| Author | Message | ||
     Boltrider |
And when dishonesty surrounds events where folks died, it reaches a more pathetic low point, even for those on Capitol Hill. | ||
| Garryb |
There have been people who have been displaced in this economy who don't the right skills. It will a challenge to get them all working again. But... there is a massive growth of wealth going on for those with the right skills. Cars are selling, houses are selling and we have yet to see the effect of all the new wealth this economy has created. The stock market is a leading indicator of the economy. | ||
| Garryb |
But somehow I don't think I will convince many here. So long and thanks for all the fish. | ||
| Sifo |
Perhaps you could convince someone by filling in some details, rather than just making claims of BO doing something. How about, what policies exactly are causing the stock market to soar to new highs? I'll ignore for the moment that everything else you mentioned, housing, cars, etc. are anemic at best. | ||
| Reindog |
First of all, this thread is about Benghazi. Your last two postings only devoted 33 words debating Benghazi. The remaining 214 words were to bash Bush and Republicans. This says something about your attention span, if not your character. Take your off topic arguments to a different thread. Thanks in advance. Second of all, please spell Benghazi correctly. There were numerous other spelling errors in your post which speaks to your intellect. Cry all you want but your audience judges you by what you say and how you say it. Benghazi has the potential to be the defining issue of Obama's second term. Nixon resigned for less. Doesn't it bother you what is slowly being learned by the lying? Doesn't it bother you that Obama slept through the 3AM call? Doesn't it bother you about the 12 talking points revisions that went from Al-Queda involvement to an innocuous youtube as the reason for the murder? Doesn't it bother you that someone called for a military stand down in the heat of battle? Doesn't it bother you that Obama flew to Nevada the next day for campaigning rather than doing his job? Doesn't it bother you to watch Rice, Clinton, Obama deliberately lie to the families of the murdered and then to the world for several weeks? Doesn't it bother you that the US spent money with an apology for the youtube on Pakistani television? Doesn't it bother you for the attack of the three whistleblowers? Doesn't it bother you than ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC have ignored this vitally important story? Doesn't it bother you that Obama went to the UN with this lie? Doesn't it bother you that the President of Libya was stonewalled which directly led to the FBI being denied access to the scene of the battle? And I am just warming up. These things bother me. Apparently, they don't bother you. "Poorly handled" indeed. Your are more than welcome to participate but keep to the point. If it becomes clear that you have once again lost the debate, please don't storm out of this room like a child throwing a temper tantrum, like you usually do. Bush Derangement Syndrome ain't selling here. We are all stocked up on it. | ||
| Reindog |
Wow, Garryb picked up his toys and left the room before I was even able to compose my posting. Typical. | ||
| Garryb |
You hurt my feelings again. I wish you could be nicer and not attack me personally. Oh well... | ||
| Reindog |
I am simply trying to help you be a better debater. You go off topic, present yourself poorly, and storm off when you don't get your way. You have demonstrated this behavior many times. I actually figured that you might be the first person to present an opposing viewpoint. That is a good thing and you are welcome to debate Benghazi all you want. Please bash Bush and tell us how wonderful Wonderful is on a different thread. BTW: I like your Buell and your website. (Message edited by reindog on May 11, 2013) | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
Well said, dog. | ||
| Reindog |
Does anyone know who the 14 news organizations that attended yesterday's secretive "deep background" briefing at the White House? Doesn't that make an alarm bell go off in the back of the head of even the most ardent ProgLib supporter? This is getting more Nixonian by the day. | ||
| Tootal |
I have not read this whole thread yet but on this page it says that the lame street media has not mentioned any of this. Here's a link to ABC that is actually talking about it. It's about time!! http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclu sive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revision s-scrubbed-of-terror-references/ | ||
| Kenm123t |
look and you will find the media presidents family work in the White House That's why the LAME STREAM media wont cover Obama. The media works for Obama When the purge comes we need to hang pols lawyers and Journalists on the same lamp posts. | ||
| Aesquire |
There are some parallels here between Afghanistan-Iraq and the Libya-Egypt-Syria badness. What did Bush do? Freed 50 million people in the first 2 countries mentioned above. We had a fairly low number of Terrorist attacks, after 9/11/01, and he brought the economy back from the Clinton Recession. The bad news? While kicking the active terrorist cells out of Afghanistan made a lot of sense, the ousting of seriously bad mad men a good thing, after the frankly brilliant initial victory, we stupidly stayed on to the tune of "you broke it, you bought it" ( not something I've heard applied to Obama, at all, but very much true ) and our actions were cautious, sensitive, and bunny hugger fuzzy, mixed with US Troops, insane ROE's and no stated plan.. A bad combo. Iraq, while an even more blitzkrieg success, also fell into the "nation building" sinkhole, see rant on ROE's above. In Both cases, but Especially Iraq, proper deployment, common sense, and control of the Borders would have been far more successful. Now, Obama. Terrorist attacks up. Notably. With lies about them ( Ft. Hood, Boston, etc. ) 90 million out of work, Unemployment figures still bad. Some limited economic recovery, mass reduction of full to part time status for ACA. Freed Libya, using airpower, with light casualties among the Allied Forces, and AFAIK, Then started a Gun Running Operation. Where Is Libya going? Don't know, don't care. We're just letting the inmates run the asylum. ( this may actually be the best way to do things in some places, But not where The Enemy to Western Civ are the Inmates. See WW2, US treatment of Occupied Territories ) Egypt, we assisted with cash and pressure to get a terrorist group in charge. Gee. That's going to work out well. Number of people freed? none. Government sponsored Rape gangs in street, persecution of remaining Christians, serious. Death rate increasing. Syria? Red lines, Russia, Gun Running, Turkey, Israel? Poison gas, mass casualties, enormous mass refugee camps, bluff, bluster, and mistrust. Great. BTW, more casualties under Obama in Afghanistan in 4 years than Bush in 7 in Iraq. Doing something wrong here. Yes. You can Blame Bush for leaving Obama this mess. But. More of Us killed in 4 than 7? Obama did not fix the problem. Now, it's possible that Bush's success in Afghanistan led to Hubris in taking out Saddam, another winner of a madman. If so, has Obama's "success" in Libya and Egypt leading to happy faces around Syria? GarryB, I think you have the "Plame Affair" sideways. Plame's husband says he told the CIA that Nigeria hadn't been selling Uranium to Saddam. ( they had. We shipped it to Canada ) The CIA reported that Nigeria WAS. They say Wilson's report convinced them it was true. I don't know the timeline, but There was Nigerian Uranium in Iraq. It may have been from an earlier purchase than Wilson was asking his buddies in Nigeria over tea about. As to the WMD faulty intelligence. That's what we had. There were WMD's, but we didn't find nearly enough to account for the number Saddam had before the Inspectors were kicked out/withdrawn. SO where are they? | ||
| Sifo |
SO where are they? Crossing a red line in Syria? While I understand why many say it was a bad idea to go into Iraq, we were left there holding the bag, and there was a lot of pressure from liberal world wide to change the status quo. Knowing that thing were going to change, and I've asked this many time with no good answers, but I'll throw it out there again, what should we have done regarding Iraq? Keep in mind that Bill Clinton was in favor of regime change in Iraq, but never did anything about it. Keep in mind Hillary Clinton voted in favor of military action in Iraq. At the time, she had a special relationship with the previous President where she could simply ask for a thumbs up or down on the issue without any classified information being exchanged. I'm sure not happy with how it all unfolded along the way, but honestly, I'm not clear that I would have had a better option to push, even in hindsight. Even looking at the worst estimates of casualties of that war, according to the figures the WHO was pushing before the war, many lives have been saved by overthrowing Saddam. Should we believe what we are told by liberal organizations like the WHO? | ||
| Aesquire |
I have my own opinion on how we should have handled the peace after defeating the Iraqi Army. The actual war was done very well, and with great trickery, misdirection, and movement. That part I have no issues with, except the idiocy of the Press complaining when the US forces stopped for gas, and give Saddam's forces a chance to deploy, out of position, so we could sweep them up. A cautionary tale that, in that the "press" were not told the exact reasons for an action, so that Saddam's surviving Generals couldn't watch it on CNN. Today, Obama's team may have some brilliant ploy that gets unreported for security reasons. ( that seems unlikely, and it's almost a given that the Obama admin. will give out multiple false reports for reasons of individual ego-boo, and drop hints of a scandal Clinton Style to defuse their minions in the Press. "we already addressed that" being a great way to not talk about Presidential incompetence and wrong doing. How I would have handled Iraq? Simple in concept. First, minimal occupation forces in Baghdad and othe major cities. Do not disband, but focus the Iraq Army on the Urban Peace keeping, with Visible and Public support from the puppet, I mean temporary Govt. ( some of this is 20/20 hindsight, But Not occupying a city is basic ) Second, Control the Borders. Since the bulk of insurgents & weapons were coming through a limited front from Iran & Syria, Drones, sensors, reaction teams, and Terror to control the situation. Practice and training for US troops to be held along the US/Mexico Border, the only difference being that Mexican Trespassers get escorted home, by Bus, and Jihadi are killed, and bodies Burned. Why? There were protests at how offensive burning the bodies is in the few cases we did it, My position is that since the Muslim Leadership ( falsely ) claimed that the terrorists weren't "true Muslims" that defiling the bodies is acceptable to the Koran. ( not mutilation, just diesel and Thermite ) That would either force an end to denials about the Jihad, ( not bloody likely ) or a severe reduction in it's popularity. ( I wouldn't actually send vats of Pig blood for Bullet dipping, but would spread rumors that we did. ) I'd also put huge billboards near the Borders with pics of that female soldier leading a naked Iraqi Prisoner around on a leash. In farsi & arabic, captions to the effect "this is what you get, fighting us". Bear in mind I'd also prosecute prisoner abuse, but This is a War For Hearts And Minds. Use psychological pressure, not bombing markets. Third, "gently suggest" a simple, modified US Constitution for Iraq, and Refuse, absolutely any attempt to make "an Islamic Republic" out of a secular nation. Fourth, Inform the Planet that supporting the Clan of Saddam, or the Jihad, gets your Government Leaders removed. Then decapitate the Leadership of Iran, Syria, even Russia, if need be, the moment you have proof of support. No invasion, no occupation, just heavy use of ICBM-Cruise Missile-Stealth Drone, what ever works. In Iran, for example, the Revolutionary Guard, the Mullahs in the Council, and the President all killed or on the run With No US presence on the ground But support for a Secular Democratic revolt would IMHO work wonders. Or I could be wrong, and the A$$holes would still be dead, and not killing us, and we deal with the new A$$holes the same way until someone gets the message. I admit stopping Russia and China are a bit harder. World Domination is beyond the scope of your Question. Fifth. Deploy Thor kinetic kill weapons, ( actually the first thing you do, but not tell anyone ) Build the 2nd gen Shuttle, and speed deployment of ABM systems to Poland, Israel. Begin the Orbital Solar project, Thorium Reactor Initiative, New Nuclear Waste Cleanup Project, and Garbage to Fuel plants, nation wide. ( Food for fuel is insane ) I also have some Domestic Agenda items. I wouldn't have known that Fracking was going to have such potential, but the Strategic concept is to "reduce dependence on foreign oil" and "Crush the Enemies of Freedom" at the same time, by actually reducing our dependence on oil for electricity production. Lots of new and cleaner electricity. ( which you need for electric cars ) This is, of course, a short, simplified version. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/will-obama- suffer-the-second-term-curse/2013/05/11/3d6b3cde-b a61-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_print.html I still think he's just going to slide on this one. I don't think Hitler had a press nearly as willing to cover for him. ( one that was in more fear of him, yes. ) This could change. Every reporter Dreams of breaking that new Watergate, and getting famous. It's possible that someone out there is working on that Big Story that will Bring Down The Power. I just don't know what it will be. Barack could get caught in a gay snuff film scandal. ( doubtful, no indication he's into Snuff. Then again, there wouldn't be, would there? ) Or someone could actually remember him being at Columbia? Or his records in Jihadi camp in Pakistan could surface. But I suspect that Barack Obama could be seen covered in blood running through the Mall with a machete and it would be no big deal to the Media. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sifo, as to what I would have done BEFORE, actually, Instead of invading Iraq? I said at the time, we should do "The Palace A Day Club". We know Saddam had multiple "palaces" that were ammo dumps, and WMD facilities, called Palaces to evade UN inspection. We also knew he was sleeping in different people's houses every night. So when Saddam didn't cooperate, every night, blow up a palace. ( or a Republican Guard facility ) No invasion, just keep destroying the visible power of the Dictator. ( while covertly pushing a popular secular revolution ) I'd also take over the TV & radio in the Middle east and propagandize the crap out of them. I suspect "Buffy" would have a greater long term effect than bombs. | ||
| Sifo |
Just curious, but how do you know he voted for Obama? Benghazi whistle-blower a Democrat, voted for Hillary and Obama twice | ||
| Reindog |
Benghazi: What did president know and when he did know it? By U-T San Diego Editorial BoardMay 11, 2013 After last week’s House interviews of three members of the Obama administration with firsthand knowledge of what happened at Benghazi, Libya, this is now incontrovertible: No one at the scene ever believed the lethal attacks on two U.S. facilities on Sept. 11-12, 2012, were anything but terrorism. Yet the very next day, the administration officials began offering up a concocted story that asserted the attacks stemmed from a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam YouTube video suddenly boiled over into violence. That is not a small lie. That is an elaborate lie. It was concocted even though former CIA Director David Petraeus testified it was immediately well-known in national security circles that the attacks were the work of Islamic terrorists — and no wonder. That’s what those on the scene reported. Yet for two weeks after the attacks, from President Obama on down, the U.S. government put forward this fiction to explain who was responsible for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, security officials Tyrone Woods of Imperial Beach and Glen Doherty of Encinitas, and information officer Sean Smith, who grew up in San Diego. Most offensively, Tyrone Woods’ father, Charles, was told by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a memorial service that the U.S. government would “arrest and prosecute” the maker of the offensive video. This cover-up took shape as the president was enmeshed in what appeared to be a close battle for re-election with Republican Mitt Romney. Would Obama have gone on to win if the truth had been told about the attacks? If the White House had done so immediately, quite possibly. But cover-ups are often more damaging than what they seek to hide. If it was well known by Election Day that the administration had repeatedly peddled a concocted lie about a terrorist attack, the result might have been different. This is a huge story and an appalling scandal. Yet much media coverage of last week’s House hearing depicted it as an unsubstantive, partisan side show. This was done even though the hearings produced ample proof that Americans were lied to for weeks about a terrorist attack. So we once again ask: “What did the president know and when did he know it?” If he was misled by someone in his administration, who was it? If he wasn’t — yet kept repeating politically advantageous lies — that is a permanent stain on his presidency. The probe into how Stevens, Woods, Doherty and Smith died doesn’t seem to have many loose ends. The probing into the cover-up triggered by their deaths has only begun. | ||
| Reindog |
Dick Durban and Dianne Feinstein made their SusanRice-esque pirouettes on the Sunday morning talk shows with their predictable smearing of people who are attempting to discover and disseminate the truth. The 2010 election now appears to be of critical importance in putting brakes to the Socialist expansionism and lying of the Community Organizer in Chief thanks to representatives like Darryl Issa. Sorry Dicky and Dianne, the Benghazi Hearings are just getting started. Obama and Hillary must be made accountable to the American People for their reprehensible and un-American actions. Eventually, even Obama supporters will come around and reluctantly agree with us. Just like what happened to President Nixon in 1974, a full two years after the original Watergate break in. | ||
| Reindog |
Kind of interesting that we haven't heard a peep out of Susan Rice since September. Oh yeah, that is because of the Evil and racist and misogynist Republicans who blocked her from becoming Hillary's successor as Secretary of State? Rice needs to be subpoenaed and provide testimony under oath as she can provide details about the chain of lies. Drip, drip, drip...just like Watergate. PS: A big hello and hat tip to garryb: I know you are reading this. (Message edited by reindog on May 12, 2013) | ||
| Reindog |
Hillary de Medici  Great commentary by Roger L. Simon. The cracks in the mainstream media's protection of Obama are slowly started to show. This is a great opportunity for the next Woodward-Bernstein to make a name for his or her self by actually practicing journalism. Link --> Benghazi Continues: Hillary de Medici, by Roger L. Simon excerpt: "The Benghazi scandal is not over. You will be told that by a lot of people. There is no smoking gun, etc. (Actually, there are many.) Some folks on the right, because they have been so accustomed to failure in the face of a monolithic media, will be ready to throw in the towel. That group is particularly disturbing because they are the very people who should be pushing this forward. Without realizing it, their proclamations of pessimism are a self-fulfilling prophecy. I urge them to overcome it for the sake of our country, because — trust me — Benghazi is not over. It has only just begun." (Message edited by reindog on May 12, 2013) | ||
| Reindog |
 | ||
| Doc13 |
"Honorable" lol | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/d owd-when-myths-collide-in-the-capital.html?_r=1& “It’s not true, it’s not true, it’s not true, it’s old news.” | ||
| Reindog |
Richard Milhouse Nixon = Barack Milhouse Obama. The discovery of executive power abuse is widening. * Benghazi-gate. * The IRS targeting of Conservative groups. * Sebelius's HHS and the ObamaCare shakedown of private corporations. * The Fast and Furious investigation needs to be reopened. * The illegal appointments to the NRLB need to undergo further discovery and every ruling since then by the NRLB struck down. This really is beginning to smell like Watergate with a megalomaniac abusing Executive power. Obama is quickly, quickly becoming a Lame Duck President in less than five months of his second term. Mr. President: Go golfing or go home. | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
This is not surprising really, if one considers that Obama had no executive government experience at all before becoming President. As a result, he relies more than any other President ever has on a very small group of inexperienced advisors, and is almost totally isolated from any other member of the government. | ||
| Chauly |
Is Hillary's "What difference does it make?!" her "Howard Dean Scream" or Tom Eagleton's tears? | ||
| Fb1 |
Several headlines from today's news: - Rubio calls for resignation of IRS commissioner over scandal - Newt Gingrich: The Obama admin won’t profile terrorists, but they’ll profile ‘patriots’? This is almost madness - Chuck Todd on IRS targeting right-wing groups: “Why aren’t more Democrats jumping on this? It’s outrageous…” - IRS officials knew in 2011 that right-wing groups were being targeted - Mark Levin: “We cannot have an Internal Revenue Service in the country that acts like the KGB!” - Richard Grenell: Both ABC and CBS presidents have SIBLINGS that work for Obama at the White House - “They knew they were gonna die” – Parents of SEAL Team 6 member want answers in son’s death - Pat Smith tells Hillary Clinton ‘Happy Mothers Day’: She’s got her kid but I don’t have mine, BECAUSE OF HER Reindog, with all due respect: >>> Mr. President: Go There, fixed it for you. | ||
| Sifo |
Odd thing about the IRS scandal. I saw Judge Napolitano talking about this this morning. He made the point that regardless of who is responsible for this, there's no criminal charge that can be made for a member of the federal government being involved in this sort of behavior. I guess it's not surprising that the details of our laws have been written such a way so as to protect those who would tyrannically trample our liberties. Still we need answers to who was behind this. There are currently too many huge scandals for people ever get a grasp on them, even if the media were to focus on them. I see a market open for a new 24/7 cable news channel, covering nothing but current political scandals. Most transparent administration my ass. |
