Posted by Tina
There’s nothing like the crisp clarity that holds forth from the mouths of men and women trained in the military (video); Republican Tom Cotton is no exception. Independent Journal Review has the video and appropriate commentary:
Congressman Tom Cotton lays out exactly why the Democrats’ “fake outrage” over the Benghazi hearing is not exactly credible coming from a party whose members acted with partisan acrimony over an Iraq War that they voted for and took no responsibility for carrying out.
“Forgive me if I don’t join my Democratic colleagues in their fake outrage. Four Americans lost their lives that night at Benghazi. They deserve justice. The American people deserve the truth. One other lesson I learned in the Army is we leave no man behind. And we will not leave these four men behind.”
Questions remain about what happened at Benghazi, whether or not Democrats pretend that they’ve all been answered. Just a few of them involve exactly what President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were doing instead of moving heaven-and-earth to try to save American servicemen in harm’s way. (Emphasis mine)
Neither President Obama nor Hillary Clinton belong in these high positions of authority and deep responsibility. If they had any integrity at all they would come forward now and tell the American people the whole truth.
“Just a few of them involve exactly what President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were doing instead of moving heaven-and-earth to try to save American servicemen in harm’s way.”
This question HAS been answered. The answers are readily available to anyone with Internet access. Perhaps those answers haven’t made their way to right-wing blogs. You should ask yourself why that is.
Clinton and Obama need to be held accountable for putting their political careers ahead of declaring Al Quida was NOT on the run, and was instead alive and growing in Libya and other countries.
If they had done their job and been honest with us four men in Benghazi would still be alive, 50 boys would not have been burned alive and 300 girls would not have been kidnapped in Nigeria.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/08/clinton-state-department-resisted-labeling-boko-haram-as-terror-group/
Great speech that everyone needs to see before this November election.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/XNUc8nuo7HI
Chris: “Perhaps those answers haven’t made their way to right-wing blogs.”
Perhaps you should have more respect for a veteran of the Iraq war ans current representatives when he expresses his opinion. There’s a chance he knows more than you or I!
PS From my perspective the “answers” being offered by the apologists and butt covering cohorts of this administration are highly suspect.
3:00 AM phone call…military stuff is such a bother…neither one of them gave a rats butt!
Peggy: “If they had done their job and been honest with us four men in Benghazi would still be alive, 50 boys would not have been burned alive and 300 girls would not have been kidnapped in Nigeria.”
You missed finding a way to blame them for 9/11 and the unjust cancellation of Firefly.
Dewey: “GOP is abandoning the ACA playbook and taking up Benghazi.”
BS. ALL of it will be pursued because the people have had it!
Politics is the game we play to elect those who represent us. It’s part of our system. Play the game or sit on the sidelines, your choice. Your lectures about the game are boring, and frankly hardly news, especially when repeated over and over. Here’s a tip for ya, you have a “my way or the highway” approach your own self…you are constantly telling us “how it is”. Could be when it comes to Rep. Cotton you are projecting.
The truth about Benghazi is fairly clear. The debacle was a result of administration callousness and incompetence. The then manufactured the transparent YouTube video dodge to cover themselves politically on the cusp of an election.
Neither Democrats nor the administration give a damn about the truth.
By the way, notice how progressive Soros whore progressive scum like El Stupido, when they cannot argue the issue, ALWAYS launch a personal attack.
*SNORE*
Tina: “Perhaps you should have more respect for a veteran of the Iraq war ans current representatives when he expresses his opinion. There’s a chance he knows more than you or I!”
Cotton has no more information on Benghazi than you or I, Tina. If he does, he should reveal it. The fact that he is a veteran of the Iraq War doesn’t make his opinion any more informed or sensible. Other members of the military and intelligence community who actually were involved in Benghazi have testified that there was no political cover-up.
I respect his service, but not all opinions are deserving of respect. I won’t bow to your PC insistence that all opinions are created equal (especially since you only suggest this when a conservative’s opinion is the subject of scrutiny).
Pie: “The truth about Benghazi is fairly clear. The debacle was a result of administration callousness and incompetence. The then manufactured the transparent YouTube video dodge to cover themselves politically on the cusp of an election.”
Funny how you think this is so obviously the “truth,” but you have yet to show any actual evidence for it. If it were so obvious that the administration “manufactured” the video story, there should be, like…actual facts and stuff to back that up. And there shouldn’t be a whole lot of evidence that directly disproves it, like the CIA talking points.
“By the way, notice how progressive Soros whore progressive scum like El Stupido, when they cannot argue the issue, ALWAYS launch a personal attack.”
Oh, I think I get it now. You’ve been doing satire of right-wingers all this time, like Colbert, haven’t you? That’s the only explanation. Nobody could actually have such little self-awareness, could they? All you do is make personal attacks.
Oh Chris it’s not just me saying Clinton failed miserably in her job as Sec. of State. Lots of others are too and not just on the right. Some democrats even voted for the committee.
I’d have to come up with a much longer list of her and Obama’s failures to even come close to the number of issues they have and still are blaming Bush, others and even the weather for.
What will Obama and Hillary do when the media turns on them? Will their lies be exposed without out reporters and you being their water carriers?
Obama loses mainstream media support as Benghazi, IRS, AP scandals grow:
“Brushfire season has come early to Washington. The Obama administration had been trying to stamp out persistent complaints over Benghazi. On Friday, a second fire broke out as we found the IRS lied and deliberately targeted conservative groups for special investigation.
As the IRS fire burned out of control, Fire Chief Obama tried to put out the Benghazi inferno by attacking the GOP.
It was too late.
Then, a third blaze caught everyone – especially the media – off guard. The poorly named Justice Department “used a secret subpoena to obtain two months of phone records for Associated Press reporters and editors without notifying the news organization,” reported NBC News.
The same administration that caught heat for lying to journalists about editing the Benghazi talking points also is investigating journalists.
The Washington Post explains such “subpoenas of records from news organizations must be approved personally by the attorney general.” In other words, this attack on press freedom goes all the way to Eric Holder.
All three networks hit hard on the IRS Monday, with NBC calling it “damage control” and “IRS firestorm.” Both NBC and CBS covered the attack on the very people who were reporting the other scandals.
Seven of the top 10 newspapers had at least one Obama disaster on their front page Tuesday. There was so much “Scandal,” you expected Kerry Washington to show up. The IRS fiasco was on all seven, with The Chicago Tribune’s headline “IRS Scandal Growing” reflecting a typical sentiment.”
Continued.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/14/obama-loses-mainstream-media-support-as-benghazi-irs-ap-scandals-grow/
Chris: “You missed finding a way to blame them for 9/11”
Chris please refrain from projecting your juvenile emotion based principles on me. Blaming them is a useless indulgence. As long as you brought it up, sarcastically or no…I want to see them held accountable for only those things for which they have actual cause:
Huffington Post:
NewsBusters recalls the 60 Minutes interview with Crumpton.
Then there’s the “Wall of Separation” that was created under Carter and strengthened by Jamie Gorelick, Deputy AG at the time) to keep our intelligence and law enforcement groups from communicating and sharing information and was cited as the reason we “failed to connect the dots” before 911.:
Gorelick went on to win a seat on the 911 Commission thus ensuring that neither she nor the first “co-presidency” Clinton’s would never be held accountable for 911.
There is no stink like the stink on the radical left that has control of the Democrat Party; the threads of culpability will unravel. if not now then when history is written fifty or sixty years from now.
Dewey: “You can not say I am making this up”
I didn’t say you were making it up I said it is not unusual in politics to use the failures of your opponents as a fund raising tool.
The bumper sticker nature of your comments are no different it’s just that nobody would pay you for them.
Also please note my post to Chris above. Representative Cotton serves on a committee looking into the Benghazi scandal and as such is privy to information that you, Chris, and I may not know. The two of you posturing as experts on the subject while dismissing this man and his position is laughable.
Are all lefties such narcissists?
“Soros has not spent a fraction of what the Koch brothers are spending on elections.
Ignorance is bliss.
Those who like to be better informed should check out the Soros connection to Obama and his overt and covert connections to extreme left activist groups to which he sends piles of cash annually through his “Open Society.” He’s been doing it for decades.
The only thing the Koch brothers would like to see is for all Americans to have an opportunity to invest some of the money they earn instead of being forced into the single failing SS plan that Congress has been borrowing against since LBJ.
Forbes:
And don’t bother telling me that private accounts wouldn’t work, there is a way to structure them so they do work. Three Texas Counties created personal social security accounts and they have done very well:
Democrats lie about the issue and they lie about the result of private accounts because they want CONTROL OF THE MONEY!
Dewey you are clueless my friend.
Tina: “Also please note my post to Chris above. Representative Cotton serves on a committee looking into the Benghazi scandal and as such is privy to information that you, Chris, and I may not know. The two of you posturing as experts on the subject while dismissing this man and his position is laughable.”
What is laughable is your argument that we should defer to someone who has presented no evidence for his claims simply because he *might* know something that he isn’t sharing with the public. For some reason.
What’s laughable is that you accused me of making an “appeal to authority” fallacy last week for quoting the architect of Reagan’s tax cuts–who was a legitimate authority on that issue–but you constantly engage in the fallacy by citing illegitimate authorities.
Cotton is investigating Benghazi from a partisan perspective. He comes to this issue with a clear bias and he wants to find a certain outcome.
Your argument that “maybe he knows something we don’t!” is completely without merit, and I’m amazed you would resort to such a weightless and silly tactic. You’ve done it before when talking about doctors critical of Obamacare, saying “well maybe they know something we don’t!” That was also an appeal to authority fallacy; doctors are not experts on health insurance policy.
Your argument also commits the absence of evidence fallacy. You’re essentially arguing that the actual evidence presented by Dewey and myself doesn’t matter to you, because someone you like MIGHT have evidence that he’s just not sharing, for some reason. And what reason could that possible be? This has been a very public investigation, and Republicans are immediately pouncing on any little sliver of info they think might be damning to Obama. The furor over the Ben Rhodes e-mail, which revealed no new information whatsoever, was insane. The idea that Cotton has reason to suspect a cover-up that he’s not sharing is ludicrous. Even more so is your assertion that we should defer to a guy who, according to you, is at best withholding information that would resolve this case more quickly.
As usual, I advise you to take a logic class or join a debate team. The quality of this blog would go up exponentially if you would stop making such bad arguments.
Dewey: “I am the one who wants all money out of politics remember?”
An ignorant impossible task that has been declared unconstitutional. And a useless waste of energy that clutters the blog.
“With social media – public funded elections are a reality.”
Any person or group is free to use social media…your thinking that this could stop corporate or wealthy donor participation is irrational.
$5.00 per citizen would insure a real election .
Excellent thought…get it done! This would be an great project for you. You will need an amendment to the Constitution but if you keep trying I’m sure you can get it done…wow…no more epic fail!
So, instead of bitching about it endlessly on PS I propose you spend the time you would normally spend here walking door to door to collect signatures. If you’re really serious you could make it a project to visit every city, town and berg in every state and then when your done, you could present your case to every governor and the Congress.
Please…go for it! Be my guest!
“here is a great chart marking their war”
A partisan piece of propaganda that attempts to create moral and financial equivalency about the two.
This obscure site ignores Soros’ long support of socialist one world government, the massive amounts of money he has given to support hundreds of leftist activist organizations and bypass donor laws, his manipulation for personal gain that crashed the British pound (Black Tuesday) and his conviction in France for insider trading that even his billions couldn’t get overturned. This man does not love America or our system of government and has worked to undermine both in favor of socialist world governance. In business he works only to make money. He is not a producer but a complete taker and manipulator.
The Kochs in contrast are American and believe in our Constitution and freedoms. Their donations and involvement in politics is miniscule by comparison…and are aimed at causes that support liberty and our Constitution. Their businesses produce products and create jobs.
“Soros is not trying to take over all gov at least”
Naive man! Soros LIVES for one world socialism. Like all leftists he is deceptive about his purpose. He claims he supports democracy but his purpose and goals speak of something entirely different:
What does he mean by “open society”?
Discover the Networks:
Soros profile from Discover the Netqorks:
Wow, wow, triple WOW!
Another veteran hero speaks up.
Triple-Amputee Iraqi War Hero’s Letter Shames the President of the United States:
“We embrace heroes in America. Senior Airman Brian Kolfage defines hero: the triple-amputee veteran of the Iraqi War overcame insurmountable odds to survive his horrific injuries. Kolfage recently sent a powerful – and damning – letter to his commander-in-chief:”
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/137169-letter-triple-amputee-iraq-war-shames-president-united-states/
Peggy, it’s so telling of the great divide we face when partisan-libs like Chris call me intellectually dishonest for publishing facts about the Benghazi incident and Obama’s alleged cover up. He places way too much weight on the White House explanation, even after they have been caught not being credible on many other important issues besides this one. Thanks for the link.
Chris: “What is laughable is your argument that we should defer to someone…”
I didn’t ask you to defer to anyone, Chris. I simply pointed out the arrogance of your own lowly position and bias by suggesting that a man with military experience who is privy to information that we are not might know more than either you or I. As a member of Congress and this committee he could have access to secret information that cannot, at least at this time, be revealed. (Where was the President…has that been adequately answered?)
“Cotton is investigating Benghazi from a partisan perspective.”
No more so than the Democrats on the committee. What’s the point? All have the responsibility to look into the matter and get to the bottom of what happened.
“He comes to this issue with a clear bias and he wants to find a certain outcome.”
Oh, you’ve taken up mind reading…makes ALL the difference just to know you have that skill. No wonder you feel so superior!
My God you are so full of yourself. Your arguments have nothing to do with what has been uncovered in the the investigation and everything to do with excusing the people in leadership that you favor…partisan denial pure and simple.
You have yet to say a word about the Presidents own words that it was “too soon” to talk about the cause of the attack even though he had, Hillary had, Susan Rice had, and Jay Carney had and they all said things that were conflicting. If it was “too soon” why was Susan Rice sent on the talk shows…WHY?
Why was there not an adequate ongoing investigation…why was the “embassy” left unsecured after the incident…why was MSNBC able to walk in and find Stevens journal lying around…why are conflicts surfacing in the emails…why were the President and Hillary so disengaged in the process that night…why did they attempt to blame the video when they had information that it was a planned, well executed, terrorist attack…why were they lying to the American public…and why are YOU?
To cover their asses that’s why. (Not sure what your problem is)
You can blather on and on and attempt to make this about me and my lousy debate skills but in the end you will still be left with the absolute truth that people died needlessly in Benghazi and this administration put their own politics, careers, and legacy ahead of their duties.
It’s important, Chris, and politics isn’t the reason. America is the reason! The integrity of the office of the Presidency is the reason. The reliability and trust in the word of our leaders at home, and in the world, is the reason.
A reminder to our readers. I made this statement:
In response to this statement by Chris:
I stand by my assessment…Chris should have more respect for him and his opinion…I didn’t say Chris had to agree or even accept it.
As is always the case, when someone on the left perceives his party is in trouble…and they are…the partisan lefty gremlin has to go on the attack…first he takes nasty little pot shots at Rep Cotton and then at me. I ask you…in a debate, is that the usual formula for winning?
And Chris, we’re conversing on Post Scripts. Its not a debate forum. It’s certainly not a debate forum in which you have been put in charge. If you want to debate and hold people to the rules of debate join a debate club.
Jack, Chris and Dewzer are living with eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. It’s their choice, until they decide to believe the facts there’s nothing anyone can do.
Pointing out the facts that Ben Rhode’s email was full of major changes for Susan Rice’s talk show appearances and Jay Carney’s repeatedly saying that had only made the name change for the facility is a waste of time. When the email exist along with the video of Carney one would have to be deaf and blind to not understand they were lying.
Judicial Watch’s FOIA was for Benghazi and now we have Carney trying to spin it into something else. Jon Karl and other reporters are realizing they’ve been lied to and are actually challenging Carney.
Jay Carney clashes with Jon Karl: That Benghazi e-mail from Ben Rhodes wasn’t about Benghazi:
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/30/jay-carney-clashes-with-jon-karl-that-benghazi-e-mail-from-ben-rhodes-wasnt-about-benghazi/
Let’s hope the reporters and their bosses continue to question what this administration says and start helping to find out the whole truth instead of assisting with the cover up.
Here’s why I’m glad Trey Gowdy is chair of the Benghazi Select Committee.
11 Most Badass Things Trey Gowdy Has Ever Said:
This week, Congress tapped Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to chair the Select Committee on the Benghazi attacks. If you’re wondering why, here’s just a sampling of Gowdy’s gems – on the floor of the House and elsewhere. (Click on any link to watch the corresponding video.)
#1 Responding to Nancy Pelosi about the Benghazi hearings:
“Well, I certainly hope the Democrats participate. I continue to think that some things transcend politics like the murder of four of our fellow citizens and whether or not you trust government. That is not a red or blue issue. That is an American issue. As for whether or not they boycott, I hope they don’t.”
“I can tell you this. It is not going to be evenly constituted and when she was Speaker Pelosi, she certainly showed no interests in having an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.”
#2 Addressing Attorney General Eric Holder on mandatory minimum drug sentences:
“Your memo is trumping a Congressional statute. You don’t have the discretion on whether to follow the law or not.”
#3 Gowdy’s “Pop Quiz”- Who said this? (Hint: the answer to every question is “Senator Barack Obama”)
◾“These last few years we’ve seen an unacceptable abuse of power, having a president whose priority is expanding his own power.”
◾“No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand off as the coequal branch the Constitution made it.”
◾“What do we do with a president who can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don’t agree with this part or that part?”
◾“I taught the Constitution for ten years, I believe in the Constitution.
#4 His thoughts on Susan Rice:
“She was fabulously wrong when she said it the first time, and stunningly arrogant in her refusal to express any regret for lying to our fellow citizens.
“I would love the chance to ask follow-up questions of Susan Rice because David Gregory apparently did not avail himself of that opportunity. Greta, I just listened to the clip – I get tougher questions in the Bojangles drive-through than he asked her.”
#5 On Lois Lerner & the IRS scandal:
“The same Constitution that allows her the right, if she wants to, to sit there and say nothing, allows these groups the right to petition their government for redress.”
#6 On Congressional pay raises:
“Members of Congress are incredibly blessed and fortune to have the jobs that we have. Nobody makes us run. Every two years we offer for public office, and if you don’t want to do it then don’t run. But the notion that you can make $174,000 in this country and be underpaid is laughable.”
#7 On Constitutional checks and balances:
You know, in the oath that brand-new citizens take, it contains six different references to ‘the law.’ If it’s good enough for us to ask brand-new citizens to affirm their devotion to the law, is it too much to ask that the president do the same?
If a president can change some laws, can he change ALL laws? Can he change election laws? Can he change discrimination laws? Are there any laws, under your theory, that he actually HAS to enforce?
What is our recourse, Mr. Speaker? What is our remedy?
#8 Reacting to Nancy Pelosi’s comments that the House voting to hold Eric Holder in contempt was an “attempt to suppress the vote”:
“It’s really beneath the office of a member of Congress to say something that outrageous. The fact that she was once the Speaker is mind-numbing, honestly…[her comments are] mind-numbingly stupid.”
#9 Trey Gowdy on potential selection to head the Benghazi Special Committee:
“I’m going to help the committee regardless of any position I have. I will volunteer to be a summer intern.”
#10 Gowdy talks about the President’s promises:
“The president already has a Nobel Prize for peace. I think he’s shooting for one in fiction.”
#11 In this House GOP press conference from October 2013, he explains in the most succinct way possible why these hearings need to take place:
Congress is supposed to provide oversight, the voters are supposed to provide oversight. And you [the media] were supposed to provide oversight. That’s why you have special liberties and that’s why you have special protections.
I am not surprised that the President of the United States called this a phony scandal. I’m not surprised that Secretary Clinton asked, “What difference does it make?” I’m not even surprised that jay Carney said that Benghazi happened ‘a long time ago.’ I’m just surprised at how many people bought it.
Trey Gowdy speaks for many Americans who want honor and accountability restored to the American government.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/136219-top-trey-gowdy-quotes/
Wow! The Soros whores sure told everyone off.
Tina: “I didn’t ask you to defer to anyone, Chris. I simply pointed out the arrogance of your own lowly position and bias by suggesting that a man with military experience who is privy to information that we are not might know more than either you or I. As a member of Congress and this committee he could have access to secret information that cannot, at least at this time, be revealed.”
Do you understand, Tina, that this statement is not evidence? That it is in fact an appeal to authority fallacy?
“(Where was the President…has that been adequately answered?)”
Yes. The photo of Obama in the Oval Office that night has been online for months.
“You have yet to say a word about the Presidents own words that it was “too soon” to talk about the cause of the attack even though he had, Hillary had, Susan Rice had, and Jay Carney had and they all said things that were conflicting.”
I did respond to this. I said it was a sign of a bungled response. The administration did give out conflicting information. That’s because they were receiving conflicting information from the CIA! The talking points and Morrell’s testimony both show that there was a lot of disagreement within the intelligence community about what happened. Obama was right to say that it was too soon to say anything…but he had already messed up by having Susan Rice go on TV and relay the CIA’s information at the time. To the administration’s credit, Rice did say several times that this was based on the best info at the time and that new information could come to light that would change the White House’s position on what happened. It took a while, but the White House did eventually revise their opinion before the election.
NONE of this proves that there was an orchestrated cover-up. At most, it proves that the administration was confused and didn’t do enough to mask that confusion. That is embarrassing, but it is not an impeachable offense.
“Why was there not an adequate ongoing investigation…”
There have been many investigations.
“why was the “embassy” left unsecured after the incident…why was MSNBC able to walk in and find Stevens journal lying around…”
Not sure. But do you really think this suggests a cover-up? Wouldn’t a cover-up involve…actually covering things up, not leaving the scene of the crime completely exposed?
“why are conflicts surfacing in the emails…”
What conflicts?
“why were the President and Hillary so disengaged in the process that night…”
This is hearsay that does not match with the testimony of several generals and members of the intelligence community who have testified that the president was engaged.
“why did they attempt to blame the video when they had information that it was a planned, well executed, terrorist attack…”
Asked and answered too many times to count. THEY HAD CONFLICTING INFORMATION. The CIA made a choice on which info to put in their official report. The White House respected that choice and followed their lead. It’s that simple.
Also, you are simply wrong to imply that the video had nothing to do with it and that it was well planned in advance. We STILL don’t know how “planned” the attack actually was. The Senate Report concluded that it may have been put together in less than a day. And there remains plenty of evidence that the attackers were at least partially motivated by the video.
“why were they lying to the American public…and why are YOU?”
Tina, why haven’t you stopped beating your husband?
“You can blather on and on and attempt to make this about me and my lousy debate skills but in the end you will still be left with the absolute truth that people died needlessly in Benghazi and this administration put their own politics, careers, and legacy ahead of their duties.”
Tina, I understand that people like you are used to believing in an “absolute truth” that requires absolutely no proof whatsoever, and of judging others who fail to embrace that “absolute truth” for dumb reasons like total lack of evidence. But for people that do not treat Obama-bashing as a religion, we need a little more.
Peggy: “Pointing out the facts that Ben Rhode’s email was full of major changes for Susan Rice’s talk show appearances”
Rhode’s e-mail contained no “major changes.” He told her exactly what the CIA had said in their official talking points. But you know that already.
The evidence is there and quite vivid.
Chris: “Do you understand, Tina, that this statement is not evidence? ”
Do you understand that it wasn’t put forth as evidence but as polite condemnation of your arrogance? This isn’t your classroom but your lecturing shows you up as a smug pompous ass!
“The photo of Obama in the Oval Office that night has been online for months.”
So was the information that he was present for all of a few minutes.
” I said it was a sign of a bungled response.”
A bungled response? It is an incoherent response. Something can’t be definitive (It was the video!) and undecided (Too soon to tell) at the same time. Tossing in the added confusion, here and there, that “acts of terror” or “terror acts” were (also?) the cause shows it was no bungle. The parties involved had sufficient time before the talk show parade to get it right…too soon to tell came later. That was no bungle!
“That’s because they were receiving conflicting information from the CIA!”
Oh please. Which is it. The president was involved and engaged or the President didn’t know $#1%!
As I said you have no interest in the truth.
Weekly Standard:
ABC News:“The Benghazi Emails: Talking Points Changed at State Dept.’s Request”
“But for people that do not treat Obama-bashing as a religion, we need a little more.”
May I suggest a Lobotomy?
The Truth Drips Out (except for the self lobotomized).
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=7272
Pie at #27 A strong, clear male voice…ahhh…so appreciated after the nagging and the lectures. thanks!
I’m off to catch some zzzzzzzzzzzz
Tina: “Something can’t be definitive (It was the video!) and undecided (Too soon to tell) at the same time.”
No one ever said the video explanation WAS definitive! Again, Rice said many times that the intelligence community’s estimation could change. And it did. And then the WH’s explanation changed accordingly. That’s it. That’s the “scandal” that you’ve been harping on for almost two years and eight congressional investigations.
If you have to put words in people’s mouths in order to win an argument, your argument is not worth making.
“Oh please. Which is it. The president was involved and engaged or the President didn’t know $#1%!”
You are drawing a false dichotomy. The president’s level of engagement has nothing to do with whether or not the IC had reported 100% accurate information or not.
And for the billionth time, according to the info we have NOW the video was a motivating factor according to many of the attackers and the attack probably wasn’t well planned. The only thing the administration got 100% wrong was saying there was a protest beforehand. And this is supposed to indicate conspiracy worse than Watergate? Please.
It’s also funny that you never said anything like this about Bush’s intelligence failure leading to the war in Iraq. So which was it, Tina: was he involved and engaged, or did he not know jack sh#t? Now that you are being asked that question, do you see how it is a false dichotomy?
Also funny how Pie Guevara, who loves to lecture about formal logic, doesn’t ever point out that you can’t get through a single comment without committing a fallacy.
Victor Davis Hansen is a liar. He claims that the administration jailed the filmmaker of “Innocence of Muslims,” which is so ridiculously stupid that the man should have his degrees revoked. The president did not personally order the man’s arrest. He violated the terms of his parole, pled guilty, and was fairly punished.
Keep in mind that the filmmaker is a convicted meth dealer and bank fraudster who has stolen people’s identities, including stealing the social security number of a six-year-old kid. THAT’s the guy conservatives have been defending. THAT’s how extreme your hatred of the president is.
One more thing:
You’re seriously going to use Jon Karl’s year-old ABC story as evidence? The one that was based on Karl’s lie that he had “obtained e-mails,” when actually he had obtained only summaries of the e-mails submitted to him by Republicans, and had never actually seen the e-mails themselves?
Pathetic. You have nothing.
Summaries received by Republicans in the world of pathetic progressive deniers are automatically wrong, eh Chris?
Your position is absolutely partisan…and absolutely pathetic.
I notice you had nothing to say about information from the Weekly Standard…to review:
…The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election
The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.
…the report quotes directly from emails between top administration and intelligence officials, and it includes footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent.
The Weekly Standard has confirmed the identities of the authors of two critical emails—one indicating the main reason for the changes and the other announcing that the talking points would receive their final substantive rewrite at a meeting of top administration officials on Saturday, September 15.
it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public…
What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!
“It’s also funny that you never said anything like this about Bush’s intelligence failure leading to the war in Iraq.”
That’s because it wasn’t Bush intelligence failure. Bush, all of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, all of the intelligence organizations in the free world, the U.N. inspectors, and the former president, Bill Clinton all were working from the same intelligence…Bush did not set out to deceive anyone…and Bush did not ever comport himself with indifference or put the interests of himself and his party above his job as President and his commitment to our troops and their families.
The nerve you have at making this ridiculous comparison makes me sick…(holding my tongue)!
Re #33 Tina :
“That’s because it wasn’t Bush intelligence failure. Bush, all of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, all of the intelligence organizations in the free world, the U.N. inspectors, and the former president, Bill Clinton all were working from the same intelligence…Bush did not set out to deceive anyone…and Bush did not ever comport himself with indifference or put the interests of himself and his party above his job as President and his commitment to our troops and their families.”
Yep. Thank you for pointing that out to the racist idiot Soros whore.
“Summaries received by Republicans in the world of pathetic progressive deniers are automatically wrong, eh Chris?”
No, it wasn’t “automatically” wrong. It was proven wrong when the e-mails actually came to light.
Morally speaking, however, Karl’s actions–claiming to have obtained e-mails that he had not in fact obtained–were morally wrong, and absolutely unethical. The fact that he still has a job as a journalist at ABC certainly makes on question the journalistic integrity of the network.
“I notice you had nothing to say about information from the Weekly Standard”
And I never will.
“That’s because it wasn’t Bush intelligence failure. Bush, all of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, all of the intelligence organizations in the free world, the U.N. inspectors, and the former president, Bill Clinton all were working from the same intelligence…Bush did not set out to deceive anyone…and Bush did not ever comport himself with indifference or put the interests of himself and his party above his job as President and his commitment to our troops and their families.”
By the same logic, this wasn’t Obama’s intelligence failure either. The information came directly from the CIA.
“The nerve you have at making this ridiculous comparison makes me sick…(holding my tongue)!”
Yes, clearly I should be more outraged at Obama, who got one detail (the protest) wrong AFTER four Americans died, than at Bush, who got the major selling point of the Iraq War (WMDs wrong), a mistake that led to the death of thousands.
You’re right that it’s a ridiculous comparison, but that’s because Bush’s mistake was FAR more damaging and deadly than Obama’s.
“racist idiot Soros whore”
Happy Mother’s Day to you too, Pie.
And Tina, you are massively overselling the amount of agreement that existed over the intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq. You claim that the UN inspectors were working from the same intelligence, but that is false:
“During the lead-up to war in March 2003, United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix said that Iraq made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting the “proactive” but not always “immediate” cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[5] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[6][7][8]
Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[9] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[10] despite multiple dissenting opinions[11] and questions of integrity[12][13][14] about the underlying intelligence.[15] Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[16]
Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was “the intelligence failure” in Iraq,[17] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration “misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq”.[18] A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, “then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war”.[19]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
You also claim that “all of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress” agreed with the intelligence, but that is also false. One notable voice of dissent came from a little known senator named…Barack Obama:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469
We now know that Obama was right, and Bush was wrong.
I did not say that Bush intentionally misled the public. A bipartisan Senate subcommittee, however, concluded that he did:
“Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed. ”
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775
Regardless of whether Bush intentionally lied, he clearly put greater weight on certain intelligence reports that turned out to be erroneous. He also acted rashly by not allowing the UN inspectors to finish their investigation before invading. There was no pressing, immediate threat from Iraq that justified this swift action.
In regards to Benghazi, Obama made mistakes. Like Bush, he acted rashly by giving information to the public that turned out not to be accurate. Also like Bush, he relied on intelligence reports that were incomplete.
However, the context and the consequences are completely different. Obama’s talking points blunders occurred after the fact; they didn’t cause any deaths. The worst likely result (at the time) was about a week of confusion before all the information was in and they could set the record straight. (Obviously, the consequences have been more severe, as Republicans in Congress have now dragged our nation into an absurd pseudo-scandal with eight separate congressional investigations and non-stop coverage of any small tidbit of Benghazi “news,” even when it reveals no new information. But that’s not the president’s fault.)
The result of Bush’s mistake was a decade-long war.
You, for reasons that can only be explained by Obama Derangement Syndrome, see Obama’s mistake as not only bigger than Bush’s, but bigger than any mistake and president has ever made in the history of these United States. That’s just not rational, and it never will be.
“The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein’s suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Five senior officials from Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.
According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball’s information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball’s accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.
lRelated
SECTION REDIRECT: NATIONWORLD IRAQ COMPLETE
‘Curveball’ speaks, and a reputation as a disinformation agent remains intact
See all related
8
Curveball’s German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm.
“This was not substantial evidence,” said a senior German intelligence official. “We made clear we could not verify the things he said.”
The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. “He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy,” said a BND official who supervised the case. “He is not a completely normal person,” agreed a BND analyst.
Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate prewar U.S. accusations that Baghdad had biological weapons, a commission appointed by Bush reported this year. The commission did not interview Curveball, who still insists his story was true, or the German officials who handled his case.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-curveball20nov20-story.html#page=1
The source, Curveball, has since admitted that his story was fabricated.
Reality has a way of fading into the mist over time allowing specious partisan claims, enhanced by the advantage of hindsight, to seem reasonable. But history is also recorded. In order to understand we should be willing to look at all of the information rather than that produced to prove GWB intentionally lied to start a war so he could financially benefit from Iraq’s vast untapped oil fields.
Anyone who is interested in what was going on in the time just prior to the Bush administration making it’s case for war can review the following, a sampling:
armscontrol.org
A 2002 CIA Report is available here.
March 3,2012 John Hawkins reminds about statements made by the then Hawkish Democrats (Phony-assed opportunists lacking in moral foundation) at Right Wing News here:
As they always do the radical left slime from the sixties era flipped their opinions as soon as they thought they could exploit the war to theor political advantage. Fundamental transformationand political power taks precedence to the defense of the nation and the free world or eliminating threats from murderousdelusioal terrorists.
Revelations about the “Oil for Food Program” would later explain sme of the political posturing withn the UN. The scandal’s particulars can be reviewed in this article in The Economist.
Our leftist media did little to inform the public about this scandal or the players involved but for those who believe that George Bush would not prosecute his “oil buddies” I suggest you scroll down to the section on US convictions.
I am not concerend about the legacy of George W. Bush. I believe history will find that he lead the nation through an extremely difficult time with determination and courage to do the right thing for our nation, for the men and women who served under him and for the preservation of the way of life we a\re so blessed to enjoy as free people.
(Still holding my tongue)
And lest we forget the atmosphere in which all of this was happening…also here(graphic). Photo 27 is a stark reminder.
Tina, what in God’s name does 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq?
And what does it matter that Democrats were saber-rattling for Iraq as well? They were wrong, but they were not the ones that made the call. Ultimately that is on Bush’s shoulders.
The fact remains that the guy you see as the worst president in American history was one of the few with the courage to stand against the calls for war from both sides of the aisle. He was one of the few to call out the administration’s rationale as spurious from the very beginning. History hasn’t taken very long to vindicate his opinion. Whatever the mistakes of his Democratic colleagues, Obama never supported the Iraq War. It’s a shame nobody listened to him then.
“The hottest competition in Washington this week is among House Republicans vying for a seat on the Benghazi kangaroo court, also known as the Select House Committee to Inflate a Tragedy Into a Scandal. Half the House has asked to “serve” on the committee, which is understandable since it’s the perfect opportunity to avoid any real work while waving frantically to right-wing voters stomping their feet in the grandstand.
They won’t pass a serious jobs bill, or raise the minimum wage, or reform immigration, but House Republicans think they can earn their pay for the rest of the year by exposing nonexistent malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration. On Thursday, they voted to create a committee to spend “such sums as may be necessary” to conduct an investigation of the 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The day before, they voted to hold in contempt Lois Lerner, the former Internal Revenue Service official whom they would love to blame for the administration’s crackdown on conservative groups, if only they could prove there was a crackdown, which they can’t, because there wasn’t.
Both actions stem from the same impulse: a need to rouse the most fervent anti-Obama wing of the party and keep it angry enough to deliver its donations and votes to Republicans in the November elections. For a while it seemed as if the Affordable Care Act would perform that role, but Republicans ran into a problem when the country began to realize that it was not destroying American civilization but in fact helping millions of people.
Party leaders needed something more reliable, so they went back and revived two dormant scandals from last year, the embers of which were faithfully tended by Republican adjuncts on Fox News and talk radio. Their hope is to show that the administration is corrupt and untrustworthy, and if Hillary Rodham Clinton also gets roughed up in the process, so much the better.
Four Americans, including the United States ambassador, died in Benghazi, and their deaths have been crassly used by Republicans as a political cudgel, wildly swung in the dark. They have failed to provide proof for any number of conspiracy theories about the administration’s failures, including the particularly ludicrous charge from Representative Darrell Issa that Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, told the Pentagon to “stand down” and not help defend the American compound.
In fact, investigations by two congressional committees (including one run by Republicans) found that there was never any kind of “stand-down order” or request. But Mr. Issa and others keep repeating it because, for their purposes, the facts don’t matter.
Now Republicans are frothing about a newly released email message showing that the White House wanted Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations at the time, to go on television in 2012 and make the case that the attack was not a failure of administration policy. The message should have been turned over earlier because all it shows is a routine attempt to spin the news in the most favorable way to the White House. Though it is not the slightest evidence of a cover-up, it has become the foundation for the committee’s existence. Demonstrating the panel’s true purpose, Republican political operatives are already raising money by stoking donor anger on Benghazi.
Democrats who are now debating whether to participate in the committee shouldn’t hesitate to skip it. Their presence would only lend legitimacy to a farce.
Similarly, the Justice Department should not press Ms. Lerner’s contempt citation before a grand jury. She invoked her Fifth Amendment rights at a hearing last year and refused to testify, but Republicans claim, without foundation, that she waived those rights by first proclaiming her innocence. Her refusal, they said, was contemptuous of Congress. Little nuisances like constitutional rights or basic facts can’t be allowed to stand in the way when House Republicans need to whip up their party’s fury.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/opinion/center-ring-at-the-republican-circus.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Opinion&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article
Chris: “Tina, what in God’s name does 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq?”
For you? Absolutely nothing. You have chosen the team of backstabbers liars and opportunists who were for it before they were against it. Hopelessly narcissistic control freaks who care about their own power above our freedoms and our citizens lives.
Look up the word atmosphere.
“… the guy you see as the worst president in American history was one of the few with the courage to stand against the calls for war…”
Oh please…Mr. Present made the call that he figured would help put him in the White House and then after winning it promptly went to war himself, making messes all over the ME.
We’re done.
This idiot is adamant Chris Stevens wasn’t murdered, because he died from smoke inhalation.
Eleanor Clift’s Absolutely Stunning Benghazi Claims Could Raise Your Blood Pressure Just a Tad:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/11/eleanor-clifts-absolutely-stunning-benghazi-claims-could-raise-your-blood-pressure-just-a-tad/
I get it. All liberals came out of the same gene pool.
“Look up the word atmosphere.”
I remember it well. It was an atmosphere of fear, anger, and a resurgence in jingoism. That’s why we were led so easily into war with an enemy who had nothing to do with 9/11. It’s why our media failed to do its job of investigating and exposing the lack of WMDs in Iraq until after it was too late. It’s why professors, artists and politicians were initially afraid of speaking out against the war. And it’s why thousands of our soldiers, not to mention about 100,000 Iraqi civilians, were killed in an unnecessary and arbitrary war.
How you’re trying to use this “atmosphere” in Bush’s defense is beyond me.
“Oh please…Mr. Present made the call that he figured would help put him in the White House”
Yes, because nothing helps put someone in the White House like…speaking out against something that nearly all of your colleagues on both sides of the aisle vigorously support?
You just can’t admit that Obama was right to oppose the Iraq War, can you? I bet it would cause you physical pain.
Chris: “That’s why we were led so easily into war with an enemy who had nothing to do with 9/11.”
So, according to your adolescent view of leadership in the highest office in the land the president can only do one thing at a time and a plan for addressing terrorism couldn’t possibly include a multi-pronged strategy that included removing a leader who had used WMD, who was defying the UN and the world and lying about and hiding WMD, who was torturing his people, who was in violation of the treaty from the Gulf war, and who had supported and trained members of al Qaeda to establish a base of operations in the heart of the Middle East.
Well if that’s the case dear boy your more perfect leader, Barrack Obama has been up to no good and its about time you said so! I give you Iraq botched and falling back into extremist/terrorist hands; Afghanistan; a botched mess, Libya, ditto; Syria, ditto; Egypt…lost diplomatically now turning to Russia; Pakistan relations deteriorating over the last two years.
By the way, the only hate and anger based goals at the time were those within Democrat Party and activists circles where they were plotting strategy to attack and discredit the administration and his efforts. Emotional activism, activism that works against America and free world values, is the only type of response your party can ever muster.
You won’t admit that this man has no experience to guide his decisions and no idea how to lead, a reality that was clear from the start. You won’t admit that you were ignorantly willing to vote for him based on enthrallment over his race and the rock star hype he used to capture your attention. You won’t admit that his policies at home have been just as bad as his foreign policy and our nation is sinking because of it…because you are a partisan boob without a clue.
America’s reputation in the world has never been so low…never! Obama is the reason. Part of the reason for that is that American’s cannot be trusted to elect a leader with the conviction to follow through on obligations or lead like a grown-up. The efforts, bleeding and dying of our young men and women were thrown in the garbage by this incompetent boob, a sycophantic radical media, and a generation (or more) with it’s propagandized head up its a$$!
Please…this is a total waste of time.
Tina: “So, according to your adolescent view of leadership in the highest office in the land the president can only do one thing at a time”
No, I never said that.
However, I certainly don’t think the president should fight two wars at a time unless absolutely necessary.
I also don’t think the president should have consistently implied a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda in order to drum up support for war, when no such link existed.
“and a plan for addressing terrorism couldn’t possibly include a multi-pronged strategy that included removing a leader who had used WMD, who was defying the UN and the world and lying about and hiding WMD,”
Iraq was not hiding WMDs at the time of invasion.
“who was torturing his people, who was in violation of the treaty from the Gulf war, and who had supported and trained members of al Qaeda to establish a base of operations in the heart of the Middle East.”
Tina, exaggerating the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is so 2003:
“The consensus of intelligence experts has been that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in contact but it never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, “We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.”[5]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations
“Well if that’s the case dear boy your more perfect leader, Barrack Obama”
“Perfect?” You haven’t listened to a thing I’ve said about the guy over the past six years. You are arguing with a strawman.
“has been up to no good and its about time you said so! I give you Iraq botched”
Iraq was botched from the beginning. We shouldn’t have invaded in the first place. You know this, don’t you?
The president is not responsible for everything that happens in the world. We are not the world’s police. We should intervene when we can help, but we have to be very strategic lest we make things worse. I truly believe Bush thought he was doing what was best when he chose to invade Iraq. But the result was a destabilized country and more unnecessary bloodshed.
“By the way, the only hate and anger based goals at the time were those within Democrat Party and activists circles where they were plotting strategy to attack and discredit the administration and his efforts. Emotional activism, activism that works against America and free world values, is the only type of response your party can ever muster.”
Yes, because there were absolutely no principled reasons to oppose the war. And opposing pointless wars is always “against America.” You are making a caricature of yourself.
“You won’t admit that you were ignorantly willing to vote for him based on enthrallment over his race and the rock star hype he used to capture your attention.”
You can take your unwarranted assumptions and shove them. My choice to vote for Obama had nothing to do with his race. I almost voted for McCain in 2008 but he did a number of things that turned me off. Obama did too, but on balance I found that I agreed more with his positions than McCain. I know it’s very hard for you to understand this since you think everyone is just as cynical as you are, but there are valid reasons for people to disagree with you that go beyond partisanship. I did not vote for Obama in 2012, so your suggestions that I am just so entranced by the Black Messiah are completely invalid.
“America’s reputation in the world has never been so low…never!”
Show me polling data or I am going to assume you are pulling this out of your (SNIP-You don’t talk to ladies that way Chris).
Pew data shows approval of America is actually up in most countries since 2007:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/u-s-soars-world-popularity-charts-post-iraq-will-it-f6C10878886
But I guess when you say “America’s reputation in the world has never been so low…never!” you’re talking about the “absolute truth” that all true patriotic Americans know in their hearts, not…y’know, facts.
Revelations about the governments handling of video maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula will want to read, “The First Amendment Also Died at Benghazi,” By Jack Cashill in the American Thinker. You will find more examples of underhanded manipulation to perpetrate a lie…incredible:
Why indeed!
Tina: “Revelations about the governments handling of video maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula will want to read, “The First Amendment Also Died at Benghazi,” By Jack Cashill in the American Thinker. You will find more examples of underhanded manipulation to perpetrate a lie”
Yes, you certainly will, but that happens any time you read an article by Jack “Birther” Cashill.
Cashill claims that the administration released Nakoula’s plea deal but offers no evidence for this claim. Why do you believe him, Tina? Is it because you desperately want to?
Why are you defending birthers and bank fraudsters? Why are you taking the word of known liars?
Jack: “(SNIP-You don’t talk to ladies that way Chris).”
Ladies can lie just as well as men, Jack. This is patronizing and sexist. Pie Guevara has said far worse things here and he rarely gets censored like this.
Why do you continue to defend this administration no matter what, Chris?
Don’t worry your silly little head…soon you will be back on offense, filled with indignation, and mad as a hatter.
I can’t wait and the nation can’t either.
I don’t defend Obama “no matter what.” I have criticized him when necessary. But I would defend anyone from the type of vicious lies you spread on this website, Tina. You have not only accused Obama of a cover-up worse than Watergate–you insist that this charge is so self-evident that it requires no proof whatsoever. You have no evidence for your claims whatsoever, so you rely on strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, moving goalposts, and basically every fallacy you can think of.
This is not about defending Obama for me, this is about defending the public from being misled and deceived by an unparalleled campaign of deliberate partisan misinformation and lies. It’s about defending our nation from stupidity, ignorance, manipulation, bigotry, and propaganda.
Re #52 Chris : “I don’t defend Obama “no matter what.” I have criticized him when necessary … blah, blah, blah.”
ROTFLMAO at Obama’s water boy posing as a hero defending the public.
Re #50 Chris : “Pie Guevara has said far worse things here and he rarely gets censored like this.”
Pie Guevara has only used the language and tactics of Chris and other progressives against themselves, who are — of course — ASTONISHED AND ANGRY to be treated like they treat others.
That is what one of the defining purposes of the “Pie Guevara” creation. I, David Walton, current Chico California resident, am the owner and creator of “Pie Guevara”. Chris is a pompous anonymous coward who thinks himself some sort of progressive superhero in tights.
Yep, the tights fit. Chris is wrapped far too tight. But it sure makes for some great comedy.
Sorry about that asinine, gut churning, eye roll inducing ROTFLMAO in #53 above, I was having a Dewey moment.
Your character is not very creative or funny. I repeat:
“You have no evidence for your claims whatsoever, so you rely on strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, moving goalposts, and basically every fallacy you can think of.”
Talk about LIES:
Right. That’s why the endless questions that contrary to your opinion have not been answered…hell, the media that covers him haven’t even asked this coddled and sheltered president.
The scandal is big because there has been zero transparency and a lot of funny business that anyone that isn’t a dim bulb can plainly see.
Horse feathers. The public doesn’t need defending; they need the truth!
If defending the public from being misled was so important your team wouldn’t have spent eight years (this time) doing everything they could think of to mislead the public. The lies about the Bush economy alone could fill a book!
There is evidence; there is conflicting testimony that suggests the truth has not come out or someone(s) lying, and there are legitimate questions that need to be answered.
Tina, please address one of the many lies you have told in this thread.
You can start with this one:
“America’s reputation in the world has never been so low…never!”
You basically have three choices: 1) provide evidence that this is true, 2) admit you have no evidence that this is true, or 3) ignore it until it goes away. You usually go with the cowardly third option. Care to surprise me?
Re #56 Chris : “Your character is not very creative or funny. I repeat:
“You have no evidence for your claims whatsoever, so you rely on strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, moving goalposts, and basically every fallacy you can think of.”
ROTFLMAO at the racist dork I intentionally satirize by using his own tactics against him. I will admit this is getting a bit tedious.
#58 Chris : “You usually go with the cowardly third option.”
This is really too rich coming from the anonymous coward Chris.
An article in Huffington Post concludes:
A Washington Times article points to a foreign policy failure:
Natural News highlights the promise the world saw in Obama in 2007 and what has happened since:
Real Clear Politics:
Real Clear World:
Center for a New American Security:
Reuters:
He has been insulted from criticism but he leaves this footprint behind often.
gotta go…
One more thing, this… “You usually go with the cowardly third option”… is a giant lie. I have spent hundreds of hours responding to your constant contentious challenges.
Can I help that you’re a slow learner?
Great response Tina.
How’s that crow tasting Chris?!!
Tina, your links contain a lot of assertions, but absolutely none of them constitute objective evidence of your claim that “America’s reputation in the world has never been so low…never!”
The closest you came to providing evidence of this was the Gallup poll that said a “majority of Americans believe that leaders around the world do not respect President Obama.” But surely you understand that this does not tell us what America’s reputation actually IS in the world, only what Americans BELIEVE the reputation is.
I showed you a poll demonstrating that America’s approval ratings are actually UP in most countries since the Bush administration. You need to find a more recent, more reliable poll that shows otherwise, or else you have nothing to support your claim.
Peggy, there’s no crow to taste. Tina did not provide evidence of her claim.
It’s amazing that you can’t see that.
Chris what is not amazing is your inability to recognize the evidence when it’s put right in front of your face.
Tina could quote God himself and you’d disagree, because you don’t approve of her source.
Peggy, I’m not asking for God. I’m asking for actual, non-anecdotal data showing that America’s reputation in the world has fallen since Obama took office. This is a perfectly reasonable request. If that claim is true, this data should be very easy to find. If the data cannot be found, then there isn’t a whole lot of reason to believe it is true.
Chris, not everything in life fits on a spreadsheet full of data. Individual’s and governments from other nation’s opinions are based on facts, feeling and actions done by Obama and his administration.
It is a fact he has drawn “red line” and moved those red lines.
He practically shut down our space program. Now, Russian is threatening to kick us out of the Space Station and stop delivering their engines.
It’s a fact, plan and simple but you won’t find any data about it.
UPDATE 3-Russia targets space station project in retaliation for U.S. sanctions:
“Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said Moscow would reject a U.S. request to prolong the orbiting station’s use beyond 2020. It will also bar Washington from using Russian-made rocket engines to launch military satellites.
Moscow took the action, which also included suspending operation of GPS satellite navigation system sites on its territory from June, in response to U.S. plans to deny export licences for high-technology items that could help the Russian military.
“We are very concerned about continuing to develop high-tech projects with such an unreliable partner as the United States, which politicises everything,” Rogozin told a news conference
Moscow’s plan to part ways on a project which was supposed to end the “space race” underlines how relations between the former Cold War rivals have deteriorated since Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region in March.
Since the end of the U.S. Space Shuttle project, Russian Soyuz spacecraft have been the only way astronauts can get to the space station, whose crews include mostly Americans and Russians, as well as visitors from other countries.”
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/05/13/ukraine-crisis-russia-usa-idINL6N0NZ4EA20140513
President Kennedy started the space race program and Obama killed it. And that’s a fact!
Chris: “your links contain a lot of assertions, but absolutely none of them constitute objective evidence of your claim that “America’s reputation in the world has never been so low…never!”
Your little pea brain may rely on data gathered by someone in an office somewhere; polls and studies light your fire. But these often represent bias rather than actual real world reality. You think so too or you wouldn’t constantly discredit think tanks like Heritage.
I prefer to notice what has happened and rely on things that journalists, leaders, and ordinary people say and do. I prefer to notice posturing by enemies and allies alike. When liberals in media begin to criticize, especially since they have been totally in the tank for Obama, I sit up and notice…and they are saying things!
Obama has utterly failed in the Middle East leaving it a much more dangerous place and a much bigger threat to the free world. He has overseen the expansion of Al Qaeda and other radical organizations…he was able to say that al Qaeda was on the run with a straight face only because they were spreading and expanding around the world. He has snubbed Israel, the only nation in that region that has a free and open society and has been our steadfast ally.
Putin would never have treated Bush as his plaything as he is clearly doing with the hapless, inexperienced Obama.
Obama’s experience prior to being elected was limited; playing hero and front man to fawning followers and activists. His ability as a scripted speaker was all he needed for that role and all he brought to the presidency.
The nations in Europe, whose economies are tied to ours, wait for leadership that will never come…at best he is tolerated.
China smiles as it plots to take over as superpower, especially in that region.
As President he has, from the start, blamed others for his problems and failures. He talks and talks but accomplishes nothing and when he does get his way (healthcare-blocking Keystone) the result is a disaster.
He has dissed our allies and fawned over our enemies. He spies on everyone. He coddles criminals and punishes law abiding citizens. He divides the people and pits them against each other. His department heads make policy like czars in privileged fiefdoms…Obama took pleasure in calling them czars, probably because he knew what his plans for fundamental transformation were. His handling of the economic crisis has been uninspired leaving Americans broke and losing ground fast. His economic policy favors only the one percent.
From my perspective the world is looking at the once great and free America and wondering what has happened and how our people could be so stupid.
Of course to those around the world that love the tyranny of socialism (central control) and a democratic free-for-all type of government, this bozo is a hero…a tarnished hero, but a hero nonetheless.
The Huffington Post acknowledges what I have asserted, as re-posted above: “…the deterioration of the reputation and prestige of the U.S. in the Middle East and beyond…”
Natural News agrees: Obama is not seen as someone who can build bridges and lead the free world. He is seen as a liar, a charlatan and a power-mad tyrant who abuses his own citizens and treats allies like enemies.”
Powerful commentary and oh so true. Carter was bad but not this bad. Bush was disliked by people around the world like Obama…but even our enemies respected him and all knew that he meant what he said and could be counted on to follow through. Both Bush and Reagan have had accolades and monuments erected to them for their efforts in the world even though the left in this country did everything in their power to try to destroy them.
Your opinion is your own and you are welcome to it.
Peggy: “President Kennedy started the space race program and Obama killed it. And that’s a fact!
Nicely done Peggy!
I would add Reagan brought down the Soviet Union and Obama knuckles under and is outfoxed by it’s ex-KGB leader. Reagan inspired and spread freedom; Obama has overseen the rise and empowerment of radical Muslims and Sharia law…the antithesis of freedom.
Tina, your argument boils down to, “Anecdotal evidence (as long as it’s MY anecdotal evidence) is worth more than data.”
Forgive me if I can’t help but laugh. If you have to say something so monumentally stupid in order to make your case, your case isn’t worth making.
The Bengahzi debacle will continue to be investigated despite what insulting and specious arrows Chris throws at Post Scripts. As Obama said himself (paraphrasing) we will thoroughly investigate this incident, which, of course, he never did.
What is truly laughable is that Obama thought that his supposed internal investigation of his corrupt administration by his corrupt administration would actually be functional.
There is a reason there are three branches of government and the founders were supremely wise for constructing them, despite the idiotic laughter from demented fools like Dewey and Chris.
At this time it seems like Movable Type is the best blogging platform available right now. from what I’ve read Is that what you are using on your blog?
No…word press and it’s not very good. I think we were better off with our moveable type software, even though it was pretty clunky too.