Here's the NYT article to pick through.
At some point in the process — [David] Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.
“The fact is, the reference to Al Qaeda was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community,” Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican, said after the House hearing. “We need to find out who did it and why.”...
Democrats said Mr. Petraeus made it clear the change had not been done for political reasons to aid Mr. Obama. “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California.
Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, said that Mr. Petraeus explained to lawmakers that the final document was put in front of all the senior agency leaders, including Mr. Petraeus, and everyone signed off on it.
Including Mr. Petraeus, who had the motivation of trying to keep his job, which he was deprived of immediately after the election. Now, he has the motivation of trying to regain his honor.
Ms. Feinstein, read the final unclassified talking points to reporters:
“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
“This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
“The investigation is ongoing, and the U.S. government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.”
Posts
309 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 309 of 309Gotta love a guy who uses a line from Shakespeare to criticize someone for using a line that's "over 30 years old."
If I thought shilol was clever, I'd applaud the irony.
Phx. So these are the same guys who killed our ambassador?
I didn't say that. I only pointed out the foolishness of your remark: "Muslims, even stark raving mad ones, even those stirred up by a film they have no possible means of seeing, do not have rocket launchers. They do not have the ability to fight Navy Seals for hours."
You should speak more respectfully of those who died at the hands of Qadaffi. Those people protested against the jihadists who sacked the consulate and killed our ambassador. They stood with us, and we stood with them.
Oops. Ecclesiastes.
Shakespeare reworked it.
I was being ironic. Yeah, that's it.
Oops! Indeed!
Any sympathy for the Iraqis who resisted Saddam and then AQI?
Any sympathy for Afghans who resisted the Talib and AQ?
Didn't they advance the cause of freedom?
Of course I sympathize with those people. Who exactly is or will be successful in advancing the cause of freedom has probably yet to be written.
I support the Syrian fighters as well. But anyone will have to note that among those fighters in all these theaters are not just liberal democrats who want their nations become more democratic and free, but also some pretty ruthless Islamists. You can't really support the one without supporting the other, as the dictators are their common enemy.
phx said...
And if there was an attack on 11th hour from al Qaeda or any other Jihadists, I maintain that there would be no reason for the American electorate to turn away from the only President who showed reasonable success against al Qaida than turn towards the failed Middle East policies of the Republicans under a completely inexperienced former Mass. Governor.
Please point out where those reasonable successes are because looking at a map today I'm not seeing any. Libya could hardly be called a success. Nor Egypt. Syria? Lebanon? We won't mention Israel.
Lets face it. the only "reasonable" chane he had of changing miseast in the direction of peace and stability lay with the Iranian greens which he ignored.
The Dems have dumb people, too. The difference is they aren't always allowed to wag the dog the way they do in the GOP.
heh, Wag the Dog is written by liberals, but it was released in the middle of Clinton's sex scandal and his use of bombs to change the subject from sex. You got to love fate.
And yes, I don't want to get in a battle of wits w/an unarmed man! is over 30 years old. Indeed, nothing new under the sun as regards to political blog ad hominems.
Ha. I remember it from a paperback book called "1001 Insults" from about 1966. "Don't try to match wits with me. I don't fight people who are unarmed."
Camp Bastion in Afghanistan was also brutally attacked, let's don't forget that. Just a few days later.
I believe the "unarmed in a battle of wits" line is Oscar Wilde's.
they aren't always allowed to wag the dog the way they do in the GOP.
Because the media loves Republicans! We saw this because of how nice the media was to Bush about Katrina. Our hero!
And the media has just been brutal to Obama about Sandy. Why are they are so unfair to him? Damn Republicans.
I wish we could get some liberals in the media. You know, for balance.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.
That's what George W. said about the freedom fighters in the middle east, and it was one of the greatest things he ever did say. I remember watching him say that during his 2nd inaugural, and it still brings me a small lump in my throat.
That's exactly what we have been trying to do for Libya.
They also fought like lions, in many cases going against bullets with their bare chests."
Anyone else getting a little Larry of Arabia vibe with that?
Because the media loves Republicans! We saw this because of how nice the media was to Bush about Katrina.
Is that all you do here? Whine about how victimized your side is?
Why don't you do something positive for Republicans and accept the responsibility for their situation?
I would suggest that the Benghazi affair points out a serious situation. While I totally support the use of drones for targeted killing of AQ types, the issue is that such a tactic is only short term. AQ was, is, and will continue to be a national security issue. They will continue to mount attacks against US interests--I would suggest the current situation in Israel will continue to keep the AQ recruits flocking to the door. And they have one thing going for them: they dont mind blowing themselves up to further their cause.
We are now wallowing in the morass of an attack on our consular interests; and coupled with a sex scandal, we will take our eyes off the ball: that is the threat AQ poses to our national interest.
It is sad, IMO, that partisan loyalties in the face of a national election have, IMO, caused us to ignore the real threat to our national interests.
I believe it was Senatory Hoyt Vandeberg who said politics should stop at the waters edge. I think that was good advice 60 years ago.
Reality to me is this: AQ continues to be a threat, they can reconstitute themselves, and they can continue to inflict damage to US interests. And they dont mind blowing themselves up in the process.
How we deal with that issue should frame our foreign policy, and I see no evidence that politicians of either party have no gumption to deal with that issue. It appears to me to be all about scoring rhetorical points in the face of electoral politics. Sad.
Rusty said...
Please point out where those reasonable successes are because looking at a map today I'm not seeing any. Libya could hardly be called a success. Nor Egypt. Syria? Lebanon? We won't mention Israel.
Lets face it. the only "reasonable" chane he had of changing miseast in the direction of peace and stability lay with the Iranian greens which he ignored.
Literally the only thing the neocons got right regarding the middle east was the idea that to make progress in the middle east the people have to live under the governments that they select rather than under governments installed and propped up by western powers. Only then, after possibly decades of failure, is there some possibility that the religious zealots that drive much of the politics in this region will finally begin to see the advantage of the separation of church and state and begin to clamor for competent secular government.
Most of what you are complaining about is the acceptance of this seemingly inevitable dynamic. If you have a better idea let's hear it. It is clear that the old strategy wasn't working, as evidenced by 9/11.
Anyone else getting a little Larry of Arabia vibe with that?
Now that you mention it.
Before that, I got more of a Woody Allen vibe from it.
Allan: Some guys were getting tough with Julie. I had to teach them a lesson.
Dick: Are you all right?
Allan: Yeah, I'm fine. I snapped my chin down onto some guy's fist and hit another one in the knee with my nose.
Saint Croix wrote:
The Bush administration waterboarded 3 people at Gitmo. That's your greatest blot on America's reputation. What kind of enhanced interrogation is the CIA doing under Obama? Do you know? Do you care?
The other thing is, the army has waterboarded thousands of our own service men to train them. It can't be the greatest blot on America's reputation considering the normalcy of us doing it to our troops just to train them.
AReasonable Man wrote:
Most of what you are complaining about is the acceptance of this seemingly inevitable dynamic. If you have a better idea let's hear it. It is clear that the old strategy wasn't working, as evidenced by 9/11.
If you're going to depose the leader of Egypt, you should probalby pay attention to who will pick up the slack.
Phx-That's exactly what we have been trying to do for Libya.
11/17/12 12:31 PM
Then it's a shame we left the people who were there working toward that goal unprotected against a known threat. What are we learning from that?
Can the administration learn anything if they can't even acknowledge what they did wrong in Libyai, and why?
Roger J. said...
I believe it was Senatory Hoyt Vandeberg who said politics should stop at the waters edge.
Hallelujah.
jr565 said...
If you're going to depose the leader of Egypt, you should probalby pay attention to who will pick up the slack.
You are not getting the point, the neocon point, that the Egyptian people have to make this decision, not some bureaucrat in Washington.
jr565--riffing off of your good comment--should we be able to depose Bashir al Assad in Syria, what will be the result. This goes to my point about just, precisely, what is our strategy? What outcomes do we seek? And how can we gain some degree of agreement as to those ends, because the poisonous nature of our political system seems to militate against any kind of consensus.
I mean the following seriously:
Reading ARM, phx,Jake Diamond, Inga, Shiloh, leslyn, garage,et al, over the last several months, I am extremely worried.
This is the pattern they demonstrate, oft-repeated:
Any point of criticism against Obama, no matter how well-sourced or corroborated with non-circular reporting, is rejected out if hand. The justification is that it is Bush's fault, or Bush did it first, or Bush was worse, or Romney would have been worse.
Any point or argument that supports Obama, no matter if it has zero evidence to back it up, is fully embraced. Different Obama supporters will embrace different points, and any of these points will be mutually contradictory, but they will never argue.
In the absence of any explanation, the liberal posters will make up a semi-plausible possible excuse. It doesn't matter that they would never accept that excuse from a republican, but the possibility that excuse exists will be flogged as a reason why no judgments can be made yet. We are told to not worry/think about it until the answers come out at some future date....but if a topic drops out of discussion for a few days, it will disappear completely, and the Obama administration will never bring it up again.
Official or not, paid or not, witting or not, these people are acting as a propaganda arm of the Barack Obama Cult of Personality.
They will not engage the strongest points or evidence against Obama, ever.
They ignore all hard evidce, and only attack the weakest arguments Obama's critics make, then claim they have successfully rebutted all arguments.
They continue to repeat discredited talking points as if they were true.
I'm worried because on the basis of probability, if this many random liberals are so deep in the tank for ideology and policies ruinous to the strength of the US, what hope do we have of the US remaining free, strong and prosperous?
But I'm also puzzled why anyone bothers to engage them any more. From this thread, it is clear that not even phx is arguing in good faith, although he is the best at pretending to do so, on some subjects.
Nathan Alexander said...
I'm worried because on the basis of probability, if this many random liberals are so deep in the tank for ideology and policies ruinous to the strength of the US, what hope do we have of the US remaining free, strong and prosperous?
Rather than cry crocodile tears why don't you deal with the policies that got us into a quagmire in the middle east, led to a housing bubble and financial meltdown, produced declining real wages for working and middle class people and resulted a decline in the competitiveness of our manufacturing sector.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Nathan Alexander. Thoughtful post. Thanks.
Is that all you do here? Whine about how victimized your side is?
Actually I was responding to your silly post. You say...
The Dems have dumb people, too.
True! Both parties have dumb people. And malevolent people. Nobody is immune to that.
The difference is they aren't always allowed to wag the dog the way they do in the GOP.
And that's just idiotic. The idea that the press is conservative, and the GOP gets an easy time with them.
Idiotic, stupid, dishonest. You want to call me a whiner for pointing out how stupid your comment was?
Or are we supposed to believe that the media is incredibly biased against Obama, and you liberals are just so tough that you never complain about it. Snort.
A reasonable man. You make Narhan's point in one sentence. You do not admit to the possibility of Democratic party complicity in the causes of the housing bubble, you reflexively blame GWB for wars that were approved by both parties and exhibit a willingness to speak in talking points instead of engaging in dialogue.
Michael said...
A reasonable man. You make Narhan's point in one sentence. You do not admit to the possibility of Democratic party complicity in the causes of the housing bubble, you reflexively blame GWB for wars that were approved by both parties and exhibit a willingness to speak in talking points instead of engaging in dialogue.
No I am sick of all the whining that goes on here by generally privileged people. The republican agenda has dominated US politics since Reagan. It has been a disaster for working and middle class people. It was an agenda that has damaged the financial stability of the US, its reputation in the world and the its manufacturing industry. All in the cause of increasing the disparity of wealth within the country.
Finally the tide has begun to turn. It is clear that some people here just don't get this. They live in a privileged bubble and cannot grasp that the country has performed very poorly since the Reagan revolution. They repeat tired old tropes that never had any basis in reality and then wonder why no one is buying a ticket to the show.
the army has waterboarded thousands of our own service men to train them.
Yeah, I think that's the strongest argument for why it's not torture. Although clearly it's awful. And doing awful things make you awful.
Here's a report on drone strikes in CNN. It's a good thing Bush did some drone strikes, otherwise liberals wouldn't mention them at all.
ARM, for instance, loves raining down missles on innocent people in Pakistan.
the Obama strategy of drone strikes is a marked improvement over spending nearly a trillion dollars to invade a country in which no al Qaeda operatives are present.
Apparently he's given up on comparing drone strikes to waterboarding. Now we have to compare drone strikes to the war in Iraq.
Yet the war in Iraq has established a reasonably safe democracy. We've gotten rid of a huge shit in the Middle East. (That was the easy part). The difficult part, that costs a lot of blood and money, is setting up a peaceful republic. And it's still an open question of whether we pulled it off.
Nation-building is tough. Maybe impossible. But killing people--including innocent children--in an undeclared war, well, it's cheap, that's for sure.
Is this the standard you will be using during the next Republican administration? Less nation-building, more wanton destruction?
This place has become the black hole of conspiracy theories, a parody of itself. Since before the election and I suspect this will continue for 4 more years. Pathetically comical.
Nathan Alexander, good post.
Along similar lines, I've been wondering whether we're going down a path similar to that which started with FDR. He entered office right after a terrible economic collapse, and promptly made it worse. He got re-elected on populist electioneering, and then made it worse again. Rinse and repeat. Then WW2 came along and turned him into a national hero, not just a leftist one.
With enough people feeling the way our resident lefties do-- that we have grown a permanent underclass, that people (except for politicians and Hollywooders) can only grow wealthy by wresting income and/or capital from the lower and middle classes, that only a surge toward frank socialism can reverse these trends-- this movement may be here to stay for quite a while.
On top of that, we have the common leftist disease of developing cult-like worship of their heroes. (That's a long subject, lefties, but go ahead and take me on if you like. You might not understand, but it's pretty obvious to the rest of us.)
So we have a growing government-dependent class, a growing leftist/populist politics, and a growing feeling on the right that "going Galt" is just about all that's worth doing.
I'm tired of it, and I don't know what to do about it. I hope my children have a better future than I see on the horizon. Maybe the three trillion barrels of oil recently discovered under American soil will help in the long term ('prox one generation).
Saint Croix said...
ARM, for instance, loves raining down missles on innocent people in Pakistan.
No. A conservative estimate of Iraqi deaths is 150,000 with 80% of those being civilians. This is in a country where there were no al Qaeda operatives.
In contrast the targeted drone strikes appear to be a strikingly lesser evil.
Personally I think we should get the fuck out of the middle east and stop having anything to do with the place, including propping up both Egypt and Israel. Let the people who live there sort things out for themselves.
I largely agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy.
Did they GET THE TRANSCRIPT?
Did they GET THE TRANSCRIPT?
Where is Reince Priepuss, love him.
tits.
Inga said:
This place has become the black hole of conspiracy theories,
Ah, but matter falling into a black hole can form accretion disks, some of the brightest objects in the universe.
So I prefer to think we’re spreading the light.
Bob Ellison said...
On top of that, we have the common leftist disease of developing cult-like worship of their heroes.
The only slavish personality cult I have seen is the worship of Reagan. As many on the right noted before the election, when it suited their purpose, the left are notably cool towards Obama.
Lydia said...
I prefer to think we’re spreading the light.
You are spreading something.
Good discussion of the history of drone strikes in Pakistan here. Note that evil Bush administration used drone strikes only with approval of Pakistan government.
Notable too that the assassination of Osama bin Laden seems to have made our relations with Pakistan a lot worse. My reaction to that is "too fucking bad." But of course Pakistan has nukes, and a lot of crazy Islamic fuckheads, so it's an ugly situation anyway you look at it.
I don't envy any President having to deal with Pakistan. We'll be lucky if none of our cities are hit with a suitcase nuke.
But it really is annoying how glib liberals are about Obama's foreign policy successes. Where? In Pakistan? In Iran? In Egypt? In Libya? His one foreign policy success was a targeted assassination. Which I support, but I'm not sure why pacifist liberals do. And the green revolution in Iran was a missed opportunity. Mubarak he wants to get rid of, but the theocrats in Iran cannot be criticized. Bizarre.
AReasonable Man wrote:
For there to have been a cover-up there had to be a motive, other than the counter intelligence one provided above. What possible motive was there? Everyone hates fucking al Qaeda, why not just blame them for the attack? It's the political equivalent of blaming the boogie man, an all purpose excuse
One motivation is that there is indication that there were repeated requests for more security. If security was denied and it's determined that it was a planned attack, then the question becomes - you were asked repeatedly for security, why did you not provide it? Additionally the embassy was attacked repreatedly, why wasn't security provided.
If it were an impromptu attack then they can't be held liable because there is no planning for random events.
ARM. Unpack your post a sentence at a time and you will see what we are talking about. You whine about whining! And then proceed to explain that the "tide " is turning when it is clearly not turning at all. The rich get richer but the dumb are getting dumber. More poorly educated than ever despite decades of throwing money at "education"', a collapsed moral code, a culture of worship of vacuous entertainers, declining literacy, zero marh skills, a tendency to mouth breathe. Look around, dude, but the liberal "culture" is breeding this "wealth gap" that you would like to blame on one percent of the population. How convenient.
That's what George W. said about the freedom fighters in the middle east, and it was one of the greatest things he ever did say. I remember watching him say that during his 2nd inaugural, and it still brings me a small lump in my throat.
You should watch his interview at Facebook. He sounds like the goofy, affable guy until he gets to the topic of freedom, and then he becomes incredibly passionate and articulate.
AReasonable Man wrote:
No. A conservative estimate of Iraqi deaths is 150,000 with 80% of those being civilians. This is in a country where there were no al Qaeda operatives.
EVER? I seem to recall reading about Al Qaeda in Iraq, headed by Zarqawi. Have you not heard of this.
They were in Iraq as of 2003. Even if you argue that they weren't in Iraq prior to the invasion how can you argue that for the duration of the Iraq war there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. No operatives? Never? You are talking out of your ass again. Stop doing that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
NOte Zarqawi fled Afghanistan after being injured there and was treated in Iraq where he set up shop before the war actually started.
shiloh said...
Indeed, as I lower my standards quite a bit when posting at Althouse. :-P
No, we allow the little weasel to play here.
His inane drivel, "I won! I won! Ned Silver said so! Nyaaaah!", is tedious.
So where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Lighting candles to Saint Saul Axelrod wouldn't have to shave his mustache.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
That's why Choomie was 5 points behind the Romster all through October.
This is why you now have no credibility on this board and why people rarely respond to your posts. You are a fucking nut.
No, I make sense. People accept what I say, largely because I document it.
The only way Troll gets any attention is his ridiculous and transparent lies.
(I guess Lenin was right about idiots)
phx said...
Of course I sympathize with those people. Who exactly is or will be successful in advancing the cause of freedom has probably yet to be written.
as long as he keeps fronting for Zero, it won't be phx and the Obamatrons.
Chip S. said...
I believe the "unarmed in a battle of wits" line is Oscar Wilde's.
The little weasel never gets his quotes right.
Like everything else.
Nathan Alexander said...
I mean the following seriously:
Reading ARM, phx,Jake Diamond, Inga, Shiloh, leslyn, garage,et al, over the last several months, I am extremely worried.
This is the pattern they demonstrate, oft-repeated:
Any point of criticism against Obama, no matter how well-sourced or corroborated with non-circular reporting, is rejected out if hand. The justification is that it is Bush's fault, or Bush did it first, or Bush was worse, or Romney would have been worse.
The Gospel According to Uncle Saul.
Anybody who strays from the orthodoxy must be destroyed.
Hard to do it on the electric Internet.
Inga said...
This place has become the black hole of conspiracy theories
So leave.
and don't let the door hit ya...
"Nathan Alexander said....
But I'm also puzzled why anyone bothers to engage them any more."
Dude you should have figured this out a while ago.
Saint Croix said...
And the green revolution in Iran was a missed opportunity.
This is neocon nonsense. The internal security apparatus is very strong in Iran. US interference would have undermined the legitimacy of the rebels and caused a much greater death toll. The legitimacy of the rebels is their only effective weapon against the mullahs.
Of course we could have started another war with all the investment of US treasure and lives that would entail. Why don't people on the right listen to Ron Paul? On foreign policy he, and to a lesser extent Pat Buchanan, actually make a lot of sense, unlike nitwits like Graham and McCain.
"....Why don't people on the right listen to Ron Paul? On foreign policy he, and to a lesser extent Pat Buchanan, actually make a lot of sense, unlike nitwits like Graham and McCain.'
Foreign Policy: the place where the wingnuts and leftoids embrace.
No surprise Troll would like Captain Tin Foil's idea of foreign policy.
Just walk away and hand the world over to the bad guys (they're not really bad, just misunderstood), so we can spend all that money on welfare.
LarsPorsena said...
Foreign Policy: the place where the wingnuts and leftoids embrace
Name one genuinely positive outcome from the interventionist policies of the last fifty years. The Vietnam war was a disaster and there hasn't been one unqualified success since. Just feeding the maw of the military-industrial complex.
During the debate, Obama said that he called it an act of terrorism the very next day. Didn't anyone tell him that they were trying to avoid using the "t-word"?
I'm also puzzled why anyone bothers to engage them [libs] any more.
A valiant, if doomed, effort to wring some meaning from this no-exit cafe?
From Le Blog de Jean-Paul Sartre:
Thursday, 16 July, 1959: 7:45 P.M.
When S. returned this afternoon I asked her where she had been, and she said she had been in the street.
“Perhaps,” I said, “that explains why you look ‘rue’-ful.”
Her blank stare only reinforced for me the futility of existence.
Phx posted this at 11:10
"The Dems have dumb people, too. The difference is they aren't always allowed to wag the dog the way they do in the GOP."
I have read a lot of nonsence from this commenter for months now. But this takes the cake.
On the R side for example, Akins in MO and Burton in IN were held to account for their comments by R's as well as D's. They hardly wagged the dog much less "always."
So OK PHX name one democratic dumb person whose has been held to account by his own party.
Come on give me one valid example. The name, how he or she was dumb, and what D's did to try to hold them to account.
Did I mention it's gonna be a longgg (4) years for the party of ((( whiners ))) er Republicans? Rhetorical.
Especially Nathan Alexander, one of many Althouse idiot cons who foolishly predicted Willard would win in a landslide!
So many Oops! so little time ...
blessings
I mean the following seriously...
Sorry but I can't take seriously anything Nathan Alexander writes.
I do enjoy seeing edulusional continue to shriek that Mittens "was winning" before the Democrats cheated to steal the election.
AReasonable Man wrote:
The difference is they aren't always allowed to wag the dog the way they do in the GOP.
Dude, the whole idea of wag the dog was in response to CLINTON'S bombing of Iraq during his administration.
That came from a David Mamet movie from 1998, right when clinton was diddling monica lewinsky
jr565 said...
AReasonable Man wrote:
The difference is they aren't always allowed to wag the dog the way they do in the GOP.
I didn't write this. My dog wags his tail just fine.
Jake Diamond said...
I do enjoy seeing edulusional continue to shriek that Mittens "was winning" before the Democrats cheated to steal the election
Then where was Diamond hiding?
Panic room or Pampers?
shiloh said...
Did I mention it's gonna be a longgg (4) years for the party of ((( whiners ))) er Republicans? Rhetorical.
Idiotic.
Actually, watching the economy collapse is going to be toughest on the Lefties like the little weasel.
Watching their government checks buy less and less as their Messiah blunders from one disaster to another (of course, he's done that for 4 years), is going to be hard to survive.
Especially Nathan Alexander, one of many Althouse idiot cons who foolishly predicted Willard would win in a landslide!
Well, he did.
Stealing is not winning.
So many Oops! so little time .
But that's Choomie for you.
And on the subject of blowing smoke, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Inspecting the sewage at the sewage treatment plants on Staten Island?
Jake Diamond said...
I do enjoy seeing edulusional continue to shriek that Mittens "was winning" before the Democrats cheated to steal the election
Then where was Diamond hiding?
Panic room or Pampers?
shiloh said...
Did I mention it's gonna be a longgg (4) years for the party of ((( whiners ))) er Republicans? Rhetorical.
Idiotic.
Actually, watching the economy collapse is going to be toughest on the Lefties like the little weasel.
Watching their government checks buy less and less as their Messiah blunders from one disaster to another (of course, he's done that for 4 years), is going to be hard to survive.
Especially Nathan Alexander, one of many Althouse idiot cons who foolishly predicted Willard would win in a landslide!
Well, he did.
Stealing is not winning.
So many Oops! so little time .
But that's Choomie for you.
And on the subject of blowing smoke, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Inspecting the sewage at the sewage treatment plants on Staten Island?
hmm, wagging the dog ...
Oct. 23, 1983 ~ terrorists kill 241 military personnel when they attack the Marine barracks ~ btw, Dutch later cuts and runs from Beirut, Lebanon. Shocking!
Oct. 25, 1983 ~ Grenada invasion. ok, ok, Reagan kicked butt in Grenada lol.
And so it goes ...
Then where was Diamond hiding?
Yeah, you keep repeating this, and I keep telling you that it's a simple matter of looking through old threads to prove you wrong.
And when I invite you to put your money where your mouth is, you keep making excuses. What are you afraid of, edumbshit?
Jake, forget about edumbshit, it's Chinatown er Althouse.
Althouse must have a fond spot for her 64 year old incoherent, spamming fool.
edumbshit is Limbaugh on steroids! Only Limbaugh occasionally makes sense.
Oct. 25, 1983 ~ Grenada invasion. ok, ok, Reagan kicked butt in Grenada lol.
Tell me, brainiac. Why was Cuba building the longest reinforced runway, outside of Groom Lake, in the western hemisphere on a tiny island in the caribbean?
In response to this
Especially Nathan Alexander, one of many Althouse idiot cons who foolishly predicted Willard would win in a landslide!
edumbshit wrote
Well, he did.
There you go--in edumbshit's bubble, Mittens won in a landslide.
One word... delusional!
shiloh said...
hmm, wagging the dog ...
Oct. 23, 1983 ~ terrorists kill 241 military personnel when they attack the Marine barracks ~ btw, Dutch later cuts and runs from Beirut, Lebanon. Shocking!
Oct. 25, 1983 ~ Grenada invasion. ok, ok, Reagan kicked butt in Grenada lol.
And so it goes ...
Terrorists attack WTC Feb '93.
Willie starts war in Mog.
Terrorists ambush Rangers, Willie runs scared.
Terrorists bomb US African embassies.
Willie blows up Sudanese aspirin factory.
Terrorists blow up USS Cole.
Willie attacks Saddam's WMDs.
Wag the dog, indeed.
And where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Susan Rice's pooper scooper?
Jake Diamond said...
Then where was Diamond hiding?
Yeah, you keep repeating this, and I keep telling you that it's a simple matter of looking through old threads to prove you wrong.
And when I invite you to put your money where your mouth is, you keep making excuses. What are you afraid of, edumbshit?
I never ague with inanimate objects and the man made of dumbshit counts as one.
Jake, forget about edumbshit, it's Chinatown er Althouse.
Althouse must have a fond spot for her 64 year old incoherent, spamming fool.
edumbshit is Limbaugh on steroids! Only Limbaugh occasionally makes sense.
The ego and the id merge.
That can't be good.
I guess the little weasel becomes the little crapweasel.
It's a step up.
Well, I, for one, am impressed. 270 comments so far, filled with invective, and not one reference (that I can see) to Nazis.
Opps.
Jake Diamond said...
In response to this
Especially Nathan Alexander, one of many Althouse idiot cons who foolishly predicted Willard would win in a landslide!
edumbshit wrote
Well, he did.
There you go--in edumbshit's bubble, Mittens won in a landslide.
One word... delusional!
No, man of dumbshit, truth.
It really bugs the man of dumbshit that he can't get people to go along.
Because, like the WMDs in Iraq, we'll be proven right on this one, too.
But, more importantly, man of dumbshit, why don't you and your ego want to talk about Benghazi?
Or the economy?
Or Sandy? (hey, man, only 100 people died in Sandy...)
That would make Choomie look bad wouldn't it?
So you guys are hiding on everything, including where you were hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning.
Rusty said...
Tell me, brainiac. Why was Cuba building the longest reinforced runway, outside of Groom Lake, in the western hemisphere on a tiny island in the caribbean?
For tourist flights. From wiki:
"The airport had been first proposed by the British government in 1954, when Grenada was still a British colony. It had been designed by Canadians, underwritten by the British government, and partly built by a London firm."
Wiki, now there's a source to bet your life on.
The Cubans were building the airstrip so the Soviets could supply their Nicaraguan Gurkhas in their move to subjugate Central America.
Troll, as always, plays useless idiot to perfection.
Bob, sorry for the lack of substance, but when you lay in the mud, or, in this case..., you get dirty.
But they want to drive all substantive discussion away.
They can't handle the truth, as someone once said.
AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
Tell me, brainiac. Why was Cuba building the longest reinforced runway, outside of Groom Lake, in the western hemisphere on a tiny island in the caribbean?
For tourist flights. From wiki:
"The airport had been first proposed by the British government in 1954, when Grenada was still a British colony. It had been designed by Canadians, underwritten by the British government, and partly built by a London firm."
Nope. It was designed to land heavy bombers and transports. It had a reinforced concrete base over five feet thick. That was just the base. there was to be two or three feet on top of it. It was more than twice as long as any commercial runway needed to be, but perfect for military purposes.
Wikipedia isn't really very authoritative on a lot of things.
edutcher said...
The Cubans were building the airstrip so the Soviets could supply their Nicaraguan Gurkhas in their move to subjugate Central America.
Why not land in Cuba, its closer.
Nathan Alexander said...
They [Althouse libs] continue to repeat discredited talking points as if they were true.
This comment seems to have agitated the people it talks about. Apparently they think it's mistaken.
Time after time I see comments here about the disastrous economic policies of the Bush administration. The standard talking point is that, however bad the economy may still be, Obama's policies have prevented things from being even worse. In particular, people point to the financial crisis of 2008--precipitated by widespread mortgage defaults--as Exhibit A. Romney's call to reform the regulations resulting from Dodd-Frank are usually called an attempt to return to the failed policies of the past.
So let's take a look at the policies of the past. Here's a timeline of the major financial regulations (and deregulations) enacted since 1980:
Financial Services Modernization Act (1999): repealed the Glass-Steagal Act's separation of investment banking from commercial banking
Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000): exempted OTC derivatives from CFTC regulation
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002): created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, among other things
Dodd-Frank (2010): created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, among other things
So when it comes to financial-services deregulation, Bill Clinton is the president we ought to be talking about, not George Bush.
But those are just the laws that actually passed. What about failed attempts to increase regulatory oversight? Althouse liberals might want to read this NYT report from 9/11/03. Here's a sample of what they'll find there:
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
Two Republicans, Rep. Michael Oxley (chairman of the House Financial Services Committee) and Sen. Richard Shelby (chairman of the Senate Banking Committee), announced their intention to introduce legislation to implement the Bush administration's proposal. What did prominent Democrats have to say?
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
How many Althouse liberals will acknowledge these facts? How many of them will modify their views accordingly?
How many of them will continue to blame Bush for our past and present and future economic woes--thereby proving Nathan Alexander correct?
Why wouldn't Al Qaeda suspect we were on to them? Because we didn't tip them off? Er...really?
Pause and think about that for just a fleeting, passing, inconsequential moment. Yeah, we won't mention terrorism. The'll never suspect a thing. Should't we also be whistling and looking the other way with our hands in our pockets?
Who's our DCI? Elmer Fudd? I think these rabbits know its rabbit season. They don't have to be tipped off.
Is it just me or are the excuses walking up the stupidity ladder? At this rate we will one day be blessed with the revelation of the universe's ultimate inanity. Probably sometime in February.
Rusty said...
Nope. It was designed to land heavy bombers and transports. It had a reinforced concrete base over five feet thick. That was just the base. there was to be two or three feet on top of it. It was more than twice as long as any commercial runway needed to be, but perfect for military purposes.
Wikipedia isn't really very authoritative on a lot of things.
First of all, noted Communist sympathizer Margaret Thatcher opposed the invasion. "This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation".
I'm not sure that your information about the airport is correct. At the time five other Caribbean tourist islands such as Barbados had similar-sized or larger airfields to allow tourist flights. The airport was not secret, US students jogged past it each day during its construction.
AReasonableMan said...
The Cubans were building the airstrip so the Soviets could supply their Nicaraguan Gurkhas in their move to subjugate Central America.
Why not land in Cuba, its closer.
They wanted to control the Trinidad Channel.
Chip S. said...
How many of them will continue to blame Bush for our past and present and future economic woes--thereby proving Nathan Alexander correct?
You are arguing against the wisdom of the crowds. A majority of the US public blame Bush for the financial crisis.
But maybe you are right and the majority are wrong. You focus exclusively on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but it was the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a private investment bank that triggered the financial crisis. Surely any analysis of the causes of the Great Recession would start there. How was Lehman so badly mismanaged that it collapsed so rapidly into bankruptcy? The generally accepted answer is a lack of regulatory oversight and corporate malfeasance. How was this the fault of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
RunnerJeff. Exactly. The very idea that we would "tip off" the terrorists by saying it was a terrorist attack is preposterous.
ARM. "You are arguing against the wisdom of the crowds. A majority of the US public blame Bush for the financial crisis."
You have the history and reasons of the financial collapse, especially the fall of Lehman, completely fucked up. Instead of going along with the majority of Americans who do not know a bond from scotch tape you would do well to read a book or two on the topic. Lehman collapsed in large measure because of the very institutions you name.
edutcher said...
They wanted to control the Trinidad Channel.
Could you point on a map, any map. to where the fabled Trinidad Channel might be located?
Michael said...
Lehman collapsed in large measure because of the very institutions you name.
Again, the generally accepted explanation for the collapse of Lehman is an extraordinarily arrogant and incompetent management team combined with limited regulatory oversight. It was run with a Masters of the Universe mentality, I am sure they didn't give a fuck about the priorities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Chip S. said...
So when it comes to financial-services deregulation, Bill Clinton is the president we ought to be talking about, not George Bush.
I agree with this in part, but I think BIll Clinton is a putz so someone else will have to defend him.
Nonetheless Bush and Greenspan could have introduced new regulatory controls for the financial industry. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say they had no interest in doing this.
I think there is a broad agreement on the left that both parties are much too beholden to the financial industry whose goals are often in direct conflict with the best interests of the country.
ARM. You do not know what you are talking about. At all. The firm was overweighted bonds sold by Freddie and Fannie along with CDOs that were linked to these and other housing related securities. The phrase "the priorities of" confirms that you are clueless. You do know, of course, the relationship between Bear Stearns and Lehman and AIG and why Paulson, et al , wrongly saved two and let one go. You know all this and yet you stupidly write what you write. Amazing.
How was this the fault of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
They exist to buy mortgages and then issue mortgage-backed securities. It is a documented fact that these agencies were disproportionately active buyers of subprime mortgages. That's why there was concern about their activities back in the early 2000s.
The collapse in the value of mortgage-backed securities as mortgage defaults rose was a principal cause of the financial-industry crisis.
Michael said...
The firm was overweighted bonds sold by Freddie and Fannie along with CDOs that were linked to these and other housing related securities.
You do know, of course, the relationship between Bear Stearns and Lehman and AIG and why Paulson, et al , wrongly saved two and let one go.
Who exactly was holding a gun at the head of Lehman Brothers management making them buy these or any other bonds? Other similar companies were not so invested in these same bonds.
Henry Paulson was a George Bush appointee.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
They wanted to control the Trinidad Channel.
Could you point on a map, any map. to where the fabled Trinidad Channel might be located?
Go to any map of the Caribbean. It's the channel between Trinidad (surprise) and the Grenadines. The best natural entrance to the Caribbean Basin.
(this is what I get for being civil...)
It was much discussed at the time.
You look at it in retrospect and Grenada was really a masterstroke.
Not only did it stop Soviet aggression into Latin America dead in its tracks, it was the first time a Communist nation had been toppled by force of arms and shook the Communist world to its core.
(Fidel stayed pretty much in his box after that)
ARM. "Who exactly was holding a gun at the head of Lehman Brothers management making them buy these or any other bonds? Other similar companies were not so invested in these same bonds."
You are dumber than I thought. Every,every,all,banks, investment banks, hedge funds, held these securities. Why the fuck do you think we almost went down the drain. Dude, you should learn just a little bit about the past crisis Your statement quoted above proves you are clueless on stilts.
Eductcher. The anniversary of the US invasion is a national holiday in Grenada.
Who exactly was holding a gun at the head of Lehman Brothers management making them buy these or any other bonds?
The SEC says everyone was misled by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac execs.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division. "These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions' exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company's books.
The FBI's been on the case, too.
edutcher said...
Go to any map of the Caribbean. It's the channel between Trinidad (surprise) and the Grenadines. The best natural entrance to the Caribbean Basin.
You look at it in retrospect and Grenada was really a masterstroke.
I really would like to get a hold of whatever it is that you are smoking. I would love to have the same level of confidence that you have, given the nonsense that you believe. Unfortunately, I am so busy shredding all these Romney ballots that I would probably never get the time off to smoke it.
Are you people naturally this dense or do they give you lessons before they send you over here?
The history is plain to see, as are the geopolitics.
God, it's a miracle these trolls find their way over here.
Michael said...
Eductcher. The anniversary of the US invasion is a national holiday in Grenada.
I know. They love Uncle Reagan,as they call him.
Chip, I am not arguing that lowered lending standards weren't a major contributor to the housing meltdown. But, I dealt with people at the front end of this mess, financial advisors trying to get me to buy a bigger or a second house, or take out a home equity loan. Just flat out sharks with no interest in anything other than separating me from my money, for a substantial fee. These people didn't give a fuck about whether I could afford what they were selling. These are the people who were feeding the crap loans into the system. So, at best, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were part of the problem not the problem in and of themselves.
ARM. Aha! Those wiley loan sharks couldnt put one over on you but by golly they tricked million into refinancing their homes for thirty years so they could buy a bass boat or a Mercedes. Those tricky devils. But you escaped their wiles. Good. On. You. Greed got most, however,who didnt bother to note that they had to pay them back. Even at the low rates offered the borrowers decided they didnt like that part of the bargain especially since the Mercedes newness was worn off and the bass werent biting. But they were tricked. Tricked I tell you.
ARM. The government is again arm twisting banks to loan to weak, minority, credits. For social justice. See how it works?
Ah, Michael, but now the game has changed. The voting majority lies with the takers. They don't need to twist bankers' arms anymore.
Michael said...
But they were tricked.
Not sure your point here. Most of the people taking out these loans were dumbasses. But no dumber than all the idiots who built a financial industry around a property bubble based on shaky loans. No dumber than Greenspan who knew there was a huge property bubble but couldn't bring himself to do anything about it because of entrenched ideology. No dumber than Bush and his 'ownership society' rhetoric. There is plenty of blame to go around here.
ARM. You didnt think it was a good idea for minorities to own homes? Because GWB did you didnt? Is that it?
I dealt with people at the front end of this mess, financial advisors trying to get me to buy a bigger or a second house, or take out a home equity loan.
You may not be aware that in a performance review under the Community Reinvestment Act banks are evaluated partly on the basis of their home-improvement and refinance loans. If you lived in the right part of a so-called "assessment area" of a bank about to be reviewed, loan originators would have be quite eager to lend to you in the expectation of selling your loan to the bank under review.
Chip S. said...
You may not be aware that in a performance review under the Community Reinvestment Act banks are evaluated partly on the basis of their home-improvement and refinance loans. If you lived in the right part of a so-called "assessment area" of a bank about to be reviewed, loan originators would have be quite eager to lend to you in the expectation of selling your loan to the bank under review.
I doubt this applies where I live. A lot of people around me invested large amounts of money in demolishing and upgrading their homes. They look a bit stupid now in terms of investment decisions, but this was the advice they were getting. Personal investment advisors seem very corrupt as a group.
A lot of people on the right have latched onto Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae because this is really the only part of the financial meltdown that can be blamed on government. But they were only one part of the overall picture. The financial system was huge, the housing bubble was huge, the infrastructure for creating demand for loans was huge, all of these elements were almost entirely driven by private industry.
ARM. The Community Reinvestment Act was/is another government program that contributed hugely to the financial meltdown. You seem to think that there is a political angle to the meltdown that you are trying to jam into your world view. Collossal greed on the part of all parties is where to look. It cannot be legislated away. It is bipartisan.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
Not sure your point here. Most of the people taking out these loans were dumbasses. But no dumber than all the idiots who built a financial industry around a property bubble based on shaky loans. No dumber than Greenspan who knew there was a huge property bubble but couldn't bring himself to do anything about it because of entrenched ideology. No dumber than Bush and his 'ownership society' rhetoric. There is plenty of blame to go around here.
No, Dubya tried repeatedly to stop it and was stonewalled by, among others, everybody's favorite Messiah.
The real idiot, beyond the Democrats on the House Banking Committee and those on the Senate Finance Committee, was good ol' Willie Whitewater, the former Serial Rapist In Chief. Subprime mortgages were all his idea, doncha know.
(is all his history this shaky?)
“The fact is, the reference to Al Qaeda was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community,”
I bet Axlerod was 'outside' the intel community. Or Obama himself. I'm betting it's O himself.
Why?
Bad for his re-election. Bad for his 'I killed Bin Laden' strategy. Bad cause someone, and I bet it's the same SOMEONE who told everyone to STAND DOWN.
And that same person is where the buck should stop. And we know who Obama would blame, right?
BUSH!
A lot of people on the right have latched onto Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae because this is really the only part of the financial meltdown that can be blamed on government.
Well, I've "latched onto it" here b/c the topic is the role of the government in the financial meltdown. But at least you've moved on from blaming Bush to blaming "private industry", so that's an improvement.
The financial system operates on leverage. That's how a mere trillion or so in bad mortgages becomes many trillions in bad credit instruments.
The main reason people generally point to the CRA is that it provides a coherent explanation of why banks made so many crappy loans: they had two ready buyers of them in Fannie and Freddie.
But I'm not claiming the entire financial crisis was brought on by the CRA. Obviously there were lots of people borrowing in the expectation of ever-rising housing prices. They were wrong. Lenders were wrong. Borrowers were wrong. None of that changes the fact that the worst features of Dodd-Frank are doing a lot of harm to the economy right now.
Reasonable people can disagree about the best ways to reform SS and Medicare, and the proper balance b/w spending cuts and tax increases. But it's completely unreasonable to persist in the post hoc fallacy that anything that happened to the economy after the financial crisis has occurred because of the financial crisis.
AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
Please point out where those reasonable successes are because looking at a map today I'm not seeing any. Libya could hardly be called a success. Nor Egypt. Syria? Lebanon? We won't mention Israel.
Lets face it. the only "reasonable" chane he had of changing miseast in the direction of peace and stability lay with the Iranian greens which he ignored.
Literally the only thing the neocons got right regarding the middle east was the idea that to make progress in the middle east the people have to live under the governments that they select rather than under governments installed and propped up by western powers. Only then, after possibly decades of failure, is there some possibility that the religious zealots that drive much of the politics in this region will finally begin to see the advantage of the separation of church and state and begin to clamor for competent secular government.
Most of what you are complaining about is the acceptance of this seemingly inevitable dynamic. If you have a better idea let's hear it. It is clear that the old strategy wasn't working, as evidenced by 9/11.
An assertion was made about this administartion's successes in the middle east.
What are those successes?
God only knows what you're babbling on about.
Post a Comment