2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I'd prefer to give Ms. Lerner an enema instead of immunity. Nothing Nixon did with the IRS compares to the "coincidental" effort to suppress, intimidate and harass groups with whom Richard M. Obama disagreed. The goal here should be to create as much political damage to Obama and his party as possible. There's always time to throw that slag in prison.

Next up: Secretary Frequent Flyer Miles and her efforts to keep Boco Harem off the terrorist list. Given that thousands of Americans have been killed by Islamist terrorists, you'd think our government would want to err on the side of protecting our citizens, rather than avoid giving offense to a bunch of savages.

Thanks to Dubya's idiotic move in Iraq, the middle and far east have been a fertile spawning ground for terrorists the last 10 years. You'd think Repubs would want to avoid putting so many of our citizens in forseeable danger.

In Pio talk, "He lied, and American heads rolled."

[walrus]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Wasn't the middle east a fertile ground for terrorists before Bush or is everything W's fault?

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Wasn't the middle east a fertile ground for terrorists before Bush or is everything W's fault?

It is if you apply Pio's logic. Of course comparing the harm from Iraq to Benghazi is like comparing the Titanic to a bathtub toy, but the methodology is the same.

[Priceless]

Wasn't the middle east a fertile ground for terrorists before Bush or is everything W's fault?

Well, before W those "terrorists" were our friends. Only they didn't go by the names "Al-Qaeda" or "Taliban" back then, they were known as the Mujahideen. Now, I am not blaming W for these terrorists (the first President Bush had the crazy idea that American women in the military serving in Saudi Arabia should be able to drive and Osama went nuts) I am just saying that they used to be our kind of "terrorists". The Middle East has been a fertile breeding ground for terrorists for a few thousand years.

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Well, before W those "terrorists" were our friends. Only they didn't go by the names "Al-Qaeda" or "Taliban" back then, they were known as the Mujahideen. Now, I am not blaming W for these terrorists (the first President Bush had the crazy idea that American women in the military serving in Saudi Arabia should be able to drive and Osama went nuts) I am just saying that they used to be our kind of "terrorists". The Middle East has been a fertile breeding ground for terrorists for a few thousand years.

True, true, but nobody made recruiting posters like Dubya.

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

It is if you apply Pio's logic. Of course comparing the harm from Iraq to Benghazi is like comparing the Titanic to a bathtub toy, but the methodology is the same.

"Four murdered?" Pfffft, who cares? If it's such a non event, why the lying?

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Wasn't the middle east a fertile ground for terrorists before Bush or is everything W's fault?

Everything. Including jock itch.

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Well, before W those "terrorists" were our friends. Only they didn't go by the names "Al-Qaeda" or "Taliban" back then, they were known as the Mujahideen. Now, I am not blaming W for these terrorists (the first President Bush had the crazy idea that American women in the military serving in Saudi Arabia should be able to drive and Osama went nuts) I am just saying that they used to be our kind of "terrorists". The Middle East has been a fertile breeding ground for terrorists for a few thousand years.

The h*ll you're not blaming Bush. Every utterance from you and the rest of the ladies in the Chorale is designed to provide cover for, change the subject about or cover up what happened at Benghazi. And constantly making the moral equivalency argument as between Bush and the self-proclaimed brightest guy in any room is a dodge. It's just possible nobody could have done anything to prevent what happened there. And if we had an administration whose actions regarding "transparency" equaled its rhetoric, "dude" we might actually know the truth all these months later. Instead we've had a coverup based on a ridiculous and totally discredited lie about a video.

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Thanks to Dubya's idiotic move in Iraq, the middle and far east have been a fertile spawning ground for terrorists the last 10 years. You'd think Repubs would want to avoid putting so many of our citizens in forseeable danger.

In Pio talk, "He lied, and American heads rolled."

So far, the only ones endangered by Boco Haram are Christian Nigerian virgins. Pfffft, who cares? And Secretary Frequent Flyer Miles avoids calling a spade a spade. Don't want to hurt their feelings. Nice.

[Priceless]

The h*ll you're not blaming Bush. Every utterance from you and the rest of the ladies in the Chorale is designed to provide cover for, change the subject about or cover up what happened at Benghazi. And constantly making the moral equivalency argument as between Bush and the self-proclaimed brightest guy in any room is a dodge. It's just possible nobody could have done anything to prevent what happened there. And if we had an administration whose actions regarding "transparency" equaled its rhetoric, "dude" we might actually know the truth all these months later. Instead we've had a coverup based on a ridiculous and totally discredited lie about a video.

Please point to the part of my statement that blamed Bush for anything.

Once upon a time they were called Mujahideen. Nothing to do with Bush.
They became known as Al-Qaeda and Taliban. Again, nothing to do with Bush.
Usama went nuts over the US bases in Saudi Arabia. Nothing to do with Bush.
The Middle East has been a fertile place for terrorists for thousands of years. Nothing to do with Bush.

Not everything has do with Bush. You have a persecution problem, among other dementia. I hope you are getting the medical attention you require.


In other news that has nothing to do with Bush, Texas Governor Rick Perry has discovered why the economy is doing so lackluster: We have 90 million unemployed people in this country. I so hope he runs for the Tory nomination to be president (of a country he loves so much he wants to secede).

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Wasn't the middle east a fertile ground for terrorists before Bush or is everything W's fault?

Comparably speaking? Surely you jest.

[Handyman]

Hardly... it was simply a comparison to illustrate this is a classic "do as we say, not what we do" type of situation. Dems do it so why is there so much outrage when Reps do it in a scaled down version? Of course there should be some and rightfully so, but not to this degree and that's my issue here. The massive outrage about this. To me it looks like people are worried about something actually being exposed. I'm a little surprised the character assassination attempts on the Reps involved haven't dialed up just yet, but I'm sure they will soon as it is par for the course in situations like these where Dems are trying to take the high ground and quiet opposition.

The question of value of this is also being contested. Not by me personally but obviously someone thinks there is value, so you can't 100% factually say there is no value. It is the take of one side. Like it or not, it is true no matter what source is cited to try to prove that statement wrong. If there is nothing to fear, just humor everyone and go along with it and get it over with as quickly as possible. Govt. wastes money every day so what makes this time any different?

Because they already wasted time and money on this and found nothing. there is no 'there" there and there never was. It doesnt even qualify as a witch hunt it is so irrelevant. even if they prove whatever they are trying to prove, it doesnt do anything. This isnt Watergate, it isnt Whitewater it isnt even Lewinsky...it is a fishing expedition brought to you by the people who claim they care about governmental spending and abhor too much oversight.

You ask why the GOP gets ripped for it because they spend all day every day telling s they are the party of fiscal responsibility. The Dems never pretend that in fact everyone expects them to overspend and over reach. the GOP though pretends like they want to keep spending in check. Just like when christian Conservative campaign on the fact that they are wholesome and pure ripping to shreds everyone else and judging they are gonna catch more hell when they get caught...the current GOP is the epitome of "what is good for the goose is not good for the gander".

I hate Dems as much as anyone but they dont pretend to be anything they arent. The GOP is the party of hypocrisy.

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

"Four murdered?" Pfffft, who cares? If it's such a non event, why the lying?

But after two invitations to do so, you declined to state how you thought the deaths were the result of anything State or the Oval Office did or did not do. So, despite your eager self righteousness, it is not the deaths that you are going on and on about but the administration's spin job afterwards.

I think what so many find offensive about the outrage on the extreme right over Benghazi is that many of those who are in a frenzy now about what appears to be misbehavior after an event that caused the death of four continue to believe the Iraq War, which killed and maimed unknown thousands and played a role in driving this country's economy into the trash bin, was good policy. It's not a matter of blaming Dubya for Benghazi or anything else: it's a matter of recognizing the staggering level of hypocrisy that is playing out. Some republicans are talking impeachment??

I can understand why the House republicans want to raise as big a stink about Benghazi as they can--it's political coin and it plays well in their socially conservative, generally rural south constituencies. I don't even have a problem with a congressional inquiry. The State Department and the administration should be asked what could have been done to prevent this from happening and what is being done to make sure it does not happen again. But that is not what this is headed for. It would be nice to be proven wrong.

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

But after two invitations to do so, you declined to state how you thought the deaths were the result of anything State or the Oval Office did or did not do. So, despite your eager self righteousness, it is not the deaths that you are going on and on about but the administration's spin job afterwards.

I think what so many find offensive about the outrage on the extreme right over Benghazi is that many of those who are in a frenzy now about what appears to be misbehavior after an event that caused the death of four continue to believe the Iraq War, which killed and maimed unknown thousands and played a role in driving this country's economy into the trash bin, was good policy. It's not a matter of blaming Dubya for Benghazi or anything else: it's a matter of recognizing the staggering level of hypocrisy that is playing out. Some republicans are talking impeachment??

I can understand why the House republicans want to raise as big a stink about Benghazi as they can--it's political coin and it plays well in their socially conservative, generally rural south constituencies. I don't even have a problem with a congressional inquiry. The State Department and the administration should be asked what could have been done to prevent this from happening and what is being done to make sure it does not happen again. But that is not what this is headed for. It would be nice to be proven wrong.

It may be that nothing could have been done to prevent that tragedy. But the fact that you and the rest of the Obamaphiles continue to suggest that "Bush was worse," tells me you're worried. Perhaps very worried that there's some deep, dark secret here which will not only expose Obama but splash some mud on Hillary. Otherwise, why not just take the hit? "We screwed up." "We made an honest mistake" Instead, we get lies, dissembling, changes of subject (which you're particularly good at), diversions and all the rest.

Perhaps if I explain it to you a third time, you'll catch on (but I doubt it). How can I provide specifics of potential misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance by the Obama administration on this matter if they continue to lie and coverup? We've been told that the ambassador wanted additional security. And how much of a foreign policy expert does it take to be worried about attacks on the anniversary of 9/11? Like a mynah bird with Tourette's you've applied your big rhetorical whiffle bat now three times. And it's still irrelevant.

Where was Obama during the 8 hours of the attacks? What was he doing. With whom was he consulting? What did they advise him? What decisions, if any, did he make? These are the kinds of questions an administration committed to "transparency" would have long ago addressed. If the explanation here is "we did the best we could," then why not just tell us? If the goal was transparency, then why was the relevant official AWOL? Why did the administration instead roll out a spokesman who had zero responsibilities when it came to security at diplomatic installations? And why did that official (and the president) continue to offer a ridiculous lie about a video to explain what had happened? 'Course there was an election coming up. Nah, that couldn't have been part of the calculations. And holding any administration responsible for its political maneuvering is as American as apple pie. Why act like it's somehow unprecedented here? "It's all politics," he shrieks. Well, look who just woke up.

When Obama green lighted the attack on Bin Laden (carried out by brave men) we knew exactly where he was and what he was doing. Situation Room photos, national TV speech, the whole nine yards. But in this case, where the outcome was somewhat less successful, he's suddenly the dog who didn't bark. I wonder why that is. Perhaps these hearings will clear up some of these questions. Perhaps not.

But you keep swinging at those high hard ones with your little plastic bat. It'll continue to impress the diehards. But you won't get the ball out of the infield. "People died and Obama (and Hillary) lied." I'm sure the president will be able to appeal to his urban, mostly ethnic base, with claims of "racism" to deflect his responsibility here.

Hypocrisy? You've got a death grip on the obvious, haven't you? Perhaps you came to this realization during John Conyers' impeachment hearings. Like the man said: Politics ain't bean bag. So just climb down off your horse, would ya? It's unseemly. And silly. BTW, you refer to the "extreme right" (most of you guys are apparantly incapable of recognizing that those are actually two words), I'm wondering how often you use the phrase "extreme left." Certainly there is an extreme left, no? But it makes your job so much easier if you can just dismiss any opposition to or disagreement with the "community organizer" as "extreme" and/or "racist."

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

It may be that nothing could have been done to prevent that tragedy. But the fact that you and the rest of the Obamaphiles continue to suggest that "Bush was worse," tells me you're worried. Perhaps very worried that there's some deep, dark secret here which will not only expose Obama but splash some mud on Hillary. Otherwise, why not just take the hit? "We screwed up." "We made an honest mistake" Instead, we get lies, dissembling, changes of subject (which you're particularly good at), diversions and all the rest.

Perhaps if I explain it to you a third time, you'll catch on (but I doubt it). How can I provide specifics of potential misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance by the Obama administration on this matter if they continue to lie and coverup? We've been told that the ambassador wanted additional security. And how much of a foreign policy expert does it take to be worried about attacks on the anniversary of 9/11? Like a mynah bird with Tourette's you've applied your big rhetorical whiffle bat now three times. And it's still irrelevant.

Where was Obama during the 8 hours of the attacks? What was he doing. With whom was he consulting? What did they advise him? What decisions, if any, did he make? These are the kinds of questions an administration committed to "transparency" would have long ago addressed. If the explanation here is "we did the best we could," then why not just tell us? If the goal was transparency, then why was the relevant official AWOL? Why did the administration instead roll out a spokesman who had zero responsibilities when it came to security at diplomatic installations? And why did that official (and the president) continue to offer a ridiculous lie about a video to explain what had happened? 'Course there was an election coming up. Nah, that couldn't have been part of the calculations. And holding any administration responsible for its political maneuvering is as American as apple pie. Why act like it's somehow unprecedented here? "It's all politics," he shrieks. Well, look who just woke up.

When Obama green lighted the attack on Bin Laden (carried out by brave men) we knew exactly where he was and what he was doing. Situation Room photos, national TV speech, the whole nine yards. But in this case, where the outcome was somewhat less successful, he's suddenly the dog who didn't bark. I wonder why that is. Perhaps these hearings will clear up some of these questions. Perhaps not.

But you keep swinging at those high hard ones with your little plastic bat. It'll continue to impress the diehards. But you won't get the ball out of the infield. "People died and Obama (and Hillary) lied." I'm sure the president will be able to appeal to his urban, mostly ethnic base, with claims of "racism" to deflect his responsibility here.

Hypocrisy? You've got a death grip on the obvious, haven't you? Perhaps you came to this realization during John Conyers' impeachment hearings. Like the man said: Politics ain't bean bag. So just climb down off your horse, would ya? It's unseemly. And silly. BTW, you refer to the "extreme right" (most of you guys are apparantly incapable of recognizing that those are actually two words), I'm wondering how often you use the phrase "extreme left." Certainly there is an extreme left, no? But it makes your job so much easier if you can just dismiss any opposition to or disagreement with the "community organizer" as "extreme" and/or "racist."

Those are fair questions and deserve to be answered.

The rest is your IBS acting up again.