IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 many of you won't like the source for the link and a few more might not like the speaker but it makes sense to me: http://www.dailykos....The-Press-VIDEO. and pickering was clearly p$$ed. and directly contradicted his allegation on his lack of congressional testimony. now issa wants him to testify privately. hmmm... comments? Calling David Brooks a "conservative Republican" is like calling Barack Obama a slightly left-of-center Democrat.
birdog1960 Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 Calling David Brooks a "conservative Republican" is like calling Barack Obama a slightly left-of-center Democrat. i'm so surprised! ad hominem on brooks...but is he correct ?(almost wrote "right" but caught myself). softening it a bit, might he be correct? if not, why not?
DC Tom Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 i'm so surprised! ad hominem on brooks...but is he correct ?(almost wrote "right" but caught myself). softening it a bit, might he be correct? if not, why not? Yeah, well...LA's right, Brooks is the sort of "token Republican" left-leaning shills trot out to say "See! We're objective!" (Like Colmes' role on the old Hannity and Colmes show). And I gave you the benefit of the doubt and refrained from pointing that out...but given you ignored my substantive observation and went straight to bitching about an ad hominem attack, it seems I was wrong. You're not interested in discussing it, you're more interested in **** slinging.
3rdnlng Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 Yeah, well...LA's right, Brooks is the sort of "token Republican" left-leaning shills trot out to say "See! We're objective!" (Like Colmes' role on the old Hannity and Colmes show). And I gave you the benefit of the doubt and refrained from pointing that out...but given you ignored my substantive observation and went straight to bitching about an ad hominem attack, it seems I was wrong. You're not interested in discussing it, you're more interested in **** slinging. Damn, just cancelled the popcorn. If you guys and gals decide to get serious, please give us a little notice. Sounds like it could be a lot of B word slapping from both sides.
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 i'm so surprised! ad hominem on brooks...but is he correct ?(almost wrote "right" but caught myself). softening it a bit, might he be correct? if not, why not? I would have figured Tom's comment set your straight. Apparently not. Let me put it before you again. And I will add as simply as I can: there is no way that any objective person can review the details on Benghazi and believe, at this point, that it's all politics. The talking points were changed to protect stories and people. Period. Even admitted liberals (i.e. see Kirsten Powers) are stunned that the WH continues to blantantly lie about what they said. So here again is Tom's comment: He's inaccurate. Both a CIA compound and a diplomatic consulate (i.e. a State Dept. building) were attacked. That fact alone blows a giant hole in his entire thesis. AND it doesn't change the fact that, whatever other finger pointing happens, the "talking points" were changed a dozen times at a high, political level to misrepresent events.
Oxrock Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 Yeah, well...LA's right, Brooks is the sort of "token Republican" left-leaning shills trot out to say "See! We're objective!" (Like Colmes' role on the old Hannity and Colmes show). And I gave you the benefit of the doubt and refrained from pointing that out...but given you ignored my substantive observation and went straight to bitching about an ad hominem attack, it seems I was wrong. You're not interested in discussing it, you're more interested in **** slinging. you !@#$ing sand crab... Brooks is nothing like Colmes. Colmes never waivers in his left wing convictions. Brooks is left wing who pretends to be conservative.
birdog1960 Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 (edited) I would have figured Tom's comment set your straight. Apparently not. Let me put it before you again. And I will add as simply as I can: there is no way that any objective person can review the details on Benghazi and believe, at this point, that it's all politics. The talking points were changed to protect stories and people. Period. Even admitted liberals (i.e. see Kirsten Powers) are stunned that the WH continues to blantantly lie about what they said. So here again is Tom's comment: i think if you watch and listen to pickering on last sundays meet the press, you'll conclude he disagrees with you. and why would issa want to take his testimony in private. david brooks would have been unanimously considered a center republican when i was still a party member....before the wacko's hijacked it. it's the party that's changed, not brooks. Edited May 14, 2013 by birdog1960
1billsfan Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 i think if you watch and listen to pickering on last sundays meet the press, you'll conclude he disagrees with you. and why would issa want to take his testimony in private. david brooks would have been unanimously considered a center republican when i was still a party member....before the wacko's hijacked it. it's the party that's changed, not brooks. Do you believe the president when he says he's been calling Benghazi a terrorist attack all along? Even though there is video of him blaming the video on major networks? I'm not sure what Pickering, Issa or Brooks has to do with that. It's no longer a point of discussion, this administration flat out lied to the America people about a terror attack which resulted in the killings of four Americans. They clearly ignored pleas for more security before the attack. The only point of discussion left on Benghazi is whether anything could have been done during the attack to save the people who died and whether the president or Clinton were derelict in their jobs that night.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 many of you won't like the source for the link and a few more might not like the speaker but it makes sense to me: http://www.dailykos....The-Press-VIDEO. and pickering was clearly p$$ed. and directly contradicted his allegation on his lack of congressional testimony. now issa wants him to testify privately. hmmm... comments? Come now birdog, is every day for you Polyanna day? Pickering was a tactic, and now he's been exposed as a failed tactic. Nothing more, nothing less. He was a tactic that was designed to be an argument ender, since Pickering's cred is beyond reproach, and his scope was intentionally set up to produce the intended result: "There's nothing else to see here". However, it is failed tactic. This is because: Pickering is the perfect example of "government thinker". His decades of acting this way meant that he could be counted on to operate as intended. He himself used his "scope" all weekend, as in, what he was told to do vs. told not to do, and following that to the letter, as the reason why he acted the way he did. The failure occurred here: in doing that, he exposed the scope as the political hackery that it is. The hilarious part? Both the scope and Pickering operated as designed. So, once again, if you want something done right, put the far left in charge of doing the opposite. If any of us here were asked to conduct this Pickering's investigation? Would we all not ask Hillary any questions, too? Of course not.
birdog1960 Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 Do you believe the president when he says he's been calling Benghazi a terrorist attack all along? Even though there is video of him blaming the video on major networks? I'm not sure what Pickering, Issa or Brooks has to do with that. It's no longer a point of discussion, this administration flat out lied to the America people about a terror attack which resulted in the killings of four Americans. They clearly ignored pleas for more security before the attack. The only point of discussion left on Benghazi is whether anything could have been done during the attack to save the people who died and whether the president or Clinton were derelict in their jobs that night. and just what was hoped to be gained in this lie? did he do it just to pi$$ of the far right? to give them an opening to politically attack him? to hurt clinton for the next election? none of these seem near as plausible as brook's explanation. maybe you have a better one to explain the desired end effect of the "lie". pickering has something to do with it because he ran the official investigation into the event and has not yet testified. issa is running the congressional circus act and brooks put forth a plausible explanation. that makes them salient.
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 and just what was hoped to be gained in this lie? did he do it just to pi$$ of the far right? to give them an opening to politically attack him? to hurt clinton for the next election? Right, right... Why would a sitting Democratic president, with a serious foriegn policy problem, viewed by many as a Carteresqe capitulating dove, want to cover up a terrorist attack that was only able to be successfully carried out because of highest level administrative incompetance, on the anniverasry of 9/11, in the middle of election season? Gee whiz... I just can't figure it out...
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 i think if you watch and listen to pickering on last sundays meet the press, you'll conclude he disagrees with you. He does disagree with me. Unlike Pickering admitted on MTP, I would have asked Hillary questions about what happened. How do you NOT ask her questions? david brooks would have been unanimously considered a center republican when i was still a party member....before the wacko's hijacked it. it's the party that's changed, not brooks. So who's a more Conservative Republican? Brooks or Huntsman?
1billsfan Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 and just what was hoped to be gained in this lie? did he do it just to pi$$ of the far right? to give them an opening to politically attack him? to hurt clinton for the next election? none of these seem near as plausible as brook's explanation. maybe you have a better one to explain the desired end effect of the "lie". pickering has something to do with it because he ran the official investigation into the event and has not yet testified. issa is running the congressional circus act and brooks put forth a plausible explanation. that makes them salient. I don't know, maybe to create "mush" as Brooks would call it so as to avoid being blamed for the meltdown in Benghazi and win reelection. Blaming the CIA is simply laughable. You're like the low self esteem girlfriend believing her boyfriend's excuse over her lying eyes when she just walked into the bedroom and saw him in bed with another woman.
birdog1960 Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 Right, right... Why would a sitting Democratic president, with a serious foriegn policy problem, viewed by many as a Carteresqe capitulating dove, want to cover up a terrorist attack that was only able to be successfully carried out because of highest level administrative incompetance, on the anniverasry of 9/11, in the middle of election season? Gee whiz... I just can't figure it out... sure, because terrorist attacks have been so rare on US assets in the last decade or so...this type of incident is unique to obama's tenure.
meazza Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 sure, because terrorist attacks have been so rare on US assets in the last decade or so...this type of incident is unique to obama's tenure. Of course not but who went around parading saying that Al Qaeda is no more?
GG Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 sure, because terrorist attacks have been so rare on US assets in the last decade or so...this type of incident is unique to obama's tenure. How many times does the same thing needs to be explained to you? Why was the dissemination of information different in this case than in the other attacks on diplomatic offices over the last decade?
meazza Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 How many times does the same thing needs to be explained to you? Why was the dissemination of information different in this case than in the other attacks on diplomatic offices over the last decade? It's the same line of reasoning for all of them. One of the lefties comes up with a new reason and they all parrot it.
1billsfan Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 sure, because terrorist attacks have been so rare on US assets in the last decade or so...this type of incident is unique to obama's tenure. What made this unique is that there are four dead Americans and one of the them was an ambassador. What made this unique is that the ambassador was pleading for more security leading up to the attack. What made this unique was that they lied to America about the attack. Your MSNBC talking points are not going to work. In fact, it's rather insulting that you're bringing them here on such an open and shut matter of fact. There's being a good little soldier and then there's being a believer to the point of a cult follower.
birdog1960 Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 It's the same line of reasoning for all of them. One of the lefties comes up with a new reason and they all parrot it. pot meet kettle
IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2013 Posted May 14, 2013 Hey, remember during the Benghazi hearings when a couple of liberal congressmen kept using the WaPo fact checker as an authoritative voice to discredit Issa? http://www.washingto...a31f9_blog.html During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate. But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now. Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start. Four Pinocchios
Recommended Posts