TakeYouToTasker Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 Was he reading "My Pet Goat?" We don't live in the backwards comparative.
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 We don't live in the backwards comparative. Whatever. Today is the 150th anniversary of the Battle of the Wilderness and of Sherman's move south towards Atlanta
B-Man Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 Why Benghazi Matters The public still waits for a full accounting. Watergate defines the vocabulary for American political scandals, and so it was no surprise that former Obama-administration communications operative Anita Dunn took to the airwaves yesterday morning to pour derision upon the notion that a “smoking gun” has been uncovered in the form of recently released e-mails documenting the White House’s disinformation campaign following the Benghazi attack. A dozen Democrats have asked, “Where’s the scandal?” But the question here is not whether the administration’s misleading statements in the wake of the attacks on U.S. installations in Egypt and Libya are a political scandal in the style of President Nixon’s infamous burglary; they aren’t. But that the administration’s misdeeds here seem to fall short of felony burglary hardly makes the matter a less serious one: The White House misled the American public about a critical matter of national interest, and it continues to practice deceit as the facts of the case are sorted out. That, to answer Hillary Clinton’s callous question, is what difference it makes. The Benghazi dishonesty did not end with Susan Rice’s now-infamous 2012 Sunday-show storytelling circuit, in which she blamed the attack on an Internet video that Muslims found insulting but that in fact had nothing to do with what was an organized jihadist attack. Last week, press secretary Jay Carney managed to annoy the usually pliant White House press corps with his embarrassing attempt to explain away the withholding of documents sought by Congress, saying that the e-mails in question were not about Benghazi, despite the fact that there is a section thereof titled “Benghazi.” He has labeled investigation into the matter evidence of a “conspiracy theory.” It is nothing of the sort, and getting a picture of the administration’s failures and dishonesty in the matter requires no leap of logic or supposition of unknown forces at work. Much more at the link:
Doc Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 Was he reading "My Pet Goat?" If only we knew what he was doing.
Koko78 Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid asked to join Select Committee on Benghazi We'll see what their response is............. What Obama Did on September 11, 2012 American Thinker, by Jack Cashill Original Article They should be, it's not like Harry and Nancy are partisan hacks who will do everything possible to disrupt, obstruct and delay any findings negative to the approved narrative.
DC Tom Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid asked to join Select Committee on Benghazi We'll see what their response is............. Nancy will explain how the ACA is working, really it is! And Reid will B word about the Koch brothers.
3rdnlng Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 Libs don't want Nancy Pelosi to appoint any dems to Select Committee on Benghazi. Nice political move: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/05/liberals-beg-pelosi-to-not-appoint-democrats-to-benghazi-committee/ Speaker of the House John Boehner has ordered the establishment of a new special committee to investigate the 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi — but some liberals don’t want any Democrats to take part in the hearings. “Member of Congress told me she will urge Nancy Pelosi to appoint NO Democrats to Special Benghazi Committee,” liberal talk radio host Bill Press wrote on Twitter on Monday. “She’s right!” On Monday, Boehner announced that he is tapping South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy to serve as chairman of the select committee hearings. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/05/liberals-beg-pelosi-to-not-appoint-democrats-to-benghazi-committee/#ixzz30so6nWsN
B-Man Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) It is a predictable, planned, political response. Sharyl Attkisson: There’s a ‘Well-Orchestrated Strategy to Controversialize’ Benghazi. And Prof. Ann Althouse agrees... Jane Harman recited not the talking points, but the opposite of talking points on Benghazi. The former Democratic Congresswoman went too far on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday. She intended, I think, to present the Democrats' talking points on Benghazi, but at one point — in just a few words — she let us see the way Democratic Party strategists are talking to each other behind the scenes about the effect the talking points are supposed to have on the public mind. I'm visualizing a memo that has bullet points of what one ought to say out loud and a narrative section of things you don't want to say. The host Chris Wallace turned to Harman for discussion of the new efforts to investigate what happened 2 years ago in Benghazi, and she quickly got to the declaration "This is a circus" and the suggestion that the idea is "to get Hillary Clinton or some way to embarrass her during the election season." {snip} but here's the kind of thing Harman's Area-51-Vince-Foster remark made me feel they are saying in private: We need people to hear the word "Benghazi" as a buzzword of nuts. Somebody says "Benghazi" and the reflex reaction is "Oh, no, here we go again with the conspiracy theories." It should be like when somebody brings up Area 51 or Vince Foster was murdered. A normal person is like "Ugh! Leave me alone." That's the way "Benghazi" should feel. Somebody says "Benghazi" and all anybody thinks is "conspiracy nutcase." Nobody who wants to be considered mainstream in this election should be able to say "Benghazi" anymore. Case closed, and you've built in the respect for Hillary saying "What difference at this point does it make?" Everybody decent — if we get this idea across — will react to Benghazi with a Hillary-esque exasperated "What difference does it make?" If it makes a difference to you, you're crazy. This is a circus. You're a clown. A scary clown. Boo! Aliens! Benghazi! Vince Foster! Sounds familiar......................lol . Edited May 5, 2014 by B-Man
B-Man Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 BENGHAZI AND THE STREISAND EFFECT: “There’s a limit to how often you can scream and mock and dismiss something as being irrelevant before people start thinking that you’re protesting too much, particularly if the press isn’t playing along. And enough of them are not this time to make the strategy a little too obvious,” Moe Lane writes. Read the whole thing. “Hillary Language On Benghazi Identical To Rhodes Email — 1 1/2 Days Before!” from Dick Morris: On September 13, 2012, — one and a half days before Obama aide Ben Rhodes sent an email advising UN Ambassador Susan Rice to blame the Benghazi attacks on a protest over an anti-Muslim Internet video — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the identical language embedded in a statement about the attacks. The congruence of the two word-for-word statements suggests, at the very least, a close coordination between and White House and Hillary Clinton to deceive the American people about the true nature of the attack in Benghazi. And it may also be evidence that Hillary Clinton engineered that decision immediately following the attacks. Was the cover-up Hillary’s idea? The emails beg the question. Now Congress must investigate and decide what the answer is. Oh, and I'm well aware that Dick morris is a scumbag, but he does know and work closely with the Clintons for years and we have not. .
Tiberius Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 If Hillary announces she doesn't feel like running for President this whole thing would go away in ten minutes.
DC Tom Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 If Hillary announces she doesn't feel like running for President this whole thing would go away in ten minutes. Yeah, right. Just like how no one ever blames anything on Bush anymore.
Tiberius Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 Yeah, right. Just like how no one ever blames anything on Bush anymore. Oh, I missed the forming of a sub committee to investigate yellow cake claims...
B-Man Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) What was Obama really doing during Benghazi? By Andrew Malcolm http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/050514-699553-obama-benghazi-talking-points-ben-rhodes-memo.htm?ven=rss WHY BENGHAZI MATTERS: “Benghazi matters because it was and is a matter of national honor,” Michael Walsh writes. “And the men and women currently in charge in Washington have no honor.” The Complete Chronology of the Benghazi Deception By Peter Kirsanow From March 2011 to today , Edited May 6, 2014 by B-Man
DC Tom Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Oh, I missed the forming of a sub committee to investigate yellow cake claims... No, they skipped that and went straight to impeachment... https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hres1258/text
meazza Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 For Meazza: I saw this last night. I actually think he's a half decent human being but he's blindly partisan all while attacking people being blindly partisan.
Tiberius Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 I saw this last night. I actually think he's a half decent human being but he's blindly partisan all while attacking people being blindly partisan. What did you think about him calling out Jim Cramer?
Deranged Rhino Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 I saw this last night. I actually think he's a half decent human being but he's blindly partisan all while attacking people being blindly partisan. And I would argue that's the joke he's making... and it's the irony that's missed by a large number of posters on this forum.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) No, he's not. It's a sadly common misconception among headline babies such as yourself that because Bush said Iraq was part of the war on terror, he also said that Saddam was behind 9/11. It's also why your opinion on the matter isn't to be taken seriously - the actual policy was much more nuanced than you can understand, so everything you say about it is flawed because of your fundamental ignorance of the matter. We've all known of the concept of "argument of convenience" for quite some time. Most of us heard it the first time we were asked "if Jimmy jumps off of Niagara Falls, does that mean you have to?" Regardless of the supposed parental wisdom ensconced in that question, it is nonetheless an argument of convenience. Now? We have "evolved". In addition to various arguments of convenience like "the unemployment rate is going down, therefore Obama Good... (never mind that Republican "obstruction" of Obama policies has directly coincided with, and is correlated directly to, the decrease of the unemployment rate) we now have to deal with? Nuance by Convenience! Nuance, and it's calibration, apparently is under the sole province of Democrats. Things can/can not be nuanced, when and if they say they can. Therefore, all thinking about the Iraq war is at bumper sticker lever, while, all thinking about Benghazi hinges on a myriad of fine points. You don't get to control the nuance setting, DC_Tom. Only the enlightened people get to determine what is nuanced and what is not. It's about time you figured that out. After all, your master's degree in physics is nothing compared to a law degree, with an undergrad in Poly Sci/various forms of identity majors. Edited May 7, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
meazza Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 And I would argue that's the joke he's making... and it's the irony that's missed by a large number of posters on this forum. Except for the last year he was arguing that the accusations over Benghazi were false and now he's arguing that it doesn't matter because Bush bad? But hey whenever Jon runs out of material, he could take out of context quotes from Fox news and run it since that seems to keep the idiots in line.
Recommended Posts