, and passing on moral values to children. But you certainly do not set a good example here at this blog; you frequently spread lies and conspiracy theories here on this blog. You are still claiming that the Obama administration intentionally lied about Benghazi, despite the fact that nine separate investigations have found no evidence of this claim, and that this claim was roundly rejected by both the House and Senate investigations.

    “I acknowledged your point, that my nit-picking was over the top in light of his full remarks, for which I provided a link.”

    That was not my point. My point was that you said something that was 100% false.

    “But had I intended to fool anyone I wouldn’t have said I was nit-picking up front and I wouldn’t have provided a link to his full remarks.”

    That relies on the assumption that your target audience actually cares enough to read the full remarks and check if you were telling the truth or not.

    As Pie’s comments demonstrate, that is not the case. Pie doesn’t care whether or not what you said was true. He only cares about the Narrative. People who agree with his Narrative are to be praised, and people who disagree are to be called every foul name in the book–“scum,” “dysfunctional and insane monsters,” “turd tossers”–without ever engaging with the actual argument. Pie is smart enough to know that what you said isn’t true–he can read, so that’s already been proven–but he doesn’t care.

    And, as you yourself admitted, neither do you.

    “The Presidents unwillingness to use words, like war, to describe military operations against our enemy, or to call a terrorists a terrorist,”

    He called the terrorists terrorists in the transcript you cited! I quoted those passages for you so you wouldn’t have to read them yourself! What could you possibly be talking about?

    “Is that right? Unfortunately for you, that “errand” ended in a stable Middle East, a badly damaged enemy, co-operation and respect around the world from our allies”

    This is some weapons-grade delusion. The idea that Bush left a “stable Middle East” is one of the most blatant lies you have ever told. It’s also a lie that Bush had more international respect than Obama; numerous polls show that just the opposite is true. (Of course, you don’t trust polls; you think Bush was more highly respected by the world because…well, just because you want to.)

    “George Bush’s remarks were made by a president who actually did the job he was elected to do! A man who worked tirelessly for American interests, who stepped into the war footing as required and expected.”

    …You do realize that Bush took more vacation days than Obama, don’t you? (Again, I don’t expect you to care.)

    The difference between your critiques of Obama and my critiques of Bush is that mine are based on fact and reason, and yours are based on pure fantasy.

    “It will be fascinating to watch you when a republican is back in the presidency.”

    I will be tough, but fair. I will not accuse them of establishing death panels, of being born in a foreign nation, of deliberately covering up routine intelligence failures, or of intentionally trying to lower America’s standard in the world. My critiques will be based on facts, just as my critiques of every other public figure–Obama included–have been.

    “I remember well how you treated Bush and I expect you will revert to the same unreasonable, partisan criticism.”

    Nice attempt at deflection, Tina. I just proved that your critiques of Obama’s statement were nothing but unreasonable, partisan criticism. You always accuse your opponents of doing exactly what you do, hence your obsession with Saul Alinsky–you personalize and attack a target with the best of them.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Chris, imagine you are sitting in a foxhole, and the bullets whizzing overhead. Let’s also say, it’s a terrible battle and the outcome is uncertain, but you have another soldier in your foxhole to share your burden. You’re partner, a female soldier named Tina, says I think I’ll shoot the enemy on the left with that AK47 and at the last second she shoots another enemy rushing towards your position with a bomb vest. You go ballistic, “Hey, you said you were going to shoot the other bad guy! How dare you, you lied to me, get out of my foxhole #@$%^&…”

      See, this makes about as much sense to me as you always going off on Tina when she’s on the right side doing her best to support you and America. You are both in this war together . She believes in God and Country! She’s involved and understands who our nations enemies are and what it takes to have a strong America! She’s a great ally to have on your side – I love that part.

      On another level she’s a person with a great work ethic who pulls her own weight and makes substantial payments in taxes to support the nation. She’s a good mom too! If 51% of Congress were as ethical and wise this country would be in good hands and have a bright future! I honestly believe that.

      So, why do you rail against such a nice person and do it with so much venom?

      Why not save your petty criticism for truly bad people who need it and deserve it? There’s no end of evil out here, need I remind you… Putin, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boku Haram, all the dictators of Africa, radical Muslim killers hiding behind their religion, dumbbells in Ferguson, geez there’re so many worthwhile targets why single out Tina? And just think, you can say other things that are not critical! Yes, you can – you should try it. You could tell us about good things, tell us about educational things that matter…surely you have many areas of interest, so again why waste your time infuriating people when you attack a genuinely nice lady we like very much? You can do so much better!

  15. Chris says:

    Tina: “These people literally do not know about our heritage and history. They are unaware of the values that support and sustain freedom.”

    Huh. Is lying one of those values?

    Tell you what. You start being more honest, and maybe I’ll start listening to what you have to say when you go on your moral tangents. Until then, you can’t possibly expect me to take such platitudes seriously.

  16. Tina says:

    I highly recommend this incredible article by Karen Vaughn, the mother of Aaron Vaughn a member of SEAL Team VI who was killed in action when a CH47D Chinook, carrying thirty Americans and eight Afghans was shot down in the Tangi River Valley of Afghanistan on August 6, 2011.

  17. Pie Guevara says:

    Re Tina #14: Fair enough.

    Power? Only the power to disgust, one by relentless, specious, thin and idiotic personal attacks, the other by relentless stupidity and arrogance. This is, of course, my problem, not yours, Tina and Jack.

    I merely tire of the bizarre and extremely offensive lunatic fringe you enable. This is a personal choice. I need to take a long break from such, beginning now.

  18. Chris says:

    Jack, I am sure Tina is a lovely person in real life–that’s not the issue. The fact is that on this blog, she consistently says things that are blatantly false, and refuses to admit when those things are proven false.

    I strongly disagree with your idea that she knows “who our nation’s enemies are.” She believes that President Obama and the Democrats constitute “our nation’s enemies.” I find that ridiculous. I disagree with Republicans frequently, but I do not consider them enemies of myself or my nation. I don’t consider myself at war with them, to the point where foxhole metaphors make sense.

    And even if I did agree with her feelings about the Democratic party, I still wouldn’t agree that her pattern of dishonesty is an appropriate tactic. The passage I cited this time was tame compared to the many lies she has told about our president. These lies include death panels, conspiracy theories about Benghazi, Obamacare increasing the debt and deficit, various Obamacare horror stories including Julie Boonstra and bans on mammograms for certain women, and the list goes on and on. It’s possible to disagree and attack Democrats without needing to lie. Rod Dreher does it all the time. He’s a total homophobe, but he’s an honest homophobe, and he usually attempts to follow the ethical standards he applies to others.

    That’s all I ask of the bloggers here. Why do you all so consistently act as if this is an unfair expectation?

  19. Tina says:

    Chris apparently can’t abide opinion that disagrees with his own.

    I believe his own opinion, that I lied, demonstrates a certain prejudice on his part and shows a dysfunctional need to control the speech and thoughts of others and thus I am labeled a liar.

    This serves two purposes: 1. To discredit me, and 2. To further perpetuate the idea that singularity of thought is truth.

    I acknowledged that I was nit-picking a single sentence in a speech and that Chris was correct that it was over the top given Obama’s full remarks.

    Not good enough! Not good enough for the guy who claims “bullying and hate” are distasteful. Not good enough for a guy who loves to criticize but can’t abide others criticizing a man who deserves not only criticism but contempt.

    Chris apparently does not see that the President and his team of far left wing fundamental transformers have used the language deceitfully.

    This is something I do see and therefore recognized in the single sentence I critiqued, which is why In wrote:

    …I can’t ignore obvious expressions that seem odd or just plain nuts.

    I was thinking of the Fort Hood victims and their families in that moment and the administration’s refusal to call that slaughter a terrorist attack.

    I was thinking about how the words needed to describe our enemy have been scrubbed from training manuals…words like, Muslim, Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and sharia. I was thinking about how experts in intelligence gathering have said this makes communicating accurately about the enemy nearly impossible.

    I wasn’t thinking about the speech, although I linked to it for our readers and acknowledged my nit-picking, I was thinking of the way the administration has misused and abused the language to the point of being distrusted and ineffective. I then asked a rhetorical question:

    What makes our President avoid placing blame on the individual?”

    Indeed what does make the President avoid placing blame…naming the enemy? What makes him avoid being honest and forthright with the American people, with the kids he regularly speaks to as he travels, with the men and women who are tasked with keeping Americans safe from internal attack?

    I think it’s an important question. What drives a man to act in ways that undermine America and the safety of the American people? He makes an occasional speech that sounds good, as he did here, But I have trouble taking him seriously or believing he means the words he has uttered. I don’t think I’m alone in that.

    I will leave Chris to his seething hatred and upset. Who could ever penetrate that gargantuan sized sense of superiority anyway. I mean really…consider this mammoth self-satisfied gold star: “I just proved that your critiques of Obama’s statement were nothing but unreasonable, partisan criticism.”

    W-O-W! All he has to do is say so. It’s magic.

  20. Tina says:

    I wrote the above last night just before my internet crashed…been having trouble with it most of the day…sorry I didn’t get it posted sooner.

    Jack (and Pie)as always I appreciate the support…Pie I hope you will return soon. I enjoy your humor and perspective.

    Still am not sure how I could, in good conscience, do anything differently to make the blog more interesting. Jack and I appreciate hearing from all of you and welcome any suggestions you might have.

    Chris: “She believes that President Obama and the Democrats constitute “our nation’s enemies.”

    As if having that opinion were a crime? “She believes” as if I were the wicked witch or the devil himself? It’s not okay to believe something? And that makes me a liar?

    I make the distinction between democrats per say and the activists and radicals in leadership in the Democrat Party. I believe the distinction is important.

    I try to specifically criticize those who put all of their power and effort behind the man who vowed to “fundamentally transform” our nation and then proceeded to do just that. A man that has “governed” by division, by picking winners and losers, by pitting one class against another, by working to destroy certain industries, by presiding over a long middle-class-ending, poverty-increasing non-recovery. This does constitute a deadly threat to the America I know and love. Chris does not have to agree but he is wrong to call me a liar.

    President Obama has lied numerous times to the American people without complaint from Chris who doesn’t seem to think this man and his leadership are enemies of our free nation. I am appalled but respect his right to think differently.

    For the record I believe Chris’s list of my so-called lies is ridiculous. This is a discussion blog. We post information taken from sources left, right and unknown. Quite a bit of what we post is very controversial or represents differing positions, opinions and ideas. My agreement or disagreement with these does not constitute lying any more than Chris’s taking the other side constitutes lying on his part.

    I hope we can proceed now on a better footing…I can dream, can’t I?

  21. Chris says:

    Tina, you admitted that you “did not give a rip” whether the particular critique of Obama in this article was fair or accurate, and then went on to list a bunch of other stuff you believe Obama has done, apparently to explain why it didn’t matter whether or not what you said was true. I am sorry that your moral compass is so fried that you don’t see how dishonest of an attitude that is. I have tried over and over to explain why this is immoral using reason, but you’re clearly unmoved by that. I will try prayer next.

    “As if having that opinion were a crime? “She believes” as if I were the wicked witch or the devil himself? It’s not okay to believe something? And that makes me a liar?”

    You seem to have a very hard time following a conversation.

    I only brought up your belief that Democrats are the enemy because Jack said you “know who our nation’s enemies are.” I described your belief that Democrats are the nation’s enemies as “ridiculous,” but I never said anything about it being a “crime” or that this erroneous belief made you some kind of monster. Please stop projecting and making strawman arguments. It is dishonest.

    Is it so much to ask that you respond only to what I actually say, and not what you imagine I say? Your extreme partisanship, paranoia and defensiveness have all badly damaged your reading comprehension.

    “President Obama has lied numerous times to the American people without complaint from Chris”

    This is wrong. I have critiques Obama’s actual lies numerous times. You’ve seen me do it. “If you like your plan…” was egregious. So was his attempt to take credit for pulling the troops out of Iraq. So was the random $2500 number he pulled out of his ass. So was his promise to be the most transparent president ever, coupled with his aggressive treatment of whistleblowers. I’ve agreed with you that these lies were wrong and have told you that in these instances, you had a valid point.

    Most of the time, however, your accusations against Obama have been false. In most of those instances, I have provided overwhelming evidence that your accusations are false, and you have responded with a near allergic reaction to facts. Your baseless accusations that Obama intentionally lied about Benghazi, when every available piece of evidence shows that the intelligence community itself was confused about the details involving the role of the video, the preparation of the terrorists, and the warning signs beforehand, is perhaps the most egregious example.

    I do not attack you for differences of opinion. Your claim that I do is perhaps the worst lie of all, because you are contributing to the half-brained idea that “opinions” and “facts” are interchangeable; that one person’s ignorance is as good as another’s facts. This idea is contributing to the dumbing down of Americans. The Palin/Cruz/Bachmann wing of the Republican party are mostly responsible for this, but the Romney campaign did it’s part by announcing their campaign would “not be dictated by fact checkers.”

    My eighth graders know the difference between fact and opinion. I wish the people on this site did.

Comments are closed.