About the Benghazi attack and the statements various people made about it:
... I think one of the reasons that Susan Rice told the story she did, if the truth came out a few weeks before the election that our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had been overrun by an al Qaeda sponsored or affiliated militia, that destroys the narrative we’ve been hearing for months that al Qaeda has been dismantled, bin Laden is dead, we’re safer.... [T]he story she told reinforced a political narrative helpful to the president, but disconnected from reality....
The president said, why pick on her? She didn’t know anything about Benghazi. She was the most politically compliant person they could find.... Would this White House mislead the American people about national security events? I think they might simply because when the bin Laden raid occurred, they leaked every detail about the raid....
There are 10 militia groups all over Benghazi. I blame the president for…making this a death trap. I blame the president for not having assets available to help these people for eight hours. We need a select committee not only to look at intelligence failures...
Also in today's MTP transcript: the House and Senate intelligence chairs Congressman Mike Rogers and Senator Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein is clear that on Sept. 14th, David Petraeus said the Benghazi attack was terrorism. Why did Susan Rice say otherwise on Sept. 16th? Rogers says:
The intelligence community had it right, and they had it right early. What happened was it worked its way up through the system of the so-called talking points, which everyone refers to, and then it went up to what’s called a deputy’s committee... that’s populated by appointees from the administration. That’s where the narrative changed. And so how that thing got back to Senator Rice, I think, is probably another question.
Feinstein says the White House did not change the talking points (other than to change the word "consulate" to "mission"). Rogers says:
[T]here was no one in the professional intelligence community could tell us who changed what. So that-- there-- there goes the disconnect. So the intelligence community said this is-- this was a terrorist act.
The moderator, David Gregory, says he doesn't get it: "Why not just call it what it was? Who-- why are we protecting?" Feinstein says she doesn't know, and she seems to be really struggling to understand (even though I assume she's trying to protect her party's interests). Gregory asks "was there a cover-up?" And "Do you believe that the president or anybody serving the president deliberately misled the American people about the true nature of this attack for political reasons?" And Feinstein says "no, no." She's the Democrat. The Republican, Rogers, says:
Well, this is what I know. I know the narrative was wrong and the intelligence was right. Now, getting between there and there, I think you have to be careful about making those accusations.... But there were some policy decisions made based on the narrative that was not consistent with the intelligence that we had.
Posts
383 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 383 of 383Well, Inga, I felt the same toward Bush.
Yashu, to me this all seems really straightforward. The idea that something is being covered up has never been credibly put forward. McCain's "explanation" today for what might be covered up, was the funniest thing I've seen yet.
If there is something to get all worked up about IMO, it is that we have been drone-pounding the shite out of Libya all this time and putting ourselves in the middle of all that crazyness just waiting to have our people picked off.
But that's not the sort of basic fundamental question I see on this thread. Nor have I seen it on Fox. Nor did I see it from Gregory.
Let's stop with all the god damned militarism. You can't fix crazy. These are lessons I take from Benghazi. And that aligns me with neither party.
But of course, blasphemy against "The President" (pbuh!) cannot be tolerated!
Thanks harrogate! Heh, you can proud (?) of the fact that reading your comments in this thread is what provoked me back into commenting. Anyway, good to see you too.
YES, why were we still in Libya?
The lesson we have learned is that Obama will leave his people to die when they are attacked by Muslim extremists.
Think of what he is going to do when Iran gets the bomb. If he won't do anything to save his ambassador what is he going to do to save some Jews?
Yes, one wonders how it happened that we came to be involved in Libya.
Oh that dastardly Fox News! They somehow got us involved in Libya, and now our dear President has to extricate us from there.
Fr. Fox,
Are you implying that's what I think happened?
Also, use abstract thinking and you'll note I'm, um, prolly not just talking about Libya.
What a gargantuan waste of human life our entire foreign policy has involved, over the last decade and change. Just sickening. I wish more Americans actually cared about that.
Fr.Fox, I think perhaps you watch too much Fox, if it was called Wolf news I bet you wouldn't watch nearly so much.
Harrogate:
No, I'm lampooning Inga who approves of every single thing Mr. Obama does, or might ever do, world without end.
We got involved in Libya to facilitate the takeover of another government by Muslim extremists. Just like we did in Eygpt (you know a war is starting there...ssh don't mention it). As is going to happen in Syria. And Turkey. And finally Saudi Arabia.
That is the Obama doctrine that Lem was asking about.
Inga taunts: Why? Because you simply loathe him. Yes even the man of God.
I don't loathe him--I don't know Obama from Adam. I do think that he and his devoted followers loathe me. Maybe that's what you're sensing?
edutcher - "He's on record as saying the Israelis better not bomb Iran and lost Jewish support in the last election for it.
As to Presidents, any from Ike on, with the probable exceptions of Willie and Jimmah, would support Israel here.
Barry is no Ike."
Actually Eisenhower laid down the law after the Iraelis collaborated with the Brits and French, invading Egypt in a surprise attack. Told the Zionists, Brits, and French to exit, poste haste, or he would wreck their economies. The days of colonialist adventures were over. The Soviets agreed with Ike.
Thus ended the 1956 Suez War.
And HW Bush worked like crazy to keep Israel out of the Gulf War because they were more a liability than an asset.
Nor did they help us in Iraq or Afghanistan and we didn't want them either....
And getting into Iraq was in part due to Dubya trusting Israeli assurances that they had agents that gave solid links to WMD.
We don't owe them anything, from the recent past or "our WWII failures". The people that elected Obama care nothing about the Fundie Christian Zionist sentiments of "the Republican Base".
We only should get involved in another Neocon war of nation-building and adventure, in our vital interest and only in absolute last ditch extremis. Ours. Not Israel's.
The public will not support a 3rd decades long several trillion dollar war with tens or even 100s of thousands of US casualties - not unless it is a war of necessity to safeguard US lives.
We can still cripple Iran with actions short of war. Then work to make the Middle East a WMD-free zone.
Israel has some 250-300 nukes. They can destroy Iran if Iran begins a war. Mutual assured destruction.
The rantings of Ahmedinejad mean little....power rests with the Supreme Leader and the Quds...not him.
Baron,
You really think you are writing sane sentences, don't you? That's what's so fucking sad.
I mean, take a breah, put down the LOTR trilogy and the crack pipe too. And turn off the internet. Go outside and see the sun once in a while.
Yeah!
Cedarford is here. Now it's a party!
Inga: Obama's campaign advisors decided early on to fight my cohort--white males. It's undisputed. You're a joiner of that strategy, BTW: vilify one section of the electorate.
I'm supposed to take that bigotry lying down?
FWIW, I was against the vote to go to war in Iraq in 2003.
I thought the action against Afghanistan was clearly justified as self-defense.
I thought--and I will say now--that once we went into Iraq, we had a moral duty to seek some measure of success if possible.
I was against Bush's election, both times, and I was against most of what he did in the war against terror, including all assaults on the Constitution. I am appalled by the TSA, and even more appalled that too few share my fury.
I applauded Mr. Obama--publicly--when he said he'd get rid of torture. But in the main, he's continued all the depressing features of Bush's National-Security State Apparatus, and made it worse with his "Kill List."
And, folks will remember I was slandered, here, by folks supposedly "on the right," not too far back, because I had the timerity to refuse to support Mr. Romney, for many reasons, including his support for torture and more of the same in the endless war.
So that's where I stand.
I do however think its beyond vile to try to smear a President with whatever nonsense Fox news can conjure up, why?
This is an interesting tactic my leftist friends (?) use when discussions don't go their way. The implication is that, whatever your arguments are, you only 'got them from watching Fox News' and hence are beneath contempt.
Very childish and very annoying, especially when coupled with the faux outrage at 'smearing a President'.
Obama smears and soils himself a-plenty without any help from Fox News. All we have to do is look, at something other than the backs of our own eyelids.
Who wanted to arm Syrian rebels? What was Romney's stance on that? Who wanted to run into Chechnya? Or whatever country Russia was fighting with?
Georgia! " We are all Georgians"! Yes that was it.
Inga:
Actually, I liked Mr. Obama until his HHS Mandate. I didn't vote for him, but I tried to see good things in the man.
For example, "here's what I posted when he was elected".
This thing makes Watergate look like a frat boy prank.
But Obama counted on the press to cover for him, and they did. Now he's counting on scandal fatigue to wear the public down. And it will.
Don't worry harroguy. Cedarford is here to outline your boy Obama's policy.
He can carry the ball for your team now.
Fr. Fox,
On that, you prove yourself saner and much, much more morally decent on foreign policy than the luminaries of either party have proven themselves to be.
"Georgia! 'We are all Georgians'! Yes that was it."
Exactly. That's exactly the kind of political rhetoric that our electorate should punish, and punish severely at the polls.
To see John McCain and Lindsay Graham standing there puffing out with dignity, acting like they are these big authorities even as they have beeen so tragically and stupidly wrong on so much, on foreign policy, over the years. It is just breathtaking that people take those waster of life and limb seriously, in any way, on questions of war and peace. Or on much else.
Fr.Fox, you assume I voted for Obama.
Here's an example of my "loathing" President Obama, in a homily I gave April 18, 2009:
We are critical of our President on the stem-cell issue; let us praise him on another issue: He made it clear
that human dignity demands we never torture. Yes: love is hard—such as loving our enemies. Some things we never do because God’s law—
not “national interest”—comes first.
Why? Because you simply loathe him.
Its as if by saying "you simply loathe him" Obama is absolved of all wrong doing.
It fits in nicely with the identity politics that has gotten Obama everything his whole life.
The stuff his father could scarcely even dream about.
Inga:
I made no such assumptions.
I simply note the extent to which you won't criticize him.
That you may have voted for him is a possible inference, but I don't care about that.
And I don't give a rats ass about the felon parole violator,
Says a lot about respect for first amendment rights. That is, people who are inconvenient to the powers that be don't get them.
Not that this surprises.
You don't have to vote for the President to still respect him. We're still all Americans. Because he is President, I wish (and pray) for him to lead our country.
Too bad it doesn't seem he can do it well.
I have criticized him on this forum, several times. I stated before the election for months I wouldnt be voting for him. BUT I won't buy into conspiracy theories cooked up by two old bitter men and Fox news.
The Divine Miss M, of try-the-film-maker-for-murder-now! fame, has moved on and is already tweeting her way into the next phase:
But aren't Jill Kelley and her sister rocking a little Kim Kardashian? C'mon. Take another look. I smell TV movie...make that series.
On that, you prove yourself saner and much, much more morally decent on foreign policy than the luminaries of either party have proven themselves to be.
Never underestimate the brain power of a Catholic priest. That's a mistake I made in high school all the time, until I started getting it toward the end.
So let's have that conversation about Obama's foreign policy:
He's extended many Bush policies and gone further with warrantless wiretapping, the definition of enemy combatants, and dramatically increased the use of drones. This is how he's fighting the "war on terror."
I think this is in lieu of troops, and a constant low level, potentially escalating use of force, which is maybe what he believes (and the crux of the neoconservative use of force to expand democracy that Bush used and abused, and those neocons are still there getting mugged by reality because there's no shortage of liberals in our country getting mugged by reality). Appearing to kill Bin Laden, and be in control as well as appealing to the peace base is how Obama. Be skeptical of a politician's motives.
His actions and his rhetoric don't match. Libya is his war. On Syria, he didn't use his doctrine.
His doctrine and his worldview which has informed many of his actions are possibly not prepared to accept some harsh realities in the Middle East and developing events:
Most muslims still think lowly of us. There are many, armed, militant people and just bringing moderate Muslims into the international fold and vision doesn't appear to be working. Al Qaida affiliates are operating in Libya. Northern Mali is run by people worse than the Taliban. Al Qaida is coming back in Afpak. He's droning the hell out of Waziristan and Yemen.
At what cost does continuing to invest in this leader and this platform? How much longer do we Americans put our trust in his leadership, and this direction?
We have a National Security Apparatus that tramples the Constitution constantly. Begun under Bush; continued--and even made worse--by Obama. He says he got rid of torture, yet he added the "Kill List."
We have the TSA which is a disgrace to a free people. It habituates both citizens and "law enforcement" to degrading treatment of citizens. Don't kid yourself; the things we allow the TSA to do today--for "national security"--will become wider practices by law enforcement elsewhere--again, for "national security."
And it is in this context that the President's assault on free speech is so outrageous.
Worse is that folks who describe themselves as friends of civil liberties yawn and don't give a d***.
chrisnavin.com
I am only willing to have that conversation about Obama's foreign policy with someone, in depth anyway (for I already have slammed him here to an extent), on the grounds that it applies a very wide net. What is the alternative? A Republican even hungrier to start even more shit on more fronts?
God, I detest Ron Paul. But when he spoke about foreign policy, his voice rang out and inspired people in both parties. Not powerful people. Not profiteers. But people worried about the peeling away of feeling and the wasting of human life. The bravery with which Ron Paul shredded the fuck out of Gingrich in front of millions of people, for being a chickenhawk despoiler of the lifeblood, stunned me. When Ron Paul lifted up his own experience as a veteran for all to see, and then hammered Gingrich, it was an opportunity for us all. Gingrich stood down in that moment.
But we learned nothing from that. One of the reasons is that the people who really own this country are not the rank and file voters.
How is this approach working? Is our bureaucratic structure working to protect our interests and solve problems as they arise?
Is Obama's liberal internationalist goal of bringing Muslim nations into the fold of international law with sticks and carrots working? Is appealing to the Muslim on the street to drive the radicals out working?
Do Muslims even want freedom and democracy as this Western vision claims? Is it really a better alternative than invasion to spread democracy and freedom? What about the rise of Islamism?
Are we all out of ideas and money and where do we go next?
Frankly, we need to change, but I'm tired of the isolationist high water mark here at home. We've got people, good people, and interests all over the globe. If we don't secure our interests and lead, then someone who doesn't share our values will.
Obama's vision is actually deeply Western, more Left and focused on human rights and international law, and it's deeply flawed.
I hope he's able to adapt to events and not just drone the hell out of people and claim he wants peace for the base here at home.
Harrogate:
I hear you: McCain's noise on Iran, his temperment, and Sarah Palin drove me away five years ago. I knew Obama would be bad on the economy, but I didn't know he'd be this bad, far Left, and redistributionist. He's yieded some potential benefit overseas (our reputation did suffer under Bush) but I think his vision is not up to the job. I give him a B minus as it's getting too hot for him to handle.
I don't like what I'm hearing out of a lot of the Republican's corner, either.
It feels like we're at low tide.
Bloggers like Ann don't really help the conversation either. She was too worried about figuring out who the "Alpha Male" was, to notice that Ron Paul tapped into something significant and true and decent in the American soul, on foreign policy, during the primaries.
She was all like "Romney is the big dog!"
So thoughtful. So morally weighty.
harrogate, it seems to me you're conflating things. In your eagerness to attack your political antagonists (or partisans on the other side), you're overshooting the mark-- and defending a POTUS who has done nothing (in this case) to deserve such a defense.
For one thing, you demand that people asking questions about Benghazi tell you WHAT is being covered up-- and say the burden of proof is on them.
Well, no: the burden (or duty) first of all is on those obligated to provide answers: elected officials who have a duty to provide citizens with an honest (at least basic) account of the circumstances and events involved in a terrorist attack in which Americans were killed.
It's possible to infer there's a cover up without knowing what is being covered up; it's possible to tell someone is lying (or stonewalling) without knowing what the underlying truth is.
Yes, the burden of proof is on a conspiracy theorist who has a positive theory (an account of the underlying "truth") to prove his theory. But you're accusing people of being "conspiracy theorists" who aren't conspiracy theorists. They're people asking questions: noting that this administration has failed to provide answers to very basic questions about what happened on 9/11 (what happened in the White House, not just Libya). People noting flagrant inconsistencies, contradictions, misrepresentations, changing narratives (without explanation) in the administration's (and its surrogates') statements, not to mention deflections, distractions ("how dare you besmirch this damsel's reputation! come at me, you arrant knaves!"), and stonewalling.
You overlook the fact that the White House itself promised it would be conducting an "investigation" into Benghazi. They said they would be providing answers-- and so far, they haven't. NB The answers we're still waiting for are not (just) about what happened in Libya, but about what happened in the White House that day. It takes more than two months to determine what happened in the White House that day?
Asking, expecting, demanding honest answers from the Powers That Be in a democracy doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist or a "hater." It makes you someone who holds politicians, people in power (and yes, that means the politicians who WON), accountable. Defending Obama for his actions and non-actions (before, during, after Benghazi), when Obama himself hasn't provided any adequate account, explanation, defense of them-- I don't know what that makes you.
For another thing, it seems to me you have your own moral/ ethical/ political cause-- to do with American "militarism" in a larger sense-- which in your eyes overshadows (or should overshadow) Benghazi. I respect the sincerity of your views, but again, you're conflating things. Just because in your eyes your cause is "greater," or the object of your outrage is "greater," doesn't invalidate others' concern about Benghazi.
You imply that anyone concerned about what happened in Benghazi is a hypocrite, because they're discussing Benghazi as opposed to the grand total of military deaths in general. Why, you demand, aren't you upset about THAT? These are two different topics-- related, but qualitatively (not just quantitatively) distinct, in fundamental ways. That is not hypocrisy, and the logical fallacy here is yours.
"Bloggers like Ann don't really help the conversation either."
But if you enjoy hyperbole!
Lindsey Graham was on fire ...
And yes, she was smitten w/mittens. Much like her Scott Brown/Walker fetishes as superficiality superseded rational thought.
Has anyone yet emailed Martin Fox that a maniac has his password?
harrogate admits: God, I detest Ron Paul. But when he spoke about foreign policy, his voice rang out and inspired people in both parties.
Then he chides Althouse for not noticing Ron Paul's sincerity.
Did it occur to you harrogate that a good many American's also disliked Ron Paul?
If the president had fought half as hard for whats his name, as he has fought for Rice, the dead ambassador might still be alive.
If you had told me that after 9/11/2001, an American embassy, consulate, phone booth, hut, whatever you want to call it, somewhere in the middle east, would be attacked on a subsequent anniversary, of one of the darkest days on American soil, I would have said... yea I could see that... not a surprise.
And all I needed for that was some common sense.
Some other agenda was at play here... and 4 Americans died because of it.
Well, it's her blog, and I think she does a decent job, but she goes for eyeballs and drama sometimes. She's a chameleon and like the attention, too, but it must be a lot harder than it looks, and I really appreciate what she's created here.
Isolationism has some deep moral thinking behind it, but it's a little nutty in practice. Clearly it hits a deep note for you, so go for it.
Yes, chickelit, I know a lot of people also detested him. But I also know that I was hardly alone in having mixed feeling about him at the same time. I am not the best writer and this is a hard thing to articulate, but I think on foreign policy he did something moving and important, and it moved a lot of people deeply, and yet somehow, the people who dominate out discourse acted like he wasn't even there.
I think there is something wrong with that. Why, after all the bullshit we have been through, is Bill Kristol still considered an "expert" on foreign policy? We have a rigged game.
Bob:
Nothing like an ad hominem to demonstrate persuasively you have nothing worthwhile to say.
For the record, I think it is unfair and a misrepresentation to call Ron Paul an isolationist.
Also, Yashu, that was a lot of substance you wrote, there. I am trying to process it all--don't want you to think I'm ignoring it.
Ooh, Latin!
I'm still giving Obama the benefit of incompetence and lax leadership, or the fact that we were using Benghazi for some other reasons that shouldn't come to light just yet.
That said, I don't trust his actions on this, and I applaud people who've been working hard on this, and following it, against public sentiment and the legacy media who have been working against them.
This is the media's job, to shine lights upon our leaders and ask tough questions, and shine lights back upon us.
Keep us free, please. You're not a member of a club and it's lonely work.
Bob:
Oh, sorry, didn't mean to make it too hard.
Here's the wikipedia article for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
If he's not an isolationist, then what, pray tell, is Ron Paul?
C'mon, Martin, try harder than that. You got better.
I do. When you have something to offer, by all means, share it.
Non-interventionist?
If so, I think that's a naive worldview. You don't trade, have an expansionary economy, universities, people, travelers, businesses and other interests around the globe and not bump heads.
I think Ron Paul makes a clear, real distinction between national defense and adventurism.
"Here's the wikipedia article for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem"
So Fr. Fox is anal-retentive ~ go figure.
hmm, is being snarky a sin? Rhetorical.
I voted for Ron Paul in the Ohio primary, but--to be candid--I'm not quite with him on foreign policy. He's a reaction to the extremism of our current overreach, but his is too much of a counter-reaction. There are lots of possible gradations between global empire and fortress America.
OK, let me give it a shot. I strive toward the argumentative attitude that our host, Professor Althouse, generally espouses. You seem to be a bomb-thrower. I've known a lot of priests, and have one in my family, and I know a few Jesuits who are pretty stiff, but I've never known a dick like you who was also a priest.
You don't sound like a priest. I think we've been down this road before.
But in any case, anyone can be a dick. There's a memorable scene in the movie Team America: World Police on that subject.
Lindsey Graham was on fire ...
He just didn't burn as hot as the libs are used to.
Bob:
Yeah, I'm so terrible, I believe in the Constitution.
You're welcome to believe in conspiracy theories of whatever sort.
How do you suppose I manage to pull off the conspiracy to convince so many I'm a priest, when I'm not, as you claim? I mean, I have a blog I've maintained in 2005, I've therein described my activities in three parishes--in real places--and I have had untold numbers of people comment there who know me in real life--as a priest.
But you go ahead, amuse us, won't you, with some explanation for how I pull that off?
But in any case, anyone can be a dick.
True. I recall Bob being a dick to me once.
Chip was a dick to me several times! So was Chickelit!
True. I recall Bob being a dick to me once.
It happens.
Jesuits usually have personalities and some, gasp, try to fit in w/the general population.
Interesting the Youngstown diocese was quite liberal back in the day, whereas the Cleveland diocese was conservative. I digress.
Most men are dicks, come to think of it.
Ok, I can go for protecting the national defense and against adventurism, but it depends on how you define adventurism. Great in practice, given human nature, not so much.
Some libertarians I know are eager to get the gov't out of even the national defense in the first place. Lefties like this because they hate the 'military industrial complex" In fact, most lefties I know like liberty, but positive definitions of liberty, equality of outcome, rights vastly beyond what the Constitution lays out and social justice.
They don't seem to realize this mostly leads to less liberty, because of human nature, power, and the long, sad, tale of woe and misery in the wake of progressive ideals. Liberty isn't something that you can just give out (usually by demonizing others), but is best thought of as something people already possess in an unequal, often unjust, world.
This vast expansion of the State is much scarier to me at the moment than other threats to liberty.
Inga, you don't mean that. But it was funny still.
Inga, you're being kind of a bitch. Not all women. Just you. Likely not all the time, but just right now with comments like that.
No hard feelings.
Chris, relax. Sometimes it's simply fun to be a bitch.
Fr Martin Fox, I do think I was wrong in an earlier thread. I do think you exist, that you are a priest, and that I was wrong to question that. Probably stupidly so. The wine made made me type it!
But are you really owning up to the idiotic things you're saying here? You put your name up as "Fr Martin Fox". That should carry weight. It makes you look stupid when you are petty.
Fr Martin Fox said...
"We have a National Security Apparatus that tramples the Constitution constantly. Begun under Bush; continued--and even made worse--by Obama. He says he got rid of torture, yet he added the "Kill List.""
Sorry to correct you Father, but actually one could trace "trampling of the Constitution" re: national security to as far back as Lincoln suspending habeas corpus; or, if you prefer something slightly more contemporaneous, the Sedition Act of 1918; or, more recent still, J. Edgar chasing German spies in 1938 and Soviet spies in 1946 on; as for "apparatus," one not need look any later than the Nation Security Act of 1947, passed by Congress and signed by Harry S Truman.
Bush most certainly did not begin Constitutional infringements because of national security; it is to his discredit he did not (with a hearty assist from Congress) find a more adroit method of addressing security.
But that's government work for you: the skillful use of a scalpel in a trained hand can never be any better than a rusty, dull ax with a broken handle. Dull, simple-minded butchery is what we get, but as the most recent election shows, that's what the people want.
Ironic too, isn't it, that those who consistently demand more expansive, expensive government never realize the very fist place this will always manifest itself is in police and military power.
It is, after all, the only uncontested monopoly of government power - the power to kill.
Forward!
"Sometimes it's simply fun to be a bitch."
See when you put it like that I am on board.
Bob:
Would it really be that much trouble to cite something you deem "idiotic"?
I think I'm going to change my moniker to Nurse Inga.
I've sometimes been a dick.
No hard feelings.
Ermagerd.
"I've sometimes been a dick."
Confession is good for the soul ...
The truth shall set you free!
Martin: "Nothing like an ad hominem to demonstrate persuasively you have nothing worthwhile to say."
Not idiotic, I guess. No, yes, idiotic. Stupidly insulting. Weren't you instructed in this?
Inga said...
"Most men are dicks, come to think of it."
HAVE dicks, Inga.
Don't confuse HAVING a dick with BEING a dick.
I suspect if you had more, you'd think so less.
Maybe you can get one of those Obama-Hitachi Magic Wands as an inaugural present.
Something to hope for.
Forward!
Since the matter has been raised...I post as "Fr Martin Fox" because if I didn't, then someone could say I was "concealing" my identity online. It seemed the most transparent way to operate.
The film maker was a felon out on parol, violated his parol, quit trying to canonize him.
That's the bet argument I've heard, EVER! We are all guilty of something, aren't we? Great! All of us can be sacrificed for the Obamao's needs.
Sheesh Tim, there's a Priest on board, I'm not going to brag about , well, whatever...........
Anyway you don't know how much....oh never mind.
Bob:
My:"Nothing like an ad hominem to demonstrate persuasively you have nothing worthwhile to say."
Was a rejoinder to your:
"Has anyone yet emailed Martin Fox that a maniac has his password?
How's that for "idiotic"?
Remember the saying about glass houses?
I think calling me a "maniac" counts as an "ad hominem."
Do you care to pursue something more edifying, or do you now propose to defend your claim that I'm a "maniac," in place of your claim that I've maintained a conspiracy going back seven years to masquerade as a priest?
Shiloh: Indeed.
Inga, priest on board aside, the internet is free for all to read.
Just sayin' ...
Shiloh, true enough.
What would the Althouse blog be without a troll like you?
Keep the truth alive!
Chris, relax. Sometimes it's simply fun to be a bitch.
And here you have the best explanation from Allie Inga for her vote for Obama. She wanted to be a bitch.
Now, she could TELL us all the wonderful things the man is going to do, but she won't. She will simply poke people for fun. I think I'll try it to, with Bitchy Alinga.
This thread has now evolved into minutiae, like most Althouse threads.
But hey, minutiae can be fun! :D
Dante, you feather brain, I didn't vote for Obama, didn't you read the whole thread?
Sheesh Tim, there's a Priest on board, I'm not going to brag about , well, whatever...........
Anyway you don't know how much....oh never mind.
This is WAY too interesting to drop now. Brag about what? It sounds like how much Dick you've had! Is that it?
Inga, apparently you bothered Dante. When you were trying to soothe commenters like Dante, he thought you were mocking. The things people come up with!
"Anyway you don't know how much....oh never mind."
Right.
I don't know.
Don't care to know.
Don't want to know.
But I can guess.
And, I'd bet, with your manifest charms and age, you're on the left side of the bell curve on that one or, if that doesn't make sense to you, I'd take the under rather than the over.
Some things are just obvious, that way.
Just saying.
I once knew a cockatiel. Amazing bird. Could repeat almost anything, with enough repetition.
Didn't understand human language, though. It was a beautiful bird. Blue, mostly. One day, it flew off. "Back to Brazil!" We hoped it knew what it was doing.
Dante gets his feathers ruffled quite easily.
THEN Tim, don't YOU bring it up.
I think I'm going to change my moniker to Nurse Inga.
The way you needle people... believe me... everybody knows.
Lem, she does needle people, but I have to say that it seems almost always constrained to people who have repeatedly directed insulting or degrading rhetoric at her.
Inga said...
"THEN Tim, don't YOU bring it up."
I was finding a reason for your sloppy, thoughtless cranking about "most men," and suggested your confusion results from an unhappy state directly related to the absence of the very thing you asserted most men were.
I thought you liberals were all about open-mindedness and self-improvement?
Guess I was wrong.
Bitch away...
Tim, Inga's a liberated woman, ok?
No patriarchy's going to keep her down, no Victorian social mores.
She's TOTALLY free, you know? She's so free, she's gonna share it with you, and prove she's free. She's so free she probably knows that you need to be free too, and she knows ideas that will make us all more free. In fact, it's kind of a righteous freedom, that needs to be spread.
Funny that.
SO! Where we're we.....continue please.
I think we need to keep out of countries that are having revolutions, no embassies, not until a legitimate government has been in place for a while.
"The way you needle people... believe me... everybody knows."
Indeed.
She pricks because she doesn't get pricked.
Someone should take up a collection - we can even do it through the Althouse Amazon portal - and buy her the Hitachi Magic Want.
Prediction: a sunnier outlook within short order of the package arriving.
Dante, you feather brain, I didn't vote for Obama, didn't you read the whole thread?
Inga, you sure talk like you would or did. But if you didn't, that's cool, because it makes you less 1 Dimensional.
Anyway, ignorance is curable, stupid is not. I don't see anything in your behavior that would make anyone believe anything other than The Golden God is your guy.
Cheer!
Actually, no Chris, my private life is mine, and Tim needs to stay out of my private area.
So should have we gone into Libya?
What about Syria?
What about Mali?
What if Al Qaida gets back into Afganistan and tries to blow us up again? They are coming back, you know.
How about the gap between Obama's actions in fighting the war on terror by expanding the national security State and decreasing the use of military force abroad?
Why not just call it terrorism, like the intelligence said?
Did Tim hit you first, Inga?
Don't make me reach into that backseat.
"Tim needs to stay out of my private area."
No one will agree more than me.
Don't want any piece of that, ever.
Last woman on earth and all that...no.
So let's not let your personal problems cause you to make any more idiotic, blanket statements, eh?
Find another reason to be stupid.
No, no, no and if so (attack us) then bomb them back into the stone ages (Afghanistan).
You want more boots on the ground, good luck, how many repeat deployments do you think our troops should have to do?
Then quit talking about it Timmy.
Tim needs to stay out of my private area.
This sounds soo bad, like the have dick comment and your talking about what you could say, but can't with Mr. Fox around.
Anyway, I am curious, if not the golden God, who? Hopefully not that fat bitch Rosanne Barr. Oh God.
Or maybe you can't vote? Or didn't?
OK, you wanna be dicks, do it amongst yourselves.
This is embarrassing.
But then again, so is it embarrassing to witness the spectacle of consistent adventurists like Graham and McCain and Althouse bitching about Benghazi.
Ah, so they're ADVENTURISTS.
Glad you've got that all cleared up, there, armchair cowboy. I can barely see you up there from that shining height of truth.
"Why not just call it terrorism, like the intelligence said?"
Because we have to wait for the investigation, the one Harry Reid says the Senate will not do.
Yes, they are adventurists. When McCain zealously supported the Iraq invasion, AND joked about bombing Iran, AND said "We are all Georgians now," and bitched about Obama drawing down the Iraq presence, he systemically negated his right to be taken seriously. These are only a few of many examples.
Graham has followed suit every step.
They have squandered credibility.
...but I have to say that it seems almost always constrained to people who have repeatedly directed insulting or degrading rhetoric at her.
I don't know if you noticed, but that 'I'm a woman, therefore I'm entitled to special treatment' doesn't wash here.
If she cant stand the heat... let the men do the cooking ;)
But then again, so is it embarrassing to witness the spectacle of consistent adventurists like Graham and McCain and Althouse bitching about Benghazi.
Embarrassing to you? Why? Are you worried your association with these people reflect on you? There are lots of people in the country, with lots of weird ideas. Are you embarrassed about that?
See, here is what I think. I think there are some questions that need answering, completely. What's amazing is that there are people who don't want to know, or who ridicule others who do.
It's not embarrassing, it's disgust inducing. But, I've gotten used to idiots and their stupid ideas.
Lem, didn't say she was entitled to special treatment. I am just pointing out that the people she had needled and mocked typically had berated her beforehand in a manner not dissimilar from what we have witnessed right here in this thread.
It's not about special treatment. It's about cause and effect.
Dante,
It is embarrassing to me to see those windbags on television holding forth on subjects on which they have been shown to be so tragically, so terribly wrong, over and over and over again. That their opinions remain so high profile, they they comport themselves with such dignity before the megaphone of government and big media, embarrasses decency.
Garage has gotten 10 times worst... and he still here.
Not as much as he should btw.
It's like watching Kristol or Krauthammer strike their "I know this stuff" pose. These are the spectacles that prove disgustingness can blur all the way around into light-hearted,low stakes comedy.
Where is garage these days?
"It's not about special treatment. It's about cause and effect."
As one late to this party, I didn't read the catalyst, but I will say I totally agree with you.
And the primary cause is, Inga's arguments are weak, emotional, snarky and, when pushed against, weaker, more emotional and snarkier. She's Garage Mahal with 2X chromosomes, albeit with slightly better humor.
Where is Crack these days?
Helping bring down friendly dictators in northern Africa isn't adventurism? No security risk?
Obama learned nothing from Bush's mistakes in Iraq, you must have a concrete plan.
Regardless of what politicians say, Afghanistan and Iraq was about revenge and a sobering effect on the Mideast, but more importantly they straddle Iran.
Ron Paul is a great guy, he's an old school republican isolationist, Fortress America. All we have to do is pretend America is just a really huge Switzerland. Hell, let's do it, any guess who would fill that vacuum. I'm too old to serve and hopefully I'd be dead before WWIII happened.
"That their opinions remain so high profile, they they comport themselves with such dignity before the megaphone of government and big media, embarrasses decency."
Right.
You disagree with them.
All the rest?
Just more opinion.
Anyway, your Drone-borne Ranger won, so now you get to watch how your side screws it up.
"They have squandered credibility."
Says an Obama voter.
Ironic, eh?
It's like watching Kristol or Krauthammer strike their "I know this stuff" pose.
What?
I love that pose... and I'm not even watching them that much these days... suddenly, or I should say some time around this Benghazi thing got started, I've been watching CNN and Maddow, figuring that whatever was wrong with Benghazi would be able to figure it out by the way they chose to defend it.
It never fails... they are that predictable.
I also wanted to see their reaction when Romney won... but that shows how much I know.
In 1972 did people say, "Why are you wasting time talking about a third-rate burglary when you could be talking about the disaster that is Nixon's anti-crime policy?"
Some people don't understand--or, perhaps, recognize--the difference between policy disputes and scandals.
"Benghazi" is not about the military budget, or how many troops we should have in Afghanistan, or what we should or shouldn't have done about Khaddafy.
"Benghazi" is about the president's performance as commander-in-chief in this particular instance, in which a US ambassador was killed. What did the president know, when did he know it, and what did he do about it? The first, most obvious question is, Why did his surrogates misrepresent the basic events for so long? The answer to that question has potential implications for the others.
Clear enough?
No Tim it is not a matter of just "disagreement." They are blood soaked motherfuckers compared to which, laughably, Obama is a lover of peace.
In truth I would like to see politicians from either party rise to prominence who actually give a good goddamn about our soldiers and who also care about what it means to shellack a country. Who think about the implications of a term like "collateral damage." Who are troubled by all the deaths and all the despair that our foreign policy brings about.
When Romney took "umbrage" and said "we don't dictate to countries, we liberate countries" he was not just lying, he was engaging in a level of indifference to massive deaths that I cannot simply respond to as "disagreement" or "opinion."
I am sick of all these politicians saying they "long for peace." Where is the evidence that they do? Obama with his drone, what have they accomplished on the side of humanity, on the side of decency?
It sure would be nice to see all this power and wealth leveraged towards those types of goals, for a change. But assholes like Krauthammer say we are taking a "holiday from history" when we are not neck deep in gore.
We have a rigged game. We are dominated by two political parties that serve many interests, none of which involve taking seriously the lives of our soldiers and the peoples of other nations.
Economics drive our militaristic choices. And it is a kind of economics that is far, far beyond the scope of the rank and file voter.
Crack is over at the macho response.
"I love that pose" that Kristol and Krauthammer stroke, says Lem.
But In a less corrupt society, those two dudes would be pointed at and laughed at and cursed all at the same time, wherever they roamed.
In truth I would like to see politicians from either party rise to prominence who actually give a good goddamn about our soldiers and who also care about what it means to shellack a country.
Then McCain was your guy.
Dante that is the stupidest statement ti have seen you make in a while. and that's saying something.
That their opinions remain so high profile, they they comport themselves with such dignity before the megaphone of government and big media, embarrasses decency.
Look, it didn't need to be this way. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. They aren't "nice" questions.
Why did Rice lie to the American People? Who put her out there to lie to the American people? Why did Obama at the very least mislead the American People?
And who was that fat bitch who injected herself on behalf of Obama in the middle of a presidential debate, and why? Does she still have a job? If so, why?
Doesn't it disgust you that man was chased down and jailed, that Obama apologized to Pakistani's for our free speech?
Why wasn't their help given to the mission/consulate in Benghazi? Why hasn't the press dug into these questions?
These things to me are not embarrassing at all. They are deeply disconcerting. And they ought to be, and it shouldn't matter what team you hope to win. But that's where the dialogue has come to.
It seems pretty bad to me. Maybe blowhards, or whatever you consider them to be, are of greater concern. I don't know why.
I want the truth. Don't you?
Fr Martin Fox said...
Here's an example of my "loathing" President Obama, in a homily I gave April 18, 2009:
We are critical of our President on the stem-cell issue; let us praise him on another issue: He made it clear
that human dignity demands we never torture. Yes: love is hard—such as loving our enemies. Some things we never do because God’s law—
not “national interest”—comes first.
=================
Intantile religious drivel.
And the sort of "love thy enemy" Milksop Christianity the Islamoids tore right through before being stopped by Goth barbarians at Tours. And held up by nominally Christian Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire sorts that didn't lie down like lambs.
We would nuke whole cities of little lambs if we had to. Did it before. Yet there is some "Gods Law" against interrogating a couple enemy combatant leaders vs. no "God's Law" against turning 100,000 enemy non-combatants to radioactive cinders??
Dante that is the stupidest statement ti have seen you make in a while. and that's saying something.
Care to explain why you think that? It seems to me McCain has honor for soldiers. Do you disagree?
It seems he wanted to get rid of torture. Do you not find this honorable?
He seems to have a very good grasp on what fighting means.
He may have many, many flaws. He wasn't the person I wanted as president.
Maybe you prefer Ron Paul, and Patrick Buchanan, who want to get out of all this policing the world stuff.
But then again, so is it embarrassing to witness the spectacle of consistent adventurists like Graham and McCain and Althouse bitching about Benghazi.
You do realize this fits the classic definition of "ad hominem" argument? (Which these days many reduce to a shorthand for "insult," but that's only a subset of the category.)
You (and other Obama admin defenders) focus exclusively on the character of the particular individuals asking questions about Benghazi-- as if that by itself invalidates the questions themselves. Lots of ridicule from you and garage etc. on Benghazi threads about McCain or Graham (or Kristol or Krauthammer etc.)-- as opposed to the substance of their questions and statements. McCain is an "adventurist" (or an idiot who did not attend an Ivy League school, or an old white male, or someone with different foreign policy views than you), therefore anything he says or any questions he asks of the admin on Benghazi, can be discounted or ignored out of hand.
No need for the admin (you know, the people in POWER) to answer questions from people you or they disapprove of. Good thing that (as you and "everyone" knows, and Obama goes out of his way to remind America), Republicans are such terrible people! You know, awful sexist misogynist ogres who dare to "besmirch the reputations" of dear innocent damsels in distress, like Princess Rice!
It's very convenient.
Because then, I guess, no criticisms or questions, no arguments or objections against Obama, his administrations or his surrogates, need be taken seriously. Look from whence those criticisms, questions, arguments, objections come. Focus on who's speaking, not on what they're saying. "Bad" people!
If the "good" MSM (i.e. apart from evil Faux News) and Democrats aren't saying it, obviously there's "no there there." There's no such thing as "speaking to truth to power" if you have a political/ ideological affinity for those in power, and a political/ ideological antagonism for those speaking.
You know what: you can dislike or reproach the person saying something, and still recognize the possible substance or validity of the particular point they're making. In fact, this ability is essential to being an independent and informed citizen (as opposed to Party sheeple all too susceptible to peer pressure and propaganda from "your side"-- swallowing anything and everything Obama says or does, because the only people opposing him, given an extraordinarily biased and feckless MSM, are loathsome-- to you-- Republicans).
Wake up. You can hate Republicans AND find things to reproach Obama for, too. Or at least, have some interest in the TRUTH. Honestly, really, honestly, looking at all the known facts: do you think Obama has been honest about Benghazi? Forget about Republicans-- has he been honest with YOU as an American citizen?
Don't you realize, YOU guys are the marks. ("We" have long since doubted much of what Obama says.) But maybe you don't care, because look over there! At those awful Republicans.
POTUS knows best. We (blindly) trust.
Being denounced by a Jew-hater is something I can live with.
NB Even the "good" (non-FOX) MSM are now, after the election, starting to ask some tough (inconvenient) questions about Benghazi.
Cf. David Gregory. David Fucking Gregory. As far from FOX News as you can get (without going into overt Obama-cheerleading MSNBC territory).
Yet some of you here still insist that any questions or concerns about Benghazi are just the product of fevered rightwing fantasies. I don't get it.
Anyone who says this wasn't a terrorist attack is either idiotic or mendacious.
The dirty secret here that the Obama Administration hasn't told us is that this really was an attempt to KIDNAP Ambassador Stevens, not kill him (at least not initially). What kind of propaganda could al Qaeda have come up with if they had a captured American ambassador to poke and prod on video? What would they have demanded from us as the price of his freedom? Freeing all al Qaeda operatives in Gitmo or other facilities? Failing that, continued return of Stevens as a series of increasingly bloody body parts? Anyone doubt that Obama would have negotiated with them?
I feel for Stevens and the others who were killed. Those men deserved better from the country and the Administration who sent them there and then abandoned them to their fate. We should have had the resources on the ground to discourage such an attack or to withstand it successfully. That we didn't is a blight on Obama's record, and his reputation as such. That Stevens was killed instead of captured was the only lucky break that Obama caught.
yashu: Isn't it amazing you have to point this out?
It's very simple.
In some discussions with my friends, I've remarked about how amazing it is that there is no concern for the appearance of impropriety on the part of Obama. For instance, his executive orders, his protection of holder in fast and furious, his web-site that allowed donations from anywhere (proven), and now, the fact that he deceived the American people, his press secretary deceived the American people, and somehow this Rice chick put her reputation, and more importantly the reputation of her office on the line, to lie to the American people, and in fact the world.
It should not matter what party you are in, your belief in the objectives of Obama, etc. But it is a circus.
Well, I suppose that is going to be the reputation of Democrats in the history books (provided they do not rewrite history). We are proud to have elected an alleged rapist. We are proud to have made out Monica Lewinski as a stalker, instead of Bill Clinton's willingness to participate.
I'm no fan of Republicans either. I can list off the crimes against the middle class.
Yashu said:
Even the "good" (non-FOX) MSM are now, after the election, starting to ask some tough (inconvenient) questions about Benghazi.
Cf. David Gregory. David Fucking Gregory. As far from FOX News as you can get (without going into overt Obama-cheerleading MSNBC territory).
Yet some of you here still insist that any questions or concerns about Benghazi are just the product of fevered rightwing fantasies. I don't get it.
I think in their heart of hearts, they know that Obama is a failure as president. And many I suspect don't even like him.
Remember the anger many libs in the MSM displayed after the first debate in which Obama came across as a lackluster cipher?
Of course, this may not apply to the lib commenters here. They may just be collecting a check.
Inga wrote:
Fr.Fox, you assume I voted for Obama.
Sorry, I'm taking this with a grain of salt. Multiple grains of salt frankly.
Dante, agreed. It's bewildering.
I've long felt there's a Twilight Zone quality to life during Obama's administration. Looking around you, at what other citizens-- including the MSM-- are failing to perceive or react to, against all realistic expectations. It's like the ordinary rules, conventions, expectations, duties of politics and governance and journalism are all suspended under Obama. It's creepy and vertiginous. He gets away with anything and everything.
It will be *very* interesting to see how historians in the future analyze and depict Obama's administration.
lindley is DYKEY & will be primoried in SC & will be no longer BE sene. So long Lindley & Jim Demint destestes you. Lindley gone, bye bye.
Fr. Fox Lindley is dykey. She will be destroyed in SC.
I think in their heart of hearts, they know that Obama is a failure as president. And many I suspect don't even like him.
I think this is true of many, including quite a few (not just FOX) MSM journalists. Even while most still shill(ed), apologiz(ed), rationaliz(ed) for Obama.
They're well aware, from their own experience and what other journalists (like Bob Woodward) observed and reported, that the competence of the present White House administration is... not optimal.
I honestly believe many Democrats (including some journalists) would have been relieved to see Romney elected. Even if they didn't vote for him (because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Republican).
Oh well.
Fr Fox did you do jerky jerky with boys?
Fr. Fox did you suck young pee pee? Be honest.
Don't drunk-post, Titus.
yashu, it feels like we're being gaslighted.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Being denounced by a Jew-hater is something I can live with.
============
Being lectured by someone from the sacred sanctum of pedophiles is something I can shrug off.
yashu, it feels like we're being gaslighted.
Yes, exactly. That's what I meant by the "Twilight Zone" thing-- it's an eerie experience.
But your metaphor better captures some of the cynical political stratagems involved here. It fits the Obama campaign's purpose to drive its opponents crazy and make them look "crazy." (Even on this thread, some insist anyone troubled about Benghazi-- like Fast and Furious before it, etc.-- are merely suffering from some sort of hallucinatory projection.)
Especially with the collusion of the MSM. They're like the Angela Lansbury character in the movie.
(PS I slipsaid "Obama campaign" instead of "Obama administration" up there. But it's the same thing, isn't it.)
it's the same thing, isn't it
Absolutely.
BTW, it's great to see you back here, yashu.
Fr. Martin,
"We have a National Security Apparatus that tramples the Constitution constantly. Begun under Bush [emphasis added]"
Here, I part company with you. It was made worse under Bush, but he hardly started it from nothing.
chrisnavin,
"I didn't know he'd be this bad, far Left, and redistributionist"
How could you miss that?
Kirk:
I'll accept that.
Thanks, Chip. You know, you (and the other Chip, two awesome Chips) and chickelit are among my very favorite commenters at Althouse.
Heh, I have a vague list of favorites in my mind, but I'd never specify explicitly, because it would be too hard to do so and in a way I love all the Althouse commenters. (OK shoutout to William too, because he rarely gets his due.) But you're in the very very top percentile. Definitely a reason to come back (even after an extremely depressing election when I'm seeking to psychologically detach myself from politics, and to some extent have-- maybe to my benefit).
Although my logorrhea on this thread is not great evidence of detachment, is it.
Anybody notice that, once he's out of non sequiturs, shilol has really nothing to say?
harrogate said...
Let's stop with all the god damned militarism.
Yes, it's making Choom look so incompetent.
Baron Zemo said...
The lesson we have learned is that Obama will leave his people to die when they are attacked by Muslim extremists.
Correction, the lesson we have learned is that Obama will leave his people to die when it's to his immediate advantage.
FIFY.
This thread has, imo, degenerated into name calling among other things. Seems to me that we might have had a productive discussion on precisely what American foreign poliy ought to be. What precisely is our national interest and how do we achieve it. That element seems to be lacking amidst of name calling.
My thought is this: American foreign policy is not going to change the more radical elements of islam who are quite willing to blow themselves up in pursuit of their goals. Do we then need to maintain a presence in the ME? Should we work toward "regime change?" At what cost. There are quite a few questions that need to be addressed in terms of a foreign policy.
just my .02
Apolgies for the lack of a name on the 7:08 post above--It was mine
I've read this whole thread.
Obama (later) said he knew Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist act.
Obama's spokeswoman blamed the attack not upon preplanned terrorist acts, and repeatedly asserted on national television that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a video on YouTube.
Hillary Clinto stated that the author of the video should be punished.
A midnight arrest of the author, a mere parole violator, was televised, and conducted by multiple law-enforcement entitites.
And Inga says recognizing these facts is evidence of hatred for Obama.
Egad,
Obama Doctrine: "Proxy war on Israel via support of Islamic terrorists?"
I probably should use the democrat term for "Islamic terrorists" which is "freedom fighters who just happen to be killing the empire building neo-cons and zionist jews" (please reference Obama's pastor, and Micheal Moore and other liberals for more information).
It just seems like the natural end result of supporting terrorist like Al Queda in Libya and Syria, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the Palestinian terrorists. It would fit into an Obama worldview via a liberal education + Rev. Wright indoctrination over the years Obama listened to him.
Just a thought.
Well, Maureen Dowd has thrown Rice under the Obama bus:
"An Africa expert, Rice should have realized that when a gang showed up with R.P.G.’s and mortars in a place known as a hotbed of Qaeda sympathizers and Islamic extremist training camps, it was not anger over a movie. She should have been savvy enough to wonder why the wily Hillary was avoiding the talk shows."
So, even the really, really, really smart diplomat lied about what was going on and helped hype a false story about a video, to suppress first amendment liberties with threats, not just for a parole violator, but to chill speaking up by all citizens...
Everyone who has paid attention to this knows what happened here, or close enough. There are only this many comments because we have some leftist Dem supporters who view this as their role in life (supporting Mr. Wonderful no matter what).
It's too late now for the media. The election is over. Who cares what the talking heads say now. The 95% of voters who don't pay attention, who couldn't name one Sup Ct. Justice, or their own congressman, are off living their lives, talking on their Obamaphones, spending their food stamps, la la la.
The con continues.
Gerry:
The televised, midnight arrest of the parole violator was purely coincidental, don't you know?
Aren't swarms of federal agents sent--after midnight--with TV cameras--to handle all those desperate violators of bank fraud parole?
That the Administration would surely want to have the news coverage of that arrest broadcast especially in places where it was trying so desperately to convince mobs that it valued their feelings more than said parole-violator's free speech...
Why, that, too, is certainly coincidental!
After all, why shouldn't we all be so devotedly trusting of Mr. Obama, as Inga and others are? Why should we ever be fearful of government misusing its powers?
Yep, that's hate, pure and simple, because there's simply no rationale reason to think otherwise.
You might want to be available tonight after midnight...in case your cooperation is needed to advance "national security"...
Inga is even hypocritical on the whole "speaking truth to power" theme we heard endlessly in the good old Bush days.
But she says this is something Fox dredges up. Rather, I would say this is something most in the media simply ignored. Certainly before the election. The Time said they weren't going to report on it as it might impact the election. Would they hold back if it were George Bush having an embassy destroyed and an ambassador killed or would it be "See, we told you that he was an idiot!" Timed RIGHT before an election no doubt for maximum damage. The Time had no problem leaking actual hidden programs that we were using to fight Al Qaeda. And if they could have done so right before an election, all the better.
So, Fox news is not the villain here. IT's the media ignoring the story.
What is the story? Well, we had an ambassador killed. This hasn't happened in 30 years. We had an embassy destroyed.
And there are many ways in which the administration is POTENTIALLY culpable when I say potentially it's because there are questions that don't have sufficient answers or make the administration look bad. That is typically when the media steps in and asks those questions of the administration, NOT CARRY THE WATER OF THE ADMINISTRATION.
The first question - why did they ignore the requests for more security. Who said no and why? THere might be a reasonable explanation, but considering we lost an ambassador, its probably an example of terrible policy decision. Especially considering the same embassy had already been attacked twice.
Secondly. We knew about the attack AS it was happening. One of the people killed was apparently told to stand down, and defied direct orders and instead went to help. Why was there an order to stand down? Considering the attack took several hours, why wasn't resources deployed to deal with the attack or to protect the embassy. It could be possible that somehow resources coudlnt' get there in time. But considering how it played out, that's something we need to find out. What resources were avaiable. How long would it take to get there and why wasn't those resources deployed. What it looks like is this administration sat on its hands rather than protect the embassy.
Third, why did the administration change its talking points to downplay the CIA assessment that it was al Al Qaeda and instead went out of its way to blame it on a video, sending all of its surrogates out on tv saying that it seemed to be because of a video (despite YOU Inga trying to suggest taht no Obama called it a terrorist attack the whole time).
Why did this happen? My own guess is , it was an election year, the election was a few months away. Obama had said that Al Qaeda was on the run and that the Libya policy was successful, so when faced with an apparent Al Qaeda attack didn't want his policy to be considered a failure so close to the election (because then Romney and others would say his foreign policy was even more of a disaster). So he soft pedaled it. Another possibility, and one more negative is that after ignorning the calls for security and having an embassy fall he didn't want to, on the eve of the election, have to defend why more security wasn't given, and so suggested it was because of an impromptu attack. (if it's impromptu, you're not culpable because "it just happened out of the blue". If it was planned then he is because the embassy said there was a lot of terrorist activity and yet the administration ignored repeated requests to provide extra security).
Whatever the rationale at this point, because these questions are raised it is incumbent on the administration to provide answers. And republicans asking questions does not mean that it's automatically a smear. You should be demanding answers as well considering this is the first time in 30 years that we had an ambassador killed. It's not a minor thing.
You don't just get to sweep it under the rug and blame Fox News.
I can barely comment on this "debate" or discussion. From day two, 9/12/2012, based upon 1.) personal experience and 2.) divergent new reports, I knew it was a terrorist attack. Early on 9/12/2012 I spoke to several Arab Muslim friends friends, all who said "what video?" They knew. I knew. Period.
All the rest since then has been a prevarication extraordinare. Who Petraeus was diddling is of no significance. What Susan Rice was prompted to say is meaningless, because it was not true and anyone with any experience knew it was not true.
What saddens me is that it takes all this palaver to determine the obvious. That is sad for our country...our inability to be honest without ourselves.
The lively and honest conservative & liberal discussions of the 60's college campuses, my time there, cannot occur today...the progressive shouting is too loud. We had some screamers then, today they predominate. The rest of us from that era are nothing but old white guys and old black guys no longer heard.
Other than this, color me in the same hue as @Pogo these days.
Aridog said...
I can barely comment on this "debate" or discussion. From day two, 9/12/2012, based upon 1.) personal experience and 2.) divergent new reports, I knew it was a terrorist attack. Early on 9/12/2012 I spoke to several Arab Muslim friends friends, all who said "what video?" They knew. I knew. Period.
All the rest since then has been a prevarication extraordinare. Who Petraeus was diddling is of no significance. What Susan Rice was prompted to say is meaningless, because it was not true and anyone with any experience knew it was not true.
Exactly, and well said too.
Cedarford is an equal oppportunity bigot.
Jr:
Well, let's consider:
Cedarford has repeatedly said he favors abortion to destroy defective blobs of tissue, and he was attacking me, in this thread, over my being against torture.
He hates Christians; whether he has a special hate for Catholics I can't say.
And, of course, he goes on about the Jews...and on...and on...
I seem to recall a European political movement that rode pretty high until the mid-40s that took similar views.
"In truth I would like to see politicians from either party rise to prominence who actually give a good goddamn about our soldiers and who also care about what it means to shellack a country. Who think about the implications of a term like "collateral damage." Who are troubled by all the deaths and all the despair that our foreign policy brings about.
When Romney took "umbrage" and said "we don't dictate to countries, we liberate countries" he was not just lying, he was engaging in a level of indifference to massive deaths that I cannot simply respond to as "disagreement" or "opinion."
I am sick of all these politicians saying they "long for peace." Where is the evidence that they do? Obama with his drone, what have they accomplished on the side of humanity, on the side of decency?"
Your naivete would be stunning, but given you are an Obama voter, it is expected.
@harrogate,
you said:
In truth I would like to see politicians from either party rise to prominence who actually give a good goddamn about our soldiers and who also care about what it means to shellack a country. Who think about the implications of a term like "collateral damage." Who are troubled by all the deaths and all the despair that our foreign policy brings about.
So freeing 26 million people from a dictator is a bad thing?
Ending the use of rape as a punishment is not a worthwhile goal?
Ensuring someone cannot use poison gas to murder whole villages for no reason other than ethnicity is something the US should never do under any circumstances?
There is no national interest in ending the state sponsorship of terrorism?
It is perfectly peachy for people to fed feet first into wood-chippers?
There should be no penalty for someone who tortures athletes to death for no crime greater than failing to win a gold medal?
If a despot murders so many children as to have multiple mass graves for them, it doesn't help anyone to topple that individual?
You are willfully ignoring why we invaded Iraq.
Which is fine. But you can't ignore the reasons we did it, and then claim Bush was a warmonger or didn't respect/honor the military.
Do you know anyone in the military? The vast, overwhelming majority of people who spent time in Iraq knew why were there, and overwhelmingly supported the mission. We didn't always like the strategy by which the mission was accomplished, but we believed in what we were doing.
The only way to make the 4000 military deaths wasted is to cut and run, and abandon all the gains.
Which is what Obama did.
So if there is a person in this thread who is disrespecting the military, it is you. And maybe Inga, because she undermines her daughter's chosen profession, but certainly you.
Do you hate the fire chiefs and mayors of cities for their "blood-soaked" fire departments because some die fighting fires?
The military exists, and military join up, because we are prepared to give our life in the fulfillment of operations that benefit the US. That's what the invasion of Iraq was, even if you refuse to acknowledge the plain facts staring you in the face.
I implore you to think deeply about that.
I'll give Meet the Press a barely perceptible nod for daring to cover this story. Since we still don't have answers, I'll be curious to see if they have any stamina to follow up until we do.
Fr Martin Fox said...
OK so now it's clear.
According to Inga, there's nothing wrong with the White House using it's power to, er..."persuade"...
Because, of course, no one would ever be intimidated by such a, er, "request"...
No, it's inconceivable that could ever be abused!
Gotcha.
Father. You should know by now inside every progressive is a little fascist clawing to get out.
And no Inga the perpetually outraged I don't loath Obama. Loathing someone is childish. I loath what he represents.
First Dana Milbank dumps on Susan Rice in the Wash. Post. Then David Gregory opens up the whole can of worms on Meet the Press. Now Maureen Dowd goes after Rice in the NY Times.
Looks like Hillary and Bill have put out the word that it's a no-go for Rice as sec. of state.
Never have been good at chess, though, so I don't see how it all doesn’t hurt Hillary if Benghazi goes huge. Any ideas, anyone?
Post a Comment