2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

[Old Pio]

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

Those are fair questions and deserve to be answered.

The rest is your IBS acting up again.

The suppositories provide some relief.

[ScoobyDoo]

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

There was no lie, Hannity. None at all. All statements were clarified as opinions on a talk show. Why you continue along with the rest of the GOP to have such a hard one over what was talked about on Sunday talk shows is beyond me. I guess the only explanation is that if it was labeled as Al Qaeda right away Lindsey and John may have gotten their ward drums wish? But, no, Obama is in the White House so that wasn't going to happen anyway.

There is nothing to see here. The previous administration did much worse over and over and over again. And Obama is still more transparent than Bush. Might be more transparent than any other administration in history. Who knows? Surely more transparent than Reagan, Bush II, and Nixon.

[Old Pio]

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

There was no lie, Hannity. None at all. All statements were clarified as opinions on a talk show. Why you continue along with the rest of the GOP to have such a hard one over what was talked about on Sunday talk shows is beyond me. I guess the only explanation is that if it was labeled as Al Qaeda right away Lindsey and John may have gotten their ward drums wish? But, no, Obama is in the White House so that wasn't going to happen anyway.

There is nothing to see here. The previous administration did much worse over and over and over again. And Obama is still more transparent than Bush. Might be more transparent than any other administration in history. Who knows? Surely more transparent than Reagan, Bush II, and Nixon.

Dream on. And the fact that the WH was told almost immediately the raids were AQ is what, a misunderstanding? You forgot the six cringing mentions of the video he knew had nothing to do with the attack before the UN. In your world that may not constitute a lie. But in mine it does. Why didn't Hillary make the rounds of the Sunday shows? She was SecState and had the responsibility for protecting our diplomatic outposts. Instead we got the UN Ambassador, who had about as much responsibility as the Secretary of Agriculture.

It's amazing to me that anyone, even you, would suggest that four dead Americans is an acceptable figure, because after all "Bush killed more." We're five years into this. When, exactly, is this jumped up cheap suit going to begin taking responsibility for what happens on his watch? Oh, wait, when something good happens, he's right there acting all presidential. But on this occasion, he was AWOL. And somehow, in your pea brain, Bush makes that all right. Or something. It's one thing to be partisan and supportive. It's entirely another to be so cynical that regardless of the facts, lower body counts by your guy are excused, even applauded, certainly defended to the last breath. Shame on you.

I think many of you ladies are scared sh*tless there's a smoking gun out there somewhere. A smoking gun that will put a round right in Hillary's azz.

[burd]

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

Dream on. And the fact that the WH was told almost immediately the raids were AQ is what, a misunderstanding? You forgot the six cringing mentions of the video he knew had nothing to do with the attack before the UN. In your world that may not constitute a lie. But in mine it does. Why didn't Hillary make the rounds of the Sunday shows? She was SecState and had the responsibility for protecting our diplomatic outposts. Instead we got the UN Ambassador, who had about as much responsibility as the Secretary of Agriculture.

It's amazing to me that anyone, even you, would suggest that four dead Americans is an acceptable figure, because after all "Bush killed more." We're five years into this. When, exactly, is this jumped up cheap suit going to begin taking responsibility for what happens on his watch? Oh, wait, when something good happens, he's right there acting all presidential. But on this occasion, he was AWOL. And somehow, in your pea brain, Bush makes that all right. Or something. It's one thing to be partisan and supportive. It's entirely another to be so cynical that regardless of the facts, lower body counts by your guy are excused, even applauded, certainly defended to the last breath. Shame on you.

I think many of you ladies are scared sh*tless there's a smoking gun out there somewhere. A smoking gun that will put a round right in Hillary's azz.

Outraged Over Benghazi, Silent on Iraq

By Jay Parini
7 hours ago
The Daily Beast

When I heard that the House of Representatives has established a select committee to investigate the attack on Benghazi that left several Americans dead in 2012, I couldn't help but wonder what these same legislators might have done had Barack Obama been president in 2003, and had the audacity of George W. Bush to attack a sovereign country that had no relevant connection to the 9/11 attacks with the result that nearly 5,000 Americans and well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians (many of them women and children) perished. Had Obama’s war in Iraq also cost American taxpayers $1.7 trillion, with another $490 in veteran expenses (thus far)—with a total cost of $6 trillion projected—I have no doubt that a select committee would long ago have sent him to the Hague for trial as a war criminal.

It’s sad to think how in our fury over Benghazi we’ve almost forgotten a recent war that destroyed so many families, nearly bankrupted this country (and may yet), and led to a hugely destabilized Iraq that no longer serves as a buffer to Iran. Needless to say, this terrible war was pursued under false pretenses, with huge amounts of government corruption—Houston-based company KBR alone (a spinoff from Halliburton, where Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO before becoming vice president) racked up charges of nearly $40 billion during the war, making it (by far) the winner in the Iraq sweepstakes. In most banana republics, this would be cause for serious investigation; but not so much here, where our politicians (or their friends) are allowed to profit from armed invasions. Can it possibly be so that the U.S. Congress has ignored such obvious corruption while investigating over and over whether Susan Rice was given some edited “talking points” on Benghazi? Really?

You do not have to devalue four lives to share these thoughts, Pio. To the contrary. Many people who object to the furor the House repubs are attempting to whip up do so because it is so obviously a political ploy that devalues the lives of those lost. Why does it appear to be so obviously a political ploy and nothing more? Because the same party cheered what Bush did. So people struggle to account for the difference, especially considering the colossal difference in scale.

[5mn_Major]

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

With Obama on the run...conservatives are back:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20140511/NEWS08/140519984

[GrinCDXX]

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

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.

If it wasn't clear just how irrational the Benghazi screamers really are...

[Slap Shot]

Outraged Over Benghazi, Silent on Iraq

By Jay Parini
7 hours ago
The Daily Beast

When I heard that the House of Representatives has established a select committee to investigate the attack on Benghazi that left several Americans dead in 2012, I couldn't help but wonder what these same legislators might have done had Barack Obama been president in 2003, and had the audacity of George W. Bush to attack a sovereign country that had no relevant connection to the 9/11 attacks with the result that nearly 5,000 Americans and well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians (many of them women and children) perished. Had Obama’s war in Iraq also cost American taxpayers $1.7 trillion, with another $490 in veteran expenses (thus far)—with a total cost of $6 trillion projected—I have no doubt that a select committee would long ago have sent him to the Hague for trial as a war criminal.

It’s sad to think how in our fury over Benghazi we’ve almost forgotten a recent war that destroyed so many families, nearly bankrupted this country (and may yet), and led to a hugely destabilized Iraq that no longer serves as a buffer to Iran. Needless to say, this terrible war was pursued under false pretenses, with huge amounts of government corruption—Houston-based company KBR alone (a spinoff from Halliburton, where Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO before becoming vice president) racked up charges of nearly $40 billion during the war, making it (by far) the winner in the Iraq sweepstakes. In most banana republics, this would be cause for serious investigation; but not so much here, where our politicians (or their friends) are allowed to profit from armed invasions. Can it possibly be so that the U.S. Congress has ignored such obvious corruption while investigating over and over whether Susan Rice was given some edited “talking points” on Benghazi? Really?

You do not have to devalue four lives to share these thoughts, Pio. To the contrary. Many people who object to the furor the House repubs are attempting to whip up do so because it is so obviously a political ploy that devalues the lives of those lost. Why does it appear to be so obviously a political ploy and nothing more? Because the same party cheered what Bush did. So people struggle to account for the difference, especially considering the colossal difference in scale.

Old Spazzo will never in a million years address this sanely.

[Old Pio]

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

Old Spazzo will never in a million years address this sanely.

Two wrongs make a right? Who knew? BTW, Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. You gonna support her candidacy?

[Old Pio]

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

If it wasn't clear just how irrational the Benghazi screamers really are...

What are you afraid of? And don't forget "racist." That's the ******* "twofer."

Please point out any inaccuracy in the post you deemed "irrational." The truth, evidently, hurts.

[Old Pio]

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

Outraged Over Benghazi, Silent on Iraq

By Jay Parini
7 hours ago
The Daily Beast

When I heard that the House of Representatives has established a select committee to investigate the attack on Benghazi that left several Americans dead in 2012, I couldn't help but wonder what these same legislators might have done had Barack Obama been president in 2003, and had the audacity of George W. Bush to attack a sovereign country that had no relevant connection to the 9/11 attacks with the result that nearly 5,000 Americans and well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians (many of them women and children) perished. Had Obama’s war in Iraq also cost American taxpayers $1.7 trillion, with another $490 in veteran expenses (thus far)—with a total cost of $6 trillion projected—I have no doubt that a select committee would long ago have sent him to the Hague for trial as a war criminal.

It’s sad to think how in our fury over Benghazi we’ve almost forgotten a recent war that destroyed so many families, nearly bankrupted this country (and may yet), and led to a hugely destabilized Iraq that no longer serves as a buffer to Iran. Needless to say, this terrible war was pursued under false pretenses, with huge amounts of government corruption—Houston-based company KBR alone (a spinoff from Halliburton, where Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO before becoming vice president) racked up charges of nearly $40 billion during the war, making it (by far) the winner in the Iraq sweepstakes. In most banana republics, this would be cause for serious investigation; but not so much here, where our politicians (or their friends) are allowed to profit from armed invasions. Can it possibly be so that the U.S. Congress has ignored such obvious corruption while investigating over and over whether Susan Rice was given some edited “talking points” on Benghazi? Really?

You do not have to devalue four lives to share these thoughts, Pio. To the contrary. Many people who object to the furor the House repubs are attempting to whip up do so because it is so obviously a political ploy that devalues the lives of those lost. Why does it appear to be so obviously a political ploy and nothing more? Because the same party cheered what Bush did. So people struggle to account for the difference, especially considering the colossal difference in scale.

You figure if you keep shrieking "it's just politics" that'll make this go away? Why are the ladies of the chorale so worried about this? If it's obvious overreach by Republicans, why not sell them the rope to hang themselves? But it may not be. And that's what's got you all sh*ttin in your Dr. Dentons.

In fact, every post by you and every other member of the chorale comparing the death totals from Bengahzi to Iraq does devalue those deaths in Libya by implication. And you should all be ashamed. The suggestion that it's the administration and its supporters in the congressional Amen Corner (and not those mean old Republicans with their political motives) who are truly valuing the dead in Benghazi with their continued lying and covering up is preposterous.

It was Secretary Frequent Flyer Miles who assured the father of one of the victims that "we're gonna get the guy responsible for that video." That lie honors the dead?

[walrus]

Does anyone actually think congress is going to investigate the Iraq war? Weren't they privy to the same info as Bush and didn't they approve the war. Congress had nothing to with Benghazi so fire away

[burd]

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

You figure if you keep shrieking "it's just politics" that'll make this go away? Why are the ladies of the chorale so worried about this? If it's obvious overreach by Republicans, why not sell them the rope to hang themselves? But it may not be. And that's what's got you all sh*ttin in your Dr. Dentons.

Oh I don't think it will go away. There's a tail wagging the republican dog that will not allow it to. Will that same group attempt to impeach Obama on account of the ACA? Possible.

I personally could care less if they have hearings on the matter. If they find out things that can help prevent this from happening again, then good. But if it turns out to be a bunch of political gamesmanship, don't call me surprised. And don't ask me to believe that these House Reps are doing this out of concern over the four who lost their lives.

[GrinCDXX]

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

What are you afraid of? And don't forget "racist." That's the ******* "twofer."

Please point out any inaccuracy in the post you deemed "irrational." The truth, evidently, hurts.

It wasn't so much about inaccuracy as it was about your stunning ignorance of the fundamental difference between the two events you were comparing.

[Old Pio]

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

Oh I don't think it will go away. There's a tail wagging the republican dog that will not allow it to. Will that same group attempt to impeach Obama on account of the ACA? Possible.

I personally could care less if they have hearings on the matter. If they find out things that can help prevent this from happening again, then good. But if it turns out to be a bunch of political gamesmanship, don't call me surprised. And don't ask me to believe that these House Reps are doing this out of concern over the four who lost their lives.

You're right. It is about politics. What's stunning is that you're apparantly only offended when Republicans do it. This has been going on now for over 200 years.

[Old Pio]

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

It wasn't so much about inaccuracy as it was about your stunning ignorance of the fundamental difference between the two events you were comparing.

"Stunning ignorance of the. . .two events." Let's parse that a little. Of course the events were different. But so were the presidential responses. On the night OBL was clipped didn't Obama go on national TV to brag? And weren't there pictures taken and shown of him acting all presidential in the Situation Room? Or did I imagine all that. And on the night of the 8 hours of film critic raids on the diplomatic compound in Libya, did Obama go on national TV to brag? Were there any pictures taken and released of him acting all presidential in the Situation Room that night? In fact, do we, at this late date still not have a clear picture of where he was, who he consulted with, what he was told and what he decided to do? We do know that he began spreading the lie about a video for the next ten days or so. Yet you claim I'm stunningly ignorant of the events of those nights. Black Knight, meet reality.